Disinfo: Ukraine does not allow international human rights defenders to annexed Crimea


International human rights organisations cannot access the Crimea due to the destructive policies of the Ukrainian government. For its part, Russia provides full and unrestricted access to international observers on the peninsula – the Kremlin does not violate the rights of Crimeans, unlike the countries of the European Union, which imposed anti-Crimean sanctions.


Russia has been systematically manipulating the topic of access of any international organisations to the annexed Crimea for five years now. The Kremlin declares its readiness to let observers to the peninsula, but on one condition: the mission must go to the Crimea through Russia. That is, Russia is forcing international organisations to violate the laws of Ukraine and get to the peninsula through non-existent checkpoints. Thus, Russia wants to try to legalise the occupation of the Ukrainian Peninsula.

Russia is not interested in the access of observers to the Crimea for one more reason. Any independent observers on the peninsula will be able to make an objective assessment of what is happening in Crimea, the Russian leadership will not be able to influence their reports. In this way, the wider international community can find out what the state of Ukrainian political prisoners really is in Crimea. For example, Russia has repeatedly refused to allow observers from the International Committee of the Red Cross into the occupied Ukrainian territories.


  • Reported in: Issue 142
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 22/03/2019
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Russia, Ukraine
  • Keywords: EU, Human rights, Crimea
  • Outlet: Crimea.ria.ru
see more

US withdrew from the INF Treaty to forward a principle of nuclear first strike

The new US nuclear strategy has dropped the principle of deterrence, which until now has prevented the outbreak of a nuclear war. Washington’s new nuclear strategy has instead embraced the principle of a “nuclear first strike” aimed at destroying any country that is viewed by Washington as an “enemy” merely on the basis of suspicions that it might attack the US or that it has the capability of doing so.

The natural consequence of this new US “first strike” strategy – and of the vast US program to build-up and modernise its nuclear arsenal – is Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the INF Treaty, which makes a nuclear holocaust increasingly likely.


Recurring pro-Kremlin narrative that US and NATO policies are bringing the world closer to nuclear war. Recurring pro-Kremlin narrative that the US is entirely responsible for the demise of the INF treaty.

The current US nuclear strategy is detailed in the Nuclear Posture Review [NPR] , issued by the Department of Defence in February 2018. Deterrence continues to be the central principle of US strategy. The NPR states that “the highest US nuclear policy and strategy priority is to deter potential adversaries from nuclear attack of any scale”, and that  US nuclear forces play a critical role in “deterring nuclear and non-nuclear attack”.

Venezuela bustling with life, contrary to mainstream narratives

While the mainstream media continue to portray Venezuela as a crisis-stricken and impoverished country, the actual situation there is far from grave.

The UN claim that 3.4 million Venezuelans have fled the country is disputable; last year, school enrolment actually increased by 7%, and 120,000 Colombians settled in Venezuela.

Western media outlets focus on hyperinflation and its impact on the country’s living standards, but never mention that many goods and services are still cheap.


The story accuses mainstream media outlets of producing alarmist reports on the situation in Venezuela and demonizing President Nicolas Maduro, and thus fits the recurring pro-Kremlin narrative on the situation in the country.

The estimate of 3.4 million Venezuelan emigrants was jointly produced by the UN's Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and Institute of Migration (IOM), and is based on data from national immigration authorities and other sources.

Five years after the referendum, the well-being of Crimea’s population has significantly improved

Five years after the referendum that decreed the return of Crimea to Russia, signs of significant improvement of the Crimean population’s social and economic well-being are visible.


Recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative claiming that Crimean citizens chose to rejoin with Russia through a legal referendum and that the annexation of Crimea brought economic and social benefits to the population.

No international body recognises the so-called referendum, announced on the 27th of February 2014, and held on the 16th of March 2014. Even Russian President Putin has publicly declared that the plans on annexing Crimea were launched weeks before the so-called referendum. See here the EU statement on the fifth anniversary of Crimea's annexation by Russia.