Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone View Post
Fascinating, thank-you for the quick translation. GenosseGeneral.

Playing devil's advocate for a second, how can one be sure he's not a plant? What sort of credentials did the individual offer?

I'm just finding it difficult to believe that this guy voluntarily engaged in black-ops work, backing rebels in a neighboring country, then proudly proclaiming his activities upon being taken into custody at a hospital? What ever happened to "name, rank and serial number"?

Sounds a little too good to be true, if you know what I mean.
He is not in Ukrainian custody, he was interviewed by the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta in a hospital in insurgent-held Donetsk. Here is another translated (but still incomplete) version.

A couple of weeks ago, the Russian newspaper Kommersant published a story about how Russian regular troops were involved in the capture of Debaltseve, translated here:

The logic of military operations in recent months is quite simple: only experienced troops are being deployed to perform combat missions on behalf of either the self-proclaimed republics, or “certain regions of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions” (as is written in the Minsk agreement). They complete a mission and pull back, and local insurgents move into the seized towns, the commandants’ offices and checkpoints - ready to meet the journalists and tell them of their past lives as “miners.”
(original Russian article here)

Quote Originally Posted by CrossLOPER View Post
This is what I found on MO: http://rt.com/shows/tim-kirby/224567...lochsenreiter/
Can you tell me specifically what you find distasteful, or even disagreeable, without referring to the article you posted?
This is beside the point. Using controversial people like they were normal sources makes the channel controversial. Another guy, which they used as a stringer in Ukraine, is this guy, the Brit Graham Phillips; here seen in an insurgent uniform at one of their firing ranges:




Clearly taking the embedding part seriously.. (and that's the tip of the iceberg regarding him)

There is not one thing in isolation that makes RT problematic (at best), it's the sum of all the weird stuff they do.

That is the article edited down to the main ideas. The BBC article has 86 words, where the RT article has 85.
Not continuing this line of debate.