Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

War & conflict fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about war & conflict. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

5,837 published reviews in this topic

dpaWar & conflict

Deutschland hat keine Soldaten in den USA.

Publisher’s rating: Falsch. In den Vereinigten Staaten ist das deutsche «Bundeswehrkommando USA und Kanada» stationiert.

The claim concerns whether Germany has any soldiers stationed in the United States. The investigation identifies a German military presence there: the Bundeswehr’s USA and Canada Command. It describes that command, citing the Bundeswehr’s website, as the Bundeswehr’s largest joint-service command outside German territory. The review says the command’s press office reported that up to 2,000 German service members work there and that they were then active in 23 U.S. states, as well as at locations in two Canadian provinces. The reported number is not presented as a fixed total. A Bundeswehr spokesperson explained that the number of German forces in the United States can vary with the number of training courses, degree programs and military exercises. The review also explains why some personnel are there: training on weapons systems originally developed in the United States and used by the Bundeswehr takes place largely with the U.S. military or defense industry. The command also supplies its own instructors, including flight instructors, who train U.S. military personnel alongside German forces. The review distinguishes this German deployment from the larger U.S. presence in Germany. It says a Bundestag document, drawing on Finance Ministry information, counted 38,361 U.S. service members in Germany in mid-May 2023; it also notes that the claimant had accurately cited those figures. But those figures do not establish that Germany has no forces in the United States. The command’s reported presence directly contradicts that broader claim.

Folha de S.PauloWar & conflict

Post feito pelo deputado federal José Medeiros (PL) que usa trecho de vídeo da GloboNews sobre confronto envolvendo soldados venezuelanos na fronteira com o Brasil. Em entrevista à emissora, um militar de Pacaraima (RR) cita que o território brasileiro foi atingido por gás lacrimogêneo, balas de borracha e tiros disparados pelo Exército da Venezuela. O deputado acrescenta o seguinte comentário à postagem: “Soldado brasileiro tomando tiro de borracha de exército venezuelano. Acabou!!!”

Publisher’s rating: Enganoso

The post reused a real report of a confrontation at the Brazil–Venezuela border, but presented its footage as if it showed a current event. The review says the post, published on June 17, 2023, suggested Brazil was being invaded and used the comment about a Brazilian soldier taking rubber bullets. The footage, however, came from a GloboNews broadcast from February 23, 2019, in which reporter Vladimir Netto interviewed Colonel José Jacaúna in Pacaraima, Roraima. The review describes the interview as covering a confrontation between Venezuelan protesters and soldiers at the border. Jacaúna said that Venezuelan forces had fired rubber bullets and shots and thrown tear-gas bombs onto Brazilian territory. That statement supports the underlying report of cross-border impacts; it does not establish that a Brazilian soldier was shot. The review says there was no record of Brazilian soldiers being injured, and quotes Jacaúna describing the Venezuelan response as having gone too far against Venezuelans on Brazilian territory. Thus, the post’s use of an old clip without its date or context could make the confrontation appear current and could imply a consequence the review says was not recorded. The investigation traced the footage to its original broadcast and placed the confrontation in the context of events in February 2019, when protests followed the closure of the border and a planned humanitarian-aid delivery. The review reports that Venezuelan civilians on the Brazilian side threw stones and Molotov cocktails at a Venezuelan military base, and that Venezuelan forces responded with tear gas, stones and gunfire. Its findings distinguish a documented confrontation involving Brazilian territory from the post’s framing of it as a current invasion or as an incident in which a Brazilian soldier was hit.

Belarusian Investigative CenterWar & conflict

The New York Times критикует помощь Украине

Publisher’s rating: Это действительно фрагмент из статьи The New York Times. Однако часть про коррупцию Гусаченко процитировал не полностью и добавил кое-что от себя.

dpaWar & conflict

Laat niemand je voor de gek houden over Oekraïne. Niets is wat het lijkt! (beelden laten zien dat oorlog in Oekraïne nep is)

Publisher’s rating: De beelden zijn gemaakt in Malta door een Russische videokunstenaar. Deze beelden hebben niets met de oorlog in Oekraïne te maken.

The claim presents footage of a woman pushing a buggy through an apparently devastated street as evidence that the war in Ukraine is fake. The review identifies the footage as a split-screen video: one version shows the ordinary scene, while the other digitally adds destruction. It notes that the alteration is visible, but distinguishes that question from whether the scene is connected to Ukraine. The review traces the video to Russian video artist Konstantin Kovalenko. It reports that he first posted a version on Instagram on May 5, 2019, uploaded the comparison video six days later, and reposted the footage on January 26 with the caption “Post apocalyptic life in Malta.” On February 11, he posted a video showing how he made it. These dates and posts place the footage years before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and identify it as a fictional post-apocalyptic scene rather than war footage. The review describes several checks supporting the Malta location: Kovalenko reportedly answered an Instagram user that the footage was made near the University of Malta, and the review matched visible details to the location using Google Maps and photographs. It cites parked cars aligned with markings, the word “slow” on the road, nearby shrubs, bins and benches, and features of an archery club. It also notes Malta-related symbols visible in the video. The review says it found no mention of Ukraine in Kovalenko’s posts and no website or social-media post claiming this footage showed Ukraine.

El Detector / Univision NoticiasWar & conflict

Putin le declaró la guerra a Israel.

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim concerned a video circulated on Facebook in early June 2023. It asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had declared war on Israel and that Israeli forces were consequently mobilizing in Ukraine, supposedly following comments by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on CNN. The review says the video was circulating with a message that “el ejército israelí marcha hacia Ucrania.” The investigation checked for evidence of both parts of that story. It searched Russian government and presidential websites, Google in Spanish and English using terms about Putin declaring war on Israel, and Russia Today’s Spanish- and English-language sites. It reports finding no record of the alleged declaration in those searches. The review notes that a declaration of war between countries would be an event of major international significance and would ordinarily receive coverage from international news organizations and agencies; that expectation is context for the search, not independent proof by itself. The review also checked the video’s purported CNN basis. It searched CNN’s website and identified the most recent Netanyahu interview there as a February 1, 2023 appearance with Jake Tapper on *The Lead*. The review says neither the article nor interview video mentioned Israeli troops in Ukraine. It further describes Israel’s stance toward the Russia–Ukraine conflict as one of relative neutrality, rather than the alleged deployment to fight Russian forces. On the evidence and searches described, the review concludes that the declaration and the stated troop-mobilization rationale were false.

dpaWar & conflict

Fotos zeigen den Busbahnhof von Mariupol «vorher» und «nachher».

Publisher’s rating: Das obere Bild zeigt den Busbahnhof in Mariupol vor dessen Zerstörung, das untere stammt hingegen aus Hamburg-Poppenbüttel. Die Abbildungen zeigen also kein «Vorher» und «Nachher».

The images were circulated as evidence that Mariupol’s damaged bus station had been rebuilt. The review describes the posts as showing a bus station “before” and “after,” and asks whether the devastated city had really been transformed so quickly. Its central finding is that the pictures do not document the same place: the upper image shows Mariupol’s bus station before its destruction, while the lower one is in Hamburg-Poppenbüttel. Thus, the pair cannot establish a before-and-after rebuilding of the Mariupol station. [S1: “Als Beleg werden Bilder gepostet, die einen Busbahnhof «vorher» und «nachher» zeigen sollen. Hat sich die Trümmerwüste tatsächlich so schnell verwandelt?”; “Das obere Bild zeigt den Busbahnhof in Mariupol vor dessen Zerstörung, das untere stammt hingegen aus Hamburg-Poppenbüttel. Die Abbildungen zeigen also kein «Vorher» und «Nachher».] To identify the lower image, the investigation reports using a reverse-image search, which led to the location of the futuristic bus station in Hamburg-Poppenbüttel. It adds that the construction-service provider Heinze says that station was completed in 2010. For comparison, the review says Google Maps showed Mariupol’s bus station in a 2016 image, while a photograph on the project eyesonrussia.org showed severe damage to the building from its entrance side and was dated 29 April 2022. [S1: “Eine Foto-Rückwärtssuche mit dem unteren Motiv führt sekundenschnell zum eigentlichen Standort der futuristischen Busstation. Es ist der Busbahnhof in Hamburg-Poppenbüttel, der nach Angaben des Baudienstleisters Heinze im Jahr 2010 fertiggestellt wurde.”; “Gut 2000 Kilometer weiter südöstlich findet sich bei Google-Maps eine Aufnahme des Busbahnhofs von Mariupol aus dem Jahr 2016. Auf der Seite des Projekts eyesonrussia.org, das viele Zerstörungen des Ukrainekriegs fotografisch dokumentiert, ist ein Foto des Gebäudes von der Eingangsseite zu finden. Es ist auf den 29. April 2022 datiert und zeigt schwere Zerstörungen.”] The review places the damage in the context of the 2022 siege: it says Russian forces shelled Mariupol in spring 2022 and that defenders surrendered on 20 May, by which point the city was in ruins. Those details explain the contrast invoked by the posts, but the location evidence is what invalidates the purported comparison: one image is from Hamburg, not a later view of Mariupol. [S1: “Monatelang haben russische Truppen die ukrainische Hafenstadt Mariupol im Frühjahr 2022 beschossen. Als sich die Verteidiger am 20. Mai ergaben, lag die Stadt in Schutt und Asche.”; “Obwohl die russische Beschriftung von «vorher» und «nachher» spricht, zeigen die beiden Bilder also nicht den gleichen Ort.”]

Belarusian Investigative CenterWar & conflict

ЦРУ косвенно подтвердило своё участие в войне в Украине

Publisher’s rating: «В этом году ЦРУ добавило одну звезду к Мемориальной стене в честь Джона Эванса, врача, погибшего в авиакатастрофе в Юго-Восточной Азии в 1969 году. Благодаря этому добавлению общее количество звезд достигло 140», — говорится в сообщении американской разведки.

dpaWar & conflict

Video toont hoe militairen nu Los Angeles binnenvallen.

Publisher’s rating: De video toont de Nationale Garde die in juni 2020 werd opgeroepen naar aanleiding van de protesten rond de dood van George Floyd. Er is dan ook helemaal geen sprake van een inval in Los Angeles die 'nu' zou plaatsvinden.

The claim concerned social-media posts presenting a video of military vehicles on Hollywood Boulevard as evidence that troops were entering Los Angeles “now.” The review says the posts it examined appeared on June 14 and 15, 2023. It found that the video was not current: a reverse image search showed that the footage had already been posted on Twitter on June 2, 2020. The woman’s voice from that earlier video can also be heard in the circulating version, which has music added over it. The review checked the location separately. It matched buildings visible in the footage to Google Street View and identified the setting as Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles. It also concluded that the troops shown were California National Guard personnel, not an invading force. The review describes the National Guard as having been deployed in Los Angeles in June 2020 amid protests following George Floyd’s death on May 25, 2020, and accompanying vandalism and looting. The footage therefore does show troops in Los Angeles, but it does not establish the claim that a military incursion was happening at the time of the 2023 posts. The review says the National Guard was assisting police during the protests and protecting prominent Hollywood Boulevard buildings, including the Chinese Theatre, which it identifies in the video. The source’s account links the misleading “now” framing to older footage recirculated with a new caption.