December hoax about more than 350,000 Russian soldiers on NATO’s borders has served as a reminder that even mainstream media must be careful not to present claims from a single source as fact. This applies even when the claim comes from a former Bundeswehr colonel, disinformation expert Peter Dubóczi notes.
A week before Christmas, media outlets picked up a warning from German CDU MP Roderich Kiesewetter. In an interview with Germany’s N-TV, he claimed that Russia was “training hundreds of thousands of soldiers who will not be deployed to Ukraine”. According to him, they are stationed in the territory of collaborating Belarus and are prepared to attack NATO in the future. He estimated the number of such troops at between 350,000 and 360,000.
The MP also claimed that the presence of these units was causing particular concern among the Baltic states, which “did not dare to tell the public”, even though this development has been observable for two years.
The claim was taken up by many international media outlets, including Slovak ones (such as Pravda, Startitup, HN, Týždeň, TV JOJ, SITA, Nový Čas, Dnes24 and others). Not all of them supplemented the original report with additional sources that would confront the MP’s statement. One such source was a statement by the Lithuanian army, which followed shortly afterwards. The army quoted the claim and labelled it disinformation.
“In short, there is nothing even remotely similar in Belarus, Russian forces are tied up in Ukraine, Russian forces are not deployed on our borders or those of neighbouring NATO countries, and therefore we cannot talk about any intention to use such non-existent forces. Sensational disinformation spreads quickly, so it would be good not to contribute to it.,” the army said on Facebook.
The claim was subsequently debunked by security experts, politicians and media outlets as well.
Why the claim appeared credible
“When people encounter similarly alarming information online, they should first slow down and not immediately give in to fear or a sense of urgency. Strong emotions are a typical feature of content that has the potential to manipulate – whether intentionally or unintentionally,” says Peter Dubóczi from Adapt Institute and the Department of Political Science at the Faculty of Arts of Pavol Jozef Šafárik University.
As he told Euractiv Slovakia, readers and journalists alike were inclined to believe the German MP’s words for several reasons. One of them was his professional background, which automatically lends him credibility.
Until 2009, Kiesewetter served as a colonel in the German armed forces. He spent several years working at NATO headquarters in Belgium and, in the current parliamentary term, serves as a foreign policy expert for the CDU, the party of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
Verifying information with at least two independent sources is a basic rule of journalism. If that is not possible, the headline should clearly state that the claim comes from a single source. Some media outlets failed to do this and instead simply spoke in their headlines of an “urgent warning from Germany”.
“No seemingly credible actor – even if they are a well-known security expert and former Bundeswehr colonel – should be the sole pillar for accepting such a serious claim,” Dubóczi stresses. “If such information is not confirmed elsewhere or is directly denied, that is a clear signal to proceed with caution.”
In similar cases, we can speak of information asymmetry, as ordinary citizens often have no way of independently verifying troop movements, satellite images or even intelligence data. According to Dubóczi, this makes official statements from states, allies and international organisations involved in the issue all the more important.
Warnings from intelligence services about the Russian threat
Another reason the claim appeared credible was the current geopolitical situation. Tensions between the Kremlin and NATO have been pronounced in recent years, especially due to Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine. British, German, Baltic and other intelligence services have already warned of a possible Russian attack within five years that could cross NATO borders.
According to experts – such as former defence minister Martin Sklenár – these warnings should be taken seriously, but not panic-inducing. Europe, they say, must work on strengthening its defence and, consequently, its deterrence effect. If it does so, this extreme scenario may never materialise.
Reports that generate additional fear, such as Kiesewetter’s statement, then “fit” existing expectations, Dubóczi says, and are more likely to be accepted without thorough verification.
There are, however, other elements worth paying attention to in similar cases. “People should also look at the language used – whether it works with precise data and clear temporal and geographical context, or instead with large numbers without explanation, vague formulations and dramatic conclusions.”
In some cases, it is also important to distinguish between information, analysis, and personal estimates or warnings.
“Many people – including media outlets – tend to read security warnings as established facts. Even if this cannot be fully applied to this case, such warnings often work with hypothetical scenarios, worst-case estimates, or signals meant to draw attention to potential risks rather than to describe the current situation. If this distinction is lost in media shorthand, a warning turns into ‘news’,” the disinformation expert adds.
None of us is completely immune to hoaxes
In the information overload we live in, we can distinguish several types of false information. Not all of them are spread intentionally. If a falsehood is spread by mistake, it is misinformation. If it is spread deliberately, it is disinformation. If it is meant to cause panic or manipulate the public, we can speak of a hoax.
We also frequently encounter rushed interpretations, exaggerated warnings or statements taken out of context, which in a tense geopolitical environment appear more credible than they actually are.
“That is why it is important not to rely on a single source, but to look for confirmation and context – and if they are missing, simply wait until verified facts emerge,” the expert concludes.
