Reporters Without Borders’ Attack on Sputnik and RT Highlights NGO’s Status as ‘Media Wing of NATO’
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 30.09.2024
Reporters Without Borders has published a sensationalist report on Russian media’s work in the Balkans as part of a new project known as ‘The Propaganda Monitor’, accusing Sputnik and RT of spreading “disinformation” and demanding a crackdown by the EU. Balkan affairs expert Stevan Gajic tells Sputnik why such fearmongering doesn’t work on Serbs.
Reporters Without Borders’ (French acronym RSF) new ‘Propaganda Monitoring’ multimedia minisite promises to “promote reliable journalism” by exposing “the many faces and tactics behind propaganda worldwide, bolstering the public’s understanding of the information space and helping them navigate it more safely.”
Russian media, including Sputnik and RT, have become the self-anointed Paris-headquartered media watchdog’s first target, with RSF rolling out a series of articles on Russian media’s ability to find evade censorship, custom-tailor content, and in Serbia’s case, transmit so-called “Kremlin propaganda in the Balkans despite EU sanctions.”
RSF wants the European Union and its members to “hold Serbia accountable for hosting Vladimir Putin’s factory of lies,” spending much of its investigation complaining about Russian media’s refusal to answer its loaded questions, whining about its successes captivating local audiences, and crying about Serbia’s receptiveness to hosting Russian outlets.
“Reporters Without Borders cannot be regarded as a reliable source because every line in this report is soaked with biased language,” Belgrade-based Balkan affairs expert and Institute of European Studies research associate Stevan Gajic told Sputnik, commenting on RSF’s report.
“The motivation” behind RSF’s demands for a crackdown comes down to its status as “a media wing of NATO, a media wing of the collective West. This is a pure Freudian projection. They are accusing others of what they are doing themselves,” Gajic stressed.
“Where were Reporters Without Borders when Radio Television of Serbia was bombed in 1999 and when 16 TV staff were murdered in cold blood?” the observer asked, referencing the 78-day NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999. There is no credibility from people like this who did not act when they should have,” the observer recalled.
Narratives by RSF and others about Sputnik and RT being threats that need to be silenced have a clear end goal: “to nullify any kind of information coming from the other side to hush, to silence everybody who is not playing along NATO’s narrative. And this is especially a problem for NATO and for these puppet organizations, such as journalists with Reporters Without Borders, during times of war,” Gajic said.
As for RSF claims about RT’s spreading of “Kremlin narratives” in Serbia, Gajic emphasized that “pro-Russian sentiment amongst the Serbs has nothing to with the Kremlin, and everything to do with Washington and NATO.”
“Serbs are now more militantly pro-Russian because we were in a war against NATO and actually NATO was conducting and still is conducting hybrid aggression against us. I think that this speaks volumes about the falsehood of the presumptions and of the conclusions [made by RSF, ed.]. You can see how unrealistic and completely detached these people are from the reality, and how they are not really conducting deep research to see what is going on and how come,” Gajic said.
RSF’s conclusions are patently ridiculous, the observer suggested, highlighting the absurdity of “the presumption… that if it weren’t for RT and Sputnik, everybody, I guess in the Balkans and in Serbia and amongst the Serbs especially would be thrilled with the EU and NATO and so forth.”
“The new wave of the pro-Russian sentiment in Serbia was primarily created by the West. It was created by the West systematically targeting the Serbs for the last 30 years, since the moment of the breakdown of the bipolar global system” in place during the Cold War. Serbs became “the prime target,” a “Voodoo doll” for the West to “sting the Serbs in order for the Russians to feel pain,” according to Gajic.
“They were always demonstrating on us what they would like to do with Russia. That’s why many Serbs in the past said that all the wars we had with NATO and their proxies in the Balkans were actually just a preparation for a war that we are now seeing against Russia. That’s why I think the conclusion [of the RSF’s report, ed.] is false, because it comes from the presumption that if there were no ‘Russian propaganda’, quote-unquote, somehow people would feel different toward NATO.”
As the West tries to silence RT, the Global South speaks out
The US-led “diplomatic campaign” to suppress RT worldwide is not getting the warm reception Washington hoped for
By Anna Belkina | RT | September 28, 2024
The United States government has recently issued new sanctions against RT, with the State Department announcing a new “diplomatic campaign” whereby – via US, Canadian, and UK diplomats – they promise to “rally allies and partners around the world to join us in addressing the threat posed by RT.”
In other words, the plan is to bully countries outside of the Collective West into shutting off their populations’ access to RT content in order to restore the West’s almost global monopoly on information. Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa appear to be of particular concern to the State Department’s James Rubin, as it is in those regions where US foreign policy has failed to find universal purchase.
As Rubin said during a press conference, “one of the reasons… why so much of the world has not been as fully supportive of Ukraine as you would think they would be… is because of the broad scope and reach of RT.”
Clearly not trusting anyone outside of the Western elite circles to think and decide for themselves which news sources people should or should not have access to, Rubin promised that the US will be “helping other governments come to their own decisions about how to treat” RT.
The statement reeks of patronizing and neo-colonialist attitudes, especially when you consider the countries that are being targeted.
Therefore, it has been reassuring to observe over the past couple of weeks the diversity of voices that have spoken out against this latest US-led crusade.
The Hindu, one of India’s newspapers of record, was among the first, reporting that while “US officials have spoken to [India’s] Ministry of External Affairs about joining their actions” against RT, “government officials said that the debate on sanctions is not relevant to India, while a former diplomat said that banning media organizations showed ‘double standards’ by Western countries.”
This position was seconded by Indian business newspaper Financial Express : “India is unlikely to act on this request [to ban RT], given its longstanding friendly relations with Russia and its own position on media censorship… In India, RT enjoys significant viewership, with its content reaching a large number of English-speaking audiences and also expanding its reach through a Hindi-language social media platform. RT has grown in popularity in India and other parts of the world, claiming that its main mission is to counter the Western narrative and offer Russia’s perspective on global affairs.”
In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s Okaz paper said, “it is paradoxical, that when [free] speech becomes a threat to the US and the West, they impose restrictions on it, as it happened with the ban on RT under the pretext of lack of transparency, spreading false information, interfering in internal affairs and inciting hatred – something that Washington and the West themselves do in relation to other countries.”
Leading Lebanese daily Al Akhbar wrote: “despite all the attempts to ban it… RT continues to broadcast and causes concern among supporters of imperial wars. These efforts also demonstrate the hypocrisy of their authors and their false claims about ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of the press,’ among their other loud proclamations. They claim that RT is a ‘mouthpiece of disinformation,’ but if this is so, then why is there such fear of it? If the channel really is spreading lies, won’t the viewers be able to notice? [This only works] if Western rulers view their citizens as simple-minded and easily deceived, which in turn explains the misinformation coming from every side of the Western media.”
It is safe to say that “Western rulers” view with such disregard and distrust not only their own citizens, but most of the world’s population… But I digress.
In Latin America, Uruguay-based current affairs magazine Caras y Caretas praised RT for “maintain[ing] a truthful editorial line, beyond being a state media outlet, and [it] has increased its popularity and credibility by exposing a perspective that makes it creative, original and authentic… RT has helped open the eyes of a very large part of the world’s population and of increasingly numerous governments and countries. That is the reason for the sanctions that the US and hegemonic media conglomerates such as Meta and Facebook have imposed on RT and its directors, adjudicating against them with the charges that are not believable, and are ridiculous. The statements of top US administration officials claiming to be defenders of press freedom and accusing RT of being a front for Russian intelligence is only an expression of impotence in the face of an alternative narrative to the hegemonic imperialist story.”
Rosario Murillo, the vice president of Nicaragua, sent RT a letter of support. In it, she berated the US authorities for their actions against the network, asking when they will “learn that the aggressions that they shamelessly call Sanctions, (as if they had divine powers to dispense punishments)… have no more sense than establishing their claims to the position [of] dictators of the World.” She praised RT’s “work and the creative, thoughtful, illustrative, sensitive and moving way” that RT “manage[s] to communicate.”
A number of African outlets have also spoken out about the hypocrisy of America’s global censorship. Nigerian newspaper The Whistler summarized the latest Western media diktat and its colonialist undertones thusly: “The Americans got into some quarrel with Russia and then shut down this Russian news channel. An order signed by some American politician in Washington got the European company supplying Multichoice to stop streaming RT… The result? We in Nigeria woke up one day to find we could no longer watch RT on TV or stream them on Facebook because of some drama happening in Washington and Moscow. Imagine the audacity! It was a decision made by Americans and Europeans without asking anybody here in Africa how we felt about it. They decided what we could and could not watch on our own TVs.”
It is heartening to see that so many different countries, with incredibly varied politics, societies, and cultures, speaking out against Washington’s imposing its world order on them. They prove that RT’s voice continues to be not just necessary, but welcomed and sought after.
Last night, as part of RT’s response to the actions of the US government, the bright green RT logo lit up the facade of the US Embassy building in Moscow with the message: “We’re not going away.”
Not in the US, not in the West at large, not in other parts of the world.
See you around!
The Nord Stream Anniversary & Europe’s Stockholm Syndrome
Defending the narrative from reality
By Glenn Diesen | September 27, 2024
Two years ago, the Nord Stream gas pipelines were destroyed in an economic and environmental terrorist attack. The attack severed a key economic connection between Europe and Russia, contributing to the de-industrialisation of Europe and intensifying Russia’s economic reorientation towards China and India. The geopolitical ramifications are immense, yet we know very little about the attack. How is this possible?
The US and its NATO allies initially insisted that Russia was certainly the perpetrator, and their stenographers in the media reported confidently that “everything is pointing to Russia”.[1] No evidence was presented, yet NATO even suggested the attack on its critical infrastructure could trigger collective defence under Article 5. Besides indirectly threatening the world’s largest nuclear power with war, NATO also used the attack on Nord Stream to justify escalating the war in Ukraine and to further militarise the Baltic Sea and other seas. Strengthening NATO’s ability to protect undersea infrastructure was also an important argument for why Finland and Sweden should join NATO.
The story of Russia blowing up its own pipeline could rely on a strong consensus as all dissent to the narrative could be dismissed as repeating the Kremlin’s talking points. Similar stories such as Russia’s continued bombing of a nuclear power plant under its own control or Russia attacking the Kremlin with drones did not make any sense either, yet in the absence of common sense the political-media elites could explain that this was straight out of the “Russian playbook”.
However, reality eventually asserted itself around the time of Seymour Hersh’s article that blamed the US for the attack, and thereafter the US began to shift the blame to Ukraine. In one of the latest developments, the Wall Street Journal reported that the US knew about the Ukrainian attack in advance and “the CIA warned Zelensky’s office to stop the operation”.[2]
It seems highly unlikely that the US was not involved in the attack on Nord Stream, yet the new and updated narrative is nonetheless interesting as it is an admission that the US knew about the attack on Nord Stream before it happened. This is an admission that the US and NATO lied to their public and the entire world when they blamed Russia for the attack, and then used that lie to escalate the war in Ukraine, militarise the Baltic Sea, and push for further NATO expansionism.
Our lack of knowledge about what happened to the Nord Stream gas pipelines is the result of defending the narrative from reality. Blissful ignorance has become the foundation for NATO unity, and facts are thus treated as our great enemy. Yet, as the demand for unity also upholds what can only be described as the Stockholm Syndrome, let’s review how the Nord Stream narrative has been defended from reality:
The US announces its objective to destroy Nord Stream
Preventing the economic integration and cooperation between Russia and Germany as two key centres of power has been a centuries-old hegemonic objective of the US and Britain. The RAND Corporation, a think tank linked to the intelligence community, wrote a report in 2019 sponsored by the Army Quadrennial Defense Review Office about how to extend and weaken Russia. Besides destabilising Russian borders and bleeding Russia in Ukraine, the report outlined the objective of cutting Russia’s energy ties to Europe: “A first step would involve stopping Nord Stream 2”.[3]
The US opposition to Nord Stream 2 included political pressure and economic sanctions against the companies of European allies who participated in the project, a hegemonic ambition sold to the public as defending Europe. In July 2020, then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo proclaimed: “We will do everything we can to make sure that that pipeline doesn’t threaten Europe”.[4] US Senator Tom Cotton announced in May 2021 that ‘there is still time to stop it. … Kill Nord Stream 2 now, and let it rust beneath the waves of the Baltic’.[5] On 14 January 2022, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan also threatened the pipeline: ‘We have made clear to the Russians that pipeline is at risk if they move further into Ukraine’.[6] Senator Ted Cruz similarly used very direct language calling for stopping Nord Stream: ‘This pipeline must be stopped and the only way to prevent its completion is to use all the tools available to do that’.[7]
On 7 February 2022, President Biden stood next to German Chancellor Scholz at a press briefing, warning that if Russia invades Ukraine, then “there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it”. When asked by a journalist how he would end a project under German control, Biden responded: “I promise you, we will be able to do that”.[8] US spokesperson, Ned Price, was explicit: “I want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward”.[9] Undersecretary of State for Policy, Victoria Nuland, used the exact same words: “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward”.[10]
The attack on Nord Stream and the subsequent victory lap
On 26 September 2022, the German-Russian Nord Stream pipelines were destroyed. The former Foreign Minister of Poland, Radek Sikorski, tweeted “Thank you, USA” accompanied by a picture of the destroyed pipeline. The day after the attack, on 27 September 2022, leaders from Poland, Norway, and Denmark attended a ceremony in Poland to mark the opening of the new Norway-Poland Baltic Pipe that was constructed to reduce Europe’s dependence on Nord Stream.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken argued that the destruction of Nord Stream presented “a tremendous opportunity. It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy”. Blinken offered to “help” Europe to replace Russian gas with much more expensive American gas. Victoria Nuland joined in on celebrating the attack: “I am, and I think the Administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea”.[11]
Washington could take a brief pause in rejoicing over the destruction of Europe’s critical energy infrastructure to reassure the world that it must have been the Russians who attacked their own pipelines. Russia had first invested billions into its evil plan of making Europe dependent on Russian energy and then transitioned into its new evil plan of blowing up these pipelines to deny gas to Europe. Russia could alternatively have turned off the valves and saved billion dollars worth of infrastructure, but the Russian playbook works in mysterious ways. European politicians entrusted with protecting their national interests and the media entrusted with reporting on reality, insisted that only Russia would have carried out such a horrendous attack. Anyone suggesting the US could have been the perpetrator was smeared by the political-media elites as spreading “Russian propaganda”.
Blaming Ukraine
Seymour Hersh then reported that the US had coordinated the attacks with the use of a US Navy diving team. This report was largely ignored and ridiculed by the media, with many journalists instead undermining the credibility of Hersh. The legendary investigative journalist who exposed the cover up of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and detailed the US military’s torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib in Iraq, was suddenly sold to the public as an old senile discredited conspiracy theorist carrying water for Putin.
Yet, the US began to shift the blame to Ukraine. The Washington Post reported in June 2023 about leaked CIA documents revealing that US intelligence and the Biden administration knew at least three months before the attack on Nord Stream that the “Ukrainian military had planned a covert attack on the undersea network, using a small team of divers who reported directly to the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces”.[12] How could the media report on the US lying about Russia being behind the attack, and what kind of narrative could be constructed when the only two suspects are the US and Ukraine? When the narrative-driven media did not have a narrative, the solution was simply a media blackout. The German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, committed to making excuses for his attackers and instead blaming Russia, suggested that it was too soon to blame Ukraine as the attack on Nord Stream could have been a “false flag” attack to blame Ukraine. Other European politicians simply concluded that it was best to stop digging as they would not like what they would find. The same EU officials who had for years spoken about the objective of “European sovereignty” now displayed complete subordination to Washington.
The US was nonetheless cautious not to delegitimise the Ukrainian government, by blaming some rogue Ukrainian elements who acquired a sailboat of diving equipment. This story was uncritically presented to the public after explaining for months that only a state actor could be behind such a complicated attack. Yet, the media was urged not to engage in speculations until European countries had completed their investigations and shared their findings with the world. Yet, Sweden announced in October 2022 that it would not establish a joint investigation team with allies such as Germany due to national security. By February 2024, Sweden announced it had closed the investigations into the attack on Nord Stream as the case did not fall under their jurisdiction.
As Russia was blocked from participating in the investigations, Russia put forward a resolution to the UN Security Council calling for establishing an international independent investigative commission into the attack on the Nord Steam pipelines. The Western countries rejected an independent international investigation and blocked the UN resolution. After all, an independent fact-finding mission could threaten the narrative that NATO unity rests upon.
By August 2024, the Nord Stream narrative evolved yet again as the Wall Street Journal reported that Zelensky had been involved in the attack which the CIA had allegedly attempted to stop.[13] The German government reassured its partners that the alleged Ukrainian attack on Nord Stream and Germany’s weapon supplies to Ukraine are two separate issues, and the Nord Stream investigation would not have any bearing on Germany’s support for Ukraine.
Reality threatens the unifying narrative
Without a Russian perpetrator as the foundation for solidarity, the Europeans have begun to turn on each other. Narrative control has subsequently become difficult. A German official claimed that Poland sabotaged investigations into the Nord Stream attack as they did not arrest a suspected Ukrainian diver named “Volodymyr Z”, and instead allowed him to escape back to Ukraine. August Hanning, the former head of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, accused both Poland and Ukraine of being involved in the attack on Nord Stream. Hanning also questioned the sailboat narrative as: “Operations of such dimensions are inconceivable without the approval of the political leaders of the countries involved”.[14]
Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk responded to the Germans: “To all the initiators and patrons of Nord Stream 1 and 2. The only thing you should do today about it is apologise and keep quiet”.[15] The president of the Czech Republic, Petr Pavel, argued that if Ukraine was behind the attack on Nord Stream, then it was a legitimate target. The narrative is thus shifting from denial to justification of the terrorist attack. Germany’s continues to be humiliated by its key partners and allies, some that were behind the attack and others that are justifying the attack on its critical infrastructure. This is all happening while Germany’s energy-intensive industries collapse and its economy subsequently falters.
However, the Stockholm Syndrome phenomenon should not be underestimated, as the Europeans will memory-hole these uncomfortable facts and continue to ignore national interests. There will soon be a new script to be followed diligently and a swift return to the simple and comfortable world view of good versus evil, in which liberal democracies stand united under the leadership of the benign leadership of the US against the evil Russians.
[1] Z. Colman and B Lefebvre, ‘Everything is pointing to Russia’: U.S., EU officials on edge over pipeline explosions, Politico, 28 September 2022.
[2] B. Pancevski, A Drunken Evening, a Rented Yacht: The Real Story of the Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage, The Wall Street Journal, 14 August 2024.
[3] RAND, ‘Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground’, RAND Corporation, 24 April 2019, p.62.
[4] RFE/RL, ‘Pompeo Says U.S. Will ‘Do Everything’ To Stop Nord Stream 2 Project’, RFE/RL, 30 July 2020.
[5] T. Cotton, ‘Kill Russia’s Nord Stream 2, Let it Ruse in the Baltic’, Tom Cotton official website, 19 May 2021.
[6] CNN, ‘At this hour with Kate Bolduan’, CNN, 14 January 2022.
[7] T. Cruz, ‘President Biden and the Democrats have Imperilled Ukraine and put Europe on the Brink of War’, Ted Cruz official website, 7 February 2022.
[8] S. Sarkar, ‘‘There Will No Longer Be a Nord Stream 2’: Fingers Pointed Towards Biden after Gas Pipeline Blasts’, News18, 30 September 2022.
[9] DW, ‘Nord Stream 2 won’t happen if Russia invades Ukraine: US’, Deutsche Welle, 27 January 2022.
[10] Wion, ‘If Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 pipeline will not move forward: US’, Wion, 28 January 2022.
[11] I. Van Brugen, ‘Sergei Lavrov Accuses U.S. of Nord Stream Pipeline Attack’, Newsweek, 2 February 2023.
[12] S. Harris and S Mekhennet, U.S. had intelligence of detailed Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream pipeline, The Washington Post, 6 June 2023.
[13] B. Pancevski, A Drunken Evening, a Rented Yacht: The Real Story of the Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage, The Wall Street Journal, 14 August 2024.
[14] Welt Report, German officials claim Poland sabotaged investigation into Nord Stream explosions, Politico, 7 September 2024.
[15] D. Bellamy, Polish PM Donald Tusk suggests Nord Stream patrons should ‘keep quiet’, Euronews, 18 August 2024.
Open Letter to Dr. Jill Stein
Dear Dr. Stein,
Up to last week, you graciously provided US voters with a clear, viable, electoral alternative to the twin war parties, namely, Democrats and Republicans. Regrettably, last Thursday, September 19th, your campaign issued a statement undermining your status as the “peace candidate.”
The statement called Russian President Putin and Syrian President Assad “war criminals” for their roles resisting a US-orchestrated regime-change operation, begun in 2011 and continuing to this day, in Syria. That operation, illegal under international law, was initiated under the Obama Administration and led by his Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. Under Clinton, the US created a government-in-waiting, called the Syrian National Council, which it recognized as the legitimate government of Syria, and marshalled its allies in Europe and among Arab countries, to recruit, finance, train, arm, insert, and coordinate armies of terrorist mercenaries (from Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and, later, ISIS) into Syria where they illegally invaded and occupied large swaths of Syrian territory. Through their barbaric war crimes, those de facto US foot soldiers caused terror among the Syrian population, causing millions to flee their homeland as refugees and even more to be displaced within Syria.
The US end game was to destroy an enemy of Israel and a state that opposed US hegemonic initiatives in the region. The US strategy was to balkanize the country of Syria into tiny, warring, confessional statelets and leave the country as a failed state, in the same manner that the US and NATO destroyed the Libyan government at precisely the same time and left it as a failed state.
Presidents Putin and Assad were and are not the problem. Russia was and is an ally of Syria. It long maintained a naval base in Syria at Tartus. At the official request of the Syrian government, Russia was invited to help Syria, in accordance with international law, to defend the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. With Russian help, along with support from Iran and Hezbollah (likewise allies of Syria), the Syrian Arab Army was able to liberate most of the country from terrorist control.
During his Administration, following the strategic defeat of ISIS, Trump decided to leave US troops (who were never invited into Syria in the first place) in occupation of the eastern third of Syria, where, to this day, they (along with their Kurdish militia) continue to steal Syria’s oil and wheat resources, thus preventing the legitimate government in Damascus from using these funds for reconstruction.
And, in addition to all these flagrant violations of international law, the US, its NATO partners, and various Arab countries joined the US in imposing extremely brutal coercive economic measures against Syria, devaluing the country’s currency and destroying its economy. These economic sanctions are unilateral and illegal (not having the approval of the UN Security Council). But they reduced 80% of the Syrian population today to food insecurity and to reliance on a meager hour or two of electricity per day.
Dr. Stein, your September 19th statement has disappointed many people in the USA and around the world. You cannot be the “peace candidate” on the one hand, and support criminal enterprises, (waged by both Democrats and Republicans) such as the war which continues today in Syria, on the other. We hope you will do the right thing, which would be for you to call for the US to end its unlawful occupation of eastern Syria and to drop its brutal sanctions regime against the country. Finally, you have certainly noted that Syria has been readmitted to the Arab League and that many countries of the world have re-established diplomatic relations as well as trade and communication links with the country. We hope that you, too, will champion the ending of US hostilities against Syria and call for the re-establishment of full diplomatic relations.
Suggested Resources:
- The War Against Alternative Information, by Rick Sterling
- Attacks on Academic Freedom, The Times of London and MI6
- Syria Crucified: Stories of Modern Martyrdom in an Ancient Christian Land by Zachary Wingerd and Brad Hoff
Germany’s BfV intelligence agency includes Remix News on list of websites tied to Russian propaganda campaign
Remix News | September 25, 2024
Remix News has been included on a list of websites accused of being used in a Russian propaganda operations, according to a controversial report from the powerful Office of the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), although Remix News has no ties to Russia.
The report, labeled “Doppelgänger,” made headlines across Germany due to its claims that certain media outlets were pushing Russian narratives or producing news reports that the Russians could use to promote propaganda campaigns. As a result, many of these media outlets, including Der Freitag, Junge Freiheit, and Berliner Zeitung successfully sued the BfV concerning a passage in the report which stated that “from the perspective of the actor, the content in question supports the Russian narrative.” The Bavarian BfV further wrote, “For this purpose, some of the articles were deliberately taken out of context.”
The report describes how Russia was allegedly using a number of news websites to promote its own narrative on social media platforms, and even in some cases, created duplicate news websites that appeared to be authentic to end users.
The lawsuit was successful and the secret service was forced to change part of the report, which then was updated to read: The BayLfV does not explicitly assume that those responsible for the websites listed here are spreading Russian propaganda or are aware of it or approve of their content being disseminated as part of the ‘doppelgänger’ campaign. Furthermore, the BayLfV does not make any assessment of the content of the websites in question.”
While Remix News is not among the websites mentioned in the actual main body of the report, it is instead included in a table at the end of the report along with about 350 news websites. Many of the news website are smaller, but Reuters, Zerohedge, Newsweek, and top German news outlets, such as Welt, Berliner Zeitung, and Junge Freiheit, are also included.
Many of these websites may not even be aware they are included in this report, as they are too large to be concerned about what a German intelligence agency operating from a single German state is publishing. However, the inclusion of Remix News on this list is problematic. For one, malicious journalists or activists may attempt to smear Remix News for being included on such a list from the German intelligence services, as the list tangentially ties our site to so-called Russian propaganda efforts. Without the proper context, such a list could be deemed extremely harmful to Remix News.
Second, there are no examples given of how Remix News was used by the Russians in their campaign. We are simply left to speculate how our website may have been allegedly used by these “Russian actors.”
For the record, Remix News has no ties to Russia in any form whatsoever.
The entire report appears to be somewhat of a debacle for the German intelligence services and has been heaped with criticism.
Speaking to the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Vice President of the Bundestag and FDP politician Wolfgang Kubicki said it was a good thing that the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution had been forced to correct its report.
“This correction should also give food for thought to all those who believe that the Office for the Protection of the Constitution’s assessments are sacrosanct per se. We must continue to be careful that authorities do not restrict the right to freedom of expression for political reasons — not just in Bavaria, but throughout Germany,” he stated.
Media lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel criticized the Bavarian BfV’s failure to act without the threat of a lawsuit, which he said was “certainly one of the most blatant examples of how state bodies try to disparage the media.”
Notably, many of the media outlets listed in the report are seen as critical of the German government. It is unclear how Remix News landed on this list, but it is concerning that we were included with no context whatsoever. Our publication does not have the resources at this time to take legal action against the BfV, and the report remains part of the public record, albeit with an updated correction thanks to the legal battle waged by German media outlets.
Some commentary pieces Remix has published from Poland are strongly critical of Russia and the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, some content we have published that conveys arguments from a Hungarian perspective, simply state the official position, which has never condoned Russia’s invasion. These pieces have simply stated Hungary will not send weapons to Ukraine and has consistently called for a ceasefire. However, in both media markets, there is a broad range of opinions, and Remix News has endeavored to publish a wide range of perspectives on this complex issue.
The report is also concerning due to the fact that Remix News has reported a number of times in a critical manner in relation to the BfV. As Remix News has previously reported, the BfV is a highly politicized agency, with a special focus on targeting critics of the government, perhaps most notably the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. The BfV is focused on Germany’s domestic sphere and is tasked with ensuring Germany’s constitution is protected. This role has increasingly morphed into fighting parties deemed outside the mainstream, with many analysts viewing the agency as a growing threat to democracy.
It features incredible spying powers, which enable it to monitor political activists and even people who have done nothing wrong besides being members of political parties deemed a threat by the ruling class. The AfD, for instance, is labeled in some states as a “suspected threat” to democracy and a “confirmed right-wing extremist” party, which enables security forces in the BfV to monitor all communications, including email, phone and text messages of all its members.
European Union morphs into NATO’s financial war machine
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 24, 2024
Two key posts – in foreign and defense policy – reveal the militarist and anti-Russia direction of the European Union.
Ursula Von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission – which works as the executive branch of the European Union – announced her new team of commissioners for the next five years.
Taking over as foreign affairs minister for the 27-nation bloc is Kaja Kallas who is a staunch Russophobe and vigorous supporter of Ukraine. Kallas has called for more EU and NATO military funding for Ukraine to “defeat Russia” and the break up of the Russian Federation.
The former Estonian prime minister has led the movement to destroy Soviet Red Army monuments across the Baltic states. (This is while her investor husband continues to profit from doing business with Russia.)
Working closely alongside Kallas will be another rabid Russophobe, the former Lithuanian prime minister Andrius Kubilius, who is taking up a newly created EU post as defense commissioner. The creation of that post is an alarming sign of how the EU bloc has transitioned from a trade and political union to a military organization.
But what’s even more alarming is the assigning of such an anti-Russia hawk as Kubilius to oversee military policy.
At a time when relations between the EU and Russia have become so fraught with tensions, the European bloc is giving politicians from hostile Baltic states a driving seat to push relations even further towards conflict.
Indeed, the first announcement Kubilius made as the prospective new defense commissioner was that the European Union would likely be at war with Russia in the next six to eight years. That assessment is shared by Kaja Kallas.
Kubilius said the sole focus during his tenure is ramping up military spending by the EU nations to boost NATO and aid Ukraine. He said that he will be working closely with foreign policy chief Kallas to tap funds.
What this means is that the European Union is moving towards making it mandatory for national budgets to allocate more to military procurement. That’s a breakthrough for all the worst reasons.
Kubilius is reportedly aiming for a budget of €500 billion over the next five years to be spent on the military by the EU.
That increase would represent about half of the projected EU total budget.
His comments indicate the purpose of the massive redirection of finances – to boost NATO. Kubilius noted that “the European Union has instruments to get larger financing, which NATO doesn’t.”
That implies that under his formulation and compulsory directives from Brussels, the EU will make it mandatory for member states to spend more on the military.
NATO and the EU have overlapping membership with 23 members of the EU’s 27 also being part of the U.S.-led military alliance. Non-NATO members are Austria, Cyprus, Malta, and Ireland.
NATO states are expected to spend a minimum of 2 percent of their GDP on military. That amounts to about $380 billion for European members of NATO in 2024. That is a huge increase compared with what was spent by these members only a few years ago. But what the NATO planners want is more and more going forward. The problem is locking that expenditure in.
The trouble for NATO planners is the 2 percent figure is not mandatory. It is subject to national policy. While most members of NATO are hitting that target currently, there is no guarantee it will continue. Changes in national governments might result in spending slipping back to former levels of 1-1.5 percent of GDP as was the case before the proxy war in Ukraine blew up in 2022.
What the NATO hawks in the EU desire most is to lock in military spending year-on-year. NATO does not have the legal means to enforce such a commitment as mandatory on its members. But the EU can do it through its supranational powers as served by centralized directives from Brussels.
The Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia have upped their military spending to nearly 3 percent of GDP when Kallas and Kubilius were in office.
Moreover, Kubilius has previously proposed that all EU members devote an extraordinary, additional 0.25 percent of their GDP to make mandatory military donations to Ukraine to “ensure victory over Russia”, amounting to €100 billion a year.
This is an astounding transformation of the European Union. The organization has its roots in the 1950s as a loose trade federation of Western European nations – principally France and the Federal Republic of Germany – which proclaimed that lessons of the Second World War had been learned and would never be repeated because of commitments to good neighborliness and commercial partnership. In its earlier incarnations, the European bloc sought out friendly relations with the Soviet Union, primarily with energy trade being a cornerstone of cooperation.
Since the supposed end of the Cold War in 1991, the EU has expanded in line with the expansion of NATO. Its powers have become evermore centralized and usurping national policy. A striking feature of both NATO and the EU is the hardening of Russophobic policy that has come with the leveraging of anti-Russia Baltic states. Historically, these states were virulent collaborators with Nazi Germany in its genocidal war against the Soviet Union. The Baltic states still harbor fascists who venerate the Third Reich. Hence, the destruction of Soviet-era war monuments and the rehabilitation of public displays commemorating Nazi collaborators.
NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is the continuation of Western imperialist designs on subjugating Russian territory that was previously pursued by Nazi Germany.
The European Union has subverted its earlier ideals of pacifism and cooperation to become part of NATO’s war machine. Crucially, what the EU brings to the war machine is legalized enforced funding, even for nations that are not part of NATO.
Added to that is the EU is being directed by people who drool about war with Russia: Von der Leyen, the former German defense minister and descendant of Nazi ideologues, is aided and abetted by Kaja Kallas and Andrius Kubilius who cannot think of Russia without fantasizing about its “defeat”.
The Nazi specter is resurrected in NATO and its EU financial wing.
What does Putin have to do with Israel’s attacks on Lebanon?
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | September 23, 2024
On September 17, Israel launched one of the largest and cruelest terrorist attacks in modern history. For Lebanon and Syria, the victim countries, 9/17 will now have a meaning akin to that of 9/11 in the US. That date will be remembered for a very long time, and beyond those two states, as the start of two waves of explosions, mostly affecting pagers on the first day and walkie-talkies the following day. There have been reports of other everyday objects, such as laptops and tablets as well as solar energy systems blowing up as well.
While some details are still murky, we already know that the attacks were devastating: According to an Amnesty International summary from September 20, more than 2,931 victims were injured and at least 37 were killed. Amnesty International tends to be cautious and conservative with its figures, and it is still too early for a full assessment of casualties and damage. It is certain that the final count will be worse.
Events are moving fast. The onslaught seems to have served to either provoke or start a larger war; UN General Secretary António Guterres quickly – and plausibly – suspected that 9/17 was meant as a preventive strike and prelude to a larger escalation. It has been followed by more and increasingly brutal bombings and massacres, in the manner that we know so well from the rogue state Israel. For now, it is already clear that after a horrific scene of mass terror in shops, streets, and homes, many of the victims of 9/17 have been injured severely, often leaving them with “life-changing injuries.”
An ophthalmologist at Mount Lebanon University Hospital in Beirut told us 60 to 70 percent of his patients “had to have at least one eye removed. [For] some of the patients, we had to remove both eyes. It kills me. In my past 25 years of practice, I’ve never removed as many eyes.”
Israel, the perpetrator regime, has done what it always does, namely release a barrage of lies. The first step, as so often, has been to boast of its crime without, however, officially admitting it. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, a chief genocidaire in the Gaza slaughter, has spoken of a “new era” of war with Lebanon and extolled the “excellent achievements” of the Israeli intelligence services. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Get it, get it? By the way, that is a technique that Western propagandists just love to ascribe to Russia. Yet it’s as Israeli as (stolen) shakshuka and (authentically Zionist) ethnic cleansing. But that’s okay in the West. Because – Israel.
Israeli politicians, propagandists, and many cut-outs and useful idiots in the West claim that this was a legitimate intelligence operation to strike at Hezbollah, the resistance organization and political party based in Lebanon with which Israel is, in effect, at war. In reality, things are as clear as can be: Using civilian devices in this manner is a war crime.
Legally, two points are decisive as well as incontrovertible: First, Hezbollah is both a military and a civilian organization. Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which applies here without a doubt, only those Hezbollah members serving in a military capacity are combatants. All others are and remain civilians, who have and retain a right to protection – obviously also during armed conflict because (duh…) armed conflict is what IHL is all about. Amnesty International has found evidence that the exploding devices of 9/17 had indeed been distributed to members of Hezbollah’s civilian offices, too, as was perfectly expectable for the Israeli perpetrators.
Second, 9/17 was, in any case, fundamentally criminal because, as Amnesty International has explained, it was “indiscriminate […] according to” IHL as “those who planned and carried out these attacks could not verify who would be harmed when the devices exploded, or even if only fighters had been given them.” Indeed, booby-traps spread throughout a civilian population – yes, even while perhaps in immediate possession of a Hezbollah member – are “inherently indiscriminate,” as one expert has put it. That is also why booby-trapping things that are generally associated with civilian use – such as pagers, which are not, obviously, tanks or trenches – is explicitly forbidden by the 1996 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps, and Other Devices, a United Nations treaty.
Against this background, Western Israel apologists have bent over backwards to spin 9/17. Indeed, this time they are doing overtime, not only downplaying and justifying brazen Israeli criminality as usual but also celebrating it as exemplary and clever (Ironically, dwelling on the stereotypical “cleverness” of Jews is a classic anti-Semitic prejudice, but let’s not dwell on that.) The Wall Street Journal editorial board has framed 9/17 as an example of Israel’s “remarkable” abilities. As if being bankrolled and protected by the US is a skill set. For the reliably warmongering British outlet The Telegraph, the attack was “audacious.” Interesting: how? Did the perpetrators show their face for an open fight? The Bild, a powerful, ultra-Zionist German yellow press outlet from the right-wing Springer group, admired the “almost movie-like spy thriller” behind the operation, that is, the criminal infiltration of civilian supply chains to plant explosives.
If you think that such comments are ever appropriate for a terror attack, try using them for the 9/11 assault on the US in 2001 instead of the 9/17 one on Lebanon and Syria now. See? Not funny, right?
Then there’s the more sophisticated and yet still completely misguided take. Writing for the Daily Mail, Mark Almond, not a stupid man, also felt he had to acknowledge how “spectacular” the “operation was on its own merits” and dwell on Israel’s “excelling” at this kind of “warfare.” That kind of “warfare” is criminal, and if Hezbollah had used it against Israel, Mark Almond would have found the correct word for it: terrorism. It is a principally wrong step to avoid facing or naming the true legal and ethical nature of an act of violence by focusing on how well it was executed, or, in Almond’s words, its “brutal ingeniousness.”
It’s also, frankly, immature. It’s what young bro’ish boys do, when they admire a war criminal such as Nazi Otto Skorzeny because his glider landing on Gran Sasso mountain to snatch washed-out Mussolini must have looked just so damn commando cool. But a world of Israeli genocide and mass murder forbids such infantilism. In a sadly fitting manner, and quite perversely, Almond has not one word for civilians, except Israeli ones.
Almond, however, does see a real downside to Israel’s “sophisticated” attack nevertheless: He fears that its perpetrators may have miscalculated this time and, in essence, bitten off more than they can chew, inviting a backlash he compares with what happened to Japan after its – by the way, non-terrorist – attack on Pearl Harbor. Again, not a thought about Israel’s victims.
What’s the worst that could happen, according to Almond’s unfortunately typical Western mind? That the Israeli terrorists get some pain in return for the suffering of their victims which he has painstakingly made sure not to even mention. Not a word, either, about Lebanon’s or Syria’s right not to be attacked by a terrorist rogue regime next door. Not a word about their sovereignty or their governments’ right and duty to protect their citizens. If this isn’t a racist bias, I don’t know what is.
And then, finally, it’s time for – you must see this coming by now – RUSSIA! Yes, Russia. Not that Almond has any factual reason to bring it up in this context. None at all. Strictly zero. But you see, when we talk about a horrific crime committed by, actually, Israel, but we can’t actually say that, then we talk about Russia. To be on the safe side, let’s add China, too. “How long before Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping,” Almond dramatically asks, “works out how to make millions of iPhones around the world burst into flames in the pockets of their foes?”
Holy Sigmund Freud! Displacement is a powerful force indeed. Yet here’s the thing: If Moscow or Beijing wanted to do the same horrible things Israel routinely does, they easily could. There’s no issue of “working out” here. What Almond can’t face is that they simply are not like that. Israel is like that, criminal to the core, completely spoiled by decades of US-sponsored impunity, and addicted to underhanded violence and lying. It’s Israel that he supports with the absurd propaganda trick of talking about Russia and China instead of the state that has actually committed the crime and set the precedent he wants to warn about. The West is delusional. Clinically speaking.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Former British minister’s bizarre warning of Russian attack is admission of Britain’s nefarious role in Kursk
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 22, 2024
When former British military chief Ben Wallace wrote his bizarre op-ed last month warning that “Putin will soon turn his war machine on Britain”, it may have come across as the usual Russophobic scaremongering.
The ex-minister of defense wrote in the Daily Telegraph that “Britain’s in Putin’s crosshairs… Make no mistake Putin is coming for us.”
He painted the Russian leader and its top generals as unhinged madmen who were driven by revenge for old scores like the Crimean War in the 1850s.
Wallace, who served as a British army captain and was the minister of defense under three Conservative prime ministers between 2019 and 2023, is known for his hawkish anti-Russia views. He previously told the Times newspaper that Britain must be prepared to fight wars alone without the help of the U.S. He has compared Putin to Hitler, and he once claimed that the Scots Guards – the regiment in which he served – “kicked Russian asses” in the Crimean War and could do so again.
But, in hindsight, his Telegraph op-ed was not so much the usual belligerent rant to whip up Russophobia. This was not a mere paranoid warning of Russia’s alleged malign intent, but rather it was more an admission of British guilt in recklessly escalating the proxy war in Ukraine.
Wallace claimed, somewhat curiously, that Britain would be the primary target for any Russian military attack, not the United States. What made him say that? After all, the U.S. is by far the biggest military backer of the Kiev regime.
Pointedly, Wallace emphatically denied in his article published on August 26 that Britain had played any role in Ukraine’s offensive on Russia’s Kursk region. That offensive was launched on August 6. The incursion appears now to have been a military disaster for the Kiev regime with nearly 15,000 of its troops killed and hundreds of NATO-supplied armored vehicles destroyed.
As the offensive in Kursk flounders and Russia pushes on with rapid gains in the Donbass region of formerly eastern Ukraine, it is becoming more clear that Britain took a leading role among the NATO sponsors of the Kiev regime in promoting the Kursk offensive.
Captured Ukrainian troops have told how British marines trained and directed them to take on audacious missions. The military purpose of the missions was not precise or pragmatic. Their main objective was to create propaganda victories by raising Ukrainian flags on Russian territory.
This week, another British military insider, Sean Bell, who was the former air vice marshall of the RAF, urged the NATO-backed Ukrainian regime to “inflict maximum pain” on Russia. The former RAF commander was referring to the Kursk offensive and an expansion of air strikes on Russian territory.
This comes as Britain’s new Labour prime minister Keir Starmer is consulting with U.S. president Joe Biden on granting Ukraine permission to use long-range missiles to hit deep inside Russia. Starmer and his new defense minister John Healey have been keen to demonstrate that their government is every bit as gung-ho as the Conservative predecessors in supporting Ukraine militarily.
It also comes as the Russian state security service, FSB, claims that leaked documents it has obtained show that Britain is taking a leading role among Western adversaries in ramping up military and political tensions with Moscow.
When the Kursk offensive kicked off last month, NATO leaders were adamant that they were not involved in the planning. By contrast, the Kiev regime hinted that NATO was.
Despite the official denials, sections of the British media couldn’t contain their excitement in what appeared in the initial stage to be a lightning punch in the nose for Putin.
It was reported that Ukrainian troops had been trained in Britain prior to the incursion. While the Daily Mail blared that British Challenger tanks were “leading Ukraine’s advance into Russia’s Kursk and Belgorod regions”.
The Times reported smugly that “British equipment, including drones, has played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military.”
Since the NATO proxy war against Russia erupted in Ukraine in February 2022, the British have been intensely involved in training commandos to carry out raids on Russian territory, according to Britain’s Royal Navy publicity.
Despite Ben Wallace’s assertion that Britain had no planning involvement in the Kursk offensive, it seems clear that his denial is a lie. Britain was and presumably still is heavily involved. It is known that mercenaries from other NATO states are on the ground in Kursk. But the British role is prominent in leading the charge (from behind, that is).
That charge has now run into a dead-end with heavy losses among Ukrainian troops. For the British planners, however, the military losses are of little importance. The Ukrainians were merely cannon fodder in a PR stunt to embarrass Putin and to whip up another round of military aid.
Britain has a sordid historical role in starting wars in Europe. Ben Wallace in his Telegraph op-ed mocked Putin for blaming Britain for being behind the Crimean War and the rise of Nazi Germany. On both counts, it is accurate to condemn Britain. What was it doing anyway sending troops to Crimea in the 1850s? And the covert role of Britain in financing, arming, and giving Hitler a free hand to attack the Soviet Union during the 1930s was a major contributor to fomenting World War Two, a war in which up to 30 million Soviet people were killed.
Today, Perfidious Albion is stoking the proxy war against Russia, which could lead to a nuclear Third World War. Its sinister fingerprints are all over the Kursk provocation. The has-been empire is trying to inflate its geopolitical importance among Western partners through machinations and manipulation. Even at the risk of inciting an all-out world war.
Ben Wallace’s bizarre op-ed about Russia “coming for us” can be better understood as an admission of Britain’s guilt and not simply another absurd Russophobic rant. The old Tory warmonger was projecting the reality of Britain’s nefarious role in escalating the proxy war. The British establishment knows that if Russia goes on to take reprisal, it has it coming. Its pretense of innocence is classic British dissembling.
The Second Trump Shooter Believed Exactly What the Establishment Media Wanted Him to Believe
By Connor O’Keeffe | Mises Institute | September 18, 2024
On Sunday, for the second time this election cycle, a man was able to get close to Donald Trump with a rifle. The former president was golfing when Secret Service agents spotted a rifle barrel poking out of some bushes just off the course, near a hole Trump would soon play. Agents fired on the suspect, causing him to flee as Trump was rushed off the course. Shortly after, the man was apprehended by police.
A scoped rifle, two backpacks, and a video camera were recovered from the woods where the suspect was hiding. The FBI said it was investigating the incident as an attempted assassination. The suspect, Ryan Routh, has so far been charged with two gun-related crimes.
While there are clearly some major differences between this incident and the first assassination attempt in July—when Trump was shot in the ear during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania—the fact that an armed man was able to get so close to the former president and remain undetected until the last moment for the second time in two months is a big deal.
Yet the reaction from the political establishment and the establishment media has been notably different. Back in July, there was broad agreement within the establishment that they needed to “lower the temperature.” This week, the rhetoric has changed. While most go through the motion of denouncing political violence, establishment figures and outlets have downplayed the assassination attempt, obscured the attempted shooter’s political ideology, and even blamed Trump himself for provoking people into trying to kill him.
It’s not surprising that the political establishment and their friends in the media want to dismiss or play down what happened on Sunday. Because Ryan Routh, the suspect, appears to have been motivated by the exact narrative of the war in Ukraine and the prospect of a second Trump term that the establishment is trying so hard to get the American public to accept.
In early 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, the American establishment went into overdrive to whitewash all the developments that had led to the invasion. They instead defined Vladamir Putin as an expansionist tyrant bent on conquering all of Europe simply because he hates freedom and democracy.
Because of unearthed social media posts, numerous interviews with major outlets like The New York Times, and a self-published book, we can clearly see that Routh was completely convinced by the establishment’s characterization of the war. So much so that in the months after the war broke out, Routh traveled to Ukraine to try and join the fight. He was turned away, apparently due to his age, but stuck around to try and recruit other foreigners to join Ukraine’s ranks.
In one interview with Newsweek, Routh laid out how he views the war:
To me, a lot of the other conflicts are gray, but this conflict is definitely black-and-white. This is about good versus evil. This is a storybook— you know, any movie we’ve ever watched, this is definitely evil against good. … It seems asinine that we have a leader and a country that does not understand the concept of being unselfish, and being generous, and being kind, and just the basic moral values that are required by human beings these days. It blows my mind.
That is exactly how the pundits and politicians who make up the American political establishment want us thinking about this war. Not as an unnecessary geopolitical conflict that escalated for decades before erupting into the conventional war we see today, but simply as a black-and-white showdown with an evil country.
Importantly, as can be seen in the opening to Biden’s State of the Union address from earlier this year, the establishment has explicitly conflated this threat abroad with what they call the threat at home—meaning Trump and the MAGA movement. So if a disturbed person like Ryan Routh was convinced that he would be a hero if he went and fought the evil Russians in Ukraine only to be turned away because of his age, it’s not much of a jump to expect that he concluded he could still be a hero if he set his sights on, what he was told, is the same threat at home.
That’s not to say that the establishment voices pushing the simplistic narratives that captured Routh directly incited his assassination attempt—although it would under the standard they apply to Trump and January 6. Only that the establishment is using misleading and sometimes wholly fictional narratives about the war in Ukraine and the populist anger directed toward them to try to scare us into voting in ways that support their interests. It shouldn’t surprise anyone when these contrived, simplistic, overly dramatic narratives lead some people to decide voting isn’t enough.
Washington’s new plan to control the Global South
By Anna Belkina | RT | September 20, 2024
When US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced a new “joint diplomatic campaign” to be implemented in concert with Canada and the UK last week, he clearly set out the initiative’s goal – “to rally allies and partners around the world to join us in addressing the threat posed by RT and other machinery of Russian disinformation and covert influence.”
Make no mistake: there is nothing diplomatic in this latest US effort to silence any voice that does not adhere to the Washington- and London-dictated narratives about the world.
The point of all news media is to inform. Any information has the potential to influence people. Thus, the collective West has set out to curtail all potential influence that is not theirs.
Helping hand
James Rubin, the coordinator for the US State Department’s Global Engagement Center, elaborated on how this plan would work in an interview with his ex-wife, Christiane Amanpour, on CNN.
“Other countries will make decisions for themselves,” of course, but the charitable, the always-benevolent, the never self-interested American hand will be “helping other governments come to their own decisions about how to treat” RT.
Ah, all those poor, hapless “other governments” that clearly cannot read, watch, think, and decide for themselves. They were just waiting for Big Brother to help them.
What Rubin was really doing was scapegoating RT – and by extension, all other independent voices in what is supposed to be a free and diverse global information space, reflecting a diverse, very complicated, multipolar world – for the increasingly diminishing buy-in of much of the world into Washington’s foreign policies, and propaganda campaigns that accompany them.
As Rubin admitted during his press conference, “one of the reasons […] why so much of the world has not been as fully supportive of Ukraine as you would think they would be […] is because of the broad scope and reach of RT – where propaganda, disinformation, and lies are spread to millions if not billions of people around the world.”
Which countries refused to jump on board with the US and NATO support of the Kiev regime and the continuous escalation of the conflict? In reality, it is most of the world, including such geopolitical giants as India and China, who preferred to leave regional issues to the region in question.
Where official positions are concerned, it’s mostly NATO and its cohorts’ one billion vs our planet’s other seven. And while in those seven not everyone in the general population is of the same mind, neither is everyone in the US and other NATO countries.
Yet, due to the decades-long domination of the international information space by American and European mainstream news media (can you believe the BBC is over 100 years old?), many have been conditioned to think of the world – in the sense of who defines the global order, its rights and its wrongs – as the US and its vassal-state allies.
Notably, Mr Rubin specifically referred to Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa as regions where RT must be stopped. In other words, the so-called Global South. What’s got the US State Department so worried there?
RT’s success is Western media’s loss
Western military, political, and media establishments have been panicked over their loss of monopoly on global information in general, and about RT’s growing reach and influence in particular, for a while now. The self-proclaimed champions of free press, speech and thought cannot handle any of that free-thinkin’ they campaigned for.
To wit, have a scroll:
THE FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES, US: “Washington is struggling in the battle for hearts and minds in the ‘Global South’, where Russian propaganda outlets are often more popular than Western media.”
NEWSWEEK : “… it’s in the Global South that Russia has reaped the most significant rewards. The popularity of the Kremlin-controlled TV station Russia Today is high…”
POLITICO : “… many of the Kremlin-backed accounts – especially those from sanctioned media outlets like RT and Sputnik – have an oversized digital reach. Collectively, these companies boast millions of followers in Europe, Latin America and Africa…”
ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE, UK: “Latin America has witnessed a growth in Russian information efforts. Just like in the Middle East, Russia is operating a number of popular media channels, such as RT en Espanol, Sputnik Mundo and Sputnik Brasil, with substantial followings.”
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, US: “Russia’s […] media presence and influence [in Latin America] are unmatched… The reach of Russia’s technique has proven to be effective … Actualidad RT and Sputnik Mundo have become so mainstream in LAC, that in December 2022, RT Spanish won three prestigious Mexican journalism awards for their coverage of the war in Ukraine.”
WILSON CENTER, US: “Russia has successfully implemented long-term strategies to capture and influence intellectual elites in Latin America.”
ATLANTIC COUNCIL: “Russia has established a significant media and information footprint throughout the [Latin American] region with Russia Today and Sputnik News.”
EL MUNDO, SPAIN: “In addition to hybrid channels, [Russia] uses public companies such as Russia Today, whose propaganda is triumphing in Latin America – the Spanish-speaking version of RT […] is integrated into family daily life from Venezuela to Bolivia.”
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES, UK: “Egyptian media ran headlines and reports verbatim from RT Arabic, […] EU Reporter, an independent media outlet, reported that ‘Russian media outlets like RT Arabic and Sputnik are extremely popular, with RT Arabic becoming one of the most trafficked news websites in the country.’”
FOREIGN POLICY : “RT Arabic and Sputnik Arabic emerged as major sources of legitimate regional news in the Middle East.”
JOSEP BORRELL, HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EU FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY POLICY: “When you go to some African countries and you see people supporting Putin, supporting what Putin is doing in Donbass, saying Putin has saved Donbass, now he will come to Africa and save us.”
ABC, SPAIN: “The Kremlin has tried to increase its influence in the media using Russia Today and Sputnik News. And there have also been collaboration agreements with local media, hiring African journalists and African activists, and at the same time generating news in Arabic, English or French to gain the support of the African population.”
Thank you, thank you very much.
Exporting censorship
Since RT’s launch in 2005, our journalists have brought to light countless stories and points of view disallowed in the Western mainstream. We have built a massive global audience and won the trust of viewers and readers worldwide.
But, despite Western elites’ declarations to the contrary, any voice that fails to fit into the rather cramped echo-chamber they have set up to accommodate supposedly free discourse, is inherently seen as illegitimate. Therefore, it must be silenced.
Which is why, having pushed out official RT channels from Western airwaves and digital platforms, they now want – nay, need and ought – to export their particular brand of censorship globally. They pledge to wage a coordinated campaign to force other nations into following their example, all so that the West can recover its information monopoly. They must “disrupt [RT] activities” everywhere. It is not enough for them to silo off their own people from inconvenient facts and alternative viewpoints. They have the megalomania and the audacity to say that no one in the world should hear them either.
This is especially so in the Global South countries – the ones that the US has gotten accustomed to patronizing, manipulating, dominating, undermining and overthrowing unsuitable-to-them regimes, and outright controlling in any way they could, over the last century.
Welcome to neocolonialism, Taylor’s 2024 Version.
Government folks have also already lined up Silicon Valley wunderkinds – the tech giants that are ever so eager to curry political favor in order to stay on the lax side of corporate regulation – in this endeavor. Meta, which blocked access to RT’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in the EU in 2022, has overnight removed RT from its platforms – entirely and worldwide.
YouTube removed RT’s record-breaking channels everywhere that same year, but Google’s parent company, Alphabet, had already worked to “de-rank” RT and Sputnik in Google searches back in 2017.
After all, “RT is the top recommended source for news concerning Douma’s chemical weapons attack, Skripal poisoning and the Syrian White Helmets,” wrote the Atlantic Council in 2018. In 2019, “Bild conducted a test and entered the query ‘Ukraine’ into Google News. Again, among the top ten articles were three from RT Deutsch and Contra Magazin.” When people looked for news, they came to RT.
This could not stand.
A quick aside: despite all the claims by the Americans and the Brits about RT’s supposed attempts to “sow discord” in their societies, the network really should be lauded for bringing people together instead. In the US, where political bipartisanship is a near-extinct species, the Biden administration’s present-day efforts are fully endorsed by Fiona Hill, of Donald Trump’s National Security Council, who argued that “there has to be concerted action against RT.” In the UK, the recently elected Labor leadership has fully adopted their Tory predecessors’ anti-RT playbook.
Not going away
Let me be clear: RT is not going anywhere, in the West nor in the Global South. Our journalists will continue to do their jobs. We will continue to find ways to have our voice heard. Our audiences “of millions if not billions of people around the world” expect nothing less of us. This is our duty to the global community.
As for the global community, where does it stand, in the face of this new US-led campaign?
The Hindu, one of India’s newspapers of record, reported that already “US officials have spoken to [India’s] Ministry of External Affairs about joining their actions against what they call ‘Russian disinformation’, by revoking accreditations and designating [RT] journalists under the ‘Foreign Missions Act’. However, while the ministry has been silent on the issue, government officials said that the debate on sanctions is not relevant to India, while a former diplomat said that banning media organizations showed ‘double standards’ by Western countries… An official said that the matter ‘does not pertain’ to India and pointed out that India does not follow unilateral sanctions that are not approved by the United Nations.”
We are confident that the rest of the truly independent world will follow suit.
Anna Belkina is RT’s deputy editor in chief and head of communications, marketing and strategic development.
The real reason US wants to silence RT
By Fyodor Lukyanov | RT | September 18, 2024
In late 1986 Yegor Ligachev, the secretary of the Soviet Communist Party’s Central Committee, and Viktor Chebrikov, then-head of the KGB, proposed that the country end the practice of jamming foreign radio stations. ‘Enemy voices’ was the popular term used at the time to describe these broadcasts from abroad.
Of course, the two prominent officials were not imbued with bourgeois ideas when seeking to end radio jamming. They were actually taking a businesslike approach. The pair explained to the Central Committee that blocking was expensive but not very effective, given the size of the country. So, it was suggested that signal-jamming be abandoned and that funds be diverted to counter-propaganda measures. This meant more active work with foreign audiences to communicate the Soviet Union’s own views on world events.
A few weeks later, at a meeting with US President Ronald Reagan in Iceland, USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev raised the issue. He said “your radio station Voice of America broadcasts around the clock in many languages from stations you have in different countries in Europe and Asia, and we can’t present our point of view to the American people. So, for the sake of equality, we have to jam the Voice of America broadcasts.” Gorbachev offered to stop blocking ‘VOA’ if his counterpart agreed to let Moscow have a frequency to do the same in the US. Reagan evasively promised to consult when he returned home. In the end, the Soviets stopped jamming foreign radio stations unilaterally, without any deal.
The events of the last few days have echoes of this old story. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken devoted an entire speech to RT, which is subject to ‘full-blocking’ (that’s a new formula!) sanctions for its supposedly destructive and subversive work around the world. According to Blinken and the American intelligence agencies he references, the threat posed by the Russian company is of the highest order and requires the most decisive measures from all of Washington’s allies.
Without irony or exaggeration, it can be said that RT could only dream of the global recognition that Blinken’s appeal has facilitated. The effectiveness of the media group was not so much confirmed as it was certified, and by prominent representatives of its rivals.
We could deplore infringements on freedom of expression and restrictions on pluralism of opinion, but there is little point in doing so. Such notions should only be promoted in relation to the internal information space of individual countries; at a national level, they are an indispensable prerequisite for normal development. As for foreign sources of information, people generally perceive them as instruments of influence. And it hardly depends on the type of socio-political system that exists in a given state. The more comprehensive the information and communication environment, the greater its impact on people’s behavior, and the more acute the desire of governments to tighten control over the flow of ideas and analysis. The international media sphere is deliberately ideological, electrified and conflictual. Hence Blinken’s, shall we say, uncharacteristic remarks that RT should be treated “like an intelligence agency.”
How effective are the tactics of restricting alternative views and jamming radio waves? Comrades Ligachev and Chebrikov rightly pointed out that the costly efforts to jam hostile broadcasters were, to put it mildly, not particularly effective. Worse, as the author well remembers, the very fact that the authorities were fighting foreign radio voices had the opposite effect to that desired – if they were silencing voices, it meant that they were afraid of the truth. And, by the end of the Soviet era this opinion was not only widespread among the frontline intelligentsia, many ‘ordinary people’ also didn’t give a damn about the official channels.
At their meeting in Iceland, Reagan countered Gorbachev’s appeal by saying that, unlike the Soviets, “we recognize freedom of the press and the right of people to listen to any point of view.” The US president had no doubts about the superiority of the American system in all respects. Accordingly, the demands for information pluralism, then and later, reflected the confidence of Washington that it would emerge victorious from any competition. And so, a few years later, the US achieved a de-facto monopoly on the interpretation of everything.
Washington’s current extreme reaction is due to the feeling that it’s losing this monopoly. Alternative interpretations of events now arouse public interest. In fact, the total resources of the Western, mainly English-language media are incomparably greater than what all the carriers of alternative points of view can offer, at this moment. But internal insecurity is growing all by itself, fueling the desire to fence off the information space. From the same playbook comes the US’ attempts to explain its internal strife and accumulated contradictions by pointing to a pernicious external influence. This was also the Soviet experience. However, the USSR didn’t solve its own issues by blaming them on external causes. In fact, as its problems grew, those same outside factors actually began to exacerbate them.
Targeted punitive actions can create obstacles for any organization, there is no doubt about that. Especially when they come from what is still the most powerful country on the planet. But American history teaches us that monopolies do not last forever. Sooner or later, a cartel becomes a brake on development, then it becomes the subject of measures to break it up.
Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
Hillary Clinton Advocates for Criminal Charges for Americans Spreading “Propaganda”
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 17, 2024
Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has has decided to ignore the First Amendment and has advocated for punitive measures aimed at Americans who contribute to the spread of what she calls “propaganda.” Speaking to MSNBC on Tuesday, Clinton suggested that holding American individuals accountable through civil or criminal charges could serve as a warning to deter the distribution of “disinformation.”
While Clinton acknowledged the importance of indicting foreign actors, namely Russians, directly responsible for meddling in US elections, she argued that Americans who play a role in amplifying “disinformation” should not be overlooked.
“I think it’s important to indict the Russians… who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting [former US President Donald] Trump back in 2016,” Clinton said. “But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda, and whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence.”
Clinton, who ran against Trump in the 2016 presidential race, endorsed the ongoing efforts of the State and Justice Departments to reveal the extent of Russian influence in US elections. Clinton has long maintained that her loss in 2016 was due to Russian interference. She described these efforts as merely scratching the surface of a much larger issue, adding, “There is a far distance to go.”
Her comments also touched on the broader issue of foreign influence in American politics, as Clinton warned that adversaries such as Russia, China, and Iran are seeking to sway the US electorate.
She underscored the call for greater vigilance in safeguarding the democratic process, stating: “We are not going to let adversaries, whether it’s Russia, China, Iran, or anybody else, basically try to influence Americans as to how we should vote in picking our leaders.”
Clinton’s call for potential criminal penalties against US citizens who share “disinformation” is a controversial step toward restricting free speech. The idea of penalizing individuals for spreading information, regardless of its origins, raises concerns about the boundaries of government power and the potential for misuse of such laws to suppress dissenting views.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge the freedom of speech. Under this protection, the idea of prosecuting individuals for the mere act of sharing information—regardless of its veracity—presents a potential conflict with these foundational rights.
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: Iran Ready With Overwhelming Retaliation
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Raffi Berg: BBC Middle East Editor Exposed as CIA, Mossad Collaborator
By Alan Macleod | MintPress News | January 3, 2025
A senior BBC editor at the center of an ongoing scandal into the network’s systematic pro-Israel bias is, in fact, a former member of a CIA propaganda outfit, MintPress News can reveal. Raffi Berg, an Englishman who heads the BBC’s Middle East desk, formerly worked for the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a unit that, by his own admission, was a CIA front group.
Berg is currently the subject of considerable scrutiny after thirteen BBC employees spoke out, claiming, among other things, that his “entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel” and that he holds “wild” amounts of power at the British state broadcaster, that there exists a culture of “extreme fear” at the BBC about publishing anything critical of Israel, and that Berg himself plays a key role in turning its coverage into “systematic Israeli propaganda.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Is Trump poised to restart the Iran war?
- UAE fuelling African conflicts while evading accountability, SWP finds
- Saudi Arabia is pulling Europe toward a “Gulf Helsinki” deal with Iran — because Washington failed
- The Biggest Breast Cancer Advance in the Last Twenty Years
- Raffi Berg: BBC Middle East Editor Exposed as CIA, Mossad Collaborator
- Seyed M. Marandi: Iran Ready With Overwhelming Retaliation
- EBM: Evidence-Biased Medicine
- US tech firm Cisco has deep ties with Israeli military, leaked documents show
- Palestinian families forced to demolish homes for Israeli theme park
- Al-Qassam leader Ezzeddin al-Haddad martyred in Israeli attack on Gaza
- If Americans Knew
- Settler attacks in West Bank hit a new low – Daily Update
- Medicine shortages amid siege leave people in peril
- Gaza’s students face a near impossible test to study abroad
- Israel kills a Hamas leader, plus 3 women, 1 child, and others (during “ceasefire”) – Daily Update
- We Can’t Curb Nuclear Proliferation If We Don’t Acknowledge Israel’s Nukes
- 43,000 people in Gaza suffered life-changing injuries since October 2023: WHO
- Israel’s 7 October narrative under fresh scrutiny after army accused of deleting footage
- Ex-CENTCOM chief headlines lavish Israeli-American Council gala
- Israel’s 7 October rape hoax gets a 300-page reboot
- Chants of ‘death to Arabs,’ calls for destruction of Al-Aqsa Mosque in racist Jerusalem Day march
- No Tricks Zone
- Even The DNA Of Single-Celled Plankton Can Upend Alarmist Arctic Sea Ice Melt Claims
- Scandal: Although Climate Panic Is Canceled By IPCC, Europe’s Policymakers Continue With Their Crushing Policies
- How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
Aletho News 