#UkraineInvasion

[taqato-alim]

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

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.

[klikomo]

#news | Oct 23, 2024

Follow me for more interesting facts and what's trending around the world 👍

[brijeshtiwaripune]

US Intel Report Exposes Russia's 87% Troop Wipeout Since Ukraine War!

Russia has experienced a staggering 87 percent reduction in its active-duty ground troops since the initiation of the Ukraine invasion, along with a two-thirds decline in pre-invasion tanks, according to a declassified US intelligence assessment shared with Congress, as reported by sources. Despite substantial losses in both personnel and equipment, Russian President Vladimir Putin remains resolute in advancing the conflict, which is approaching its two-year mark early next year. US officials caution that Ukraine remains highly susceptible to further aggression. A long-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive has stalled, and there are concerns that Kyiv may not make significant territorial gains in the coming months. This intelligence assessment, sent to Capitol Hill, coincides with a push from the Biden administration for additional funding for Ukraine, facing resistance from some Republicans. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's visit to Washington aims to secure essential military and economic aid to bolster Ukraine's ability to resist Russia. The report reveals that Russia, despite heavy losses, has sustained its war effort by relaxing recruitment standards and utilizing older Soviet-era equipment. Nonetheless, the assessment emphasizes that the conflict has significantly impeded Russia's 15-year effort to modernize its ground forces. Of the 360,000 troops deployed to Ukraine, including contract and conscript personnel, Russia has suffered losses of 315,000 on the battlefield. Additionally, 2,200 out of 3,500 tanks, and 4,400 out of 13,600 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers have been destroyed, constituting a 32 percent loss rate. As of late November, Russia has depleted over a quarter of its pre-invasion stockpiles of ground forces equipment, diminishing the scale and complexity of its offensive operations. Despite ongoing challenges, Russia persists in its military campaign, resorting to alternative recruitment methods and drawing on older equipment from Soviet-era stockpiles. The political landscape in Washington poses a significant risk to Ukraine, with some Republicans opposing additional funding. Senate Republicans are advocating for inclusion in a broader spending package covering areas such as Israel, Taiwan, and the US southern border. The Biden administration warns that the US is nearing the limit of available funds for Ukraine war. A National Security Council spokesman indicates that Russia believes a winter military deadlock will diminish Western support for Ukraine, providing Russia with a strategic advantage despite its losses. The Russian military has reportedly suffered over 13,000 casualties along specific axes, along with 220 combat vehicle losses since launching its offensive in October. Before the invasion, Russia had approximately 900,000 active-duty troops, including various branches. In response to the conflict, Russia announced plans to expand its armed forces to 1.5 million, implementing conscription rounds and extending the age limit for certain categories of citizens. This significant toll has prompted Russia to adopt extraordinary measures, such as partial mobilization and the recruitment of convicts and older civilians. The war has also set back Russia's military modernization by 18 years, according to the assessment. In Washington, Ukrainian President Zelensky seeks critical military and economic aid, emphasizing the urgency of support for Ukraine's ongoing resistance against Russia. However, resistance from some Republicans in Congress poses a challenge to securing additional funding. The intelligence report underscores the substantial impact of the conflict on Russia's military capabilities, emphasizing the need for sustained international support for Ukraine. Read the full article

[aanews69]

Russia Fines Google Russia Fines Google Subscribe👇: https://sub.dnpl.us/AANEWS/ 👀👇: https://viralbuys.vista.page/ #GoogleFine #Russia #YouTube #ProRussianChannels #UndecillionRubles #WorldGDP #AlphabetValuation #Kremlin #LegalIssues #UkraineInvasion

[catboymafia]

Legit

[gulyas069]

der springende punkt, auf den ich hinaus will, ist einfach, dass es über der bundesregierung keine instanz gibt. internationales recht ist einfach nicht erzwingbar, d.h. wenn die Bundesregierung sagt, etwas sei internationales recht, auch wenn es das nicht ist, dann ist es für den deutschen rechtsraum so (bsp. irakinvasion: selber rechtlicher tatbestand wie die ukraineinvasion, aber erstere wird von der bureg nicht als völkerrechtswidrig gewertet, letztere schon, weshalb erstere gebilligt werden darf, aber letztere zu billigen strafbar ist, s. "Z"-verbot).

die judikative spricht also recht im rahmen dessen, was die exekutive anerkennt und was nicht. die gewaltenteilung ist aufgehoben. ironischerweise entsteht das problem auf rechtlicher ebene gerade aus dem versuch, das problem zu beheben: die rechtliche grundlage für das erzwingen der außenpolitik im inneren ist die vermeintliche grundgesetzliche berufung auf das völkerrecht, aber deutsche gerichte entscheiden nicht über völkerrecht, sondern dessen beurteilung liegt im ermessen des auswärtigen amts, der exekutiven

der erste schritt der gleichschaltung ist die vermischung von außen- und innenpolitik

[moodboardmix]

MoodBoardMix Stand With Ukraine!

Sunflowers (sunyashniki) are especially loved in Ukraine, where golden fields of them face the sunrise in the east. They are Ukraine's national flower, and in folk imagery represent the warmth and power of the sun, which was worshipped by pre-Christian Slavs.

To my Ukrainian followers, stay safe and strong !

Love you all❤️

[rai-jauru]

Ahsoka is with Ukraine.💙💛 This piece is an important one, the war in Ukraine is not over, it is still raging on. There are families across the country losing everything and some have nowhere to go. I've asked some friends who are more familiar with the situation to recommend some charities to donate to to help those in need. https://www.instagram.com/p/CfYyzBHNtOL/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= If anyone has anymore to send funds, feel free to drop them in the comments below so others can donate. 💙💛🇺🇦💙💛 #ashokatano #starwars #starwarsart #starwarsclonewars #clonewars #clonewarsseason7 #order66 #clonewarsart #rex #ashoka #ashokaart #ashokatanoart #fightforukraine #fightforukraine🇺🇦 #ukraine #westandwithukraine #ahsokaforukraine #ukrainewar #ukraineinvasion https://www.instagram.com/p/Cfoz8C8pPLx/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of: "Human rights situation during the Russian occupation of territory of Ukraine and its aftermath" (OHCHR, 19 March 2024)

PDF-Download: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/2024-03-20%20OHCHR%20Report%20on%20Occupation%20and%20Aftermath.pdf

Summary of the key points from the discussion:

Russia illegally invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine, committing war crimes and widespread human rights violations against civilians.

Under occupation, Russians systematically dismantled rights, imposed fear through violence/repression, and suppressed Ukrainian identity, language and culture.

Civilians faced arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment and trauma from living under oppressive conditions without autonomy or legal protections.

Russia established governing systems that undermined Ukrainian institutions and sovereignty in violation of occupation law standards.

Ukraine faced challenges in prosecuting alleged collaborators while respecting proportionality and due process.

The report highlighted ongoing shortcomings in upholding international law and weaknesses in global cooperation on conflict resolution.

All individuals were profoundly impacted, with civilians suffering trauma and lost futures, while behaviors of occupying forces indicated disregard for humanity.

Sensitive, context-specific solutions are still needed to Balance accountability, social recovery and reconciliation amid complex, dynamic post-conflict issues.

The situation underscores how world affairs remain vulnerable when aggression and noncompliance with humanitarian/legal frameworks persist with impunity.

Genre of the document

This document appears to be a thematic report published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

Key indicators that point to it being a report genre include:

It is published by an international organization (OHCHR) which routinely produces reports on human rights issues.

It covers a specific topic or theme - in this case it examines the human rights situation during and after the Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine.

It follows a typical report structure, first providing background context, then analyzing the situation through detailed findings organized into sections, and concluding with recommendations.

It cites evidence from interviews, documentation, court records and other sources to support its analysis and conclusions about the human rights situation.

It adopts an objective and analytical tone typical of reports, rather than advocacy.

References are included to provide credibility and transparency about the sources of information.

It is intended to inform relevant stakeholders like governments, organizations and the public about the issues examined based on research and monitoring.

Based on these characteristics, the document exhibits all the hallmarks of a formal thematic report intended to assess and document a particular human rights issue or situation.

Summary of the key points from the report

Russian forces launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 and captured territory in various regions including Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Luhansk, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia.

Under occupation, Russian forces and authorities systematically dismantled fundamental rights and imposed a climate of fear through violence, repression and suppression of dissent.

Widespread arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence were reported targeting civilians opposing the occupation.

Russian forces quashed peaceful protests using force, restricted free expression and movement, conducted invasive searches and limited information access.

Russia imposed its own systems of governance, administration, laws and education, applied pressure for residents to obtain Russian passports, and suppressed Ukrainian culture and identity.

Ukraine regained control of parts of Kharkiv, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions by late 2022, finding destroyed infrastructure, mines, pillaged property, trauma and economic collapse.

Areas faced intensified shelling from Russia and risks from mines, hampering aid, reconstruction and agriculture.

Ukraine prosecuted alleged "collaboration," but definitions were broad and risks criminalizing justified conduct, and prosecutions sometimes violated rights.

Report recommends both Russia and Ukraine take various actions to address the situation and its consequences, and calls for international support.

Key stakeholders affected by this report

Here are the key stakeholders affected by this report and an evaluation of how they may be impacted:

Governments of Russia and Ukraine - The report directly addresses both governments, documenting violations requiring remediation and making formal recommendations they are expected to consider. It will impact their international standing.

Occupied population in Ukraine - The report gives voice to their experiences and aims to promote accountability and remedies to help address harms suffered. Increased awareness may offer validation.

International organizations - The report informs the response of bodies like the UN on issues like access and assistance. It guides engagement on promoting rights protections and reconciliation.

International community - By raising global awareness, the report aims to bolster calls on states to help promote compliance with international law and support recovery efforts in Ukraine.

Civil society/NGOs - The documentation supports advocacy and provides a basis to press governments, design programs and mobilize resources to help conflict-affected communities.

Media - The detailed analysis offers comprehensive reporting on the situation to raise public understanding of the complex issues around occupation and its impacts.

Overall, through its rigorous fact-finding and recommendations, the report seeks to positively impact those most affected while encouraging the international community to constructively engage on the issues. Though governments are also subject to its scrutiny, its ultimate aim is to advance respect for human rights.

Key parties involved in the situation

Here are the key parties involved in the situation described in the document and an evaluation of their role:

Russian Federation - As the aggressor state launching an illegal invasion and occupying territories, it bears primary responsibility for grave violations of international law and resulting human rights abuses against civilians.

Ukrainian Government - As the victim state defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity, it continues upholding rights under occupation despite lack of access to parts of its territory. It now faces reconstruction challenges and a controversial response to collaboration charges.

Ukrainian populations in occupied areas - Civilians suffered direct impacts of violence, repression and socioeconomic disruption under foreign occupation and administration against their will. Some collaborated under coercion while others actively resisted.

International community - States have provided diplomatic support and aid to Ukraine but faced ongoing divisions that hamper a unified response. Differences persist on approach to accountability and engagement on issues like collaboration charges.

International organizations - Bodies like UN have facilitated response but struggled with lack of Russian cooperation limiting monitoring. they aim to offer guidance and support to both states through this complex situation.

Civil society in Ukraine - Groups have aided victims, conducted advocacy, and documented realities on the ground to support responses adhering to rights and ethics as challenges evolve.

All parties still have roles to play in upholding law, addressing harms, and determining sustainable solutions that prioritize human wellbeing and reconciliation over political agendas. Progress requires ongoing constructive participation and compromise.

Individuals involved in the situation

Here are some of the types of individuals involved in the situation described in the report and an evaluation of their perspective/role:

Civilians living under occupation: Subjected to violence, fear and disruption of daily life/livelihoods under foreign rule against their will. Face trauma, uncertainty about future and complex processes like collaborator charges and reintegration.

Victims of abuse: Endured human rights violations like arbitrary detention, torture and loss of loved ones with need for justice, accountability and reparation to recover. Testimonies help document abuses.

Persons accused of collaboration: Charge definitions risk overreach. Some cooperated under coercion/duress yet face consequences. Others willingly assisted occupiers, complicating reconciliation.

Frontline workers: Medical staff, teachers and others continued essential roles amid occupation's challenges and risks like coercion. Sought to ease plight of communities.

Local officials: Some refused cooperation and fled reprisals. Others accommodated occupiers due to threats against themselves/families though now face criticism for decisions taken under duress.

Displaced communities: Fled violence/repression with loss of homes/property, increasing needs as traumatized refugees/IDPs. Demographic changes impact areas' recovery.

Overall the situation profoundly impacted civilians and public servants, with complex perspectives depending on circumstances, yet most endured immense hardship with ongoing vulnerabilities and needs that require sensitive, context-specific responses upholding humanity.

Actions of Russian forces

Based on descriptions in the report, the actions of Russian forces during the occupation were deeply unethical and violated international law in the following ways:

The invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory itself was illegal under international law and constituted a serious breach of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Russian forces committed widespread and grave human rights abuses against civilians, including arbitrary detention, torture, sexual violence and extrajudicial killings - actions which constituted war crimes.

They brutally suppressed dissent through violent crackdowns on peaceful protests and by detaining and disappearing civil activists and journalists.

Enforced disappearances, incommunicado detention and torture of civilians were used systematically and resulted in unlawful deaths - serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

Widespread pillaging, looting and destruction of civilian property breached obligations to respect private possessions under occupation.

Heavy-handed control measures like pervasive searches and restrictions on movement undermined basic freedoms and terrorized the population.

Failure to investigate or prosecute these documented crimes helped enable a climate of impunity for further rights violations against civilians.

Overall, based on evidence presented, the actions of Russian forces paint a picture of an unlawful, hostile occupation characterized by flagrant disregard for international law and basic human rights protections for civilians. Their conduct can only be viewed as reprehensible and unlawful.

Imposed systems of governance and administration introduced by Russia

Based on the details provided in the report, the imposed systems of governance and administration introduced by Russia violated international law governing occupation in several key ways:

Replacing Ukrainian institutions and applying Russian laws/systems went far beyond what was necessary to maintain order and violated occupations’ basic duty to respect local systems as far as possible.

Coercing cooperation from officials, workers and residents through threats, violence or dire economic coercion violated principles of consent and protection for protected persons.

Tightening requirements like Russian passports for essential services denied equal rights to Ukrainian citizens and amounted to collective punishment barred under the 1907 HR.

Imposing a foreign curriculum and suppressing the Ukrainian language/culture exceeded permitted cultural changes and infringed rights to conscience and cultural life of children.

Gathering extensive civilian data and encouraging surveillance raised serious privacy concerns inconsistent with civilian protections under occupation law.

Attempts to demographically reshape the population through deportations, asylum coercion and bolstering Russian in-migration breached ethical standards of neutrality in occupations.

Overall, Russia’s administrative overhaul and governance model entrenched changes rejecting local consent in violation of its obligations to minimize disruptions to civilian life under occupation and protect rights to identity, culture and autonomy.

Psychological state of civilians living under Russian occupation

Based on the details provided in the report, the psychological state of civilians living under Russian occupation can be characterized as:

Traumatized/Stressed: Widespread violence, repression, arbitrary detention and torture created acute fear and anxiety amongst the population.

Isolated: Restrictions on movement, information and assembly isolated communities, straining social networks of support. Increased loneliness and withdrawal.

Distrustful: The climate of fear and coercion, coupled with surveillance/denunciations, eroded trust between neighbors as people felt compelled to protect themselves.

Vulnerable/Helpless: Civilians were subjected to abuses, instability and loss of autonomy with few options for resistance, escape or remedy, diminishing a sense of safety, control and dignity.

Conflicted: Those compelled or pressured to cooperate with occupiers under duress suffered inner turmoil over collaborator accusations they now faced.

Uncertain: The erosion of familiar cultural anchors, identities, futures and governance left people lacking confidence in what came next amid disruption and deprivation.

Overall, living under such oppressive and rights-violating conditions of fear, manipulation, instability and diminished agency would be expected to profoundly distress, confuse and demoralize much of the occupied civilian population from a psychological perspective based on the impacts described.

Suppression of Ukrainian culture and identity

The document describes serious suppression of Ukrainian culture and identity under the Russian occupation:

The Ukrainian curriculum in schools was replaced with the Russian version, requiring teaching in Russian and following Moscow's approved history narratives.

Ukrainian culture was removed from public spaces through censorship or destruction of cultural artifacts, books, monuments and symbols representing Ukrainian heritage.

Expressions of Ukrainian identity through language, culture or beliefs were punished by arrest, detention and violence against civilians by Russian forces.

Children were pressured into Russian youth groups aimed at imparting Russian patriotism through militaristic activities contravening protections for minors under occupation law.

Access to independent Ukrainian media was blocked or censored, cutting off information sources not controlled by occupying authorities.

Official policies sought to eliminate the distinction between Ukrainian and Russian identities by denying Ukrainianism and promoting narratives of artificial ethnic and historical unity between the two peoples.

These aggressive steps instilled fear while seeking to systematically erase or replace all cultural traces and public expressions of Ukrainian national identity in occupied areas over the long term.

Cultural state of the individuals acting on Russia's behalf

The document does not provide direct information about the cultural state of the individuals acting on Russia's behalf in the occupied territories of Ukraine. However, we can infer some details:

Many Russian forces and administrators were likely ethnically Russian and saw themselves as restoring traditionally Russian areas to Russian control, as indicated by narratives promoted.

They aimed to dismantle Ukrainian identity and imposed Russian identity and orientations through policies targeting education, symbols and information spaces.

This suggests they viewed Ukrainian and Russian cultures as competing and sought to suppress the former in favor of the latter becoming dominant in the occupied region long-term.

By suppressing the Ukrainian language and rewriting history to justify annexation, they exhibited attitudes of cultural superiority toward local Ukrainian identities and traditions.

Overall their actions appeared driven by ultranationalistic goals of asserting Russian political and cultural hegemony over the ethnic Ukrainian populations and lands brought under occupation control.

However, the document provides little info on whether coercion may have impacted some local administrators' behavior or on any diversity of cultural views among Russian officials involved.

So in summary, they seemed motivated by an expansionist Russian ethnonationalist vision at odds with the reality of Ukraine's independent multiethnic society and identity. But direct cultural profiles remain unclear from the report.

Psychological state of individuals acting on Russia's behalf

The document does not provide enough details to fully evaluate the psychological state of individuals acting on Russia's behalf. However, some inferences can be made:

Dehumanized view of civilians: Referring to locals as "Nazis" suggests they saw civilians as sub-human enemies rather than protected persons under IHL.

Lack of empathy: Willingness to use violence, torture and unlawfully detain civilians indicates a stark lack of empathy or compassion.

Need for control/dominance: Efforts to impose Russian governance/identity through force and repression over dissent reveals desire to assert dominance.

Propaganda/Ethnonationalism: Narratives deemphasizing Ukrainian identity/statehood point to susceptibility to propaganda regarding ethnic superiority.

Authoritarian mindset: Restricting dissent/information and attempting to reshape communities long-term through policies/education points to willingness to exert control over civilian lives.

Desensitization to harm: Degree of harm committed against civilians, including violence/abuse against most vulnerable like children, suggests risk of trauma-hardening and objectification of locals as threats.

Overall, while direct profiling is impossible, behaviors indicate disrespect for human dignity/rights and preference for force that seem disorderly from a psychological perspective without empathy, consent or restraint in the treatment of civilians under their authority.

Ukraine's prosecution of "collaboration activities"

Based on the details provided, Ukraine's prosecution approach raises some important concerns:

The criminal definition of "collaboration activities" is overly broad and vague, risking punishing lawful occupation conduct or actions done under coercion/duress against the spirit of IHL.

Insufficient consideration is given to complex context faced by residents and duress factors that may have compelled some cooperation with occupiers.

Harsh charges and pre-trial detention practices have not always respected due process or appeared proportionate to alleged conduct in all cases.

Allegations of rights violations during some investigations - such as lack of lawyers during interrogations - require scrutiny if verified.

An unintended consequence has been further burdening or "double victimizing" individuals already targeted and abused under occupation in need of support.

Overly aggressive prosecutions risk politicizing cooperators as “traitors” and deepening social divisions in a post-conflict environment where reconciliation should be prioritized.

However, accountability for egregious crimes is also important. Overall the approach seems well-intentioned but requires refining definitions and practices to reflect humanitarian principles of proportionality, fairness and avoidance of further harm.

Ethical issues

Based on the information presented in the report, there are several ethical issues that arise:

Russia violated core ethical principles of international law by launching an aggressive war and occupation, resulting in widespread human rights abuses against civilians. Its actions subverted democratic ideals of self-determination.

Russian forces and authorities committed grave ethical breaches by carrying out violence, torture, and repression against civilians under occupation in violation of ethics around humanity, non-discrimination and rule of law.

Imposing foreign systems of governance and suppressing local culture betrayed ethics of respect, cultural diversity and consent of the governed. Targeting children undermined ethics of protecting the vulnerable.

Problems arose regarding Ukraine's overly broad definition of "collaboration", risking punishing those compelled to act or living under duress, conflicting with ethics of proportionality and fairness.

Allegations of rights violations in some Ukrainian investigations/prosecutions diverged from ethical standards of due process, integrity of justice and avoidance of further harming victims.

All states and societies involved face ongoing ethical challenges around reconciliation, reintegration, truth and reparations - how to appropriately weigh accountability, remorse, forgiveness and healing divided communities with compassion.

Overall, while Russia's actions exhibited grave unethical behavior, Ukraine still has work ahead to ensure its response aligns fully with ethics. And all stakeholders must grapple ethically with complexity of issues like judging conduct under coercion to build sustainable peace.

World affairs

The report paints a sobering picture of world affairs in several ways:

It highlights the ongoing danger posed by large-scale wars of aggression and occupations in violating international law and destroying lives/communities. Global cooperation on deterring such actions remains unrealized.

The inability to prevent or quickly resolve the conflict through diplomatic means suggests continuing weaknesses in the international system for maintaining peace and stability.

Human rights protections envisioned in international law proved deficient, as widespread abuses persisted with near total impunity under occupation. Greater enforcement is still needed.

Divisions exploited within and between states threaten social cohesion and reconciliation, as identities and narratives became tools of political manipulation rather than a basis for shared understanding.

Post-conflict situations present immense humanitarian and development challenges, yet transitioning from emergency aid to long-term support and remedy remains a work in progress.

Occupations introduce complications to rights, governance and socio-economic recovery that defy simple or uniform solutions, requiring context-sensitive, whole-of-society responses.

In summary, while the document concerns a specific regional crisis, it underscores how vulnerable world affairs remain to instability, rights violations and disorder when law and cooperation break down—calling for ongoing reform and commitment to core principles of justice, accountability and human dignity. Progress still lags threats.

Evaluation of the thematic report

Here are the usual evaluation criteria for a thematic report genre and my evaluation of this report based on each criteria:

Accuracy - The report comprehensively documents its findings and conclusions based on 2,319 interviews and extensive research. It is well-sourced and the information has clearly been verified based on OHCHR's methodology. This suggests a high level of accuracy.

Objectivity - The report presents its analysis and findings in an impartial manner without apparent bias. It is critical of both Russian and Ukrainian actions where appropriate. This indicates a high degree of objectivity.

Credibility - As published by a reputable UN organization, the report benefits from institutional credibility. Its thorough sourcing and adherence to fact-finding standards also lend it credibility. No obvious credibility issues are apparent.

Balance - The report considers both positive obligations of states as well as limitations, and factors in contextual constraints faced by parties. It critically examines actions of all sides in an even-handed manner. This displays a high level of balance.

Clarity - The report is well-structured in a logical flow and easy to understand, defining key terms. Findings are presented concisely yet comprehensively. Recommendations are clear and actionable. Overall the information is conveyed with a high degree of clarity.

Thoroughness - The report leaves few stones unturned in its examination of the issues. It comprehensively documents the situation over time through many interviews and sources. This indicates a very high level of thoroughness.

Based on this evaluation, the report demonstrates adherence to best practices typical of the genre and produces a rigorous, well-researched analysis of the human rights situation in Ukraine that will serve as a valuable resource.

[klikomo]

#news | Oct 23, 2024

Follow me for more interesting facts and what’s trending around the world 👍

[bristolforeurope]

"The sanction nobody is talking about. Russian users who attempted to visit pornhub were quite literally cockblocked by a message that told them that the content has been stopped along with a Ukranian flag and message of Ukranian support #Ukraine #UkraineRussia #UkraineInvasion " https://twitter.com/root_nomad/status/1497254180108570633 https://www.instagram.com/p/CaauI8qMzHU/?utm_medium=tumblr

[rossstewartart]

All I can do these last 2 days is listen to tragic news of Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I hope and pray to any and all gods, if they exist, that Ukraine will come through this diabolic invasion, stronger than ever. Russian people need to stand up to Putin's regime and fight back. This is not your war. Putin will ruin your country and others in the process, while innocent people die. I stand with Ukraine 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 And fuck Putin #ukraine #ukraineinvasion #fuckputin https://www.instagram.com/p/CaaVwiWqAlU/?utm_medium=tumblr

[mr-michael-kyle]

The U.S. considers Russia an “immediate” geopolitical challenge however sees China as a far more consequential long-term threat, according to President Biden’s national security strategy released Wednesday, after a delay prompted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February. Actually, the Ukraine war “has profoundly diminished Russia’s status vis-a-vis China and other Asian powers such as India and Japan,” the declassified 48-page document says.

Russia and China “pose different challenges,” the national security strategy says. “Russia poses an immediate threat to the free and open international system, recklessly flouting the basic laws of the international order today,” whereas China, “by contrast, is the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to advance that objective.”

“We have entered a decisive decade with respect to two fundamental strategic challenges,” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said Wednesday: “Geopolitical competition” with China and “the sheer scale and speed of transnational challenges that do not respect borders or adhere to international rules,” together with pandemics, inflation, climate change, and food and energy scarcities. “The post-Cold War era is definitely over,” he added.

“Moscow’s soft power and diplomatic influence have waned,” the national security documents says, “while its efforts to weaponize energy have backfired. The historic global response to Russia’s war against Ukraine sends a resounding message that countries cannot enjoy the benefits of global integration while trampling on the core tenets of the U.N. Charter.”

Each new U.S. presidential administration is required to send Congress its national security strategy, and Biden’s shares some aspects in common with the strategies of his predecessors. However his “strategy is notable for its erasure of the distinctions between domestic and foreign policy; it argues that the source of U.S. strength will come from a reaffirmation of the nation’s democratic traditions,” The New York Times reports. And it emphasizes the necessity to reinvigorate key technology development and manufacturing, beginning with domestic production of advance semiconductors.

Source: Biden national security strategy calls China biggest threat, sees Russia diminished by Ukraine invasion

[subversionfactory]

Breathless: A Nostalgia for Oxygen

Breathless if for you, now exhale.

I’m a Poet, a Producer and lately a Publisher of aesthetic, sometimes eclectic content that speaks to the truth of living your life in today’s moment of existence. Beyond the Real World is the Actual World, which I prefer to inhabit. There really is only one world but social delusions, language and mathematics make us concoct a duality between the “Real” and the “Actual”. It’s just a trick of the…