Disinfo: Eastern Partnership is an imitation of integration to alienate post-Soviet states and Russia


The Eastern Partnership is an important project for both the European Union and the participating countries. However, while for post-Soviet states this is a step towards marriage, for Brussels it’s an opportunity to maintain the relationship without obligations. The EU lures these countries with a magical word – Euro Integration – and gives them false hopes for EU membership, while in return asking them to alienate Russia.



A recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative on Eastern Partnership and the West, and in this case the EU, of separating Russia from its neighbours.

The Eastern Partnership (EaP) is a joint policy initiative which aims to deepen and strengthen relations between the European Union (EU), its Member States and its six Eastern neighbours: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Read more about the Eastern Partnership and its priorities here.

The Eastern Partnership initiative is not against any country; it is a mutually beneficial and constructive platform for countries in the region to build a closer relationship with the EU if they choose to do so. The EU does not demand any of its partners to make a choice between the EU or any other country. The Eastern Partnership stands for good neighbourly relations and respects the individual aspirations and ambitions of each partner country.

See similar disinformation cases that the aim of the Eastern Partnership is to separate Russia’s neighbours from it and Eastern Partnership and the Three Seas Initiative are anti-Russian.

Read more on the most repeated myths about the Eastern Partnership initiative here.


  • Reported in: Issue 202
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19/06/2020
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: EU, Russia
  • Keywords: Eastern Partnership


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

In 2014 a referendum held in Crimea was for unification with Russia at 96%

In March 2014, President Putin signed the decree which linked the peninsula and the city of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation. The move followed a referendum in which over 96% of residents in the region voted in favour of reunification with Russia.

Kiev and its western allies do not recognize the results of the plebiscite and consider Crimea as part of the Ukrainian territory occupied by Moscow.


Recurrent disinformation about the illegal annexation of Crimea.

The so-called referendum was organized under Russian illegal occupation without complying with neither the Ukrainian electoral code nor the Russia electoral code. The annexation has been condemned by the UNGA (see the resolution A/RES/68/262 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine).

WWII archives are open in Russia, whereas in Western countries they are kept secret and revisionism is promoted

The Russian president published an article in The National Interest and Rossiyskaya Gazeta. He notes again and again, that contemporary Russia embraces its history as a whole, with its good and bad sides, while the Western archives remain secret and revisionism spreads.


Recurrent narrative about the Western countries trying to rewrite history to serve a political agenda, whereas Russia would favour historical truth without second thought.

Archives of WWII are not secret in western countries. Historians can have access to them, and even general public. In France, for instance, since the opinion was published by RT France, all archives related to WWII are open without any pre-approval since the decree opening archives relating to the Second World War of 24.12.2015. Before archives were accessible with derogation since 1997, 1998 (national Archives) and 2002 (district Archives). A vast program of declassification of Secret Defence archives was initiated.

USSR did its utmost to create anti-Hitler coalition, the West left it to deal with Nazi Germany alone

The Munich Agreement served as a “trigger” and made World War II inevitable. The Munich Agreement showed to the Soviet Union that Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account.  In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance of creating an anti-Hitler coalition, despite the double-dealing on the part of Western countries.  However, the Soviet leadership saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, Soviet leaders sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country’s defences.


This message is part of the Kremlin’s policy of historical revisionism which attempts  to portray Russia's role in World War II as non-aggressive and to blame the West for the failure to create an anti-Nazi coalition with the Soviet Union. This narrative essentially blames the West for the outbreak of World War II, and seeks to relativise and erode the disastrous historical role of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact (the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union) by stating that other countries signed various international agreements with Adolf Hitler throughout the 1930s, and to argue that it was the Munich Agreement that triggered WWII.

The article’s claim that the failure to create an anti-Nazi alliance between Western powers and the Soviet Union in the late 1930s is entirely the West’s fault  is not true.  This failure was due to deep mutual mistrust between  Western democracies  and the Soviet Union.  On the one hand, mass terror inside the Soviet Union made many European policy-makers wary of entering into an alliance with Moscow, especially because thousands  of experienced Soviet military officers were imprisoned or executed  during this purge. On the other hand, Stalin perceived that Western powers, especially after the Munich Agreement,  looked with favour on Germany’s eastward expansion. Furthermore, he played  a “double game”, negotiating the creation of  an anti-Nazi alliance with France and the UK,  and at the same time discussing  with Berlin a possibile Soviet-Nazi rapproachment.