Over the years of Trump’s presidency, Democrats have tried to accuse him of collaborating with Russia, and they looked for evidence of that, and never found it.
Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation denying Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.
Available evidence suggests that Russian meddling the 2016 US presidential poll - which specifically aimed to damage Clinton's campaign and aid her opponent - did affect the outcome of the vote, particularly in three critical swing states where Trump's victory margins were the thinnest.
The claim that the Special Counsel report provides no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion is spurious. Gathering evidence of "collusion" - which is not a legal concept - fell outside the scope of the investigation. The aim of the probe was not merely to ascertain contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia-linked individuals during the election period, but to establish whether these interactions were deliberate enough on the part of Trump Campaign officials to sustain charges of conspiracy (p. 2).
The report explicitly identifies "numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign" (p. 9).
This disinformation message appeared in the same article as the claim that Biden won the election due to serious violations.
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).
