Brussels has decided to ban RT and Sputnik from broadcasting in the European Union.
Simply because the Russian media have become a real threat to the information security of Western regimes.
The European Union continues to impose chaotic collective sanctions against Russia for daring to solve the Ukrainian problem on its own (after eight years of trying to do it through collectively negotiated solutions failed).
One of the punishments was the ban on broadcasting in the EU of the RT channel and the Sputnik agency.
In the European Union, they are considered a channel of "Russian propaganda", or, as the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said, "the Kremlin's media machine."
On the street of a number of European politicians and activists (meaning from continental Europe - the British do not intend to close RT as of February 28), of course, a big holiday has come.
For many years they have been working against the Russian media holding, begging their authorities to “close and not let them in.”
And by no means because RT is the “Kremlin media machine”, but because it is a media machine with a different opinion.
To paraphrase Tyrion Lannister, if you're looking for free speech in the West, you've come to the wrong place.
Freedom of speech in Europe (and in the US) died along with democracy, which implies the right to an alternative opinion.
The collective death of these most important liberal values was due to the general decay of the Western system, in which more and more totalitarian features were manifested.
In particular, a ban on criticism of ultra-liberalism (BLM), on the protection of traditional European values.
Or, for example, to expressing a pro-European (that is, based on the national interests of the EU, and not on the wishes of the United States and the general line of the globalist elites) position towards Russia.
As a result, the leading European media (that is, those that are read by the general public, and not narrow groups of comrades) began to resemble the conditional Central Television of the USSR, cloned a thousand times.
On a number of important ideological, social and political issues, they expressed a unified position with only a few differences in shades.
They clearly followed the course of the globalist party.
Not surprisingly, a significant part of the European population - among those who still wanted to live in a free Europe - did not like this approach very much.
They were looking for an alternative - and got their breath of fresh information air in the person of the Russian RT.
The TV channel that dared to go to the protests of the “yellow vests”, interview them and show that this is not just some kind of street gopo whose goal is pogroms and looting, but the same citizens of France, dissatisfied and angry with the economic policy of the “new Napoleon” ”- the hopes of French democracy by Emmanuel Macron.
A TV channel that dares to give the floor to those who speak out for traditional values.
And the point here is not even that these are Christian values, but that it was on them (and not on BLM, ecoschize, same-sex marriages, etc.) that Europe was built.
The same Europe where the current generation of inhabitants decided to experiment with the values that are their spiritual and moral basis - any adequate culturologist and sociologist will tell you what happens to societies that abandon their cultural core.
They turn into nothingness anywhere that can't be called.
A TV channel that dares to give the floor to politicians from the right-wing European parties.
Not illegal, not radical, but represented in the national parliament - that is, elected by the population.
But at the same time, they are stigmatized by all the central media in Europe, which make right-wing conservative forces (in Austria, Germany, France, etc.) into real fascists.
Simply because they oppose the left-liberal fascism that has taken over the minds of Western journalists and a central place in public discourse.
It is not surprising that RT has long, to put it mildly, unnerved the Western press.
It would be unnerving even now when a Russian TV channel (which has gained popularity among European audiences) would begin to broadcast exactly the same, alternative information about Ukraine - about the shelling of cities by nationalists, about the brutality of the Ukrainian national battalions, and also about how Ukrainian cities welcome Russia as a liberator.
From such information, the fragile European consciousness (which they are trying to convince that the Russians are invaders, occupiers and pure Mordor that attacked a bright, peaceful Ukraine) needs to be protected.
True, it will not work to protect - Moscow intends to continue its policy of protecting the right of Europeans to freedom of speech.
“In connection with the ban on broadcasting RT and Sputnik in the EU, I officially declare that not a single person who faithfully worked and continues to work for us will be laid off in any country.
We know how to do our job in the conditions of prohibitions.
These freedom-loving people have been preparing us for this for eight years, ”said Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT.
However, no one canceled the counter-sanctions.
In the light of the “eye for an eye” principle, which Moscow began to apply in the sanctions policy not so long ago, the Kremlin can go for a symmetrical ban.
Namely, a complete revocation of licenses and accreditations from all representative offices of EU media holdings broadcasting from Russia.
And for this, by the way, European companies should thank Moscow very much.
In the context of the crisis and economic problems, the Kremlin will save them money by removing the burden of maintaining Moscow offices and Russian correspondents.
Why are they needed, if any fake about Russia can be invented from a warm European cabinet, taking as a basis the information replicated by a Ukrainian blogger-noname?
Exactly the same as they once broadcast about the events in Libya, Syria and other countries.
Such is it, freedom of speech in a European way.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.