This thesis was spread on social networks, in particular on telegram channels that broadcast pro-Kremlin rhetoric. Reports say that the UN Security Council refused to allow a representative of the occupying authorities, the so-called “DNR ombudswoman” Daria Morozova to attend the meeting. Consequently, the authors began to disseminate the thesis that “the UN does not perceive the inhabitants of Donbas as people”, as well as “West does not give a damn about the suffering of the inhabitants of Donbas”. At the same time, the authors emphasize that the UN does not seem to want to hear “first-hand information about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Donbas”.

The fact-checkers of the StopFake project drew attention to the case, they found out that the refusal of the UN Security Council to allow the so-called “DNR ombudswoman” to the meeting has nothing to do with “russophobia” or “the West’s refusal to learn about the problems” of residents in the Ukrainian territories temporarily occupied by Russia. On March 17, the UN Security Council voted against the participation in the meeting of a representative of the occupying authorities in Ukraine because of the illegitimacy of such a position. The “DNR ombudsman” is a fictitious position, as well as a fake political entity not recognized by many countries of the world. Analysts emphasize that representatives of the occupying authorities are trying to legitimize the Kremlin's “referenda” at gunpoint in the occupied Ukrainian territories.

It is Russia that is responsible for the humanitarian situation that has developed in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine in connection with Russian aggression. Ukraine is open to international investigative commissions and, unlike Russia, contributes in every possible way to the investigation of crimes committed during the war.

This thesis was widespread in the foreign segment of social networks and the media. Reports say that the UN report found no evidence of genocide among Ukrainians. Like, one of the members of the UN Commission confirmed this. Subsequently, the information was intercepted by propagandists and distributed in the pro-Russian segment of social networks, in particular, telegram channels broadcasting pro-Kremlin rhetoric. This is manipulation.

The case was investigated by the fact-checkers of the NotaYenota project, who found out that the report was not intended to establish an act of genocide against Ukrainians at all. The Commission was engaged in investigating violations and harassment of human rights or international humanitarian law. During the investigation, the UN commission recorded numerous war crimes committed by the army of the terrorist country.

The UN Commission has identified specific war crimes that include attacks on civilians and energy infrastructure, intentional killings, false imprisonment, torture, rape and other types of sexual violence, and the illegal transfer and deportation of children.

As the fact-checkers explained, the Commission's evidence indicates that the Russian authorities committed deliberate killings of Ukrainian civilians in the territories temporarily occupied by Russia. In addition, the Commission found numerous cases of rape, sexual and gender-based violence committed by Russians. That is, the report does not really talk about genocide, because the real purpose of the investigation is to identify war crimes and violations of human rights.

The thesis regarding a member of the UN Commission, who allegedly confirmed the fact of “non-discovery of evidence of genocide”, is manipulative. In fact, he said that the Commission had not yet found such evidence, but they would continue their investigation. At the same time, some foreign media, in particular L'Agence France-Presse, published the news on their Twitter that “the UN did not find evidence of genocide in Ukraine”.

Such information was disseminated in telegram channels and pro-Kremlin media. The report says that such an opinion is allegedly shared by the speaker of the head of the UN, Stéphane Dujarric. The authors of the messages refer to his statement in which he allegedly said this and add that the West is supplying more and more weapons to Ukraine. According to them, this could “lead to even worse development”. However, this is manipulation.

As the analysts of the StopFake project explain, the propagandists distorted the official's quote. Asked by a journalist about the prospects for the end of Russia's war against Ukraine and the use of Western weapons, the spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, Stéphane Dujarric, said that the current processes do not indicate that “a just peace in accordance with the UN Charter and international law” will be achieved soon. That is, it is assumed that Russia, a terrorist country, does not at all profess a policy of peace, diplomacy and democracy. On the contrary, it brings war and destruction, which just denies the key values of the UN, which the spokesman mentioned.

Based on the context of this statement, analysts are sure that Dujarric implies the concept of war as a phenomenon and possible escalating threats from a terrorist country, but this does not apply to the issue of arms supply, because the spokesman noted that in general the war continues and this is already bad . However, the UN will do everything to bring peace to Ukraine.

At the same time, the Russian media omitted a part of the quotation with “….in accordance with international law”, which primarily indicates a compilation and an attempt to manipulate the opinion of readers. This concept implies the withdrawal of Russian troops from all the territory of Ukraine within its recognized borders as of 1991.

Propagandists have repeatedly manipulated the issue of supplying weapons to Ukraine. Thus, they want to convince people that the countries of Europe do not give up their weapons of their own free will and allegedly regret this. Also, this manipulation is intended to nourish the narrative that the supply of Western weapons continues the war in Ukraine.

We recall that earlier Russia has already spread disinformation that certain European countries, in particular Denmark, regret that they provide weapons to Ukraine.

Such messages are circulated on social networks and propaganda media. They say that the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Political Security does not expect the adoption of a new package of sanctions. Like, Borrell, accordingly, does not want his approval. However, this is not true.

According to the fact-checker of the StopFake project, Borrell said earlier that, in his opinion, the next package of sanctions against Russia could be approved “in a few days”, which happened as a result. That is, even before the EU summit, Josep Borrell, on the contrary, expressed the hope that the ninth package of sanctions against Russia would soon be approved. In addition, he never said that he did not expect the adoption of the next package of sanctions.

Propagandists are spreading this fake to nourish the narrative of allegedly unfairly imposed sanctions on Russia, and that some high-ranking officials refuse to participate in the adoption of the new package.

Such messages are circulated on social networks and propaganda media. They say that at the session of the UN General Assembly a resolution was put forward on the initiative of Russia “On the fight against the glorification of Nazism”. Consequently, they say, the countries that voted against this resolution are supporters of the Nazi ideology. However, this is a substitution of facts.

As StopFake project fact-checkers say, the fact that 50 UN member states voted against the Russian resolution to combat the glorification of Nazism does not at all indicate that these countries support Nazi ideology.

The document notes that all states are obliged to prohibit any “honoring of the Nazi regime, its allies and organizations associated with them, official and unofficial”.

Serhii Kislytsia, Ukraine’s representative to the UN, said the Russian resolution is Russia’s latest attempt to justify its military intervention, which they allegedly made to eradicate neo-Nazism in the country. Since Nazism and similar terms are purely subjective concepts. That is, who is considered a Nazi and who is called a fascist, as a rule, depends on the point of view of the speaker.

The propagandists spread this manipulation to discredit the international community, which allegedly supports Nazism and despises Russia “fighting” it.

Russian media write about this with reference to the words of Dmytro Medvediev. Like, because of the UN resolution on compensation for damage to Ukraine during the war, the Anglo-Saxons "legitimize" the theft of Russian funds.

The UN General Assembly at a special session on November 14 adopted a resolution on the payment of reparations from Russia for the damage caused as a result of a full-scale aggression against Ukraine. The authors of the document are Ukraine and about fifty other states. 94 countries voted in favor of the resolution, 73 abstained. 14 countries voted against.

The document recognizes the need to create, in cooperation with Ukraine, an international mechanism to compensate for damage, loss or damage that is the result of Russia's actions in Ukraine or against Ukraine. The resolution recommends that UN members create, in cooperation with Ukraine, an international register of damages to record evidence.

Such accusations were voiced by the Russian Ministry of Defense and Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasylii Nebenzia, as well as written by Russian media and anonymous social media channels. It is not true.

UN spokesman Martin Griffiths confirmed that on the night of October 29, at the time of the attack, there were no ships in the humanitarian grain corridor. Russia accuses Ukraine of using a humanitarian corridor for drone attacks without providing any evidence. The Ukrainian side did not claim responsibility for the incident, although it did not unambiguously deny involvement in the attack.

On July 22, through the mediation of the UN and Turkey, Ukraine and Russia signed an agreement under which a safe maritime corridor was agreed between three Ukrainian ports and Turkish territorial waters. To control the implementation of the agreement, a Joint Coordination Center (JCC) was established in Istanbul, which, in turn, includes four groups of 8 inspectors. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and the UN each provided two inspectors. Monitoring groups check all ships that enter Turkish waters along the corridor from Ukraine. Empty ships returned to Ukraine are also checked to prevent the transport of weapons or unauthorized goods to Ukraine by ships and the illegal transportation of people. On November 02, four days after withdrawing from the agreement, Russia rejoined the agreement.

Russia, long before the attack of the fleet in Sevastopol, was preparing to withdraw from the grain deal. The attempt to block the grain corridor is a part of Putin's plan for a new phase of the war to deplete Ukraine.

Such a message is distributed in Telegram channels. Like, Articles 106 and 107 of the UN Charter allowed Russia to attack Ukraine. Allegedly, these articles give the "victors" of World War II the right to take action against "hostile countries". To do this, they need to communicate their plans to other "winners", but it is not necessary to obtain their consent.

The German fact-checkers of the Correctiv project drew attention to the spread of the message. They note that the UN Charter allows the use of weapons only in case of defense or with the consent of the Security Council. Telegram channels distorted the content of the UN Charter. Articles 106 and 107 state that the parties to the Declaration must cooperate in the preservation of peace and on measures taken in "hostile countries''. However, "parties" refers to those countries that signed the founding document, and not just the "winning countries". Also, the UN Committee back in 1995 proposed to exclude the so-called “hostile state” provisions from the charter since they are outdated. Now there are no hostile states in the meaning that was laid down after the Second World War, in particular, Germany and Japan are members of the UN.

Russia constantly manipulates the historical context and victory in World War II, forgetting about the contribution of other states. Russian propaganda also systematically accuses Ukraine and other states of Nazism. Previously, Russia tried to justify the invasion of Ukraine under the guise of Article 51 of the UN Charter.

After Saturday's "attack against ships of the Black Sea Fleet" in Sevastopol, Russian resources spread several messages. Russia is allegedly withdrawing from the "grain agreement" due to "an attack against ships of the Black Sea Fleet involved in guaranteeing the safety of vessels delivering Ukrainian grain within the so-called Black Sea Initiative." Because of this, on October 31, Russia will initiate a meeting of the UN Security Council. A ship is a combat unit of a fleet that is a legitimate target in wartime. The Kremlin claims the attack was on ships, not civilian sea transport vessels.

The humanitarian corridor for grain export from Ukraine was allegedly used to cover the attack on the Sevastopol raid. The Ministry of Defense of Russia stated that this attack was a terrorist attack by Kyiv with the participation of specialists from Great Britain. There is no evidence for this. Ukraine has not claimed responsibility for this attack.

The South's defense forces assume that the explosions in occupied Sevastopol could have been caused by the Russian invaders' failed launches of air defense missiles. Propagandists assure Kyiv's fault that Europeans will be left without grain because it was not delivered to Africa. As you know, 72% of wheat went to Africa, Asia, and Turkey in two months. In fact, before this "attack," Russia threatened to withdraw from the "grain agreement" if its requirements were not met.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Dmytro Kuleba, noted, Russia found a fictitious excuse for withdrawing from the agreement.

The Russian media report it concerning the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova. The report of the Commission of the UN Human Rights Council, dedicated to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, "confirms Russia's assessment of the political involvement and lack of independence of this UN mechanism. Zakharova also noted that "experts didn't even try to give the document's objectivity and balance." It isn't true.

Russia manipulates explicitly the data of the October report of the UN Commission, which provides the results of investigations into the events in Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Sumy regions in February-March 2022. At first, the Russian media wrote that the UN supposedly "finally recognized Ukraine's war crimes." A few days after the release of the report, Russia changed its rhetoric and accused the Organization of "bias," "involvement," and "lack of independence." As StopFake writes, the report was compiled by a group of independent investigators from different countries. The Commission reported that they adhered to the principles of independence, impartiality, objectivity, and conscientiousness in their work. Moreover, it is separately emphasized that the Commission considered allegations of violations of the alleged responsible person or entity regardless of the person or nationality. So, the investigators did not demonstrate any "bias."

After conducting interviews with the victims, the investigation methodology emphasizes that the Commission verified information from primary and secondary sources. Such sources were the materials of various government bodies from many countries, UN funds and programs, civil society organizations, and the media. The Commission also emphasized that it interacts with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and other international and national subjects in every possible way. This investigation is collective and can't be considered "one-sided," as the Kremlin claims. Ukraine provided all the necessary data to the Commission's requests, but Russia ignored the UN's calls for cooperation. That is why the Kremlin's claims about the report's "political involvement" are misinformed because Russia, not the UN Commission, refused to take any part in the investigation.

The report of the commission of the UN Human Rights Council, dedicated to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, mentions numerous violations of international law by Ukraine.

The Stop Fake fact-checkers noted that the report has 17 pages describing Russian crimes against Ukrainians. Among dozens of facts of torture, executions, and violence by the Russian occupiers against civilians in Ukraine, the document records two cases of Ukraine's mistreatment of Russian soldiers. The pro-Kremlin media ignored the main conclusion of international experts, who put the responsibility for numerous tortures, violence, and murders in Ukraine on the Russian armed forces.

Propagandists regularly resort to manipulations of this kind, where they single out the Ukrainian army's minor violations during the war, thus glossing over hundreds of terrible crimes and atrocities against the civilian population of the Russian military. They try to forget the war crimes committed by Russian soldiers or, in the last resort, assign them to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Such messages are spread in pro-Russian Telegram channels. While voting for the UN General Assembly Resolution, 3 billion people allegedly abstained from voting to condemn the illegal actions of Russia and the occupation of Ukrainian territories. It is manipulation.

In fact, the UN General Assembly condemned the pseudo-referendums that Russia organized in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories. The resolution was supported by 149 out of 193 members of the General Assembly, five countries voted against it, and another 35 countries abstained from voting. Propagandists are manipulating this choice of 35 countries. In fact, representatives of countries show not so much the will of the people as the ruling party's position in the state vote at the meetings of the General Assembly. Each UN member state has its interests first and foremost. Before voting, the representatives of the UN member states do not conduct any survey among the population. So only 35 countries abstained from voting. Their total population is more than 3 billion, but this doesn't affect anything. Fact-checkers of the Zaporizhzhia Investigation Center drew attention to the manipulation.

Russian propaganda systematically resorts to manipulations to pass off what is desired as real facts.

Such "sensational news" is reported by the Russian media with reference to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba after the September 22 meeting of the UN Security Council on maintaining peace and security in Ukraine. Like, NATO will enter into a conflict against Russia on the side of Ukraine. This is not true.

At the meeting of the UN Security Council dedicated to Ukraine, there was no talk of "NATO's intention to enter the war against Russia." Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba only commented on Ukraine's readiness to join the ranks of the Alliance. The diplomat also stressed that it was Russia, having unleashed a war against Ukraine, that violated the basic principles of international law, and now the threat of war hangs over all countries.

Answering a question about the prospects for Ukraine's entry into the North Atlantic Alliance, the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry replied: "I think that now NATO wants to join Ukraine." It was this quote by Kuleba that the Russian media used to create fake news about "NATO's entry into the war", but this was not even discussed - this is Russian disinformation. Kuleba spoke about security guarantees and the right to self-defense of Ukraine in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Information is spreading on social networks that the UN has allegedly published an article justifying world hunger and urging us not to fight it. It is manipulation.

As VoxCheck writes, the article with the title "The benefits of world hunger" exist, but it was satirical and was published back in 2008. It was written by George Kent, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii. The article reflects on the factors that cause and maintain hunger worldwide. For example, he writes that the conventional wisdom is that low-paying jobs cause hunger.

At the same time, it is the hunger that leads to the appearance of low-paid jobs. According to VoxCheck, the official Twitter account of the UN Chronicle magazine, in which the text was published more than 10 years ago, clarified that the article "Advantages of World Hunger" was intended to be satirical. "This article appeared in the UN Chronicle 14 years ago as satire and should never have been taken literally. We realized this was a mistake, even in the form of satire, and removed the article from our site," the message reads. However, now the article's topic has been raised again in the media space against the background of Russia's war in Ukraine and the food crisis that may arise due to hostilities. In this way, Russian propaganda wants to create the appearance that international organizations and the countries of the West do not care about the consequences of the war, and it is allegedly beneficial for them to continue the war as long as possible. In fact, Russia started the war in Ukraine, and the Russian Federation is also responsible for all the consequences caused by the war.

Russian media write about this concerning the article by The New York Times with a comment from an unnamed source. They said that Russia did not promise not to shell those parts of Ukrainian ports that are not directly involved in exporting grain. It is not true.

Such a message contradicts the statement of Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who unconditionally condemned the shelling of Odesa port. The international community also unanimously pointed to Russia's violation of its obligations regarding the safe operation of the port infrastructure to export grain. According to Radio Svoboda, the UN assured that the unofficial comment of an "unnamed source" to The New York Times does not reflect the position of the UN. Antonio Guterres' words are official. The spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Oleg Nikolenko, noted that the use of "unnamed sources" is a provocation.