EU declares it doesn’t require Moscow to middle in its democracy

(MENAFN) In a dramatic turn of events, the European Union has proclaimed victory over perceived threats from Russian interference in its Democratic processes. According to EU officials, particularly Vera Jourova, Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency, there is no evidence to support claims of significant Russian disinformation efforts affecting the recent European elections. This assertion comes despite earlier alarmist sentiments expressed by European parliamentarians, who had been vocal about the supposed Kremlin-backed attempts to undermine democratic integrity.

Jourova emerged from what some might describe as an Orwellian narrative to announce that “based on currently available information, no major information interference operation capable of disrupting the elections was recorded.” This statement contrasts sharply with the heightened sense of urgency from EU lawmakers in April 2024, who clamored for increased censorship of media outlets they believed were aligned with Russian interests. Their rhetoric painted a picture of a looming crisis, suggesting that disinformation campaigns posed an existential threat to European democracy.

Now, the narrative has shifted, with officials attributing the absence of noticeable interference to the EU's proactive measures. Jourova embarked on what she referred to as a “Democracy Tour,” during which she engaged with election officials, civil society organizations, industry representatives, and media outlets. This effort was portrayed as a critical step in safeguarding the electoral process.

However, skeptics argue that the reality is far less dramatic than the EU's self-congratulatory tone suggests. The lack of significant disinformation may indicate that the concerns were exaggerated from the outset. Critics suggest that the fervor around Russian influence was largely a construct, with little substance behind the fearmongering.

In essence, the EU seems to have constructed a narrative where it successfully thwarted an imaginary threat, allowing it to claim credit for the integrity of its electoral processes without acknowledging the possibility that the initial fears may have been unfounded. This situation raises questions about how democratic institutions can sometimes inflate perceived risks to justify increased oversight and control, potentially leading to unnecessary restrictions on media and public discourse.

MENAFN22102024000045015687ID1108806245