<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Analysis on CrimeaWatch</title><link>https://crimeawatch.org/en/tags/analysis/</link><description>Recent content in Analysis on CrimeaWatch</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2026 00:24:14 +0200</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://crimeawatch.org/en/tags/analysis/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Unstated Premise: How the Public Integrity Council Treats Crimea as Russian Territory in Practice</title><link>https://crimeawatch.org/en/blog/2026-04-04-pic-crimea-conclusions-analysis/</link><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://crimeawatch.org/en/blog/2026-04-04-pic-crimea-conclusions-analysis/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;A systematic review of all conclusions published on the &lt;a href="https://crimeawatch.org/en/profiles/entities/public-integrity-council/"&gt;Public Integrity Council&amp;rsquo;s&lt;/a&gt; website, completed on April 4, 2026, reveals a pattern that the Council&amp;rsquo;s published Indicators only partially describe. Across 43 reviewed conclusions, judges and candidates were assessed — negatively, in most cases — on the basis of connections to Crimea. In 32 of those cases, the Crimea-related facts formed a direct and stated basis for a negative finding. In the remaining 11, such facts were formally flagged as warranting explanation, even when the Council stopped short of treating them as decisive.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>