Resistance to curbing war criminal propaganda means supporting it

At the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, the National Electronic Mass Media Council (NEPLP) became active, first restricting the broadcasting of various Russian television channels in Latvia, and soon afterwards restricting access to internet resources.

The Russian sociological research data just published by Radio Svoboda is staggering: 71% of the Russian population feels pride (!) at the invasion of Ukraine. One may question the objectivity of the particular study and the figures quoted, but independent sociologists (Grigory Yudin, Levada Center) do not dispute the general mood - the majority supports the war, supports Putin. From the outside, this may seem incomprehensible - how can people take pride in the atrocities of war - but the reality is that these people not only know nothing about these crimes, but in general see a completely distorted picture of what is going on. Propaganda tells them 24/7 that the Russian army in Ukraine is engaged in charity work and is saving the desperate people there from the dangers of the "Nazis".

It must be said that the influence of Russian propaganda on public opinion cannot be underestimated. Unfortunately, not only in Russia. It is also true elsewhere in Europe, but especially in Latvia, where the number of consumers of this propaganda is particularly large. As the poll conducted by SKDS on behalf of the LTV program "Kas notiek Latvijā?", only 22% of Latvians who speak Russian at home support Ukraine in this war. A large part supports Russia's criminal activities, but most do not want to reveal their opinion to interviewers. Everyone can work out for themselves why and what they actually support.

This means that in Latvia, too, the influence of Russian propaganda has been enormous so far. The NEPLP's steps are not only necessary. They are overdue. But while the NEPLP's decision to close down Russian propaganda TV channels was quite unanimously supported, the restriction of Internet resources provoked a backlash from some useful Kremlin idiots, from various left-leaning organizations. One of the most active fighters against "censorship" was Nellija Ločmele, editor-in-chief of the alt-left publication "Ir". She was joined by the entire left-wing sorosist gang, along with mouthpiece "Re:Baltica" that was just recently broadcasting narratives of the Kremlin's propaganda.

If anyone wants to say at this point - oh, Bens, why are you throwing around loud words like that? Couldn't the same thing be said more correctly without offending anyone? So here's my reply - we are currently in a state of war. If not in the hot phase of the war, then in the cold, ideological phase of this war. With misunderstood decency, we have already lived to see what is happening in Daugavpils with the Ukrainian flag in front of the music school named after Staņislavs Broks. It is time to call a spade a spade. The existence of a large 5th column is a direct consequence of the fact that these Russian propaganda channels were not shut down long ago, even though there was every opportunity to do so.

For eight years, the daily stream of the Russian federal TV channels has been leaking a never-ending stream of military fumes and has continued to poison the minds of the Latvian population. The fact that this informational poisoning of our people was not stopped rests largely on the consciences of those who are now protesting against the closure of Russian Internet resources.

On April 20, 2018, there were four of us - Ilga Kreituse, Ivo Leitāns, Ivo Butkēvičs and myself - in the studio of Aidis Tomsons for the Latvian Radio program "Krustpunktā". One of the issues discussed was the restriction of Russian TV channels in Latvia. Of all the people in the studio, I was the only one who strongly argued that Russian propaganda channels should be restricted as much as possible, because the harm they do is incomparable to the harm that would be caused by restrictions on the conditional "freedom of expression".

Fellow journalists took a semi-neutral position, but Kreituse actively defended Russian propaganda channels, repeating the usual mantras that it was censorship; that it should be opposed with arguments, not bans; that it would do nothing, because anyone who wanted could watch Solovyov in some other way, etc. When Kreituse ran out of arguments, she resorted to the "last resort" (Victor Hugo, "The Man Who Laughs") - she accused me of speaking like this "on behalf of Lembergs". After all, Lembergs has always argued vigorously for the closure of Russian channels. I'm sad about those students who are taught by a lecturer with that level of "logic" and reasoning skills.

More than once I have been accused of exaggerating, not being sufficiently composed or even of sowing panic. I have to say that the Russian invasion of Ukraine did not surprise me at all and I have been writing about its high probability for a long time. I was more astonished by the statements made by supposedly sensible people that Putin was utterly out of his mind; he is crazy; how can he lie like that, etc.

Putin has always been like this for at least the last eight years, saying exactly what he is saying now. The problem has been that many people did not want to hear what he was saying, and they backed away from it, saying that he was only saying it to his own foolish electorate. He is not such a fool himself. So it is not worth paying attention to. That was the vision of the mainstream. Those who called for Putin's rhetoric not to be underestimated earned a reputation as hysterics and paranoiacs. Not only in the West but also here. Unfortunately, this lulling mainstream rhetoric continues. Until the next surprises - oh, how can you do something like that?

One can look for lice in the NEPLP's fur and find clumsy justifications for these bans. You can look for legal inaccuracies or controversial arguments, but as long as Putin sits in the Kremlin or in a bunker underground somewhere, the world is at risk. As long as the world is facing such a threat, any counteraction to the restrictions on the aggressors' propaganda tools must be seen as support for that propaganda. That is why the whining of Nellija Ločmele and the rest of the left-wing sorosist people about restrictions on "freedom of expression" should be seen as support for the propaganda of a war criminal.

Once the Putin regime has been defeated and destroyed, at that very moment we will be able to talk again about restoring full freedom of expression. In the meantime, while this has not yet been done and the war continues, the enemy's propaganda cannons must be silenced by all means possible.

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.