This is a prelude to what will be an expanded and amended version of a piece I posted earlier this month over at Substack about the Ukrainian-Canadian academic, called "
The haters of Ivan Katchanovski, and other Ukrainian "traitors" like Marta Havryshko."
I only put a little bit about the Ukrainian "leftist" site Commons in that piece. Some of its editors might object to the word "leftist" in scare quotes. But, not everybody there may be leftist, and it's in scare quotes for another reason.
Katchanovski, for those deeply following not just the Russia-Ukraine war, but everything from the Euromaidan on, has claimed that the people killed at the Maidan were NOT shot by the Berkut security forces of then-president Yanukovich, but rather by far-right agitators, most likely to try to pressure his government into collapse, which happened soon after.
Here's a somewhat shorter piece of his. There and elsewhere, Katchanovski criticizes the investigation, including the later reconstruction of the scene, and above all, the use of AI as part of that reconstruction.
Here's what seems to be an OK but not great, relatively neutral analysis
of Katchanovski's claims about the Maidan. The author, William Risch,
an American college professor, claims that he overstates some things,
like conclusiveness of who fired from the Hotel Ukraine, while adding
that parts of his big picture holds up. The "seems to be" is in boldface for a reason, as we'll soon see.
The author has spoken
on sites like CGTN America, an American TV channel part of state-owned
Chinese Central Television. OTOH, in an interview elsewhere, he claims
Minsk II (not sure what else he means by the 2015 treaty) "would've
essentially broken up the state from within," a claim I have never heard
before. He's also written for Moscow Times.
Commons' site's "about"
calls itself a left-wing Ukrainian media group focused on economic
issues. Note that Katchanovski's first book was about labor issues and
that's his background with Seymour Martin Lipset, under whom he got his Ph.D., from George Mason.
First, some larger picture things with Commons, then back to Risch's article.
One of the lead editors notes how
Commons left Progressive International over its failure to offer what I
will call a desired "blank-check" condemnation of Russia shortly after
the invasion. The same person, editor Taras Bilous, says in another piece
that Zelensky is the most moderate leader Ukraine could have elected
from 2019 on, and defends him on the anti-Russian language, and
memories, "Ukrainification" of the country. IF that's true (and I believe it is) ... doesn't
that say something about your country?
Well, it says this, per a piece of his calling out to the Western left:
Ukraine
isn’t even a classic liberal democracy—here, every new president tries
to amass as much power as possible via informal mechanisms, the
parliament passes unconstitutional laws, and rights and freedoms of
citizens are often violated. Even during the war, the Ukrainian
government has passed a law curtailing labor rights. In this respect, it
is not very different from the rest of Eastern Europe.
I
wouldn't argue. I would add that, to the degree NATO more and more
overlaps with the EU, it's another argument for the US to reduce its
NATO connections.
Bilous here
claims that Right Sector, etc's recent influence in Ukraine has been
overstated. Even if Zelensky did even less to implement Minsk II than
Putin, out of fears for his safety or whatever? See your own other piece's pull-quote above, Bilous; seems like, at least through 2019, their influence has NOT been overstated.
And here,
opposing a "Finlandization" of NATO, he comes off looking like a
leftist who still wants the US, if not NATO, to keep "Badgering" Russia,
per Pope Francis' term. (And, though retreating from his dipping of
toes into liberation theology, he WAS from the "global south.")
I believe there's a phrase for people like Bilous: "Controlled opposition."
There is something else at play here.
That
is why, per some of Bilous' comments about the Maidan, why is the only
piece you have on Katchanovski's shooting claims being written by an
American?
Why would Risch not link to anything Katchanovski has written in English? After all, courtesy Springer, his own book on that is open access.
And, per a piece already on Substack, which will have an amended version here, I want to quote from this book's preface:
I
am a life-long supporter of liberal democracy, human rights, and peace
in Ukraine and was one of the first to publicly call for the European
Union accession of Ukraine. I attended in 1988 the first small
opposition rally in Kyiv in some 80 years since Ukraine became Soviet. I
was born in Western Ukraine.
He expands this on page 38:
The author is a Ukrainian and Canadian political scientist origi-
nally from Western Ukraine and attended the first Ukrainian opposition
demonstrations and rallies in Kyiv in 1988–1991. The author faced
expulsion from the Kyiv National Economic University in 1990 and was prevented from pursuing graduate education in the Soviet Union
for writing the final undergraduate thesis (in Ukrainian) because it was
based on theories of Max Weber and Western economists and concluded
that the Soviet system was bound to collapse. The author is a life-long
supporter of liberal democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and peace
in Ukraine and publicly called before, during, and after the Euromaidan
for the European Union accession of Ukraine, and opposed the illegal
Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 (Dyer, 2022; Katchanovski, 2007,
2014b, 2018). However, it is professional and ethical duty of scholars to
rely on evidence and not on political views or other considerations.
There you are.
Let's add this, which many Westerners who run him up the flagpole and salute may not know:
Russia drastically escalated these conflicts by launching its illegal invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022
There we go.
So, the idea that he's a
"traitor" (he's been listed on a quasi-Ukrainian governmental
intimidation and kill list called Myrotvorets) is laughable.
Why would you call it a "conspiracy theory," Risch?
After all, Katchanovski discusses global alleged (conspiracy theory) and actual false flags, and lists this among the conspiracy theories — one generated BY RUSSIA.
Various separatist and Russian politicians and media claimed that a downing of a Malaysian MH17 passenger plane in Donbas in 2014 was a false-flag attack. However, publicly available evidence, which was reported in the media, the social media, and a trial in the Netherlands, indicates
that the plane was shot down with a missile by separatists from a Russian-supplied Buk because it was mistaken for a Ukrainian military plane.
(This, as well as earlier cites, are from his book.)
Again, speaking of conspiracy theory:
With just some exceptions, these [Western mainstream media] reports without any evidence presented these snipers in the Maidan-controlled buildings or areas as Ukrainian government snipers or implied that they were the government snipers. But soon after the massacre, with some partial exceptions, these and other major media outlets referred to snipers in these Maidan-controlled locations as “a conspiracy theory,” denied their existence, or omitted this and other evidence of such snipers
You're busted, Risch.
Why would Commons not give Katchanovski space to respond? Ask him to respond? He is NOT on the site's list of authors.
Why would it wait until 2024 to have Risch write this? Was it because Katchanovski was "gaining traction" by then?
(I
have asked Commons all of this on Shitter, as well as to their most
recent, as of the time I am typing, English-language Facebook post. We
will see what, if any, response I get.)
And, almost 18 months on, where is the book this is supposed to be part of?
Speaking of books again?
In his book, Katchanovski has a callout of Risch, Taras Kuzio (mentioned in my Substack and to be mentioned in my part 2 of this, here), and one other person:
Kuzio, David Marples, and William Risch published their criticism in non-academic and non-peer-reviewed online publications.
No wonder Commons didn't ask him to respond.
My bottom line?
Katchanovski may be wrong about bullet issues. He may not be wrong. The
use of AI a full decade ago, in its infancy, to "reconstruct" the Maidan
shootings was horribly wrong. Look at what the botched autopsy of Jack
Kennedy did here in the US. (I am NOT a JFK conspiracy theorist; I'm
just saying that his autopsy, rushed at the personal pushing of Bobby
Kennedy, and not done on site in Dallas by doctors who likely would have
been cognizant of shooting angles, were one factor in opening the door
to conspiracy theories.)
And with that, Commons goes too far in
criticizing
Katchanovski; he may not be right, but it's really impossible to prove
him wrong on the narrow issue of the Maidan shootings. And, given
Risch's statements, I think he's being willful in going too far.
Actually, it goes further than too far. It looks like it was looking for a hit piece that would throw a bone or two to critics to present it as something less than a hit piece.
Elsewhere on that site, Howie Hawkins does an interview
that throws Jill Stein under the "Putin's puppet" bus about as
thoroughly as the Democratic National Committee has been doing for nine
years and counting! Of course, Hawkins bit too hard on Russiagate in
2020 and has never backed off.
That said, I wonder if it's been
intimidated enough itself that it pulls punches. As in Myrotvorets
intimidated. But, I don't think so. (It has one piece on Myrotvorets,
but that from 2016.)
Let us also note that Katchanovski is NOT NOT NOT the only Ukrainian academic or public intellectual expat to tackle these issues. Here's Truthout with two others besides him at a conference, already in late 2014.
