Dedicated Russian thread

Gen question, is it that the vaccines are not available or that the uptake is low?
There has been more vaccine than demand for quite a while. The main issue is that Russia have a lot of anti-vaxxer nutters. It is a society that puts a great deal of faith in rumour and conspiracy theory and not much faith in government or the media. There are four different vaccines approved for use in Russia, so it's not just a prejudice against any one particular vaccine.

The government have been using the carrot to persuade people to get vaccinated, but the stick is starting to come out and vaccination is being made mandatory for a wide swath of government and service sector employees. This is being brought in by regional authorities not the federal government, so this will vary across the country. Like most federal countries the federal government has been in charge of procuring vaccines but the regions are in charge of public health regulations and running the vaccination programs.

Moscow region have been getting the most attention in the English language press over this, so we know the most about what they are doing. Only a minority of provinces are doing this, but I think they are also the provinces with the largest populations and the biggest cities.

The authorities are clear though that you still have the right to refuse mandatory vaccination. However you don't have the right to work in a job that requires vaccination without it.

Public opinion seems to be split on the issue, with the majority being against mandatory vaccination but also a majority believing that mandatory vaccination will work.

The Communists oppose mandatory vaccination and are apparently trying to make a political issue out of it.

How Will Moscow’s Mandatory Vaccination Drive Work?

It's worth noting though that the Russians are ahead of Bulgaria in terms of vaccination, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, and Georgia have barely scratched the surface in their vaccination programs, and Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are only slightly ahead. When Russians compare themselves to most of their immediate neighbours they therefore probably don't see the stark contrast that we see when we compare ourselves to them. When they compare themselves to the rest of the world they can see that while they are behind western Europe they aren't much different from a lot of other developed countries such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc. That may change as more countries get vaccinated and Russia starts to become more of an outlier.

The average vaccination rate for Russia as a whole is slightly lower than much of the Trumpistan region of the US. The latter are seeing outbreaks of infection resulting in hospitals being flooded with patients even now. Russia will probably need to reach UK levels of vaccination before late autumn to avoid major outbreaks.

Because of this, if the end of the summer starts to come around and the vaccination program hasn't made enough headway in Russia, then I suspect that bigger sticks may come out to prevent a disaster hitting during the winter.
 
It is how some Russians view Putin's government

1626601289257.png


Russian Federations is a colony of International Capital that implements so called Harvard Project (including hunger, poverty and so on).
I suppose that HM is used as a symbol of British imperialism along with Uncle Sam.
 
Very interesting report in the Guardian:


An excerpt from it, very demonstrative of what I term the "Muscovite Mindset":
Sir Andrew Wood, the UK’s former ambassador in Moscow and an associate fellow at the Chatham House thinktank, described the documents as “spell-binding”. “They reflect the sort of discussion and recommendations you would expect. There is a complete misunderstanding of the US and China. They are written for a person [Putin] who can’t believe he got anything wrong.”

Wood added: “There is no sense Russia might have made a mistake by invading Ukraine. The report is fully in line with the sort of thing I would expect in 2016, and even more so now. There is a good deal of paranoia. They believe the US is responsible for everything. This view is deeply dug into the soul of Russia’s leaders.”

This reportedly leaked document does ring very true, I wonder what @Zhopa thinks of it?
 

Zhopa

LE
Well since you ask.

Yes the bits that have been released ring very true, both in terms of production style, and reflecting what little we know of Kremlin decision-making at that level, and tying in with real events (and, as Andrew Wood points out, Russian attitudes and assumptions) both previous and subsequent.

Yes there are, as nit-pickers have pointed out, minor mistakes of grammar and spelling. But they are the kind of mistakes habitually made by native Russian speakers and not at all out of character for this kind of document (there can be some quite startling instances of official semi-literacy in stuff not intended for public consumption).

More serious questions have been raised about the apparent classification level of the document, which is much lower than you might expect.

Yes, still, getting hold of a document produced at this level is unheard of, so it begs all kind of questions about how Luke Harding acquired it and from whom.

No, unfortunately, the manner of the Kremlin denials are not very instructive (unlike some occasions when you can suspect something may be legit because they are as surprised as we are).

No, it's not obviously to the advantage of any intelligence agency on either side to leak this if it's a fake; the balance of risk, reputational damage, and actual benefit just isn't positive for any of them.

In terms of the reactions from knowledgeable people: for the most part, as always, they have responded exactly as you would expect them to. The pooh-poohers have pooh-poohed it, and the anti-Moscow crusaders have embraced it; same on either side of the Trump divide. Honourable exceptions still sitting on the fence include Mark Galeotti - Blockbuster Guardian Leaks Cannot yet Either Be Discounted nor Accepted - The Moscow Times - uncharacteristically, some might say, but then he has been going very hardline anti-Russian-naughtiness lately.

So unfortunately the jury's out on whether it is real or fake, leaked or planted, and whether it came from Russia or the West. Other than that, everything's perfectly clear.
 
Well since you ask.

Yes the bits that have been released ring very true, both in terms of production style, and reflecting what little we know of Kremlin decision-making at that level, and tying in with real events (and, as Andrew Wood points out, Russian attitudes and assumptions) both previous and subsequent.

Yes there are, as nit-pickers have pointed out, minor mistakes of grammar and spelling. But they are the kind of mistakes habitually made by native Russian speakers and not at all out of character for this kind of document (there can be some quite startling instances of official semi-literacy in stuff not intended for public consumption).

More serious questions have been raised about the apparent classification level of the document, which is much lower than you might expect.

Yes, still, getting hold of a document produced at this level is unheard of, so it begs all kind of questions about how Luke Harding acquired it and from whom.

No, unfortunately, the manner of the Kremlin denials are not very instructive (unlike some occasions when you can suspect something may be legit because they are as surprised as we are).

No, it's not obviously to the advantage of any intelligence agency on either side to leak this if it's a fake; the balance of risk, reputational damage, and actual benefit just isn't positive for any of them.

In terms of the reactions from knowledgeable people: for the most part, as always, they have responded exactly as you would expect them to. The pooh-poohers have pooh-poohed it, and the anti-Moscow crusaders have embraced it; same on either side of the Trump divide. Honourable exceptions still sitting on the fence include Mark Galeotti - Blockbuster Guardian Leaks Cannot yet Either Be Discounted nor Accepted - The Moscow Times - uncharacteristically, some might say, but then he has been going very hardline anti-Russian-naughtiness lately.

So unfortunately the jury's out on whether it is real or fake, leaked or planted, and whether it came from Russia or the West. Other than that, everything's perfectly clear.
Thanks for that. It's almost like it's too good to be true!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that. It's almost like it's too good to be true!
We can't however discount the possibility that the document was created in the US for domestic political purposes with the intention of undermining a Trump political come-back. There are people in both major political parties who would have motivation to want to do that. They would also be able to create something that a good many American Kremlinology experts would find convincing because they could have it written by other American Kremlinology experts. There are plenty of American establishment figures with an axe to grind against Trump.

If true then this doesn't necessarily mean that the Russians weren't poking their noses into American politics. It would just means that this document wasn't genuine.

If we assume the document is genuine however, it leaves a load of questions unanswered. Why should what have been one of the foremost intelligence operations in Russian history be known to so many people on an official basis and why was a document detailing it circulated so widely?

Why would this document have been created in the first place? If the Russians genuinely did have compromising evidence against a senior American political figure, why wasn't his security treated like that of a highly placed spy? Why weren't normal intelligence records precautions taken?

And if a country really did have access to documents meant for the highest levels of Russian state security, why would they leak it and risk exposing a very highly placed source, perhaps fatally?

If something looks too good to be true, then we need to be asking ourselves if it is.

I suspect though that the people who actually care about what the document says also don't care about whether it's true or not. It's another stick to beat the dog with, and that's the point of it.
 

Zhopa

LE
I'm going to play devil's advocate. Not because I necessarily think the document(s) are genuine; more because I think each of @terminal's excellent points could be caveated.

We can't however discount the possibility that the document was created in the US for domestic political purposes with the intention of undermining a Trump political come-back. There are people in both major political parties who would have motivation to want to do that. They would also be able to create something that a good many American Kremlinology experts would find convincing because they could have it written by other American Kremlinology experts. There are plenty of American establishment figures with an axe to grind against Trump.

I would be very surprised, and very impressed, if the text we have seen was not produced by a native Russian speaker. Which does not make any of the above any less true.

If we assume the document is genuine however, it leaves a load of questions unanswered. Why should what have been one of the foremost intelligence operations in Russian history be known to so many people on an official basis and why was a document detailing it circulated so widely?

It would have been known to people on an official basis because it contained their official instruction to start work on the project. For all Russia's capability to get stuff done by word of mouth, we shouldn't be surprised that an intensely bureaucratic system generates written resolutions. As for "circulated so widely" - I may be behind, but I've seen nothing that suggests it was circulated any further than the attendees at the alleged meeting. Which would be normal and natural.

Why would this document have been created in the first place?

As above.

If the Russians genuinely did have compromising evidence against a senior American political figure, why wasn't his security treated like that of a highly placed spy? Why weren't normal intelligence records precautions taken?

We don't know that they weren't. All of the notionally salacious detail is not in the document that has supposedly come into the hands of Luke Harding. It refers coyly to details of "certain events", to be found in an appendix. Which he apparently doesn't have. I don't know about over here, but over there it would not be unusual for an appendix with detail to have a higher classification, and a more restricted circulation, than the primary document to which it is attached.

And if a country really did have access to documents meant for the highest levels of Russian state security, why would they leak it and risk exposing a very highly placed source, perhaps fatally?

Well, now, if that source had already been extracted, it wouldn't matter, would it? And oh look....


Note key words "had access to Putin and could even provide images of documents on the Russian leader's desk". Again, ties in so neatly that....

If something looks too good to be true, then we need to be asking ourselves if it is.

Which is precisely what many of the doubters have been doing - it's all just too, too neat and tidy. But that, in itself, doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

I suspect though that the people who actually care about what the document says also don't care about whether it's true or not. It's another stick to beat the dog with, and that's the point of it.

Absolutely right. For 95% of the people who care about this in the first place, it has just confirmed their already existing convictions - either way - about Russia, Trump, the CIA or indeed Luke Harding.
 
I'm going to play devil's advocate. Not because I necessarily think the document(s) are genuine; more because I think each of @terminal's excellent points could be caveated.



I would be very surprised, and very impressed, if the text we have seen was not produced by a native Russian speaker. Which does not make any of the above any less true.



It would have been known to people on an official basis because it contained their official instruction to start work on the project. For all Russia's capability to get stuff done by word of mouth, we shouldn't be surprised that an intensely bureaucratic system generates written resolutions. As for "circulated so widely" - I may be behind, but I've seen nothing that suggests it was circulated any further than the attendees at the alleged meeting. Which would be normal and natural.



As above.



We don't know that they weren't. All of the notionally salacious detail is not in the document that has supposedly come into the hands of Luke Harding. It refers coyly to details of "certain events", to be found in an appendix. Which he apparently doesn't have. I don't know about over here, but over there it would not be unusual for an appendix with detail to have a higher classification, and a more restricted circulation, than the primary document to which it is attached.



Well, now, if that source had already been extracted, it wouldn't matter, would it? And oh look....


Note key words "had access to Putin and could even provide images of documents on the Russian leader's desk". Again, ties in so neatly that....



Which is precisely what many of the doubters have been doing - it's all just too, too neat and tidy. But that, in itself, doesn't necessarily make it wrong.



Absolutely right. For 95% of the people who care about this in the first place, it has just confirmed their already existing convictions - either way - about Russia, Trump, the CIA or indeed Luke Harding.
Spot on. I was going to reply in a similar vein, but you beat me to it and did a far better job of it than I would have done.

I would like to add that Moscow's intelligence and security services despite being very good at what they do remain prone to making the odd balls-up as well.
 
I would be very surprised, and very impressed, if the text we have seen was not produced by a native Russian speaker. Which does not make any of the above any less true.
The are 2 screenshots in the article in the Guardian. From my point of view they present text initially written in English and translated to Russian by someone who is not a native Russian speaker.
Let's look at the second fragment
Caption
СПЕЦИАЛЬНАЯ ЧАСТЬ = SPECIAL PART
Native Russian speaker would write in a document
ОСОБЫЙ РАЗДЕЛ = SPECIAL SECTION
Both words СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ and ОСОБЫЙ mean SPECIAL, but СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ is mainly used in 'material world' - special device, special tool, special instrument, special car.
Part of a document in Russian is called as section (РАЗДЕЛ).

Оказание влияния на политические системы государств занимающих центральную роль = Influencing the political systems of states occupying a central role
Native Russian speaker would not write such an strange phrase
In Russian language it is possible to write - to play role = ИГРАТЬ РОЛЬ
but it is impossible to occupy role = ЗАНИМАТЬ РОЛЬ

подразумевает провокацию возникновения социально-политического кризиса в США = implies provoking the emergence of a socio-political crisis in the United States
For native Russian speaker it is a strange phrase. Instead of 'провокацию возникновения' one would write just one word 'провоцирование'.

модуляция общественно-политической повестки = modulation of the socio-political agenda
Word modulation (MODULATION) is used in Russian mainly as special technical term - for example wave modulation.
In this context word СОЗДАНИЕ = creation looks as much more natural alternative.
 
The are 2 screenshots in the article in the Guardian. From my point of view they present text initially written in English and translated to Russian by someone who is not a native Russian speaker.
Let's look at the second fragment
Caption
СПЕЦИАЛЬНАЯ ЧАСТЬ = SPECIAL PART
Native Russian speaker would write in a document
ОСОБЫЙ РАЗДЕЛ = SPECIAL SECTION
Both words СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ and ОСОБЫЙ mean SPECIAL, but СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ is mainly used in 'material world' - special device, special tool, special instrument, special car.
Part of a document in Russian is called as section (РАЗДЕЛ).

Оказание влияния на политические системы государств занимающих центральную роль = Influencing the political systems of states occupying a central role
Native Russian speaker would not write such an strange phrase
In Russian language it is possible to write - to play role = ИГРАТЬ РОЛЬ
but it is impossible to occupy role = ЗАНИМАТЬ РОЛЬ

подразумевает провокацию возникновения социально-политического кризиса в США = implies provoking the emergence of a socio-political crisis in the United States
For native Russian speaker it is a strange phrase. Instead of 'провокацию возникновения' one would write just one word 'провоцирование'.

модуляция общественно-политической повестки = modulation of the socio-political agenda
Word modulation (MODULATION) is used in Russian mainly as special technical term - for example wave modulation.
In this context word СОЗДАНИЕ = creation looks as much more natural alternative.
And your analysis of use of the Russian language has been so good in the past on this forum
 
The are 2 screenshots in the article in the Guardian. From my point of view they present text initially written in English and translated to Russian by someone who is not a native Russian speaker.
Let's look at the second fragment
Caption
СПЕЦИАЛЬНАЯ ЧАСТЬ = SPECIAL PART
Native Russian speaker would write in a document
ОСОБЫЙ РАЗДЕЛ = SPECIAL SECTION
Both words СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ and ОСОБЫЙ mean SPECIAL, but СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ is mainly used in 'material world' - special device, special tool, special instrument, special car.
Part of a document in Russian is called as section (РАЗДЕЛ).

Оказание влияния на политические системы государств занимающих центральную роль = Influencing the political systems of states occupying a central role
Native Russian speaker would not write such an strange phrase
In Russian language it is possible to write - to play role = ИГРАТЬ РОЛЬ
but it is impossible to occupy role = ЗАНИМАТЬ РОЛЬ

подразумевает провокацию возникновения социально-политического кризиса в США = implies provoking the emergence of a socio-political crisis in the United States
For native Russian speaker it is a strange phrase. Instead of 'провокацию возникновения' one would write just one word 'провоцирование'.

модуляция общественно-политической повестки = modulation of the socio-political agenda
Word modulation (MODULATION) is used in Russian mainly as special technical term - for example wave modulation.
In this context word СОЗДАНИЕ = creation looks as much more natural alternative.

About twenty to nine, I think.
 

Slime

LE
And your analysis of use of the Russian language has been so good in the past on this forum

And his use of written English has been just like British weather, very variable, and can change at short notice. ;)
 

Zhopa

LE
The are 2 screenshots in the article in the Guardian. From my point of view they present text initially written in English and translated to Russian by someone who is not a native Russian speaker.
Let's look at the second fragment
Caption
СПЕЦИАЛЬНАЯ ЧАСТЬ = SPECIAL PART
Native Russian speaker would write in a document
ОСОБЫЙ РАЗДЕЛ = SPECIAL SECTION
Both words СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ and ОСОБЫЙ mean SPECIAL, but СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ is mainly used in 'material world' - special device, special tool, special instrument, special car.
Part of a document in Russian is called as section (РАЗДЕЛ).

Оказание влияния на политические системы государств занимающих центральную роль = Influencing the political systems of states occupying a central role
Native Russian speaker would not write such an strange phrase
In Russian language it is possible to write - to play role = ИГРАТЬ РОЛЬ
but it is impossible to occupy role = ЗАНИМАТЬ РОЛЬ

подразумевает провокацию возникновения социально-политического кризиса в США = implies provoking the emergence of a socio-political crisis in the United States
For native Russian speaker it is a strange phrase. Instead of 'провокацию возникновения' one would write just one word 'провоцирование'.

модуляция общественно-политической повестки = modulation of the socio-political agenda
Word modulation (MODULATION) is used in Russian mainly as special technical term - for example wave modulation.
In this context word СОЗДАНИЕ = creation looks as much more natural alternative.

Sergey has pointed out some, but not all, of the phrases in the document that have been pointed at to argue that it is a fake. Because they have been used in this way, all of them have been discussed at length on social media and elsewhere by both native and non-native Russian speakers, with and without an agenda. In each case, it has been found that the slightly unusual wording is in fact encountered in other government documents, which as mentioned before are not always masterpieces of style and orthography. Even the very first example, "Special Part", which I too thought odd when I first saw it, turns out to be a not uncommon way of designating an appendix to an official or legal document. And the good news is that anybody can verify this for themselves by searching for any of these phrases in Yandex to see if they are in standard usage or not.
 
Sergey has pointed out some, but not all, of the phrases in the document that have been pointed at to argue that it is a fake. Because they have been used in this way, all of them have been discussed at length on social media and elsewhere by both native and non-native Russian speakers, with and without an agenda. In each case, it has been found that the slightly unusual wording is in fact encountered in other government documents, which as mentioned before are not always masterpieces of style and orthography. Even the very first example, "Special Part", which I too thought odd when I first saw it, turns out to be a not uncommon way of designating an appendix to an official or legal document. And the good news is that anybody can verify this for themselves by searching for any of these phrases in Yandex to see if they are in standard usage or not.
If you were going to create a fake document the only practical way to make it convincing would be to take a selection of unrelated known genuine documents and analyse them to produce a layout and structure which you could use as a template. There really isn't any other way of doing it. Competent forgers rarely create something out of thin air, they tend to start with something similar and embellish it.

This means that the headings, titles, and stock phrases would follow whatever precedent was set by your sample of known original unrelated documents. If this body of known original documents was all that anyone in the West had to go on, then your false document would match what people expected to see.

Now it all you had was a selection of documents on the lower end of the classification range then they might not match what a document of a higher classification sort ought to be. That might be obvious to the Russians who had inside knowledge, but they're not the people you're trying to convince anyway. You are just trying to convince Americans who limited insight into Russian secret official documents.

So I don't expect much to come of analysing the grammar and spelling unless it is a bad forgery. A good forgery will look just like the genuine article.

I don't know that there is anything new in this document. It's the Steel Dossier version 2.0, alleged to come directly from the Kremlin this time instead of vaguely defined "intelligence sources". Given the polarised political situation at the time of the original release, the people in the US who believed the Steele document believed it because it confirmed their inner feelings, while the people who rejected it did so because it conflicted with their inner feelings.

I can't honestly see this document as being any different. There's no credible and verifiable chain of custody and no independent means of verifying it. I'm sure that Biden's opponents could crank out an equally convincing looking document which said that Biden was an agent of Beijing with just as much evidence to back it up. The people who really, really want to believe it will believe it, the people who don't want to believe it won't, and most of the world will either just not care or laugh at the Americans.
 
If you were going to create a fake document the only practical way to make it convincing would be to take a selection of unrelated known genuine documents and analyse them to produce a layout and structure which you could use as a template. There really isn't any other way of doing it. Competent forgers rarely create something out of thin air, they tend to start with something similar and embellish it.

This means that the headings, titles, and stock phrases would follow whatever precedent was set by your sample of known original unrelated documents. If this body of known original documents was all that anyone in the West had to go on, then your false document would match what people expected to see.

Now it all you had was a selection of documents on the lower end of the classification range then they might not match what a document of a higher classification sort ought to be. That might be obvious to the Russians who had inside knowledge, but they're not the people you're trying to convince anyway. You are just trying to convince Americans who limited insight into Russian secret official documents.

So I don't expect much to come of analysing the grammar and spelling unless it is a bad forgery. A good forgery will look just like the genuine article.

I don't know that there is anything new in this document. It's the Steel Dossier version 2.0, alleged to come directly from the Kremlin this time instead of vaguely defined "intelligence sources". Given the polarised political situation at the time of the original release, the people in the US who believed the Steele document believed it because it confirmed their inner feelings, while the people who rejected it did so because it conflicted with their inner feelings.

I can't honestly see this document as being any different. There's no credible and verifiable chain of custody and no independent means of verifying it. I'm sure that Biden's opponents could crank out an equally convincing looking document which said that Biden was an agent of Beijing with just as much evidence to back it up. The people who really, really want to believe it will believe it, the people who don't want to believe it won't, and most of the world will either just not care or laugh at the Americans.
I believe that the document was written initially in English and then translated to Russian by someone who is not native Russian speaker. I agree that high quality forgery should be done in Russian and not be just translated. But such a falsification is not so easy thing as one may think.
In this context let's recall famous written statement by Yulia Skripal. Apparently it was made in English and later just translated to Russian.
Let's analyse the text in Russian.
Очнувшись после 20-дневной комы, я узнала, что мы оба были отравлены
well, the phrase looks as written by native Russian speaker and its automatic translation to English is
When I woke up after a 20-day coma, I learned that we were both poisoned
A Russian would translate it exactly this way - I woke to know, I woke to learn. But in the written statement in English we see
I woke to the news
Any attempts to translate it literally would produce absurdly looking phrases. Only native English speaker would write 'I woke to the news'.
Я не хочу вдаваться в детали, скажу лишь, что лечение было инвазивным, болезненным и глубоко угнетающим.
The very phrase hardly could be written by native Russian speaker. It looks as translation from English.
In English variant it looks as
I don’t want to describe the details, but the clinical treatment was invasive, painful and deeply depressing.
Word 'invasive' is common one in English but respective word ИНВАЗИВНЫЙ is used only as a special medical term and most of native Russian speakers hardly would understand what does it mean.
Я решила прервать свою реабилитацию и сделать это короткое заявление, чтобы прояснить несколько вопросов.
And this phrase looks as quite natural for native Russian speaker. It is translated as
I decided to interrupt my rehabilitation and make this short statement to clarify a few issues.
Native Russian speaker would translate the phrase in Russian exactly this way but in the written statement we see
I wish to address a couple of issues directly and have chosen to interrupt my rehabilitation to make this short statement
The expression 'to address an issue' has no direct analog in Russian and hardly native Russian speaker would use it in translation of the last phrase in Russian.
 
I believe that the document was written initially in English and then translated to Russian by someone who is not native Russian speaker. I agree that high quality forgery should be done in Russian and not be just translated. But such a falsification is not so easy thing as one may think.
In this context let's recall famous written statement by Yulia Skripal. Apparently it was made in English and later just translated to Russian.
Let's analyse the text in Russian.

well, the phrase looks as written by native Russian speaker and its automatic translation to English is

A Russian would translate it exactly this way - I woke to know, I woke to learn. But in the written statement in English we see

Any attempts to translate it literally would produce absurdly looking phrases. Only native English speaker would write 'I woke to the news'.

The very phrase hardly could be written by native Russian speaker. It looks as translation from English.
In English variant it looks as

Word 'invasive' is common one in English but respective word ИНВАЗИВНЫЙ is used only as a special medical term and most of native Russian speakers hardly would understand what does it mean.

And this phrase looks as quite natural for native Russian speaker. It is translated as

Native Russian speaker would translate the phrase in Russian exactly this way but in the written statement we see

The expression 'to address an issue' has no direct analog in Russian and hardly native Russian speaker would use it in translation of the last phrase in Russian.
… and on cue he does it again

Did Yulia write her statement in Russian for Russia and translate it to English for or did she write it in English and translate it to Russian for Russia?

She is of course an intelligent & educated woman who lived in England for a few years and regularly travelled back after she had moved back to Russia.
Though a native Russian she also has a good grasp of English
 
Did Yulia write her statement in Russian for Russia and translate it to English for or did she write it in English and translate it to Russian for Russia?
As an educated and worldly woman, I would have thought she'd write one in Russian for Russia and another in English for the English-speaking world.

It just seems a bit odd that she'd bother with shoddy translation instead of doing something she's well capable of.
 
Here we go again........ same old, same old.

The usual suspects are lining up.

All we need now is the leak (pun fully intended) of the video evidence of tuck-in frump's romps in Moscow.

:););)
 
… and on cue he does it again

Did Yulia write her statement in Russian for Russia and translate it to English for or did she write it in English and translate it to Russian for Russia?

She is of course an intelligent & educated woman who lived in England for a few years and regularly travelled back after she had moved back to Russia.
Though a native Russian she also has a good grasp of English
No doubt that Yulia Skripal is smart, well educated and fluent in English but she is not native English speaker anyway.
We have 2 texts - In English and in Russian. So there is a logical question - what text did appear first - English or Russian variant? If it was written only by Yulia herself then Russian variant would be original and English one would be only translation. Let's scrutinise only one phrase.
I take one day at a time and want to help care for my Dad till his full recovery.
Phrase 'I take one day at a time' is idiomatic expression (without direct analog in Russian) that means
to deal with things as they happen, and not to make plans or to worry about the future
Now let's look at the Russian text
Я стараюсь жить сегодняшним днем и намерена помогать моему отцу до его полного восстановления.
This phrase is translated as
I try to live for today and intend to help my father until his full recovery.
Жить сегодняшним днем - it is idiomatic expression with meaning - to live for today.
So, if Yulia first wrote Russian text then as she knows English sufficiently well, she would translate it using respective English idiomatic expression with exactly the same meaning.
Also look at handwritten text
1626944987025.png
It looks as Yulia just wrote prepared text 'as is' but in Russian variant she tried to translate it properly
1626945328019.png

As you may see Yulia corrected Russian variant, tried to find better translation.
 
Last edited:
Top