Disinfo: De jure, Moldova is still part of USSR


De jure, Moldova is still part of the USSR, since its collapse in Belovezhskaya Pushcha by a group of conspirators is illegal. This gives Moldovan citizens full right to consider themselves part of a great multinational country, which they still have to build together.


The statement is made in the context of the events commemorating June 28, 1940, when Soviet troops entered the territory of the current Republic of Moldova, at that time part of Romania

Recurring disinformation narrative claiming that former Soviet republics, including the Republic of Moldova, are closer to Russia than to the EU, by virtue of their common past. This narrative is often spread in the association with the narratives about WWII.

In fact, the dissolution of USSR was a process which began in the second part of the 1980s. December 26, 1991, is considered the date on which the existence of the USSR officially ceased. On this day, the Council of Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted a declaration on the termination of the USSR in connection with the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Two weeks earlier, on December 8, 1991, in Belarus, in the government sanatorium "Viskuli" situated in the Belovejskaya Pushcha forest, leaders of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia signed an agreement on the creation of the Community of Independent States (CIS) and the liquidation of the USSR.

These documents were signed and adopted after all the 15 former Soviet republics declared their independence. Russia adopted its Declaration of independence on June 12, 1990. The Republic of Moldova became an independent state on August 27, 1990.


  • Reported in: Issue 204
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 28/06/2020
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Moldova, Russia
  • Keywords: USSR, Historical revisionism, WWII


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

The West supports a genocide in Donbas

The West supports a genocide in Donbas.


The European Commission, whose officials no one has elected and practically does not control their work, has long become a conductor of Washington’s geopolitical interests. And acts to the detriment of the interests of the EU countries. European officials and business think in a different way. Business, as well as politicians who advocate for it, think in real terms, while European officials proceed from political, Eurocentric considerations. More precisely – Euro-Atlantic, preserving the dependence of Europe on the United States.


Article repeats several frequent pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about a Western-backed orchestrated crisis in Ukraine, deliberate genocide in Donbas, and the EU serving Washington's interests. This disinformation message appeared in the same article as the claim that "The US and EU organized a neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine, which led to the loss of Crimea and an uprising in Donbas".

No evidence given for a threat of genocide in Ukraine.

Discredited conspiracy theories about Russian meddling in US elections are back

Conspiracy theories against Russia are back. US TV station MSNBC is doing its best yet to spread the theory that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. “Do you think that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he doesn’t want to make him mad for 2020?”, anchorman Chuck Todd asked former National Security Advisor John Bolton in an interview in the show Meet the Press. This caused commotion in social media, since the Democrats’ affirmation that Trump colluded with Russia to somehow ‘steal’ the presidency seemed to have been put to rest after an attempt to impeach the president that came to nowhere. Bolton avoided Todd’s bait and said that there was “no evidence” that the president colluded with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Todd tried to put some distance and clarified several times that he wasn’t talking about “collusion”, without explaining what he was talking about if it wasn’t of “collusion”.


Recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about Russia’s innocence of meddling in US elections.

The article deliberately merges the accusations of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin with those of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. While the investigation of US special counsel Robert Mueller found no conclusive evidence of collusion -of which president Trump immediately claimed to have been exonerated-, there is massive proof of Russian meddling in the elections through social media, hackings and interested leaks, as the US intelligence community unanimously concluded.

Facebook will start hunting Russians

Soon Facebook will follow the example of colleagues on Twitter and begin to flag potentially harmful posts. Mark Zuckerberg is violating freedom of speech and is preparing to introduce an actual censorship of Facebook. Russia should immediately start defending itself against this censorship or otherwise Russian users will be persecuted and every pro-Russian, i.e. problematic opinion will be hushed.


Recurring pro-Kremlin conspiracies on social media and the West's alleged  censorship. Also consistent with the narrative that Western media are anti-Russian and promote Russophobia.

This disinformation narrative is a reaction to Mark Zuckerberg's recent statement, that Facebook will label harmful content. This possible change to Facebook policy is not directed against any particular country. Zuckerberg said that the company will ban ads and remove content, even from a politician, if Facebook determines that it incites violence or suppresses voting.