US State Dept accuses EU of ‘Orwellian censorship'
The State Department echoed earlier criticism from US Vice President J.D. Vance, who accused EU member states of attempting to quash dissenting voices and stigmatize popular right-wing parties such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD).
'In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticizing their own governments. This Orwellian message won't fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom,' the State Department wrote on X on Tuesday. 'All the DSA protects is European leaders from their own people.'
Earlier this month, France's mission to the UN promoted the DSA on X, stating, 'In Europe, one is free to speak, not free to spread illegal content.'
In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticizing their own governments. This Orwellian message won't fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom. https://t.co/cWcZfeWl4Lpic.twitter.com/kCDhaXCVkC
Passed in 2022, the DSA mandates that online platforms remove 'illegal and harmful' content and combat 'the spread of disinformation,' according to the European Commission. Critics in both the US and Europe have likened the regulations to the creation of a 'ministry of truth'.
Earlier this year, prosecutors in Paris launched an investigation into Elon Musk's platform X, on suspicion that it was being used to meddle in French politics and spread hateful messages. The company dismissed the probe as 'politically motivated.'
In 2024, the French authorities detained Russian-born tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov on charges that he had allowed his Telegram messaging app to be used for criminal activities.
Durov, who was later released on bail, denied any wrongdoing and accused France of waging 'a crusade' against free speech. He also claimed that French intelligence officials attempted to pressure him into censoring content during Romania's 2024 presidential election.
France's foreign intelligence agency, the DGSE, confirmed that it had 'reminded' Durov of his responsibility to police content, but denied allegations of election interference.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
9 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump wants new nuclear talks with Russia
US President Donald Trump has hinted that he would resume negotiations to maintain the existing restrictions on nuclear weapons with Russia. The president made his remarks as the New START treaty, which limits the number of warheads and the means of their delivery, is set to expire on February 5, 2026. 'That's not an agreement you want expiring. We're starting to work on that,' Trump told reporters outside the White House before a trip to Scotland on Friday, according to Reuters. 'When you take off nuclear restrictions, that's a big problem,' Trump said. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier this year that 'dialogue between Russia and the US on arms control is necessary, especially concerning strategic stability.' He stressed, however, that it would require 'an appropriate level of trust,' which needs to come with the normalization of bilateral ties severed by the Biden administration in 2022. The New START treaty was signed in 2010 by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama during a brief period of US-Russian rapprochement known as the 'reset.' Relations later deteriorated to historic lows over allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election and the conflict in Ukraine. During Trump's first term in office, the US withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, which banned ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500–5,500 km, as well as the 1992 Treaty of Open Skies, which allowed for surveillance flights over each other's territory. Moscow followed suit and accused the US of dismantling the global arms control system.
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
Brussels plays catch-up with Moscow's post-sanctions economy
The European Union has unveiled its 18th package of sanctions against Russia, a move described by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas as 'one of the strongest packages ever imposed.' That sounds impressive. But while the new measures will undoubtedly cause inconvenience, their real power – especially in 2025 – is more symbolic than strategic. Had these same measures been rolled out in early 2022, the impact might have been severe. At that time, economic interdependence between Russia and the EU remained significant, and the Russian economy was still adjusting to the new reality. But now, three years on, Moscow has adapted. In many sectors, it has learned to operate independently. Increased pressure from Brussels no longer yields proportional damage. Let's begin with the energy sector. One headline measure involves changes to the price cap on Russian oil under EU Council Regulation 833/2014. The ceiling has been lowered from $60 per barrel to $47.60. Western European entities are now banned from trading or transporting Russian oil if the price exceeds that threshold. In 2022, this could have shaken the market. But in 2025, the reality is different: Russian oil is transported via independent channels, with little reliance on EU carriers or brokers. The result is more psychological than practical. Russia's independence in oil logistics has triggered a new round of attacks on its so-called 'shadow fleet.' The 18th package expands the list of banned vessels under EU jurisdiction to 447 tankers. These ships are restricted from accessing EU ports or services. Again, this may cause some logistical friction, but it's far from a game-changer. Russia can and does move oil without Western European help. The occasional tanker seizure in contested waters like the Baltic Sea is unlikely to escalate. After all, that region is patrolled by Russia's Baltic Fleet, which, while modest in size, is more than capable of deterring threats to energy security. Another measure targets refined petroleum products. The EU now bans imports of oil-based products made from Russian crude in third countries. This is clearly aimed at stopping countries like India or Turkey from processing Russian oil and selling the finished products to Western Europe. But the real loser here may not be Russia, but the refiners. These third countries earn significant margins from processing. Cutting off that trade deprives them of profit and incentivizes creative workarounds, such as swapping sources in their reserves or manipulating origin data. As always, enforcement will be tricky. Meanwhile, Brussels has moved to formalize its hostility toward the Nord Stream pipelines. The 18th package bans all transactions related to Nord Stream 1 and 2. Given that both pipelines were sabotaged in 2022 and remain inactive, this is more a symbolic gesture than a substantive move. The idea of future US-Russia cooperation on restoring the lines is also dead in the water, thanks to these new restrictions. The financial sector hasn't been left out either. More Russian banks have been removed from the SWIFT messaging system under Article 5h of Regulation 833/2014, bringing the total to 55. Transactions with these institutions inside EU jurisdiction are now prohibited. Again, this would have mattered in 2022. But by 2025, most affected banks are already under EU or US blocking sanctions. In practice, Western firms avoid them regardless. So this package is more about reinforcing old moves than breaking new ground. Interestingly, the EU has begun applying secondary financial sanctions, similar to Washington's model. Two small Chinese regional banks are now banned from doing business with the EU over ties to Russia's dual-use supply chains. The inclusion of India's Nayara Energy Limited – part-owned by Rosneft – is more notable. This sends a message to companies in Russia-friendly countries: continued involvement with Moscow's energy sector may come at a price. Whether that message lands remains to be seen. The US has wielded similar threats for years with mixed results. Many foreign firms still see Russia as a valuable market, and their calculations depend on risk versus reward. Export controls also feature heavily in the new package. Twenty-six new entities have been added to Annex IV of Regulation 833/2014, which bans them from supplying dual-use goods. Most are small intermediaries, easily replaced. The real damage from export bans was done in 2022 and 2023. There's little left to block that hasn't already been sanctioned. The 18th package includes vague language about tightening controls on re-exports via third countries, but how that will work in practice is unclear. Measure 18 addresses legal disputes, reaffirming the EU's refusal to recognize arbitration court decisions in sanctions-related cases involving Russia. But this is nothing new – it was already part of the 14th package. On the symbolic front, the EU continues to add companies and individuals to its asset freeze list under Regulation 269/2014. As expected, these include defense firms and manufacturers, as well as businesses from China and India accused of supplying Russia with industrial goods. Despite the bold rhetoric from Brussels, there is little in this package that fundamentally alters the landscape. The sanctions may chip away at certain areas, cause headaches for some businesses, and reinforce a hardline stance. But they will not achieve what the previous 17 packages have failed to do: break the backbone of the Russian economy. Russia is not what it was in early 2022. It has adjusted its logistics, diversified its markets, strengthened domestic production, and recalibrated its financial flows. The EU's 18th sanctions package is not insignificant, but to call it one of the 'toughest ever' is an overstatement rooted more in political theater than economic article was first published in Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Russia Today
12 hours ago
- Russia Today
‘Russiagate', revenge, and the rotten core of US power
Be real: It is not hard to see that America – as it really exists, not the 'dream' version – is neither a democracy nor a country with genuine rule of law. That's because democracy worth the label is impossible, for starters, with elections awash in private money and a bizarre Electoral College making sure that Americans do not, actually, have votes of even numerically equal weight when electing their single most powerful official, the president. The rule of law can only exist where citizens are equal before laws that apply to everyone in the same, just manner. This is a challenge everywhere, but the US is an almost comically egregious case of legal bias, obscurantism (masquerading as limitlessly re-interpretable case law), and inequality by status, wealth, ethnicity, and skin color. Just ask that crackhead, porn addict, and shady 'businessman' from an infamous clan, who is currently not in prison but giving expletive-laden interviews instead. The US, simply put, does not operate the way it claims to operate. It takes an extraordinary amount of naivete – on the scale of believing in Santa Claus or an honest Vladimir Zelensky – not to notice that much. What is more difficult to figure out is how politics and power actually do work in America and, most of all, who is really in charge. We have, for example, recently witnessed a presidency in which a severely senescent Joe Biden claimed to be but clearly could not be in command. So, who was? And who is in general? That, ultimately, is perhaps the single most disturbing question raised by recent developments around the rotting corpse of 'Russiagate' (aka Russia Rage). In its heyday – between 2016 and about 2020 – 'Russiagate' was the shorthand for a conspiracy theory that dominated US politics and mainstream media, causing mass hysteria. Its details were exceedingly complicated but its core was extremely simple: the claims that Russia had manipulated the American presidential elections of 2016, that it had done so to facilitate the first victory of Donald Trump, and finally that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russia. The power of this preponderantly factually false and entirely misleading narrative was such that it overshadowed much of Donald Trump's first presidency and contributed greatly to a catastrophic and very dangerous decline in the always challenging relationship with Russia. Indeed, there even is a plausible connection to be made between the mass madness of 'Russiagate' and the reckless policy of provoking and waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. 'Russiagate,' in other words, did not only harm the US; it harmed the whole world. In that respect, think of it as the political equivalent of the 2008 US banking crisis: the mess was American, the fallout global. Now, Trump is back for a second term and bent on revenge against his detractors not only but especially over 'Russiagate.' In his usual refreshingly candid style, he has announced that 'it is time to go after people,' fingered former president Barrack Obama for 'treason,' and gleefully shared an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested in the White House. Just before that typical Trump outburst, his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a freshly declassified report – produced in early 2017 by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives – that addresses what really happened in 2016 when 'Russiagate' was initially invented. This release was clearly meant to be a sensation: Gabbard accompanied it with press statements and a detailed thread of X posts bringing out its most explosive aspects. Among them, the key finding is that Russia did not work to make Trump president. Boom: the basis of 'Russiagate' gone, just like that. And who was to blame? Gabbard made clear that 'Russiagate' was not a cluster-fiasco born of mere incompetence but a monster intentionally produced and carefully nurtured. She accused 'top national security officials,' including FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as Obama himself of deliberately creating and spreading the impression of Russian election meddling in favor of Trump by manipulating the actual, contradictory findings of the intelligence agencies. Gabbard used strong language: a 'coup' against Trump, the 'weaponization of intelligence,' a 'treasonous conspiracy,' and a 'betrayal concerning every American.' Those mainstream media, such as the New York Times, that are among the worst offenders in spreading the 'Russiagate' hoax have already pounced on this language to, in essence, pooh-pooing Gabbard's charges as hyperbolical. Don't fall for that deflection. Gabbard's way of presenting her case does have a political edge. Of course it does. Duh. And if they wish, the old 'Russiagaters' can nitpick over her terms to their heart's content. But that makes no difference to the fact that what has happened is an enormous blight on US politics, implicating the intelligence services as well as other state agencies, the media, and, indeed, former President Obama. Gabbard may be laying it on a little thick (or not, actually), but even without any embellishment, the fabrication of 'Russiagate' was the real, humungous scandal. And it must be dealt with at long last. Dealing with it is where several measures already taken point: A Justice Department 'strike force' has been set up; the current CIA director John Ratcliffe has, in essence, denounced his predecessor John Brennan to the FBI; and the current FBI director Kash Patel has opened an investigation into his predecessor James Comey. The knives are out. Or so it seems. It is always satisfying to see a big fat lie punctured and deflated. But there is, unfortunately, little reason to celebrate. For one thing, it is unlikely that many of those who concocted and spread 'Russiagate' will actually face real consequences. That is just not how the US works: its 'elites' have a record of impunity only rivaled by those of Israel. Obama, in particular, is certain to be safe: Ironically, he is now protected by the same extraordinary legal privilege that the Supreme Court has conjured up for Trump. And where one team of manipulators has lost its grip, another one is already showing its mettle. Because in one respect even the New York Times has a point: one reason for at least the timing of escalation in Trump's revenge campaign is that it is meant to distract us from that other horrific scandal, associated with the name of convicted pedophile, suspected intelligence agent and blackmailer, and very, very dubious suicide victim Jeffrey Epstein. The same Trump officials now in high dudgeon over 'Russiagate,' have shown no independence of mind, professionalism, or commitment to truth and the public welfare, when helping Trump evade full transparency for the Epstein files, in which his name also appears. Finally, even while revealing that 'Russiagate' was a hoax, Gabbard – and the House intelligence report she had declassified – still tried to blame Moscow. It's a tricky operation: Now, we are supposed to stop accusing Russia and its President Vladimir Putin of helping Trump – and Trump of profiting from such help – but we are still asked to believe that they had nothing better to do than 'undermine faith in the US democratic process.' Where to even begin? There is no democratic process in the plutocratic US. Even a Princeton University study has long acknowledged that America is not a democracy. In reality, there only is an obstinate and, frankly, brazen pretense of such a process; and maybe some people still believe in it. But it really does not take Russia or any other outside forces to make sure that many do not. That loss of faith in a thing that isn't there is entirely made in America. Maybe one day, America's establishment – of all flavors – will learn to stop childishly blaming others, be it their predecessors (who usually deserve it) or foreigners (who often don't deserve it) and face its very own responsibility. But I would not bet on it. Cowardice, careerism, and hypocrisy run too deep. Most likely, there will never be true justice. Only tit-for-tat retaliation. On the other hand, if that's the only thing on offer, bring it on: I, for one, will take it.
