Disinfo: Aim of UN resolution on militarisation of Crimea was to interrupt the Normandy summit

Summary

The UN adopted an Ukrainian resolution of “militarization” of Crimea, which calls on Russia to withdraw its troops. The aim of the resolution was to interrupt the Normandy Four meeting. But UN is silent on militarisation of the region from the side of NATO.

Disproof

New take on the recurring pro-Kremlin narrative claiming that Crimea joined Russia legitimately. Also, consistent with the narrative that Ukraine is not interested in peace and that NATO is involved in the militarisation of the Black Sea region. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution which urges the Russian Federation to withdraw its military forces from Crimea and end its temporary occupation of Ukraine’s territory without delay. It did not aim to interrupt the Normandy summit. NATO's exercises and military deployments in the Black Sea are not directed against Russia – or any other country. NATO has reached out to Russia consistently, transparently and publicly over the past 29 years.Sea Breeze military exercises have been taking place each year since 1997, while Agile Spirit joint military exercises started in 2001 under a different name and were celebrated on a biennial base since then, so they can’t be considered a source of increased tensions. Here you can see other examples of disinformation on NATO alleged goals in Crimea and its intentions to introduce a fleet to the Azov Sea, provocations against Russia in the Black Sea or the dangers created by the Alliance’s activities in those waters.

Go to search

publication/media

nurtv.kz (Archived)
iz.ru (Archived)
tass.ru (Archived)
sputnik-ossetia.ru (Archived)
  • Reported in: Issue 177
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 10/12/2019
  • Outlet language(s) Russian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: Ukraine
  • Keywords: United Nations, NATO, War in Ukraine
see more

Disinfo: Normandy summit aimed at solving Ukraine's internal problems

The so-called Normandy summit taking place on 9th December in France is designed to help Ukraine overcome its internal divisions and problems.

Dec 09, 2019
Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative which masks the clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity by acts of aggression by the Russian armed forces since February 2014 as a civil conflict. The Normandy format has been in place since 2014 and resulted thus far in six official meetings between the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany. The aim of each summit since February 2015 has been to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Donbas conflict by implementing the so-called Minsk agreements. Without mentioning Russian personnel and hardware by name, the agreements call for the withdrawal of "all foreign armed formations, military equipment, as well as mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine" (para. 10).

Disinfo: 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.

Dec 09, 2019
Disproof

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.

Disinfo: WADA's decision is unfounded and illegal

The decision of WADA is illegal and unreasonable. Therefore, it should be objectively examined by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). On a formal far-fetched pretext, the status of RUSADA was temporarily suspended.

Dec 09, 2019
Disproof

One of the methods of Kremlin disinformation is to deny the authority of international organisations and independent agencies and question their missions. See examples: "The exclusion of Russian athletes in the Olympics is a form of war" and "There is no evidence that Russian athletes have been using doping". The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established in 1999 as an international independent agency composed and funded equally by the sport movement and governments around the world. Its key purpose is to carry out the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) – the document harmonising anti-doping policies in all sports and in all countries. WADA reports cases of non-compliance to its stakeholders who have jurisdiction to impose sanctions, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Olympic charter was amended in 2003 to state that the adoption of the Code by the Olympic movement is mandatory. Only sports that adopt and implement the Code can be included and remain in the programme of the Olympic Games. If a country does not ratify the International Convention against Doping in Sport, it may be subject to sanctions from the IOC and from other sports organisations, including losing the right to host the Olympic Games. The Russian Olympic Committee, the Russian Anti-Doping Agency 'RUSADA' and the Paralympic Committee have accepted the WADA Code. On November 25th 2019, WADA said its independent Compliance Review Committee (CRC) was recommending that RUSADA be declared non-compliant with the Code. Russia’s handling of WADA’s requests during the investigation of doping violations is “an extremely serious case of non-compliance” with several “aggravating features,” WADA stated. Commenting on the latest WADA CRC recommendations, head of RUSADA Ganus said “you can use political slogans as much as you like,” but the “reality of the situation” is that Russia’s sports authorities “did not do what could have been done” to explain the alterations to the database. There are no legal grounds to dispute the non-compliance (decision)."