Disinfo: A US citizen reveals the truth about how his country created the crisis in Ukraine

Summary

In an exclusive interview, a US citizen revealed the true state of things in Donbas despite CIA propaganda. He explained that [Ukrainian president Petro] Poroshenko was a US puppet, and that a foreign government came and carried out a coup in the presidential elections. The US wanted more influence in Ukraine because it wanted to stop the supply of Russian gas to Europe and to expand NATO along the Russian border. For this reason, the US interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and started a war in Eastern Ukraine. Donbas’ citizens had no alternative but to take up weapons in face of what was basically an invasion of their country.

Disproof

The article summarises several recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about Ukraine, blaming the US and the West for the fall of President Viktor Yanukovych and labelling the protest movement that overthrew him as a coup, and denying any Russian responsibility for the outbreak of violence in Donbas.

The demonstrations against Yanukovych, which began in Kyiv in November 2013, called "Maidan", or "Euromaidan",  were a result of the Ukrainian people's frustration with the president’s last-minute U-turn when, after seven years of negotiation, he refused to sign the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement and halted progress towards Ukraine's closer relationship with the EU as a result of Russian pressure. When those protests were met with government-led police violence, they became massive, ultimately resulting in Yanukovych’s fall. There is zero evidence of any foreign implication behind the demonstrations. On the contrary, proof of Russia’s involvement in fomenting unrest in Eastern Ukraine and in creating a military conflict has been mounting since an early stage.

You can see other examples of disinformation narratives in Ukraine in our database, such as claims that the Maidan protests were a coup orchestrated by foreign secret services through neo-nazi groups aiming to bring oligarchs to power (and that the US has allegedly admitted it), that Russia is no part of Ukraine’s conflict, that it was the Ukrainians who downed the MH17 flight, or that there is no such a thing as a Ukrainian nation different from Russia.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 187
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 28/02/2020
  • Language/target audience: Spanish, Castilian
  • Country: Russia, Ukraine, US
  • Keywords: gas, EU/NATO enlargement, Donbas, NATO, Euromaidan, Petro Poroshenko
  • Outlet: NewsFront Spanish
see more

UN allegations of Russian war crimes in Syria are unfounded and biased, based on a flawed investigation

Russia didn’t commit any war crime in Syria, contrary to what is stated in the report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Arab country published on March 2, 2020. The allegations of war crimes were made immediately after terrorists started their offensive against Syrian troops in Idlib, so no committee may get reliable information on what was going on on the ground. The report is unilateral, not objective and terrorist actions are not taken into account.

Disproof

The allegations are false. The report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic is based on evidence available, including witness testimonies, video footage, data imagery as well as reports by flight spotters, flight communication intercepts and early warning observation reports, enough for the body to conclude that there was reasonable grounds to believe that a Russian aircraft participated in two episodes tantamount to war crimes (p.6). In both incidents, the Russian Air Force did not direct the attacks at a specific military objective, amounting to the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas.

The report also addresses human rights violations by terrorist groups -describing them as such- from the very beginning of the document, in the third paragraph of the introductory summary, as well as the actions of the Turkish and Syrian governmental armies, so the claim of bias is unfounded.

Lithuanian Foreign Ministry tries to rewrite the history of World War II

The Lithuanian Foreign Ministry suggests that the Parliament should condemn attempts to rewrite history. The unpleasant part of this initiative is that Russia appears in its wording, while Russia actually did not rewrite any history. On the contrary, it carefully defends the historical truth, which some politicians, in particular, the Lithuanian Foreign Minister, are trying to reconsider and even to legally prohibit.

 

Disproof

This message is part of the Kremlin’s policy of historical revisionism – it accuses the Baltic states, Ukraine and Poland in “falsification and re-writing” of their history.

It is a fact that both Nazi Germany and the Stalinist USSR were totalitarian regimes, which caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. It is also proven that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact contained the Secret Supplementary Protocol, which assumed the division of the territories of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Romania into Soviet and Nazi spheres of influence. The Soviet Union's occupation of the Baltic states lasted from 1940-1941 and 1944-1990 and resulted in mass deportations and repressions against local populations.

Lithuania has no sovereign policy

Lithuanian politicians, do not and cannot, have their own opinions. Moreover, there is no Lithuanian policy and cannot be. There is a certain degree of sovereignty like that of a dog tied to a short leash. In the East of NATO and the EU, a Lithuanian political dog is tied to guard the yard. It has freedom within the chain, freedom of expression that is made to address two Eastern neighbors – Russia and Belarus.

Disproof

This message is part of a Pro Kremlin disinformation narrative undermining the statehood of Lithuania, presenting the Baltic states as not sovereign, as “vassals”  of US and NATO and used against Russia. See other examples of this narrative here, here and here.

Lithuania is an independent state, which makes sovereign decisions about its foreign and domestic policy.  NATO's increased presence in the Baltic Sea region has been at the request of the Baltic states. Following Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia requested a greater NATO presence in the region.