Putin’s Council of Lies. An analysis of a Russian Federation Security Council meeting

Although it was supposed to be a real-time meeting, there is some evidence that we were shown a pre-recorded video. Some speakers’ watches showed a completely different time (around 13:00 instead of 17:00 when it “premiered”), and glued-up frames were seen and heard during some speeches.

However, it did not matter whether it was a recording or a live broadcast. The main thing is that the one and a half hour meeting of the Russian Security Council was plagued with Russia’s long-standing disinformation fake stories. We grouped them according to the main thematic blocks: the Revolution of Dignity, the Minsk Agreements, provocations in eastern Ukraine, the language law, arms supplies, sanctions against Russia, external governance, Crimea, and NATO.

Revolution of Dignity

It is a myth that has been repeatedly debunked. In particular, in the Museum of the Revolution of Dignity. 

The main signs of a coup are unconstitutionality, violence, a small number of organizers and participants, and the seizure of power as the main goal.

Citizens’ rallies in November 2013 – February 2014 were held in full compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine, and they did not contradict any of its articles.

Security forces engaged in violent actions against protesters. Protesters also used self-defense equipment, mostly homemade shields, helmets, sticks, and “Molotov cocktails.” However, a coup involves using weapons as the primary tool for seizing power.

According to a poll conducted in October 2014 by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, about 20% of Ukraine’s population (over 8.5 million people), took part in the peaceful rallies. Instead, a coup involves a small number of conspirators.

Euromaidan, whose initial aim was to sign the Association Agreement with the EU, morphed into the Revolution of Dignity, aiming mainly to transform Ukraine into a democratic European state rather than seizing power. After Euromaidan, Ukraine held fair presidential and parliamentary elections, which Russia had not seen for many years.

The “republics” in Donbas were not independent even in the beginning. They have always been controlled by Russia. Russia’s involvement in the war has been proven repeatedly. For example, when the Ukrainian army tried to liberate the territory occupied by the militants to regain control over the Ukraine-Russian border, they came under fire from Russia. The regular Russian army codenamed “Ikhtamnet“ (lit.”they’re-not-there”) participated in the fight against the Armed Forces in the summer of 2014, in the winter of 2015, and all the time afterward. It was also responsible for shooting down Flight MH-17.

The formation of “republics” was not an expression of the will of these territories’ residents but a Russian provocation. No wonder the “leaders” of these territories were the appointees of Moscow from the very beginning, i.e., citizens of the Russian Federation. Borodai said so himself. That is, the locals were not even allowed to lead the separatist movements.

In addition, in 2014, during a rally to secede from Ukraine in Donetsk, militants raised a Russian flag, not their own. The illegal formation was immediately created under the slogans of further accession to Russia, not independent existence. Accession, which Russia itself does not need. It needs to destabilize other countries using the “people’s” republics, in line with the Georgian scenario.

Minsk Agreements

Russia failed to implement most of the clauses of the Minsk agreements, thus continuing the conflict. Russia blocked OSCE observers from accessing certain areas and failed to provide humanitarian assistance through international mechanisms. Russia also failed to comply with the security provisions of the Minsk agreements: the ceasefire, the complete withdrawal of units of pro-Russian militants, the Russian military, and weapons from Ukraine. Because of this, European sanctions against Russia were extended.

Ukraine tried to implement the security part of the “Minsk,” but Russia did not follow suit. However, the political points of the agreements clearly contradicted the interests of our country.

Instead, Russia tried to force Ukraine to implement Minsk on its own terms. First, Ukraine had to adopt a special status for Donbas, which would give the region significant privileges and put the rest of Ukraine’s regions in an unequal position. Second, Ukraine had to agree to regain control of the occupied territories only after local elections. But these elections should have taken place under Ukrainian law, which was impossible under the actual occupation of these territories. In addition, in recent years, over 600,000 Ukrainians in the occupied territories have received Russian passports. At the same time, the number of temporarily displaced persons, mostly from ORDLO, is 1.4 million, and most of them would not be able to participate in the elections.

Provocations in eastern Ukraine

Ukraine did not attack Donetsk or Luhansk, fire on the Russian territory, or commit sabotage. Unlike Russia, Ukraine is not fighting against the civilian population or looking for reasons to invade. The militants are carrying out provocations, hiding among the houses of civilians in ORDLO. Still, the Ukrainian military does not respond to these provocations trying to save the lives of civilians in the occupied territories.

The Russians claim that on February 19-20, Ukraine violated the ceasefire 107 times using weapons prohibited by the Minsk agreements. This is fake news. In fact, the militants fired 108 out of 122 firearms prohibited by the Minsk agreements on February 19, 72 out of 80 on February 20, and 64 out of 84 on February 21.

The militants and Russia have repeatedly accused Ukraine of shelling, e.g., a border checkpoint, settlements in the Rostov region, or a kindergarten in the Luhansk People’s Republic territory. However, all these accusations are Russian propaganda fabrications. Consider a few examples in more detail.

The kindergarten in Stanytsia Luhanska (Luhansk region) is located in the territory controlled by Ukraine. On February 17, it was fired upon from non-government-controlled territories (three workers were injured), but the Russian media tried to accuse the Armed Forces of this.

Russian media also accused the Armed Forces of destroying a border checkpoint near the village of Shcherbakovo in the Rostov region. However, it could not be. After all, the Armed Forces could not have approached the village of Shcherbakovo closer than 30-50 km because settlements in Ukraine before Shcherbakovo were under occupation. In addition, the building they tried to portray as a border checkpoint did not look like an office building at all. There was not even a well-trodden path to it.

Analysts at the Center for Counteracting Disinformation at the National Security and Defense Council created a map of the probable trajectory of the Russian occupiers’ provocative fire on the territory of the Russian Federation. It turned out that the only settlement along the entire line of demarcation from which such a provocation could be carried out was the settlement of Pankivka (currently a temporarily occupied territory of the Luhansk region).

Fake news about shelling the village of Mityakinska, Rostov region, was disproved by the Center for Strategic Communications and InformNapalm. However, Russian media claimed that Ukraine shelled the Rostov region from BM-21 “Grad.” But the Armed Forces troops are located in the withdrawal areas at a distance of more than 21 km from the line of contact, while the maximum firing range of “Grad” systems and 122-mm guns used in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is shorter. InformNapalm  found that the shelling was carried out from the village of Sukhodil, Luhansk region, which is now under the control of Russian occupation forces.

Ukraine has repeatedly stated that our military does not conduct offensive operations in Donbas. The militants could not destroy Ukrainian saboteurs, capture them, or destroy equipment because they were not at the Russian border.

Lack of electricity, water and gas are the consequences of provocations by militants and the Russian army. For example, due to the occupiers’ strikes, the city of Shchastia in Luhansk region was left without water, light and heat.

Such reports accusing the Armed Forces of the offensive were created simply to organize the necessary backdrop for an urgent, expanded meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. Russia wanted to justify the introduction of troops “to protect the local population” from the alleged brutal actions of Ukrainians.

Law on language

For starters, not the “Law on the Abolition of the Russian Language” but the Law “On Ensuring the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language.” That is, it is the law on the Ukrainian language in the first place. Second, the Law establishes the conditions for the functioning of the Ukrainian language in the sphere of culture, services, education, media, publishing books, etc. For example, the Russian language is not banned on television and radio, but quotas are in place for its use. In addition, the law does not restrict the use of everyday language, although this frightens Russian propaganda the most.

Weapons supplies

Western partners began helping Ukraine with weapons, ammunition, and financial assistance precisely because Russia was concentrating troops near Ukraine’s borders organizing provocations in eastern Ukraine. Of course, Putin’s “puppets” do not think about this.

We wrote on our Facebook page about the countries that helped Ukraine in this situation.

In reality, like in many other countries or Russia, there are representatives of the extreme right in Ukraine, but these organizations are few and far from enjoying as much support from society and the government as the pro-Kremlin media is trying to portray (as evidenced by the election results with nationalist parties receiving about zero votes). The Russian media constantly exaggerates the influence and importance of far-right organizations in Ukraine. For comparison, the EUvsDisinfo website of the European External Action Service has a collection of at least 400 fake news stories by Russian propaganda regarding Nazism in Ukraine.

Now Russia is trying to justify hostilities in eastern Ukraine, in particular, by the activities of Nazi groups. However, most of the damaged schools, hospitals, kindergartens, and other infrastructure are the result of provocations by Russian militants, not attacks by the Armed Forces, as stated in “Provocations in Eastern Ukraine” above.

Sanctions against Russia

First, Russia imposed sanctions against Ukrainian citizens and companies.

Second, Ukraine has not bought gas from Russia since 2015. The gas Ukraine is currently buying is not Russian. Gas is distinguished not by country of origin, but by owner. Therefore, gas ceases to be Russian as soon as European companies have purchased it. In addition, the gas that Ukraine buys is not of purely Russian origin, as gas from different countries is mixed in main pipes. The EU gas market operates at transparent prices, which, unlike Gazprom’s prices, are not politicized. Therefore, it is much more profitable for Ukraine to buy gas from European companies.

By the way, Russia is losing not only because of sanctions. Earlier we wrote on Facebook about the losses suffered by Russian companies, banks, and the ruble due to the growing risk of a full-scale war.

External governance

First, there was no free gas. We disproved a similar claim in Putin’s speech.

The contract with Gazprom included the take-or-pay provision – since 2010, Ukraine has had to buy 52 billion cubic meters or more of gas from Russia. If it purchased less than that, at least 41.6 billion cubic meters of gas was still paid for annually. Ukraine’s consumption was at 10-11 billion cubic meters. Moreover, re-export of this gas was banned, and the base price was set at $450. Due to such “preferences” since 2010, Ukraine had paid much more for gas than Europe and overpaid Gazprom for gas supplies from USD 16.8 billion to  USD 28.8 billion. Moreover, contract rates contained in the gas transit agreement were too low, and Ukraine fell short of about USD 17 billion for transit from Gazprom.

Second, allegations of US interference in Ukraine’s elections or the Revolution of Dignity (which Matvienko called a “regime change”) are baseless. There is no objective evidence of so-called “external governance .”The Ukrainian authorities are independently responsible for domestic and foreign policy. Western countries, particularly the United States, support us but do not force us to change. The United States has never announced any costs of “regime change” and has not elected Yushchenko. The Supreme Court of Ukraine scheduled the third round of elections after mass protests against gross election fraud in 2004.

Third, as for elections, Matvienko probably does not know that the OPFL party in the Ukrainian Parliament has deputies visiting Russia for friendly meetings with colleagues, financing militants in eastern Ukraine, and relaying Russian propaganda daily across the Ukrainian information space.

Fourth, it is not a conflict but a war in eastern Ukraine “organized” by Russia occupying our territories in 2014. The US military has never participated in hostilities in eastern Ukraine. The United States only provides financial support to Ukraine, and since the build-up of Russian troops at the border, it has also provided military equipment, weapons, and ammunition.

Crimea

The so-called “referendum” has nothing to do with “free choice.”

The decision to hold a “referendum” was made at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea on February 27, 2014. The unidentified military had already seized the parliament building, which Putin later recognized as Russian. Journalists were not allowed into the hall, so it is unknown whether there was a quorum for such a decision and how the deputies voted under the barrels of machine guns, Krym.Realii wrote.

In 2015, one of the operation leaders to take over Crimea, Igor Strelkov (Girkin), admitted that the deputies had to be “herded” into the Parliament to vote on February 27. 

Two questions were put to the “referendum”: “Do you support the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?” and “Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea as of 1992 and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?”. None of them provided for the possibility of maintaining the status quo. 

In addition, the Crimean “referendum” took place without international observers who could record violations. At the same time, Crimean journalists and voters repeatedly stated that ballots were handed out in a massive way to the same people. They were also handed out to people with Russian passports.

Crimea’s Constitution as of 1992 provided broad autonomy rights for the peninsula. As if it were a separate state with its own government bodies “exercising on its territory all of the powers except those voluntarily delegated to Ukraine.”

Mykola Kikkas, an expert at the Regional Center for Human Rights explained that the “referendum” was also illegal from the point of view of Ukrainian laws. According to Article 73 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the issue of changing the territory is decided only by an all-Ukrainian referendum. Whether Crimea should be part of Ukraine had to be decided by all the regions, and the voting of people in Crimea alone was not enough for such a decision.

Neither Ukraine, the European Union, nor the United States recognized the results of Crimea’s “referendum .”On March 27, 2021, the UN Security Council issued a resolution in support of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The European Union adheres to a strict policy of not recognizing the illegal “referendum’s” results. Economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU after the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas have not been lifted since 2014.

NATO

We wrote a bit about the fake “expression of will” of the Crimean people and Sevastopol residents. Not only Ukraine insists that Crimea is our territory. Crimea’s affiliation with Russia has not been recognized by any country in the world except Russia itself and its satellite countries.

Ukraine’s partnership with NATO does not include the Organization’s commitment to intervene in the war. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated that the Alliance would provide support, not deploy combat troops to Ukraine.

The United States and NATO have, in fact, disagreed with Russia’s demands not to admit Ukraine to NATO. As an independent state, Ukraine can decide for itself which unions it should join and which not. Russia wants to expand its influence in Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union, and therefore it opposes Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration. To prevent Ukraine’s accession to NATO, Russia addresses its demands to the West. However, it does not consider that 62% of Ukrainians support Ukraine’s accession to NATO – the highest figure since 2014.

Russia forgets that the United States withdrew from the RSMD agreement because of Russia’s violations of its terms. Russia deployed several 9M729 missiles known as the SSC-8 to NATO. That is why the United States suspended its obligations under the Treaty and set a six-month withdrawal period.

Declassified documents confirm that NATO did not plan on expanding “eastwards” to oppose Russia but instead offered Russia the status of an “associate member” of NATO. This would stop the deepening of the historical confrontation between East and West. However, Russia pursued aggressive action and turned Eastern European countries against itself, forcing them to seek protection under NATO’s “umbrella.” After all, they remember very well what the Russian occupation is.