I’m still not sure what I think about this RAND document they’re referencing. It’s the same one far right Trumpist conspiracy theorists were victoriously parading a few weeks ago. This publication, Nya Dagbladet, also seems a bit suspect. The content of the report matches with the geopolitical outcomes over the last year and certainly with the aims of US foreign policy, but something in the wording and missing or incorrect pieces of information seems off.
Holy shit. Do we know it’s legit? Because this is shocking even for a RAND report
Edit: Seriously, I can’t believe this is real
The prerequiste for Germany to fall into this trap is the leading role of green parties and ideology in Europe. The German Greens are a strongly dogmatic, if not zealous, movement, which makes it quite easy to make them ignore economic arguments. In this respect, the German Greens somewhat exceed their counterparts in the rest of Europe. Personal features and the lack of professionalism of their leaders - primarily Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck - permit to presume that it is next to impossible for them to admit their own mistakes in a timely manner.
This sounds like it was written by a German AfD member or somthing, not like a US think-tank’s foreign policy paper. Even the language is off imo.
It does sound really off, but the Nya Dagbladet is a reputable paper, so it must have at least seemed legit to whatever their fact-checking process is.
Edit: see below on how I had mistaken this newspaper for another, more reputable one.
Hm, that’s strange then. Just the closer I look at the report the weirder it sounds
Another inevitable consequence of a prolonged economic recession will be a sharp drop in living standards and rising unemployment (up to 200,000-400,000 in Germany alone), which will entail the exodus of skilled labour and well-educated young people. There are literally no other destinations for such migration other than the United States today.
Unfortunately, China is also expected to benefit over the medium term from this emerging scenario. At the same time, Europe’s deep political dependence on the U.S. allows us to effectively neutralise possible attempts by individual European states to draw closer to China.
Note the spelling in neutralise too. You’d expect Yanks to spell it -ize, ay? In fact I looked through their 2019 Extending Russia report, it’s consistenly spelled that way in there. There’s literally not one verb in >300 pages spelled the British way.
Idk, it’s not like I read papers like this regularly, but this is just not how these people talk/write from my experience. It’s too casual, too blatant, too personal, too engaged, not nearly technocratic enough. It sounds exactly like someone writing specifically to expose it. Maybe that’s just them talking internally, but I’m sceptical.
Today, the RAND corporation made a press release denying that the report originates with them (the story on the Swedish paper has been updated to note this). Western social media are flagging the article as fake news. But I’m not sure any of this is evidence either for or against its authenticity.
Oh, also, my error: I was mistaken about the reputability of the Nya Dagbladet, as I had mistaken it for another newspaper with a very similar name. The paper in question is tabloid trash. As a result, I am now inclined to believe that the report is a forgery.
I think it would be shocking to even most run of the mill libs. It’s obvious to us, but a lot of people are in the dark about how the US has and continues to operate.
The language in this report is nearly genocidal. Just total disregard for destroying an entire continent…and Europe at that!
I have focused on noticing how Rand formats their pieces. The formatting of the leaked document has some features present in Research Reports, some present in the Executive Summaries, and some that in neither.
An important attribute is that “Research Reports” and “Executive Summaries” are different things in Rand’s documents, and they are labeled as such. For example, here is another executive summary that is clearly marked “Executive Summary” at the cover. This allegedly leaked document is labeled first as a “Research Report” on the cover, but then suddenly becomes an “Executive Summary”.
Then, it is very strange that they jump from the title page into the executive summary page and begin using roman numerals. The roman numerals are used by them only in the preface sections, before the table of contents. Not before the Executive Summary. And why would there not be a table of contents?
Formatting in general is somewhat similar, but is different in the details and lacks headers and footers. This ‘leaked’ copy is supposed to be a ready-to-publish version, not a draft. If it were a draft, it would not have the formatting that it has already. It is also so much shorter, less data-backed, and overall lower quality than their usual executive summaries. Why would they submit lower quality work to important clients than what is available through their site?
https://archive.ph/cbJE8
Reading this article as we speak 🤔
Edit: see below. Many people believe this report is fake. Proceed with caution.
I’m still not sure what I think about this RAND document they’re referencing. It’s the same one far right Trumpist conspiracy theorists were victoriously parading a few weeks ago. This publication, Nya Dagbladet, also seems a bit suspect. The content of the report matches with the geopolitical outcomes over the last year and certainly with the aims of US foreign policy, but something in the wording and missing or incorrect pieces of information seems off.
This article is super explosive. I realize it’s a RAND corporation document and not an official US government policy memo, but damn is it blatant.
Holy shit. Do we know it’s legit? Because this is shocking even for a RAND report
Edit: Seriously, I can’t believe this is real
This sounds like it was written by a German AfD member or somthing, not like a US think-tank’s foreign policy paper. Even the language is off imo.
It does sound really off, but the Nya Dagbladet is a reputable paper, so it must have at least seemed legit to whatever their fact-checking process is.
Edit: see below on how I had mistaken this newspaper for another, more reputable one.
Hm, that’s strange then. Just the closer I look at the report the weirder it sounds
Note the spelling in neutralise too. You’d expect Yanks to spell it -ize, ay? In fact I looked through their 2019 Extending Russia report, it’s consistenly spelled that way in there. There’s literally not one verb in >300 pages spelled the British way.
Idk, it’s not like I read papers like this regularly, but this is just not how these people talk/write from my experience. It’s too casual, too blatant, too personal, too engaged, not nearly technocratic enough. It sounds exactly like someone writing specifically to expose it. Maybe that’s just them talking internally, but I’m sceptical.
Today, the RAND corporation made a press release denying that the report originates with them (the story on the Swedish paper has been updated to note this). Western social media are flagging the article as fake news. But I’m not sure any of this is evidence either for or against its authenticity.
More details here: https://nyadagbladet-se.translate.goog/ledare/darfor-haller-publiceringen-av-rand-dokumentet-trots-kritik-fran-oberoende-faktagranskare/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
Oh, also, my error: I was mistaken about the reputability of the Nya Dagbladet, as I had mistaken it for another newspaper with a very similar name. The paper in question is tabloid trash. As a result, I am now inclined to believe that the report is a forgery.
It was probably typed up by a Polish nationalist.
I think it would be shocking to even most run of the mill libs. It’s obvious to us, but a lot of people are in the dark about how the US has and continues to operate.
The language in this report is nearly genocidal. Just total disregard for destroying an entire continent…and Europe at that!
I read through it, it is interesting, but I don’t think that it is authentic.
I have skimmed through a few of the published reports from Rand.org. For example, this one is a Research Report, and this one is an Executive Summary.
I have focused on noticing how Rand formats their pieces. The formatting of the leaked document has some features present in Research Reports, some present in the Executive Summaries, and some that in neither.
An important attribute is that “Research Reports” and “Executive Summaries” are different things in Rand’s documents, and they are labeled as such. For example, here is another executive summary that is clearly marked “Executive Summary” at the cover. This allegedly leaked document is labeled first as a “Research Report” on the cover, but then suddenly becomes an “Executive Summary”.
Then, it is very strange that they jump from the title page into the executive summary page and begin using roman numerals. The roman numerals are used by them only in the preface sections, before the table of contents. Not before the Executive Summary. And why would there not be a table of contents?
Formatting in general is somewhat similar, but is different in the details and lacks headers and footers. This ‘leaked’ copy is supposed to be a ready-to-publish version, not a draft. If it were a draft, it would not have the formatting that it has already. It is also so much shorter, less data-backed, and overall lower quality than their usual executive summaries. Why would they submit lower quality work to important clients than what is available through their site?