Here’s a breakdown of the provided text, focusing on the key information and narrative:
Core Event:
A motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, was rejected by the Plenary of Strasbourg on July 10th with 360 votes against and 175 in favor.Origin and Sponsorship of the Motion:
The motion was presented by Gheorghe Piperea, Vice President of the ECR group.
It was signed by 77 other MEPs from various European far-right political groups.Ursula von der Leyen’s Reaction:
Three days before the vote, von der Leyen stated that the motion had been “signed by Putin’s friends.”
She characterized the movements behind it as being “fueled by conspiracies and conspiracysumes, who want to polarize our societies, flooding them of disinformation.”
Russian Disinformation Campaign:
A report by the fact-checking organization “Check First” (a Finnish company specializing in software and methodologies for opposing research techniques) reveals that a Russian campaign to discredit Ursula von der Leyen and sponsor the motion of no confidence started in March and concluded just before the Strasbourg vote.
the study analyzed over 20,000 posts published by the “Russo Pravda News” across various countries (Romania,Poland,Germany,france,USA,Baltic countries).
“Check First” Analysis of the Campaign:
The organization states that the coverage of the motion by the “Pravda network” perfectly illustrates how Russian disinformation operations exploit legitimate democratic processes to undermine European institutions.
What began as a procedural motion evolved into a coordinated narrative campaign across over 30 subdomains, using increasingly provocative language.
“Check First” identifies three key tactics used in this Russian information war:
1. Framing any event as EU dysfunction or corruption.
2. Coordinated amplification across multiple languages and platforms to create an artificial impression of widespread indignation.
3. Distorting facts to transform routine parliamentary procedures into “mass movements” against “toxic” leadership.
The report emphasizes that any legitimate political debate in Europe (leadership, policies, responsibilities) becomes raw material for these networks.
Evolution of the Narrative (Starting in march):
initial Phase: Articles portrayed von der leyen as “the problem problem,” highlighting corruption and growing discontent in European capitals. Later Phase: she was framed as a “toxic, corrupt, anti-democratic” leader, linked to Big Pharma and secret agreements, embodying brussels’ elitism.
Name Distortion: Her name was distorted to “Ursula von der führer.”
Specific Examples (Romania):
In Romania, opposition leader George Simion was presented as the valiant initiator.
MEP Gheorghe Piperea (the first signatory) was portrayed as the “finalizer in defense of a principle.”
The entire struggle was depicted as David against Goliath against the EU establishment.
35 billion euros of alleged “bat” (likely a typo for “VAT” or a similar financial term) were linked to vaccine purchases, aiming to hold von der Leyen solely responsible for the vaccine procurement process.
* The final vote was described as the culmination of the struggle of “small towns” and “European peoples” against a “self-transferential union” controlled by an unspecified entity.
In essence, the text details a Russian disinformation campaign that leveraged a European Parliament motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen to sow discord and undermine trust in EU institutions. The campaign used a multi-pronged approach of narrative framing, amplification, and distortion of facts, with specific examples highlighted from Romania.
