“External governance” and useful MEPs. Pro-Russian media manipulations, October 18-24

Myths about “external governance”: is it the US, the EU, or London?   

Once again, the pro-Russian media actively fed the false narrative about “external governance” of Ukraine by foreign countries or their “foreign agents.” The maximum concentration of such statements is found on the pro-Russian TV channels. In particular, First Independent, whose talk shows are more reminiscent of the OPFL’s or ex-Regionals’ party congresses. The speakers from these political forces are invited to each program.

Commenting on the talk show “Pulse” on the laws passed on October 19, Anatoliy Burmich, an MP from OPFL, argued that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau was placed “under external control.” Burmich was talking about the foreign nationals participating in the competition committee that will elect the NABU director.  

On October 19, the Verkhovna Rada voted in favor of Bill 5459-1, guaranteeing NABU’s independence from the Government. The bill prohibits the Cabinet of Ministers from interfering with this body’s activities. It also prohibits attempts to repeal NABU’s acts, issue instructions, give tasks associated with the Bureau’s activities, etc. There is also a change in the procedure for appointing the NABU Director: she/he will be elected in fair competition, and international experts will have a casting vote. The competition committee will be comprised of 6 members. Three committee members will be nominated by the Government itself and three more by the Government but based on proposals from international and foreign organizations. What Burmich referred to as “external governance” is the participation of unbiased international experts free from outside influence.

The external governance theory’s proponents could not have missed another news piece: on October 19, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin arrived in Kyiv on an official visit.

“I regard the arrival of the head of the Pentagon in Ukraine as a sign that Ukraine continues to be under US control and influence because this person can only discuss national security issues. One can’t talk about Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty at the moment, but only for the time being,” OPFL board member Rostyslav Dubovyi said on the ”Ukrainian Format” show on First Independent. 

On the same show, Dubovyi repeated several times that “there’s no war going on” in Ukraine and that “it’s all your fantasies.” The hosts in the studio typically do not debunk or balance such statements.

Despite the myth of “external governance” being eternal, the pro-Russian media found something to surprise us with. The sanctioned Strana, for one, decided to pass Ukraine’s “handlebars” on to the United Kingdom. “There’s even information that the United States’ informal oversight of Ukraine could be turned over to London,” says the video blog entitled “Reign, oh Britain, over Zelensky! Why did Ze hastily pack up to travel to London?”

Why do MEPs talk about “external management mode”?

The pro-Russian politicians and media took the fake news story of “external governance” higher – to the international level. First Independent keeps running a story of dispatching their journalists to the European Parliament to bring the issues of freedom of speech in Ukraine to the attention of EU parliamentarians. The channel cites an excerpt from a speech by MEP Maximilian Krah, who speaks entirely in pro-Russian disinformation clichés after such “orientation.”

The regime in Kyiv operates only under external pressure because it’s entirely dependent on Western funds. If the EU stops helping with finances, the regime will fall immediately. Therefore, our politicians don’t have the right to support the corrupt regime in Kyiv, where President is a participant in an offshore scandal, a corruption scandal. That’s a serious problem when President persecutes the independent media and opposition politicians,” says Krah.

It is a political advertisement for Viktor Medvedchuk, regularly aired on the TV channels and websites associated with him. For instance, back in May, Maximilian Krah spoke in the studio of First Independent about “political persecution of the opposition.” His quotes made loud headlines on the websites that consistently disseminate paid-for content about Medvedchuk (112.ua, Newsone, Zik, From.ua, Vesti, etc.). 

The purpose of such stories and publications is to make believe that the whole of Europe got united in support for Medvedchuk. However, it is actually done by the deputies from European far-right parties, traditionally supported by Russia. For instance, Maximilian Krah is a member of the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (ADN) party, accused of having direct ties to the Kremlin. ADN politicians demanded the lifting of Western sanctions against Moscow, and so indirectly justified Vladimir Putin’s policies. According to DW, Veronica Krasheninnikova, a member of the high council of the United Russia party, officially confirmed their links with Russia in 2018.

Fake news story: Ukraine is not a victim of Russian aggression 

The pro-Russian platforms have long promoted the idea that Ukraine was the first to break the ceasefire in Donbas, actively shelling the occupied territories and deliberately provoking Russia in order to create the right picture in the eyes of international partners. Strana.ua plays a key role in spreading this narrative. By the way, this media outlet takes the phrase “aggressor country” in brackets to refer to Russia, emphasizing its being “a so-called aggressor country.”

This week, the narrative was pursued using several news items as examples. The National Security and Defense Council published a glossary of terms and concepts relating to Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territories. Russian propagandists use them to legitimize the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of Donbas. This news story provoked a stormy reaction from the pro-Russian media outlets in Ukraine that often use these very constructs.

Clearly, the Russian aggression does not fit into Strana’s narrative template, convincing their readers that the shelling in Donbas came from Ukraine: “And now we’ve got another case of shelling of Donetsk. The latest series of escalations was preceded by Ukraine’s decision to cancel retaliatory fire orders. Even though they lay at the bedrock of the truce established in 2020, and now it’s de jure denounced. As we can see, it didn’t take long for the consequences to show. It’s clear that taking “fire in response” is a relative thing. And the cancellation of orders “unlocked” any shooting whatsoever.”

The NSDC’s glossary sparked a flurry of reactions in other pro-Russian media. Klymenko Time was likely upset by the prospect of referring to Euromaidan as the Revolution of Dignity, not as a “coup d’état.” As Russian propagandists put it: “We never really called it a “color revolution.” It was anything but a peaceful protest. But our government ordering us to call the event the “revolution of dignity,” which is a coup in the legal sense, – when did that start? It is a new legal term, isn’t it?”

By the way, Mykola Azarov, a very favorite and frequent guest giving interviews on First Independent, still refers to the Revolution of Dignity as a “coup d’état.” 

Fake news story: there is no war with Russia, but there is the “Anti-Russia” project operating in Ukraine 

Pro-Russian TV channels pursue the narrative that there is no war going on or Russian aggression against Ukraine. Arguably, it is Ukrainian propaganda, a “Russophobic” course pursued by the state authorities that came to power after 2014. Everything is perfectly in line with the Russian guidelines: it is not about the Russian Federation that attacked Ukraine, it is about the inadequate Ukrainian authorities. It repeats word-for-word the narratives of Russian politicians. Putin and Medvedev wrote about the same things in their propaganda articles. 

We do not recommend reading the articles by Putin and Medvedev, but rather their debunking by VoxCheck: On the Historical Unity of Lies and Vladimir Putin and 5 Points of Dmitry Medvedev’s Lies.

Speaking on-air on First Independent, former prime minister Mykola Azarov said: “…This very war, to which everything is chalked up, is clearly not there. There’s this trench conflict, where they shoot from time to time, so to speak. But the people of the Donetsk region do know what a military conflict is like. Every day we read about shelling, ruined infrastructure, ruined houses, the shelling of a school, of a substation. They truly stand against conflict, against war. And the rest are under the influence of propaganda that we’re at war with some separatists, with some Russian troops…” 

Another ex-MP from the Party of Regions, Anna Herman, speaks in the same program about the “Anti-Russia project,” allegedly operating in Ukraine. “Anti-Russia” is also a fiction of Putin and other Russian politicians to “justify” their attacks against Ukrainian territory.

The main message of such statements and the pro-Russian TV channels’ rhetoric is that we have to live in peace with Russia because Ukraine is dependent on Russia. Besides, the pro-Russian media keep up their campaign of ratcheting up the tension, arguing that Ukraine will collapse without Russian energy. 

Our methodology

VoxCheck analysts monitor the websites and social networks of the Ukrainian pro-Russian media every day to identify the main news or topics of the week that get the most airtime and attention in the news feed. We identify the key narratives of the past week and analyze their origins.

We monitor such media outlets as Strana, Klymenko Time, Vesti, Ukrayinski Novyny, Podrobnosti, Apostrof, From.ua, Golos.ua, KP in Ukraine, Znaj.ua, Telegraf, 112.ua, Zik, NewsOne, TV channels Nash, First Independent, Inter, etc. We do not claim that these outlets deliberately spread Russian propaganda. Their content, however, contains elements of Russian disinformation.

VoxCheck searches for fake news and manipulations to debunk them. The “click and check” method lies at the core of our fact-checking. Anyone can check our argumentation and sources. Fact-checking can only be based on open data with relevant links. A fact-checked article can only be published if signed by two members of the editorial board.