Odessa Holds Its Breath for an Invasion
Odessa Holds Its Breath for an Invasion
newsweek.com•Residents fear a pro-Russian uprising would spur Russian troops in nearby Transnistria to invade.
- Comment(61)
- Like(10)
- Unfollow
- Report spam
-
Newsweek is notorious for publishing mainly pro-Kremlin materials, often very sloppily researched or cut-and-pasted from dubious sources and with screeching headlines. Such as a story that claimed Ukrainian military were going to "shoot deserters on the spot" which incorrectly reported a law on the stages through which this option might be used, although rarely and with constraints -- and it has never been used. Or a story the other day from Max Tucker which claims "millions" of Ukrainian children are going to face a polio epidemic and that there is an "anti-vax" movement -- without basis, as I checked with various international health organizations working in the region and they said their main problem in fact is the DNR not letting through relief with vaccinations, not Kiev authorities. And this story, too, makes its screeching headline on the basis of one picket by three old men with CP symbols that got broken up and a string of terrorist attacks throughout the region which are real and deadly but which do not constitute "an invasion" or even masses "fearing" an invasion.
I wouldn't even publish or share this story because it spreads alarm and panic and with one goal -- helping the Kremlin sow panic and create the illusion that they are "needed" to come in and "save" Russians or Russian speakers. They are not needed.
At this point, not a single Newsweek story passes muster to be shared with anything but a call to analyze what's wrong with it. It's owned by the same company as IBTimes which also has many pro-Kremlin or sensational strange stories.11 days ago- Like(2)
- Delete
-
@Chad Nagle if your purpose in sharing this dreck is somehow to convince the unconvinced that they should "do something" about the Russian menace in Ukraine, it's actually counterproductive and you need to be smarter about how you "share" things like this from Newsweek. If you haven't figured out their agenda yet, read their last 10 articles on Ukraine and you'll get it soon enough if you are sincere.
11 days ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
@Catherine Fitzpatrick: Methinks thou dost protest too much, I would assume because you've taken a personal dislike to me.
Newsweek is worth criticizing for a lot of reasons. "Publishing mainly pro-Kremlin materials" is not one of them. There has been an attempt at even-handedness on their editorial board which one could describe as questionable at times - e.g. identifying atrocities committed by both sides in the war in eastern Ukraine - but the fact of one side being ultimately "in the right" in that war (i.e. Ukraine) has never been lost, unlike, for example, in Forbes.
The (until not long ago) Moscow bureau chief for Newsweek and now a contributing editor, Owen Matthews, cannot be reasonably described as "Kremlin-friendly." I know him and have followed his writing for a long time. His writing on the Nemtsov murder betrays no sense of apology for Putin and neither does his coverage of Ukraine. This article from February, for example, does not appear to exhibit admiration for the Kremlin (or am I missing something?):
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/27/kremlins-campaign-make-friends-307158.html
I am not aware of anything that could be described as unambiguously "pro-Kremlin" about Newsweek's recent reporting on Ukraine. Again, I may be missing something "between the lines," but I doubt it. Presumably this article is included among the "last 10 on Ukraine," of which you speak:
http://www.newsweek.com/putins-ukraine-war-about-founding-new-russian-empire-319832
As for Odessa, I was there in October of last year. I spoke to people on the street to figure out their sentiments, and my impressions were that they both hated the central government in Kyiv (their antipathy being a symptom of traditional mistrust for the most part), and were also afraid of little green men crossing the border from Transnistria. Maybe they are unreasonably fearful. I don't think so, and I also believe the May 2nd massacre was instigated by the Russians. I would be pleased to be proven wrong, but it is not alarmist to suggest there is a real danger in Odessa, and that the border with Transnistria, which is largely in the Odessa region, should be fortified.10 days ago -
Um, protests too much? No, this is a very good example of how you exaggerate events in Ukraine and even put a spin on them, so I thought it was good to call out and debate. Already someone else I don't know has questioned your claims, although I don't know him and he may have an agenda himself.
Your remarks in defense of Newsweek are shocking. Pro-Kremlin materials about from Damien Sharkov, everyone has noticed this, and your failure to is shocking. Max Tucker has also turned in some highly tendentious pieces which have been challenged.
It doesn't matter if you have a personal relations and know an editor or if he individually has done a good piece. The other pieces more than cancel this out and are actually alarming. The entire body of work needs to be looked at.
You sure did miss a lot.
http://www.newsweek.com/authors/damien-sharkov
Some of the articles on Russia seem "normal" and "critical" in the vein of Western press, but that's how good disinformation works.
Take this one:
Rebels in Ukraine ‘Not Russia’s Puppets’, Says Putin Aide
http://www.newsweek.com/rebels-ukraine-not-russias-puppets-says-putin-aide-316051
Only at the very end is there a faint counter-report, although Nemtsov, God bless him, was far from the only one who gathered this information -- RBC, TV Rain, Novaya Gazeta have all published lots of materials exposing the Russian presence in Ukraine.
Or this one, which he corrected and changed several times:
Ukraine Passes Law Allowing Military to Shoot Deserters
http://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-passes-law-shoot-deserters-304911
See also Max Tucker's claims of an impending polio epidemic in Ukraine, wildly exaggerated, and his bashing of Poroshenko on the eve of the IMF vote claiming he was personally corrupt because -- wait for it -- a manager in one of his firms had paid only 60% of a British architect's invoice. Outrageous.
I've been meaning to do an analysis about some of this biased reporting on my own blog and I will when I'm less busy.10 days ago- Like(1)
- Delete
-
There's a big difference between describing people in Odessa -- which you, like everyone else, does anecdotally -- and saying they are "holding their breath for invasion."
Indeed, lots of people hate the central government in Kiev which hasn't delivered for them, and really, like all Soviet countries, Ukraine is too highly centralized with its provinces too dependent on the center. They have far less autonomy than American states or Canadian provinces on basic things like economy, health, business, education.
Ukraine is surrounded on three sides with Russian troops and invasion is always a possibility, and we can't forget that initial plans in February 2014 even discussed Kharkiv first, not Donetsk and Lugansk.
But to imply there is an invasion coming any minute *here* is stretching it. It means crying wolf and wearing out the vigilance of the public for when it really happens, or distracting from other places where it might be more likely like Mariupol.
There is no evidence that the Russians as in Russian Federation instigated the May 2 massacre. I have studied this extensively and read various reports from Ukraine; one important thing to note is that there are no Russian citizens among those killed. If you mean ethnic Russians or Russian speakers, there is plenty of evidence of wrong-doing on their side, because they started that day's round of fighting by shooting and killing the soccer marchers. But then Ukrainian nationalists did their share of violent actions throwing Molotov cocktails which set some of the fires. Pro-Russians fired from the roof, killing or wounding some more people, and they also through Molotov cocktails that also set fires. It's inaccurate, as Russia says, to claim that Ukrainian nationalist stampeded innocent people into a building and cooked them to death. They themselves had planned to hold the building even before May 2 and brought in supplies. They barricaded the front door, sealing their doom. They had time to exit -- hundreds did. But some chose to go to higher floors and sealed their fate. Ukrainians in fact helped save them, using their Anti-Maidan scaffolding, of all things. But Ukrainians also beat some of them. It's a mixed story, and Kiev and Odessa have not helped their cause by not providing international investigators access and finishing this investigation. The suicide of the prosecutor of the case, one of a string of suspicious suicides and murders is also not a good sign.10 days ago- Like(1)
- Delete
-
Catherine,
Just a few quick comments.
I have just voiced my own impressions re. the Newsweek piece re. Odesa. I have also mentioned why I think they did this piece: someone might be exploring the potential public reaction... And that in itself might be an important piece of information to take note of.
I was a bit puzzled by the way you reacted though - bashing Newsweek (though the examples of sloppy reporting and unchecked information you have mentioned are spot on - Newsweek is full of them. However, pls. consider the Newsweek concept, within which creating a buzz where there should be none and sensations, where there could hardly be any, is purely within it. Bad journalism? Yes. Bad commercial concept? Hardly any different from a lot of media, like USA Today, the Guardian, or Le Monde).
I love your stories on the Interpreter, BTW. And your blogs are also great. Loved the one, in which you discussed the Daily Beast interview re. Nemtsov (smth. that Chad wanted to allude to). And, I do agree, with Chad, some of the stories in Newsweek are worthy reads.10 days ago -
Catherine,
Just a quick note re.:
'It means crying wolf and wearing out the vigilance of the public for when it really happens, or distracting from other places where it might be more likely like Mariupol.'
It might not be Mariupol. The North-Eastern direction looks a lot more promising for the Russkies: first Schastya, and then towards Kharkiv through previously lost town of Kramatorsk and Slaviansk.10 days ago -
Catherine, and one more quick comment on Odessa May 2 event of last year. Your run-through seems to be mostly correct, but not entirely. One the things that you have correctly mentioned is that it was prepared and executed by the locals. It was also possible only due inaction of the police and the fire dept. IMHO, for the same reason, the most recent 10 bombings of volunteers' offices went largely uninvestigated.
I don't like Halya Coynash's writing, but this piece re. Odesa is definitely worth spending 3 min. on :
http://khpg.org/index.php?id=142819661110 days ago -
Having just re-read the Newsweek article I posted, I fail to see how it qualifies for particular scorn from the perspective of undue alarmism except, perhaps, for its title. The piece even concludes with a quotation from an analyst saying the risk of an invasion of Odesa region is "low."
Why does it matter whether any Russian citizens were among the dead in the Odessa fire? Agencies (like the FSB) use "agents" (i.e. citizens of other countries) to carry out their operations, and the Ukrainian security services arrested Russian nationals in Odessa with tangible links to the FSB after the atrocity. Furthermore, many residents of Transnistria hold Ukrainian citizenship but would gladly help a Russian op in Ukraine for a fist full of funny money.
The fire has many hallmarks of an FSB provocation, including that the pro-Russian mob came to the fight armed. The soccer fans were unarmed but STILL sent the tent-a-crowd packing! The rent-a-crowd very likely believed the city police were supposed to intervene on their behalf, and when that didn't happen, they beat a hasty retreat.
And perhaps most telling of all: after the massacre, good old Vlad Putin was quick to go public with his condolences to the families of the victims. Notice how he didn't do that when MH17 went down because that was a real screw-up. By contrast, the deaths of the Odessan provocateurs was useful to him. The city authorities in Odessa (unlike their regional counterparts) are disloyal and would have helped the tsar, which may explain why the city police didn't do their jobs on May 2nd.
Odessa is very much a target of the Kremlin and is well within the territory of the "Novorossia" project. Putin views Odesa as a Russian city, and I believe it is in genuine danger of being targeted for further destabilization.10 days ago -
Anton Andrianov just a quick answer -- the Newsweek article is speculative and not grounded in facts. You seem to say it's ok because they need to sell newspapers, essentially. Except, the field is so narrow and the interest narrow that to imagine that any of these stories sell newspapers doesn't seem to hold up as a concept.
Sure, the Schastye route may indeed be another route and that's where some of the main battles have been in the last week. But they didn't say that, did they. They picked out Odessa.
Re: the Odessa fire: sure, the firemen took 45-60 minutes to show up and police let through violent demonstrators on camera even. Clearly they had some order or thought they had some order to "stand down." But you can't remove complicity from the perpetrators by only blaming police. There were in fact Ukrainian nationalists who ran deliberately to the building to tear down the tent city and who threw Molotov cocktails. That's documented and trying to eliminate that from the study isn't going to work. I read Halya Coynash and always read here because she is one of the few people bothering to do human rights work in Ukraine, and there should be hundreds more. She doesn't exonerate the Ukrainian nationalists from involvement.
Chad, you're just grasping at straws and distracting from your previous untenable points. You haven't shown anything to prove there's an impending invasion in Odessa. Meanwhile we have fighting around Shirokino and Schastye and such that show it could be in other directions -- is Newsweek reporting on THAT?
Of course it matters if there were Russian citizens or not because this was the claim of Ukrainian natoinalist, and it was not sustained, there were none. And sure, 17 year old boys or 70-yearold women pensioners could be agents of the FSB as could some of the 30 year olds. Look at the list of victims, and you'll find as a list of people, they don't make up a very persuasive list for provocateurs, males of combat age, or potential FSB agents or informers. In fact, it's my hypothesis that the FSB provocateurs, if they existed, and they may have, had long since got out of the building to save themselves, leaving others to fall victim. And then there's this: reports that WEEKS before the clash, the smarter pro-Russians moved their tent city to another location as they had caught wind of an impending attack. It was the less clued-in that remained to defend their Anti-Maidan set-up.
The fire does not have any hallmarks of any FSB set-up -- if you have them, explain them in detail, in full and with videos. Instead, it looks like a typical situation all through the southeast. Some pro-Russians thought they could act with impunity and take over a building. This time they failed because Ukrainian nationalists fought back. And that's the problem for Poroshenko or a street fighter from Right Sector -- fighting back will mean that you, too, will be charged with crimes and even war crimes. It's a terribly vicious and cunning provocation overall by the Russians. But you have to back up claims.10 days ago- Like(1)
- Delete
-
Part 2
There's only one detail that I find somewhat suspicious after spending many hours of research on this: the fact that some unknown force was able to set up three camera angles to make video recordings of this fire, including from high in a building across the street. That takes planning and professionalism, and suggests some non-amateur was at work here. That might mean the FSB set it up, but it also may mean that the FSB only exploited it when they saw what a great thing it would be to exploit it. By itself, it's not proof. In fact, even just any Ukrainian news company with experience could have been on the ball and done this without ill intent. But it's an angle to research.
The soccer fans were not "unarmed" as they had pavement pieces, rocks, sticks and Molotov cocktails. The Russians had firearms and show some of them dead. That was a wild provocation, for which police is partly to blame and which makes the Ukrainian nationalists' subsequent fury completely understandable. But it doesn't exonerate them from setting a building on fire to the extent they did -- and that's on tape. So did the Russians.
It's wrong to describe the pro-Russian forces as rent-a-crowds because it's more complicated. Some of them are true believers, some of them are mobilized and filled with hate from Russian TV but not "rented," and sure, quite possibly maybe there are some "rentees".
But to describe them all as "rent-a-crowds" dangerously implies that if all you do is gang up enough on Putin, these people will roll up and go away. And guess what, that's not going to happen because not only Putin, for all his primary culpability for everything bad in Ukraine now, is to blame for every bit of it. That's part of the cunning of his hybrid war.
I've given up trying to speak sense to people like you who can't understand that you do Ukraine absolutely no favors and do not fight Putin effectively by NOT conceding that some of the Russians/pro-Russians/Russian-speakers/Russian-backed militants etc are in fact authentic, sui generis and not merely on Moscow puppet-strings. It's like this silly campaign all of you wage to try to name and shame journalists into stopping to use the word "separatists' in the belief that we're too stupid to realize it's all managed by Moscow and isn't really about some authentic "separatism."
By claiming the Odessa fire is merely a FSB provocation without any authentic actors, you merely make it possible for the FSB to go on exploiting this tragedy.
But I guess that those who can't concede authenticity among the DNR/LNR types are too stupid to realize the kind of people they really do have for real in their country, like it or not. Yes, it's engineered by Moscow. But yes, Moscow had some cadres to work there who didn't spring out of nowhere but exist because of Soviet culture and because of Soviet-style centralization and corruption.
To NOT concede that there are authentic pro-Russians actually harms Ukraine because it means you underestimate your enemy (the absolute worst problem), you don't realize the great danger you have in this population even after the war, it means you don't have a solution for conceding people's authentic beliefs and motivations and addressing them authentically rather than sarcastically rather than contrived by Moscow. And Moscow only gains when you do that. It's because of my ardent, life-long opposition to the Kremlin and KGB/FSB that I say this, not out of a scintilla of desire to accept any silly Western journo narrative of a "civil war" or pretend Putin's lies about his own agency are somehow acceptable.
However, I've long since learned that Ukrainians in the diaspora and Ukrainian ex-pats in Ukraine are the last people who will ever grasp this about Ukraine. I've never had a single Ukrainian inside Ukraine contest this, but the diaspora/ex-pats fervently believe this. So I leave you to your beliefs, I'm out of time.10 days ago- Like(1)
- Delete
-
You like to use the "people like you" phrase a lot, I've noticed. It does you no favors, since generalizations of people you've never met weakens your credibility overall. I'd ask you for a list of "people like me," but the whole notion of trying to understand your point is tiresome. Condescension is not interesting.
You haven't actually contradicted anything I've said in your long screed, only raised possible counter-theories. No, I don't have "proof" any more than you do, because it's all theory with a little informed hypothesizing thrown in, isn't it? And when did I ever claim there were no "true believers" fighting for Putin in Ukraine? To the contrary, I'm quite aware that there are many fifth columnists in Ukraine acting out of conviction. There certainly are a lot of genuine Putin-sympathizers in Ukraine, and I have met some of them. What can one expect in a country where millions of people only receive Russian TV channels? That is in fact the greatest threat to Ukraine's unity at the moment, not the rent-a-crowds, since money is a finite commodity in Russia now.
Again, my belief is that the Odessa fire was an FSB operation. If that sounds like "conspiracy theory" to you, so be it. Counter-intelligence agencies are conspiratorial in nature. They don't publicize their operations. I think, for example, that people in the trade union building were gassed, and not by any Ukrainian nationalists. Obviously I could be wrong, but at least I'm not using your high-handed style to dismiss you in your beliefs (which is all they are). At this point it's anyone's guess what happened in Odessa on May 2nd, but the atrocity features certain bells and whistles suggesting a hidden hand. Some said it was one of the Yanukovych "Family" stunts, but I think this unlikely. There was an affair involving an oil storage facility last year that was apparently the target of a takeover attempt by a Yanukovych straw-man oligarch. It was foiled by Kolomoisky's armed goons, fortunately. The fire was deadlier, and reminded me in some ways of other operations where the Russian security services were involved - such as the Moscow theater siege and the Beslan hostage crisis. As for the Molotov cocktails thrown here and there, I am not absolving anyone. I am suggesting that the Russian security services were involved.
Hope you're not completely out of time there, Catherine. Scary thought.9 days ago -
I use the phrase "people like you" because indeed you fit a predictable pattern. And really, there's just far too many people in the diaspora, not rooted in the country and its issues first-hand, not there, who maintain this fictional warrior metaverse that unfortunately it affects reality sometimes, and often for the worse.
How much research have you actually done on the Odessa fire?! If you side with the Ukrainian government and the Odessa authorities, you would have noticed by now that they've issued a number of forensic reports and investigation reports in which they've indicated that there is no other "gas" in the building except carbon monoxide, which is a normal byproduct of fire and which kills people in fires very often.
Can you grasp that you're out of sync with the side you're supporting? With professors, activists, journalists actually in Odessa who don't say this?
It simply shows lack of the most basic educated understanding of how fires work and what happens in fires to believe the conspiracy sites that claim there was some other kind of poisonous gas. Exactly how would that work, guys? These fearless FSB agents climbed stairs passed flaming doorways and windows, gassed those hapless pro-Russians as a false flag operation, then...escaped? How?
You don't have to be "high-handed" to point out the obvious facts visible on dozens of videos available from this event with dozens of accounts also of eye-witnesses and survivors. While they may be contradictory, the "poison gas" theory just has no grounds. It's like saying one of the people killed was pregnant or gassed when in fact she fell back on her desk and died from carbon monoxide poisoning.
There isn't any suggestion of any "hidden hand" -- watch the videos. Both sides throw Molotov cocktails. You can see where exactly they fall. The pro-Russians barricaded the doors. You can see that. They climbed to higher floors -- you can see that. They shot from the roof -- you can see that. It does not take forensic or mathematical genius here to see that climbing higher in a building that is on fire on the ground floor, with heat and gas rising will kill you by carbon monoxide if it doesn't kill you by flames.
The Moscow Theater Siege and the Beslan Hostage Crisis were real terrorist attacks with real terrorists in them. It's another matter that Russian authorities botched the rescue and deliberately stormed a situation that in fact was being successfully handled by the president of Ingushetia who got out some women and children. Had they allowed such people to handle it and try to answer some of the demands at least initially they might have done better. But of course they believe they should never negotiate with terrorists. That might be a valid position if they were better at saving people after they storm facilities, instead of killing more people even than the terrorists did.
Nobody but the most rabid anti-Russian conspiracy theorist thinks these events are manufactured from start to finish by the FSB, however. There are some who believe this about the apartment building bombings, and with good reason, as there is evidence. But not about Beslan.
That you say it lets me know that you are ignorant, unwilling to study situations, heavily ideological, and just prejudiced in your approach to every story -- which I can already see from your blog. You're rabidly hysterical and prone to conspiracy theories without facts even though you try to project the persona of an educated, experienced consultant. So either you're not very bright, or your a provocateur, or you just like being contrarian, but it doesn't matter, whatever the case, you're just not worth spending time on unless it's for the sake of convincing someone else in the argument.9 days ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
Your assumptions include repetitive implication of my association with the Ukrainian Diaspora. I'm not sure where that came from, but since you've accused me of making ignorant, ideologically-driven assumptions, I think it fair to cite at least one of yours.
I am aware that Ukrainian investigators have announced they have no evidence any gas was used, and as I said, I have no proof about that. I do believe the FSB uses chemical agents and weapons to a greater degree than its Western counterparts by virtue of the greater availability of such weapons in the ex-USSR. Your bending over backwards to deflect suspicion from the Russian security services for events that bear the hallmarks of their involvement is rather mystifying, frankly, and makes me (for one) wonder why. Your comments on Beslan and the Moscow theater indicate that you have a vision of such agencies as being staffed primarily by a noble vanguard. Things go wrong, and innocent people are killed, but only because of the flawed modus operandi of the FSB operatives. It is no surprise, therefore, that you would view me as "heavily ideological," since I don't believe the successors to the KGB operate by a rule book most Westerners would recognize. If you have a different view, I'm quite sure that you - as far as I'm concerned - aren't worth debating either.
To dismiss any FSB involvement in the Odessa fire atrocity is irresponsible. It also serves no constructive purpose. You cannot pretend to know the absolute truth in this situation, and if one is to err in analyzing it, better to err on the side of assuming the involvement of the security services. As for being "out of sync," I wonder whether you have ever had that sense. I do not trust the local Ukrainian investigators in terms of either their competence or motives, so I it doesn't bother me whether I'm "out of sync." It is not "conspiracy theory" to interpret something like the Odessa fire as bearing the external indicators of FSB involvement. I am not averse to accepting simple explanations, and in fact reject most conspiracy theory. In this case, not least because violent participants on both sides of the initial conflict were not locals, I believe the security services were involved. As for being a "provocateur" or "contrarian," what is your motive, I wonder? Are you Orwell's "last man" (or woman) in journalism in the ex-USSR? If so, good luck, really.9 days ago -
It seem you do have points of agreement but started either on the wrong foot or misunderstanding or am I wrong?...
Both accept that Putin is orchestrating something but not necesarily what. The disagreement seems to stem from the way that vigilance ahoukd be made. On one side one believes that we should react on the spot and try and act on it even if it might be a "misfire" and the other says that we should be careful not to drain "resources" over-extend or even fall onto the same type of behaviour as thise we criticise.
As for the reaction on Anton's post it seems to come from a defensive posture as I could have easily have asked the same question and would rather have an explanation (as you did later I believe) than having my head bitten off... :)
I am walking and readin/typing so may have missed a bit but think not?8 days ago -
Here is another good post by Halya Coynash re. May 2, 2015, event.
I have made a separate thread, but just in case :
http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1430087187
I do not agree with her on many things, yet Halya, as always, is making many great points.
Catherine, you went off on the news re. Odesa, yet I do not understand why.
Unlike you, we work in Odesa and need to do business and this piece did strike me as unfairly describing the situation.
But I do admit, that there are many ppl who think that the Russians want the city. That's why yields on our property shot up and we had tenants backing out of the deals in the past 9 mths. It was not b/c Newsweek is publishing stories, it is b/c some ppl on the ground are trying to muddy the waters. This is b/c there have been about 20 explosions during this time. This is b/c the police has not delivered as it has not delivered after May 2, 2015.
Also, I believe that Odesa is interesting to more than a dozen of ppl. as you have wrongly mentioned (I am sorry). I have several friends pretty high up the ladder in the DC, whose families are from Odesa. I have Greek friends, the shipping majors, whose families are from Odesa. And I don't have too many friends. Len Blavatnik from Odesa has been just named the richest man in the UK: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/26/uk-britain-richlist-idUKKBN0NH0C320150426
So - Odesa is not exactly a shit hole that no one is interested in. Sorry, for my Italian...
PS: I also understand that few ppl know the country that has the largest permanently residing Ukrainian diaspora? It might be Russia, but it's not. It is not Canada with over 1M ethnic Ukrainians either.8 days ago -
I don't understand what you're going on about now, Anton. Have you ever read any of my articles?
Of course I know that the Russians want Odessa. It's the port where a lot of lucrative arms trade reaches the outside world and of course they want it. Of course they fear losing access to it. Of course they have run all kinds of provocations against it -- again, do you ever read my articles in The Interpreter about the bombs in Odessa, and my own blog about these issues?
I don't know what you mean by "interesting to more than a dozen people." What is this about? Where did you get the idea that I thought Odessa was not interesting? What on earth is your claim here? That somehow *I* don't realize the value of Odessians? There are a lot more people than Len Blavatnik from Odessa -- like Yakov Smirnoff the famous emigre comic. The strains of Odessa vaudeville can be heard in Sheri Lewis' Lamb Chop routines. Odessa is famous the world over, especially here in New York where we have Little Odessa in Brighton Beach.
Again, to bring you back to reality: the issue here is the latest threatened Russian invasion. The claim that it will come via Odessa doesn't seem so supported by facts as much as other news that shows it is more likely to come via the routes it has come before -- Rostov. That's where the army build-up is now and where the incursions are coming from.
I'm going to have to conclude you're as much of a hysteric as Chad here if OUT OF THIN AIR you concoct some "version" of me claiming that events in Odessa aren't interesting to anyone.8 days ago- Like(1)
- Delete
-
Chad's continued provocations really aren't worth bothering with but because new readers see them and believe them, I have to defend my reputation. There is no evidence that any other gas than carbon monoxide was involved in the Odessa fire. The *Ukrainian* authorities have said that. I trust them more than I trust random bloggers on the Internet. No credible source has said otherwise. It's bending over backwards to make a conspiracy theory *despite* the findings of Ukrainian forensics experts, in fact.
To claim that my refusal to believe conspiracy theories about the Odessa fire -- that it is "like" the Dubrovka theater terrorist response -- means I think the FSB is filled "with noble staff" is typical of the hugely hysterical, wild, untethered stuff we keep getting from Chad. Um, noble staff in the FSB?! The *FSB* using Western standards?! Of course I don't think any of the kind. But I also don't think every tragedy is a KGB-style plot. Sometimes there are accidents and tragedies. There is human agency in the Odessa fire, and both sides in the conflict are involved, but I do not believe either side intended for 40 people to die in a fire, nor was it a "false flag" scripted from start to finish in Moscow. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT. The preponderance of evidence supplied so far by sincere people trying to get to the bottom of the story show both sides at fault -- and in my view, the pro-Russians who actually shot and killed people to start with are most at fault, and the context is of course the entire Russian invasion and "hybrid war" that is at fault. But I don't believe the Russians killed their own supporters deliberately. And it's my right not to believe in contrived conspiracy theories, and my failure not to believe in contrived conspiracy theories doesn't mean I'm a tool of Moscow.
Here's the thing: If you stand up to his nonsense even once, Chad continues to harass and bully and up the ante with even more wild, crazy claims about you in every round. My long-time record opposing the Kremlin and of course the KGB and all its successors stands, and the rantings of Chad can't undo that. There's plenty of evidence of how badly the Russians handled Dubrovka and Beslan -- reams of it, by people I respect, independent journalists in Russia and the US. But there isn't anything of that nature on the Odessa fire. That's all there is to it. It hasn't been increased by having idle speculation from Chad.
It certainly isn't "irresponsible" to say there isn't any evidence that the FSB stage-managed the Odessa fire. Again, the FSB stage-managed the entire invasion of Ukraine and of course are involved in many incidents of provocations and even terrorism. But this particular story, while it involves likely Russian-backed provocateurs who did the shooting of the soccer fans (how would they get arms otherwise?), likely does NOT involve a deliberate murder by the FSB of 40 of their own pro-Russian supporters in a "false flag" operation. Again, it's a conspiracy theory to claim otherwise.
I do want to point out to readers -- and managers of this group if there are any -- that Chad is making utterly unsupportable and even libelous claims about my positions merely out of spite and spleen because I once stood up to his rude nastiness in another group -- and held my ground through his many rounds of creepy obsessive bile. Chad's material is exaggerated, and I can and will oppose it when I see it. Doing so doesn't mean I'm a tool of the Kremlin, a Kremlin sympathizer, an agent of influence, a wide-eyed naif or anything of the source. I just think you have to have facts to challenge the Kremlin successfully.
When people like Chad persist and persist with hysterical and vile claims about people on the same side of the issue they are supposedly on, I'll tell you the conspiracy theory that sure gets legs: that they are the ones who are Moscow provocateurs. So I'd advise Chad to knock it off.8 days ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
Dear Catherine,
This is the quote from your post above, my apologies I have interpreted the way I did re. a dozen ppl:
"Anton Andrianov just a quick answer -- the Newsweek article is speculative and not grounded in facts. You seem to say it's ok because they need to sell newspapers, essentially. Except, the field is so narrow and the interest narrow that to imagine that any of these stories sell newspapers doesn't seem to hold up as a concept."8 days ago -
Would it not be better to stop this acrimonious discussion which seems to be futile and leading nowhere, and to accept that people can have differing perspectives and approaches while still having complete integrity and a valid understanding of the situation?
If all in this group have the interests and security of Ukraine at heart what is the purpose of spiteful personal attacks?
It is all getting rather like an argument over 'how many 'little green men' can dance on the turret of an (unmarked) Russian tank' - to adapt an old saying ['How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin' - as academic theological disputes of no real value or importance were described] about ultimately meaningless theoretical discussions!8 days ago -
'Doing so doesn't mean I'm a tool of the Kremlin, a Kremlin sympathizer, an agent of influence, a wide-eyed naif or anything of the source.'
I don't believe anyone thinks that, incl. Chad.
I do read and like your pieces, but still do not understand you go going ballistic each and every time.
PS: BTW, I will look for a presentation I got from the Kremlin PolSci consultants in early April last year, which may change your mind re. the planning of the May 2, 2015, event. Will revert tomorrow,8 days ago -
Anton, is English your native language? You don't seem to grasp what is being said here. There is nothing in my statement that says "there isn't any interest in Odessa" or "I don't think anyone should care about Odessa". It's a statement of fact about something else: the interests of the American general audience reading news magazines. THAT audience indeed cares about domestic stories and entertainment and celebrities way more than they care about the war in Ukraine. It doesn't matter that there is a huge Ukrainian diaspora in the US -- which yes, is likely the largest in the world. Add to that the Poles, Russians and many more. They still don't make up the GENERAL mass audience of the US. The war in Ukraine, sadly, is not front-page news. Sometimes it is; sometimes the number of wire stories visible on Yahoo news page makes it seem like it is; sometimes it seems to *us* that it is because we follow it closely. But the reality is, the entire region, and specifically the war in Ukraine falls way after Yemen, Iran, the Middle East in broad interest level -- and in fact ALL foreign news falls WAY down the list after other domestic news, especially the light variety. The reason so many news media closed foreign bureaus is not only because of the expense but the lack of interest -- which then becomes a vicious circle. This is a very basic truth of the news industry of the last 20 years, and if you don't know about it, you're either not in the US or not in the news business or just not even reading general articles about this problem. Once again, the purpose of Max Tucker or some of the other authors in writing these sensational pieces isn't "to sell magazines" because it doesn't -- there isn't the mass interest in the topic to enable them to do that. On the contrary, they get away with it because Newsweek needs cheap freelancers to fill up its copy spaces and because there's at least some interest in the war in Ukraine and Putin's antics, they keep the pot boiling with stuff like that. It's also a subset of the IBT strategy for news -- they're the owners.
I realize it can feel terribly aggressive when *women* and especially *older women* talk back, Anton, but I'm free to do so. There's nothing "ballistic" here. There is a firm pushback to all the arrant nonsense and rabid idiocy that Chad is peddling here.
And Charles, nobody likes the "can't we all get along" pablum in a debate like this. These are real issues and people have real reasons for disagreeing about them, and free speech is essential to maintain when you are dealing with a closed society where news is suppressed in places in the former Soviet Union. Whining about the form this speech takes is unproductive and demanding levels of civility merely suppresses speech and usually comes with an agenda.
This group's threads are structured in such a way that you never have to go and read one you're not interested in. You can unclick "send me an email for each new comment" and never have it scar your eyeballs again. With that kind of structure it's really unreasonable to intervene and try to silence people.8 days ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
Catherine...
"I realize it can feel terribly aggressive when *women* and especially *older women* talk back, Anton, but I'm free to do so. There's nothing "ballistic" here. There is a firm pushback to all the arrant nonsense and rabid idiocy that Chad is peddling here."
I must confess I am puzzled. I have only known Anton for a few months and only online but he has not made any sexist remark nor has he made any personal attack on anyone... actually he has apologized to me twice for showing frustration on a couple of replies that were so polite I couldn't see any bad thing on them (and that was after news of friends returning from the front line and after hearing of casualties). And no, his native language is not English and neither is mine... and that is the case of another 6 billion people. I live in London and have done so for 15 years but I do realize that I may miss minor linguistic details and undertones but Anton lives in Ukraine...
I do understand that this world sometimes is not easy on women professionals but I grew up mostly surrounded by women (mother, sister, grandmother, two aunts and their 4 daughters... and my father) and I see no difference between the two sexes when work is concerned and I will not tolerate any of that here. If you have any issues with sexism in UN I will deal with that there and then and swiftly believe you me... but I have not seen any of that here and I think it is time to accept people's apologies for any misconstrued comments.
I will be in Odessa again on the 6th and for a few days. If anyone wants me to check anything or if you are around for a glass of wine or beer or a cup of coffee I would be glad to know the person behind the screen.7 days ago -
Antonio,
Although meta discussions about form and tone of speech are always boring when there is the much more urgent subject of the topic itself, I'm going to belabor this point here because I think you need to go over this again and realize what the story is better.
a) there's nothing "ballistic" in my firm remarks. There is no swear words, no exclamation marks, no ad hominem attacks or any of the other real or imagined forums sins. That's why I'm challenging what Anton says, and pointing out that it can sometimes feel as if something is "ballistic" only because someone pushes back on your arguments and doesn't agree with you. Indeed, perhaps Anton might want to examine his own words to see if they are exaggerated and inflammatory -- when people say things like "you went off" and "shithole" -- maybe they're the ballistic ones? Hello?
If you can't see how claiming someone is "ballistic" when they are merely defending point of view and disagreeing with a *false rendering* of what they've said, I can't help you.
Again, impugning evil to someone -- that they think the troubles of Odessa aren't interesting or that they shouldn't be interesting -- is something that gets a pushback. To return you to the actual subject matter: Anton believed that perhaps Max Tucker was "selling newspapers" i.e. writing something sensational to get views, ad clicks, etc. And I simply explained that Ukraine/Odessa is not such a high-traffic news topic in general in a news magazine such as to craft a belief that someone is writing sensational material around it just for click bait. I said simply it has a narrow interest, which it does. Millions of Ukrainian diaspora in American don't change that.
I said:
the field is so narrow and the interest narrow that to imagine that any of these stories sell newspapers doesn't seem to hold up as a concept."
So it's a statement merely about *relative* news interest. It says nothing about *my* view nor does it say anything bad about Odessa -- it just says that interest is narrow. That's it. It's a proven fact that Americans might focus on Iran or Israel/Palestine but Ukraine is of less interest.
And from that he took umbrage and said in exaggerated and even outraged fashion:
"Catherine, you went off on the news re. Odesa, yet I do not understand why.
Unlike you, we work in Odesa and need to do business and this piece did strike me as unfairly describing the situation.
Also, I believe that Odesa is interesting to more than a dozen of ppl. as you have wrongly mentioned (I am sorry).
So - Odesa is not exactly a shit hole that no one is interested in. Sorry, for my Italian...
PS: I also understand that few ppl know the country that has the largest permanently residing Ukrainian diaspora?"
So do you see what happened there?
* he's attributing to me judgmental, hateful language like "shithole" which isn't remotely like anything I've said in the phrase "narrow interest."
* he's attributing a claim that "only 12 people" are interested when I didn't say that, I merely said "narrow," i.e. a niche.
Can you see this? HE is the problem there in that sort of false and tendentious rendering of what I've said, not my pushing back firmly to set him straight on what I said.
And that's what I mean about women seeming "aggressive". He can get away claiming I called Odessa a "shithole" when I didn't remotely say any such thing; Chad can get away calling me "irresponsible" (!!) because I simply believe the Ukrainian authorities re: the toxic gas issue and yet if I counter these tendentious statements, I'm the aggressive one.
Oh, well. I really don't need to be in groups like this. They always have these pernicious features of moderators over-moderating the wrong people and remaining blind to inflammatory speech of their friends. It doesn't matter.
Odessa is not being invaded, not today or next week. The Ukrainian authorities rounded up 12 provocateurs today, good for them.7 days ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
@Chad Nagle
I've been wondering what's going on here. Your angry and vicious reply to me in RIAC was all out of proportion given my simple, basic factual questioning of the "helicopters/coup" story -- that didn't have merit -- and my puzzlement about a blog post that seemed to be written by two different people (a matter easily cleared up).
A simple pushback on your boosting of this provocative Newsweek piece claiming an imminent invasion of Odessa at a time when everyone from Secretary of State John Kerry to NATO's Philip Breedlove to the Ukrainian army spokesmen are talking about a buildup in Rostov also seemed odd.
Then I get a flamewar in this thread from your friends -- and an enormous volume of invective in private emails from your close colleague Maria Costello.
What's up?
You were active in the British Helsinki Human Rights Group for a number of years, which many of us knew from the 1990s as a pro-Soviet front group which supported Milosevic and never found fault with the elections of tyrants in Eurasia.
You have numerous anti-American pieces and anti-Soros posts that show a real hatred of the very liberals who have supported Ukraine through several revolutions.
@Anton Shekhovtsov has a good article which explains the pro-Russian network on which the BHHRG functioned:
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2014/02/pro-russian-network-behind-anti.html
He also calls out the Centre for Research on Globalization -- a notorious pro-Moscow site you've written for in the past.
You described Yanukovych as an "effective manager" on Counterpunch, another publication also taking the Moscow line much of the time.
So did you change your views when you began to shed your Antiwar.com image (another site of provocateurs and disinformation) some time ago and switched to the Hetmanate site?
Or are you just being selective about what you present here?5 days ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
Catherine,
I will reply to your message to me with your own post.
"Although meta discussions about form and tone of speech are always boring when there is the much more urgent subject of the topic itself, I'm going to belabor this point here because I think you need to go over this again and realize what the story is better."
Firstly I find strange that a writer should not consider tone of speech important and downright boring. And secondly cannot understand the concept of opinion.
When I replied to you earlier I did say that we all had the same opinion regarding Ukraine and Putin. If you didn't think that this Newsweek was adequate you could have just said so without making it an attack on Chad and then become defensive (even using the sexism card).
"a) there's nothing "ballistic" in my firm remarks. There is no swear words, no exclamation marks, no ad hominem attacks or any of the other real or imagined forums sins. "
Again, for some who writes and must understand the importance of both context, culture and linguistics you would also see that Anton didn't use swear words, no exclamation marks no ad hominem attacks real or imaginary and he actually (and this is the part of contextualising and understanding that English is not the most spoken language in the world nor is Anglo Saxon culture of the "American variety" the only acceptable culture and world views) was quite mild in his comment and indeed even apologised in advance for some words he used that were done to highlight a point and hoping you understand so and wouldn't take him literally or negatively.
"That's why I'm challenging what Anton says, and pointing out that it can sometimes feel as if something is "ballistic" only because someone pushes back on your arguments and doesn't agree with you. "
Hence the word "sorry" in his comment even for using a specific word but you made no effort to understand that.
"Indeed, perhaps Anton might want to examine his own words to see if they are exaggerated and inflammatory -- when people say things like "you went off" and "shithole" -- maybe they're the ballistic ones? Hello?"
Taking them out of context won't help definitely.
"If you can't see how claiming someone is "ballistic" when they are merely defending point of view and disagreeing with a *false rendering* of what they've said, I can't help you."
The ballistic part (I am assuming) was the tone used when agreeing with someone that there is a risk of invasion but not on the city mentioned. Again agreeing with someone but using the tone you did on Chad was uncalled for but even the replies you got were quite mild... For someone who was not in a defensive mode. Which I don't believe anyone needs to be in this group as we don't tolerate personal attacks and we do tend to warn people when we see that coming. It is a group of people that have Ukraine at heart and that is a link that makes the difference as we all believe Ukraine has been invaded by Russia.4 days ago -
(Cont.)
"Again, impugning evil to someone -- that they think the troubles of Odessa aren't interesting or that they shouldn't be interesting -- is something that gets a pushback. To return you to the actual subject matter: Anton believed that perhaps Max Tucker was "selling newspapers" i.e. writing something sensational to get views, ad clicks, etc. "
And he is... Most are. That is how writers make their living. The difference between writers is the integrity or professionalism. Some are better than others and there is no such thing as integrity (just nationalism) in Russian media (or most of it at least).
"And I simply explained that Ukraine/Odessa is not such a high-traffic news topic in general in a news magazine such as to craft a belief that someone is writing sensational material around it just for click bait."
And he disagreed by saying that Odessa is not any shithole (and apologised for his "Italian" which was an obvious light hearted comment based on the very English "Pardon my French" when using a swear word in a non confrontational situation. I doubt you don't know this...
"I said simply it has a narrow interest, which it does. Millions of Ukrainian diaspora in American don't change that."
A few million in Diaspora, a few million in Ukraine, and a few million interested in this conflict like we are, and a few million curious people... If even a small percentage of that buys or reads the magazine it is already worth it. Being a writer you would know that. How many followers do you have on your blogs.
I can tell you that Anton is (was?) one of them as you missed his comment where he said he reads your articles and likes them...4 days ago -
(Cont.)
"I said:
the field is so narrow and the interest narrow that to imagine that any of these stories sell newspapers doesn't seem to hold up as a concept."
So it's a statement merely about *relative* news interest. It says nothing about *my* view nor does it say anything bad about Odessa -- it just says that interest is narrow. That's it. It's a proven fact that Americans might focus on Iran or Israel/Palestine but Ukraine is of less interest."
And you could have highlighted that as your opinion against Anton's (or even Chad's or Alan's... Or Maria's... Or even my opinion and that of those here). But you got defensive attacking two contributors to the group and (to me at least) used a sexism card.
"And from that he took umbrage and said in exaggerated and even outraged fashion:"
You copied Anton's comments and they are available in the thread... And then said:
"* he's attributing to me judgmental, hateful language like "shithole" which isn't remotely like anything I've said in the phrase "narrow interest." "
Let me place here the full sentence and avoid you removing the word out of context:
"So - Odesa is not exactly a shit hole that no one is interested in. Sorry, for my Italian..." Does this sentence seem aggressive to you? Would an aggressive person use "sorry" and an attempt at humour?
"* he's attributing a claim that "only 12 people" are interested when I didn't say that, I merely said "narrow," i.e. a niche."
Let me again place things into context:
"Also, I believe that Odesa is interesting to more than a dozen of ppl. as you have wrongly mentioned (I am sorry)."
Do you speak Russian and is it your native language?
Do you understand that other people, like myself, due to our language and culture would use "a dozen" to refer to a number that not being large is not "one" or "two" to refer to what you call "a niche" and not 12 people? Which would be silly considering the context of this discussion? And would you see any aggression or ill will when someone uses sorry in advance to tell its interlocutor in advance of its peaceful intentions and lack of desire to cause offence?
"Can you see this? HE is the problem there in that sort of false and tendentious rendering of what I've said, not my pushing back firmly to set him straight on what I said."
Based on this answer and contextualising the comments... Would you still say the same?
"And that's what I mean about women seeming "aggressive". He can get away claiming I called Odessa a "shithole" when I didn't remotely say any such thing; Chad can get away calling me "irresponsible" (!!) because I simply believe the Ukrainian authorities re: the toxic gas issue and yet if I counter these tendentious statements, I'm the aggressive one."
He didn't claim it as he projected and it was understood by others. And he did so to make a point and his use of the word "sorry" to forewarn you it was not meant in any bad or aggressive way whatsoever should have given you a hint...4 days ago -
(Cont.)
"Oh, well. I really don't need to be in groups like this. "
Up to you. We look for good people and good comments but also not too happy at uncalled for attacks on others. We can and should disagree when it is time to do so but there is no need to become aggressive.
"They always have these pernicious features of moderators over-moderating the wrong people and remaining blind to inflammatory speech of their friends. It doesn't matter."
I know most people here not more than a few weeks or months. I respect quite a few for their comments, ideas and posture and Anton is one of them. As for over-moderating I wouldn't know what you are referring to. All your comments are here bar one which is in my moderation queue as flagged "inappropriate" by another person who considered your post aggressive and uncalled for. I haven't deleted it or released it as I wanted to be able to speak to you first and reply to your message to me.
"Odessa is not being invaded, not today or next week. The Ukrainian authorities rounded up 12 provocateurs today, good for them. "
Good because I have been in war zones and I have had far too much of that and prefer peace and I will be there again in a few days.
PS - I met personally Anton Shekhovstov and Andreas Umland a few weeks ago in London and they are both great in their knowledge and their willingness to share with others and their posture. And most people in this group thinks the same I believe, so thank you for your posterior link to one of his articles.4 days ago -
Antonio,
Chad has a pattern of exaggerating events in Ukraine and adding in conspiratorial tilts to them; given his past history on antiwar.com and the British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG) and even globalresearch.ca, all cites that take pro-Kremlin views, it's more than fine to ask why he is pursuing a provocative agenda. You haven't addressed those concerns. Anton Shevkhovtsev in fact knows a lot about the BHHRG and can explain to you the facts here if you don't want to hear them from me.
There has not been any invasion of Odessa.
Meanwhile, the real build-up is in Rostov, with even Russian military convoys going into Lugansk and Donetsk under the guise of the Victory Day parade. So it's important not to be distracted from these events by hypotheticals.
My statement "the field is so narrow and the interest narrow that to imagine that any of these stories sell newspapers doesn't seem to hold up as a concept" is not an incendiary or biased or hateful statement. It's a true statement. It's a statement not directed at anyone's view of Odessa; it's stated so as to refute the notion that Max Tucker or Damien Sharkov write what they do to sell newpspapers (or click ads). They don't. They are ideologically driven and also looking to maintain provocative public personas not for monetary gain or clicks but for ideological influence -- that's different. While Damien appears to be a full-time staff writer, Max Tucker is a freelancer and is paid once for an article and it doens't matter how many clicks there are.
You don't seem to be aware that the term "shithole" *is* a swear word, and vulgar speech. And saying "sorry" in advance of using such exaggerated, venomous speech doesn't exonerate it, that's ridiculous.
And I didn't miss Anton's comment that he liked my articles nor his later apology, after his beat-down, of course. However his continued defense of his over-reaction about what was not an insult to Odessa -- and your continued agitation over this -- are misconstrued, misplaced and misdirected.
You don't seem to grasp that all of the over-the-top reactions to my very factual and non-insulting language describing a fact of life about American news audiences -- even with millions of Ukrainians -- are in fact a gross attack on me, and I fight back with attacks like that. Your continued obsession is also an attack, of course. I don't mind attacks at all. I don't require any action about them. What I do mind is when I fight back against obvious, repeated attacks and then I'm somehow characterized as the aggressor -- that's ridiculous. And I can and will invoke sexism/agism as a possible motivation when that happens in a thread like this, although I myself am not a feminist and don't care about these things as a rule.3 days ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
The Typepad follower system on my blog isn't used very much by anybody, even ardent Typepad followers, but my unique visitors every day can vary from 500 to 7000. It's definitely a little niche blog. My Twitter followers are about 2900.
As for number of followers, who is more important than whom, etc. etc. I cited the following statistics to Maria Costello in a personal email (itself an outrageous set of communications) and she only made even more crazy allegations about their citation so I'll explain in advance:
Differences between one million and twelve million on Alexa mean nothing. Both blogs are niche blogs in those levels. Differences even between 300,000 or 1 million or 12 million don't mean much. It's only in the top 100,000 where it matters. Even so, it's something to look at and think about. The top ranking of LinkedIn isn't a ranking for *this group's* metrics which aren't possible to break out. But what this comparison tells me is simple. How can I best respond to Max Tucker's exaggerated complaints? On Newsweek itself, using Facebook because my own blog or even my workplace column will never get as much attention. That's all there is to it. So that's where I generally concentrate my efforts, not in groups like this, and especially not in meta-discussions about he-said, she-said.
Alexa is a web site rating system that people criticize all the time as inadequate, but you can no longer get open Google traffic statistics and this system at least allows you to compare sites *to each other* even if they aren't so accurate. So here you go:
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/minding_russiahttp://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired state
Ranking for global: 1,374,444 Global
Ranking for US: 360,679
http://newhetmanate.net/author/newhetmanate/
Ranking for Global (US not available): 12,760,192
http://interpretermag.com
Ranking for global: 86,093
Ranking for US: 81,501 US
http://Newsweek.com
Ranking 4,652 Global
Ranking 1,724 US
http://Linkedin.com
Ranking 13 Global
Ranking 9 US3 days ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
Thank you, Antonio. I don't want to take this twilight any farther than it needs to go. But I want to make the following points:
Ukraine Network launched to give honest, intelligent, responsible, MATURE people a way to have a PROFESSIONAL conversation in a POSITIVE, COLLEGIAL environment without being harassed by trolls or peers. We will not have our members' loyalty or integrity questioned by those who fancy themselves the pillars of knowledge and Ukrainian patriotism. While we are very liberal in our approach and welcome a lively, healthy debate, we will not tolerate cyber bullying. We are committed to maintaining the standards that our members expect from us and that we expect from ourselves.
Ukraine Network is a chance to connect and make a positive difference. What Ukraine Network is not is a pill box or a high school backyard. The only "ism" that applies to our group is PROFESSIONALISM. Understandably, the tensions are high. The situation in Donbas is extremely volatile and unpredictable as there are reports of impending large-scale offensives. Putin will NOT stop because he can't, nor does he have to. So far we've seen fighting in places such as Donetsk, Luhansk, Debaltseve, Mariupol, Shchastya, Shyrokyne, Horlivka. More fighting in Donetsk and heavy equipment accumulations in Luhansk. Who's to say Odessa's not next?
We read, analyze, discuss, bringing our unique experiences to make the most accurate prediction. Should we be able to back it up? Ideally, yes. But there are going to be times when we have to rely on limited or conflicting information which is where instincts kick in. There's enough credibility in this group to not have to turn it into places we've tried so hard to avoid. Nobody has the crystal ball and this is not a contest. What's important is that everybody here wants to help Ukraine (and Russia) get wherever they need to get to in order to propel each other or at least be able to function independently and on civilized terms instead of this dysfunction and codependence. Just because somebody thinks the FSB was behind the Odessa fire doesn't make them a Russophobe. Just because somebody is critical of Poroshenko's govt. doesn't make them anti-Ukrainian. I got a tip from a source close to Kabaeva that Putin was indeed in Switzerland witnessing the birth of yet another one of his spawn. Can I prove it? No. Can't reveal the source either. But I trust the information. Putin keeps his private life out of spotlight. Does it make everybody who thought he was dead or that the coup was in the making a conspiracy theorist?
No.2 days ago -
We are mindful of the sources, especially considering the amount of lobbying that goes into poisoning our information supply. Personally, I'm not married to any one source and pay more attention to the contributor and of course the content, always thinking about the angle. The Newsweek piece didn't seem any more "alarmist" to me than anything else. I thought it was well-argued. Not that long ago Adomanis, one of Putin's useful idiots who sometimes writes for Forbes (!) used Odessa and Kharkiv (!!) poll to illustrate UKRAINE's opposition to joining NATO. Of course Putin is going to stoke and exploit pro-Russian sentiment and then use his idiots to spin the data.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/09/23/ukrainians-still-dont-want-to-join-nato/
Newsweek isn't one of my frequently read publications but from what I've seen it's just as susceptible to Kremlin propaganda as, say, Forbes, FPJ, AP, NYT and even Stratfor. They all publish morons like Cohen, Maavak, Bandow, Ganske and Adomanis. And even if Newsweek WERE a Kremlin mouthpiece there is no reason for dismissing it completely unless it's all they run, and still come in handy to see the kind of crap the trolls are being fed. The Guardian is KGB's beloved publication yet it doesn't mean they don't run credible stories. Same with the Nation. They've both published some excellent anti-Bush stories. Now, things like Global Research, Information Clearing House, Counter Punch and Zero Hedge are a different story.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/07/stephen_cohen_vladimir_putin_s_apologist_the_nation_just_published_the_most.2.html
vs.
http://www.thenation.com/article/180292/george-w-bushs-legacy-alive-and-well-iraq#
Sensational headlines? Sure! From my brief exposure to the publishing industry, I recall daily hallway gatherings of the editorial and marketing staff where we had to stare at a myriad of headlines pinned to the cubicle wall and vote for the catchiest one. Drama sells.
Yes, Newsweek's published some crap:
http://www.newsweek.com/why-would-putin-shoot-down-plane-259838?piano_t=1
But they've also run some excellent stories:
http://europe.newsweek.com/tv/russian-soldiers-reveal-truth-behind-putins-secret-war-269227-19
It was there, I saw it!
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/newsweek-russian-soldiers-reveal-the-truth-behind-putins-secret-war-364204.html
Nope. Page not found...Hmm...Where'd THAT story go?
Maybe this explains it:
http://www.examiner.com/article/newsweek-falls-prey-to-russian-propaganda
Bottom line: we all have an opinion which isn't any more or less valuable than any other. As Catherine's profile states "I am an independent thinker. My views are my own. Are yours?"
Yes, they are. That doesn't mean opinions don't change. But one thing's clear to me: everyone here is more than capable of accounting for the choices they make and the views they hold.
So, let's not try to force our opinions on to others by calling anybody who disagrees with you "provocateur," "dumb," "grade A asshole" or "lying tendentious twit." Let's not degrade other people's ideas, backgrounds and livelihoods or project one's own insecurities on to others, go on self-righteous crusades by selectively taking things out of context and stirring unnecessary drama.
Membership in Ukraine Network is completely voluntary. The criteria has been spelled out. If somebody doesn't feel like this group is worth their time or effort, it's their choice. We aren't here to impress anyone, prove ourselves or compete for a ranking. We're here because we want to be.
Learning is a journey - not a destination.2 days ago -
Maria:
1. Nothing you say about "professionalism" will ever be persuasive because of the outrageous way in which you communicate to people publicly and the even more appalling nature of your private communications. Please do publish them because they will make that point more eloquently than I could ever do.
1. I notice you completely dodged the question of Chad Nagle's past publishing in a number of dodgy pro-Kremlin sites or even outright Kremlin front groups. That's odd. Indeed he has played the role of a provocateur by writing for globalresearch.ca or antiwar or being in the British Helsinki Group. These are all known quantities that are of tremendous concern. That you'd try to twist legitimate and valid calling out of these sites as itself some sort of "civility" sin lets me know what you're all about, once again. There is nothing self-righteous or crusading about calling out someone who says the election for Yanukovych was "free and fair" and that he was "an excellent manager." These are self-evident facts and your curios deflection of them says something about you, not me.
I do find it tremendously hilarious that my characterization of Chad as a "grade-A asshole" due to his tendentious interventions and attacks on me -- made in private correspondence -- are "outed" here without an equal and opposite outing of *your own* characterization of me as "a number one asshole." TRULY funny, "Maria Costello."
Unlike you, however, I say the same thing privately as I do publically and it's impossible to threaten me or name and shame me by "outing" my emails LOL. Seriously, grow up.
1. Newsweek's pieces can readily be seen as sensational, sloppily researched and tendentious and most Ukraine watchers have understood this. I'm not getting your tenacity on defending them but I guess it's because Chad once knew a guy there or something.
Where I once might not have bothered with this group, now that I see a certain agenda at work I will definitely bother and will push back when I feel it is necessary.
Let me note again that Odessa has not been invaded. The tanks and Strela-10s and all the rest are in Makeyevka, Donetsk and Lugansk,2 days ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
Ещё не вечер LOL.
Catherine,
What exactly is your purpose of being in Ukraine Network? My purpose, as stated above, is to share and grow with likeminded individuals and hope to make a positive impact. Do you know the meaning of any of these words? Because everything you've done since the moment you realized this was no RIAC was try and impose your views, antagonize and pit people against each other with your aggressive tone and unwarranted attacks. Your countless emails to me which had an overarching theme "DO YOU SEE THAT CHAD IS AN ASSHOLE YET?" have backfired big time. After I put things back into context for you - much like Antonio has done - and exposed your hypocrisy I basically told you the only asshole here is you. Did I attack you? No. I defended myself and the people in this group for whom I have respect and who have given me no reason for doubt. So, yes, Catherine, I called you an asshole because for all those times you've used that term (and others) against members of our group, I thought you needed a little reality check. You gave me an Alexa ranking for Chad's vs. your blogs and for Newsweek vs. Interpretermag (which was just about as absurd and out of place as your comment about my profile "You didn't go to Harvard") so I only thought it fitting to give you a Maria Costello ranking for asshole. Now you get to take another word out of context and parade it as evidence of injustice.
Both Anton and I complimented you on your Interpretermag work and even then you managed to accuse me of "disgusting Sovok-style combination of flattery and bullying" and "gross insincerity" even though I did no such thing. You then accused me of being insecure while it's you who can't even take a compliment without getting paranoid about ulterior motives. I told you flat out that as much as I enjoy your work, I find your attitude extremely off putting. My opinion hasn't changed.
I'm more than happy to share our correspondence. Antonio has already seen it. Remember: YOU approached me. YOU initiated this drama. YOU provoked the reaction from myself and others. After I refused to subscribe to your conspiracy theories about Chad, you began attacking me both personally and professionally and disconnected from me because I wouldn't take any of your crap. Every single word in your emails, every accusation you threw at me was a reflection of your own deeper issues. You are "pushing back" against imaginary things. Nobody's done anything to you. And the sex card? Ridiculous. Look at who's running the group and who's contributing. Myself, Tetyana, Marina, Veronica. And the guys - Antonio, Chad, Anton - best ones I've ever had a pleasure of knowing apart from my own husband. Proud to call them colleagues and friends.1 day ago -
Nothing stopped you from approaching Chad directly if you had reservations about his background. I never "dodged" your questions. I said I wasn't getting in the middle between two adults. And I didn't need any of your "warnings" about Chad or anybody else since I'm perfectly capable of forming my own opinions. Not that I owe you any explanations but just to get you off my back - I had never heard of the BHHRG until you brought it up. I know Counterpunch and Global Research are Russian mouthpieces but I had never come across any of Chad's op-eds there. He did say on his blog that he is a contributor. He has communicated with me about his past employment, and I was satisfied with the information. I'm sure he can do the same for you. Again, based on his commentary, I have no reason to question Chad's loyalties. As I told you the second you tried dragging me into your RIAC squabble, I want nothing to do with it. But you'd much rather gossip and speculate. And play victim.
You've brought all of this upon yourself, and you've wasted an extraordinary amount of time trying to vindicate whatever it is you *think* we've done to you. Your outrageous claims and condescending tone screams of the need to belittle others in order to give yourself an ego boost. All this talk of hidden agendas isn't doing you any favors - not personally or professionally. And now my name's in quotation marks?
Indeed, Catherine, it's time to take your own advice and grow up. This group is clearly not what you were expecting. If by any chance anything I've said has held you up, I apologize.1 day ago -
Dear All:
While I do not feel I owe the likes of Catherine Fitzpatrick any explanations about myself, I resent that she has made others feel the need to expend energy in my defense. What an unbelievably tiresome predicament for this unpleasant person to have imposed upon nice people. As such, I thank Maria, but will take it from here.
The bee in Ms. Fitzpatrick’s bonnet stems from an exchange that she and I had in RIAC, in which (without using profanity or high-school epithets), I called her out for what I saw as rudeness and unnecessary belligerence when I was trying to ascertain the truth about the authorship of an article both she and I had posted on our respective blogs. Out of courtesy to her, I took the discussion ‘private’ to clarify matters, at which point she reacted with more of her customary bluster and obfuscation, threatened to publish my comments on her personal blog to ‘deter’ me (an insane notion, as if I had said anything that I would not have said publicly). She announced she was ‘blocking’ me as well. Evidently, she ‘unblocked’ me long enough to jump into this particular discussion and start slinging unpleasantness in every direction. Now that everyone else in this discussion thread has had a sample of what I am confident can be termed rudeness (the core of my original accusation), I trust the others here also believe I know whence I speak.
Yes, I once published a piece in globalresearch. I also published a few pieces in CounterPunch back when Alexander Cockburn was still alive. It should be noted, however, that I published op-eds in the Wall Street Journal Europe, American Conservative, Conservative Review, New York Press, Salisbury Review and other periodicals not generally associated with any ‘pro-Kremlin’ slant (except perhaps by a few fruit loops). Yet evidently Ms. Fitzpatrick’s boast about ‘independent thinking’ does not extend to conceding that some articles published in left-wing sources may occasionally have a valid point to make. I direct attention to a recent post by Andreas Umland on his blog, where he re-blogs a fascinating article from a site called ‘Ukraine Solidarity Campaign,’ which describes itself thus: ‘The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign seeks to organise solidarity and provide information in support of Ukrainian socialists and trade unionists, campaigning for working class, and democratic rights, against imperialist intervention and national chauvinism. It seeks to co-ordinate socialist and labour movement organisations who agree on this task, regardless of differences and opinions on other questions.’ Here is the link to the piece:
https://umland.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/kagarlitsky-the-war-and-political-corruption/
Does that seem ‘suspicious’ to Ms. Fitzpatrick? If so, I – for one – don’t give a damn. If she were to become the ‘ideology secretary’ for UN, I would be out of it in a heartbeat.1 day ago -
[cont.]
As for the (now-inoperative) British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG), I would suggest that – before she starts slinging labels around like ‘Soviet front’ – that she do a little research first. BHHRG is a registered charity in Britain and thus a legal entity. While I was never a trustee, those who are might take issue with your libelous characterization. BHHRG went against the mainstream grain many times during its existence, and was lambasted in big publications such as The Economist and The Guardian. Those facts, per se, are not enough to form valid indictments, since a lot of rubbish is published in global publications (including Newsweek, as Ms. Fitzpatrick herself would presumably agree). BHHRG was set up in 1991 to investigate human rights and democracy in former Communist countries. It was, incidentally, the only well-known organization whose members criticized the record of Eduard Shevardnadze’s Georgia in the areas of human rights, democracy, due process, prisoners’ rights, corruption and the rule of law at a time when the former Soviet foreign minister was receiving all the highest accolades from Western governments, including the Averell Harriman Medal of Freedom in the US. Were BHHRG’s critiques vindicated by Western governments and media when Shevardnadze was overthrown by an angry mob after more than a decade in power? Unsurprisingly, no, but surely some acknowledgement of ‘independent thought’ is in order. Or is Ms. Fitzpatrick really the final arbiter of ‘independent thought,’ just as she assumes the role of ‘arbiter of truth’ here on Ukraine Network?
BHHRG continued to split apart when many of its members (including myself) opposed the NATO war to separate Kosovo from Yugoslavia in 1999 on the grounds that altering European borders set a dangerous precedent and served no constructive purpose in light of the Kosovar ’ unpreparedness to create a sovereign government. Six months after most Western governments recognized Kosovo as an independent nation-state, Russia and Georgia fought a war over South Ossetia, and Russia quickly recognized both that territory and Abkhazia as independent nation-states, turning both into military protectorates with beefed up armed forces. Was this connected with the Kosovo war and recognition? Did it matter that some Western governments were not on board with the recognition of Kosovo (e.g. Spain and Greece)? Perhaps not, but I think suggesting so is not outside the bounds of reason. The Russians have even gone so far as to analogize the annexation of Crimea with Kosovo, and while this is an invalid analogy, it does not change the dangerous reality of the Russian Anschluss.
By the time of the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine was already nearly 4 years old, and Viktor Yushchenko was proving unpopular at home, as many who worked on BHHRG missions predicted he would. Indeed, some had even gone so far as to say that within a year of the Orange Revolution, most Ukrainians wouldn’t even care about him. This turned out to be not far from the truth. Any acknowledgment of ‘independent thought’? Didn’t think so.1 day ago -
[cont.]
More to the point, while I am quite prepared to entertain (in a civilized manner) the notion that good outweighed evil in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, invasion of Iraq, and other events that have been of human rights concern, I am not prepared to engage in shrill, vindictive debate with someone like Ms. Fitzpatrick. Since she has seen fit to describe me to others as an ‘asshole,’ I trust she will agree that I have a right to describe her as a blustering, belligerent cow (and I didn’t even have to use profanity). She is also disingenuous. Her comment above is an example: ‘Your angry and vicious reply to me in RIAC was all out of proportion given my simple, basic factual questioning of the "helicopters/coup" story -- that didn't have merit -- and my puzzlement about a blog post that seemed to be written by two different people (a matter easily cleared up).’ That is not how it went. As I repeatedly tried (to no avail) to explain to her, it was I who was trying to understand why she had initially said there was no attribution to one of the two posts of the same article. The ‘update’ she posted on her blog in the section referring to that article only confirmed my understanding that she did not (at first) know the Livejournal contained an attribution, and she had simply not seen it. No problem, of course. Everyone misses things from time to time in information-overload cyberspace. Only she wasted my time trying to deny she had ever made an oversight, so that I repeatedly had to ask whether we were looking at the same thing to try to get to the truth. I was not pleased. If she interprets our contretemps any differently than what I have just (for the last time) described, then I am sorry, but I am not wasting any more time on it.
As Maria has explained, this forum is not designed for mudslinging, and if you – Ms. Fitzpatrick – want to do that, there are other fora more suitable, such as Ukraine Connections and RIAC. I have nothing to apologize to you for, and I see no inconsistency in my support for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russian aggression today. As for you, since you did a certificate program in Leningrad during the Brezhnev era, when the head of the Soviet KGB was Yuri Andropov (an excellent manager, by the way), you may have been brainwashed. That is, having been abducted and re-programmed, you were sent back out into the world, not to be an assassin like Sgt. Raymond Shaw in ‘The Manchurian Candidate,’ but simply to be an anti-Soviet propagandist who would make the very anti-Soviet side you were meant to be on look bad. As such, I urge you to continue your rants far and wide about me being a ‘Soviet agent’ and other claptrap. It might even be to my benefit.
You are not the arbiter of my credentials, and you have no business coming in here and trying to ‘lay down the law.’ I still maintain you are rude, and nothing you have posted in this discussion thread weakens that assertion. I will not waste any more of anyone’s time explaining anything to you.1 day ago -
@Chad Nagle I followed British Helsinki Human Rights Group far more closely than you realize because I was a founding member of the International Helsinki Foundation which rejected the BHHRG for membership in the 1980s because of its pro-Soviet stance. Indeed it functioned as a Soviet front. The lambast in the Guardian in fact was exactly correct. You're skirting the issue of the outrageous positions it took supporting Milosevic and other tyrants and declaring flawed elections such as the one where Yanukovych was brought to power as "free." You completely fail to address those concerns.
I'm puzzled by the insane hatred of Shevardnaze, whose memoirs I translated. Sure, he was a Soviet bureaucrat and indeed guilty of corruption and human rights violations. But in the context of his time when the Soviet Union was starting its last decade leading to collapse, he was a welcome liberal figure. I didn't find him sincere or persuasive but it doesn't matter; relatively speaking, compared to other Soviet figures like Andropov or even Reshetov, he was easier to deal with more liberal, and US officials appreciated that. He was the one who conceived the "human dimension" concept. That may feel very fake and superficial compared to severe problems Georgia had, but again, compared to the Brezhnev era, it was welcome. It's just sectarian and churlish not to appreciate the perestroika era leaders, although of course being mindful of their limitations.
That Shevardnadze was overthrown by an angry mob doesn't mean anything; angry mobs in Ukraine throw politicians literally in the trash all the time. Angry mobs aren't necessarily right.
Calling out the blatant Soviet fellow travelers of the 1980s and 1990s is hardly pretending that I am the "last arbiter of independent thought." This is typical of the vicious hyperbole that we can always expect from Chad.
Taking the pro-Kremlin position on Kosovo hardly makes you a credible activist on Ukraine. Do you believe the Crimea and the Donbass should be annexed as well? I've got news for you: Europe's borders already altered. They altered with the collapse of the Berlin wall and the reunification of Germany; the altered when the Soviet Union collapsed and the republics became sovereign. There isn't any moral equivalent between Kosovo and Abkhazia. Any one looking at this in good faith can recognize the difference:
o Serbia had decades of severe human rights violations in Kosovo -- I worked on a Yugoslavia human rights committee in the 1980s and we documented how Kosovars did not have radio broadcasting and education in their own language, which set up the years of resistance.
o Kosovo gained its independence over time, with an international process, with the UN and OSCE involved.
o By contrast, Russia began provocatively to hand out passports in Abkhazia and South Ossetia despite OSCE's demand not to do this, and instigated a war, whatever one wants to yammer on about Georgia's "hotheaded" complicity. Russia buzzed the airspace; Russia provoked; Russia had fake peace-keepers. If you don't see how Russia is to blame for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, I have to wonder what your intellectual grounds are for claiming you're a free Ukraine activist. Or maybe you aren't?
o Kosovo is recognized by most Western powers. No Western power has recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Small wonder the Orange Revolution ran into trouble when Yushchenko was poisoned by the Russians, when Gleb Pavlovsky and other agents of influence and provocateurs endlessly intrigued against Ukraine.
Your entire intervention here distracts from the bad positions you took, on websites notorious for their pro-Kremlin positions. I'll have to conclude your efforts here are some sort of influence or disinformation operation as well.22 hours ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
@Maria Costello As usual, your comments are beside the point, meant to distract, and groundless. Of course I wouldn't contact Chad privately about these concerns because they're not private concerns and I don't need any private relationship with Chad. They are public concerns about what a person with this profile is doing in a group like this. If you never came across these groups or Chad's pieces on these sites, you must never have looked at his LinkedIn profile or done a cursory Google search.
BTW, here's a link to the RIAC interaction so readers can decide for themselves:
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/minding_russia/2015/04/chad-nagle.html
A reminder that the Russians have not invaded Odessa.22 hours ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
Catherine,
I don't know how things are run at the Interpretermag, the types of personalities you're used to dealing with and what constitutes an acceptable way to treat your colleagues. We've tried to reason with you and explain to you how this group works. However, you continuously ignore the basic principles of civilized conversation and seem determined to derail, demoralize, sew chaos, confusion and discord. According to Peter Pomerantsev, these are all tell-tale signs of Russian propaganda which you supposedly so vehemently oppose. An even more basic Wikipedia definition would have you pegged for a troll.
May my canine friends forgive me for this analogy, but like a dog with a bone, you continue to chase shadows to try and discredit Chad. You bring up his past affiliations which have been sufficiently addressed, and twist his arguments to fit your pre-existing narrative of a hidden agenda. Admit it, Catherine: you just can't deal with another strong writer and subject matter expert. You can't deal with a group of intelligent, confident, dedicated individuals who can stand their ground. Which is why you've positioned yourself vs. everybody else from the start. Either you subscribe to Catherine's conspiracy theories or you're a 'mediocrity.' You've pulled every stop from 'asshole' and 'insecure male' to now a 'Russian asset.'
I find your obsessive pursuits petty, vain and counter-productive. But since you've made a number of absurd accusations such as calling Chad an agent of influence and disinformant, I want you to point out specific examples of Chad's comments - made in this group, on RIAC, in his blog or elsewhere - that would lead you to such outrageous conclusions.20 hours ago -
Catherine,
You've just pasted a link to your copy of RIAC's thread in order to completely derail this thread and drag EVERYONE here into your squabble with "insecure grade A asshole Russian agent" Chad. A squabble which happened over an attribution. And MY comments are "beside the point, meant to distract and groundless?" My God, woman. Get a grip!20 hours ago -
"Maria Costello," the web site where I work is irrelevant to this conversation. Your notion that you've been reasonable is completely laughable. Publish the correspondence and anyone can see that. I've raised legitimate questions about Chad's profile on the Internet and asked if he is some kind of deliberate provocateur because all of the articles, web sites and groups he has been affiliated with constitute grounds for concern. I don't need to provide examples because I already did -- just Google all his articles unless he's busy deleting them. People can behave as provocateurs not necessarily because they are "Russian assets" but because they are heavily ideological and manipulative as personalities and believe they are running international movements with themselves and their friends in charge and have to prevail.
Every single thing I've pointed out here is a legitimate issue and anyone outside your little posse knows this. We also know next to nothing about you -- you have no online profile whatsoever, beyond a few posts on LinkedIn. So those two things together -- Chad's odd pro-Kremlin affiliations and your lack of a profile -- tend to invite suspicion.
Of course nobody who false under such suspicion is going to confirm the concerns -- they will either vigorously deny them or seek to distract from them or both.19 hours ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
1. I have no need to "prevail" in any group, least of all RIAC.
1. I've articulated legitimate concerns about this group given the profiles of the most active poster and the absence of profile of yourself as convener. These are normal and legitimate concerns and your efforts to pretend otherwise only discredit you.
1. I haven't called anybody an asshole publicly, and have only called Chad an asshole in one email to you. Meanwhile, you've hysterically screamed at me for days on end.
1. Your gross insincerity, especially in light of your subsequent nasty behavior is on parade here.
1. I didn't initiate any "drama". I mistakenly thought you might share my concerns about Chad -- whoops, I was wrong about that. But as I've said any number of times, I require no action. It's a free Internet and Chad like anyone else is free to blog what he likes. I'm also free to call it out.
1. There's something creepy about the whole posse here. I don't see any substantive threads being produced, I just see your four ranting on and on and on about my legitimate challenge to Chad as a long-time contribute to pro-Kremlin sites.
7. My pasting of the RIAC chat is simply so that the actual text can be seen so that you and he will not be go on misrepresenting it.18 hours ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
My "lack of profile?" Catherine, you make me laugh. My professional experience is available for all to see. Does it bother you that you can't dig anything up on me to further feed your paranoia?
I think your workplace is most relevant to this conversation. You march in here scrutinizing everybody else. So, Catherine, do you have a lot of friends in Interpretermag? We'd love to meet some of your colleagues, including the "prominent people" who you said witnessed Chad's deplorable behavior on RIAC. Perhaps they can also shed some light on your pen name, "Prokofy Neva."
"Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, also known under her pen name and virtual worlds pseudonym "Prokofy Neva" is a former human rights acitivist, Russian-English translator, former journalist..." followed by a bunch of other former jobs...- Wikipedia.
A quick search on Prokofy Neva returns some STARTLING results:
"Prokofy Neva, also known as simply Prokofy or Prok, is a term describing a completely insane, aging female Internet troll, who spends all her time battling windmills in Internet games. The term is derived from the user name of perrhaps the most notorious troll in the Internet-based game Second Life. Synonyms and related terms include Crazy Cat Lady and batshit insane." - Urban dictionary.
My oh my! Care to comment on THAT, "Catherine?" Or shall we call you "Prokofy?"18 hours ago -
I am very surprised at the stream of very unprofessional statements made by Catherine Fitzpatrick. I certainly wont be reading any of her material.
12 hours ago- Like(2)
- Report spam
-
Yeah! A Twitter and Facebook style flame-war on LI; that's just what this site needs! Who says that the other sites get all the drama? LI is starting to become moronic. All week I've been seeing stupid memes and religious annoyance on what is supposed to be a work site - oh, and the atrocious grammar from people that haven't mastered their own native language that usually occurs on other sites. The next thing you know, I'll see something like "re-post this this to seven people or your girlfriend will break up with you". I think some people don't get this site. Usually the people who post crap and argue are "self [un]employed" or employed at something like "Head Getter Doner @ Your Mom, Inc". This site is becoming more and more useless every week.
10 hours ago- Like(0)
- Report spam
-
@Maria Costello I think you're attempting to distract from your own lack of any kind of online "footprint" or profile. It's interesting that someone without any profile except for a few sectarian posts in a group they made themselves is trying to influence hundreds of people. To what end?
Did you realize that for years, my Second Life avatar's name Prokofy Neva has been linked to my real name everywhere, in mainstream media like , on my blogs, etc. and obviously my Wikipedia entry -- which itself is an act of vandalism? So it's not news or any kind of big discovery. In fact, a clear marker for someone not acting in good faith is if they invoke this obvious connection as an attempt to discredit me rather than being able to defend their own ideological position. If you look at "Encyclopedia Dramatica" and "Rational Wiki" you'll find more of the same. Indeed, this is why I have a section "Advice to Google Witch-hunters" on my blog which your frantic Googling apparently missed LOL. If you want to promote the harassment of me by Anonymous and other hackers, that only shows your level.
Meanwhile, your lack of a profile combined with Chad's past writing for antiwar.com. etc. does make a statement which you continue to distract from. I don't need to "dig up" anything on someone Again, I can see from a scant LinkedIn profile that your only public activity is posts on groups you've created or intervened in on LinkedIn -- and there are others besides RIAC where you've agitated and provoked to get reprimanded or expelled, for reasons that are unclear. You can keep hopping up and down and try to think of more ways to discredit me, but it only draws attention to your own sparse profile.
I haven't "marched anywhere" or "scrutinized" anybody but you and Chad Nagle because of your curious heckling of me and your profile/lack of profile.
Alan Malcher, MA, I think I'll live. Meanwhile, most people seriously watching Russia and Ukraine understand what antiwar, Counterpouch, globalresearch.ca are all about, as well as the notorious British Helsinki Group which the Guardian amply explains.10 hours ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
Thank you, Alan. Indeed, this has been one of the most draining exchanges I've ever had outside troll infested groups. As I explained to "Catherine" or "Prok" she is lucky that anybody here is even willing to acknowledge her work after this barrage of self-indulgent, juvenile attacks. She has failed to provide a single conceivable reason for why she would choose such an interesting although if I might add appropriate pen name for herself. She has failed to substantiate her wild allegations that this group or is somehow connected to the Russian government. Considering she is an investigative journalist, one can't help but wonder how such blunders, including outright slander, reflect on her own credibility and that of her employer. I'm thinking perhaps Prok should lay off Internet games and do some soul searching.
10 hours ago -
Regarding the RIAC debate, obviously if I didn't see a credit to a post at the bottom of the post (when normally they are at the top), then I'm not "lying" about not seeing it or "failing to admit" that I didn't see it -- I *just didn't see it* -- period -- and it wasn't clear from several rounds. This simple fact keeps eluding Chad Nagle, just as the obvious fact that instead of simply pointing out a correction, he self-importantly and heatedly began defending his own post's links, which weren't the issue.
I think in my entire career, I've never heard anyone claim that if you studied in the Soviet Union on an exchange program that this would automatically confer "brainwashing by the KGB" on you, especially if your entire career consisted of criticizing the Kremlin. I've also never seen the wild notion that such study meant you were "abducted and pre-programmed" only to make your ostensible side "look bad" in an elaborate "false flag" operation. I don't suppose it would occur to Chad Nagle that making these kind of claims only makes him look bad.
I can only see this as once again a distraction from his own profile that includes conspiracy sites, pro-Kremlin sites and actual writing that makes no sense for a supposed critic of Russia and supporter of Ukraine, for example, calling Yanukovych "an efficient manager" and describing his election as free and fair.
I can fully understand that people who created a group to advance their sectarian beliefs and hidden agenda are going to keep squawking when called out but as many times as you need to keep making ever-wilder claims, as many times as I will defend myself. I can only note that as I'm busy with several jobs, I may not be so quick with this.
I'd have to agree with @James Allen that LinkedIn has become more moronic.
There has not been any invasion of Odessa.9 hours ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
"Catherine" or "Prok" continues to try and discredit another professional citing the Guardian - a publication loved by the KGB. This shows not only poor professional judgment but general thickness:
http://ukmediawatch.org/2011/10/10/kgb-agents-loved-the-guardian/
Let me spell it out for you because you seem to be missing the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. The only agitator with a capital A here is YOU, "Catherine Fitzpatrick," "Prokofy Neva" or whoever you are. You are paranoid, combative, and plain rude. Every word attached to your pen name, every word myself and others have used to describe your obnoxious behavior is true. Behavior that stems from insecurity which is on display for all to see. Insecurity for which you overcompensate with venomous, unsolicited attacks.
I didn't need to discredit you. You've done an outstanding job of it yourself.9 hours ago -
Catherine Fitzpatrick I must once again QUESTION your professionalism as a researcher.
9 hours ago- Like(2)
- Report spam
-
@Alan Malcher, MA once again I need to QUESTION your inability to question articles in antiwar.com, globalresearch.ca, Counterpunch, etc. and to distract from this legitimate issue raised by focusing on me. This is not a discussion about me. To return you to the original post and topic:
o it's about a claim that an invasion of Odessa is imminent
o it's about rebuttals of that claim -- there has been no such invasion of Odessa
o it's about pointing out that the original poster has a history of writing on conspiracy sites.
If you have anything relevant to say on these actual topics, please do so.8 hours ago- Like(0)
- Delete
-
Catherine Fitzpatrick, based on your various comments it would appear you have a very high opinion of yourself and your intellectual capacity - everyone is wrong and you are correct. The people you continue to criticize are very competent when it comes to analyzing source material. Unfortunately, I can only come to the conclusion you have preconceived ideas.
7 hours ago- Like(2)
- Report spam
-
5 hours ago
- Like(2)
- Report spam
-
Thank you, Mark, Alan and everyone on this thread who's had the misfortune of witnessing the appalling way in which an employee of Interpretermag "Catherine Fitzpatrick" or "Prok" conducts herself. I, for one, am kicking myself for inviting her here. Unless she changes her attitude, apologizes to everyone she's insulted, gets humble (she may need to look that one up) and starts acting like a civilized professional, Catherine/Prok is going to find out first hand just how much unlike RIAC we really are.
Let this serve as an official first warning to you, Catherine/Prok that we are not going to stand for your arrogance, unsubstantiated accusations or inflammatory content. You seem to have mistakenly assumed that you are running the show and that you are somehow in a position to put yourself above everybody and interrogate us. You are not. Your schemes may have enabled you to circumvent RIAC's dubious protocol - whatever that is. You've been boasting about having been able to retain your membership among trolls, agents of influence and mentally insane. Personally, I don't think that's anything to be proud of. But whatever rocks your boat.
You've said that you don't need to be in Ukraine Network or any group. It's not like we're a Council on International Affairs. Based on what I've seen in RIAC, I'll take that as a compliment.
Ukraine Network is a real group with real rules which we take seriously, which have been made very clear to you and which you've repeatedly violated. Unlike RIAC, which underhandedly puts on moderation anyone deemed a threat to the official Kremlin line, denies it, and then just as underhandedly bans them, here you will know exactly what hit you. I promise you 100% transparency. We have nothing to hide.
Interestingly enough although hardly surprising, I've just released a solitary comment from Ralph Davis who rushed to Catherine/Prok's defense. Needless to say, Ralph has been in my troll database since I first laid my eyes on him. He has no chance of ever getting in here but we will release an occasional comment if it's relevant. One thing I admire about Ralph is that, unlike Catherine/Prok, he never loses his cool and even has a self-deprecating sense of humor. He has no illusions about himself and knows when to back off. For anyone unfamiliar with Ralph's modus operandi, for all his claims of expertise in "Violent Islamicist Movements, Soviet/Russian strategic culture, and military history/theory" he has demonstrated no knowledge of the subject. He teams up with other trolls/useful idiots in order to derail a conversation or present Russia in the best possible light. One of his buddies is a pseudo academic by the name of Dale Herspring or Kansas State University's "distinguished" professor of political science (surprise!). I love it when Tweedledum and Tweedledee divert, revise history and rationalize Putin's belligerence.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.