#International Document Verification | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

toomanythoughts2 · 2 months ago

Text

Why Did Serveta Never Compete for Miss Universe? A Theory on Serveta's Life and Skwisgaar's Birth

Hello everyone! This theory was born simply from the phrase, "Skwisgaar is technically a nepo baby." I wanted to look into just how Nepo he actually was and if it was ever that serious. While digging, I formed a small theory based on the information I found.

GIST: Serveta is victim of hyper sexualization and grooming in the pageantry world. As a young woman, Serveta competed for Miss Sweden and won. She was given the opportunity to compete for Miss Universe but was later rejected because she became pregnant, something contestants are not allowed to be in order to compete. The birth of Skwisgaar rendered Serveta from living out her dream of becoming Miss Universe, which is the goal for pageantry contestants and would have made Serveta very wealthy and famous. The resentment she felt for Skwisgaar turned into neglect and sexual abuse.

TW: Sexual Abuse of a Minor

As always, longer theory under the cut!

Miss Sweden and Miss Universe

Ingrid Goude, the real 1956 Miss Sweden.

Miss Sweden began in 1949, 7 years before Serveta would compete in 1956. Miss Sweden is the beauty pageant that contestants need to win in Sweden in order to represent Sweden in Miss Universe, a highly sought out pageantry for women all across the globe. Miss Universe is recognized as one of the Big Four Beauty Pageants in the world. (Miss World, Miss Earth, and Miss International)

Rules

In order to compete, there are certain rules the contestants need to follow.

Miss Sweden x

Not allowed to be married (Has been possibly changed)

Not allowed to have kids (Has been possibly changed)

Only females are allowed to compete

4 phases: Interview, Evening Gown, Swimsuit/Fitness, Onstage Question

Age Range from 18 - 27

No ethnicity requirement

No unique requirement

Must live in Sweden

Miss Universe x

Age: As of September 2023, there is no upper age limit. Previously, the age range was 18 to 28 years old on the date of the national competition.

Citizenship: Each delegate must be a citizen of the country she represents.

Marital Status and Parental Status: Since August 2022, there are no restrictions on marital status or having children. Previously, contestants could not be married, divorced, pregnant, or have parented a child.

Criminal Background: While there is no official rule, most countries would likely not send a delegate with a criminal record.

Citizenship Verification: Delegates must provide documented proof of citizenship in the country they represent. This could involve birth certificates, passports, or other official documents.

Background Checks: While not always explicitly stated, many countries conduct background checks on potential delegates to ensure they don’t have any criminal records or controversies that could tarnish the pageant’s image.

Transgender Participation: The Miss Universe Organization currently does not allow transgender women to compete. This is a complex issue with ongoing discussions, and the policy might evolve in the future.

Winnings for Miss Sweden

In both modern time and in 1956, the rewards for winning Miss Sweden focuses a lot on exposure rather than money. Winning usually meant that contracts for modeling companies would open up, be awarded scholarship money for school, win a small amount of cash, or gain allowances for personal services like hair and clothing. x x x

However, both times, the winner of Miss Sweden (as long as they are not too young to compete) can be sent to compete in Miss Universe, which is the big reason for winning this competition.

Winnings for Miss Universe

In modern times, Miss Universe receives her prestigious title along with x:

A $250,000 cash prize

A $50,000 monthly salary during her reign, as reported by EFE

The opportunity to champion charitable causes and promote international initiatives

All expenses paid for trips in private jets

The reigning queen also lives for a year in the organization's luxurious apartment in New York City.

Will host Miss Universe's upcoming YouTube traveling show

A luxurious watch

From this list (and the fact that I can not find information on what the winner of Miss Universe of 1956 won) the winnings for Miss Universe in 1956 most likely consisted of:

Some kind of high paying salary or cash prize

A crown

A title

A movie contract x

Some expenses paid for pageantry related things

The opportunity to become an advocate for social issues or causes.

All in all, winning Miss Universe ultimately is a much bigger deal with higher cash rewards, more prestige, and plenty of career opportunities after your reign is over. It would make a lot of sense for those who won Miss Sweden to compete in Miss Universe.

Sexual Abuse and Grooming In Pageants

JonBenét Ramsey, victim of sexualization from child pageants

Training

Women do not just compete for titles like Miss Sweden without training. Child Pageants are money making machines. Think of it in the context of a family vlogger harassing their children and/or forcing them to be in videos and participate. Just like how these children have no laws pertaining to their rights as workers, the same goes for child pageantry contestants.

Many young girls go through serious training for pageants, often resulting in these children being restricted from proper sleep, nutrition, and socialization. Remember Toddlers and Tiaras?

This is labor. This is a child. The US has labor laws in place for children but they don't cover pageants, these children are at the mercy of their parents or caregivers.

Womanhood and "Sexiness"

Child pageants are meant to mimic adult women pageants in every way except for age x. This includes the phases (swimsuits, evening dress, interview) and the manner in which they wear their clothes. These children are showcasing themselves as women, and these pageants do not exist without women being sexy. Therefore, these young girls only know that in order to be a woman, they must be sexy x. How do you become sexy? Showing skin, being provocative, being competitive. These young girls are growing up believing they will only become woman once they do these things. This plays into gender conforming behavior as well, as it becomes a subconscious belief that womanhood = femininity, sexuality, appearance, servitude x.

These pageants mimic adult women pageants which many people have criticized for the provocative nature. By having young girls compete in these pageants, which require provocative acceptance, adults are teaching their girls to behave and participates in the behaviors of provocativeness x.

Consequences

In reports of children being sexually abused, research shows that the sexualization of children is a contributing factor to their abuse. Also, if a child is winning constantly in a competition that is based primarily on their looks, they are more likely to develop psychological issues later on in life, such as depression, low self-esteem, and eating disorders. There is also a link to lowered sexual efficacy and contraceptive use later in life. x

The sexualization child in these pageants are directly related to the sexual abuse they face. These people can be judges, parents, assistants, and watchers. Imagine you're a famous child pageant winner, sooner or later, adult fans are going to try and meet you. What's the likelihood of 100% of these people having your best intentions to heart? Low. These children grow up in a provocative and hyper sexualized state, they are going to grow up and be hypersexual in order to achieve womanhood, including a lowered chance of wearing contraceptives.

The psychological problems related to perceptions of the self are long lasting and carry onto adolescence and adulthood due to the hyper fixation on their physical appearance at an early age. The implications regarding the achievement of "perfection" and the perception of body image that have been taught to these them remain engrained in the way they view themselves long after they retire from pageant competitions and transition into adulthood. x

Does this all sound familiar?

"I could never lose the weight after you were born! And look at the veins in my bosom, they're like a roadmap of Stockholm!"

Serveta is a victim of child sexualization and grooming.

Canon Information on Serveta

Past

So what do we know of Serveta? Well, one thing we know is that Serveta is Miss Sweden of 1956. That's basically all we know of her past, other than her promiscuity. There are a few pieces of her present that should also be acknowledged before we continue.

Present

Something I want to highlight are the pictures inside Serveta's home.

These images consist of one thing; herself. In these two frames alone, all of the picture but one are of Serveta. There is one lone picture of Skwisgaar as a child (which we also see during the flashback of this episode by the front door.) but the rest are of Serveta. Take note that most of these photos are also a young Serveta, thought there is arguably some photos of her in her older age. Specially the side profile picture above the lamp and the one long photo above little Skwisgaar.

Out of all the things to decorate her house with, and it's with herself. Her younger self. Serveta is surrounding herself with images of her former self, in a body that she no longer has. She is obsessing over the looks she once possessed during her pageantry years. The same goes for her clothing options.

Serveta wears a long dress that shows cleavage, is form fitting, and has a split up the leg. She is refusing to let go of her past teachings in pageantry of what it means to be a woman, which is to be sexy. Even after all of these years, Serveta is still suffering from her days in the pageantry world.

Theory

Serveta was a young and upcoming pageantry winner. She spent a god chunk of her life in the pageantry world, winning awards and titles, until finally competing in Miss Sweden, which she won. Serveta had every intention of competing for Miss Universe, however, due to her exposure in the pageantry world (Hyper-sexualization, grooming, gender conforming) Serveta had become pregnant. In a Skwisgaar interview, he reveals that his mother liked guitar players. Serveta was attracted toward men who were completely opposite of the world she grew up in. Her promiscuity was manufactured from an unsafe childhood in the pageantry world. Her pregnancy however, disqualified her from competing in Miss Universe (and other high end pageants), thus resulting in all of her work, pain, and world being in shattered. In turn, Serveta relied on the one thing she did have, which was her body and her looks. Her own trauma translated into neglecting Skwisgaar and Skwisgaar's own sexual abuse. However, Serveta was aware of Skwisgaar's talent once he acquired his guitar and knew she had to nurture it till fruition, just like how Serveta's own parental figure did to her.

______________________________________________________________

That's all for this theory. Be sure to reply or repost with your own thoughts on it. I would love to hear about :)

#skwisgaar skwigelf #serveta skwigelf #surfetta skwigelf #metalocalypse #metalocalypse headcanons #metalocalypse theory

29 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year ago

Text

Since Elon Musk took over Twitter, now renamed X, in the autumn of 2022, the social media platform has become ever more rife with misinformation. From getting rid of verified accounts to dismantling internal teams that addressed false information, many of the safeguards that had once allowed for accurate, reliable in-the-moment news-sharing are now gone.

The consequences have never been more obvious than this week, as horrifying violence continues to unfold in Israel and Gaza.

The current combination of a hot-button international issue and the rapid pace of new developments — not to mention the way many affected families are using social media in hopes of learning about loved ones being held hostage — means the stakes are high.

Yet posts with fake information, ranging from fabricated documents to real footage of years-old events, are proliferating around the site, HuffPost reporter Matt Shuham found. One video, purporting to show Israeli helicopters being shot down, was from a video game. Some posts came from “verified” accounts, while others were pushed and promoted by influencers. Some had views in the millions. Few had fact-checking attached.

But the people posting the false information aren’t necessarily doing it for the chaos or to spread propaganda — they’re also being financially incentivized to share inflammatory content by X’s own monetization policy.

Shuham’s piece takes an alarming look into the way the dangers of misinformation warp and heighten during upheaval.

“[P]eople are posting specifically to gain revenue for engagement,” said Emma Steiner, the information accountability project manager at Common Cause. “That creates some really perverse incentives for breaking news events.”

93 notes · View notes

scbhagat · 2 months ago

Text

Comprehensive USAID Audit in Delhi India by SC Bhagat & Co.

When it comes to USAID-funded projects, compliance and accountability are critical. Organizations receiving grants or contracts from USAID (United States Agency for International Development) are subject to stringent audit requirements, ensuring funds are used as intended and meeting international standards. In Delhi, India, SC Bhagat & Co. stands out as a top provider for USAID audits, helping organizations navigate these complexities with precision and expertise.

Why USAID Audits Are Essential USAID audits are designed to ensure the proper use of funds allocated for developmental and humanitarian initiatives across the globe. These audits check compliance with USAID regulations, financial management practices, and project effectiveness. Organizations that meet these standards continue to foster positive relations with donors and often qualify for further funding. Non-compliance, however, may lead to significant financial and reputational consequences. For recipients in Delhi, India, an experienced audit firm like SC Bhagat & Co. ensures the audit process is seamless and thorough, maintaining the highest levels of accountability. SC Bhagat & Co.: Leaders USAID Audit in Delhi India SC Bhagat & Co. brings extensive expertise to USAID audits, with years of experience working with organizations that receive funding from international entities. Their audit team is well-versed in USAID’s specific audit requirements, offering: Comprehensive Financial Analysis SC Bhagat & Co. conducts detailed financial reviews, examining all grant allocations, expenditures, and supporting documents to ensure accurate reporting and full compliance. Compliance Verification USAID audits require adherence to specific regulations regarding expenditure, procurement, and reporting. SC Bhagat & Co. performs in-depth compliance checks to help organizations avoid costly errors. Internal Control Assessment The firm assesses the effectiveness of an organization’s internal controls, ensuring that proper safeguards are in place to manage USAID funds responsibly and transparently. Risk Management and Fraud Detection Detecting and mitigating risks, especially in high-stakes projects, is a priority. SC Bhagat & Co. identifies potential risks, focusing on fraud prevention and promoting a strong culture of ethical financial management. Audit Reporting and Recommendations Once the audit is complete, SC Bhagat & Co. provides a comprehensive report, highlighting any areas needing improvement and offering actionable recommendations to maintain compliance with USAID guidelines. Key Benefits of Choosing SC Bhagat & Co. for USAID Audit in Delhi India Localized Expertise with Global Standards: With an in-depth understanding of local business environments and USAID’s international requirements, SC Bhagat & Co. bridges local operations with global standards. Proven Track Record: SC Bhagat & Co. has a history of successful audits for USAID-funded projects, ensuring each client achieves full compliance without unnecessary delays. Personalized Service: Each organization is unique, and SC Bhagat & Co. tailors its audit approach to address specific funding structures, operational challenges, and compliance needs. How to Prepare for a USAID Audit in Delhi India While SC Bhagat & Co. takes the lead in ensuring compliance, organizations can take proactive steps to streamline the process: Organize Financial Documentation Having clear and organized records of all transactions related to USAID funding makes it easier to verify expenditures and compliance. Review Compliance Standards Regularly USAID guidelines can change, so staying updated on the latest compliance standards is crucial. Implement Strong Internal Controls Effective internal controls reduce the risk of errors and non-compliance, promoting financial responsibility within the organization. Engage Early with Auditors Early communication with SC Bhagat & Co. allows organizations to clarify audit requirements and address any potential issues upfront. Trust SC Bhagat & Co. for USAID Audit in Delhi India For USAID audits in Delhi, SC Bhagat & Co. offers unmatched expertise and a commitment to helping organizations achieve financial transparency and regulatory compliance. With SC Bhagat & Co. as your audit partner, your organization can focus on making an impact while they handle the complexities of USAID audit requirements.

#gst #taxation #accounting firm in delhi #accounting services #direct tax consultancy services in delhi #tax consultancy services in delhi

5 notes · View notes

hagueapostilleservicesblog · 28 days ago

Text

Fast Certificate of Insurance Apostille Services

Choose Hague Apostille Services for Your FBI Background Check Apostille Obtaining an FBI background check apostille is a critical step for those planning to live, work, or study abroad. However, the traditional process can be time-consuming, costly, and complicated. That’s where Hague Apostille Services comes in. Our team specializes in providing fast and reliable FBI apostille services,…

#Hague Apostille Services #International Business Documentation #fast apostille service #affordable apostille services #Certificate of Insurance apostille #apostille for COI #import/export apostille #insurance policy verification

0 notes

online-shopping-app-chennai · 4 months ago

Text

Can I Sell Online Without GST? GST Requirements for E-commerce

In 2024, the trend of e-commerce has transformed the way people shop and businesses operate online. Whether you're selling groceries, electronic items, or running a full-fledged online store, the question of GST (Goods and Services Tax) often arises. GST is a consumption tax levied on the supply of goods and services in Chennai, Tamilnadu designed to replace various indirect taxes.

What is GST?

GST is a comprehensive indirect tax on online store, sale, and consumption of goods and services throughout India, aimed at simplifying the tax structure on consumers. It is mandatory for businesses whose turnover exceeds specified thresholds to register under GST and comply with its regulations.

You Need GST for Selling Online on Shocals

The requirement for GST registration depends primarily on your turnover and the category of your business. Here are some key points to consider for GST:

Threshold Limits: As of the latest information available, businesses with an aggregate turnover exceeding Rs. 40 lakhs (Rs. 10 lakhs for northeastern states) in a financial year must register for GST. This turnover includes all taxable supplies, exempt supplies, exports of goods and services, and inter-state supplies.

Inter-state Tamilnadu Sales: If you are selling goods or services to customers in different states, you are likely to exceed the turnover threshold sooner. GST registration is mandatory for businesses making inter-state supplies, regardless of turnover.

Mandatory Registration: Even if your turnover is below the threshold, you may choose to voluntarily register for GST. This can be beneficial for claiming input tax credits on purchases and improving your business credibility.

Selling on Shocals Partners

If you are selling through popular Shocals Partners, you need to understand the policies regarding GST compliance. It requires sellers to provide GSTIN (GST Identification Number) during registration and ensure compliance with GST laws.

Steps to Register for GST

If you decide to register for GST, here's a brief overview of the registration process:

Prepare Documents: Keep your PAN (Permanent Account Number), proof of business registration, identity and address proof, bank account details, and business address proof.

Online Registration: Visit the GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) and fill out the registration form with required details. Upload scanned copies of documents as specified.

Verification: After submission, your application will be verified by the GST authorities. Once approved, you will receive your GSTIN and other credentials.

Benefits of GST Registration

While GST compliance involves maintaining proper accounting records and filing periodic returns, it offers several advantages:

Input Tax Credit: You can claim credit for GST paid on your business purchases, thereby reducing your overall tax liability.

Legal Compliance: Avoid penalties and legal repercussions by operating within the GST framework.

Business Expansion: Facilitates smoother inter-state and international sales, enhancing business opportunities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while small businesses and startups may initially wonder if they can sell online without GST, understanding the thresholds and benefits of GST registration is crucial. Compliance not only ensures legal adherence but also opens avenues for business growth and competitiveness in the digital marketplace. Whether you're a budding entrepreneur or an established seller, staying informed about GST requirements will help you navigate the e-commerce landscape more effectively.

For more details please visit - https://partner.shocals.com/

#online store #onlineshopping #small business #business #store

2 notes · View notes

rjzimmerman · 8 months ago

Text

Excerpt from this story from Inside Climate News:

About five miles south of Broken Bow, in the heart of central Nebraska, thousands of cattle stand in feedlots at Adams Land & Cattle Co., a supplier of beef to the meat giant Tyson Foods.

From the air, the feedlots look dusty brown and packed with cows—not a vision of happy animals grazing on open pastureland, enriching the soil with carbon. But when the animals are slaughtered, processed and sent onward to consumers, labels on the final product can claim that they were raised in a “climate friendly” way.

In late 2022, Tyson—one of the country’s “big four” meat packers—applied to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), seeking a “climate friendly” label for its Brazen Beef brand. The production of Brazen Beef, the label claims, achieves a “10 percent greenhouse gas reduction.” Soon after, the USDA approved the label.

Immediately, environmental groups questioned the claim and petitioned the agency to stop using it, citing livestock’s significant greenhouse gas emissions and the growing pile of research that documents them. These groups and journalism outlets, including Inside Climate News, have asked the agency for the data it used to support its rubber-stamping of Tyson’s label but have essentially gotten nowhere.

“There are lots of misleading claims on food, but it’s hard to imagine a claim that’s more misleading than ‘climate friendly’ beef,” said Scott Faber, a senior vice president at the Environmental Working Group (EWG). “It’s like putting a cancer-free label on a cigarette. There’s no worse food choice for the climate than beef.”

The USDA has since confirmed it is currently considering and has approved similar labels for more livestock companies, but would not say which ones.

On Wednesday, the EWG, a longtime watchdog of the USDA, published a new analysis, outlining its efforts over the last year to push the agency for more transparency, including asking it to provide the specific rationale for allowing Brazen Beef to carry the “climate friendly” label. Last year, the group filed a Freedom of Information Act request, seeking the data that Tyson supplied to the agency in support of its application, but received only a heavily redacted response. EWG also petitioned the agency to not allow climate friendly or low carbon claims on beef.

To earn the “climate friendly” label, Tyson requires ranchers to meet the criteria of its internal “Climate-Smart Beef” program, but EWG notes that the company fails to provide information about the practices that farmers are required to adopt or about which farmers participate in the program. The only farm it has publicly identified is the Adams company in Nebraska.

A USDA spokesperson told Inside Climate News it can only rely on a third-party verification company to substantiate a label claim and could not provide the data Tyson submitted for its review.

#Tyson Foods #low carbon beef #Department of Agriculture

3 notes · View notes

samuiattorney · 6 months ago

Text

Due Diligence in Thailand

Thailand, with its flourishing economy and diverse investment opportunities, attracts businesses and individuals seeking a foothold in Southeast Asia. However, venturing into any new market requires thorough due diligence – a meticulous investigation to mitigate risks and make informed decisions. This article delves into the intricacies of due diligence in Thailand, exploring various aspects and considerations crucial for successful investment or business ventures.

Beyond the Basics: Key Areas of Due Diligence

Due diligence in Thailand is a multi-faceted process encompassing various areas depending on the specific investment or business activity. Here's a breakdown of key areas to consider:

Company Due Diligence: When acquiring an existing company or entering a merger/partnership, a thorough investigation of the target company is paramount. This includes verifying financial statements, scrutinizing legal and tax compliance, and assessing potential liabilities. Due diligence should also explore the company's reputation, management structure, and intellectual property portfolio.

Property Due Diligence: Investing in Thai real estate necessitates meticulous property due diligence. This involves verifying land title ownership, ensuring the absence of encumbrances (restrictions on ownership or use), and confirming zoning regulations and development permits. Investigating past construction records and potential environmental issues associated with the property is also crucial.

Regulatory and Legal Due Diligence: Understanding the relevant Thai laws and regulations governing your specific industry or activity is essential. This may involve analyzing licensing requirements, potential tax implications, and compliance with labor laws. Consulting legal counsel specializing in Thai business law is highly recommended to navigate the legal landscape.

Market Due Diligence: Assessing the overall market dynamics for your chosen sector is vital. This includes analyzing competitor landscape, consumer trends, potential future market shifts, and any regulatory changes on the horizon. Understanding the market landscape allows you to make informed decisions about product/service offerings, pricing strategy, and overall business viability.

Conducting Due Diligence: Internal vs. External Resources

Due diligence can be conducted internally by your own team or outsourced to qualified professionals. The chosen approach depends on factors like the complexity of the investment, the size of your organization, and your available resources.

Internal Resources: If you have an experienced team with relevant expertise in Thai business practices and legalities, conducting due diligence internally can be a cost-effective option. However, this approach requires a significant investment of time and resources.

External Resources: Engaging a reputable due diligence firm with expertise in Thailand offers several advantages. They possess the necessary knowledge of local regulations, have established networks for verification purposes, and can provide a more objective assessment. This can be particularly valuable for complex investments or those involving unfamiliar industries.

Additional Considerations: Language and Cultural Nuances

The Thai language and cultural nuances can pose challenges during the due diligence process. Working with professionals fluent in Thai and familiar with local business practices is crucial. They can effectively communicate with local authorities, interpret legal documents, and navigate cultural sensitivities that might otherwise hinder the investigation.

The Importance of a Comprehensive Approach

Due diligence is not a one-size-fits-all process. Tailoring the investigation to your specific investment or business goals is essential. A comprehensive approach, encompassing the various areas mentioned above, will equip you with the knowledge and insights necessary to make informed decisions with minimized risks.

Conclusion

By undertaking a thorough due diligence process in Thailand, you can mitigate potential pitfalls, identify hidden opportunities, and ultimately increase your chances of success in this dynamic market. Remember, due diligence is an investment in itself – one that can save you from costly mistakes and pave the way for a flourishing business venture in the Land of Smiles.

#thailand #property in thailand #due diligence in thailand #property lawyers in thailand #lawyers in thailand #property #properties in thailand

2 notes · View notes

mistlekissy · 1 year ago

Note

you do realize that the cited source for that list of palestinians who died is the 'gaza ministry of health' which is literally hamas? the same hamas that lied about israel attacking a hospital and 500 people dying when it really hit a parking lot and about a dozen people were killed (still a tragedy, but not the same scale at all). you know it takes weeks to identify the names of all the dead in wartime if you're doing it correctly, right? how is everyone so gullible, you hate jews that much?

u do realize how fucking dumb u sound? u do realize there's no independent verification in gaza at the moment bc israel has sealed gaza's broders? the same israel that has lied about shireen abu akleh's death, the same israel that shot unarmed palestinians in gaza in 2018 then lied about them being armed, the same israel that has changed their story about the attack on the al-ahli hospital multiple times and have offered questionable to fake "evidence" at best but just enough to muddy the water so that ppl like u will focus on that instead of the countless other hospitals, schools, churches and mosques they have bombed, and the same israel that's refusing to offer alternative numbers to palestinian casualties. apart from the fact that children are writing their names on their bodies so they can be identified later and palestinians grabbing their documents first thing in times of crisis bc they KNOW what it's like to live under constant attack, the united nations, independent international institutions and experts as well as palestinian authorities in the west bank, where hamas has NO power, all have faith in the gaza ministry's effort to account for the dead. in past "wars" their numbers have always been consistent with the un's and the us government’s annual human rights assessments frequently cite the gaza ministry. maybe ur more into this kind of statistic tho since u trust israel sm! and i would offer u links and sources for everything else i mentioned but i think it's time u do ur own research since u seem to be so gullible - or do u hate human beings, half of them children, that much?

#ask #u were only missing a mention of 40 beheaded babies

8 notes · View notes

sophia-zofia · 8 months ago

Text

Early on June 15, 2023, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) attacked a makeshift medical clinic in West Darfur’s capital, El Geneina, where 25 injured patients were seeking treatment. Ali, who had been shot in the leg during a previous attack, described what happened: “They started shooting at us and killed everyone except me and a woman [who was also wounded]. They shot me in the right arm. I slumped over, pretending I was dead.” Ali and the woman stayed in the clinic, surrounded by the corpses of the patients and medical workers, for ten hours, as the RSF continued their assault on the city. At around 5 p.m., another group of seven armed men in uniform entered the clinic. “One saw that I was alive and came up to me and smashed his hand on my broken leg,” Ali recalled. “I said: ‘Please stop! Just kill me instead!’ He said: ‘We won’t kill you! We want to torture you, Nuba! We got rid of most of your family, and no one is here to care for you.’” Ali was rescued by his family hours later after the forces had left the clinic. From late April until early November 2023, the RSF and allied militias conducted a systematic campaign to remove, including by killing, ethnic Massalit residents, such as Ali, from El Geneina, home to an ethnically mixed population of around 540,000 people. Violence began on April 24 and continued in phases over seven weeks, peaking in mid-June, with another surge in November. The massacre that Ali survived was just one in a deluge of atrocities that the RSF and allied militias, predominantly from Darfuri Arab groups, have carried out in El Geneina and West Darfur in general since the outbreak of the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF on April 15, 2023. The events are among the worst atrocities against civilians so far in the current conflict in Sudan. The total number of dead is unknown. Sudanese Red Crescent staff said that on June 13, they counted 2,000 bodies on the streets of El Geneina and then, overwhelmed by the numbers, stopped counting. Two days later, on June 15, a large-scale massacre took place. The UN panel of experts on the Sudan estimated, citing intelligence sources, that between 10,000 and 15,000 people were killed in El Geneina in 2023. This report provides an account of how the Rapid Support Forces and allied forces committed numerous serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law as part of their campaign against the Massalit people of El Geneina. It is based on over 220 interviews, verification and assessment of 110 photographs and videos, and analysis of satellite imagery and documents shared by humanitarian organizations. Between April and November 2023, researchers interviewed recently displaced residents of El Geneina in person during six trips to Chad, Kenya, Uganda, and South Sudan, and also conducted supplementary telephone interviews. Most interviewees were Massalit civilians. They included victims and witnesses, medical and humanitarian workers, lawyers, human rights activists, religious figures, and former government officials. Researchers also interviewed Massalit men who were current and former members of law enforcement or armed groups, 38 Arab residents of El Geneina as well as international aid workers and analysts.

A short bout of clashes broke out on April 24 between the SAF and the RSF, and then the RSF and allied militias attacked majority Massalit neighborhoods. They clashed with predominantly Massalit armed groups, including forces from the Sudanese Alliance, led by the late state governor, Khamis Abdallah Abbakar, as well as Massalit men—primarily youth—loosely organized and mobilized in local “self-defense groups.”

Over the next weeks, and even after Massalit armed groups lost control of their neighborhoods, the RSF and allied militias systematically targeted unarmed civilians, killing them in large numbers. Adolescent boys and men were especially singled out for killings, but among those unlawfully killed were also many children and women. The RSF and allied militias also appear to have targeted injured people as well as prominent members of the Massalit community, including lawyers, doctors, human rights defenders, academics, community leaders, religious figures, and local government officials.

Women and girls were raped, and detainees were tortured and otherwise ill-treated. The RSF and allied militias methodically destroyed civilian infrastructure. They looted on a grand scale, and they burned, shelled, and razed neighborhoods to the ground, homing in on neighborhoods and sites, including schools, hosting primarily Massalit displaced communities. Thousands of civilians, mostly men and adolescent boys, but also younger children including babies, older people, and women were killed in less than two months, and thousands more were injured. A retrospective mortality survey conducted by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders, MSF) in three refugee camps in eastern Chad concluded that there were 167 violent deaths in the households of 6,918 people from El Geneina. This amounted to a staggering mortality rate of 241 per 10,000 people, marking a 23-fold increase in the male mortality rate and a 11-fold increase in the women’s mortality rate. During their campaign, RSF fighters and allied militias used derogatory racial slurs against Massalits and people from other non-Arab ethnic groups. They told them to leave, that the land was no longer theirs, and that it would be “cleaned” and become “the land of the Arabs.” Ahmad, 41, a Massalit man, recalled, in an interview with Human Rights Watch, forces telling fleeing civilians: “No Massalit people will live here!” and “No Nuba will live here!” and “No slaves will live here!” Throughout the seven-week campaign, SAF soldiers largely hunkered down in their barracks, unable or maybe unwilling to protect the population. The UN Panel of Experts found that, “throughout the attacks, [the SAF] failed to protect the population.” On June 14, the governor of West Darfur and leader of the Sudanese Alliance armed group, Khamis Abbakar, was killed. He was last seen in the custody of the RSF West Darfur commander, Gen. Abdel Rahman Joma’a Barakallah. His killing, coinciding with the collapse of Massalit forces’ ability to fight back against RSF attacks in primarily Massalit neighborhoods, led to a mass exodus from El Geneina. Some civilians and fighters tried to go west, toward Chad, only to come under attack by the RSF and militias. Many civilians and fighters then decided to flee toward Ardamata, a northern suburb of the city hosting a garrison of the Sudanese Armed Forces, leaving overnight in a convoy of tens of thousands of civilians and fighters.

In the early hours of June 15, the RSF and allied militias attacked the convoy as it proceeded through El Geneina, killing civilians in large numbers as they ran through the streets, tried to find refuge in homes and mosques, or attempted to swim across the seasonal Kajja river flowing through the city.

“My mom was pushing me in a wheelbarrow,” said Malik, an injured 17-year-old boy who was in the convoy when it came under attack. He said he saw RSF forces kill at least 12 young children, including infants, three men, and two women: Two RSF forces… grabb[ed] the children from their parents and, as the parents started screaming, two other RSF forces shot the parents, killing them. Then they piled up the children and shot them. They threw their bodies into the river and their belongings in after them. The killings continued over the following days in El Geneina and on the road to Chad, where tens of thousands of civilians, as well as Massalit fighters, headed in search of refuge. On the road, the RSF and allied militias shot and killed or injured large numbers of civilians, including disarmed fighters. Arab civilians living in villages along the route to Chad extorted, beat, and harassed fleeing civilians. During the exodus, RSF forces sought to identify prominent Massalit community leaders, apparently to prevent them from reaching Chad. Satellite imagery corroborates that, since the RSF and allied militias took control of El Geneina in June, predominantly Massalit neighborhoods have been systematically dismantled, many with bulldozers, preventing civilians who fled from returning to their homes. In early November, nearly five months after the June 15 massacre, RSF and allied militias again killed at least 1,000 civilians in El Geneina’s suburb of Ardamata, according to the United Nations. The forces also looted civilian property and assaulted and unlawfully detained scores of predominantly Massalit people. As a result of these atrocities, over 570,000 predominantly Massalit people, as well as members of other non-Arab groups, are now in refugee camps in Chad, with little hope of returning home safely in the near future. Many abuses carried out by the RSF and allied militias documented in this report constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. The targeting of Massalit people and other non-Arab communities with the apparent objective of at least having them permanently leave the region constitutes ethnic cleansing. War crimes include the serious violations of international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population, intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, and the intentional conduct of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. They also include pillage, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, murder and forcible displacement. These acts were part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the Massalit and other non-Arab civilian populations of majority-Massalit neighborhoods, and as such also constitute the crimes against humanity of murder, torture, and forcible transfer of the civilian population. The fact that the RSF and allied forces carried out these acts, constituting severe deprivation of fundamental rights, against the Massalit and non-Arab communities by reason of their ethnic identity, constitutes the crime against humanity of persecution.

The mass killings of ethnic Massalit civilians, and in particular the context in which these killings took place, also requires urgent action from all governments and international institutions to ensure investigation of whether the facts demonstrate a specific intent on the part of the RSF leadership and their allies to destroy in whole or in part the Massalit and other non-Arab ethnic communities in West Darfur, that is to commit genocide, and if so, to prevent its perpetration, and to hold those responsible for its planning and conduct accountable.

This report also documents how the SAF and the RSF’s use of explosive weapons in residential neighborhoods killed and endangered civilians, as well as killings, looting, and other abuses committed by Massalit fighters against Arab civilians. It also underscores the failure by the SAF and the Central Reserve Police (CRP), a militarized police unit, to protect civilians.

The politics of the conflict in Darfur have changed: In the 2000s, the Janjaweed—the Arab militias from which the RSF were formed—were armed by the military, which the RSF is now fighting across much of Sudan. But the abuses carried out in El Geneina felt all too familiar to many of the interviewees. Many recalled fleeing—sometimes as children—from their home villages in the 2000s, when they came under attack by the Janjaweed. The Darfur conflict of the 2000s killed and displaced many Massalit people. Survivors then found refuge in the camps for internally displaced persons (IDP) that swelled the population on the outskirts of El Geneina. The Darfur conflict of the 2000s occurred against a backdrop of recurrent tensions over resources between non-Arab farming communities—including the Massalit, who claimed a historical right to the land in El Geneina—and Arab pastoralist communities. These tensions were instrumentalized by the government of Omar al-Bashir, who ruled until 2019. Over the past two decades, the proliferation of weapons in Darfur and the failure of successive governments to address grievances over land and political power at the state level, or to provide accountability for past violations, have allowed these tensions to fester. Since 2019, Massalit people in West Darfur have come under renewed attack from Arab militias and the RSF. In 2020, following years of a progressive drawdown of peacekeeping forces from sites across Darfur, the United Nations Security Council ended the mandate of UNAMID, the joint African Union-United Nations peacekeeping force in the region, despite repeated warnings from displaced communities that this would remove a key deterrent to further attacks. Three large-scale attacks between 2019 and 2021 destroyed neighborhoods and IDP camps in and near El Geneina. Displaced persons, overwhelmingly Massalit, moved into the compounds of schools and official buildings in the inner city, which became known locally as IDP “gathering sites.”

These attacks led to the militarization of parts of the Massalit community. Young adults and adolescent boys in neighborhoods and camps purchased weapons and organized in what were locally called “self-defense groups.” Following the signing of the Juba Peace Agreement in 2020, Massalit fighters organized in the newly formed Sudanese Alliance, an armed group led by Khamis Abbakar, who later became governor in June 2021. The group steadily recruited and trained within the Massalit community until the start of the conflict in 2023.

The appointment of Mohamed Abdalla al-Doma, a Massalit man and Abbakar’s predecessor, as governor in 2020 had heightened tensions with Arab communities. Representatives of Arab tribes in early 2021 held a sit-in demanding the removal of camps of displaced persons from the city and the appointment of a non-Massalit governor. They also demanded that the RSF, which disproportionately recruited from among Darfuri Arabs, be deployed in El Geneina to provide security in lieu of the police, in which Massalit people were more represented. With the ethnic cleansing campaign of 2023, much of this agenda was accomplished.

The crimes committed against the Massalit since April 2023 have not been restricted to El Geneina. At least seven towns and villages of West Darfur have been deliberately destroyed by fire since mid-April 2023. On May 28, 2023, while the assault on El Geneina was underway, the Rapid Support Forces and allied militias attacked the predominantly Massalit town of Misterei, killed and injured dozens of civilians, including at least 28 ethnic Massalit men who were executed, and destroyed the town.

The response of actors from the regional and international community to the unfolding atrocities has been muted, in line with their lackluster engagement on Darfur and Sudan in recent years. Since April 2023, these actors were repeatedly warned, including by the UN Panel of Experts, about events unfolding in West Darfur, and, instead of expanding the scope of UN engagement, many failed to even condemn the violations of an existing arms embargo on the region, let alone act to prevent further atrocities. Actions to punish and deter arms embargo violations by the UN Security Council were nonexistent, and any positive developments were few and far between.

In July 2023 the office of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) said it was opening investigations into recent abuses in Darfur as part of its broader mandate in the region, stemming from a UN Security Council referral in 2005. In October, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva established an Independent International Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) for the Sudan, but its investigations were significantly delayed by a liquidity crisis at the UN, at time of writing. The humanitarian response in Chad has been woefully underfunded and struggled to provide adequate basic support for the tremendous needs of a massive population that has suffered such extreme violence. Over 88 percent of the refugees are women and children; most have received paltry humanitarian support to date. The UN and the AU, in consultation with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), should deploy a new mission to Darfur with a strong policing component, mandated to protect civilians, monitor human rights and humanitarian law violations, and lay the groundwork for the safe returns of those displaced. The UN Security Council should immediately roll out targeted sanctions against those most responsible for the heinous crimes documented in this report, including against Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo “Hemedti,” Gen. Abdel Raheem Hamdan Dagalo, Gen. Abdel Rahman Joma’a Barakallah, Musa Angir, Amir Massar Abdelrahman Assil, and Amir Hafiz Hassan. It should also sanction individuals and entities violating the arms embargo on Darfur. The UN Human Rights Council should ensure the FFM for Sudan is able to carry out necessary investigations, extending and renewing its mandate as necessary, and UN leadership and member states should ensure the FFM has the resources to carry out its work. States should also cooperate fully with the ICC’s investigations, and the court’s member states should ensure it has the robust financial resources necessary to support work across its docket, including in Sudan. All of these efforts should work with survivors when formulating accountability, reparations and justice responses.

Concerned governments and international and regional institutions, including the European Union (EU), Kenya, and the United States, should insist that communities from Darfur be represented in ongoing political processes. Donors should fund initiatives undertaken by Sudanese rights organizations to document ongoing crimes, including specialists in women’s rights. EU member states, the US, Canada, and others should increase refugee resettlement from neighboring countries for refugees who remain at high risk and cannot return to Sudan. Donors should also significantly increase humanitarian assistance for the Sudan humanitarian response, including by increasing assistance to local aid actors.

#sudan #genocide #ethnic cleansing #darfur #Massalit #uae #united arab emirates #rsf #rapid support forces

4 notes · View notes

taqato-alim · 11 months ago

Text

Analysis of: Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia (February 6th, 2024)

youtube

In the following text "document" refers to the subtitles of the video.

Summary of the evaluation:

Shows strong pro-Russian bias and lack of neutrality in its narrative framing

Relies on selective use of facts and anecdotal evidence that lacks context

Does not consider alternative perspectives in its analysis

Uses nationalist and emotionally charged rhetoric rather than impartial reasoning

Makes claims without providing clear evidence to support accusations

Downplays Russia's role in escalating tensions and conflicts

Fails to acknowledge the complexity of geopolitical issues and independence of other states

Does not present a clear or actionable plan for resolving conflicts

References history selectively to justify positions rather than provide nuanced analysis

Employs common propaganda techniques that aim to persuade rather than inform

As a result, the credibility and reliability of its claims are compromised and should be viewed skeptically without independent verification from other sources

In summary, the evaluation found the document exhibited strong biases, propaganda techniques, and lacked objective analysis, so its information cannot be reasonably accepted at face value.

Summary of the key points from the document

The interview was conducted with Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, on February 6, 2024 at around 7:00 pm in the Kremlin building.

The interview focused primarily on the ongoing war in Ukraine - how it started, what is happening currently, and how it might end.

Putin provided a lengthy historical context on Russia and Ukraine dating back to the 9th century to explain the intertwined relationship between the two countries and regions.

NATO's expansion eastward after the Cold War and promises made to not expand NATO were broken, which contributed to rising tensions.

The 2014 coup in Ukraine and takeover of Crimea by Russia were discussed. Putin viewed these actions as responses to threats emerging from Ukraine.

Ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine since 2014 in Donbas region escalated the situation further.

Putin blamed the West, especially the US, for interfering in Ukraine and backing nationalist forces there. This further complicated the relationship with Russia.

Putin expressed openness to negotiations but said the Ukrainian government under Western control had refused and prohibited any talks with Russia.

The goal of "denazification" in Ukraine, or dismantling nationalist elements, was discussed as one aim of Russia's military operation.

No clear path or timeline was outlined for how and when the conflict might end, as it depends on negotiations between the sides.

Key stakeholders

Vladimir Putin/Russian government: Intended to justify Russia's perspective and actions to international audiences. Provides an opportunity for Putin to shape the narrative.

Ukrainian government: The content directly challenges their claims and narrative around the origins of the conflict. May feel allegations need to be addressed.

Pro-Russia/separatist forces in Ukraine: Could view the content as validation of their cause and rhetoric used.

United States/NATO: Strong criticisms made of past policies and interventions. May feel need to rebut claims that their actions precipitated the conflict.

European allies: Also implicated in some of Russia's grievances. May impact their own strategic perspectives and policies towards Russia/Ukraine.

International media/viewers: Provides insights but heavily one-sided content requires verification and consideration of other viewpoints. Could influence their own views depending on their existing leaning.

Domestic Russian audience: Helps rally domestic support by sharing Putin's contextual justification behind military action in friendly terms. Validates government position.

Overall, key stakeholders that may be negatively impacted include those opposing Russia's position, while stakeholders aligning with Russia's stance may view it positively, though full verification of claims is not possible. International audiences would need to consider the content skeptically given its propagandistic intent.

Historical claims

Selective evidence: Only references history that supports its narrative, omitting inconvenient facts.

Lacks nuance: Presents a simplistic view that history demonstrates one dominant narrative of cultural/political unity, neglecting complexity.

Contextual flaws: Fails to situate events within full political/economic contexts of the time that challenge its interpretation.

Linear perspective: Implies a singular linear heritage despite periods where territories had different administrations and fluid national identities.

Unverifiable anecdotes: Uses individual stories but without caveats about anecdotes not being representative historical facts.

Propagandistic tone: Emphasis seems to use history more to legitimize current policies than foster informed, impartial understanding.

Overall, while some facts are referenced, the strategic cherry-picking, lack of qualifying context and propagandistic framing undermine the claims as a reliable, well-rounded historical analysis. Independent verification of dubious assertions and consideration of alternative interpretations would strengthen the analysis. A more impartial accounting of complexities, rather than selectively mining the past, is needed for reconciliation.

The ongoing war in Ukraine

One-sided: Provides only the Russian justification/reasoning for military action without acknowledging complexity or opposing views.

Propagandistic: Frames events and policy decisions selectively to shape public opinion in Russia's favor rather than objective analysis.

Downplays escalation: Minimizes Russia's role in ratcheting up tensions/fomenting conflict while emphasizing others' culpability.

Questions remain: Many assertions regarding intent/motivations cannot be independently verified and require third party corroboration.

Context needed: Standalone soundbites may mislead without considering broader geopolitical/historical factors at play on all sides.

Resolution details lacking: Fails to outline realistic measures to de-escalate/resolve actual combat and humanitarian situation for political settlement.

Biased perspective: Heavily subjective lens through Russian interests means data should not be accepted at face value without scrutiny/balancing with other sources.

In conclusion, while containing some factual data points, the propagandistic and strategically framed nature of much of the content means it provides limited reliable insight for objectively understanding complex realities on the ground or paths toward resolution when considered alone without verification and counterbalancing with alternate perspectives. Independent corroboration of claims would strengthen its informational value in relation to ongoing events. A more constructive approach balancing practical solutions with grand rhetoric appealing to past grievances could aid progress toward peace.

The intertwined relationship between Russia and Ukraine/related regions

Emphasizes shared history: Highlights linguistic, cultural, religious and economic ties developed over centuries to argue close bonds that persist.

Underscores complex interdependence: Acknowledges populations with mixed identity and that separation of interests cannot be simplistically reduced.

Risks essentializing identity: Framing cultural commonality primarily in ethnic/national terms risks overlooking internal diversity and fluidity of individual/group affinities over time.

Downplays compromising of sovereignty: Minimizes periods where territories shifted control between states in ways contradicting narrative of singular linear heritage.

Strategically wields interdependence: Selectively highlights interdependence for justification of policies while diminishing valid aspirations of populations within states for self-determination.

Risks inciting division: Hyper-nationalist rhetoric appealing to historical/ethnic affinities can encourage split loyalties counter to long-term reconciliation and cooperation.

Overall, while cognizant of factual interconnectedness, the subjective lens and selective contextualization undermine ability to constructively address autonomy/security interests of all populations in the region through cooperation instead of competition based on dated notions of control. A less politicized approach could strengthen prosperity for all.

NATO's expansion eastward

Emphasizes perceived promises broken: Puts focus on claims made to Russian leadership prior to expansion that seem to have fueled greater strategic mistrust over time.

Risks oversimplifying negotiations: Complex multilateral talks around expansion involved many trade-offs and perspectives beyond a single broken Russian pledge.

Associates expansion with provocation: Portrays expansions primarily as aggressive instead of considering them part of shifting countries’ autonomous security calculations and democratic processes over time.

Fails to address Russia's declining relative power: Does not acknowledge NATO expansion also coincided with Russia’s diminished standing amid NATO’s new economic successes—a reality challenging original diplomatic assumptions.

Inflames nationalist narratives: Rhetoric emphasizing broken trust and provocations serves more to stoke domestic support than understanding geopolitical contexts beyond a single state view.

Undermines joint security solutions: Recriminations over past actions hinder cooperation needed to mutually resolve tensions that expansion exacerbated between nuclear powers.

Ultimately a more impartial analysis recognizing multiple perspectives and Russia’s own declining economy could strengthen viability of modernized frameworks ensuring stability for all states in the region. But inflamed rhetoric risks further destabilization.

2014 coup in Ukraine

One-sided depiction: Entirely portrays the Maidan protests/change of government as a "coup" backed by the West without acknowledging internal Ukrainian political dynamics.

Simplifies complex situation: Reduces multi-faceted events to a simplistic narrative of foreign interference while minimizing domestic unrest with the existing government.

Undermines Ukrainian agency: Fails to acknowledge Ukrainian citizens exercised their own autonomous will through valid democratic processes, however imperfect.

Inflammatory language: Terms like "coup" aim more to provoke than objective understanding, fueling greater tensions versus reconciliation.

Interferes with impartial analysis: Biased framing complicates independent scholarly assessment by presupposing conclusions counter to realities on the ground.

Adds to conflict escalation cycle: Provocative rhetoric serves to justify intensified Russian policies of control rather than diplomacy to stabilize the situation cooperatively.

Overall, the inflammatory and conspiratorial framing reflects strategic propangandizing over impartial truth-seeking and risks entrenching conflict more than understanding it for remedies acceptable to all affected populations in the region.

Conflict in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region since 2014

Downplays Russian role: Minimizes Moscow's provision of arms, funding and other support to separatist militants escalating unrest into full conflict.

Portrays as internal Ukrainian issue: Depicts matter largely as a spontaneous reaction within Ukraine rather than proxy dimension involving regional powers.

Ignores ceasefire violations: Fails to address separatist shelling of Ukrainian military positions undermining negotiated end to hostilities.

Presents biased causality: Blames Ukrainian nationalism for conflict escalation rather than entanglement of external geopolitical machinations.

Hinders diplomacy efforts: Propaganda-tinged framing entrenches inflexible positions complicating efforts at durable political solution among adversaries.

Polarizes communities: Risks cementing deep societal divides within Ukraine through scapegoating rhetoric versus reconciling mutual interests.

Ultimately a more impartial diplomatic approach acknowledging shared responsibilities of all sides for adhering to negotiated accords could stabilize situation, whereas bellicose narratives risk making resolution ever more elusive.

Western interference and support for nationalist forces in Ukraine

Lacks substantive evidence: Makes strong accusations but provides no hard proof beyond conjecture to substantiate claims of deliberate interference or backing.

Over-simplifies complex dynamics: Reduces multifaceted political events and social forces to a single narrative of foreign provocation for strategic objectives.

Ignores Agency of Ukrainians: Fails to acknowledge Ukrainians have their own aspirations and agency, reducing their actions entirely to external manipulation.

Propagandistic framing: Using such loaded terms as "interference" aims more to assign blame than impartial analysis, fueling further geopolitical divide.

Undermines diplomacy: Inflexible stances based on unverified claims rather than cooperation poison relations needed to resolve tensions.

Risks entrenching conflict: Inflammatory rhetoric serves political agendas more than reconciliation by polarizing communities and cementing "us vs them" mentalities.

For an accurate understanding, verifiable evidence rather than speculation would be needed to substantiate such grave accusations. Overall, more constructive bilateral diplomacy based on mutual respect seems needed to reduce tensions versus contested nationalist histories.

Openness to negotiations

One-sided portrayal of negotiations: Implicitly frames Russia as open and others as refusing, without acknowledging Russia's own preconditions or role in escalating conflict.

Overlooks legitimacy concerns: Fails to acknowledge Russia's military intervention compromised Ukraine's ability to freely determine its negotiating partners and priorities.

Ignores sovereignty issues: Downplays how negotiations involving annexation of territory damage Ukraine's sovereignty and constrain its autonomy.

Reduces complexity: Simplifies challenges as unilateral refusal rather than recognition of good-faith differences in priorities and pressures each side faces.

Propagandistic language: Terms like "Western control" aim more to assign blame than impartial understanding of domestic political realities in Ukraine.

Risks hindering diplomacy: Inflexible stances based on contested claims likely poison the trust needed to make progress via cooperation.

Overall a more balanced and less accusatory perspective acknowledging the multifaceted challenges for all sides could better support constructing diplomatic solutions than divisive rhetoric that risks further entrenching conflicting positions.

Claims about "denazification" in Ukraine

Lacks evidence: No proof is provided that Ukraine's government is actually controlled by neo-Nazis rather than populists.

Reductive argument: Labeling opponents as Nazis downplays Ukraine's own complex nationalist narratives and marginalizes non-extremist concerns.

Echoes propaganda tropes: Uncritically uses terms common in Russian propaganda narratives meant to de-legitimize Ukrainian sovereignty claims.

Ignores nuance: Fails to acknowledge nationalist sentiments exist across many post-Soviet states and do not equate support for extremism.

Potential pretext for control: Could serve to justify open-ended Russian interference by setting impossible standards of "purity" no society fulfills.

Exacerbates tensions: Provocative and stigmatizing discourse damages reconciliation by casting political opponents as ultimate enemies.

Overall, applying explosive labels without evidence risks ratcheting up conflict more than resolution. Diplomacy requires acknowledging diversity of perspectives across interconnected societies in an even-handed manner respectful of all.

The document does not provide a clear path or timeline for how and when the conflict might end.

Some key evaluations:

Lacks specifics: No concrete diplomatic proposals, ceasefire terms, peacekeeping arrangements, political settlement details are outlined.

Vague on resolution: Goals of "de-Nazification" and protecting Russian speakers are nebulous with no roadmap for verifiably implementing and concluding them.

Unilateral focus: Emphasis remains on justifying Russian positions rather than outlining mutually agreeable compromises all sides could accept.

Omits compromise: Fails to acknowledge peaceful resolution requires good faith concessions rather than unilateral enforcement of preferred outcomes.

Propaganda over pragmatism: Rhetoric prioritizes blame over practical cooperation needed to stabilize violence and uplift humanitarian crisis.

Risks prolonging conflict: Absence of a negotiated ‘end state’ vision sustains ambiguity fueling continued escalation by attrition over years.

Overall, the document provides a justification for conflict rather than the inclusive diplomacy essential for its verifiable resolution. Specific proposals balancing interests of all affected communities would better support a durable political settlement and lasting peace.

Quality of reason

Logical Consistency: While some points are logically put, selective evidence and logical fallacies undermine internal consistency.

Use of Evidence: Some facts are cited but heavily skewed interpretation. Questionable anecdotes presented without qualification undermine evidential quality.

Impartiality: Highly partial framing fails tests of neutral principle and omits consideration of counter perspectives.

Objectivity: Subjective lens is not balanced with acknowledging room for alternate views in analyzing multifaceted problems.

Avoidance of Prejudice: Nationalist rhetoric & victim-blaming falls short of impartiality needed for sound understanding across cultural divides.

Clarity: At times difficult to separate statements of fact from interpretations without independent verification due to blending.

Proportion: Overemphasis of some details distorts overall perspective; disproportionate time spent on pet issues vs balanced treatment.

Overall, while containing sporadic well-reasoned points, the pervasive biases, fallacious arguments, skewed use of evidence and lack of impartiality compromise a prudent, well-reasoned analysis. Claims require verification and should not be accepted at face value due to departures from standards of sound rational judgment in evaluating complex, multifaceted problems. Alternative viewpoints would aid critical examination.

Logical fallacies

Cherry picking/selective evidence - Only presents evidence that supports Russia's narrative while omitting alternative perspectives and facts that do not fit its position.

Appeal to history/tradition - Justifies Russia's claims by presenting selective usage of long history between Russia and Ukraine while glossing over periods counter to its stance.

Strawman - At times implies opponents believe certain extreme claims like inevitability of conflict when actual positions are likely more nuanced.

Blaming the victim - Presents Ukraine's actions after 2014 coup as provocative while minimizing Russia's own role in escalating tensions.

Whataboutism - Deflects from discussion of its own positions by pointing fingers at flaws of other countries instead of addressing the issue directly.

Conspiracy theory - Implies US/NATO desire for conflict is due to entrenched interests rather than geopolitical disagreements, without substantive evidence.

Anecdotal evidence - Supports some claims with unverifiable stories presented as factual rather than illustrative.

Overall, while containing factual information, the document undermines its own credibility through the extensive use of biased reasoning, selective framing of history and deflection tactics - suggesting the overall narrative is propagandistic rather than a good faith analysis of complex geopolitical issues. Independent verification of questionable claims would be needed.

Bias

Strong Pro-Russian Government Bias: The narrative and framing of issues is constructed entirely from Putin's perspective without acknowledging alternative views.

Lack of Neutrality: No attempt is made to present a balanced, objective analysis. The explicit aim appears to justify Russia's actions rather than explore complex geopolitical issues impartially.

Selective Omission of Facts: Important context like the full history of Russian-Ukrainian relations and Russia's role in previous escalations are omitted or downplayed.

Exclusive Reliance on Anecdotal Evidence: Unverifiable stories are presented without caveats alongside real facts/events, obscuring what's factual.

Appeals to Emotion: Nationalist rhetoric, victim-blaming other parties aims to elicit emotional agreement with Russia's view rather than reasoned analysis.

Propaganda Techniques: Common tactics like misrepresentation, distractions and cultivated confusion compromise the credibility and verifiability of claims.

Lack of Transparency: Readers are not actively informed of the high level of bias shaping the content and prevented from considering alternative perspectives.

In conclusion, the heavy ideological leaning and propagandistic approach mean the document cannot reasonably be considered an objective analysis and should be treated skeptically rather than taken at face value due to the pervasive biases compromising its reliability and Trustworthiness as a factual account. Independent verification of claims would be needed.

Based on the content and tone of the document, Putin's position comes across as more autocratic than democratic:

Unilateralism: Decisions around Ukraine are portrayed as responses to threats rather than through consultation/compromise.

Top-down narratives: Public understanding is shaped through one-sided messaging rather than open debate of diverse views.

Propaganda techniques: Appeals to emotion, misdirection and confusion undermine standards of transparency/informed consent.

Deflection of responsibility: Focus is on others' actions rather than constructive solutions or acknowledgment of all sides' contributions.

Power centralized: No acknowledgement of other Russian political voices or dissenting domestic public opinion on policies.

Ideological direction: Strategic aims framed by inflexible notions of sovereignty/tradition rather than mutual understanding.

Limited accountability: Public positions subject to little oversight/correction from independent institutions or population.

Victimized identity: Depiction of Russia as acting in defense rather than partnership suggests diminished civil norms.

While democratic values like open debate/transparency are paid lip service, the substance, framing and control of public discourse suggest more autocratic tendencies in how policy issues are addressed and public perspectives are shaped on the international stage.

Rhetorical propaganda devices

Whataboutism: Deflects criticisms of Russia by accusing others of similar or worse actions.

Selective omission: Leaves out important historical/contextual details that undermine Russia's narrative.

Loaded language: Uses emotionally charged terms like "coup" and "nationalism" rather than neutral terms.

Slogans over substance: Employs simple talking points rather than engaging opposing viewpoints.

Appeals to emotion: Invokes nationalist pride and victimization to elicit agreement rather than reason.

Black-and-white thinking: Presents a Manichean view dividing everything into opponents and allies of Russia.

Scapegoating: Blames outside forces rather than address Russia's own role in tensions and conflict.

Confusion techniques: Provides rapid fire claims that are difficult to fact check, cultivating doubt.

The heavy reliance on these common propaganda devices aims more to persuade through emotional manipulation rather than inform readers or have an honest debate. It casts doubt on the document's credibility and objectivity.

Putin's personality

Confident: He speaks authoritatively about Russian perspectives and is unwavering in his views.

Nationalistic: He takes pride in Russian history and values cultural/political independence from the West.

Calculated: He provides nuanced perspectives but ultimate goals seem aimed more at justification than impartial problem-solving.

Frustrated: Past broken promises and perceived Western interference are sources of lingering grievances.

Defensive: He portrays Russia as reacting to external threats rather than examining Russia's own escalatory actions.

Selectively empathetic: He shows care for ethnic Russians affected by the conflict but disregards non-Russian Ukrainian suffering.

Conspiratorial: Tendency to see Western aims in geopolitical dynamics in calculated or intentionally provocative ways without evidence.

Pragmatic: Ready to negotiate but only from position of current Russian control in Ukraine gained via military operation.

Experienced: Has observed global events for decades but solutions still embroiled in outdated notions of great power politics.

Overall, while articulating nuanced perspectives, Putin comes across as ideologically hardened in defending Russian stances, erring more on the side of propaganda than impartial examination of conflicts' inherently complex nature.

Common evaluation criteria

Purpose/Goals: To present Putin's perspective on the conflict in Ukraine and his motivations/justifications for Russia's actions. He is able to fully explain his viewpoint.

Tone: Remains generally respectful and informative as expected in an interview format, though Putin appears firm in his views.

Balance: Both sides of issues are discussed but focus is on Putin providing context for Russia's actions. Interviewer occasionally challenges some assertions.

Factual Accuracy: Varies - some historical contexts and quotes check out but some claims around motivations of others involved are difficult to independently verify.

Perspective/Bias: Content is strongly from Putin's point of view without alternative perspectives included. Not surprising given the format but does not present a balanced analysis.

Flow/Organization: Answers are generally well-explained and on topic in response to questions. Occasional tangents into historical minutiae but overall coherent narrative.

Tone & Delivery: Putin comes across as confident and in control of the dialogue. Frustrations with past actions of others also come through at points.

Overall based on these criteria, the document accomplishes its goal of presenting Putin's perspective on the conflict in Ukraine through an in-depth interview format. However, the heavy focus on his point of view and lack of challenges to some claims mean the content cannot be considered a neutral or fully fact-checked analysis.

3 notes · View notes