Disinfo: 72.5% of Ukrainians support a compromise between Ukraine and Russia at all costs in order to achieve peace in Donbas


There is a fresh poll of Ukrainians, which shows the following. To the question: “Do you think it is necessary to compromise with Russia and the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics, to achieve peace?” 72.5% of Ukrainians answer yes.


Manipulation of the poll results. It is designed to create the narrative that most Ukrainians support achieving peace in Donbas at any cost.

A nationwide public opinion survey was conducted by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation by Ilko Kucheriv in collaboration with the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology from 4-19 November 2019. According to it, only 14% of Ukrainians believe that for the sake of peace it is worth agreeing on any compromises. Another 58.5% believe that for the sake of peace it is worth agreeing on compromises, but not all. This position - "compromise, but not all" - is prevalent in all regions of Ukraine.



  • Reported in: Issue 177
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 08/12/2019
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Russia, Ukraine
  • Keywords: War in Ukraine, Donbas
  • Outlet: Vremya pokazhet @ Pervyi kanal time 38:00 - 38:26


Cases in the EUvsDisinfo database focus on messages in the international information space that are identified as providing a partial, distorted, or false depiction of reality and spread key pro-Kremlin messages. This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform. EUvsDisinfo publications do not represent an official EU position, as the information and opinions expressed are based on media reporting and analysis of the East Stratcom Task Force.

see more

Internal OPCW e-mail proves that OPCW’s Douma investigation is biased

What really happened on April 7, 2018, in Douma, Syria? The Western version, according to which a chemical attack has been perpetrated by the Syrian army, has become more and more fragile in recent days. It is an email sent by a member of the OPCW mission to Syria,  unveiled by WikiLeaks, which is causing the trouble. According to it, the conclusions would have been distorted in the official report of the OPCW.

There were already the reservations of some journalists in Syria and even that of a producer of the BBC. Now critics are coming from people directly involved in the investigation. An e-mail from one who introduces himself as one of the members of this mission in Syria has been unveiled by Wikileaks. The sender of this email regrets a misleading rewrite of his observations: “By the unintentional omission of certain facts and observations an inadvertent bias has been introduced into the report, undermining its credibility. In fact, some crucial facts that have been maintained in the corrected version have turned into something quite different from what was originally drafted.”

The core of the problem observed by the author of the e-mail is, in particular, the conclusions about the presence of bottles of chlorine on the scene of the alleged attack.”The initial report underscored the fact that, although the cylinders may have been the source of the suspected release of chemicals, the evidence was insufficient to assert this and it is a major difference with from the redacted report…”


WikiLeaks indeed released an email from an employee within the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) indicating that the OPCW "misrepresents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground". This email has been used to call into question the impartiality and effectiveness of the OPCW’s conclusion about the alleged chemical weapon attack in Douma, Syria. But the comparison of the date when it was written and of the points raised in the letter with the OPCW's final report makes it clear that the OPCW addressed these concerns of said employee. Unusually, OPCW issued two reports on Douma, the preliminary and the final ones. The concerns of the said employee have been taken into account in the final report, points out Belingcat.

The e-mail is dated 22 June 2018. Thus, the interim report, published on 6 July 2018, stated that the found cylinders were the likely source of the chlorine or reactive chlorine-containing chemical. The final report published on 1 March 2019 states, however, in paragraph 2.16 that it was “possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine”. See the analysis by Bellingcat of how the concerns of the said employee raised in June 2018, were taken into account in the final OPCW's report released on 6 July 2018.

Western journalism is dominated by Russophobia and prefers fantasy and story-telling to objective reporting

After the Skripal case, even the most respected Western media have increasingly discarded objective reporting and have substituted the latter with Russophobic fantasy stories and spy-fiction. The most recent examples of Russophobic spy-fiction is a Le Monde article, and a previous New York Times article, on an alleged top-secret Russian intelligence unit that engaged in “destabilising activities” throughout Europe.

Western journalism, and many aspects of Western culture, are increasingly Russophobic, Sinophobic and phobic towards any actor that is critical of dominant Western globalist thinking. Russia can be accused without any argument or evidence to support the accusations, and it is up to Russia to prove its innocence. The Western media system has deteriorated, it is no longer based on objective information but on scandals, accusations, commercial considerations and geopolitical motivations.


No evidence is given. Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the spread of Russophobia in Western media, which also allegedly censors views that are critical of dominant Western narratives. A second recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative aims at discrediting investigative journalists that research Kremlin-sponsored, hostile, influence activities in the West, by claiming they are Russophobic and that their investigations are based on false information and dubious sources.

The Western media cannot be described as “Russophobic” nor as dominated by a ruling “globalist paradigm”. Media in pluralist democracies represent a wide range of political opinions and do not have a single editorial policy for any country or topic. Several journalistic investigations on topics such as the Skripal case have been based on serious research work and can in no way be described as “Russophobic”.

OPCW covered up the chemical attack in Douma

The “Wikileaks” website published last November an email from a member of the “Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons” investigation team about the alleged chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma in 2018, in which he accused the organization of covering up a defect in the report alleging the use of chlorine in Douma.


Recurring pro-Kremlin narrative seeking to absolve the Assad regime of responsibility for chemical attacks perpetrated in the course of the Syrian civil war, as well as to undermine the credibility and independence of the OPCW.

The internal OPCW e-mail message sent to WikiLeaks on June 22, 2018, by an unidentified member of OPCW’s Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), does not accuse the OPCW management of deliberately manipulating and suppressing evidence gathered by the FFM in order to blame the Assad government for the Douma attack and to justify Western military intervention against Syria.