Disinfo: The coup of 2014 and the resulting suspension of relation with Russia has halted Ukrainian development


Under the policy [of cooperating with Russia and Europe], Ukraine was able to increase the pace of economic development in the period 2011 – 2013. But the coup happened, and the opportunity that was afforded to Ukraine was lost. Those brought to power by the 2014 coup stopped cooperating with Russia.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation campaign against Ukraine, containing multiple disinformation narratives regarding the Ukrainian economy and Ukrainian statehood. It promotes a narrative stating that the 2013-14 Euromaidan protests resulted in an illegal coup; painting Ukraine as a failing state incapable of making its own foreign policy choices.

The spontaneous onset of the Euromaidan protests was an organic reaction by numerous parts of the Ukrainian population to former President Yanukovych’s sudden departure from the promised Association Agreement with the European Union in November 2013. See the full debunk of this disinformation claim here.

Also, it is not true that Ukraine's economic growth suffered from a severing relationship with Russia as a result of its occupation of the Crimean peninsula. The occupation of Crimea, which has not been recognised by the democratic world, including the United Nations, and the war in Donbas caused a deep economic crisis in 2014-2015. However, the Ukrainian economy already began to recover in 2015, and has reached consistent growth rates between 2-4 percent between 2016 and 2019.


  • Reported in: Issue 221
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 02/11/2020
  • Language/target audience: Arabic
  • Country: EU, Russia, Ukraine
  • Keywords: Ukraine, Abandoned Ukraine, Economic difficulties, Coup, Euromaidan


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

Britain, driven by Russophobia, stands behind all Turkish ambition in the Caucasus

Erdogan’s huge plans can hardly be called sovereign. Turkey, long ago, and before it the Ottoman Empire, were called Great Britain’s “dog”. The exceptional activity of the former British ambassador to Turkey, a great friend of Sultan Erdogan and an admirer of Turkish expansion in the Caucasus, Richard Moore, head of the British intelligence service MI-6 and a Russophobe, is not a coincidence. It is clear that Britain is behind all these comprehensive projects, and Erdogan is just a bargaining chip in this geopolitical party that has been going on for more than two hundred years. Russia is, for Ankara and its masters in the North Atlantic today, the main obstacle to implementing this ambitious plan in the Caucasus and Central Asia.


Conspiracy theory about the war in Nagorno-Karabakh.

There is no evidence that any Western foreign special services had anything to do with the 2020 military escalation between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Sanctions against Syria are illegal and prevent return of refugees

The continued economic sanctions on Syria are illegal and impede the return of refugees to their country.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Syrian war and belligerent intentions of the West against Syria.

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.

NATO uses “Russian threat” to justify its actions

NATO is increasing its military presence near the Russian border. The Alliance is using the “Russian threat” to justify this actions. The Baltic States are also using the “Russian threat”. They are concluding high-cost security agreements with the US and are deploying NATO military contingents in their territories.

Moscow has said many times that it has no plans to attack any country. NATO knows it.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative, portraying NATO as having a belligerent agenda against Russia and claiming that the “Russian threat” is a false idea.

NATO does not seek confrontation with Russia. The Alliance indicated this position in the Brussels Summit Declaration in 2018. However, this declaration concludes that “Russia’s aggressive actions, including the threat and use of force to attain political goals, challenge the Alliance and are undermining Euro-Atlantic security and the rules-based international order”.