by Simon Lewis
On April 18, OAO Gazprom, the Russian state-owned gas monolith, gained the controlling stake in Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd. (50% + 1 share) that it had been promised in December after the internationally publicised ‘scandal’ surrounding the allegations made against the company by the Federal Service for the Supervision of Natural Resources (“Rosprirodnadzor”), the Russian government’s environmental watchdog.
The predominant strand of Western commentary, which maintains that Gazprom is an instrument of state-sponsored bullying, has been steadfast in its resilience since September when the affair became public. In the meantime, Anna Politkovskaya was murdered outside her Moscow apartment (October 7), Aleksandr Litvinenko was poisoned to death in London (November), Belarus was dealt a repeat of the gas cut-off suffered by Ukraine (January), and Russia and its ‘crumbling’ democracy has been a regular focus of the mainstream media. With the passing of Boris Yeltsin on April 23, many foreign commentators, both politicians and journalists, could not resist the temptation to at least make sidelong implications hinting at the current president’s ‘regressiveness’, compared with Mr. Yeltsin’s legacy as a ‘defender of democracy’ and the ‘conqueror of Communism’.
There is hardly a need to recount the allegations brought against Putin’s Russia. They are, by now, very familiar and verging on monotony. Europeans are concerned for their energy security, investors are weary, democracy pundits are up in arms, whilst the US government seems to seriously believe that the “defensive” anti-missile shield being developed in Poland and the Czech Republic is not an affront against Russia’s international perspective.
It would be na?ve and foolish to suggest that democracy in Russia is not in grave danger. Presidential appointment, rather than popular election, has become the normative vehicle for accession to governmental and judiciary positions. Political opposition is on its last legs, with popular protest restricted and liberal candidates being struck off electoral ballots for allegedly collecting forged signatures. The perceived freedom of the press is diminishing rapidly with every mysterious journalist death, while Gazprom and friends buy up more and more of the main media outlets.
But is Gazprom’s state-sponsored strategy really world domination? Is the company just a foreign policy tool with the expressed aim of re-establishing a second post-Soviet Moscow-centric empire, this time through economic means? Has the Kremlin succeeded in embracing and manipulating capitalism to reignite the old flame of its expansionist ambitions?
The answer is, inevitably perhaps, both yes and no. Yes because the company is owned by the state, and, like all commercial enterprises, its strategy includes expansion and increased profits; because the board of directors is composed of Putin allies and government ministers (including supposed presidential hopeful and First Deputy Premier Dmitriy Medvedev); because imperialist and nationalist sentiments are growing in Russia, fuelled by war, politics, media, literature, and theatre; because Russia has interests, either directly or indirectly, in a number of geopolitical disputes, from Kosovo through Transdniestr, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Kuril Islands north of Japan, and of course Chechnya, and is too reluctant to cede any ground to allow for any other foreign influences, especially those of the USA.
However, some degree of perspective is needed before condemning Russia and Gazprom too hastily – and not just because the arguments raised against them might be equally applicable to our own governments and corporations.
It is universally agreed that Russia’s ability to be seen as a threat has been brought about during President Putin’s tenure through unprecedented economic growth, the driving force of which is mineral exports – mainly oil and gas. Widespread wealth is a virgin concept to Russia, and the Moscow of today is a vastly different landscape to that of even five years ago, and the fruits of the county’s newfound prosperity have begun flowering also in the regions.
But the country is far from developed by any non-GDP-measured standards: healthcare is lagging behind drastically, social safety nets are still non-existent, housing is sub-standard, child poverty is rife, and a million people are homeless. The reported crime rate has been on the rise since the lost years of the late 90s. Hundreds of thousands of abandoned and orphaned children live in state institutions, the majority of which will never be integrated into mainstream society. Outside Moscow and a few of the very biggest cities, infrastructure is limited. It is indicative that, in the country with the largest gas resources in the world, only 54% of the population is directly supplied with domestic gas – this figure falls to 34% in rural areas.
The problem with the typical western analysis of Gazprom’s strategy, therefore, is that it does not take into account the domestic front on which it operates. In a country still very much in transition to market principles and economic stability, both the government and Gazprom have an entire system to overhaul and bring in line with the global regime. By doing so, they not only stabilise Russia’s economy, but by proxy, they significantly contribute to the overall energy security of Europe and the world at large.
The domestic gas market in Russia is, in truth, not a market at all. Staggering differences in prices and incomes between Russia at the collapse of the Soviet Union and the West meant that domestic gas has been heavily subsidized by Gazprom and the government until now, as it was in communist times. Meanwhile, demand only grows both at home and abroad, while (Western-influenced) geopolitical concerns in the Middle East and Nigeria, as well as US antagonism with a number of South American regimes, maintain energy security in a state of tension and global prices remain high. The result is that Russia is increasingly called upon, from both East and West, to supply export fuel.
Gazprom currently makes a loss on its domestic gas sales, which limits the investiture it can embark on in order to exploit more of its abundant subsoil resources. The company is therefore straining to ensure that it can continue to meet rising demand and honour long-term supply contracts it has signed with a number of destination countries in Europe, whilst also trying to build relations with Asian markets such as India, China, Japan and South Korea. This is, of course, a worry for Gazprom itself and for all governments and citizens who rely on fossil fuel resources for their energy needs (and whilst the Green Revolution remains confined to a few OSCE countries, and alternative energy development is hardly revolutionary in its progress, this is essentially everyone) because it is the purses of the ordinary consumer which will be hardest hit by any prospective crisis in energy supply. The strategy laid out by the government is to gradually raise gas prices through its tariff system, gradually introducing long-term supply contracts market pricing with an aim of having a fully market-based and sustainable system by 2011.
Contrary to Western opinion, Gazprom and the Federal Government are not two mirror-image manifestations of Soviet-style hegemony conspiring to conquer Russia, the former Soviet Union, and eventually the rest of the world. As with any pluriform political system, there are ideological divisions and tensions permeating the administration at every level: President Putin has, after all, preferred variety and continuity as to be a defining feature of his cadre, unlike Mr. Yeltsin who dispatched a seemingly endless string of ministers as soon as their opinion started to differ from his own. Internal talks regarding market liberalization, export policy, taxation, and so on, have stalled repeatedly due to relativistic differences (the government, for example, is proposing a sixfold increase in gas extraction tax, which Gazprom is vehemently opposing). The presence of disagreement and debate is, of course, perfectly typical of any legitimate democratic institution, and accusations of resurgent totalitarian authority are revealed to be, if not totally misplaced (debate is a fairly exclusive feature of the upper echelons after all, with only limited details reaching the eyes and ears of the press), then certainly a hysterical overreaction.
While Mr. Putin’s favoured doctrine of “sovereign” or “controlled” democracy comes under frequent attack on this side of the divide, where Politkovskaya, Kasparov, Berezovsky and other militant Putin-haters are given a practical monopoly of editorial exposure, the predominant, and undoubtedly not enforced perspective (the legacy of Russian dissidence is far too strong for that) in Russia itself is both more balanced and varied. It is recognized and conceded that statist reforms are a necessary counterweight to the rampant kleptocracy pervaded by the self-serving pro-business bratva of the Yeltsin-era, that the oligarchs had to be brought in check (and for all the injustices committed against Mikhail Khodorkovsky, insofaras as he was singled out and packaged as a universal warning, let us not forget that he was legitimately found guilty of tax evasion and fraud), and that enforced counter-insurgent pacification was the only way to stop the bloodshed in Chechnya.
The case of Sakhalin Energy is no different. The original Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) was signed in 1994, when Russia was a still fragile capitalistic embryo desperate for foreign investment and willing to accept almost any conditions. Multinational energy corporations are hardly known for their compromising nature, while the Russian authorities of the time were far from reaching any recognized apex of accountability. The recent action can therefore be interpreted as a Russified reverse model of the successful attempt of the British and American governments in overthrowing the Iranian Shah in 1953 for threatening to nationalize oil interests there. Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that Sakhalin Energy was not in violation of environmental protocols (although, equally, there is no evidence to suggest that the newly Russian-controlled enterprise is making any attempt to rectify any infringement).
Mr. Putin’s speech at the Munich conference on Security Policy in February and the subsequent reactions signified the start of a new era of US-Russian tension, and talk of a new cold war has abounded. Conflicts of interest exist in almost every sphere of political activity: the new “space race” being waged over the control of global satellite surveillance (the US’s GPS vs. Europe’s Galileo vs. Russia’s GLONASS), the struggle for influence in Middle Eastern affairs (with Russia increasing its stake in the Palestinian conflict, renewing speculation on the possible formation of a new OPEC-style gas cartel, cooperating with Iran over nuclear power, etc.), Russia’s renewed friendliness with Japan, a traditionally staunch US-ally, and its increasing diplomatic and strategic cooperation with Europe (especially Germany) are all cause for concern for Republicans and Democrats alike.
One key area in which the US has been striving to increase its holding is Central Asia, doggedly supporting the colour-revolutions (recently revealed to be a false dawn in Ukraine) and rapidly expanding its energy interests in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and other resource-rich countries. Meanwhile, it has been vociferous in the assault against Gazprom for forcibly raising gas prices in Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus. There is a fatal contradiction at play here which is plain to see for anyone who cares to look: if the West is so stridently in favour of market liberalism and democracy, and principally against a “repressive” and “anti-democratic” Russia re-establishing its sphere of influence over its new sovereign neighbours, why on earth would they want Russia to carry on subsidizing their gas consumption, negating the development of the desired economic principles and maintaining an economic leash with which to rein them in at will? On the contrary, Moscow has throughout this decade made a string of concessions to the CIS states to establish their independence and re-mould them into strong, strategic partners, rather than subservient, and therefore reliant, puppet regimes. It is only in cases of open hostility (such as Georgia) that severe measures have been taken to draw a line in the sand. The outcomes of the price disputes of recent winters should be interpreted as the controlled release of the adolescent flock from the parental nest, and not as a threat to Europe, the US, or anyone else.
The question remains: what of the future? Russia is approaching an all-important crossroads, in the form of the March 2008 Presidential Elections. Suffice it to say that Putin will almost certainly not be a candidate, while common wisdom has it that former Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov and Dmitriy Medvedev (current Chairman of Gazprom) are the main contenders. The end of the Putin era will signify the closing chapter of a Golden Age for many Russians, while it cannot be supposed that much systemic change will be implemented by either victorious candidate.
In the meantime, we in the West must recognize that Russia is completing a crucial and at times painful first phase of transition from totalitarianism to capitalist democracy. Unreasoned hostility will only push the regime towards greater antagonism, as has been witnessed in the rise of Islamist militancy throughout the years of the War On Terror. Baiting the bear will only increase our own security worries, while positively encouraging liberal reform through cooperation and trade will serve to continue the ascendance of stability, democracy and reform in this most turbulent of countries. If alignment is what we wish from the Russians, then we must stop blindly criticising them.
Simon Lewis is an occasional writer on Russian and other international affairs. He studied Russian and Linguistics at Oxford University, and has worked as a teacher, orphanage volunteer, translator and writer in Russia. He is now employed in Russian oil and gas research in London.
His feeble defense is the hypocritically applied grammar Nazi mode …
I asked you once before to explain what you mean by “hypoctitically applied”, but you avoided doing so. Given that you seem intent on repeating this rather nonsensical construction, would you care to explain it now?
As for moi – Intelligent.ru, Serbianna, TTT, Russia Blog, Action Ukraine Report, Eurasian Home, Siberian Light, Sean’s Russia Blog, New York Times (pre-internet era) and JRL are nothing to scoff at.
To be honest, it’s not much to boast of either, yet you insist on doing so in every other comment.
But nevertheless, as I have already shown, the only two of these outlets which still publish you are Serbianna and the Tiraspol Times, both of which are single-issue propaganda websites.
Regarding Newman’s’ bogus claim on the market objectively determining what does and doesn’t get presented, note how he ducks the points raised in this edited excerpt of a correspondence involving myself and another person:
Erm, I didn’t duck the points, I actually quoted one of them:
Johnson doesn’t favor effective Eng language Russocentric journalists. A type very much lacking in the Eng. language market.
And made the point:
Almost by definition, markets have an uncanny knack of making sure a product is not lacking in the face of demand. The reason why Russocentric journalism is lacking in the English language market is probably the same as why Francocentric journalism is lacking in the English language market: the demand simply isn’t there.
So you may state that my claim is bogus, but it is a little difficult for you to credibly claim that I ducked the points raised in your correspondence when the claim you are referring to was made in direct reference to one of these points.
As for my claim being bogus, I guess we have two options of what to believe:
1) Russocentric journalism is lacking in the English language market because of lack of demand; or
2) Russocentric journalism is lacking in the English language market because of a conspiracy to keep them out.
I guess the readers can decide for themselves which to believe.
The above was written in shorthand by a very well educated individual, who displays a greater intellect than Newman.
Presumably these displays do not include the one you have posted on here.
You don’t see a Lavelle or Babich coming up with creative terms like the “Reverse Holbrooke”.
No, you don’t. You don’t see them coming up with statements such as The rape issue in Bosnia was proven to be a great hoax either, which is presumably why they are still gainfully employed as writers in media outlets who you wish to work for.
Oh yes I did state what was meant by “hypocritically applied”. Ger’s frequent misspells as one case in point. On grammar usage, I can find other such instances at SRB. It’s a rather moot point from you. The “nonsensical” is what you continue to bring up as important, while overlooking the truly great blunders.
To be honest, you’ve achieved nothing, inclusive of your manner at these discussions.
You’re a myopic propagandist with your hypocritically applied standards, coupled with an extreme ignorance on a number of issues. You falsely characterized my recent activity over the past 2-3 months that in fact includes features at SRB, SL and JRL. Serbianna provides a well rounded in depth overview of events in former Yugoslavia on subject matter you clearly don’t know much about. TTT is an excellent Eng. language source of info. on Trans-Dniester.
The Eng. language coverage of the FSU now includes Russian government funded efforts to improve an imperfect situation. The market is there for intelligently presented Eng. language views. The mass media situation is incongruent for some reasons having nothing to do with market forces objectively determining what does and doesn’t get a platform. This was clearly stated. Your lack of reading comprehension aside. Besides Russian government funded number efforts, I know many Anglo-Americans dissatisfied with mass media at large. Polls confirm this. Yet, many not so perfect aspects remain in place. Much like how Poland being Communist for decades didn’t mean the Polish population’s support for that form of government.
The rape issue in Bosnia as initially presented in English language mass media has been proven to be a hoax. I posted the raw data on that. Another oversight on your very flawed manner of gathering information and replying to it.
Oh yes I did state what was meant by “hypocritically applied”. Ger’s frequent misspells as one case in point.
In that case I think it can safely be said that you have no idea what “hypocritical” means. Note that this is not the first time you have used words incorrectly through not knowing their meaning.
To be honest, you’ve achieved nothing, inclusive of your manner at these discussions.
Then we make a fine pair, both of us achieving nothing.
You falsely characterized my recent activity over the past 2-3 months that in fact includes features at SRB, SL and JRL.
Erm, no I didn’t. I addressed your “features” at SRB, SL, and JRL in my first comment on the subject, and stated that the appearance on SL was a one-off and could not be considered a feature article, JRL is unlikely to publish you ever again, and SRB may or may not publish you again.
Serbianna provides a well rounded in depth overview of events in former Yugoslavia on subject matter you clearly don’t know much about. TTT is an excellent Eng. language source of info. on Trans-Dniester.
No, it is a political pamphlet, as has been demonstrated umpteen times.
The market is there for intelligently presented Eng. language views.
Yes, it does. But this does not include the type of views which you describe as “Russocentric”, i.e. your views.
The mass media situation is incongruent for some reasons having nothing to do with market forces objectively determining what does and doesn’t get a platform.
In Russia, this may be true. In the worldwide online media it is simply nonsense. Nobody and nothing is suppressing your Russocentric views from being aired; it’s just that nobody wants to hear them.
Mike,
in your above comment you make the point:
”However, he’s doing it from a common sense vantage point in contrast to a common sense Russocentric vantage point.”
What kind of nonsense is that? Do you know what a contradiction in terms is? How can something be common sense – which I take to mean objective and unbiased – but at the same time be biased to one side, namely Russia, in your case? Your whole mantra is based on flawed logic. You claim to be an analyst, yet, as I’ve said umpteen times, an analyst is supposed to examine data and info and present a conclusion in an even handed manner. But in kissing Russia’s arse, how can you possibly be objective and even handed? To be honest Mike, I think you are unable or unwilling to grasp very simple ideas indeed. If you must take Russia and Serbia and the PMRs side, then you should drop this bullshit ‘analyst’ title. You arent an analyst. You’re a propagandist and an unpaid one at that but worse you are blind and stupid. No-one in their right mind is going to defend any of these nations unquestioningly. You do, which makes you both disingenuous and heartless. And stupid, primarily. The Serbs are the most reknowned shower of b******* Europe has seen for a long time, the Russians managed to kill thousands of both Chechens and Russians in two vicious and pointless wars and the PMR isnt even a legal entity. Is there anyone else you do free, poorly written propaganda for? The Burma Weekly State Digest? The Sudan Enquirer? North Korea Pictorial Monthly? Seems to me you’ll write for anyone who’ll publish you.
Now, answer those points and stop avoiding hard questions like a big fanny.Pretending I didnt ask them isnt going to make them go away. And dont worry about my grammar and spelling Mike, I’m not a propogandist like you at all.
Ger – you’re quite dense. Common sense isn’t necessarily universal. It can be applied using different examples and points of view. You’re most certainly no judge of talent. Your opening barrage of stupidity kept me from reading the rest of your wacked out rant.
Regarding Tim Newman:
Not at all. Hypocritical relates to not applying the same standards. Chalk up another another fallacy from you.
But I’ve achieved something and will continue to do so whether some like it or not.
TTT isn’t a “political pamphlet”. I cited a number of articles in it which had views critical of Prid’s government. They also offered your pal a column, which he turned down.
The market is in fact there for my stated views. This was discussed at length in the SL interview.
Plenty of folks more intelligent than yourself do want to read/here my views. I’ve the track record to prove it.
JRL in its current form is likely to change as it has over the course of time. Regardless, I’ll continue on.
Hypocritical relates to not applying the same standards. Chalk up another another fallacy from you.
Erm, no. Not applying the same standards is inconsistency, not hypocrisy. Your grip on the English language is pretty poor for a native speaker; for somebody who purports to write for a living, it is shockingly poor.
TTT isn’t a “political pamphlet”.
I’m afraid it is.
They also offered your pal a column, which he turned down.
Yes, on the grounds that he didn’t want to be associated with a propagandistic political pamphlet.
The market is in fact there for my stated views. This was discussed at length in the SL interview.
Presenting your own opinion on whether there is a market for your own views does not constitute evidence that such a market exists. The only way you can conclusively prove that such a market exists is if your views gain much readership. So far, given that the number of outlets willing to publish you has dwindled to two propaganda websites, the evidence points to there not being much of a market. Try asking the boys at Russia Blog how many readers have deserted them since they stopped publishing you. I’ll bet its less than five.
Plenty of folks more intelligent than yourself do want to read/here my views.
So you keep saying. But as I’ve said before, referring to unidentified third party supporters who are allegedly more intelligent than me is a pretty desperate throw of the dice. How about listing some of these people?
I’ve the track record to prove it.
Actually, your track record shows that several outlets were initially prepared to publish your views, but for some reason – probably the articles’ poor content and style – you have found yourself struggling to get published anywhere except for two propaganda websites.
Of course, the real litmus test of how popular your views are would be for you to set up your own blog, air your views, and measure the readership. However, I suspect this is the very reason you refuse to do this. If you set up a blog and it doesn’t attract readers, your entire hobby comes crashing down about your ears.
Being a hypocrite relates to double standards, which defines Tim’s stated views here.
Tim’s pal is as big a propagandist as it gets. Therefore, it would be hypocritical for him to turn down TTTs’ column offer. Only TTT isn’t propagandistic like Tim’s pal. Unlike Tim – Serbianna has knowledgeable commentary which Tim is intellectually incapable of challenging.
I presented other evidence in support of what others and myself have concluded. My getting posted/published shows a definite market. The existing mass media flaws aren’t my doing. I’ve something generally different to offer, with a proven track record that was previously detailed.
Russia Blog of late doesn’t seem to be getting much in posted replies. It’s only very recently that an RB post finally outnumbered the posted replies from my last RB piece which had a DIVERSE range of posted comments, in addition to that article getting picked up on the Serbianna news wire. My RB commentary was very well received as RB noted to me on several occasions.
It’s not so difficult for one to display a greater intelligence than Tim. I didn’t mean any offence to the very intelligent admirers of my work.
The previously stated jackass description of Tim (by someone other than myself) is quite applicable since he can’t find much fault with my posted/published article, as he continues to repeat false comments about them.
The litmus test has been passed by how well received my commentary has been at the top blogs and elsewhere.
Be sure to catch my IP Lyndon and DB and shove it up your buttholes.
Mike/”Claus,” you are a real class act. What is your affiliation with Hofstra again? Have you decided to further your education? I saw that “Alexandra” also posted from there yesterday…
For Lyndon this is more enetertaining than losing arguements on serious issues.
For Mike, this is more “enetertaining” than using a spell-checker.
Lyndon sure knows how to be selective in a misinformative way. At least he doesn’t seem to be repeating false calims of TTT misrepresenting Tom de Waal or that I lied about how Lyndon (did in fact) post comments at La Russophobe, while turning down a column from TTT.
Mike, the complaint about TTT’s (ab)use of de Waal’s material that I detailed was originally made by Tom de Waal himself, not by me. Your ongoing attempt to assert that I have had material “posted” at LR and am therefore somehow affiliated with or a contributor to that website because I commented on that blog (critically, in the comments section, as I might do if TTT had an open comments section) is actually the least of your distortions. Incidentally, it disrupted an interesting, substantive discussion, which seems to be a habit of yours. You are the one repeating false claims, claims to which I’ve already responded.
You are now using your recent JRL publication to tout your relevance. I’m not the first commenter here to observe how absurd (perhaps even “hypocritical”?) that is, given that you continue to holler about censorship, and you still haven’t retracted your false accusations about JRL not publishing you. I guess since you “didn’t receive the Feb. 8 JRL” that makes it OK to let your false statements stay out there.
I should also mention your attempt to misrepresent Edward Lucas’s criticism of your email list as a “positive reference,” your fabrication of irrelevant facts about a pastor (probably based on info provided by someone else), and your attempt to pass off someone else’s research as your own.
I made it easy for you to respond to these facts by consolidating them in one comment here, but you have not responded to any of them to explain yourself. I have responded to every single claim you’ve made about me and to all of your questions (some of them less than appropriate) about my background, occupation, ethnicity, family, etc. In the face of much more basic and less probing questions, you have not displayed a similar level of transparency or good faith.
Tim’s pal is as big a propagandist as it gets.
I assume you’re referring to me. Coming from you, an aspiring propagandist, I guess I should take that as a huge compliment. But I’m having a hard time understanding your basis for that claim. Does pointing out your distortions make me a “propagandist”? Am I a “propagandist” because I have called the objectivity of your precious TTT into question? Because I have responded to and debunked specific articles from that website which you keep citing? What is it that makes me a “propagandist” in your eyes, Mike, except that I don’t agree with you?
…it would be hypocritical for him to turn down TTTs’ column offer.
Mike, you’re again having trouble with this big word that you love to use so much.
Let me try to clear this up for you. Hypocritical is defined as “Characterized by hypocrisy” or “Being a hypocrite.”
A hypocrite is defined as “A person given to hypocrisy.”
And hypocrisy is defined as follows: “The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.”
So, based on those definitions, how exactly is it “hypocritical” of me to avoid submitting a column to a website that pushes an agenda with which I disagree?
Being a hypocrite relates to double standards, which defines Tim’s stated views here.
So can you give me an example of my double standards? Or are you just going to give examples of perceived inconsistencies?
Tim’s pal is as big a propagandist as it gets. Therefore, it would be hypocritical for him to turn down TTTs’ column offer.
No, Lyndon is quite clearly not a propagandist.
Only TTT isn’t propagandistic like Tim’s pal.
Yes, it is.
Unlike Tim – Serbianna has knowledgeable commentary which Tim is intellectually incapable of challenging.
The contents therein is nationalistic propaganda, not knowledgeable commentary.
I presented other evidence in support of what others and myself have concluded. My getting posted/published shows a definite market.
But as I pointed out repeatedly, you are not getting published any more outside of two propaganda websites. The market for your views just isn’t there.
The existing mass media flaws aren’t my doing.
No, but they are not the reason your views are not getting published.
I’ve something generally different to offer, with a proven track record that was previously detailed.
We can agree that you have something different to offer, but the track record shows nobody really wants to read it.
Russia Blog of late doesn’t seem to be getting much in posted replies. It’s only very recently that an RB post finally outnumbered the posted replies from my last RB piece which had a DIVERSE range of posted comments, in addition to that article getting picked up on the Serbianna news wire.
Once again, you make the serious error of equating blog comments with quality and approval. Time to find yourself a new method of measurement, Mike.
My RB commentary was very well received as RB noted to me on several occasions.
So much so that they booted you out.
It’s not so difficult for one to display a greater intelligence than Tim.
But you seem to be struggling, Mike. Having me pointing out your inability to use the English language correctly must be grating, I know.
The litmus test has been passed by how well received my commentary has been at the top blogs and elsewhere.
Indeed, and that litmus test says that initially the top blogs were willing to publish you, but now they are not. This is a far more indicative measure of your popularity than number of comments generated on a blog.
… the very intelligent admirers of my work.
Mike, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that they exist.
Only do us a favour — don’t repost that letter from Sergei Roy. It’s no secret what he really thinks of you and your work:
I have recently rejected several of Mike Averko’s submissions for reasons of their poor quality. Mike Averko accused me of “behind the scenes media manipulation,” whatever that might mean, and sent out a letter full of similar complaints and accusations to numerous people. I thought it infra dig to waste time rebuking Mike Averko for clogging up people’s mailboxes with such nonsense. Luckily, one of the recipients of his missives decided to carry out this unpleasant mission, for which my hearty thanks.
Mike Averko’s emails to my addresses will henceforth be treated as spam.
No nothing Tim and lying Lyndon can not even get the meaning of hypocrite right. What about Hofstra University? They go off topic after losing out on the facts. Having a blog is a “litmus test”? LOL! How about a link DB? Why slant in one direction? He has plenty of support and it shows. What do you have?
The “comment” by one Sigmund Freud was brought to my attention by a reader. I deleted it.
This thread is now closed.