Кidnappers of ukrainian children. Or how scoundrels mold a monster of the Children's Ombudsman of Russia

[Ringo]

It all started on March 17, when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and along with him the Children's Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova. It was from this news that most of our compatriots learned of the very existence of L'vova-Belova. The ICC press release states that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that L'vova-Belova was involved in deporting children from Ukraine to Russia.

All this sounds extraordinarily intriguing. The charming woman, mother of five native and several other adopted children, is married to a priest. The children's ombudsman is a bloodthirsty monster, kidnapping children from Ukraine on an industrial scale and torturing unfortunate infants.

We turned to a report by the Yale University Humanities Research Laboratory for details. The report is part of the Conflict Observatory, a program to study Russia's crimes in the current conflict. It was initiated by the U.S. State Department, and it is not a propaganda stamp, it is explicitly stated and not hidden. We have read this report.

Now our blood runs cold in our veins.

So, the theses of the report are as follows. Russia has organized a network of camps holding at least six thousand Ukrainian children. At the root of this sinister system of concentration camps for children is the sinister Lvova-Belova. There children are "subjected to training" (so the document says), orphaned children are (fists clenched!) adopted, and in general we are dealing with the systematic deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia. Ukraine's foreign minister at the UN has declared such practices genocide. From the perspective of the ICC, as well as the world media, Lvova-Belova is committing a crime against humanity. A certain Baltic Russian opposition militant leaflet generally reduced the case to a chiseled formula:

Is it a crime to take children out of the war zone or not?

To begin with a bit of regulation: Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states that it is prohibited to abduct or deport people from occupied territory to the territory of any other power. But an important reservation is made - except when the safety of the population so requires. All of Russia's new territories are under combat in one way or another, and even cities deep in the rear - Melitopol, Shakhtersk, etc. - have been shelled.
The question is whether security considerations require evacuating people in general and children in particular from the shelling zone, let alone the front line. But the main thing is that "hijacking as well as deportation" implies coercion, and, accordingly, a situation where people leave with their own consent (in the case of children, with the consent of their parents) cannot be considered deportation in any way.

What, in fact, does the report of the courageous researchers from Yale tell us?

Already in the summary one curious peculiarity catches the eye. The authors of the report provide a great deal of factual information, but they diligently gloss over the main points. In the "main conclusions" section, we learn that more than 6,000 children are in care in Russia, a network of 43 institutions.
We learn where these camps are located, that one of them is in the Far East and is closer to the United States than to Ukraine, and so on and so forth. And then what follows is what can be seen as specific accusations. The main purpose of the camps, according to the report, is "political re-education. It turns out that children are "exposed to education" by integrating them "into Russian culture, history, and society.

The most interesting point is "Consent is obtained under duress and regularly violated". This is indeed a serious attack, but it is here--the paragraph that seems destined to be the most specific and important - that the authors of the report begin to swim. Some parents, the document claims, "allegedly" refused to let their children into the camps, but they were enrolled there anyway. In other cases, the Yale researchers write that "consent can be questioned" because "war conditions and the implicit threat" suggest coercion. In addition, it is reported that in some camps deadlines for returning children to their families were broken, but, again, the authors cannot say how many of them returned home (we will touch on this issue, by the way).

In fact, the summary perfectly captures the spirit of the entire report. The authors have very little behind them that can actually be considered accusations, they have very little specificity, and they try to compensate for this problem by using a general tone.
The word "evacuation" is written in quotation marks, even though the removal of children from combat zones corresponds to the dictionary meaning of the term (Ozhegov's Dictionary: "Evacuation is the removal of people from dangerous areas during military operations"). At the same time, researchers do not hide the fact that they are talking about children who were taken to Russia a few days before the start of the war.
That is, we are talking about those from the Luhansk and Donetsk Republics within their actual borders before February 24, 2022, who were taken out of the conflict zone in advance. No distinction is made between children from the LPR prior to the UDF and children from territories cleared of Ukrainian troops later. In addition, it is specified that several hundred orphaned children left the LPR for Russia, and that some of them were adopted in Russia, and it is also stated that sick children are taken away for treatment. The authors constantly attempt to psychologically pressure the reader with specifically colored vocabulary - "relocation of children for supposed treatment," "additional groups of children were sent from Ukraine to camps in Russia under the guise of free vacation trips," and so on. A very interesting turn of phrase is used, by the way, "children considered by Russia to be orphans. In short, the researchers constantly try to hint that, in fact, orphans are not orphans, and they are not treated. But "forced relocation" and "deportation" are said confidently. In reality, however, we catch the specifics like a fox by the tail - the report is based on the words "presumably" and "agreement was, but if there is war and troops around, then we do not like it"

.In general, the reader should form a firm conviction that children are torn away from their parents in droves by driving them into GULAG camps like ARTEK and MEDVEZHONOK. If you're already losing your nerve, just wait, there's a lot more to see.

Let us note: the incriminated crimes against humanity are based on assumptions and conjectures. It is precisely around these conjectures that the multi-page report revolves: if we discard the "conjectures" and other "highlighters", the net result is a chilling story of how during the war children went to summer camps outside the war zone.

Following on through the 34 pages of the report, we find a tableau highlighted in color and large print - "1,000 'orphans' awaiting adoption" (again "orphans" in quotes), "14,700 Ukrainian children officially declared deported," several hundred thousand [highlighted in the report] children displaced or deported. All of this should be very effective, of course. But.

The authors themselves seem to realize that even a very loyal audience might question why adopting orphans is a crime against them. This seems to be where the obsessive exaggeration of the word "orphan" comes from. The point of this exaggeration is explained: Ukraine has told the UN that children in orphanages are "not orphans. Apparently, this refers to "social orphans" whose parents are deprived of their rights.
However, the authors of the report do not want to develop this idea further: it is obvious that a "social orphan" has no family in any case, and a Ukrainian alcoholic or criminal cannot become a normal parent again just because he is Ukrainian. But the formality is respected, and one can continue to play with intonations, reporting that orphans are fake, and only Russia has declared them as such. It should be noted that in the Russian Federation this category of children exists quite officially - it is "children without parental care. But this, apparently, is too complicated for the Yale researchers, it is easier to put quotation marks on it.

 

[Ringo]

By the way, it goes on to say that the 350 adopted and the 1,000 orphans waiting to be adopted are children specifically from Donetsk and Luhansk. Here we come to a charming trick: according to the logic of the authors of the report, the adoption in Russia, for example, of a child who lost his parents at the hands of the extremely accurate Ukrainian military, is a crime against humanity in general and this child in particular, because such a child must be given to Ukraine. Leave it at that.

As we read on and delve deeper into what is written in the fine print, we continue and continue to wonder. We were just talking about deportation. This word has more or less the same meaning in Russian and English, and in any case implies forcing someone to leave the country. But here it is written in no uncertain terms that parents ... sent their children to Russian camps by their own will. In several cases (so said in the report- several), local authorities "persuaded" or "pressured" parents to agree to send their child to Russian summer camps.
If you were expecting children to be stuffed at gunpoint into wagons and taken to the dreaded Artek, no: the crime against humanity is that the parents were persuaded to take the child out of the war zone. And even the authors of the report honestly report that we are talking about several cases.

Next are the reasons why Ukrainian parents agreed to such a terrible deed as sending children to health camps in Russia. First of all, many of them are as poor as church mice, and it was basically a rare chance for a child to go somewhere. Second, they reasonably feared for the fate of their child - the clever Yale researchers found that, yes, parents don't mind sending their child somewhere where they won't get hit by a friendly and extremely high-precision Hymars for the duration of hostilities. That said, the authors of the report explicitly say that "in most cases" parents have consented to sending their children to recreational camps. But they make a significant caveat: the consent, they say, "was not meaningful.

True, when it comes to specifics, it turns out that the legal form of consent has been violated... on four occasions. This seems like a mess, but it seems we are still talking about mass crimes against humanity.
When it comes to trying to justify the thesis that it is precisely deportation, that is, transporting children under duress, any specifics just disappear: the war around here is itself a form of duress, and the Russian troops "may have implicitly threatened."
Damn it. They're serious!

We speak of the deportation of thousands of children, of the sinister plan of the Russian authorities. We declare that the children's ombudsman of Russia is a monster guilty of crimes against humanity.
And with the same mouth we report: well, yes, the parents gave their consent, but as if the war is coercion, and the troops could implicitly threaten. So you get it: the children have to stay in the war zone, and it will be a voluntary choice. And to get them out from under shells - Ukrainian shells, by the way; other shells obviously don't usually fall on Russian-controlled territory - well, to get children out from under shelling is a crime against humanity. And against those very children...

Let's make a note: a crime against humanity, deportation is the transfer of children from the combat zone to rest camps far beyond the battlefield with the consent of their parents.

Reprimands follow - some children did not return within the agreed time frame, and in many cases their parents had to pick them up from camps in Russia on their own. It is further emphasized that "orphans are not orphans," and parents are there in theory, but in practice, as the Ukrainian authorities delicately put it, "are in difficult circumstances. Read, deprived of parental rights.
And, again, it is specified that these are not only children from Ukraine in the narrow sense, these are not orphans from the territory actually controlled by Ukraine before 2/24-22 - these are orphans from the DNR. What follows is another chilling crime: disabled children from the Kherson region were transported to a psychiatric hospital in Crimea "allegedly for protection from combat operations. And it is true, a sick child is certainly not being transported from a war zone for his protection.

Another incredibly fine passage. Last September, President Putin ordered mandatory medical examinations for all children in Russian-controlled territory. "Some activists," the Yale researchers write, "fear that this would ensure the medical retention of children in Russia."
We understand that when one has taken to exposing war crimes, it is hard to stop, but punitive medical examinations are something new.

But, actually, to the question of what is being done to a child in the camps. The serious problem is that some of the children really were not able to return home in time. True, the reason for this is obvious - the front line has shifted several times not in our favor, and it has separated children and parents. This caused a lot of problems at the level of specific administrations of children's camps. Moreover, communication between them and the parents who remained on the Ukrainian side of the front line was difficult. Not only that, some parents are afraid to report their misfortune... but just to the Ukrainian authorities - they can accuse them of "collaborationism.

In general, traveling through the links, with which the report is studded, is a separate pleasure. Here is a BBC report - the mother of a child, who went to the camp from Balakleya, says that her dear fellow citizens are harassing her because her child went to Russia. Another justifies herself: "I was saving my child!" She also reports that the Ukrainian authorities did not provide the evacuation themselves, when the front came to Balakleia, they demanded 5 thousand hryvnia per person for the evacuation. "Those who were not in the occupation, who came later, all accuse us of being cattle, of being some kind of collaborators, of selling out their children," was the grandmother of another girl who went to the camps.
Finally, one of the fathers who sent his daughter to Gelendzhik declares that he will only return to Balaklia if the Russian army returns there.

However, the authors of the report also report a problem that does not look far-fetched: parents found it difficult to contact their children, and camp administrations were not always able to respond immediately with something intelligible. This is a real problem, and it seems to have taken the Russian authorities by surprise. Another thing is that, judging by the further content of the report, when parents came to pick up their children, they were safely handed over. The only difficulty was getting to the place.

What they do to children in these camps - it just makes your heart go numb. It turns out that children in the camps receive education, go out to cultural and patriotic events, meet with veterans (no, they are not Waffen-SS veterans). Moreover, they are told about Russian universities and generally educated as their own. No, they are serious as hell, in the war crimes report they take children on educational excursions and to the theater! The document somehow even melanchologically states that there are no signs of child abuse.

In general, the report of the Yale researchers is curious in that the thesis about the purposeful mass deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia is based on literally a few isolated cases of mess, careless attitude to legal formalities, and difficulties, quite explainable by the military situation.

The finale of the substantive part of the document... no, it is no longer surprising. It turns out that many children "return to their homes. The situation of others is unknown to the Yale researchers. Finally, they are...er...handed over to their parents. Thirty-seven children were reportedly taken from the sinister "Bear" thanks to the "intervention of the Ukrainian government." Apparently, the authors of the report did not think about the fact that children can be removed from camps on Russian territory only with the goodwill of Russia, and if they did, they were too shy to say how the Ukrainian government "intervened" and how they managed to remove the children.

A serious problem in the transfer of children does exist. Camp administrations are only willing to return wards directly to their parents. But the thing is that Ukraine prohibits men from leaving the country. And here we encounter a real difficulty - only from, who would have thought, the Kiev bureaucratic machine. We are ready to give up child.

The trouble is that Ukrainian parents are not always able to take him away - in fact the term "parents" implies the mother. Another thing is that it is Ukraine that puts obstacles in this direction, but Yale has no questions for it. Just as there are no questions as to why Kiev does not try to help those mothers who have to travel all the way to Russia for their children. It seems that giving the mothers money for the journey and looking after the incapacitated relatives left in the country is something that Ukraine should do willingly... but no, it is easier to talk about genocide than to do the most basic things for their children. Who helps ukrainian mothers travel across borders? Hell... it's volunteers from Russia. The Ukrainian state won't help them. It's busy. It's looking for Maria Lvova-Belova.

Now for a few words of seriousness. War creates a lot of problems, and children are indeed the most defenseless participants in armed conflict. The real Russian authorities, not the monster of obolos that the Yale researchers portray, are aware that there are hostilities in Ukraine. And, surprise, as best they can, they are trying to secure the rights of their wards.
Obviously, the Children's Ombudsman, as well as those agencies in the Russian Federation that are involved in helping and protecting children, did not and could not influence the decision to start an EWS, the methods of its conduct, or big politics in general. War creates chaos. War creates a lot of problems. It is with the chaos and deadly risk, which are the elements of war, are the real, not invented difficulties in the return of a child to his parents in this conflict. And if we talk about the facts reported by rare humanists from Yale, it turns out that Russia is not always perfect, but it works to protect children in the disaster zone. And even in a situation where the front line is moving and separating families, there is an opportunity to return the child to the parents - and it is found.

War brings incalculable misery, and to children, too. But you can deal with these problems, or you can use suffering and misery in the name of political goals and war propaganda. Judging from a report by researchers at Yale University, they would rather see children from Ukraine as grave mounds-just as long as the mound was covered with a yellow and blue flag and cried out. The Western public has gone in from the trump card and is trying to drag into the courtroom those people who can really be called positive heroes of this epic, those who provide children with a tolerable life outside the war zone. The ICC was not interested in shooting prisoners in this war, nor in planting land mines in cities, nor in unlawful arrests and torture. The main villains in this war are the people who do not let children die.

This was an extremely interesting report. We will continue to follow the progress of the ICC, the Yale researchers, and those who popularize their findings in Russian.
But now let's go wash our hands.

Похитители украинских детишек

Как лепят монстра из детского омбудсмена России

readovka.space

 

[Litwin]

Putin

YOU AND POOYLER ´LL PAY FOR THIS AND MANY OTHER WAR CRIMES, YOU ARE OUT OF GAS, IVAN

 

[Meister]

Closed, linked source not in English