Recent attempt to restore a neoliberal regime in Russia and to block the election of Putin is a textbook
example of staging color revolution by Western neoliberal forces with the support of internal fifth
column. I see the following key ingredients of “color revolutions” in action in recent Russian elections:
Systematic, well financed, long term attempts to build and maintain student/youth based and
heavily financed (60% in case of Ukraine, probably close to 80% in Russia) fifth column of “professional
protesters”, the move that actually mirrors Bolshevik’s reliance on “professional revolutionaries”.
Students are the most suitable target as they are more easily brainwashed, are excitable, often
dream about emigration to Western countries, always need money. Perfect “canon fodder” of the “color
revolutions”. Creation of set of martyrs “for the course”, especially among young journalists who
were arrested during protests and, even better, mistreated, is a part of this tactic. As emigration
is considered as desirable future by considerable percent of young people, we have a pool from which
it is easy to recruit fighters for the “democratic future” of the nation with the hope that after
reaching critical mass the process become self-sustainable. And often it is. Also after being arrested
and/or expelled from the university those people have nowhere to go but to became “professional
color revolutionaries”. Some of then are pretty talented and can do a lot of damage. This
pre-emptive creation of a well-organized “anti-fraud front” tremendously helps to create legitimacy
problem for the government as initiative is instantly lost to government opponents. Typically (in
it was the case in both Orange and While revolutions) the government is too bureaucratized, unprepared
and is taken by surprise the strength of the response. They try to convince that election process
was completely legitimate people, who does not want to be convinced and just laugh at their efforts.
As in any revolution loss of initiative is half of the defeat: the “democratizers” have plan, have
huge amount of hard currency injected by NGO or via covert channels, have hopes about their future
in the West and the will to achieve their goals. In Ukraine the “anti-fraud” front has worked under
the succinct slogan Pora— “It’s Time” and the key members of the "orangists" were specially trained
and moved to Kiev nationalistic forces from Western Ukraine.
Activists in each of these movements were funded and trained in tactics of political organization
and nonviolent resistance by a coalition of Western pollsters and professional consultants funded
by a range of Western government and non-government agencies. According to The Guardian, these
include the U.S. State Department and US AID along with the National Democratic Institute, the
International Republican Institute, NGO Freedom House and billionaire George Soros’s Open Society
Institute. The National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S. Government funded foundation, has supported
non-governmental democracy-building efforts in Ukraine since 1988. Writings on nonviolent struggle
by Gene Sharp formed the strategic basis of the student campaigns.
Creation of powerful "fifth column press" under the protection of "freedom of press"
slogan and full scale "take not prisoners" approach to use of press influence as the most vulnerable
forth branch of government to undermine the other three. If this part works for color revolution,
and press turns against the government, the government is doomed. Under the cover of “freedom of
the press” systematic use of all controllable media, Internet, web sites, social media, mobile communications
for spreading the “truth” about mass falsifications. As Goebbels used to say
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe
it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the
political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important
for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy
of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Substitute “State” for “color revolution”. Press also serves for coordination and maintaining
the the direction and unity of the movement.
Heavy use of well-financed NGO as a brain trust for the movement:
Throughout the demonstrations, Ukraine’s emerging Internet usage (facilitated by news sites
which began to disseminate the Kuchma tapes) was an integral part of the orange revolutionary
process. It has even been suggested that the Orange Revolution was the first example of an Internet-organized
mass protest. [31] Analysts believe that the Internet and mobile phones allowed an alternative
media to flourish that was not subject to self-censorship or overt control by President Kuchma
and his allies and pro-democracy activists (such as Pora!) were able to use mobile phones and
the Internet to coordinate election monitoring and mass protests.[32][33]
The key political fight is always staged around election fraud (the best conditions are
if two opposing candidate get around 50% of votes, but can be used with different percentages as
well). It works in two main phases:
Attempt of de-legitimating of elections and forcing a new elections which are advocated
by bought press corps as the necessary step which should rectify falsifications of the previous
one. Gorbachov’s “two cents” about the necessity of new elections are a textbook PR move which
we observed during the attempt to stage White Revolution of 2011-2012. Nice timing. Old fox
knows how best to serve his masters.
Parallel de-legitimatization of existing government and its candidates via charge
of election fraud and subsequent overthrow of the weakened opponent “by peaceful means” via
second round of elections. It does not matter whether mass election fraud exists or not. For
pretty small amount of money you can always create a
Sect of fraudulent election witnesses
which would testify there there was such cases. Here is one Amazon comment from The Time of
the Rebels- Youth Resistance Movements and 21st Century R…
I regularly screen Bringing Down a Dictator in my courses at Swarthmore College. This
film does an excellent job of introducing students to the fundamentals of nonviolent power.
Students come to understand that authoritarian regimes, while formidable, are often more
fragile than we imagine. Milosevic’s regime, like others, relied on a mixture of apathy,
fear, and cynicism that the students of Otpor fought to dispel through humor, appeals
to nationalism, and tireless public outreach.
Like any large institution, Milosevic’s regime depended on the loyalty of its functionaries
(such as the police) and at least a veneer of public credibility. Otpor students carefully
undermined both through its broad grassroots organizing, popular nonviolent resistance,
and by awakening a multi-party political opposition.
The government in oligarchic republics like Russia always has a high degree of distrust from
people as it is well known that it is corrupted. That why classic in “color revolutions” moment
for challenging “power that be” is when the election results in the election of the incumbent president
or preserve the ruling party majority. A very plausible claim that “old
guard does not want to turn over the power voluntarily” and resorts to fraud to maintain
status quo is used. Completely unrealistic claims about possible bright future if "criminal regime"
is gone are injected to bump up the energy of the opposition. Mixture of nationalism with populism
is used, with most claims and promises being openly fraudulent as the first thing neoliberals do
after coming to power is to drop the standard of living of population. But such tactic is
able to attract a considerable percentage of population in all xUSSR space and first of all "office
plankton". But even if promises are false, they evoke greed that can destabilize situation
to the extent that new possibilities are opened for the initiators of this process. Also some current
supporters of the “old regime” (or at lest the most opportunistic
part of them) might jump the ship (remember that in oligarchic republic their accounts and often
families are at the West) or at least bet on both horses. Especial attention is paid to demoralization
of police and security forces. Economic difficulties in addition to elections make a perfect combination.
In this respect Putin’s decision to be the candidate for the next president of Russia probably did
served as a fuel in this particular episode. Because this does smell with the CPSU "uni-candidate"
election to which most Russians resent. In this respect
dual party system is much more
advanced and much more suitable for the oligarchic republic (and its architects can rely on rich,
century old USA experience of maintaining stability of oligarchic republic).
The starting point is always the immediate and coordinated campaign of forceful denunciation
of “mass falsifications” no matter what actually happened at the elections. Statements of influential
figures (like Hillary Clinton’s famous statement, which due to her stupidity was made
before the election results were known), and similar
well-coordinated heavy artillery PR bombardment in support of the claims about mass falsifications.
Such first heavy artillery fire is designed to weaken the governing party resolve and increase "breathing
space" for "pro-putch" press and male easier color revolution agitation. "Human rights" issues are
used as a smoke screen at any attempt of government to squeeze the opposition press or agitation.
There is also a herd mentality effect in the sense that people go along with whatever authority
figures they respect say. Also if enough mainstream news sources say the same thing over and over,
people tend to accept that as truth, regardless of whether it actually is or not. Other viewpoints
are pushed further into the background.
Creating of “artificial reality” around those false claims via relentless press campaign
via"falsification of falsifications". This is done with the direct and prominent
support of major Western MSM. Direct forgery of video and other documents can be used pretty successfully.
In Russian White Revolution outgoing president (Medvedev) probably understood this, but iether did
not have the political will to prosecute perpetrators or may be has a members of fifth column in
his cabinet. Use of “nonpartisan exit polls” as a pressure cooker for questioning the results
is a must. Use of NGO that are engaged in monitoring the elections is another must.
Followed by "falsification of falsifications" and exaggeration of ballot fraud, especially “ballot
staffing” via selectively interpreted exit pool data. Here is important to achieve some level
of demoralization of authorizes to avoid prosecution of people involved, or the whole scheme will
fall like a house of cards. The Teflon coating presenting those fraudsters as “fighters for democracy”
is used to prevent prosecution. The same trick as was used to defend Khodorkovsky, when he was arrested
before he was able to sell Russian oil holdings to the USA company.
At this point Russian government understood that there can be no rational dialogue with western
governments and foreign-sponsored NGOs, if they are engaged in such outright fabrications.
Whatever the reason for this nonsense from the West, it leaves no room for anything other than to
completely ignore the hysterics. Russia started to make moves against the spreading of these lies
and openly switched to counter offence, like installation of cameras inside election places.
Generally spreading fear and misinformation about the election results via foreign financed NGO
should be a crime. But Medvedev's government lost initiative and it was too late to adopt such a
law. And "freedom of speech" speculation should be treated as they really represent -- speculation.
Freedom of speech does not include libel.
Cutting the space for applying repressive forces to opposition by the existing government
by stressing that this not a direct interference into country affairs, but just support of democratic
forces. As long as democracy is the “sacred cow” and Western democracy is the only legitimate
form/model to which you need to progress from the current “wild”, unlawful, criminal and authoritarian
state of total darkness, the Western powers are by definition the arbiters of this progress.
There is no defense from this claim in you have foreign observers on the ground. This way the current
government itself betray its own legitimacy by delegating part of it to foreign powers, who can
abuse their role at will with not so benign motives: without leaving hotel, the western elections
observers will state about mass violation during elections, playing the role of Trojan horse of
the “color revolution”. As a result, the government is caught is zugzwang as foreign observers are
by definition the arbiters of the legitimacy of elections. Any move makes the situation worse.
Attempt to provoke police brutality, to have "victims of the regime" for mobilizing “public
demonstrations” against attempts by the incumbents “to hold onto power through electoral fraud”
and create atmosphere in which honest people became anti status quo.
Parallel attempts to undermining police loyalty through carefully stage campaign about
police brutality and “befriending policemen” to neutralize them and to allow “free hands” in undermining
the current government. See
NONVIOLENT
STRUGGLE - Community Labor News
The use of “end justifies the means” politic at all stages. Promiscuity in building coalition
and seeking allies. Nationalist and gay rights activists mixture is perfectly OK ;-). Anybody
opposed to “brutal and dishonest current regime” is welcomed to join “anti-fraud front”. No "inconvenient
questions" about agenda of particular group and they relationship to the "democracy" smokescreen
are asked:
Are ultra-nationalists now best friends of democracy? There was never such a good friends.
Are communists now the best friends of democracy? No question about it.
The use of the word liberals to describe the pro-western fifth column is another big
lie. They are not left-of-center, they are Ayn Rand worshiping neoliberals, who lament that
they are too late to steal and sell to foreign powers state assets during the chaos after the dissolution
of the USSR. Like their neoliberal counterparts in the West, they are greedy bastards in a
very precise meaning of this term. As such these “liberals” have basically nothing in common with
the people of their country as a whole and it is not surprising a considerable part of nation's
middle class is not sucking up to them. Russians have found two very appropriate words for such people:
Liberasts and grant-suckers.
Thanks for the FYI. That's not at all an unexpected assault on a method for the people to
redress grievances, not that it was actually acted upon since the Executive has a very nasty
habit of not obeying the law.
I'm curious as to how Russia will regulate Western Big Tech platforms licensed to operate
within Russia if they violate the terms of the agreement outside its borders, as Twitter did
recently to a Russian group outside of Russia. Perhaps Russia will make an extraterritorial
law such that if Twitter, for example, unjustifiably freezes an account as it does daily it
will lose its rights to operate within Russia. As for the individual user, IMO its dumb to
sign onto a service that you know practices censorship and shares private data with
governments and other entities--either you value your own privacy or it will be stolen from
you. With luck, quantum computing and its encryption algorithms will destroy all efforts at
data collection; but those days are a ways off and will likely first become available on
Chinese devices which the West will ban.
I wonder what our Aussie barflies have to say about this :
"Facebook to ban Australian users from reading and sharing news in response to
government's Big Tech bill."
That's right! FB Australia is going to ban its users from discussing a legislative
proposal by the Australian government that would regulate Aussie FB.
If that's how they choose to operate, more nations will ban them. And again I ask why have
anything to do with an organization that censors basic content.
Google promised the same about two weeks ago as the Murdoch controlled Oz legislature is
pushing to ensure that if big tech carries links to articles in news sites such as Murdoch's
Daily Telegraph or Fairfax's Sydney Morning Herald they, big tech, will have to kick back a
proportion of the advertising revenue they make.
Despite it being murdochian the claim has some merit, but no monopoly is going to acquiesce
to such a small population as Australia's so Google, FB, Twitter etc, will just ban all news
links to Oz sources.
The Oz conservatives are likely to do their usual "damn the voters, full speed ahead" as
long as nothing else crops up to make this too on the nose.
This if it happens will be a win win for the Oz population as they will revert back to
sourcing their own news and sharing it with others free of big tech's control &
censorship. It will be an interesting time, although the monopolies will be pushing shock
horror tales about it outside Oz. There is no chance of it happening in amerika as BidenCorp
is a big tech puppet, but it could happen eventually as the fishwraps still retain
considerable power over the amerikan political structure.
Thanks for your reply! I recall one of the Cold War talking points was that the Free Flow
of Information was Vital to democratic governance and was a major reason why the USSR and
Warsaw Pact was so backwards as they stifled all information flows through censorship and
other means. VoA Trumpeted that constantly. Such hubris is going to encourage the world's
nations to come together to control what are clearly becoming outlaw organizations.
There is no singular "opposition" for Washington to support -- no unified alternative
ideology, least of all one palatable to the West, to replace the current Russian state and
institutions.
Jailed Kremlin foe Navalny being used by West to destabilise Russia: Putin ally
By
Reuters
Staff
3 MIN READ
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny is being used by the West to try to destabilise Russia, a
prominent hardliner and ally of President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday, saying he must be held to account for
repeatedly breaking the law.
Slideshow
(
2 images )
Navalny was remanded in custody for 30 days last week after returning from Germany where he had been recovering from a
nerve agent poisoning. He could face years in jail for parole violations and other legal cases he calls trumped up.
Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Security Council, called for Navalny to face the full force of the law in comments
that offered a glimpse into the mood inside Russia's security establishment after tens of thousands of Navalny's
supporters protested against his jailing on Saturday.
"He (Navalny), this figure, has repeatedly (and) grossly broken Russian legislation, engaging in fraud concerning large
amounts (of money). And as a citizen of Russia he must bear responsibility for his illegal activity in line with the
law," Patrushev told the Argumenty i Fakty media outlet.
"The West needs this figure to destabilise the situation in Russia, for social upheaval, strikes and new Maidans,"
Patrushev said, in a reference to the 2014 revolution in Ukraine that ousted a Moscow-backed president.
When asked about Patrushev's comments, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was up to a court to make further
decisions in the opposition politician's case and that it was not a matter for the Kremlin.
Police detained more than 3,700 people on Saturday as protesters called on the Kremlin to release Navalny. The Kremlin
said the protests were illegal.
Peskov on Tuesday said there could be no dialogue with illegal protesters, accusing them of behaving aggressively and of
using what he called unprecedented violence against the police.
He said incidences of police violence against protesters, some of which were captured on video, were far fewer and being
investigated.
In a sign that Russian authorities may crack down hard after the protests, the Kommersant newspaper on Tuesday cited
unnamed security sources as saying they may open a criminal investigation that would treat the demonstrations as "mass
unrest".
The West has called for Navalny's release, but the European Union has said it will refrain from fresh sanctions on
Russian individuals if Moscow releases Navalny after 30 days.
News outlets and campaign groups that get cash from overseas could be prevented from
spending money in Russia under proposals put forward by an influential Moscow think tank.
RT obtained a copy of the proposal, addressed to Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev on
Wednesday. Developed by Anton Orlov, director of the Institute for the Study of Contemporary
Politics, the draft regulations would effectively ban groups that are registered as "foreign
agents" from making financial payments to individuals.
Orlov claims in his statement that one such organization has been demonstrated to have
"organized unauthorized street political actions in Russian cities." He added: "At
the same time, representatives of the organization disseminated information on social networks
and in the media that they were ready to pay the fines of citizens received as a result of
committing offenses at these events."
It is unclear how this would affect the ability of these groups to pay their staff in
Russia.
A number of organizations have been labeled as foreign agents under government rules,
because they receive significant proportions of their funding from abroad, predominately from
Western governments. Among them are US state-run media outlets Voice of America and RFE/RL, as
well as the opposition-leaning Moscow-based Levada Center.
In March last year, President Vladimir Putin defended the law, comparing it to equivalent
measures in the US and arguing that it "exists simply to protect Russia from external
meddling in its politics."
"Nobody's rights are being infringed on here whatsoever. There is nothing that runs
counter to international practice," he added.
One of the country's most senior parliamentarians, Senator Andrey Klimov, told Rossiya-1
news channel on Sunday that the street protests organized in support of jailed opposition
figure Alexey Navalny last weekend had been orchestrated from outside the country. "The
Senatorial Commission has reason to believe that all these activities are clearly traced to the
actions of foreign states, and it is all happening with the assistance of foreign
specialists," he told the broadcaster.
A number of organizations have been labeled as foreign agents under government rules,
because they receive significant proportions of their funding from abroad, predominately from
Western governments. Among them are US state-run media outlets Voice of America and RFE/RL, as
well as the opposition-leaning Moscow-based Levada Center.
In March last year, President Vladimir Putin defended the law, comparing it to equivalent
measures in the US and arguing that it "exists simply to protect Russia from external
meddling in its politics."
"Nobody's rights are being infringed on here whatsoever. There is nothing that runs
counter to international practice," he added.
One of the country's most senior parliamentarians, Senator Andrey Klimov, told Rossiya-1
news channel on Sunday that the street protests organized in support of jailed opposition
figure Alexey Navalny last weekend had been orchestrated from outside the country. "The
Senatorial Commission has reason to believe that all these activities are clearly traced to the
actions of foreign states, and it is all happening with the assistance of foreign
specialists," he told the broadcaster.
Dachaguy 3 hours ago 27 Jan, 2021 09:57 AM
America used their weaponized dollar to fund mercenaries in Syria and we all saw the result
of that. Russia has a duty to prevent that type of attack against Russia. America's Achilles'
Heel is the US dollar, so cutting off its use by foreign agents to fund nefarious activities
is a good place to start.
Count_Cash 3 hours ago 27 Jan, 2021 10:44 AM
Not enough - its time to send the diplomatic note to western countries that Russia considers
itself under attack by Western powers through an info war. Then it should close all foreign
media and campaign groups over night. It cannot be the case that enemy spying posts and
combatants are allowed on Russian soil during conflict!
oe Biden enters the White House with an entourage of faces very familiar to OffGuardian, and
many of those readers who have been with us since the beginning.
Glassy-eyed Jen Psaki is once again taking the White House press briefings. Victoria
"Fuck the EU" Nuland
is going to be secretary of state, and Samantha Power is hoisted back onto a platform from
which she can berate the rest of the world for not following America's "moral example" by
bombing Syria back to the stone age.
It was the machinations of these people – along with Biden as VP, John Kerry as
Secretary of State and of course Barack Obama leading the charge – that lead to the coup
in Ukraine, the war in Donbass and – indirectly – the creation of this website. For
it was our comments on the Guardian telling this truth that got everyone here banned, multiple
times.
So, for us, pointing out cold-war style propaganda is like slipping back into a comfy pair
of shoes.
A good thing too, because with this coterie of neocon-style warmongers comes another
familiar friend: the propaganda war on Putin's Russia. Throughout the media and on every front,
all within hours of Biden's inauguration.
Now, anti-Russia nonsense didn't go away while Trump was President – if anything it
became deranged to the point of literal insanity in many quarters – but it definitely
quietened down in the last 12 months, with the outbreak of the "pandemic".
Of course underneath the standard pot-stirring propaganda to keep the "new cold war" on the
boil, there is the Navalny narrative. An incredibly contrived piece of political theatre that
may even evolve into a full-on attempt at regime change in Moscow.
He knew he would be arrested if he returned to Russia, so his doing so was pure theatre.
That fact is only underlined by the media's reaction to his 30 day jail sentence.
Yes, that's thirty DAYS, not years. He'll be out before spring. Even if he's convicted of
the numerous charges of embezzlement and fraud, he faces only 3 years in prison.
On the same day as Biden's inauguration, the European Parliament announced that Russia
should be punished for arresting Navalny, by having the Nordstream 2 pipeline project
closed down . (Closing this pipeline down would open up the European market to buy US gas,
instead of Russia. This is a complete coincidence).
And then, the day after Biden's inauguration, the European Court of Human Rights announced
they had found Russia guilty of war crimes during the
5-day war in South Ossetia in 2008. The report was subject to a gleeful (and terrible)
write-up by (who else?) Luke Harding. (Why they waited 13 years to make this announcement
remains a mystery)
It doesn't stop there, already Western pundits and
Russian "celebrities" are trying to encourage street protests in support of Alexei Navalny.
An anonymous Guardian editorial states Navalny's
"bravery needs backing" , whatever that means.
But are there bigger aims behind this as well? Do they hope they can create another Maidan
but this time in Moscow? That would be insane, but you can't rule it out.
One thing is for sure, though; they work fast. Less than two days in office, and we've
already got a new colour revolution kicking off. Speedy work.
Reply
captain spam , Jan 25, 2021 7:33 PM
As McFaul said recently, we must combat Putin! His support for traditional Christian
family values is an absolutely intolerable threat to the liberal international order!! What
we desperately need is non stop gay anal sex for everybody, especially children, non stop
free abortions for sluts, and as many child trannies as possible!!! We must force through
this progressive enlightened agenda everywhere!!!!
Bob , Jan 25, 2021 4:15 PM
The overthrow crew is back in business. They will continue chipping away at the old USSR.
Belarus seems pretty ripe, though under Trump CIA failed at the overthrow earlier this year.
But with Victoria Nuland and gang in there we will see a real push to dismantle Russia and
China. Also watch for Islamic terror in Xinjiang in Western China with CIA sponsored Uygher
militants. Jan 24, 2021 6:18 AM
For people who prefer information to propaganda, a little ethnographic insight into the
reality of life in Russia, courtesy of Dr Jeremy Morris:
If it's a CIA only operation, Russians are obviously incredibly gullible and
impressionable, and in surprisingly huge numbers (and this is only one brief snapshot of what
apparently is happening across 11 time zones):
Yup, I'd say there's at least a couple of dozens of people who came together in that show
of discontent toward a government that, if not exactly among the ranks of this particular
riff-raff, is hugely popular.
And then there are these CIA trained Russian provocateurs caught on video:
Navalny has heroically returned to Russia after the dastardly Putins hapless goons
Novichoked his tea/ water bottle/ underpants* delete as appropriate. But at least we are now
seeing the truth emerge from completely impartial and wholly credible CIA funded sources like
the Victims Of Communism Foundation. Now we know the horrific facts about 300 million Weegers
and 500 million Georgians being turned into soap and lamp shades. We must nuke Putins dacha
immediately. Show him we mean business. Its a typical underhand trick of the evil Vlad,
genociding millions of people without leaving any evidence. Further proof of his guilt, if
any were needed.
Charlie , Jan 23, 2021 8:08 PM
Just running a theory by you all, was the Ukraine colour revolution a response to Russian
push-back on the WMD narrative in Syria and Obama's red line that failed the sniff test
(that's bleach, not chloride gas)? Mess in our back yard and we'll mess in yours. If so Putin
handled it very well, all things considered, ended up more secure than before, in spite of
everything.
America,s aim after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1990 was to split Russia apart gut
it and subdue it! Playing silly buggers on Russia's border would have happened no matter
what! The globalists want complete control! Georgia Chechnya are other examples of globalist
interference. China is getting the same treatment.
niko , Jan 23, 2021 8:01 PM
Duck and cover the Russians are coming! Prelude to false flag cyberterrorism and the dark
winter? Whatever comes next, we need to start fighting the real enemy.
"Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our
great adversary remains the apparatus -- the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the
one facing us across the frontier of the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our
brothers' enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. No
matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to
this apparatus and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in
others." -Simone Weil
Charlie , Jan 23, 2021 7:51 PM
Did anyone catch that interview Aaron Mate did with Luke Harding? Think it was while Aaron
was still with the real news. Poor old Luke thought he was talking to a confirmed Democrat
and Aaron took his piece of shit book on Russia 2016 to pieces, well worth a look if it's
still up.
Guy , Jan 23, 2021 7:44 PM
"But are there bigger aims behind this as well? Do they hope they can create another
Maidan but this time in Moscow? That would be insane, but you can't rule it out."
The Western media propaganda machine IS insane . Jealousy in big bold letters because
Russia , Russia seems to be doing quite well economically ,regardless of Western media
machinations.
Mercuns would love to rerun Maidan. I don't think they have the numbers in Rooskia though.
Division, internal conflict, confusion that will have to do for the short term.
dr death , Jan 24, 2021 3:42 PM Reply to
Victor G.
indeed but burger-on-a- bagel land has got plenty of its own now
the thrashing bankrupt golem is about to have its own yeltsin 'moment'..
just lining up the ducks
now where did I put that novichok, I mean icing sugar, I mean mrs mays concealer.
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a
threat to the neoliberal international order. Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the
neoliberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War
era.
After the Cold War, neoliberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition
– suggesting that neoliberal democracy should be at the center of security strategies.
However, by linking neoliberal norms to US leadership, neoliberalism became both a
constitutional principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of neoliberal values – without mentioning that its
second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative and authoritarian than Russia – and
Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of
democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility to revert to its original mission as a military
bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until
the West supported the coup in Ukraine. Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul
inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed to his
ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its
borders, as it would give hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological
lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails to explain why Russia does not
mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good
relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that
endow them with the right to defend other peoples. The French National Convention declared in
1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to recover their
liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed,
if necessary, to the fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American neoliberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the
world with "democracy promotion" and "humanitarian interventionism" when it
conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that democracy is
advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack
if Russia interferes in the domestic affairs of US. The neoliberal international system is one
of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are
merely motivated by the objective of liberating Russians from their government, which is why he
advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between Putin and the
Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the
Cold War – the US supposedly does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only
altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their leaders such as Slobodan
Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other neoliberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance,"
which does not make much sense after the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011.
However, under the auspices of neoliberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as it defends
the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the
neoliberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US,
before outlining his strategies for interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul
blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations" that
are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He
goes on to explain that the US government must counter this by establishing new
"non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils of their
government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom
tend to promise perpetual peace. Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of
human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed defender of the
ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world
and utopia can be bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power
politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security
strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides
states into good and evil, into peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by
the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist, believing he has
broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Ghanima223 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:36 AM
In short, the tables have turned since the end of the Cold War. It is no longer communist
ideologues that try to export revolution and chaos while the western world would promote
stability and free markets. Now it's western ideologues that are trying to export revolutions
and chaos while clamping down on free markets with Russia, as ironically as it sounds, being
a force for stability and a strong proponent for the free exchange of goods and services
around the world. The west will lose just as the USSR has lost.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:01 AM
The Dollar is the only fake reason that still keeps US afloat. The moment that goes, it loss
will be a lot worse then of USSR.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 12:58 AM
That happened not exactly after the end of the cold war. It was about even for a decade after
that. The real u-turn happened after the 9/11 false flag disaster.
Amvet 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:00 AM
Foreign dangers are necessary to keep the attention of the American people away from the 20
ton elephant in the room--the fact that 9/11 was not a foreign attack. Should any of the main
stream media suddenly turn honest and report this in detail, things will get interesting.
King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:11 AM
I wouldn't worry too much. At the same time Biden will be purging the US military of any men
of capability and replacing them trans and political appointments. The traditional areas
where the military recruited it's grunts are falling as they are waking up to the hostility
of the state to their culture and way of life. The US military will end up a rump of queerss,
off work due to stress or perceived persecution and fat doughballs sat in warehouses
performing drone strikes on goats.
Fjack1415 King_Penda 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:20 PM
Yes, you point to a paradox. While the globalists are using the US as their military arm for
global domination, they are at the same time destroying the country that supports that
military. Perhaps the US military will be maintained by dint of its being the only employer
for millions of unemployed young men in the American heartland, doughballs or not.
Ghanima223 King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:39 AM
Ideologues will always be more concerned with having political reliable military leadership
as opposed to actually qualified leaders. It took the Russians 2 decades to purge their own
military of this filth of incompetent 'yes' men within their military.
UKCitizen 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:09 AM
'The Liberal International Order' - yes, that seems a fair description. Led by what might be
termed 'liberal fundamentalists'.
far_cough 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 07:01 AM
the military industrial complex and the various deep state agencies along with the major
corporations need russia as an adversary so that they can milk the american people and the
people of the western world of their money, rights, freedoms, etc etc...
roby007 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:54 AM
I'm sure Biden will pursue "peaceful, productive coexistence" just as his friend Obama did,
with drones and bombs.
Paul Citro 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:16 AM
I hope that Russian leaders fully realize that they are dealing with a country that is the
equivalent of psychotic.
Fjack1415 Paul Citro 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:26 PM
True, the ruling party and MSM mouthpieces and their readers and followers are now truly
INSANE. Beyond redemption. Staggering in the depth and power of the subversion of so many
people, including many with high IQs (like my ex girlfriend and housemate in the US).
Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:57 AM
US security strategy is committed to global dominance
Absolutely. Biden has filled up his admin with "progressive realists," which
when it comes to foreign policy, is just a euphuism for neocons and their lust for world
empire. So expect an unleashing of forces in the coming two years that will finally humble
America's war machine.
tyke2939 Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 01:07 PM
They are desperate for a war with someone but it must be someone they can beat convincingly.
It certainly will not be Russia or China and I suspect Iran will be a huge battle even with
Israel s backing. More than likely they will invade some country like Venezuela as Syria has
Russia covering its back. What a dilemma who to fight.
9/11 Truther Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
The "American war machine" has been humbled from Saigon, Vietnam 1975 to Kabul, Afghanistan.
Salmigoni 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:25 AM
They are not really liberals. They are blood thirsty parasitic neoconservative fascist war
mongers working for the Pentagon contractors. General Eisenhower warned us about these evil
people. A lot of Americans still do not get it.
"... Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism." ..."
ByGlenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, and an editor at the Russia in Global
Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenndiesen
Donald Trump's efforts to reduce the ideologically driven base of US foreign policy fuelled great resentment among those who believed
it betrayed Washington's leadership position in the so-called "liberal international order."
Now that power has changed, will the pendulum swing in the opposite direction, with Joe Biden's administration applying a radical
ideological foreign policy?
A recent article by Michael McFaul, once Barack Obama's ambassador to Russia and a noted 'Russiagate' conspiracy theorist, indicates
what such an ideological foreign policy would look like. McFaul's article, 'How to Contain Putin's Russia', makes a case for a containment
policy.
Containment: learning from the past or living in the past?
To advance his argument, McFaul quotes George Kennan, the author of the Long Telegram and architect of erstwhile US containment
policy against the Soviet Union. McFaul suggests that Kennan's advocacy for a "patient but firm and vigilant containment"
against the revolutionary Bolshevik regime 75 years ago remains as valid as ever.
It would have made more sense to
quote Kennan when
he condemned NATO expansionism and predicted it would trigger another Cold War. As Kennan noted: "there was no reason for this
whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their
graves."
Kennan continued to express disbelief over the rhetoric by the misinformed US leadership, presenting "Russia as a country dying
to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now
we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime."
Kennan then went on to correctly predict that, when Russia would eventually react to US provocations, the NATO expanders would wrongfully
blame Russia.
Ideologues often have nostalgia for the Cold War, when the bipolar power distribution was supported by a clear and comfortable
ideological divide. The Western bloc represented capitalism, Christianity, and democracy, while the Eastern bloc represented communism,
atheism, and authoritarianism. This ideological divide supported internal cohesion within the Western bloc and drew clear borders
with the adversary.
The liberal international order has attempted to recast the former capitalist-communist divide with a liberal-authoritarian divide.
However, the ideological incompatibility between American liberalism and Russian conservatism is less convincing. For example, McFaul
cautions against Putin's nefarious conservative ideology committed to "Christian, traditional family values" that threatens
the liberal international order.
The new ideological divide nonetheless advances neo-McCarthyism in the West. McFaul presents a list of European conservatives
and populists that should be treated as American conservatives, purged from political life as enemies of the liberal international
order and thus possible agents of Russia. Hillary Clinton even suggested that the Capitol Hill riots were possibly coordinated by
Trump and Putin – yes, Russiagate is here to stay. The solution, for McFaul, is for American tech oligarchs to manipulate algorithms
to protect populations from Russian-friendly media.
An American ideological project
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a threat to the liberal international order.
Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the liberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War era.
After the Cold War, liberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition – suggesting that liberal democracy should
be at the center of security strategies. However, by linking liberal norms to US leadership, liberalism became both a constitutional
principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of liberal values – without mentioning that its second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative
and authoritarian than Russia – and Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility
to revert to its original mission as a military bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until the West supported the coup in Ukraine.
Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed
to his ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its borders, as it would give
hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails
to explain why Russia does not mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that endow them with the right to defend other
peoples. The French National Convention declared in 1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to
recover their liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed, if necessary, to the
fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American liberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the world with "democracy promotion"
and "humanitarian interventionism" when it conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that
democracy is advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack if Russia interferes
in the domestic affairs of US. The liberal international system is one of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are merely motivated by the objective of
liberating Russians from their government, which is why he advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between
Putin and the Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the Cold War – the US supposedly
does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their
leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other liberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance," which does not make much sense after
the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011. However, under the auspices of liberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as
it defends the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the liberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US, before outlining his strategies for
interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations"
that are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He goes on to explain that the US
government must counter this by establishing new "non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils
of their government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom tend to promise perpetual peace.
Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed
defender of the ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world and utopia can be
bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance,
while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides states into good and evil, into
peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist,
believing he has broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
"... You are what's called a usefull idiot. The GOP doesn't care about anyone but Israel and the elites on Wall street. Every 4 years the GOP pretends to care about poor white people and they show some colored people to show "look we are not racist." ..."
"... The problem with Magatards like you is the inability to separate fantasy with reality. ..."
"... Let's all just stop pretending we don't live in a fucking banana republic and move on. ..."
The former ambassador to Russia under the Obama Administration, Michael McFaul, presumably
knows a lot about Color Revolutions, since his boss used him in Ukraine in 2014. McFaul, who
was also instrumental in the Russia-Gate disinformation campaign against Trump, also
authored, "7 Pillars of ColorRevolution,"
As this historic election continues, reporting and further analysis will highlight daily
events and their parallels that already warn that these seven pillars are seemingly right in
place here in America, as they were in the examples Ukraine, Bolivia and Venezuela, at
least.
The initial step in each example has been to use a national election as the reason for a
razor-thin and disputed vote result, one that the media stirs into a frenzy on both sides: A
frenzy so viscous that the result becomes massive civil unrest followed next by violence.
And then military intervention.
In this, the first seventy-two hours of news from the election battleground of America 2020,
this first step of a media fabricated victor, of which the other side detests and alleges
criminal behavior, would seem in play.
You are what's called a usefull idiot. The GOP doesn't care about anyone but
Israel and the elites on Wall street. Every 4 years the GOP pretends to care about poor white
people and they show some colored people to show "look we are not racist."
But to say the GOP really cares what everyone thinks and is inclusive to a fault is
ridiculous. How brainwashed are you?
The problem with Magatards like you is the inability to separate fantasy with reality. You
really think Trump is the god emperor who is fighting pedophiles and you will believe
anything other Trumptards throw up on YouTube.
Lol at the GOP by definition being conservative. Trump is a liberal who grew the size of
the government.
Distinguished Russiagate disciple Michael McFaul upset that Putin hasn't congratulated Biden
for presumed election win
Former US envoy to Russia Michael McFaul is unhappy that Moscow hasn't declared Joe Biden
the election winner without official results, apparently tossing aside years of hysteria about
Kremlin "meddling" in US internal affairs.
McFaul, who became one of the most outspoken proponents of the debunked theory that Moscow
"colluded" with the Trump campaign in 2016, expressed his disappointment on Twitter that
Russian President Vladimir Putin has yet to offer his congratulations to the Democratic
nominee, who declared himself president-elect on Saturday.
"Has Putin joined the chorus of world leaders in congratulating Biden yet? I haven't see
(sic) the statement. Do post if its (sic) out," he wrote. ... Earlier in the day, Fijian Prime
Minister Frank Bainimarama became the first world leader to offer his congratulations to the
former vice president, expressing hope that Biden would help the world navigate a "climate
emergency." Reditus_sum 7 hours ago No doubt that President Putin will be in touch with
Biden if and when he wants to and feels that it is warranted, I really can't imagine how Biden
would cope in any negotiations with one of the sharpest analytical and political minds in the
world today. orseface11 Reditus_sum 6 hours ago Good Lord, that would be a sad state of
affairs. RadicalGoat 8 hours ago So far, only the vassal states have acknowledged Biden's
victory.
Kyrgyzstan Color Revolution in Central AsiaCrisis Intensifies the US' Hybrid War
Containment of Russia By Andrew Korybko Global Research,
October 06, 2020 Region: Asia , Russia and FSU , USA Theme: US NATO War Agenda
The sudden outbreak of Color Revolution unrest in the historically unstable Central Asian
country of Kyrgyzstan following recent parliamentary elections in this Russian CSTO mutual
defense ally intensifies the US' Hybrid War "containment" of Russia when seen in the context of
the ongoing regime change efforts in fellow ally Belarus as well as CSTO-member Armenia's
dangerous efforts to provoke a Russian military intervention in support of its illegal
occupation of universally recognized Azerbaijani territory.
Color Revolution In Central Asia
The historically unstable Central Asian country of Kyrgyzstan [former Soviet Republic] is
once again in the midst of
Color Revolution unrest after this Russian CSTO mutual defense ally's latest parliamentary
elections were exploited as the pretext for members of the non-systemic opposition to
torch their seat of
government and free former President
Atambayev who was arrested last year on charges of corruption. This sudden crisis is
actually the third serious one in the former Soviet space in just as many months following the
ongoing regime change efforts in Belarus since August and Armenia's dangerous efforts since the
end of last month to provoke a Russian military intervention in support of its illegal
occupation of universally recognized Azerbaijani territory. Crucially, all three of the
aforementioned countries are Russia's CSTO allies, and their respective crises (provoked to
varying extents by the US) intensify the American Hybrid
War "containment" of Russia.
The US' Triple Hybrid War "Containment" Of Russia
The author has written extensively about the Belarusian Color
Revolution campaign and Armenia's aggression in
Nagorno-Karabakh , but those who aren't familiar with his analysis of those issues can
refer to the two articles hyperlinked earlier in this sentence for a quick overview. The
present piece aims to inform the audience about the complex dynamics of the Kyrgyz Color
Revolution crisis and the impact that it could have on the US' recent Hybrid War "containment"
offensive along the western, southern, and eastern peripheries of Russia's so-called "sphere of
influence". The
pattern at play is that the US is trying to provoke a Russian military intervention in one,
some, or all three of these Hybrid War battlefronts through the CSTO, but the Kremlin has thus
far avoided the trap of these potential quagmires. Lukashenko tried do this with his ridiculous
claims about a speculated Polish
annexation of Grodno while Pashinyan wants to provoke Azerbaijan into attacking Armenian
cities to trigger a similar intervention scenario, hence Armenia's attack on
its rival's Ganja in order to bring this about.
The Kyrgyz Powder Keg
Kyrgyzstan is an altogether different powder keg, however, since it has a recent history of
close to uncontrollable inter-ethnic and political violence after its last two Color
Revolutions of 2005 and 2010, especially the latter. The author explained all this in detail in
his April 2016
analysis of the US' history of regime change attempts in the region, which comprises one of
the chapters of his 2017 ebook on " The Law Of
Hybrid Warfare: Eastern Hemisphere ". He expanded upon his research in this direction
in August 2019 f ollowing President Jeenbekov's arrest of former President Atambayev, his
former mentor, which almost plunged the country back into a state of de-facto civil war. It was
explained that "Kyrgyzstan must 'cleanse' its 'deep state' (permanent bureaucracy)
simultaneously with cracking down on organized crime (which is sometimes affiliated with some
'deep state' forces)." This is the only way to combat the destabilizing clan-based nature of
the country (worsened by Western NGOs and diplomatic meddling )
that's responsible for its regular unrest.
Will The Crisis From 2010 Repeat Itself?
The present situation is so dangerous though because the last round of Color Revolution
unrest in 2010 sparked accusations of ethnic cleansing against the local Uzbeks that inhabit
Kyrgyzstan's portion of the divided Fergana Valley. That in turn almost provoked an
international conflict between both landlocked states that was thankfully averted at the last
minute by Tashkent's reluctance to worsen the security situation by launching a "humanitarian
intervention" in Russia's CSTO ally (one which could have also been exploited to promote the
concept of "Greater Uzbekistan" over the neighboring lands inhabited by its ethnic kin
considering the country's closer coordination with American strategic goals at the time).
Uzbekistan has since moved closer to Russia after the passing of former President Karimov, but
its basic security interests remain the same, particularly as far as ensuring the safety of its
ethnic kin in neighboring states. Any repeat of the 2010 scenario could therefore return
Central Asia to the brink of war unless a Russian diplomatic intervention averts it.
The Threat To Russian Interests
From the Russian perspective, Kyrgyzstan's capture by Western-backed political forces could
lead to long-term security implications. The state's potential internal collapse could turn it
into a regional exporter of terrorism, especially throughout the volatile Fergana Valley but
also across China's neighboring region of Xinjiang if a new government decides to host Uighur
terrorists. The soft security consequences are that Kyrgyzstan's Color Revolution government
could reduce its commitment to the CSTO and Eurasian Union up to and including the country's
potential withdrawal from these organizations if the new power structure isn't co-opted by
Russian-friendly forces first. It's possible, however, that Moscow might succeed in mitigating
the blow to its geopolitical interests in the scenario of a regime change in Bishkek since it
had previously worked real closely with Atambayev (who's the most likely candidate to seize
power, either directly or by proxy), though only if it can prevent a civil war from breaking
out first. That might necessitate a CSTO intervention, however, which is risky.
Concluding Thoughts
As it stands, the US' Hybrid War "containment" of Russia is making progress along the
western, southern, and eastern periphery of the Eurasian Great Power's "sphere of influence".
Belarus is no longer as stable as it has historically been known for being, Armenia is still
trying to trick Russia into going to war against Azerbaijan (and by extension Turkey), and
Kyrgyzstan is once again on the verge of a collapse that could take down the rest of Central
Asia in the worst-case scenario. Having shrewdly avoided the first two traps, at least for the
time being, Russia is now being challenged with the most serious crisis of the three after the
latest events in Kyrgyzstan. The country's clan-based nature, proliferation of Western NGOs,
and Western meddling in its admittedly imperfect democracy make it extremely unstable, thus
heightening the risks that any well-intended Russian military stabilization intervention via
the CSTO could entail, perhaps explaining why one never happened in 2010 during more dangerous
times. The Kremlin will therefore have to carefully weigh its options in Kyrgyzstan.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld .
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the
relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China's One Belt One Road global vision
of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
It was all about Full Spectrum Domination. McFaul is not intellectual, he is a propagandist. Actually mediocre, obnoxious
propagandist. In like Professor Cohen, intellectually he is nothing with academic credentials.
The level and primitivism lies about Ukraine would name any serious academic flash. It was about encircling
Russia.
McFaul was behind Magnitsky which in best conspiracy tradition raises questions whether he works for MI6? We now know who
Browder was and suspicious that he was Magnitsky killer or facilitator/financer (by hiring the jail doctor who traded Magnitsky)
are very strong in view of "cui bono" question.
Notable quotes:
"... He is definitely not at the same level as Stephen F.Cohen. This is very alarming for the US, that people like him could have any power decision on Foreign Policy, and could explain the slow decline of the USA. ..."
"... McFaul is intellectually incoherent and disingenuous. Cohen wasted him ..."
"... We all know the truth... US economy heavily dependent on producing weapons and ammunition ..."
"... Mc Faul is clearly not supposed to have been in the positions of power, where he was. Something is fundamentally wrong with America. I think there is a crisis of personnel. Where are all these incredibly smart, high IQ people Harvard, Princeton, and the Ivy Leagues are supposedly pumping out? ..."
McFaul is definitely not an academic, but much more a mediocre high civil servant. He is
also very post modern in his approach. He is here to sell his book, not to argue ideas. He is
incapable of building a rhetorical argument, and of having any political vision or strong
analytical intelligence.
He is definitely not at the same level as Stephen F.Cohen. This is
very alarming for the US, that people like him could have any power decision on Foreign
Policy, and could explain the slow decline of the USA.
Confronted to people like Putin who is
obviously an Old fashion politician like de Gaulles or Churchill, the Cold War can only lead
us to catastrophe.
Great facts from Prof. Cohen. Faulty logic from McFaul ("you cannot use those
variables..."). McFaul will not get far in understanding Russia with this twisted approach,
ie pretending like nothing (NATO, missile treaty, regime changes) happens.
Very informative debate! I think McFaul has only contributed to the new cold war with the
treaties he helped write and the ill-informed advice he provided to the neoconservative Obama
administration. Mr. Stephen Cohen is brilliant and I only wish he was more influential in
shaping today's foreign policy. Though thankfully, McFaul is also no longer influential in
shaping U.S. foreign policy.
Very low from McFaul. Bringing personal attacks on him from social media as "facts" and
"arguments" ("McFaul is a pedophile") . This not a level of academic argument from McFaul. He
is no match to Cohen.
It's so easy to understand! Russia is doing same thing usa will do when china starts to
open military bases in latin America. Its not hard to imagine and in decade or to you will
not have to imagine you will have that reality. Many Latin America countries will be interconnected with china with economic and military
agreements than one day they will try to
brig Mexico in China's sphere of influence if they refuse china can let's say "help" opposition
to come in power and sign everything China wants.
I would like to see what American "experts"
will say. How many of them will think that Mexico as a sovereign natio have right to sign any
agreement it wants maybe even Russia can open military base and bring nuclear weapons to
border of USA. So what it's their democratic right, isn't it?
1:13:33 - 1:13:58 I swear by the
all-powerful Albert Einistine that you are lying AND YOU KNOW IT. Russians said A BILLION
times that U.S.A slowly but SURELY preparing for what they called "a calamitous war" by
moving its lethal weapons nearer and nearer to the Russian territories.
We all know the
truth... US economy heavily dependent on producing weapons and ammunition but the very very
very main reason [for harassing Russia and the rest of world] is because the Rothschild
family wants GLOBAL DOMINATION. SOLD FACT (ask ANY Russian intelligence officer about it and
you will see what i mean).
I have read Professor Cohen's last two works ("Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives" and
"War with Russia?") and found them very informative and persuasive, but seeing him here
expanding upon his key arguments is even more rewarding.
He shouldn't have to be brave to
hold to his position, given his reputation as a scholar, but regrettably he is made to appear
out of step with the critical mass of opinion makers who see more value promoting conflict
with Russia than working towards a sensible accommodation.
I'm not an "expert" from Stanford, but as I recall the USSR imploded and the US [CIA etc]
was totally surprised -so called pundits and experts in the US did not see it coming, then
the next thing we get is US mainstream media claimed victory in the cold war, just blanket
assertions that US won the cold war because the US is virtuous and clean and good, and we did
it by the clear superiority of US way of life or some such crap.
Charles Krauthammer, for
example. Now so called media and historians try to convince us that Reagan lead disarmament,
but as I recall he blocked it at most points, for example, it was Gorbachev not Reagan who
was out front and did all the leading at Reykjavik, and Reagan threw away Gorbachev's
historic offer to totally disarm on the grounds that Star Wars was a more important priority,
on Richard Perle's advice.
Now we are seeing something similar under Trump in which the US is
again uninterested in peace and far more interested in wars by proxies and drones and global
hegemony and control running the 7 seas and space to boot.
Michael Foley is a liar of course US was involved I was me in US Army force and my friends
used to travel to Georgia way before 2008 and of course everybody knows 2008 Russia and
Georgia went to war with each other but our soldiers US government soldiers were teaching
Georgians fighting with the NATO forces and all orange resolutions and Geo like him involved
in Overturning government was famous Victoria Nuland
Interesting debate and I hope Cohen is right, and is not the first of its kind. But still
the FIRST EVER free debate about the New Cold War in the United States is (so far) still on
Youtube. While listening to the two professors I found myself noting the difference in the
presentation of facts from a career oriented politician/academic who is influenced by a
forced narrative (McFaul) and one (Cohen) who is an academic historian who is in dissent and
can speak freely (he is retired).
Keep in mind that Prof. McFaul has a career to worry about.
It shows a LOT! Here we can see how political pressure can influence a debate. McFaul is
still quite deserving of accolades for his courage to even say what he did in this debate.
And note how much free speech is missing in American society in the fact that this sort of
thing is very difficult to achieve in a collapsed democracy. Note also that McFaul also stuck
to "the Narrative" big lies like the so-called Crimea "annexation" when he would have known
the truth of it....There are other examples. Americans are denied the fact that the public
vote taken in Crimea was over 90% IN FAVOUR of joining Russia (again). This fact is simply
too large for McFaul to be unaware of and yet most Americans are wallowing in this fake news.
Or censored omissions. FWIW, Galearis
Prof. McFaul is a partisan. He bases his opinion of detailed facts, so detailed that he
misses the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that he claims to be a sovereigns, but
only when it comes to the US sovereignty. How about Russia's sovereignty?
Or Ukraine's whose
government has been toppled by a (among others) US sponsored coup? How about Syria
sovereignty? He furthers the view that the US had a fair posture towards Russia, which is
not. This is also demonstrated by his personal deep dislike of Putin, which is something that
both a real statesman or a real scholar should not influence opinions and actions.
McFaul's
perspective is also flawed by the conflation of his (and Obama's) wishes and reality: that is
that they don't like Putin and think to deal with Russia as if Putin was not there,
but he is. You deal with the reality, not with your wishes. Putin is legitimate and strong
Russia's president, whether McFaul likes him or not. A real respect for sovereignty demands
respect for the head of the state you deal with. You don't question his legitimacy, as well
as they don't questioned Clinton's, Bush's, Obama or Trump legitimacy. His point of view is
that everything goes on in the world should have the US sanction, otherwise is not good.
This
is imperial hubris, this is arrogance. This flaws his opinion in so far everything is
measured upon american likes and dislikes. THis is not statesmanship, this is not
scholarship, this is partisanship. He is also intellectually dishonest because he confuses a
debate on right and wrong, which should be based on certain assumptions, with a debate on
party interests, which has nothing to do with right and wrong, and is based on different
assumptions. Indeed he is the less fit person in a debate on responsibility for the New Cold
War because he was involved in its development and acquisition.
Partisanship is admitted, but
shouldn't be disguised as neutrality or given any relevance just because of knowledge of
technical details he knows - much of them are, frankly, irrelevant. His points are weak and
inconsistent with geopolitical and a realist view of the international relations, they are
biased by universal-liberal ideology, they are US-centric, he forgets too many essential
points about the whole story. For instance he talks about the missed chance for Russian
democracy (here a debate about what democracy is: his assumption is that the US democracy is
.... please, don't make me laugh), but he doesn't mention that Soviet people voted in
referenda and overwhelmingly wanted the USSR to keep on existing, but he forgets this
"detail".
He forgets how the so much beloved Elcin sent the tanks against the parliament,
many people were killed, how he allowed the pillaging of Russian people and resources by
criminal oligarchs (many of them happily hosted by the UK and presented as political
dissidents), and how the Russian 1996 were HEAVILY rigged and meddled by the US in order to
reconfirm Elcin as a president. He complains about Putin being appointed by Elcin out of
nothing. Well I can't recall any American complaints at that time, maybe because they thought
he could be an alcoholic puppet like Elcin and that was clearly something the US liked and
supported. So what about Obama (fake) words about wishing a strong Russia?
Obama spoke
derogatory words about Russia. The only American interests about Russia is that is a militarily and strategically weak provider of cheap natural resources and that is not in tne
position of competing for anything. I will stop here, although I could write pages and pages
about McFlaws .... ooops! McFaul's inconsistency both as a scholar and even more as a
statesman's advisor, but the debate was among a great intellectual with a clear vision of the
world, and a small professor taken with insignificant details and too much love for Obama and
blind believe in liberal universal ideology.
Mc Faul is clearly not supposed to have been in the positions of power, where he was.
Something is fundamentally wrong with America. I think there is a crisis of personnel. Where
are all these incredibly smart, high IQ people Harvard, Princeton, and the Ivy Leagues are
supposedly pumping out?
Prof. Cohen astonishing realpolitik ingenuity when asked "what the security interests of
Ukraine and Georgia are" ( 1:16:21 ) unveils to me his
understanding of politics as kind of imperialistic chess game where the US stands against the
USSR (or RF for that matter). I have experienced the same feelings from his other debates (I
remember one memorable at Munk Debates in 2015) - as if the historic fears, desires and
dreams (of NATO or EU membership as the only effective shield against Russian military power)
of so many ex-soviet countries means absolutely nothing - as if they were mere puppets of US
"regime". As though the legitimate wishes of these sovereign countries means nothing at all.
He is so surprised by that question he suddenly can't retrieve even the definition of what
security interests of a country actually means - a rather strange quality in a historian.
Ultimately he comes up with "they should make peace with their neighbors" - say this to
countries that were along their history subjects of Soviet violent repression, military
invasions, ethnic genocides and such. "I don't think Russian is a threat to them". Absolutely
ridiculous.
This Michael McFaul individual is such severe laughing-stock completely out of touch with
reality. Stephen Cohen's version of the "new cold war" is much closer to reality and we
should not forget the nefarious entities that pull the strings in D.C. U.S. covert
involvement throughout eastern Europe and especially the Ukraine is more than evident. Putin
and Russia in general is not stupid and see right through U.S. covert meddling on Russia's
border. And those "peaceful demonstrators" in Syria that MacFaul dearly praises are mere
agents of the CIA/Mossad complex. Where are they now?
Monroe doctrine doesn't care about the democratic rights of countries in the western
hemisphere to enter into any alliance or partnership with USA's rival. Also, there's still no
evidence of Russian hacking which is basis of their religion of RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA !
Sure, since in Ukraine you guys didn't push money in mysterious organisations that would
support the "democratic" narrative. I don't like NATO in my country and I see nato presence
as an existential threat for Russia! Look back at the Cuba crisis it's exactly the SAME! You
no good morally and ethically corrupt poor excuses of mouth pieces
Either that Faul person is delusional or he is outright lying - Did Turkey not get
threatened with sanctions when they decided to trade with Russia on anti missile weapons.
You know Obama is a straight faced liar . Furthermore , we genocided innocent Christians
and Muslims in three countries and created a diaspora of migrants to Europe. So , we are
supposed to believe that all those PhDs did not foresee that , most people think that it was
your intentional outcome all along . So it goes now in Venezuela. Mcfaul is one of many who
just carry the water and carry out orders . It's almost as if , the powers that be want the
USA to fall . Because they can not be this stupid .
Call Cohen tells the truth the other guy just lying a United States started that whole
thing in Syria they backed up Isis they backed up all the terrorists and because they want to
split the country up and give Israel that major part of it cuz they want the natural
resources the oil out of there and everything else because that's what they do everywhere
they go they want a natural Resorts and they don't care how many people they kill
You know Obama is a straight faced liar . Furthermore , we genocided innocent Christians
and Muslims in three countries and created a diaspora of migrants to Europe. So , we are
supposed to believe that all those PhDs did not foresee that , most people think that it was
your intentional outcome all along . So it goes now in Venezuela. Mcfaul is one of many who
just carry the water and carry out orders . It's almost as if , the powers that be want the
USA to fall . Because they can not be this stupid .
Prof. McFaul is a partisan. He bases his opinion of detailed facts, so detailed that he
misses the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that he claims to be a sovereignist, but
only when it comes to the US sovereignty. How about Russia's sovereignity? Or Ukraine's whose
government has been toppled by a (among others) US sponsored coup? How about Syria
sovereignty? He furthers the view that the US had a fair posture towards Russia, which is
not. This is also demonstrated by his personal deep dislike of Putin, which is something that
both a real statesman or a real scholar should not influence opinions and actions. McFaul's
perspective is also flawed by the conflation of his (and Obama's) wishes and reality: that is
that they donì't like Putin and think to deal with Russia as if Putin was not there,
but he is. You deal with the reality, not with your wishes. Putin is legitimate and strong
Russia's president, whether McFaul likes him or not. A real respect for sovereignty demands
respect for the head of the state you deal with. You don't question his legitimacy, as well
as they don't questioned Clinton's, Bush's, Obama or Trump legitimacy. His point of view is
that everything goes on in the world should have the US sanction, otherwise is not good. This
is imperial hubris, this is arrogance. This flaws his opinion in so far everything is
measured upon american likes and dislikes. THis is not statesmanship, this is not
scholarship, this is partisanship. He is also intellectually dishonest because he confuses a
debate on right and wrong, which should be based on certain assumptions, with a debate on
party interests, which has nothing to do with right and wrong, and is based on different
assumptions. Indeed he is the less fit person in a debate on responsibility for the New Cold
War because he was involved in its development and acutisation. Partisanship is admitted, but
shouldn't be disguised as neutrality or given any relevance just because of knowledge of
technical details he knows - much of them are, frankly, irrelevant. His points are weak and
inconsistent with geopolitical and a realist view of the international relations, they are
biased by universal-liberal ideology, they are US-centric, he forgets too many essential
points about the whole story. For instance he talks about the missed chance for Russian
democracy (here a debate about what democracy is: his assumption is that the US democracy is
.... please, don't make me laugh), but he doesn't mention that Soviet people voted in
referenda and overwhelmingly wanted the USSR to keep on existing, but he forgets this
"detail". He forgets how the so much beloved Elcin sent the tanks against the parliament,
many people were killed, how he allowed the pillaging of Russian people and resources by
criminal oligarchs (many of them happily hosted by the UK and presented as political
dissidents), and how the Russian 1996 were HEAVILY rigged and meddled by the US in order to
reconfirm Elcin as a president. He complains about Putin being appointed by Elcin out of
nothing. Well I can't recall any American complaints at that time, maybe because they thought
he could be an alcoholic puppet like Elcin and that was clearly something the US liked and
supported. So what about Obama (fake) words about wishing a strong Russia? Obama spoke
derogatory words about Russia. The only American interests about Russia is that is a
militarly and strategically weak provider of cheap natural resources and that is not in tne
position of competing for anything. I will stop here, although I could write pages and pages
about McFlaws .... ooops! McFaul's inconsistency both as a scholar and even more as a
statesman's advisor, but the debate was among a great intellectual with a clear vision of the
world, and a small professor taken with insignificant details and too much love for Obama and
blind believe in liberal universal ideology.
Mc Faul is clearly not supposed to have been in the positions of power, where he was.
Something is fundamentally wrong with America. I think there is a crisis of personnel. Where
are all these incredibly smart, high IQ people Harvard, Princeton, and the Ivy Leagues are
supposedly pumping out?
I won't, for a second, try to justify the expansion of N.A.T.O. up to the borders of
Russia. But I simply cannot get past the belief that the N.A.T.O. expansion was fueled by a
(not implausible) fear that a non-Soviet Russia would eventually try to surround its borders
with Moscow-friendly governments, just as Stalin did before, during, and after WWII. Russia
has been invaded from the west so many times that the lingering fear of it is almost in the
Russian people's genetic code. What the rest of the world sees as Soviet & post-Soviet
Russian paranoia and expansionism could plausibly be seen by the Russians as a prudent
precaution against further western aggression. I don't AGREE with this, but I can imagine how
the Russian psyche might be so inclined. I don't agree with the N.A.T.O. expansion, but I can
also see how western paranoia about Russian expansionism would fuel the resulting western
"encroachment". Ask people in Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia (and, for that matter, Finland)
who were alive in WWII if their fear of Russian expansion is based in reality, or is merely
paranoia. Be prepared for "VERY STRONG" answers.
Why does 'our' US/Euro left leave me a pronounced impression that they have some special
axe grinding on Russia? Is my take on this wrong? And try as I may to ignore it, my gut
reaction to our younger author is highly unfavorable. I shall re-watch tomorrow hoping to
listen more obectively.
Prof. Cohen astonishing realpolitik ingenuity when asked "what the security interests of
Ukraine and Georgia are" ( 1:16:21 ) unveils to me his
understanding of politics as kind of imperialistic chess game where the US stands against the
USSR (or RF for that matter). I have experienced the same feelings from his other debates (I
remember one memorable at Munk Debates in 2015) - as if the historic fears, desires and
dreams (of NATO or EU membership as the only effective shield against Russian military power)
of so many ex-soviet countries means absolutely nothing - as if they were mere puppets of US
"regime". As though the legitimate wishes of these sovereign countries means nothing at all.
He is so surprised by that question he suddenly can't retrieve even the definition of what
security interests of a country actually means - a rather strange quality in a historian.
Ultimately he comes up with "they should make peace with their neighbors" - say this to
countries that were along their history subjects of Soviet violent repression, military
invasions, ethnic genocides and such. "I don't think Russian is a threat to them". Absolutely
ridiculous.
This Michael McFaul individual is such severe laughing-stock completely out of touch with
reality. Stephen Cohen's version of the "new cold war" is much closer to reality and we
should not forget the nefarious entities that pull the strings in D.C. U.S. covert
involvement throughout eastern Europe and especially the Ukraine is more than evident. Putin
and Russia in general is not stupid and see right through U.S. covert meddling on Russia's
border. And those "peaceful demonstrators" in Syria that MacFaul dearly praises are mere
agents of the CIA/Mossad complex. Where are they now?
I think it's fair to say that the US won the cold war, the eastern block was broke, there
soviet union was a nightmare for humanity, the west was seen as a bright light and it was. So
let's put aside propaganda, ask anyone from the eastern block and they will tell you that
what Russia created was a genocide. Just look how fast all of those counties jumped to enter
NATO. Soviet union collapsed. It's a very nice discussion and I learn a lot from this, there
are a lot of things that US and Russia could have done to prevent another cold war, I think
what we are with is with a belief in human wisdom, if there is any left.
The day after the elections , Russians
got together to rally against election fraud. Even though the United Russia party, according to
preliminary results, is to lose some 77 seats compared to the previous Duma, most of the
protesters considered the election to be neither fair, nor free (see our previous reports on
the web crackdown
and massive
violation reports).
After the polls closed on Dec. 4, Solidarnost movement invited protesters to
Chistye Prudy metro station in Moscow, while the Communists, also unhappy with the election
results, organized their rally at Pushkinskaya square. Solidarnost movement represenatives,
most of whom have no political arena except street actions and the blogosphere, managed to
bring thousands of people together (while crowd estimates vary significantly, the most balanced
assessment seems to be from 8,000 to 10,000 people).
Chistye Prudy
People began gathering for the Solidarnost event at around 19:00 MSK. Georgiy Alburov
posted a picture of the
line to the site of the rally:
Line to the Chistye Prudy rally. Photo by Georgiy Alburov
Thousands out in cold/rain baying for free elections, Putin to be sent to prison. Never
seen anything on this scale. Definite change of mood
The overall coverage was chaotic as the mobile Internet stopped working in the area and
people couldn't upload videos and pictures. LiveJournal kept the chronology of the events
here [ru].
Only later in the evening people were able to upload videos [ru] from the rally and particularly
the speech [ru] by
Alexey Navalny, who was among the most popular politicians of the event. His speech probably
best describes the essence of the current events:
And then: "They can call us microbloggers or net hamsters. I am a net hamster! And I'll bite
[these bastards' heads off.] We'll all do it together! Because we do exist! [ ] We will not
forget, we will not forgive"
The reference to 'net hamsters' (a pejorative term for politically-engaged Internet
commenters) and their political will to change the country has destroyed the myth of the
slacktivist nature of political engagement online. Navalny has specifically emphasized
'forgetting/forgiving' to show that netizens do not necessarily have a short attention span
often ascribed to them.
On to Lubyanka
After several speeches made by the opposition politicians, the crowd moved on towards
Lubyanka Square, where the head office of the Federal Security Service is located. The
video [ru] uploaded by
user bigvane depicts Muscovites moving to Lubyanka and chanting "Free elections":
Most of the activists, however, were soon stopped on their way. Ilya Barabanov tweeted a
picture of the blocked road:
Blocked road. Photo by Ilya Barabanov
Twenty minutes after the aforementioned photo was made, Alexey Navalny was detained by the
police. Ilya Barabanov was detained three minutes after Navalny. (See this great photo report
made by ridus.ru correspondents here [ru].)
But even the detention didn't break the rebellious and quite positive spirit of the
protesters. Navalny, while sitting in a police bus together with other activists, shared an
instagram photo of the cheerful detained protesters:
'I'm sitting in a police bus with all the guys. They all say hi.' Photo by Alexey
Navalny
Another video , also shot
inside a police bus, showed protesters discussing the salaries of police officers, laughing a
lot.
The Hamster Revolution
The most interesting part of the post-election rebellion is not its peaceful manner (also an
important feature compared to violent nationalist riots), but its new demographics. Tvrain.ru
field reporter said that the crowd consisted mainly of the "intelligentsia, hipsters, and young
people." "It is a fashionable rally," said the reporter. Later, these observations were added:
the age of the protesters was between 16 and 33 and for many of those who were detained this
was the first street action experience. As Vera Kichanova tweeted :
Lyosha Nikitin writes that he is the only one of the 16 people in the police bus who had been
detained before. Others were taking part in a rally for the first time!
***
Meanwhile, levada.ru, the site of Levada Center polling and sociological
research organization, has been DDoSed [ru] and the contents
of epic-hero.ru were removed [ru] by the hosting provider.
"... There has been a long string of U.S. provocations toward Russia. The first one came in the late 1990s and the initial years of the twenty-first century when Washington violated tacit promises given to Mikhail Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders that if Moscow accepted a united Germany within NATO, the Alliance would not seek to move farther east. Instead of abiding by that bargain, the Clinton and Bush administrations successfully pushed NATO to admit multiple new members from Central and Eastern Europe, bringing that powerful military association directly to Russia's western border. In addition, the United States initiated "rotational" deployments of its forces to the new members so that the U.S. military presence in those countries became permanent in all but name. Even Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, was uneasy about those deployments and conceded that he should have warned Bush in 2007 that they might be unnecessarily provocative. ..."
"... Such provocative political steps, though, are now overshadowed by worrisome U.S. and NATO military moves. Weeks before the formal announcement on July 29, the Trump administration touted its plan to relocate some U.S. forces stationed in Germany. When Secretary of Defense Mike Esper finally made the announcement, the media's focus was largely on the point that 11,900 troops would leave that country. ..."
"... Among other developments, there already has been a surge of alarming incidents between U.S. and Russian military aircraft in that region. Most of the cases involve U.S. spy planes flying near the Russian coast -- supposedly in international airspace. On July 30, a Russian Su-27 jet fighter intercepted two American surveillance aircraft; according to Russian officials, it was the fourth time in the final week of July that they caught U.S. planes in that sector approaching the Russian coast. Yet another interception occurred on August 5, again involving two U.S. spy planes. Still others have taken place throughout mid-August. It is a reckless practice that easily could escalate into a broader, very dangerous confrontation. ..."
"... The growing number of such incidents is a manifestation of the surging U.S. military presence along Russia's border, especially in the Black Sea . They are taking place on Russia's doorstep, thousands of miles away from the American homeland. Americans should consider how the United States would react if Russia decided to establish a major naval and air presence in the Gulf of Mexico, operating out of bases in such allied countries as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. ..."
"... I think this has been bipartisan policy since at least 1947. Unlikely to change anytime soon, even with realists gaining ground. Perhaps expanding NATO east, sending support to Ukraine, and intervening in Syria (despite attempts to leave, the best we can get at this point are small troop reductions that most likely are redeployed to neighboring countries) aren't the best idea after all? ..."
"... they think Russia is a weak state and can do nothing therefore they are free to do as they please. ..."
"... the US leadership wants ether country to take a shot at some thing US. Then then can scream and stomp their feet that no one on earth is allowed to trade with ether country and the US can block all trade with ether country. ..."
"... The other thing at play is Americans love it when their leaders act like gangsters. That's why leaders do it. Nothing will get you votes faster in the US than saying your going to kill people. I see US citizens try that non-sense about it's all Washington we don't want that. But you keep voting for people that are going to give you the next war fix. When you stop they will stop. ..."
"... if people are convinced that Russia is a weak state -- then it is easier to approve adventures abroad -- including ringing Russia. ..."
"... Please explain to me, a Russian person, what kind of anti-American policy Russia is spreading in countries? If we exclude acts of counteraction against American expansion and aggression against Russia? ..."
"... The only people that are destroying Americans are within our borders, wielding power to fulfill their mission -- enrich themselves, keep the borders open, and our military all over the globe. ..."
"... I think there is a third option besides escalation and deescalation - exhaustion. Projecting power across the globe is expensive, it is a slow but steady drain on US resources, which are needed elsewhere (for example to quell the riots in major US cities). ..."
"... I see it as exhaustion by corruption. The US military is increasingly bureaucratic, political and ineffectual. Our weapons are gold-plated, hyper-tech focused and require highly-skilled people to maintain them, which means we can't quickly train new people up. The weapons themselves are so complex and expensive that there is no way to manufacture them at scale quickly. ..."
"... Read Jean Lartegy's "The Centurions." That is the direction where the tactically brilliant, but strategically incompetent US military leadership is headed. ..."
"... Stop focusing on what Trump says and look at what his administration does. Troops in Poland and Eastern Europe, Nord Stream 2, intrusive US reconnaissance flights along Russia's borders, support of Ukraine, interference with Russian patrols in Syria, the continuing attempt to destabilize Assad in Syria, the destruction of JCPOA, global sanctions campaign on Russia among others, withdrawal from arms control treaties, accusation that Russia was cheating on INF treaty, hiring dozens of anti-Russia hardliners, etc, etc. ..."
"... I don't think US-Russian cooperation is doable at this point--or any time soon. Given how erratic US policy is--yawing violently from one direction to another--Russia has no reason to accept the damage to its relationship with China that shifting to a strategic arrangement with the US would entail. The risk is too high and the potential rewards too uncertain. ..."
"... We have pretty much alienated the Russian state under Putin, and now we're trying to wait him out, with the expectation that there is no one of his capabilities to maintain the strategic autonomy of the Russian state in the longer term and that once he exits the scene, some Yeltsin-like stooge will present himself. ..."
"... Everyone is focusing on Russia because of the Russia hoax. Dems started a new cold war based on an irrational fear that Russia was threatening our democracy. ..."
"... The foreign policy elite dislikes Russia, always has, and will do anything to keep this "adversary" front and center because their prospects for prestige, power and position depend upon the presence of an enemy. As an example see Strobe Talbot and Michael McFaul. ..."
Tensions are becoming dangerous in Syria and on Russia's back doorstep. US soldiers stand
near US and Russian military vehicles in the northeastern Syrian town of al-Malikiyah (Derik)
at the border with Turkey, on June 3, 2020. (Photo by DELIL SOULEIMAN/AFP via Getty Images)
A dangerous vehicle collision between U.S and Russian soldiers in Northeastern Syria on Aug.
24 highlights the fragility of the relationship and the broader test of wills between the two
major powers.
According to White House
reports and a Russian video that went viral this week, it appeared that as the two sides
were racing down a highway in armored vehicles, the Russians sideswiped the Americans, leaving
four U.S. soldiers injured. It is but the latest clash as both sides continue their patrols in
the volatile area. But it speaks of bigger problems with U.S. provocations on Russia's backdoor
in Eastern Europe.
A sober examination of U.S. policy toward Russia since the disintegration of the Soviet
Union leads to two possible conclusions. One is that U.S. leaders, in both Republican and
Democratic administrations, have been utterly tone-deaf to how Washington's actions are
perceived in Moscow. The other possibility is that those leaders adopted a policy of maximum
jingoistic swagger intended to intimidate Russia, even if it meant obliterating a constructive
bilateral relationship and eventually risking a dangerous showdown. Washington's latest
military moves, especially in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea, are stoking alarming
tensions.
There has been a
long string of U.S. provocations toward Russia. The first one came in the late 1990s and
the initial years of the twenty-first century when Washington violated tacit promises given to
Mikhail Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders that if Moscow accepted a united Germany within
NATO, the Alliance would not seek to move farther east. Instead of abiding by that bargain, the
Clinton and Bush administrations successfully pushed NATO to admit multiple new members from
Central and Eastern Europe, bringing that powerful military association directly to Russia's
western border. In addition, the United States initiated "rotational" deployments of its forces
to the new members so that the U.S. military presence in those countries became permanent in
all but name. Even Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense under both George W.
Bush and Barack Obama, was uneasy
about those deployments and conceded that he should have warned Bush in 2007 that they might be
unnecessarily provocative.
As if such steps were not antagonistic enough, both Bush and Obama sought to bring Georgia
and Ukraine into NATO. The latter country is not only within what Russia regards as its
legitimate sphere of influence, but within its core security zone. Even key European members of
NATO, especially France and Germany, believed that such a move was unwise and blocked
Washington's ambitions. That resistance, however, did not inhibit a Western effort to meddle in Ukraine's
internal affairs to help
demonstrators unseat Ukraine's elected, pro-Russia president and install a new, pro-NATO
government in 2014.
Such provocative political steps, though, are now overshadowed by worrisome U.S. and
NATO military moves. Weeks before the formal announcement on July 29, the Trump administration
touted its plan to relocate some U.S. forces stationed in Germany. When Secretary of Defense
Mike Esper finally made the announcement, the media's focus was largely on the point that
11,900 troops would leave that country.
However, Esper
made it clear that only 6,400 would return to the United States; the other nearly 5,600
would be redeployed to other NATO members in Europe. Indeed, of the 6,400 coming back to the
United States, "many of these or similar units will begin conducting rotational deployments
back to Europe." Worse, of the 5,600 staying in Europe, it turns out that at least 1,000 are going
to Poland's eastern border with Russia.
Another result of the redeployment will be to boost U.S. military power in the Black Sea.
Esper confirmed that various units would "begin continuous rotations farther east in the Black
Sea region, giving us a more enduring presence to enhance deterrence and reassure allies along
NATO's southeastern flank." Moscow is certain to regard that measure as another on a growing
list of Black Sea provocations by the United States.
Among other developments, there already has been a surge of alarming incidents between
U.S. and Russian military aircraft in that region. Most of the cases involve U.S. spy planes
flying near the Russian coast -- supposedly in international airspace. On July 30, a Russian
Su-27 jet fighter
intercepted two American surveillance aircraft; according to Russian officials, it was the
fourth time in the final week of July that they caught U.S. planes in that sector approaching
the Russian coast. Yet
another interception occurred on August 5, again involving two U.S. spy planes. Still
others have
taken place throughout mid-August. It is a reckless
practice that easily could escalate into a broader, very dangerous confrontation.
The growing number of such incidents is a manifestation of the surging U.S. military
presence along Russia's border,
especially in the Black Sea . They are taking place on Russia's doorstep, thousands of
miles away from the American homeland. Americans should consider how the United States would
react if Russia decided to establish a major naval and air presence in the Gulf of Mexico,
operating out of bases in such allied countries as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.
The undeniable reality is that the United States and its NATO allies are crowding Russia;
Russia is not crowding the United States. Washington's bumptious policies already have wrecked
a once-promising bilateral relationship and created a needless new cold war with Moscow. If
more prudent U.S. policies are not adopted soon, that cold war might well turn hot.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 12 books and more
than 850 articles on international affairs. His latest book is NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur
(2019).
I mean, I think this has been bipartisan policy since at least 1947. Unlikely to change
anytime soon, even with realists gaining ground. Perhaps expanding NATO east, sending
support to Ukraine, and intervening in Syria (despite attempts to leave, the best we can
get at this point are small troop reductions that most likely are redeployed to neighboring
countries) aren't the best idea after all?
This is a very anti American article! Patriots know that where the U.S. gives political
or economic ground Russia and other adversaries will fill the vacum with policies intended
to destroy American peoeple. So no, it is not a bad idea to be involved in Syria and
Ukraine in fact it is a very good idea.
The entire framing of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood as "pro American"
and those who oppose them as "anti American" is delusional.
Russia is a weak state trying to maintain its natural spheres of influence along the Curzon
line. Why has the State Department/ Pentagon decided to try and roll this back? How the F
to they expect Russia to react. How would America react if a foreign power tried to turn
Mexico into a strategic asset. So why is it ok to make Ukraine into a Nato member? It's
reckless and ultimately it is pointless. Weakening Russia further serves little strategic
purpose and potentially threatens to destabilize the Balkans and mid east with Turkish
adventurism. What will America do if the Turks seize Rhodes under some pretext?
Syria is another case of State Department midwits not understanding the results of their
regime change. What purpose does it serve to put a Sunni extremist government in Damascus.
How hateful do you have to be to subject Syria's minorities to genocide at the hands of an
ISIS sympathetic government? How do you delude yourself that such a regime will serve
America's interests in the long run? So you can own Iran before the election? You are
trading victory today for permanent loss tomorrow. It's insane.
Just like you, they think Russia is a weak state and can do nothing therefore they are free to do as they please.
Also, since Turkey is a NATO member and as such an ally to the U.S. shouldn't you be cheering in good faith for Turkey
and against Russia?
You got that one. Because Turkey is a thorn in NATO side. It has massive economic
interests in Russia, China and the rest of Asia. The "adventure" in Syria is coordinated
with Russia to the last detail, while playacting tensions. US problem in Syria is not
Russia or Turkey, but Russia AND Turkey.
As US is frowning at Egypt Al-Sisi , or Saudi MBS -- it is because they frown at Egypt
AND Russia, as well as Saudi Arabia AND Russia.
Basically, countries nominally counted in OUR camp are frowned upon when collaborating with
the ENEMY countries.
Our foreign policy is stuck in Middle East -- and cannot get unstuck. Cannot be better
illustrated then Pompeo addressing Republican convention from Jerusalem.
The only way Russia can challenge encirclement is by challenging US in its home away
from home -- Middle East. And creating new realities in the ground by collaborating with
the countries in the region -- undermining monopoly.
And as the entire world is hurting from epidemic related economic setbacks, Russia and
China are economies that are moving forward. And nobody in the Middle East can afford to
ignore it.
I agree with you with the exception of Russia being weak. One day the US which has never
seen any thing in advance will push Russia one time to many and find the Russian Army in
Poland and Romania. That is if China doesn't take out some thing precious to the US in the
mean time like a U2, aircraft carrier etc.
There are two things at play here. The first is the US leadership wants ether country to
take a shot at some thing US. Then then can scream and stomp their feet that no one on
earth is allowed to trade with ether country and the US can block all trade with ether
country.
The other thing at play is Americans love it when their leaders act like gangsters. That's why leaders do it. Nothing will get you votes faster in the US than saying your going
to kill people. I see US citizens try that non-sense about it's all Washington we don't
want that. But you keep voting for people that are going to give you the next war fix. When
you stop they will stop.
I agree with your assessment except Russia will not put troops into any country without
the express request from the legitimate government.
They are not going into Poland and especially not Romania (Transnistria maybe) why would
they? The countries do not have any resources that Russia wants.
The only reason to put troops into Belarus is to maintain a distance between Poland and the
borders.
Russia needs nothing from the rest of the world except trade. Un-coerced, free trade. This
drives the US corporations crazy as no one will trade with the US anymore without
coercion.
PS the same goes for China with the proviso that Taiwan is part of China and needs to be
reabsorbed into the mainstream. It will take +20 years but China just keeps the pressure on
until there will be no viable alternative.
It has never meant to serve American interests. Ever. Once you put it in perspective, it
makes sense.
But if people are convinced that Russia is a weak state -- then it is easier to approve
adventures abroad -- including ringing Russia.
The problem for never satiated Zealots is the following -- regional powers in the Middle
East are hitching their wagons to Eurasian economic engine. That is definitely true of
Turkey, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia.
The tales of Moslem Brotherhood are here to interpret something today from the iconography
from the past. And to explain today what an entirely different set of leaders did -- be
that few years ago or one hundred years ago. Same goes for iconography of Al-Qaeda, ISIS,
Communism, Socialism, authoritarianism, and other ISMS.
Those icons serve the same purpose as icons in religion or in cyber-space. You look at
them, or you click -- and the story and explanation is ready made for your consumption. Time to watch actions -- not media iconography to tell us what is going on.
If we're being purely ideological here those with an overtly internationalist
disposition (barring leftists) are those who want to be involved overseas, hardly ones to
go on about national interest or pride. Its been a common stance associated with American
Nationalism and Paleoconservatives to be anti-intervention, these people (of which I
consider myself a part) can hardly be bashed for holding unpatriotic views.)
Russia has a declining population, and an economy smaller than that of Spain. Its hardly
a threat and our involvement in Eastern Europe was relatively limited pre-2014 and even so
the overall international balance of power hasn't shifted after Russian annexation of
Crimea, and the Ukrainians proved quite capable of defending their nation (though not so
capable as to end retake separatist strongholds.
Please explain to me, a Russian person, what kind of anti-American policy Russia is
spreading in countries? If we exclude acts of counteraction against American expansion and
aggression against Russia? What ideological foundations does Russia have after 1991? Isn't
Russia's actions a guerrilla war on the communications of the self-proclaimed "Empire of
Good", which is pursuing a tough offensive policy? And is it not because the Russians
support a significant part of Putin's initiatives (despite a number of Putin's obvious
shortcomings) precisely because they have experience of cooperation with the "Empire of
Good" in the 90s: give loans, corrupt officials and deputies, put Russian firms under
control big American companies, and then just give orders from the White House.
PS. I beg your pardon my google english
Another Zealot in Patriot garb. The only people that are destroying Americans are within our borders, wielding power to
fulfill their mission -- enrich themselves, keep the borders open, and our military all
over the globe.
It would be interesting to read the minds of the US pilots engaged in these activities.
My guess is that the cognitive dissonance energy in those heads is equivalent to the
biggest nuclear bomb ever exploded...
Hmmm... I think there is a third option besides escalation and deescalation -
exhaustion. Projecting power across the globe is expensive, it is a slow but steady drain on US
resources, which are needed elsewhere (for example to quell the riots in major US cities).
In a major crisis this could lead to a breaking point. What if some US adversary decides to
double down and attack (directly or by proxy) US troops and the US will not be able to
respond? A humiliating defeat combined with an exhausted public decidedly set against
military adventures abroad could cause a rapid retrenchment and global withdrawal.
I see it as exhaustion by corruption. The US military is increasingly bureaucratic,
political and ineffectual. Our weapons are gold-plated, hyper-tech focused and require
highly-skilled people to maintain them, which means we can't quickly train new people up.
The weapons themselves are so complex and expensive that there is no way to manufacture
them at scale quickly.
The DOD today is only about personal political position, and grubbing tax-payer dollars
for self-aggrandizement. In any real war with a real adversary, we wouldn't stand a
chance.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic regarding US military capabilities and I'm neither a US
citizen or a fan of US global hegemony.
The US armed forces are made up of professionals. There are some universal advantages
and disadvantages of such forces. A professional army is good at fighting wars but bad at
controlling territory because of its limited size and higher costs-per-soldier. In order to
control territory you need "boots on the ground" in great numbers, standing at checkpoints
and patrolling the countryside. They didn't have to be trained to the level of Navy SEALS,
for them it is enough if they can shoot straight and won't be scared from some fireworks
and the US lacks such forces.
So how is one going to get the millions of manpower to fulfill these tasks? Pauperize
the masses so that joining the army becomes the only viable solution? Introduce the Draft?
Provide a pathway for US citizenship for any foreigner that joins, establishing a US
Foreign Legion?
And then, how you'll have enough boots on the ground to pacify Russia or China. It took
more than a month to establish and secure the beach heads in Bretagne in France in 1944.
How do you think you can even get those boots to land in Russia or China, when you know
that the ICBMs are going to start flying towards the continental US if something like this
will ever happen?
So how is one going to get the millions of manpower to fulfill these tasks? Pauperize
the masses so that joining the army becomes the only viable solution? Introduce the
Draft?
It is no longer possible to introduce the draft in the US - even mentioning it would
lead to social unrests.
Read Jean Lartegy's "The Centurions." That is the direction where the tactically
brilliant, but strategically incompetent US military leadership is headed.
In addition, those gold-plated weapon systems often do not work as advertised. Look how
the multi-billion IADS of the Saudis couldn't protect their refinery complex from a cruise
missile attack from Yemen. Look at the embarrassing failures of the LCS and Zumwalt ship
classes, and the endless problems with the Ford CVN. The F35 is proving a ginormous
boondoggle that will massively enrich LM shareholders but will do squat for US military
capabilities.
He already did and the Military ignored him.
He backtracked with endless excuses and conditionals.
https://www.nbcnews.com/new...
**
Bill Clinton once reportedly told senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon, "Sarah,
there's a government inside the government, and I don't control it."
**
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of
the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid
of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organised, so subtle, so
watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their
breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
– Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924)
**
Do you really think that the adults with so much to lose would allow an idiot like Trump
(or Clinton or Obama or Bush) to actually run things?
Stop focusing on what Trump says and look at what his administration does. Troops in Poland and Eastern Europe, Nord Stream 2, intrusive US reconnaissance flights
along Russia's borders, support of Ukraine, interference with Russian patrols in Syria, the
continuing attempt to destabilize Assad in Syria, the destruction of JCPOA, global
sanctions campaign on Russia among others, withdrawal from arms control treaties,
accusation that Russia was cheating on INF treaty, hiring dozens of anti-Russia hardliners,
etc, etc.
I'll repeat: Focus on what Trump does, not what he says, and then total up the
pro-Russia and anti-Russia actions of this administration and see what that reveals.
A danger with this "new Cold War" is the assumption it will end like the first one
– peacefully. If this is the thinking among policy-makers we are in a very perilous
situation. History shows that fatal miscalculations contributed to the First World War, and
as a consequence the second. Today there is no room for miscalculation, which will set off
unstoppable escalation into a third.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
Russians deliberately repeatedly ram an American vehicle, but I'm sure it's all our fault. Shouldn't have worn that skirt
I guess.
Before y'all armchair Putin experts say all your loving things: you have nothing to contribute unless you speak fluent
Russian. I watched the video taken and published by the Russians and it was pretty clear what they were doing.
Something critical is being missed entirely. The United States has invaded Syria without
a mandate from the UN. Its' president has explicitly stated that it is the intention of the
US to take Syria's oil. Both are violations of international law. Any hostile action taken
against the illegal US presence in Syria is justifiable as self defense. While the US
presence in Syria is illegal, Russia's presence is not. Russia was invited into Syria by
the UN recognized Syrian government to assist it in defending against the US regime change
by Al Qaeda proxy operation..
establish a major naval and air presence in the Gulf of Mexico, operating out of
bases in such allied countries as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.
What would happen if China or Russia established bases in the Caribbean and Latin
America? Trump joked about selling Puerto Rico, what if the Chinese bought it?
If the Israeli's have a problem with Russia being in Syria then Israel should deal with
it. Its not our problem and Russia is not our enemy. Infact India is bringing closer
relations between Russia and Japan. Which do you want? Russian antagonism because Israel
doesn't want Russians in Syria or Russian partnership with India, Japan, Australia and the
US dealing with China? Remember....you could spend 1000 years in the middle east and not
make a dent in the animosities between peoples there...so one is a futile endeaver...while
the other has great benefit.
Note that Russian soldiers are in Syria at the request of its government to help fend
off foreign invaders. The American troops are there illegally, with no UN or even
Congressional authorization.
Also note the USA risks another Cuban missile crisis by withdrawing from the INF treaty
after illegally building missile launch complexes in Romania and Poland that can hit Russia
with nuclear cruise missiles.
The USA did much more than "meddle" in Ukraine. The Obama/Biden team openly organized a
coup to overthrow its elected President because he didn't want to join NATO and the EU.
Is that guy in the middle of the left seated Vlad Klitschko? I great boxer no doubt, but
also known for his stunning stupidity. Is he part of the new Ukrainian political elite?
Poor Ukraine.
A Russian vehicle sideswipes an American vehicle, injuring two US soldiers, and that's
an American provocation? An American spy plane claims to be in international waters, and
you tack in a "supposedly" in that sentence? "Violating" a tacit promise, really?
Russia aggression against Georgia and Crimea is OK because Sphere of Influence? This
article is loaded with Blame America First crap usually associated with the Left
(much to this liberal's disgust). Never expected to find it here.
Yes, the expansion of NATO east must have looked to Russia like something coming at
their borders entirely too fast. I thought it was a terrible idea at the time, and wrote it
off to the wheels of a fifty-year-old bureaucracy not knowing how to slow down. Your
eye-straining gaze at the tea-leaves for Deeper State motives is unpersuasive, even without
your odious prejudices.
Maybe some play of Rashomon would be in order here. That is your perspective.
Now your honor, what I have seen is that Georgia attacked first and hoped to occupy a
certain area that Russian Federation was protecting, As a side comment, I have to point to
an Orwellian use of the word "aggressive" and "attack". It seems that anything that the US
cannot wantonly control or bomb is inherently aggressive and attacking either directly or
indirectly the "rules based order".
Crimea had Russian assets that became endangered. Crimea was part of Russia until 1954,
when was donated in an unsanctioned manner to Ukraine. The majority Russian population in
Crimea has been persecuted by the Ukrainian state since at least 1994. The Euromaidan would
have exacerbated that. A referendum was carried on and just considering ethnic lines,
Russians won in their desire to re-unite with the Russian Federation. There aren't many
legal arguments against that referendum and that process, if one looks for them...
So the above perspectives have nothing to do with just "sphere of influence" but with
direct core interests of the Russian state and its core security...
The deep state is a tool that is trying to fulfill one objective: integration of Russian
economy under the control of US and its Oligarchy. Otherwise it will always be a threat. A
Nationalist, democratic (but not oligarchic) and sovereign Russia will always be considered
an enemy of the world hegemon...
And the provocation is the actual presence in Syria of US troops. Ramming the US
military vehicle is not a provocation from Russians, it is a simple eviction notification.
End of story!
Isn't it just amazing how this writer gets to turn an incident of provocation by Russian
soldiers into a story of persistent provocation by America. That is remarkable dexterity
even for this paper. I am used to them suggesting that we should leave the people of
Eastern Europe to the tender mercies of the whims and wishes of a dictator in Moscow -
because they are in his backyard. But to be able to switch from that incident to their
regular theme is an achievement one can recognize, though not respect. The people of those
countries should have a choice about who they associate, and they certainly have a right
not to align with people they fear. Calling us for not respecting he rights of other people
to decide their fates is right and proper. I enthusiastically support this paper when they
do. But when they turn right around and castigate us for not respecting Russia's right to
do it - I am flabbergasted.
This piece spends too much time re-hashing everything Russia-US since 1990 and fails to
focus on the key current issues.
The vehicle incidents in Syria are distinct from the European issue -- see below in this
post -- that is generating some of the other tensions the author lists. Syria is really part
of the larger Middle East issue.
His brief summary of the latest Syria mishap is inadequate to convey what actually
happened.
If you actually look at the video, it does NOT appear to be the case that a Russian
vehicle simply "sideswiped" a US vehicle. It appears that the US was maintaining a
checkpoint on a road that in effect blocked Russian passage. Given the terrain, the
Russians could of course bypass such a checkpoint, which is what they appear to have done.
Then, however, other US vehicles left the checkpoint and attempted to block and turn back
the Russian bypass movement, and this led to the collision. So the incident is part of a
larger US policy to impede Russian operations in NE Syria.
Almost two years ago, Trump ordered US forces out of Syria, and Russia, in agreement
with that plan, sent patrols to the NE to ensure that provisions of an stability agreement
with Turkey and the Kurds were maintained. But then Trump was almost immediately
convinced--by whom is not clear, but ultimately Israel in all probability--to do a 180 and
keep US forces in NE Syria, the superficial rationale being to take control of oil, the
kind of pirate operation that Trump likes. In fact, the goal of those who influence Trump
is to keep Syria weak and unable to rebuild with the expectation that Assad can still be
overthrown at some future point. This is the desire of Israel and its operatives in the
US.
Trump's zag after the zig of planned withdrawal left the US-Russian understanding in
chaos. Now both the US AND the Russians were operating in NE Syria. And over time the US
has become more and more aggressive about impeding Russian operations. The Russians
claim--credibly--that we are demanding that they, in moving their patrols up to the area of
the Syria-Turkey border area not use the M4 highway, the main and direct route and instead
follow a secondary route that circuitously follows the border. The Russians don't accept
that demand. And the vehicle incidents that we are seeing are the outcome of that
disagreement. The Russians are driving up Highway 4 and when they get to the US checkpoint
are bypassing and then continuing up the highway. We are aggressively trying to deter them
from that route choice.
Not sure why this article does not go into detail on this issue in order to clarify
it.
Much of the other stuff the author is talking about here--intrusive air ops in the Black
Sea, etc--is really a separate, European issue. The US is highly concerned about the
economic interactions between Russia and Europe--especially the big economies of Western
Europe and most especially Germany. We are worried that over time Russian-European economic
integration will erode our strategic control and dominance over Europe in general.
Hence, we are making common cause with the anti-Russian elements in "the New Europe,"
i.e., Eastern Europe to try, in essence, to place a barrier between Russia and Western
Europe, playing off Poland, the Baltics and Romania, among others, against Russia, Germany,
France et al. Moving more US forces into Poland and the so-called "Black Sea Region";
impeding Nord Stream 2 and other Russian pipeline initiatives; indulging in recurrent
anti-German propaganda for not maintaining a more robust anti-Russian military posture;
fomenting (behind the scenes) the recent disturbances in Belarus; and promotion of the
so-called "Three Seas Initiative" intended to weld Eastern and Central Europe together into
a reliable tool of US policy are all part of this plan to retain US strategic control of
Europe over the long term.
That's what the heightened tensions in Europe are about.
As I said, the Syria issue, part of the larger Middle East struggle, is separate from
the parallel struggle for mastery in Europe.
It's all an important topic, but this article doesn't really capture the salient
points.
And you're playing word games. Syria's oil is effectively under US control. Yes, we are
deriving strategic benefit from it in that we are denying it to the Syrian government in
order to further destabilize it. It's not a good policy, but the policy does benefit from
denying Syria its oil.
The problem is that most of the oil is on Arab land, not Kurdish land, and the Arabs of
the Northeast are now realigning themselves with Assad, so holding on to the oil is likely
to get more difficult in the future.
I have no idea what you mean by "slander." Guess that means truths you find
inconvenient. Sorry--not in the business of coddling the faint of heart. Trump likes the
idea of taking resources which he imagines to be payment for services we have
rendered--like leaving the country in a state of ruin. He talked about Iraqi oil that way
too, but taking that would be much harder.
Time for you to stop dismissing every reality you don't like as unpatriotic.
The "Assad regime" is the UN recognized government of Syria. That is the only entity
entitled to the country's resources. How is it "the property of the Syrian nation" if the
Syrian government and its people no longer have access to it? To whom is the oil being
sold? Who is receiving the proceeds of the oil sales?
Here are some of Trump's own words with respect to Syria's oil. "I like oil. We are
keeping the oil." 4/11/2019. "The US is in Syria solely for the oil." "We are keeping the
oil. We have the oil. The oil is secure. We left troops behind only for oil." "The US
military is in Syria only for oil." What part of Trump's public assertion that "We are
keeping the oil" are you having difficulty in understanding? How can you say the US "did
not take possession of the oil" when Trump could not have been more explicit in saying
precisely the opposite? Do you not comprehend that the US presence in Syria has no mandate
either from the UN or from the US Congress. Do you not understand that the US presence in
Syria is illegal under international law? Do you not understand that "Keeping the oil" is a
violation of international law? Your post is one of the most ridiculous I have even
read.
1. It's quite clear from the video that the US had set up a checkpoint on the road at
left in the video. (Indeed, we are open about the fact that we are doing so in general in
NE Syria.) And it's equally clear that Russian vehicles are seen bypassing those
checkpoints. The encounter between US and Russian vehicles takes place off the road. There
is only one logical interpretation of what happened. What is your alternative
explanation?
2. "No one reading this can believe that Eastern Europeans have genuine cause to fear
Russia, or that these countries continually request more military and political involvement
than we are willing to provide or that we are not inducing them to do anything or
manipulating them."
First of all, there are no current indications of any Russian intent to do anything in
regard to Eastern Europe. Yes, one can understand the history, which is why there is
anti-Russian sentiment in Eastern Europe, but aside perhaps from the Baltic states in their
unique geographic position, there is no country that has any basis in reality to worry
about Russian aggression in the present.
Of course, this does not stop the Poles from doing exactly that. And perhaps the
Romanians to a much lesser extent. So yes, there is fear in a few key countries based on
past history, Poland being the keystone of the whole thing, and yes, we are indeed
manipulating that fear in an attempt to block/undermine any economic integration between
Germany and Russia. We are also trying to use the "Three Seas Initiative" to block Chinese
commercial and tech penetration of Eastern Europe--5G and their plan to rebuild the port of
Trieste to service Central and NE Europe.
Do you actually believe Russia, which has lately been cutting its defense budget, is
actually going to invade Europe? That really is a fantasy. The only military operations
they will take are to prevent further expansion of NATO into Ukraine and Belarus. The real
game today is commercial and tech competition. Putin knows it would be disastrous for
Russia to start a war with NATO. Not sure why that's hard for you to see.
Your notion of the Russian threat--as it exists today--is wildly exaggerated.
Once President Putin remarked that there are forces in the United States trying to use
Russia for internal political struggle. He added that we will nevertheless try not to be
drawn into these confrontations.
A scene from a Hollywood action movie rises before my eyes, when two heroes of the film are
fighting and a circular saw is spinning nearby, and each of the heroes is trying to shove a
part of the enemy's body under this saw.
The relationship between Russian and American servicemen, I would compare with two hockey
teams, when the tough behavior of the players on the ice does not mean that the players of
one team would be happy with the death of the entire opposing team, say in some kind of
plane crash, since the presence of a strong opponent is a necessary condition for getting a
good salary.
Still, I would not completely deny the possibility of a "hot war".
Since the times of the Roman Empire, the West of Europe has been trying to take control of
the territory of Europe, Eurasia, and Eurasia, in turn, dreams of mastering the
technologies of the West.
The defeat of the 3rd Reich provided the Soviet Union with a breakthrough in the nuclear
industry and space...
It's hard to imagine that Russia is capable of defeating NATO, but I can imagine that in
the current situation, President Putin can offer China to build military bases in western
Russia for a million Chinese servicemen, for 100 thousand on the Chukchi Peninsula, for 500
thousand on Sakhalin...
The extra money for renting military bases in a coronavirus crisis will not hurt
anyone.
Of all the things about Hillary Clinton to despise, her selfish attempt to explain her
loss, and to attack the President (to whom she never conceded the election!) by blaming
Russia, is at the top of the list. To generate a completely unnecessary conflict with a
nuclear super-power that could burn this country to ashes in minutes, out of personal
vindictiveness, ... is lower than it can get.
I don't think US-Russian cooperation is doable at this point--or any time soon. Given
how erratic US policy is--yawing violently from one direction to another--Russia has no
reason to accept the damage to its relationship with China that shifting to a strategic
arrangement with the US would entail. The risk is too high and the potential rewards too
uncertain.
We have pretty much alienated the Russian state under Putin, and now we're trying to
wait him out, with the expectation that there is no one of his capabilities to maintain the
strategic autonomy of the Russian state in the longer term and that once he exits the
scene, some Yeltsin-like stooge will present himself.
We thought we were dealing with the main threats to our global hegemony
sequentially--Russia "defeated" in the Cold War, and then on to a defeat of "militant
Islam" in the Greater Middle East and finally to a showdown with China. But now, the
sequencing has fallen apart, and we're trying to prosecute all three simultaneously.
You have inverted the facts. The video evidence shows the Americans side-swiped the
Russian vehicle and claimed "American soldiers had 'concussions'". A concussion requires
loss of consciousness or significant changes in mental function. In football, you have your
"Bell rung". You can't add 2+2 correctly. There is no evidence to support that.
Everyone is focusing on Russia because of the Russia hoax. Dems started a new cold war
based on an irrational fear that Russia was threatening our democracy.
Along with Dems, I also blame Putin; he bribed Hillary millions for uranium -- that
doesn't lend to good relations.
The foreign policy elite dislikes Russia, always has, and will do anything to keep
this "adversary" front and center because their prospects for prestige, power and position
depend upon the presence of an enemy. As an example see Strobe Talbot and Michael
McFaul.
So they dusted of McFaul to provide the support for bounty provocation. I wonder whether
McFaul one one of Epstein guests, or what ?
So who was the clone of Ciaramella this time? People want to know the hero
Notable quotes:
"... Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis. ..."
"... Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ..."
"... As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century . ..."
"... Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan? ..."
"... Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron, Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House? ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account. ..."
"... Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of accommodation." ..."
"... Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b) "contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find one that is supported by plausible evidence. ..."
"... Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper. ..."
"... The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a CFR director. See lists at the CFR website. ..."
"... “It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.” ..."
"... They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”. Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our “intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter. ..."
"... In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity is a sin. ..."
"... Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely normal. ..."
"... from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33 million for each Soviet soldier killed.” ..."
"... Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President and Congress. ..."
"... Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available. ..."
"... Gekaufte journalisten. Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better die in truth than live with lies”. ..."
Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia
piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?
C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered
18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.
Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The
Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read,
incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This
has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim
that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)
McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a
huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the
rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the
epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie
abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador
who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.
Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" --
however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis
LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.
Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper
was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half
years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On
May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck
Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian
technique."
As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama
appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community
Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get
elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century
.
Obama and the National Security State
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the
Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the
pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan
Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and
the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in
Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all
documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate
media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's
damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains
credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.
Some Questions
Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the
full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few
demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the
media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making
it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S.
troops out of Afghanistan?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a
leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to
Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after
Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far
from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron,
Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?
And what does one make of the
spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned
pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Timesreports
has now been blocked until after the election?
Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor
And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor
for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous
intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the
case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack.
Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited
McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.
To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more
circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write
running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass
destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If
that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]
At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry,
offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't
real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job
speaks volumes.
'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was
not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never
held to account.
Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV)
said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even
non-existent."
Homework
Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)
Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's
oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder
he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of
accommodation."
And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to
kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these
Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this
effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international
norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."
Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and
select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by
Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence
behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b)
"contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find
one that is supported by plausible evidence.
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again."
Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and
briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is
co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Tarus77 , July 6, 2020 at 14:25
Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can
and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.
The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the
readership is to read and believe this garbage.
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58
By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo
strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of
Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners
list…..
John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its
many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have
dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury,
Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.
The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of
their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle
Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a
CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has
any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.
The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt
are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.
Dems and Reps are already mad. You cannot destroy what does not exist; like Democracy in
these United States. Nor God or Putin could. This has always being a fallacy. This is not a
democracy; same thing with ”communist" China or the USSR .Those two were never
socialist. There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26
“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the
“intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent
from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”
That statement goes to the crux of the matter.Why should journalists care about what is true
or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held
to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any
court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to
endure .
As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the
jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are
generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36
They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s
Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”.
Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our
“intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50
The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor
and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and
war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.
In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized
and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity
is a sin.
Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42
Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That
is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely
normal.
Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully
prosecute the maggots that infest our government.
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29
What is the basis for this confidence?
John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03
Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy
School” of Russia Analytics.
It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the
Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.
Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16
Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when
we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our
own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill
Americans?
Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being
killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is
megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my
husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated
mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet
to back up the latest bunch of lies.
Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was
debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites
rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly
– by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one
iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are
(and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past
US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would
clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is
learnt).
Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the
Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the
Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening
anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the
changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected,
i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any
elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma
would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s
cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??)
representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the
president.
But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia)
raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who
have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them.
HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone
for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in
the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy
British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the
original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the
years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in
the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.
BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for
or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the
“democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of
days ago.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48
“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions,
works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a
government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us
go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a
Political Revolution?
Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of
123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of
3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37
There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most
that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his
time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in
2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of
the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses
– hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when
the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the
cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition
party.”
And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to
be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she
wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and
strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we
should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what
the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly
she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.
The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic
republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my
kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the
rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right.
And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his
friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)
What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of
Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps
dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever
lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very
ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51
Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10
Apres moi, le Deluge.
John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25
Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he
was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of
completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals
apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and
mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it
was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was
actually intelligent intelligence.
Enter stage right Allen Dulles (fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and
most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.
Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald
did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets
complicated.
Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11
from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War
between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other
anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33
million for each Soviet soldier killed.”
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35
I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from
Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in
Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t
they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to
“command”?
Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49
Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing
when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other
congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They
can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone
tries to end them.
Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal
if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges
who are bought off or moronic or both.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52
The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until
election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20
Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is
international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he
wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet
baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s
wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear
is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable,
co-operative and prosperous.
rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10
The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that
The USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the
destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can
do with no help
has no basis in reality.
If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of
conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic,
LBGTQ, ”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!
Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54
“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”
Napoleon
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17
“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of
the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.
delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09
Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the
place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump,
who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when
Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.
(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever
one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)
Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German
journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30
Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a
few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52
Gekaufte journalisten.
Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his
career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better
die in truth than live with lies”.
Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59
I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like
Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of
today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35
Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the
American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And
finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for
your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace
Alliance)
The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about
Russia. I think most people just tune it out.
The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The
supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and
listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.
They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these
ridiculous games.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34
The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they
hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox
News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.
And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump
thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local
“peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition
supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and
justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.”
Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to
figure out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
Michael McFaul was the key person in failed "white color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012
designed to prevent reelection of Putin. h was recalled soon after Putin elections. So his praise
instantly suggests that the other person might be a color revolution specialist as well
In this sense his participation in Ukrainegate is just a top of his long carier as colore
revolution specialist. Ukrainegate does looks like the second Maydan.
Michael
McFaul, who served as the US ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, called Taylor, who he's
known for three decades, "just a consummate public servant."
"I do remember when he was ambassador to Ukraine he saw the bigness of the moment -- this is
well before Russia annexed Crimea and went into Donbass -- that fighting for sovereignty for
Ukraine and democracy and anti-corruption, he was very committed to that," McFaul said.
It is apparent that the caricature of the Soviet Union in both productions is really a stand-in for the present-day Russian government
under Vladimir Putin. As only American exceptionalism could permit, Hollywood did not hold the same disdain for his predecessor,
Boris Yeltsin, whose legacy of high inflation and national debt have since been eliminated. In fact, most have forgotten that the
same filmdom community outraged about Russia's supposed interference in the 2016 U.S. election made a celebratory movie back in 2003,
Spinning Boris , which practically boasted about the instrumental role the West played in Yeltsin's 1996 reelection in Russia.
The highly unpopular alcoholic politician benefited from a near universal media bias as virtually all the federation's news outlets
came under the control of the 'oligarchs' (in America known simply as billionaires) which his economic policies of mass privatization
of state industry enriched overnight.
Yeltsin initially polled at less than 10% and was far behind Communist Party candidate Gennady Zyuganov until he became the recipient
of billions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thanks to his corrupt campaign manager, Anatoly Chubais, now one of the most
hated men in all of Russia. After the purging of votes and rampant ballot-box stuffing, Yeltsin successfully closed the gap between
his opponent thanks to the overt U.S. meddling.
Spinning Boris was directed by Roger Spottiswoode, who previously helmed an installment in the James Bond series, Tomorrow
Never Dies . The 1997 entry in the franchise is one of thousands of Hollywood films and network television shows exposed by journalists
Matthew Alford and Tom Secker as having been influenced or directly assisted by the Pentagon and CIA in their must-read book National
Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood. Based on evidence from documents revealed in Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests, their investigation divulges the previously unknown extent to which the national security complex
has gone in exerting control over content in the film industry. While it has always been known that the military held sway over movies
that required usage of its facilities and equipment to be produced, the level of impact on such films in the pre-production and editing
stages, as well as the control over non-military themed flicks one wouldn't suspect to be under supervision by Washington and Langley,
is exhaustively uncovered.
As expected, Hollywood and the military-industrial complex's intimate relationship during the Cold War is featured prominently
in Alford and Secker's investigative work. It is unclear whether HBO or Netflix sought US military assistance or were directly involved
with the national security state in their respective productions, but these are just two recent examples of many where the correlated
increase in geopolitical tensions with Moscow is reflected. The upcoming sequel to DC's Wonder Woman set to be released next
year , Wonder Woman 1984, featuring the female superhero " coming into conflict with the Soviet Union during the Cold War
in the 1980s ", is yet another. Reprising her role is Israeli actress and IDF veteran is Gal Gadot as the title character, ironically
starring in a blockbuster that will demonize the Eurasian state which saved her ethnicity from extinction. Given the Pentagon's involvement
in the debacle surounding 2014's The Interview which provoked very real tensions with North Korea, it is likely they are at
least closely examining any entertainment with content regarding Russia, if not directly pre-approving it for review.
Ultimately, the Western panic about its imperial decline is not limited to assigning blame to Moscow. Sinophobia has manifested
as well in recent films such as the 2016 sci-fi film Arrival where the extra-terrestrials who reach Earth seem more interested
in communicating with Beijing as the global superpower than the U.S. However, while the West forebodes the return of Russia and China
to greater standing, you can be certain its real fear lies elsewhere. The fact that Chernobyl and Stranger Things are
as preoccupied with portraying socialism in a bad light as they are in rendering Moscow nefarious shows the real underlying trepidation
of the ruling elite that concerns the resurgence of class consciousness. The West must learn its lesson that its state of perpetual
war has caused its own downfall or it could attempt a last line of defense that would inevitably conscript all of humanity to its
death as the ruling class nearly did to the world in 1914 and 1939.
"... The 77th brigade, Integrity Initiative members or just right wing sympathisers here and in America will pretend these sort of staged demonstrations are genuinely supported by Moscow citizens, when the opposite is actually true and the 'opposition leader' Navalny has a rating of 3% at most in Russia. Search the real Navalny on the internet and his true nature as an ultra fascist in the service of some western agencies becomes obvious, as this journalist certainly knows. ..."
"... Remember the scams of the 'Dusty Boy' of Syria, the Gay Girl of Damascus and the little 7 year old girl in Aleppo with perfect English, Bana Alabed, and you might start to wonder that the media are still so arrogant, trying to attract you to their agenda with such crude propaganda. ..."
"... The main stream media must think readers are still as gullible as they might have seemed before the arrival of the internet. ..."
"... The best thing to do is to hold to the law and enforce it impartially. It is well-known that the western press will try to stage embarrassing moments, like cute girl demonstrators who throw themselves to the ground and writhe about screaming that thugs are beating them up, or provocative photographs that capture a moment in which a girl is being restrained like that rock-throwing bitch a few years back. Only one side will ever be shown in the west, and it will be the side which makes Russia look the worst. Russia cannot afford to care what the west thinks. ..."
"... When she speaks to the reporter by the Yandex advertised taxi(?) she says (something like) "We gather here peacefully and they over they've gathered and are absolutely not peaceful." Bizarre. Apparently we cannot trust our eyes when we see that OMON is not doing anything but standing with discipline and waiting for orders. ..."
"... Is this like the Hong Kong thing where demonstrators rampage and destroy stuff, demanding it as their 'democratic right' yet when some nutters go and beat them or launch fireworks at them they are then up in arms demanding that the police protect them and enforce the peace? ..."
"... Everybody has learned a lot about colour revolutions, especially their likely targets, and Washington is helpful in that it continues to use the template long after an effective countering technique is available. The first time the Gene Sharp model was used, it was devastating, worked beyond the State Department's wildest dreams. ..."
"... The next time it worked pretty well, too, because everyone on the other side said "Wait; they're not using that same technique, are they?" By the time they got around to trying it on Lukashenko, he slammed the ball right back into their court by calling snap elections at the first sign of astroturfing, and steamrollered the fake opposition. ..."
"... That's probably true, but there is often inflexibility on the part of the protesters as well, and in cases where they believe they have international backing – spelled U.S.A. – their demands rarely allow much room for compromise. ..."
"... The government must step down and yield governing power, usually to a group of ideologues and liberal activists, and the next step is well-known to everyone. The American 'advisers' are sent in, and state institutions are rapidly dismantled and privatized for international investment, as happened in Yeltsin's Russia. ..."
"... When protesters claim to want "more democracy" but cannot even define what "democracy" means, then it's clear they don't know what they are talking about, and probably just American stooges. ..."
"... People in HK do have many grievances but many of their problems, like the insanely high property prices, the shortage of housing for people who are not billionaires, the pollution, the crappy infrastructure, the lack of jobs in any industry apart from buying and selling property, the dismal job prospects of people who have been through an education system that relies on rote learning and slaving through scads of homework, are problems arising from the capitalist system they still retain. Unfortunately, for most of its 20-year rule since the hand-back in 1997, the HK govt has been inept in handling most of these problems. ..."
"... Putin is in as much danger of being unceremoniously chucked out of office as he is of choking to death on his grandmother's knitting. The west is ever hopeful, and dutifully rallies to the glorification of every new dissident firebrand, but whether or not they know it, they are just going through the motions. ..."
"... It is no coincidence that it is always the same people who show up to bitch and carp about how dreadful Putin is, and how Russia needs American-style freedom and democracy and non-stop Pride parades and all the trappings of fresh admission to Club West. They are the only people who would stand to benefit from driving Putin out. Nobody else is interested. ..."
"... The western media would rush to interview and endorse any talking Russian toad if it said "I hate Putin". ..."
"... However, if the Americans want to pin their new hopes for Putin's political immolation on some 17-year-old attention-junkie bint, they should knock themselves out. They are merely hardening Russian opinion against them, and they may not care but some day they will. And then they will wail, "Why do they hate us? It must be because of our freedom!" ..."
Olga Misik: Teenage girl reads constitution in front of Putin's riot police during
Moscow protestsShe is a lone teenage girl sat cross-legged and armed with nothing
more than the Russian constitution.
They are a line of Moscow's notoriously brutal riot police, equipped with shields,
batons and helmets.
But the image of a young pro-democracy demonstrator single-handedly defying Vladimir
Putin's security forces looks set to become one of the most powerful symbols of resistance to
the president's autocracy.
Olga Misik, 17, was photographed sitting in front of the officers reading out the
country's constitution – which affirms the right to peaceful gatherings – during
protests on Saturday.
Apparently unsure how to handle such a show of calm audacity, the police hold
back.
The image has gone viral across the world, being shared thousands of times, the
peaceful defiance central to the photo faintly reminiscent of that present in the the iconic
picture of Tiananmen Square's Tank Man. It is now being used by Russian opposition to rally
support in the face of continuing state oppression.
Putin's riot police?
Moscow's notoriously brutal riot police, equipped with shields, batons and helmets --
unlike those nice riot police in Paris?
Olga has "gone viral" -- and will be forgotten in a month.
As one commenter to the Independent advises, "watch the video and not the propaganda
'Independent'":
The continuous attempt to say how bad Putin is and how perverse is Russia is really
boring. I do not know of any country in which unauthorized demonstrations are allowed,
moreover, the attitude of the Russian police is very soft compared, for example, with the US
police against those of "occupy Wall Street".
The typical hypocrisy of the Anglo-Saxon press.By the way I´m not Russian,
because the easy answer is " you are a Russian troll".
But the usual "Kremlin Troll" comments dominate:
Prigozhin trolls were already contaminating this site almost before the article has
even been posted.
Why does the Indie allow this filthy scum to basically commandeer their websites; it can't
just be because Gore & Co. welcome their rabid, typically Russian anti-Semitism.
Or maybe it is.
Either way, whilst every other news online new outlet is desperately trying to excise
these crypto-fascist losers from their sites, the Indie and their so-called Mods spend most
of their time deleting all comments warning readers of their disruptive presence.
Why?
Similarly, any comment which runs counter to the Kremlin line – despite the fact
that we are in England – is flagged frantically by these hordes of Russian Putinite
goons and thus automatically deleted.
This means that virtually the entire comments sections in the Indie reflect the views
of Putin rather than their bone fide readers from Britain and Western Europe.
Leaving aside Gore & Co's infatuation with attracting "clicks", and their hatred of
Britain and the (white) British, is this really what the Indie wants?
To be the mouthpiece for a mass-murdering, homophobic, anti-democratic despot?
Because that's what this wokesome millennial whingers' comic has become.
Response from an alleged troll:
Funny. I don't see anyone commenting about "Putin and how wonderful Russia is and that
everybody lives in harmony". All I see are people recognising that the media is twisting
truth again, making it seem Russia is doing something 'undemocratic' that virtually all
Western countries do – enact and enforce laws against unauthorised demonstrations,
peaceful or otherwise.
Tell me the truth, if you are capable. Do we, or do we not, have laws in London
preventing unauthorised demonstrations? Do we, or do we not, have riot-uniformed police to
enforce those laws when necessary?
What is different then, about this situation in Moscow, except for the fact that Russia
actually has a real written constitution, and we don't?
Countered by:
I wonder what fate awaits Olga, Novichok on the doorhandle, a Public recant to save her
family, exile away from prying eyes, murdered by some Kremlin errand boys or depression and
an open window on the 7th floor? The only way to ensure her safety is publicity
Yes, I wonder? Cue "Prigozhin troll":
These 3 articles in 3 days on the subject of an unauthorised tiny demonstration over
the issue of disputed local signatures for the Moscow council candidates reveals the depths
the MSM will go to demonise Russia, even going so far to use the obviously staged photo of
this young woman to encourage sympathy for the poor citizens of Moscow, who in this case are
no more than the 5k ultra right followers of Navalny , who periodically uses these sort of
demos to disrupt main thoroughfares in order to arouse sympathy in the compliant western
media.
The 77th brigade, Integrity Initiative members or just right wing sympathisers here and
in America will pretend these sort of staged demonstrations are genuinely supported by Moscow
citizens, when the opposite is actually true and the 'opposition leader' Navalny has a rating
of 3% at most in Russia. Search the real Navalny on the internet and his true nature as an
ultra fascist in the service of some western agencies becomes obvious, as this journalist
certainly knows.
The aim, as always , is emotive publicity used to demonise the Russian government,
which is strange as this is a local Moscow council affair, nothing to do with Putin.
Remember the scams of the 'Dusty Boy' of Syria, the Gay Girl of Damascus and the little
7 year old girl in Aleppo with perfect English, Bana Alabed, and you might start to wonder
that the media are still so arrogant, trying to attract you to their agenda with such crude
propaganda.
Even this journalist and those here insisting this biased report is genuine, are
secretly aware of its real intent but as it suits their neocon purpose, so must be defended
as police brutality about to happen to a young woman, representing the downtrodden Moscow
citizenry.
Only 5k demonstrators in the largest city in Europe might suggest a different view of
this affair, when this article won't tell you that a 12k authorised demo went off last week
without incident.
BTW Indy, when's the next report on the much more widespread weekly demos in France
against Macron and your wonderful EU?
The main stream media must think readers are still as gullible as they might have
seemed before the arrival of the internet.
Is that whole sitting down and reading of the constitution by a stuttering schoolgirl
staged or not?
My god, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with that picture. Calling it contrived
hardly touches its banality and fakeness. I wish i could unsee it.
I think they are trying for a Tiananmen Square moment; you know, innocent unarmed
demonstrator holds back massive force? If it was not actually staged, western reporters are
jumping on the opportunity to try to inspire protests and demonstrations, like they always
do.
The Russian government and authorities long ago learned to recognize the fundamentals of
a western-inspired regime-change action – if they try to put up tents, rip them down
because if you don't, a 'tent city' will appear like it did in Kuh-yiv on the occasion of the
Orange Revolution.
If they manage to embarrass the government into allowing the protesters to
do anything they want, the west will bring in rent-a-crowds and you will have a violent riot
on your hands.
Such actions can quickly – with the enthusiastic support of the western
media – snowball into a real problem.
The best thing to do is to hold to the law and
enforce it impartially. It is well-known that the western press will try to stage
embarrassing moments, like cute girl demonstrators who throw themselves to the ground and
writhe about screaming that thugs are beating them up, or provocative photographs that
capture a moment in which a girl is being restrained like that rock-throwing bitch a few
years back. Only one side will ever be shown in the west, and it will be the side which makes
Russia look the worst. Russia cannot afford to care what the west thinks.
When she speaks to the reporter by the Yandex advertised taxi(?) she says (something like)
"We gather here peacefully and they over they've gathered and are absolutely not peaceful."
Bizarre. Apparently we cannot trust our eyes when we see that OMON is not doing anything but
standing with discipline and waiting for orders.
Is this like the Hong Kong thing where demonstrators rampage and destroy stuff, demanding
it as their 'democratic right' yet when some nutters go and beat them or launch fireworks at
them they are then up in arms demanding that the police protect them and enforce the peace?
Cake and eat it.
The subsequent protest on Saturday was the latest in a rising tide of civil unrest
across Russia sparked by dissatisfaction over declining living standards that has led to
falling ratings for Russian President Vladimir Putin and the ruling United Russia
party.
Called by opposition leader Alexei Navalny to take place outside of City Hall, just a
stone's throw away from the Kremlin, the demonstration demanded that opposition candidates be
allowed on the ballot in September's Moscow City Duma elections.
Even though the number of votes that they may have possibly achieved in the election would
have been statistically insignificant and apart from the fact that their debarment from
standing for election occurred because they could not acquire a minimum number of signatures
of support in order to stand for election, which ruling just happens to be a matter of
law.
But it's Putin CLAMPDOWN!!!!!
Thank you, Moscow Times! And Moscow City Hall is about half a mile from the Kremlin. That's some stone's throw!
The Tiananmen Square moment was China's trial by fire. If the government had wavered, then
they would have been overthrown, and China would have become a British colony again.
Fortunately, the Chinese government figured out what it had to do.
Everybody has learned a lot about colour revolutions, especially their likely targets, and
Washington is helpful in that it continues to use the template long after an effective
countering technique is available. The first time the Gene Sharp model was used, it was
devastating, worked beyond the State Department's wildest dreams.
The next time it worked
pretty well, too, because everyone on the other side said "Wait; they're not using that same
technique, are they?" By the time they got around to trying it on Lukashenko, he slammed the
ball right back into their court by calling snap elections at the first sign of astroturfing,
and steamrollered the fake opposition.
I suppose eventually Washington will move on to
something else, but just like the myth of democracy, it's so hard to let go.
Check out this 'roadmap for peace' by Doug Bandow. Although he works for the Cato
Institute, I've usually found his writing quite reasonable and rational. He is an American,
and so that carries with it the annoying presupposition that no major decisions can be made
without American input – America is too important to be left out. I have my own
feelings on that, and I don't mind sharing that when America gets involved in a multinational
project, it usually insists on rules that will turn the whole thing to American advantage,
and insists on being the leader.
All that notwithstanding, I was amused to note that most of
the concessions Bandow's plan would have Moscow yielding are things it is not actually doing,
and therefore would be easy to give up.
For instance, in exchange for Moscow's promise to not ever again meddle with American
elections, Washington would acknowledge its past political meddling and foreswear future
interventions in Russian affairs, including funding private organizations involved in
political activities. Washington would have to stop funding Russian political NGO's and admit
its meddling.
Unfortunately, Russia would have to admit to meddling in the 2016 election;
something it actually didn't do, and the fact there is no real evidence of it would become
irrelevant. But it almost seems a small price to pay.
The west would agree to drop sanctions
on Russia, but retain the legal authority to re-impose them should it become necessary
– that seems quite a bit like legitimizing them, to me. There actually is no legal
authority to impose sanctions – and threaten all your allies as to what will happen to
them if they don't go along – without ever providing proof of the grounds for
establishing them.
On the whole, it's an interesting deal. Not that it will ever happen. Washington is not
interested in deals where it has to give up something, because everything it does is for a
lofty and holy reason.
The US has just announced more sanctions against Russia because of the alleged Skripal
poisonings.
The Skripals did not die -- or did they? Where are the Skripals? And what about sanctions for the poisoning to death of the alkie mother of
three?
Don't the lives of alkie Hampshire social inadequates count? Discrimination, that is!
Deal or No Deal:
If I were in charge in Russia, I would NOT take the deal. (Hint: IT'S A TRAP!)
Especially if it meant "admitting" to something I didn't do (like meddling in the 2016
elections). That is a typical pindos snare, as Gaddafi himself learned, too late.
It's also, by the way, how American cops operate to trick innocent people: "Sign this false
confession, and you'll be home for dinner "
20 years later, they are still rotting away in the pokey
Russia should offer counter-deal: You admit to all the meddling you did, and I admit to
nothing. You big fat bully.
I agree; I would not take the deal, either. Of course it would never actually be offered,
because America will never admit to 'meddling' in anyone's elections or politics –
they're 'spreading democracy', for which they will never apologize, since it is their duty as
the Exceptional Nation. It just amused me that Bandow slyly phrased it in such a way that
Moscow would not really have to give up anything; only promise to stop doing things it is not
and has not been doing.
Likewise, America is not ever going to enter into any sort of deal which would see broad
autonomy for Eastern Ukraine and the possibility of recognizing Crimea as Russian if it
passed a do-over referendum. That would mean why, that would mean losing!
I think the grievances of the students against the Chinese government had merit. Moreover
yielding to continuing the status quo ante or reversion to Brit colony status were not the
only possible outcomes. The former happens to be the case but things need not have gone
that way.
That's probably true, but there is often inflexibility on the part of the protesters as well,
and in cases where they believe they have international backing – spelled U.S.A.
– their demands rarely allow much room for compromise.
The government must step down
and yield governing power, usually to a group of ideologues and liberal activists, and the
next step is well-known to everyone. The American 'advisers' are sent in, and state
institutions are rapidly dismantled and privatized for international investment, as happened
in Yeltsin's Russia.
In this case, the students wanted 'more democracy', and that right there suggests they
really did not have any clear goals but change.
So true. When protesters claim to want "more democracy" but cannot even define what
"democracy" means, then it's clear they don't know what they are talking about, and probably
just American stooges.
People in HK do have many grievances but many of their problems, like the insanely high
property prices, the shortage of housing for people who are not billionaires, the pollution,
the crappy infrastructure, the lack of jobs in any industry apart from buying and selling
property, the dismal job prospects of people who have been through an education system that
relies on rote learning and slaving through scads of homework, are problems arising from the
capitalist system they still retain. Unfortunately, for most of its 20-year rule since the
hand-back in 1997, the HK govt has been inept in handling most of these problems.
The thing that sparked this year's protests was the proposed extradition bill that would
establish appropriate extradition arrangements between Hong Kong and every other state or
territory that it currently does not have extradition agreements with, and this included
Mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, in the wake of the 2018 St Valentine's Day murder in which
a 20-year-old HK woman was strangled by her 19-year-old HK boyfriend while holidaying in
Taiwan, who then stuffed her body into a suitcase and left it at a train station in Taiwan
while he returned to HK. The man is currently in jail on charges relating to stealing the
woman's money after her death (he took all her ATM cards and used them) and he is due to be
freed this coming October. The HK govt has currently delayed a second reading of the
extradition bill but haven't withdrawn it entirely, which was one of the protesters'
demands.
The fact that, even after the backdown on the extradition proposal, the protesters
continued escalating their demands to the point of demanding current HK leader Carrie Lam's
removal, demonstrates that there is far more to the protesters' agenda than the extradition
proposal. Add to that the fact that protesters receive cash payments for protesting (with the
amounts jacked up if protesters destroy or damage things) and a CIA operative, Brian Kern,
has been identified as a ring-leader, and it is apparent that a Color Revolution
regime-change operation is in full swing.
The cops in Hong Kong Crown Colony were unbelievably corrupt. I worked with a former Hong
Kong policeman, a British European (the HK Crown Colony police had British senior officers
and Chinese "other ranks") who joined the force "to see the world". He was an idealist and
resigned. He could not stand the corruption that he witnessed there. His father, by the way,
was the local cop where I lived: the "village bobby", so to speak, complete with standard
issue Raleigh bicycle and cycle clips, who was a decent, friendly bloke.
This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it
6 (UK) Division is the new organisational home for the Army's "asymmetric edge",
comprising all things "Intelligence, Counter-Intelligence, Information Operations, Electronic
Warfare, Cyber and Unconventional Warfare".
Launched this morning, 6 Div is a rebranding of the formation formerly known as Force
Troops Command, which covered a hotchpotch of Royal Signals, Intelligence Corps and other
units, including the infamous 77 Brigade
####
Don't forget to hit the comments for hilarity!
Also, the timing of the announcement says plenty, i.e. slipping it in to the news stream
when people have already gone on holiday and all the BREXIT and other bollocks. I've not seen
this reported on the tv in the UK – which is currently facing severe flooding etc.
Is it just me or is all the PPNN reporting that 'Putin's support has dropped to levels
not seen since 2011!'. Of course they don't actually give you any numbers and cherry pick
dodgy poll numbers but there really is this Pavlovian reaction anytime there is a
demonstration in Russia, like undertakers gathering at an allegedly dangerous road crossing
waiting for some cyclist to be dragged under a trash lorry so that they can tut tut and then
profit from the cyclist's misfortune. Nix that, the PPNN are just professional versions of
MacBeth's witches, something which they don't understand is a story .
Putin is in as much danger of being unceremoniously chucked out of office as he is of choking
to death on his grandmother's knitting. The west is ever hopeful, and dutifully rallies to
the glorification of every new dissident firebrand, but whether or not they know it, they are
just going through the motions.
The only group, and I mean the only one, that would benefit
from Putin's overthrow would be the disaffected kreakliy and the poncy forgotten
semi-intellectuals.
They would be feted by the west as political visionaries, and perhaps
given minor government positions to satisfy their vanity. But who else would make out like a
bandit?
The military? Hardly – the west, after years of giggling about Russia's
decrepit military, lapsed into an uneasy silence on the subject just about the time that
long-distance Kalibr cruise-missile attack took place from the Caspian Sea into Syria, and a
west given meddling-room would want to disband the Russian military, if anything, down to a
token force of absolutely-trustworthy sycophants who would probably be issued with American
weapons.
The oligarchs? Hardly – western business would be snapping up former state
assets while simultaneously carrying out an 'anti-corruption drive' under the new President's
imprimatur.
Small businesses? Hardly – corporate interest would be in melding large
state interests into the Corporate Borg, and their method is to squeeze out small business in
order to expand market share.
The people? Hardly – Russia would be a convenient place
to move all the refugee immigrants from that entire hemisphere, while the stubborn loyalty of
the population to Putin would not be forgotten.
It is no coincidence that it is always the same people who show up to bitch and carp about
how dreadful Putin is, and how Russia needs American-style freedom and democracy and non-stop
Pride parades and all the trappings of fresh admission to Club West. They are the only people
who would stand to benefit from driving Putin out. Nobody else is interested.
They're just trying to get some mileage out of Olga what's-her-name, and make it look like a
drop in Putin's poll numbers happened exactly at the moment this young political firebrand
emerged. Pretty sad, really, but you can't tell 'em, and it wouldn't make any difference.
They have to try, it's the same instinct that makes a dog lick its nose if you smear cheese
on it.
The western media would rush to interview and endorse any talking Russian toad if it
said "I hate Putin".
I think a lot of people DID see that coming, to the extent that the only behavior acceptable
today in the American political milieu is a rehash of that sophomore's question, "Can you say
in one sentence or less what makes America the Greatest Country In The World?" The American
media typically pleats that 'the system is broken', but not during election season.
Then,
America is the greatest and running on all cylinders, and the successful candidate is the one
who will convince voters that, rather than fix the whatever system, he/she/ze/zir (it's only
a matter of time) will take a system that is the best in the world and make it squeeze out
even more happiness and satisfaction for Americans. Anyway, if you go off-message with that,
you are under the soulless influence of the Russians.
Anyway, it looks as if the democrats have gone to the well too often with that Russian
bullshit, and people are starting to get impatient with the cop-out – it's just an
excuse for having no good answer. You can always say, "X is because Russia". I think Harris
just bit the dust, and will lose a lot of support over this and gradually drop out. I got a
kick out of the "Gabbard is a non-issue, and won't even make the second debates" or something
to that effect. Whoever smugly said that was apparently asleep when a Ukrainian comedian who
plays a president on TV won the presidency in a landslide. The incumbent once thought it was
safe to laugh politely at him, because he was a non-issue, too.
I saw this story also on the same site, although it was not necessary to click on it, for
obvious reasons.
"A salute to the bravery of Olga Misik, 17, who during recent bloody protests for free
Moscow elections sat before Putin's armed-to-the-teeth goons and calmly read aloud the
Russian constitution, including Article 31 affirming the right to peaceful political
assembly. She was later arrested and allegedly beaten. "Injustice always concerns everyone,"
said Olga, who takes the long view of repression. "Today the Moscow City Duma, tomorrow the
governor of the region It is only a matter of time."
'Bloody protests for free Moscow elections'?? They were bloody? Really? and the issue was
free Moscow elections? Not candidates being allowed to run despite having been disqualified
for not reaching the signatory threshold? The game of coming up with enough signatures to
demonstrate a valid support base is an old one, trawling the obituaries and all manner of
dodges to come up with enough for people who don't really have any support, but want a
soapbox from which to squawk their message and then say they were cheated of victory by the
Kremlin. Putin's armed-to-the-teeth goons? Really? American police called to control
demonstrations are unarmed? Since when? Does arming them make them goons? I can't see their
teeth – how does the reporter know they are armed to the teeth? Olga takes the long
view of repression, does she? From the jaded pinnacle of 17? I'm surprised they did not ask
her views on gay sex – she's old enough. Just.
Embarrassing western hyperbole – a Russian review of the PISA tests that descended
to the same level might read, "A salute to the simple-mindedness of the Amerikantsi
'students', who must have gone to school at a mental institution, or been taught by the
homeless lunatics that abound in and around Amerikantsi cities. Once again they managed to
score so poorly that one might reasonably wonder if they arrived at the testing institution
by accident, thinking instead that they were being taken to see one of the
violence-and-profanity-riddled Amerikantsi movies that pollute the television and cause the
Amerikantsi schoolchildren to shoot each other as if they lived inside a video game where it
is not real blood. It's difficult to imagine a sensible explanation for such a dismal
performance, in which they finished below the OECD average in every category."
But you won't see anything like that in a Russian newspaper, or hear it on a Russian news
program. Because they don't act like the country is run by hysterical 12-year-olds. However,
if the Americans want to pin their new hopes for Putin's political immolation on some
17-year-old attention-junkie bint, they should knock themselves out. They are merely
hardening Russian opinion against them, and they may not care but some day they will. And
then they will wail, "Why do they hate us? It must be because of our freedom!"
I was particularly intrigued by the mention of the Democrats getting caught fabricating
fake Russian troll accounts to pretend the Russians were trying to influence some state
election or other, I forget what, supposedly reported in the Times. I didn't see that, and I
don't recall anyone mentioning it here.
Yet again, lying by omission . Their 'Defense Correspondent' Jonathan Marcus notes
briefly that W. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty in 2002 and that Russia announce pulling
out of it in 2007 but does not explain why, i.e. the combination of the following:
a) expanding these 'defensive' ABM sites to the lo-land of Po-land & also Romania
b) the universal Mk.41 launchers can also fire nuclear capable Tomahawk cruise missiles at
Russia from much closer ranges = less reaction time = reduced deterrence effect =
increases the chance of nuclear first strike against Russia, and thus
c) denied/refused Russia any means to verify the non-use of nukes for the launchers just
saying 'Trust us!' which is complete bs considering all the previous promises made and
not kept.
None of the linked articles therein mention Russia's objections. But then Marcus is
only a 'Defence correspondent' (such small details clearly aren't important in the grand
scheme of things) and he can always get a future job at NATO as a Spokesman like previous BBC
journos Oana Lungescu & Mark Laity. In a fight between Jonathan Marcus & Mark Urban,
who do you think would replace Oana? Or someone else? They all do sterling government
service
Oooh, looky here! The BBC inches itself up the line which if crossed would constitute
journalism . Why don't they just jump on in? It's safe as long as your patrons –
Da Gov – and the intelligence services don't go after you (Hello 'Guardian'!):
In an earlier statement, Russia's foreign ministry said the US decision to withdraw was
"a grave mistake".
It also accused America of violating the treaty by deploying MK-41 launchers in Europe,
capable of firing intermediate-range cruise missiles
####
So the plus is, above they actually link to the Russian Foreign Ministry statement, but no
further. The big minus is that they wrote far, far more about Russia's 'violations'.
That t-Rump thinks Russia, let alone China is excited about joining a new deal,
hahahahahahahah!
We also discover that go to and favorite 'defense expert' (MGU Candidate of Sciences
Biology degree!) for the Pork Pie News Networks Pavel Felgenhauer is not dead!
McFaul is a failure as a diplomat and as a Ambassador to Russia. Dismal failure. And the book bitter tone reflects McFaul
understanding of that. McFaul claim to fame was being at the center of "white color revolution of 2011-2012" which
was designed by Obama administration to prevent election of Putin.
Comparing to Jeffery Sachs who was instrumental in destroying the standard of living of Russianpeople in 1990th but migrated from his neoliberal views considerably, McFaul is
frozen in time. He is a still a stanch neoliberal and neocon, much like his former boss Obama. As such he provided zero value to
the reader. In other words the book is junk and should be priced ones cent like all such propaganda driven are in less then one
year.
He forgot nothing and learned nothing after 2011-2012 humiliation in Russia when Russians kicked him out for attempt of
staging the "regime change".
McFaul was instrumental in Obama administration attempt of "regime
change" in Russia in 2011-2012. This "diplomat" invited opposition leaders directly in his embassy helping to label
them as the US prostitutes (which they were). Russians were too polite and did not kick him out immediately (although aqt the time
it looks to me that Medvedev was sitting between two chairs) . This color revolution failed, money spend on it
(and probably tens of millions were injected to "facilitate change") lost, attitude to the USA in Russia changes
to highly negative. McFaul was forced to resign.
The boot itself is a propaganda exercise of a failed "color revolution" warrior. That's explains bitter attitude to Putin and
his mode of governance. This so called professor use a very simple recipe: any government that we do not like is autocratic by
definition. Such a fake religious fundamentalism, kind of fake "Church of Democracy". Nothing
interesting or original in it.
Obama actually was a very dangerous neocons and a war criminal. And his policies and neocolonial wars (Lybia, Syria, Ukraine )
negatively influenced the USA position in the world. Right now the USA is still protected by the power of his military
and economic might. But with time this will change and when cheap oil is over (let's say 20-50 years) chickens might come to
roost.
In a way the USA repeats the imperial path of Roman empire (with great acceleration) and the split into two states (North vs.
South along confederacy lines ) is not unconceivable.
Notable quotes:
"... What the story reveals to me is in the 90's how trusting Boris Yeltsin and associates where in allowing the masters of the Washington consensus to impose their notions of a post-Soviet Market Economy, polished up by Jeffrey Sachs, Harvard economics professor, Lawrence Summers, a colleague and implemented by Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais to delivered, as 'shock therapy,' privatization and market determined prices without thought of the institutional issues of laws and governmental practices in place, as Joseph Stiglitz chief economist of the World Bank and others were later to heavily attack. A tragic mistake. ..."
"... The result of America's desire to remake Russia was to create a broken economy of Crony-Capitalism with Chubais becoming one of the richest men in Russia, joined by other oligarchs grabbing what they could. They live on, those who have not crossed Putin. ..."
"... When Putin ousted some of these groups from Russia stating they were aligned to overthrowing his government, McFaul thinks this was unreasonable. Despite McFaul writing a piece at Stanford in 2005 titled "American Efforts at Promoting Regime Change in the Soviet and then Russia: Lesson Learned" he thinks Putin is overly paranoid about the West's intentions. ..."
"... McFaul again is offended when someone ( Page 45 "Victor", someone McFaul insinuates is KGB) suggests he has access to Clinton administration when he is with NDI. Immediately after this denial he then in the next sentence admits he has the ear of Strobe Talbott, the deputy secretary of state, Tony Lake, the national security adviser, and Chip Blacker, the senior advisor to the administration on Russia, and his colleague at Stanford. ..."
"... McFaul's duties in the Obama administration I believe actively worsened relationships with Russia and the past three years of Russia hysteria are a result of the Democrat's excuses for failed geopolitical policies by the US. Russia serves as a scapegoat to many of America's abysmal meddling on the international stage. ..."
"... McFaul seems to have all the answers and Putin and Trump are criticized weekly in his twitter rants. How a man who was an active participant in so many foreign policy failures can throw so many stones will always remain a mystery to me. ..."
A little 'full disclosure' may help to explain this reviewer's critique of this work. I
developed an interest in Communism and in the Soviet Command Economy in the years of intense
anti-communism in the 1950's and 60's and majored in Comparative Economic Systems
specializing in Eastern Europe because I wish to see through the prevailing wisdom of the
time critically. I hoped not to judge but to understand the why and wherefore of what was
developing in that region, the underlying ideology a given, neither a 'threat' nor a
'promise;' the Soviet Union the prevailing model. To find a publication that moves into the
present of a non-Soviet democratic Russia – exciting.
Michael McFaul's love is 'Liberal Democracy' a somewhat fey item immersed in mythology
sometimes reducible as in Russia and elsewhere to "electoral" democracy with uncertain
outcomes.*
The book is a loose treatment of Russia in the post Soviet period centering on McFaul's
experiences as a participant and witness of the Washington foreign-policy establishment up
close. His self congratulatory style muddling sometimes the topic at hand, but rich in
revealing what policy makers were attempting to accomplish; the discrepancy between intent
and outcome glaring and reveling.
Many readers will enjoy seeing the policy construction process as it unfolded in the Obama
administration chasing "Reset" as it was called, from McFaul's experiences. An attempt to
draw Russia closer, more democratic, and accepting international standards while facilitating
desirably Obama administration goals.
What the story reveals to me is in the 90's how trusting Boris Yeltsin and associates
where in allowing the masters of the Washington consensus to impose their notions of a
post-Soviet Market Economy, polished up by Jeffrey Sachs, Harvard economics professor,
Lawrence Summers, a colleague and implemented by Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais to
delivered, as 'shock therapy,' privatization and market determined prices without thought of
the institutional issues of laws and governmental practices in place, as Joseph Stiglitz
chief economist of the World Bank and others were later to heavily attack. A tragic
mistake.
The result of America's desire to remake Russia was to create a broken economy of
Crony-Capitalism with Chubais becoming one of the richest men in Russia, joined by other
oligarchs grabbing what they could. They live on, those who have not crossed Putin.
**
It was not Communism not Socialism but Capitalism to the delight of Washington. Michael
McFaul's telling of that story is that it is democratic; there are elections, a parliament
and so far term limitations but not (yet?) 'Liberal Democracy.'
Looking at results independent of overlaying ideology I see little too cheer regarding
Reset. Russia may have pursued the same events that excited McFaul independent of his and
President Obama's efforts prior to Putin return as president.
For me the story suffers from centering heavily on McFaul's time in and out of government
and less about Russia, the ensuing high crime rates and low quality of life that was to
befall the general post-Soviet population, but it is a memoir.
America achieved little.*** But Michael is likeable and optimistic see his concluding
hopes for Reset.
3 1\2 Stars
*A liberal democracy is simply a political system that is both liberal and democratic --
one that both protects individual rights and translates popular views into public policy.
** Without American insistence on Market and privatization Russia could have stayed with
the original plan of enterprises going to workers and managers modeled on Yugoslavia
decentralized Workers Management economy – one that functioned until the country
destroyed but that is another story.
*** " -- Democracy! That's a funny word in Russia. "Putin the Democrat" is our shortest
joke."(p. 292) Alexievich, Svetlana. Secondhand Time: The Last of the Soviets
...I was also amazed at how the Obama administration believed that by extending multiple
olive branches to Putin that he would accept the eastward expansion of NATO.
From Cold War to Hot Peace is McFaul's analysis of Russian/US relationships, and I would
guess to say, close to Obama's version as well. A good insight into the naivety of the
administration's views was during the Romney/Obama Presidential debate when Romney called
Russia a continued threat and Obama chastised him saying "the 80s called and want their
foreign policy back". This remark was stated after 4 years in office, so it is telling of
their idealism that Russian was our ally, or as Obama stated of Russian President Medvedev,
his friend.
McFaul admits to being a democratic activist in Russia at the same time as feigning outrage
on twitter for anyone suggesting this basic fact. I am blocked by McFaul on twitter so I will
leave my review of his book here. On Page 13, McFaul openly admits his employer, NDI
(National Democratic Institute), which he worked for in Russia was funded by the US
government and was a partisan group that promoted the US Democratic party agenda.
When Putin ousted some of these groups from Russia stating they were aligned to overthrowing
his government, McFaul thinks this was unreasonable. Despite McFaul writing a piece at
Stanford in 2005 titled "American Efforts at Promoting Regime Change in the Soviet and then
Russia: Lesson Learned" he thinks Putin is overly paranoid about the West's intentions.
When serving as Ambassador to Russia, McFaul again admits his dual track role as diplomat but
also an active supporter of opposition groups to Putin's Presidency which he invites to Spaso
House immediately upon his arrival to Russia.
McFaul again is offended when someone ( Page 45 "Victor", someone McFaul insinuates is KGB)
suggests he has access to Clinton administration when he is with NDI. Immediately after this
denial he then in the next sentence admits he has the ear of Strobe Talbott, the deputy
secretary of state, Tony Lake, the national security adviser, and Chip Blacker, the senior
advisor to the administration on Russia, and his colleague at Stanford.
I find McFaul's Forrest Gump moments a little too coincidental and do wonder if he is
being as transparent in his role as he innocently states in his book. I find his surface
level admission of always being connected closely to the narrative but then pretending he is
an innocent bystander to events just a little too naive for this reader.
Many examples come to mind as I read the book that made me question his role. For
instance, during the regime change in Kyrgyzstan, McFaul admits to knowing the very person
who replaces the leader of the country. What are the chances that US was not involved in this
regime change when McFaul is coincidentally close to the interim leader that replaces the
leader that is not pro Western. McFaul writes on page 187
"It was a stroke of good fortune for us that Roza Otunbayeva became the interim President of
Kyrgyzstan. I had known Roza for decades. In the 1990s she had served as Kyrgyzstan's foreign
minister, but had become an opposition leader as autocratic rule strengthened under Baikyev."
I mean, really? What are the chances ALL these coups are led by Western friendly leaders.
Surely meddling in other countries governance is something we should be outraged about,
right?
This happens time and time again with Western diplomats/NGO in Iraq, Ukraine, Libya,
Syria, Kyrgyzstan; and Putin warns the US their involvement with the opposition to the leader
will have negative consequences. Every time Putin is prescient on his predictions and McFaul
has to retreat from his idealism of US intervention and casually state the failed US
international policies under each President may have created more world chaos than stability
in most scenarios. McFaul is an active promoter of regime change meddling and then in the
next sentence will act like he is a passive player to the events that unfold with devastating
consequences to people of said countries. The lack of introspection to his cheerleading of
failed Obama policies baffles this particular reader.
McFaul's duties in the Obama administration I believe actively worsened relationships with
Russia and the past three years of Russia hysteria are a result of the Democrat's excuses for
failed geopolitical policies by the US. Russia serves as a scapegoat to many of America's
abysmal meddling on the international stage.
Does Russia deserve criticism as well? Absolutely, but the 180 degree turn McFaul does from
fawning over Medvedev to than viewing Putin as the enemy is the insight of a man who views
the world through a myopic lens . McFaul's idealism and staunch opinion of Jeffersonian
democracy is the only way forward for a country to improve is both not based in reality and
also doesn't translate well from the academic papers he has written.
Now, Trump is going after Putin's allies in the world, Iran and Venezuela, and McFaul will
not pause his incessant twitter rants on Trump being submissive to Russia long enough to
realize Trump is repeating mistakes from every other administration. If this was by design to
now have Democrats, who chastised Republicans for calling Russia a threat, to now being more
hawkish than Republicans have ever been, well, then, well played Deep State.
Many Americans may strongly dislike Trump or Obama, but it appears they are united in the
drumbeat for more meddling into countries governances, a policy McFaul will cheerlead once
again for the sake of human rights and Democracy of course. How we are repeating mistakes
from not long ago so quickly is the work of propaganda Putin could only dream about.
McFaul seems to have all the answers and Putin and Trump are criticized weekly in his
twitter rants. How a man who was an active participant in so many foreign policy failures can
throw so many stones will always remain a mystery to me. 450 pages of his diatribe I found
myself more sympathetic to Putin and Trump, and becoming more frustrated at his analysis of
historical events without an ounce of introspection of his role in any of these foreign
policy blunders. Person non grata to Russia should maybe be the student for once, instead of
the know it all Professor.
"... McFaul's "reset" policy was intended to reassert American influence into the Russian body politic in a post-Putin Russia ..."
"... Under the "reset," the Obama administration, at McFaul's urging, provided funding through the auspices of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the NED, NDI, and other non-governmental organizations to Russian civil groups that had coalesced into a political opposition to Putin's 2012 presidential ambition. McFaul also encouraged Secretary of State Clinton to speak out in support of the Russian opposition. "We are supportive of the rights and aspirations of the Russian people," Clinton stated in December 2011, "to be able to make progress and realize a better future for themselves." ..."
"... When McFaul was appointed by Obama to serve as the U.S. ambassador to Russia in late 2011, one of his first actions was to invite the leaders of the various Russian opposition groups to the U.S. embassy to meet with him. After Putin won his bid for election in March 2012, he immediately set about to ban foreign funding for Russian non-governmental organizations . USAID, the NED, NDI, and other organizations used to channelling U.S. money to Russian political entities were evicted from Russia. ..."
"... McFaul, whose entire ambassadorial persona was built around the kind of societal engagement produced by these NGOs, never recovered. In February 2014, McFaul announced his resignation as U.S. ambassador , declaring that it was time for him to return to Stanford and resume his previous life of academia. ..."
"... Since leaving Moscow, McFaul has become one of the leading critics of Putin, writing prolifically on the topic, and frequently appearing as a talking head on television. Putin's Russia has provided McFaul with plenty of material to work with, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the military intervention in Syria in 2015, and the alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. ..."
"... In fact, scholars will one day rank the saga of America’s policy toward Russia after the Cold War very high on history’s list of stupendous follies: how, after winning an existential struggle against a totalitarian superpower accurately called by Reagan an Evil Empire, the best and the brightest in Washington set out to make a mortal enemy of the third-rate, humiliated nation that emerged from Soviet ashes — but bore little resemblance to the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The politicizing of the NGOs also led Putin to assume the Peace Corps volunteers in rural Russia were also involved, leading him to end that venture. Once again, ordinary poor Russians beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg lost out; and once again the only diplomatic “reset” for America was a return to our blissful ignorance of Russia. ..."
"... McFaul is painfully bad – emphasis on the present tense – and in many ways appears to be living in some kind of alternative reality. However the problematic Russia situation is ultimately a larger bi product of many bad actors in the Obama administration, most importantly those involved with the coup in Ukraine. 2014 was the point of no return: from that perspective McFaul was merely an irritant. ..."
President Obama is briefed by U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul during a flight to Moscow, Russia, July 5, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Post-Mueller report insanity has gripped the nation. In between Presidential proclamations that the report provides proof of his exoneration, and Democratic declarations that the report contains evidence of crimes deserving of impeachment, lies the reality of U.S.-Russian relations, and the fact that these two nations live in a world where their combined nuclear arsenals can eliminate humanity as we know it.
While President Trump struggles to gain traction for his campaign promise to better relations, his political opponents are stuck in a time warp that has them reliving the 2016 Presidential election and its allegations of Russian interference.
Americans have every right to be concerned about the prospects of Russian interference in elections which serve as the foundation of American democracy. However, in seeking to find a solution to the problems that plague the relationship, it is imperative that the American people understand how we got to where we are today. You
can't solve a problem without first accurately defining the problem, and as such any examination of the Genesis of the he-said/she-said aspects of alleged Russian interference in 2016 must take into account the fact that, if anything, the Russians were reacting to a lengthy history of U.S. interference in their internal affairs since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991.
One of the key players in this interference was Michael McFaul,
a a Stanford professor who, while serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, oversaw a policy of engagement with Moscow on behalf of the Obama administration and, when that policy failed, facilitated U.S. interference in the 2012 Russian Presidential election in an effort to keep Vladimir Putin out of office.
In October 2006
Michael McFaul was approached by people
close to Barack Obama to join a circle of experts who were advising the Illinois Senator on foreign policy issues in preparation for an anticipated presidential bid in 2008.
McFaul, who at that time was working as a professor in political science at Stanford University, agreed, and quickly became Obama's go-to expert on Russian issues. Following the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Obama picked McFaul as the special assistant to the president and senior director of Russia and Eurasia affairs at the National Security Council.
One of McFaul's first tasks was to formulate and implement a "reset" in U.S.-Russian relations. There was widespread acknowledgement
among Russia observers that, as of 2008, relations between Washington, D.C. and Moscow were at an all-time post-Cold War low. The
goal of a "reset",
McFaul believed
, was to "find cooperation with Russia on common interests" and "develop a multi-dimensional relationship with Russia" inclusive of
"societal contacts" that would be pursued through a policy of "active engagement."
For McFaul, however, the Russian "reset" wasn't about U.S.-Russian relations as much as it was about
building strong ties between the Obama administration and Dmitry Medvedev
, the former prime minister who had assumed the Russian presidency in 2008 from Vladimir Putin. Putin, who had succeeded Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 2000, had finished out his second term (the Russian Constitution forbade a president from serving more than two successive terms.) Putin became the prime minister, effectively trading places with Medvedev.
Obama's secretary of state at the time, Hillary Clinton, was scheduled to meet with her Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in Geneva in March 2009. McFaul advised that it would be a good idea to publicly draw attention to the
"reset," and a State Department staffer came up with the idea of presenting a symbolic "button" that would be symbolic of the occasion. The staffer approached McFaul who, as the resident Russian expert in the NSC,
provided the translation for the word "reset" (
peregruzka
) and the correct spelling
. When Clinton presented the "reset button" to Lavrov, however,
he pointed out
that
peregruzka
did not mean "reset", but rather "overload", referring to putting too much power through an electrical system, leading to blown fuses, or even a fire.
While the embarrassing gaffe did not sink U.S.-Russian relations (this would happen on its own volition), it did underscore a level of amateurishness at the highest levels of American policy making by someone who was purported to be an expert on all things Russian.
McFaul's
academic credentials and training as a Russian specialist
are impressive. McFaul graduated from Stanford in 1986 with a B.A. in International Relations and Slavic Languages, and went on to get his master's degree, also from Stanford, in Russian and East European Studies, before heading off to Oxford, England, where he pursued his Doctorate in International Relations as a Rhodes Scholar. McFaul returned to the Soviet Union in 1990 as a visiting scholar at Moscow State University, where he finished up his doctoral dissertation (he was awarded his Ph.D. the next year.)
It was during his time as a visiting scholar that McFaul began to blur the line between pure academia and policy activist. In 1990, McFaul signed on as a consultant with the
National Democratic Institute (NDI)
, self-described as "a nonprofit, nonpartisan, nongovernmental organization that has supported democratic institutions and practices
in every region of the world."
The NDI was founded in 1983 as an action arm of the National Endowment for Democracy (NEC), created by Congress under the eponymously named National Endowment for Democracy Act. The congressional action was in response to an executive decision on the part of President Ronald Reagan, promulgated under
National Security Decision Directive-77
, to promote so-called "public diplomacy" operations in furtherance of U.S. national security interests. McFaul dual-hatted as a visiting scholar and as NDI's official Field Representative in Moscow.
As the NDI's representative in Moscow, McFaul actively supported "Democratic Russia," a coalition of Russian politicians led by Boris Yeltsin, the president of the Russian Federation, even though the official U.S. policy at the time was to support Mikhail Gorbachev, the president of the Soviet Union. McFaul likened Yeltsin to the
"catalyst for the Cold War's end."
While recognizing Yeltsin as "the unquestioned leader of Russia's anti-Communist movement,” McFaul noted that Yeltsin's embrace of Democratic Russia was more a byproduct of the realization that such an alliance was needed to defeat the Soviet regime, rather than a genuine embrace of liberal ideas.
This realization seems absent, however, from McFaul's later apologia about the decade of corrupt, ineffective governance that defined Yeltsin's time as the president of Russia.
McFaul had become enamored with the concept of Russian "democracy" but he could not define it with any precision. In his 2001 book,
Russia's Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin
, McFaul throws the term "democracy" around freely, only acknowledging (in a footnote) that, in the context of Russia, it may not exist. The reality was that Yeltsin, far from an idealistic paragon of democratic virtue, was little more than the hand-picked puppet of the United States.
In 1999, Yeltsin, his health ravaged by alcohol and his legacy haunted by a decade of corruption and mismanagement, stepped aside ("peacefully and constitutionally,” according to McFaul) in favor of his hand-picked successor, Vladimir Putin. Within a period of less than two years (Putin assumed power on New Year's Eve in 2000, and
Russia's Unfinished Revolution
was released in 2001), McFaul declared that the former KGB officer had “inflicted considerable damage to democratic institutions" in Russia. There were, however, no genuine democratic institutions in Russia to inflict damage upon when Yeltsin stepped
asidea€"Russia's first president had seen to that by destroying the Russian Parliament in 1993 and rigging an election (with extensive American support) in 1996. It was everything Putin could do upon his accession to the presidency right the Russian ship of state, let alone reinvent something (Russian democracy) that had never existed to begin with.
McFaul's problem with Putin centered not on what he had
done
as president as much as the fact that he
was
a president. There was an inherent inconsistency between McFaul's theory of Russian "democracy" and the reality of Putin. Putin viewed the collapse of the Soviet Union as
"a major geopolitical disaster of the century." He had stood next to Yeltsin as he
debased himself and Russia in conversations with President Bill Clinton
. If one thing was for certain, Putin would never allow himself to behave in a similar manner.
McFaul's "reset" policy was intended to reassert American influence into the Russian body politic in a post-Putin Russia. As such, when Putin announced in 2011 that he would again run for president, McFaul's
"reset" policy collapsed. Under the "reset," the Obama administration, at McFaul's urging, provided funding through the auspices of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the NED, NDI, and other non-governmental organizations to Russian civil groups that had coalesced into a political opposition to Putin's 2012 presidential ambition. McFaul also encouraged Secretary of State Clinton to speak out in support of the Russian opposition.
"We are supportive of the rights and aspirations of the Russian people," Clinton stated in December 2011, "to be able to make
progress and realize a better future for themselves."
McFaul, whose entire ambassadorial persona was built around the kind of societal engagement produced by these NGOs, never recovered. In February 2014, McFaul
announced his resignation as U.S. ambassador
, declaring that it was time for him to return to Stanford and resume his previous life of academia.
Since leaving Moscow, McFaul has become one of the leading critics of Putin, writing prolifically on the topic, and frequently appearing as a talking head on television. Putin's Russia has provided McFaul with plenty of material to work with, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the military intervention in Syria in 2015, and the alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
A staunch supporter of Clinton, McFaul has turned his sights on Trump,
strongly criticizing Trump's own efforts
for a new "reset" with Russia as misguided. By McFaul's telling, the abysmal state of U.S.-Russian relations is the fault of Putin and Putin alone, and Trump's efforts at normalizing relations only plays into Putin's hands.
But it was McFaul's role in the U.S. interference in the Russian 2012 election that put in motion everything that followed. Perception makes its own reality, and the Russian perception is that McFaul and the Obama administration purposefully put their thumb on the scale of Russia's presidential election to keep Putin from winning. McFaul has been banned from traveling to Russia, and in 2018 Putin approached Trump for permission to have Russian intelligence officers question McFaul about alleged illegal activities conducted while he was ambassador. While the Russian claims are unsubstantiated allegations, and their request facially absurd, the fact remains that when it comes to apportioning blame for the sorry state of U.S.-Russian relations today, one need look no further than Michael McFaul and his decades-long effort to create Russian
"democracy" from whole cloth as laying the foundation for failure.a
For McFaul to today condemn the Russians for their alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election is like an arsonist seeking to assign blame for a blaze sparked by the embers of his own handiwork.
a
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author ofa
Dealbreaker: Donald Trump and the Unmaking of the Iran Nuclear Deal (2018).
Why does the author try to sell a false narrative with the first line?
Let’s be real. In no substantial way did Russia “meddle” with our elections.
Those who propose that they did, such as the former(?) MI6 asset who wrote this article, ought to be considered suspects in the ONGOING coup conspiracy.
Good article but the issue goes far beyond Michael McFaul.
In fact, scholars will one day rank the saga of America’s policy toward Russia after the Cold War very high on history’s list of stupendous follies: how, after winning an existential struggle against a totalitarian superpower accurately called by Reagan an Evil Empire, the best and the brightest in Washington set out to make a mortal enemy of the third-rate, humiliated nation that emerged from Soviet ashes — but bore little resemblance to the Soviet Union.
It’s on par, in a way, with the allies’ treatment of Germany after World War I, when a shortsighted and punitive policy toward a shattered enemy helped pave the way for the rise of Hitler and the horrors of war and genocide that would follow. We can hope things don’t end in a similar vein for this generation, but I wouldn’t want to bet on it.
I keep thinking of a line ascribed to an ancient Greek playwright: whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. It seems spookily fitting these days.
The politicizing of the NGOs also led Putin to assume the Peace Corps volunteers in rural Russia were also involved, leading him to end that venture. Once again, ordinary poor Russians beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg lost out; and once again the only diplomatic “reset” for America was a return to our blissful ignorance of Russia.
McFaul is painfully bad – emphasis on the present tense – and in many ways appears to be living in some kind of alternative reality. However the problematic Russia situation is ultimately a larger bi product of many bad actors in the Obama administration, most importantly those involved with the coup in Ukraine. 2014 was the point of no return: from that perspective McFaul was merely an irritant.
My contention is Americans swayed by Russian intervention propaganda fill the population with un-informed people. The same demographic even believe the media, especially now fading CNN. One day I would expect owner AT&T to get involved .
Or, and hear me out here, Russia is a great power among others that, like all great powers, seeks to maximize power and position. Ergo any reset was likely doomed since it can’t take into account the inherently conflicting grand strategies of the American republic and the Russian federation.
This is anold, 2015 article that is still rrrelenet today. Well written overview of British policies toward Russia
Notable quotes:
"... Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down. ..."
"... EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil. ..."
"... In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as "authoritarian," "dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state." She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule." ..."
"... The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread "Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government. ..."
"... Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08. ..."
"... NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online "anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow. ..."
January 9, 2012 -Organizers of the December 2011 "anti-vote-fraud" demonstrations in Moscow have announced Feb. 4 as the date
of their next street action, planned as a march around the city's Garden Ring Road on the 22nd anniversary of a mass demonstration
which paved the way to the end of the Soviet Union. While there is a fluid situation within both the Russian extraparliamentary opposition
layers, and the ruling circles and other Duma parties, including a process of "dialogue" between them, in which ex-Finance Minister
Alexei Kudrin is playing a role, it is clear that British imperial interests are intent on-if not actually destroying Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin's bid for reelection as Russia's President in the March 4 elections-casting Russia into ongoing, destructive political
turmoil.
Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top
is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down.
Review of the events leading up to the Dec. 4, 2011 Duma elections, which the street demonstrators demanded be cancelled for fraud,
shows that not only agent-of-British-influence Mikhail Gorbachov, the ex-Soviet President, but also the vast Project Democracy apparatus
inside the United States, exposed by EIR in the 1980s as part of an unconstitutional "secret government,"[1]
have been on full mobilization to block the current Russian leadership from continuing in power.
Project Democracy
Typical is the testimony of Nadia Diuk, vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), before the Subcommittee
on Europe and Eurasia of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs last July 26. The NED is the umbrella of Project Democracy;
it functions, inclusively, through the International Republican Institute (IRI, linked with the Republican Party) and the National
Democratic Institute (NDI, linked with the Democratic Party, and currently headed by Madeleine Albright).
Diuk was educated at the U.K.'s Unversity of Sussex Russian studies program, and then taught at Oxford University, before coming
to the U.S.A. to head up the NED's programs in Eastern Europe and Russia beginning 1990. She is married to her frequent co-author,
Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Institute, who headed up the private intelligence outfit Freedom House[2]
for 12 years. Her role is typical of British outsourcing of key strategic operations to U.S. institutions.
EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia
into deadly political turmoil.
In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as "authoritarian,"
"dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since
Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state." She
announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary
elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim
the continued legitimacy of its rule."
Diuk expressed renewed hope that the disastrous 2004 Orange Revolution experiment in Ukraine could be replicated in Russia, claiming
that "when the protests against authoritarian rule during Ukraine's Orange Revolution brought down the government in 2004, Russian
citizens saw a vision across the border of an alternative future for themselves as a Slavic nation." She then detailed what she claimed
were the Kremlin's reactions to the events in Ukraine, charging that "the leaders in the Kremlin-always the most creative innovators
in the club of authoritarians-have also taken active measures to promote support of the government and undermine the democratic opposition...."
Holos Ameryky
The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread
"Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government.
While lauding "the democratic breakthroughs in the Middle East" in 2011, Diuk called on the Congress to "look to [Eastern Europe]
as the source of a great wealth of experience on how the enemies of freedom are ever on the alert to assert their dominance, but
also how the forces for freedom and democracy will always find a way to push back in a struggle that demands our support."
In September, Diuk chaired an NED event featuring a representative of the NED-funded Levada Center Russian polling organization,
who gave an overview of the then-upcoming December 4 Duma election. Also speaking there was Russian liberal politician Vladimir Kara-Murza,
who predicted in the nastiest tones that Putin will suffer the fate of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In this same September period,
Mikhail Gorbachov, too, was already forecasting voting irregularities and a challenge to Putin's dominance.
The NED, which has an annual budget of $100 million, sponsors dozens of "civil society" groups in Russia. Golos, the supposedly
independent vote-monitoring group that declared there would be vote fraud even before the elections took place, has received NED
money through the NDI since 2000. Golos had a piecework program, paying its observers a set amount of money for each reported voting
irregularity. NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny-the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations-since
2006, when he and Maria Gaidar (daughter of the late London-trained shock therapy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar) launched a youth debating
project called "DA!" (meaning "Yes!" or standing for "Democratic Alternative"). Gorbachov's close ally Vladimir Ryzhkov, currently
negotiating with Kudrin on terms of a "dialogue between the authorities and the opposition," also received NED grants to his World
Movement for Democracy.
Besides George Soros's Open Society Foundations (formerly, Open Society Institute, OSI), the biggest source of funds for this
meddling, including funding which was channeled through the NDI and the IRI, is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Officially, USAID has spent $2.6 billion on programs in Russia since 1992. The current acknowledged level is around $70 million annually,
of which nearly half is for "Governing Justly & Democratically" programs, another 30% for "Information" programs, and only a small
fraction for things like combatting HIV and TB. On Dec. 15, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Philip Gordon announced that the Obama Administration would seek Congressional approval to step up this funding, with "an initiative
to create a new fund to support Russian non-governmental organizations that are committed to a more pluralistic and open society."
Awaiting McFaul
White House/Pete Souza
The impending arrival in Moscow of Michael McFaul (shown here with his boss in the Oval Office), as U.S. Ambassador to Russia,
is seen by many there as an escalation of Project Democracy efforts to destabilize the country.
People from various parts of the political spectrum in Russia see the impending arrival of Michael McFaul as U.S. Ambassador to
Russia as an escalation in Project Democracy efforts to destabilize Russia. McFaul, who has been Barack Obama's National Security
Council official for Russia, has been working this beat since the early 1990s, when he represented the NDI in Russia at the end of
the Soviet period, and headed its office there.
As a Russia specialist at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Hoover Institution, as well as the
Carnegie Endowment, and an array of other Russian studies think tanks, McFaul has stuck closely to the Project Democracy agenda.
Financing for his research has come from the NED, the OSI, and the Smith-Richardson Foundation (another notorious agency of financier
interests within the U.S. establishment). He was an editor of the 2006 book Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic
Breakthrough, containing chapters by Diuk and Karatnycky.
In his own contribution to a 2010 book titled After Putin's Russia,[3]
McFaul hailed the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine-which was notoriously funded and manipulated from abroad-as a triumph of "people's
political power from below to resist and eventually overturn a fraudulent election."
Before coming to the NSC, one of McFaul's many positions at Stanford was co-director of the Iran Democracy Project. He has also
been active in such projects as the British Henry Jackson Society which is active in the drive to overthrow the government of Syria.
The Internet Dimension
The December 2011 street demonstrations in Moscow were organized largely online. Participation rose from a few hundred on Dec.
5, the day after the election, to an estimated 20,000 people on Bolotnaya Square Dec. 10, and somewhere in the wide range of 30,000
to 120,000 on Academician Sakharov Prospect Dec. 24.
Headlong expansion of Internet access and online social networking over the past three to five years has opened up a new dimension
of political-cultural warfare in Russia. An EIR investigation finds that British intelligence agencies involved in the current
attempts to destabilize Russia and, in their maximum version, overthrow Putin, have been working intensively to profile online activity
in Russia and find ways to expand and exploit it. Some of these projects are outsourced to think tanks in the U.S.A. and Canada,
but their center is Cambridge University in the U.K.-the heart of the British Empire, home of Bertrand Russell's systems analysis
and related ventures of the Cambridge Apostles.[4]
The scope of the projects goes beyond profiling, as can be seen in the Cambridge-centered network's interaction with Russian anti-corruption
crusader Alexei Navalny, a central figure in the December protest rallies.
While George Soros and his OSI prioritized building Internet access in the former Soviet Union starting two decades ago, as recently
as in 2008 British cyberspace specialists were complaining that the Internet was not yet efficient for political purposes in Russia.
Oxford University's Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism produced a Soros-funded report in 2008, titled "The Web that Failed:
How opposition politics and independent initiatives are failing on the Internet in Russia." The Oxford-Reuters authors regretted
that processes like the Orange Revolution, in which online connections were crucial, had not gotten a toehold in Russia. But they
quoted a 2007 report by Andrew Kuchins of the Moscow Carnegie Center, who found reason for optimism in the seven-fold increase in
Russian Internet (Runet) use from 2000 to 2007. They also cited Robert Orttung of American University and the Resource Security Institute,
on how Russian blogs were reaching "the most dynamic members of the youth generation" and could be used by "members of civil society"
to mobilize "liberal opposition groups and nationalists."
Scarcely a year later, a report by the digital marketing firm comScore crowed that booming Internet access had led to Russia's
having "the world's most engaged social networking audience." Russian Facebook use rose by 277% from 2008 to 2009. The Russia-based
social networking outfit Vkontakte.ru (like Facebook) had 14.3 million visitors in 2009; Odnoklassniki.ru (like Classmates.com) had
7.8 million; and Mail.ru-My World had 6.3 million. All three of these social networking sites are part of the Mail.ru/Digital Sky
Technologies empire of Yuri Milner,[5]
with the individual companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and other offshore locations.
The Cambridge Security Programme
Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster
than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08.
Two top profilers of the Runet are Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, who assessed its status in their essay "Control and Subversion
in Russian Cyberspace."[6] At
the University of Toronto, Deibert is a colleague of Barry Wellman, co-founder of the International Network of Social Network Analysis
(INSNA).[7] Rohozinski is a
cyber-warfare specialist who ran the Advanced Network Research Group of the Cambridge Security Programme (CSP) at Cambridge University
in 2002-07. Nominally ending its work, the CSP handed off its projects to an array of organizations in the OpenNet Initiative (ONI),
including Rohozinski's SecDev Group consulting firm, which issues the Information Warfare Monitor.
The ONI, formally dedicated to mapping and circumventing Internet surveillance and filtering by governments, is a joint project
of Cambridge (Rohozinski), the Oxford Internet Institute, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and
the University of Toronto.
Deibert and Rohozinski noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East,
in 2000-08. They cited official estimates that 38 million Russians were going online as of 2010, of whom 60 had broadband access
from home; the forecast number of Russia-based Runet users by 2012 was 80 million, out of a population of 140 million. Qualitatively,
the ONI authors welcomed what they called "the rise of the Internet to the center of Russian culture and politics." On the political
side, they asserted that "the Internet has eclipsed all the mass media in terms of its reach, readership, and especially in the degree
of free speech and opportunity to mobilize that it provides."
This notion of an Internet-savvy core of the population becoming the focal point of Russian society is now being hyped by those
who want to push the December demonstrations into a full-scale political crisis. Such writers call this segment of the population
"the creative class," or "the active creative minority," which can override an inert majority of the population. The Dec. 30 issue
of Vedomosti, a financial daily co-owned by the Financial Times of London, featured an article by sociologist Natalya
Zubarevich, which was then publicized in "Window on Eurasia" by Paul Goble, a State Department veteran who has concentrated for decades
on the potential for Russia to split along ethnic or other lines.
Zubarevich proposed that the 31% of the Russian population living in the 14 largest cities, of which 9 have undergone "post-industrial
transformation," constitute a special, influential class, as against the inhabitants of rural areas (38%) and mid-sized industrial
cities with an uncertain future (25%). Goble defined the big-city population as a target: "It is in this Russia that the 35 million
domestic users of the Internet and those who want a more open society are concentrated."
The Case of Alexei Navalny
In the "The Web that Failed" study, Oxford-Reuters authors Floriana Fossato, John Lloyd, and Alexander Verkhovsky delved into
the missing elements, in their view, of the Russian Internet. What would it take, they asked, for Runet participants to be able to
"orchestrate motivation and meaningful commitments"? They quoted Julia Minder of the Russian portal Rambler, who said about the potential
for "mobilization": "Blogs are at the moment the answer, but the issue is how to find a leading blogger who wants to meet people
on the Internet several hours per day. Leading bloggers need to be entertaining.... The potential is there, but more often than not
it is not used."
NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online "anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December
demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist
found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration
in Moscow.
It is difficult not to wonder if Alexei Navalny is a test-tube creation intended to fill the missing niche. This would not be
the first time in recent Russian history that such a thing happened. In 1990, future neoliberal "young reformers" Anatoli Chubais
and Sergei Vasilyev wrote a paper under International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) auspices, on the priorities
for reform in the Soviet Union. They stated that a certain personality was missing on the Soviet scene at that time: the wealthy
businessman. In their IIASA paper, Chubais and Vasilyev wrote: "We now see a figure, arising from historical non-existence: the figure
of a businessman-entrepreneur, who has enough capital to bear the investment responsibility, and enough technological knowledge and
willingness to support innovation."[8]
This type of person was subsequently brought into existence through the corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in Russia, becoming
known as "the oligarchs." Was Navalny, similarly, synthesized as a charismatic blogger to fill the British subversive need for "mobilization"?
Online celebrity Navalny's arrest in Moscow on Dec. 5, and his speech at the Academician Sakharov Prospect rally on Dec. 24 were
highlights of last month's turmoil in the Russian capital. Now 35 years old, Navalny grew up in a Soviet/Russian military family
and was educated as a lawyer. In 2006, he began to be financed by NED for the DA! project (see above). Along the way-maybe through
doing online day-trading, as some biographies suggest, or maybe from unknown benefactors-Navalny acquired enough money to be able
to spend $40,000 (his figure) on a few shares in each of several major Russian companies with a high percentage of state ownership.
This gave him minority-shareholder status, as a platform for his anti-corruption probes.
It must be understood that the web of "corruption" in Russia is the system of managing cash flows through payoffs, string-pulling,
and criminal extortion, which arose out of the boost that Gorbachov's perestroika policy gave to pre-existing Soviet criminal networks
in the 1980s. It then experienced a boom under darlings of London like Gaidar, who oversaw the privatization process known as the
Great Criminal Revolution in the 1990s. As Russia has been integrated into an international financial order, which itself relies
on criminal money flows from the dope trade and strategically motivated scams like Britain's BAE operations in the Persian Gulf,
the preponderance of shady activity in the Russian economy has only increased.
Putin's governments inherited this system, and it can be ended when the commitment to monetarism, which LaRouche has identified
as a fatal flaw even among genuinely pro-development Russians, is broken in Russia and worldwide. The current bankruptcy of the Trans-Atlantic
City of London-Eurozone-Wall Street system means that now is the time for this to happen!
Yale Fellows
In 2010, Navalny was accepted to the Yale World Fellows Program, as one of fewer than 20 approved candidates out of over a thousand
applicants. As EIR has reported, the Yale Fellows are instructed by the likes of British Foreign Office veteran Lord Mark
Malloch-Brown and representatives of Soros's Open Society Foundations.[9]
What's more, the World Fellows Program is funded by The Starr Foundation of Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, former chairman and CEO
of insurance giant American International Group (AIG), the recipient of enormous Bush Jr.-Obama bailout largesse in 2008-09; Greenberg
and his C.V. Starr company have a long record of facilitating "regime change" (aka coups), going back to the 1986 overthrow of President
Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Navalny reports that Maria Gaidar told him to try for the program, and he enjoyed recommendations
from top professors at the New Economic School in Moscow, a hotbed of neoliberalism and mathematical economics. It was from
New Haven that Navalny launched his anti-corruption campaign against Transneft, the Russian national oil pipeline company, specifically
in relation to money movements around the new East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline. The ESPO has just finished the first year of operation
of its spur supplying Russian oil to China.
Navalny presents a split personality to the public. Online he is "Mr. Openness." He posts the full legal documentation of his
corruption exposés. When his e-mail account was hacked, and his correspondence with U.S. Embassy and NED officials about funding
him was made public, Navalny acknowledged that the e-mails were genuine. He tries to disarm interviewers with questions like, "Do
you think I'm an American project, or a Kremlin one?"
During the early-January 2012 holiday lull in Russia, Navalny engaged in a lengthy, oh-so-civilized dialogue in Live Journal with
Boris Akunin (real name, Grigori Chkhartishvili), a famous detective-story author and liberal activist who was another leader of
the December demonstrations, about whether Navalny's commitment to the slogan "Russia for the Russians" marks him as a bigot who
is unfit to lead. Addressing crowds on the street, however, Navalny sounds like Mussolini. Prominent Russian columnist Maxim Sokolov,
writing in Izvestia, found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic.
Navalny may well end up being expendable in the view of his sponsors. In the meantime, it is clear that he is working from the
playbook of Gene Sharp, whose neurolinguistic programming and advertising techniques were employed in Ukraine's Orange Revolution
in 2004.[10] Sharp, a veteran
of "advanced studies" at Oxford and 30 years at Harvard's Center for International Affairs, is the author of The Politics of Nonviolent
Action: Power and Struggle, which advises the use of symbolic colors, short slogans, and so forth.
While at Yale, Navalny also served as an informant and advisor for a two-year study conducted at Harvard's Berkman Center for
Internet and Society, one of the institutions participating in the OpenNet Initiative, launched out of Cambridge University in the
U.K. The study produced a profile titled "Mapping the Russian Blogosphere," which detailed the different sections of the Runet: liberal,
nationalist, cultural, foreign-based, etc., looking at their potential social impact.
Allen Douglas, Gabrielle Peut, David Christie, and Dorothea Bunnell did research for this article.
[1] "Project Democracy:
The 'parallel government' behind the Iran-Contra affair," Washington, D.C.: EIR Research, Inc., 1987. This 341-page special report
explored the connection between the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the illegal gun-running operations of Col. Oliver
North, et al., which had been mentioned in cursory fashion in the Tower Commission report on that "Iran-Contra" scandal. Lyndon
H. LaRouche, Jr.'s introduction to the report identified the roots of North's "Irangate" gun-running in Henry A. Kissinger's reorganization
of U.S. intelligence under President Richard M. Nixon, in the wake of post-Watergate findings by the 1975 Senate Select Committee
to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Committee). The process of replacing traditional
intelligence functions of government with National Security Council-centered operations, often cloaked as promoting ``democracy''
worldwide, was continued under the Trilateral Commission-created Administration of Jimmy Carter. Supporting ``democracy''--often
measured by such criteria as economic deregulation and extreme free-market programs, which ravage the populations that are supposedly
being democratized--became an axiom of U.S. foreign policy. The NED itself was founded in 1983.
[2] "Profile:
'Get
LaRouche' Taskforce: Train Salon's Cold War Propaganda Apparat,"EIR, Sept. 29, 2006, reviews the Truman-era roots
of relations among Anglo-American intelligence figures John Train, James Jesus Angleton, Jay Lovestone, and Leo Cherne, all of
whom were later active against LaRouche and his influence. Cherne's International Rescue Committee (IRC) was described by Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, its one-time director of public relations, as an instrument of "psychological warfare." The closely related
Freedom House project was directed by Cherne for many years. Geostrategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has written that
Russia is destined to fragment as the Soviet Union did, have sat on its board.
[3] Stephen K. Wegren,
Dale Roy Herspring (eds.), After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010,
p. 118.
[4] Craig Isherwood,
"Universal Principles vs. Sense Certainty," The New Citizen, October/November 2011, p. 12 (http://cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/cv7n6_pages12to14.pdf).
Founded as the Cambridge Conversazione Society in 1820, by Cambridge University professor and advisor to the British East India
Company, the Rev. Charles Simeon, the Apostles are a secret society limited to 12 members at a time. Its veterans have held strategic
intelligence posts for the British Empire, both in the heyday of overt colonialism, and in the continuing financial empire and
anti-science "empire of the mind," for nearly two centuries, during which Cambridge was the elite university in Britain, Trinity
College was the elite college within Cambridge, and the Apostles were the elite within Trinity. Isherwood reported, "Among other
doctrines, the Apostles founded: Fabian socialism; logical positivism specifically against physical chemistry; most of modern
psychoanalysis; all modern economic doctrines, including Keynesianism and post-World War II 'mathematical economics'; modern digital
computers and 'information theory'; and systems analysis. They also founded the world-famous Cavendish Laboratory as the controlling
priesthood for science, to attack Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, in particular.... John Maynard Keynes, a leader of the Apostles,
... traced the intellectual traditions of the Apostles back to John Locke and Isaac Newton, and through Newton back to the ancient
priesthood of Babylon." The group's abiding focus on influencing Russia is exemplified by not only Bertrand Russell himself, but
also the involvement of several members of the Apostles, including Lord Victor Rothschild of the banking family, and future Keeper
of the Queen's Pictures Sir Anthony Blunt, in the Anglo-Soviet spy rings of the mid-20th Century.
[5] Billionaire Milner
is a self-described failed physicist. He worked for the World Bank on Russian banking issues in the 1990s, before making his fortune
as one of Russia's newly minted "oligarchs"-a business partner of now-jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the Menatep banking group,
among other projects.
[6] In Access Controlled:
The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, an OpenNet Initiative (ONI) book, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2010.
[8] Anatoliy Chubais
and Sergei A. Vasiliev, "Privatization in the USSR: Necessary for Structural Change," in Economic Reform and Integration: Proceedings
of 1-3 March 1990 Meeting, Laxenberg, Austria: IIASA, July 1990. The authors' notion of a charismatic businessman-entrepreneur
comes straight from Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter who coined the term Unternehmergeist, or "entrepreneur-spirit,"
to describe people he called agents of "creative destruction."
"... Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which targets Russian oligarchs and officials who support the Putin regime and are accused of corruption and human rights abuses. ..."
"... Since 2014, Kara-Murza has worked for the Open Russia Foundation, which was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to become one of the most powerful and richest oligarchs of Russia during the 1990s and was imprisoned by Putin in 2003. ..."
"... Gessen also teaches at Columbia University's Journalism School and is the brother of Masha Gessen, who has been heavily involved in the anti-Putin media propaganda for many years. ..."
On Wednesday, October 17, Vladimir Kara-Murza, a leading Russian liberal oppositionist, was interviewed by Keith Gessen, editor
of the n+1 magazine, in an event hosted by Columbia University's Harriman Institute for the Study of Eurasia, Russia and
Eastern Europe. The event was a stark testimony to the advanced preparations for a US-backed "color revolution" in Russia, i.e.,
an imperialist-orchestrated and funded movement of a section of the oligarchy and upper middle class to topple the Putin regime,
similar to those that have taken place in Ukraine and Georgia.
Vladimir Kara-Murza is one of the many shadowy figures of Russian politics who, while little known to most people inside or outside
Russia, are playing a key role in directing and supporting the US anti-Russia policy and the course of the Russian pro-US liberal
opposition. The son of Vladimir Kara-Murza, Sr., who was a major figure in the oligarch-controlled Russian media under Boris Yeltsin
in the 1990s, Vladimir Kara-Murza, Jr. worked for many years as the right-hand man of Boris Nemtsov, one of Yeltsin's key allies
in the 1990s and a right-wing political opponent of Putin, who was assassinated in 2015 under murky circumstances.
Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which targets
Russian oligarchs and officials who support the Putin regime and are accused of corruption and human rights abuses. He has lobbied
for the adoption of similar legislation by governments throughout the world. Through this work, Kara-Murza also became close to the
late John McCain, one of Washington's foremost supporters of "color revolutions" throughout the territory of the former Soviet Union.
In August, Kara-Murza served as a pallbearer at McCain's funeral, along with former Vice President Joe Biden and the actor Warren
Beatty.
Since 2014, Kara-Murza has worked for the Open Russia Foundation, which was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to become
one of the most powerful and richest oligarchs of Russia during the 1990s and was imprisoned by Putin in 2003.
In short, Kara-Murza has been at the center of the operations for a color-revolution-type movement in Russia for years. And this
is precisely what he was invited to speak on with the self-styled leftist and Russia expert Keith Gessen, founding editor of the
n+1 magazine, one of the most popular magazines among pseudo-left circles. (Gessen also teaches at Columbia University's
Journalism School and is the brother of Masha Gessen, who has been heavily involved in the anti-Putin media propaganda for many years.)
The event started with Keith Gessen asking Kara-Murza about the
assassination of Boris Nemtsov which the
latter, of course, attributed to the Kremlin. For most of the discussion, however, Kara-Murza detailed his involvement in the preparations
for a color revolution in Russia.
Kara-Murza insisted that "the history of Russia teaches us that big political changes in our country can start quickly and unexpectedly."
He referred to both the 1905 Revolution and the February Revolution of 1917, which, as Kara-Murza pointed out, even took Lenin by
surprise, and then the collapse of the USSR "in three days" in 1991. "This is how things happen in Russia", he insisted, and "the
problem with this is that nobody is prepared. We [at the Open Russia Foundation] see it as our mission to begin those preparations
for future change now. We cannot afford to not be ready again. Most of the things we do inside of Russia is targeted at preparing
for this future transition."
The Open Russia Foundation, he continued, had 25 regional branches and a series of working groups which were already elaborating
plans for political reforms and constitutional changes for the post-Putin period. Furthermore, they were focusing on "work with the
new generation, the people who will be in charge of Russia" through training and education programs. Lastly, they were doing "international"
work, which he himself was in charge of, which included "outreach" directed, again, at preparing the "future transition."
When later asked by an audience member how he saw the future of Russia in the next few decades, he declared that this change would
come not within the next few decades, but within the next few years.
When he was asked from the audience whether the latest pension reform, which is opposed by over 90 percent of the population,
could trigger the kind of "sudden change" he was expecting, Kara-Murza said: "It could but it doesn't have to. There is always the
argument that it's [going to be] something of a socio-economic nature. Actually, if we look at the two decades of Putin, the peak
of the protests was in December 2011 when the middle class was booming. It was about dignity, it had nothing do to with social issues.
The trigger will not be necessarily economic."
He continued, "The only really shaky point [for Putin] was when so many people felt insulted that the government was wiping its
feet over them. I think it's going to be something like that. A color revolution of dignity," like the events in Ukraine in 2014.
In other words, what Kara-Murza and the Open Russia Foundation are working on is the promotion of a right-wing middle-class movement
similar to the Maidan in Ukraine, which would provide the basis for a coup to topple the current government.
The key figures and mechanisms for such a "color revolution" were also addressed at some length. Keith Gessen asked how Kara-Murza
viewed the campaign of the blogger Alexei Navalny, who, as the WSWS has written, is a
far-right, pro-US figure who cloaks his right-wing
program behind murky phrases about corruption. Just how fraudulent and politically calculated this focus is became clear in the discussion
when Keith Gessen asked whether Navalny's focus on corruption as the center of his political platform was "a winning platform." Kara-Murza
responded: "Yes, it is. Corruption is such a widely understandable issue. It's an issue that everybody is aware of."
In the discussion, a graduate student from Harriman asked whether the Open Russia Foundation had a "particular road map" for what
to do when the "sudden event" Kara-Murza expected actually occurred. Kara-Murza replied: "If there were a model, it would be something
like the Polish roundtable [of 1989]. The way we want a transition to happen in Russia is peaceful and smooth. We don't want a violent
revolution. Russia has had enough revolutions. The problem is that the people who are in power today are doing everything for a revolution
to occur."
Then, he went into the figures who would be included in such a roundtable. "Of course, Boris Nemtsov would have been at the roundtable",
but, he assured his audience, there were many others. The figures he named were: Yevgeni Roizman, the mayor of Yekaterinburg, who
is a notorious far-right-winger, with deep ties to the local mafia. In Russia, he became known above all through his alleged "drug"
relief program, which has involved heavy physical abuse of drug addicts.
He also named Galina Shirshina, a member of the liberal opposition party Yabloko (which Nemtsov led until his assassination) as
well as Lev Shlosberg, a local politician in Pskov who is also a leading member of "Yabloko." Finally, Kara-Murza named Dmitri Gudkov,
who is heading the opposition "Party of Changes" with Ksenia Sobchak, the daughter of Putin's mentor Anatoly Sobchak, who
ran as a presidential candidate this year
.
"Navalny and Khodorkovsky would obviously also be at the roundtable", Kara-Murza added. When Gessen asked "What about the Communists?"
Kara-Murza said that Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Stalinist and National Bolshevik "Left Front", may also hope for a seat at
the roundtable. "We have very different views, but we have a good personal relationship. He's a decent human being, politically and
on a human level."
Then, he added, "there are also many nationalists who are not controlled by the Kremlin" and who could join the roundtable. Throughout
the event, Kara-Murza repeated that he and his allies were the true patriots and Russian nationalists, as opposed to Putin and the
oligarchs and officials around him. "I just don't want to bore everyone with a long list of names," he said, as he concluded his
enumeration of prospective of roundtable participants.
Like all Russian liberal oppositionists, Kara-Murza makes a hue and cry about rigged elections under Putin. Yet at no point did
he even mention the possibility of an election before or after such a "roundtable," the participants of which have most evidently
already been discussed and set.
There could hardly be a more open statement about the complicity of the so called opposition forces in Russian in a premeditated,
US-backed plot to overthrow the Putin regime and install another, more pro-US, right-wing government in its place.
Kara-Murza speaks for a section of the oligarchy which not only seeks to gain control over the social and economic wealth of Russia,
but also fears that a continuation of the Putin regime will threaten not only Russia's geopolitical position, but also social revolution.
They see their main goal in making sure that a reshuffling within the oligarchy and upper middle class takes place, to assure both
a reorientation of Russian foreign policy more directly in line with the interests of imperialism, and the ongoing suppression of
the working class.
The complete indifference toward the implications of these policies for the masses of working people in Russia was at full display
when Kara-Murza defended the process of capitalist restoration and the 1990s as time when Russia was actually make headway on the
world stage: Russia was included in the G8 and finally internationally recognized, Kara-Murza stressed.
He contemptuously dismissed any criticism of the 1990s by referring to this decade as the "supposedly horrible 90s." The fact
that the Russian economy experienced the worst collapse recorded in modern history for peacetime; that life expectancy plummeted,
that hundreds of thousands committed suicide and were driven into substance abuse and that workers were going without pay for months
and years, all of this is evidently of no concern to him.
Underlining the recklessness of the whole operation, the question of the potential consequences of a "color revolution" was not
even raised. But anyone who looks at the past three decades of US foreign policy knows where this type of intervention of leads:
civil war, ethnic strife, dictatorial regimes, and decades of economic, social and economic crisis. In the case of Russia, a "color
revolution" would most likely mean the violent break-up of the Russian Federation -- many opposition leaders in fact argue for different
borders of Russia. It would, moreover, raise the very immediate danger of a nuclear catastrophe: what if a section of the military
resorts to the vast nuclear arsenal of Russia to defend its interests? And what will the US military and NATO do if a color revolution
underway in Russia suddenly threatens to go astray? Will they intervene directly militarily?
The involvement of Keith Gessen in this dubious event is revealing. At no point did he raise something akin to a critical question.
His role was nothing but to ask polite questions and provide Kara-Murza with a platform. A self-styled leftist, Gessen has translated
and published the writings of Kirill Medvedev, a leading figure in the Russian Socialist Movement (RSM), a Pabloite formation in
Russia. This year, he published a novel "A Terrible Country" in which he, yet again, promotes the Russian pseudo-left. In 2014, the
RSM fully backed the far-right coup in Kiev. In Russia itself, the RSM has long shifted toward full support for Alexei Navalny's
right-wing "anti-corruption campaign," ignoring or dismissing his history of support for Russian fascism and racism. The role of
Gessen in this event is emblematic of the role of these forces as handmaidens US and European imperialism.
It was befitting for Columbia University's Harriman Institute to host this event: the first interdisciplinary Russia institute
to be formed after the beginning of the Cold War, it has historically been associated with US imperialist plotting against first
the Soviet Union and then Russia. To this day, the Harriman Institute, which is a non-profit, functions primarily as a think tank
as well as an educational and recruiting center for Washington's foreign policy establishment and the CIA.
For much of its existence, the Harriman Institute was dominated by the figure and work of
Zbigniew Brzezinski who, for over half a
century, played a central role in elaborating the world strategy and justifying the war crimes of US imperialism. One of Brzezinski's
political trademarks was his advocacy for fostering political opposition and insurrections in the Soviet Union, to undermine the
regime and thus fight what he saw as one of the US's main competitors for the control of Eurasia. The "color revolution" strategy
of US imperialism since 1991 stands in precisely this tradition. Now as then, far-right forces within the elites and fake left tendencies
are the props of imperialism "on the ground."
Events like the one at Columbia reveal much about the state of world politics. "Color revolutions" which will impact the lives
of hundreds of millions and threaten civil and all-out nuclear war, are being discussed and plotted behind the exclusive doors of
an Ivy League institution with an audience of some 50 people, most of whom are graduate students and professors who, one may assume,
either already are on the payroll of the CIA and the State Department or seeking to get there.
The Putin regime offers no alternative to these imperialist machinations. Like the sections of the oligarchy that Kara-Murza speaks
for, Putin and his cronies have emerged out of and enriched themselves on the basis of the destruction of the Soviet Union which
was carried by the Stalinist bureaucracy hand-in-gloves with imperialism. It considers not imperialism, but the Russian working class
to be its main enemy, and, hence, responds to every imperialist provocation is a response of desperate attempts to find a deal with
imperialism, largely behind closed doors, and the promotion of nationalism and militarism at home.
This sinister event is a warning to the international working class about the advanced preparations for the next step in the efforts
of US imperialism to topple the Putin regime and bring the resources of Russia under its direct control: it is high time for workers
both in the US and in Russia to intervene in politics on an independent basis to put an end to these dangerous conspiracies of imperialism
through the struggle for socialism.
"... In April of 1992, the Congress had overwhelmingly rejected then President Boris Yeltsin's attempt to take emergency powers. It had also approved the draft new Russian constitution prepared by the Constitutional Commission led by the very young lawyer, Oleg Rumyantsev. By September, Rumyantsev's draft for a parliamentary republic of roughly the French type, was headed for enactment if and when the Congress was reconvened. That should have been in October, as had been planned. ..."
"... That session was also certain to reject the economic policy programme ("reform" in Bortin's list of approbative nouns) delivered to the Kremlin by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), through Yegor Gaidar, then half-way through his six months as acting prime minister. Detested throughout the country, Gaidar was another of Bortin's approbative nouns. ..."
Journalists arranging tuxedo events to give themselves prizes are even sillier than
Hollywood actors at the Oscar ceremony. There are also no comedians to tell jokes to neutralize
the gastroenteric reflex that is always brought on in audiences by a surfeit of brown-nosing.
For the British children in the audience who don't know what that term means, the Private Eye
term is the more onomatopoetic -- arslikhan.
Meg Bortin, the second editor of the Moscow Times and one of the shortest termers, has been
rolled out for today's celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Times. The true anniversary
actually fell in March, eight months ago. But if that was the point from which to hang the
anniversary celebration, Bortin couldn't call herself the "founding editor in chief".
She's also awarded herself the job of rewriting Russia's past and future, and demonstrate
how brown her nose still is. "The question for the next 20 years, " she opines in
today's edition , "is whether the paper can retain this independence -- a willingness to
look at the news in Moscow and Russia and tell the truth, even if that truth is sometimes
displeasing to the authorities."
This is mock-bravery. The authorities Bortin recognized in Moscow at the time – the
ones in residence at Spaso House – were the only ones she dared not, never thought of
displeasing. She also ran an editorial policy that dared not controvert their policy. Bortin
reserved special venom – the adjective "pro-communist" – for the Congress of
People's Deputies, elected two years earlier; its Speaker Ruslan Khasbulatov; and the executive
chamber then known as the Supreme Soviet. Bortin knew none of them; had no sources in the
factions or the party leaders' offices; and detested them all, insisting that the reporting of
the Times should depict them and their debates as anti-democratic, communistic, anti-American,
etc., etc.
In April of 1992, the Congress had overwhelmingly rejected then President Boris Yeltsin's
attempt to take emergency powers. It had also approved the draft new Russian constitution
prepared by the Constitutional Commission led by the very young lawyer, Oleg Rumyantsev. By
September, Rumyantsev's draft for a parliamentary republic of roughly the French type, was
headed for enactment if and when the Congress was reconvened. That should have been in October,
as had been planned.
That session was also certain to reject the economic policy programme ("reform" in Bortin's
list of approbative nouns) delivered to the Kremlin by the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
through Yegor Gaidar, then half-way through his six months as acting prime minister. Detested
throughout the country, Gaidar was another of Bortin's approbative nouns.
The showdown between Bortin and I came on September 1, 1992, after I had filed a
12-paragraph news story, entitled "Khasbulatov postpones People's Congress session." Read the
original despatch
here . My sources were from Speaker Ruslan Khasbulatov's office; from the Congress
factions; from staff in Gaidar's office; and from the Kremlin. The big news was that
Khasbulatov had decided not to allow the Congress to resume its session in October. The
significance was that he was postponing the conflict of powers between the executive and the
legislature. Khasbulatov thought, the story reported, that he was buying time to give Yeltsin
more rope to hang himself; the president was polling 30% or less approval in Moscow at the
time. Khasbulatov thought the showdown would come eventually, but he wanted to appear to be
keeping himself above the fray, and mobilize a cross-party consensus behind the new
constitution. If the time came to drive Yeltsin from power, Khasbulatov thought it could, and
should be done constitutionally. In retrospect, Khasbulatov's misjudgement was colossal. In
time he has admitted it.
Bortin, though, didn't understand then, has never understood what was happening. But she
wouldn't allow my little news story to run. She would also brook no direct-source reporting
from the congress, the constitutional commission, or the parties then in opposition to the
president. That led to that showdown of all showdowns in newsrooms the world over – the
showdown over the truth. It also led to a brief but noisy episode of clinical hysteria from
Bortin, and a confession from Bortin's publisher, Derk Sauer, one of the Dutch co-owners of the
Times.
Bortin had been an embarrassment to Sauer, which he apologized for, telling me that an
American national was necessary to secure the funding on which the Moscow Times depended. I was
polite enough not to enquire what funding he was talking about; I already knew. The occasion
was that I – now the only (American) reporter from the original team under the first
editor, Michael Hester, still at work in and on Russia – had refused to attach the
required derogatory adjectives to the parliamentary opposition to Yeltsin, and refused to
report the IMF programme with the required noun, "reform". Not even my sources at the IMF
Moscow office, including the French protégé of IMF Director Michel Camdessus,
accepted that guff from Gaidar. But Bortin did, so she fired me on September 3, 1992. Sauer
then rehired me with an increased salary to be paid each month on condition I didn't report
what had happened, and didn't join the competition .
In 1994, after two years at the Moscow Times, Bortin went off to a sanatorium in Paris. She
reports in her blog that she is writing a memoir called Desperate to be a Housewife and a
manual called The Everyday French Chef. It's been a case of – if you can't stand the
heat, go to the kitchen.
After her exit, Sauer's US money began to dwindle, so he applied to Mikhail Khodorkovsky to
keep the Times's press rolling. Khodorkovsky's money was followed by other oligarchs, and some
especially Russophobic Finns, until now Sauer himself is reported to be contemplating enrolment
in the ranks of Mikhail Prokhorov, in a unit as elite as Muammar Qaddafi's female battalion
once was, if not quite as handsome.
Bortin missed out. It takes chutzpah to claim that "when the first issue of Russia's first
independent English-language daily came out the next morning -- on Friday, Oct. 2, 1992 -- no
one could have imagined the impact The Moscow Times would have in the months and years ahead."
The only accurate term in that account is "daily"; the Moscow Tribune was in English, and had
been coming out independently, but weekly, for more than two years earlier. As for the future
conditional about noone imagining what impact the Moscow Times would have, the only word Bortin
got right there is "noone". That's because the Times has been wrong on every major position it
has taken over the past twenty years. It hasn't been independent; it hasn't had any impact. It
is neither as cleverly comic, nor as linguistically memorable as The Exile, whose editors, Mark
Ames and Matt Taibbi, have been erased from Bortin's 20-year anniversary roll.
For all these years then the Moscow Times has been to Russia as ersatz coffee was to Germans
during World War II. You might say that if you start a war and lose it, you deserve to have
ersatz coffee instead of the real thing. Those who think the Moscow Times is the real thing
have lost their war, but can't be weaned off their taste for their ersatz. From nose to mouth
in twenty years – not far, no taste.
Does the concept of 'blowback' matter, ie that the USA might actually be responsible for
some of the bad things that happen to it? Would Hillary have been a stronger candidate if she
had not taken part in globalist 'nation-building' activities?
No it doesn't. Not across borders. Nations reserve the right to internally bitch and moan
about what happened to them regardless if it is blowback or not. That is how things work on
two different sides of a fence. It just happens to work better when you're fully in control
of the media too.
Because when you fuck with people, they often have the desire to fuck with you right back.
Preferably in the exact same way you did to them. This is typically known as "the cycle of
violence".
For example, did you know the US meddled in the 1996 Russian election to get Yeltsin
re-elected? It's absolutely
true, a lot of people were proud of it at the time and it wasn't a secret. [i.redd.it] He
was in fifth place with ratings in the single digits before the Americans got involved. This
was disastrous for Russia, as the oligarchs and Western neo-liberal economists made a mess of
things. This started the chain of events that led directly to Putin seizing power four years
later. Action, reaction.
To add to the list of things that the Russians had on Hillary .
IIRC, she was Sec of State at the time the US election-meddling-and-color-revolution
brigade tried to rig the Russian elections against Putin.
Putin does not seem to be the sort to let emotion be more important than policy, but I've
always wondered that to the small extent the Russians did take a pop at Hillary's campaign,
if it didn't bring a bit of a smile to Putin's face to know he was just giving back the hits
he'd already taken from her.
Hillary of course was incompetent in having America interfere in Russian elections. That
campaign never had a chance as Putin is a lot more popular in Russia than Hillary is in
America. So, she took a pot shot at a rival world leader knowing (or at least some smart
people did) that it would have no effect and that Putin would win that election anyways.
And of course Hillary the Arrrogant could never imagine that another player in the game
would get to take a turn, and that others might interfere in her election, and she knew she'd
run and she knew she'd rig the Dem party to get the nod, in the same way the NED and the
Soros NGO's tried to interfere in Russia.
First rule of diplomacy– respect the culture and traditions of your
your [sic] host country, aka as [sic] the place where you were
born.
In Seagal's case, the "host" country to which the "academic" McFaul refers is not "also
known as the place where you were born", where "you" is Seagal, to whom McFaul is proffering
unsolicited advice.
The place where Seagal was born is the USA: Seagal's host country in this instance is
Russia.
If Seagal had truly wished to respect the culture and traditions of his host country, he
should have made his statement of acceptance of the post in Russian:
Я глубоко
потрясен и
польщен
назначением
специальным
представителем
российского
Министерства
иностранных
дел по
гуманитарным
связям с США.
Надеюсь, что мы
сможем достичь
мира, гармонии
и
положительных
результатов в
мире. Я очень
серьезно
отношусь к этой
чести.
However, as far as I am aware, Mr. Seagal does not speak Russian, but McFaul does, albeit
он несет полную
хуйню!
Oh, yeah, uh huh, McFaul speaks Russian. In fact, he is some kind of jive-talkin' Russian
homie, telling his audience that he looked forward to seeing them in 'Yoburg', which is the
culture-respectful term for "Yekaterinburg'. That's what got him dubbed "McFuck'. if I recall
correctly.
Then off he went as US Ambassador to Russia, where he almost immediately invited a host of
Russian opposition figures to the US embassy. According to Olga Romanova (& wikipedia)
they discussed the recent Russian protests and "the United States Presidential election
campaign" with McFaul.
While McFaul was away fostering Democrat collusion with Russian opposition figures,
Browder rammed the Magnitsky Act through Congress because of the legislative anomaly that the
Jackson-Vanik Amendment had to be repealed and Congress wouldn't give away something for
nothing.
McFaul and Browder are on the same team, playing different positions.
But ultimately they are impotent chimps. This ain't 1917 and not Sorosite and similar funding
of regime change is going to work in Russia. All these US laws and sanctions are blowhard
vapidity. They only generate healthy stimulus for Russia to clean up the last vestiges of
Yeltsin's 1990s era distortions in its economy and legal system.
Rory Cormac investigates Britain's use of spies and special forces for covert operations
in the postwar period
Historian Rory Cormac discusses his new book Disrupt and Deny, which investigates
Britain's use of spies and special forces for covert operations in the postwar period
####
Podcast at the link.
There's plenty not mentioned within, but still interesting. I would question though the
veracity of official reports released under (Freedom of Information) requests and would
assume that some of those documents are fabricated. After all, if keeping secrets is your
business, then you have have whole range of options for obfuscation, from complete release to
none at all.
Curiously having spoken of the Mau Maus, no mention is made of the discovery a few years
ago of MoD dossiers discovered in a skip (UK gov selling off real estate) detailing the
torture and abuse of them which until then had been completely denied, and ultimately went
before the high court and was fully exposed
First rule of diplomacy– respect the culture and traditions of your
your [sic] host country, aka as [sic] the place where you were
born.
In Seagal's case, the "host" country to which the "academic" McFaul refers is not "also
known as the place where you were born", where "you" is Seagal, to whom McFaul is proffering
unsolicited advice.
The place where Seagal was born is the USA: Seagal's host country in this instance is
Russia.
If Seagal had truly wished to respect the culture and traditions of his host country, he
should have made his statement of acceptance of the post in Russian:
Я глубоко
потрясен и
польщен
назначением
специальным
представителем
российского
Министерства
иностранных
дел по
гуманитарным
связям с США.
Надеюсь, что мы
сможем достичь
мира, гармонии
и
положительных
результатов в
мире. Я очень
серьезно
отношусь к этой
чести.
However, as far as I am aware, Mr. Seagal does not speak Russian, but McFaul does, albeit
он несет полную
хуйню!
Oh, yeah, uh huh, McFaul speaks Russian. In fact, he is some kind of jive-talkin' Russian
homie, telling his audience that he looked forward to seeing them in 'Yoburg', which is the
culture-respectful term for "Yekaterinburg'. That's what got him dubbed "McFuck'. if I recall
correctly.
McFaul lies. and that raises question about his connections to intelligence agencies as
well.
In no way a regular businessman would lobby for Magnitsky act, using false evidence and
blatant lies (for example that Magnitsky was a lawyer; Browder admitted that this is a lie in his
court deposition. This was yet another false flag operation with fingerprints of MI6
It really is peculiar what's happened to these dimwit Dems. I used to listen to Thom
Hartmann and Rachel Maddow when they were on Air America, and their main political positions
were for working people. Now, all they do is partisan politics which they don't seem to
understand benefits only the Deep State war party.
Incidentally, State of the Nation website, http://www.sott.net , has an article by Alex Krainer, who wrote
the book about Bill Browder's crooked dealings in Russia. His book, which was suppressed by
Browder first, i think is "Grand Deception", now available from Red Pill Press for $25 (and
must be selling well because it's being reprinted). I wrote this hastily but you'll see it on
sott.net. Russia's resurgence under Putin is nothing short of astounding.
Also, there is a video on Youtube, "The Rise of Putin and the Fall of the Russian Jewish
Oligarchs", 2 parts. I only saw the beginning showing how the Russian people were given state
vouchers that led to the oligarchs buying them up for their own profit and plunging Russians
into shock therapy disaster instigated by IMF and other US led monetary agencies including
Harvard. This is why it is so incredible how Americans receive political "perception control"
when the truth is exactly opposite of what they are being told. At least more people are
realizing the lies being told about Russia and Putin.
"... Were one to read the Washington Post's article on a Russian proposal regarding the questioning of suspects in various, ongoing US and Russia investigations, they would have imagined former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was about to be shipped to a dungeon beneath the Kremlin for interrogation. ..."
"... McFaul's association with individuals and organizations funded by the government he represented is in reality the very sort of political meddling and interference many have accused Russia of since 2016. There support of someone actually involved in political meddling in Russia, further undermines their credibility and moral authority in regards to accusations against Russia. ..."
"... While the Western media depicts both McFaul and Browder's conflicts with the Russian government as a result of their supposed advocacy for "democracy" and "human rights," McFaul was clearly hiding behind such principles to advance US corporate interests, while Browder was attempting to gain leverage regarding his criminal conviction. ..."
"... This troubling trend of the Western public gravitating toward and supporting individuals like McFaul and Browder solely out of their perceived hatred for President Trump and Russia is pushing Western political discourse further from rational debate and deeper toward hysteria. ..."
Were one to read the Washington Post's article on a
Russian proposal regarding the questioning of suspects in various, ongoing US
and Russia investigations, they would have imagined former US ambassador to
Russia Michael McFaul was about to be shipped to a dungeon beneath the Kremlin
for interrogation.
At this week's summit in Helsinki, Russian President Vladimir Putin
proposed what President Trump described as an "incredible offer" -- the
Kremlin would give special counsel Robert S. Mueller III access to interviews
with Russians who were indicted after they allegedly hacked Democrats in
2016. In return, Russia would be allowed to question certain U.S. officials
it suspects of interfering in Russian affairs.
One of those U.S. officials is a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow,
Michael McFaul, a nemesis of the Kremlin because of his criticisms of Russia's
human rights record.
The Washington Post would compound confusion and hysteria by also claiming
(emphasis added):
The willingness of the White House to contemplate handing over
a former U.S. ambassador for interrogation by the Kremlin drew ire and astonishment
from current and former U.S. officials. Such a proposition is unheard
of. So is the notion that the president may think he has the legal authority
to turn anyone over to a foreign power on his own.
Putin proposed letting Russians observe interrogations of McFaul and
other Americans. In exchange, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller could
send members of his team to watch Russian questioning of 12 Russian intelligence
agents indicted by a U.S. grand jury last week in connection with hacking
Democratic Party email accounts and disseminating those messages before
the 2016 presidential election.
Americans of interest would be questioned in the United States, by Americans,
merely with Russian representatives present, in exchange for American representatives
travelling to Russia to watch a Russian interrogation of suspects relevant to
ongoing US investigations.
Further evidence is the transcript of the actual statement by Russian President
Vladimir Putin himself,
posted by Politico , which states unequivocally (emphasis added):
We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including
the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them
into the country. They will be present at questioning. In this case, there's
another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one. Then we
would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials,
including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the
United States whom we believe -- who have something to do with illegal actions
on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law
enforcement.
Despite these facts, the hysteria has continued to spread in part due to
a dishonest media eager to fan the flames of conflict with Russia and Western
audiences eager to believe them.
Who is McFaul? And Why are Liberals Defending Him?
Americans convinced Russia interfered in American elections must then be
acutely aware that meddling in another nation's internal political affairs is
unacceptable. Thus, McFaul's role in doing precisely this before and during
his appointment as US ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014 should elicit condemnation
and outcries from these same Americans.
Instead, many Western liberals have leaped to McFaul's defense.
The short answer as to why many in the West are defending McFaul is out of
a reflexive response to their blind hatred of US President Donald Trump and
Russia. McFaul has positioned himself both as a critic of President Trump and
of Russia, fulfilling the only two prerequisites required to garner support
among circles entertaining the current anti-Russia hysteria.
Yet McFaul represents special interests and activities that many Americans,
left or right of the political spectrum, would find unacceptable – and perhaps
especially for those outraged over alleged Russian meddling in American politics.
McFaul's Role in Supporting Global Political Meddling
Freedom House is a US government and corporate-financier funded front that
imposes the interests of its sponsors on nations abroad under the guise of expanding
"freedom and democracy around the world." This process entails the creation
and support of opposition groups to undermine and eventually either oust or
overthrow targeted governments.
When McFaul served as trustee for Freedom House, its 2005 annual report indicated
the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID)
as sponsors. It also included Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and pharmaceutical
giant Eli Lilly.
Additionally, Freedom House is a subsidiary of the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) which is chaired by a variety of
career,
pro-war Neoconservatives – Neoconservatives who promoted many of the Bush-era
wars Western liberals opposed.
NED is also funded by the US government
as well as corporations (page 126, PDF ) including Goldman Sachs, convicted
financial criminal George Soros' Open Society, Coca-Cola, Facebook, Google,
Microsoft, and the US Chamber of Commerce which itself serves as a collective
lobbying front for some of the largest corporations in the US.
NED and subsidiaries like Freedom House use the pretext of "democracy promotion"
to pressure and even overthrow governments around the world, making way for
client regimes that will serve US corporations and their expansion around the
globe. In other words, "democracy" is a principle the NED and its subsidiaries
hide behind, not uphold with US client regimes often being more abusive and
corrupt than the governments they replaced.
One would imagine someone like McFaul involved in aiding and abetting corporations
in their meddling worldwide and their subsequent exploitation of nations they
undermine and overthrow would be the last person Western liberals would rush
to the defense of.
McFaul Minding US-Funded Agitators in Moscow
McFaul's role at Freedom House would become more "hands on" when he
was nominated , then appointed US ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014. During
his first year as ambassador, Russian opposition figures funded by the NED and
its subsidiaries
would report to the US embassy in Moscow to meet with McFaul.
Present at the 2012 US embassy meeting were
regular mainstays of the Western-backed Russian opposition , including Boris
Nemtsov, Yevgeniya Chirikova of the NED-funded "Strategy 31″ protests, Lev Ponomarev
of the NED, Ford Foundation, Open Society, and USAID-funded Moscow Helsinki
Group, and Liliya Shibanova of NED-funded GOLOS, an allegedly "independent"
election monitoring group that serves as
the primary source of accusations of voting fraud against President Putin's
United Russia party.
Today, many of these organizations have hidden their US funding and
the
US NED webpage disclosing its activities in Russia describes its current
meddling in the most ambiguous terms possible. Despite this, there are still
nearly 100 entries on the NED's Russian webpage covering everything from meddling
in the media, education, and the environment, to interfering in Russia's legal
system and Russian elections.
We could only imagine the condemnation, outcry, and demands for action should
a front similar to NED be created by Russia to interfere likewise in all aspects
of American socioeconomic and political affairs, especially considering how
mere accusations of "meddling" entailing e-mail leaks and social media posts
have tipped off sanctions, a multi-year investigation, and even talk of treason
and war.
McFaul's association with individuals and organizations funded by the government
he represented is in reality the very sort of political meddling and interference
many have accused Russia of since 2016. There support of someone actually involved
in political meddling in Russia, further undermines their credibility and moral
authority in regards to accusations against Russia.
Pavlovian Politics
McFaul's involvement in the recent Russian proposal was not – however – related
to his role in political meddling in Russia, but instead his alleged involvement
with convicted financial criminal William Browder.
While the Western media depicts both McFaul and Browder's conflicts with
the Russian government as a result of their supposed advocacy for "democracy"
and "human rights," McFaul was clearly hiding behind such principles to advance
US corporate interests, while Browder was attempting to gain leverage regarding
his criminal conviction.
Interestingly enough, George Soros – who has funded subversion in Russia
alongside organizations like NED – also attempted to leverage the notion of
human rights to sidestep his own criminal conviction in France for insider trading,
even according to the New York Times .
This troubling trend of the Western public gravitating toward and supporting
individuals like McFaul and Browder solely out of their perceived hatred for
President Trump and Russia is pushing Western political discourse further from
rational debate and deeper toward hysteria.
That powerful special interests can easily manipulate sections of the Western
public to support virtually anyone or anything, including unsavory characters
like McFaul and Browder or the notion of expanding NATO or continued war abroad
in nations like Syria simply by invoking "Trump" or "Russia" represents a predictable
but dangerous Pavlovian phenomenon likely to leave deep scars, permanently disfiguring
American politics and society much in the way the so-called "War on Terror"
has.
The increasing lack of political sophistication in America is a reflection
of a much wider deterioration of American economic and geopolitical strength
both at home and around the globe. While one would expect sound leadership to
begin preparing America for an orderly transition from a once global hegemon
to a constructive member of a more multipolar world order, history has proven
the lack of grace that generally accompanies an empire's decline.
*
Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and
writer, especially for the online magazine
"New Eastern Outlook" where this article was originally published. He is
a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"... "Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) ..."
"... On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence community ." ..."
"... Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke, in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs." ..."
"... That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions." ..."
"... The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor, exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow, exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government. ..."
"Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much
work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) So I thought I'd throw together some usage examples of
the term to see if I could find more significant readings than my own reaction, and then draw out some implications from that reading.
But first, let's look at how often that term is used, and where. We turn to
Google Trends
:
Some caveats: Google doesn't have enough data to track "our intelligence community," or so it says, so the search is for "intelligence
community" only.
Further, the search is for 2008 to the present, again because Google, or so it says, doesn't have enough data for
shorter time frames.[1] However, I think the chart shows that interest in the intelligence community is not general in time or space:
It spikes when there's gaslighting with reader interest in particular stories, and spikes along the Acela Corridor, in
Washington and New York. (We might also speculate,
based on HuffPost/YouGov
voter data , that interest in the today's stories about the intelligence is limited not only in space, and time, but in scope:
Primarily among liberal Democrats.[2]) With that, let's turn to our usage examples.
I used Google to find them, and of course Google
search is crapified and all but useless -- for example, it insists on returning examples of "intelligence community" along with "our
intelligence community" in normal search, even with when the search string is quoted -- but it is what it is; readers are invited
to supply their own examples.
On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller
was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence
community ."
No. Mueller provided no evidence and the case is unlikely to go to trial; the capability consists in the naming, not in the proof.
Verdict: Credulity .
The
intelligence community
determined
that the Kremlin intended to "denigrate" and "harm" Clinton, and "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic
process" while helping Trump.
And the same claim, July 10, 2018, Washington Post:
The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to boost Trump's candidacy
No. If you click through, you'll find that this is the "17 agencies"/"high confidence" report, whose agencies and analysts were
hand-picked by Clapper; that's just not the "intelligence community" as a whole[3]; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was not
involved in the analysis, for example. (I don't see how it's normal that such an important topic not to be the subject of a Presidental
Finding, but perhaps people were in a rush.) Verdict; Misinformation .
FLAKE: We know the intelligence is right. We stand behind our intelligence community . We need to say
that in the Senate. Yes, it's symbolic, and symbolism is important.
And a similar formulation, July 22, 2018, Senator Marco Rubio (R),
CBS News
:
We need to move forward from that with good public policy and part of that is, I think, standing with our intelligence
community .
Posturing aside, to my sensibilities, it's pretty disturbing when "support the troops" bleeds over into "support the spies," and
when supporting the conclusions of an institution bleeds over into supporting the institution itself, as such. (The whole of the
Federalist Papers argues against the latter view:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.") Verdict: Authoritarian followership .
WE UNIFY OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TOWARD A STRONGER, SAFER NATION
No. The DNI mistakes the hope for the fact; were the intelligence community in fact
unified
, Clapper would not have hand-picked agencies for his report, and a Presidential Finding would have been made. (And given the
source, "our" is doing even more work there than it usual does; it reminds of liberal Democrats talking about "our Democracy." Whose,
exactly?) Verdict: Wishful thinking .
Example 5, July 16, 2018, John Sipher (interview),
PBS
:
I do think the intelligence community is quite resilient. They put their head down and they do their work, but they
take this very seriously. And they see the president as their primary customer and they will do almost anything to get the president
the information that he needs to do his job.
No. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
-- "Who will guard the guards themselves?" -- was formulated by the Roman poet
Juvenal (d. 138AD) in the late first or early second century,
[checks calculator], about 1880 years ago. It's absurd to assume that "the intelligence" community has always served its "primary
customer" -- see the Bay of Pigs invastion at "
groupthink " -- or that they will
in the future, especially considering the enormous stakes involved today. Verdict: Historical ignorance .
Today I voted for H.R. 6237, the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. This
important legislation funds our Intelligence community and provides them the resources they need to effectively defend
our nation "This legislation makes sure that the dedicated men and women who serve our nation in the Intelligence Community [caps
in the original] are fully equipped to fulfill their mission."
No. While Sipher urges (
as does Clapper
) that the intelligence community is in the business of serving customers, Comstock, through her language ("dedicated
men and women who serve our nation") identifies it with the military. That's pretty disturbing when you realize that the intelligence
community has a domestic component (and when you think back to Obama's 17-city crackdown on Occupy, or Obama's militarized response
to #BlackLivesMatter). Verdict: Militarization
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, head of the U.S. intelligence community , reaffirmed his conclusion
that Russia had indeed tried to sway the election in a statement published after Trump's remarks.
No. The U.S. has 17 intelligence agencies; the DNI is in no sense their head.
From the DNI site :
The core mission of the ODNI is to lead the IC in intelligence integration, forging a community that delivers the most insightful
intelligence possible. That means effectively operating as one team: synchronizing collection, analysis and counterintelligence
so that they are fused. This integration is the key to ensuring national policymakers receive timely and accurate analysis from
the IC to make educated decisions.
If you boil that bureucratic porridge down -- the Russian word for porridge is
kasha , in case kompromat has
worn thin for you -- you'll see that the 17 intelligence agencies do not have a reporting relationship to the DNI. Hence, the DNI
is not their head. QED. Verdict: Authoritarian followership
[BRENNAN:] What Mr. Trump did (Monday) was to betray the women and men of the FBI, the CIA and NSA and others and betray the
American public. That's why I use the term, this was nothing short of treason, because it is a betrayal of the nation. He's giving
aid and comfort to the enemy.
(Leaving aside Brennan's broad definition of enemy -- apparently a sovereign state with interests different from our own, as opposed
to a nation against whom Congress has declared war -- note that Brennan treats the agencies as individual entities, not as "unified,"
presumably betraying DNI Coats). More:
BRENNAN:] I still shake my head trying to understand what was discussed during the two-hour one-on-one, what was discussed
between the two sides in their bilateral meeting. We only saw what Mr. Trump said during the press conference. I can't even imagine
what he said behind closed doors. I can't imagine what he said to Mr. Putin directly. I am very concerned about what type of impact
it might have on our intelligence community and on this country."
No. Note well: What (
torture
advocate ) Brennan says contradicts the other two models expressed in this aggregation. If the President is the customer, it's
not Brennan's concern what that customer does (any more than it's Best Buy's concern what I buy in Starbucks after I pick up my flat-screen
TV). And if the intelligence community is a branch of the military, it's not their concern what their Commander-in-Chief does; he'll
tell them what they need to know.) Seriously, why does the Praetorian Guard need to know what the emperor is doing. Now, one could
argue that Brennan's ambition is counteracting Trump's ambition; well and good, but then one needs to think through the consequences.
And if Brennan, et al., really believe that Trump committed treason, then they -- as the good patriots they presumably are -- need
to indicate a path to removing him. If that path does not include full disclosure of the evidence for whatever charges are to be
made, then the country will have to deal with the consequences -- which I'd speculate won't be pretty -- of
a change in the Constitutional order where the "intelligence community" can remove a President from office based on its own internal
consensus . Praetorian
Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he
described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke,
in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable
for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the
late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs."
One week later, on February 5th, Secretary of State Colin Powell, with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet sitting
behind his right shoulder, used charts and photographs to elaborate on the Administration's WMD case. "These are not assertions,"
Powell said, "these are facts corroborated by many sources." Among Powell's claims were:
That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads
containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons
and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure
signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."
Powell has subsequently said that he spent days personally assessing the intelligence. He included only information he felt
was fully supported by the analysis. Hence, no mention of enriched uranium from Africa, no claim that al Qaeda was involved in
9-11.
The effect was powerful. Veteran columnist for the Washington Post, Mary McGrory, known for liberal views and Kennedy connections,
wrote an op-ed the following day entitled "I Am Persuaded". Members of Congress, like me, believed the intelligence case. We voted
for the resolution on Iraq to urge U.N. action and to authorize military force only if diplomacy failed. We felt confident we
had made the wise choice.
But as the evidence pours in the Intelligence Committee's review of the pre-war intelligence; David Kay's interim report on
the failure to find WMD in Iraq; an impressive study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board's critique; thoughtful commentaries like that of Ken Pollack in this month's Atlantic Monthly; and
investigative reporting including a lengthy front page story by Barton Gellman of the Washington Post on January 7,
we are finding out that Powell and other policymakers were wrong, British intelligence was wrong, and those of us who
believed the intelligence were wrong . Indeed, I doubt there would be discussions of David Kay's possible departure if the
Iraq Survey Group were on the verge of uncovering large stockpiles of weapons or an advanced nuclear weapons program.
But if 9/11 was a failure to connect the dots, it appears that the Intelligence Community, in the case of Iraq's WMD,
connected the dots to the wrong conclusions . If our intelligence products had been better, I believe many policymakers,
including me, would have had a far clearer picture of the sketchiness of our sources on Iraq's WMD programs, and our lack of certainty
about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.
Let me add that policymakers -- including members of Congress -- have a duty to ask tough questions, to probe the information
being presented to them. We also have a duty to portray that information publicly as accurately as we can.
The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked
by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor,
exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional
leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow,
exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community
says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes
are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward
a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government.
Why are we doing that? Well, if you look at the verdicts after each of the quotes I've found, taking the quotes as a proxy for
elite opinion, one reason might be that the portion of our elites involved in the Russia narrative -- who, let us remember, are limited
in space and scope -- are:
Credulous Misinformed Prone to authoritarian followership Historically ignorant Militarized Praetorian
If power is lying in the street, beware of who picks it up. Matters might not improve.
NOTES .
[1] The hit count (100 for the spike in January 2017) is oddly low; sadly, although 100 looks like a blue link, we cannot click
through to check the data. However, even if the aggregates are low, I think we can assume that both the shape of the trend line and
its geographic distribution are directionally correct, because the spikes occur at reasonable places for them to occur. Sidebar:
Note the horrid user interface design, which uses inordinate amounts of screen space to no purpose, disrespecting the time-pressed
professional user.
[2] We might even go so far as to speculate that -- given these limitations in space -- that while "our" asserts Democrat leadership
as a National party, Democrats are in fact a State party. Removing the hyphen from "nation-state" is a neat way
of encapsulating our current legitimacy crisis.
[3] "Intelligence community," like "deep state," connotes unity among institutions that are in fact riven by faction.
ADDENDUM: Scott Horton
I didn't add this material to the post proper, because I only had screen shots, and I wasn't able to find the post in time using
Google, or Facebook's lousy search. So after ten minutes of plowing through Facebook's infinite scroll, here is the embed* from Scott
Horton that I sought:
And a screen shot personally taken by me:
Note the lead: "European intelligence analysts ," so reminiscent of Bush's "British intelligence has learned " (the
sixteen words ). What they "learned," of course,
was the faked evidence on Niger yellowcake. Go through my list of "verdicts," starting with "credulous," and see what does
not
apply to Horton.
Horton is a Contributing Editor to Harper's Magazine,
has a law practice in New York, and is affiliate with Columbia Law School and the Open Society Institute.
The key point, for me, is this: "Liberal Democrats do not view anyone outside of places like Orange and Lexington County (whom
they go all-out to court) as people fit to make their own choices." It's important to watch for outright denial of agency,
to others, not merely lack of agency. That's true for Horton, it was true for Clinton's "deplorables" comment, and it was true for
Obama's "bitter"/"cling to" Kinseley gaffe.
It would be nice if Senator Sanders didn't signal boost this stuff. Here's another usage example of "intelligence community":
Or, to put this another way, Sanders needs to get his supporters' backs, and fast, with messaging that doesn't take a "duck and
cover" approach by repeating the catchphrases of the current onslaught, but contextualizes and decontaminates it. I didn't say that
would be easy
NOTE * I like the picture the Time chose very much; apparently, the evul left is young, female, swarthy, and/or black.
No suburban Republicans here! The "AbolishICE" t-shirt -- and not, say, #MedicareForAll -- is also a nice touch.
"... The panel showcased the institute's first "Distinguished Visitor," Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to 2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in the 1990s. ..."
"... obe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government: its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the "threat from the Islamic world, it's the southern belly and it's very vulnerable;" and finally, potential conflict with China over access to natural resources. "They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty that could spell trouble down the line," Talbott said. ..."
"... Read also: Is (or can be) the western Far (Hard) Right a friend of Russia? The Ukrainian Test ..."
"... To the question, "Do we have another Cold War?" Talbott answered, "Yes, we've got a Cold War. It's the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it's a Cold War." ..."
"... Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel's official State Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, "The Russians, I think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn't need to show up in Kiev. There was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice, deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American intervention in Ukrainian politics. ..."
"... Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, "There really is no succession plan. And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man, do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of management of the transition that we had in '91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear weapons and chaos." ..."
"... The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern -- with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of billionaire Warren Buffett -- was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military strategy. ..."
The Northwestern University Buffett Institute for Global Studies hosted a roundtable event
in the Chicago area on May 23 titled, "The Kremlin's Global Reach," moderated by Medill
journalism professor and Washington Post veteran Peter Slevin. The panel showcased
the institute's first "Distinguished Visitor," Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state
in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to
2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in
the 1990s.
Also present were political science professor Jordan Gans-Morse, public opinion pollster
Dina Smeltz, lecturer and former US ambassador to Georgia Ian Kelly and historian John
Bushnell.
The event took place amid a steady escalation of US militarism against Syria, Iran and
Russia. Just two days earlier, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an ultimatum to Iran
demanding a capitulation to the US in the face of additional sanctions. This followed on the
heels of the Trump administration's scrapping of a nuclear agreement reached in 2015 between
Iran and the P5+1 group, the US, UK, France, Germany, China and Russia. Earlier this month, the
US relaunched a naval force, the Second Fleet, in the North Atlantic in preparation for
military confrontation with Russia.
The political perspective of the event was clear from Slevin's opening questions: "What is
to be done? How do you solve a problem like Vladimir Putin?"
Str obe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government:
its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the "threat from the Islamic
world, it's the southern belly and it's very vulnerable;" and finally, potential conflict with
China over access to natural resources. "They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty
that could spell trouble down the line," Talbott said.
To the question, "Do we have another Cold War?" Talbott answered, "Yes, we've got a Cold
War. It's the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it's a
Cold War."
In line with this reactionary narrative, Talbott presented the conflict between the US and
Russia as one between "democracy" and "tyranny," while some of the other panelists admitted
that is not the way the conflict is viewed in Russia and Europe.
Later, Talbott emphasized the challenge to US hegemony posed by the Balkans, particularly
Serbia, citing their cultural and religious affinities with Russia. In 2015, Montenegro entered
NATO.
Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel's official State
Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, "The Russians, I
think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn't need to show up in Kiev. There
was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice,
deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American
intervention in Ukrainian politics. "
A number of the panelists interrupted at this point, some laughing nervously, others
strongly protesting.
Slevin, in concluding the discussion, posed the question of regime change in Russia,
stating, "How does this end? How does Putin fall? Retire? Get replaced? What is the fate of
Vladimir Putin?"
The main obstacle to regime change in Russia was, according to the panelists, the chaos it
would inevitably unleash. Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there
is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, "There really is no succession plan.
And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man,
do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their
regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of
management of the transition that we had in '91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear
weapons and chaos."
However, expressing the position of significant sections of the Democratic Party, aligned
with the US state-military-intelligence apparatus, Talbott concluded, "Putin has presided over
Russia in a way that is very, very much like the Soviet Union. That didn't work. This won't
work. He will be an aberration. It would also help if we had a different president in the
United States."
A notable feature of the event was its casual militarism. In introducing himself, Kelly
noted that the US has recently provided both Georgia and Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank
weaponry.
In line with the propaganda pumped out about the US media and political establishment, the
panel speakers presented a picture of reality turned upside down: Russia was presented as an
aggressive, expansionist power, and a growing threat to the American way of life. In fact, it
is the US government and its imperialist allies which have increasingly encircled Russia via
NATO expansion, crippled its economy with sanctions and sought to provoke a military
conflict.
As US Defense Secretary James Mattis noted in releasing the Pentagon's new National Security
Strategy, "Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national
security."
Before the audience assembled by this national security institute, which appeared to include
only a handful of undergraduate students, these leading political figures spoke more bluntly
about imperialist foreign policy than they would normally do on national television or in
supposedly democratic arenas like the US Congress.
The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern
-- with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of
billionaire Warren Buffett -- was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to
transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military
strategy.
At the time of the Buffett Institute's founding, university students and faculty protested
the appointment as its head of former the US commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl
Eikenberry, whose qualifications were based on military rank and bellicose politics, rather
than any academic credentials. Northwestern faculty members charged that he "advocates
instrumentalizing the humanities and social sciences research to advance US soft power."
The International Youth and Students for Social Equality are leading the opposition
internationally to the transformation of colleges and universities into think tanks for
imperialism and militarism. Contact the Socialist Equality
Party to start an IYSSE chapter on your campus.
An unusual triple alliance is emerging from the Syrian war, one that could alter the balance
of power in the Middle East, unhinge the NATO alliance, and complicate the Trump
administration's designs on Iran. It might also lead to yet another double cross of one of the
region's largest ethnic groups, the Kurds.
However, the "troika alliance" -- Turkey, Russia and Iran -- consists of three countries
that don't much like one another, have different goals, and whose policies are driven by a
combination of geo-global goals and internal politics. In short, "fragile and complicated"
doesn't even begin to describe it.
How the triad might be affected by the joint U.S., French and British attack on Syria is
unclear, but in the long run the alliance will likely survive the uptick of hostilities.
But common ground was what came out of the April 4 meeting between Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Meeting
in Ankara, the parties pledged to support the "territorial integrity" of Syria, find a
diplomatic end to the war, and to begin a reconstruction of a Syria devastated by seven years
of war. While Russia and Turkey explicitly backed the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, Iran was
quiet on that issue, preferring a regional solution without
"foreign plans."
"Common ground," however, doesn't mean the members of the "troika" are on the same page.
Turkey's interests are both internal and external. The Turkish Army is currently conducting
two military operations in northern Syria, Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield, aimed at driving
the mainly Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) out of land that borders Turkey. But those
operations are also deeply entwined with Turkish politics.
Erdogan's internal support has been eroded by a number of factors: exhaustion with the
ongoing state of emergency imposed following the 2016 attempted coup, a
shaky economy , and a precipitous fall in the value of the Turkish pound. Rather than
waiting for 2019, Erdogan called for snap elections this past week and beating up on the Kurds
is always popular with right-wing Turkish nationalists. Erdogan needs all the votes he can get
to imlement his newly minted executive presidency that will give him virtually one-man
rule.
To be part of the alliance, however, Erdogan has had to modify his goal of getting rid of
Syrian President Bashar Assad and to agree -- at this point, anyhow -- to eventually withdraw
from areas in northern Syria seized by the Turkish Army.
Russia and Iran have called for turning over the regions conquered by the Turks to the
Syrian Army.
Moscow's goals are to keep a foothold in the Middle East with its only base, Tartus, and to
aid its long-time ally, Syria. The Russians are not deeply committed to Assad personally, but
they want a friendly government in Damascus. They also want to destroy al-Qaeda and the Islamic
State, which have caused Moscow considerable trouble in the Caucasus.
Russia also wouldn't mind driving a wedge between Ankara and NATO. After the U.S., Turkey
has NATO's second largest army. NATO broke a 1989 agreement not to recruit former members of
the Russian-dominated Warsaw Pact into NATO as a quid pro quo for the Soviets withdrawing from
Eastern Europe. But since the Yugoslav War in 1999 the alliance has marched right up to the
borders of Russia. The 2008 war with Georgia and 2014 seizure of the Crimea were largely a
reaction to what Moscow sees as an encirclement strategy by its adversaries.
Turkey has been at
odds with its NATO allies around a dispute between Greece and Cyprus over sea-based
oil and gas resources , and it recently charged two
Greek soldiers who violated the Turkish border with espionage. Erdogan is also angry that
European Union countries refuse to extradite Turkish soldiers and civilians who he claims
helped engineer the 2016 coup against him. While most NATO countries condemned Moscow for the
recent attack on two Russians in Britain, the
Turks pointedly did not .
Turkish relations with Russia have an
economic side as well. Ankara want a natural gas pipeline from Russia, has broken ground on
a $20 billion Russian nuclear reactor, and just shelled out $2.5 billion for Russia's S-400
anti-aircraft system.
The Russians do not support Erdogan's war on the Kurds and have lobbied for
the inclusion of Kurdish delegations in negotiations over the future of Syria. But Moscow
clearly gave the Turks a green light to attack the Kurdish city of Afrin last month, driving
out the YPG that had liberated it from the Islamic State and Turkish-backed al-Qaeda groups. A
number of Kurds charge that Moscow has betrayed
them .
The question now is, will the Russians stand aside if the Turkish forces move further into
Syria and attack the city of Manbij, where the Kurds are allied with U.S. and French forces?
And will Erdogan's hostility to the Kurds lead to an
armed clash among three NATO members?
Such a clash seems unlikely, although the Turks have been giving flamethrower speeches over
the past several weeks. "Those who cooperate with terrorists organizations [the YPG] will be
targeted by Turkey," says Turkish Deputy Prime Minister
Bekir Bozdag said in a pointed reference to France's support for the Kurds. Threatening the
French is one thing, picking a fight with the U.S. military quite another.
Of course, if President Trump pulls U.S. forces out of Syria, it will be tempting for Turkey
to move in. While the "troika alliance" has agreed to Syrian "sovereignty," that won't stop
Ankara from meddling in Kurdish affairs. The Turks are already appointing governors and mayors
for the areas in Syria they have occupied.
Iran's major concern in Syria is maintaining a buffer between itself and a very aggressive
alliance of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia, which seems to be in the preliminary stages of
planning a war against the second-largest country in the Middle East.
Iran is not at all the threat it has been pumped up to be. Its military is miniscule and
talk of a so-called "Shiite crescent" -- Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon -- is pretty much a
western invention (although the term was dreamed up by the King of Jordan).
Tehran has been weakened by crippling sanctions and faces the possibility that Washington
will withdraw from the nuclear accord and re-impose yet more sanctions. The appointment of
National Security Advisor John Bolton, who openly calls for regime change in Iran, has to have
sent a chill down the spines of the Iranians. What Tehran needs most of all is allies who will
shield it from the enmity of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, Turkey and
Russia could be helpful.
Iran has modified its original goals in Syria of a Shiite-dominated regime by agreeing to a
"non-sectarian character" for a post-war Syria. Erdogan has also given up on his desire for a
Sunni-dominated government in Damascus.
War with Iran would be catastrophic, an unwinnable conflict that could destabilize the
Middle East even more than it is now. It would, however, drive up the price of oil, currently
running at around $66 a barrel. Saudi Arabia needs to sell its oil for at least $100 a barrel,
or it will very quickly run of money. The on-going quagmire of the Yemen war, the need to
diversify the economy, and the growing clamor by young Saudis -- 70 percent of the population
-- for jobs requires lots of money, and the current trends in oil pricing are not going to
cover the bills.
War and oil make for
odd bedfellows . While the Saudis are doing their best to overthrow the Assad regime and
fuel the extremists fighting the Russians, Riyadh is wooing Moscow to sign onto to a long-term
OPEC agreement to control oil supplies. That probably won't happen -- the Russians are fine
with oil at $50 to $60 a barrel -- and are wary of agreements that would restrict their right
to develop new oil and gas resources. The Saudi's jihad on the Iranians has a desperate edge to
it, as well it might. The greatest threat to the Kingdom has always come from within.
The rocks and shoals that can wreck alliances in the Middle East are too numerous to count,
and the "troika" is riven with contradictions and conflicting interests. But the war in Syria
looks as if it is coming to some kind of resolution, and at this point Iran, Russia and Turkey
seem to be the only actors who have a script that goes beyond lobbing cruise missiles at
people.
As the global financial collapse unfolded in 2008-2009, I recall the delight that many
Anglosphere commentators expressed over the prospect that the oil price collapse would
devastate Russia economically, causing the Russian people to rise against Putin and all his
works, and put FreeMarketReformers back in charge in Russia.
And once it became clear in the spring of 2009 that oil prices were rapidly recovering and
that Russia's vast financial reserves were more than sufficient to absorb the blow, these
same Anglosphere commentators expressed frustration that Russians had been insufficiently
impoverished to overthrow Putin and put FreeMarketreformers back in charge.
It is as if the Angosphere Foreign Policy Elite and Punditocracy (AFPE&P)had no idea
what Russians suffered in the '90s at the hands of FreeMarketReformers, suffering so severe
that deaths were exceeding births by almost a million a year.
And President Obama recently revealed his utter cluelessness about Russia's present
realities:
"... This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." ..."
"... The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine. ..."
"... On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows. ..."
"... "Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway. ..."
"... From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises. ..."
"... There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time. ..."
"... The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian! ..."
Mark Rice-Oxley,
Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII.
The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation
with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a
weapons lab that might not even exist anymore . Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at
the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media
are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury,
one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war.
Read this. It's from a respected "unbiased", liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever
heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet,
and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would
still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces "fact checks", but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.
Its agents pop over for murder and shopping
FALSE: There's no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The
"public
inquiry" was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which
contravene British law regarding a fair trial.
even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.
TRUE sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too
busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here is that WE let them. Oligarchs
have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin's government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and
embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That's why you have wanted criminals like
Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he's down to
his
"last 270 million" .
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe
literally billions in tax , and our government lets them
get away with it.
Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia's own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous
adversaries that it secretly envies.
FALSE: Russiagate is a farce,
anyone with an open-mind can see that . The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen,
Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, a
nd allegedly
campaigned for many candidates , and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.
It bought a World Cup,
FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence
of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial
malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?
Regarding the second "neighbour": Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been "invaded" by Russia
many times but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to
ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The
"anti-terrorist operation" in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died.
The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias many of whom
espouse outright fascism
.
bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.
MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia
is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the
conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory,
al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria's major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether
or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free
and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists
and US-backed mercenaries.
And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.
FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move . America then moved their
AEGIS "defense
shield" into Eastern Europe . Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position
for any country.
Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush
and Cheney if he has a problem with it.
And before the whataboutists say, "America does some of that stuff too", that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally
awful it doesn't mean that Russia isn't.
MISLEADING: America doesn't do "some of that stuff". No, America aren't "occasionally awful". They do ALL of that stuff, and have
been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive
military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened
and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the
right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure
and count.
We are so used to American crimes we just don't see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly
admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps .
Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has "invaded two neighbours", the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin's government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia
alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped
foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America's human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not "whataboutism". It's a standard rhetorical
appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn't be fair, fine, but don't expect other people not to point out your double
standards.
As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself.
Boycott the World Cup? That'll teach them!
FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything
but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in
Syria , they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused
to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain's attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for
years.
Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear
casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions .Of course, the
vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.
TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist
almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley's column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia
so that people will support US-UK warmongering.
Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual
comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state
FALSE: Putin's government has decreased poverty by
over 66% in 17 years . They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security
and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just
a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.
Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone
thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?
MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical
trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own
agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum something which requires
explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don't NEED to explain why
Russian power is like this, because he hasn't yet established that it is .
I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic,
social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.
MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as "rebirth" is an absurd joke. People
sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.
At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.
TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access
to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin's government in
pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even
maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia's
health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?
The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid
society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.
PROJECTION: he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their
benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been
down, for decades.
Poverty is increasing all the time ,
food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people,
now live in poverty .
In that same time, as stated above, Russia's poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the
UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley
go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.
What is to be done? I wouldn't respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.
Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a "problem" so he can
pitch us a "solution".
There are only two weaknesses in this bully's defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy
Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs
or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don't
bother with sanctions. Just say: "No thanks, we don't want your business."
FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London
is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually
a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the
oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I'm reading too much into this, then here
The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn
suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.
Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, "envious" Russians aren't equipped to
make their own decisions. We need to step in. "Public opinion" turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change
in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public
opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to
win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we've been hearing about
how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context
and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our "values"? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ –
their existence
was reported in the
Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight
face.
Russia is such a destabilising threat to "our democratic values", such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine
their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing
our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he's doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It's all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they'll realise that before it's too late. For all our sakes.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin's 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He
is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent
speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.
The most important part of Putin's March 1st speech:
And on the village level, because that's where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who
lives in the Crimea: "the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We'll see how it pans
out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain
kind, gentle and innocent 'businessmen' who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three."
I wonder how much longer the general readership over there will cotton on to the pro-war and propaganda agenda of the Guardian
and leave it en masse? It's as dishonest as The Sun.
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory ,and being part of the largest military alliance in
the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in "defense". One of those "defense" strategies included in the budget, one
that all those commentators vilifying Russia conveniently ignore, is to blow up weddings, funerals and entire villages with missiles
fired from drones. No trial, no public kill list, no record of people killed, no accountability. That is sanctioned, extra-judicial
murder of suspects and everyone around them. And these progressive commentators, eager to spread prosperity by any mean, seem
to be ok with it.
Update: as I was writing this I noticed that The Guardian has a piece by (of all people!), Simon Jenkins, which, yes, takes
for granted that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Russians, but asks if there is a moral difference between that
and killing suspects with drone strikes. For that, he has been labeled an useful idiot and "an apologist for attempted mass murder
on British soil". Highly amusing if you ask me, but also a terrifying example of how straying if only a little bit from the official
line ("yes, the Russians tried to kill this guy, they are the worst, but maybe we should have a look at ourselves and our (kind
of) inappropriate tendency to murder everyone we want") has to be punished. There are no ifs or buts while at the two minutes
of hate. Now even the pieces that are there to give a semblance of balance have to be torn apart by those liberal, prosperity
loving persons that can´t seem to be able to condemn the murder of children at will. Now it is time to express hatred towards
Goldstein, I mean, of course, Putin and everything Russia.
This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war."
Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war."
All suffering from PTDS AKA Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The Russophobes over at the Guardian (and the rest of the corporate media) would be well advised to review the trial of Julius
Streicher at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine
and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation
on its borders in Ukraine.
I find it the ultimate paradox that a publication purporting to be 'liberal' acts so enthusiastically
for deadly regime changes from this once Trotskyist but now extreme Right Wing group. There is nothing 'liberal', 'humanitarian',
or moral about promotion of deadly regime changes that have destroyed previously peaceful nations and murdered hundreds of thousands
in the process. Guardian for the geopolitical goals of the self-declared 'exceptional' Empire, the new 'master race' that of the
US.
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't know what the stuff is: nevertheless,
we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper
and TV channel has by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and what they do
to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The
Army have now been deployed: on hand after completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing
their specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it by now. In another piece of
pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more
buried underground, you can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken ill (maybe
she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of this stuff can still be
11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending officer, Nick Bailey, is only just
out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet
the eye-witness calling himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and nurse that
attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died?
Funny that?
When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed this glaring inconsistency. Enter,
stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that
PC Bailey was contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home – not attend them in Salisbury. This allowed
the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a
week, because this stuff is so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his contributions
to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other
deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is
pure theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.
Check out the report from
C4News (mute the sound).
Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks, but behind them firemen in normal uniform
and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front, in civvies wih no protective gear at all.
Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.
Flaxgirl: a bit OT, but not too much as this event does not seem to have too much basis in reality: on the question of fabrication
the UK Home Office held an event this week – Security and Policing 2018 – where the "Live Demo Area" was sponsored by Crisis Cast.
I though you might interested? Are they providing critical incident training: or the critical incidents themselves is a legitimate
question after the events in Salisbury?
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist
media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons
in openly baying for a war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of the ABM agreement,
marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around
in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this
includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its sphere of influence – Latin America –
and for that matter anywhere else on the planet. And it does so A L'outrance.
But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity to reconfigure the world and bring
democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white
man's burden' by the 'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately necessary in the
short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000
Iraqi children through sanctions, well, it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and
methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire is not on the wrong side of history,
it is the wrong side of history.
The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of parody.
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain and return it to Russia to invest in
businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain
as a tax haven.
I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over from Australia as the major wheat exporter
to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in,
wheat production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are just a few areas they can invest
in.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than you realise!
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash,
it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial
services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's
because the system itself encouraged those inflows.
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's
a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it
really doesn't need a standalone military anyway.
"It's them, over there, they are evil. We must stop them. They are coming for us, they will take our children and steal our i
phones !!! Arrgh!!!" "I'll have another strong short black thanks"
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear
are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously, held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south,
are now on the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that the USSR sent missiles
of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up- living standards are plummeting and the
only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment
has been living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely empty bullying, there is nothing
left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will obscure raw and looming reality.
In The Guardian newsroom the water
is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black.
There is no time to wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of strength must be thrown
into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.
There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent russophobic dementia are eating away
the brains of the rulers on both sides of the Atlantic.
The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime empire is becoming marginal and the force
that it has used, throughout these centuries, no longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate
those not worth frightening.
There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors
to jailers- either they adjust to a new dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet
up.
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal
for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who
inspected the premises.
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of London when it surrendered its hard
drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in decline before they nabbed Glenn
Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation
AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional
US Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that -- for the first time ever -- the
Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is YThat Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or frightened of a particular tbhing
-- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of nuclear war. Trotsky said A'meria was the strongest nation but also
the most terrified' and nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has shifted to Russia
and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or
American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by
coming to the homeland. The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup
in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapoms and Old Bush promised NAto wouldn;t
expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / miklitary
/congressional industyrial complex.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown
how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive
to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
He really is taking Russians for idiots and fools!
There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen
other people at the same time.
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions
and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!
It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something
else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up
and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.
"... I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2 vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party. ..."
"... Let me be the dink who reminds you: Peak Oil ..."
"... As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well. ..."
"... EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone? ..."
"... "In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites ..."
"... That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites. ..."
"... Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high before high-volume production becomes cost-effective. ..."
"... Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start. ..."
"... One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he (and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom, some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin. ..."
Trump won't get dragged into war, although his conniving nature may try to make it look like
that if it serves some ulterior motive of his. Trump will race on his own volition (not get
dragged by others) to war because he's already been chomping at the bit for war as evident in
how he's been baiting Iran and N. Korea alike, just as Bush baited Saddam Huessein, then bait
and switched Osama Bin Laden for Saddam. So if not war with one (Iran), then with the other
(N. Korea), or with both.
Why? Because like all Republican politicians, Trump's a businessman and proud of it,
(Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.) And because war is good
for American business, a lesson that was learned from WWII from which was created the
military-industrial-complex and the Permanent War Economy under which we've lived ever
since.
That bit's key to understanding the whole unwavering GOP attack on social services and
desire to deregulate and privatize everything, not because of evil "socialism" as the
Republican constituency is hypnotized with propaganda into believing, but because there's no
money to be made in government expenditures otherwise. The whole GOP agenda has been and is
about public expense for private gain. All the blather about shrinking the government is
smokescreen. The real agenda is about directing all government spending towards private
contractors with none wasted on things like social services, medicare, or Social
Security.
Economic aspects of politics can't be ignored and separated from social aspects of
politics which is how conservatism in America has helped create the current political mess,
by turning a blind eye and dittohead to economic matters in order to push the chosen,
preferred social agenda.
As Coolidge said, "The business of America is business." So since the US is ruled by money
of markets, there can be no getting one's moral back up and all Jesus over social immorality,
only to ignore the immorality of the marketplace and thereby fail to push for a moral economy
along with a moral society. Such misidentification of the problem will only result in missing
the mark, in inappropriate rather than on the mark effective solutions to problems.
Trump is simply a braggart who likes to exaggerate by talking in superlatives, so it's
fitting that Trump ran on the GOP ticket, because he's but another child of the Father of
Lies, who superlatively lies about his wealth being billions instead of millions to swell his
pride in being a mammon worshipper, and going to war is and will be as it certainly has been
part and parcel of such hubris.
To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's elites –
think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after 9/11, except
the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they could not be
questioned. And there is the locus of the Likud Israeli party friendship with the Saudis, and
Trump is certainly nothing if not onside with his good friend, the Israeli PM.
I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous
in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2
vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as
they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party.
Make no mistake: if there is going to be an attack on Iran by Americans, it is not because
MbS wants it, it is because the Americans love war.
I am convinced that most (some 90%) Americans are open or closeted
Neo-cons/liberal-interventionists/war-hawks. Some are shamelessly and openly so (John
Bolton), but many are so without showing it or even being aware of it. The hawk in them is
restlessly waiting for an opening, an excuse, to come out and proclaim what they have ever
been
Bush 41 dragged us into a coalition war over Kuwait. Clinton dragged us into a coalition war
in the Balkans. Bush 43 dragged us into a war in Iraq. Obama dragged us into a secret war
when he destabilized Syria and Lybia, which unleashed ISIS. All for the right reasons, of
course (sarcasm).
You might be right, but I fail to see how that would be different than the last 30
years.
BTW, Politico has a story about how the Obama Administration shot down DEA drug trafficking
investigations of Hezbollah to support the Iran nuclear deal. I would like to read your
comments about it, particularly in light of the comments you made above about Trump.
Parents always tell kids to choose their friends carefully. With pals like Netanyahu and the
Saudi bogus "crown prince", Trump clearly didn't follow that advice.
That video looks like a Nazi's wet dream, I mean the undiluted fascistic element is
overwhelming, it's like getting a peek at an alternate dimension, not even a society, of pure
militaristic "hathos" festooned by a limitless cloud of lies.
The worst of humanity is engrafted in that video, by which, I mean the unalloyed lying
stupidity of war: imperialist expansionism, nationalist revanchism, and plutocratic
supremacism, haloed by the grey mist–the dehumanzing pixelated mist–of the most
dehumanizing endeavor man can undertake, for the most dehumanizing of modern causes:
fascistic capitalism, the kind that fueled WWII (In this latter case, under the guise of
religious supremacism or religious survivalism, but, in any case, only an obvious guise as
far as the grotesque House of Saud is characteristically concerned).
Echoing Noah above, this doesn't appear to be a production of the Saudi government, but
having a contingent of the Saudi population gung-ho for a Sunni/Shi'a Ragnarok is concerning
in itself. Both KSA and Iran will fight each other to the last Yemeni before any direct
conflict arises.
This is the scenario that should be keeping us all up at night:
Fran Macadam: To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's
elites – think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after
9/11, except the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they
could not be questioned.
It wasn't the royals -- it was the bin Laden family itself. The people who knew Osama
best. I never understood why we didn't insists that, with all airplanes grounded, they had to
have a US Air Force pilot -- who then would have flown them to Gitmo for a sit-down on their
newly famous relative. Instead the highest levels of government -- how high did you have to
go to get permission to fly? -- broke into their busy schedules to be briefed and let them
go.
The whole thing still stinks. We really need to have an investigation into the role of
Saudi Arabia in American foreign policy; especially the Iraq Wars.
In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela,
or anyplace crazy the better.
President Trump's new best friend, MBS, is going to get us dragged into a new war in the
region. Watch.
But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House
ROTFLMAO!!!
If the Saudis are foolish enough to try that they will get their ass so thoroughly kicked
that "who were the Al Saud?" will a trivial pursuit question on par with "Who were the
Romanov's?" 10 years from now, and if the US is foolish enough to let them do that, watch the
Global Economy collapse as the Strait of Hormuz gets closed for a few years.
Dr Talon,
The best military in the Middle East is Hezbollah (Trained & equipped by the Iranian,
blooded and forged by the Israelis) the only thing they don't have is an air force. Let them
have a half way decent air wing, and they would be on par or better than the USMC.
Duke Leto,
All that beautiful hardware has to be put to good use, after all if you don't use it you
can't replace it. Think of all that beautiful money to be made in hardware replacement
Noah,
Trump also declined to support Kurdish independence, which the Israeli right supports
and would have undermined Iran (which has a restive Kurdish minority) and Iran ally
Iraq.
Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan, in that Turkey has the
largest Kurdish minority population of all the Middle Eastern countries (about 20% of
population) and the largest military in the Middle East. Not a good idea, especially if you
don't want them to become buddy buddy with their eastern neighbor.
Oh, did I mention that Saudi Arabia has a substantial Shiite minority (10 to 15% of the
population) who isn't exactly thrilled to live under Wahhabi rule.
Watching the Saudis (a country that has to import plumbers from South Asia because it's
below the dignity of the locals to be plumbers) getting their asses handed to them, watching
the Dumpster's poll rating jump up to the 80% mark before cratering down to 15%, watching the
Trump recession that would follow would almost be worth it if I didn't have to suffer the
consequences of "Real American's(TM)" idiocy. It would be almost as much fun as watching
Brexit.
And President Ted Cruz or Clinton would be different how?
It's a pretty safe assumption that a President Clinton would work to uphold the treaty her
predecessor signed with Iran. Cruz, like the rest of the GOP hawks, would probably (like
Trump) be actively working to undermine it and provoke Iran. She'd want more money for social
and infrastrucure spending, less for military.
Pavlos has it right. The GOP (and a lot of Democrats) think war is good for business and
are happy to funnel obscene amounts of money to the military-industrial complex under the
guise of "national security."
It depends on what you imply when saying that it has lit up Arab social media, Rod. "Damn
those Saudis are strong!" type of reaction means that social media are lit up. "LOL, what
sorry comedian a-holes those Saudis are!" type of reaction also means that social media are
lit up.
I can't decide if this truly 'government' backed or some Saudia wackos let their freak loose.
At least the wackos are going after Iran and not the US. It is probably really nothing than
an expensive Youtube comment but it does indicate that Saudia Arabia population really
desires War somewhere and somehow.
Although this is probably forgotten in 1 month, the Middle East appears to be following
similar paths as Europe in the 1900 – 1914. We have lots of secret Allies and treaties
with enormous tensions that is hungry for a battle.
The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton would probably be too hawkish for my
tastes–and certainly she wouldn't enjoy strong relations with Russia (given evidence,
in this hypothetical, that Putin was actively interfering in the election to support her
opponent)–but it wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump.
Clinton would still have a functioning diplomatic corps, instead of sacking half the State
Department. She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter. She'd
likely be not trying to undermine the Iran deal. And she'd not be performing fellatio on the
likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and MbS, as Trump has been eagerly doing.
Really. At what point does the "as bad as Trump's foreign policy has been, Clinton wudda
been worse" refrain stop? Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since
LBJ–he only needs a Vietnam War to his name to blow past him. And he has none of
Johnson's domestic achievements.
The last time an Arab dictator tried to attack the Iranians he could only get a draw that
bankrupted him and lead, by a series of second-order consequences, to his downfall.
The Iranians had just, when they were attacked by Iraq, had thier revolution and had
liquidated thier officer corps. Think about that. Iranians as polity may, for the most part,
dislike the rule of the clerics, but they are intensely patriotic and will fight to the last
man/woman to defend the Persian homeland. Underestimate them at your peril.
When Iran's proxies in Yemen -- the Houthis -- are launching missiles at airports and the
Royal Palace, I don't think this type video is very surprising and as propaganda goes really
a big deal. It is pretty low level saber rattling if it is a Saudi Government produc, or what
you would see a million times over among Americans if it is the work of just a bunch of young
Saudi yahoos. Oh, and MSAGA -- Make Saudi Arabia Great Again!
Israel has never fought side-by-side with the US in any of the wars it has sent the us to
fight [and die for and pay for] at the instigation of the settlers/occupiers.
Since the U.S. has never fought any wars for Israel, that makes the score 0:0 then.
But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House
What ignorant drivel. Clinton is plenty hawkish (she cheered on Trump's April missile
strike on Assad, and urged him to go much further). Moreover, as I wrote above, this video
seems to be youthful fan fiction, not carrying any Saudi government imprimatur (let alone
endorsement from Trump). Rod is speculating that the US will eventually join Saudi Arabia in
a war against Iran, but Rod is no seer, whatever his other attributes.
Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan
Poppycock. Trump is hardly Erdogan's poodle. Trump gave heavy armaments to the Syrian
Kurds (O had limited their support to small arms) and wants to move our embassy to Jerusalem,
both decisions angering Erdogan. Erdogan would also liked to have seen Assad deposed.
I'm not going to offer an opinion on the efficacy of Saudi Arabia's army, and neither should
you. Remember how everyone warned us about Iraq's Republican Guard?) Few of us know what
we're talking about.
On the larger point: are you all taking drugs? Some video "lights up" Arab social media
and therefore Trump is taking us to war against Iran?? What?!
(especially the Straits of Hormuz aspect. The Iranians just have to mine it so that one or
more cargo ships get holed and got to the bottom at strategic bends and nobody ain't shipping
no Saudi Oil nowhere. Have fun with $300/bbl oil economies, guys China will make out like a bandit, considering
it's now the world leader in solar power.
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks
think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to
avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia
investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if)
that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will
most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new
generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that
we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the
ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone?
She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter
Clinton has insulted Putin any number of times on social media and in interviews. On the
Colbert program just last September, she claimed that he worked against her election because
of sexism, and claimed that he "manspread" during a meeting with her.
And she'd not be performing fellatio on the likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and
MbS
Netanyahu and Erdogan do not get along, so it's pretty hard to please both of them
simultaneously. Like muad'dib, Scotty has it in his head that Trump is a poodle of Erdogan,
but the latter would disagree. Heavy weapons to Syrian Kurds, Jerusalem -- Erdogan is not
fully pleased with Trump.
If Scotty thinks the Clintons are hostile to Saudi Arabia, he hasn't been paying attention
(does he ever?).
Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since LBJ -- he only needs a
Vietnam War to his name to blow past him
"In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or
anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine
Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian
economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?
No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American
people, but to the profits and plans of elites.
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most
folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart
enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of
his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When
(not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both.
Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an
entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
Except that "heat" of his investigation is almost extinguished already.
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is
a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she
would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be
engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into
some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would
have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start.
That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine
Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian
economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?
No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the
American people, but to the profits and plans of elites.
Unless the "elites" you are talking about are the Saudis–who are well-known for
flooding the market with cheap crude periodically to undercut the competition (they can still
produce oil for far less than anywhere else), and have many reasons to be suspicious of
Russia–this makes no sense.
Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply
drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its
domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high
before high-volume production becomes cost-effective.
And if you don't think that either the Saudis or the American oil industry have the ear of
Trump, you're smokin' something.
The "elites" that oppose Trump have rather little political power at the present moment.
Don't confuse cultural elites (who don't like the Donald one bit) with the gazillionaires who
actual control the petroleum industry, and are more than happy to do business with whoever is
in charge in Washington.
Trump–ignorant and fatuous and unworldly as he may be–is an "elite" by virtue
of the office he holds. Do not forget that.
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right.
Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about
whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She
wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at
leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support.
Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted
to start.
Fair enough–though I think that Hillary's foreign policy would likely be similar to
that of her husband. Far from ideal, but not disastrous. Of course, Bill got to hold office
in a time when the Soviet Union (and its constituent parts) was in shambles, China was still
a third-world country, North Korea was no threat to anyone but South Korea, Islamic extremism
was far less of a problem, and even the Israelis and Palestinians were talking, and on
roughly equal terms. Now is a much more dangerous time.
One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference
from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he
(and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many
seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom,
some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the
swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump
personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin.
But there is something else. Trump seems to think that international diplomacy ought to be
conducted like real-estate deals: Two high-rollers (CEOs or heads of state) meet on the golf
course, hash out a deal, and the lawyers work out the details; and that having a large staff
of people trained in understanding a potentially-hostile foreign country is simply
unnecessary. In short, he acts as though he believes the entire system of international
diplomatic protocol, is a racket. Perhaps he has a point here; and perhaps he does
not–as the old saying goes, don't knock down a wall unless you know what loads it is
bearing.
But you'll notice that neither Russia, nor China, nor Israel, nor Iran, or Germany, nor
any other player on the world stage, have been engaging in similar purges of their diplomatic
services.
"... As explicitly said Brzezinski, the trophy for the United States is Eurasia – that is why Putin cannot be summer for 'pro-democracy' movements in Moscow, unless he wants to share the fate of Qaddafi. The United States and its vassals from EU do not like it. They do not like strong, independent Russia that can speak for itself. So that is way they want to install a more 'pro-democracy' government in Moscow. ..."
"... First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/09/20/try-new-maidan-in-russia-doubt-it/ ..."
On 21 st of September, the so-called "opposition" in Moscow and St. Petersburg is planning demonstrations
that should gather 50-thousand people in the streets against (here I laughed) cessation of Russian aggression in Ukraine and the
Russian suppression of Ukrainian independence.
Do you think that Putin has so many enemies in Moscow and St. Petersburg that out of despair and powerlessness people have to
go out on the streets?
"Actually, we want to change the government, we do not want Putin. We are tired of his politics. We wait until we receive
a new political movement and the resources that Russia has will not be in the hands of only a narrow number of the so-called "managers
of Russia" and will be more parcelled out in the community. Here in Moscow actually are people who do not want Putin in power.
But we do not go out on the streets rather talk among themselves. We do not have any tools, any party, no movement of which we
would really identify with ".
These are the words of my friend, a forty-year-old resident of Moscow, who considers herself to be Putin dissident. The demonstrations
in Moscow and St. Petersburg are organized by the so-called autonomous group People's Will (Narodnaya Volya).
In the era of Russia's encirclement by NATO, the upcomig regular weapons shipments for Ukraine money, it is not a surprise
that Putin is taking preocupations against the so-called "pro-democratic" NGOs in Russia. It was after all NGOs in Kiev that led
the coup.
"It expresses the need to understand the common struggle of all the oppressed people for their liberation from the oppression
of the state, imperialist policy, regardless of who it comes from" "Freedom to nations, death to empires." – those are the
ideas that Russian Nationalists preached during a demonstration in March.
Quite a different opinion on this subject has Mateusz Piskorski, a frequent visitor to Moscow and Ukraine. Founder of the European
Centre for Geopolitical, in an interview which I conducted with him said about an organized demonstration on 21st of September:
"It's hard for me to imagine that someone has collected so many people with so much support for Putin in Russia reaching
80%. It made me curious: even existing opponents of Putin in case of the Crimea and the Ukraine fully support Putin. I think we
sooner would gather 50,000 people under the banner of harder proceedings for Ukrainian crisis. Many Russian environments believes
that Putin should have long ago defended civilians against Kiev attacks and long ago entered the army there. "
"At this stage, having that kind of support, Putin does not need to use any repressions because the opposition is a trace
and artificial, i.e. Orchestrating in one way or another, financed, (today already illegally funded) by those who financed Euromaidan
in Kiev. We even have a personal coincidence. The new United States Ambassador Jeffrey Teft, preparing earlier Euromaidan, (he
was ambassador in Kiev earlier, worked with these NGOs – and indeed located in the pay of the Department of State in Ukraine),
today he continues the same action in Moscow. He does not take into account that Russia is a country and Ukraine was not – or
it will not be so easy, for sure. It would be necessary to pump there a lot more money than the $ 5 billion of which Americans
told in the context of Ukraine ".
Mr. Matthew is right that now the Americans are trying to do 'more'. Russia is a country larger than Ukraine. So measures to be
taken also need to be bigger. If you still do not know where you can take a 'pro-democracy dollars' this can help you:
The American Congress brought a bill, prepared by 26 Republicans, among which is jammed Russophobe, John McCain. Document
number 2277 is placed on the official website of the Congress of the United States and is called "Russian Aggression Prevention
Act 2014″, which can be translated as "the act of preventing aggression by Russia in 2014." In addition to all kinds of sanctions,
to increase military presence and conduct military exercises around the borders of Russia, as well as increased activity in the
field of educational exchange programs and cultural events held in the territory of the former Soviet Union, i t shall provide
annual commitments of $ 10 billion in the period 2015-2017, for "the development of democracy in Russia " . We can read
it on Infowars.
However, Putin is not stupid that's why he is dealing with NGO in American fashion. Now all NGOs in Russia are trampled as
agents of influence and must formally demonstrate their funding.
In a statement published on March 26, Catherine Ashton – the same Margaret Ashton, whose conversation with the Estonian foreign
minister leaked to the Internet telling us about the fact that behind the snipers firing at civilians stood the leaders of maydan.
She stated that inspections and searches (NGOs) are carried out on vague grounds of legal concern, because they seem to be aimed
at further undermining civil society activities in Russia.
The same open society which we saw in Kiev during the 'spontaneous' protests. George Soros, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar Network
Omidyar and his foundation, as well as the National Endowment for Democracy, which is largely funded by the US Congress is one of
the 'pro-democracy movements in Ukraine that funded the 'democracy' .
We may have the impression that Russia is in fact a totalitarian state like North Korea where there are almost no civil liberties.
But let's not be naive. There's a reason why such institutions are officially called the agents of foreign influence in Russia.
Just look at the coup d'état in Ukraine organized by them to know why.
Russia in its modern history has scored a single limited intervention in Georgia. USA attacks one country after another based
on false evidence and their 'democratic intervention' we can probably count in tens.
As explicitly said Brzezinski, the trophy for the United States is Eurasia – that is why Putin cannot be summer for 'pro-democracy'
movements in Moscow, unless he wants to share the fate of Qaddafi. The United States and its vassals from EU do not like it. They
do not like strong, independent Russia that can speak for itself. So that is way they want to install a more 'pro-democracy' government
in Moscow.
Mateusz Piskorski summed it in the aforementioned interview which he gave me;
"As long as Europe does not have its own leaders, Putin's popularity will grow. Hope was in the Germans and Merkel. But
it proved that the influence of the United States is stronger than the German business and German citizens. Currently, tests are
conducted that say that a large part of European societies would see Vladimir Putin as their own leader or prime minister. Putin,
in contrast to other 'pro-democracy' puppets knows how to clearly articulate its national interest. On this political background
to what we look right now, he looks like a real leader. "
Konrad Stachnio is an independent Poland based journalist, he hosted a number of radio and TV programs for the Polish edition
of PrisonPlanet , exclusively for the online magazine
" New Eastern Outlook"
Now they should be twice concerned. But, in general, color revolutions became less effective in xUSSR space as more and more people
started to understand the mechanics and financial source of "pro-democracy" (aka pro-Washington)
protesters. BTW what a skillful and shameless presstitute is this
Shaun Walker
Notable quotes:
"... Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they are wrong. ..."
"... The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY). ..."
"... Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. ..."
"... a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of Russian people. ..."
"... If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country ..."
"... if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons. ..."
"... Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian. ..."
"... In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but it's hardly democracy. ..."
"... Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue. ..."
"... A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev. Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well. Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe. ..."
"... Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks. ..."
"... And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine ..."
"... Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? ..."
"... Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority ..."
"... "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom." ..."
"... After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia. That being said, I am also wary of vigilantism. ..."
"... As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland said so, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa. ..."
"... There were students from Lviv who said they were given "college credit" for being at Maidan. ..."
"... Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you ..."
"... How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's government troops and Nazi battalions?? ..."
The group, which calls itself anti-Maidan, said on Thursday it would fight any attempts to
bring Russians on to the streets to protest against the government. Its name is a reference to
the Maidan protests in Kiev last year that eventually led to the toppling of former Ukraine
president Viktor Yanukovych.
"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people
suffer first," said Dmitry Sablin, previously a long-standing MP from President Vladimir Putin's
United Russia party, who recently became a senator in Russia's upper house of parliament.
"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in
Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear,
total propaganda, and no freedom."
BINGO....well done. You've got Neo Nazi's, US Aid, CIA infiltrators, indiscriminate
slaughter and Nazi battalions....all in just 8 sentences. great job
I guess these are exactly the sort of people who will enrich the EU:
The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine "promoting the right kind of democracy" to
the tune of $5 billion is a matter of record, courtesy of "Fuck the EU" Nuland.
As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014
- once under a false identity. If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made
similar visits, that would be a problem, no?
TuleCarbonari -> garethgj 16 Jan 2015 06:21
Yes, he should leave Syria to paid mercenaries. Do you really want us to believe you still
don't know those fighters in Syria are George Soros' militias? Come on man, go get yourself
informed.
jgbg -> Strummered 16 Jan 2015 06:19
You can't campaign for greater democracy, it's dangerous, it's far too democratic.
The USA cannot pay people to campaign in Russia to have the right kind of democracy i.e.
someone acceptable to the US government at the helm.
Instead of funding anti-government NGOs in other countries, perhaps the USA should first
spend the money fixing the huge inequalities and other problems in their own country.
jgbg -> Glenn J. Hill 16 Jan 2015 06:12
What???? Have you been smoking?? Sorry but your Putin Thugs are NOT funded by my
country.
I think he is referring the the NGOs which have spent large sums of money on "promoting
democracy" in Georgia and Ukraine. Many of these are funded by the National Endowment for
Democracy and the US State Department. Some have funding from organisations which are in turn,
funded by George Soros. These organisations were seen to back the Rose Revolution in Georgia
and both revolutions in Ukraine. Georgia ended up with a president who worked as a lawyer in a
US firm linked to the right wing of the Republican Party. Ukraine has a prime minister who was
brought up in the USA and a president whom a US ambassador to Ukraine described as "our
insider" (in a US Embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks).
The funding of similar organisations in Russia (e.g. Soldiers' Mothers) has been exposed
since a law was brought in, requiring foreign funded NGOs to register and publish annual
accounts.
Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they
are wrong.
Anette Mor -> Hektor Uranga 16 Jan 2015 06:09
He was let out to form a party and take part in Moscow mayor election. He got respectable
20%. But shown no platform other than anti- corruption. There is anti-corruption hysteria in
Russia already. People asked for positive agenda. He got none. The party base disintegrated.
The court against him was because there was a case filed. I can agree the state might found
this timely. But we cannot blaim on Russian state absence of positive position in Navalny him
self. He is reactive on current issues but got zero vision. Russia is a merit based society.
They look for brilliance in the leader. He is just a different caliber. Can contribute but not
lead. His best way is to choose a district and stand for a parliament seat. The state already
shown his is welcomed to enter big politics. Just need to stop lookibg to abroad for scripts.
The list of names for US sanction was taking from his and his mates lists. After such exposure
he lost any groups with many Russians.
Anette Mor -> notoriousANDinfamous 16 Jan 2015 05:50
I do not disregard positive side of democracy or negative side of dictatorship. I just
offer a different scale. Put value of every human life above any ideology. The west is full of
aggressive radicals from animal activists and greens to extremist gays and atheists. There is
a need to downgrade some concepts and upgrade other, so yhe measures are universal. Bombing
for democracy is equaly bad as bombing for personal power.
Anette Mor -> gilstra 16 Jan 2015 05:41
This is really not Guardian problem. They got every right to choose anti-Russian rant as
the main topic. The problem is the balance. Nobody watching it and the media as a whole
distorting the picture. Double standards are not good too. RT to stay permitted in the UK was
told to interrupt every person they interview expressing directly opposite view. Might be OK
with some theoretical conversation. But how you going to interrupt mother who just most a
child by argument in favor of the killer? The regulator said BBC is out of their reach. But
guardian should not be. Yet every material is one sided.
Asimpleguest -> romans
International Observer
''The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs''
PeraIlic
"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels," said Nikolai
Starikov, a nationalist writer and marginal politician.
Never mind that he's marginal politician. This man really knows how to express himself
briefly:
An Interview with Popular Russian Author and Politician Nikolai Starikov
Those defending NATO expansion say that those countries wanted to be part of NATO.
Okay. But Cuba also wanted to house Soviet missiles voluntarily.
If America did not object to Russian missiles in Cuba, would you support Ukraine joining
NATO?
That would be a great trust-building measure on their part, and Russia would feel that
America is a friend.
imperfetto
This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distorsions of what is
happening in Russia. A piece of journalism which tell us something about the level of
propaganda that most mainstream media in our 'free' west have set up in the attempt to
organise yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem
to pursue this goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British
interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place in Russia\Ukraine or
elsewhere (Syria for example) well...that's too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify the
means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have
decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but clever tools that we are
allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy.
The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now
perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political
strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the
instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and
then the ARMY).
The idea is to create an internal turmoil through some pretexts (gay, feminism,
scandals...etc.) in the hope that a growing movement of protesters may finally shake up the
'palace' and foster the conditions for a coupe to take place. Then the right people will
occupy the key chairs. Who are these subdued figures to be? They would be corrupted oligarchs,
allowing the US to guide, control the Russian public life (haven't we noticed that three
important ministers in Kiev are AMERICAN citizens!)
But, from what I understand, Russia is a democratic country. Its leader has been elected by
the voters. Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the
have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that
country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. That's right, in a
democratic republic. But, instead, the attempt to enact another Maidan, that is a FASCIST
assault to the DUMA, would require a due response.
Thus, perhaps we could without any Patriots of the sort, that may feed the pernicious
attention of western media. There should merely be the enforcement of the law:
a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the
parliament, which is an expression of Russian people.
VladimirM
"The 'orange beast' is sharpening its teeth and looking to Russia," said The Surgeon, whose
real name is Alexander Zaldostanov.
Actually, he used a Russian word "зверек", not "зверь". The latter can be rendered as
"beast" but what he said was closer to "rodent", a small animal. So, using this word he just
stressed his contemptious attitude rather than a degree of threat.
These patriotic groups do seem extreme, but probably less extreme and odd than many of the
current Ukrainian crop of politicians. Here is an article from the New York Observer that will
get you up to speed....
The New York Observer:The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and
Oligarchs
Robert Sandlin -> GreenKnighht
Did you forget the people in charge of the Ukraine then were Ukrainian communists.That many
of the deaths were also ethnic Russian-Ukrainians.And the ones making policy in the USSR as a
whole,in that period were mostly not ethnic-Russians.The leader was Georgian,his secret police
chief and many of their enforcers were Jewish-Soviets.And his closest helpers were also mostly
non-ethnic Russians.Recruited from all the important ethnic groups in the USSR,including many
Ukrainians.It is a canard of the Wests to blame Russia for the famine that also killed many
Russians.I'm sick of hearing the bs from the West over that tragic time trying to stir
Russophobia.
seventh
Well, you know a government is seriously in the shit when it has to employ biker gangs to
defend it.
Robert Sandlin -> seventh
Really? The government doesn't employ them. Defending the government is the job of the
police and military. These civilian volunteers are only helping to show traitors in the pay of
Westerners that the common people won't tolerate treason like happened in Ukraine, to strike
Russia.Good for them,that should let potential 5th columnists know their bs isn't wanted in
Russia.
Bulagen
I watch here in full swing manipulation of public opinion of Europeans, who imagines that
they have "democracy" and "freedom of speech". All opinions, alternative General line, aimed
at all discredit Russia in the eyes of the population of Europe ruthlessly removed the wording
that Putin bots hinder communication "civilized public." And I am even more convinced that all
this hysteria about "the problems of democracy in Russia" is nothing more than an attempt to
sell Denyen horse (the so-called democratic values) to modern Trojans (Russians).
jezzam -> Bulagen
All the wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies adhere to "so-called democratic
values". They would also greatly benefit the Russian people. Putin opposes these values purely
because they would threaten his power.
sashasmirnoff -> jezzam
The "wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies"? That is description of whom?
I will generalize here - if by those you mean the "West" you are mistaken. The vast
majority of it's populace are carrying a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that
owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy,
frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous.
The West is generally regarded as being the least healthy society, largely due to
horrifying diet, sedentary lifestyle, and considerable stress due to (amongst other things)
the aforementioned struggle to not drown in huge personal debt.
I'm not certain as to how you qualify or quantify "happiness", but the West is also
experiencing a mental health crisis, manifested in aberrant behaviour, wild consumption of
pharmaceuticals to treat or drown out depression, suicide, high rates of incarceration etc.
All symptoms of a deeply unhappy and unhealthy society.
One more thing - the supposed wealth and happiness of the West is predicated on the poverty
and misery of those the West colonizes and exploits. The last thing on Earth the West would
like to see is the extension of "democratic values" to those unfortunates. That would totally
ruin the World Order.
Robert Sandlin -> kawarthan
Well the Ukrainians have the corner on Black and Brown shirts.So those colors are already
taken.Blue,Red,White,maybe those?
Paultoo -> Robert Sandlin
Looking at the picture of that "patriotic" Russian biker it seems that Ukraine don´t have
the corner on black shirts!
WardwarkOwner
Why do these uprisings/ internal conflicts seem to happen to energy producing countries or
those that are on major oil/gas pipeline routes far more often than other countries?
Jackblob -> WardwarkOwner
I don't see any uprising in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, Mexico, the UAE, Iran,
Norway, Qatar, etc.
So what exactly is your point?
Petros -> Sotrep Jackblob
Well there is problem in Sudan Iraq Syria Libya Nigeria . you have conflicts made up by USA
to change governments and get raw materials . so ward is right . you just pretending to be
blind . in mexico ppl dying pretty much each day from corrupt people .
PullingTheStrings
If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a
popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America
*Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country
if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they
move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without
having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high
ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and
greedy reasons.
Jackblob -> PullingTheStrings
For some reason I do not trust you to discern the BS from the truth since your entire
comment is an act of deflection.
The truth is most Russians are very poor, more poor than the people of India. This latest
economic turmoil will make it even worse. Meanwhile, Putin and a handful of his cronies hold
all the wealth. He proved he did not care about his people when he sent the FSB to bomb Moscow
apartment buildings to start a war in Chechnya and ultimately to cancel elections.
Now Putin sees the potential for widespread protests and he is preparing to confront any
protests with violent vigilante groups like those seen in other repressive countries.
Bob Vavich -> Jackblob
Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India
and I have been to Russia and I don't like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you
that I have never seen as much poverty as in India. I can also tell you that when I drove
through the low income neighborhood of Detroit or Houston, I felt like I was in a post
apocalyptic world. Burned out and boarded up houses. Loitering and crime ridden streets. I can
go on and on about social injustice. Regardless your comments are even more slanted than the
assertion you are making about "Pulling the Strings".
Jackblob -> Bob Vavich
I was just as surprised to learn that Indians earn more than Russians. My source for that
info comes from PBS's latest broadcast of Frontline entitled "Putin's Way".
Also, I doubt you've visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. It's as if the
Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were forgotten. Worse, actually.
Hamdog
Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a
democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian.
We in the West love democracy, assuming you vote for the right person.
In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a
dictatorship but it's hardly democracy.
E1ouise -> Hamdog
Yanukovych was voted out of office by the *elected parliment* after he fled to Russia. Why
don't you know this yet?
secondiceberg -> E1ouise
Excuse me, he was forced out of the country at gunpoint before the opposition "voted him
out" the next day.
Bosula -> secondiceberg
Yes. That is correct. And armed Maidan thugs (Svoboda and Right Sector) stood around the
Rada with weapons while the vote taken.
Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of
the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and
uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue.
Sourcrowd
The soviet union didn't go through some kind of denazification akin to Germany after it
disintegrated. Russia today looks more and more like Germany after WWI - full of self pity and
blaming everyone but themselves for their own failures.
Down2dirt -> Sourcrowd
I would like to hear more about that denazification of Germany and how did that go.
Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and
civil services...State owned museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful
owners that were robbed during 1930-45.
I don' t condone Putin's and Russia polity (one of the most neoliberal countries), but you
appear to be clueless about this particular subject and don' t know what you are talking
about.
Bosula -> Sourcrowd
Are you thinking about Ukraine here, maybe?
Bosula
A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan
group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev.
Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic
and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well.
Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in
common than they would like to believe.
TuleCarbonari -> Bosula
A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The
Ukrainians were hired by the West to promote a coup d'etat against an elected government, this
against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general election in the
country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections.
Flinryan
Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder
what's going to happen in the coming weeks.
MarcelFromage -> Flinryan
I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.
Nothing new - the Russian Federation will continue its illegal occupation of Crimea and
continue to bring death and destruction to eastern Ukraine. And generally be a pain for the
rest of the international community.
secondiceberg -> MarcelFromage
And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern
Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to
use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine.
Kiev had its revolution. Eastern Ukraine is having its revolution. Tit for Tat.
Velska
CIF seems flooded by Putin's sock puppets, i.e. mindless robots who just repeat statements
favouring pro-Putinist dictatorship.
To be sure, there's much to hope for in the US democracy, where bribery is legal. I'm not
sure whether bribery in Russia is a legal requirement or just a fact of life. But certainly
Russia is far from democratic, has actually never been.
Bosula -> Velska
You can take your sock off now and wipe your hands clean.
secondiceberg -> Velska
What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do
and say? Do you think they are just going to sit on what information they think they get?
What will you do when they come knocking at your door, abduct you for some silly comment
you made, and then rendition you to another country so that you will not be able to claim any
legal rights? Let Russia look after itself in the face of "war-footing" threats from the U.S.
Fight for social justice and freedom in your own country.
cichonio
"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old
people suffer first,"
That's why they are ready to use weapons and violence against a foe who hasn't really been
seen yet.
Also,
"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels,"
I think decisions about Ukraine should be made in Kiev.
Bosula -> cichonio
Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then?
How much does this compromise Kiev as its agenda is very different from the agenda the US have
with Russia. Ukraine is weakened daily with its civil war and the killing its own people, but
this conflict benefits the US as further weakens and places Russia in a new cold war type
environment.
Why are key government ministries in Ukraine (like Finance) headed by overseas nationals.
Utterly bizarre.
secondiceberg -> cichonio
So do I, by the legally elected government that was illegally deposed at gunpoint. Ukraine
actually has two presidents. Only one of them is legal and it is not Poroshenko.
Bob Vavich -> cichonio
Yes, if they are taken by all Ukrainians and not a minority. Potroshenko was elected
with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority. More likely,
the right wing Western Galicia came out to vote and the Russian speaking were discouraged.
What would one expect when the new government first decree is to eliminate Russian as a second
official language. Mind you a language spoken by the majority. Makes you think? Maybe.
Probably not.
SHappens
"Personally I am a fan of the civilised, democratic intelligent way of deciding
conflicts, but if we need to take up weapons then of course I will be ready," said Yulia
Bereznikova, the ultimate fighting champion.
This quite illustrates Russians way of doing. Smart, open to dialogue and patient but dont
mess with them for too long. Once on their horses nothing will stop them.
They are ready to fight against the anti Russian sentiment injected from outside citing
Ukraine and Navalny-Soros, not against democracy.
"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened
in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead
total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."
ploughmanlunch
After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand
some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia.
That being said, I am also wary of vigilantism.
FlangeTube
"Pro-democracy" protests? They have democracy. They have an elected leader with a high
approval rating. Stop trying twisting language, these people are not "pro-democracy" they are
anti-Putin. That, as much as this paper tries to sell the idea, is not the same thing.
Drumming up odd-balls to defend the elected government in Russia is all well and good, but
I would think the other 75% (the ones who like Putin, and aren't in biker gangs) should get a
say too.
As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland said so, for
crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers
were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against
elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive
of 40+ people in Odessa.
Sergei Konyushenko
Btw, Shaun is always very best at finding the most important issues to raise?
FallenKezef
It's an interesting point, what happened in the Ukraine was an undemocratic coup which was
justified after the fact by an election once the previous incumbent was safely exiled.
Had that happened to a pro-western government we'd be crying foul. But because it happened
to a pro-Russian government it's ok.
I don't blame Russians for wanting to avoid a repeat in their own country.
Spaceguy1 One
The Crimea referendum "15% for" myth - Human rights investigations
The idea that only 15% of Crimeans voted to join Russia is speeding around the internet
after an article was published in Forbes magazine written by Professor Paul Roderick Gregory.
Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure
for Crimea for both turnout and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then
ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real results," when it
seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were
apparently against the idea of the referendum in the first place.
It appears that Professor Gregory is intent on deceiving his readers about the vote in
Crimea and its legitimacy, probably as part of the widespread campaign to deny the people of
Crimea their legitimate rights to self-determination and to demonize Russia in the process.
This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir
people's opinion in the former Soviet republics. And they also set the precedent of conducting
at least two "revolutions" by street violence in Ukraine and a dozen - elsewhere. There are
obviously people in Russia who believe the changes have to be by discussion and voting not by
street disturbance and stone throwing.
Beckow
Reduced to facts in the article, a group in Russia said that they will come out and protest
in the streets if there are anti-government demonstrations. They said that their side also
needs to be represented, since the protesters don't represent the majority.
That's all. What is so "undemocratic" about that? Or can only pro-Western people ever
demonstrate? In a democracy a biker with a tatoo is equal to an urbane lawyer with Western
connections. That's the way democracies should work.
About funding for Maidan protesters "for which there is no evidence". This is an
interesting point. There were students from Lviv who said they were given "college credit"
for being at Maidan. And how exactly have tens of thousands of mostly young men lived on
streets in Kiev with food and clothes (even some weapons) with no support?
Isn't that a bit of circumstantial evidence that "somebody" supported them. I guess in this
case we need to see the invoices, is that always the case or just when Russia issues are
involved?
rezevici
Very sad news from Russia. If Putin or the government doesn't condemn this project of the
"patriots", if he and government doesn't react against announcement of civilian militia's plan
to use violence, I'll truly turn to observe Putin as a tsar.
The ethics of Russians will be on display.
Anette Mor -> rezevici
There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but
chosen street riots instead. The door to politics is open, they can form parties and take part
in elections. but then there is a need for a clear political and economical platform and
patience to win over the votes. These people refuse to do so, They just want street riots.
Several years public watch these groups and simply had enough. There is some edgy opposition
which attracts minority but they play fair. Nobody against them protecting and demonstrating
even when the call for revolutionary means for getting power, like communists or
national-socialists. But these who got no program other than violent riots as such are not
opposition. They still have an agenda which they cannot openly display. So they attract public
by spreading slander and rising tension. Nothing anti-democratic in forming a group of people
who confront these actions. They are just another group taking part in very complex process.
by Shaun Walker: "Maidan in Kiev did not appear just like that. Everyone was paid,
everyone was paid to be there, was paid for every stone that was thrown, for every bottle
thrown," said Sablin, echoing a frequently repeated Russian claim for which there is no
evidence.
There is evidence, but also recognition from US officials. That at least is not a secret anymore.
Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December
that the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in Ukraine. On
what would she like us to believe the money had been spent?
We know that the US State Department invests heavily -- more than $100 million from
2008-2012 alone -- on international "Internet freedom" activities. This includes heavy State
Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's...
...Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet in a Suitcase"). This is an
initiative from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative to build a mobile mesh
network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase, to allow activists to continue to
communicate even when a government tries to shut down the Internet, as happened in several
Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.
Indeed, Shaun! On what would you like us to believe so much money had been spent?
All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine.
We shouldn't get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to leave the EU.
And also time for us to not get involved in any wars.
daffyddw
Thank you, thank you all, you wonderful putin-bots. I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in
ages. Bless you all, little brothers.
susandbs12 -> daffyddw
Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you.
Presumably you want a totalitarian state where only your views are legitimate.
Grow up and stop being childish and just accept that there are people who hold different
views from you, so what?
LaAsotChayim
Pro democracy protests?? Would that be same protests that Kiev had where Neo-nazis burned
unarmed police officers alive, or the ones in Syria when terrorists (now formed ISIS) where
killing Government troops? Are these the pro-democracy protests (all financed via "US aid"
implemented by CIA infiltrators) that the Guardian wants us to care about?
How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's
government troops and Nazi battalions?? Hey, guardian??!!
Anette Mor -> Strummered
Democracy is overrated. It does not automatically ensure equality for minorities. In Russia
with its 100 nationalities and all world religions simple straight forward majority rule does
not bring any good.
A safety net is required. Benevolent dictator is one of the forms for such safety net.
Putin fits well as he is fair and gained trust from all faith, nationalities and social
groups. There are other mechanisms in Russia to ensure equality. Many of them came from USSR
including low chamber of Russian parliament called Nationalities chamber. representation there
is disproportional to the number of population but reflecting minorities voice - one sit per
nation, no matter how big or small.
The system of different national administrative units for large and small and smallest
nationalities depending how much of autonomic administration each can afford to manage. People
in the West should stop preaching democracy. It is nothing but dictatorship of majority. That
is why Middle East lost all its tolerance. Majority rules, minorities are suppressed.
kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill
US has a separate line in the budget to pay for such "democratic" protests
kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill
U.S. Embassy Grants Program. The U.S. Embassy Grants Program announces a competition for
Russian non-governmental organizations to carry out specific projects.
"... Encourage internal dissent and gradual disassembling of the country into independent states, always touted as the very model of democracy and choice. ..."
"... The script is [from] 1917. Navalny is supposed to be the passionate revolutionary fighting the corrupt old system and represents the voice of the people. In reality, it is the exact opposite: Navalny is a boring nobody who represents the interests of the USA and is a colour revolution puppet. ..."
Typical Daily Telegraph shite on Russia, which rag is, on occasion, referred to by a well known
troll as a reliable source of information (his other sources being the ever truthful and objective
BBC, RFE/RL, RBK, Moscow Times, Meduza etc.) about Russia, which shows how little the writers
for the Tory Rag really know about the Evil Empire:
Why is Navalny so frequently described as the 'fiery opposition figure'? What is 'fiery' about
him? He is far from a dynamic speaker, and 'critic' just about covers his act – I have yet to
see anything like a 'Navalny Plan' to get Russia to its next progressive iteration, only vague
nods to more freedom and democracy. Who gives a fuck about freedom and democracy if you don't
have a job that will allow you a decent standard of living? Where's the Navalny economic plan?
Let me save you the trouble; in the extremely unlikely event that Navalny came to power, he
would be given a script by his western backers. That's why he doesn't need a plan. It would be
just like the shock therapy plan of the 90's, just like the remove-subsidies-privatize-everything
plan for Ukraine. Create a Russian one percent of fabulously wealthy, and throw crumbs to the
rest to shut them up.
Encourage internal dissent and gradual disassembling of the country into
independent states, always touted as the very model of democracy and choice.
The script is [from] 1917. Navalny is supposed to be the passionate revolutionary fighting the corrupt
old system and represents the voice of the people. In reality, it is the exact opposite: Navalny
is a boring nobody who represents the interests of the USA and is a colour revolution puppet.
"... Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the
intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and
its entire system is coming down. ..."
"... EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putins bid for the Presidency,
and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil. ..."
"... In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against
the Russian government as authoritarian, dictators, and so forth. She said, The trend lines for freedom
and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about
the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state. She announced at
that point that the elections would be illegitimate: [T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming
parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable
falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule. ..."
"... The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy,
from which perch she has spread Cold War venom against Putin and the Russian government. ..."
"... Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that
the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in
2000-08. ..."
"... NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online anti-corruption activist and
cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like
Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist found him reminiscent of either Hitler,
or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow. ..."
January 9, 2012 -Organizers of the December 2011 "anti-vote-fraud" demonstrations in Moscow have
announced Feb. 4 as the date of their next street action, planned as a march around the city's Garden
Ring Road on the 22nd anniversary of a mass demonstration which paved the way to the end of the Soviet
Union. While there is a fluid situation within both the Russian extraparliamentary opposition layers,
and the ruling circles and other Duma parties, including a process of "dialogue" between them, in
which ex-Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin is playing a role, it is clear that British imperial interests
are intent on-if not actually destroying Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's bid for reelection as Russia's
President in the March 4 elections-casting Russia into ongoing, destructive political turmoil.
Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the
intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt
and its entire system is coming down.
Review of the events leading up to the Dec. 4, 2011 Duma elections, which the street demonstrators
demanded be cancelled for fraud, shows that not only agent-of-British-influence Mikhail Gorbachov,
the ex-Soviet President, but also the vast Project Democracy apparatus inside the United States,
exposed by EIR in the 1980s as part of an unconstitutional "secret government,"[1]
have been on full mobilization to block the current Russian leadership from continuing in power.
Project Democracy
Typical is the testimony of Nadia Diuk, vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), before the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs
last July 26. The NED is the umbrella of Project Democracy; it functions, inclusively, through the
International Republican Institute (IRI, linked with the Republican Party) and the National Democratic
Institute (NDI, linked with the Democratic Party, and currently headed by Madeleine Albright).
Diuk was educated at the U.K.'s Unversity of Sussex Russian studies program, and then taught at
Oxford University, before coming to the U.S.A. to head up the NED's programs in Eastern Europe and
Russia beginning 1990. She is married to her frequent co-author, Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic
Institute, who headed up the private intelligence outfit Freedom House[2]
for 12 years. Her role is typical of British outsourcing of key strategic operations to U.S. institutions.
EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for
the Presidency, and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil.
In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against
the Russian government as "authoritarian," "dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines
for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power
and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state."
She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will
likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March
2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its
rule."
Diuk expressed renewed hope that the disastrous 2004 Orange Revolution experiment in Ukraine could
be replicated in Russia, claiming that "when the protests against authoritarian rule during Ukraine's
Orange Revolution brought down the government in 2004, Russian citizens saw a vision across the border
of an alternative future for themselves as a Slavic nation." She then detailed what she claimed were
the Kremlin's reactions to the events in Ukraine, charging that "the leaders in the Kremlin-always
the most creative innovators in the club of authoritarians-have also taken active measures to promote
support of the government and undermine the democratic opposition...."
Holos Ameryky
The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy,
from which perch she has spread "Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government.
While lauding "the democratic breakthroughs in the Middle East" in 2011, Diuk called on the Congress
to "look to [Eastern Europe] as the source of a great wealth of experience on how the enemies of
freedom are ever on the alert to assert their dominance, but also how the forces for freedom and
democracy will always find a way to push back in a struggle that demands our support."
In September, Diuk chaired an NED event featuring a representative of the NED-funded Levada Center
Russian polling organization, who gave an overview of the then-upcoming December 4 Duma election.
Also speaking there was Russian liberal politician Vladimir Kara-Murza, who predicted in the nastiest
tones that Putin will suffer the fate of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In this same September
period, Mikhail Gorbachov, too, was already forecasting voting irregularities and a challenge to
Putin's dominance.
The NED, which has an annual budget of $100 million, sponsors dozens of "civil society" groups
in Russia. Golos, the supposedly independent vote-monitoring group that declared there would be vote
fraud even before the elections took place, has received NED money through the NDI since 2000. Golos
had a piecework program, paying its observers a set amount of money for each reported voting irregularity.
NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny-the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of
the December demonstrations-since 2006, when he and Maria Gaidar (daughter of the late London-trained
shock therapy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar) launched a youth debating project called "DA!" (meaning
"Yes!" or standing for "Democratic Alternative"). Gorbachov's close ally Vladimir Ryzhkov, currently
negotiating with Kudrin on terms of a "dialogue between the authorities and the opposition," also
received NED grants to his World Movement for Democracy.
Besides George Soros's Open Society Foundations (formerly, Open Society Institute, OSI), the biggest
source of funds for this meddling, including funding which was channeled through the NDI and the
IRI, is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Officially, USAID has spent $2.6 billion
on programs in Russia since 1992. The current acknowledged level is around $70 million annually,
of which nearly half is for "Governing Justly & Democratically" programs, another 30% for "Information"
programs, and only a small fraction for things like combatting HIV and TB. On Dec. 15, Assistant
Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon announced that the Obama
Administration would seek Congressional approval to step up this funding, with "an initiative to
create a new fund to support Russian non-governmental organizations that are committed to a more
pluralistic and open society."
Awaiting McFaul
White House/Pete Souza
The impending arrival in Moscow of Michael McFaul (shown here with his boss in the Oval Office),
as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, is seen by many there as an escalation of Project Democracy efforts
to destabilize the country.
People from various parts of the political spectrum in Russia see the impending arrival of Michael
McFaul as U.S. Ambassador to Russia as an escalation in Project Democracy efforts to destabilize
Russia. McFaul, who has been Barack Obama's National Security Council official for Russia, has been
working this beat since the early 1990s, when he represented the NDI in Russia at the end of the
Soviet period, and headed its office there.
As a Russia specialist at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Hoover
Institution, as well as the Carnegie Endowment, and an array of other Russian studies think tanks,
McFaul has stuck closely to the Project Democracy agenda. Financing for his research has come from
the NED, the OSI, and the Smith-Richardson Foundation (another notorious agency of financier interests
within the U.S. establishment). He was an editor of the 2006 book Revolution in Orange: The Origins
of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough, containing chapters by Diuk and Karatnycky.
In his own contribution to a 2010 book titled After Putin's Russia,[3]
McFaul hailed the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine-which was notoriously funded and manipulated
from abroad-as a triumph of "people's political power from below to resist and eventually overturn
a fraudulent election."
Before coming to the NSC, one of McFaul's many positions at Stanford was co-director of the Iran
Democracy Project. He has also been active in such projects as the British Henry Jackson Society
which is active in the drive to overthrow the government of Syria.
The Internet Dimension
The December 2011 street demonstrations in Moscow were organized largely online. Participation
rose from a few hundred on Dec. 5, the day after the election, to an estimated 20,000 people on Bolotnaya
Square Dec. 10, and somewhere in the wide range of 30,000 to 120,000 on Academician Sakharov Prospect
Dec. 24.
Headlong expansion of Internet access and online social networking over the past three to five
years has opened up a new dimension of political-cultural warfare in Russia. An EIR investigation
finds that British intelligence agencies involved in the current attempts to destabilize Russia and,
in their maximum version, overthrow Putin, have been working intensively to profile online activity
in Russia and find ways to expand and exploit it. Some of these projects are outsourced to think
tanks in the U.S.A. and Canada, but their center is Cambridge University in the U.K.-the heart of
the British Empire, home of Bertrand Russell's systems analysis and related ventures of the Cambridge
Apostles.[4]
The scope of the projects goes beyond profiling, as can be seen in the Cambridge-centered network's
interaction with Russian anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, a central figure in the December
protest rallies.
While George Soros and his OSI prioritized building Internet access in the former Soviet Union
starting two decades ago, as recently as in 2008 British cyberspace specialists were complaining
that the Internet was not yet efficient for political purposes in Russia. Oxford University's Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism produced a Soros-funded report in 2008, titled "The Web that
Failed: How opposition politics and independent initiatives are failing on the Internet in Russia."
The Oxford-Reuters authors regretted that processes like the Orange Revolution, in which online connections
were crucial, had not gotten a toehold in Russia. But they quoted a 2007 report by Andrew Kuchins
of the Moscow Carnegie Center, who found reason for optimism in the seven-fold increase in Russian
Internet (Runet) use from 2000 to 2007. They also cited Robert Orttung of American University and
the Resource Security Institute, on how Russian blogs were reaching "the most dynamic members of
the youth generation" and could be used by "members of civil society" to mobilize "liberal opposition
groups and nationalists."
Scarcely a year later, a report by the digital marketing firm comScore crowed that booming Internet
access had led to Russia's having "the world's most engaged social networking audience." Russian
Facebook use rose by 277% from 2008 to 2009. The Russia-based social networking outfit Vkontakte.ru
(like Facebook) had 14.3 million visitors in 2009; Odnoklassniki.ru (like Classmates.com) had 7.8
million; and Mail.ru-My World had 6.3 million. All three of these social networking sites are part
of the Mail.ru/Digital Sky Technologies empire of Yuri Milner,[5]
with the individual companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and other offshore locations.
The Cambridge Security Programme
Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that
the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East,
in 2000-08.
Two top profilers of the Runet are Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, who assessed its status
in their essay "Control and Subversion in Russian Cyberspace."[6]
At the University of Toronto, Deibert is a colleague of Barry Wellman, co-founder of the International
Network of Social Network Analysis (INSNA).[7]
Rohozinski is a cyber-warfare specialist who ran the Advanced Network Research Group of the Cambridge
Security Programme (CSP) at Cambridge University in 2002-07. Nominally ending its work, the CSP handed
off its projects to an array of organizations in the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), including Rohozinski's
SecDev Group consulting firm, which issues the Information Warfare Monitor.
The ONI, formally dedicated to mapping and circumventing Internet surveillance and filtering by
governments, is a joint project of Cambridge (Rohozinski), the Oxford Internet Institute, the Berkman
Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and the University of Toronto.
Deibert and Rohozinski noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing
Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08. They cited official estimates that 38 million Russians
were going online as of 2010, of whom 60 had broadband access from home; the forecast number of Russia-based
Runet users by 2012 was 80 million, out of a population of 140 million. Qualitatively, the ONI authors
welcomed what they called "the rise of the Internet to the center of Russian culture and politics."
On the political side, they asserted that "the Internet has eclipsed all the mass media in terms
of its reach, readership, and especially in the degree of free speech and opportunity to mobilize
that it provides."
This notion of an Internet-savvy core of the population becoming the focal point of Russian society
is now being hyped by those who want to push the December demonstrations into a full-scale political
crisis. Such writers call this segment of the population "the creative class," or "the active creative
minority," which can override an inert majority of the population. The Dec. 30 issue of Vedomosti,
a financial daily co-owned by the Financial Times of London, featured an article by sociologist
Natalya Zubarevich, which was then publicized in "Window on Eurasia" by Paul Goble, a State Department
veteran who has concentrated for decades on the potential for Russia to split along ethnic or other
lines.
Zubarevich proposed that the 31% of the Russian population living in the 14 largest cities,
of which 9 have undergone "post-industrial transformation," constitute a special, influential class,
as against the inhabitants of rural areas (38%) and mid-sized industrial cities with an uncertain
future (25%). Goble defined the big-city population as a target: "It is in this Russia that the
35 million domestic users of the Internet and those who want a more open society are concentrated."
The Case of Alexei Navalny
In the "The Web that Failed" study, Oxford-Reuters authors Floriana Fossato, John Lloyd, and Alexander
Verkhovsky delved into the missing elements, in their view, of the Russian Internet. What would it
take, they asked, for Runet participants to be able to "orchestrate motivation and meaningful commitments"?
They quoted Julia Minder of the Russian portal Rambler, who said about the potential for "mobilization":
"Blogs are at the moment the answer, but the issue is how to find a leading blogger who wants to
meet people on the Internet several hours per day. Leading bloggers need to be entertaining.... The
potential is there, but more often than not it is not used."
Creative Commons
Creative Commons/Bogomolov.PL
NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online
"anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on
the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist
found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic.
Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow.
It is difficult not to wonder if Alexei Navalny is a test-tube creation intended to fill the missing
niche. This would not be the first time in recent Russian history that such a thing happened. In
1990, future neoliberal "young reformers" Anatoli Chubais and Sergei Vasilyev wrote a paper under
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) auspices, on the priorities for reform
in the Soviet Union. They stated that a certain personality was missing on the Soviet scene at that
time: the wealthy businessman. In their IIASA paper, Chubais and Vasilyev wrote: "We now see a figure,
arising from historical non-existence: the figure of a businessman-entrepreneur, who has enough capital
to bear the investment responsibility, and enough technological knowledge and willingness to support
innovation."[8]
This type of person was subsequently brought into existence through the corrupt post-Soviet privatization
process in Russia, becoming known as "the oligarchs." Was Navalny, similarly, synthesized as a charismatic
blogger to fill the British subversive need for "mobilization"?
Online celebrity Navalny's arrest in Moscow on Dec. 5, and his speech at the Academician Sakharov
Prospect rally on Dec. 24 were highlights of last month's turmoil in the Russian capital. Now 35
years old, Navalny grew up in a Soviet/Russian military family and was educated as a lawyer. In 2006,
he began to be financed by NED for the DA! project (see above). Along the way-maybe through doing
online day-trading, as some biographies suggest, or maybe from unknown benefactors-Navalny acquired
enough money to be able to spend $40,000 (his figure) on a few shares in each of several major Russian
companies with a high percentage of state ownership. This gave him minority-shareholder status, as
a platform for his anti-corruption probes.
It must be understood that the web of "corruption" in Russia is the system of managing cash flows
through payoffs, string-pulling, and criminal extortion, which arose out of the boost that Gorbachov's
perestroika policy gave to pre-existing Soviet criminal networks in the 1980s. It then experienced
a boom under darlings of London like Gaidar, who oversaw the privatization process known as the Great
Criminal Revolution in the 1990s. As Russia has been integrated into an international financial order,
which itself relies on criminal money flows from the dope trade and strategically motivated scams
like Britain's BAE operations in the Persian Gulf, the preponderance of shady activity in the Russian
economy has only increased.
Putin's governments inherited this system, and it can be ended when the commitment to monetarism,
which LaRouche has identified as a fatal flaw even among genuinely pro-development Russians, is broken
in Russia and worldwide. The current bankruptcy of the Trans-Atlantic City of London-Eurozone-Wall
Street system means that now is the time for this to happen!
Yale Fellows
In 2010, Navalny was accepted to the Yale World Fellows Program, as one of fewer than 20 approved
candidates out of over a thousand applicants. As EIR has reported, the Yale Fellows are instructed
by the likes of British Foreign Office veteran Lord Mark Malloch-Brown and representatives of Soros's
Open Society Foundations.[9]
What's more, the World Fellows Program is funded by The Starr Foundation of Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg,
former chairman and CEO of insurance giant American International Group (AIG), the recipient of enormous
Bush Jr.-Obama bailout largesse in 2008-09; Greenberg and his C.V. Starr company have a long record
of facilitating "regime change" (aka coups), going back to the 1986 overthrow of President Ferdinand
Marcos in the Philippines. Navalny reports that Maria Gaidar told him to try for the program, and
he enjoyed recommendations from top professors at the New Economic School in Moscow, a hotbed
of neoliberalism and mathematical economics. It was from New Haven that Navalny launched his
anti-corruption campaign against Transneft, the Russian national oil pipeline company, specifically
in relation to money movements around the new East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline. The ESPO has just
finished the first year of operation of its spur supplying Russian oil to China.
Navalny presents a split personality to the public. Online he is "Mr. Openness." He posts the
full legal documentation of his corruption exposés. When his e-mail account was hacked, and his correspondence
with U.S. Embassy and NED officials about funding him was made public, Navalny acknowledged that
the e-mails were genuine. He tries to disarm interviewers with questions like, "Do you think I'm
an American project, or a Kremlin one?"
During the early-January 2012 holiday lull in Russia, Navalny engaged in a lengthy, oh-so-civilized
dialogue in Live Journal with Boris Akunin (real name, Grigori Chkhartishvili), a famous detective-story
author and liberal activist who was another leader of the December demonstrations, about whether
Navalny's commitment to the slogan "Russia for the Russians" marks him as a bigot who is unfit to
lead. Addressing crowds on the street, however, Navalny sounds like Mussolini. Prominent Russian
columnist Maxim Sokolov, writing in Izvestia, found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina,
who conspired against the Roman Republic.
Navalny may well end up being expendable in the view of his sponsors. In the meantime, it is clear
that he is working from the playbook of Gene Sharp, whose neurolinguistic programming and advertising
techniques were employed in Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004.[10]
Sharp, a veteran of "advanced studies" at Oxford and 30 years at Harvard's Center for International
Affairs, is the author of The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Power and Struggle, which advises
the use of symbolic colors, short slogans, and so forth.
While at Yale, Navalny also served as an informant and advisor for a two-year study conducted
at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, one of the institutions participating in the
OpenNet Initiative, launched out of Cambridge University in the U.K. The study produced a profile
titled "Mapping the Russian Blogosphere," which detailed the different sections of the Runet: liberal,
nationalist, cultural, foreign-based, etc., looking at their potential social impact.
Allen Douglas, Gabrielle Peut, David Christie, and Dorothea Bunnell did research for this article.
[1] "Project Democracy: The 'parallel government' behind the Iran-Contra affair," Washington,
D.C.: EIR Research, Inc., 1987. This 341-page special report explored the connection between the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the illegal gun-running operations of Col. Oliver North,
et al., which had been mentioned in cursory fashion in the Tower Commission report on that "Iran-Contra"
scandal. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.'s introduction to the report identified the roots of North's
"Irangate" gun-running in Henry A. Kissinger's reorganization of U.S. intelligence under President
Richard M. Nixon, in the wake of post-Watergate findings by the 1975 Senate Select Committee to
Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Committee). The
process of replacing traditional intelligence functions of government with National Security Council-centered
operations, often cloaked as promoting ``democracy'' worldwide, was continued under the Trilateral
Commission-created Administration of Jimmy Carter. Supporting ``democracy''--often measured by
such criteria as economic deregulation and extreme free-market programs, which ravage the populations
that are supposedly being democratized--became an axiom of U.S. foreign policy. The NED itself
was founded in 1983.
[2] "Profile:
'Get LaRouche' Taskforce: Train Salon's Cold War Propaganda Apparat,"EIR, Sept. 29,
2006, reviews the Truman-era roots of relations among Anglo-American intelligence figures John
Train, James Jesus Angleton, Jay Lovestone, and Leo Cherne, all of whom were later active against
LaRouche and his influence. Cherne's International Rescue Committee (IRC) was described by Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, its one-time director of public relations, as an instrument of "psychological
warfare." The closely related Freedom House project was directed by Cherne for many years. Geostrategists
such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has written that Russia is destined to fragment as the Soviet
Union did, have sat on its board.
[3] Stephen K. Wegren, Dale Roy Herspring (eds.), After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect,
Future Uncertain, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010, p. 118.
[4] Craig Isherwood, "Universal Principles vs. Sense Certainty," The New Citizen, October/November
2011, p. 12 (http://cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/cv7n6_pages12to14.pdf).
Founded as the Cambridge Conversazione Society in 1820, by Cambridge University professor and
advisor to the British East India Company, the Rev. Charles Simeon, the Apostles are a secret
society limited to 12 members at a time. Its veterans have held strategic intelligence posts for
the British Empire, both in the heyday of overt colonialism, and in the continuing financial empire
and anti-science "empire of the mind," for nearly two centuries, during which Cambridge was the
elite university in Britain, Trinity College was the elite college within Cambridge, and the Apostles
were the elite within Trinity. Isherwood reported, "Among other doctrines, the Apostles founded:
Fabian socialism; logical positivism specifically against physical chemistry; most of modern psychoanalysis;
all modern economic doctrines, including Keynesianism and post-World War II 'mathematical economics';
modern digital computers and 'information theory'; and systems analysis. They also founded the
world-famous Cavendish Laboratory as the controlling priesthood for science, to attack Leibniz,
Gauss, and Riemann, in particular.... John Maynard Keynes, a leader of the Apostles, ... traced
the intellectual traditions of the Apostles back to John Locke and Isaac Newton, and through Newton
back to the ancient priesthood of Babylon." The group's abiding focus on influencing Russia is
exemplified by not only Bertrand Russell himself, but also the involvement of several members
of the Apostles, including Lord Victor Rothschild of the banking family, and future Keeper of
the Queen's Pictures Sir Anthony Blunt, in the Anglo-Soviet spy rings of the mid-20th Century.
[5] Billionaire Milner is a self-described failed physicist. He worked for the World Bank
on Russian banking issues in the 1990s, before making his fortune as one of Russia's newly minted
"oligarchs"-a business partner of now-jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the Menatep banking group,
among other projects.
[6] In Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, an
OpenNet Initiative (ONI) book, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2010.
[8] Anatoliy Chubais and Sergei A. Vasiliev, "Privatization in the USSR: Necessary for Structural
Change," in Economic Reform and Integration: Proceedings of 1-3 March 1990 Meeting, Laxenberg,
Austria: IIASA, July 1990. The authors' notion of a charismatic businessman-entrepreneur comes
straight from Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter who coined the term Unternehmergeist,
or "entrepreneur-spirit," to describe people he called agents of "creative destruction."
When there's a global economic crisis, investors from around the world have spent the last several
generations doing one thing: they buy U.S. treasuries. The reasoning, of course, is that there is
no safer investment, anywhere on the planet, than the United States of America – which has the strongest
and largest economy on the planet, and which always pays its bills.
All of these assumptions, of course, were cultivated over generations, and pre-date the radicalization
of the Republican Party.
But what happens when U.S. treasuries are no longer considered safe, Americans can no longer be
counted on to pay its bills, and the nation's most powerful economy chooses to default on purpose?
The world starts
reevaluating old assumptions, that's what.
In Britain, Jon Cunliffe, who will become deputy governor of the Bank of England next month,
told members of Parliament that banks should be developing contingency plans to deal with an American
default if one happens.
And Chinese leaders called on a "befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized
world." In a commentary on Sunday, the state-run Chinese news agency Xinhua blamed "cyclical stagnation
in Washington" for leaving the dollar-based assets of many nations in jeopardy. It said the "international
community is highly agonized."
I know I've been
pushing
this
thesis in recent weeks, but it's important to remember the unique role the United States plays
in global leadership and the extent to which Republican antics in Congress will change the dynamic
that's been stable for the better part of the last century.
No major western power has defaulted since Hitler's Germany, so this week may add some history
to the potentially catastrophic economic consequences, and the world is watching closely.
Indeed, try to imagine explaining this ongoing crisis to a foreign observer who doesn't fully
appreciate the nuances of domestic politics. "Yes, we have the largest economy on the planet. Yes,
we want to maintain global credibility. Yes, the process of extending our borrowing authority is
incredibly easy and could be completed in about 10 minutes. No, some members of our legislative branch
have decided they no longer want the United States to honor its obligations and pay for the things
they've already bought."
I suspect global observers would find this truly inexplicable. As it happens, I'd agree with them.
They're dealing with real problems that their political systems are struggling to solve. The
United States' political system is creating fake problems that it may choose to leave unsolved.
"The United States was the one bright spot in the world recovery," says OECD Secretary General
Angel Gurria. "It was leading the recovery! Leading the creation of jobs! This unfortunate situation
with the budget and debt happens at the moment it was looking good." […]
At best, the United States is slowing its recovery – and that of the rest of the world. At
worst, it's going to trigger another global crisis. That's why, Gurria says, his concern isn't
that the United States' economy is weak, but that its political system is.
It's heartbreaking that so much of the world is now laughing at us, not because we have crises
we can't solve, but because members of one party – the one that lost the most recent national elections
– insist on manufacturing new crises to advance their unpopular agenda.
To reiterate what we
discussed last week, there's a global competition underway for power and influence in the 21st
century. Americans have rivals who are playing for keeps. We can either be at the top of our game
or we can watch others catch up.
And it's against this backdrop that House Speaker John Boehner and his Republican colleagues shut
down the government, threaten default, fight tooth and nail to strip Americans of their health care
benefits, and keep spending levels so low we're kicking children out of Head Start centers while
our global competitors invest heavily in education.
It's as if some have a vision in which we no longer lead and we aim for second place on purpose.
Great nations can't function the way we're struggling to function now. The United States can either
be a 21st-century superpower or it can tolerate Republicans abandoning the governing process and
subjecting Americans to a series of self-imposed extortion crises.
It cannot do both.
China is talking about "a de-Americanized world." It's time for Republicans to decide whether
they intend to help them.
How should libertarians assess the crisis in Ukraine? Some would have us believe that a
true commitment to liberty entails (1) glorifying the "Euromaidan revolution" and the government it
installed in Kiev, (2) welcoming, excusing, or studiously ignoring US involvement with that
revolution and government, and (3) hysterically demonizing Vladimir Putin and his administration for
Russia's involvement in the affair. Since Ron Paul refuses to follow this formula or to remain
silent on the issue, these "NATO-tarians," as Justin Raimondo refers to them, deride him as an
anti-freedom, anti-American, shill for the Kremlin.
Dr. Paul takes it all in stride of course, having endured the same kind of smears and
dishonest rhetorical tricks his entire career. As he surely knows, the price of being a principled
anti-interventionist is eternal patience. Still, it must be frustrating. After all he has done to
teach Americans about the evils of empire and the bitter fruits of intervention, there are still
legions of self-styled libertarians whose non-interventionism seems to go little further than
admitting that the Iraq War was "a mistake," and who portray opposition to US hostility against
foreign governments as outright support for those governments.
"Yes, the Iraq War was clearly a mistake, but we have to confront Putin; we can't let
Iran 'get nukes;' we've got to save the Yazidis on the mountain; we must crush
ISIS, et cetera, et cetera. What are you, a stooge of the Czar/Ayatollah/Caliph?"
Some of these same libertarians supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, and presumably
laughed along with the rest of us when the neocons tried to paint him as "pro-Saddam" for opposing
the Iraq War and for debunking the lies
and distortions that were used to sell it. Yet, today they do not hesitate to tar Dr. Paul as a
"confused Pro-Putin libertarian" over his efforts to oppose US/NATO interventions in Ukraine and
against Russia. Such tar has been extruded particularly profusely by an eastern-European-heavy
faction of Students for Liberty which might be dubbed "Students for Collective Security."
It should be obvious that Ron Paul holds no brief for Putin and the Kremlin. Let me
inform the smear-artists and their dupes what Ron Paul is trying to do with his statements and
articles about Ukraine and Russia. He is not trying to support Putin's government. He is doing what
he has always done. He is trying to prevent US intervention. He is trying to stop war.
Some NATO-tarians have responded to this assertion by asking, "If that is so, why can't
he just limit himself to simply stating his principled opposition to intervention? Why must he go
beyond that, all the way to reciting Kremlin talking points?"
First of all, this is one of the most egregious fallacies that Ron Paul's critics
regularly trot out: the allegation that, "because A voices agreement with B about statements of
fact, then A must be doing so in the service of B."
To see the fallacy involved clearly, let us draw out the Iraq War comparison a bit
more. Before and during that war, in spite of Bush Administration and media propaganda to the
contrary, Ron Paul argued that Saddam Hussein did not have a weapons of mass destruction program or
ties to Al Qaeda. Saddam argued the same thing. So was Ron Paul just "reciting Baghdad talking
points" back then? Was he being a "confused pro-Saddam libertarian"? No. Do you know why Ron Paul
was saying the same thing as Saddam? Because it was true. As is widely accepted today,
Saddam did nothave a WMD program or ties to Al Qaeda. Is it valorizing Saddam to admit that
he told the truth? Again, no; it is simply to abstain from hysterically demonizing him. Of course
Saddam was a head of state, and as such, he was a lying murderer. But in this instance, telling the
truth happened to serve his interests, which included trying to avoid a war in which he might be
overthrown and killed. Ron Paul also told the truth, because he's not a lying murderer, and
because he also wanted to prevent such a disastrous war: although of course not for Saddam's sake,
but for the sake of avoiding all the catastrophic results that would surely (and did) flow from it.
Ron Paul had no love for Saddam then or for Putin today, just as, notwithstanding
endless smears to the contrary, there was no love nurtured by Murray Rothbard for Khrushchev, Justin
Raimondo for Milosevic, Lew Rockwell for Lukashenko, or Jacob Hornberger for Chavez. Rather, it just
so happens that, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, the truth has a well-known anti-war bias.
That is the only reason why, when speaking about the same international crises, principled
anti-war voices so frequently find themselves in agreement over points of fact with tyrants who want
to avoid being attacked. The truth can, in some cases, happen to serve the purposes of both good and
evil men. That doesn't stop it from being the truth.
Similarly, there are a great many true(and intervention-disfavoring) points
of fact concerning Ukraine and Russia that are being completely ignored by the media, which instead
regurgitates the intervention-favoring propaganda it imbibes directly from Washington, London, and
the NATO bureaucracy. These truths are broadcasted, and this propaganda refuted, both by the Kremlin
and by Ron Paul. But again this coincidence does not occur because the two are in cahoots. The
Kremlin engages in this broadcasting and refuting because it considers avoiding US/NATO intervention
to be in its state interest. Ron Paul does so because, again, it is the truth, and because he
considers avoiding US/NATO intervention to be moral and in the interest of humanity in general
(Americans, Russians, and Ukrainians, included).
What is this propaganda that Ron Paul labors to refute, along with his Institute for
Peace and Prosperity, and like-minded alternative media outlets like Antiwar.com and
LewRockwell.com?
According to the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative, a peaceful protest movement
emerged in Kiev against an oppressive government, was met with a deadly, unprovoked, and
uncompromising crackdown, but ultimately prevailed, causing Ukraine's dictator to flee. A
popularly-supported, freedom-loving, self-determination-exemplifying government then emerged. But
dastardly Putin horribly invaded and conquered Crimea, and engineered a "terrorist" revolt in the
east of the country. Putin is the new Hitler, and if the US and Europe don't confront him now, he
will continue his conquests until he has recreated the Soviet Empire and re-erected the Iron
Curtain.
The reality of the situation, which Dr. Paul and only a handful of others strive to
represent, is far different.
First of all, the chief grievance of the protesters was not about domestic oppression;
it was over foreign policy and foreign aid. They wanted closer ties with the west, and they were
angry that (the duly elected) President Viktor Yanukovych had rejected a European Union Association
Agreement over its severe stringency.
Far from "organic," the movement was heavily subsidized and sponsored by the US
government. Before the crisis, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragged about
the US "investing" $5 billion in "helping" Ukraine become more western-oriented.
Once the anti-government protests in Kiev were under way, both Nuland and Senator John
McCain personally joined the demonstrators in Maidan Square, implicitly promising US support for a
pro-western regime change. Nuland even went so far as to pass out cookies, like a sweet little
imperial auntie.
Far from peaceful, the protesters were very violent, and it is not clear which side
fired the first gunshot. The Foreign Minister of Estonia, while visiting Kiev, was shown evidence
that convinced him that protest
leaders had hired snipers to shoot at both sides. And the BBC recently
interviewed a Maidan protester who admitted to firing on the police before the conflict had
become pitched.
In fact, the hard core of the Euromaidan movement, and its most violent component, was
comprised of Nazis. And no, I don't mean to say "neo-Nazi," which is a term really only appropriate
for people who merely glean inspiration from historical Nazis. On the other hand, the torchlight
marching fascists that spearheaded the Ukraine coup (chief among them, the Svoboda and Right
Sector parties) are part of an unbroken lineal tradition that goes back to Stepan Bandera, the Nazi
collaborator who brought the Holocaust to Ukraine. Even a pro-Maidan blogger wrote
for The Daily Beast:
"Of course the role that the Right Sector played in the Euromaidan cannot be underestimated.
(…) They were the first to throw Molotov coctails and stones at police and to mount real and
well-fortified barricades."
Maidan protesters bearing armbands with the neo-Nazi wolf's hook symbol
More fundamentally, what is often forgotten by many libertarians, is that revolutionary
street and public square movements like Euromaidan are not "the people," but are comprised of
would-be members of and partisans for a new state, every one of which is inherently an
engine of violent aggression. What we saw in the clash at Maidan Square was not "Man Vs. State," but
"Incoming State vs. Outgoing State."
Far from being completely intransigent, Yanukovych agreed to early elections and
assented to US demands to withdraw the riot police from the square. As soon as he did that, the
government buildings were seized. The city hall was then draped
with white supremacist banners.
Far from being supported and appointed popularly and broadly, the new government's
backing is highly sectional and heavily foreign. It was installed by a capital city street coup, not
a countrywide revolution. In a deeply divided country, it only represented a particularly aggressive
component of one side of that divide. Moreover, its top officeholders were handpicked by
Nuland, and its installation was presided over by the US Vice President, as was famously revealed in
an intercepted and leaked telephone
recording.
And the only thing saving the extravagantly warlike new government from bankruptcy is
the unstinting flow of billions of dollars in aid from the
US, the
EU, and the
IMF, as well as "non-lethal"
military aid (including drones, armored Humvees, and training) from the US.
Far from being freedom-loving, top offices are held by an ex-bankster (Prime
Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom Nuland handpicked when she said "Yats is our guy" in the above
recording), a corrupt
oligarch (chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko), and, yes, Nazis (including
Andriy Parubiy, until recently the National
Security chief, and Oleh
Tyahnybok, also mentioned by Nuland in the recording as a key advisor to the new government, and
pictured at the top of this article with Nuland and "Yats").
Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the far-right Svoboda Party, formerly the "Social-National
Party." Get it? Social-National: National Socialist?
Far from being an exemplar of self-determination, the new regime responded to eastern
attempts to assert regional autonomy with all-out war, shelling civilian centers (with cluster
bombs, even) and killing
thousands. Of course Nazis have also played a key role in the war. As the famous journalist
Robert Parry wrote:
"The U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is knowingly sending neo-Nazi paramilitaries into
eastern Ukrainian neighborhoods to attack ethnic Russians who are regarded by some of these
storm troopers as "Untermenschen" or subhuman, according to Western press reports.
Recently, one eastern Ukrainian town, Marinka, fell to Ukraine's Azov battalion as it waved
the Wolfsangel flag, a symbol used by Adolf Hitler's SS divisions in World War II. The Azov
paramilitaries also attacked Donetsk, one of the remaining strongholds of ethnic Russians
opposed to the Kiev regime that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February."
Whatever involvement Moscow has in it, the revolt in the east is far from engineered.
People there do not need Russian money and threats to know they had absolutely no say in the regime
change in distant Kiev, and that it was executed by their political enemies. Russian-speaking and
heavily industrial, it would have suffered grievously, both economically and politically, had it
been dragged into a new expressly anti-Russian order. It was made abundantly clear which way the
wind was blowing when Tyahybok's Svoboda, as the Christian
Science Monitor put it, "pushed through the cancellation of a law that gave equal status to
minority languages, such as Russian," even if the cancellation was temporary.
Far from "terrorists," the rebels are not trying to destabilize or overthrow the
government in Kiev, but are seeking to establish autonomy from it. If anything, it is Kiev, with its
high civilian death toll, that has been more engaged in terrorism.
And far from Soviet revanchism, Russian policy has been largely reactive against US
aggressiveness. Since Moscow dropped its side of the Cold War by relinquishing its empire, including
both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the US has taken advantage by progressively expanding
NATO, an explicitly anti-Moscow military pact, all the way to Russia's borders: a policy that even
Cold War mastermind George Kennan, in 1998, predicted
would prove to be tragic. Moscow warned Washington
that Russia could not abide a hostile Ukraine, which would be a bridge too far.
But Washington blithely pushed on to snatch Ukraine anyway. The sheer flippancy of it can be seen
most vividly when Gideon Rose, editor of the US foreign policy establishment organ Foreign
Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) went on The Colbert Report in
the midst of the crisis and jocularly
boasted about how "we want to basically distract Russia" with the shiny Olympic medals it was
winning at the Sochi Olympics while getting Ukraine "to flip sides." Colbert aptly characterized
this geopolitical strategy as, "Here's a shiny object! We'll just take an entire country away from
you," to which Rose enthusiastically responded, "Basically!" (Perhaps to atone for such an
embarrassing and pandering display of naïveté and frivolity, Rose later published an excellent
article by respected establishment foreign policy expert John Mearsheimer arguing "Why
the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault." Even that old CFR-associated murder-monger Henry
Kissinger has
urged reconsideration.)
The takeover included Crimea which is heavily Russian-speaking and has been under effective
Russian control since the 18th century. Unsurprisingly, Washington's brilliant "Shiny Object"
doctrine failed miserably, and rather than see its only warm-water port pass under the sway of an
increasingly antagonistic rival, Russia asserted control over Crimea, doing so without loss of life.
Later, following a referendum, Crimea was formally annexed.
Of course this act was not "libertarian"; hardly anything that a state does is. But it
is simply a warmongering distortion to characterize this bloodless foreign policy counter-move
as evidence of reckless imperial Russian expansionism, especially when you compare the "invasion" of
Crimea with the bloody havoc the US has wreaked upon the Middle East, North Africa, and Southwest
Asia for the past 14 years.
As for whatever meddling Russia is guilty of in eastern Ukraine, let's try to put it in
perspective without absolving it. Just imagine what the US would do if Russia had supported a coup
in Ottawa that installed an anti-American Canadian government right on our border, and then
perpetually re-armed that government as it bombed English-speaking separatists in British Columbia.
Compared to what you'd expect to follow that, Russia's response to a US-sponsored, anti-Russian
junta bombing Russian speakers right on its border has been positively restrained.
After all, it is Putin who has been constantly pushing for ceasefires against American
militant obduracy and European reluctance, just as, in 2013, it was Putin who successfully pushed
for a deal that prevented the US from launching yet another air war, this time against the
Syrian government.
Again, this is not to claim that any foreign intervention on the part of Moscow is at
all justified on libertarian grounds, or to argue that Putin is anything more than a lying murderer
who happens to be more intelligent and sane than our own lying murderers. It is only to make clear
that in this respect too, Russia's involvement in the affair is hardly evidence of grand imperial
designs.
As an aside: Putin's foiling of neocon war aims in Syria (and potential future such
foilings) may be the reason that the anti-Russian putsch in Ukraine, and the new Putin-threatening
Cold War it engendered, was advanced by Nuland, who is a neocon holdover from the Bush
Administration and the wife of leading neocon Robert Kagan, in the first place.
To think that any country is too big or too dangerous (especially if
destabilized) to be targeted by neocons for regime change would be naïve. And to think Putin is too
naïve to know this would be equally naïve.
So much for the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative. Now to return to the NATO-tarian
objection from above: why must Ron Paul stress these points of fact, especially when they make
wicked Putin look better, or at least not-so-wicked? Why can't Dr. Paul merely state his principled
opposition to intervention?
It might make sense for him to do so if that were enough to make a difference. But the
thing is, it's not. The sad but inescapable fact is that the American people are not
operating under the same moral premises as Ron Paul and other principled libertarians. As such, the
public is susceptible to war lies and distortions. And the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon
narrative about Ukraine and Russia is nothing but a tissue of war lies and distortions.
As the warmongers are abundantly aware, if Kiev is sufficiently falsely valorized,
Washington/NATO sufficiently falsely absolved, and Putin and the eastern separatists sufficiently
falsely demonized, then American opinion will provide cover for US intervention, regardless
of what principled libertarians say. So the only way to practically stop such intervention is to go
beyond statements of principle and to debunk those war lies and distortions; moreover, to debunk
them bravely and forthrightly, even if the Kremlin is also trying to debunk them, and even if
simple-minded or lying critics will use that parallel to smear you as an agent of a foreign power.
Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior pro-Putin agenda,
how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda? He couldn't. He is not writing
in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's domestic support. The only real effect he has
is on opinion and policy in the English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the
only real impact he could hope to have is to dissuade intervention.
So much for Ron Paul's "ulterior motives." But what about some of his critics? A
question actually worth asking is as follows: Why are some of his avowedly libertarian critics, many
of whom profess not to favor intervention (or at least studiously avoid talking about that question
concretely) so absolutely livid over Ron Paul's challenge to their narrative? Their English-language
blasts against Dr. Paul are also not likely to effect Putin's domestic support one way or the other.
Their only possible impact is also on US foreign policy. So, why are they so extremely sensitive
about the acceptance in America of a narrative that lends itself toward intervention and
confrontation? The question answers itself.
Let me close with a few additional questions.
Why is it "defending tyranny" for Ron Paul to agree with Putin on points of fact, but
not for "libertarians" to hail a government that rose to power in a violent putsch, that welcomes
outright Nazis in its ranks, that conscripts its people, and that drops cluster bombs on civilians?
What exactly is "libertarian" about NATO, which amounts to an hegemonic,
dual-hemisphere, nuclear tripwire, species suicide pact?
What is so secure about a state of "collective security" in which petulant, reckless
nationalists in small eastern European countries can drag the whole world into nuclear war over a
border dispute?
And finally, why should a new Cold War be launched, and the risk of nuclear
annihilation for all our families and hometowns be heightened over the question of which clique
rules a particular river basin on the other side of the world?
Ron Paul has excellent, solidly libertarian answers to all these questions. Do his
critics?
Wow, what a sad mess the U.S. government is. It's quite frustrating how
little say we peons have on what our rulers arbitrarily do to other countries that are
no threat to us whatsoever. And these wannabe Ukrainian Nazis...I had no idea they were
so powerful in number. Are their attacks on ethnic Russians some sort of "cosmic
revenge" for the Soviet Union's starvation of Ukrainians in the 30's? The whole thing is
a nightmare. May our leaders burn in hell for the misery they've helped create.
johndavit66
Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior
pro-Putin agenda, how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda?
He couldn't. He is not writing in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's
domestic support. The only real effect he has is on opinion and policy in the
English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the only real impact he
could hope to have is to dissuade intervention. Thank for share
Friv 100000
Michael
mind blowingly rational stream of conscious and geo-political conscience!
It makes tremendous sense particularly if you feel we have been recently duped into 20
or so highly profitable (for oligarchs and financial institutions) wars. Assuming they
are going to have another real war with Russia for fun and neo-con profit, where are
they going to live in blissful retirement to spend the loot without getting attacked or
dripped-on by glow-in the dark irradiated zombies? Are some wars better not started
regardless of the causus belli or opportunity for plunder? Is setting-up a game of
nuclear armed chicken with the second most powerful alliance on the planet still a good
idea if you were planning to retire and spend time growing rhodos and fishing and
playing baseball with your grandchildren?
Do neo-cons have a we-were-just-kidding plan "B" or are they truly to
committed to a global sepuku / samson option if they / we lose? Do neo-cons do anything
other than dream big about obliterating evil comic book enemies and ruling the world? Is
it too late to invent a drug or make a video game or addictive snuff porn to keep them
better occupied? How come all the neo-cons are moving to the USA and no one elsewhere is
complaining about a shortage of them?
Claus Eric Hamle
It is really like 2+2=4: Deployment of missiles in Eastern Europe (Poland
and Romania) leads to Launch On Warning (probably by 2017) and Suicide by
accident/mistake. What else can the Russians do to defend themselves ? Will they even
announce when they adopt Launch On Warning=Suicide Guaranteed. The crazy Americans asked
for it -- The Russians want to be certain that they won't die alone. Stupid, crazy,
bloody fools in the Pentagon !!!
Looks like color revolutions became less effective in xUSSR space as more and more people
started to understand the mechanics and financial source of "pro-democracy" (aka pro-Washington) protesters.
BTW what a skillful and shameless presstitute is this
Shaun Walker
The group, which calls itself anti-Maidan, said on Thursday it would fight any attempts to bring
Russians on to the streets to protest against the government. Its name is a reference to the Maidan
protests in Kiev last year that eventually led to the toppling of former Ukraine president Viktor
Yanukovych.
"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer
first," said Dmitry Sablin, previously a long-standing MP from President Vladimir Putin's United
Russia party, who recently became a senator in Russia's upper house of parliament.
"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine,"
he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda,
and no freedom."
BINGO....well done. You've got Neo Nazi's, US Aid, CIA infiltrators, indiscriminate slaughter
and Nazi battalions....all in just 8 sentences. great job
I guess these are exactly the sort of people who will enrich the EU:
The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine "promoting the right kind of democracy" to
the tune of $5 billion is a matter of record, courtesy of "Fuck the EU" Nuland.
As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014
- once under a false identity. If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made similar
visits, that would be a problem, no?
TuleCarbonari -> garethgj 16 Jan 2015 06:21
Yes, he should leave Syria to paid mercenaries. Do you really want us to believe you still
don't know those fighters in Syria are George Soros' militias? Come on man, go get yourself
informed.
jgbg -> Strummered 16 Jan 2015 06:19
You can't campaign for greater democracy, it's dangerous, it's far too democratic.
The USA cannot pay people to campaign in Russia to have the right kind of democracy i.e.
someone acceptable to the US government at the helm.
Instead of funding anti-government NGOs in other countries, perhaps the USA should first spend
the money fixing the huge inequalities and other problems in their own country.
jgbg -> Glenn J. Hill 16 Jan 2015 06:12
What???? Have you been smoking?? Sorry but your Putin Thugs are NOT funded by my
country.
I think he is referring the the NGOs which have spent large sums of money on "promoting
democracy" in Georgia and Ukraine. Many of these are funded by the National Endowment for
Democracy and the US State Department. Some have funding from organisations which are in
turn, funded by George Soros. These organisations were seen to back the Rose Revolution in
Georgia and both revolutions in Ukraine. Georgia ended up with a president who worked as a
lawyer in a US firm linked to the right wing of the Republican Party. Ukraine has a prime
minister who was brought up in the USA and a president whom a US ambassador to Ukraine
described as "our insider" (in a US Embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks).
The funding of similar organisations in Russia (e.g. Soldiers' Mothers) has been exposed
since a law was brought in, requiring foreign funded NGOs to register and publish annual
accounts.
Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they
are wrong.
Anette Mor -> Hektor Uranga 16 Jan 2015 06:09
He was let out to form a party and take part in Moscow mayor election. He got respectable
20%. But shown no platform other than anti- corruption. There is anti-corruption hysteria in
Russia already. People asked for positive agenda. He got none. The party base disintegrated.
The court against him was because there was a case filed. I can agree the state might found
this timely. But we cannot blaim on Russian state absence of positive position in Navalny
him self. He is reactive on current issues but got zero vision. Russia is a merit based
society. They look for brilliance in the leader. He is just a different caliber. Can
contribute but not lead. His best way is to choose a district and stand for a parliament
seat. The state already shown his is welcomed to enter big politics. Just need to stop
lookibg to abroad for scripts. The list of names for US sanction was taking from his and his
mates lists. After such exposure he lost any groups with many Russians.
Anette Mor -> notoriousANDinfamous 16 Jan 2015 05:50
I do not disregard positive side of democracy or negative side of dictatorship. I just
offer a different scale. Put value of every human life above any ideology. The west is full
of aggressive radicals from animal activists and greens to extremist gays and atheists.
There is a need to downgrade some concepts and upgrade other, so yhe measures are universal.
Bombing for democracy is equaly bad as bombing for personal power.
Anette Mor -> gilstra 16 Jan 2015 05:41
This is really not Guardian problem. They got every right to choose anti-Russian rant as
the main topic. The problem is the balance. Nobody watching it and the media as a whole
distorting the picture. Double standards are not good too. RT to stay permitted in the UK
was told to interrupt every person they interview expressing directly opposite view. Might
be OK with some theoretical conversation. But how you going to interrupt mother who just
most a child by argument in favor of the killer? The regulator said BBC is out of their
reach. But guardian should not be. Yet every material is one sided.
Asimpleguest -> romans
International Observer
''The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs''
PeraIlic
"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels," said Nikolai
Starikov, a nationalist writer and marginal politician.
Never mind that he's marginal politician. This man really knows how to express himself
briefly:
An Interview with Popular Russian Author and Politician Nikolai Starikov
Those defending NATO expansion say that those countries wanted to be part of NATO.
Okay. But Cuba also wanted to house Soviet missiles voluntarily.
If America did not object to Russian missiles in Cuba, would you support Ukraine joining
NATO?
That would be a great trust-building measure on their part, and Russia would feel that
America is a friend.
imperfetto
This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distorsions of what
is happening in Russia. A piece of journalism which tell us something about the level of
propaganda that most mainstream media in our 'free' west have set up in the attempt to
organise yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper
seem to pursue this goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the
British interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place in
Russia\Ukraine or elsewhere (Syria for example) well...that's too bad, the answer would be.
Goals justify the means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs
to be a war (we have decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but
clever tools that we are allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy.
The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now
perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA...and more in general of the US/EU geo-political
strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the
instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and
then the ARMY).
The idea is to create an internal turmoil through some pretexts (gay, feminism,
scandals...etc.) in the hope that a growing movement of protesters may finally shake up the
'palace' and foster the conditions for a coupe to take place. Then the right people will
occupy the key chairs. Who are these subdued figures to be? They would be corrupted
oligarchs, allowing the US to guide, control the Russian public life (haven't we noticed
that three important ministers in Kiev are AMERICAN citizens!)
But, from what I understand, Russia is a democratic country. Its leader has been elected by
the voters. Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the
have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that
country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. That's right, in a
democratic republic. But, instead, the attempt to enact another Maidan, that is a FASCIST
assault to the DUMA, would require a due response.
Thus, perhaps we could without any Patriots of the sort, that may feed the pernicious
attention of western media. There should merely be the enforcement of the law:
a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the
parliament, which is an expression of Russian people.
VladimirM
"The 'orange beast' is sharpening its teeth and looking to Russia," said The Surgeon,
whose real name is Alexander Zaldostanov.
Actually, he used a Russian word "зверек", not "зверь". The latter can be rendered as
"beast" but what he said was closer to "rodent", a small animal. So, using this word he just
stressed his contemptious attitude rather than a degree of threat.
These patriotic groups do seem extreme, but probably less extreme and odd than many of
the current Ukrainian crop of politicians. Here is an article from the New York Observer
that will get you up to speed....
The New York Observer:The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and
Oligarchs
Robert Sandlin -> GreenKnighht
Did you forget the people in charge of the Ukraine then were Ukrainian communists.That
many of the deaths were also ethnic Russian-Ukrainians.And the ones making policy in the
USSR as a whole,in that period were mostly not ethnic-Russians.The leader was Georgian,his
secret police chief and many of their enforcers were Jewish-Soviets.And his closest helpers
were also mostly non-ethnic Russians.Recruited from all the important ethnic groups in the
USSR,including many Ukrainians.It is a canard of the Wests to blame Russia for the famine
that also killed many Russians.I'm sick of hearing the bs from the West over that tragic
time trying to stir Russophobia.
seventh
Well, you know a government is seriously in the shit when it has to employ biker gangs to
defend it.
Robert Sandlin -> seventh
Really? The government doesn't employ them. Defending the government is the job of the
police and military. These civilian volunteers are only helping to show traitors in the pay
of Westerners that the common people won't tolerate treason like happened in Ukraine, to
strike Russia.Good for them,that should let potential 5th columnists know their bs isn't
wanted in Russia.
Bulagen
I watch here in full swing manipulation of public opinion of Europeans, who imagines that
they have "democracy" and "freedom of speech". All opinions, alternative General line, aimed
at all discredit Russia in the eyes of the population of Europe ruthlessly removed the
wording that Putin bots hinder communication "civilized public." And I am even more
convinced that all this hysteria about "the problems of democracy in Russia" is nothing more
than an attempt to sell Denyen horse (the so-called democratic values) to modern Trojans
(Russians).
jezzam -> Bulagen
All the wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies adhere to "so-called democratic
values". They would also greatly benefit the Russian people. Putin opposes these values
purely because they would threaten his power.
sashasmirnoff -> jezzam
The "wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies"? That is description of whom?
I will generalize here - if by those you mean the "West" you are mistaken. The vast
majority of it's populace are carrying a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that
owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy,
frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous.
The West is generally regarded as being the least healthy society, largely due to
horrifying diet, sedentary lifestyle, and considerable stress due to (amongst other things)
the aforementioned struggle to not drown in huge personal debt.
I'm not certain as to how you qualify or quantify "happiness", but the West is also
experiencing a mental health crisis, manifested in aberrant behaviour, wild consumption of
pharmaceuticals to treat or drown out depression, suicide, high rates of incarceration etc.
All symptoms of a deeply unhappy and unhealthy society.
One more thing - the supposed wealth and happiness of the West is predicated on the
poverty and misery of those the West colonizes and exploits. The last thing on Earth the
West would like to see is the extension of "democratic values" to those unfortunates. That
would totally ruin the World Order.
Robert Sandlin -> kawarthan
Well the Ukrainians have the corner on Black and Brown shirts.So those colors are already
taken.Blue,Red,White,maybe those?
Paultoo -> Robert Sandlin
Looking at the picture of that "patriotic" Russian biker it seems that Ukraine don´t have
the corner on black shirts!
WardwarkOwner
Why do these uprisings/ internal conflicts seem to happen to energy producing countries
or those that are on major oil/gas pipeline routes far more often than other countries?
Jackblob -> WardwarkOwner
I don't see any uprising in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, Mexico, the UAE, Iran,
Norway, Qatar, etc.
So what exactly is your point?
Petros -> Sotrep Jackblob
Well there is problem in Sudan Iraq Syria Libya Nigeria . you have conflicts made up by
USA to change governments and get raw materials . so ward is right . you just pretending to
be blind . in mexico ppl dying pretty much each day from corrupt people .
PullingTheStrings
If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a
popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America
*Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country
if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they
move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without
having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high
ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and
greedy reasons.
Jackblob -> PullingTheStrings
For some reason I do not trust you to discern the BS from the truth since your entire
comment is an act of deflection.
The truth is most Russians are very poor, more poor than the people of India. This latest
economic turmoil will make it even worse. Meanwhile, Putin and a handful of his cronies hold
all the wealth. He proved he did not care about his people when he sent the FSB to bomb
Moscow apartment buildings to start a war in Chechnya and ultimately to cancel elections.
Now Putin sees the potential for widespread protests and he is preparing to confront any
protests with violent vigilante groups like those seen in other repressive countries.
Bob Vavich -> Jackblob
Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to
India and I have been to Russia and I don't like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell
you that I have never seen as much poverty as in India. I can also tell you that when I
drove through the low income neighborhood of Detroit or Houston, I felt like I was in a post
apocalyptic world. Burned out and boarded up houses. Loitering and crime ridden streets. I
can go on and on about social injustice. Regardless your comments are even more slanted than
the assertion you are making about "Pulling the Strings".
Jackblob -> Bob Vavich
I was just as surprised to learn that Indians earn more than Russians. My source for that
info comes from PBS's latest broadcast of Frontline entitled "Putin's Way".
Also, I doubt you've visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. It's as if the
Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were forgotten. Worse, actually.
Hamdog
Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a
democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian.
We in the West love democracy, assuming you vote for the right person.
In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a
dictatorship but it's hardly democracy.
E1ouise -> Hamdog
Yanukovych was voted out of office by the *elected parliment* after he fled to Russia.
Why don't you know this yet?
secondiceberg -> E1ouise
Excuse me, he was forced out of the country at gunpoint before the opposition "voted him
out" the next day.
Bosula -> secondiceberg
Yes. That is correct. And armed Maidan thugs (Svoboda and Right Sector) stood around the
Rada with weapons while the vote taken.
Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the
Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and
uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue.
Sourcrowd
The soviet union didn't go through some kind of denazification akin to Germany after it
disintegrated. Russia today looks more and more like Germany after WWI - full of self pity
and blaming everyone but themselves for their own failures.
Down2dirt -> Sourcrowd
I would like to hear more about that denazification of Germany and how did that go.
Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and
civil services...State owned museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful
owners that were robbed during 1930-45.
I don' t condone Putin's and Russia polity (one of the most neoliberal countries), but you
appear to be clueless about this particular subject and don' t know what you are talking
about.
Bosula -> Sourcrowd
Are you thinking about Ukraine here, maybe?
Bosula
A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan
group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev.
Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic
and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well.
Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in
common than they would like to believe.
TuleCarbonari -> Bosula
A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The
Ukrainians were hired by the West to promote a coup d'etat against an elected government,
this against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general election in
the country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections.
Flinryan
Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder
what's going to happen in the coming weeks.
MarcelFromage -> Flinryan
I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.
Nothing new - the Russian Federation will continue its illegal occupation of Crimea and
continue to bring death and destruction to eastern Ukraine. And generally be a pain for the
rest of the international community.
secondiceberg -> MarcelFromage
And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern
Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to
use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine.
Kiev had its revolution. Eastern Ukraine is having its revolution. Tit for Tat.
Velska
CIF seems flooded by Putin's sock puppets, i.e. mindless robots who just repeat
statements favouring pro-Putinist dictatorship.
To be sure, there's much to hope for in the US democracy, where bribery is legal. I'm not
sure whether bribery in Russia is a legal requirement or just a fact of life. But certainly
Russia is far from democratic, has actually never been.
Bosula -> Velska
You can take your sock off now and wipe your hands clean.
secondiceberg -> Velska
What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you
do and say? Do you think they are just going to sit on what information they think they get?
What will you do when they come knocking at your door, abduct you for some silly comment
you made, and then rendition you to another country so that you will not be able to claim
any legal rights? Let Russia look after itself in the face of "war-footing" threats from the
U.S.
Fight for social justice and freedom in your own country.
cichonio
"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and
old people suffer first,"
That's why they are ready to use weapons and violence against a foe who hasn't really
been seen yet.
Also,
"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels,"
I think decisions about Ukraine should be made in Kiev.
Bosula -> cichonio
Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington
then? How much does this compromise Kiev as its agenda is very different from the
agenda the US have with Russia. Ukraine is weakened daily with its civil war and the killing
its own people, but this conflict benefits the US as further weakens and places Russia in a
new cold war type environment.
Why are key government ministries in Ukraine (like Finance) headed by overseas nationals.
Utterly bizarre.
secondiceberg -> cichonio
So do I, by the legally elected government that was illegally deposed at gunpoint.
Ukraine actually has two presidents. Only one of them is legal and it is not Poroshenko.
Bob Vavich -> cichonio
Yes, if they are taken by all Ukrainians and not a minority. Potroshenko was elected
with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority. More likely,
the right wing Western Galicia came out to vote and the Russian speaking were discouraged.
What would one expect when the new government first decree is to eliminate Russian as a
second official language. Mind you a language spoken by the majority. Makes you think?
Maybe. Probably not.
SHappens
"Personally I am a fan of the civilised, democratic intelligent way of deciding
conflicts, but if we need to take up weapons then of course I will be ready," said Yulia
Bereznikova, the ultimate fighting champion.
This quite illustrates Russians way of doing. Smart, open to dialogue and patient but
dont mess with them for too long. Once on their horses nothing will stop them.
They are ready to fight against the anti Russian sentiment injected from outside citing
Ukraine and Navalny-Soros, not against democracy.
"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as
happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is
instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."
ploughmanlunch
After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I
understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia.
That being said, I am also wary of vigilantism.
FlangeTube
"Pro-democracy" protests? They have democracy. They have an elected leader with a high
approval rating. Stop trying twisting language, these people are not "pro-democracy" they
are anti-Putin. That, as much as this paper tries to sell the idea, is not the same thing.
Drumming up odd-balls to defend the elected government in Russia is all well and good, but I
would think the other 75% (the ones who like Putin, and aren't in biker gangs) should get a
say too.
As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland said so, for crying
out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were
partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected
officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of
40+ people in Odessa.
Sergei Konyushenko
Btw, Shaun is always very best at finding the most important issues to raise?
FallenKezef
It's an interesting point, what happened in the Ukraine was an undemocratic coup which
was justified after the fact by an election once the previous incumbent was safely exiled.
Had that happened to a pro-western government we'd be crying foul. But because it
happened to a pro-Russian government it's ok.
I don't blame Russians for wanting to avoid a repeat in their own country.
Spaceguy1 One
The Crimea referendum "15% for" myth - Human rights investigations
The idea that only 15% of Crimeans voted to join Russia is speeding around the internet
after an article was published in Forbes magazine written by Professor Paul Roderick
Gregory.
Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure
for Crimea for both turnout and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then
ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real results," when
it seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were
apparently against the idea of the referendum in the first place.
It appears that Professor Gregory is intent on deceiving his readers about the vote in
Crimea and its legitimacy, probably as part of the widespread campaign to deny the people of
Crimea their legitimate rights to self-determination and to demonize Russia in the process.
This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir
people's opinion in the former Soviet republics. And they also set the precedent of
conducting at least two "revolutions" by street violence in Ukraine and a dozen - elsewhere.
There are obviously people in Russia who believe the changes have to be by discussion and
voting not by street disturbance and stone throwing.
Beckow
Reduced to facts in the article, a group in Russia said that they will come out and
protest in the streets if there are anti-government demonstrations. They said that their
side also needs to be represented, since the protesters don't represent the majority.
That's all. What is so "undemocratic" about that? Or can only pro-Western people ever
demonstrate? In a democracy a biker with a tatoo is equal to an urbane lawyer with Western
connections. That's the way democracies should work.
About funding for Maidan protesters "for which there is no evidence". This is an interesting
point. There were students from Lviv who said they were given "college credit" for being
at Maidan. And how exactly have tens of thousands of mostly young men lived on streets
in Kiev with food and clothes (even some weapons) with no support?
Isn't that a bit of circumstantial evidence that "somebody" supported them. I guess in
this case we need to see the invoices, is that always the case or just when Russia issues
are involved?
rezevici
Very sad news from Russia. If Putin or the government doesn't condemn this project of the
"patriots", if he and government doesn't react against announcement of civilian militia's
plan to use violence, I'll truly turn to observe Putin as a tsar.
The ethics of Russians will be on display.
Anette Mor -> rezevici
There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but
chosen street riots instead. The door to politics is open, they can form parties and take
part in elections. but then there is a need for a clear political and economical platform
and patience to win over the votes. These people refuse to do so, They just want street
riots. Several years public watch these groups and simply had enough. There is some edgy
opposition which attracts minority but they play fair. Nobody against them protecting and
demonstrating even when the call for revolutionary means for getting power, like communists
or national-socialists. But these who got no program other than violent riots as such are
not opposition. They still have an agenda which they cannot openly display. So they attract
public by spreading slander and rising tension. Nothing anti-democratic in forming a group
of people who confront these actions. They are just another group taking part in very
complex process.
by Shaun Walker: "Maidan in Kiev did not appear just like that. Everyone was paid,
everyone was paid to be there, was paid for every stone that was thrown, for every bottle
thrown," said Sablin, echoing a frequently repeated Russian claim for which there is no
evidence.
There is evidence, but also recognition from US officials. That at least is not a secret
anymore.
Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in
December that the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in
Ukraine. On what would she like us to believe the money had been spent?
We know that the US State Department invests heavily -- more than $100 million from
2008-2012 alone -- on international "Internet freedom" activities. This includes heavy State
Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's...
...Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet in a Suitcase"). This is an
initiative from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative to build a mobile
mesh network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase, to allow activists to
continue to communicate even when a government tries to shut down the Internet, as happened
in several Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.
Indeed, Shaun! On what would you like us to believe so much money had been spent?
All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine.
We shouldn't get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to leave the EU.
And also time for us to not get involved in any wars.
daffyddw
Thank you, thank you all, you wonderful putin-bots. I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in
ages. Bless you all, little brothers.
susandbs12 -> daffyddw
Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you.
Presumably you want a totalitarian state where only your views are legitimate.
Grow up and stop being childish and just accept that there are people who hold different
views from you, so what?
LaAsotChayim
Pro democracy protests?? Would that be same protests that Kiev had where Neo-nazis burned
unarmed police officers alive, or the ones in Syria when terrorists (now formed ISIS) where
killing Government troops? Are these the pro-democracy protests (all financed via "US aid"
implemented by CIA infiltrators) that the Guardian wants us to care about?
How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by
Kiev's government troops and Nazi battalions?? Hey, guardian??!!
Anette Mor -> Strummered
Democracy is overrated. It does not automatically ensure equality for minorities. In
Russia with its 100 nationalities and all world religions simple straight forward majority
rule does not bring any good.
A safety net is required. Benevolent dictator is one of the
forms for such safety net. Putin fits well as he is fair and gained trust from all faith,
nationalities and social groups. There are other mechanisms in Russia to ensure equality.
Many of them came from USSR including low chamber of Russian parliament called Nationalities
chamber. representation there is disproportional to the number of population but reflecting
minorities voice - one sit per nation, no matter how big or small.
The system of different national administrative units for large and small and smallest
nationalities depending how much of autonomic administration each can afford to manage.
People in the West should stop preaching democracy. It is nothing but dictatorship of
majority. That is why Middle East lost all its tolerance. Majority rules, minorities are
suppressed.
kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill
US has a separate line in the budget to pay for such "democratic" protests
kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill
U.S. Embassy Grants Program. The U.S. Embassy Grants Program announces a competition for
Russian non-governmental organizations to carry out specific projects.
Фильм "Срок" - документальная лента про белоленточных революционеров - заставил меня вспомнить начало
двадцатого века. Пьяная богема, золотая молодёжь, "тусовки" в дорогих клубах Москвы… уверен, что
в каком-нибудь 1912 году ровно так же прожигал жизнь креативный класс тех лет.
Чёрно-белое мышление участников деструктивной секты даёт один ответ на самые сложные вопросы:
надо уничтожить врага, и тогда всё наладится само собой. То обстоятельство, что для победы над "врагом"
от креаклов требуют всего лишь лайков и ретвитов,
только добавляет им запала.
Кстати, с первых минут фильма вскрывается классический приём американской школы журналистики,
когда оператор снимает красивые лица "своих" и некрасивые - "чужих". Оказывается, паства Навального
состоит не только из хорошеньких девушек и благообразных интеллигентов с аккуратно подстриженными
бородками. Есть там и контингент иного толка.
Автоматически разоблачается маленькая ложь защитников Pussy Riot. Многие удивятся, но девушки,
оказывается, не пели в церкви. Они выкрикивали грязное ругательство - а музыку на их ругань наложили
уже позже.
Сцена с полицейскими и с цветами госпожи Собчак смотрится особенно светло и добро после украинского
Майдана - когда девушки в вышиванках сначала дарили милиции цветы, а потом закидывали несчастных
милиционеров коктейлями Молотова. В России, к счастью, до коктейлей Молотова не дошло. "Полиция
с народом", да…
Помните полтора миллиона евро, который был изъят при обыске у Собчак? Интересная деталь: они,
оказывается, были разложены по сотне конвертов - несложно догадаться зачем.
Собчак, впрочем, смотрится на фоне общего неадеквата верхом благоразумия. Яшин, Пономарёв, остальные
герои фильма выглядят реальными революционерами африканского толка - бессмысленными и беспощадными.
Чего стоит один только эпизод, когда Яшин рассказывает, как побил какую-то женщину, а потом выводит
из своего подвига стратегию борьбы с "режимом".
Высказывания типа "давайте захватим власть" и "нам нужна революция" сопровождаются присказкой
"чтобы не было коррупции". Все понимают, что коррупция - всего лишь отмазка, однако это никого из
героев особо не волнует.
Вообще, к середине видео я начал невольно подозревать, что Собчак выступила одним из заказчиков
фильма. Паноптикум борцов с режимом так чётко оттеняет её банальные реплики, что она смотрится на
общем фоне эдакой мудрой совой.
Аналогии с Евромайданом прослеживаются однозначные. Те же барабаны, те же боевики, те же знакомые
по Украине схемы. Полный комплект нацистских лозунгов - включая даже лозунг "слава Андерсу Брейвику"…
Был в Москве и штурм зданий - с элементами погрома и мародёрства. В фильме не показано только одно
- американские "печеньки", которые раздавались в Киеве совершенно открыто:
То есть, понятно, что разложенные по сотне конвертов полтора миллиона евро у Ксении Собчак появились
не из воздуха. Но всё же конкретно в фильме американская поддержка была практически не представлена:
только реклама американцами "группы" Pussy Riot и ещё несколько аналогичных эпизодов.
Фильм хорош, даже убеждённые оппозиционеры скрипят зубами от злости, но не могут оспорить его
документальность. Однозначно рекомендую выделить 80 минут: смотрится видео на одном дыхании:
У вас нет трех составляющих, которые делают человека не быдлом: трудолюбия, смелости, мозгов.
Осатанев от скуки в душных офисах, сознавая собственную бесполезность для мироздания, но не желая
её признавать, вы как дворняги брешете от скуки.
Брешете не для того, чтобы защитить дом, близких, а потому что вам тупо нечем заняться. Ничего
вас не интересует, кроме сенсаций. Вы любите истории про зверские изнасилования, невинных мучеников
и кровавый режим. В идеале -- "3-в-1" как "Бленд-а-мед". Вот тогда в ваших рыбьих глазах появляется
хоть какой-то интерес к жизни, и вам есть о чем поговорить в курилке и за ланчем с собратьями по
офисной клетке. Ведь время до 18:00 тянется нестерпимо долго.
А тут -- обана! -- Навального посадили. Вот где поле для "порезвиться". Какая "вкусняшка" вместо
обрюзгшего Ходора. Теперь вор № 1 позабыт, и весь топ ЖЖ пестрит вселенским плачем по вору № 2.
Свежачок, чо.
А "селяви" в том, что Навальный украл. Реально украл. И Ходор украл. Много украл. Очень сильно
до хуя украл. Их посадили. За дело посадили. За дело, понимаете? Или, по вашему, причастность к
оппозиционному движению автоматически освобождает человека от ответственности за преступление. А
если вашему ребенку какой-нибудь опп нечаянно заедет по темечку во время митинга бутылкой и чадо
умрет, вы тоже будете биться в экстазе за оправдательный приговор, виня во всем кровавый режим?
Вы бездельники. Вам скучно. Вы вопите.
Когда арестовали махачкалинского мэра, что-то не больно вы вопили. Вам это было неинтересно.
Он же не оппозиционер. Мимо вас событие прошло. Даже не прошло, а пролетело. Фанерой над городом
любви. Потому как не было повода попугаться 37 года, порассуждать о том, что "пора валить", почувствовать
себя "непонятым лыцарем", живущим в "страшное" время.
Бездельники любят забивать свободное время, коего у них -- выше крыши, страданиями и сенсациями,
а лучше всего -- сенсациями, дающими повод опереточно пострадать. Ну, так, дистанционно. За кого-то.
Чтобы лично вас не коснулось. Чтобы поорав на митинге, иметь возможность вернуться домой к борщу
и телеку. А если хулиганы двинут по морде или обворуют, вызвать полицию. Тех самых слуг кровавого
режима.
Вы -- свиньи, которым время от времени требуется безопасно повизжать. Ну, так, чтоб не зарезали.
А чо бы вам не повизжать опасно? Вместо того, чтобы орать, что Навальный -- не вор, а невинная
жертва "гэбья", возьмите и напишите на начальника своего отдела, который берет откаты, телегу в
службу безопасности вашей компании. Ведь у вас есть начальник? Он берет откаты? Это вас бесит? Разумеется,
есть. Разумеется, берет. Разумеется, бесит. Ну, так не будь ссыкуном, пойди и сдай начальника директору
службы корпоративной безопасности. Что? Ссышь? Оно и понятно: стенать в стаде хомяков по Навальному
-- ни смелости, ни ума не требует. Зато развлекает. А написать заяву на взяточника -- мента, паспортистку,
собственного начальника, который берет в карман 2 процента от стоимости каждого заключенного через
него контракта -- это ссыкотно. Вы молчите в тряпочку и сами с поклоном несете взятки. В полуприседе
и через "пер фавор". "Не соблаговолите ли принять, гражданин начальник? Я так больше не буду".
Вы -- стадо безмозглых ссыкливых хомяков, которые не знают, чем себя занять, кроме "пшиковых"
сенсаций.
Еще раз, специально для альтернативно одаренных: вор, посаженный в тюрьму, -- это не сенсация.
Это нормальное явление. Это то, как должно быть. То, что другие воры и преступники не сидят, --
еще не повод гулять на свободе тем, чья вина доказана.
Вина Навального доказана. Власти невыгодно его сажать. Невыгодно делать из клоуна мученика. Я
думаю, что власти выгодно, чтобы о Навальном забыли. Но он украл. И сел. И сделал всем плохо: себе,
своей семье и даже власти. Хотя почему всем? Вам он сделал хорошо. Он вас развлек. Помог скоротать
еще один бессмысленный и бесцельный день на работе, на которую вы таскаетесь, не понимая толком
зачем. Наверное, для того, чтобы покупать в холодильник пиво и рыбу, которые вы потом спускаете
в унитаз. Как, впрочем, и свои жизни. Печаль.
К чему это я? Ах, да: может, харе уже быть суетливыми пушистыми зверьками с белыми повязками
на глазах, защищающими тех, кто на вашей незамутненности делает имя и деньги. Лучше тело в порядок
приведите. Потом и мозги подтянутся. И станет вам ясно и понятно, почему Ксюша Собчак подалась в
оппозицию, а вор -- ну, надо же! -- сидит в тюрьме. А то лезете в политику, а у самих -- кариес
и простатит, и секса не было три года. Свою, свою планету сначала в порядок приведите. Себя. Жопу
свою жирную. Писюн, который через раз стоит. Мозги, которые ничем, кроме топа ЖЖ и журнала "Клаксон",
лет 5 уже не кормили.
Что у вас есть-то, кроме целлюлита, ни разу не пригодившегося диплома, бульканья пива в голове
и наполеоновских амбиций, которые делают из вас неврастеников?
maks_markoff
Свободу наебальному.Слава пейсам.Слава Хомякам. - Expand
sandy4eek
думать невыгодно) можно додумать до суровой правды что ты никому не нужен и абсолютно бесполезен
для общества, а это очень неприятно) проще жить иллюзиями.
Anastasia Klimova
У меня начальство не берет откаты, не за что откаты получать. Но даже если б брало,
нет у нас службы корпоративной безопасности. Да и жаловаться никто б не стал. Ведь все по сути
своей воры: кто-то таскает миллионы со счетов компании, а кто-то ручки и бумагу. А вопят, потому
что у них нет возможности воровать. А если б была, сами стали бы ворами. Я слабо верю, что есть
такие прям уж честные, чтоб не воровали. Если и есть, то живут они не сладко.
Вот оппозиционеры обсуждают "Майдан-2004", мечтая о его повторении в Москве. Вот они используют
лозунг украинской "бархатной революции", чтобы "закрепить связки Путин-пидрахуй", то же подставляясь
плакатами "России без пересчета голосов на выборах". Эээ, а разве не пересчета они требовали
в 2011 году? Вот "хлопающие прогулки" - по технологии Белорусской оппозиции. А вот Occupy 2012-2013.
Нет-нет, я не о шарах-лозунгах "Оккупируй Москву" и обиде "нет, мы не оккупанты". Это ж банальное
слизывание идеи с Occupy в США.
А теперь, как говорится в "Что? Где? Когда?" - внимание, вопрос.
Они с гордостью называют себя и своих сторонников "креативным классом". Ок. Но где креатив-то, где хотя бы какое-то творчество? Понятно, что однажды сработавшая в Прибалтике
(и после в СНГ) технология "бархатной революции" показалась кому-то эффективной, но нельзя так
повторюшничать и себя креаклами величать ;)
Чем больше сроки, чем больше расходного материала в тюрьмах, тем больше профит у лидеров, больше
международного сочувствия, щедрее помощь, дольше командировки. А как вы хотите - революция
нуждается в героях и трибунах. Пока герои трубят на зоне, трибуны будут трубить с трибун.
Ведь
топтание белым кольцом друг другу в затылок больше ничего не дает. Нужна картинка.
Значит, кровь из носу нужна массовка. И кровь из носу.
И вот вы, такой чистенький и прогрессивный, уже ходите под подпиской. Вы и сами не помните, зачем
вы бросили камень в полицейского. Но вы не могли удержаться - ведь там была ОНА, и ОНА так на вас
смотрела... И там был САМ, и он жал вам потом руку. Но теперь вы под следствием. Есть видео и показание
свидетелей. А САМ вдруг пишет у себя в блоге, что вы - провокатор. А ОНА дает Дождю интервью и говорит,
что вы ЕЙ всегда казались странным.
Хотя лучше было решать заранее: идти или нет. Ситуация изменилась. Власть больше не шутит. Канавал
завершен. Надо отдавать себе отчет, что теперь есть разные варианты. Весело проехать в автозаке
с твиттером и варшавянкой - больше не единственный аттракцион. Если вы готовы выбрать "свободу и
революцию", выбирайте, но потом не жалуйтесь, в случае чего. За вас будут жаловаться другие - в
европейских коридорах перед плотным европейским обедом.
И не забудьте почитать "Катехизис революционера" Сергея Геннадьевича Нечаева. Там все сказано.
О вас - тоже
Nowhere is "civil society" support at levels running into the billions of dollars per year.
This level of support is for military and economic development for obvious reasons. Just how
much money does an NGO need to run a website, pay some staff and "spread the word"?
is a Latin oratorical phrase which was in popular use in the Roman Republic in the 2nd
Century BC during the latter years of the Punic Wars against Carthage, by the party urging
a foreign policy which sought to eliminate any further threat to the Roman Republic from
its ancient rival Carthage, which had been defeated twice before and had a tendency after
each defeat to rapidly rebuild its strength. The phrase was most famously uttered frequently
and persistently almost to the point of absurdity by the Roman senator Cato the Elder (234-149
BC), as a part of his speeches.
Six hundred gathered in Moscow today to protest about the Bolotnaya demonstration arrests
of last year., according to the cops, that is,
as reported by RIAN.
And here's the best of it: Udaltsov says there were 1,500 there.
He wasn't there, of course: he's under house arrest and only a couple of days ago his restriction
of movement was extended until this coming October. But that figure of 1,600 must be true because
that's how many his pals must have told him there were at the protest.
I was just thinking: I've not heard much of that theory of late that was being bandied about
a few months back and which proposed that the "opposition" strength was reflected by its diminishing
numbers.
kirill
This $250,000,000 per month rent-a-revolution reminds me of the billions the US spent in
Iraq to "win over hearts and minds".
Helicopter Ben can crank up the printing presses and party like Pancho Villa.
But I am not sure why they think funding some crooks (e.g. Navalny) is going to produce a
colour revolution. In Serbia and Georgia there was discontent they could tap into. The liberast
loons in Russia just don't have the critical mass. Russian elections and opinion polls are rather
clear indicators of the current Russian public opinion and it is not suiting the west's fancy.
All the meticulous plotting to avoid Ukraine's Orange Revolution resulted in -- Russia's very
own coloured one. But Russia is not Ukraine.
Russia's electoral scene has been transformed in the past two months, without a doubt inspired
by the political winds from the Middle East and the earlier color revolutions in Russia's "near
abroad". Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's casual return to the presidential scene was greeted as
an effrontery by an electorate who want to move on from Russia's political strongman tradition,
and to inject the electoral process with ballot-box accountability.
Putin's legendary role in rescuing Russia from the economic abyss in the 1990s, staring down
the oligarchs, reasserting state control over Russian resource wealth, and repositioning Russia
as an independent player in Eurasia (not to mention in America's backyard) -- these signal accomplishments
assure him a place in history books. He and Dmitri Medvedev are considered the most popular leaders
in the past century according to a recent VTsIOM opinion poll (Leonid Brezhnev comes next, followed
by Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin, with Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yelstin the least popular).
He will very likely pass the 50 per cent mark in presidential elections 4 March, despite all the
protests during the past two months calling for " Russia without Putin". So why is he back in the
ring?
It appears he was caught by surprise when the anti-Putin campaign exploded in November, fuelled
by his decision to run again and the exposure of not a little fraud in the parliamentary elections
in December. For the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the opposition was able
to unite and stage impressive rallies, one after another. Despite the chilling Russian winter, they
keep coming -- this week saw four gathering around Moscow, totalling 130,000.
The opposition poster children even include Putin's minister of finance Alexei Kudrin. Presidential
hopefuls are Communist leader Gennadi Zyuganov (backed for the first time by the independent left
forces), nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, A Just Russia's Sergei Mironov and the oligarch playboy
Mikhail Prokhorov -- none of whom stand a chance of defeating Putin. This time there are 25 televised
debates which began 6 February among the contenders, who are sparring with each other and "Putin's
representative".
Is this quixotic march back to the Kremlin heights a case of egomania? Or is it a noble attempt
to both cast in stone Russia as the Eurasian counterweight to an increasingly aggressive US/NATO,
and shaking up the domestic political scene to make sure it will not slump into apathy when he himself
passes the torch? And if things go wrong, is this Russia's very own White Revolution, long feared
by the Russian elite, and long coveted by Western intriguers?
Russian politics has always confounded Western observers, and continues to do so. Putin is famously
imperious and gets away with it. He taunted the opposition by saying he thought the original demonstrations
were part of an anti-AIDS campaign, that the white ribbons were condoms. But he nonetheless sanctioned
the largest political opposition rallies in the past 20 years.
US democracy-promotion NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy -- a key player in Ukraine's
2004 Orange Revolution -- are active in Russia's opposition, but Putin is clearly gambling that
Russians can see past US efforts to manipulate them. Besides, the winners in the Duma elections
were the Communists and nationalists, with pro-Western liberals placing a distant fourth -- hardly
the results NEDers would have wanted.
He is also famously willing to tell US politicians they wear no clothes -- the latest, last week
in Siberia: "Sometimes I get the impression the US doesn't need allies,
it needs vassals." Russian foreign policy is now firmly anti-NATO, both with respect
to the West's misguided missile system and its eagerness to turn Syria into a killing fields. Rumours
that a Russian Iran-for-Syria deal with the West have proved empty. There are even hints that Iran
may still get its defensive S-300 missiles from Russia in exchange for Russian access to the downed
US drone. Iran claims to have four already and recently announced they have developed their own
domestic version.
Pro-Putin rallies are as large as the opposition's, with an official count of 140,000 attendees
at the festive gathering Saturday. The Putinistas even bill theirs as the Anti-Orange rally. "We
say no to the destruction of Russia. We say no to Orange arrogance. We say no to the American government…let's
take out the Orange trash," political analyst Sergei Kurginyan exhorted at Moscow's Poklonnaya Gora
war memorial park. Putin thanked organisers, commenting modestly, "I share their views."
The real reason for Putin's return is due to the failure during his first two terms of his "sovereign
democracy" to limit corruption in post-Soviet Russia. Instead, of producing a modernising authoritarianism
along the lines of post-war South Korea, Putin's rule deepened corruption -- the bane of late Soviet
and early post-Soviet society. Instead of trading political freedom for effective governance, he
clipped Russians' civil and political rights without delivering on this vital promise. Neither did
he end collusion between the state and the oligarchs. That was the handle that badboy Alexei Navalni
used to catalyse the opposition around his slogan that United Russia is the "party of swindlers
and thieves".
This was the scene in the 2000s in Ukraine, where it was possible
for the NEDers to undermine the much weaker Ukrainian state and install the Western candidate Viktor
Yushchenko in 2004. However, instead of addressing the problems that led to the Orange
Revolution, Putin focused on foreign threats to Russian political stability rather than paying attention
to domestic factors, creating patriotic youth organisations such as Nashi (Ours) and the 4 November
Day of Unity holiday – the latter quickly hijacked by Russia's nationalists.
But Russian fears of Western interference are hardly naïve. Russia was sucked into the horrendous
WWI by the British empire, suffered devastating invasions in 1919 and 1941, and another half century
of the West's Cold War against it. Further dismemberment of the Russian
Federation is indeed a Western goal, which would benefit no one but a tiny comprador elite, Western
multinationals and the Pentagon.
Putin's statist sovereign democracy – with transparent elections – might not be such a bad alternative
to what passes for democracy in much of the West. His new Eurasian Union could help spread a more
responsible political governance across the continent. It may not be what the NED has in mind, but
it would be welcomed by all the "stan" citizens, not to mention China's beleaguered Uighurs. This
"EU" is striving not towards disintegration and weakness, but towards integration and mutual security,
without any need for US/NATO bases and slick NED propaganda. The union will surely eventually include
the mother of colour revolutions, Ukraine, where citizens still yearn for open borders with Russia
and closer economic integration. The days of dreaming about the other EU's Elysian Fields are over.
The hard, cold reality today has bleached the colour revolutions, making white the appropriate colour
for Russia's version of political change.
Of course, the big problem -- corruption -- is what will make or break Putin's third term as
president. At the Russia 2012 Investment Forum in Moscow last week, Putin outlined plans to move
Russia up to 20th spot from its current 120th in the World Bank index of investment attractiveness,
by reducing bureaucracy and the associated bribery. "These measures are not enough. I believe that
society must actively participate in the establishment of an anti-corruption agenda," he vowed.
Reforming the legal system and expanding the reach of democracy will be key to fighting corruption,
not just via presidential decrees, but through empowering elected officials and voters. He confirmed
this in his fourth major pre-election address this week by promising to provide better government
services by decentralizing power from the federal level to municipalities and relying on the Internet.
So far things look good. For the first time since 1995 there will be a hotly contested transparently
monitored presidential election, with the distinct possibility of a runoff (unless the new US Ambassador
Michael McFaul keeps inviting NED darlings to Spaso House). The sort-of presidential debates, large-scale
opposition rallies and the new independent League of Voters intending to ensure clean elections
are a fine precedent, making sure that this time and in the future there will be an opportunity
for genuine debate about Russia's future.
Despite all attempts to forestall Russia's colour revolution, it has begun -- Russian-style --
with no state collapse, but with a new articulate electorate, wise to both Kremlin politologists
and Western NGOlogists. Its final destination is impossible for anyone to predict at this point.
The Russian electoral authorities found that Golos had violated Russia's election laws by publishing
polls in the "quiet period" immediately preceding parliamentary elections and fined the organization
just under $1,000 for the violation. Russian lawmakers have also accused Golos and several other
political opposition friendly NGOs of receiving funding from foreign sources for their political
activities, which would be against Russian law (as foreign funding of US elections would be against
US law).
The organization, we read, was "the country's main non-government election watchdog," so of course
it having been "gagged" on the eve of parliamentary elections was ominous and troubling to the Western
press. US-regime friendly (and George Soros-funded) Human Rights Watch complained that Golos was
the "victim of a smear campaign."
Major Western media outlets once again trotted out the old "Russia just cannot help its authoritarian
tendencies" reporting on the event, with the Reuters report
adding that "The complaint echoed Vladimir Putin's speech on Sunday at his United Russia party
congress, where he accused foreigners of funding his political opponents in what reminded some of
the anti-Western rhetoric that marked his 2000-08 presidency."
A perusal of Golos's own website (Google's
translation features helps non-Russian speakers) lists its foreign partners being the US "regime
change" specialists National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and National Democratic Institute (NDI),
two of the major US sponsors of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia,
among other adventures.
USAID is also listed
as a "partner" organization to Golos, with whom it "works to decrease the number of violations,
especially administrative abuses, in election campaigns." Apparently violations committed by the
organizations it funds are OK, however. To make an omelet, NGOs must break a few eggs.
The National Endowment for Democracy's own website advertises openly that it provided "independent"
NGO Golos with a generous grant in the 2010–2011 cycle to:
"...carry out a detailed analysis of the autumn 2010 and spring 2011 election cycles in Russia,
which will include press monitoring, monitoring of political agitation, activity of electoral
commissions, and other aspects of the application of electoral legislation in the long-term
run-up to the elections. GOLOS will hold local and national press conferences and publish reports
on its findings, as well as provide detailed methodological advice to its monitors and other
monitoring agencies."
Not to be outdone, the US government-funded National Democratic Institute
proudly admits that "since 2000, NDI has
worked with GOLOS...[to] provide...ongoing consultation and training for the organization's regional
partners."
Are Russians "paranoid" to be wary of US government funding of domestic Russian NGOs through
its most notorious "regime change" and "color revolution" specialists? Would Americans be similarly
"paranoid" if they found out that a Russian or Chinese government-funded "NGO" with a track record
of internal subversion and fomenting revolutions was funding political organizations in the United
States? Why is it OK if the US does it to others, but outrageous and threatening if it is done to
us?
Destroying the concept of national sovereignty in the rest of the world will come back to haunt
the United States. Interventionism is a virus that we cannot hope to spread worldwide yet quarantine
just outside our own shores.
UPDATE: Could US criticisms of Russia on the eve of elections somehow be related to Russia's
surprisingly firm stance in favor of its ally Syria as NATO and its corrupt puppets in the Arab
League prepare a
Libya-style "liberation"?
Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called "color revolutions" a developed scheme to destabilize countries.
"I think this idea did not come out by itself", he told the audience while answering citizens'
questions.
"Some of our opposition leaders officially served as aides to the former Ukrainian President
Viktor Yuschenko during the orange revolution in that country. Now they are using that experience
in Russia".
Russia as a "a test ground for the use of information, organizational
and other external tools of interference in internal affairs."
18.12.2012
There are no prerequisites for possible "color" revolutions in Russia today, and there is confidence
that the implementation of such scenarios in the country will not be allowed, Secretary of Russia's
Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev said.
"Color revolutions are exported from abroad, and the scenarios of such coups have been carefully
polished by Western technologies. We have seen their "good work" in some post-Soviet states, in
the Middle East and North Africa. These activities are financed from the outside too. The recipients
of those funds should be accountable to their foreign customers and execute their will and recommendations
that are more similar to instructions," said Patrushev, when asked about the possibility of an orange
scenario to occur in Russia.
In an interview with the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, he said that in the autumn
of 2011, Russia became "a test ground for the use of information, organizational
and other external tools of interference in internal affairs." In this situation,
Russia took measures to maintain stability. There were amendments approved to adequate laws, the
activities of some NGOs were stopped. Patrushev said that the names of sponsors and organizers of
anti-government actions were known to the Russian authorities, the Russian News Service
reports.
According to Patrushev, some members of opposition movements and radical structures tried to
use the political activity of citizens to provoke riots.
"Under the slogan of defending civil liberties, public order would be violated and provocations
would be committed. We saw it in Moscow on May 6 of this year. Such illegal actions were aimed at
undermining the political situation in the country," the Secretary of the Security Council said.
In these conditions, there were necessary steps taken at the state level to maintain stability.
"Necessary amendments to legislation were introduced, the activities of several non-governmental
international organizations were stopped. Some of them were directly financed by the U.S. State
Department," Patrushev said, noting that the measures proved effective. Law enforcement agencies
could protect the population within the limits of law.
"We know the names of "directors" and sponsors of anti-government actions - they are not going
to give up their plans ... There are no prerequisites for possible color revolutions in Russia today.
There is confidence that the implementation of such scenarios will not be allowed in the country,"
the official said.
In reality it does has and a pretty powerful one: a transnational part of Russian elite.
Dec 18, 2012
Russia has no prerequisites for "colour" revolutions, says the Secretary of the Russian Security
Council, Nikolai Patrushev.
He said in an interview that the Komsomolskaya Pravda daily carries in today's issue that the moves
the government has made to prop up stability have proved efficient.
The Russian Security Council Chief pointed out that "colour" revolutions are exported from abroad.
They proved efficient, as it were, in some countries in the post-Soviet area, in the Middle East
and North Africa.
Voice of Russia, Interfax
"Если русские будут настолько глупы, что попробуют восстановить свою империю, они
нарвутся на такие конфликты, что Чечня и Афганистан покажутся им пикником"
"Мы уничтожили Советский Союз, уничтожим и Россию. Шансов у вас нет никаких"
"Россия - это вообще лишняя страна".
"Православие - главный враг Америки".
"Россия - побежденная держава. Она проиграла титаническую борьбу. И говорить "это была
не Россия, а Советский Союз" - значит бежать от реальности. Это была Россия, названная Советским
Союзом. Она бросила вызов США. Она была побеждена. Сейчас не надо подпитывать иллюзии о
великодержавности России. Нужно отбить охоту к такому образу мыслей... Россия будет раздробленной
и под опекой".
"Россия может быть либо империей, либо демократией, но не может быть тем и другим. Если
Россия будет оставаться евразийским государством, будет преследовать евразийские цели, то
останется имперской, а имперские традиции России надо изолировать. Мы не будем наблюдать
эту ситуацию пассивным образом. Все европейские государства и Соединенные Штаты должны стать
единым фронтом в их отношении к России".
"Страна столь огромных масштабов, страна десяти часовых поясов может успешно развиваться
в том случае, если она перестанет быть централизованной и не будет управляться все более
и более паразитической элитой, находящейся в одном месте"
"... России, устроенной по принципу свободной конфедерации, в которую вошли бы Европейская
часть России, Сибирская республика и Дальневосточная республика, было бы легче развивать
более тесные экономические связи с Европой, с новыми государствами Центральной Азии и с
Востоком, что тем самым ускорило бы развитие самой России
"Для России единственный геостратегический выбор, в результате которого она смогла бы
играть реальную роль на международной арене" - это трансатлантическая Европа с расширяющимися
ЕС и НАТО".
Формально - под лозунгами "честных выборов", "развития демократии" и так далее, а на деле - за отстранение
от власти Владимира Путина. Отдавая себе отчет в том, насколько сложны были для страны последние
12 лет, трудно занять позицию в поддержку нынешнего премьер-министра. Тем не менее это сделать надо,
и вот почему.
То, что происходило в России в последнюю четверть века, достаточно убедило нас,
что главное - не что конкретно говорится политиками, а то, кем именно заявляется та или иная программа.
Правильных слов было сказано достаточно, но поскольку говорились они чаще всего людьми нравственно
несостоятельными, большинство из них так и остались словами, а то и превратились в свою противоположность.
В то же время немногословное правительство Примакова - Маслюкова в краткие месяцы своей работы сделало
для страны и народа немало.
Мне скажут, что этот тезис в первую очередь касается самого Владимира Путина и Ко. Да, но не
в первую очередь. Гораздо большее неприятие вызывает поведение таких радетелей за новую "перетряску"
страны, как Немцов, Кудрин, Прохоров, Явлинский. И особенно Горбачев. По поводу каждого из этих
персонажей можно было бы немало сказать в контексте того, что сделали с Россией они и их сторонники
в 1990-е годы. Но не это главное, как и не то, что в их
нынешней позиции я не вижу ни грана раскаяния или даже сожаления. Опасно другое:
эти их разговоры о неком "передовом слое" граждан России, который они, по их мнению, представляют,
- слое "наиболее образованном", "состоятельном", "думающем", "успешном", который имеет особое право
определять будущее нашей страны.
Этот подход отнюдь не нов. Как напомнил нам недавно писатель Игорь Золотусский, он сформировался
еще в начале XX века, когда на смену чувству вины перед народом, свойственному лучшим русским людям
XIX века и ярко отраженному в русской классической литературе, в умы
"передового слоя" России пришла неприязнь к простым людям и априорная уверенность в их "вине" перед
собой.Они-де и "отсталые", и "темные", и "своего счастья не понимают".
Именно эта позиция и разделила тогда Россию на две непримиримые части с известным братоубийственным
итогом. Сохранилась она и в советский период - в виде, с одной стороны, номенклатурного чванства,
с другой - снобистской позиции профессора Преображенского из булгаковского "Собачьего сердца".
И когда в 1970-е кланы выродившейся партийно-государственной
номенклатуры и презирающие "простой народ" преображенские захотели слиться с "передовыми людьми
человечества", то есть с западной элитой, советская нация и общая для составлявших ее народов страна
распались вновь.
Линия устроителей акции 4 февраля выстраивается по той же схеме: лишить большую часть народа
права выступать в качестве субъекта политики, затем разрушить существующую систему управления, а
значит, и страну как таковую, чтобы завершить уничтожение русской нации
как полиэтнической общности и влить ее "по частям" в глобалистский проект.
Большинство русских людей такую перспективу поддержать не может. Не буду спорить, в единое целое
это большинство пока не оформилось. Тем не менее оно существует. Скрепляет его та самая русская
традиция, о которой я недавно писал. И оно не хочет ни возвращения Горбачева,
Немцова, Кудрина и им подобных, ни правления людей типа Прохорова. Из тех, кто сегодня
реально претендует на власть, интересы этого большинства, в том числе и с точки зрения его сохранения
и самоорганизации в ближайшем будущем, в наибольшей степени выражает Владимир Путин. Какие-то
из этих интересов - искренне, какие-то - вынужденно, но это так.
А та компания, которая в предстоящую субботу проведет свое дефиле по Якиманке, эти интересы не
выражает.
"Мужа пресс-секретаря премьер-министра РФ
Дмитрия Медведева
Натальи Тимаковой, курировавшего PR-направление
в ВТБ
уволили из банка. Теперь курировать работу пресс-службы будет первый
зампред правления Василий Титов. Причины расставания с Александром Будбергом
в банке не прокомментировали. Но недавно его имя было упомянуто в скандальном
ролике "Сколько стоит ретвит Навального", где говорится, что некий хакер
взломал сервера принадлежащей Будбергу PR-компании и скачал его отчёты
и письма. В них якобы содержатся "прайсы на журналистов, общественных
деятелей и блогеров". В ролике упоминаются Илья Яшин, Олег Кашин, Евгения
Чирикова..."
Малоизвестная вследствие замалчивания прессы,
телевидения и блогосферы новость:
В Москве не состоялся объявленный очередной
митинг против кровавого Путэна, запланированный, если не ошибаюсь, на
24 февраля. Тоесть, вообще не состоялся. Никто не пришёл. Даже организаторы.
Ну да, бесплатно митинговать - дураков нет.
Я уже писал, что медведевские пытаются свергнуть
Путина через уличные протесты. Но поскольку революционной ситуации в
стране нет, её пытаются имитировать в медийном пространстве посредством
подкупа и митингующих, и блогосферы.
Связка была такая:
Медведев
> Его пресc-секретарь
Тимакова > Её муж и пресс-секретарь банка ВТБ Будберг,
использовавший капиталы банка на ПиАр-акции, якобы в пользу банка. А
на самом деле на организацию отстранения Путина путём уличных протестов
> геи, демократические журналисты и блогеры и прочие
рукопожатные неполживцы > шин. нар. массы кряклов в количестве 15 тысяч
ртов с инвентарём ввиде плакатов.
Сейчас эту связку разорвали в самом слабом
звене. Сняли болотного финансиста с кассы. Поток денег прекратился.
Протест не состоялся. Видимо, у подлинных хозяев пятой колонны не было
запасного канала проводки денег нужной пропускной способности.
Теперь будут искать другой источник денег на
оплату митингов. А пока затишье.
Но пятая колонна в российской элите тоже не
сидит сложа руки. Ищет другие возможности влияния на массы с целью подтолкнуть
их к бунту.
В частности, я последние дни заметил на майстримных
ТиВи-каналах в прайм-тайм разных маргиналов из рукопожатных неполживцев.
Клепают из маргиналов с электоратным потенциалом 2-3%% великих национальных
политических деятелей.
Тоесть, забашляли ранее пропутинские каналы
настолько, что они сочли полезным если не сменить хозяина, то работать
на двух господ.
Разъяснение: Неполживцев на телеэкране
легко отличить от прочих. И те, и другие за развитие. Но неполживцы
в отличие от нормальных деятелей видят развитие не в построении мостов,
университетов, электростанций и т.п., а исключительно в смене политической
системы, как условии слома "неэффективного государства".
Дескать, пригласим невидимую руку рынка.
Уж она то разовьёт! И тогда будет всем счастье. А всякие новостройки
только укрепляют кровавый режим и поэтому вредны для развития. Долой
их!
Путину надо поменять руководителей всех
трёх телеканалов с госучастием. Чтобы новые директора основательно
почистили коллективы.
Я бы относился а этому проекту хорошо, если бы он преследовал те цели,
которые декларирует. А именно, общественный контроль за коррупцией в
эшелонах власти, а не раскручивания Навального как будущего спасителя
великой единой и неделимой Руси от Смоленска до Твери.
Ну и если бы
вышеуказанный Навальный в процессе выращивания его в будущего презика
не поправлял своё материальное положение путём заказного мочилова.
А что работает сливным бачком, так и пёс с ним. Без этого не обойдёшься,
если ты не суперхакер Джулиан Ассанж. Материалы то где брать? Лишь бы
брал сливы против всех по критерию, что достойно внимания, а не только
против определённой политической силы.
Если бы проект "Навальный" раздавал бы всем сестрам по серьгам, включая
и забугорных сестёр и братцев, то и власти бы пользовались его материалами
и как следствие лучше бы относились к проекту. Авторитет проекта бы
вырос.
А что: проект раскрученный. Много денег и времени в это вложили.
Жалко совсем уничтожать.
Но для этого надо избавить проект "Навальный" от самого Навального
как его лица.
Впрочем, лицо можно и оставить. Но надо выкупить или отжать проект
у его нынешних владельцев. В принципе лицо может представлять проект
своим фейсом морды и из-за решётки (Если Навального таки закроют за
прошлые художества. Ассанж же представляет Вики Ликс из заключения в
эквадорском посольстве. А наш чем хуже?) Это даже придаст дополнительную
пикантность проекту.
Но надо, чтобы подлинные владельцы проекта оставались анонимными.
Надо ещё суметь подобрать таких. Чтобы не рвались к славе. (Это трудно,
но реально. До сих пор никто не раскрыл того же Щаранского-2 или
Техномада. Вот и какой нибудь аутист сгодился бы. Или инвалид-колясочник.
Или какой фсбшник на пенсии, привыкший жить в тени.)
Вся связь с истинными владельцами и редакторами с целью предоставления
материалов осуществлялась только через интернет. А то или запугают,
или купят, или владельцы захотят развиртуализироваться и конвертировать
авторитет сайта в свой политический капитал. И толку не будет. Будет
второе издание того же "Навального".
"Рыскал я в просторах интернета и наткнулся
на интересный сайт. На этом сайте ищут людей для проведения мероприятий.
Казалось бы всё нормально, если бы там не обнаружились призывы поучаствовать
в Санкционированных митингах. Порывшись нашел там следующие призывы:
Привожу текст из источника (вдруг удалят):
.
На большой санкционированный митинг в
защиту Химкинского леса. Дата 27 июля. Нужна массовка. Возраст от 16 до 70 ле. Форма одежды любая. Продолжительность митинга 1 час. Сбор в 10:00, метро Речной Вокзал в центре зала, встречает вас администратор
Винцент. Оплата по окончанию = 200 рублей. Запись по телефону : 8-926-752-28-26 Иван
Influential Russian senator Klimov accuses foreign spooks of helping to organize weekend protests in support of Navalny
READ MORE: With no sign of US returning to fold, Russia is preparing to withdraw from 'Open Skies' treaty - Foreign Ministry
Putin says American presence in Afghanistan is beneficial to Moscow's interests, rubbishes claims of 'Russian bounties to Taliban'
2
claritypress.com