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.
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.
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 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?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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?