Disinfo: Lithuania and Poland conduct aggressive hybrid war against Russia


The joint Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian Brigade, LITPOLUKRBRIG is an example of a Western hybrid army in Eastern Europe. This is an element of aggressive hybrid war to destabilise Russia.

In reality, Poland and Lithuania do not plan to send armies to Donbas to support Kyiv. Instead, through LITPOLUKRBRIG, Poland and Lithuania intend to contain Russia by supplying Soviet weapons to Kyiv, amongst others. Military associations such as LITPOLUKRBRIG give the US the means to preserve its influence in Eastern Europe, even if the EU creates a common army.


Recurring pro-Kremlin narratives about civil war in Ukraine and Western belligerence towards Russia and its allies such as Belarus.

It was Russia that provoked a war in Ukraine. For further debunking see here.

Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade LITPOLUKRBRIG is a multinational unit consisting of subunits from the Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian Armed Forces. The Agreement on its creation was signed on the 19th of September 2014 in Warsaw. The Brigade was finally formed in the Autumn of 2015. Establishment of the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade is a part of continuous process of consistent and long-term military cooperation between Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania. This model of cooperation has been previously carried out in the framework of the Polish-Ukrainian Battalion (POLUKRBAT) and Lithuanian-Polish Battalion (LITPOLBAT). These military units existed respectively in the years 1998-2010 and 1997-2008.


  • Reported in: Issue 139
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 25/02/2019
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland
  • Keywords: West, Anti-Russian, Civil war, War preparation, Destabilising Russia, Donbas


Cases in the EUvsDisinfo database focus on messages in the international information space that are identified as providing a partial, distorted, or false depiction of reality and spread key pro-Kremlin messages. This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform. EUvsDisinfo publications do not represent an official EU position, as the information and opinions expressed are based on media reporting and analysis of the East Stratcom Task Force.

see more

INF Treaty dissolution could provoke Ukraine to develop its own nuclear program

The US has begun to promote the idea that, after leaving the INF Treaty, Ukraine in particular could afford the luxury of doing whatever it wants. Ukraine is not a member of this treaty, because the INF Treaty was signed when the USSR existed.

As soon as Ukraine gets nuclear weapons, Europe will begin to get very nervous, because Ukraine is a country where Nazis and supporters of Bandera are in power.


No evidence provided.

After the fall of the USSR, Ukraine inherited the third biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. On December 5, 1994, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed. According to the document, signatory countries - Great Britain, Russia and the United States - pledged themselves to be guarantors of the independence, sovereignty and borders of Ukraine. In exchange, Ukraine renounced its nuclear status.

Russia’s accusation of Skripal poisoning is a deadcatting strategy

What happened in Salisbury on March 4, 2018? A year later, the British have not yet provided a clear explanation. But the answer to the question “why is all this necessary?” is now obvious.

This is part of the “dead cat” strategy, explained by former British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. When someone is being defeated in an argument, the best thing to do is to “throw a dead cat on the table” said Johnson. This produces a clear effect: it attracts attention and makes everyone scream  – distracting from the real problems.


Boris Johnson indeed spoke about a "dead cat", but it was 5 years before the Skripals’ poisoning, on 3 March 2013, while talking about the euro.

Straight after the poisoning of the Skripals, Boris Johnson pointed the finger at Russian President Vladimir Putin as "overwhelmingly likely" to be responsible: "Our quarrel is with Putin's Kremlin and with his decision, and we think it is overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the U.K." Johnson said.

Theresa May was probably behind poisoning of Skripals, to compensate for Brexit negotiations failure

The poisoning was meant to turn public attention away from Theresa May’s Brexit-associated problems and to demonize Russia. Theresa May herself probably ordered the Skripals’ poisoning. No evidence of Russia’s involvement in the Skripals’ poisoning was produced. All accusations against Russia turned out to be groundless. There was no certainty concerning the form of the poisonous substance. If Novichok had been brought to Salisbury, its entire population would have died. Documents published by hacker group Anonymous prove that the poisoning was a distraction. 


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative of the UK behind poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia.

By March 2018, EUvsDisinfo had already collected 20 different narratives about the Skripal case. It had catalogued over 100 disinformation messages around the Salisbury attack. The disinformation messages implying UK government conspiracy behind the Skripal case are often-used method of applying a pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Salisbury poisoning.