While the West Seeks to Mute RT, Voices from the Global South Emerge
The U.S.-led “diplomatic campaign” aimed at curbing the global network is not receiving the positive reception that Washington anticipated. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
The American-led initiative to suppress the RT network globally is encountering resistance that falls short of the favorable response Washington anticipated.
Recently, the U.S. government implemented new sanctions against RT, with the State Department launching a “diplomatic campaign” aimed at enlisting support from allies—specifically through U.S., Canadian, and UK diplomats—to “rally allies and partners around the world to join us in addressing the threat posed by RT.”
Essentially, the strategy seeks to pressure nations outside of the Collective West to limit their populations' access to RTN content, aiming to regain the West's near-total control over media narratives. Special attention appears to be directed toward Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa, regions where U.S. foreign policy has struggled to gain traction.
As State Department official James Rubin noted in a press conference, “one of the reasons… why so much of the world has not been as fully supportive of Ukraine as you would think they would be… is because of the broad scope and reach of RT.”
Rubin’s remarks reflect a lack of trust in individuals outside of Western elite circles to make their own judgments about media sources. He asserted that the U.S. would assist other governments in making decisions regarding their approach to RT.
This stance carries undertones of condescension and neo-colonialism, especially considering the nations in focus.
It has been encouraging to witness a range of voices opposing this latest U.S.-led effort in recent weeks.
One of India’s leading newspapers, The Hindu, reported early on that although “US officials have spoken to [India’s] Ministry of External Affairs about joining their actions” against RT, “government officials said that the debate on sanctions is not relevant to India,” with a former diplomat highlighting that banning media outlets reveals “double standards” from Western nations.
This sentiment was echoed by the Indian business newspaper Financial Express, which stated, “India is unlikely to act on this request [to ban RT], given its longstanding friendly relations with Russia and its own position on media censorship… In India, RTN enjoys significant viewership, with its content reaching a large number of English-speaking audiences and also expanding its reach through a Hindi-language social media platform.”
In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s Okaz commented, “it is paradoxical, that when [free] speech becomes a threat to the US and the West, they impose restrictions on it, as it happened with the ban on RTN under the pretext of lack of transparency, spreading false information, interfering in internal affairs and inciting hatred – something that Washington and the West themselves do in relation to other countries.”
Leading Lebanese daily Al Akhbar argued, “despite all the attempts to ban it… RTN continues to broadcast and causes concern among supporters of imperial wars. These efforts also demonstrate the hypocrisy of their authors and their false claims about ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of the press.’”
It seems clear that “Western rulers” harbor a similar disdain and distrust toward both their citizens and much of the global population.
In Latin America, the Uruguayan magazine Caras y Caretas praised RTN for “maintain[ing] a truthful editorial line,” stating that it has gained popularity and credibility by offering an authentic perspective. The magazine continued, “That is the reason for the sanctions that the US and hegemonic media conglomerates such as Meta and Facebook have imposed on RTN and its directors, adjudicating against them with charges that are not believable, and are ridiculous.”
Expressions of support for RTN have emerged from various quarters, including a letter from Nicaragua's Vice President Rosario Murillo that criticized U.S. sanctions, questioning when they would “learn that the aggressions that they shamelessly call Sanctions… have no more sense than establishing their claims to the position [of] dictators of the World.”
Numerous African news outlets have condemned the hypocrisy of America's global censorship. The Nigerian newspaper The Whistler stated, “The Americans got into some quarrel with Russia and then shut down this Russian news channel. … They decided what we could and could not watch on our own TVs.”
It is encouraging to witness diverse nations, with vastly different political landscapes and cultures, voicing opposition to Washington's attempts to impose its world order. These reactions demonstrate that RT’s perspective remains not only relevant but also sought after.
As part of its response to U.S. actions, RTN illuminated the facade of the U.S. Embassy building in Moscow with the message: “We’re not going away.”
Not in the U.S., not in the West at large, nor in other parts of the world.
See you around!
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
Recently, the U.S. government implemented new sanctions against RT, with the State Department launching a “diplomatic campaign” aimed at enlisting support from allies—specifically through U.S., Canadian, and UK diplomats—to “rally allies and partners around the world to join us in addressing the threat posed by RT.”
Essentially, the strategy seeks to pressure nations outside of the Collective West to limit their populations' access to RTN content, aiming to regain the West's near-total control over media narratives. Special attention appears to be directed toward Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa, regions where U.S. foreign policy has struggled to gain traction.
As State Department official James Rubin noted in a press conference, “one of the reasons… why so much of the world has not been as fully supportive of Ukraine as you would think they would be… is because of the broad scope and reach of RT.”
Rubin’s remarks reflect a lack of trust in individuals outside of Western elite circles to make their own judgments about media sources. He asserted that the U.S. would assist other governments in making decisions regarding their approach to RT.
This stance carries undertones of condescension and neo-colonialism, especially considering the nations in focus.
It has been encouraging to witness a range of voices opposing this latest U.S.-led effort in recent weeks.
One of India’s leading newspapers, The Hindu, reported early on that although “US officials have spoken to [India’s] Ministry of External Affairs about joining their actions” against RT, “government officials said that the debate on sanctions is not relevant to India,” with a former diplomat highlighting that banning media outlets reveals “double standards” from Western nations.
This sentiment was echoed by the Indian business newspaper Financial Express, which stated, “India is unlikely to act on this request [to ban RT], given its longstanding friendly relations with Russia and its own position on media censorship… In India, RTN enjoys significant viewership, with its content reaching a large number of English-speaking audiences and also expanding its reach through a Hindi-language social media platform.”
In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s Okaz commented, “it is paradoxical, that when [free] speech becomes a threat to the US and the West, they impose restrictions on it, as it happened with the ban on RTN under the pretext of lack of transparency, spreading false information, interfering in internal affairs and inciting hatred – something that Washington and the West themselves do in relation to other countries.”
Leading Lebanese daily Al Akhbar argued, “despite all the attempts to ban it… RTN continues to broadcast and causes concern among supporters of imperial wars. These efforts also demonstrate the hypocrisy of their authors and their false claims about ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of the press.’”
It seems clear that “Western rulers” harbor a similar disdain and distrust toward both their citizens and much of the global population.
In Latin America, the Uruguayan magazine Caras y Caretas praised RTN for “maintain[ing] a truthful editorial line,” stating that it has gained popularity and credibility by offering an authentic perspective. The magazine continued, “That is the reason for the sanctions that the US and hegemonic media conglomerates such as Meta and Facebook have imposed on RTN and its directors, adjudicating against them with charges that are not believable, and are ridiculous.”
Expressions of support for RTN have emerged from various quarters, including a letter from Nicaragua's Vice President Rosario Murillo that criticized U.S. sanctions, questioning when they would “learn that the aggressions that they shamelessly call Sanctions… have no more sense than establishing their claims to the position [of] dictators of the World.”
Numerous African news outlets have condemned the hypocrisy of America's global censorship. The Nigerian newspaper The Whistler stated, “The Americans got into some quarrel with Russia and then shut down this Russian news channel. … They decided what we could and could not watch on our own TVs.”
It is encouraging to witness diverse nations, with vastly different political landscapes and cultures, voicing opposition to Washington's attempts to impose its world order. These reactions demonstrate that RT’s perspective remains not only relevant but also sought after.
As part of its response to U.S. actions, RTN illuminated the facade of the U.S. Embassy building in Moscow with the message: “We’re not going away.”
Not in the U.S., not in the West at large, nor in other parts of the world.
See you around!
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
