Disinfo: EU made it difficult for people to get Sputnik V


Europeans committed a terrible folly as they entrusted vaccination to the bureaucracy in Brussels. Brussels was unable to reach an agreement with the pharmaceutical companies. As a result, it is very difficult to get a (Sputnik V) vaccine, for example, in Germany today, and on this basis, there is a lot of anger and aggression.


A disinformation message linked to the current EMA rolling review of Sputnik V.

The delay of rolling out the Russian vaccine in the EU cannot be laid over the shoulders of EMA alone as it is being painted in the claim.

Under EU rules, any vaccine or medicinal product must be authorised by the European Medicines Agency before it can be marketed in any state of the 27-nation bloc, EMA said.

Nonetheless, temporary import and distribution of unauthorised vaccines are allowed for emergency use in the EU “in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of pathogenic agents, toxins, chemical agents or nuclear radiation, any of which could cause harm,” the relevant EU law reads.

Thus the process of vaccine approval and distribution in the EU can be categorised as follows: a wholesale distribution, meaning an applicant can apply for the EMA approval after which if approved, the medicine is on the market in all EU MS. Or a 'piecemeal' distribution, meaning an applicant applies with the national medicines agency, and if approved, they are allowed to sell in that MS alone.

So far, Hungary and Slovakia have already bought the Russian shot, the Czech Republic is interested, and the EU official said Italy was considering using the country’s biggest vaccine-producing bioreactor at a ReiThera plant near Rome to make Sputnik V.

But on 15th March 2021, Kirill Dmitriev, head of RDIF, which is marketing Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine globally said that they are targeting getting approval by the EMA which “will allow starting supplying Sputnik V to the European single market”.

On that note, interim results from a phase 3 trial of the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine were only published in The Lancet on February 2, 2021.

And up until mid-February 2021, the producer of the Sputnik V vaccine has not submitted a market authorisation to EMA.

On March 4, the EMA launched a rolling review of Sputnik V, the first step in a process that could lead to its EU-wide approval, this will allow the EMA to assess data on a vaccine as they become available, while the development is still ongoing. EMA does not discriminate but follow the usual, fast procedures.

Read similar cases in our database that claim that a senior EMA official said getting Sputnik V is like playing Russian roulette; or that EMA's delay in approving Sputnik V is political; or that Sputnik V is a target of the corporate cold war; that the West wants to discredit the Sputni -V; or that Finns are choosing Sputnik V for vaccination.


  • Reported in: Issue 237
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19/03/2021
  • Article language(s) Arabic
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: Germany, Russia
  • Keywords: coronavirus, vaccination, Sputnik V, Anti-Russian
see more

Disinfo: Joe Biden wants to provoke a New Cold War with Russia to distract the Americans from domestic problems

US President Joe Biden wants a new Cold War with Russia. Biden deliberately provokes Russia and seeks to bring about a new Cold War in order to distract US public opinion from domestic problems.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the US and the West allegedly pursuing a belligerent and hostile agenda against Russia. The article’s message is also consistent with the pro-Kremlin narrative that seeks to discredit US President Joe Biden.

There is no evidence to support the article’s claim that the Biden administration is seeking to launch a “Cold War” with Russia. The Biden administration reacted to specific Kremlin actions that harm the US and its allies, such as ongoing aggression against Ukraine, cyber-attacks, influence operations targeting the US 2020 elections. The administration has also denounced the violation of human and civil rights in Russia, such as the poisoning of an opposition politician Alexei Navalny.

Disinfo: Ukraine never had a legal right to Crimea

Ukraine has never had the legal right to Crimea. The peninsula has always been and will always remain Russian land.


This is a recurring disinformation narrative from pro-Kremlin media trying to deny that Crimea is a part of Ukraine.

Crimea has a very long and complicated history with many peoples living there. Its population was diverse and included in various historical periods Crimean Tatars, Turks, Ukrainians, Russians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians, Italians from Genoa, Urums, Karaites etc. Alans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Cimmerians, Huns and other ancient nations had also lived there.

Disinfo: NATO needs Georgia as a military platform for a conflict potential with Russia

Georgia, just like the Baltics, is a platform for the deployment of foreign NATO troops in possible operations against Russia, the long-term strategy does not provide for anything else, the leadership of NATO does not care much about the safety of the population of these republics.

[The NATO] partners need Georgia for the constant development of a conflict potential with Russia, and as a platform for the likely deployment of the NATO troops in the regional theatre of military operations. By agreeing to be a kind of anti-Russian "instrument" of the US and NATO in the Caucasus, the Georgian leadership deliberately "frames" its people.

Of course, in a situation of local (regional) conflict, none of the Western partners will sign up for a catastrophe for Georgia's sake . "Younger" allies are needed by the collective West as a consumable in the long-term confrontation with major opponents.


This is a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about NATO allegedly pursuing a belligerent and hostile agenda against Russia particularly in the Caucasus as well as about Georgia's cooperation with NATO.

The narrative is part of a larger campaign aiming to influence public support against Georgia's NATO aspirations and portraying neutrality as the most rational foreign policy choice for Georgia. Georgia's movement to join NATO was intensified after the de-facto occupation of a part of its territory.