Talk:Konstantin Kilimnik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sources not used yet or not fully used[edit]

  • [2] says he taught swedish at Military University and a few other details. Reliable [3]


  • [4] a reliable source quoting a/the RFE interview.
  • [5] age can be calculated from here "the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, when Kilimnik was only 21" suggests a 1970 birthdate. Worked from "1995 in the Moscow office of the International Republican Institute" other good details. "Cayman Islands legal filing to recoup Deripaska’s cash, lawyers named Kilimnik as one of seven “key individuals” involved in the partnership along with Manafort, Gates, and a handful of then-associates. "
  • [6] tracking travel maybe useful for looking for better sources.
  • [7] Nov 2017 report incl details on private jet trip to NYC jet
  • [8] Feb 2018 Mother Jones

Radio Free Europe[edit]

Please explain why Radio Free Europe is not a reliable source in your opinion? [9] Further the basic bio material originates from an interview of the subject by Radio Free Europe. Did the subject get his age and education wrong or the reporter misreport it? Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Unlike other public broadcasters like NPR or PBS, Radio Free Europe is run by the US government and is essentially a propaganda organization. I'd support using the interview itself as a primary source, provided we use appropriate in-text attribution for anything Kilimnik said in it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed a propaganda organization but not an unreliable one. I thought I very clearly sourced the information to the interview. Please restore and reword. The removal took out basic biographical info that likely can't be better sourced. Other sources confirm his education in general terms, but without naming the school. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
No, the RFE source you cited was a secondary source talking about an interview, not an interview itself. It doesn't look like a recording or a transcript of the interview was published, but I could be mistaken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The page is entitled "An Interview With Konstantin Kilimnik" is dated Feb 23 and says the exclusive interview occurred on Feb 22. Details like the interview occured in an Italian restaurant in Kiev and a comment on his height and manner of speaking shows the reporter that wrote the interview up must be the reporter that did the interview. I don't know if there is a transcript or if this was a broadcasted interview, but I kind of doubt it. I'd guess the reporter sat down with Kilimnik, interviewed him, went back to his computer and wrote up the interview with context and the links to related stories. I see no reason at all to doubt this information Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
We're going to have to get some additional input. Like I said, RFE is generally not reliable. If we found the primary source then I'd be okay with using that, but since we can't, I remain in favor of exclusion. Are there any other sources with the same information? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong - this is the primary source - a direct write up of the interview. I doubt there are other better sources given who the subject is. There is no reason to doubt that the subject provided this info or that it is untrue. An interview with the subject seems pretty reliable to me. Excluding it because of a political dislike of Radio Free Europe is not right. I've requested input at the RS notice board - but I find your removal very suspect frankly. There iws no valid reason to suspect this info is incorrect. The school name fits with the more vague references to his training and his age should not be controversial. Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your change in tone. I have no "dislike" of RFE and I do have a legitimate reason for its exclusion. Please try to assume good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The RSN discussion (permanent link) shows I'm not the only person with a "very suspect" "political dislike" of RFE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Well I believe your wrong about this and so are the editors there. I'd suggest finding alternative sources that suit you better or we'll go with what KK told RFE. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean exactly, but at this point if you use this source I'd suggest you gather a consensus first, otherwise your edits might be seen as disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Your misrepresenting the source as not an interview is disruptive. The info is a secondary source, a media outlet, and facts sourced directly from the subject in a in-person interview. If you refuse to allow the source find a source for the info you do like - don't insist on excluding basic biographical info based on your disbelief in a US government entity. We have no problem using other material published by the US government and its various arms. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Enforcing BLP and the RSN consensus is disruptive? That's a new one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


Nationality[edit]

Kilimnik is born in Ukraine[1], and has a dual Ukrainian and Russian citizenship[2], so should not just be described as "Russian" here. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Is he a Russian agent?[edit]

Kilimnik was working for Russian intelligence, the article states. But, this only conjecture; we have no firm evidence; we should change this statement.Mwinog2777 (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC).

Can you be more specific? KK definitely worked in Russian intel at one point and he is widely reported to "have ties with" Russian intel now. Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, check out NYTimes:http://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/us/politics/konstantin-kilimnik-russia.html; not every russian is a spy, or working for the russian intelligence (he is russian, btw). there is doubt, and until we know for sure we shouldn't use wiki to identify him as a russian operative. suspected maybe; definite, no. the wiki article said "still working." that's jumping to a conclusion without evidence. "widely reported" is not definitive; it is also widely reported that the answer is unknown.Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This info is properly sourced to VOX (and I'm sure other sources reported it) but I've adjusted the text to follow the source more closely. [10] Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
There is also some note that Konstantin Kilimnik has been talking to U. S. military intelligence people somewhat covertly but not truly in secret, and the Michael Flynn treason sentencing hearings have Flynn's lawyers arguing that Kilimnik's involvement in official U. S. discussions should be made public with the full details unsealed. So Flynn's latest lawyers are attempting to argue that Kilimnik can be considered an "asset" of the United States, if not a double agent providing information on rare occasion, about the entwined Russian mob and military of which the Trump organization also works for. As a defense effort the attempt to un-redact details about Kilimnik's activities with the Republican Party and with official U. S. State Department and U S. military officials have no bearing on Flynn's case, so the move to un-redact is a political stunt intended to muddy the waters about treason in general, with Flynn and Kilimnik being held up as two mirror images of the supposition that "everybody does it."
It's obvious that Konstantin Kilimnik is a Russian agent from the extant documentary evidence as well as the admitted collusion guilty pleas filed so far, inside and outside of the Special Council's Offices' open filings to date, however what isn't quite so well known is whether Kilimnik is or can be considered to be a double agent turned traitor as Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Donald Trump, Trump Junior, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump et al. could be. The effort to un-redact Kilimnik's scope of cooperation with official U. S. channels is being sought to mitigate the acts of treason by the Republican Party who also utilized Kilimnik as a source of racketeering against the 2016 Presidential Elections.
Point being that for the purposes of the extant Wikipedia article, Kilimnik is undeniably a Russian agent working on behalf of the entwined Russian military and Russian mob, but there is damning evidence -- redacted and as-yet-un-redacted -- which suggests he was a double agent. Christopher Steel, the intelligence asset who compiled the research memos in to the so-called "Dossier" discussed Kilimnik and his activities -- those activities on behalf of the Russian mob, those on behalf of the Republican Party, and those on behalf of official U. S. intelligence agencies -- and transcripts of those discussions, testimony, and collaborative works are things which Steel wishes to remain redacted, likely on orders/requests from British as well as U. S. Intelligence, possibly underscoring Kilimnik as being a double agent.
Eventually researchers will find out and the extant article can be broadened with the full scope of the WP:BLP details as are fitting for Wikipedia. But for now there is plenty of evidence to show that the article's details are accurate, that he is a Russian agent despite what more he may be. SoftwareThing (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

add Murray Waas nybooks.com ref[edit]

Ukraine Continued: How a Crucial Witness Escaped by Murray Waas October 8, 2019 nybooks.com X1\ (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)