Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

#Update: Why did Reuters amplify unverified allegations of an RSF training camp inside Ethiopia—claims lacking substantial corroboration—while overlooking documented evidence of a TPLF training facility in Sudan’s Gedaref region near the Ethiopian border? Videos released by TPLF fighters themselves, alongside matching satellite imagery, point to a structured camp reportedly...

43,975 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

FACT-CHECK: REUTERS' “SECRET RSF CAMP” IMAGES MATCH KURMUK GOLD MINE WORKER CAMPS –(Same border site, same tents, ZERO confirmed military use) The Reuters February 10, 2026 report claims Ethiopia is secretly hosting a UAE-backed training camp for Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) near the Sudan border, citing satellite imagery of tents, containers, dirt roads, and construction activity as “direct evidence.” However, the visuals and location described align far more closely with documented early-stage worker accommodation and logistics camps+(security camp) for the Kurmuk Gold Project in the same Benishangul-Gumuz region. Kurmuk (operated by Allied Gold with Ethiopian government stake) is situated roughly 5 km west of the Sudan border precisely in the remote, forested hilly area Reuters highlights near Menge/Dima woredas. During its active 2025–2026 construction phase (ahead of planned half-capacity production in 2026), the project deploys modular tent grids for housing 1,600+ personnel, shipping containers for offices/storage, cleared access tracks through dense forest, earthworks, and blue-roofed structures—features that match the Reuters/Vantor satellite photos almost exactly. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed publicly visited and promoted Kurmuk in August 2025 as Ethiopia’s flagship modern gold facility, with imagery and statements from that period showing similar setup in the border-adjacent gold zone. In high-risk mining regions prone to smuggling and conflict spillover, such sites routinely include protective security elements (often Ethiopian military or paramilitary units) to safeguard operations—creating a superficial “military” appearance from above without indicating rebel training. Reuters itself repeatedly and explicitly undermines its own strongest assertions with multiple layers of qualifiers that appear throughout the article: - “Reuters could not independently verify the source of financing” (the central allegation of UAE involvement). - “Reuters could not independently verify what the trucks carried” or “establish if they were the same trucks” seen on different days (the alleged recruit convoys of 56–70 vehicles). - “Reuters could not independently verify” many details about recruitment, payment terms, or the camp’s actual purpose. - Jane’s Defence Intelligence, after analyzing the identical satellite imagery Reuters presents as proof, stated plainly that it “could not confirm the site was military” based on what is visible—no weapons, no uniforms, no RSF insignia, no firing ranges, no military vehicles or drill formations. These are not minor footnotes; they are repeated, sentence-by-sentence disclaimers attached to nearly every major claim in the piece. The story rests on eight unnamed sources, one vague “internal Ethiopian security note” that is referenced but never quoted or shown, and one “diplomatic cable” Reuters says it reviewed but does not reproduce or excerpt. No named witnesses, no flight manifests, no intercepted communications, no ground-level photographs of armed fighters, and no concrete corroborating documents are provided. Given: - the precise geographic and visual overlap with Kurmuk’s publicly documented construction timeline and camp layout, - the complete absence of any definitive military markers in the satellite photographs, - Jane’s explicit refusal to classify the site as military, - the cumulative weight of Reuters’ own repeated “could not independently verify” statements on financing, truck contents, recruit numbers, and overall purpose, The evidence tilts decisively toward the site being legitimate mining-related infrastructure (with standard site-protection security) rather than a confirmed RSF training facility. The report’s decision to headline the more sensational RSF/UAE framing while relegating these critical, repeated qualifiers to secondary position creates an impression of solidity that the text itself does not support.

Chakham

33,622 views • 6 months ago