and i was trying to think, i'm not going to exploit those who would have to mostly russia's top diplomat suggest an opposition leader on extent of only who was allegedly poisoned with a nerve agent this summer. could have been just of the toxin in germany or on the plane taking him to a german clinic. also this hour you tube warns its users that an r.t. report on the us armed protesters is potentially offensive. but we're talking to the film's creator to find out why his work has been flagged. pro-democrat media trying to eliminate all traces of doubt about the integrity of the 2020, u.s. election, branding reports about probes into voter fraud, misinformation clashes and arrests in the armenian capital. as

crowds demand, the prime minister resign over a peace deal that they see as a relation to azerbaijan and the war for the number of the car by region. this is our to international coming to you live from the russian capital where it's just turned 7 pm. welcome to the program. russia's foreign minister has given his response to the long running allegations that scene of all he was poisoned with a nerve agent speaking at an international conference, sergey lavrov stressed before leaving russia for germany. back in august, the opposition figure had tested negative for talks and meaning he could have been targeted after his departure from the ocean and has more it seems russia has had enough after months of what most go. so as groundless accusations,

foreign minister sergei lavrov says in a volley could have been poisoned after he left hospital in russia. we have every reason to believe that what happened to him in terms of chemical warfare agents getting into his body could have happened in germany or on the plane. and when she was flown to the charity hospital. exactly. how else can the sudden appearance of toxic materials in the bali samples be explained? he's tests results were clear when he was in arms. that's according to russian doctors who initially treated him and several russian laboratories. it's only often a volley was taken to a lien that we heard about traces of navi, talk from germany 1st, then friends in sweden, despite there being no solid evidence proven it. russia was very quickly accused of using a band nerve agent and punished with the new sanctions russia's accusing. now its western partners have been unreliable and is now ready to respond with mirror

sanctions. it is difficult for me to understand the motives of our german partners . i already told this to her km us and i can repeat this. it's not a secret that we see how germany took the role of a leader in the new escalation of relations with the russian federation. there will of course be a response to the saying sions, and since germany was the driving force behind these e.u. sanctions over the nevaeh in the case. and since these sanctions directly affects high ranking staffers of the russian president's administration, we will respond in kind of all russian requests for proof or any lead date or were politely denied. but i would like to reiterate that we do not expect the bearer of bad news, namely us to be criticized. it would be better to deal with the news itself. we have informed the c.w. and organization that the russian side can approach to ask further questions. it's, ironic, only one addressing the o.p.c. w., russia was told to go back and ask germany,

which made moscow doubt the organizations motives. i will be blunt, the o.p.c. w.'s technical secretary. it is increasingly turning into a tool in the west's hands, which is being used to exert informational and political pressure on countries that fail to toe the line. this conclusion is backed up by the watch dogs involvement in anti russian campaigns earlier with the scrip. our case and now with the alleged poisoning of alexina valmy. and now russia says it may consider leaving the o.p.c. w. . so the ball is in europe's court. let's bring you some background to the story. alex, in of all me, is a prominent activist and critic of the russian government. he fell sick on the 20th of august on board a plane flying from the siberian city of tomsk to moscow. aircraft made an emergency landing in the city of homs and mr. valma, it was taken to a local hospital. he was put into an induced coma and remained for 2 days. the samples were sent to several russian laboratories and they ran tests. and none of

them found traces of any toxins in his system. and all these family insisted his life would be in danger if he stayed in russia and arranged for his transportation to a top clinic in berlin. in early september, german authorities concluded that not volley had been poisoned with a nerve agent from the room. we discuss the case with german member of the european parliament maximillian crop. my greatest concern all much of my most serious concern is to german russian relationship especially concerning discuss this project and will stream to. and i do nothing that this new development is really in favor and is really headed food for us. russia is sick accuse ations which almost ridiculous but really could have been is small and smooth. we also know that russia's preparing tit for tat sanctions against german and french officials,

for the ones that they imposed against russia. after this all broke earlier in the year. now they're expected to be fairly low key, just travel bans for a few officials. but do you see this escalating or stopping here we are in the spiral of saying i do and might lead to on the one hand we have to end tire russian saying, chins which is seen widely as ridiculous and unfair even in the german public. in the political class, but among the majority of the people there is no support for do sanctions. and now russian is doubling. doing kick fortec if that helps to get rid of those sanctions in general, it would be very successful. but if there would lead to 2 new countermeasures against russia, it would be to your proof of world we want. so it's

a dangerous game and the politicians usually don't like danger. d.-d. try to bring people together and to avoid risk. and i'm not really happy about this development, i understand the position, but i'm not happy with it. and i hope that the plan will come out of the spiral of sanctions. but from what i thing, and what i see here in brussels and in berlin is that it may, could harm the relationship even more and get a result that no one wants watching r.t. documentaries can be a dangerous activity if you believe the you, tube warnings one of our latest reports on the armed activist gaining influence in the us from both the extreme left and right has been flagged as potentially offensive. is a quick preview. the biggest political events of the last 4 years is happening amid

the coronavirus rest of the level of civil unrest sparked by the death of george floyd. and why the radical groups on both sides of the political spectrum hear words only you know what's about to happen if you want a war, let it begin with us. we're going to meet these groups and their leaders to find out how far they're ready to go. to fight for what they believe to steve for this country. there are different versions of the you tube warning for that film. if your settings are in russia and you're told the material could frighten or shock users. and for english speaking viewers, it's printed offensive or inappropriate to some audiences. and to watch it, you have to sign in to prove your age. now we can talk to the creator of that documentary here in the studio with us right now is constantine. that for those people who haven't seen your film yet, we did just show

a short preview. but can you tell us what else is in that movie? what could be deemed as offensive or shocking in your opinion? while to be honest with you, i don't know. just so, you know, i have a 7 year old son and he was watching this documentary right next to me and we're not letting him watch harry potter because we think it's too much. of course, it's not exactly the kids' content, and it is about american radical groups, and people who are having to involved in the protest movements is on the rise, especially in the days and months before the election. but i think in that, in this documentary, there is nothing that is overkill or over the top. and for me, it is really weird and strange why it was flagged and especially the way it was flagged. so if you try to watch it right now, it has, it gives you 1st notification saying that the content was identified as inappropriate and offensive. and then you press confirm,

but it won't let you in. it has another notification pops right after it. and it's pretty much the same just in the, in other words, word order. so we have to fold notification system in place for this particular documentary. and that is word. this is something unheard of. i think when, as we were mentioning there, you actually have to log in. so for me personally, you know, i tried to just open up you tube, google it, and open it up and look at it. and it said you have to sign in. i don't have a youtube account, which means that certain people are not going to be able to access this movie. whereas i looked at what i just searched in youtube for one of the groups that you said was in the film, the boogaloo boys. there's plenty of documentaries of news stories about this group where they're talking about their doctrine where they're standing there with guns and you think it would be about the same thing. is that the sort of content that's in the movie? it's these men talking about their beliefs. pretty much so. so yeah,

we spoke to the members of boogaloo movement and these are heavily armed guys who are not afraid to come out to protest carrying this charged weapon, assault rifles. and although none of them are criminals of the laws in, in that any possible way. so it's not that we were talking with, you know, bad people or criminals know they are just regular citizens, but they are having to involved in protests. but it's not against the law, right?, in the u.s. would you say that anything they spoke about would have been considered radical? i wouldn't say so. some of the things that they were managed are quite disturbing. you think about it because they were talking about the looming civil conflict in the us about the deep division and polarization that is taking place in the country about the probable outcome, the revolution, whatever that means. but it's not that they were, you know,

getting into any kind of specifics and we have, we have a special waiver before the film saying, just watch out guys, 3rd, disturbing content. so we old radio now instead to your audience, why do we need another 2 fold notification system for me to it's, it's just weird to me. so there's 3 layers now of warning for anyone who wants to watch it, potentially scaring people off. as you're saying, there's other things on youtube that have much more extreme content that don't have you are warnings. do you think this is specifically because this is coming from our, t.v. or is it just because this is coming right around the election and censorship and warning people seems to be the name of the game? well, i did my own research about that, and i looked up specifically other videos published by american outlets and other, media organization on you tube about protests in the u.s., specifically in portland, about the groups you mentioned,

the boys and whatsoever. so some of those videos were flagged by you tube is inappropriate for people who are under age, but none of them had this 2 fold notification system. so we are, i think, for some reason being targeted here. i think we should, we can rightfully say so, and i have no explanation whatsoever of why it happened. did you send anything to youtube? asking for clarification, did you receive any answer to that? you know, we filed a complaint, an official complaint, but we are, is very slow to respond and give you a little back story about communicating with the 2. so i work for are 2 documentary on our you tube page. a couple of months ago we had 1000000 subscriber milestone. in that case you tube award you with the symbolic prize. they give you a golden bottom right. so, you know, it's nothing, it's not a big of a deal,

but just a small acknowledgement of your achievements. so why don't we get one? and we thought the 1st, we're going to get one right away, never happened. and we ask what's going on? then they responded that we're going to open up an investigation and this to investigate what and they going to look into why they're not giving us this, given this word in. so the investigation has been going on for 7 months now. no reason yet. and again, i mean, for some reason we were getting the special treatment for me to shame. it's too bad . do you think in the end as so often happens, these additional warnings could actually intrigue people more and actually gain views that might not have happened? well, i could go both way, believe i don't necessarily think this is a good thing, right. so we had pretty we got off on a really good start, but this film we got 660000 views in the 1st 4 days. it's

a decent start and you aiming to get into the this level over 100000 views so that, so that the algorithm can push it over for other white were shut down, falling short of a hit in this market. i think it's not a good sign. and i mean, you would think, for example, if you have this notification, will they open it up at my workplace? will they open it up? if i'm in metro, am i going to watch it with my family? i don't think so. my shrink the audience for this documentary and i think it's not a good. it's not good. you're mentioning that you spoke to groups on both sides of the political aisle left and right extremist groups. do you feel like there's a fair balance within the film? i think so, yes, we spoke with far right people left leaning protestors and with those who

can syria them themselves to be right in the center. so we spoke to all possible categories of protesters that are now they are in the u.s. . so how, who are you filming? all of this, it took just 2 weeks and we were, were traveling across the united states 1st. we were filming in virginia where we mad boogaloo boys that would travel to portland and poured in was the news. it was all over the news. actually. probably the most harsh scenes that we have in our documentary are from portland, were police beating up protestors. and you know, sometimes it's getting ugly, but again there wasn't something really extreme and we were, we're not dwelling on that footage. this was in the aim of our documentary footage can be found on the nightly news every day. and that's, you know,

sort of nightly news that something that you watch usually with your family, those who are still watching news on t.v. . they come home after work. they turn it on and from their family and they're watching all that and that's easily accessible footage. apart from that, is there anything that particularly shocked you from your footage? if we can borrow you tube, the word there. what you saw of what you heard? while not really, again, i was shocked as, as a foreigner who you were working in the united states, i was shocked by how easily people were talking about our, their desire to take up arms and to defend themselves. it's just the level of the division as disturbing as it is, but there were just words you can be punished by words. we cannot be punished by words. so i think is just another example of double standard approach to 2 words. me and my colleagues on especially one that someone else's words and that you had

put the warning in there. either way. do you think that platforms like you tube should be clear about their limitations about their rules or do you think that this really has nothing to do with that at all? well, i would like them to, i mean i have nothing against the rules. it's fine is just what are the rules words we're still trying to figure this out. like let's speak consistent if you effectively ban our documentary from, from the platform for offensive content, then why you're not doing the same to you. you tube, or other media outlets like words that consistency. where's the rules or nontransparent would like to comply with the rules, but it's really hard to do. so given the complexity, given the just you know, difficulty to grasp the idea of that rules. well, thankfully they have an all out ban that they've just put up these roadblocks to it . and i think that's important to remember that people can still access this film.

still watch it, they just have to go through these warnings. do you think there could be an argument from you tube saying that they're still trying to adapt? this is something that we hear often from tech giants that they're still trying to adapt and figure out how to protect users while still allowing their platform to be used to open. i think while it's part of their tricky strategy in my opinion, so that in the film completely, we cannot say so right. you can't access the fell but just the all our efforts that were put into this work. and even though we can say this is blanket censorship, i think we should treat it as so because you know, it just shuts down all the efforts that we have, you know, doing this documentary. do you have any hope that you can get this decision from you tube reversed?

it will hopefully, hopefully, but given the past experience of slow, they are to respond. we're not expecting too much. i would say, does that mean you fear that this is something that's just going to be the beginning of you tube and other platforms, twitter and what not just continuing to censorship. content could be, and it's really interesting a lot of people who we spoke to during while we were, we're going to that documentary, they are now shifting from the mainstream media platforms for me to twitter and facebook. and they are setting up their accounts on other platforms like pearl parallel or and those 2 are really getting more and more popular in the u.s. now would be so that gives you the answer. but what might happen if they continue down that road you've been speaking here in the studio to constantine a documentary maker on that latest film of yours. thank you for joining us and sharing that information with us. i think now we've also asked you to explain why

that documentary was flagged as potentially offensive. we're waiting to hear back from them. but as you just heard, we do not know when and if that will be. but if they do respond, we'll be bringing that to you. it's not the 1st example of our team material that's been flagged online. however, before the u.s. election, twitter marked one of our reports as misleading mean, it couldn't be shared, it was an account of a ballot fraud allegations which had been made by the trump campaign. and all of those claims had been widely reported elsewhere. were not going to cross live to independent journalists are very welcome to the program . there's been so much extreme material. you can watch on youtube with no warnings at all. speeches by hitler or the ku klux klan leaders, gun making instructions. for example, why do you think you tube has chosen to focus on this r t documentary?

yes, that's clear. congratulations on the quality of the documentary 1st. and then of course, this is crazy. death gone much too far before. busy as you say, i mean if you put a blur or nudity almost facebook or trips or at the office, it was stopped immediately. fine, no problem. but now they venture into political world. there are other things that, you can say and those that you can't, especially if it comes from our t.v., it comes from russia. despite the fact that many people who disagree with russia, do you know who support some of the european politicians who don't like russia, these people give you an example like archie, very much. i interviewed a more prominent lawyer recently. i know he doesn't like the russian politics and, and russia such but told me, i love archie. i was surprised. why?

because you'll be, you know, the cheap power, you know, all the european politicians that the stone in the shoe. well, it seems it's the same in the us because political correctness and, and policy making are, you know, things that don't go well with journalists and this israeli offensive. everybody knows that tome, every american as an assault rifle and a submachine gun in the cupboard, too many weapons in america. and when you have hotheads on the left or on the right, you know, in the streets, ready to fight each other. it's a great, dangerous full democracy and this must be shown so that the people of reliance how far off america is going. so your program is perfect for that. why do to stop it? that these dedications are not as bad as an all out ban,

but arguably it encourages the viewer to close the pages are saying if you don't have an account, you cannot watch it. do you think that was the intended and what they intended in, the end? maybe they don't really know because john guy is o.c., certainly very young, who are doing to the job of selecting what is good or bad. i don't know really about all this relatively new to politics, to the old time politics. so maybe they don't really know what they do, it's just the beginning of censorship own being put in place in america, especially for russian news. or is it possible that you tube's motive really is that they're genuinely concerned about the welfare of their users? or is this just political? i think it is purely political. and as we were saying earlier, there are other documentaries about the same groups that are completely openly accessible without any warning. this is you tube going to be able to defend this

move in any way. i think what disturbs them is the fact that you go deeper into the issue. you know, it's just not 15 seconds or 30 seconds since a new. you go deeper and you show these people. and it's very interesting, of course to see what is happening in their brain, if anything at all. but that's very important to see this to have taught, munches like this to understand the process or what happens in america. and so they don't really like it, they are stuck. and so i think it's really polluted. do you fear at all that this is going to continue the tech giants, including google and facebook ramping up this kind of filtering over the coming years? or is there any way to stop this? i think it's going to continue. unfortunately, your remember zuckerberg being told by angela merkel in new york at the united nations dinner? you know, it was not supposed to be her, but she said,

what are you going to do something about a day speeches and she meant it was in, in 2015. of course, the fact that she, the chancellor angela merkel was 18 suddenly on the social network. because she had opened the door to all margarine seaview to, i mean certainly it fired out. she was the best propagandist of the right wing, a position of the attorney for dodge land. and she said to circle back, you know, you need to do something about it and soup that said, yes, we're going to do it that doing it now. that's the kind of things that we can expect for the future is that they try. i mean there will only trying because they won't succeed if they do this. i mean, there will be other channels for, for people to inform those. they will look elsewhere for, for real news. you know, they don't trust beat the mainstream media anymore, and they are right not to believe what they say. and so they go to 2 internet 4 for

more information. but if now there you get censorship 2 and a much worse censorship in the way they will find out when's independent or less lucrative a they conferred, finding the time to join us on the program today and more global news for you after this short break. it's seemed wrong to me to get to shape out just to become educated and engaged with equals betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground during

the vietnam war, u.s. forces also there was a secret war. and for years, the american people did not know how much it is a country per capita, human history, millions of unexploded bombs still in danger. lives in this small agricultural country, jordyn wieber. even today, kids in laos full victims of bombs dropped decades ago. is the us making amends for their tragedy and help to the people need in that little

you're watching r t international. welcome back to the program. we return to one of our top stories. russia's foreign minister has suggested opposition activists. i would say not only may have been poisoned well in the, or on the way to germany and not in russia as western countries say, the cross live now to independent political analyst. for more on that, what do you make of this suggestion coming from lavrov? i think it's high time the russia took a tough stand the the, that such

a possibility could arise, was already foreshadowed in minister one of the office interview with mainstream journalists, including the head of our teasing on the on about 2 weeks ago, he was saying then that the european police were no longer the a.v. . i thought it was high time. it's high time for them to go. oh god. that's all right, take your time. yes, we have a little bit of a problem, but that's been resolved. but what i wanted to say is that already indicated 2 weeks ago that russia was going to take a tougher stance and a spokesman the the until now.