Original: Svobodnaya Pressa
Translated: Tatzhit Mihailovich / Edited by @GBabeuf
Photo: Mikhail Voskresenkiy/RIA Novosti
Instead of the March, the hero of the Defence of Slavyansk visited a church on November 4
The legendary former commander of Novorossiya, Igor Strelkov, had planned to take part in the Russian March. Many patriots and nationalists were expecting him—with mixed feelings. Andrey Savelyev [leader of the Great Russia political party -ed.] said that Strelkov will march with him and for him. Savelyev is not to everyone’s taste. Even among the nationalists, he stands apart: he is bitterly opposed to the Russian government, but supportive of Novorossiya. There was many a sharp intake of breath when it was heard that Strelkov would be marching alongside him. But Strelkov decided not to go. Instead, Igor Ivanovich went to the temple to pray to the Virgin Mary on the day of the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan. I asked Strelkov why he did not join the Russian March, and he responded to these and other questions with the sincerity and frankness of a soldier.
Strelkov: I heard Savelyev’s morning speech, and it angered me. He very improperly used an excerpt from my video appeal, where I called on people to join the march in support of Novorossiya. I was not invited by Savelyev, but, rather, by other people associated with the families of dead soldiers; I do not share many of Savelyev’s political ideas.
Svobodnaya Pressa: You’re an experienced person, Igor Ivanovich. You weren’t aware who Andrei Savelyev is?
S: Contrary to what they say about me, I have never engaged with the Slav nationalist movement, and I did not know the people operating in this field. I am meeting many of them for the first time. I was attracted by the fact that Savelyev supported Novorossiya, and only this morning did I realize that he also has another political agenda.
I wanted a demonstration for Novorossiya that involved people with diverse political views, including people with socialist ideas, and of course, the nationalists. But with people who oppose the Russian state order, I have no truck.
SP: Someone tried to set you up?
S: I am not ready to consider what happened a set up. People can make mistakes, give in to wishful thinking.
SP: Novorossiya was an important turning point in your life?
S: Yes, until this campaign I had never been to the Donbass. But after having fought there for four months, I now feel a great responsibility for the people who stayed there. I will do everything in my power to help Novorossiya, even if there are some who do not like this. And aiding Novorossiya is what I called for in my address, which did not say a word about the political situation in Russia itself. Among the supporters of Novorossiya there are monarchists, anarchists, communists, nationalists, and all of them have fought bravely for Novorossiya.
SP: You have fought in Chechnya, Dagestan, and other places. Why is Novorossiya so close to your heart?
S: In other places I commanded small units, and only in Novorossiya did I get to command the whole theatre of operations, to be responsible for so many people. It is quite another matter.
SP: How do you try to aid Novorossiya in your new position?
S: There is no “new position” as yet, it is only just emerging. We are forming a social movement to organize assistance to the rear. It is necessary to deliver humanitarian aid, winter clothes for the soldiers, shoes, food. A dedicated and experienced team has rallied around me to work on this. I hope that Russian patriots will help us within their own means, so that the Novorossiya Militia will have everything that is needed.
SP: At your press conference, you said that much of the humanitarian aid to Novorossiya was stolen. Did you encounter this personally?
S: I myself was continuously fighting the war, and was not involved in procurement. But I believe that much of the aid to Novorossiya was plundered. At least half of everything that was sent to Novorossiya did not reach its destination. Rather large volumes of it disappeared, and no one knows where to. It is in order to change this situation that we are creating our movement, to organize under one aegis food supplies, equipment and humanitarian aid, so that this does not occur again.
SP: People say that you have little experience with organizing the rear and with logistics—since you are primarily a fighting man. Do you fear that you will not be able to cope with the supply operation, that theft will happen again, and that the person blamed—that will be you?
S: If I were afraid of acting, I would not do anything. I really have little experience in logistics and supply, but I have a good team. I will not be leading the movement as a logistics specialist, but as a man known for his devotion to the cause, a man who is absolutely honest and who is not going to make a profit from aid.
SP: November 4 is not only the Day of National Unity, but also the day of the Icon of Our Lady of Kazan. What does this mean for you?
S: It means a lot to me. Let me just say that instead of joining the “Russian March” I went to a church, and prayed to the Mediatrix of the Russian Land [the Virgin Mary in her role as intercessor -ed.]. I had a choice: a church or a march; I chose the church.
SP: I am hugely impressed by your sincerity and openness. I should like to take advantage of it. Which military operation in Novorossiya are you most proud of? What has been your greatest achievement in battle? How do you rate this campaign?
S: For me, the four months of the campaign in Novorossiya—from April to August—were one continuous battle. I can not divide it into individual operations. I made a lot of mistakes—political and military. At first I thought that Russia would quickly recognize Novorossiya, and that is what I built my strategy on. There were also errors because of the lack of military experience. I had no military education, I did not graduate from any military school or academy; I am self-taught, and this affected things. I lacked the military training, knowledge and skills to command a large force, and to organize logistics and the rear.
Now, perhaps, there are qualified military specialists and advisers there—I do not know. Back then, there were none. However much we tried, we could not find any. Professional military men apparently waited until we could pay a salary and establish a good supply. Back then, there were only autodidacts, like me.
SP: But there was a military leader, known by the call sign “Delphin”.
S: I met him a month before my retirement, in Krasnodon. He is, of course, a good military expert, but all of his military experience was in commanding regular troops—where there is discipline and unconditional subordination. But here, we had guerrillas, scattered groups. He did everything in his power, but was not able to fully take command. He could only coordinate between the individual units.
SP: And finally—what do you think about the elections held in Novorossiya?
S: Discussing how democratic they were is simply ridiculous. Elections in wartime—this is nonsense. I left Novorossiya in August, it is difficult for me to judge who the population supports now. When I was there, I had little interest in public opinion and who the population would vote for. I had a war to fight. So I would rather not discuss the current leadership of Novorossiya.
* * *
Thus, Strelkov stubbornly refuses to integrate into Russian political life, and even more so, into the extreme political opposition. Some may not like this, but Strelkov has little interest in public opinion. He does what he believes is right.
SLAVYANGRAD.org 
Strelkov is a great man of transparent sincerity.
I care not that he (or anyone else) has religious beliefs I cannot have myself, so long as a person shares my values of truth, integrity, compassion, empathy and passion to the best extent they can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Posted by gerryhiles | Nov 7, 2014, 07:25… and not to forget the cold and professional ability to torture and murder people without regular trial for political reasons in your list of ‘values’, @Gerry.
Be diligently truthful, my friend of integrity and empathy for others.
Is THAT all, the Baby Boomer and 68/Anti-Vietnam-Generation has (still) to offer – IDEOLOGICAL NAIVITY AND BLINDNESS!?
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 10, 2014, 12:59You do love pontificating, I await your next infallible pronouncement, or encynical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Posted by gerryhiles | Nov 11, 2014, 01:37No, @Gerry, I do love good arguments – and the Roman Catholic Church not at all. Sorry, but I had to intervene – despite your list of judgements about my person (Nazi, Zionist, moralist, pedant, cynic, …). I am not infallible for sure, but I am not dumb either.
We should leave the topic, where it is, @Gerry. We will not agree upon Strelkov. And we don’t have to, of course.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 11, 2014, 23:11“We should leave the topic, where it is, @Gerry. We will not agree upon Strelkov. And we don’t have to, of course.”
@historian: excellent idea. I’ve been mulling over ways of saying the same thing myself, though it hasn’t been easy because you keep on posting anti-Strelkov stuff on a site supportive of Strelkov and Novorossia, presumably to persuade all and sundry of your opinions, so you are hard to ignore.
LikeLike
Posted by gerryhiles | Nov 12, 2014, 01:22Ah, well, truth be told, I really thought, that Strelkov and Novorussia would be two different boots – and criticizing (or shell I say: fearing?) one part would not necessarily mean to condemn the other. But I know now, that arguments against Strelkov are not welcomed here. Even, if I made it clear right from the start of my comments some months ago, that I was no ignorant regarding Novorussia. I am a bit astonished, that only a very few people here are really interested in DISCUSSING THE PROBLEMS. Because problems there are, oh my gosh, @Gerry. In my (last) opinion, to be Pro- or Anti-Strelkov is not enough, you should say explicitly WHY. And I have done that – without being aggressive against commenters or moderators/editors, well, you may be the exception, @Gerry! I think, we have hurt each other – and our reactions have shown. So, therefore I apologize for that, @Gerry.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 13, 2014, 00:22I find substance in your comments historian. You appear to have a sound grasp of the various flavours of underlying idealogy which serves to motivate the people in both sides of this conflict. It kind of surprises me that you identify yourself with socialism, nevertheless I have enjoyed reading your responses.
I think a little unrelated that I would like to mention is that for all the talk of the U.S.A. promoting democracy and freedom around the world, I often wonder why no-one seem to notice that they NEVER promote the Bill of Rights abroad. That speaks volumes in my opinion.
In regards to the east vs west in the Ukraine conflict. The outcome will always be tyranny either way because both sides, when all the fluff is stripped away, promote totalitarianism in one form or another. It is just a shame that the cannon fodder on both sides get caught up in emotion and never, truly with care, actually think things through.
LikeLike
Posted by Scott | Nov 14, 2014, 08:36“I find substance in your comments historian. You appear to have a sound grasp of the various flavours of underlying idealogy which serves to motivate the people in both sides of this conflict.” [Scott]
Thanks, @Scott. Your words let me feel less bitter here. I tried my best to come across with my hopes, emotions and thoughts here – but got hostile feedback from some commentators. Understanding the ideologies is important in every conflict, unless you wanna fall victim to ideologies, you didn’t know or expect or underestimated. Waking up in a NIGHTMARE. This has happened too often in history. I know, you know that. You are writing about that in your following lines.
“It kind of surprises me that you identify yourself with socialism” [Scott]
I may sound somewhat rational and conservative, but in my heart I always have been a Leftist. I need democracy and freedom to express myself as a human being – and I don’t like to be slapped around by others – but I think: SOME KIND of safety net for the sick & poor, the outcast and fallen must be provided by the state (and those numbers are growing rapidly EVERYWHERE, WORLDWIDE – even in Germany) – and of course, the capitalist systems are rotten and pathologic down to their core, ending in sure self-defeat/destruction and exploitation/slavery of the masses. This is getting worse day by day on a global scale – and will end in war on a global scale, if not stopped and changed by law and state control. You can also read war-zones like Ukraine as an exemplary outgrowth of capitalist greed and business with death. There are lots of serious problems with socialist systems too, as history has shown – but there must be a new kind of BALANCE – maybe on a whole different level. But it’s very hard to see or find – and I am no expert in this field.
Regarding the Bill of Rights: USA has abandoned it. For decades at least, but openly visible since 9/11 (as the pretext to set up the well prepared (but not quite working) strategy of regaining world hegemony). I think, chances are, that Civil War as a new element of state collapse will spread – and will finally reach USA – as a Second Civil War – unless people are conscious enough to resist and to neutralize those, who want to profit from war. Which is very hard to do. Rigorous anti-violence ethics and training could be very, very necessary in the following decades, because things will getting worse on different levels, I suppose.
“The outcome will always be tyranny either way because both sides, when all the fluff is stripped away, promote totalitarianism in one form or another. It is just a shame that the cannon fodder on both sides get caught up in emotion and never, truly with care, actually think things through.” [Scott]
Truth be told, I fear the same, yes, @Scott. Therefore I watch people like Strelkov-Girkin very carefully. I don’t trust them. The problem with war is, though: once the guns are firing, it’s already too late to really ‘think things through’ – well, beside strategy & tactics, of course. War is mainly raw emotion and power. Some ideology to fight it through and endure, too. Wars are starting so easily and are so hard to stop. Afterwards the wounds will not heal for decades, sometimes even centuries – and you will never get back your loved ones.
Yesterday I watched a young guy (at Lugansk?) by accident at YT, sobbing and clamoring and kneeling beside his family members, lying dead in the garden, killed by shrapnel. Oh, this is so fucked up – and it has to stop. Those, who want to see this Civil War in Ukraine being fought until ‘victory’, could find themselves in the situation of a completely destroyed and bitter poor country without hope for anything – especially not a new and working state like ‘Novorussia’.
I think, that is my last comment here on Slavjangrad. I have upset too many people here (including the moderation) – and I should stop that, too. But I will read on here.
Thorough thinking and posting to all of you … .
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 15, 2014, 17:01Well, historian, now that you’ve become less militant and strident, I understand where you are coming from … but formerly you wrote as if you had a monopoly on feelings and principles many others have. And you sneered at me for saying that I value honesty, sympathy, compassion, empathy, etc..
That is hardly the way to go about “winning friends and influencing people”.
Perhaps you should try reading and really understanding Plato/Socrates, Descartes and Jung, for instance, who have greatly influenced my life. You might then understand why I am a life-long socialist, but ceased from having any political ambitions and/ideological commitments three decades ago.
Fifty years ago I briefly thought of myself as a Marxist and I still value much of what he and Engels wrote, but then I became more reflective and analytical (including of myself) so that was a very short phase.
If only you would listen to Putin and Strelkov, for instance, instead of pre-emptively judging them by your (unclear) agenda, then you might realize why I can empathize with them, but never anyone riding rough-shod over others as you have done, as when you immediately branded me as a “teen brat fan” for failing to agree with your total denigration of the man.
Anyway I am glad that you seem to have moderated yourself.
LikeLike
Posted by gerryhiles | Nov 15, 2014, 18:04Oh my … 😦 (sigh).
Well, it would be wiser for both of us, @Gerry, to just ignore each other, me stopping posting here … and you walking on your well-trodden path … but, YOU, against your own oath, keep addressing me. So, ok, @Gerry, let’s discuss it. I make it as sharp and brief as possible in my humble Denglish:
1) Reading your last comment above, I am less and less convinced, that you are actually able to understand, where I am coming from. It is, as we are arguing in completely different and isolated boxes. You just don’t get, what my concern with Strelkov (still) is. Even, if I would write it in plain words a 1000 times more. So, it’s really hopeless – and I will stop. It will not get any better.
I ‘sneered’ at you in bitter irony, @Gerry, not because of your fine and long list of ethical values and principles, but because you referred them to a man (Strelkov), who is in my humble opinion the embodiment of everything else, but NOT your ethical values and principles, @Gerry. Is that clear enough for you?
2) I was not here to win friends and influence people, I was here to read stuff and sometimes, when I had a thought, to post it. But, of course, I like to discuss things, if they are important to me … like the question of torture or no-torture of humans. And I defend myself and my ideas, if being attacked in not very thorough or absurd ways. And I acknowledge other peoples’ opinions and values, especially, if I am not so sure about myself being error-free.
3) Let’s better not talk about philosophy here, @Gerry. You have tried that once. It was enlightening for me, though, as I sensed then, that we are very diametrically opposed even in basic philosophical principles like faith and spiritual cosmology. Marx & Engels, well, maybe, you should read them again, as they are getting much attention in recent academia once again. It’s like the prediction value of Marx is really high … which is a hint at serious scientific value.
4) I am listening to Strelkov and Putin very thoroughly, @Gerry, believe me, but not in the way you do, I suppose. Less sentimental, but more analytical, I guess. Putin is not my problem, but Strelkov is – and, if Strelkov is not careful (well, of course, he is …), then Putin will be a problem for Strelkov. In fact, Putin is already.
Better to be a ‘teen brat fan’ (and way more fun), than to be a ‘Nazi’, right, @Gerry? If I remember correctly, you have called me that and other things several times in the past, when I was still thinking ‘what the heck does this man want from me … !?’
I have apologized for any rough behavior of mine against you. Are you regretting calling me a Quisling/Nazi? Especially being German.
It would be in any way more correct to say, that I was moderated here … and therefore I have learned, that it is better to just shut up.
Which I should have done already.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 15, 2014, 19:32You keep threatening to shut up, but instead launch another didactic monologue.
I was trying to give you some benefit of doubt, but that was clearly a mistake and this time, really is the last that I reply to you.
I am not worth this much attention and neither are you. Get used to it.
LikeLike
Posted by gerryhiles | Nov 15, 2014, 19:55🙂 …
YOU, @Gerry, keep threatening to ignore, but instead launch another clear sign of analytical deficits.
I was trying to give you the (last) opportunity to apologize having called me a German Nazi, as you did, but that was clearly no mistake of mine, as this time I know for sure, that you simply don’t love me.
Maybe I am not worth much love of yours, but the THINKING is, oh yes, the THINKING, @Gerry!
Get used to it … the THINKING.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 15, 2014, 20:18“Hi, Historian — remember describing me as “undecided” about Strelkov? 120 hours of research later . . .
“LEGENDARY??” Oh, I get it. In the spy world use of “legend” — a self-made false identity under which to pursue a hidden agenda.
Strelkov on Strelkov, before the lipstick, “forced” to abandon Russian March.
http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-political-corpse-of-strelkov-was.html
Strelkov on Strelkov: Unfit to command an army (or a battalion, or a mortar emplacement)
Fast forward through the piety and false humility, the good stuff’s near the end.
Strelkov on Strelkov: Section 8’d from FSB, from Anonymous International [Russia] hack of Strelkov’s emails
“My enemies set me up — they organized a psychiatric evaluation.”
Retire the Cup. This wins over “Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”
“Come New Year, I expect to be transferred to the Caucuses…Finally, it became hot enough there for the agency to consider sending scumbags like me”, he writes to a Ukrainian collector-friend on Sept. 16th, 2012.
Girkin revels in the anticipation for being closer the the action than his desk job in Moscow affords him. Moreover that there are job cuts at the FSB, and he is afraid he may have to go into reserve. Yet, he is not completely happy, as he complains that the new job will be “lieutenant-colonel” grade. Little does he suspect then, however, that even this will be an elusive prospect: in February 2013, his job [application] is declined:
“My enemies set me up – they organized a psychiatrist evaluation and screwed my application – Dagestan no longer wants me. There is another option, but anyways, I will never be allowed to be serve again, so my career is screwed up permanently. I am considering going into the civil area.”
Strelkov on Strelkov: Did I personally take out the Heavenly 100? Shhhhh!
The following exchange is from a war-gamer group’s online celebration of the secession of Crimea.
March 18th 22:37 Igor Strelkov: “Actually you could congratulate me personally. I worked long and hard over this question”
March 19th 17:50 Martyn: “Igor – the uncatchable snipers, was that you too or just you
March 19th 17:56 Igor Strelkov: “You want to know lots – you won’t live to old age”
March 19th 18:43 Vovka [speaking to Martyn]: “Dim- delete. (((”
[Martyn deletes his post at 22:15 that evening].
LikeLike
Posted by Cass | Nov 24, 2014, 02:37I remember, @Cass (having misunderstood you).
“120 hours of research later . . . ” [Cass]
Well done. VERY well done! 😉
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 24, 2014, 18:16Strelkov, the heroe of …Slovyansk | vgiannelakis
http://vgiannelakis.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/sloviansk/
LikeLike
Posted by rizes | Nov 7, 2014, 09:47“Contrary to what they say about me, I have never engaged with the Slav nationalist movement, and I did not know the people operating in this field. I am meeting many of them for the first time. […] I wanted a demonstration for Novorossiya that involved people with diverse political views, including people with socialist ideas, and of course, the nationalists. But with people who oppose the Russian state order, I have no truck.” [Strelkov]
Interesting. Well, Strelkov-Girkin is repeating, what others have dictated him to repeat in public, if he wants to stay alive. Girkin knows lots of influential persons of the Eurasian/Panslavic Movement, like Borodai and Dugin, personally. He was/is part of a wider network of Russian ultra-nationalists. So, now, he detects his ‘tolerance’ for ‘diverse political views, including people with socialist ideas’, which was quite limited before, I suppose. I wonder, who or what ‘softened’ his mindset in such a short time. He avoids every word against Putin or recent political developments at Donbas.
“Among the supporters of Novorossiya there are monarchists, anarchists, communists, nationalists, and all of them have fought bravely for Novorossiya.” [Strelkov]
This seems to be true. With Girkin being more on the monarchist-nationalist right wing side of the fence. But he recognizes, that there is a large pool of different political opinions at Donbas, which he cannot ignore (anymore). That is a positive sign to me. BUT … as we already see political infighting at Donbas (along the role of Mozgovoi), it could be, that Girkin is already playing the unavoidable chess game in his head: who tolerates or fights whom in the long run? The monarchists the anarchists!? The communists the nationalists!?
“[journalist:] Why is Novorossiya so close to your heart?
S[trelkov]: In other places I commanded small units, and only in Novorossiya did I get to command the whole theatre of operations, to be responsible for so many people. It is quite another matter.”
[…]
“I made a lot of mistakes—political and military. At first I thought that Russia would quickly recognize Novorossiya, and that is what I built my strategy on. There were also errors because of the lack of military experience. I had no military education, I did not graduate from any military school or academy; I am self-taught, and this affected things. I lacked the military training, knowledge and skills to command a large force, and to organize logistics and the rear.” [Strelkov]
So – Girkin – the ‘Hero of Slavjansk Defense’ – is either downplaying his role as a professional specialist for intelligence and unconstitutional warfare in ‘crisis zones’ sent by Russia with a special mission, which was quite successful (the defense of the Donetsk/Lugansk core of Donbas and the attrition of the Ukrainian forces), just repeating here, what he should say to explain his dismissal – OR: he recognizes his inability as an amateur of warfare, which he clearly is not, otherwise he and his men would have been just killed in a few days. Anyway, it is quite telling, that Girkin has emotions for Novorossiya, because there was the once-in-a-lifetime chance of “command[ing] the whole theatre of operations”. This sounds like a power-hungry wargamer, indeed, which is confirmed by those lines of Girkin:
“When I was there, I had little interest in public opinion and who the population would vote for. I had a war to fight.”
And this is the main reason, why he was dismissed from the top command at Donbas: despotism.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 10, 2014, 14:50Dear Historian,
You are saying rather detailed things about Strelkov I’ve never heard before, such as, “Girkin knows lots of influential persons of the Eurasian/Panslavic Movement, like Borodai and Dugin, personally. He was/is part of a wider network of Russian ultra-nationalists.” Are these from publications in the Russian language? Or are there English sources for this?
I have always wondered why Strelkov, to the disappointment of many independence supporters, WAS dismissed from the top command of Donbass. Wasn’t he winning the war for them? Did his history matter in that context? Or did he have ambitions that threatened the welfare of Novorossiya, in which case his dismissal would have been appropriate? Still, “despotism” seems a strong word. Thanks.
LikeLike
Posted by kennedy applebaum | Nov 11, 2014, 19:16Sorry, @Kennedy, I have posted here a longer comment and discussion with 2 links for the material, you have questioned from me. My comment was set into ‘moderation mode’ – and the moderators seem to find it appropriate to suppress my explanations without contacting me directly or giving a reason for this kind of censorship. Maybe it is as Richard Brown has said openly: even slightest and on-topic criticism and simple DISCUSSION of people and events are not welcomed here on this blog (anymore). Well, ok, so be it. I am not the type of guy, who is just shouting ‘Hurrah!’ to everything and clap my hands, delivering propaganda, which fits the tapestry of the program. I am used to other standards of Net Culture.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 12, 2014, 23:42To Historian: Thank you. I am saddened your comments were not allowed through, as I had really wanted to be in a learning mode about this. I am a strong admirer of Strelkov, and never understood the controversy that surrounds him. I thought this might be an opportunity to broaden my knowledge. I sensed you were possibly pro-Novorossiya, but with a different political angle on the issue, and perhaps had valuable knowledge.
May I ask the moderator, is it possible to let information through on the topic for sincere researchers? I understand that to many, condemnation of Strelkov seems a sacrilege, especially given his heroic contributions, and the fact that were he not dismissed, Novorossiya might comprise a much larger land area. So of course, this website may not be an appropriate platform for that disucssion. On the other hand, if we were all to reach a greater understanding of Strelkov’s role, it could lead to a positive outcome.
LikeLike
Posted by kennedy applebaum | Nov 13, 2014, 00:16Sorry, @Kennedy, it’s not possible anymore to have a talk with you here, as a second (very brief) statement of my political ‘angle’ on Novorussia has been deleted – by you, @Babeuf!?
What is the fear of the moderators!? Something to hide and sabotage here!? Really strange, indeed … .
I suppose: the POLITICAL BATTLE FOR NOVORUSSIA HAS JUST BEGUN – AND THIS BLOG IS A (SMALL) PART OF IT.
I am done.
Peace,
Historian
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 13, 2014, 20:20This comment is directed more to the website itself, and I don’t necessarily expect it to be published.
Just my impression: if Historian’s moderated comment, with links to articles about Strelkov, had been allowed to be published, I should have immediately been able to spot if the articles were Western propaganda or the work of sincere scholars. Even if written in German, I have a little German and would have been able to tell. I could then possibly have closed the loop on this issue, by commenting about the reliability of the sources, especially if the articles were indeed propaganda, which I’m inclined to suspect. This might have cleared the air on the issue. Instead, deeper unanswered questions have been raised, even in my own heart.
Of course, one can never “Google” a subject like Strelkov without being inundated with propaganda, so it is difficult for a non-Russian speaker to get the true story. In any event, I will trust the moderator’s judgement on this, having the respect that I do for the founders of this website. I want to say, though, I’m sorry it happened.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Posted by kennedy applebaum | Nov 14, 2014, 01:50“Even if written in German, I have a little German and would have been able to tell. I could then possibly have closed the loop on this issue, by commenting about the reliability of the sources” [Kennedy]
Excellent, @Kennedy. That’s the right way to deal with it. So, you have read my comment, before it was deleted, right? If so, you know, what I suggested to you. Just try to find original voices of the main political figures and make a political analysis. Google Translate works like a 8th Wonder of the World in that regard, even with Russian sources, in my experience.
You can also google, what the actual Leader of Donetsk Republic Sachartschenko has to say about Strelkov/Girkin, which fits my expectations.
“Instead, deeper unanswered questions have been raised, even in my own heart.” [Kennedy]
Would be better then, to follow your own heart and find deep answers to those questions. They do matter – in my opinion.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 14, 2014, 03:31I will never again directly engage with “historian” who seems to have a personal enmity for Igor Strelkov and possibly Novorossia too, but I take things as I find them and so I trust Strelkov at his word, which typically comes through here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9uJ6QAoG5w
I do not worship Strelkov – of course not – but only someone of evil intent would seek to destroy this man of obvious integrity, as “historian” has done many times.
I suggest that others just ignore “historian”, as I now do … well except for this message.
LikeLike
Posted by gerryhiles | Nov 14, 2014, 12:18🙂 … @Gerry, it’s getting really ridiculous now, you know. Sorry, but I have to react … this is too weird to just let slip the opportunity.
“I take things as I find them” [Gerry]
And that’s exactly your problem, but not mine … .
“I do not worship Strelkov – of course not … ” [Gerry]
Of course you do – listen to yourself – like a teen brat. And even Strelkov has warned his fanatic fans, not to dig to deep in what is called in German the ‘Führerkult’. And I know, what that means, @Gerry, believe me.
” … only someone of evil intent would seek to destroy this man of obvious integrity, as “historian” has done many times.” [Gerry]
NO – GERRY HILES FROM AUSTRALIA – E*V*I*L ARE THOSE, WHO PROTECT TORTURING AND MURDERING PEOPLE LIKE GIRKIN DESPITE BETTER KNOWLEDGE.
I think, you are not evil in that regard, as you just don’t know better, you just wanna IGNORE and STICK to what you WANNA BELIEVE. So stick to it.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 14, 2014, 22:05Kennedy: Wiki has almost 100 cites in their Strelkov (Igor Girkin) bio. Following some of them that look promising would get you started if you want to look into Strelkov. I’ve been doing it for a couple of months 12 hours a day (retired in a wheelchair) and it is an education in propaganda, manipulation and your own susceptibility.
Christo’s blog on wordpress has original material from the Anonymous International [Russia] hack of Strelkov’s emails, including his feedback and dialog with friends to whom he sent his “war journals” for comment. Christo’s translating the interesting ones in his spare time. He also traced some of Strelkov’s social media postings, but the site was scrubbed after they started leaking out.
LikeLike
Posted by Cass | Nov 24, 2014, 17:08Cassandra Says:
Wrong, Historian. He was worse than an amateur, he was Snoopy in his Sopwith Camel. There’s a video on YouTube of him “in the field,” apparently for the first time to judge from his horrendous sunburn, and he’s an idiot. Somebody runs up and says “We found a mortar.” He is very annoyed at being interrupted while on camera and snaps “Well destroy it.” He does not ask whether it is functioning or not. Why would you destroy an abandoned mortar? You’d take it home. He should have found out whether it was still manned and operating, whether they needed reinforcements to take it out, or ammo, or a longer-range gun, or, on the other hand, if they needed transport to remove it. And why do they slink off silently? Faced with this situation, men under decent leadership would not be afraid to persist and brief him in spite of himself.
One has to evaluate Strelkov’s performance in hindsight, because we now know what calibre of men he was working with. He had a splendid fighting force, capable of commanding and carrying out the offensive of late August to September as soon as they got free of him. All they did at Slavyansk was fend off Ukrainian sorties. They were restricted to SRG groups, surveillance and sabotage, which was the only part of 20th century warfare Strelkov understood. Incidentally, Zakharchenko, whom he is now slandering for his fighting abilities, was his number one fighter, promoted to line officer (top brass) and awarded the George Cross grade IV (highest). He had Givi, who despises him, and says if he wants to attack Zakharchenko “he has to go through me.” He had Motorola, who’s with Givi. And he had Kononov, a graduate of the Air Force Military Academy and career military, who is reputed to be a brilliant strategist. Probably some of equivalent brilliance I don’t know. As soldiers always have had to do when saddled with an old drunk, a coward, a moron in command, as has happened only too often through history, they managed to work around Strelkov well enough to stay alive, but there were no victories, only repelling attacks and successful retreats.
Even in the middle of the offensive, Strelkov’s sock puppet, Mosgovoi, was listing four reasons why the forces were not “ready” to go on the offensive. They needed some training to be ready, but that took two weeks after the departure of Strelkov while they practised field communications and coordination, something Strelkov hadn’t known they needed to be taught. Strelkov failed in every way it can be measured. He only managed to recruit 1,000 men. He was unable to bring in many of the forces already in the field in company strength. He never could deal with Khodakovsky, who defected to the resistance from command of Special Forces Alpha and should have been a major asset if handled right.
For the past three months, Strelkov, through Mosgovoi, has trying to organize a mutiny which will have Zakharchenko and Plotnisky deposed and shot for treason for the Minsk accord. They make the major mistake of thinking that everybody’s sense of letdown with the Minsk would translate to treason, and that the field commanders would agree that only they, and no civilians, were fit to govern. Strelkov keeps insinuating that the field officers either support him or at worst are split. But this gets tested. Mosgovoi keeps organizing “War Councils” to declare a military government, the last one just before the elections, and NOBODY SHOWS UP. Mozgovoi has a bitter video on YouTube saying “Thanks a lot. Now we know what YOU are.” I wonder who would have headed this government? General Strelkov? A King?
If not for Strelkov, what would have happened? The men knew they had to coalesce; they’re not children or fools. They went to Slavyansk because there was supposed to be a Russian Colonel there. Had they known it was an FSB Colonel, not Russian Army, they’d have gathered in Lugansk or Donetsk. And we might have won the war.
LikeLike
Posted by Cass | Nov 24, 2014, 22:20I find it very refreshing that Strelkov is quite simply a very strong supporter of Novorossiya, with apparently no other agenda in that region. I too am a strong supporter of Novorossiya, yet I see very few people plainly speak this sentiment in print. There often seems to be some underlying element of criticism and cycincism toward the bold and brave new country struggling for independence. And in defense of Strelkov, I imagine it would be easy to love Novorossiya and the people who live there, regardless of whom they want for president. I would, however, praise the democratic efforts of the DPR, and contend that such efforts are, if difficult, even more necessary in time of war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Posted by konar | Nov 10, 2014, 20:49“I would, however, praise the democratic efforts of the DPR, and contend that such efforts are, if difficult, even more necessary in time of war.” [Konar]
I absolutely agree with that, @Konar – and because there were indicators for anti-democratic efforts at Donbas by the Militia Leadership (especially Strelkov), “criticism and cynicism” regarding Novorossiya have grown – as boldness and braveness will be not sufficient for the building of a functioning, not failed state. We already have one failed state: the rest of Ukraine – we don’t need another. That does not help the people of Donbas.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 10, 2014, 21:57So, Historian, are you saying you support a democratic Novorossiya, but do not support Strelkov because of his “anti-democratic efforts”? Some clarification would help.
LikeLike
Posted by kennedy applebaum | Nov 12, 2014, 18:58Exactly as you said, @Kennedy. Sorry, if I am meandering too much around. I should get those lines more straight. But I see, you understood me quite precisely. I will not discuss the ‘anti-democratic efforts’ of Strelkov here anymore, as it is clear now, that the moderators don’t want them to be posted.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 12, 2014, 23:50Everybody who has told you anything about Strelkov (Igor Girkin) also knew what I am going to tell you about him, including those on running this website. Most of it comes from Strelkov’s own mouth or writings, but I believe Strelkov lives in a fantasy world so I have a little kernel of doubt about everything. I am not even absolutely positive he was a spy for 18 years. It’s the kind of thing he might invent.
Strelkov ALWAYS has an agenda; it is how he has lived his life. He and Borodai, who were both in Bosnia, Transdniestria, Chechnya, and the ultra-right magazine Zavtra, were also on the staff of Aksyonov (now in power) in Crimea and talking over where to go next. They are co-religionists: anti-modernists, crusaders for the Russian Orthodox Church, and devoted to restoring Russia to its furthest Imperial borders. There have been press reports that Borodai, as well as Strelkov, was an FSB officer. (Strelkov was an FSB Colonel, not an army colonel.) I’m not sure of that; certainly his occupation is absolutely the cover he would wish; he has a crisis consultancy.
They saw the reunion of Russia and Crimea as their dream come true. With a lot of wishful thinking thrown in, they were certain that it marked the first step in the restoration of the Empire, and that Novorossya has to be next up in the immediate future. So they parachuted in to position themselves to be there to greet the Russians for the political advancement this would confer on them in their Tsarist political movement in Russia. Strelkov has ambitions of running for the Duma. The monarchist movement has him in mind to replace Putin. Borodai and Girkin sold the project to their patron and former employer Konstantin Malofeev, Russian oligarch financier, who financed and supplied them. Taking leave of his online war game playmates, Girkin told them he would be back in Moscow in June. He was expecting to spend less than two months in Novorossya, waiting for the Russians.
Although Borodai and Girkin had been to a lot of wars, it was never in combat roles. Girkin served in the Russian Army as a contract soldier in Checken I and Chechen II, but he was a security officer in a surveillance unit, not a combatant. In that capacity, he made a couple of dozen arrests of people who were never seen again, but probably was fetching for somebody higher up. The most significant weapon he ever carried was a rifle with an underslung grenade launcher he used in Bosnia. The most men he ever commanded were probably the 58 he recruited in Crimea, with whom he captured the police station and SBU office in Slavyansk, his first military command that I can authenticate.
Putting Girkin in charge of an actual army in an actual war was like taking a Newfoundland cod fisherman out of his dory and putting him in command of a nuclear submarine. The only possible excuse he could give for accepting it was his belief that he would just be marking time until the Russians got there. There wasn’t shooting war going on; the Ukrainians moved into the area but were pussy-footing around wondering themselves what Russia was going to do. Things escalated through April and some serious defensive fighting began in May, but Motorola and Givi and Zakharchenko were there. Finally Girkin realized the Russians were not coming, and bailed on Slavyansk, without warning the townspeople or his lower ranks, so they walked out the next morning wearing their St. George ribbons, into the teeth of the incoming AFU.
With Strelkov gone, Kononov, who had a military education and was a career officer, and Zakharchenko, who was Girkin’s top ranking and most decorated brigade commander, showed what the armed forces could do when competently led. They surrounded half the AFU and were driving the rest ahead of them like sheep. If Girkin had given a rat’s ass for Novorossya he would have resigned in favour of Kononov immediately, back when the Ukrs were stumbling around in a fog and no volunteer battalions had been formed.
LikeLike
Posted by Cass | Nov 24, 2014, 16:44This was posted as a reply to “historian” by mistake, because I meant it to stand alone, so I’ll re-post:
I will never again directly engage with “historian” who seems to have a personal enmity for Igor Strelkov and possibly Novorossia too, but I take things as I find them and so I trust Strelkov at his word, which typically comes through here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9uJ6QAoG5w
I do not worship Strelkov – of course not – but only someone of evil intent would seek to destroy this man of obvious integrity, as “historian” has done many times.
I suggest that others just ignore “historian”, as I now do … well except for this message.
LikeLike
Posted by gerryhiles | Nov 14, 2014, 12:23Thank you Gerry Hiles for the video link. On my crippled remote network, I was able to watch the first 14 minutes.
Strelkov, as always, presents himself with inspiring character and integrity. He continues to perform monumental tasks for the good of Novorossiya, in this case by helping deliver humanitarian aid to the people and the militia.
About the “quarrel” between Zakharchenko and Strelkov, I am convinced their differences are par for the course for war and the founding of a new nation. Consider that they are pursuing a goal never achieved in the history of Man, in the sense that this particular country (Novorossiya), in this particular context (that of a tiny new nation opposing resurrected World War II Nazis backed by an overwhelming Western power axis) is breaking new historical ground to achieve independence. Fierce disagreements as to how this is to be accomplished are inevitable.
In a quick search, I found three articles written at the time of Strelkov’s dismissal, none of them surprising. Only one gave a truly damning assessment of Strelkov, but this, published by Reuters, a Rothschild-owned outlet, has no validity due to the bias of being on the opposite side of the war.
Quite simply, both Strelkov and Zakharchenko are doing their best for the cause of Novorossiya, according to the picture as they see it. Some say Zakharchenko sold out, some say Strelkov was overly militaristic. But which of us is doing more than they?
The links, though not newsworthy, are given here for completeness:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/separatist-leader-says-strelkov-alienated-troops-in-eastern-ukraine/508652.html
http://www.icds.ee/index.php?id=73&type=98&L=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1565&cHash=325a8e645e
http://vladimirsuchan.blogspot.com/2014/10/alexander-zakharchenko-and-akhmedova.html
LikeLike
Posted by kennedy applebaum | Nov 14, 2014, 19:13I sincerely hope my comment will be allowed to pass. This comment was 100% supportive of Novorossiya, of Strelkov, and of Zakharchenko. If a comment like this is not allowed to pass, I cannot imagine what your agenda must be, considering who founded this website. The links I posted are not threatening. The only critical one was to a watered-down propaganda article I’m sure we’ve all read before. I certainly had.
If you are unable to publish this comment, which took over two hours of my morning to research and compose, when I have other work to do, could you please give a policy statement about what is acceptable on your website, so I will not waste so much time and energy in the future?
I really must ask, what is your purpose at Slavyangrad?
LikeLike
Posted by kennedy applebaum | Nov 14, 2014, 19:26Hi Kennedy, I’m glad that you found the link useful, so here is another: http://igorstrelkov.wordpress.com/1991/08/13/a-promise-to-oneself/
Not that I have anything to do with moderation, but I can’t recall you posting anything objectionable and are you sure that you have been censored?
Even “historian” posted a lot which was really rather objectionable which got published though, as you allude, his sources were either lacking or suspect.
As far as I can tell this site if for general moral support for Novorossia – and providing information of course, including about Strelkov.
My link comes from his site and I’ve re-blogged this and other stuff at: http://gerryhiles.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Posted by gerryhiles | Nov 14, 2014, 21:36So … your (longer) comment with (harmless) links on-topic has been deleted, @Kennedy!?
Welcome to the club.
The COMPLETE SILENCE OF THE MODERATORS is really odd.
Are they sick of it all, depressed, frightened!? What is going on here!?
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 14, 2014, 22:311. Regarding the “COMPLETE SILENCE” of the moderators: we are not present on the blog all day long, and we don’t routinely answer comments, so I’m not sure quite what it is that you find “really odd”. Sadly, it is the ones who scream loudest about being “censored” (despite the comments section normally being filled with their maunderings) who tend to get responses from the moderators…
2. As we aren’t present here all day (we’re volunteers, all of whom have day jobs) there are often comments which remain in moderation for some time until one of us has logged on. I hope you and your interlocutor find that his/her comments have in fact been published in the comments section.
3. As for your bleating about censorship—take a look around you at how many of your anti-Strelkov screeds have been published on this website. If one of our moderators has removed a couple (I believe you complained about two) of your comments, then they have perhaps been over-zealous. Frankly speaking, you are often condescendingly rude to other users on here (“…listen to yourself – like a teen brat”) to the extent that some would perhaps describe you as a troll. Nevertheless, you have been allowed to post your comments on here (with the evident exception of two—content unknown to me). There is no plan to either block you or to censor you, but, honestly, maybe you should start your own blog and generate your own audience instead of taking a ride on the back of an existing, successful one (thanks entirely to the hard work of my colleagues, on whom you have more than once cast aspersions regarding their integrity). You would no doubt be able to fight your supposed political crusade without being at the mercy of the moderation policies of a bunch of bloodthirsty “Strelkov fanatics”.
4. I presume this is the first reply you have had from any of the moderators on this site. You no doubt will have a lot to complain about regarding the content. At any rate, I can assure you this is certainly the last response you will be getting from any of the moderators here. But do feel free to continue with your monologues.
LikeLike
Posted by babeuf79 | Nov 15, 2014, 00:09Ah, @Kennedy, NOW your links are there … . It’s a kind of magic.
Mine are still missing. Doesn’t matter anymore.
Thank you, @Babeuf, for taking your time to give a statement. I want to answer briefly – so you are not bored to death by my monologue:
1) I related the ‘oddness’ of the moderators’ silence to Kennedy addressing the moderation of this blog directly after obvious manipulation/deletion of comments without explanation or reason.
2) “Frankly speaking, you are often condescendingly rude to other users on here (“…listen to yourself – like a teen brat”) to the extent that some would perhaps describe you as a troll.” [Babeuf]
Really!? Hey, come on, @Babeuf – be FAIR! If I had been RUDE (I doubt that) to any user here, then perhaps only to Gerry, and I even apologized for that on this same page – but he just wanted to state again, that I have ‘evil’ intentions (being of course also a ‘Nazi’, a ‘Zionist’ and so on … that’s no trolling, no?). I have always been on-topic and more polite on this blog, than some people here deserve. If people are just pissed off by ARGUMENTS, they have no answer to, I cannot help them. But they should watch their language, as I always do.
3) ” … honestly, maybe you should start your own blog and generate your own audience instead of taking a ride on the back of an existing, successful one” [Babeuf]
Ehm. Ok. Now, that’s somewhat odd, really. I have no intentions to start my own blog or generate my own audience. I have used this blog here for months as my main info source about the Civil War from a Novorussian perspective. I am not one of those blog hoppers or Saker boys. I have found your articles always diverse enough (as you seem to have different viewpoints and interests in your team) to be quite confident, that you are generally open to any kind of DISCUSSION, even critically ones. I am not convinced, that I am profiting from commenting here, being anonymous and without linkage to any media outlet of mine (which does not exist). It’s normally the other way round, that blogs are quite happy with SOME resonance from readers – and readers actually READING and taking stuff seriously … but, ok … you just wanna say: you are commenting too much here, we are not interested in. I get it.
4) ” … the hard work of my colleagues, on whom you have more than once cast aspersions regarding their integrity … ” [Babeuf]
Hard work it is, for sure. Do not think, I cannot recognize that. I have thanked Gleb once or twice in the past for that. Regarding ‘casting aspersions’ on this blog’s team: no, @Babeuf, never did that. Not with one single word. Show me, if you find some lines of me, where I did attack the team of Slavjangrad.
5) “You would no doubt be able to fight your supposed political crusade without being at the mercy of the moderation policies of a bunch of bloodthirsty “Strelkov fanatics”.” [Babeuf]
So, at last, here is the crux of the conflict. May I remind you, @Babeuf, that it was Naylor’s edition of a Russian journalist’s article on YOUR OWN BLOG HERE, which was shocking me (and others) to the core, as it related to other unhappy news about Strelkov, you are able to find in the Interwebs. Sorry, but this torture thing is haunting me – and let me tell you, it would haunt everyone, who is not already drawn into the abyss of war. Really, WHO LIKES OR TOLERATES TORTURE, EVEN, IF THE ENEMY IS TORTURING (which he is)?
I don’t know, how or how many of your team are affiliated with Strelkov. I cannot know – and it did not matter to me. I just asked political questions on an obviously political blog. And maybe I differ from Strelkov’s political mindset quite alot. BUT … so do LOTS OF PEOPLE AT DONBAS, RIGHT? So, if Slavjangrad is really a media outlet of Strelkov-supporters, I will hold my tongue from now on. I made my point. But, hey, @Babeuf, how should I know? Slavjangrad was reporting even about ‘Borotba’ … . Or Spanish Communists.
6) “At any rate, I can assure you this is certainly the last response you will be getting from any of the moderators here. But do feel free to continue with your monologues.” [Babeuf]
Yep. I get it. Sad thing. Like the Civil War. Which will last for years. Until every side is destroyed twice. Maybe on an international scale some day. As I said, I am done here. I should keep my thoughts to myself.
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 15, 2014, 03:29To Historian, Gerry Hiles, Babeuf79, Scott and all:
It seems a human curiosity to me that I agree with everything each of you is saying, and yet some of you seem to be disagreeing with each other. Such is the plasticity of the human mind! Of course, I also hold Vladimir Putin and the Dalai Lama to be the two “leader[s] of the moral world”, in Paul Craig Roberts’ words written in reference to Putin, and even the Dalai Lama disagrees with Putin! The world would function far more effectively if people made an exercise of understanding the ways in which they agree rather than disagree.
For the record, my comment containing the three links was held for moderation, but eventually published. Thank you Slavyangrad. When the comment was placed under moderation, I was disconcerted, since my comments are almost always posted instantly. Hence, my second comment about moderation itself, and my third comment that was a repost of the first without the links. Sorry for the confusion.
I am curious as to why most comments are posted instantly, while others occasionally are held for moderation. How does this process work? Is it the links that sometimes hold things up?
Interestingly, Bafeuf79 said, “but, honestly, maybe you should start your own blog and generate your own audience instead of taking a ride on the back of an existing, successful one.” And although his advice was not addressed to me, I had already adopted it before I even read his comment,. This past weekend I have decided to start my own website, as a result of this very discussion we have had here. Alas, I fear what I might receive in comments, and hope I am able to handle it as well as those at Slavyangrad have. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Posted by kennedy applebaum | Nov 17, 2014, 16:28I agree with you Kennedy, in that even with historian there was a lot I could agree with, but there was never a chance to discuss common ground. A great pity, but he was totally unshiftable on Strelkov especially and that got in the way of anything else.
LikeLike
Posted by gerryhiles | Nov 17, 2014, 23:07Good luck with the blog!
LikeLike
Posted by babeuf79 | Nov 17, 2014, 23:38“Alas, I fear what I might receive in comments, and hope I am able to handle it as well as those at Slavyangrad have.” [Kennedy]
😀
Good luck to your project and happy blogging! (LOTS of work awaits you …)
Give a note, when ready … .
LikeLike
Posted by Historian | Nov 17, 2014, 17:34(I apologize if this post appears twice. There was some confusion about moderation.)
Thank you Gerry Hiles for the video link. On my crippled remote network, I was able to watch the first 14 minutes.
Strelkov, as always, presents himself with inspiring character and integrity. He continues to perform monumental tasks for the good of Novorossiya, in this case by helping deliver humanitarian aid to the people and the militia.
About the “quarrel” between Zakharchenko and Strelkov, I am convinced their differences are par for the course for war and the founding of a new nation. Consider that they are pursuing a goal never achieved in the history of Man, in the sense that this particular country (Novorossiya), in this particular context (that of a tiny new nation opposing resurrected World War II Nazis backed by an overwhelming Western power axis) is breaking new historical ground to achieve independence. Fierce disagreements as to how this is to be accomplished are inevitable.
In a quick search, I found three articles written at the time of Strelkov’s dismissal, none of them surprising. Only one gave a truly damning assessment of Strelkov, but this, published by Reuters, a Rothschild-owned outlet, has no validity due to the bias of being on the opposite side of the war. Quite simply, both Strelkov and Zakharchenko are doing their best for the cause of Novorossiya, according to the picture as they see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Posted by kennedy applebaum | Nov 14, 2014, 19:39Yes and good luck with your own site, the furthest I’ve gone down that track is my WordPress blog – gerryhiles.wordpress.com – which is really just a news aggregator for stuff I find important. Same with G+ and twitter, because I don’t have a personal agendum to push, other than my obvious general sympathies which very many people share anyway and might welcome some congruent information they’ve missed.
For the most part I only belong to sites I broadly agree with. Others I visit so as to see “the opposition”, but don’t comment as a rule. What’s the point of contending with, usually, virulently pro-Washington/Tel Aviv people? Hopefully you won’t get trolled by such as they who are especially active on RT comments.
LikeLike
Posted by gerryhiles | Nov 17, 2014, 23:26Kennedy, you sound like a nice man, one of the good guys, but you remind me of Obama going into the presidency thinking the Ds had missed the obvious key to governing: when dealing with Republicans, be NICE. Then everybody sings Kumbaya.
A young civilian in Slavyansk drew and circulated a cartoon of Strelkov holding a pistol to this head with the caption “Just do it!” When last seen by his family, he was being escorted to a waiting car by four men wearing DNR badges. They said “All me know is we were told to bring him in.” There’s a mass grave up the street from Strelkov’s HQ currently undergoing forensic examination. He is one of the people whose cadaver they’re on the lookout for.
The chaos of war attracts looters. The honour given combatants attracts self-promoters. MacArthur, a great general, dreamed in his tent about what? The presidency.
LikeLike
Posted by Cass | Nov 25, 2014, 00:01“Obvious integrity” Good grief, Gerry. The man’s a spy. Faking sincerity is Espionage 101. There never was and never will be such a thing as an honest spy. Ex-KGB agent Vladimir Putin, when asked what was the most important attribute of a spy replied “The ability to win people’s confidence.” Is it just possible, Gerry, that an honest fellow like yourself might be vulnerable to the manipulations of a master?
After Strelkov was dismissed from command for sadism, he nobly vowed to return anonymously as a lowly rifleman. So back he comes publicly declaiming “At least I control some aid. (That coming from his boss, the Russian oligarch Konstantin Molofeev.) At least I have that much power.”
He was not such a hot commodity with Malofeev as an unemployed, disgraced ex-spy, and Ukraine was pretty hot for him with arrest warrants out for him for a couple of dozen murders. So back to Russia. (They will not honour the Ukraine warrants, I presume. They’re famously loyal to their old spooks. Or maybe they did a deal to get him out of the Donbass.) Now we have Strelkov the magnanimous, raising aid, which we have already seen means a source of power to him. Guess who will get it, Mozgovoi or Donetsk?
I’ve dumped much of what I’ve been able to discover about Strelkov back up the thread, as replies. Check it out.
LikeLike
Posted by Cass | Nov 24, 2014, 23:46Oh, Historian, btw: you refer above to the article posted on Slavyangrad by “a Russian journalist from the Urals.” When we last spoke, I told you I had looked that over and considered it a fake. I still do. Let me point you to the red flags.
First off, he is not a journalist. That should be obvious from his description of himself as “freelancing for.” You are either freelancing or on assignment for some news outlet, but not both. Checking the outlet he cites, it is a website that has no journalists and publishes no news. It solicits its readers to send in items which it may post. No fees. And I doubt that Slavyangrad paid him.
Secondly, doesn’t he remind you just a bit of Forrest Gump? Wherever something important is happening, somehow he is there. Crossing the border, he finds his vehicle is following tank tracks. His first night, a bunch of Cossacks fall upon him and begin confessing war crimes. He is arrested and taken for questioning to Strelkov’s office. Strelkov himself processes him. He is, for some reason not explained, asked to work in the offices of the resistance. Can you imagine a real person who is a real journalist getting all these opportunities. Not credible.
Third, we have some idea of what was there on his route for a journalist to see. Somehow he sees less of it than even the OSCE.
And, btw, did the resistance lose all chance of winning the information war when Strelkov held the eight OSCE observers hostage? Everyone who entered the theatre subsequently carried not only the biases of their governments, but a belief they were personally endangered by the resistance.
LikeLike
Posted by Cass | Nov 29, 2014, 13:37