Disinfo: EU does not care about its citizens since it delays approval of Sputnik V for political reasons


The European countries have been rushing to administer the third dose of the vaccine, in a context of an epidemic outbreak. The umpteenth delay for the certification of Sputnik V leads to the following question: are the interests of the populations really at the heart of the decisions of the European Union officials?


Recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation about the Sputnik V and its ongoing review by the European Medicines Agency.

RT correctly quotes a Reuters source saying on 21 October that “The EU drug regulator is unlikely to decide whether to approve Russia's Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine until at least the first quarter of 2022 because some data needed for the review is still missing”. But RT incorrectly implies that the real reason would be political and financial interests that would endanger the EU population.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) started the rolling review of the Sputnik V vaccine on 4 March 2021. At the beginning of September 2021, EMA stated it was still waiting for necessary additional data from Sputnik V's manufacturers before it can authorise the vaccine.

The EMA and EU leaders have publicly stated they will welcome Sputnik V if it meets the applied standards for vaccines. In fact, problems with inconsistent, problematic or missing data and lack of transparency have been regularly reported regarding Sputnik V, leading some international health regulators to consider the information yet insufficient.

As Marcus Ederer, the EU ambassador to Russia stated:

WHO has publicly voiced a number of identified problems and suspended the vaccine recognition procedure. Therefore, all questions about the timing should be asked to the Russian authorities. The Russian side has repeatedly postponed the timing of the inspection requested by the EMA, which slows down the process. These are the facts. This is a technical, not a political process. When Russian officials talk about delays and politicization on the European side, it sometimes seems to me that they mostly talk about themselves, since they are the ones who politicize this issue.

Read also related cases: The campaign to discredit and denigrate the Sputnik V vaccine is funded by foreign states, Western pretexts not to approve Sputnik V are false, this is negationism, The EU doesn’t approve Sputnik V due to political and artificial prejudices, and EMA is still biased against Sputnik V while there are no concerns about side effects.


  • Reported in: Issue 267
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 27/11/2021
  • Article language(s) French, Russian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: EU, Russia
  • Keywords: coronavirus, Sputnik V, vaccination, Anti-Russian
see more

Disinfo: President of the European Commission and head of NATO visit Vilnius to instruct authorities

The aim of the joint visit of the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to Vilnius is to give strict instructions to Lithuanian authorities on when and what to say and do. It is very important in the situation with migration crisis on the border between Belarus and Lithuania. Every shot of Lithuanian border guards in the direction of Belarus could be seen by Minsk as the beginning of NATO aggression against the Union State of Belarus and Russia.


A recurring narrative presenting Lithuanian authorities as puppets of the EU and NATO.

The joint visit of the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to Vilnius was a sign of solidarity with the situation on the border between Belarus and the EU. Lukashenka's regime is responsible for the mentioned tensions on the border. There is plenty of evidence that the Belarusian authorities have instigated the ongoing crisis.

Disinfo: The EU asks Russia to let the Donbas population die of starvation

The EU asked Russia to let the Donbas population die of starvation by ceasing its humanitarian aid. As tough as it may seem, this would be the interpretation of the call made by the European Union to withdraw a decree on humanitarian aid recently signed by Vladimir Putin, aimed to alleviate the hard socioeconomic situation in Eastern Ukraine as a result of Kyiv’s blockade and the COVID-19. Russia’s open hand draw the ires of Josep Borrell, whose statement accuses Moscow of “taking unilateral steps that only provoke further aggravation of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine”. According to the West, everything that is done to protect the Donbas population is an “aggravation of the conflict”, while, following this logic, the military attacks of Kyiv’s army against the self-proclaimed republics of the East “contribute to peace”.


Pro-Kremlin disinformation about EU and Ukraine. The claim grossly distorts and misrepresent the statement of the EU.

As the European External Action Service has stated, the Russian decree signed by President Putin on 15 November on simplified trade rules with Donbas aims to further separate the temporarily non-government-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk from Ukraine, in contradiction with the objectives of the Minsk Agreements.

Disinfo: The Ukrainian regime kills the opposition with the help of neo-Nazis

After the 2014 coup, the Ukrainian regime turned to outright terrorism against the opposition, including the killing of opposition politicians and journalists with the help of neo-Nazis, who were integrated into the structures of the security services and the Ministry of Interior.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative portraying Ukrainian politics and society as dominated by Nazi/ Fascist ideology; claiming that the Ukrainian regime kills opposition politicians and journalists is a wildly false claim that the article does not even attempt to corroborate.

The myth of Nazi-ruled Ukraine has been a cornerstone of Russian disinformation about the country since the very beginning of the 2013-14 Euromaidan protests, when it was used to discredit the pro-European popular uprising in Kyiv and, subsequently, the broader pro-Western shift in Ukraine's foreign policy. Far-right groups had a very limited presence during the protests and went on to obtain abysmal results in the 2014 presidential and parliamentary elections. During the 2019 election cycle, the far-right managed to sustain an even more tremendous failure.