Disinfo: The American Embassy in Warsaw takes decisions on strategic issues instead of the Polish Government and President


In any normal country, the American Ambassador would have been urgently called to the MFA after making this type of a public statement [possible re-deployment of the US nuclear weapons from Germany to Poland]. In this situation, a rhetorical question arises – who is in power in Poland and who takes decisions on strategic issues? It is not the Government or President, but the American Embassy in Warsaw.


A common pro-Kremlin narrative on “lost sovereignty” - in the case of Poland, this country is often presented as a “puppet-state” of the United States, EU or Germany, which fully control the domestic and foreign policy of this country.
Poland is a sovereign state, which shapes its own foreign and domestic policies.
On May 15, Georgette Mosbacher, the American Ambassador to Poland, published her Tweet regarding the ongoing political discussion in Germany about the US nuclear weapons deployed in this country. According to the Ambassador, if Germany wants to reduce the presence of the US nuclear weapons on its territory, it is possible that Poland may be able to host these American weapons.
See other examples of this message claiming that Polish policy towards Ukraine is shaped by the Americansthe US keeps Poland on a short anti-Russian leash, and Poland is a Trojan Horse of the United States.


  • Reported in: Issue198
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 20/05/2020
  • Language/target audience: Polish
  • Country: US, Poland
  • Keywords: Conspiracy theory, US presence in Europe, Puppets, Sovereignty


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

In 1934, Poland and Germany signed a secret protocol about common actions against the USSR

The presented document is also known as the “secret protocol to Hitler-Pilsudski Pact”. It contained the information that the “Polish Government undertook to provide German soldiers with free passage if these troops were called upon to react to provocations from the East or North-East” (meaning, in the situation of armed conflict with the USSR).


This message is part of the Kremlin’s policy of historical revisionism and an attempt to erode the disastrous historical role of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by stating that other European countries signed various international agreements with Germany throughout the 1930s. The same article contains another disinformation message about France, Germany and Poland planning to partition the USSR even before Hitler came to power.

It is impossible to compare the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact as the former was a standard international agreement aimed at the mutual recognition of borders and a declaration that existing political contradictions would be solved through diplomatic tools. There is no evidence that this pact contained any secret protocols, which assumed common aggressive actions of Germany and Poland against the USSR or other countries. Moreover, the pact did not include any agreements on advanced political, economic and military relations between Poland and Germany.

EU sanctions on Syria are illegal

Syria has been living for many years under illegal and unilateral EU sanctions that bypass the United Nations Security Council.


Within  the context of the conflict, EU  sanctions, imposed since 9 May 2011, respond  to  the repression  perpetrated  on  the  Syrian  people by  the  Syrian  regime  and its supporters, including through the use of live ammunition against peaceful protesters, and the regime’s involvement in the proliferation and use of chemical weapons.

EU sanctions are designed in a way that only targets the specific individuals and entities on the sanctions list, avoiding negative impacts on the population. They comply with all obligations under international law, in particular international refugee law, international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

Russia forced NATO out from the Barents sea

Russia forced NATO ships to retreat from the Barents Sea, as NATO was not prepared for the unexpectedly harsh Russian response.

Russia obstructed NATO’s plans and forced their destroyers to retreat ahead of schedule.

Although the NATO military group felt “comfortable” in the Barents Sea for three days, an unpleasant surprise awaited them on the morning of May 8, as Russian naval ships began large-scale military exercises in the same area, and started firing in close proximity.

Russia’s response, which made it clear that it controlled the region, made NATO forces flee the Barents Sea ahead of schedule.


Claims without basis. There is no evidence to suggest that the NATO ships cut the exercise short because of Russia.

On Friday 8th of May, US Navy ships and a British warship wrapped up seven days of exercises and departed the Barents Sea after entering the Arctic on May 4.