Disinfo: The West fears Sputnik V might increase Russia’s authority in the world

Summary

The Russian vaccine Sputnik V is among the best ones. However, the West continues its efforts to discredit it because it fears Russia’s reputation and authority on the international scene would increase. And they do not want that.

Disproof

It is not true that the West would somehow be trying to discredit the Russian vaccine Sputnik V. On the contrary; a number of EU Member States are considering the Sputnik V vaccine and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has been providing scientific advice to the producer and since 04 March is conducting a rolling review of Sputnik V.

It is a long-standing narrative in which the Kremlin attacks the European Union for allegedly discriminating against the Russian vaccine. Examples of other cases can be found here and here.

Any vaccine needs to be authorised following a positive opinion of the European Medicines Agency before it can be placed on the market in the EU. The Russian Gamaleya National Centre of Epidemiology and Microbiology responsible for the Russian vaccine Sputnik V had not prepared the necessary documentation earlier before the rolling review by EMA started in March and thus the review is not finalised yet.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 236
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 19/02/2021
  • Outlet language(s) Czech
  • Countries and/or Regions discussed in the disinformation: Russia, EU
  • Keywords: vaccination, coronavirus
see more

Russia does not need to take part in the information war

The leading mass media of the world is controlled by American and European Special Forces. Russia is not losing the information war – Russia simply does not participate in it.

It is an uneven fight, and the West wages the war the wrong way. We also have those possibilities. Many journalists, who respect their professions look to us. It is not a coincidence that the members of the British parliament follows RT: they understand that non-biased journalists work there.

Disproof

It cannot be excluded that British parliamentarians occasionally view RT, but the claim on RT journalists being “un-biased” is not correct. The British media licensing body, OFCOM, deprived the RT broadcast rights, due to the outlet’s failure to abide to British licensing rules for impartial reporting.

The claim on Russia “not taking part in the information war” can also be challenged. The RT editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, has repeatedly claimed RT as a part of Russia’s efforts in an information war.

The ECHR decision on Navalny undermines the Court's credibility

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Navalny undermines the credibility of this structure. This decision is not supported by any facts and contradicts Russia’s domestic laws as well as international law.

The ECHR’s demand to release blogger Alexei Navalny is a very serious attempt to interfere in the Russian judicial system, which is unacceptable.

Disproof

The claim is made in light of the recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which was published on 17 February 2021. The ECHR decided “to indicate to the Government of Russia, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to release the applicant [Navalny]… This measure shall apply with immediate effect.” The Court explains this decision as follows:

The Court had regard to the nature and extent of risk to the applicant’s life, demonstrated prima facie for the purposes of applying the interim measure, and seen in the light of the overall circumstances of the applicant’s current detention. This measure has been granted without prejudice to the Court’s decision on the merits of the present case and the competence of the Committee of Ministers.

The European Court of Human Rights was set up by the Council of Europe in 1959 as a supervisory mechanism to monitor respect for the human rights of 800 million Europeans in the 47 Council of Europe member States that have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. Russia, both as a member of the Council of Europe and as a signatory of the Convention, has committed to the respect of human rights, democracy and the rule of law and undertook to secure a number of fundamental rights and freedoms to everyone within its jurisdiction.

As follows, the decision made by the ECHR does not contradict any laws and does not represent interference in the Russian judicial system. As The Guardian writes and as the court notes:

EMA's delay in approving Sputnik V is political

It appears that the delay in approval by the European Medicines Agency is related to political or geopolitical reasons, not medical, and this is a mistake, especially at a time when there is a need to vaccinate citizens to get out of a social and economic emergency as well as health emergencies.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative aiming to promote the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. The claim was neither counterbalanced nor critically challenged in the article.

All vaccines, authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), are welcome in the EU. As of the 17 February 2021, the producer of the Sputnik V vaccine has not submitted a market authorisation to the European Medicines Agency.