Language:

See all Disinfo Cases - Detail

Disinfo: The coronavirus puts EU's existence into question

Summary

Europe has turned into the main source of coronavirus. China has mostly managed the outbreak, while Russia and other post-Soviet countries successfully combat coronavirus. The EU bodies look absolutely pathetic and helpless. The emergency situation revealed a horribly low level of management and responsibility of the EU establishment. Coronavirus epidemics puts forward the question point-blank: given that the EU is clearly incapable to address the modern challenges, will it continue to exist? The XXI century events repeatedly demonstrated that the EU cannot be a meaningful global actor as it cannot adequately react to geopolitical and military challenges. A phenomenal carelessness of EU politicians about coronavirus infection has just proven this. Coronavirus crisis demonstrated that the EU is just ceasing to exist in the new reality.

Disproof

This message exaggerates the inefficient governance in the EU, without providing any facts to these claims. The message is generally consistent with a recurring pro-Kremlin narrative about EU's and other Western states and organizations imminent collapse. Read our past analysis 5 Common Pro-Kremlin Disinformation Narratives to learn more about this and the other most frequent propagandistic narratives. See earlier disinformation cases alleging that Italy, Spain, Portugal, and possibly even France are in line to exit the EU, that a number of EU countries teeter on the brink of default, and that the EU is rotten and countries are leaving it.

Go to search

publication/media

rubaltic.ru (Archived)
  • Reported in: Issue 188
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13/03/2020
  • Outlet language(s) Russian
  • Country: Russia
  • Keywords: coronavirus, European Union
see more

Closer cooperation with Europe turned into a catastrophe for Ukraine

As for Europe, it has already closed its borders; it does not need Ukraine. We all saw the consequences of the Maidan and what Ukraine turned into after the signing of these European integration documents: enterprises were closed and state property has been privatised in large numbers.

Mar 12, 2020
Disproof

No evidence given. Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative targeting EU-Ukraine cooperation. It is also consistent with previous narratives alleging that the Euromaidan is one of many colour revolutions prepared by the West and the EU. The EU is the largest donor to Ukraine. Since 2014, the EU has provided Ukraine with billions of Euros of assistance. On average, the EU has given Ukraine €650 million. From 2014 to 2017, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development provided an additional €3.5 billion. In general, the EU has funded projects in the humanitarian field, provided assistance to stabilise the macro-financial situation, given grants and loans for capacity building, energy reforms and fighting against corruption. The free trade agreement improved trade in agricultural products, thus benefitting Ukraine. Currently, Ukrainian exporters have a right to export their products to the EU without paying customs duties on some products. Based on 2016-2019 numbers, Ukraine was among the top 3 suppliers of agricultural products to the EU. In 2017, Ukrainian agricultural export increased by 8.5% bringing an additional $477.7 million of income. In 2018-2019 financial year, Ukrainian exporters sold products for a record €6.3 billion. Already in 2014, the EU has cancelled import tax on 95% of Ukrainian goods. The demonstrations which began in Kyiv in November 2013 – called "Maidan", or "Euromaidan" – were a result of the Ukrainian people's frustration with former President Yanukovych's last-minute U-turn when, after seven years of negotiation, he refused to sign the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement and halted progress towards Ukraine's closer relationship with the EU as a result of Russian pressure. For more cases about the Euromaidan protests, see here. See a similar case alleging that Ukraine's chances of joining the EU are miserable, the economy is destroyed and industry in ruins.

Stalin did not get his hands dirty while signing a document with Hitler while European leaders did

Stalin did not directly negotiate with Hitler but only through subalterns, therefore there is no document bearing the signature of both Hitler and Stalin whereas western leaders did have direct contact in Munich. Therefore the Soviet Union doesn’t bear any responsibility for the beginning of WWII.

Mar 12, 2020
Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation claiming that the European Union is trying to rewrite the history of World War II. This narrative attempts to erode the disastrous historical role of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by stating that other European countries signed various international agreements with Germany after Adolf Hitler came into power. The European Parliament resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe stressed the fact that WWII was an immediate result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The resolution is aimed at the promotion of historical remembrance about WWII and condemnation of totalitarian ideologies. See related disinformation cases here. The fact that Stalin did not directly sign documents but only through his subalterns doesn't minimise the responsibility of the Soviet Union. The non-aggression pact and the secret protocol between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich had to be negotiated, safely, quickly and secretly that explains why Hitler didn't come in person in Moscow and why the signatures are not by the hands of the leaders but their full representatives. The document has the same value as if it was personally signed by Hitler and Stalin.

Russian defendant in MH17 trial denied access to own case file

Since the Dutch court presiding over the MH17crash case is not obligated to translate all the case materials — with the case file consisting of 36,000 pages — the sole Russian defendant represented at the trial may be left without the possibility to study all the documents. According to a court representative, if the defendants are present in the courtroom and cannot understand Dutch or English, the judge will provide a certified interpreter. Translation of the file case can be provided by the lawyer of the defendants, but not by the court. The court is in Dutch, so all files and hearings will be in Dutch. No translation other than an interpreter is obligatory.

Mar 12, 2020
Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative aiming to discredit the investigation of the Joint International Team (JIT) into the downing of flight MH17. The report implies that without access to the entire 36,000-page case file, the accused Russian national will not be able to mount an effective defence. It also falsely claims that translation of case files and any other relevant documents can only be provided by the lawyer of the defendant. A 10 March statement by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service provides an exhaustive refutation of these concerns, and is thus worth citing at length:

"Before this hearing, the Public Prosecution Service provided a Russian translation of the notice of summons and accusation and the general account. That account is a detailed summary of the case file comprising (in the Dutch version) 147 pages. This took a considerable amount of time. In addition, the Public Prosecution Service has undertaken to provide a Russian translation of the personal case file: an overview of the investigation with regard to the defendant Pulatov of (in the Dutch version) 68 pages. [...] The Public Prosecution Service believes that these documents will provide the defendant with sufficient insight into the charges and the evidence adduced by the Public Prosecution Service. On the basis of these documents and the further discussion of other information in the case file in the consultations with his counsel (with the aid of an interpreter or his Russian lawyer), the defendant should be able to carefully determine the course of action he wishes to adopt during the proceedings."

The statement also makes it clear that translation of other, non-essential documents must be separately requested by the defence counsel, along with an explanation "why the defence considers translation necessary. This is in accordance with Dutch (article 32a, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and European legislation [Article 3, paras. 1-4 of Directive 2010/64/EU]."