The UK once invaded India. Maybe that was too long ago to matter, but I think a lot of people in India might think otherwise.

They can think whatever they like but they will be wrong if they think that.

Subjectively wrong (e.g. you disagree), or objectively wrong? How could such a thing be objectively determined at all?

There are people alive today who grew up in an India subjugated by the UK. It wasn't so long ago in the grand scheme of things.

Objectively wrong, there’s no evidence of ongoing British invasion of India.

The claim is that the UK once invaded and subjugated India, recently enough to matter. Not that India is presently in that state.

The analogy works when the owner of the foreign media also is waging a war against you or your allies. Just because some time in the past you had a military conflict doesn’t make it the same thing because something happened in the past doesn’t have immediate and irreversible effects. Since there are no immediate risks, you get the chance to respond and correct and that’s why you can have free media.

Besides, everyone was once invaded by the British.

What you're saying is that you, subjectively, think that the UK's past invasion of India isn't relevant because it was long ago and not ongoing (and because the UK did this to lots of people, that makes it a lesser crime?) And I'm saying that quite a lot of people don't agree with your subjective judgement.

Objectively, the facts are that the UK once invaded India and some Indians alive today personally experienced that subjugation. But what any of that means or implies is subjective.

No, Objectively UK's past invasion of India doesn't create a cause for British media to pose immediate and irreversible risks to India.

This doesn't mean that Indians shouldn't be cautious but gives them an opportunity for healthy debate thanks to input from outside. Because there's no immediate and irreversible dangers, they can counter the British arguments or get something from it to make their own position better.

That’s not the invasion they have a chip on their shoulder about

There are a lot of people today in India subjugated by Indians as well.

There's still a huge blind spot in the west when it comes to "our" propaganda. You never see the BBC or Radio Free Asia get the "state owned media" tag on social media that's applied to anything Russian or Chinese since 2016.

I think Indians should run media in UK and expose Rishi or whoever they like.

Asians should flag the British media as foreign, can’t expect British do it for them.

> You never see the BBC or Radio Free Asia get the "state owned media" tag on social media

Youtube at least tags BBC videos with "BBC is a British public broadcast service."

I do think that there are substantive differences in the kind of "propaganda" between Russia and the West.

The reporting in the west is certainly ideologically biased with lots of ignorance and naturally often steeped in sensationalism.

Russias reporting is very often an intentional hostile psyops directed by state forces. Whatever take damages western society most is getting air time.

Its the same with western NGOs vs russian influence campaigns.

Those NGOs were in Russia since the 90s and havent changed a bit. Its the russian state that changed in a way that those NGOs are now hostile and detrimental to the cleptocracy. Now they are all banned.

In contrast Russias support of extremist groups in the west has no ideological consistency and is only aimed at doing maximum damage.

I think at this point there have been more debunked reports of Russian influence from our propaganda organs than actual Russian influence.

Not that you're wrong, they're trying, but we are just so much bigger.

This is not quite what happened. Illia Kyva [1] is a Ukranian politician who was a former presidential candidate, as well as the head of Socialist Party in Ukraine. He is pro Russia and skeptical of Western interests and motivations in Ukraine. After the war this did not change and he supported Russia while blaming Zelensky and urging him to resign.

Zelensky then decided to purge him and his entire party, charging him with treason. This led to Kyva making increasingly unhinged claims and recommendations. Among those were that Russia should nuke Ukraine, and that Zelensky had secretly fled to Poland. Some Russian outlets (I cannot find this story on RT, but perhaps I missed something?) ran this story such as here [2].

The article certainly doesn't state it as a fact. Instead it recounts the events in a relatively impartial way - two Ukrainian lawmakers said he fled. Rumors of something similar were spread shortly before the article was published and Zelensky rejected them while providing video evidence of himself in Ukraine. It also mentions that the US reportedly offered to help him escape Ukraine, and also that he rejected the offer. End of article.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illia_Kyva

[2] - https://sputniknews.com/20220304/zelensky-left-ukraine-for-p...

If we're talking about war, the BBC was an active participant in the coup that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. Ample reason for any country that values its sovereignty to ban the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20050...