Journal – 9, 21/09/202r

1. Your text — corrected while preserving your version

Today I finished watching the third season of the TV show Lioness. Not bad in general, but there were some moments that seemed wrong to me.

First, Oleksandra Balakin, a Russian-Ukrainian double agent, offered the CIA some information about Alexei Yurimov, who was described as Putin's hammer and was a very high-ranking officer in the Russian special services. The CIA captured him, killing many people in the process, but did nothing about it later. When Yurimov declined to tell the CIA any secrets, the CIA decided just to send him back to Russia. Very weird.

Second, Oleksandra Balakin was the only one who gave the CIA some important information. She gave the CIA the names of American senators and VIPs who worked for the Russians. She was offered witness protection by the CIA, or maybe by the government, but was killed by the CIA because of a theory that the CIA itself wasn't sure was correct, and because she knew too much. That also doesn't sound right to me.

Third, the CIA didn't figure out for itself who had organized Joe's kidnapping. The only correct information they received came from Yurimov, who behaved very friendly toward Joe for some reason. Also, a former Wagner fighter volunteered to help Joe, hoping that the CIA would send him back to Russia. All this happened just by chance. It didn't happen because of any work done by the CIA.

Fourth, CIA agents, instead of detaining two bad guys, started shooting in a restaurant in the middle of the city. As a result, five people were killed and two agents were wounded. And dead people can't give you any important information that the CIA might have received from these bad guys if they had been kept alive.

And a fifth point: Joe's husband and daughters left her, which, by the way, is somewhat understandable, because I believe that even in real life, families carry a significant burden when they live with someone who has a dangerous job like Joe's. I doubt that agents like her can have children at all before they finish working in the field.

3. More natural C1 version
( just a filler)

Today I finished watching the third season of Lioness. Overall, I thought it wasn't bad, but several parts of the plot didn't really make sense to me.

First, Oleksandra Balakin, a Russian-Ukrainian double agent, gave the CIA information about Alexei Yurimov, a senior Russian intelligence officer who was described as "Putin's hammer." The CIA went to considerable lengths to capture him, with many people being killed in the process, yet nothing much came of it. When Yurimov refused to reveal any secrets, the CIA eventually decided simply to send him back to Russia. I found that very strange.

Second, Balakin appeared to be the only person who had provided the CIA with genuinely valuable intelligence. She gave them the names of American senators and other prominent figures who were allegedly working for the Russians. She was then offered witness protection, but the CIA later killed her on the basis of a theory they themselves were not even certain about, partly because she knew too much. That didn't seem particularly convincing to me either.

Third, the CIA didn't actually work out who was behind Joe's kidnapping. The crucial information came from Yurimov, who, for some unexplained reason, was remarkably friendly toward Joe. On top of that, a former Wagner fighter voluntarily helped her because he hoped the CIA would send him back to Russia. In other words, the investigation seemed to move forward largely because of coincidence rather than because of effective CIA intelligence work.

Fourth, instead of trying to detain two suspects, CIA agents ended up opening fire in a restaurant in the middle of the city. Five people were killed and two agents were wounded. Apart from the obvious danger to everyone around them, killing the suspects also meant losing any information they might have been able to provide if they had been captured alive.

Finally, Joe's husband and daughters left her. That part actually seemed understandable to me. Even in real life, I imagine that having a family while doing such dangerous work must place an enormous strain on everyone involved. I sometimes wonder whether people who spend years working in the field can realistically maintain a normal family life, particularly while their children are still young.

Major characters and cast of Lioness Season 3

2. Important corrections

Your original was quite clear. Most of the problems were not about expressing the ideas; they were mainly grammar, collocation, and sentence construction.

• “sounded wrong for me” → “seemed/sounded wrong to me”
  With personal reactions, English normally uses to me: It sounds strange to me. It seems wrong to me.
• “offered CIA some info” → “offered the CIA some information”
  We normally say the CIA. Info is perfectly normal conversationally, but information fits this kind of review slightly better.
• “very high-ranked officer” → “very high-ranking officer”
  Before a noun we use high-ranking: a high-ranking official / officer.
  We could say He ranked very highly, but not normally a high-ranked officer.
• “CIA took him” → “the CIA captured him”
  Took him is understandable, but captured, detained, or took him into custody is more precise.
• “but do nothing” → “but did nothing”
  You were describing past events, so the tense needs to stay in the past.
• “decided just send him” → “decided just to send him”
  The pattern is decide to do something.
• “gave to CIA names” → “gave the CIA the names”
  With give, the natural structure is:
  give someone something
  → She gave the CIA the names.
• “was offered by CIA a witness protection” → “was offered witness protection by the CIA”
  Witness protection is normally uncountable here, so no a.
• “because she knew a lot” → “because she knew too much”
  This is an important natural expression. When somebody is considered dangerous because they possess sensitive information, English almost always says They know too much.
• “CIA didn't find itself who…” → “the CIA didn't figure out for itself who…”
  Find who does not work here. You can say:
  find out who, discover who, or figure out who.
• “some ex-Wagner” → “a former Wagner fighter”
  Ex-Wagner sounds incomplete because Wagner is an organization. You need a noun: a former Wagner fighter / mercenary / member.
• “goes to shooting” → “started shooting / opened fire”
  Open fire would actually be especially natural here: The agents opened fire in a crowded restaurant.
• “five people were killed, two agents wounded” → “five people were killed and two agents were wounded”
  You need the auxiliary were with both passive constructions.

One particularly useful correction is your final idea:

families carry a significant burden

That expresses very well what I think you meant by “a family are carrying significant weight.” Another natural phrase would be “it takes a toll on the family.”