Disinfo: Russia got rid of chemical weapons, unlike the US

Summary

Washington positions itself as the leader of the fight against the use of chemical weapons, such as in the case of Navalny's poisoning, but it did not destruct its chemical weapon stockpile as Russia did years ago.

Disproof

Recurring disinformation rejecting that Russia was involved in using chemical weapons, particularly in the poisoning of Russian opposition figures, such as Sergei Skripal and Alexei Navalny.

Both the US and Russia are signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which was created to eliminate chemical weapons altogether. Both had a deadline of 2007 to get rid of their chemical stockpiles, but both received extensions. Russia announced the completion of its effort in 2017, while the US announced the start of the destruction of the last stockpile in Kentucky in 2019.

It must be noted that former US President Richard Nixon declared in 1969 that US research in the field would focus on defensive R&D, renouncing US offensive biological warfare capability. This was not mirrored in Soviet military doctrines.

As for the two particular recent cases, the fact of Navalny's poisoning with a Novichok-type agent had been established during his stay at the Charite hospital. These findings were later independently corroborated by labs in France and Sweden, and finally confirmed by the OPCW (which Russia is also a member of). Following this attack, the United Kingdom notified the OPCW, invited them to confirm the identity of the substance involved, and briefed members of the Security Council. The OPCW’s independent expert laboratories confirmed the UK’s identification of the Russian produced Novichok nerve agent. So, a weapons grade nerve agent (chemical weapon) was used against Navalny in Russia by units of the Russian security service.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 235
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 03/03/2021
  • Article language(s) Hungarian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: Hungary
  • Keywords: Chemical weapons/attack, novichok, Alexei Navalny, Skripal
see more

The Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service has become a Russophobic propaganda machine

The Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service has become a Russophobic propaganda machine. Its latest 2021 security report is propaganda and psychological warfare aimed at portraying Russia and its foreign policy in a negative light.

Disproof

The geopolitica.ru article repeats pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative attempting to depict Western accusations of aggressive Russian behavior as baseless and driven solely by "Russophobia". This narrative is often targeting the Baltic States and Poland. See a recent EUvsDisinfo insight.

The claim that Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS) is a “Russophobic propaganda machine” is incorrect. The main function of EFIS (Välisluureamet) is to collect, analyse and report on Estonia's external security threats.

NATO would collapse if it abandoned the concept of the "Russian threat"

NATO would begin to collapse if it abandoned the concept of the "Russian threat".

The alliance does not address any of the real challenges facing the Western world, such as terrorism or the Coronavirus pandemic, but rather, it completely fights invented and hypothetical threats.

"Russian threat" has become the only pretext and basis for the existence of NATO and the preservation of the US strategic control over Europe. Without this phantom threat, the alliance will begin to crumble.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about Western Russophobia and alleged belligerent NATO, portraying the Alliance as a threat to peace and Russia, and is consistent with recurring portrayal on NATO member states' subordination to the US.

NATO is in no way directed against Russia or any other state. NATO’s objectives are set out in the 1949 Washington Treaty which forms the legal basis of the alliance. The treaty states that parties “are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security”.

External aggression against Belarus is just beginning

If earlier the main burden of organising a coup d'etat in Belarus was borne by the small Eastern European subordinates like Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine, then the change of power in the US brought heavy artillery into the process. On November 5, 2020, the OSCE published the "Report of the OSCE Rapporteur in the framework of the Moscow Mechanism in connection with reports of human rights violations in the context of the presidential elections in Belarus", whose recommendations are unprecedented interference in the internal affairs of Belarus and, in fact, a demand to abolish the Constitution and laws of the country, renounce sovereignty and put the state under external control. Thus, the OSCE explicitly demands "to cancel the results of the presidential elections on August 9, 2020 and to organise a new genuine presidential election on the basis of international standards under the supervision of the OSCE / ODIHR."

It is quite obvious that external aggression against Belarus is just beginning and is gaining momentum. The stake was made on a coup and seizure of power by a handful of grant-eaters who are obedient puppets of the West.

Disproof

Recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative framing popular protests as Western-backed 'colour revolutions', part of a campaign to portray massive mobilisations in Belarus as a destabilisation effort orchestrated from abroad.

There is no evidence that Poland, Lithuania or any other Western governments are involved in the protests in Belarus. There was no coup in Belarus. Protests erupted to contest the results of the presidential election in Belarus on the 9th of August 2020, which were not monitored by independent experts and are largely considered fraudulent by both international observers and a big part of Belarusian society. Mobilisations were organised and carried out by local actors, opposition politicians, and Belarusian citizens, without any foreign involvement. On 19 August 2020, the European Council called the Belarusian elections neither free nor fair.