Georgia will be one of the first countries to start vaccination. The estimated date of introduction of the vaccine is spring 2021.
/…/
When it is known that it takes at least 7 years to create a vaccine, how can we trust a vaccine that has been developed in a slapdash? Why should Georgia be the first country? Are we experimental rats? If it is not suspicious and experimental, why would we be the first to be given the “vital vaccine” while we are not accepted in the European Union and NATO?
Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation message that tries to cast doubt about the vaccines developed by Western companies consistent with the narrative that developing countries will be a testing ground for the newly produced vaccines against the coronavirus.
Georgia will neither be the first nor a test country for the coronavirus vaccines. Dozens of states have applied for the future vaccines at an early stage of research.
As of November 26, 2020, three manufacturers of the coronavirus vaccine have announced the high efficacy of their candidates: Oxford University and AstraZeneca vaccine reported 70%, while Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines reported 90%. The United States and the United Kingdom have already announced that they will start vaccinating groups of people at risk as early as December 2020 (see first person to be vaccinated in the UK here). Canada, Japan and Australia are also working on the rapid authorisation of the vaccine. Germany plans to use the German BioNTech vaccine from the beginning of 2021.
On November 24, Amiran Gamkrelidze, director of the National Center for Disease Control, said the vaccines would be available in Georgia only after they are approved by the World Health Organisation on the COVAX platform, which is expected to take place in February or March 2021, although Gamkrelidze said the exact date was unknown.
The COVAX brings together 92 low and middle-income countries including Georgia. It has pre-ordered doses of up to 2 billion from 9 different vaccine manufacturers and will distribute them to beneficiary countries. It is also noteworthy that many wealthy states entered into agreements with pharmaceutical companies long before the COVAX was set up to receive the required number of doses as soon as the start of vaccine production.
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).
