The commemorative events on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II in Warsaw show that, even after the Charter of Paris of November 1990, no one wants an understanding with Russia because Russia is denied its rightful place at the common “European table”. (…) The way the event in Warsaw is organised betrays peace for Europe.
Russia is not invited to Warsaw on 1 September 2019. Others are invited, although the American ambassador in Warsaw in 1939 did not pass on his knowledge of the Stalin-Hitler Pact to the Polish government. (…) They wanted the war under all circumstances, and yet they are invited prominently.
Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about Russophobia, about Western belligerence towards Russia and about the West's anti-Russian actions.
Poland decided not to invite the Russian delegation to WWII commemoration ceremony because of Russian aggression against Ukraine. Krzysztof Szczerski, the chief advisor to the Polish president, stated in March 2019 that the anniversary ceremony will be held “in the company of countries with whom Poland now cooperates closely for peace, based on the respect for international law, for the sovereignty of nations and of their territories.”
The West does not deny Russia's place at the "European table", but tries to keep open channels of communications and cooperation with Russia. For instance, the EU and its member states have maintained a clear policy of reaching out to Russian society and youth, mainly through the Erasmus+ student exchange programme and other people to people contacts, in line with five guiding principles of relations with Russia.
NATO created cooperation bodies – the Permanent Joint Council and the NATO-Russia Council – to embody its relationship with Russia. It also invited Russia to cooperate on missile defence.
For background, see EUvsDisinfo analysis "The “Russophobia” Myth: Appealing to the Lowest Feelings" here.
Yes, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact contained a Secret Protocol that divided Poland in two. However, if Germany had not attacked Poland, the Protocol would have become void.
So, the facts say that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an additional argument for Hitler that did not alter his decision. If we imagine that this pact between Germany and the USSR had not been signed, the German-Polish war would have started in any case because of the deadlock in the mutual relations.
This is a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about WWII and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
World War II began in Europe on 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. A week before Germany attacked Poland, Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact, also known as the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" (23 August 1939). The deal was accompanied by a secret supplementary protocol on the delimitation of areas of mutual interest in Eastern Europe. In particular, Hitler and Stalin agreed to divide Poland. The agreement also indicated that the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, as well as Bessarabia and Finland, also belonged to the respective areas of interest of Germany and the USSR.
The exercise “Furious Hawk” turns the Baltic countries into NATO’s hostages. “First category” NATO countries are considering Eastern European and Baltic countries as a bridgehead for building up forces. Although all NATO statements are only about defence, the actions testify more likely to the development of offensive operations.
The Americans establish their strike groups or bases for deployment with the peoples of other countries as human shields according to a murderous algorithm. Primarily relying on the corruption of the political elites of these countries.
One of the recurring Pro-Kremlin narratives Elites vs. People, describing particularly Baltic political elites as corrupt, putting their population at risk.
The NATO expansion is also a recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative. NATO does not "expand" in the imperialistic sense described by the Kremlin leadership and Russian state media, but instead considers the applications of candidate countries that want to join the defensive alliance of their own national will. NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia.
As Syrian forces gain superiority on the ground and begin to advance on terrorist positions, our Western colleagues begin to step up calls for a cessation of hostilities, as if they forget our joint decisions on fighting terrorists relentlessly. […] This process is irreversible. The consensus for a new, secure Syria was reached. The terrorists and their supporters no longer hold the initiative. The West will not be able to save them.
The implication that the West is trying to save or help terrorist groups in Syria is not backed up with evidence. It also matches a recurring pro-Kremlin conspiracy theory about the West being supportive of global terrorism. For more examples, see here, here and here.
Contrary to what is claimed in this article, the EU has called for the cessation of all hostilities not to support terrorists in Syria but with the goal of stopping the attacks on civilian targets, and has been consistent in its belief that there can be no military solution to the conflict in Syria. The EU continues to press for an inclusive, genuine and comprehensive political transition according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 and the Geneva Communique to stop the attacks by the Syrian regime and its allies on critical civilian infrastructure, including health facilities, school and water facilities.
