Disinfo: Russophobic German media trust in the corona regime


What do Taz and Spiegel have in common? Both newspapers can be considered mainstream: well-behaved Russophobes and trusting in the corona regime. At the moment the Basic Law, the basis of state order in Germany, is de facto overruled by a small group of politicians and media owners: the legally guaranteed freedom of assembly is abolished. They (the two publications) rely on the Russophobia that has been common in Germany since Hitler.


No evidence given. Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative that portrays any outside criticism of Russia as a symptom of Russophobia. The article also contains elements of conspiracy theory about the coronavirus pandemic.

Taz and Der Spiegel are prominent and respected German media; they represent a wide range of political opinions and do not have a single editorial policy for any country or topic.

There is no "corona regime" - this is a baseless conspiracy theory and part of the Kremlin’s ongoing disinformation campaign around the coronavirus, well documented by both media and governments.

The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) comes from a family of viruses that include other viruses such as SARS and MERS. It was first reported in the Chinese city of Wuhan in central China and has been rapidly spreading, with new cases being reported in more than 200 countries of the world. There are now more than 5,500,000 confirmed coronavirus cases globally. More than 350,000 people died because of Covid-19. An updated situation report from WHO on the coronavirus pandemic can be found here.

Read similar disinformation cases alleging that coronavirus pandemic is exaggerated in order to turn countries into fascist hygiene dictatorships, that the Masters of Darkness invented the COVID-19 and seek world domination and that German media are Russophobic.


  • Reported in: Issue 199
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12/05/2020
  • Language/target audience: German
  • Country: Russia, Germany
  • Keywords: coronavirus, Mainstream media, Anti-Russian, Human rights, Adolf Hitler, Russophobia, Conspiracy, The West


Cases in the EUvsDisinfo database focus on messages in the international information space that are identified as providing a partial, distorted, or false depiction of reality and spread key pro-Kremlin messages. This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform. EUvsDisinfo publications do not represent an official EU position, as the information and opinions expressed are based on media reporting and analysis of the East Stratcom Task Force.

see more

Facebook distorts historical truth about WWII

Facebook has removed the photo of the Victory Banner over the Reichstag: was it an accident? I don’t think so. In the situation of removal of the famous photo of the Victory Banner, no one can believe in some kind of mistake or accident.

This time, Facebook blocked an account of a user, who published an original and well-known photo from Berlin of 1945. This photo is an illustration of a real historical event. But in current reality, the corporations, together with the authorities of particular countries, try to impose censorship, distorting the historical truth.


A pro-Kremlin conspiracy narrative about Western social media (primarily, Facebook), which are used by foreign governments or “secret elites” in order to promote various anti-Russian messages or inspire “Colour revolutions”.

The claim that Facebook carries out a policy of censorship aimed at the distortion of historical truth about WWII is conspiracy theory not supported by evidence.
According to the response from Facebook quoted by TASS, the situation with the removal of the recently-coloured photo of the Soviet Victory Banner took place as a result of a mistake of automated instruments used by the social network. This mistake was quickly fixed - the historical photo of the Soviet Victory Banner over the Reichstag is widely available on Facebook.

Warsaw Pact prevented global conflict, NATO escalates the situation along the Russian borders

The Warsaw Pact prevented the outbreak of global conflict during the Cold War. After its dissolution in 1991, the world has become unipolar, which negatively impacts international security.
After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and NATO enlargement to the east, this buffer [Warsaw Pact] had disappeared. As a consequence of this situation, we see the recent escalations realised by NATO along the Western borders of Russia.


Recurring pro-Kremlin narrative involving historical revisionism about the Cold War and presentation of NATO as a threat to global peace because it has an aggressive anti-Russian agenda.

The Cold War was a direct result of aggressive actions of the Stalinist USSR in Eastern and Central Europe as well as the Middle East (Turkey, Iran). The incorporation of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe into the Warsaw Pact was carried out under conditions of military occupation, one-party dictatorship and the violent suppression of dissent.

Ukraine and the Baltic states want to present the USSR as an “absolute evil” in WWII

The West wants to minimise the role of the USSR in the victory over Nazism. This policy is determined by Poland and the Baltic states. Currently, a new trend in the presentation of WWII has emerged – it presents as “absolute evil” not only the Nazis but also, the USSR. This strategy of turning the USSR in an “absolute evil” emerged in Eastern Europe – primarily, in Ukraine and the Baltic states.


This message is part of the Kremlin’s policy of historical revisionism – it accuses the Baltic states, Ukraine and Poland in “falsification and re-writing” of history and imposition of their historical views on the EU. Read more here.

The claim that Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland determine the view of the EU countries on WWII history is a distorted. The EU countries are sovereign states, which take their own decisions regarding the perception of WWII history. Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland cannot impose decisions on the EU and its institutions.