Disinfo: The West supports a genocide in Donbas

Summary

The West supports a genocide in Donbas. // The European Commission, whose officials no one has elected and practically does not control their work, has long become a conductor of Washington’s geopolitical interests. And acts to the detriment of the interests of the EU countries. European officials and business think in a different way. Business, as well as politicians who advocate for it, think in real terms, while European officials proceed from political, Eurocentric considerations. More precisely – Euro-Atlantic, preserving the dependence of Europe on the United States.

Disproof

Article repeats several frequent pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about a Western-backed orchestrated crisis in Ukraine, deliberate genocide in Donbas, and the EU serving Washington's interests. This disinformation message appeared in the same article as the claim that "The US and EU organized a neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine, which led to the loss of Crimea and an uprising in Donbas". No evidence given for a threat of genocide in Ukraine. The word genocide is frequently used in pro-Kremlin disinformation, but it seldom corresponds to the actual definition of a genocide. The European Commission is the EU's executive arm. Commissioners are first appointed by EU member states and then, as candidates, take part in hearings in the European Parliament. The EP members - which are elected by EU citizens directly - can reject a candidate and have exercised this power in the past. As for the President of the European Commission, his candidacy needs to be agreed by the European Council - that is, by democratically elected leaders of every member state. The European Commission as a whole is subject to a vote of consent by the Parliament and are then appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority. In the whole process of appointing new EU leaders, the results of the European elections have to be taken into account. See here for more information. Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union ensured the principle of subsidiarity, which guarantees that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made to verify that action at EU level is justified in light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local level. It is the principle whereby the EU does not take action (except in the areas that fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is more effective than action taken at the national, regional or local level.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 206
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 04/06/2020
  • Outlet language(s) Russian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: EU, US
  • Keywords: European Commission, European Union, US presence in Europe
see more

20,000 people took part in massive racist violence in Paris

On Monday, June 2nd in the North of Paris, 20,000 people took part in a racist outburst of violence implying rape, murder and plunder with the implicit complicity of authorities which is the definition of the word pogrom.

Disproof

Classical lexical excess of titles changing totally the meaning of events especially using the implication that the western countries bear the guilt of anti-Semitism. A pogrom is a word that has two meanings in Russian, it comes from the verb Gromit' (громи́ть) to smash, to sack. The first meaning is devastation, mayhem, carnage. The second is a nationalist attack against minorities or ethnic groups (Jews especially). After terrible attacks against Jewish villages during the Tsarist time the word came into English and French but only with the second meaning. The French academy gives the following definition:

Outburst of popular violence directed against the Jewish community, accompanied by looting and often murder, generally led by extremist movements and tolerated by the regime in power. By extension. Name later given in other countries to violence against certain communities, mainly against the Jewish community.

The event of the march in Paris in the memory of Adama Traoré that gathered 20,000 people on 2 June was described by most media including RT France as a peaceful gathering. RT France gave extensive coverage of this massive but illegal demonstration and it cannot be described in any way as a pogrom. After the end, at 21:00 incidents occurred, confrontation with the police, fire of garbage, blockage of the traffic on the ring road... In no way, such sporadic event can include 20,000 or have a high degree of violence or racism. Finally, even if the very large meaning of that word was accepted widely it cannot be affirmed that 20,000 people took part in this since only a minority created minor disorder after the end of the demonstration.

The protests in the US may be a colour revolution orchestrated by those who promoted the fake Russiagate

Peaceful protests degenerated into riots and deliberate fires, followed by violence, clashes with police and political demands for regime change, driving comparisons to the events in Ukraine, north Africa or Serbia, or, more recently, Bolivia, Venezuela and Hong Kong. This is not the first time that an African American man dies at the hands of the police and a peaceful protest turns violent, but it is the first Black Lives Matter protest that spread everywhere and quickly gained an openly political and partisan dimension, despite that the four agents involved in the death of George Floyd were immediately fired and one of them was charged with murder a few days later. It is not surprising that Trump is blamed for the death of Floyd, despite that Minneapolis and Minnesota are run by Democrats. He was also blamed for the coronavirus by the Democrats, the same people that insisted for years that Russiagate was real. Now they blame Trump for responding to the riots (what they call “peaceful protests”) by sending the army. Colour revolutions follow a script: find a legitimate cause, ask the police and the army to join the protests, and if they don’t, intensify the riots to provoke a forceful response that creates martyrs. Everything useful must be captured by cameras, and any inconvenience removed from memory. The goal is not reform, equity or justice, but regime change. The old Serbian joke says that no colour revolution can take place in the US because there is no US Embassy there, so all this must surely be a mere coincidence. Surprisingly, everything that the US applied all over the world is being implemented in its territory.

Disproof

This is a mix of several recurrent pro-Kremlin narratives, framing every protest movement in the world as a colour revolution promoted from the outside and aiming at regime change and portraying the Democratic Party in the US as part of a Deep State conspiracy to illegally topple president Donald Trump by falsely linking him to Russia. The claim that the protests after the death of African American citizen George Floyd are a colour revolution orchestrated by the Democrats is a conspiracy theory, and zero evidence is provided to back it. On the contrary, many Democratic leaders have called upon demonstrators to go home, or at least to strictly stick to peaceful protest and avoid looting and violence. While some of them, along with some Republicans opposed to Donald Trump, are encouraging citizens to vote for the Democratic Party in the upcoming elections of November 2020 if they want to replace Donald Trump, that can hardly be considered a plot to overthrow the president. You can see other examples of these disinformation narratives in our database, such as claims that coronavirus is a pretext for a global colour revolution, that UK is deploying women ambassadors to CIS countries to instigate regime change, that the Vatican and Ukrainian Nazis are assisting in similar efforts in Hong Kong, that Donald Trump’s impeachment was a failed plot by Democrats obsessed with billionaire George Soros, that the Mueller Report is another proof of how Russia is always falsely blamed or that US Democrats accuse Russia of interference as a preventive measure for their upcoming defeat. [NOTE: The first article is actually a translation from RT English, see here: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/490575-america-riots-color-revolution/]

Crimea became part of Russia after the events of 2014 in Ukraine

The Crimean peninsula became part of Russia after the events of 2014 in Ukraine, when power changed in the country as a result of a coup. The decision was made following the results of a nationwide referendum, in which more than 80% of Crimeans participated. More than 95% of Crimean residents voted for reunion with Russia. Despite the results of the referendum, Kyiv denies the peninsula’s right to self-determination and refuses to recognise it as part of Russia.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the annexation of Crimea, claiming that Crimea voted to rejoin Russia through a legal referendum. Crimea is a part of Ukraine and was illegally annexed by Russia. In 2014, Russian troops obliged the parliament of Crimea to organise a referendum, which was illegitimate under international law, and then formally annexed the peninsula and brought it under Russian territorial control. The annexation has been condemned by the UNGA (see the resolution A/RES/68/262 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine). No international body recognises the so-called referendum, announced on 27 February 2014 and held on 16 March 2014. Following the covert invasion by “little green men,” the referendum in Crimea was conducted hastily and at gunpoint, barring impartial observers from entering the peninsula. A year after the illegal annexation, Russian President Vladimir Putin admitted that the plan to annex Crimea was ordered weeks before the so-called referendum. The European Union does not recognise Crimea's annexation and continues to condemn it as a violation of international law. EU sanctions continue to be in place against Russia as a consequence of the annexation. For the EU's statement on the sixth anniversary of Crimea annexation see here. The article also claims that sanctions against Russia are not effective, and some countries are urging the EU to weaken or lift the sanctions against Russia. See the case: EU is suffering from sanctions against Russia. It also said that restrictions do not have any effect on Russia, whose economy has long adapted to them. See the case: Sanctions against Russia are ineffective.