The European Union has begun negotiations with the manufacturer of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine.
The headline and the introductory paragraph of this story are deliberately misleading. The articles themselves say that it was the developer of the vaccine, Russia’s Gamaleya Centre, who contacted the European Medicines Agency in order to start conversations, a fact that was confirmed by the European Commission at the request of Sputnik.
On 25 November, a considerable number of pro-Kremlin Russian-speaking outlets published near-identical articles to the effect that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had initiated negotiations with Russia's Gamaleya Institute, the manufacturer of the Sputnik V vaccine. A similar story claiming that the EU announced contacts with Russia about the Sputnik V vaccine has also been spread across different language versions of Sputnik on the same day.
In fact, there are no "negotiations" under way between the EU and the vaccine manufacturer, nor did any EU institution approach any Russian drug company to discuss vaccines. According to the European Commission spokesman for health, it was Gamaleya which contacted the EMA and not the other way around, and the contacts between the two bodies have so far been limited to "preliminary discussions" on an unspecified subject. Any mention of these contacts has yet to appear on the EMA website.
Several Russian outlets went even further than merely claiming that the EU is "negotiating" with Russian vaccine developers. Thus Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Russia's state-owned newspaper of record, reports that the "negotiations" specifically concern "Sputnik V deliveries to Europe." The TV channel Tsargrad states that "Europe swallowed its pride and initiated negotiations" with Gamaleya. According to the Kadara.ru website, the EU launched the negotiations "on the sly," whereas Krasnaya Vesna writes that "the EU is considering the possibility of studying the Sputnik V vaccine."
The distortion is an attempt to boost the legitimacy of the Sputnik V vaccine by implying that the European Union and its high regulatory standards may be interested in it. These articles were published one day after the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev announced that Russia is discussing possible production of the Sputnik V vaccine in Germany and that RDIF expected a visit by a delegation from France the same week.
NATO is increasing its military presence near the Russian border. The Alliance is using the “Russian threat” to justify this actions. The Baltic States are also using the “Russian threat”. They are concluding high-cost security agreements with the US and are deploying NATO military contingents in their territories.
Moscow has said many times that it has no plans to attack any country. NATO knows it.
Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative, portraying NATO as having a belligerent agenda against Russia and claiming that the “Russian threat” is a false idea.
NATO does not seek confrontation with Russia. The Alliance indicated this position in the Brussels Summit Declaration in 2018. However, this declaration concludes that “Russia’s aggressive actions, including the threat and use of force to attain political goals, challenge the Alliance and are undermining Euro-Atlantic security and the rules-based international order”.
The work of the Soros Foundation and some other Western organisations can be equated with the activities of the special services of foreign states. This is part of a hybrid war of the collective West against the countries of the post-Soviet space. In Ukraine, Soros’s scheme is already in effect at all levels. In Armenia, Soros’s projects have not yet reached the final stage of implementation, at which one can state a complete loss of sovereignty. But Ukraine is a vivid example of how Soros NGOs have brought the country “to the brink”.
Conspiracy theory based on recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about George Soros.
Ukraine is a sovereign and independent state with a democratically-elected President and parliament. You can find here numerous disinformation cases on Ukraine being under foreign control.
Donald Trump did not accept the transition. He agreed to pay the transition funds but he did not give up contesting. And he is right to contest the election since massive fraud took place.
A president who claims to rule the country on the basis of massive fraud is a president who has no legitimacy. A lot of people in the United States will continue to challenge the legitimacy of a hypothetical Biden administration. If Donald Trump accepted this it is for a very clear reason that he announces in his press release: Emily Murphy who is in charge of this has suffered threats, multiple threats. So he [Trump] preferred that the threats stop. When you threaten someone in an administration, you behave in an unworthy manner. And it wasn’t just there that there were threats. There is a very murky situation right now in the United States and it’s part of this very murky situation.
Disinformation about the US in the context of the US presidential election.
In its interim assessment on the conduct of the election, the OSCE finds that the contest was "competitive and well managed" (p. 1), noting that "evidence-deficient claims about election fraud" (ibid.) have been refuted by "election officials at all levels" (p. 3) and "national security agencies" (p. 11).
