DISINFO: Ukraine and Baltics use restrictions against Russian media for the achievement of geopolitical goals against Russia
SUMMARY
Three leading TV channels were closed in Ukraine. It shows the double-standards of freedom of speech in Ukraine.
<…>
One more example – the situation in the Baltics. In one shot, Latvia killed 16 of our (Russian) media. Where is the evaluation of the situation of freedom of speech in Europe from the side of Western truth-seekers? There is silence.
<…>
All these examples show that it (restriction of Russian media) is the tool for the achievement of geopolitical goals against Russia.
RESPONSE
A recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about discrimination against Russian language media in the Baltic States and Ukraine. The West are also accused of double-standards and violating freedom of speech.
Ukraine's decision to close three TV channels is linked to the implementation of personal sanctions against Taras Kozak. Economic and other restrictive measures were applied against the TV channels that he owns such as 112 Ukraine, ZIK and NewsOne after the decision of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine. As stressed by Ukrainian President, Volodimir Zelenskyy, these channels were the source of disinformation and “earned money on the war”.
The decision to implement sanctions on Taras Kozak and his TV channels was supported by Ukrainian NGOs Countering Disinformation. In a joint statement, they stressed that these channels were tools of foreign influence operations, and were a systemic threat to the information security of Ukraine.
Latvia also decided to suspend 16 Russian TV channels due to clear circumstances. On 9 February 2021, Latvia's broadcast regulator, the National Electronic Mass Media Council (NEPLP) removed 16 programmes from the list that can be retransmitted into Latvia. These programmes are all produced in and rebroadcast from Russia, most of them classed as entertainment. NEPLP found that as of 1 February, the audiovisual service provider legally authorised to distribute these programmes can no longer be identified. The entity formerly bearing the legal right to distribute and retransmit the TV programmes no longer holds that right. The potential new distributor has so far been incapable of showing documentation that proves that it has the legal right to act in that capacity. If a new distributor acquires and can document the distribution rights to these programmes, it can apply for new licenses.
See similar cases claiming that the Baltic states continuously obstruct the work of the Russian media or Ukraine and Latvia clear their educational space from the Russian language.
As for the claim on the pressure on Russian media in Western countries and limited freedom of speech, read a further debunk here.