oh, what would be the name on that number of your quote am in my chair for slaughter doesn't want that extra mom, but i know it's a little bit hole. ah, the africa leader summit wraps up in washington with america's top diplomat attempting to tie the west colonial path to russia. the un overwhelmingly adopt a russian drafted resolution to quite the glorification of nazi event. that's despite the u. s. ukraine, germany and other western countries voting against the motion. instagram restores a video of indian women being sexually assaulted, calling the shopping footage, news worthy and claiming it's good for raising awareness

with good morning for moscow to wherever you may be. tuning and from welcome to the hour's top news stories from around the globe. i'm fearless about the african liter summit has concluded in washington with u. s. secretary of state anthony blanket, speaking to journalist, to wrap up the event, he didn't miss the opportunity to criticize russia, making a comparison to the west is own colonial past. it's very powerful because you hear countries that are, we're here in washington this week, ghana, kenya. so many others that have been the victims of imperialism in the past. and who see that now happening to ukraine by russia brought the 3 day summit, the united states declared the importance of the region in solving world problems

in ebay to compete with africa's other partners, china and russia. the u. s. is already fine, deal worth $15000000000.00 and voice support for the african unions initiative for permanent g 20 membership. however, not all african countries were invited to the summit. jenny, out, sudan, a re 3 out molly and bettina faso didn't receive an invitation due to their contrasting political views. we spoke with locals in those countries who shared their opinions about us intentions in the region. with what a lot of it france in the usa rejected in africa. it's due to their politics. this initiative is a way to preserve their image in africa. all wishes to have a trusted partner who is on his own to bring good ideas in the right equipment to help us to fight this phenomenon on our territory. a. ringback it's an opportunity for joe biden to bring the us back to their former position in africa because

united states of america are trying to take advantage of if i was doing anything for a long time, we've been under the leadership of europeans. it's them who colonized this and they all the origin of all the single subject. i believe the u. s. is targeting europe's place in africa even for less cross live to john kerry octo host of the whistleblowers. welcome. thank you. good to be with you. so anthony blank n compared rushes actions in ukraine to western colonialism in africa. what do you make of this comparison? you know, honestly, i had to chuckle when i heard it because it was a complete non sequitur. there is literally nothing to, to tie russia with colonialism in africa. colonialism in africa is, is a decidedly western european phenomenon. we look at the belgians and the,

the cruelty and the crimes against humanity, for example, that the belgians committed in the congo. we look at frances, long, long history of colonialism and imperialism in africa, even the germans and the italians and the british. there's, there's just no possible way that, that a person could compare the history of africa, the modern history of africa with what has, has happened a between russia and ukraine. it was, it was a cheap shot, is where it really comes down to. yeah, and it seems countries that don't me, america's criteria for democracy were i left out of this event, they were invited to the summit in washington. and it's, these countries that russia's influence is extremely noticeable. and what is a real reason? do you think that they weren't invited? well, this was one of those situations where, where the u. s. decided to make

a political statement. the 5 countries that were not invited had had relatively recent military coups. now, even when the new governments of these countries have pledged a return to democracy and have in some cases scheduled democratic elections that still wasn't good enough for the united states. and so these 5 countries weren't invited, and i'll add that these 5 countries are 5 that in which the united states can't make any money. right now there's a big difference. for example, between su, dan and, and kenya, there's a big difference between guinea and the democratic republic of the congo. those latter countries are the ones where the united states has a chance to actually make some money. and local residents in the uninvited countries believe that the u. s. ambitions in africa are actually to replace french influence in the country in the region. do you agree with this assessment?

i don't actually, i believe that the u. s. goal is to replace chinese influence in, in the continent. this is something that the united states is very, very worried about the chinese, over the last 20 years or so, have spent billions upon billions of dollars in china. and what are they spending that money on their spending, the money on roads, on hospitals, on airports, on economic development and infrastructure. what is the united states spend money on in africa? they spend it on weapons and weapons systems. so if you want to develop the economies of these african countries you do with the chinese do, and you let the money do the talking. these countries don't need or want weapons and weapon systems. they need economic development. that something that the united states has just missed. it's obvious that african countries are getting closer to

china and russia. and during the summer, you, as the official stated that america's eyes are now on africa. what do you make of that comment? and also the timing of such statements. why i think the timing is what is very important here. the united states has ignored africa for at least the last 20 years . and it's only now that the state department and the white house are realizing that the u. s. stepping back from helping to develop economically. these african countries has hurt long term u. s. foreign policy. russia is very popular in africa. china, a china is very popular in africa. and the western countries are not there, not because they ignored the needs of the church, of the african people and the african governments for many, many years. so this is an opportunity for the united states to play catch up. now let me add one other thing too. i live right here in washington. i work in downtown

washington, literally one block from the white house. i can tell you that it was almost impossible to even realize that there were foreign leaders in the united states this week. this was a very low key summit, despite the fact that there were the highest ranking representatives from 40 different countries. and there was almost no coverage of this african summit in the american press. it's as though the white house was trying to reestablish a foothold, and the american media just was not buying in john carrie acco, host of the whistleblower as thank you very much. thanks for having me. ah. the new york times has revealed how the russian state own media company, v g t r k allegedly shapes the opinions of its viewers. the u. s. media outlet based it's

report on an elijah mass league of war correspondence from the company's employees . spinning together a counter narrative for tens of millions of viewers, russian propagandist plucked clips from american cable news right wing social media and chinese officials. they latched on to claims that western embargoes of russian oil would be self defeating. that the united states was hiding secret by weapon research labs in ukraine, and the china was a loyal ally against a fragment in west. beside these accusations, the new york times also claimed that the g t r k received instructions from russian security agencies on how to cover the ukrainian conflict with russian producers. apparently asking chinese colleagues for the story. ideas trying to quote, curry favor with beijing officials less cross live now to legal and media analyst line. oh, who is joining me to discuss this topic? welcome line. oh,

nice. you. thank you. fox news has republican views. cnn has democratic liberal views and the b. b, c, british. so why isn't your time so shocked that a moscow based outlet has a russian perspective? i mean, isn't this standard in the news agency world? and if it's not shocked, then what is the purpose of the new york times? if not new, you took my story. what do you? well, mine, reader, that's exactly what i was going to say. what do i say? now? let me get this straight. first, my reaction. so what i mean, let me ask you something. can you tell me what country, what business, what product, what candidate, what, what network goes out of his way to promote and publish bad news about itself? what country during a war or military operation says, you know what, this is too good. this is to popular, go out and dig for something that makes us look like we're losing. i mean, this is,

this is and same. but i'll play along with this 1st pledge talk about this thing called propaganda. this is my favorite word. this was this 17th century term from gregory the 15th, the propagation of the faith. he just merely means another way of saying public relations in p r. but let's go a step further if you wanted to find out and get some people other than tucker carlson or, or fox note if you wanted to find a bunch of russian sympathetic people who have i guess some type of, of, of the bent on distortion. how about barry posen in foreign affairs, henry kissinger. john mearsheimer, jonathan pow noam chomsky. scott ritter, the late stephen cohen, colonel douglas mcgregor. but wait, here's the best one. george kennan, who was the author of the containment theory,

who in 97 and in the new york times basically said that nato expansion is ridiculous. now these are, do you think these are some kind of left leaning or right leaning hot heads? a me, this is insane. but let's go a step further. when ever there is any kind of military operation, whatever it is, whoever it involves. and let's just take the best during world war 2 and noble effort. hollywood, walt, disney, frank capra, louis b. mayer. jack warner, john wayne during vietnam when he had the will be greenberg a prop again the like you can't believe. then we find out in 1975 during the church committee to the new york tax, who's in the washington post and the c. i a were working together in this thing called operation mockingbird. and then he talked with the new york times itself.

what about their 6019 project and we, we can go on and on. but, but this is, this is the crux of this. what is the purpose of this? how about a president, a former president who was conspired against by everybody from corporate to intel, to government, to have his voice shut down on social media. did that bother the new york times? was that propaganda didn't step over the line? no. so not only does this make any sense, their argument is skits or frantic. if it applies for one, it applies for everybody. i can't believe that somebody paid for this article. somebody commissioned this and somebody says the in good job, you just discovered that which everybody knows. i mean, this is nothing and i say hash k. so what? and there are many independent voices on the side of,

or at least empathetic to russia. and in march of this year, actually, u. s. diplomat, victoria newland admitted that ukraine has biological research facilities. this the pod much scrutiny. and yet the new york times article accuses russian media of pushing a conspiracy theory about bio lives in ukraine in our information age. how does such a huge and use agency get away with this deception with the diplomats own admission royal findings and especially considering the u. s. as own citizens have questioned them on this very topic. let me ask you a question on conspiracy theories wrong, but she is to assume it's a conspiracy theory, whatever this means. and don't forget the great gore vidal, he said, i'm not a conspiracy theorist. i'm a conspiracy analyst, but are they wrong? i don't understand this. they say, conspiracy theory misinformation disinformation dad information ah propaganda right

wing, they'll throw in racist and white nationalism. if that doesn't work though, call it hate speech. it just the new york times or anybody think series that this is effective? do you think people's opinions were dissuaded? do you think somebody said, wait a minute? you know, i just found out something i just found out that a country involved in a military operation may in fact be looking for evidence which i know this is hard to believe might support. the claim that they think is just in the 1st place. i mean, are you kidding me? and, and i love the way the personalize it. she's not, for example, russian or you or your credit or, or the actual fact of the matter. it's who's involved. if i were to say, you know, i don't think this is a good idea. i think george kennan the wise man who was against nato expansion. this man who was considered the genius,

the expert. if i were to side with him and my siding with logic, or am i citing with russia? i mean, look how the personalize it. it's an infant tile. it's infant i of the way the point fingers. but here's the best part. who's waiting this? who, who is pouring through the new york times? what i era is this. i've got news for you that as we say in the south, that dog don't hunt, that train has left the station. no, but he errors nobody's listening to this. nobody's going to change their opinion. it's almost as though they say, let's have one last gasp at an attempt to do something. but here's the best part. and i say again, what about the fact that we have a prior, a former president who was conspired against any conspiracy theory? in fact, to have his voice quashed on social media. don't you think it odd that a that the, that the, that the, the paper of record doesn't care about that,

but cares about some arcane reference between tucker carlson and others. not to mention the list of notables that i have mentioned. noam chomsky is that some right winger is that so do they even know what they're talking about? i think i just answered my question. well, and apart from this, there is clearly a strong relationship between china and russia. and this has also been brought up. now is this an attempt by the whys, particularly the you asked of killing 2 birds with one stone smearing, not only moscow's image, but beijing's as well. i mean, considering the recent us actions towards china, well, you're going to see it not you're going to see, or rather tepid, attempted smearing china versus russia. i mean, that, that might be, you know, 2 birds with one stone. but the thing that, that i, that i, i can't help a point out if you're going to write something. here's an idea. how about,

say that the information that's being called and collated and cultivated is wrong. how about saying this is wrong? they were citing stories from smooth courses that were in correct, as opposed to this propaganda. and you took this from fox news or right wing organization. whatever happened to whether it's right, whether it's correct, whether it's accurate, who cares where it came from. if it's true, nobody even ever talks about that. it's funny with all this emphasis a misinformation of disinformation, you think that would be category number one is what was recorded. was it wrong? that's the legal and media analyst line. all thanks so much. thank you. ah. and instagram, video of an indian woman and being sexually assaulted by

a group of men has been restored to the platform after an oversight board underline would it's called the news worthiness of the distressing footage. despite recognizing that the video both violated the company's adult sexual exploitation policy and may also have emboldened prior for treaters instagram rules that the content should remain publicly available in order to raise awareness. given that the video does not include exclusive content or nudity, and the majority of the boards find that the victim is not identifiable. a majority of funds that the benefits of allowing the video to remain on the platform behind a warrant screen outweigh the risk of harm. let me take you to the timeline 1st. so in march of this year and instagram account in india, that usually talks about marginalized community posts about marginalized community in india, boston a video of a tribal woman who was being sexually assaulted by

a group of men. now are this we do, of course are, or this is instagram account has about $3000.00 all followers are most of them from india are, but then of course, so one user reported this we do after which after a human review met are decided to remove it saying that advice leads is our sexual exploitation policy ab, but after that, what happened was that data, this was further flagged of why a met. i employ to a larger committee to a larger global operations committee. and well, they reviewed it and they thought that in large of public interest and that it was news worthy to restore it. so that restored it this time with a warning in factor and they restricted the content for minors. ah, but of course matters always. i bought also upheld the decision or to restore the instagram account, but there was also a split as far as this,

sir. oversight board is concerned. a why law are some of them are did see that? while the woman's face is naught, with the bull, while is no new ditty, i bought a lot of them. also thought that i are the content. the risk of putting out the content was not to look at what all of this essentially highlights is that meta has nor clear policy when it comes to sensitive content such as this one, what to bam and what not to ban and other developments, new site, the palestine chronicle says facebook has threatened it with restrictions and a total ban for a legit community standards violations. the chronicles chief editor told us there's no oversight when it comes to matters. controversial decisions actually in 2021 of human rights watch. did you know a thorough internal, a thorough investigation of facebook, a behavior that was palestinians,

and that's precisely the conclusion that they have reached, that there is a decided anti palestinian sentiment that facebook and many palestinian accounts have been wrongfully deleted. now facebook, it's so actually a few months later decided to go it's own internal investigation. and that's also what we've added. so even facebook agrees that facebook is silencing palestinian voices. now the problem is, you just really, you don't know how to respond to this sort of a task because you know that we have very, very little leverage as palestinians, aside from, of course, raising the issue internationally and hoping that there would be some, some backlash in which people would put pressure on facebook and these other social media platforms. but for the time being there is no oversight and is just 3 censorship and there is no accountability, legal, or otherwise. the un general assembly has adopted

a russian drafted resolution to combat the glorification of naziism and racial discrimination with the majority of countries voting in its favor. the resolution lays out a plan to fight fascism and other factors which fuel racism, discrimination, xenophobia, and related and tolerances over $100.00 members voted in favor of the bill and 50, including the u. s. ukraine, germany and italy voted against it. the general assembly is now holding on doctrines. meanwhile, in a swipe at moscow to us, lawmakers have asked congress to vote on a proposal to remove russia from the un security council. here's how the bipartisan congressman justified their draft resolution. the russian federation has carried out an illegal premeditated unprovoked and brutal war against ukraine. resolved that the house of representatives urges the president of the united states

to limit suspend or terminate rights and privileges that the russian federation exercises in the security council of the united nations. we've heard the u. s. basset, or to the us make noise around such an idea before, but there's really no mechanism for making this happen. there is no mechanism. busy in the un charter, we're removing a permanent member of the un security council. permanent means permanent, and there is no procedure for removing members of the un security council that are permanent members. so if you look over the resolution, it's 11 pages long written by the to us. lawmakers then basically argues that because they consider russian intervention into ukraine to be improper. that because of that, russia should be barred from participating in the un security council. now what's interesting is they're citing the fact that the un charter gives only 2 criteria for when a country may carry out

a military operation. want to self defense and to as being done with the part the permission of the un security council. if that was the grounds upon which a country could be removed from the 15 member body that leads the un, the united states would have been removed quite a long time ago. let's recall the 1999 bombing of serbia by the united day. that was not done with the approval of the security council. let's recall the nato invasion of afghanistan of 2001. or we can recall the 2003 us invasion of iraq, which the un secretary general at the time even admitted was a violation of the un charter. was the legal here's what he said time. i have indicated it was not in conformity with the un charter from our point of view. from the charter point of view, it was a legal. now the 2011 us nato intervention, libya was done under very spurious grounds. and the un only approved a basically an arms embargo,

and then the united states moved in to where the new no fly zone and eventually a military intervention. then you'll also recall in 20, in more recently 2017, the united states conducted air strikes targeting the syrian era republic, a sovereign country. the usa continues to violate the terrier, tauriel integrity of syria with us troops in syria, without the permission of the internationally recognized government. so if you look over, if you look over the list of us activities that are been carried out, if a country simply intervening militarily and another country is enough to remove a country, the usa should have been removed a long time ago. but this kind of activity fits a pattern of the united states and its allies trying to politicize the activities of the united nations. recently, we saw iran being ousted from the women's rights council of the united nations. now, many have pointed out that this sets a dangerous precedent when one country can essentially be ganged up on by the

united states and its allies and removed from international bodies. this kind of violates the purpose of the united nations, which is to bring countries together to work on problems that affect the whole global community. even a lot of countries disgusted by iran's behavior would have preferred something milder, like temporarily suspending iran from the commission on the status of women. but the us effectively forced other members to get in line by announcing the initiative with very little warning. now iranian leaders pointed out this sets a very dangerous precedent. country is facing some international disapproval, then that gives the rest of the countries the ability to kind of gang up on them and force them out of international bodies, which is quite dangerous. now it's also been reported that the representative of the military government of me and mar, has been blocked from reaching the united nation than taking his country seat. and the united states was kind of arbitrarily preventing the military government of

b and mar, from representing itself as a member of the united nations body. and all of this points to the united nations essentially being abuse. the un is, is essentially becoming a mechanism for the united states to carry out its international agenda and violation with proper proceedings. iran has spoken up about us abuses of the un. here's what's been said. this. the quiz is simply not that a stack example of us hypocrisy. the u. s. has made it a standard practice to abuse and derive such valued concept as human rights in order to achieve it, to make political goal. and it has achieved so by utilizing your platform and resources, the organization and multilateralism of the nations. we're supposed to have countries working together to carry out their goal. these, these, these goals don't seem to be being carried out. we see a situation where it appeared that the united states using the u. n. for political

purposes, this latest moved to try and introduce legislation in the united states that would lead to russia being removed at the permanent member of the un security council. it has no legal basis and charters. there is no mechanism for removing a permanent member of the security council, but it accompanies and a creased effort by the united states to politicize the activities of the united nations. now to a viral video that's circulating where a performance by activists didn't go quite as expected, i should warn you. you may find the falling footage disturbing. several people can be seen holding doves in their hands ready to release them in a call for kids. however, when the main speaker at the rally released her burden to the thigh, it fell right back down. it's neck apparently hadn't been accidentally broken. i jump in and those were the top stories from this hour. for more up

to the minute news had over to r t dot com. and don't forget to follow us on social media. we'll see you again at the top of the hour. ah fresh in the west, survive the cold war because both recognize and practice, the concept of indivisibility of security. one country should not attempt to attain security at the expense of another country. this is exactly what the west has done against russia to the point of claiming russia has no right to any security. guarantees. is 2 things we love in this country. it's cache and freedom. anybody that's ever been poor here can tell you.