One thing I do not understand about reactions of this kind is as follows:

nowhere in an article like this one do I ‘praise the NATO cause’ (if I do, please feel free to explain me where?), and

One thing I do not understand about reactions of this kind is as follows:

• nowhere in an article like this one do I ‘praise the NATO cause’ (if I do, please feel free to explain me where?), and

• nowhere am I comparing what Russians are doing with what the West does.

I describe the results of extensive research, including a series of interviews with first-hand sources from Syria — all of these carefully cross-examined with any other kind of evidence and materials available.

It so happens that I’m ‘specialized’ in researching specific local air forces and air warfare in the Middle East. One of ‘traditional’ aspects of these air forces is that they have one or other kind of relations to Russians. Means, they can often report what are the Russians doing in the Middle East. In my reporting I’m limiting myself to what I get to hear from these air forces and about their operations.

At the same time, I’m de-facto clueless about the US and NATO air forces, and I’m surely neither monitoring nor reporting about their operations (whether in the Middle East or elsewhere). Why should I? There’s a host of people doing that. Just check https://airwars.org/ for the start.

Thus, here a few questions for you.

Would you prefer me not to file reports about what Russians are doing in Syria based on first-hand information from local sources? Shall I also stop reporting what can be concluded about Russian operations in Syria on the basis of other evidence?

If so, why?

Because some of what comes out is not particularly commendable (indeed, ‘unpleasant’, if not outright ‘daminig’)?