Reminds me of ancient wayfarers, awesome expanses, silence and absolute peace. One can easily lost into the painting, transported to an altogether different land. The feeling of oneness with nature. Serene atmosphere hangs luminous moonlit, the masts and sail flutter.
I wish I would have there--preparing supper or running errands, enjoying the vibrant moonlit and the cool, soothing breeze across the river. This painting is for the title of an old story of a pauper who was given gold coins by an angel. There was a condition that the pauper must take as much as his old tattered bag could hold. The greed took over his conscience and he asked for more and eventually tore down the bag and forfeited every piece of coin. The painting is worthy of the story. 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? 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. That's a funny word in Russia. 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. 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. When Putin ousted some of these groups from Russia stating they were aligned to overthrowing his government, McFaul thinks this was unreasonable. 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. 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 I had known Roza for decades. In the s 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? 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 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.
Person non grata to Russia should maybe be the student for once, instead of the know it all Professor. 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. 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 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.
Ambassador to Russia from to , oversaw a policy of engagement with Moscow on behalf of the Obama administration and, when that policy failed, facilitated U. In October 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 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 U. One of McFaul's first tasks was to formulate and implement a "reset" in U. There was widespread acknowledgement among Russia observers that, as of , relations between Washington, D. 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. Putin, who had succeeded Russian President Boris Yeltsin in , 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. 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. McFaul's academic credentials and training as a Russian specialist are impressive. McFaul graduated from Stanford in with a B.
McFaul returned to the Soviet Union in as a visiting scholar at Moscow State University, where he finished up his doctoral dissertation he was awarded his Ph. It was during his time as a visiting scholar that McFaul began to blur the line between pure academia and policy activist. In , 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 congressional action was in response to an executive decision on the part of President Ronald Reagan, promulgated under National Security Decision Directive , to promote so-called "public diplomacy" operations in furtherance of U. McFaul likened Yeltsin to the "catalyst for the Cold War's end. 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 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. 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.
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. 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 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. 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 presidential ambition. Putin and the Russian government responded by accusing Clinton of interfering in the domestic political affairs of Russia.
When McFaul was appointed by Obama to serve as the U. After Putin won his bid for election in March , he immediately set about to ban foreign funding for Russian non-governmental organizations. McFaul, whose entire ambassadorial persona was built around the kind of societal engagement produced by these NGOs, never recovered.
In February , McFaul announced his resignation as U. 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 , the military intervention in Syria in , and the alleged meddling in the U. 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. But it was McFaul's role in the U. 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 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. For McFaul to today condemn the Russians for their alleged interference in the U.
Presidential election is like an arsonist seeking to assign blame for a blaze sparked by the embers of his own handiwork. Those who propose that they did, such as the former? 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. 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. 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.
Or, and hear me out here, Russia is a great power among others that, like all great powers, seeks to maximize power and position. January 9, -Organizers of the December "anti-vote-fraud" demonstrations in Moscow have announced Feb. 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. House Committee on Foreign Affairs last July Diuk was educated at the U. She is married to her frequent co-author, Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Institute, who headed up the private intelligence outfit Freedom House  for 12 years.
Her role is typical of British outsourcing of key strategic operations to U. 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 s 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.
Diuk expressed renewed hope that the disastrous 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 , Russian citizens saw a vision across the border of an alternative future for themselves as a Slavic nation.
While lauding "the democratic breakthroughs in the Middle East" in , 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.
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.
- Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Part Three.
- Helicopter Test and Evaluation.
- Dictionary of Spoken Russian/Russian-English/Text1?
In this same September period, Mikhail Gorbachov, too, was already forecasting voting irregularities and a challenge to Putin's dominance. 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 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 , when he and Maria Gaidar daughter of the late London-trained shock therapy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar launched a youth debating project called "DA!
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. On Dec. People from various parts of the political spectrum in Russia see the impending arrival of Michael McFaul as U. 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 s, when he represented the NDI in Russia at the end of the Soviet period, and headed its office there.
In his own contribution to a book titled After Putin's Russia ,  McFaul hailed the 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.
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 December street demonstrations in Moscow were organized largely online. Participation rose from a few hundred on Dec. 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. 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 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 , titled "The Web that Failed: How opposition politics and independent initiatives are failing on the Internet in Russia.
But they quoted a 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 to 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.
The Russia-based social networking outfit Vkontakte. All three of these social networking sites are part of the Mail. 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 Deibert and Rohozinski noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in They cited official estimates that 38 million Russians were going online as of , of whom 60 had broadband access from home; the forecast number of Russia-based Runet users by was 80 million, out of a population of million.
Qualitatively, the ONI authors welcomed what they called "the rise of the Internet to the center of Russian culture and politics. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
This type of person was subsequently brought into existence through the corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in Russia, becoming known as "the oligarchs. Online celebrity Navalny's arrest in Moscow on Dec. 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 s. It then experienced a boom under darlings of London like Gaidar, who oversaw the privatization process known as the Great Criminal Revolution in the s.
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. In , Navalny was accepted to the Yale World Fellows Program, as one of fewer than 20 approved candidates out of over a thousand applicants.
Starr company have a long record of facilitating "regime change" aka coups , going back to the 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. Navalny presents a split personality to the public. Online he is "Mr. When his e-mail account was hacked, and his correspondence with U. 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 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 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.
The study produced a profile titled "Mapping the Russian Blogosphere," which detailed the different sections of the Runet: liberal, nationalist, cultural, foreign-based, etc. The event was a stark testimony to the advanced preparations for a US-backed "color revolution" in Russia, i. 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. Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in , 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. Since , 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 s and was imprisoned by Putin in In short, Kara-Murza has been at the center of the operations for a color-revolution-type movement in Russia for years.
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. 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 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 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.
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 ]. 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.
900 Classic russian paintings
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.
When Gessen asked "What about the Communists? 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. 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 s 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 s by referring to this decade as the "supposedly horrible 90s. 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? 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. This year, he published a novel "A Terrible Country" in which he, yet again, promotes the Russian pseudo-left.
In , 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 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.
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.
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. 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. In April of , 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, , after I had filed a paragraph news story, entitled "Khasbulatov postpones People's Congress session.
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 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.
Художественная литература на англ. языке [T-Z] (страница 21)
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".
But Bortin did, so she fired me on September 3, 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 , 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. 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 year anniversary roll. 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 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. 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. 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.
Moscow Exile August 8, at am. 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. 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:. However, as far as I am aware, Mr.
McFaul is a long time friend of Browder. Then off he went as US Ambassador to Russia, where he almost immediately invited a host of Russian opposition figures to the US embassy. 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.
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. 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. Article is strong on self-pity and whine-evidently this neocon had a serious case of the vapors when putin made an "offer" to interview him.
It remains to be seen as to the extent of Mcfaul's cooperation with Browder, who he describes simply as a british businessman. It really is peculiar what's happened to these dimwit Dems.
Художественная литература на англ. языке [T-Z] (страница 21)
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. I wrote this hastily but you'll see it on sott.
Russia's resurgence under Putin is nothing short of astounding. 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. Mueller III access to interviews with Russians who were indicted after they allegedly hacked Democrats in In return, Russia would be allowed to question certain U.
One of those U. The willingness of the White House to contemplate handing over a former U. 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.
- Blake & Mortimer - Volume 11 - The Gondwana Shrine.
- Russian "White Revolution" of 2011-2012?
- Classics Fiction & Literature Books in Russian Now Publication Year for sale | eBay.
- Imagery in Translation - Практикум по художественному переводу;
- Littérature russe.
In reality, the proposal never entailed the US or Russia handing anyone over for interrogation. Putin proposed letting Russians observe interrogations of McFaul and other Americans. In exchange, U. Special Counsel Robert Mueller could send members of his team to watch Russian questioning of 12 Russian intelligence agents indicted by a U. 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. 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 should elicit condemnation and outcries from these same Americans.
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. 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.
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 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's role at Freedom House would become more "hands on" when he was nominated , then appointed US ambassador to Russia from 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 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