Disinfo: Rasmussen suggested Georgia join NATO without Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Summary

Before joining NATO, Georgia should recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It is impossible to enter NATO with territorial disputes. Rasmussen suggested a very simple thing to Georgia – give up South Ossetia and Abkhazia, recognize their independence and then we [NATO] will be ready to discuss your membership.

Disproof

This is manipulative interpretation of the former NATO Secretary General's statements, giving the impression that Georgia should give up its occupied regions in exchange for joining NATO. This is one of many types of pro-Kremlin disinformation about the relations between Georgia and NATO. Speaking at the 5th Tbilisi International Conference co-organized by McCain Institute and Economic Policy Research Centre, former NATO Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said [13:07 - 15:00] that in case of Georgia’s accession to the alliance, it should be discussed internally whether Article 5 covers only the territory that is actually controlled by the Georgian government and applies to the occupied territories only after Georgia restores its jurisdiction there. As an illustration, Rasmussen brought an example of Germany, saying that West Germany joined NATO in 1955, while East Germany became a member of the alliance only in 1990, following German reunification.

“If one day we consider Georgia ready to join the alliance, we also have to make sure that Article 5 is still credible, which would require NATO to actually help Georgia, if Georgia is attacked. But obviously, it is the problem to have unresolved border disputes with Russia in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. So, the question is - how could that be resolved. I think you have to discuss internally in Georgia: would you in that case be willing to accept that Article 5 will only cover the territory that is actually controlled by the Georgian government. And the NATO will also have to reflect on exactly the same question,” Rasmussen said.

Further debunking by Myth Detector.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 164
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12/09/2019
  • Outlet language(s) Russian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: Georgia
  • Keywords: Sovereignty, NATO
see more

International terrorism is the result of a liberal world order

International terrorism is the result of a liberal world order.

Disproof

No evidence given. This message is a wide-spread conspiracy theory that the United States established many terrorist organizations and that it has full control over global terrorism. When, in 1988, Al-Qaeda emerged as a network made up of Islamic extremist, Salafist jihadists, it has been immediately designated as a terrorist group by the UN, the EU, the US, Russia and other countries. See similar cases here and here.

Russophobia is an integral part of the UK foreign policy

Throughout the history of modern Europe, the United Kingdom used the doctrine of Russophobia as an integral part of its foreign policy.

Disproof

No evidence provided. Russophobia is often used in pro-Kremlin disinformation as an explanation for anyone blaming Russia for anything. For background, read our analysis: The “Russophobia” Myth: Appealing to the Lowest Feelings. Read a chronology of key events in UK-Russia relations.

9/11: The WTC7 building was blown up professionally

9/11: The WTC7 building was blown up professionally.

The study (…) does not focus on the collapse of the 400-metre-high twin towers WTC1 and WTC2, but on the case of the much lower WTC7, which was not rammed by an aircraft. Nevertheless, the 186-metre-high tower collapsed in just seven seconds. (…) The WTC7 building was most likely blown up professionally.

Disproof

This is a conspiracy theory, no evidence was presented. It relays a recurring narrative that suggests the US government's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 conspiracy theories have been refuted several times including by the “9-11 Commission" conducted by the US legislators. The study quoted by Sputnik does not claim that 'the WTC7 building was blown up professionally'. See other examples of this narrative here, here and here.