Poland presented its protest against the attempts to revise the Katyń Massacre after an appeal by a Russian MP to reassess the role of the NKVD and the USSR in these events. In these terms, the Polish side often ignores what happened in Polish-Russian shared history – Poland a priori occupies a hostile position, denying reality.
This message is part of the Kremlin’s policy of historical revisionism and an attempt to distort the truth about the Soviet crimes committed against Poland.
The Katyń Massacre is a symbol of the criminal policy of the USSR against the Polish nation. In Spring 1940, almost 22.000 Polish prisoners of war were executed by the NKVD in Katyn, Kharkiv and Kalinin (Tver). The Massacre was carefully considered and organised by the Soviet leadership. Up until 1991, the Soviet authorities refused to accept their responsibility for this crime, blaming Nazi Germany for the mass-murders of Polish prisoners of war. In 1992, the Russian President Boris Yeltsin submitted documents to President Lech Walesa confirming the Soviet blame for this crime. Read more about the Katyn Massacre here.
Throughout 2020, the Russian authorities took several steps regarding the Katyń Massacre, which may be considered as historical revisionism. In May 2020, the municipal authorities of the city of Tver ordered the removal of two plaques commemorating the memory of the victims of the Katyń Massacre. In November 2020, the Russian authorities organised a conference on the Katyń Massacre – several participants of the conference promoted the idea that the USSR and the NKVD were not responsible for this crime. These statements are an evident example of historical revisionism promoted by Russia – the Polish authorities continue to demand an investigation into this Soviet crime against the Polish nation.
The Polish Institute of Historical Remembrance presented its protest against the Russian attempts to distort the truth about Soviet crimes.
See other disinformation messages connected to the Kremlin’s historical revisionism: Poland re-writes the history claiming that the USSR attacked it in September 1939; Accusing USSR of WWII outbreak, Poland distracts attention from its pre-war “miscalculations” and The pre-war Polish leadership bears all the blame for the tragedy of this country during WWII.
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”.
The work of the Soros Foundation and some other Western organisations can be equated with the activities of the special services of foreign states. This is part of a hybrid war of the collective West against the countries of the post-Soviet space. In Ukraine, Soros’s scheme is already in effect at all levels. In Armenia, Soros’s projects have not yet reached the final stage of implementation, at which one can state a complete loss of sovereignty. But Ukraine is a vivid example of how Soros NGOs have brought the country “to the brink”.
Conspiracy theory based on recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about George Soros.
Ukraine is a sovereign and independent state with a democratically-elected President and parliament. You can find here numerous disinformation cases on Ukraine being under foreign control.
Donald Trump did not accept the transition. He agreed to pay the transition funds but he did not give up contesting. And he is right to contest the election since massive fraud took place.
A president who claims to rule the country on the basis of massive fraud is a president who has no legitimacy. A lot of people in the United States will continue to challenge the legitimacy of a hypothetical Biden administration. If Donald Trump accepted this it is for a very clear reason that he announces in his press release: Emily Murphy who is in charge of this has suffered threats, multiple threats. So he [Trump] preferred that the threats stop. When you threaten someone in an administration, you behave in an unworthy manner. And it wasn’t just there that there were threats. There is a very murky situation right now in the United States and it’s part of this very murky situation.
Disinformation about the US in the context of the US presidential election.
In its interim assessment on the conduct of the election, the OSCE finds that the contest was "competitive and well managed" (p. 1), noting that "evidence-deficient claims about election fraud" (ibid.) have been refuted by "election officials at all levels" (p. 3) and "national security agencies" (p. 11).
