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.

5,847 published reviews in this topic

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaWar & conflict

යුක්රේන සොල්දාදුවන් විසින් යුද බිමට යෑමට පෙර සිය ආදරණීයන්ට සමුදෙන අයුරු? (Video)

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The claim concerned a 15-second video shared as showing Ukrainian soldiers leaving their loved ones before going to fight amid the Russia–Ukraine conflict. The review says it investigated whether the clip actually showed soldiers departing for the battlefield during the then-current fighting. Its conclusion was that the clip had been taken from the documentary *The War of Chimeras*, rather than being footage of the claimed scene. [S1: “රුසියාව-යුක්රේනය අතර උග්‍රවන ගැටුම මධ්‍යයේ, යුද බිමට යන යුක්රේන සොල්දාදුවන් සිය ආදරණීන්ට සමුදෙන අයුරු බවට දක්වමින් විනාඩි 15 ක වීඩියෝ පටයක් සමාජ මාධ්‍ය ඔස්සේ සංසරණය වී තිබුණා.”; “අපගේ විමර්ශනයෙන් පෙන්වා දෙනු ලබන්නේ සමාජ මාධ්‍ය ඔස්සේ සංසරණය වුණ යුක්රේන සොල්දාදුවන් විසින් යුද බිමට යෑමට පෙර සිය ආදරණීයන්ට සමුදෙන අයුරු දැක්වෙන තත්පර 15 ක වීඩියෝ පටය ‘The War of Chimeras’ වාර්තා චිත්‍රපටියකින්(Documentary) ලබා ගත් තත්පර 15 ක වීඩියෝ කොටසක් බවයි.”] To establish the clip’s source, the investigators report using reverse-image searches on frames from the video. They say this led them to identify it as an excerpt from the documentary, directed by Anastasia Starozhytska and her mother, journalist Maria Starozhytska. [S1: “මෙහි නිරවද්‍යතාවය සෙවීම සඳහා වීඩියෝවේ දැක්වෙන රූප රාමූ Reverse Image සෙවුමක් සඳහා යොමු කරනු ලැබුවා.”; “ඒ ඔස්සේ අපට දැක ගන්නට ලැබුණේ, Anastasia Starozhytska සහ ඇයගේ මාධ්‍යවේදිනියකු වූ මව වන Maria Starozhytska විසින් අධ්‍යක්ෂණය කරන ලද The War of Chimeras නම් වාර්තා චිත්‍රපටියකින්(Documentary) ලබා ගත් තත්පර 15 ක වීඩියෝ කොටසක් මෙලෙස සමාජ මාධ්‍ය ඔස්සේ සංසරණය වී තිබූ බවයි.”] The review adds that the documentary draws on the directors’ real-life story: Anastasia’s partner volunteered to fight in the 2014 Battle of Ilovaisk. It also reports finding the circulated footage in the documentary’s trailer and refers to an interview with Anastasia about making the film. These details support the review’s identification of the clip’s provenance; they do not establish that it depicts Ukrainian soldiers leaving for battle during the later conflict. [S1: “එම වාර්තා චිත්‍රපටය සම අධ්‍යක්ෂක Anastasia Starozhytska සහ ඇගේ සහකරුගේ සැබෑ ජීවිත කතාව මෙම චිත්‍රපටය සඳහා පාදක වී ඇති අතර ඇගේ සහකරු 2014 දී යුක්රේන ඉලෝවයිස්ක් සටනේදී සටන් කිරීමට ස්වේච්ඡාවෙන් ඉදිරිපත් වී තිබෙනවා.”; “සමාජ මාධ්‍ය ඔස්සේ සංසරණය වූ එම වීඩියෝව දැක්වෙන කොටස එම වාර්තා චිත්‍රපටයේ පූර්ව ප්‍රචාරක පටයේ ද, දක්නට ලැබෙනවා.”]

FACTLYWar & conflict

Before and after pictures of the Independence Square in Kyiv, Ukraine after the Russian invasion

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The claim concerns a collage presented as before-and-after images of Kyiv’s Independence Square following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. FACTLY says its review focused on the second image in that collage and sought to verify the post’s claim. Its central finding is that the image was not evidence of the square after the invasion: it was a photograph from Kyiv in 2014, during violent clashes between anti-government forces and Ukrainian security forces. The review describes its check of that image: a reverse-image search found a similar photograph in an ABC News article dated 20 February 2014. FACTLY says the ABC article connected the scene to the February 2014 clashes in Kyiv. It identifies the pictured location as International Square, also called Maidan Square, after the 2014 Kyiv riots. Thus, the image’s documented earlier setting contradicts its presentation as showing conditions after the Russian invasion. FACTLY also says that other news websites reported on the 2014 clashes and that journalist Amie Ferris-Rotman compared images of Kyiv’s International Square before and after the 2014 riots. It distinguishes those older images from later visuals of Maidan Square after Russia’s advance, which it says can be seen separately. On the evidence described in the excerpt, the decisive issue is the second image’s 2014 provenance: it does not show the square after the invasion, so the collage’s representation of that image is misleading.