Saturday’s Feb. 10, BBC telecast to the US portrayed an “aggressive” Russian President Vladimir Putin “lashing out” at the US during a weekend gathering in Munich. The White House was then quoted as being “disappointed” with Putin’s comments. This BBC segment had an excerpt of an interview it conducted with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Ivanov claimed a one sided American approach to handling global trouble spots.
No example was given to support Ivanov’s view. The BBC frequently utilizes this tact, leaving not so informed viewers with unanswered points of relevance. To fill in the blank on this particular: an American official recently visited Moscow with the brazen attitude that Kosovo could be independent and that the basis for such didn’t apply to pro-Russian former Soviet territories in dispute. There’s nothing “aggressive” about that stance? Forget about the BBC doing a comparative breakdown to review whether Kosovo has the best case for independence (which it doesn’t, as those familiar with my commentary know).
The mentioned BBC segment ended with Arizona Senator John McCain welcoming Putin’s candor, while believing that the Russian president was aggressive. Talk about role reversal! Those on the Russocentric side who are familiar with McCain, are well aware of his overtly Russia and Serbia unfriendly statements over the course of time.
A Sunday Feb. 11, New York Times article uncritically described CIA Director Robert Gates’ statement after Putin’s address as taking a high road for seeking an end to what Gates termed was Cold War language on Putin’s part. This makes no sense whatsoever. With two competing superpowers during the Cold War, there was less of a uni-polar world. Putin’s Munich commentary is against one power dictating to the rest of the world (not to be misread as Putin seeking a return to the intense bi-polar rivalry of the Cold War).
At the Munich meeting, Putin firmly stated that any solution on Kosovo must have the full support of Serbia. Too bad he didn’t add that Trans-Dniester should receive prompt international recognition as an independent state. In addition to some leading American foreign policy politicos outside of government, how many times has the neo-conservative/neo-liberal influenced Bush Administration said that Kosovo has a “unique” case for independence unlike Trans-Dniester and some of the other disputed former Soviet territories? (mind you, I’m not lumping the disputed former Soviet territories as having the same degree of legitimacy)
Ever since the breakup of Yugoslavia – German mass media at large has been decidedly anti-Serb in its slant. Arguably more so than what’s evident in Anglo-American mass media. The Serb population in Germany is small when compared to that country’s Croat and Muslim populations. Germany’s being on the losing side in two world wars against Serbia might further explain the bias as well.
This slant was shown in a recent Der Spiegel interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. When Lavrov noted how UN Resolution 1244 calls for a return of Serb military personnel to Kosovo – Der Spiegel shot back with a – that’s unreasonable quip. The interview left that point without follow-up. To fill in the blank: it’s not unreasonable for Serbia to have its troops and government staff on Serb territory. UN Resolution 1244 calls for both. Kowtowing to the law of the jungle is a bad model (in this instance, basing one’s decision on how Albanian nationalists will behave if they don’t see their agenda supported).
A related bias is shown in the Western non-sympathy for Trans-Dniester’s view. Romania is a recently inducted EU member which actively backs Moldova’s hypocritically applied Soviet era border claim on Trans-Dniester. Unlike Trans-Dniester – Romania was also an ally of Germany during World War II.
In the background of these biases is the Berlin-Moscow relationship. The present reveals how the two can be on relatively good terms with each other, while maintaining different historical sympathies towards some others on the European continent. The last decade saw Germany re-ignite its WW II relationship with Croatia as Russia showed its historical favoritism with Serbia. In some instances, the vestiges of two world wars appear to linger on.
***
Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. In addition to Sean’s Russia Blog, his commentary has appeared in the Action Ukraine Report, Eurasian Home, Intelligent.ru, Johnson’s Russia List, Russia Blog, Serbianna, The New York Times, The Tiraspol Times.
Lyndon:
I prefer dropping the matter of “personal attacks” because of its subjectivity. For example, I consider Johnson’s Russia List to be attacking me by posting some of the commentary it does on a regular basis, while not posting my own. Its once in a blue moon route with me can be construed as an insult. There’re other clear instances of my being personally attacked in a manner which I don’t care to discuss (at least for the time being).
In your most recent reply, you overlook the other point I addressed where earlier in the discussion you suggested my knowledge to be limited to a few people I know from or in Trans-Dniester.
Your biases are the more favored over mine in Eng. language mass media. This isn’t because your views are more moral, correct or interesting. I’m more aware of your biases than you’re of mine. The Russocentric individual in America is deluged with thinking more along your lines. Someone having your views is less inclined to be as understanding of my views because such a perspective isn’t given an equitable hearing at venues like JRL and Russia Profile. I provided some insight in an earlier post made in this Comments segment. Yours truly is well trained for combat in terms of fully understanding those in opposition to my views. Self serving but true. Because of the nature of private exchanges being understood as confidential, I’m somewhat limited in fully detailing this. At the same time, I can freely reference a number of substantive accomplishments.
The way you’ve characterized The Tiraspol Times and Russia Profile reveals your bias. TTT more correctly reflects Trans-Dniester when compared to The Moscow Times’ bias of Russia. Are you aware that The Moscow Times is distributed for free? Russia Profile is largely staffed by Moscow Times reared people who display the slant of TMT.
Russia Today suffers from a low budget and some not so great decision making. I’m a big supporter of its stated existence. Awhile back, I wrote an article about RTTV (if interested, click the Russia Blog hyperlink at the two sentence bio following the above article).
Are you on my Quick Takes mailing list? Seeing how you’re looking to get other Russian views than what’s posted at JRL, you might find QT of interest. If interested and not currently a recipient, drop me a line. QT was recently featured in the Action Ukraine Report. The AUR posted QTs included a contribution from our Sean Guillory on the Holodomor. Another recent QT breakthrough was a contribution from Ajay Goyal, the principle of the one time Moscow based Russia Journal. I go out of my way to post articles not posted at JRL. Unlike JRL, I provide additional comments to the selected articles. On second thought, DJ posts replies. However, note that it’s often from the same limited grouping of people. The point being that I offer something different and interesting as per the feedback I get and limited cancellations.
“Team Suvorov” is the nickname of the top Trans-Dniester club which is affiliated with the business interest you referenced. Not too different with how sports are run in many other places.
To me, Voronin seems more of a Communist than Smirnov. You think highly of Saakashvili? Without meaning to name call, your views remind me of many of the people promoted by Soros funded orgs.
“I consider Johnson’s Russia List to be attacking me by posting some of the commentary it does on a regular basis, while not posting my own. Its once in a blue moon route with me can be construed as an insult. There’re other clear instances of my being personally attacked in a manner which I don’t care to discuss (at least for the time being).”
This is a hoot. Is the kid who gets picked last for the basketball team getting “attacked” by the team captains? No, he’s just not as good (in your case, as logically consistent, as fact-based, as well-known in the field, etc.) as the others. I’ve had things put in JRL and things not put in there – how can you possibly think of that as an “attack” on you unless you have serious issues? Anyway, since your parenthetical suggests you’re compiling some sort of “enemies list” for future use, I guess I should watch out.
You have no idea about my biases. And your suggestion that you do, because you think you have me pegged as a stereotypical “Anglo-American” observer of Russia reveals a great deal of prejudice on your part.
Regarding the rest of that third paragraph of your comments, you suggest that my knowledge of Russian views is shaped solely by JRL and Russia Profile (incorrect) and then talk incoherently about being “trained for combat,” but in some super-secret way. Whatever.
Then you suggest that they way I characterize Russia Profile (hey, wait a minute…) and TTT “reveals my bias.” But weren’t you just criticizing me for reading Russia Profile (I do, actually, at least I look at the headlines)? I’m confused. Or more likely, you’re confused.
With respect to the economics of the Moscow Times, you are flat-out wrong. Regardless of what you think of their editorial point of view, they are financially a going concern. While they do distribute most of their print run for free, they also sell subscriptions (expensive ones, I’ve had to sign off on them) to businesses in Russia to and individuals and businesses outside of Russia, they sell access to their online archives, and they sell advertising for a pretty penny (I know, I’ve costed it out). So I think they probably make ends meet. But there I go again with those pesky fact-based arguments from my personal experience. TTT, on the other hand…well, do you know anything about how it makes ends meet?
In an earlier comment, one of your acolytes said the following, which neatly covers your repeated incorrect statement about “Team Suvorov”:
“That is a flat out lie. Repeating it over and over again will not make it true.”
The team is called Sherif. Click on the multiple links that I provided in my comment above to verify that fact, if that’s not too much trouble. I hate to say it (because you don’t seem to recognize facts based on personal observations), but if you drive from Chisinau to Tiraspol, you go right past their huge facility, and it’s unmistakable that the team is called Sherif (or ?????, if you prefer).
It’s not a huge deal (the name of a soccer team), although you wanted to invest it with some significance. But your unwillingness to accept that you’re wrong about a simple and less than material fact – for which I’ve provided ample documentation – shows your lack of good faith in this discussion. And proves, once again, that maybe the people on “your side,” as you said, “who would consider such dialogue as [sic] a waste of time,” are correct. I only regret that I’ve wasted so much of my time on this discussion and can’t even get you to accept a simple fact about the name of a soccer team.
Thanks for the offer of your email list, but I don’t think I could handle having such head-spinningly truth-twisting interactions come to me in my inbox regularly. If you think JRL is an establishment echo chamber, then consider that all you’ve created is another echo chamber, albeit a lower-production-value, less grammatically correct one with a different point of view. I get plenty of views from the Russian media – all the good stuff is on line.
To engage in some turnabout (fair play, right?) with respect to your final remark – without meaning to name call, your views remind me of many of the people promoted by the Kremlin. Except that VVP & Co. can afford better writers. And in case your remark was intended as some sort of accusation, I’ve never taken a dime of Soros money (though I wouldn’t be averse to taking it, in principle), and I’ve never written or blogged about any of these issues for pay.
Lyndon – You are mostly right of course, but all this drawn out debate only serves to give credence to a non-issue. One look at the map is enough to realize that the idea of “reunification” of Pridnestrovie with Russia is either part of some cynical political agenda, or a flight of russoeccentric fancy.
You are right about George Washington too. He could not possibly cheat on his income taxes because they did not exist back then. However, according to some “independent analysts”, he fiddled with his expense accounts, abused Madeira and had fake wooden teeth.
Michael “Too Hot” Averko – You have again ducked my question: Did I or did I not say anything erroneous about the Khodorkovsky trial?
Your last post makes your earlier point about being personally attacked baseless. Moreover, DB and JBB have been far more offensive than what Andrew, Zhana and Alexandra can be legitimately accused of.
This so called enemies list smacks of Stalinism and my situation isn’t like the kid picked last on a team due to a lack of talent. My Intelligent.ru and Russia Blog articles were very well received at those sites in terms of number of views, posted comments in reply to them and being referenced elsewhere besides JRL. Yet, none of them ever made JRL and yes that site has its biases reflecting your own.
I’ve contacted several Trans-Dniester sources, This view summarizes the other:
“As for Lyndon’s claim, the truth is that SOME ethnic Moldovans in PMR
prefer the Latin alphabet, but they are in the distinct minority. There
are schools for them and their kids, so they are not discriminated
against.
The other ethnic Moldovans are divided between those who prefer Cyrillic
Moldovan, which is what PMR refers to as Moldavian.
And those who prefer Russian, and even speak Russian at home (just like
most ethnic Ukrainians both in PMR and Ukraine).
I know that the first group (those who want Moldovan in Latin script) are
in the distinct minority.
As for the others, I have no hard data on this, but my indication is that
the last group – the Russophiles – are in the majority. This should not
surprise you. Russian is widely spoken in Ukraine as well, even by ethnic
Ukrainians. And in terms of ideological makeup, PMR is a carbon copy of
‘blue’ Ukraine.”
****
You made the bogus analogy of the kid picked last on a team. How does this one fit relative to yourself (said by someone familiar with you): A well connected kid, who should otherwise not be taken seriously. I take you seriously out of knowing that your views conform with the well connected biases out there. Some trusted sources who exhibit a greater knowledge than yourself are familiar with you. They’ve confirmed what I’ve stated.
Your most recent comments about The Moscow Times, Russia Profile and The Tiraspol Times prove nothing contrary to what I’ve said. TMT is a non-Russian owned interest that makes a lot of money from advertisements. I never said anything to the conmrary. Try directly adressing what I said.
JRL does reflect the establishment thinking about Russia and plays to those biases. It’s also very influential in how supposedly “Russia friendly” types bash it, while sucking up to it on the open.
As for my writing skills, it might be less that of some others, but not in the not to be published category. My analysis is certainly a heck of a lot better than many others getting the nod. A point which can be easily proven. My writing skills defintely top what has been put into the Eng. language by Regnum and Kommersant. Your linking me to Russian PR is a confirmation that my views more correctly reflect the Russian mainstream than your own.
As per QT, it has been complimented by some recognized Russia watchers who don’t generally agree with me. I gather that you’ve yet to put out something of greater substance. I’ve had other substantive accomplishments not done by those getting the nod at JRL.
You continue to exhibit comprehension problems. I said that the referenced Tiraspol football (soccer) team is nicknamed Team Suvorov, much like how the New York Yankees are called the Brnox Bombers and the New York Rangers the Broadway Blushirts. Team name versus nickname. Got it?
Okay, let me attempt to play moderator here. I have been reluctant in the past. But people seem to enjoy (and desire) open, in depth, and civil discussion. So I figure I should try and step in and take a more active role in moderating.
It seems that this discussion is reached a tipping point. While the discussion about the variety of biases (either real or imagined) that media about Russia may not be inconsistent with Mike’s original article, I don’t think the forum of the comments section does the topic justice. Plus my sense from reading the comments is that it is slipping (or has slipped) into crack backs on minutia. I would invite all commentators to submit articles on the subject if they do wish.
Now to wrap up this discussion, I would ask all commentators to give some closing, and hopefully substantive, thoughts and then leave it at that.
A final thought (was writing this before your last comments):
Mike, why don’t you establish a blog and post your “QT” commentaries there?
Could it be because you tried to do this back in August of 2005 (I’m posting the Google cached version in case you take it down) and couldn’t figure out how to use Blogger? You posted 20-some comments to one post, rather than creating new posts. If you look at the last comments on there, I offered (months ago, maybe even over a year ago) to help you figure out how to use Blogger and get your opinions circulated. But you apparently prefer to keep them confined to some sort of non-transparent email list. Even your apparent nemesis, David Johnson, has a website where much of the material from JRL is available on an ongoing basis.
Your inability or unwillingness to use the simple Blogger interface while complaining about not being able to get your views out there speaks volumes.
Wouldn’t setting up a blog be the best (realistic) way to get your opinions out there, rather than sitting around feeling “attacked” because JRL won’t “publish” you? I know you might think it’s beneath an “independant analyst” of your stature to have to self-publish, but everyone has to start somewhere. If not Blogger, you could start a LiveJournal and tap into the Russian-language blogosphere. Here’s a good example of a debate taking place in civil tones there (which will also give you some of my views on media issues, in the unlikely event you care to see them), and here Pankratov – a more able advocate for views you seem to share – called my “ideology” similar to that of the Moscow Times, although I preferred the MosNews label. You see, there is lively discussion taking place all over the internet. Unfortunately, a history of posts where you get into comment wars with people (both here and on Russia Blog) suggests that you really aren’t interested in a discussion, but rather in just repeating your point of view ad nauseam and then having a fan club of two or three loyalists chime in with hatchet-job comments.
So again, I reiterate my offer to help you set up a blog. I will set it up and send you detailed instructions on how to use it. You can post your views every day (every hour, if you like), people who agree will link to them, and your views will attain the influence they deserve. You could even turn off commenting so you wouldn’t have to hear from people who disagree with you. What do you say?
Sean, sorry for the relative lack of substance to my last comment, you’re right to shut this down. I agree generally with what Mike’s PMR source said – and I’m glad he cited it – with the exception of the fact (unmentioned by Mike or his source) that there have been issues in the recent past with shutting down Latin-alphabet schools. I linked to a BBC story about this in an earlier comment, and this point was never responded to by Mike, who is not interested in looking at things that don’t reinforce his preconceptions.
Mike, I’m glad that you’ve done your research and that people out there are familiar with my views, even if you use that familiarity to try to poke at my “seriousness.” I’m not the one holding myself out as an “independent foreign policy analyst and media critic” (quite a mouthful), so I’ve never claimed you had to take me seriously. I speak only for myself, and not for the supposed sinister, biased, establishment consensus with which you keep trying to link me. And I’m not going to touch the “well connected” thing, which I guess is intended by you as some kind of slur. Kid? Whatever. I guess you missed the point of my basketball team analogy, which had nothing to do with kids (and everything to do with skills), and felt the need to lash out.
Also:
“Your linking me to Russian PR is a confirmation that my views more correctly reflect the Russian mainstream than your own.”
Strange, given that I never claimed to reflect – or seek to reflect – the Russian mainstream. I’m sure your views are closer to it than mine. That doesn’t make them correct. I would certainly resist, for example, being lumped in with “the American mainstream.”
On FK Sherif’s nickname, if you’re right, I will be happy to stand partially corrected. I did a bit of internet searching to confirm my facts before posting them, but I didn’t search terms like “Suvorovtsy” or similar possible fan nicknames which may be what you’re referring to. In the local and Russian media, as well as in every reference I found on the internet, the team is referred to as Sherif, but there may well be local fans who call it something else.
Anyway, thanks again, Sean.
And thank you, Mike, for a mostly civil (if ultimately pointless) debate. Once again, drop me a line if you want help setting up a blog.
Lyndon:
Your underhanded compliment further prove my point about your biases which include your feeling right to dish it out but not feel as comfortable about getting it right back. I took your point about being picked last on a team for what it was: a groundless insult. Your talk about “closing” this discussion is on the arrogant side. You should be the judge?
I’m far more “independent” than “Independent Media” and Pavel Felgenhauer.
The exchange was well worth showing how someone with your biases fairs against someone with views like mine. Your expressed views match what is stated at mainstream outlets like JRL.
No arrogance intended – Sean said he was ready to see this discussion thread brought to a close, and I agreed that it might be time to do that. I also reiterated my sincere willingness to help you spread your views, so I don’t think you can justly accuse me of trying to close down debate on the issue entirely or of setting myself up as the judge of anything.
Funny that you mention Felgenhauer – I’ve blogged about his apparent biases long ago.
You wrote:
“As per QT, it has been complimented by some recognized Russia watchers who don’t generally agree with me. I gather that you’ve yet to put out something of greater substance.”
I haven’t really set a goal for myself of putting out an email list, so no, I haven’t put one out. I commend you for your activism, though, and I think you should make your views available online.
A long time ago, I posted the following comment at your blog:
“Mr. Averko, you should be posting each article as a new post! No one will find your analysis buried in the comments section. We need more English-language Russia blogs, so start using Blogger correctly, please! Email me if you have questions on how to do this. Thanks, your posts are interesting, that’s why I’m concerned about seeing them be more accessible.”
I got no response from you. That was a sincere invitation made in good faith, which I’m reiterating. I support a diversity of viewpoints being out there. That doesn’t, however, mean I have to agree with all of them, and it doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to call your sources into question in the context of a debate.
If my tone crossed the line and became personal in the later comments, I regret it, because it takes away from the substance of my arguments, just as your comments of a personal nature take away from the substance of your views. But I don’t think I’ve said anything too outlandish (and have refrained from doing a “background check” on you, as you seem to have tried to do on me), and I’ve displayed much more patience in the back-and-forth than anyone else here who has disagreed with you.
There’s some contradiction to what you’ve said.
Feel free to do as you please in terms of researching what I’ve said elsewhere. It can’t possibly be worse than the garbage found at another blog.
I’m familiar with your comments elsewhere. They speak for themselves, and they provided ample basis for my comments about your methods of argumentation. My point about the “background check” was that you, on the other hand, are not willing to let my online writings speak for themselves and have apparently done some asking around about me in an attempt to dig up ammo to try to discredit what I’ve written here. Seems like poor form to me.
Mishka shows great form in dealing with the subject in an honestly up front manner. A complete review of these exchanges indicate that there is an internet definition of a troll in your delivery.
Great work Mishka. You are a true friend of Russia and of promoting a better understanding.
Damn those censoring you.
Zhana,
Regarding the “troll” label, Wikipedia has the following:
“The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.”
While I have used strong language to describe Mike’s views and manner of argumentation, I have not descended to your level of name-calling (“troll,” “Soviet journalist”). I support all attempts to promote understanding.
I have offered to help Mike overcome censorship by creating a blog to post his views online. That is a sincere offer and is relevant to the discussion here about his desire to get his point of view out.
Andrew, that is an incomplete meaning of the net definition of a troll.
You described Mike as a poorer version of a Russian government PR person. You also second guessed his writing ability which I find to be more than acceptable.
Mike is an added improvement to Russian media and public relations efforts. His being shunned has to do with those seeking the status quo. His getting in might mean someone else not getting in. The anti-Russian side surely does not want him in a high profile scenario.
A more precise comparison to the one you made is that you are a poorer version of Julian Evans and some other Johnson’s Russia List promoted individuals.
If you are going to attack then expect a return shot.
Andrew, thanks for the shot. I needed that. But I don’t think your comparison holds up. I have never proclaimed a bias, as Mike has (“Russocentric”), and I have never held myself out as an “analyst,” as Mike has (thus suggesting that he takes his views more seriously than the views of others). While I do follow these issues, and I do have views on them, my bigger concern initially in commenting here was with the facts. I don’t seek to have my views published all over the place and I don’t make a claim to represent any larger point of view (see Mike’s remark about “my side”); in these comments I speak only for myself, and the facts and views I have put forth also speak for themselves. I’m sorry if others have a professional stake in this, but I don’t.
I am sorry about the limited opportunities for Mike’s opinions to be aired and do not think that anyone should be censored, or “shunned,” as you put it. I am sure you think I’m BS’ing, but I am completely sincere in my offer to set up a blog for Mike to post his views and gain a wider audience.
My goal with my initial comments was simply to make a few valid points which call Mike’s thesis on Transnistria (and the comparison with Montenegro & Kosovo) into question. Point-counterpoint, etc., led eventually to some strong language and personal digs from all sides (which seems to happen often in threads where Mike is a commenter), which I agree were not a shining example of fact-based debate.
I based my responses on Mike’s comments here and also on his comments elsewhere online. He saw the need to ask around about me in a non-transparent way, although I have a blog which does not hide my identity and observations (which are not reflexively anti-Russian, in spite of the suggestions made here). His attempt to use anonymous “sources” to discredit me was a low blow.
So while I agree that it’s fair to expect a return shot, I don’t think it’s fair to expect such a cheap shot.
Way to go Andrew and Zhana.
“Cheap shot”?
Mike is an analyst and has been recognized as such at the Action Ukraine Report, Eurasian Home, Intelligent.ru, Johnson’s Russia List, Russia Blog, Serbianna and The Tiraspol Times.
Do you have a problem with that Andrew and if so why? His analysis is brilliant.
A brat is someone behaing like they are unaware of their rudeness. Mike has put up with a lot of shit, besides your snide comments.
Mike does not need a blog as much as being put in a position where his talent can be best served.
DB
You never heard of: “No taxation without representation”
The American Revolution was partly about the American colonists not wanting to pay taxes to the Crown.
Washington did cheat on his taxes. It has been awhle since I last reviewed this. I’m not sure if it was before or after 1776, or during both periods.
Thank you Zhana, Andrew and Alexandra.
The mentioned bias is shown in a recent post of Lyndon’s at Andrew Young’s blog (Siberian Light) about someone (“La Russophobe”) who regularly engages in deceit. Lyndon has nothing critical to say of that individual.
Mike, nice try. I have gone back and forth with LR before in comments (right when her blog started) and based on the result have since chosen to generally avoid that blog. I don’t comment on that blog and on some of the tactics used therein because it’s not worth the trouble. I engaged you in a debate here because we’ve discussed this matter earlier on this blog and ended the discussion amicably. I’m sorry that hasn’t been the outcome this time.
I have never been a supporter of the blindly Russophobic approach, before or after LR appropriated the term, and have lamented “Russia-bashing” in the past. My comment to Andy was simply that it’s interesting to see an interview with someone who has become so infamous so quickly in the small world of Russia bloggers. I wanted to congratulate Andy on his interview “get” and chose not to criticize LR’s style, because I know full well – as do you – where that leads. I don’t support LR’s method or overall message. So there’s no need to try to tar me with the LR brush.
I have already expressed regret for my excesses in tone a couple of times. To be clear, I regret and apologize for the small portion of my comments that were indeed rude, because there is enough invective in the Russia blogosphere as it is (much of it spread by LR, as Mike rightly notes); because such remarks take away from the substantive points I made; and because Mike seems like a generally decent guy, when unprovoked, who has as much right to have his opinions heard as anyone else. Just as I have a right to disagree on the facts without being accused of bias and worse. Mike’s dedication to these issues is impressive, and I’ve already commended him for his activism.
There’s no need to try to smear me by associating me with LR, or to use me as a proxy for a perceived biased “Anglo-American” consensus, etc.
Oh yeah? Then you agree that LR is someone more apt for criticism than yours truly? Why soft pedal that person?
Was Andy’s “coup” more substantive than my getting Ajay Goyal on QT or QT making the Action Ukraine Report with Sean’s QT contribution on the Holodomor? I see that Andy’s “catch” made Global Voices as well.
There’s a pretty rotten culture out there. Certain views and individuals are targetted for promotion over others and it’s often not merit based.
In a private discussion with a JRL regular – he/she gets an orgasm making JRL. I said to this person – **** if your articles don’t make JRL, does that make them any less better? Do you (the interlocutor) think it’s right that DJ is free from criticism out of an existing fear that he will ban given persons if they don’t conform to his likes which are subjective (there’s no disputing his carrying on like that)? This manner is nouveau Stalinist and I shamelessly go against it. DJ isn’t the only one in this category.
I also express disgust at Russian government institutions which (as I understand it) have donated to JRL, in exchange for their often times not so politically sharp commentary getting picked up at that venue. They want to improve the situation? Then they should build up those seeking to change it with a proven record, instead of supporting those who have been an issue in the circumspect coverage of Russia.
You don’t think I’m such a person? Ask me why I’m not, instead of broadly questioning my being referenced as an analyst. Analysts analyze.
Right after the so called “Orange Revolution”, I said that Yanukovych wasn’t finished, which was the opposite of what Kuzio said. Shortly after the Hamas election victory, Russia announced a Moscow invite to that org. Immediately after that announcement, I correctly called what would happen (no one else at the time did). Hamas getting a diplomatic scolding from Moscow. Two people initially disagreed with me on that. A short time later, they advocate that position without giving me any credit. Another part of this field which I find quite underhanded.
My three SRB contributions are certainly worthy of being on a center stage. I’m not the only one thinking so. With much criticism of the current status quo, there’s no legitimate basis for censoring me.
Nothing self centered about that. Someone suggested otherwise. That person is someone who has taken someone else’s ideas as their own.
Sigh. So much for the request for some closing substantive comments. And so much for moderating. . .
Mike: Whatever disagreements you have with Lyndon, to say that he “has nothing critical to say of that individual (i.e. LR)” amounts to what I would call LR-baiting.
To his credit, Lyndon has stated his regret for any personal attacks on you during what I thought, until yesterday, was a decent discussion and engagement with your article. But you keep twisting the knife. I really don’t see how that is contributing to any meaningful, let alone interesting, discussion.
Lyndon shouldn’t have regretted that Sean? How about some of the attacks made at Mike by two other participants?
What kind of a moderator are you? Did you cut in at them? You choose to go after Mike.
Did you see Lyndon’s comments about La Russophobe at that other blog. La Russophobe was not exacly diplomatic in that interview.
It is good that Mike has held firm. The kind of character that is lacking. He took the high road.
Folks!!
As my manner here has shown, I’m 100% in favor of civil discourse. Some additional thoughts related to the above article come to mind. Before getting to them, I want to set the record straight. This isn’t 1947 and I’m not Jackie Robinson. If I’m gonna get hit, then a counter-reply isn’t out of line. I received an email from a frequent JRL contributor, who is a private admirer of my work. He applauded my initial posted comments under the SRB article on Vlasov. In that correspondence, I firmly address the scurrilous comments made just before it. Consider me like the hockey player with finesse skills, who will drop the gloves when aggressed upon.
Moving along:
The recent edition of The Moscow News has three lead articles by Arutunyan, Bridge and Primakov (don’t be surprised if all three of them make Sunday’s JRL). Here’s the link: http://english.mn.ru/english/ Putin’s Munich “outburst” is seen by many Russians as an “it’s about time” reply. I very much sympathize with that view.
As per my comments at SRB (including the article “Russia’s Stance on Disputed Territories”), the Primakov piece is lacking in that it lumps the disputed former Communist bloc lands in the same mold.
This leads back to an earlier point which (if I’m not mistaken) was made by Lyndon. The SSR borders shouldn’t all be fully recognized as a given. There’s no more USSR, which in many instances created such boundaries. At least one of them is quite flawed. Prior to 1939, the Moldavian SSR didn’t even exist in the USSR. Moldova was forcibly annexed by the USSR and Trans-Dniester was arbitrarily put into the newly created Moldavian SSR after it had been an “autonomous” region in the Ukrainian SSR. And yes, Trans-Dniester’s centuries Slavic majority is historically linked to Kievan Rus. A functioning multi-party democracy, which is at ethnic piece can be applied to Trans-Dniester. The same can’t be said of Kosovo, which also a different history from Trans-Dniester.
just keep stacking the bs higher and higher
You really make a great argument against that description?
Mike Averko – You still owe me an apology for your remark about my RussiaBlog post. Civil discourse is incompatible with hit-and-run snipes.
As for your latest argument, it’s yet another non sequitur. How exactly does the fact that Pridnestrovie used to be part of UKRAINE support your thesis that the former must reunite with RUSSIA?
Alexandra asks what kind of moderator am I. Well clearly a pretty shitty one. You know Alexandra there are a lot of things I could do to moderate the comments section. I could make all posts moderated and make them subject to my approval. I could set strict standards for comments and delete any I find as personal attacks or comments such as yours that don’t contribute anything to the discussion. But I choose not to do this because it will exclude a lot of people and I don’t want to be the nursery school teacher and scold all of you. Lastly, I don’t have the time or really the energy to monitor such pedantry. Alas, all I can do is suggest to everyone that they keep the discussion civil and thought provoking since judging from the earlier comments such a forum is desirable. But such a forum, of course, requires participants to be respectful of that mission. For the most part I can say that until the last few days this discussion has been the case.
As to the “he hit me first” reply, well boo hoo. I for one am not going to scroll through all 76 of the comments and do a close textual analysis of who is cracking at who. I much rather spend my time on more worthwhile ventures. If I target one person for their outbursts its because I expect better of them.
Now all of that said.
Johnnie thanks for that “insightful” contribution. If you want to join the discussion then join it. If you want to be flippant, well save it for the playground.
I think Mike brings up an interesting issue in regard to borders. After all the history of Eastern Europe over the last century has very much been one of shifting borders, most of which were imposed regardless of who lived where. Since borders are not “fixed” except in the minds of primordial nationalists who evoke historical legacies as if they are fixed, unadulterated, and linear, there must be a political process in the present in which they are determined.
Now I don’t know what that process would exactly be, nor do I profess to know enough about either case to suggest one. I will only state that “disputed territories” is a global problem as perhaps of third wave of nationalist aspirations make a greater impact on nation states. It all makes one wonder if the death knell of the nation state will not be globalized capital, as many suggest, but the very foundation to the nation state’s existence–the ideology of the nation state based on ethnic homogeneity. It seems that this third wave of nationalist aspirations seeks to fragment states (Moldova, Serbia, India, China, Iraq, Turkey, Russia to name a few) based on the very ideology that led to the establishment of the nation state as such. So much for the multiethnic state project of the 20th century, of which the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was an example. It appears that the 21st could be one of ethnic and religious (which is not to far from the former) fragmentation.
Sean & Co:
I think that the matter of independence movement within multi-ethnic states versus multi-ethnic states remaining the same will be an ongoing reality (at least for the immediate and more distant future) as it has been for centuries.
In some countries it works and others it doesn’t. The reasons for which are best understood by examining along the lines of the comparative politics discipline in political studies (I refuse calling it a science, because it’s a soft one at best). This kind of a learning process is largely shunned in mass media because it can run amuck with what the influential powerbrokers are advocating. A prime current example being the independence for Kosovo, but not for Trans-Dniester school of thought.
Dare I say that this SRB feature along with my first SRB contribution has filled in the blanks to what the BBC and Sunday’s Primakov article (in The MN) have left out.
while there is and will be greater fragmentation on the micro level, perhaps there is simultaneously a greater consolidation on the macro level. as yugoslavia has fallen apart, the succesor states are now trying to join the larger EU. the growth of regional trade blocks such as NAFTA, ASEAN, etc., may be a further example of this. while the doha rounds have collapsed and those countries in “old europe” are increasingly wary of EU expansion, long term i see a greater expansion of more inclusive trade and political ties (especially regarding foriegn policy) among states as a continuing trend as smaller states seek to make their voice heard in the international arena. at the same time, local control of culture and internal politics will increase.
is that substantive enough for you, sean?
as for my “flippant” comments, i stand by my simple breakdown of Averko’s apologist arguments. i have no desire to get in a shouting match with him, though i’m sure he would love it, so he could lecture me in his smug, self-congradulatory way. and though you asked to all to wrap things up, this did not happen, as his need to always have the last word trumps all. if my bs comment seems irreverent, it’s becasue i’m a sarcastic ass. but i will stand by it. sometimes simplicity is better than long-windedness that will not lead anywhere. something aveko seems to live for.(and tell me the kieven rus argument is not bs!)
with that being said, my friend, i would like to discuss what you said earlier somehwere about fitzpatrick’s talk, about the lack of revisionists in the popular press. i think it is time for you to perhaps make a little try at this, belong blogland. maybe time for some op-eds in the la times, perhaps?
Another (convincing not) comment from the peanut gallery.
Without much opposition among themselves, Russocentric people are educated in believing that Kievan Rus is the root of their national identity.
Anyone seriously disputing this is misinformed.
As far as I can make out, the case for an idependent Kosovo as advocated by sensible people in the west runs as follows.
An ethnic or religious minority in any given country does not have a right to secede simply because they are a minority. However, the ruling majority have an obligation to protect the lives and general wellbeing of the minority. If the majority fail in this obligation, or embarkm on a campaign of violent persecution or genocide, then the minority has a right to secede for its own protection and survival.
In the case of Kosovo, few in the west supported the right of Kosovo to secede from Serbia simply because it is made up mostly of ethnic Albanians, as this would set a disturbing precedent. However, once the Serb government embarked on a program of violent persecution against the entire minority population which was headed towards a campaign of ethnic cleansing (which can never, ever be justified), many in the west recognised that Serbia has by its own actions lost the right to govern the ethnic minorities in Kosovo and for their own protection and survival they need to become an independent entity.
Or course it is all very complicated, and I think it is appalling that the Serb population of Kosovo is being kicked out of Kosovo and are not offered the protection of the NATO force on the ground. But Serbia has no grounds whatsoever for complaint that it has lost control of Kosovo when it proved itself incapable or unwilling to carry out its obligation to protect its ethnic minorities when it was in control.
It is this line of thinking which causes a lot of people in the west to oppose Serbian control of Kosovo, even if they don’t necessarily agree that Kosovo has any historical grounds for independence.
Tim, you should read through this issue more closely as posted here.
The Albanians weren’t the innocents made out to be. The Serbs rebelled against Albanian nationalist terrorism. The opposite view does not factually carry well. Check through this section from start to finish (whenever it finally ends).
Mike, got your email regarding other things and this situation. I am 100% with you.
Johnnie be bad. Johnnie be sad.
Go! Go, Johnnie, go ,go, go!
Where is obvious.
db
Did you see Butner’s latest? Seeing how you haven’t apologized to me on some points you addressed regarding the Vlasov article, I don’t owe you squat.
On your other point, Pridnestrovie (Trans-Dniester) is kind of like “Blue” Ukraine. It’s perhaps more Russocentric than Crimea. Prior to being put into the Communist created Moldavian SSR in 1939, it was an “autonomous” region within the Ukrainian SSR. Prior to that, much of Ukraine had been affiliated with Russia for centuries. Russia and Ukraine both trace their roots to Kievan Rus. Alexander Suvorov, the legendary Russian general is a hero in Trans-Dniester. I don’t think that west Ukrainian nationalists see him in the same light. Trans-Dniester voted to reunify with Russia.
———————————–
Tim
Andrew is right. It’s important to understand what went on in Kosovo between 1974-89, as well as during WW II and for periods beforehand. The Serbs can’t be factually called the aggressor in that conflict. In addition to what has been posted in this feature, there’re the various links in the above article (two sentence bio included). Some related brief info. can be accessed by clicking my name below these comments.
I don’t run from opposing views. Feel free to tell me where you think I’m wrong.
———————————–
Andrew
I received your email. Thanks. There’ve been several other thumbs ups as well. We’ll stay the course, full speed ahead and see where the chips will fall.
I have not implied that the Albanians were innocent, they clearly weren’t. The Serbs had a valid reason to try to prevent the secession of Kosovo and had a right to do so.
But the Serbs did not have a right to direct indiscriminate violence at the ethnic minorities which culminated, or was at best fast culminating, in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. As soon as they did this, the Serbs lost the right to govern those minorities.
It is not “important to understand what went on in Kosovo between 1974-89, as well as during WW II and for periods beforehand” when considering Serb attempts to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of Albanians. Instead, it is important to understand that ethnic cleansing is totally inexcusable and not to be tolerated under any circumtances, regardless of history or in the context of Albanian terrorism.
Michael Averko – Gary is still in denial. We’ll see soon enough if he has the honesty to admit the obvious. You clearly don’t.
As for the other point, mine was a dismissive question not really meant to be answered. Not by you anyway, because Johnnie is right, you are just a broken bs record. Your credentials are ridiculous, your education is suspect, your writing and reasoning skills are nonexistent — and a little googling reveals that everybody already knows that.
Here and here.
Tim
You’re right that the Serbs have a right to defend themselves and their territory. In Kosovo, their actions proved no worse than what the Russians have done in Chechnya. Serbs actions compare better to what the teflon Turks have done to the Kurds. British actions in Northern Ireland and Israeli ones inside and outside of the Green Line have left something to be desired as well. No war is “clean.” Some more than others. Serbia didn’t deserve to get bombed and independence shouldn’t be granted to Kosovo. Bosnia was a three way civil war, with all three sides sharing a good measure of guilt and innocence.
db
For whatever it’s worth, my formal education is more advanced than Lech Walesa, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the late Sony Bono, among many others.
Along with Johnnie, if your education is more advanced than my own, than the matter of higher education isn’t the end all in judging talent.
The record clearly shows that I matter of factly debunked your last retort on trans-Dniester, with your having no sound counter-reply. The same holds true with your babbling critiques of my Vlasov article.
No need to answer such a dope Mike. I am glad you did anyhow.
Sean, a delayed boo, hoo, hoo, to you to.
Before your reply to my last comments, there was an instance when you took Lyndon’s side against Zhana and myself. You were wrong then as well.
On the whole, I am pleased with the contents at your blog. It is putting to shame another blog claiming a hit tally of 1800 a day.
You deserve a well earned hat tip and more.
The above comment apparently means that since RussiaBlog won’t publish Mr Averko’s rubbish anymore, he and his sock-puppets now consider Sean’s blog their home.
Further proof of db not knowing much. This explains his nitpicking over the minute versus dealing with the more substantive.
Better being this described “sock puppet” over a dumbbell or out and out fraud.
Nice one Sasha.