On 12/16/2023 9:15 PM, Nostradamus wrote:
> Denacyfikacja jednak potrzebna.
>
> Ukraińska armia jest bardzo aktywna w social mediach, co jest elementem
> zaplanowanej taktyki i przemyślanej propagandy. Siły Zbrojne Ukrainy
> chwalą się swoimi sukcesami, pokazują realia wojny i okrucieństwo
> najeźdźców. Tym razem nie ustrzegły się kompromitującej wpadki. Na
> profilach pojawiło się zdjęcie żołnierza, jeden szczegół wzburzył
> internautów.
>
> Ukraińcy bardzo sprawnie od początku rosyjskiej inwazji prowadzą
> komunikację w social mediach i można zaryzykować tezę, że wygrywają
> wojnę informacyjną z Rosją. Piszą o sytuacji na froncie, z naciskiem na
> swoje sukcesy i straty agresorów. Pokazują realia pola walki, opowiadają
> historie zwykłych ludzi, dokumentują bestialstwo Rosjan.
>
> Czytaj także: Rosjanie szukali nazistów w Ukrainie, jednego mają w
> swojej armii
>
> To oczywiście zaplanowane działania, które są elementem taktyki i
> starannie przemyślanej propagandy. Dlatego tym razem Ukraińcy kompletnie
> zaskoczyli, niestety negatywnie. Na oficjalnym profilu ukraińskiego
> ministerstwa obrony pojawiło się zdjęcie żołnierza siedzącego w gruzach.
> Ludzi wzburzył jeden szczegół: swastyka na mundurze.
>
> https://www.o2.pl/informacje/pokazali-ukrainskiego-zolnierza-ma-skandaliczna-naszywke-na-mundurze-6974425495665536a
>
> O take Ukrainę Polska walczy...

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-press-restrictions-censorship-journalists/32701375.html

Ukraine's Parliamentary Press Restrictions: Protecting Journalists Or
The Government?
November 27, 2023 14:13 GMT

By Serhiy Andrushko

Only one state-controlled media outlet has been allowed to report on
parliamentary proceedings from inside Ukraine’s national assembly since
Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of the country. (file photo)
Only one state-controlled media outlet has been allowed to report on
parliamentary proceedings from inside Ukraine’s national assembly since
Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of the country. (file photo)

KYIV -- As it prepares to start membership talks with the European
Union, Ukraine faces a fundamental debate about freedom of speech, a key
EU value: Does Russia’s full-scale invasion still justify restrictions
on accredited journalists reporting from inside parliament?

To pro-government lawmakers, citing security risks, it does. But to some
opposition members of parliament, the restrictions are a cover to limit
public scrutiny of the legislature.

Over a year and a half since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of
Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelenskiy’s declaration of martial law, missile strikes on Kyiv have
become more infrequent. A barrage on November 11 was the first in nearly
two months.
Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on
Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military
aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's
coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

Although legislators and their staffs go to work regularly in
parliament, restoring the access of all accredited journalists to the
building is still deemed too dangerous.

Since September 2022, only one television channel, the state-run Rada
TV, an outlet charged with covering the parliament, or Verkhovna Rada,
has been allowed to broadcast the legislature’s plenary sessions, with a
delay of at least several hours for security reasons. Other accredited
journalists are not allowed within the parliament or its perimeter.

Zelenskiy’s February 24, 2022, order declaring martial law --recently
extended until February 14, 2024 -- authorized expanded restrictions in
the interests of security.

Yet, nearly two years later, the Ukrainian parliament’s website offers
no explanation for these restrictions on media access. By contrast, a
frequently-asked-questions piece addresses restrictions imposed in 2021
during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the pandemic-related state of
emergency in Ukraine was ended on July 1.

Asked about the grounds for the ongoing media restrictions, parliament
Chairman Ruslan Stefanchuk, of the ruling Servant of the People party,
told Schemes, the investigative unit of RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service, that
he needed to “clarify” the matter since “all this” was adopted when
martial law first went into effect.

As “a decision-making center,” parliament cooperates “very actively”
with the Ukrainian special services, “which constantly send us their
messages regarding danger,” Stefanchuk added.

“As soon as this danger subsides [and] I receive notice that there is no
longer any danger, we will return and restore everything as it always
was in parliament,” he stressed.
Ukrainian parliamentary Chairman Ruslan Stefanchuk (file photo)
Ukrainian parliamentary Chairman Ruslan Stefanchuk (file photo)

The parliamentary administration, its bureaucratic apparatus, also could
not help. A month after Schemes submitted a request for information, a
staff member responded that the administration must first “summarize all
the facts” related to the restrictions and then “analyze it.” Stefanchuk
later said the inquiry would be answered.

As of the date of publication, neither Stefanchuk nor the parliamentary
administration had completed their clarifications, summaries, or analyses.

Verkhovna Rada Deputy Chairman Oleksandr Korniyenko, the former head of
the Servant of the People party, told a conference in September that
“[i]f parliament were in a different location, outside of the government
district, it would be easier” to allow journalists to return.

No 'Clear Arguments'

However, no security guard challenged Schemes journalist Maksym Savchuk
in October when he walked through the restricted government district to
an interview near parliament.

A former head of the SBU security service, the main organ responsible
for ensuring parliament’s safety, said he did not understand the
security arguments for keeping accredited media out of parliament.

“We do not hear clear arguments about security, and I am a security
professional like no other,” said opposition deputy Valentyn
Nalyvaychenko, who ran the SBU under then-President Viktor Yushchenko
from 2006 to 2010, and also led the security service in 2014-15 after
popular protests resulted in the ouster of Moscow-friendly President
Viktor Yanukovych.
Former SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaychenko (file photo)
Former SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaychenko (file photo)

In case of a Russian air strike, journalists “have the same safety
(provisions) as me or any other deputy,” he said, adding that they would
also have access to the same air-raid shelters.

Nalyvaychenko, a member of parliament’s European Integration Committee,
contended that restricting media access to parliament could impact
Ukraine’s EU membership talks since “access to mass media and access to
information, freedom of speech, are one of the key requirements for
joining the bloc.”
People take part in a pro-EU rally in Chisinau, the Moldovan capital, in
May.
SEE ALSO:
European Commission Proposes Opening EU Accession Talks For Ukraine And
Moldova

A November 8 report from the European Commission recommended the start
of membership talks with Ukraine and recognized that martial law had
“led to some restrictions of rights and freedoms.” But it added that
“these have so far remained largely in proportion to the actual needs
and have been applied with caution.” The report did not criticize the
restricted media access to parliament.
On July 20, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said he asked Prime Minister
Denys Shmyhal to “consider replacing” Culture and Information Policy
Minister Oleksandr Tkachenko (above). Hours later, Tkachenko said he had
tendered his resignation. (file photo)
SEE ALSO:
Wartime TV In Ukraine: Much-Needed Unity Or A 'Marathon Of Propaganda'?

The discussion of the Verkhovna Rada’s media restrictions comes amid
concerns about a lack of content diversity among Ukrainian television
outlets, including from the EU. The Zelenskiy administration has not
responded to such criticism.

'What Exactly Do You Want To See?'

Rada TV’s broadcasts of parliament’s plenary sessions do not come live.
For security reasons, the state broadcaster posts its recordings on
YouTube with a delay of hours.

Rada TV’s other coverage often focuses more on presidential
administration officials than on the workings of parliament. News briefs
called “Parliamentary Day” are updated daily, but are under 11 minutes long.

Opposition deputy Mykhaylo Bondar, a member of the European Solidarity
faction, complained that Rada TV often only broadcasts parliament’s
sessions at night “so that people go to sleep and don’t watch what is
happening inside parliament.”

Servant of the People deputy Maksym Buzhanskiy, a member of parliament’s
Law Enforcement Committee, defended the access restrictions.

They enable the legislature to “work properly for the country,” he said.

“If we want to see populist slogans, a populist contest (among
deputies), then perhaps we really need to open the door,” Buzhanskiy said.

“And you, personally, what exactly do you want to see that you couldn’t
find?” he asked a Schemes reporter.

Buzhanskiy’s own committee, however, has not published transcripts or
protocols of its purportedly open hearings since a meeting in February 2022.

Sufficient Public Scrutiny?

Some deputies provide livestreams themselves using their mobile phones.

On October 6, Stefanchuk chided European Solidarity deputy Oleksiy
Honcharenko for “conducting a live broadcast on TikTok” using his phone
mounted on a tripod.

Such actions put “our state’s legislative body and the people here at
risk,” Stefanchuk said from the speaker’s chair.
Ruslan Stefanchuk is the chairman of the Ukrainian parliament.
SEE ALSO:
Ukrainian Parliament Chairman Defends 'Anti-Oligarch' Law, Says It Has
Made Impact Before Implementation

Honcharenko retorted that deputies had closed off parliament from “the
people so that they would not know anything about what is happening here.”

European Solidarity deputy Volodymyr Vyatrovych, a former head of the
SBU’s archives, agreed. He told Schemes that the lack of live access to
parliament “corrupts the parliament from within” by isolating the body
from public scrutiny.

But Voice opposition party deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak argued that, given
existing coverage and deputies’ own social-media feeds, there is no need
for extraordinary security restrictions.

“Are we afraid that some Russian will find out that we’re convening?” he
scoffed.

Although the pro-Moscow Opposition Platform-For Life party has been
banned, its deputies are “still in the parliament,” he noted.

Pro-government deputies respond cautiously when asked about the
restrictions.

Stefanchuk said only that his own views follow the constitution and
parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

Serhiy Shvets, a former journalist for the 1+1 television channel, which
broadcast Zelenskiy’s series “Servant Of The People” and provided strong
backing for the former comedian during his 2019 presidential campaign,
claimed he had no opinion about the restrictions.

Kostyantyn Kasay, a member of the parliament’s Human Rights Committee,
acknowledged that he supported returning all accredited media to
parliament, but said security concerns had prevented the committee from
finding a “solution.”

Even with the ban, Kasai argued, “you have the opportunity to talk with
people's deputies whenever you want.”
Written by Elizabeth Owen based on reporting by Serhiy Andrushko of
Schemes, the investigative unit for RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service.