I watched some Stanislav Kropivnikov stuff and decided to read about him. Read how he identified a lot of problems with the west correctly, and then got disappointed when he blamed it on the gays and trans youth healthcare. Was watching Douglas Mcgregor. Aside from saying something along the lines of “Stalin made a mistake when creating Ukraine because Ukrainians are fake there’s no such nationality” he was spot that the west has to look into itself and change. And then he randomly blamed immigrants. Maddening.
This is normal for pretty much any source of news and analysis. You are not always going to agree with everything they say and everyone they platform, and that’s ok. Especially when they platform people with a diverse range of views, some of the guests are going to inevitably have reactionary takes and low quality analysis. I personally don’t listen to any episodes of any program with Doug Mcgregor, not so much because of his reactionary views – sometimes people can have reactionary views and still have good analysis – but just because i find his commentary very uninteresting, repetitive, low quality and not that reliable. Same goes for some others.
Krapivnik is more interesting because he has better info on what is actually happening militarily, but i skip the segments where he bloviates on some culture war nonsense or other. Again, not because i find it offensive – like i said, you should not shy away from taking in analysis from people even with views contrary to your own if it’s good analysis – but because it’s boring and provides nothing of value to a conversation. It is important to value your own time and not waste it on pointless nonsense.