One again, the Polish-Russian cooperation in the sphere of science, education and culture has become the victim of intensifying political confrontation, which is unbeneficial for both sides. The politicisation of the sphere of people-to-people contacts is unacceptable.
The decision of Rector Borek [to liquidate the Center of the Russian Culture and Language] shows to everyone that the actions of the University lay outside the legal field. It is a lesson to all the Russian universities, which signed cooperation agreements with this institution [the Pedagogical University of Krakow]. These agreements may be broken at any time, putting the Russian partners in a difficult position.
The Polish side initiated the breaking of another thread of the Russian-Polish humanitarian cooperation.
This message is a part of the Kremlin’s disinformation narrative about anti-Russian Poland, which is not interested in having good relations with Russia. The claim that the Center of the Russian Culture and Language at the Pedagogical University of Krakow was liquidated as a result of a political decision “laying outside the legal field” is not supported by evidence.
The Rector and Administration of the Pedagogical University of Krakow have full authority to implement all necessary institutional changes and decisions in their institution. At the present moment, the Pedagogical University of Krakow faces substantial restructuration under the supervision of a new University Council. According to the principle of institutional autonomy of Polish universities, they have a right to establish their own organisational structure.
The Polish universities are autonomous educational institutions, which do not take part in any alleged “anti-Russian” activities, staying outside politics.
Practically every large Polish university offers a degree in the Russian language for its students. Read more about various Polish-Russian educational and humanitarian projects on the page of the Centre for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding.
See other messages about the anti-Russian actions allegedly realised by Poland: Constant intimidation with Russia is used to make Poland economically dependent on the USA, the Polish authorities created an insane hysteria of intimidation with Russia, used for the needs of domestic politics and the national security strategy of Poland is a manifestation of traditional Russophobia of the Polish authorities.
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.
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
