DISINFORMATION: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy

International forums are intended to seek dia - logue, resolve complex issues, support peace and prevent armed conflicts. Nevertheless, some members of the international community use them and, more broadly, diplomacy to pro - mote their propaganda, justify their crimes, and discredit victims of their aggression. Their princi - pal instrument to this end is disinformation.

To say that Putin’s is on the forefront of using disinformation in the diplomatic arena would not be an overstatement. Its multi-vec - tor hybrid aggression implies manipulative de - ception of the international community with a view to avoiding responsibility for its crimes and violating international law.

Russian have long been a crucial el - ement in hybrid warfare which the Kremlin is waging against its neighbors, Western values, and Western countries in general.

This brochure reviews some examples that demonstrate the systemic and deliberate nature of lies spread by Putin’s diplomatic practition - ers—ranging from statements of representa - tives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation to disinformation at OSCE or UN Security Council meetings.

“In the first place, the Russian delegation is interested in using Security Council meetings to wage its disinformation cam - paign against and accuse the Ukrainian government of everything that is happening in the occupied territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”, says Volodymyr Yelchenko, Permanent Representa - tive of Ukraine to the UN. Revolution of Dignity (2013–2014)

The events that took place in in 2013–2014 saw former Victor Yanukovych flee the country. They went down in Ukrainian history as the “Revolu - tion of Dignity” or “EuroMaidan”.

At first, the reason behind mass demonstrations was the refusal of the Ukrainian government to sign the Association Agreement with the .

But when Ukrainian authorities re - Victor Yanukovych sponded to the demonstrations by vio - lently beating students on November 30, 2013, for no apparent reason, hundreds of thousands of concerned Ukrainians took to the streets in protest at the arbitrary actions of the authorities and in support of the European future of their country.

Not everybody, however, agreed with such an obvious interpreta - tion of the events. Russia’s au - thoritarian regime, which feigns public unrest and any display of civic activism, started to accuse Western countries of alledgly set - ting up EuroMaidan in Ukraine in order to “tear Ukraine away from Russia”.

“[The crisis in Ukraine was] provoked mainly by … external forces, which intended to break age-old ties uniting Ukraine and Russia… Ministers and other representatives of the Euro -

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 4 • pean Union and the marched openly among anti-government demonstrators”, said Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, at the UN General Assembly session on March 27, 2014.

In reality, no “external forces” could ever have moved hundreds of thousands of people to the streets. EuroMaidan had solely internal reasons, made possi - ble by the Yanukovych regime. It is not the West that made Yanukovych re - fuse from the promised association with the European Union, and it is not the West who ordered security officers to violently suppress the peaceful stu - dents’ demonstration on November 30, 2014.

Most likely, the Russian representative lied to divert the attention of the world community away from Russia’s ille - gal annexation of and make it look as if Ukraine’s loss of the peninsula was the “result of Maidan, staged by Western pow - ers” and of Russia’s military ag - gression against Ukraine.

At the same UN General Assembly session, Vitaly Churkin was spreading disinformation about the confrontation during the Revolution of Dignity to the Maidan. Kyiv. 2014 whole world: “The central square of the city (Maidan) was turned into a military camp. Well-prepared and equipped units of militants attacked law enforcement forces and occu - pied administrative buildings…" . In fact, everything was vice versa: common Ukrainians with absolutely no training and using improvised means, were pro - tecting Maidan from regular assaults, which security forces usually attempted at night.

The Kremlin’s representative, however, did not stop with these lies and, speaking at the world’s main forum, accused the US of shooting people at Maidan. “In [the House of Trade Unions], the so-called command post of the Maidan was organised, and a headquarters of the US Embassy oper - ated constantly on the seventh floor of this building. Incidentally, sniper shooting both on representatives of law enforcement agencies and on

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 5 • demonstrators, the purpose of which was to provoke a change of power by force, was organised from this building” , Vitaly Churkin said. This is a complete nonsense, simply because there was no “headquarters of the US Embassy” at the House of Trade Unions whatsoever. In addition, a report by the Interna - tional Advisory Panel, created by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe in April 2014, did not men - tion the House of Trade Unions as a possible location of the snipers. On the contrary, it states that most of the killings perpetrated on February 20 were most likely com - mitted by officers of the Berkut spe - cial police service.

The then Ambassador of the US to Geoffrey R. Pyatt Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, commented on that speech by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN: “It is utter madness. It was not staged by America. Maidan was organized and carried out by the Ukrainian people, and those people were from the most diverse political forces.”

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 6 • Russia’s War against Ukraine

Another disinformation narrative actively pro - moted by Russia in the international arena was that “a coup d’état took place in Ukraine”. It should be noted that the Revolution of Dignity could not have been a “coup d’état” by definition since a coup d’état has one important condition — the change of government always takes place in violation of valid constitutional and legal regulations. After Yanukovych fled, however, Ukraine still had a legitimate parlia - ment, which took all decisions in accor - dance with the Constitution of Ukraine. Official medal Later, early presidential and parliamen - tary elections were scheduled, which, too, were held in strict accordance with the law. And, above all, the President and the Parliament of Ukraine, which were elected in 2014, took control of the country not as a result of a “coup d’é - tat” but through democratic elections, scheduled by a legitimate parliament in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine.

As time goes by, Ukraine will soon hold second presidential and parlia - mentary elections since Maidan. Yet still continues its large-scale disinformation cam - paign concerning the Maidan events in 2013–2014.

Since the very beginning of Russian military aggression against Ukraine, which—according to an official medal by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation—started on February 20,

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 7 • 2014, Moscow has been carrying out a diplomatic disinformation campaign in an attempt to convince the international community of its “rightness” and, at the same time, accuse Ukraine of the catastrophe caused, in fact, by the crim - inal invasion by the Russian army into the sovereign Ukrainian State.

More than 10,000 people killed and more than 2mln refugees; ruined towns and villages; lost Ukrainian territories; and demolished infrastructure—this is what Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, already lasting for four years and a half, has brought about.

Official Moscow is well aware that such horrible crimes cannot have no conse - quences for the aggressor and, therefore, exerts considerable diplomatic ef - fort to deceive the international community and continue its aggression against sovereign Ukraine unpunished.

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 8 • “They-Are-Not-There”

“They-are-not-there” (“Ikhtamnyet” in Russ - ian) is a phrase that has become a sort of symbol for one of the Kremlin’s largest disinformation campaigns. Now, there is hardly anyone who believes it, although over the re - cent years this phrase has been constantly mentioned at all inter - national forums in which Russian representatives have taken part.

For a year since March 2014, Rus - sia systematically refused to admit that its armed forces had been involved in the annexation of Crimea, and called them “local self-defense forces”. A year “They-Are-Not-There” later, however, himself ad - mitted that they had been Russia’s regular troops and special-operation forces.

On March 4, 2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that “Russia does not give orders to Crimean self-defense forces, and the servicemen of the Russian Black Sea Fleet remain at their stations.” Undoubtedly, that was a lie: there already were a lot of photos and videos on the Inter - net proving just the opposite.

On March 18, 2014, the first blood was shed in the Russian-Ukrainian war: Ukrainian warrant officer Serhii Kokurin was killed in an attack by Russian troops on the Ukrainian pho - togrammetry center in Simferopol.

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 9 • On March 20, 2014, at a UN Security Council meeting, Russian representative Vitaly Churkin spread blatant disinformation regarding this killing: “There was no alleged raid on the Ukrainian military facility by Russian troops, men - tioned by the permanent representative of Ukraine, whatsoever... Russ - ian soldiers were not even close to the facility. There were unarmed men from the self-defense forces, wearing but bulletproof vests.” This was a lie, because a year later Putin would admit that all facilities in Crimea had been captured by Russian regular troops and special forces.

Churkin also accused a made-up “sniper” of killing Kokurin: “A sniper started shooting from a building not far from there. He killed and wounded one man on each side.” And that also fell pretty wide of the mark: The Center of Journalistic In - vestigations established that Kokurin had been shot from below and, most likely, in bursts, i.e. with an automatic weapon.

After Russia invaded Donbas, the “they-are-not-there” story re - peated itself. Unlike during Crimea’s occupation, however, Moscow has been refusing to admit, for four years and a half, the obvious fact—that Russian troops and loads of Russian military equip - Vitaly Churkin ment are present in Donbas—at all diplo - matic levels.

Kurt Walker, US Special Representative for Ukraine, said: “There are no dif - ferences between the occupation of Crimea and Donbas. This is Russian invasion and Russian occupation. However, in the case of the Crimea, Russia has made claims on the annexation of the territory.”

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 10 • “A Letter from Yanukovych”

On March 4, 2014, a few days following Russia’s special operation on the oc - cupation of the Crimean Peninsula, Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin spoke at a UN Security Council meeting about supposedly “legal grounds for sending Russian troops to Ukraine”. It was a letter from for - mer President Victor Yanukovych of Ukraine, where he “asked Russ - ian President Vladimir Putin to use the armed forces of the Russian Victor Yanukovych Federation in Ukraine.”

“Today I am authorised to inform you of the following. The President of Russia has received an address from President Victor Yanukovych of Ukraine. Quote, ‘Statement by the President of Ukraine. As a legitimately elected president of Ukraine, I request the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to restore law, peace, order and stability and to pro - tect people in Ukraine. Victor Yanukovych, March 1, 2014’.”, said Churkin.

This letter, however, has no rela - tion to the occupation of Crimea by Russia since it was dated March 1, 2014, whereas the offi - cial medal of the Ministry of De - fense of the Russian Federation for the so-called “return of Crimea” fea - tures February 20, 2014, as the date of the special operation. Therefore, Russia Vitaly Churkin

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 11 • had started occupying Crimea more than a week before Yanukovych allegedly wrote that letter to Putin. Besides, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, even an incumbent presi - dent has no authority to request another country to send its armed forces to Ukraine without the appropriate decision of the Parliament. Hence, “the letter form Yanukovych” could never have had any legal consequences.

It should also be noted that the Kremlin subsequently chose to completely renege on the letter. “The thing is, there was no let - ter (from Yanukovych) officially received by the Presidential Ad - ministration. No such letter was registered in the Presidential Ad - ministration” , said Putin’s spokesper - son, Dmitry Peskov, on March 16, 2017. Dmitry Peskov

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 12 • Did Russian Armed Forces “Lawfully Protect the Rights of Russian People in Crimea”? On March 4, 2014, at a UN Security Council meeting, the Russian representative stated that, supposedly, “Russian troops in Crimea can legally protect the rights of Russian people”.

“Now, there are 16,000 Russian troops in Crimea, and we can increase this number up to 25,000 in accordance with the Agreement on the Status of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. This is part of their mission at their base... Russian military are protect - ing the rights of Russian people...”, "Self-defense" of the Crimea said Vitaly Churkin.

Later, in 2016, , an official rep - resentative of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reiterated that, supposedly, “Russia had the right to use its armed forces in Crimea”.

“The Agreement on the Status of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. According to this Agreement, which was signed with Ukraine, a certain number of armed forces, servicemen, could be stationed in this country... noth - ing in the Agreement stipulated that they could not be deployed in Crimea”, Zakharova said. Maria Zakharova

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 13 • In fact, however, as laid down in paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Agreement, Russia undertook to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, observe its legisla - tion, and do not allow interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine:

Article 6 1. Military units shall operate in their places of deployment in accor - dance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, respect the sover - eignty of Ukraine, observe its legislation and do not allow interference in the internal affairs Ukraine.

Moreover, paragraph 5 of article 15 of the Agreement stipulates that Rus - sia coordinates with Ukrainian authorities any movement of Russian mil - itary units outside their places of deployment:

Article 15

5. The movement associated with the activities of military units outside their places of deployment shall be carried out after coordination with the competent authorities of Ukraine.

Those two conditions of the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea were grossly violated. Instead of re - specting the sovereignty of Ukraine and the promised non-interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine, Russian troops captured the Crimean Parliament, Ukrainian military bases, Belbek airport in Sevastopol, and other strategic fa - cilities. It is also clear that all move - ments of Russian military units were carried out without any consent of Ukrainian authorities. Black Sea Fleet of Russia

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 14 • The Legal Status of the Pseudo- Referendum Held by Russia in Crimea on March 16, 2014

After announcing and holding the so-called “referendum” in Crimea, Russia was doing its best to convince the world community of its “legitimacy”. In par - ticular, Russia was making a point of the “right of nations to self-de - termination” and the seemingly “democratic” and “lawful” nature of the so-called “referendum”.

On March 16, 2014, speaking on the phone with US Secretary of State , Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that “the

The agitation of a pseudo-referendum Crimean referendum is in full compli - ance with international law and the UN Charter”.

On March 19, 2014, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN said at a Se - curity Council meeting. “In strict compliance with international law and democratic procedures, without external influence, and by means of free referendum, the people of Crimea realized its right for self-determination, enshrined in the UN Charter and a number of fundamental inter - national instruments, and re - quested Russia to join Crimea to the Russian Federation”, said Vitaly Churkin. Russian Anexia of the Crimea

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 15 • Later, Maria Zakharova, an official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Af - fairs of Russia, reiterated that events in Crimea had arguably demonstrated “the best exercise of democracy.

Still, despite the Kremlin’s efforts to convince the world of the “lawful” and “de - mocratic” nature of the so-called “referendum” in Crimea, it was, in fact, nei - ther lawful nor democratic due to the following reasons:

1. The Constitution of Ukraine prohibits change in the territorial status through local referendums. The status of Crimea can be changed only by an all-Ukrainian referendum.

2. In accordance with international law, no country in principle has the right to hold referendums in the territory of another sovereign country.

3. The so-called “referendum” took place after Russian occupation of Crimea and, therefore, is not and cannot be recognized as lawful in ac - cordance with Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of the UN General Assembly dated December 14, 1974.

4. The so-called “referendum” was prepared and held in contravention of all international standards. No official international structures observed and recognized the “results” of the pseudo-referendum.

5. Even if monitored by international observers, elections in the Russian Federation are a sham and cannot be considered “fair” and “democ - ratic”. It is therefore difficult to imagine what Moscow actually did in occupied Crimea in the spring of 2014.

One should note that the right of nations to self-determination, re - ferred to by Moscow, was deter - mined by the UN in order to secure freedom for the colonies of former em - The Verkhovna Rada of the Crimea pires, and it has certain logical limita -

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 16 • tions. For instance, this right can be exercised only by indigenous peoples that do not have their own national state. Russians are not an indigenous peo - ple of Crimea, and the Russian national state already exists, which is Russia. This means that the right to self-determina - tion cannot be applied to Crimea ex - cept in relation to its actual indigenous people—Krymchaks and Crimean Tatars. Moreover, in - ternational law does not place the right to self-determination over the right of a state to defend its sovereignty. In other words, even in cases when a people has the right to self-determination, it should be agreed upon with the government of the given state. Crimean Tatars

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 17 • Attempts to Legitimize the Annexation of Crimea through Participation of So-Called “Crimean Representatives” at International Forums When the world refused to recognize Russia’s attempt to annex Ukraine’s Crimean Penin - sula, Moscow resorted to diplomatic tricks in order to make the interna - tional community virtually perceive Crimea as “part of Russia”.

Under international law, Crimea is part of Ukraine, and only Ukrain - ian representatives have the right to represent it at international fo - rums. However, on October 1, 2015, Dmitriy Polonsky was regis - tered at the OSCE Annual Human Di - Dmitriy Polonsky mension Implementation Meeting on behalf of the Russian Crimean Commu - nity, an NGO. Polonsky also served as the so-called “Vice Prime Minister” of Crimean occupational “authorities”. In the beginning of his speech at the OSCE, though, he called himself a “representative” of the so-called “Republic of Crimea of the Russian Federation”, which contradicted his registration record at the international event.

Because of the adamance of the Ukrainian delegation, Polonsky was denied the right to continue his speech. “Russia’s persistent violations of international law, its hypocritical abuse of the transparency and the democratic norms and princi - ples of the OSCE has no prospects and leads only to increased international iso - lation of the Russian Federation”, Ukrainian diplomats said of the incident.

In September 2017, at the OSCE conference in Warsaw, Russia registered as one of its representatives Andrey Trofimov, the so-called “Head of the Union of Journalists of Crimea”, who began his speech with an attempt to present the

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 18 • Russian “account” of the situation with free - dom of mass media in occupied Crimea. The Ukrainian delegation had to inter - rupt his speech and appeal to the moderator, stressing that Trofimov had announced his speech as a representative of a Russian NGO and yet was attempting to speak on behalf of Crimea, which is Ukrainian territory in accordance with international law. According to the agenda of the conference, Georgy Muradov, the so-called “Per - manent Representative of the Republic of Crimea to the President of Russia”, was to deliver his speech. Due to techni - Andrei Trofimov cal reasons, however, he could not make it to the conference, as he had been delayed at Warsaw airport for more than two hours.

The same thing happened in September 2018, when two representatives of Russia-occupied Crimea attempted to make speeches at a working meeting on freedom of mass media at the OSCE session in Warsaw. In response, An - drii Chesnokov, a member of the Ukrainian delegation, said that a speech of Russian representatives on behalf of annexed Crimea was unacceptable since, in accordance with international law, the Crimean Peninsula is part of Ukrainian territory, and therefore they were attempting to speak on behalf of nonexistent organiza - tions. The arguments of the Ukrainian delegation were ac - cepted, and the speech from the so- called “representatives of Crimea” was cancelled.

Working meeting at the OSCE

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 19 • “This OSCE event is being used by Rus - sia in an attempt to legitimize Russian occupational authorities in Crimea. The problem is that we, as the offi - cial Ukrainian delegation, have to sit at the same table with repre - sentatives of so-called NGOs, whom Russia is trying to pres - ent at this session as “official representatives of Crimea”. We do not subscribe to such inter - pretation... Some of Russia’s rep - resentatives present themselves as “official representatives” of vari - Andrii Deshchytsia ous levels of Crimean authorities... That is why it should be analyzed whether we should conduct a dialogue with people who, in fact, substi - tute notions and attempt to deceive both and the international community, in particular the OSCE. Because, in such way, we are being drawn into Russia’s policy aimed at whitewashing and legitimizing them” , the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to Poland, Andrii Deshchytsia, said.

On November 24, 2018, Russia managed to or - ganize a speech of Ruslan Balbek, a so- called “deputy of the State Duma of Russia from Crimea”, at the UN Forum on Human Rights in Switzerland.

In response, the Permanent Mis - sion of Ukraine to the United Na - tions in Geneva met with leaders of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, where the participation of Ruslan Balbek at the UN Forum on Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law was declared unacceptable, the reason being that Crimea is part of Ruslan Balbek

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 20 • Ukraine, and, therefore, no “deputies of the State Duma of Russia from Crimea” ever exist.

Accordingly, the Kremlin assumes that such speeches by so-called Russian “representatives of Crimea” would be able to sway the attitude of the interna - tional community towards the illegal annexation of Crimea and “legitimize” it. Yet it is not possible. Crimea was, is, and will always be an integral part of Ukraine.

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 21 • The Shelling of Mariupol

On the morning of January 24, 2014, Russian hybrid forces shelled the peaceful front-line city of Mariupol with rocket-launching artillery, killing 31 people and injuring an - other 117. Only one serviceman was killed in the shelling, with the others being civilians. On the night before the shelling, Russian mercenaries of the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) announced the launch of a large-scale offensive on Mariupol, Mariupol which in itself left no doubt as to which side was responsible for the shelling. The next day, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) published a report which clearly stated that the shelling had been carried out from the territory of Donbas controlled by Russia. Yet, Moscow and its mercenaries denied any re - sponsibility whatsoever for the killings of innocent civilians and took to accusing the Ukrainian side of the crime.

Despite Russian terrorists’ claims of the offensive and the conclusions of the OSCE SMM, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that “the Ukrainian government bears responsibility for the re - cent military escalation”. It com - pletely contradicted the reality since all previous OSCE SMM’s reports had indicated the military conflict had been escalated by Russia and its terror - ists from the so-called “Luhansk and Sergey Lavrov Donetsk People’s Republic” (“LDNR”).

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 22 • Speaking on the phone with US Secretary of State John Kerry on January 25, 2015, Sergey Lavrov stated that “the attack on Mariupol should be investi - gated, and now it is too early to say which party is responsible”. This statement has nothing to do with the reality, however: By that time, the OSCE SMM’s report had already been made public, con - firming that the responsibility for the crime rested on Russian hybrid forces.

On January 25, the UN Security Council convened for a meeting to discuss this crime. As usual, Moscow vetoed the statement proposed by the UK under the disinformation pretext. Russia was the only country to vote against it. Its “arguments” did not hold water since the international community was already informed of the relevant OSCE SMM’s report.

Shelling of Mariupol What served as a formal ground for ve - toing the statement was the alleged “bi - ased condemnation of some statements by terrorists and lack of condemnation of statements by the Ukrainian side”.

“The consensus has not been reached... because the delegation of the UK insisted on condemnation of some of the self-defense forces' state - ments. The UNSC Western members throughout the entire conflict have been refusing to condemn any statements and actions—often very ag - gressive—made by the Kyiv authorities” , a spokesperson for Russia’s Mis - sion to the UN said in a statement.

Yet, in fact, the explanations of the Russian side have no bearing on the fact that the shelling of Mariupol from the territory of Donbas controlled by Russia happened immediately after Russian terrorists announced an offensive on Mariupol—and this was exactly what the British delegation proposed to con - demn in a statement it had drafted.

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 23 • Debaltseve On February 12, 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany signed the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, which provided for complete ceasefire since 00:00 on February 15, 2015. Upon conclu - sion of the deal, however, Russian hybrid forces started an offensive on the Ukrainian town of Debalt - seve and its outskirts in spite of the signed agreement. At a UN Security Council meeting in early March, the Russian representative attempted to Meeting in Minsk use disinformation to justify the violation of the ceasefire agreement by Russia.

“During the signing of the agreement in Minsk on February 12, it was clear, and we expressly stated, that before ceasefire could be estab - lished in and around Debaltseve, the issue of the evacuation of Ukrain - ian troops had to be addressed... We proposed that they peacefully leave the area... The militants proposed that [they] peacefully leave the area...” , Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin said.

Yet, this scurrilous statement of the Russian representative was made to deceive the international community. Th signed Package of Measures clearly provided for the removal by Russian hybrid forces of their heavy armaments from the con - tact line as of September 19, 2014, which means that the area of Debaltseve Exit Debaltsev е

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 24 • was to have remained under the control of Ukraine’s Armed Forces. It is therefore clear that on February 12, 2015, there could be no question of Ukrainian forces leaving the area, let alone its peaceful or forceful transfer under Russia’s control. Ukraine’s current position is that the execution of the Minsk Ac - cords must begin by the complete de-occupation of the territories captured by Russia and its merce - naries in violation of the contact line as of September 19, 2014, as provided for in the Package of Measures. Debaltsev е

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 25 • Russia’s Attempts to Legitimize Its Stooges from the So-Called “LDNR” On November 13, 2018, at an OSCE Perma - nent Council meeting in , Russian delegates attempted to organize a video-conference with representa - tives of Russian terrorists of the so- called “LNR” and “DNR”.

The same thing happened at a UN Security Council meeting on October 30, 2018, when the Russ - ian representative proposed that so-called “representatives of LDNR” be invited to take part in the meeting.

Zaharchenko puppet “In a spirit of the transparency of work, we insisted on open discussion and invited two central election commissions from the DPR and LPR. We expect that the members of the Council are no less than us interested in obtaining full information about the real sit - uation in Ukraine. We urge not to give up to pressure and not to prevent the representatives of the DPR and the LPR, the signatories to the Minsk Accords, from speaking at the Council”, the Permanent Repre - sentative of Russia to the UN, , said.

In both cases, Moscow’s arguments came down to the supposedly “need to hear the voice of the DPR and the LPR”. According to the Minsk Accords, however, which Nebenzya referred to at the UN Security Council meeting, there Vasily Nebenzya

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 26 • are no so-called “DPR” and “LPR” at all but particular areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where local elections must be held under Ukrainian law and OSCE standards.

It should also be noted that Moscow constantly attempts to present its stooges in Donbas as the “parties to the Minsk process”, calling them the “signa - tories to the Minsk Accords”. The fact is, the Minsk Accords of Sep - tember 2014 is based on the Trilat - eral Contact Group format, which includes the representatives of Plotnicki puppet Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE. Clearly, a trilateral group, by definition, cannot have more than three partici - pants. It is also clear that Russia and Ukraine stand in this trilateral format as the parties to the conflict, with the OSCE acting as an intermediary. The signa - tures of Russian stooges Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky on the Accords are put separately, without their position mentioned. This means that, first, they are not part of the Trilateral Contact Group and, second, they in fact acted as “pri - vate persons”, who “have familiarized themselves with the text of the Ac - cords”. The agreement does not mention the so-called “DPR” or “LPR” anywhere in its text.

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 27 • MH17 Flight Catastrophe On July 17, 2014, Russian troops shot down a Boeing 777-200ER passenger aircraft of the Malaysia Airlines company, on its scheduled MH17 flight from Ams - terdam to Kuala Lumpur. It was an accident: They planned to have taken down a Ukrainian AN-26 military transport plane. As soon as Moscow realized its mistake, it started a disinformation campaign at all diplomatic levels in order to obstruct the investigation and dis - credit its findings.

Reconstruction DSB On July 22, 2014, a few days after the plane crash, the permanent representa - tive of the Russian Federation at the UN stated as follows: “Kyiv started poorly—by disseminating false information, including at a Security Council meeting. The recording of radio communications between mili - tants’ leaders turned out to be edited from several communications, in - cluding before July 17; a video published by their Foreign Minister, which al - legedly demonstrates the removal of the Buk air missile system to Russian territory, was actually recorded in the Kyiv-controlled territory; and if it indeed was that missile system that shot down the plane, it is not the militants who were behind the shootdown.”

Later, the first official findings of the Joint Investigation Team debunked Russia’s disinformation and fully con - Wreckage flight M Н17 firmed the arguments of the Ukrainian

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 28 • side: The audio recording had no signs of editing, and the video was shot in Rus - sia-controlled Luhansk and not in the “Kyiv-controlled territory”. On July 30, 2015, at a UN Security Council meeting, Russia accused Ukraine of “concealing the record - ings of radio communications be - tween military air traffic control officers”.

“Why did you not provide the in - vestigation with the recordings of your military air traffic control offi - Wreckage flight M Н17 cers? There you have impunity. Was anyone punished for that? Mr Klimkin, was anyone punished for that?” , said Vitaly Churkin, emotionally.

In reality, Ukraine provided the Joint Investigation Team with all existing recordings of radio communications between its air traffic controllers, as noted in the Team’s official report. There were no recordings of military air traffic control officers because Ukraine’s military air forces did not make any flights on July 17, 2014. It should be noted that the Joint Investigation Team has raised no issues with Ukraine in relation to any air traffic control recordings.

On May 25, 2018, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov tried to ac - cuse the official investigation of al - legedly being “biased and one-sided”. “The investigation team has completely ignored im - portant information provided by the Russian side: raw primary radar air control data; the results of a full-sized experiment by the manufacturer of Buk systems, Almaz- Antey; and other information from the technical experts”, Lavrov claimed. Reconstruction JIT

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 29 • This, again, was blatant disinformation. The Joint Investigation Group has re - peatedly stated that it carefully checks all the data it receives. The matter is, analysis of the data provided by Russia, most likely, has not affected the con - clusions of the investigation and, therefore, has not satisfied Moscow.

Disinformation: The Principal Instrument of Russian Diplomacy • 30 • Conclusion

This brochure brings up only a few examples of Russia's attempts "Official Moscow" at using disinformation as its princi - pal diplomatic instrument. The list could go on and on and on as Russian diplomats spread disinformation at all levels, every single day--that is their main duty. Still, the clock is ticking against the Kremlin, for nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest; sooner or later, lies of the Kremlin and its representatives at international fora will be exposed, and the world is sobering up to the real nature of Putin's Russia.