Disinfo: NATO planned to turn Crimea into its military base

Summary

NATO admitted that it intended to turn the annexed Crimea into its huge naval base. The North Atlantic Alliance chatted about how the future of the peninsula would have developed if Crimea had not become part of Russia.

Disproof

The mythical encroachments of NATO countries on the Ukrainian peninsula are the most common narrative from Russian media. The Kremlin justifies the annexation of the peninsula with these “facts about the evil NATO”. Although NATO has repeatedly emphasised that the North Atlantic Alliance did not have any views on the ports of Crimea before it was annexed. Speaking at the Centre for Strategic Studies at Queen Victoria University in New Zealand on August 5, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg did address the Crimean issue. However, Stoltenberg spoke of Crimea not in the context of the "NATO plans for militarising" the peninsula, but as one of the main modern threats to the world order that developed after the end of World War II. According to the NATO Secretary-General, at the moment, there is an increase in the Russian presence in the world due to the increasing competition of states. Stoltenberg emphasised that one of the main goals of the Kremlin is to undermine confidence in democratic institutions in NATO member countries. Therefore, Moscow annexed Crimea and withdrew from the INF Treaty.  

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 160
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 06/08/2019
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Russia, Ukraine
  • Keywords: NATO, Crimea

Disclaimer

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

Groundless accusations against Russia for the downing of MH17 in Donbas

The accusations against Russia for the downing of MH17 in Donbas are groundless since the Joint Investigative Team did not provide concrete evidence against Moscow.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the downing of flight MH17. Actually, the JIT has indeed provided concrete evidence of Russia's involvement. On the 28th of September 2016, the JIT announced that Flight MH17 was shot down by a missile from the 9M38 series, which was launched by a BUK TELAR missile system. The system was transported from the Russian Federation to an agricultural field near the town of Pervomaiskyi in Eastern Ukraine, from where the missile was launched. After firing, the system - with 1 missing missile – was transported back to the Russian Federation. On the 24th of May 2018, the JIT announced its conclusion the BUK TELAR used to shoot down MH17 came from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, a unit of the Russian armed forces from Kursk in the Russian Federation. On the basis of the investigation conducted by the JIT, with the participation of law enforcement agencies from Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, Ukraine and the Netherlands, the Dutch Public Persecution service will prosecute Igor Vsevolodovich Girkin, Sergey Nikolayevich Dubinskiy, Oleg Yuldashevich Pulatov and Leonid Volodymyrovych Kharchenko for causing the MH17 crash and murdering all 298 persons on board. The Public Prosecution Service alleges that the four individuals cooperated to obtain and deploy the BUK TELAR at the firing location with the aim of shooting down an aircraft. For that reason, they can also be held jointly accountable for downing flight MH17. The JIT conclusions were further corroborated by the Bellingcat Investigation Team. For the full Bellingcat report see here.

Russia’s involvement in Skripal poisoning has not been proven

British police acknowledged that it does not possess evidence of Russia’s involvement into the Skripal’s poisoning. They would like to, but after years of careful investigation, they found nothing.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Skripal poisoning claiming that the United Kingdom was never able to prove a “Russian trace” and did not provide detailed evidence of Russia’s involvement. British police and investigations from the intelligence services have produced hard forensic evidence which was sufficient to charge two Russian nationals, identified as officers of the Russian Military Intelligence, GRU, for the attack on the Skripals. Following this attack, the United Kingdom notified the OPCW, invited them to confirm the identity of the substance involved, and briefed members of the Security Council. The OPCW’s independent expert laboratories confirmed the UK’s identification of the Russian produced Novichok nerve agent.

Crimea re-united with Russia on the basis of the will of Crimea’s citizens

Crimea re-united with Russia on the basis of the will of Crimea’s citizens, who independently determined their future in a referendum held in March 2014, in which over 90% of voters voted in favour of joining Russia.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative on the annexation of Crimea claiming that Crimean citizens chose to re-join Russia through a legal referendum. The so-called referendum held on 16th of March 2014 has not been recognised by any international body. On the date of its announcement, the 27th of February 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution stating that the referendum in Crimea was not valid and could not serve as a basis for any change in the status of the peninsula. A year later, even the Kremlin admitted that the plan to annex Crimea was ordered weeks before the so-called referendum. Five years after the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation, the EU issued a statement to confirm its commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and reiterates that it does not recognise and continues to condemn this violation of international law. For other cases about Crimea see here.