According to the article called “In Crimea, Russia Showcases a Lean, Fit and Rebooted Army” in The New York Times newspaper, the development of Russian armed force is on the alarming rise. The author starts from describing the previous incompetence of Russian army. The lack of discipline and supply, the public drunkenness and the tactical indecisiveness were given as the examples and subsequently emphasized by the claim that the soldiers back then looked as if “they could not run a mile.” The argument is then shifted unexpectedly to commend the military reform after a Kremlin campaign. There has been a significance improvement in army training and equipment as well as the large increase in militants’ salaries. Mr. Putin, the Russian prime minister, has spent a large amount of national income on the military expenditure, as illustrated by the army expense that tripled to $80 billion this year.
Since The New York Times is the American newspaper, it is conventional that several satire and provoking remarks appear throughout the article. For instance, the author quotes the Russian military analyst who guaranteed that “no one country in this world will try to attack the Russian strong army.” Certainly, this saying will more or less provoke the sense of nationalism and patriotism in the American readers. Another example is when the author blames Mr. Putin for making Aleksi Kudrin, the Russian hero from 2008 financial crisis, leave the government due to the prime minister’s excessive spending on military. He added that Mr. Putin is still “unapologetic” and persist in rebuilding his army. The satirical tone also appears when the author mentions that the newly-issued Russian martial radios are, in fact, used by American soldiers long before it becomes conventional to Russian units. These distinct biases in the newspaper and all other public media, therefore, make it necessary for us to think deliberately before being totally convinced.