The West uses neo-Nazis for its own purposes in order to shake the situation along the perimeter of Russian borders and destabilise its neighbouring states. The West diligently avoids condemning Nazism and attempts to rehabilitate it because it itself indulges it. In a number of regimes in the European space, especially after the colour revolutions sponsored by the West, crimes against humanity are being committed and outspoken neo-Nazis are in power. The main producer of these processes is the United States and the main point where war crimes are committed today is Ukraine.
Moreover, neo-fascist formations are actively used in the Baltic countries to consolidate the general policy of violent de-Russification. Neo-Nazism is used to create Russophobic regimes along the perimeter of Russia and thereby isolate Russia and consolidate its weak state, which it had in the 90s.
This is a mixture of pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about the West waging war on Russia, linking Ukraine and Baltic States to Fascism and Nazism and promoting the messages about the so-called "colour revolutions".
The myth of Nazi-ruled Ukraine has been the cornerstone of Russian disinformation about the country since the very beginning of the 2013-14 Euromaidan protests, when it was used to discredit the pro-European popular uprising in Kyiv and, subsequently, the broader pro-Western shift in Ukraine's foreign policy. Far-right groups enjoyed a very limited presence during the Euromaidan itself and had poor results in the 2014 presidential and parliamentary elections. In the 2019 election, far-right candidates fell short of the 5% minimum guaranteeing entry into parliament.
The US does not control Ukraine and does not attempt to direct Ukrainian policy in any way. The relations of Ukraine and the US are built on mutual respect for sovereign rights of each country.
The Baltic states and Ukraine are continuously accused of their support for the Nazi or Fascist ideology. Any disagreement with the Kremlin’s view on the history of WWII is automatically labelled by Russia as support for “Nazism”. Read a similar case: "The west tries to revise history, questioning the decisions of the Nuremberg trial".
Read similar cases alleging that Ukraine is a neo-Nazi state and Ukraine is an anti-Russian state under Western control, that pro-Western civil society in Ukraine and Belarus is a fascist fifth column, that Ukraine is run by pro-EU oligarchic Nazis supported by the US, or that Europe supports the revival of fascism.
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).
