The United States on September 13 said the Russian news outlet RT is taking orders directly from the Kremlin and working with Russian military intelligence to spread disinformation around the world to undermine democracies.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the United States has gathered new evidence that exposes cooperation between RT and four other subsidiaries of the Rossia Segodnya media group, and it intends to warn other countries of the threat of the disinformation.
In addition to RT, Rossia Segodnya operates RIA Novosti, TV-Novosti, Ruptly, and Sputnik, but the announcement on September 13 focused largely on RT. The outlet, formerly known as Russia Today, has previously been sanctioned for its work to allegedly spread Kremlin propaganda and disinformation.
You clearly do not understand whataboutism. It’s when someone uses someone else doing the same thing as an excuse. If Russia does it it’s OK for USA to do it. That’s whataboutism.
And yes. Let the criminals kill themselves. That’s why USA doesn’t really do anything about gang wars.
No, that is not a whataboutism in general, perhaps it’s your personal definition to just reverse it like that. This is whataboutism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Note, my example was not an axe murderer murdering another axe murderer. It was murdering the axe murder’s family. Not him, his family. Siblings, children, cousins, aunts and uncles, you know. People related to you that aren’t actually you.
Your article agrees with me. But it’s clear I’m not going to be able to explain it to you.
Are all those involved in gang wars guilty? Probably not but it’s still wise of the police not to get involved.
And similarly, yes the axe murderer who just murdered the other guys family and is asking for help. I’m probably gonna ignore him.
That family didn’t do anything wrong though. His kids are still just kids, yet you’re fine with them dying just for being born to the wrong father?
And no, the whataboutism article is sort of the opposite of your definition. Your definition says its a defense for an action. The article says it’s a defense for an accusation. These are not the same thing. The person doing an action, and someone else accusing them of their action, are not the same ones. That’s pretty key.
Why do I get the vague impression I’m arguing with a right winger?
