Disinfo: Petro Poroshenko intentionally created the Kerch Strait incident in order to cancel or postpone the elections

Summary

The Kerch incident was used by President Petro Poroshenko to cancel the election in Ukraine, because he understood that it is difficult for him to win.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about the Azov Sea and presidential elections in Ukraine. Background information:

On November 25 border patrol boats belonging to Russia’s FSB security service seized two small Ukrainian armoured artillery vessels and their crews after shooting at them, wounding several Ukrainian servicemen. Russia argued that they were in Russian waters. However a bilateral treaty between Russia and Ukraine, signed in 2003 and ratified by Russia in 2004, governs the use of the Kerch strait and the Sea of Azov, which in the treaty is considered to be the “internal waters” of both Russia and Ukraine.

The construction of the Kerch Bridge took place without Ukraine's consent and constitutes a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It has led, in parallel with the militarisation of the Azov Sea, to tougher controls on naval traffic in the strait. The European Union stated that it expects Russia to stop the inspections.

Further debunking by the Polygraph.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 144
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 05/04/2019
  • Outlet language(s) Russian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: Ukraine, Russia
  • Keywords: Kerch, election meddling, Provocation
see more

NATO is the global fuse to ignite war

Today, NATO is the fuse the Anglo-Saxon powers use to ignite wars, just as the same powers instigated a war against Austria-Hungary and the German Reich. The same fuse passes over the Versailles treaty in 1919 and the Second World War.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative, portraying NATO as a threat to peace and having a belligerent agenda. NATO is a defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect its member states. Its exercises and military deployments are not directed against Russia – or any other country. NATO is regularly updating the military requirements for civilian infrastructure, at a time when there are increased challenges to security.

NATO cultivates Cold War block thinking and considers Russia as an enemy

NATO continues to cultivate old ways of thinking and the image of Russia as an enemy. One of the main objectives of the Western military alliance is still the “fight against the aggression of Moscow”. Moscow keeps calling for an end to Cold War block thinking. But that would mean the alliance having to search for a new meaning and new goals. For NATO it is easier to live with the good old enemy image.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative, portraying NATO having a belligerent agenda against Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has introduced sweeping changes to its membership and working practices – changes made clear by its adoption of new Strategic Concepts in 1999 and 2010. Accusations that NATO has retained its Cold War purpose ignore the reality of those changes. Moreover, NATO reached out to Russia with a series of partnership initiatives, culminating in the foundation of the NATO-Russia Council in 2002. No other country outside the alliance has such a privileged relationship with NATO. As stated by NATO heads of state and government at the Warsaw Summit in July 2016, "the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia. But we cannot and will not compromise on the principles on which our Alliance and security in Europe and North America rest".

NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War

In 1989 NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War.

Mikhail Gorbachev knew: If East Germany joins NATO, the Eastern European countries could then follow this example. But the West assured him at the time that the alliance would not expand.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation that NATO had promised that the Alliance would not expand to the East.

NATO Allies take decisions by consensus and these are recorded. There is no record of any such decision having been taken by NATO. Personal assurances from individual leaders cannot replace Alliance consensus and do not constitute formal NATO agreement.