Disinfo: NATO's statements about the need to confront Russia are caused by the crisis within the West

Summary

NATO’s statements about the need to confront Russia are caused by the crisis within the West and, as a result, the search for an enemy.

The front facade (of the West) just collapsed, and we saw what was happening there – nothing was left of some kind of solidarity, no one really wants to help anyone, there is a terrible fuss and a fight with each other, for the division of money, vaccines, redistribution of resources among themselves … Economic problems, problems of migration, social rights, human rights – we saw all this in a bouquet. So they had to urgently use their beloved trick and find a new note of aggression in Russia to be able to say: “We don’t need to look at our Western problems, we need to look at Russia, restrain it even more because Russia is threatening us.”

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about Western Russophobia and alleged anti-Russian projects in the West, an attempt to divert attention from the multiple violations of international law by Russia in recent years.

This message followed the statement of the NATO Secretary-General about the need to update the NATO Strategic Concept agreed back in 2010.

As Stoltenberg stated 17 February 2021 at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers:

"We have a Strategic Concept which has actually served us well. But, since then, the security environment we face has fundamentally changed. For instance, in the current Strategic Concept, we are not addressing the shifting balance of power and the security consequences of the rise of China. We hardly mention climate change....And, also, back in 2010, we were working for, establishing, what we then referred to as a strategic partnership with Russia. Since then, we have seen Russia being responsible for aggressive actions against neighbours, the illegal annexation of Crimea and things have fundamentally changed. So we need to update our Strategic Concept. We need to recommit to our core values."

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: West, Anti-Russian, Encircling Russia, Destabilising Russia, NATO, 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.