Disinfo: Allegations about Kiselyov-controlled RT, Russia’s implication in Skripal poisoning and MH17 downing work only for anti-Russian audiences

Summary

Lithuania has banned the broadcasting of five RT TV channels on its territory, following Latvia’s analogous decision. The decision claims that RT is controlled by Dmitry Kiselyov, whereas, in reality, RT has nothing to do with news agency Rossiya Segodnia chaired by him.

Allegations about Kiselyov-controlled RT, Skripal poisoned by Vladimir Putin and MH17 downing by Kremlin are fine for anti-Russian audiences. The West increasingly sees no reason to waste its resources on Russia and the forces that sympathize with Russia, apparently considering it as hopeless to persuade and attract them on its side.

This sloppy approach was the product of West’s monopoly in information, political, and ideological spheres. It is because of this monopoly that at a certain stage the West ceased to consider it necessary to rigorously and professionally elaborate its policies on a general level, but also in what concerns its competitors. As a result, the West did not notice how it lost the monopoly because of the loss of competences.

Disproof

This message questions Dmitry Kiselyov's relation to RT and presents RT broadcasting bans in Latvia and Lithuania, Skripal poisoning, and MH17 downing as West's anti-Russian provocations to influence public opinion. It is consistent with the recurring pro-Kremlin narrative about West's deliberate anti-Russian activities. In fact, the Skripal case, and the downing of MH17 are well-documented cases of acts of Kremlin-enabled violence outside Russia.

Latvia and Lithuania have banned the state-owned Russian television channel RT, saying it is controlled by an individual, Dmitriy Kiselyov, who is under EU sanctions. According to the Electronic Mass Media Council (NEPLP), Latvia's national media watchdog, RT and the network of channels operated by it are under Kiselyov's "effective control".

Read full NEPLP's position here for details.

For further debunking please see the Insider.

In Skripal case, approved judgement has been issued around three weeks after their poisoning in March 2018, after a hearing in the Court of Protection. The British Police have presented a solid chain of evidence on the Skripal case, with pictures, connecting the suspects to the locations in the case. Parts of the material have been released to the public. The evidence was sufficient to charge two Russian nationals, Anatoliy Chepiga and Aleksandr Mishkin with the attack on the Skripals, both Russian military intelligence operatives from the GRU, who travelled to the UK using fake names and documents. See more disinformation cases on Skripal's poisoning (Salisbury poisoning).

As for MH17, the results of the investigation of the Joint Investigation Team are clear: flight MH17 was shot down by a missile from the 9M38 series, which was launched by the BUK TELAR system. The system was transported from the Russian Federation to an agricultural field near the city of Pervomaiskiy in eastern Ukraine, from where the rocket was launched. After firing, the system with one missing missile returned to the Russian Federation. On May 24 2018, JIT announced in its conclusion that the Buk belongs to the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, a unit of the Russian armed forces in Kursk, Russian Federation. The public hearing on the incident started on 9 March 2020 in the Netherlands.

See similar cases here that there was no evidence of Russia's involvement in the poisoning of Skripal and that just like WADA's doping accusations, Skripal poisoning and the downing of MH17 were Russian provocations.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 206
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 10/07/2020
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Russia
  • Keywords: Sergei Skripal, Diplomacy with Russia, Anti-Russian, Dmitry Kiselyov, MH17

Disclaimer

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

Anglo-Saxons are at the edge of anti-Russian attack, Germany is semi-occupied by the US

Some time ago the West created media in their contemporary understanding. Since then the freedom of speech and the free spread of information have turned into one of the West’s trump cards in its struggle against ideological and geopolitical opponents.

Anglo-Saxons remain at the edge of anti-Russian attack, they are its driving force. At the same time lately, Anglo-Saxons have been losing the support of their closet allies who prefer a more neutral approach to Russophobia. Currently, anti-Russian positions of leading German media run counter to the politics of German ruling establishment, which defends common projects with Russia and tries to get rid of the half-occupational dependency on the US. Extreme subordination and unequivocal loyalty of key German media outlets to Washington remain.

Disproof

This is a mix of recurring pro-Kremlin propaganda narratives about lost sovereignty / external control, Western Russophobia and anti-Russian activities, and conspiracy about US-controlled media in Europe. In the pro-Kremlin media, the term “Anglo-Saxons” means “evil”, “belligerent” and “morally corrupt” Westerners, as explained in our earlier analysis.

German media, like that in other pluralist democracies, represent a wide range of political opinions and do not have a single editorial policy for any country or topic. Nor they subordinate to Washington or any other foreign capital. Germany ranked 11th in the 2020 World Press Freedom Index, higher than the US (45th) and Russia (149th).

There is no need for international organisations, WHO are criminals

International organisations are ineffective and do not solve any problems. In general, humanity has lived most of its history without international organisations. Today, WHO proves to be a criminal organisation that, in the best case, needs to be dissolved and, in the worst case, an international process should be organised against it. This is because they hid the situation in China for a long time and promoted this pandemic to such a scale with the help of the media, although in reality there is no pandemic.

Disproof

A pro-Kremlin narratives about WHO, COVID-19 and about the alleged uselessness of international organisations. One of the hosts of the TV show attempted to challenge the claim.

International organisations serve many diverse functions, including collecting information and monitoring trends (e.g. the World Meteorological Organization), delivering services and aid (e.g. the World Health Organization), and providing forums for bargaining (e.g. the European Union) and settling disputes (e.g. the World Trade Organization). By providing political institutions through which states can work together to achieve common objectives, international organisations can help to foster cooperative behaviour.

Europe has always considered Ukraine an anti-Russian project

Europe has only ever considered Ukraine as an anti-Russian project.

Disproof

This is a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about Russophobia in Ukraine and Ukraine's statehood. It is a conspiracy theory without any evidence.

Ukraine is recognised in international law as a sovereign nation-state, with its own flag, nationality, language and with a democratically-elected president and parliament. The EU and the US support the democratic development of Ukraine in accordance with the UN Charter’s principles of non-interference into internal affairs and respect towards territorial integrity and political independence.