In a time of war the state supresses rational discussion of the war. Russia is often criticised for not permitting any criticism of their special military operation in Ukraine. Technically, there is no law at all prohibiting rational discussion of Russian aims and actions in Ukraine, in Russia. That said, the combined effect of two laws, one making it a crime to spread “disinformation” and one making it a crime to denigrate the armed forces is that it is high-risk to criticise Russian aims and actions, in public. Still, at least this is open and there is no doubt about the problematics of openly discussing the war, especially if being critical of government policy, in Russia.
The situation in the UK is much more insidious. We ostensibly have free speech. Some people still believe that we do. So; when the only narrative that appears in the press is the one about “Russian aggression”, “Putin re-creating the USSR/Russian Empire”, “Russia about to invade Poland”, “there isn’t anyone in Eastern Ukraine who is pro-Russian, that is just Russian propaganda”, “just one more round of sanctions and arms deliveries and we will turn the corner”, “Putin is not really bothered about NATO in Ukraine”, and so on, they might be inclined to think this is the objective view, the result of open discussion. That is the aim, but this is far from reality. Essentially; the editorial level ensures that the official narrative, of the corporate-political elites, is the only one that appears. Just enough counter-arguments are allowed to appear to make sure that the appearance of openness is maintained. I don’t know if there is a document anywhere, which specifies the level exactly, but it looks like it is about 3%. Part of the way this works is the media often invites “experts” from various think-tanks to opine on their shows and write op-eds. These experts all, currently, follow the official line, whose main talking points are characterised above. What the media never does is report on these think tanks. If you look into them, the majority have funding links to the arms industry, NATO, the EU, the UK Foreign office and various corporates. They are not the “independent” analysts they are presented as; they are part of the same block which is supposedly being subject to media questioning! This is a method of generating an illusion of objectivity while ensuring that the official message, and only the official message, is broadcast.
Actually the motive for this post was I encountered another incident of the Guardian‘s secret political censorship campaign. I’ve written about this before. In today’s Guardian there is an article by a Ukrainian writer in which he talks about the need to maintain the geopolitical integrity of Ukraine. I was struck, as I often am, when listening to Ukrainian nationalists, to hear nothing at all about the millions of people in Eastern Ukraine who do not identify with Ukrainian nationalism, and who, as confirmed by survey evidence, (as well as indicated by aa host of demographic data), would prefer to live in a pluralist Ukraine which did not require them to dis-identify with Russia and Russian culture. (Richard Sakwa discusses the tension between Ukrainian nationalism and the alternative, pluralist vision of Ukraine, in his excellent book Frontline Ukraine. Crisis in the Borderlands [1]). I wrote a simple comment in the comment’s section below this article. I didn’t criticise the author. Certainly, the comment wasn’t rude. It didn’t break any of the Guardian‘s published “Community guidelines”. But it was silently deleted within a few minutes. What can the Guardian not allow? Simply; I made the point that there is a ‘pro-Russian’ minority in the East of Ukraine and, while sovereignty and borders are important, there is also a place for minority rights. I mentioned that support for minorities is a plank of EU policy. I argued that what the Minsk agreements envisaged was something a bit like the position of Wales in the UK; regional autonomy and language rights. This point of view can readily be supported, as I mention above, by facts from Western sources. There really is no doubt that there is a “minority rights” problem in Eastern Ukraine. That is all that I said. But, the Guardian’s lust for war and desire to promote an unreal narrative to promote that outweighs any desire they might have to allow rational discussion. The secret nature of this censorship make it far worse, in my view, than Russia.
Notes