An occupational hazard of suggesting that the US, NATO or Ukraine’s own government did things that made Russia’s invasion of Ukraine more likely is that you will be accused of being a “Putin apologist” or “stooge of the Kremlin”.
This is clearly an attempt to win the argument through name-calling (like claiming it’s “racist” to criticise Black Lives Matter). But that hasn’t stopped it becoming a standard debating tactic. Of course, there may be commentators who genuinely support Putin, in which case “Putin apologist” would be an accurate descriptor. But most do not.
The latest example of the ‘compare your opponent to Putin’ tactic is a list of individuals who “promote narratives consonant with Russian propaganda”, compiled by the Ukraine Government’s “Centre for Countering Disinformation”.
This has been described as a “blacklist” by some critics, although so far as I’m aware, it does not call for any sanctions against the individuals listed. It really is just name-calling. Specific quotes written in Ukrainian are listed next to each speaker, but no refutations or counter-arguments are provided.
So who’s included on the list? Although I didn’t recognise most of the names, some were familiar to me: Eric Zemmour, Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul, Steve Hanke, Jeffrey Sachs, Glenn Greenwald, John Mearsheimer, and a few others.
Of course, “promoting narratives consonant with Russian propaganda” isn’t necessarily name-calling, since some aspects of Russian propaganda might be true, and most of us want to “promote narratives” that are consonant with the truth. But it’s pretty obvious this isn’t what the compilers of the list hand in mind.
One name is notable by its absence: Pope Francis. He is about as prominent an individual as you get, and has claimed – not once but twice – that NATO may have “provoked” Russia’s invasion. When asked to clarify his remarks, the Pope explained that he is “against reducing complexity to the distinction between good guys and bad guys, without reasoning about roots and interests”.
Pope Francis was presumably left off the list for PR reasons (even though his view seems to be roughly the same as John Mearsheimer’s). There are a lot of Catholics in the countries supporting Ukraine, and they probably wouldn’t appreciate the head of their religion being accused of spreading Russian propaganda.
I can understand why Ukraine’s Government compiled the list. They’re trying to win a war, and they believe (with some justification) that the individuals included on the list make that more difficult. However, the move seems likely to backfire, as it will be seen – even by those who fully support Ukraine – as an attack on the free press.
“The Ukrainians have the absolute right to pursue whatever war policies they want,” wrote Glenn Greenwald (who did not appreciate having been included). “But when they start demanding that my country and my government use its resources to fuel their war effort, then I, along with other Americans, have the absolute right to question that policy or to point out its dangers or risks.”
Rather than compiling a list of supposed Russian propagandists, uploading a document that refutes their arguments would have been far more productive. I, and I suspect many others, would be genuinely interested to read that.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I hate change and I hate illogicality (probably on the spectrum). That only makes me wish to get back more urgently, staying where we are now is disgusting to me, and that’s saying something, I was mostly miserable before 2019.
Yeah me too. I see revolt, even with armed methods, as logical and justified because of the complete abuse of power and complete ineffectiveness of the measures. If the UK had 1000 deaths per million or less, maybe it would have been kinda worth the year spent under house arrest. But it wasn’t, and the collateral damage only adds to the sheer toll that has been taken. I would never want anyone to have this kind of power over me ever again.
Thanks Dan, I’ve always liked what you have to say. You ask
‘why am I saying this (about lockdowns being disproportionate) now ?’
I don’t know Dan but, apart from the vaccine issue, we’ve known that for the past twelve months.
Well, not to split hairs (ooops – I suppose I am) thirteen months now and, very sadly, counting.
We’re still in lockdown because our leaders are a combination of incompetent and wicked, exact proportions of each debatable.
People tolerate it because of the unprecedented, unopposed global propganda effort, and because fear is a powerful motivator, and because of sunk cost fallacy.
Yes – there a lot of syndromes going into this. But, for sure, the fundamentals are not getting better.
We’re still in lockdown because of an Agenda.
“Are We Being Kept in Partial Lockdown by Status Quo Bias?”
No. We’re being kept in partial lockdown because there is now a huge global industry dependent on lockdown, masks, distancing, vaccines, testing and fear remaining in the longer term. An industry which has deep pockets and is financing the media to keep the fear going.
That too.
It’s a cross between political ideology and financial gain for a very few people.
Yup, plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
Economic melt down, Masks, tests, PPE and fear all advantages for China.
Not just China, though they are arguably benefitting the most as a country. Look at who the partners of the WEF are and you will see they benefit too, which includes a lot of companies and organisations based in the UK, USA, Canada and Germany, to name a few others.
Perhaps we’re still in lockdown because this is meant to be the new normal, and will “help with climate change” and the destruction of Western capitalism and a new socialist one world order so favoured by political leaders across the world.
We might be allowed a few summer months to enjoy ourselves and be grateful for it, before another winter of restrictions.
Boris said early last year, as lockdown was first imposed, that there’d be no return to normal, and there’ll be a new normal instead. Everyone should have taken notice of that.
Isn’t it interesting that the people who seem to shout the loudest about climate change are the biggest personal users of resources. Just take our own Boris – 6 or more children, then bill gates with 3 or more children and jets and yachts I think. Is it just for the poor to stop having children and cut back on their meagre homes and cars?
You forgot Al Gore, the biggest hypocrite of all, who has made billions from the scam, owns several massive properties and travels the world in private jets.
I certainly picked up on Boris’s warning pronouncement, along with him quoting phrases out of Klaus Schwab’s publications and wearing a WEF lapel badge at one of the coronavirus briefing sessions.
Klaus’s Agenda.
Long felt they are trying to transfer this to so called “climate change”.
Anybody who has become comfortable with the present status quo is insane.
And guilty of supporting and complicity in crimes against humanity.
That is the majority it seems.
Yes – the saddest exposure about humans that has come to light in my lifetime.
To be precise – it’s induced mass psychosis.Only relative ‘comfort’ – a retreat from fear.
It’s quite scary to think there are actually people out there who are not only evnjoying every minute of this insanity but would be quite happy for this madness to carry on indefinitely – I’m convinced that there are some who would actually welcome curfews and even more restrictions than before … .
Hannan :
“To say “just another couple of weeks” is much easier if you are a government official at home on full pay”
… or saying anything as a privileged establishment journo-politician on the Lords gravy train?
Cynic, you are as bad as me!
It’s not about a virus. It’s about a bunch of amoral war criminals controlling your life
A young man in my village who doesn’t bother to work and has hair down to his waist, last March in the very early days told me “there is no virus, this is about the economy”. I often think about that.
To answer the question at the top of the article: we are being kept in lockdown because certain influential members of SAGE want to continue with it and the government is happy to oblige. The BBC’s attempt to portray Johnson as a lockdown sceptic is truly laughable.
Leave Francis Rossi out of it please.
The Status Quo is probably better than the WHO