General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsResearch concludes the Maidan Square snipers were anti-government militants.
When, in early 2014, unarmed demonstrators and even government riot police in Maidan Square were being shot and killed by snipers, Western sources, without bothering to investigate, immediately accepted that the murders had to have been ordered by President Yanukovych's crowd control officials. This was despite undisputed video of snipers firing from windows high in several buildings occupied by anti-government protesters. The West was in no mood to accommodate suggestions anyone else might be at fault. The Ukrainian government was corrupt and evil, the logic seemed to go, so of course they had to be guilty! Now, however, unbiased examination of the evidence has concluded that was just not the case.
Fire and smoke shroud Maidan Square, February, 2014 (Sputnik)
Study Proves Maidan Snipers Were Western-Backed Oppositions False Flag
A study of the February 20, 2014 Snipers massacre in Kiev, where scores of protesters were killed by shots fired from surrounding buildings, has proved that it was carried out by Western-backed opposition groups. The research found that the Berkut special police force, which was loyal to the Ukrainian government, was not responsible, contrary to the narrative which was created by the post-Maidan coup government in Kiev, and consequently accepted by Western governments and media.
Ivan Katchanovski, a teacher of political science at the University of Ottawa, studied eyewitness reports, estimates of ballistic trajectories, 30 gigabytes of security forces radio intercepts, 5,000 photos and 1,500 videos and broadcast recordings of the protesters deaths.
This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power, wrote Katchanovski in his study, called The Snipers Massacre on the Maidan in Ukraine.
It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas.
(snip)
Read more at: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160103/1032633643/study-maidan-deaths-false-flag.html
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)Outta this world!
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)With nothing at all to say but: "Sputnik, lol."
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)It's even funnier when you constantly chose to use only Russian owned propaganda sources as your "news" sources.
Sputnik News?
Might as well be Pravda.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It's better to just listen and learn.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The lies put out by Putin.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Is not what I would call "listening," and it also precludes any hope of "learning."
"The most sublime conquests, and the only ones without regret, are those rested from ignorance."
snooper2
(30,151 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You, however, are quite free to post your own OP. I may even comment on it if you do.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)From sputnik news?
That's a riot.
malaise
(269,157 posts)but they'll attack the source.
I still need an explanation for the silence re the attack on the union building that killed so many people.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Yeah, it has never been truly investigated, and now with Saakashvili as the appointed governor of Odessa it is not likely to be either.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Oh, wait......................
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That showed people on the rooftops firing weapons at the Ukrainians marching down the street for their soccer team?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)This is Russian propaganda, put out by a Russian owned "news" source, attempting to pin the blame where it doesn't lie, posted here by a member with an agenda.
malaise
(269,157 posts)I buy the facts
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Owned news sources.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)A wholly created and owned Russian govt propaganda machine?
MattSh
(3,714 posts)Where have you been?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Others have come to far different conclusions.
On site investigations.
Talking to people involved.
Forensic tests.
Clear evidence of cover-ups.
Clear evidence that Kiev doesn't want the truth to come out.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I
1.9 |
University of Ottawa | Université d'Ottawa, School of Political Studies, Department Member
|
Political Science
+87
Ivan Katchanovski teaches at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. He was Visiting Scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Politics at the State University of New York at Potsdam, Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto, and Kluge Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. He received his Ph.D. from the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University.
Supervisors: Seymour Martin Lipset
http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3072300142/katchanovski-ivan-1967.html
PERSONAL:
Born September 11, 1967, in Lutsk, Ukraine; son of Sophia Katchanovski. Ethnicity: "Ukrainian." Education: National University of Economics, diploma, 1990; Central European University, diploma (with merit), 1993; George Mason University, M.A., 1996, Ph.D., 2002. Hobbies and other interests: Dancing, traveling.
ADDRESSES:
HomeToronto, Ontario, Canada. OfficeDepartment of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, Canada. E-mailivan.katchanovski@utoronto.ca.
CAREER:
Academic. Volyn State University, Lutsk, Ukraine, lecturer, 1993-94; United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC, research assistant, 1996; George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, research assistant, 1997-2001, adjunct professor, 2002-04; Smith College, Northampton, MA, research associate, 2001; Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Kluge postdoctoral fellow, 2002-03; University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, postdoctoral fellow, 2005. John Olin junior faculty fellow, 1994, and Humane Studies fellow, 1997-98, both Institute for Humane Studies; Lubin-Winant research fellow, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, 2005.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Thank you for preempting the likely attempts by others to indulge in attacks on his reputation.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)especially when sputnik news is involved.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Your act is wearing thin.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Anyone who does a piece for Sputnik News, along with those that constantly post it here are suspect IMO.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If so, have the honesty to say so outright.
BTW: I used all caps in the title line because I have called you out several times before, and you have never answered directly regarding what it is you are suggesting. Perhaps all caps will make my question understandable to you?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Russian created and owned "news" sources, then that leads one to wonder what one's true agenda here is.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Are you going have the honesty of your convictions and tell me what you are trying to suggest, or just continue to indulge in the cowardly practice of character assassination by innuendo?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)so tell us what your true agenda is here.
Tell us why the only sources you use for your threads are Russian created, owned and operated by the Russian govt?
Why won't you use sources that aren't connected to the Russian govt.?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Russia's news services are valuable, I believe, in providing some balance to the pervasive flood of anti-Russian and pro-conflict drivel pumping out 24/7 by our Western mass media.
My purpose is, simply put, to do what I can to prevent a one-sided telling of world events from pushing our country into another, or several more, bloody, destructive and unnecessary wars. My goal is the eventual reining-in of the MIC controlled foreign policy which threatens to cripple and weaken the United States of America for generations to come.
And, BTW: You still dodged answering my question. Do I have to use all caps in my message text as well?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Russian owned and operated "news" sources, Sputnik "news" and RT.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Answer directly, or I can only assume that you are.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)about your agenda here.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You, sir, are nothing but a vicious, character-assassinating Troll. Your masters should be ashamed to employ you.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Well, I do have a master, that would be my wife.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Russia's news services are valuable..."
Bias of course, dictates one states myopia is valuable, regardless of whether one actually believes it or not.. regardless of the petulance of caps usage.
"My goal is the eventual reining-in of the MIC..."
Creative allegation.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)If you have something substantive to say, say it. We'd like to hear another point of view about this subject. Otherwise, save it. We all know what you think about this source.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)a wholly created and owned Russian propaganda machine is highly suspect and those that use it as their only source to post pro Russian propaganda here is also highly suspect.
Igel
(35,356 posts)Ad hominem vs. appeal to authority.
The same coin, just obverse and reverse sides.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)When you get down to it, political power is public communication of applied fallacy. Power is an accepted Fiction.
But, your formulation is more elegant. Double-plus good. It's enough to drive one to Victory Gin.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I have the feeling this is seen as an untouchable "third-rail" subject of study, instant death to most American academics and journalistic careers in the United States. Hence, this guy is Ukrainian and works in Canada. If you can post corroborating evidence from another source, that might help get past the "attack the messenger" responses you often get.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but I highly doubt you'll see the OP post another news source, sputnik news or RT is almost his exclusively go to sources.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)The Putin-admiration society on DU is curious.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Find me a corroborating story that is NOT from RT or Sputnik, and is a REPUTABLE news source (ie, not "Bob's Blog" . That's all I ask. If you can provide that, then there MIGHT be some truth to this. My cursory search just turned up this and RT, however. And the Russian govt is the LAST people I'd believe in regards to this issue.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Look to his publications for that institution for all the links you need.
BTW: I find your blanket condemnation of all Russian news sources appalling (from a liberal point of view). You should really check yourself in regard to that.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I find all government propaganda appalling. Like I said, link to a reputable news source (ie, NOT Russian government propaganda), or there's nothing to believe. Russia is accused of being the aggressor here. Russia's state owned news releases this article saying "nah-ah, it was them who did it". Kind of like the downed plane fiasco. Every Russian source says "they did it, not us". Nearly every other source says "Russia did it".
Check yourself, indeed.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Or just that from governments you have biases against?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)by western govts,, however, on the other hand, sputnik news and rt, your exclusively go to sources, are wholly created, owned and operated by the Russian govt to spread Russian govt propaganda, therefore it's safe to wonder what your true agenda here on DU is.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Who think it is ok to lie for profit, and who have a long and illustrious of history of lying to support right wing dictators like Pinochet, Samoza, Batista, The military dictatorship of 1970s Argentina, the Shah of Iran and Suharto.
Not to mention right wing policies like social security privatization, no minimum wage, no food regulation, austerity, school privatization, and privatized health insurance.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)to spread, via their paid trolls, propaganda throughout the west.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Yeah right.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)When did that happen?
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)and as an American I know how destructive corporate media propaganda can be to the interests of the average American.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It just happens to be that RT and Sputnik are posted here on DU a LOT. Don't really see much from Korean Central News Agency, Xinhua News Agency, IRNA, et al here.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I've seen assertions relying upon anonymous Western and Ukranian sources that the snipers and firebombers were security forces, but that hasn't been presented in a coherent or convincing fashion. If someone has a reliable source, I would surely like to see it. In the meantime, I think other points of view should be considered and debated.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Right wingers always have 'studies' that 'prove' that global warming is a liberal conspiracy theory or that cutting taxes on the rich really does help the middle class. "Studies" that "prove" what its authors want them to "prove" are not particularly credible.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Therefore it is equivalent to "'studies' that 'prove' that global warming is a liberal conspiracy theory." Right?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Was the study peer-reviewed prior to publication?
Did someone check whether the 183 sources cited in the study actually say what the author claims they say?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Baseless character assassination is not, of course, really criticism, and it is not worthy of posting her on DU.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)First someone writes the study.
Then someone else double-checks the study. And the author doesn't get to know who is doing the double-checking. (Sometimes the referees don't even know whose study they are double-checking.)
And THEN it gets published.
I have no reason to believe that this study was checked for mistakes or misleadings.
No peer-review, no credibility.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Assoc., as the face page states.
If this paper was presented at the September APSA conference, it will likely be read and possibly cited by other members. But, that is not the same thing as "peer-reviewed". Nonetheless, this appears to be an impressive body of work. Worth reading, at least as one point of view.
http://tpo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference.pdf
pampango
(24,692 posts)'Studies' that confirm pre-existing biases do not 'prove' that the bias is true. That is as true of this study as it is of those the right uses to refute global warming and to support tax cuts for the rich.
What makes this study "unimpeachable" in your view? Because it confirms what you (and the authorities in Moscow) 'know' to be true?
The Berkut was hardly a blameless security force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkut_%28special_police_force%29
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The german, publicly-owned TV-channel ZDF made a documentary about Putin. Among the content of the documentary was a 27yo Russian (interviewed in Moscow) who told ZDF how the russian military is active in Ukraine.
The documentary was met with a russian whirlwind of accusations and denouncement. The Russian was dragged in front of the cameras of russian TV-channels, renounced his testimony and told how the ZDF bribed him and staged everything. The ZDF stands by its reporting.
The documentary was dragged through the mud in russian media: how it's awful, how it's full of lies, how it failed to attract viewers (which is demonstrably false) ... All the while neglecting to talk about the facts and accusations in the documentary.
Why am I bringing this up?
Boris Reitschuster, a german journalist famous for being critical of Russia, was mentioned on russian TV as a co-producer of the documentary... which is demonstrably false.
Russian TV brought up a quote of something critical he had said about Russia... except that the first half of this "quote" was entirely made up.
And you know what else is funny? All the outrage about the "lie" that russian military is in Ukraine? Putin later admitted that russian military personell is militarily active in Ukraine but refused to go into the details.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12054164/Vladimir-Putins-annual-press-conference-2015-live.html
----------------------------
Here's the study btw
http://www.stelling.nl/divers/Maidan_2014.pdf
https://blog.fanfiktion.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_Paper-libre.pdf
As you can see, it's self-published, which means we don't know if it was reviewed.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Please start your own OP if you wish to discuss those matters. Your trying to do so here only disrupts the current discussion.
Thank you.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Always question and never allow yourself to be completely convinced by any of it.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)because you believe anything that comes out of Moscow via sputnik news and rt and you vigorously defend them.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)That pretty much sums it up.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)"Google Scholar" is a search-engine that only delivers hits from websites that publish scientific papers.
I entered the title of the study... and I got 2 hits. One is this blog and the other one looks like a weird... blog. A dutch blog.
http://www.stelling.nl/
Now...
1. Why THE F**K would a respected professor from Ottawa publish his ground-breaking study on an obscure dutch website, instead of, say, his homepage?
2. Why did he publish it in an informal manner? Why didn't he submit it for review and publishing to a journal of political science?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)One step below pay-to-play. My guess is he KNOWS his study is flawed, and doesn't want it ripped apart. So quietly release it in some Dutch blog, then RT/Sputnik picks it up, touts it as fact, and the proles lap it up without bothering to check any of the facts surrounding it's publication.
Of course, there's the possibility that the respected professor did not actually write it and knows nothing about it.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There's something there, here. Why not read it and come back with a substantive comment on the merits?
http://tpo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference.pdf
karynnj
(59,504 posts)It is poorly written and in the summary in the beginning contains leading comments like:
On November 19, 2014, the Prosecutor General Office claimed during its pressconference
devoted to this issue that their extensive investigation produced no evidence of
snipers at the Hotel Ukraina, Zhovtnevyi Palace and other locations controlled by Maidan.
However, no evidence has been made public in support of such findings, with the exception of
videos that show them shooting with AKMs.
Seriously - he is arguing that it is problematic that there is no evidence in support of something they say their investigation found no evidence of. He then speaks of "missing" evidence. It is also frustrating to read because of things like dates without the year and references to the "Ukrainian government" when it is not clear which Ukrainian government.
As to critical analysis, here is part of his proof -- note the op regularly cites the western media as not covering any of this correctly -- yet, articles in exactly those sources are listed as his proof.
However, a Reuters investigation uncovered that the prosecution case against three
Berkut members charged with the killings primarily relied on videos and photos, and some key
pieces of such evidence were misrepresented or ignored.12 Monitor, a German TV program,
presented evidence during its investigation that shooters were based in the Hotel Ukraina and
that the government investigation was manipulated.13 Investigative reports by the BBC and
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung almost a year after the massacre confirmed the presence of
armed protesters at the Music Conservatory and their shooting of the police at Maidan.14 A New
York Times investigation concluded that the police forces and Yanukovych himself fled because
of their fear that protesters could use weapons that were seized during the attacks on the police
and SBU headquarters in several regions of Western Ukraine.15 However, they did not produce
similar investigations into the killings of the protesters and assumed that the police massacred the
protesters in reaction to the killing of the policemen. Similarly, the Daily Beast reports that
presented videos and photos of the armed SBU Alfa unit are proof that the Alfa snipers killed the
protesters, even though the photos and videos were made at the SBU headquarters after the
massacre had already unfolded.
Note that this is all the prequel to his study, which he describes as follows:
This study relies on the rational choice theoretical framework and the Weberian theory of
rational action, and it employs interpretative and content analyses of a variety of sources. The
rational choice theory views people as acting in a calculated and self-interested manner.17
However, rational choice assumes that people have perfect information to make such decisions
and that all of their actions are rational. In contrast, the Weberian theory of social action regards
instrumentally-rational type of action as one ideal type of action alongside value-rational,
traditional and affectual types of action, and that such actions can be interpreted and understood
by scholars. The instrumentally rational type of aМtion involves the attainment oП the aМtors
own rationallв pursueН anН МalМulateН enНs.
So, in essence, what follows is based on BOTH his view of the facts - which are even from his summary - are still in question. What is clear is that he really has no new proof of anything -- and does not claim to. Any model is only as good as the assumptions and the degree to which it fits reality.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Until then, I wouldn't say it's significant that this conference paper is written in an academic style, and explains it's academic POV (which is itself a convention of such papers, and the POV is conventional for Poli Sc.) All academic papers state their chosen theoretical perspective.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)1) The media did not clearly assign blame - they reported that both sides blamed each other. (That was what I had remembered and the various quotes to western media from the paper show there were reports that blamed the protesters.
2) I have no problem with the paper explaining the choice of models used. By POV, I was referring to what seemed to me to be a biased description of the known "facts". These - in addition to the theoretical models - influence the results.
3) the OP and his source claims this "proves" it was the protesters who shot people - not the government. This really overstates what the model did.
As to something better, I have not looked or seen anything that addresses the question and attempts to take all the independent primary sources of information into account -- and this does not attempt to do that. Most of the best reporting done reported claims from both sides and gave whatever supporting information they had.
I would guess that there will eventually be a good study of what happened, but, like with many historical reports, it might be decades before a definitive history is written about this --- and even then, there are likely to be people on both sides.
Unfortunately, there were people capable of doing something as deplorable as this on both sides. Personally, I don't have a strong belief that either side did it, but I have a very strong rejection of taking the various Putin sources as credible.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I'll respond to your points in order.
1) The media did not clearly assign blame - they reported that both sides blamed each other. (That was what I had remembered and the various quotes to western media from the paper show there were reports that blamed the protesters.
The overall impression given by the western media is that snipers supporting the regime attacked and massacred peaceful demonstrators. That is shown to be untrue, and those reports that confirm it are cited. Reports were mixed. The better newspapers reported both sides using violence accusing each other about who the snipers were working for.
2) I have no problem with the paper explaining the choice of models used. By POV, I was referring to what seemed to me to be a biased description of the known "facts". These - in addition to the theoretical models - influence the results.
I have rarely read a paper in the field of political science that does not have detectable biases. The only ones that don't have a point of view and prove to be neutral are essentially meaningless.
3) the OP and his source claims this "proves" it was the protesters who shot people - not the government. This really overstates what the model did.
That's for the author's colleagues to show, or claim they can show by their own sources and methods. I suspect that we are both able to read this for ourselves and pick up on biases and omissions. But, that doesn't refute the study.
As to something better, I have not looked or seen anything that addresses the question and attempts to take all the independent primary sources of information into account -- and this does not attempt to do that. Most of the best reporting done reported claims from both sides and gave whatever supporting information they had.
So, we are both in agreement on that. The subject needs far more and better analysis. Same thing with the similar precedent of the "third force" snipers in Libya and Syria. Looks like the same sort of provocation.
I would guess that there will eventually be a good study of what happened, but, like with many historical reports, it might be decades before a definitive history is written about this --- and even then, there are likely to be people on both sides.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, there were people capable of doing something as deplorable as this on both sides.
I very strongly agree with you on that.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)TIA.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If you have a deep curiosity about such things, look that information up yourself.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)that the answer to that question isn't to your advantage.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I have not even heard of the good Doctor's study until I posted about it here.
Try not to let your biases run away with you so.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)How would one "look up that information" if it's not been made available, even by the "researcher"? If no one can see the methodology of the actual study, and no suggestion has been made that it's been released to any other academics, how would a review be possible?
Upthread you noted that the study is "otherwise unimpeachable". Other than what?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Your response right here says all we need to know.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)1. When you download it from here http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245 you can clearly see that this was a conference-paper, not a published paper. Hence, we have no idea what kind of peer-review was used or whether peer-review was used at all. Also, the study does NOT note how it was published in some conference-proceedings.
2. There are two versions of this study: One with 343 references (see above) and one with 183 references (published on an obscure dutch website).
There is no evidence that this study was peer-reviewed. The unorthodox manner in which the study was published is even an indication that peer-review was intentionally avoided by the author.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Look it up yourself. I am not paid to post here.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The manners in which the two versions of the study were published
1. make it impossible to know whether there was peer-review or not
2. are an indication that peer-review was intentionally avoided before publishing
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Might I suggest that you read it before deflecting valid questions?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)This is a posted academic paper presented at the American Political Science Association meeting in September, 2015. Such papers are read and may be cited by others. They are generally not peer-reviewed until they are published in an academic journal. But, that does not make this invalid. Indeed, if this paper was utter rubbish, it probably would already have been discredited as such.
Therefore, as the most exhaustive study of its type, read it and comment on the substance. Please desist from ad hominem attacks.
You are already shown to be factually in error. The two (substantially identical) versions:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245
http://tpo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference.pdf
(BTW: From all appearances, tpo.nl isn't an obscure blog. So, your characterization is wrong again).
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Nevertheless, I reserve the right to attack the validity of a paper ad hominem until the paper meets the quality-standards that all other published scientific papers are subjected to.
Until then, I will treat this study for what it is right now: The unverified claims of a single author.
Just because somebody of authority says something, that doesn't make it true. There is no one-time test that declares something "true" forever. Scientific truth means that a claim must be proven to agree with an experimental observation with a considerable statistical significance every single time somebody checks that claim.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)This is a political science study that looks at the preponderance of the evidence. It does not claim to find verified "truth" beyond any reasonable doubt - that would be entirely unscientific and probably not that meaningful, as it largely relies upon the reported testimony of eyewitnesses and interpretation of others, which can be fallible. But, it does do a reasonably good job of rounding up the available evidence.
You appear to be trying to apply a standard of proof that's inappropriate to the subject matter, There probably will be no one-time test or treatment that can be applied to contentious events like this. You can draw your own conclusions.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)To send you packing ...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)And that is all it is.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I want all to see just what your true agenda here is, which has become clearer by the day.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)because RT wasn't pro-Putin enough.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)If anyone wishes to read it.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)At least some of those who have already condemned and dismissed it due to their personal biases may take you up on that (as well as many others who are genuinely intrigued to see what it actually says).
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)was it peer reviewed by an independent panel of researchers?
If not, why not?
And the more compelling question is, why would you use a Russian owned and controlled propaganda source for this thread?
Are there any other less biased sources out there?
What is your true motive for constantly using Russian propaganda?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If this paper was presented at the September APSA conference, it will likely be read and possibly cited by other members. But, that is not the same thing as "peer-reviewed". Nonetheless, this appears to be an impressive body of work. Worth reading, at least as one point of view.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Once again.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Right, GG?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)At the very least, I'd think that someone stating that it is an "otherwise unimpeachable investigation" would read it. It takes some moxie to point at others and shout "BIAS" when this entire OP and your contributions stem from nothing but.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The lead researcher's academic credentials seem quite beyond reproach, that is good enough for me (and should certainly be for a chat board format). If you wish to delve deeper into the accompanying minutia, I encourage you to do so. For me, on the other hand, "Life is too short."
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)"Never mind."
You own this massive failure.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)At least in this case it certainly is.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)My computer has not started popping up little Green Men or Putins. No worries
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Limiting data and analysis selection to publication which inherently validate your own conclusions is by its very definition, bias.
However, I completely understand the schools of thought which may entertain such pretenses. Journalists investigation into the leaked information found that the pro-Kremlin movement had been engaging in all kinds of digital activities, including paying commentators to post content and hijacking blog ratings ( "Kremlin's Blogshop" by Anastasia Karimova, Izvestia) and that a Freedom House report stated that Russia has been using paid commentators to manipulate online discussions and has been at the forefront of this practice for several years (Russia's Online-Comment Propaganda Army, The Atlantic, by Olga Khazan)
Further investigations were performed by Novaya Gazeta and Institute of Modern Russia in 201415, inspired by the peak of activity of the pro-Russian brigades during war in Donbass and assassination of Boris Nemtsov. The effort of using "troll armies" to promote Putin's policies is a multimillion-dollar operation. According to The Guardian investigation the flood of pro-Russian comments is part of a coordinated "informational-psychological war operation". One Twitter bots network was documented to use over 20'500 fake Twitter accounts to spam hateful comments after assassination of Boris Nemtsov and events related to the war in Donbass (Lawrence Alexander's "Social Network Analysis Reveals Full Scale of Kremlin's Twitter Bot Campaign)
Stated much better than I could, "The effect created by such Internet trolls is not very big, but they manage to make certain forums meaningless because people stop commenting on the articles when these trolls sit there and constantly create an aggressive, hostile atmosphere toward those whom they dont like. The trolls react to certain news with torrents of mud and abuse. This makes it meaningless for a reasonable person to comment on anything there..." ("Internet Troll Operation Uncovered in St. Petersburg", The St. Petersburg Times, by Sergey Chernov).
Udači!
leveymg
(36,418 posts)seemingly reputable academic with good credentials who posted his paper at the American Political Science Association meeting held in September. We all know what Sputnik is, but that doesn't detract from the validity of the original 79 page paper. Or, does it?
Read the paper and comment on it's substance, or is that unimportant?
http://tpo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference.pdf