Arkady Babchenko, center, flanked by Vasily Hritsak, head of Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) (L) and Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukrainian Prosecutor General (R)
By Catherine A. Fitzpatrick
"The world is divided into two camps: those who mourned Arkady Babchenko yesterday, and those who mourned him today." — Viktor Davydov
Journalists hate the making of lists of journalists about anything, but there are some occasions when it is interesting.
There are two lists now — those who are mad at Arkady Babchenko for participating in a sting operation to catch a would-be assassin, or who are "troubled at the implications," or unsure if it is a good thing — and those who are glad he is alive, think the ruse was justified, and wonder why all the attention is on criticizing the SBU and not the Kremlin, which is alleged to be behind this deed — and others.
These two lists really fall for the most part into a pattern — the pattern you can see on many other issues, in fact; the extent of how far people will go to criticize Putin; how much they feel they have to balance their saddlebags and then criticize Trump, too, or perhaps only Trump; how much they will support Ukraine against Russia, and so on. You could take other questions like: do you think it is likely that the Skripals were poisoned by the Russian state? Do you think the "Gerasimov Doctrine" or hybrid warfare exists? Or do you think Russia's claim of NATO expansion as a justification for its aggression holds water? Or do you think there was Western triumphalism after the collapse of the Cold War? Or do you think Russia or America is to blame for poor relations? And so on and so forth down the line. The lists will pretty much be drawn up along the same lines.
Sometimes these differences in these two lists are described as "international realist/pragmatist versus idealist/colour revolutionary" or "correct thinkers versus neocons" or "informed versus ignorant" or "liberals versus neoliberals" or "nuanced versus biased" or "dove versus hawk" or any other number of characterizations. Note that when Atlantic Council's Melinda Haring covered this issue, she featured mainly those mad at/troubled by Babchenko, and left out many prominent figures who in fact are happy for him and think the SBU was justified.
I'm on the second list, of course. Simon Ostrovsky and others are concerned that a stunt like this detracted from the fact that Pavel Sheremet's murder wasn't solved (I also knew him.) But if the Kremlin is behind it, how could it be solved? Ukrainian and Western journalists who have been absolutely sure that Pavel was murdered by pro-Ukrainian forces or at least not Russian-related forces are wrong, in my view, and I have studied the case closely. If Babchenko had really been murdered, that is, without any leads on the contract and the killer, his murder would have been unsolved like so many others. What is the plan to stop those murders? Thoughts and prayers don't work, and earnest petitions to OSCE and seminars about safety for journalists don't work, either. Not when the likely perpetrator is a state with the largest territory in the world AND significantly greater forces AND the will to do violence more than the West, even in a coalition. All of those responses have to continue, but it's good somebody is finally doing something practical, even if you didn't like their methods.
Babchenko is a complicated character — he is a rogue. He fought in Chechnya — in two wars — on the Kremlin's side. He was a war reporter critical of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but sometimes in a complicated way. It's all good because it was all very much on the ground. He pissed people off with his acidic remarks, such as his post about the father who lost his whole family in the Kemerovo mall fire (he pointed out that the man was a government loyalist and was easily cowed to see the government's point of view, and found pictures of him with the St. George flag pin — this made a lot of people angry). Fortunately, Babchenko will go on being Babchenko, not so clear-cut on any one's side but his own, but when it came to Russia's wars in Syria and Ukraine, a critic (tragically, he wasn't for the Chechen wars). Some people say Babchenko should cease to consider himself a journalist (and can't be one because he once fought in wars — well, tell that to George Orwell, why don't you!) What, you only get to be a journalist if you are CPJ-dead? No thanks.
Ну выходит, что и живой Бабченко порочит Россию и мертвый тоже порочит, поэтому непонятно что с ним вообще делать, безвыходная какая-то ситуация 🤔
— водка и мельдоний (@treugolny_hui) May 30, 2018
Translation: So it turns out that a live Babchenko smears Russia and a dead one also smears it, therefore it's not clear what to do with him in general, it's a hopeless situation.
People Mad about Babchenko/Think SBU is Wrong/Consequences Will be Terrible
Committee to Protect Journalists
Reporters without Borders
David Filippov
Shaun Walker
Kevin Rothrock
Masha Gessen
Lindsey Hilsum
Leonid Ragozin
Henry Foy
Lincoln Pigman
Craig Murray
Natalia Antonova
Mark Ames
Charles Shoebridge
Ed Lucas
John Sweeney
Elana Beiser
Piers Morgan
Lucian Kim
Plushchev but calls out MK editor
Vladislav Davidizon
Peter Dickinson
Sergiy Leshchenko
Vitalii Rybak
Simon Ostrovsky also ambiguous
Union of Journalists of Russia
Harlem Desir/OSCE Representative on FOM
International Federation of Journalists
Margarita Simonyan and see this
People Glad About Babchenko/Think Ruse Was Justified/Progress Made
Molly McKew
Michael Weiss although ambiguous
Michael Carpenter - changed mind
Cathy Young
Olexander Scherba
Maxim Eristavi
Garry Kasparov
Kateryna Kruk
iAmtheWarax
Laura Rosen
Glasnost Gone
Jakub Janda
Paula Chertok
XSovietNews
Evelyn Farkas
I'll add to this list as I come across more people and add some links.
What does Babchenko himself say in response to those who reprimand him for misleading the media?
He replied to a comment on a post about how hard it is to believe in anything any more, from a reader who expressed concern about how the media was fooled, as follows:
I wish all the high-moral inhibitors to wind up in the same situation — let them show their adherence to the principles of high morality and die with a proudly-raised head, not leading the media astray unacceptably. Well, so that deeds and words do not diverge. Good luck and successes to you, the killer is outside the door — I believe in you, guys, don't screw up!
Once again, there are those who take up the mindshare in Washington policy circles and in the media and New York and feel they speak for everyone, that only they have the correct line, that anyone who objects is "a neocon" or worse. But they don't speak for all of us, and they're wrong.
FAQS
- Why are you characterizing people as "mad" about Babchenko's "resurrection" when many of them have said they're glad that he is alive, but…?
Because "mad" and "glad" are shorthand terms for these positions, which involve "totally mad" or "glad he's alive but…" with some critique or vexation or even anger about what he has done, which they believe has done some irreparable damage to press freedom or media crediblity. Go and read what they write. They're glad for five minutes, then they get into high dudgeon from which they never exit.
- Why are you putting Margarita Simonyan in the "glad" list when she is a reprehensible human being working for a murderous state?
Because while she was utterly cynical and manipulative, she did say that she was glad he was alive, and this was in accordance with her "Christian heart" (we won't get into examining another's conscience) and didn't "start in" about what damage this was to free media and credibility and blah blah. Interestingly, officials, including Zakharova from the Foreign Ministry, have sided with Babchenko when he was "dead" and after he was "resurrected" on the grounds that "he fought on our side in Chechnya". Well, that's how they are. You don't often see people reprimand Babchenko for fighting in Chechnya and killing Chechens which would have involved Chechen civilians which many of us lobbied to protect during two wars. Unless she's said something new, I haven't seen it. So her statement can be taken at face value. Just like some who have said they were glad and left it at that without the morality lecture got in the "glad" list although they may be secretly fuming.
- You put me (or some other person) in the wrong list because actually….
Well, make your case and I'll change your position. I'm just trying to keep a coherent public list here. If someone thinks they are more impartial and can make different or better lists, they are naturally free to do so.
Leave a Reply