Original article (in Montenegrin) was published on 21/11/2024; Author: Darvin Muric
The United Nations has adopted a Russian Resolution on Combating the Glorification of Nazism and Neo-Nazism, which Russia has been proposing to the UN General Assembly for years.
The vast majority of European countries did not vote for the resolution, nor did the United States, Canada, South Korea…
The pro-Russian tabloid IN4S had its own interpretation of the vote, which, as is often the case in their case, is unquestionably in the service of Russian propaganda.
“Nazism is welcome in Montenegro, the EU, the USA and other satellites!”, IN4S states.
“The resolution was adopted with almost 126 votes from the world’s countries… All the countries of the former Yugoslavia were against it?! Except Serbia. Nazism is welcome in Montenegro, the EU, Biden’s USA and satellites,” IN4S claims.
This resolution, which has been a recurring agenda item at the UN General Assembly since 2013, ostensibly condemns the glorification of Nazism. However, it carries other motives, which is why it receives no support from Western countries.
The goal of the Russia’s Resolution is clear and has been pointed out by numerous countries – justification of aggression against Ukraine through the alleged fight against Nazism or, as the Kremlin authorities would put it – denazification.
The representative of the USA, Edward Hartney, in his explanation of why he voted against the Russian proposal, explained that America is proud to have fought against Nazism side by side with the Soviet Union in the Second World War and that it categorically condemns every form of Nazism and Neo-Nazism.
“The Russian Federation’s resolution is not a serious effort to combat Nazism, antisemitism, racism, or xenophobia – all of which are abhorrent and unacceptable. On the contrary, Russia’s attempts to instrumentalize the history of the Holocaust and the Second World War to justify Russia’s aggression is an affront to Holocaust victims and to all who fought against Nazism. This resolution is a shameful political ploy. It is a thinly veiled effort to justify Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” Hartney said.
The European Commission also explained why the Russian proposal does not have the support of EU members or candidates for membership, including Montenegro, which also agreed with the European Commission’s statement.
“It is a thinly veiled attempt by the Russian Federation to promote its own distorted version of history under the guise of combating neo-Nazism. It is important to remember that for many European countries the end of the Second World War did not bring freedom but further occupation and exploitation, more repression and crimes against humanity by other totalitarian regimes. We strongly condemn the politically motivated misuse of the anti-Nazism narrative, and unequivocally reject the inaccurate and misleading use of the term ‘denazification’ to justify Russia’s inhumane, cruel and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine,” the EU’s diplomatic service (EEAS) said in a statement.
And the French newspaper Le Monde explained why Western countries are voting against this “eternal” Russian proposal, reminding that Ukraine publicly condemned every form of Nazism and Neo-Nazism in 2019, pointing out that more than eight million Ukrainians suffered from Nazism.
An amendment proposed by Australia was also adopted, noting that Russia wants to justify its aggression against Ukraine on the alleged grounds of the fight against Nazism.
Just as Russia proposes this Resolution year after year, IN4S publishes lies about alleged support for Nazism from the EU, the U.S., and other states.
Montenegro, EU member states, and the U.S. unequivocally condemn all forms of Nazism and Neo-Nazism. However, they cannot endorse a resolution designed to rationalize aggression, making it evident that Nazism is not welcome in these countries, contrary to IN4S claims.
For this reason, we rate the IN4S article as a manipulation of facts.
The “Manipulation of Facts” rating is given to a media report that uses known and accurate facts but interprets them in a deceptive manner. These reports generally employ accurate information to draw incorrect conclusions or claims, leading media consumers to draw conclusions that differ from the actual meaning of the presented facts.