Ukraine Compiles List of Supposed Russian Propagandists

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.

Subscribe
Notify of

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.

36 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DomH75
3 years ago

I’d say being put on that list is a badge of honour!

Rich_Smith
Rich_Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  DomH75

I read that there is a Ukrainian death list. you wouldn’t want to appear on it I guess. Prior to Feb 2022 Ukraine was famous for politicians and journalists murders and come Feb 2022 the country is the beacon of democracy and free speech.

Rich_Smith
Rich_Smith
3 years ago

It feels strange that one should apologize and prove that one’s not a putin’s fun when simply questioning the official line of constant confrontation and escalation. Doubly strange that we, the west, don’t actually want to fight ourselves and risk our own lives, sending Ukrainians instead.
We must fight for democracy and freedom of speech on the side of the country where no other opinion is allowed other than official propaganda. Where opposition parties, TV channels were closed for not agreeing with the main narrative long before Feb 2022.
This is seriously screwed and I wonder how many people still think otherwise.

Rowan
Rowan
3 years ago

Of course, there may be commentators who genuinely support Putin, in which case “Putin apologist” would be an accurate descriptor. 

The logic here is faulty.

A Y M
3 years ago
Reply to  Rowan

Yep. If you support Putin, by definition, you aren’t apologising for him.
I caught that too,

TheGreenAcres
3 years ago

When Russia does it:
Vlad is mad/bad/sad

When Ukraine does it:
Big Z is stunning and brave

A Y M
3 years ago

Noah, you can put me down as a “Putin Apologist” then by your definition.

I want Putin to win;

I want it to be as painless as possible but I don’t want a globalist, bunch of Neo Nazi-run militarists thinking it’s ok to bomb people for eight years, treat people like second class citizens, ban their language, political parties and countenance the burning of people in buildings to terrorise them.

Actually I don’t feel any need to apologise at all.
War sucks but sometimes one side is forced into it due to the others behaviour.
“Our” side are not the good guys.
More than enough lying propaganda to realise this is another operation of the globalists.

NeilParkin
3 years ago
Reply to  A Y M

I agree. In this battle between Good vs. Evil, I have serious doubts that we are the good guys.

Sforzesca
Sforzesca
3 years ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

I’ve absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Look at the list of “democratisation” since the end of WW 2.
” America is the Great Satan”. I wonder who said that…..
And what happened to him/them. The list is almost endless.

DomH75
3 years ago
Reply to  Sforzesca

IIRC, it was Ayatollah Khomeini who said that. He was a pretty good imitator of Satan himself!

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

This is not a battle between good and evil but one about control of territory in eastern Ukraine (for now). According to its own propaganda targetted at citizens of various interesting neutral countries[*], each side claims to be the good guys and that the others would be the bad guys. But it’s really childish to frame a power struggle in religious terms of this kind. Gott ist immer auf der Seite der stärksten Bataillone (German saying, God is always on the side of those who have the strongest bataillons).

[*] A neutral country is one not actively participating in the war effort. Eg, the USA was neutral in the first world war until 1917 despite it was manufacturing lots and lots of artillery shells for sale to the Entente powers which frequently wouldn’t explode due to the low quality of their manufacturing

DomH75
3 years ago
Reply to  A Y M

Yes, I’m with you on this. Had Russia been left to annex Ukraine and ‘de-Nazi-fy’ it, without the West interfering, the death toll would have been vastly smaller and many cities would still be standing. I stand for Western values, but the politicians and institutions who run the West don’t anymore. If you have to go to war to fight for your country now, what are you fighting for? For BlackRock to tell your PM what to do? For Klaus Schwab to email his contacts in the Treasury and tell them to hold back the economy? For George Soros to fund left-wing lawmen and trash the democratic system? For Confucius Institutes to steal your your innovations and smuggle them over to China? For Nudge Units to scare people into acting against their beliefs and instincts? To come home from war and discover the football-mad son you left behind is now an eco-activist who wears make-up and calls himself ‘Susan’? Although I consider the recent all-out invasion of Ukraine a tactical error, I have far more respect for Russia and its people than the people running the West. Trouble is, it’s all of us ordinary people who get caught in the… Read more »

RW
RW
3 years ago

Promoting narratives consonant with Russian propaganda isn’t name calling at all. It’s a statement of fact which may or may not be true.

Greenwald’s statement is a pretty bizarre non-sequitur. The Ukrainian government has the power to try to enact whichever policies it wants to enact, regardless of rights Glenn Greenwald feels like graciously granting to it despite said government certainly never asked him for this favour. Due to the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, he has the right to publish whatever he wants about policies of the Ukrainian government, whatever these happen to be.

A Y M
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

I think the idea that the West is protecting some bastion of democracy and civility is the basis for Greenwald’s criticism of Ukrainian authoritarian activities.

BTW, I think you mean the First Amendment, unless you think Greenwald’s right to bear arms empowers him to publish critiques of Ukrainian regime policies.

Which maybe true one day if the Second Amendment will be required to defend the First…

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  A Y M

Thanks for the correction with the amendment numbers. But the rest of my statements stands. Greenwald is not making any sense because he’s free to criticize whatever the Ukrainian government happens to do regardless of what that happens to be.

oblong
3 years ago

This will back fire.

stewart
3 years ago

The government of the Ukraine, the corrupt government of one of the most corrupt countries in the world, has made a list of propagandists.

A couple of years back that would have been treated as a complete joke.

If it isn’t anymore, it will only reinforce how crazy the world has become.

DomH75
3 years ago
Reply to  stewart

It’s scary: at this rate, it’ll become a hitlist and what will the West do then? Blame Putin?

transmissionofflame
3 years ago

Off topic but ironic that the presenter in the TV debate between Sunak and Truss fainted so the show was scrapped from that point. Long covid? Heat emergency? Heart problems caused by an experimental, poorly tested medical procedure?

RW
RW
3 years ago

Toxic debate, presumably. 🙂

transmissionofflame
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

There was a lot of tutting about some earlier iteration, candidates being sharp with eachother, people saying it wasn’t a good look. From the country that pioneered the adversarial legal system designed to produce the best result. I don’t want all these bloody people to agree with each other and be nice all the time!

Sontol
Sontol
3 years ago

[continued from last post] D) NATO did not actively seek expansion into eastern Europe to get closer to and threaten the Russian Federation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a voluntary defensive alliance which any country can apply to join. After the collapse of the Soviet Union its formerly oppressed and now independent territories wished to avoid being reincorporated into a renewed Russian empire so eagerly signed up to NATO one by one. This self-protection process naturally accelerated when the Putin regime showed ever increasing tendencies towards military expansionism and imperialism (eg in Chechnya, Georgia, by annexing Crimea etc). The idea that invading Ukraine because it wished to join NATO is a valid justification is like saying that the Nazis had every right to attack Poland as soon as it sought to form a defensive pact with France and Britain. E) Further to the above the idea that NATO (with or without Ukraine) every represented a serious military threat to Russia (the largest country in the world with over 6000 nuclear weapons) is preposterous. And the Russian leadership proved that they did not believe their own propaganda over this by invading Ukraine, which though not a member was strongly aligned… Read more »

Sontol
Sontol
3 years ago
Reply to  Sontol

PS my two combined posts are in order when you use the ‘newest’ post button and in reverse with the ‘oldest’ one.

Sontol
Sontol
3 years ago

I am not in favour of personalising things like this, but in any case if those mentioned on the list do indeed endorse aspects of Russia’s excuses for invading Ukraine why on earth would they be anything other than proud to be recognised for this? My problem with Russia’s propaganda in this area is not who is making it or where, but rather that every major strand is a lie: A) President Yanukovich was not overthrown in a US engineered coup in 2014 but rather voted out of office by 328 to zero in the Ukrainian Parliament. This came after after he attempted to overturn a large democratic mandate for closer alignment with the EU / West and its liberal democratic traditions, and instead sought to draw Ukraine back into the increasingly totalitarian Russian orbit. Before Yanukovych’s removal from office he had also ordered the use of mass murderous force against at least initially entirely peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators. In other words in reality the 2014 events represented a failed Russian-backed anti-democratic coup. B) The post-2014 Kiev regime has not been engaging in a genocidal assault on the Russian population in Donbas, but rather resisting an uprising by pro-Russian separatists. The… Read more »

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  Sontol

What many people fail to realize[*] is that Russia Today (etc) are exactly as trustworthy as the New York Times, just under different political control.

[*] Presumably, they realize this all too well. They just suffer from inverse Bidenism, ie, whatever Biden supports is evil and must be opposed. Should the Russians invade Alaska, they would certainly patriotically argue that this is a far away country they know little of and one with strong historic ties to Russia. Hence, evil US invaders must immediately withdraw from its territory.

Sontol
Sontol
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

Good point, but I would go further. All independent media has been banned in Russia and I would argue that state mouthpieces such as Russia Today are far less trustworthy than the New York Times (or the Western ‘mainstream media’ in general). No direct or implicit criticism of Kremlin policy is permitted in Russia, indeed a journalist or reporter would face 15 years imprisonment for even mildly questioning the official narrative regarding the Ukraine invasion. I agree that a lot of the support for Russia’s current foreign policy in places like the UK and US stems from marxist-style ‘everything to do with the West is bad and therefore any opponents are inherently in the right’, but also the extreme-sceptic ‘we have been lied to by our governments and media over COVID-19 etc therefore we should assume that the opposite stance to their current one (in this case broad support for Ukraine versus Russia) is the correct one’. It is also the case that a lot of the pro-Russian propaganda I have come across probably stems from or is directed by inside that country (based on use of language, promotion of extreme Russian nationalism, the otherwise inexplicable vehemence of the support… Read more »

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  Sontol

I would argue that state mouthpieces such as Russia Today are far less trustworthy than the New York Times (or the Western ‘mainstream media’ in general). Prior to Corona, I would have agreed with that. But prior to Corona, I was paying the Guardian and assumed that the more unhinged editorialists were just somewhat amusing crackpots nobody really took seriously. But I’ve learned a few things since then. Insofar government policy is concerned, mainstream media independence just exists because the government tolerates it on grounds that it doesn’t really matter. When the government believes that it does matter, all larger news sources end up being gleichgeschaltet (synchronized, the so-called Gleichschaltung was the Nazi-term for bringing the governments of the German states under direct control of the government of the Reich) just as effectively as if the NSDAP had ordered that. Further, while the woke-crusade against everything-European is ridiculous, the people campaiging for this are deadly serious. They mean to eliminate our complete culture and history because – to them – it’s all evil and incorrigibly tainted and preferably, us as well for the same reason. And I absolutely don’t feel like being eliminated for committing the original sin of being… Read more »

br14a
br14a
3 years ago

The Pope said that NATO provoked the war because he was told this by an EU leader. According to one of his archbishops interviewed a few months ago.

If this is true the question is why NATO wanted war with Russia.

Sontol
Sontol
3 years ago
Reply to  br14a

“The Pope said that NATO provoked the war because he was told this by an EU leader.

The Pope thinks that the Putin regime was duped into invading Ukraine by NATO?

“According to one of his archbishops interviewed a few months ago.”

Which Archbishop? Source?

“If this is true the question is why NATO wanted war with Russia.”

No, the question is if NATO wanted a war with Russia is why one isn’t currently taking place.

Short of Pearl Harbour style simultaneous Russian attacks on the USA, UK and France it would be difficult to imagine NATO having a greater excuse than it has now to enter into a conflict with the Russian Federation (including the legal one of UN Article 51 re invasion of Ukraine).

A Y M
3 years ago
Reply to  Sontol

You are seriously deluded.

You think NATO should get involved in direct warfare over Ukraine.
WTF?! Do you want thermo nuclear conflict over a failed state?

Given your verbose exegesis of Western hasbara, either you are so blue pilled you can’t see the giant Jack in your cerebral cortex, or you are part of some MI6 disinformation gang (which you won’t admit but will very deftly attempt to reverse).

By the way, quantity does not equal quality big guy.

Sontol
Sontol
3 years ago
Reply to  A Y M

“You are seriously deluded. You think NATO should get involved in direct warfare over Ukraine.” I responded to the obviously false allegation that NATO wanted a war with the Russian Federation by pointing out that since 24 Feb 2022 it has had full legal justification to engage in one and refused to do so. At least in part because, in complete contrast to the Putin regime and its state media mouthpieces it does not wish to take steps that might lead to nuclear catastrophe. Obviously laying out this reality cannot possibly be interpreted as expressing a desire on my part to see NATO involvement. Looking at the whole issue from another perspective an impartial observer might perceive Russa’s recent actions as a determined effort to lure NATO into a conflict. My own opinion is that the last thing the bullying Putin government wishes to see is a war with such a formidable adversery, rather than the relatively small powers such as Ukraine (and Georgia etc) it prefers to pick on. It has been relying on NATO and the rest of the world adopting the moral high ground (ie avoiding as much carnage as possible) that it has so spectacularly vaccated.… Read more »

DomH75
3 years ago
Reply to  Sontol

You’re assuming any of your points are worthy of discussion. 😉 I accept that when I write something, it could be utterly ignored. Your points might be worthy, but copying and pasting an essay someone has given you doesn’t make it authoritative: it makes you look like a state plant and no one can be bothered with some Civil Service/77th Brigade type who will claim black is white and get run over at the next zebra crossing!
There’s plenty I could argue with here, but I have a job and I simply don’t have time to address state anti-Russian, pro-Nato propaganda.
People are here to chat. If you want to paste this length of words, send your post to Toby or to someone like Unherd as an article and see if they think it’s worth posting.

Sontol
Sontol
3 years ago
Reply to  DomH75

You’re assuming any of your points are worthy of discussion. I accept that when I write something, it could be utterly ignored. My challenge was directed not at those who had ignored my posts but rather had either down voted or issued criticisms of them without addressing any substantive points Including now yourself. Your points might be worthy, but copying and pasting a large script someone has given you doesn’t make it authoritative: it makes you look like a state plant and no one can be bothered with some Civil Service/77th Brigade type who will claim black is white and get run over at the next zebra crossing! The origins of factual allegations have absolutely no relevance to their validity, so again all we have is a complete avoidance of the issues coupled with some feeble and predictable attempted ad homs. I did enjoy the zebra crossing analogy if only because it involved some clever word play and was new to me (thought I had seen the whole pro-Kremlin propagandist tool box by now). People are here to chat. If you want to paste this length of words, send your post to Toby or to someone like Unherd as an article… Read more »

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  br14a

The more interesting questions is If Nato wanted war with Russia, why did Russia start a war by invading a country which is not a NATO member? Did someone nudge Putin into doing something he didn’t want to do?

RTSC
RTSC
3 years ago

Ukraine (USA/NATO) wants us to believe that the actions of one party involved in a conflict had, and have, absolutely no influence on the other party to the conflict.

So I guess every war in history has been a completely unprovoked attack by an aggressor nation against a country with which it had/has no relationship whatsoever.

Yeah, right.

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  RTSC

One of the more clownish recent German chancellors once claimed that invading Afghanistan would amount to defending Germany (and hence, that the supposedly defence-only Bundeswehr legally and rightfully participated in that). In a similar way, Putin wants you to believe that he’s just defending Russia against an international coalition which didn’t attack it by invading a country which doesn’t belong to it. At least sometimes. Sometimes, he’s also defending ethnic Russians in Ukraine from falling prey to the civil war they started. And yet some other times, he’s defending the world-at-a-large against evil Nazis. This is all just bovine manure made up for uninvolved people who like speculating about hidden motivations they (wrongly) believe to be more important than open actions. The reality is such that Putin’s motivations (we’ll never really know, anyway, because in the end, we have only his word for that) don’t matter. What matters is what Russian troops are doing. This would be trying to conquer some more formally Ukrainian territory with the likely intent to annex it or stabilize the already existing Russian satellite states in former eastern Ukraine. One can conjecture that the ultimate goal of this is to eliminate the country completely as… Read more »