Alright, since Trump is so keen on territory expansion, let’s make Western Ukraine the 51st US state. Eastern half goes to Russia. There will be plenty of living room for everyone.

Interesting how Latin American leaders are pushing back firmly against Trump’s trash talk, whereas Canada and Europe have been almost totally spineless.

Leafing through the latest issue, here’s a random article:

The Biden administration pursued a mistaken policy on LNG exports.

This is not a leader, but in the news section. In the contents:

Despite her reassuring tone, this was a sharp-elbowed effort to place an obstacle in the way of the incoming Trump administration… Mr Biden bowed to election-year pressure from the subset of environmentalists hostile to LNG… As for the claim that increasing American lng would help China, it is politically clever, playing as it does on anti-China sentiment in Washington, dc, but energetically dumb…

Look, again, I’m not castigating The Economist here. They have a particular way to present news, and their readership knows it. But they definitely do not try to be “neutral” in the way other outlets do.

The Economist mixes snarky comments and snippets of opinion into their coverage to a much greater extent than other media outlets. Their “opinion” pieces (leaders) are sometimes just a truncated version of the longer “news” article later in the issue.

Not saying it’s a bad thing; they’re pretty open about it and that’s how they’ve always been.

The Economist isn’t neutral. Quite the opposite: they pride themselves on being opinionated. They might seem neutral only because those opinions regularly cross the traditional US left/right divide (e.g., they were one of the mainstream news outlets talking about Biden’s diminishing faculties long before his meltdown).