Disinfo: The Nazis have seized power in Ukraine


Cancer cannot be cured with aspirin. Cancer is treated only by surgical intervention. It is a cancer tumour called “Nazism”, which seized power in Ukraine, and which can be cut off by surgical means. In plain language: by military operation.


Repeating recurring pro-Kermlin disinformation on Ukraine and Nazis.

As witnessed by the democratic Early Parliament elections held on 26 October 2014, Ukraine is governed by a democratically elected Parliament. The OSCE characterized the elections as “an important step in Ukraine’s aspirations to consolidate democratic elections in line with its international commitments”, offering voters “real choice” and “a general respect for fundamental freedoms”. According to the OSCE, the only areas where serious restrictions were reported were those controlled by separatists, who undertook increasing attempts to derail the process. There was no possibility also to carry out the elections in the Crimean Peninsula annexed by Russia the same year.

The far-right ‘Right Sector’ (often depicted as "fascists" or "Nazis" by pro-Kremlin outlets) gained only 1.8% of the votes, far short of the threshold needed to enter parliament. Ukraine's electorate clearly voted for unity and moderation, not separatism or extremism, and the composition of the parliament reflects that.


  • Reported in: Issue 106
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 26/04/2018
  • Outlet language(s) Russian
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: Ukraine
  • Keywords: War in Ukraine, Nazi/Fascist
see more

PACE is a propagandistic assembly that deals with Russophobia at all levels

PACE has transformed from a parliamentary to a propagandistic assembly that deals with Russophobia at all levels. And the accusations that we have just heard, are the same primitive Russophobic stamps: Donbass, Ukraine.


No evidence given. Repeating recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation on Russophobia euvsdisinfo.eu/disinformation-cases/?text=&disinfo_issue=&disinfo_keywords%5B%5D=77113&date=, and PACE euvsdisinfo.eu/disinformation-cases/?text=pace&disinfo_issue=&date=, The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), declaring that Russia’s annexation of Crimea was “in clear contradiction with the Statute of the Council of Europe” and the commitments Russia made when it joined the organisation in 1996, decided to suspend the voting rights of the Russian delegation, as well as its right to be represented in the Assembly’s leading bodies, and its right to participate in election observation missions, in April 2014. In a resolution adopted by 145 votes in favour, 21 against and 22 abstentions, after a three-hour debate, the Assembly said the military occupation of Ukrainian territory, threat of military force, recognition of the illegal so-called referendum and annexation of Crimea “constitute, beyond any doubt, a grave violation of international law”. assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-EN.asp?newsid=4982&cat=8,

The West has decided to bypass Russia's veto at the UN - in contradiction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Moscow has blocked the Security Council’s decision against the Syrian government more than ten times. That is why the UN countries want to use the resolution of “Unity for Peace” dated November 3, 1950, which, in the case of the approval of 9 out of 15 members of the UN Security Council, bypass Russian veto and passes the question to the General Assembly. However, this resolution is not in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to paragraph 3 of Article 27, decisions on all issues, except for procedural matters, are deemed to be adopted if the “corresponding number of permanent members of the Council” votes for them.


No evidence given. The 1950 “uniting for peace” route was explicitly designed to be used when the security council could not meet its responsibilities over maintenance of peace. ask.un.org/faq/177134, www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/24/syria-western-nations-may-seek-to-bypass-russian-veto-at-un, For background: legal.un.org/avl/ha/ufp/ufp.html, On 3 November 1950, the General Assembly adopted resolution 377 A (V), which was given the title “Uniting for Peace”. The adoption of this resolution came as a response to the strategy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to block any determination by the Security Council on measures to be taken in order to protect the Republic of Korea against the aggression launched against it by military forces from North Korea. At the initial stage of this armed conflict, in June 1950, the Security Council had been able to recommend to the Members of the United Nations to “furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area” (resolution 83 (1950) of 27 June 1950). The resolution could be passed because the USSR, at that time, boycotted the meetings of the Security Council with the aim of obtaining the allocation of the permanent Chinese seat to the communist Government in Beijing. It assumed that in its absence the Security Council would not be able to discharge its functions since Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter provides that substantive resolutions of the Security Council require an affirmative vote of nine members “including the concurring votes of the permanent members”. The majority of the members of the Security Council, however, were of the view that absence from the meeting room could not prevent the key organ of the United Nations from acting validly, a view that was later endorsed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J Reports 1971, p. 16, at para. 22). --- Although the shifting of responsibilities to the General Assembly may not be consistent with the original intentions of the drafters of the Charter, it is today fully accepted that emergency special sessions have become an integral part of the legal order of the United Nations.

New law bans the U.S. from aiding Syria

The House of Representatives has adopted a law banning the U.S. from aiding Syria


The legislation in question is H.R. 4681, proposed last December by a group of Republican lawmakers and passed by the House Foreign Relations Committee on April 24. The headline of RIA Novosti’s piece failed to make clear that the bill does not ban the U.S. from providing aid to Syria, but simply limits the type and beneficiaries of such assistance. These restrictions apply to Bashar al-Assad’s government and its allies. Further debunking by Polygraph.info