I don’t always agree with you. However, I very much admire your fair minded approach in engaging other views.

Keep cranking them out.

As a kind of sequel, there’s my recent Tiraspol Times commentary, which can be accessed by clicking into my name at the end of this comment.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

For ’07, look for more progressive journalism from yours truly.

The way you scope TTT is hypocritical. Here’s an excerpt from an email project of mine:

As a repeat thought: it’s journalistically circumspect to see that material from the Trans-Dniester based English language venue hasn’t (to date) been posted at Johnson’s Russia List and the Action Ukraine Report.

RFE/RL and Edward Lucas have negatively reviewed TTT. Has this somehow influenced JRL and AUR? TTT gives ample space to Trans-Dniester’s political opposition. If I correctly recall, it recently gave an objective report of a Russian government decision which supported Moldova in a land dispute with Trans-Dniester. TTT is “biased” in the sense that it reflects the general mood in Trans-Dniester. In this sense, it’s less biased than the RFE/RL and Lucas preferred Vladimir Socor, among some others.

As per RFE/RL’s and Lucas’ criticisms, why is it wrong to cite a high profile enough person without telling them? Has Lucas ever questioned who funds The Moscow Times and some of the outlets it’s affiliated with? More precisely put: a critical review of the kind of slant found at those venues. How about directly critiquing some of the actual content at TTT? Specifically, the substantive accuracy (or lack thereof) of its reporting and commentary? An example would be to factually question (as in stating facts and fact based opinions) Lucas’ suggested view (at his blog on Oct. 26) that the Captive Nations Committee is an earnest organization. Why the one sided criticisms? In terms of accuracy: IMO – TTT more correctly reflects the views in Trans-Dniester when compared to The Moscow Times’ coverage of Russia.

***

What exactly was your point about Chechnya, relative to what was said about it in the article?

I’ll gladly accept valid points contradicting my own. Show me where I’m wrong. Besides TTT, my referencing the Azeri arms buildup and what might be motivating it.

Anyway, for someone who protests personal attacks (in response to an earlier comment), you seem happy to go down that road – calling someone’s comments “long winded gobbly [sic] gook” does not exactly constitute sticking to the facts or displaying sterling polemical skills.

I’d rather not get into it, though, since it’s the holidays and all, and would just mention that with my comment on the Tiraspol Times, I was not going after your credentials (they speak for themselves), but was simply making the point that the TT is not exactly an authoritative source.

And I think it’s laughable to get into a battle of credentials while posting in the comments section of a blog – all the more so because I am certain you will not accept my points as valid no matter what credentials I trot out.

Anyway, have a happy new year.

Your comments are hypocritical and demagogic.

On propaganda, find something at TTT which is factually wrong. Prove that Jason Cooper and the rest of TTT staff don’t live there. If I’m not mistaken, the not so Russia/TT friendly Edward Lucas acknowledges their presence in Trans-Dniester.

In terms of my own stated achievements, you overlook the other sources listed in the two sentence bio of myself at the end of the article. Whether you like it or not, Russia Blog as been frequently posted at Johnson’s Russia List and Russia Profile. Two rather establishment like outlets.

BTW, on the matter of disclosure, what are your credentials in terms of posted material?

Trans-Dniester was a part of ancient Russia (Kievan Rus) and has had a rock solid Russocentric Slavic majority for centuries. Show me how Kosovo has a better case for independence. It’s hypocritical to support Kosovo independence, while denying such for Trans-Dniester. It’s not hypocritical to advocate the reverse.

Regarding my referencing of the Azeri military buildup, you show a lack of comprehension. As per what was stated in that segment: the knowledgeable analyst will surmise the Armenian-Azeri conflict and how the rapid Azeri military buildup appears geared to possibly retaking Nagorno Karabakh by force. In per capita terms, I believe that it can be shown that Russia’s military buildup is nowhere near as great as Azerbaijan’s.

Your long winded gobbly gook about Chechnya fails to address the facts and fact based points in the article.

1) The Tiraspol Times? Are you kidding me? Mr. Averko, just becaue you have been “published” in this (as far as I can tell, online-only) “newspaper” does not make it an actual newspaper or a legitimate source of news. As has been noted elsewhere (and as a cursory look at the TT website will tell you) it is an obvious propaganda project, and I challenge anyone to prove that their bylined writers with American- or British-sounding names really exist and are actually in Tiraspol. For example, did “Jason Cooper” really report from Dubossary on Dec 29 (http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/486)? They clearly have native-English speakers involved at some point, but I am very skeptical that they have found actual foreign journalists (even washouts, rookies, or amateurs) willing to live in and report from the PMR. And yes, I’ve seen this – http://groups.drupal.org/node/2014 – which could easily be an attempt to create the internet version of a fraudulent paper trail.

Anyway, the TT is transparently biased in its reporting and links to various pro-PMR sites which range from humorously and clumsily biased (e.g., straight-facedly posting howlers such as statements heralding the PMR as “like the Riviera” – http://pridnestrovie.net/howisthepeople.html) to somewhat professional-looking. While someone is clearly paying handsomely for a top-notch internet PR campaign (the credibility of which has been exhaustively dismantled by the Economist), citing a source like the TT makes it hard to take this piece seriously.

2) If you want to invoke UN resolutions, it might make sense to note that in the case of Abkhazia, the UN has consistently declared it to be a part of Georgia for over a decade. I haven’t read up on this aspect of the other no-longer-entirely-frozen conflicts, but I would imagine there are UN SC resolutions to the same effect.

3) “Azerbaijan is using its energy revenue to enhance its military.” – isn’t Russia doing the same thing at the moment? And so what? Why is that sinister or even particularly relevant?

4) Citing oneself (specifically, the Averko piece about Transnistria on Russia Blog) is also not a great credibility builder, especially when other sources are not cited, and when your original piece leans heavily on reporting by the BHHRG, which is an organization that has been disavowed by the actual Helsinki Committee.

5) “Trans-Dniester’s captial Tiraspol, was founded in 1792 by Russian Field Marshall Alexander Suvorov. (arguably Russia’s greatest military commander) At the time, Tiraspol served as a fortress marking the border on the Dniester River between Imperial Russia and Ottoman Empire ruled Moldova.”

A couple of problems here – who cares when the city was founded and by whom? It has very little relevance to the future of this narrow strip of land. Further, by omitting relevant historical facts, you seem to suggest that present-day Moldova was outside of Russia (and separate from Transnistria), when it was in fact part of the Russian empire for over 100 years before the Revolution.

6) “In a recent referendum, Trans-Dniester’s peaceful, multi-ethnic and democratic society expressed the desire to reunify with Russia.”

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Peaceful, multi-ethnic, _and_ democratic? I hear echoes of the Foreign Languages Publishing House (Moscow, circa 1960).

7) OK, this is already more points than I wanted to make, but I keep looking at this essay and finding more things that bother me. For example, the following quotation:

“most Chechens aren’t supportive of independence because of what “independence” had twice done to their republic over the last decade. On two different occasions during that period, Chechnya operated as an independent entity. In each instance, there was an enhanced chaos that made life more miserable for Chechnya’s population. Like it or not, a greater Russian control of Chechnya has led to an increased stability in that republic.”

Let’s try a little experiment – substituting just a few words (“Russia” and “Russian Federation” for “Chechnya” and “Chechen Republic,” “democracy” for “independence,” “authoritarian” for “Russian,” and a couple of small changes to refer to just one period of “chaos” as opposed to two) consistently throughout:

most [Russians] aren’t supportive of [democracy] because of what “[democracy]” had [...] done to their [federation] over the last decade. [...D]uring that period, [Russia] operated as a [democratic] entity. [...T]here was an enhanced chaos that made life more miserable for [Russia]‘s population. Like it or not, a greater [authoritarian] control of [Russia] has led to an increased stability in that [federation].

So, this is an argument that is at least unoriginal. In any event, aside from playing games with the words of someone who would try to justify Kadyrov’s rule in Chechnya (oh, right, I’m sure he was “democratically elected,” too), let’s return to the actual relevance of Chechnya to this discussion. The relevance is that throughout the 1990′s, when Russia was worried about losing its grip on Chechnya (and for a period of time some of the other ethnic republics), it was unflagging in its public proclamations of the territorial integrity of its neighbors. Now that Russia has resolved its own secessionist issue, some elements there seem willing to move ahead with a project to dismantle the same countries whose territorial integrity was once proclaimed with conviction (and is still proclaimed, although less convincingly) by Moscow. How is that logically consistent?

Furthermore, the argument advanced by the Russians during the 1990′s (and the only one which leads to a consistent outcome in the post-Soviet space) is to respect the Republic boundaries as they were in 1991 as the basis for the borders of the newly independent states. Any modifications should be negotiated with the internationally recognized capitals, not with self-proclaimed leaders, however much apparent credibility they may have acquired by hanging on to power for the past 10+ years.

One final note – I’ve said little or nothing about Kosovo here, mainly because I don’t know very much about the situation on the ground. Although, given the tone set by the original post, maybe I shouldn’t have let that stop me…

He’s a big time loser. It’s best to ignore him.

Congrats on getting this article of yours referenced at ruusiaissues.com, EIN and Robert Amsterdam’s site.

Keep up the great work.