Disinfo: EU officials are guided by their own corporate interests, coupled with persistent wishes from Washington

Summary

EU officials, like Borrell, are not guided by the interests of specific countries that make up the European Union but are guided by their own corporate interests, coupled with persistent wishes from Washington. That is why they are pursuing a political line that runs counter to the interests of individual EU member states. More precisely, the overwhelming majority of European states have long-standing and strong economic ties with Russia. This is not only about such major players as France, Germany, Italy, but, of course, these three countries lose more than others from the Russophobic position of the European Union. At the same time, officials in Brussels are not in the least worried that their salaries are received from the taxes of these countries.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Russophobic EU, US presence in Europe, portraying Europe as a vassal of the USA, accusing the EU officials of being subordinate to the US and serving Washington’s interests instead of their own, trying to undermine the sovereignty of European countries. This narrative claims that the United States dictates policies to the EU, EU officials and its member states. For pro-Kremlin disinformation, countries that are outside of Russian control are US vassals, and some are vassals of vassals.

Unfounded statement about the engagement of the EU High Representative with incomprehensible corporate interests and the interests of the United States.

The European Union is actually a sovereign entity which follows its own foreign policy. The US is an important ally to the EU but the later policy is not determined by the US, as explained by the EU High Representative.

The EU shapes its policy in full transparency, without external involvement. The High Representative for foreign affairs shapes the standing of the European Union on the global stage. This includes conducting the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, ensuring implementation of the decisions adopted by the European Council and the Council, chairing monthly meetings of Foreign Affairs Ministers from all EU member states, and more.

HRVP Josep Borrell travelled to Moscow 4 - 6 February 2021 to test whether the Russian government was interested in addressing differences and reversing the negative trend in EU-Russia relations.

In a statement after the visit, Josep Borrell reiterates his appeal to dialogue with Russia, but notes that the Kremlin refuses an exchange on issues:

"The Russian authorities did not want to seize this opportunity to have a more constructive dialogue with the EU. This is regrettable and we will have to draw the consequences."

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 232
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19/02/2021
  • Outlet language(s) Russian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: Russia
  • Keywords: Josep Borrell, Anti-Russian, US presence in Europe, Russophobia
see more

Russia does not need to take part in the information war

The leading mass media of the world is controlled by American and European Special Forces. Russia is not losing the information war – Russia simply does not participate in it.

It is an uneven fight, and the West wages the war the wrong way. We also have those possibilities. Many journalists, who respect their professions look to us. It is not a coincidence that the members of the British parliament follows RT: they understand that non-biased journalists work there.

Disproof

It cannot be excluded that British parliamentarians occasionally view RT, but the claim on RT journalists being “un-biased” is not correct. The British media licensing body, OFCOM, deprived the RT broadcast rights, due to the outlet’s failure to abide to British licensing rules for impartial reporting.

The claim on Russia “not taking part in the information war” can also be challenged. The RT editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, has repeatedly claimed RT as a part of Russia’s efforts in an information war.

The ECHR decision on Navalny undermines the Court's credibility

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Navalny undermines the credibility of this structure. This decision is not supported by any facts and contradicts Russia’s domestic laws as well as international law.

The ECHR’s demand to release blogger Alexei Navalny is a very serious attempt to interfere in the Russian judicial system, which is unacceptable.

Disproof

The claim is made in light of the recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which was published on 17 February 2021. The ECHR decided “to indicate to the Government of Russia, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to release the applicant [Navalny]… This measure shall apply with immediate effect.” The Court explains this decision as follows:

The Court had regard to the nature and extent of risk to the applicant’s life, demonstrated prima facie for the purposes of applying the interim measure, and seen in the light of the overall circumstances of the applicant’s current detention. This measure has been granted without prejudice to the Court’s decision on the merits of the present case and the competence of the Committee of Ministers.

The European Court of Human Rights was set up by the Council of Europe in 1959 as a supervisory mechanism to monitor respect for the human rights of 800 million Europeans in the 47 Council of Europe member States that have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. Russia, both as a member of the Council of Europe and as a signatory of the Convention, has committed to the respect of human rights, democracy and the rule of law and undertook to secure a number of fundamental rights and freedoms to everyone within its jurisdiction.

As follows, the decision made by the ECHR does not contradict any laws and does not represent interference in the Russian judicial system. As The Guardian writes and as the court notes:

EMA's delay in approving Sputnik V is political

It appears that the delay in approval by the European Medicines Agency is related to political or geopolitical reasons, not medical, and this is a mistake, especially at a time when there is a need to vaccinate citizens to get out of a social and economic emergency as well as health emergencies.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative aiming to promote the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. The claim was neither counterbalanced nor critically challenged in the article.

All vaccines, authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), are welcome in the EU. As of the 17 February 2021, the producer of the Sputnik V vaccine has not submitted a market authorisation to the European Medicines Agency.