Security services say spate of fires and infrastructure attacks could be part of systemic attempt by Russia to destabilise continent

Security services say spate of fires and infrastructure attacks could be part of systemic attempt by Russia to destabilise continent

Security services around Europe are on alert to a potential new weapon of Russia’s war – arson and sabotage – after a spate of mystery fires and attacks on infrastructure in the Baltics, Germany and the UK.

When a fire broke out in Ikea in Vilnius in Lithuania this month, few passed any remarks until the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, suggested it could have been the work of a foreign saboteur.

    • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.comEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      I personally don’t trust the bias rating & fact checking websites. I’ve been reading through this particular one that you’ve posted about and I’ve already found several things that don’t seem to add up. For example, with Fox News they point out everything that tmay have been wrong about, but with CNN & MSNBC, they don’t really mention anything about what they’ve gotten wrong, and they’ve gotten plenty of things wrong. I’ll just mention a couple, and that’s calling the Hunter Biden laptop Russian disinformation and right-wing propaganda or saying that the Russian dossier on Trump had been verified.

    • massive_bereavement@kbin.social
      0·
      5 months ago

      Wow, I definitely didn’t expect that “Factual Reporting” would be “Mixed”, however going through the list, shows several instances where they misunderstood either a scientific paper or misrepresented some fact.
      That said, I had before in some cases seen articles about AI being either false, misunderstanding the facts, or just parroting some CEO. I attributed it to AI being something relatively “new” to mainstream media, but this is pretty eye opening.

      I like their “long read” articles though, but I guess it’s time to find a new main everyday paper for me…

      • DolphinMath@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
        0·
        5 months ago

        I think this bit sums up the reason for the rating pretty well. Not sure if I completely agree, but it makes sense to me.

        The Guardian has failed several fact checks, they also produce an incredible amount of content; therefore, most stories are accurate, but the reader must beware, and hence why we assign them a Mixed rating for factual reporting.

      • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        5 months ago

        Uh, other journalists have called it The Gruniard for years because it has so many mistakes 😂

        • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          5 months ago

          That name comes from typesetting errors rather than factual mistakes (and is also a holdover from the pre-computer era when spell checking wasnt a thing)