Read on Twitter
What a nasty, dishonest on attack on a good piece of journalism and a good journalist. Sergey is badly mischaracterizing the quality of Catherine Belton's work, and if she cares at all, he owes her an apology. https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1317428990609600512
Sergey claims that Belton's only evidence for the "preposterous claim" about the KGB moving money is this sketchy website article. In the last tweet here, he says "her whole claim... is based on this sort of nonsense." Sounds like some pretty irresponsible sourcing from Belton!
Here is most of the reference section for the chapter Sergey is describing (couldn't fit it all in 4 pics). Belton cites multiple in-person interviews with high-level officials and various others directly involved in the events, as well as mainstream news reports and books.
Here's a largely critical review of the book that nevertheless acknowledges Belton's "meticulous research into financial networks" -- something remarked on in every published review I've seen (mainstream reviews have been overwhelmingly positive). https://newrepublic.com/article/158616/problem-putinology
Elsewhere, Belton does not in fact say, as Sergey claims, that perestroika was "basically a KGB project." Not surprisingly, her description is much more nuanced and accurate.
https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1317429000315293696
https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1317429000315293696
I don't know where this is coming from, but it seems to me Sergey should focus on doing his own homework and accurately describing work he wants to critique instead of giving a veteran journalist a condescending lecture about "fiction" and "evidence" and "references."
I guess the other option is to change the subject and just keep repeating your credentials instead of actually addressing the problems I pointed out. Does the way you describe Belton's sourcing here permit your readers a "fair judgment" about her work? https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1317878693361033216?s=19
