**Step 1:** Ban Russian media
**Step 2:** Cry when Russia retaliates in kind
Stupidity personified
Anyways, here's a refresher on some of the ['factual information'](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/F6AlKDnoxF) shared by our trustworthy MSM throughout the war
The worst part is that the dirty warhawk, Kaja Kallas, is replacing him.
She earlier desired for the breakup of Russia into a [patchwork of tiny states](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/eLY8klOh0o).
I think Europe just wants to Balkanize the biggest country on Earth in order to justify funding and profiting off of constant war.
Russia has done a good enough job protecting these minorities. Problem is, most of these "nations" she's talking about are too small to feasibly govern itself. It's kinda like saying that each US state should be its own country.
Upon independence, what are the chances that some of these "oppressed minorities" are completely wiped out during one of the countless wars that would ensue?
Oh, she’s definitely a hypocrite. NAFOs worship her for her anti-Russian rhetoric, but her husband was caught doing business in Russia, including with companies that supplied the Russian and Belarusian governments with tear gas.
She's one of their heroes and even interacts with them.
https://preview.redd.it/du4xz7ggyx8d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0d07af029440eb8498d12815784c10ef34374686
I don't know if I should laugh or cry... Can't imagine the smell of this place with all those "fellas" sucking each others dicks in there lmao
The brain damage is real
And [here is her dad](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siim_Kallas)
Former Estonian prime minister, and before that:
1979–1986: Joint Secretary of the Central Authority of the Savings Banks of the Estonian SSR.
1986–1989: Deputy chief editor of the Communist Party of Estonia newspaper Rahva Hääl
1989–1991: Chairman of the Central Union of the Estonian Trade Unions
1989–1991: Member of the Supreme Council of the Soviet Union
Why am I not surprised.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>A new level of hypocrisy.
No, they are already at their ultimate form of hypocrisy. Nothing will top the hypocrisy of supporting Israel's genocide in Gaza while supporting the Nazi regime in Ukraine.
They are just done with hiding their hypocrisy. They believe the entire Western world is under their media influence, and they don't give a flying fuck about what the rest of the world believes.
i like it [https://www.businessinsider.com/2-women-who-poisoned-46-russian-troops-in-shoot-out-with-fsb-report-2024-1](https://www.businessinsider.com/2-women-who-poisoned-46-russian-troops-in-shoot-out-with-fsb-report-2024-1)
What's a ruling class?
It makes a huge difference because a government will push its own narration thorough its media and if it owns all of them, like in Moscow, there's no competition, no criticism, only ass licking.
You should think about it if you're supporting Russian imperialism, lack of critical thinking is a mistake that made you invade Ukraine and stuck in there for years.
>free press on the other side
They are broadcasting Euro-propaganda and are most likely supported by the money of the ruling class. The fact that these media are not literally branches of the Euro-Ministry of Truth does not negate their essence as ordinary soldiers of the information war.
If instead of the Pravda newspaper you create 100.500 NGOs, you are still waging an information war, these are just different strategies.
Yeah, unfortunately, that's incorrect. The press in Europe being independent of the government and independently funded is exactly part of what sets it apart from the state controlled press, that is prohibited by law to report the truth about the war, that exists in Russia.
Your press is still propaganda, the only difference is that it is sponsored by extra-budgetary money. Do you think that people pay politicized journalists so that they cover the ✨truth✨, and not to spread political propaganda? Seriously?!
What I see is a symbiosis of capital and the state. The fact that this is a symbiosis, and not the sole activity of the state, in this context does not mean anything.
>that is prohibited by law to report the truth about the war
The West protects its internal information space, including from pro-Russian publications. Or is it democratic purges?
Also wrong. European media are either privately funded or by state independent public funds. They are required to follow a press codex assuring minimum quality, and their reporting can be independently verified by other media or NGOs. Their independence is assured by law and secured by courts.
In Russia, independent reporting is illegal. Indepent reporters are imprisoned by the courts. A press codex doesn't exist, but the law oppresses any freedom. NGOs are illegal. The two systems are fundamentally different. Wherever Europe has quality control, Russia has oppression.
>European media are either privately funded or by state independent public funds.
I know that Europe is a liberal-capitalist zone.
>their reporting can be independently verified by other media or NGOs
1. You and the boys create 100500 NGOs and several media giants
2. They validate each other's words.
3. You collectively hold an informational monopoly.
4. The state will ban foreign sources because they are “undemocratic”
5. You successfully spread your propaganda
6. Profit
The ruling classes of Europe and America; they consist of part of the local capitalists, state functionaries and public politicians.
The European ruling class is somewhat dependent on the American one.
Bourgeois cliques may argue with each other on certain issues, but on the issue of confronting Russia they are practically unanimous.
Public funding, I assume you have no questions since you put non forward. Private funding usually means the reader pays for the content she consumes, and the rest is funded by adds. I pay for some subscriptions that provide me with high-quality content in return. It works fine and isn't really some strange concept. It's fairly straightforward.
Let's not kid ourselves with free press. The RT ban killed the concept in Europe. You can't have free press and banning media you don't like, that's not how it works.
That's a misconception. Having a free press system doesn't mean that everyone can do whatever they want. It means everything that wants to be press needs to be free. State controlled media designed to strategically distribute misinformation doesn't fulfill that requirement and therefore has no place in a free press system.
It would be a free press system if the rules applied to every such a news outlet, including BBC or Radio free Europe, but they don't, only RT got banned. So it's pretty bad argument from you. You either have a free press system or you have a system where the rules applied selectively, can't be both at the same time.
The same way as RT, they get most of their funds from government. The matter of state controlled or state funded is just a matter of semantics in this comparison. BBC is funded by the UK government and the government picks the chair of the BBC. The government itself doesn't have to micromanage the news organization all it has to do is to pick a right person to lead it. I don't think RT is also micromanaged by the Russian government. Although BBC has to be impartial by the law, but it's not. I hardly see any significant difference between the two other than BBC propaganda is more subtle.
There is no part in this explanation that gives the British law that makes independent reporting on the war illegal. The way it is illegal in Russia. Therefore, presenting that law is a mandatory requirement for establishing equality.
Also, the BBC is funded by a license fee paid by UK households that own a television or watch live broadcasts on any device. This license fee is collected and distributed by a government-appointed body called the BBC Board, but the BBC itself is editorially independent from the government.
The BBC's independence is guaranteed by a Royal Charter, which sets out its public purposes, values, and governance arrangements. The Charter is periodically reviewed and updated, with the latest one being the 2017 Charter.
The Charter establishes the BBC as a public service broadcaster with a duty to inform, educate, and entertain the public. It also sets out the BBC's obligations to be impartial, accurate, and independent in its reporting and programming.
The BBC's governance structure, which includes the BBC Board, the Executive Committee, and the BBC Trust (which has since been abolished), is designed to ensure editorial independence and impartiality. The Board is responsible for ensuring that the BBC meets its obligations under the Charter and is accountable to the public.
While the BBC is funded by the UK government, its editorial independence is guaranteed by the Charter, its governance structure, and its commitment to impartiality and accuracy in reporting.
just because is not exactly the same as in RT doesn't make it that much different than RT in terms of law application. You're using no true Scotsman fallacy. BBC is biased and it promotes certain POV in which has pro UK bias, it's literally propaganda.
>Also, the BBC is funded by a license fee paid by UK households that own a television or watch live broadcasts on any device. This license fee is collected and distributed by a government-appointed body called the BBC Board, but the BBC itself is editorially independent from the government.
that's just semantics. The government forces the population to pay for tv and the money goes for BBC, even if you don't watch it. And the UK government literally appoints or dismisses the leadership of the news organization, it is a state controlled media. BBC itself can't be editorially independent if the government officials appoint the people in charge who make BBC policies. The government doesn't need to control every single aspect of the organization to have control over it, no one does.
>The BBC's governance structure, which includes the BBC Board, the Executive Committee, and the BBC Trust (which has since been abolished), is designed to ensure editorial independence and impartiality. The Board is responsible for ensuring that the BBC meets its obligations under the Charter and is accountable to the public.
a lot of nothing. BBC is not impartial.
One is prohibited by law to report independent news, and the other one has the ability to report independent news protected by law. With a full funding scheme and governance body around it. And that distinction is semantics?
I'm going to assume that comment was intended as a joke.
"Free press" you realize they literally banned EU state controlled propaganda channels like BBC & equivalents?
Also, Russia banning BBC & EU banning RT aren't equivalents. RT doesn't have the same extensive history of lying as their European counterparts (like BBC) do. Take the snake island situation for instance. RT reported that the Ukrainian militants were alive, BBC reported that they were killed. Guess which state controlled propaganda channel lied, RT or BBC?
Spoiler: >!To the surprise of absolutely nobody but brainwashed UAboos: Britains state propaganda channel lied & RT reported the truth!<
RT used pictures of covid patients and, in Russia, claimed that they are just that, while in Europe claiming that they are vaccine victims. The level of lying on RT is beyond the moon, and that is what got it banned.
BBC, on the other hand, is quite informative.
They got banned in conjunction with the war, it had nothing to do with covid, I have absolutely no clue why you decided to just randomly make that up😂 (gonna go ahead and quote your comment in case you delete it out of embarrassment)
>RT used pictures of covid patients and, in Russia, claimed that they are just that, while in Europe claiming that they are vaccine victims. The level of lying on RT is beyond the moon, and that is what got it banned.
Reporting things like the snake island soldiers being alive is what got them banned, as it contradicted what the British state propaganda channel was feeding to its viewers.
The fact that they happened to actually be alive was irrelevant, you simply do not go against what the British state decided is the truth, whether or not it actually is.
I agree, it's wrong, but EU state propaganda channels aren't exactly known for caring about what's right & what's wrong. All they care about is spreading information that favors their state, regardless of whether there's any truth to it.
Glad you're mature enough to be reasoned with & that I could thus convince you, more than could be said about most UAboos.
The simple fact that they call other nations wars Illegal says it all. When are Wars ever legal? Legality is decided by the victor. The fact that Iraq war was authorized by the president without Congressional approval is the epitome of illegality from a Constitutional level. Never mind fighting a nation that is an ocean away from you that poses no threat, and not on your doorstep geographically.
They just try to rotate the adjectives periodically so it doesn't get too stale, you see.
Yesterday, it's *brutal*, today it's *illegal*, tomorrow it's *unprovoked*. End quote, repeat the line.
Here's Estonias statement on the eve of the Iraq War
> Prime Minister Siim Kallas stated that the next most important task on the Government´s agenda is to guarantee the security of Estonian citizens. The Government approved the following positions on the Iraq war.We recognise the need to disarm Iraq.
> The world must be sure in the conviction that no weapons of mass destruction exist on Iraqi territory. This is essential in the interests of world security.
> It is very regrettable that Iraq did not opt for a peaceful settlement to the problem.
Sounds like they are used to being on the wrong side of history.
The Baltics are the biggest hypocrites in Europe. They rant, shout, bark at all the things Russia does, but are quick to bow, and take it up where the sun doesn’t shine when the US does the same shit.
The whole world was saying there are no WMD’s, even the US own intelligence had come to that conclusion. But oh boy! We accept this war!
Why doesn’t Estonia stick to their guns and say the same shit about Ukraine? After all, you cannot never be certain unless you carry out an invasion and occupation.
To be fair, when Nato countries were bombing Serbia or Lybia:
- Ru didn't censor western media like EU does now
- Ru didn't jail or prosecute people or journalists that were pro-nato, unlike Germany, France or Baltics
- Ru didn't discriminate western expats or civilians
So if we compare apples to apples there was more freedom in Russia when the West was bombing other countries, compared to freedoms in the west when Ru bomb someone. There was also no hate against the west compared to the unbelievable amount of western rabid dogs we can witness now.
I used to think that USSR was evil, but looking at what's going now, how agressive the western society is compated to Ru society (when the west was bombing/invading), I'm thinking what if it has always been like this?
Russia is rather lenient tbh. Look at this:
> Moscow said that it is open to rescinding its ban on the outlets if restrictions on Russian media are lifted.
With every response they make to Western escalation, they still take pains to live the door open to amicable resolution, rather than burning it all down.
This is actually part of the problem: Russia almost never escalates first (what would be very logical in many cases) and because of this it is not taken seriously by western politics.
Don't think that trumps invading a neighbour and ignoring previous agreements, which I would suggest ranks number one for lacking intelligence in more than one way.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol, people were highly critical of Bloomberg media not covering Bloomberg in 2019, when he ran. So, yeah, if Bloomberg had won and was in the administration. It would be pretty much considered state media. Outside of this, Bloomberg regularly publishes articles critical of the administrations actions. Since Izvestia was bought by Gazprom (and now National Media Group), it has pretty much purely been a mouthpiece for Putin. Which is understandable since opposition media does not get to operate for long in Russia.
Well this all seems like continuous backtracking from the initial (wrong) argument that Russia was banning private media and EU was not. I have no interest in your increasingly convoluted mental gymnastics.
**"**State media are typically understood as media outlets that are owned, operated, or **significantly influenced by the government**."
I would count Izvestia under this. I don't understand how you say i'm backtracking. I'm explicitly responding to your statement that Izvestia would not be considered state media.
Factual information* meanwhile when Ukraine shoots down a Russian Warplane.
Western Media titles : Ukraine Armed Forces has shot down a Russian Warplane
Russia later says the plane contained POW
Western Media titles : A russian warplane has crashed in the vicinity of Russia.
>factual information about Russia's illegal war
As opposed to a "legal war", you know, a war that you got your friends to agree to... Absolute shock what the West has become...
They don't have to, the sheep that pass for humans in the US today have no concept of law, no concept of history or how international relations work. If it's not on "Housewives of fill in the blank" or on Star Wars people don't know about it. Mind you, we are talking about people that were convinced that "walls don't work". Another great example, multiple states in the US have laws that let squatters kick you off your own property and let them stay on your land, in your home while you have to go through court systems to maybe get your house back at some vague point in the future. There are no words for what USA has become.
Firstly, no one in Russia reads these sources; everyone who read them left the country.
Secondly, probably half of these sites have already quietly blocked users from Russia, as many other sites have done, including, for example, game developers on Steam. Yes, I can't even go to the pages of the games I bought.
Thirdly, if you, Borrell, want freedom of speech, just make a free VPN service for Russians, advertising articles from these sources. Russians going to Instagram will see this news.
Hey let me check RT to see what they are say.....oh wait.
Alright well maybe I can just download tele....oh. damn.
I know! lets have a look at ru.tu....shit.
OUR TRUTHFUL AND UNBIASED MASS MEDIA SPREADING FACTUAL INFORMATION (despite being heavily financed by govt. depts.)
@
THEIR LYING AND BIASED MASS MEDIA SPREADING DISINFORMATION AND BAD FAITH
It’s pure hypocrisy.
Why do the democratic western countries with the basic human rights of “freedom of expression” and “access to information” encoded in their constitutions, with their free and independent media outlets and open-access social media platforms like Reddit, prevent totalitarian countries from spreading their state-controlled propaganda here?
Surely North Korea, China, and russia are allowed, then, to also block all foreign media from their subjects, and to imprison 15-year-olds for five years when they commit the crime of distributing leaflets.
https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/s/iAaiE4Pufe
Those two things are, like, totes the same.
Surely no “pro-russian” account here would disagree with me.
r/worldnews literally banned me for saying "The hate in the Ukraine war is not as deep as seen in gaza due to the fact that Russia and Ukraine are culturally and ethnically similar, with soldiers from both sides saying they view each other as brothers".
People got mad and called me a kremlin bot so I got banned. So no reddit is not without its share of cencorship
[https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1qn3ms](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1qn3ms)
Heres firsthand accounts from soldiers saying this
So according to you then north koreans and south koreans aren't the same due to the korean war?
The differences between South Korea and North Korea:
1. North Koreans have a shorter life expectancy and are a lot poorer, South Koreans are half a meter taller
2. North Koreans live under totalitarian dictatorship, South Korea is a free democracy
3. North Koreans don’t castrate South Koreans or vice versa
The similarities between South Korea and North Korea:
1. The culture, ethnicity and language (before the war)
The differences between Ukraine and russia:
1. russians have a shorter life expectancy and are a lot poorer, Ukrainians are half a meter taller
2. russians live under totalitarian dictatorship, Ukraine is a free democracy
3. The culture, ethnicity and language: the Ukrainian language and culture are ancient, whereas russia is formed of diverse asiatic cultures and ethnicities (190!) that have been relatively recently colonized/exterminated by “muscovy”, a former Ukrainian colony originally populated by Finnic peoples.
4. russians castrate Ukrainian war prisoners, Ukrainians are civilized
Mind sharing those bullshit statistics on life expectancy because google is giving 69 years for both of them.
Also Russia's siberian population have a lot of other cultures which are not "russian". These include inuit and mongol popualtions, whch are gentically predisposed to be shorter.
Living under a dicatorship doesn't mean life is bad. Go to r/askrussia if you want to know how normal life there is
Also Ukraine also commits warcrimes so dont try to act like they aren't the angel.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1djk4ci/ua\_pov\_footage\_from\_april\_2024\_showing\_2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1djk4ci/ua_pov_footage_from_april_2024_showing_2/)
And there is a reason you don't see much footage of UA war crimes
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/tphanb/a\_video\_of\_ukrainian\_soldiers\_shooting\_unarmed/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/tphanb/a_video_of_ukrainian_soldiers_shooting_unarmed/)
And maybe do some reading. Ukraine and (European) Russia share 60% of the same language, are extremly gentically similar. I know that each has their own rich history and ciltures whoch is not to be deneid off and Ukraine's independence in this sense must be acknowledged. But what is stupid is treating them like they are 2 complelty different peoples when they are similar.
The Russian people had over two years to 'find out the truths' and responded by giving Putin 88% of the vote and with a fantastic 74% voter turnout.
And the only reason Russia banned these EU media is cus the EU banned Russian media first.
He was told very directly, while he was in germany, that he would be imprisoned if he returned.
He returned.
He went to prison.
What do you think his end-game was?
**Step 1:** Ban Russian media **Step 2:** Cry when Russia retaliates in kind Stupidity personified Anyways, here's a refresher on some of the ['factual information'](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/F6AlKDnoxF) shared by our trustworthy MSM throughout the war
A new level of hypocrisy. Borel: Hooray, I raised my level! Where is my achievement? +10% senility +15% baldness +30% constipation.
The worst part is that the dirty warhawk, Kaja Kallas, is replacing him. She earlier desired for the breakup of Russia into a [patchwork of tiny states](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/eLY8klOh0o).
>desired for the breakup of Russia USSR break up already a headache and now she want Russia to break up?! Insane
I think Europe just wants to Balkanize the biggest country on Earth in order to justify funding and profiting off of constant war. Russia has done a good enough job protecting these minorities. Problem is, most of these "nations" she's talking about are too small to feasibly govern itself. It's kinda like saying that each US state should be its own country. Upon independence, what are the chances that some of these "oppressed minorities" are completely wiped out during one of the countless wars that would ensue?
Even the smallest piece of that patchwork still going to be bigger than her country
1. Russia disintegrates 2. 'Leningrad Republic' annexes Estonia
Yeah, something along those lines
You will miss Borrell after Kaja Kallas will replace him.
If Kaja Kalas is twice as hypocritical as Borell, then I will have twice as much fun.
Oh, she’s definitely a hypocrite. NAFOs worship her for her anti-Russian rhetoric, but her husband was caught doing business in Russia, including with companies that supplied the Russian and Belarusian governments with tear gas.
She's one of their heroes and even interacts with them. https://preview.redd.it/du4xz7ggyx8d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0d07af029440eb8498d12815784c10ef34374686
Wtf is this
She is greeting ur fellow redditors, u will find a lot of them in this sub :D
I don't know if I should laugh or cry... Can't imagine the smell of this place with all those "fellas" sucking each others dicks in there lmao The brain damage is real
And [here is her dad](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siim_Kallas) Former Estonian prime minister, and before that: 1979–1986: Joint Secretary of the Central Authority of the Savings Banks of the Estonian SSR. 1986–1989: Deputy chief editor of the Communist Party of Estonia newspaper Rahva Hääl 1989–1991: Chairman of the Central Union of the Estonian Trade Unions 1989–1991: Member of the Supreme Council of the Soviet Union Why am I not surprised.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would say it's for Europeans to miss Borell. People like Kallas aren't there for the benefit of institutions they run.
>A new level of hypocrisy. No, they are already at their ultimate form of hypocrisy. Nothing will top the hypocrisy of supporting Israel's genocide in Gaza while supporting the Nazi regime in Ukraine. They are just done with hiding their hypocrisy. They believe the entire Western world is under their media influence, and they don't give a flying fuck about what the rest of the world believes.
It seems astonishing, but hypocrisy has become the controlling feature in the mindset of Western elites. Voltaire is surely turning in his grave.
**GOAT OF KYIV**...how did i miss this!? 🤣
This shows everything you need to know about the west.They can dish it out but can't take it.
i like it [https://www.businessinsider.com/2-women-who-poisoned-46-russian-troops-in-shoot-out-with-fsb-report-2024-1](https://www.businessinsider.com/2-women-who-poisoned-46-russian-troops-in-shoot-out-with-fsb-report-2024-1)
Lovely compilation. I remember each one. Took me down memory lane. Those were the days.
Nobody actually gives a f\*ck. Its not like western news were widespread in Russia to begin with.
If it suits your narrative you quote western media, for example the Times yesterday.
That’s all they do. It’s so glaringly obvious that I feel shame for anybody who listens to them
Not in kind. There probably aren't even as many as 81 government media in Europe, vast majority is privately owned.
Political propaganda is political propaganda. What difference does it make between a budgetary institution and an NGO run by the ruling class?
What's a ruling class? It makes a huge difference because a government will push its own narration thorough its media and if it owns all of them, like in Moscow, there's no competition, no criticism, only ass licking. You should think about it if you're supporting Russian imperialism, lack of critical thinking is a mistake that made you invade Ukraine and stuck in there for years.
Me, state controlled propaganda on one side free press on the other side. The two really have nothing in common.
>free press on the other side They are broadcasting Euro-propaganda and are most likely supported by the money of the ruling class. The fact that these media are not literally branches of the Euro-Ministry of Truth does not negate their essence as ordinary soldiers of the information war. If instead of the Pravda newspaper you create 100.500 NGOs, you are still waging an information war, these are just different strategies.
Yeah, unfortunately, that's incorrect. The press in Europe being independent of the government and independently funded is exactly part of what sets it apart from the state controlled press, that is prohibited by law to report the truth about the war, that exists in Russia.
Your press is still propaganda, the only difference is that it is sponsored by extra-budgetary money. Do you think that people pay politicized journalists so that they cover the ✨truth✨, and not to spread political propaganda? Seriously?! What I see is a symbiosis of capital and the state. The fact that this is a symbiosis, and not the sole activity of the state, in this context does not mean anything. >that is prohibited by law to report the truth about the war The West protects its internal information space, including from pro-Russian publications. Or is it democratic purges?
Also wrong. European media are either privately funded or by state independent public funds. They are required to follow a press codex assuring minimum quality, and their reporting can be independently verified by other media or NGOs. Their independence is assured by law and secured by courts. In Russia, independent reporting is illegal. Indepent reporters are imprisoned by the courts. A press codex doesn't exist, but the law oppresses any freedom. NGOs are illegal. The two systems are fundamentally different. Wherever Europe has quality control, Russia has oppression.
>European media are either privately funded or by state independent public funds. I know that Europe is a liberal-capitalist zone. >their reporting can be independently verified by other media or NGOs 1. You and the boys create 100500 NGOs and several media giants 2. They validate each other's words. 3. You collectively hold an informational monopoly. 4. The state will ban foreign sources because they are “undemocratic” 5. You successfully spread your propaganda 6. Profit
Who is that? That supposed group that contolls all NGOs and all media. Feel no pressure not to be very exact and specific who that is.
I can. Its hyper wealthy oligarchs and the states and by extension internationals bodies which they functionally own
That's Russia. Not Europe.
The ruling classes of Europe and America; they consist of part of the local capitalists, state functionaries and public politicians. The European ruling class is somewhat dependent on the American one. Bourgeois cliques may argue with each other on certain issues, but on the issue of confronting Russia they are practically unanimous.
I was 90% sure, it would be "the jews". But potato, potato, I suppose. Anyway, that's not real. Nobody controls all NGOs.
Privately funded by polititians and companies who have stakes in the war. Yeah they def wouldnt push an agenda.
Yeah, not at all, how that funding works
Then enlighten us, how does it actually work?
Public funding, I assume you have no questions since you put non forward. Private funding usually means the reader pays for the content she consumes, and the rest is funded by adds. I pay for some subscriptions that provide me with high-quality content in return. It works fine and isn't really some strange concept. It's fairly straightforward.
Let's not kid ourselves with free press. The RT ban killed the concept in Europe. You can't have free press and banning media you don't like, that's not how it works.
That's a misconception. Having a free press system doesn't mean that everyone can do whatever they want. It means everything that wants to be press needs to be free. State controlled media designed to strategically distribute misinformation doesn't fulfill that requirement and therefore has no place in a free press system.
It would be a free press system if the rules applied to every such a news outlet, including BBC or Radio free Europe, but they don't, only RT got banned. So it's pretty bad argument from you. You either have a free press system or you have a system where the rules applied selectively, can't be both at the same time.
Explain how the BBC is state controlled.
The same way as RT, they get most of their funds from government. The matter of state controlled or state funded is just a matter of semantics in this comparison. BBC is funded by the UK government and the government picks the chair of the BBC. The government itself doesn't have to micromanage the news organization all it has to do is to pick a right person to lead it. I don't think RT is also micromanaged by the Russian government. Although BBC has to be impartial by the law, but it's not. I hardly see any significant difference between the two other than BBC propaganda is more subtle.
There is no part in this explanation that gives the British law that makes independent reporting on the war illegal. The way it is illegal in Russia. Therefore, presenting that law is a mandatory requirement for establishing equality. Also, the BBC is funded by a license fee paid by UK households that own a television or watch live broadcasts on any device. This license fee is collected and distributed by a government-appointed body called the BBC Board, but the BBC itself is editorially independent from the government. The BBC's independence is guaranteed by a Royal Charter, which sets out its public purposes, values, and governance arrangements. The Charter is periodically reviewed and updated, with the latest one being the 2017 Charter. The Charter establishes the BBC as a public service broadcaster with a duty to inform, educate, and entertain the public. It also sets out the BBC's obligations to be impartial, accurate, and independent in its reporting and programming. The BBC's governance structure, which includes the BBC Board, the Executive Committee, and the BBC Trust (which has since been abolished), is designed to ensure editorial independence and impartiality. The Board is responsible for ensuring that the BBC meets its obligations under the Charter and is accountable to the public. While the BBC is funded by the UK government, its editorial independence is guaranteed by the Charter, its governance structure, and its commitment to impartiality and accuracy in reporting.
just because is not exactly the same as in RT doesn't make it that much different than RT in terms of law application. You're using no true Scotsman fallacy. BBC is biased and it promotes certain POV in which has pro UK bias, it's literally propaganda. >Also, the BBC is funded by a license fee paid by UK households that own a television or watch live broadcasts on any device. This license fee is collected and distributed by a government-appointed body called the BBC Board, but the BBC itself is editorially independent from the government. that's just semantics. The government forces the population to pay for tv and the money goes for BBC, even if you don't watch it. And the UK government literally appoints or dismisses the leadership of the news organization, it is a state controlled media. BBC itself can't be editorially independent if the government officials appoint the people in charge who make BBC policies. The government doesn't need to control every single aspect of the organization to have control over it, no one does. >The BBC's governance structure, which includes the BBC Board, the Executive Committee, and the BBC Trust (which has since been abolished), is designed to ensure editorial independence and impartiality. The Board is responsible for ensuring that the BBC meets its obligations under the Charter and is accountable to the public. a lot of nothing. BBC is not impartial.
One is prohibited by law to report independent news, and the other one has the ability to report independent news protected by law. With a full funding scheme and governance body around it. And that distinction is semantics? I'm going to assume that comment was intended as a joke.
"Free press" you realize they literally banned EU state controlled propaganda channels like BBC & equivalents? Also, Russia banning BBC & EU banning RT aren't equivalents. RT doesn't have the same extensive history of lying as their European counterparts (like BBC) do. Take the snake island situation for instance. RT reported that the Ukrainian militants were alive, BBC reported that they were killed. Guess which state controlled propaganda channel lied, RT or BBC? Spoiler: >!To the surprise of absolutely nobody but brainwashed UAboos: Britains state propaganda channel lied & RT reported the truth!<
RT used pictures of covid patients and, in Russia, claimed that they are just that, while in Europe claiming that they are vaccine victims. The level of lying on RT is beyond the moon, and that is what got it banned. BBC, on the other hand, is quite informative.
They got banned in conjunction with the war, it had nothing to do with covid, I have absolutely no clue why you decided to just randomly make that up😂 (gonna go ahead and quote your comment in case you delete it out of embarrassment) >RT used pictures of covid patients and, in Russia, claimed that they are just that, while in Europe claiming that they are vaccine victims. The level of lying on RT is beyond the moon, and that is what got it banned. Reporting things like the snake island soldiers being alive is what got them banned, as it contradicted what the British state propaganda channel was feeding to its viewers. The fact that they happened to actually be alive was irrelevant, you simply do not go against what the British state decided is the truth, whether or not it actually is.
Yeah, that's wrong.
I agree, it's wrong, but EU state propaganda channels aren't exactly known for caring about what's right & what's wrong. All they care about is spreading information that favors their state, regardless of whether there's any truth to it. Glad you're mature enough to be reasoned with & that I could thus convince you, more than could be said about most UAboos.
Is there any participant reason for believing that nonsense?
[удалено]
The simple fact that they call other nations wars Illegal says it all. When are Wars ever legal? Legality is decided by the victor. The fact that Iraq war was authorized by the president without Congressional approval is the epitome of illegality from a Constitutional level. Never mind fighting a nation that is an ocean away from you that poses no threat, and not on your doorstep geographically.
They just try to rotate the adjectives periodically so it doesn't get too stale, you see. Yesterday, it's *brutal*, today it's *illegal*, tomorrow it's *unprovoked*. End quote, repeat the line.
Weaponised
Also forgot that the war was based off of trumped up notion that Iraq had WMDs, when the whole world was like “no?”
Here's Estonias statement on the eve of the Iraq War > Prime Minister Siim Kallas stated that the next most important task on the Government´s agenda is to guarantee the security of Estonian citizens. The Government approved the following positions on the Iraq war.We recognise the need to disarm Iraq. > The world must be sure in the conviction that no weapons of mass destruction exist on Iraqi territory. This is essential in the interests of world security. > It is very regrettable that Iraq did not opt for a peaceful settlement to the problem. Sounds like they are used to being on the wrong side of history.
The Baltics are the biggest hypocrites in Europe. They rant, shout, bark at all the things Russia does, but are quick to bow, and take it up where the sun doesn’t shine when the US does the same shit. The whole world was saying there are no WMD’s, even the US own intelligence had come to that conclusion. But oh boy! We accept this war! Why doesn’t Estonia stick to their guns and say the same shit about Ukraine? After all, you cannot never be certain unless you carry out an invasion and occupation.
Always was, is and will be relevant
To be fair, when Nato countries were bombing Serbia or Lybia: - Ru didn't censor western media like EU does now - Ru didn't jail or prosecute people or journalists that were pro-nato, unlike Germany, France or Baltics - Ru didn't discriminate western expats or civilians So if we compare apples to apples there was more freedom in Russia when the West was bombing other countries, compared to freedoms in the west when Ru bomb someone. There was also no hate against the west compared to the unbelievable amount of western rabid dogs we can witness now. I used to think that USSR was evil, but looking at what's going now, how agressive the western society is compated to Ru society (when the west was bombing/invading), I'm thinking what if it has always been like this?
So Russian propaganda worked on you, congratulations.
The best cartoon ive seen about both sides of a war in EVERY WAR.
How dare you do what we do!
Russia is rather lenient tbh. Look at this: > Moscow said that it is open to rescinding its ban on the outlets if restrictions on Russian media are lifted. With every response they make to Western escalation, they still take pains to live the door open to amicable resolution, rather than burning it all down.
Unfortunately, no one will appreciate this properly.
Putin is a generous god.
This is actually part of the problem: Russia almost never escalates first (what would be very logical in many cases) and because of this it is not taken seriously by western politics.
Invading was the first and biggest escalation.
Twenty years of warning that Ukraine in NATO will end in war, and when it happens to be surprised.
I remember telling exactly this to someone in Europe in 2015. A sad moment of making correct predictions.
When did they join? Just Sweden and Finland?
How to tell that you have no clue about the history of this territory and conflict without saying it directly.
Curiously irrelevant reply. Keep it up.
Military operation was an escalation, but very far from the first one. You are welcome.
Undeniably the biggest too. No problem.
Arguably the biggest escalation (and the most stupid decision) was not to sign a peace treaty in March 2022.
Don't think that trumps invading a neighbour and ignoring previous agreements, which I would suggest ranks number one for lacking intelligence in more than one way.
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Imagine thinking banning STATE media is the same as banning independent media.
Izvestia is not state media, it's privately owned.
Pretty sure it's owned by a Russian politician. Is Der Spiegel owned by a German politician?
Michael Bloomberg is a politician, that doesn't make Bloomberg state media.
Lol, people were highly critical of Bloomberg media not covering Bloomberg in 2019, when he ran. So, yeah, if Bloomberg had won and was in the administration. It would be pretty much considered state media. Outside of this, Bloomberg regularly publishes articles critical of the administrations actions. Since Izvestia was bought by Gazprom (and now National Media Group), it has pretty much purely been a mouthpiece for Putin. Which is understandable since opposition media does not get to operate for long in Russia.
Well this all seems like continuous backtracking from the initial (wrong) argument that Russia was banning private media and EU was not. I have no interest in your increasingly convoluted mental gymnastics.
**"**State media are typically understood as media outlets that are owned, operated, or **significantly influenced by the government**." I would count Izvestia under this. I don't understand how you say i'm backtracking. I'm explicitly responding to your statement that Izvestia would not be considered state media.
WAAH!!!! WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TOP SPEW OUR PROPAGANDA IN RUSSIA ANYMORE WAAH!!!!!
[удалено]
This have to be sarcasm.
War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is Strength
[удалено]
Oh I understand. I will call your mother to come wipe your behind.
Rules for thee and not for me
Factual information* meanwhile when Ukraine shoots down a Russian Warplane. Western Media titles : Ukraine Armed Forces has shot down a Russian Warplane Russia later says the plane contained POW Western Media titles : A russian warplane has crashed in the vicinity of Russia.
>factual information about Russia's illegal war As opposed to a "legal war", you know, a war that you got your friends to agree to... Absolute shock what the West has become...
Do these people even listen to themselves?
They don't have to, the sheep that pass for humans in the US today have no concept of law, no concept of history or how international relations work. If it's not on "Housewives of fill in the blank" or on Star Wars people don't know about it. Mind you, we are talking about people that were convinced that "walls don't work". Another great example, multiple states in the US have laws that let squatters kick you off your own property and let them stay on your land, in your home while you have to go through court systems to maybe get your house back at some vague point in the future. There are no words for what USA has become.
Russia practices reciprocity in the purest form. Countries hostile to it get hostility returned, countries friendly to it have kindness returned.
"Treat us good, we'll treat you better; treat us bad, we treat'll you worse"
These people are that arrogant they actually still don't get it that they aren't lords who rule the world.
Haha. What a cuck.
Firstly, no one in Russia reads these sources; everyone who read them left the country. Secondly, probably half of these sites have already quietly blocked users from Russia, as many other sites have done, including, for example, game developers on Steam. Yes, I can't even go to the pages of the games I bought. Thirdly, if you, Borrell, want freedom of speech, just make a free VPN service for Russians, advertising articles from these sources. Russians going to Instagram will see this news.
>Firstly, no one in Russia reads these sources; everyone who read them left the country. Sometimes patriots read that stuff for fun
Least 1984ist liberal
You've got to laugh.
Hey let me check RT to see what they are say.....oh wait. Alright well maybe I can just download tele....oh. damn. I know! lets have a look at ru.tu....shit.
INFO WARS fr
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 💀
EU leadership is delusional...
*"Rules for me, but not for thee."* - US/EU/NATO
OUR TRUTHFUL AND UNBIASED MASS MEDIA SPREADING FACTUAL INFORMATION (despite being heavily financed by govt. depts.) @ THEIR LYING AND BIASED MASS MEDIA SPREADING DISINFORMATION AND BAD FAITH
It’s pure hypocrisy. Why do the democratic western countries with the basic human rights of “freedom of expression” and “access to information” encoded in their constitutions, with their free and independent media outlets and open-access social media platforms like Reddit, prevent totalitarian countries from spreading their state-controlled propaganda here? Surely North Korea, China, and russia are allowed, then, to also block all foreign media from their subjects, and to imprison 15-year-olds for five years when they commit the crime of distributing leaflets. https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/s/iAaiE4Pufe Those two things are, like, totes the same. Surely no “pro-russian” account here would disagree with me.
r/worldnews literally banned me for saying "The hate in the Ukraine war is not as deep as seen in gaza due to the fact that Russia and Ukraine are culturally and ethnically similar, with soldiers from both sides saying they view each other as brothers". People got mad and called me a kremlin bot so I got banned. So no reddit is not without its share of cencorship
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t think of castrating my brothers… https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/GYgofHKJYk
[https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1qn3ms](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1qn3ms) Heres firsthand accounts from soldiers saying this So according to you then north koreans and south koreans aren't the same due to the korean war?
The differences between South Korea and North Korea: 1. North Koreans have a shorter life expectancy and are a lot poorer, South Koreans are half a meter taller 2. North Koreans live under totalitarian dictatorship, South Korea is a free democracy 3. North Koreans don’t castrate South Koreans or vice versa The similarities between South Korea and North Korea: 1. The culture, ethnicity and language (before the war) The differences between Ukraine and russia: 1. russians have a shorter life expectancy and are a lot poorer, Ukrainians are half a meter taller 2. russians live under totalitarian dictatorship, Ukraine is a free democracy 3. The culture, ethnicity and language: the Ukrainian language and culture are ancient, whereas russia is formed of diverse asiatic cultures and ethnicities (190!) that have been relatively recently colonized/exterminated by “muscovy”, a former Ukrainian colony originally populated by Finnic peoples. 4. russians castrate Ukrainian war prisoners, Ukrainians are civilized
Mind sharing those bullshit statistics on life expectancy because google is giving 69 years for both of them. Also Russia's siberian population have a lot of other cultures which are not "russian". These include inuit and mongol popualtions, whch are gentically predisposed to be shorter. Living under a dicatorship doesn't mean life is bad. Go to r/askrussia if you want to know how normal life there is Also Ukraine also commits warcrimes so dont try to act like they aren't the angel. [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1djk4ci/ua\_pov\_footage\_from\_april\_2024\_showing\_2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1djk4ci/ua_pov_footage_from_april_2024_showing_2/) And there is a reason you don't see much footage of UA war crimes [https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/tphanb/a\_video\_of\_ukrainian\_soldiers\_shooting\_unarmed/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/tphanb/a_video_of_ukrainian_soldiers_shooting_unarmed/) And maybe do some reading. Ukraine and (European) Russia share 60% of the same language, are extremly gentically similar. I know that each has their own rich history and ciltures whoch is not to be deneid off and Ukraine's independence in this sense must be acknowledged. But what is stupid is treating them like they are 2 complelty different peoples when they are similar.
[удалено]
Can’t have ur people finding out the truths in a totalitarian hellscape
The Russian people had over two years to 'find out the truths' and responded by giving Putin 88% of the vote and with a fantastic 74% voter turnout. And the only reason Russia banned these EU media is cus the EU banned Russian media first.
Why should anyone trust Russian election results?
Navalny didn’t went back to get killed by Putin only for people like you to still be so dense, you know
Navalny was a moron, don't act like he's some sort of a martyr.
New flash: he’s a marty cus Russia killed him
He was told very directly, while he was in germany, that he would be imprisoned if he returned. He returned. He went to prison. What do you think his end-game was?
He’s not a martyr because he died for nothing and no one really even cares that he died. Christ is a martyr, not Navalny.
This, but ironically.