.Com TLD michalapetr.com

michalapetr.com

October 27, 2025

What is michalapetr.com

So it is basically a small independent blog (or at least presented as such), run by whoever “Michal & Petr” are (or claim to be).

What kind of content it publishes

  • A glance at recent articles shows strong focus on geopolitics — especially with regard to Russia, Ukraine, Europe, war, and European-Union decision-makers. (michalapetr.com)

  • The tone and framing are often strongly opinionated: some posts rely on provocative or alarmist language about “Eurocrats”, wartime influence, conspiracies, and so on. Eg titles like “High EU banker in Kyiv spoke so beautifully yesterday that now everyone knows why Eurocrats had to ruin Trump’s peace plan!” or “Important Hitler’s war number 17% yesterday in Brussels came back to life!!” (michalapetr.com)

  • They treat news, analyses, and commentary under broad “Blog / Analysis” categories. (michalapetr.com)

Audience & Reach (as per available data)

  • According to one web-traffic estimate, in October 2025 the site had about 2.15 million visits globally. (Semrush)

  • The majority of traffic reportedly comes from Czechia (about 76%), then Slovakia (around 21%), with smaller shares from countries like Australia. (Semrush)

  • On average, session duration is around 8:17 (eight minutes 17 seconds), though the bounce rate is high (~ 88.24%). (Semrush)

  • The site’s “authority score” (per that analytics source) is 28. (Semrush)

This suggests the site has a non-trivial audience (at least by the analytics tool’s estimate), especially among Czech- and Slovak-speaking users.

What stands out / What is questionable

  • The style of writing: many article titles and frames seem strongly opinionated, dramatic, perhaps designed to provoke — that raises red flags regarding neutrality and reliability.

  • The site asks for donations via bank transfers. That may suggest a “support-my-content” model instead of standard journalism funding. That doesn’t in itself disqualify the site — but should make a reader more cautious.

  • Given the political subject matter (war, foreign policy, EU, Russia/Ukraine issues), the content could reflect a particular political bias or agenda.

What’s uncertain / What I couldn’t verify

  • I couldn’t find a transparent “about us” page explaining who exactly are “Michal & Petr,” what their credentials are, or whether they have editorial policy or fact-checking.

  • I could not find external third-party evaluations or fact-checks of the site to confirm the accuracy of their more dramatic claims.

  • The large traffic numbers come from an analytics estimate — we don’t know how accurate or up-to-date those are, or how much of that traffic is from unique users vs repeated visits, or bot traffic.

Key takeaways — what to be aware of if you read it

  • michalapetr.com is a small/independent blog, presumably with limited formal journalistic backing.

  • It publishes highly opinionated geopolitical commentary, with sensational or provocative framing.

  • The site seems to have some audience (at least per analytics estimates), especially in Central/Eastern Europe.

  • Lack of transparent authorship, editorial standards or external verification — meaning that claims should be read with caution, cross-checked with more established media or sources.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Is michalapetr.com a mainstream news outlet?
A: No — it appears to be a privately-run blog rather than a mainstream media institution. It lacks visible editorial oversight or journalistic accreditation.

Q: Who writes the articles?
A: The blog is attributed to “Michal & Petr,” but I couldn’t find publicly verifiable info about their identities, credentials or background.

Q: Does the site try to make money?
A: Yes — they ask for donations (bank transfer, IBAN given) to “support their work.” (michalapetr.com)

Q: Is the audience only Czech / Slovak?
A: Audience seems concentrated in Czechia and Slovakia, but there is some international traffic, according to analytics data. (Semrush)

Q: Should I trust the content I read there?
A: Treat it with caution. Because the site shows signs of bias and lacks transparent verification or editorial standards, it’s safer to cross-check any serious claim with more established, independent sources.