Ringo
Gold Member
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.
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.