Телеканал RT угроза нацбезопасности Великобритании

Лондон - европейский город!!!

> Хлипкая, однако, у них нацибезопасность.

потому как демократия и свобода слова это когда говорят демократы и говорят, что "хотят". при этом делают это строго там где нужно.

Закроют. Можно потом опротестовывать сколько угодно. А у нас коррпункт БиБиСи никто даже и пальцем не тронет. Да что там: вся мразота, что взахлёб врала в августе 2008 - причём не просто гавкала, а с реальным подлогом видео- и фотоматериалов, - все суки прекрасно себя чувствуют в Москве как дома.

> > О вы ещё оригинал FT не читали, там — праздник, зайдите зарегистрируйтесь, не пожалеете.
>
> ну ты скинь

И желательно с переводом

Правда вообще мало совместима с западной цивилизацией.

> Если закроют РТ, неплохо бы из России тогда выпиздить британские сми.

Не надо, надо просто продолжать вещать через интернет.

[censored]

Без перевода...

> Не кажет. Кинь текст. А я тезисы переведу.

Nato seeks weapons to counter Russia’s information war

A casual consumer of Russian media might conclude the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, one of the strongholds of the country’s pro-EU uprising, has been overrun by violent fascists.
So a video recently uploaded to YouTube will prove disappointing. Called “Where are all the fascists in Lviv?”, it features a correspondent walking the city’s peaceful streets, interviewing slightly bemused — decidedly un-militant — shoppers.
The online video was produced and published by Nato. It is a modest new weapon the alliance is deploying as it seeks to fight back against a Kremlin information campaign that is posing a new worry for western policy makers alongside Russian bombs and espionage.
“Russia is weaponising information in this crisis,” says James Appathurai, the alliance’s deputy assistant secretary general for political affairs. “They are reaching deep into our own electorates to affect politics.”
National intelligence agencies in the alliance point to what they say is alarming anti-Nato and anti-European rhetoric in the Russian media. The Kremlin has been particularly masterful, they believe, at using a web of disinformation to generate doubt internationally over its huge military support for separatists in Ukraine.
The fear among Nato officials and western policy makers is that the Russian campaign could fatally fracture an already fragile European consensus to maintain tough economic sanctions against Moscow for its behaviour in Ukraine.
In Germany, for example, Chancellor Angela Merkel is contending with a sizeable faction sympathetic to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, whether for business or historical reasons. Other EU members also appear vulnerable to the Kremlin efforts to sow discord, particularly the impoverished former Soviet countries in southeast Europe.
“Information warfare is the spearhead of almost everything Russia is doing,” says Jonathan Eyal, international director at the Royal United Services Institute.
Nato planners accept that Mr Putin “is not mad”, says Mr Eyal, and therefore unlikely to rush headlong into an armed conflict by, for example, sending tanks into the Baltics. “We are talking about dealing with a long-term propaganda campaign instead.”
High-level delegations from across Europe have begun meeting at Nato’s headquarters in Brussels and in national capitals to discuss the challenge. The Lviv video — what Russian agitprop practitioners would call pokazukha, or a propagandistic publicity stunt — is one of the fruits of those meetings.
It has garnered 40,000 views so far. Most normal Nato video uploads manage fewer than 2,000. Nato insiders say more such material should be expected in the future.
There is even talk of reviving cold war ghosts, such as the UK Foreign Office’s Information Research Department, a secretive operation to feed news of Soviet misdeeds to sympathetic journalists. It was shut in 1977.
But even national governments once well-versed in Kremlinology are still somewhat bewildered by the threat.
The recent expansion into Britain of Moscow’s international news channel RT, or Russia Today, has prompted a series of national security discussions at some of the highest levels in the British government, say officials. Yet policy makers are at a loss when it comes of proposals to deal with the threat they perceive, particularly when no laws have been broken.
“Our response to propaganda can’t be more propaganda,” says Oana Lungescu, Nato’s official spokesperson.
In the meantime, the alliance is seeking to try to redress a Russian effort that Ms Lungescu says is intended “to confuse, divert and divide”.
The alliance has also put together a new “web portal” called “setting the record straight”. It is available in Russian, Ukrainian, English and French and fleshed out with dozens of documents, statements, videos and images. One section lists 25 “myths” about the alliance coupled with “factual” rebuttals.
Another “timeline” of events compiles links to every single Nato pronouncement, press conference, speech or official Q&A relating to Ukraine and Russia since February.
Perhaps most significantly, the alliance has begun to co-ordinate “messaging” among its members, a senior official said. Shared lines are now being sent out to strategic communications teams working in the foreign ministries of members for use. Shortly before the Nato summit in Wales this September, the alliance also opened a new “centre of excellence” for strategic communications in Riga, Latvia, which is intended to serve as a clearinghouse for anti-propaganda ideas and research.
While Nato has joined the information war, many in the alliance acknowledge its efforts are still in their infancy, particularly when set against a vast Russian campaign.
“[We have] come a long way in responding . . . but clearly it is not enough,” Mr Appathurai says. “There are 20 or so people in Nato’s public diplomacy team who are at work trying to counter an organised, multi-faceted, well-funded Russian operation that is going on across the world.”