The video is promoted by RT, there is enough evidence for it (like, you know, links to a page on RT website containing the video). Even if it wasn't created as Kremlin propaganda, it is used as such now.
RT is a popular website.
Of course it will link to a viral video. It's no more "Kremlin Propaganda" than anything posted on BBC is automatically "British propaganda".
RT in comparison is amateur hour.
And yet RT a Putin propaganda station are promoting the video in the article, a video made by Krelim supporters..
You can call them amateur , you can't deny what they are trying to do.
Or that thinks that one state has the right to have their own broadcaster (UK/BBC) and another not (Russia/RT), or that they broadcasting thing based on their own national interests and world views is propaganda whereas for a broadcaster I agree with its "objective journalism".
I'm also not in the whole hysteria for Russia as some Bond villain behind everything, for things all sides do and that it does with 1/100 the resources (from Voice of America to financial support for all kinds of magazines, opposition parties and NGOs in Russia from US State Department sources, diplomatic pressure on their neighbouring countries and so on).
Especially when I can see through the whole top-bottom neo-Cold War strategy of "let's corner them, surround them with NATO client states, throw in some sanctions, get some sympathetic lackey in power, and get their resources for free, plus increased control in their Southern borders".
Of course people whose only source of news is American or European mainstream media will never hear about those things (and if they do, e.g. in someplace like Counterpunch they'll label it "Kremlin propaganda", as they are told).
I guess some people never learn from the previous "successes" against similar enemies-du-jour in bringing democracy and making Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc into the current hell-holes they are.
Yeah i love their chemtrails stuff....
edit: Lol Fox is as bad as RT coldtea.. your attempt at whataboutism is terrible.
Just because fox is crap doesn't mean RT isn't a Putin owned propaganda network.
In fact, I'm ALL for whataboutism -- or, as they used to call it back in the day, putting things in perspective...
You have to really be conditioned to never see the larger picture and to think your shit doesn't stink to even consider "whatabboutism" (that is, that a side accused of something might has a right to point back to the other's side's misdeeds) as bad...
Great, i was getting worried the EU was just going to sit on it's arse. I am glad the EU is finally taking this issue seriously.
Lol you've no idea what you're talking about. The EU is not the US, that's why apart from the UK leaving the rest of us won't be eating chlorinated chicken.
>As a collection of many client states, A rather silly view, we have a shared market and our interests.
You're clearly confusing the EU with NATO, i guess from St Petersburg we all look "West" to you.
Lol, I'm a European, so...
The EU might not be the US, but it has seeded its global ambitions (and lots of its sovereignty) to the US after World War II.
>You're clearly confusing the EU with NATO, i guess from St Petersburg we all look "West" to you.
Yeah, because nobody outside St Petersburg can think EU governments are pushovers and lackeys of the US.
It's not like Europe (from the UK, to Germany, Italy, France, and so on) had a strong left that believed exactly that...
There was no such thing as European global ambition before WWII, not since the era of crusades. Every country had its own ambitions. And I believe there is a difference between being allied and being someone's lackey.
Thanks captain obvious. I am referring to the British, French, Netherlands, Belgium, and last but not least, German, ambitions, which in most cases were accompanied by actual colonial empires.
European powers (and most importantly, Britain and France), ceded their global role past WWII and the US took over. For lesser European countries it was even directly involved in who will get into government, what their foreign policy should be, and so on.
>And I believe there is a difference between being allied and being someone's lackey.
You can be allied if you are an equal. If you are a bunch of countries and another one is "leading" and has several times the economic, and 10 times the military and diplomatic power, you are not.
That said, there's a lot of this stuff being produced in western countries, including the EU. It just so happens that the plague of neoconservatism + political division has become state policy in Russia, so it makes sense for EU institutions (whose objective is political unity and inclusive welfare-oriented policy) would link it to the Russian state.
I guess a Kanye video is also "Whitehouse propaganda" because he is a Trump supporter...
>And that this video is made in the wake of legalisation of domestic violence in Russia specifically to undermine feminist movement
"In the wake" as meaning "almost two years later"?
It's not illegal it's just showing who her paymasters are. but keep up the misdirection..
How does it "show who her paymasters are"?
What I meant by the "illegal" line was, being a Putin supporter describes like 50% of Russians, it's not some fringe activity. Even being a vocal Putin supporter in Russia (as opposed to mere voter) is not much different than someone like Kanye being pro Trump, or the tons of Hollywood/music people being vocal Hillary supporters.
So, that doesn't "show who her paymasters are" at all...
EDIT: nice job completely rewriting your post so that the replies no longer make any sense
I asked that question because your response implied that "Putin supporter = proof she did the video for Kremlin", whereas half of Russians are Putin supporters.
Being a Putin supporter is perfectly common. It's not any kind of proof like having found she was in some illegal gang or such, the guy is the elected official of the country. Of course he has supporters, and of course some will make viral videos. That doesn't mean anybody that (a) is a Putin supporter (that's like 50+ million people there) (b) makes viral videos, makes them for Kremlin purposes.
"Both things are pretty bad though" - maybe a sovereign country can have its own leadership, and replace them when they feel like it, without some holier-than-thou foreigners telling them that's "pretty bad" and equating voting for their leader with "beating your wife"?
>EDIT: nice job completely rewriting your post so that the replies no longer make any sense
Conspiracy theorist much? I rewrote my post because I though it will be misinterpreted (as it was), and I wanted to put it in another way. I did so in the span of like 5 minutes after posting it. I only saw that somebody had already replied to the first version much later (now) that I got back in.
>without some holier-than-thou foreigners
Why did you assume I'm a foreigner?
Lots of viral videos are professionally produced. You put money to further your audience/career. She had already done a similar video, and I've seen more impressive stuff from 20-something vloggers. Was her earlier video (agaisnt upskirt pictures) propaganda too? Or how about she is just an attention seeking activist that follow various BS trendy topics, to build her career?
Of course we have to believe that the Kremlin is both like some bond villain that produced a viral video (and a rather insignificant one) to further its causes (rigorous handwaving about what those are and how they possible relate to the video, from fueling cultural conflict in the West, to justifying a law that passed 2 years ago), but also that they're bad at it, and can't even get their actors to not admit it was real to the first journalist that asks them. Or perhaps they wanted to be found out - if one adds that as a premise, there's no need for any further rational examination).
>Consider that the Russian government needs to pay people to simply post positive comments about it.
Does it "need to"? So, if you're local in Russia, you don't know tons of people who really like the Russian government? Or, who did very much liked them when they did a complete U-turn on the economy and unemployment from disaster to almost-good in their first terms?
Or does it merely pay some, which is different than "needs to"? How about any modern government just does the same, and has people promoting its opinions on the web and in social media? Perhaps this is much older, and as old as print media themselves (mockingbird anyone?)
>Why did you assume I'm a foreigner?
Because being on HN it was the statistically safer guess?
Why did 3 different people in this thread assume I'm Russian, if not a Kremlin troll (because, of course, who would ever have the gall to have a differing opinion on such matters -- it's not like western countries ever had a Left that was anti-imperialist and anti-globalist and not the current Whole-foods liberals that pass for one, is it?)
I was suspicious of it being real (not because "activists" wont do any kind of shit these days, but because she would have easily got beaten up if it was real).
It took like a few searches to find that the video is indeed fake, and it was made as a viral video to boost the career of Anna Dovgalyuk, a ho-hum model/minor celebrity that does such BS.
She has done such viral videos in the past, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwdmPnJDvp0
Note how the BS TFA doesn't provide this info (it just mentions some magazine who found one of the actors in the video), and jumps to the "Kremlin propaganda" with tons of handwaving and no evidence at all, as opposed to one of the tons of BS YouTube stuff produced every day to be viral.
Also the name of the site "EU VS DISINFO" points to a website created to cater to the paranoid crowd, if not itself the work of some state agent or another [1].
[1] Addition: Oh, as someone else points out in the comments, this is EU financed.