Russian "White Revolution" of 2011-2012

News Color revolutions Recommended Links Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism Human right activists or globalism fifth column Role of Financial oligarchy
From EuroMaidan to EuroAnschluss Media as a weapon of mass deception Control of the press during color revolution is like air superiority in the war Sect of fraudulent election witnesses Net hamsters Corporatism
Destabilization Delegitimization of Ruling Party Anatomy of neoliberal protest Exploiting Revolutionary Romantics as Polittechnology Russian compradors aka Liberasts Corruption bait and switch
IntelliXensia Frustrated underachievers Opposition as a way to get rid of feeling of inferiority Pussi Riot Provocation Parasitism on Human rights: children of Lieutenant Schmidt Comprador leaders recruitment
Fifth column and NGOs Democracy as a universal opener for access to natural resources Anatol Leiven on American Messianism New American Militarism American Exceptionalism British hypocrisy
Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism  Disaster capitalism The Grand Chessboard Predator state Fifth column Political Humor Etc

Key components of color revolution as seen in recent Russian elections

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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]

  4. 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:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.

  5. 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).
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

Top Visited
Past week
Past month


Old News ;-)

[Dec 11, 2016] Kettle called pot blac: McFaul calls for branding RT 'foreign agent' over 'involvement' in the USA Presidential elections

Paulo | Dec 11, 2016 9:24:53 AM | 130

JEsus Christ, US turning to a dictatorship with its info war and censorship. Ex-US envoy to Russia calls for branding RT 'foreign agent' over 'involvement' in elections

[Nov 16, 2015] Bankrupt British Empire Keeps Pushing To Overthrow Putin

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 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 1, 2012 |
This article appears in the January 20, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review and is reprinted with permission.

[PDF version of this article]

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 (like Facebook) had 14.3 million visitors in 2009; (like had 7.8 million; and World had 6.3 million. All three of these social networking sites are part of the 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.

Related pages:

The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244

[May 12, 2015] GOP antics may lead to a 'de-Americanized world'

10/15/13 | MSNBC

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.

Ezra Klein added yesterday that to the rest of the world, "the United States looks insane right now."

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.

[Mar 24, 2015] Why Ron Paul is Right about Ukraine by Dan Sanchez

Mar 24, 2015 |

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 and

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."

Plagued by failure and desertion in spite of massive western aid, the "pro-freedom" new regime in Kiev has resorted to conscripting its non-rebeling citizens. Meeting stiff draft resistance and opposition to the war, it has jailed a journalist for merely advocating draft-dodging, prepared a law restricting the travel of draft-age citizens, contemplated conscripting women over 20, and passed a law allowing the military to shoot deserters on the spot.

And the Nazis have also played in key role in the stifling and crushing of internal dissent as well. After the coup, Right Sector began patrolling the streets and squares of Kiev. And in Odessa, Right Sector toughs joined a mob in trapping and burning to death 38 anti-Maidan protesters in the Trades Union House.

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?

Also published at Follow Dan Sanchez via Twitter, or TinyLetter.


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.


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


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 !!!

[Jan 16, 2015] Russians are concerned with the possibility of organizing Maidan in their country by Western intelligence and internal neoliberal fifth column

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
The Guardian

Patriotic group formed to defend Russia against pro-democracy protesters by

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.”

RunLukeRun, 16 Jan 2015 06:36

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:

Nazis on the march in Kiev this month

Would you like to claim that the Azov and Aidar battalions aren't a bunch of Nazis?

Here's a Guardian article about Azov.

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''


“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.


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 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.


“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.


There is at least anecdotal evidence that Maiden protestors were paid - see: .


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.


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.


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!


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 .


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


“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.


“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.


“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.”


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.


"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?


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.


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?


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?

-> PeraIlic, link

You antipathy against the author speaks volumes about the contents of his article.

, link

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.


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?


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.

and this is only one of them, many more in budget.


pro-democracy protesters?

like ISIL, Right Sector, UÇK?

They are right

[Jul 10, 2014] Ранний «Срок»

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:Поддержка_Евромайдана_американцами

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:

[Aug 12, 2013] Лена Миро - Почему я считаю вас быдлом и обращаюсь с вами соответственно

Почему я считаю вас быдлом и обращаюсь с вами соответственно

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?


Свободу наебальному.Слава пейсам.Слава Хомякам. - Expand


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.

[May 14, 2013] Не креаклы, а повторюшки

13 Мая 2013 Блогомасон

Посмотрел ролики с протестных акций.

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 ;)

Зомбирователь планктона - Статьи - Полит-онлайн

[May 01, 2013] Напутственное слово перед митингом

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

The Kremlin Stooge

April 6, 2013

Misha says:

On par for openDemocracy (more like openHypocrisy):–-putative-policy

Among other things, there’s a brief mention of the NGO issue in Russia.


$250,000,000 per month is at levels close to that given for cancer research in the USA:

The amount of money being dished out to the NGOs operating in Russia is massive. Compare to foreign aid:

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”?


Money better spent on other matters.

This observation challenges the professional livelihood of a good number, thereby explaining what they choose to highlight and downplay.


Carthago delenda est

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.

Moscow Exile:

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.

Moscow Exile:

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.


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.

[Mar 07, 2013] Russia's White Revolution

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.


Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly You can reach him at He is the author of: Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

[Mar 07, 2013] Color Revolution for Russia

Land Destroyer
by Daniel McAdams
December 2, 2011

Reaction in the Western press to reports that Russian authorities have investigated the activities of the Russian NGO "Golos, the Regional Civic Organization in Defense of Democratic Rights and Liberties," was predictable: Putin was "trying to gag election monitors" and, as expected, we read that the "US condemns Russia's 'harassment' of monitor group".

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."

But what of the claims by politicians and voters' rights groups that foreign funded NGOs were inciting another "Orange Revolution" in Russia?

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"?

“Color revolutions developed scheme - Putin Voice of Russia

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's Security Council statement

Russia as a "a test ground for the use of information, organizational and other external tools of interference in internal affairs."


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.

Russia has no prerequisites for “colour” revolutions – official Voice of Russia

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".


Нас хотят влить в глобалистский проект Михаил Демурин, публицист

03 Февраля 2012г.

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.

Кажись в этот раз попали в яблочко.
Отсюда: Огонь по штабам?

“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.

bulochnikov - Как я отношусь к проекту Навальный. Или как нам создать российский Вики Ликс.

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”.

И кончит также.

bulochnikov - Листая старую тетрадь Как собирали людей на твитерную революцию.


Вот тут ещё на тему «твиттерной революции»: Москва. Политические массовки. Оплачивается.

«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


вот по этой ссылке ветка на тему участия в оплаченных митингах.


вот кстати другой сайт с подобным объявлением. Боремся с безработицей?

Роемся дальше. Нахожу ссылку на сайт Городского округа Химки и там находится объявление. Никогда не доверял подобным порталам:)

А вот и компания, которая занимается подобными вещами. Кстати у них в новостях мы находим опять же оплаченный в Химках митинг.

А вот статья, как это работает. За достоверность имён не ручаюсь, но схема понятна.

Рылся в поисковиках, но не нашел ничего про 27 июля, а вот сегодня (28ого) в 19.00 там намечается митинг. Видимо перенесли)

Вот такие дела. Думаем, анализируем, не верим.


p.s. картинка взята из статьи, которую тоже можно прочитать:)

ссылка на анонс митинга 28.07.2011»


Собирают митинг – концерт. Подогревают толпу речами и музыкой. И тут откуда не возьмись, неизвестные снайперы на крыше…

Самое трудное в этом деле – собрать толпу тысяч сто.

С этим пока сложность. Или денег на перезагрузку Обама выделяет мало, или ворут много. Или народ не дельфины, а анчоусы. Не хотят бунотовать за 200 рублей в час. Зажрались.


Более подробно я писал об этом в статьях:

О финансировании «пятой колонны» в РФ. И Конец технологии цветных революций.

bulochnikov - Ещё одна жертвочка пропаганды.

Отсюда: Инвайрмент или лобовое столкновение с демократией

“Демократические ценности оппозиционной белорусской журналистки Ольги Класковской не выдержали лобового столкновения с суровым бытом европейской демократии. Среди всего прочего - служба опеки отняла у нее ребенка
Уважаемые читатели! У белорусской оппозиционной журналистки Ольги Класковской в Швеции отобрали семимесячного сына. Несмотря на то, что она много лет продвигала европейские ценности в Белоруссии – в Европе её держат с неграми, не дают человеческих прав, не лечат, плохо кормят и собираются депортировать.

Это ужасно, но говорить мы будем не об «истинном облике Европы» -- этот облик до сих пор загадка только для полных тормозов. А говорить мы будем об истинном облике великой и могучей отечественной «пятой колонны».

Я имею в виду всю массу смелых молодых журналисток обоего пола из изданий, выходящих в крупных отечественных городах, и их бойфрендов-социологов, сотрудничающих с «международными центрами правового мониторинга», и вообще всю группу риска, которая суть культурно-медийные эмиссары Цивилизации в России иформируют общественное мнение. Ну, то есть фейсбучат и твитят на политические темы.

Эта масса состоит из десятков тысяч человек, уважаемые читатели. Может, даже из сотен тысяч. Одних из них катали в английские лагеря в университете, других натаскивали на семинарах в Киеве и Варшаве, третьи смолоду пришли к редакторам и преподавателям, уже натасканным ранее -- и переняли их взгляд на транспарентное и неправовое государство Россию, на усатого колхозника Бацьку, дикую отсталую гомофобию пост-совков и всякое такое.

Что важно: эту массу не только она сама, но и наиболее впечатлительная часть патриотической общественности до сих пор считает могучей, хитрой и технологичной медиа-мафией. Куда на корню вербуют лучших из лучших – людей с самыми быстрыми мозгами, полным отсутствием моральных барьеров и скоростной реакцией. То есть злодеев, конечно – но бойких и сообразительных.

Так вот. Как выглядят в этой тусовке лучшие из лучших – мы уже иллюстрировали. А теперь – внимание, прямая речь типичного представителя. Уехавшего, наконец, -- и благодаря этому впервые окунувшегося в реальность. Читаем рассказ. Места действия: Норвегия, Швеция.

«Как же такое возможно? В Европе... Я столько репортажей сделала о демократических ценностях… Сколько мы чашек кофе перепили с европейскими дипломатами в Минске – все размахивали руками: молодцы, ребята, сражайтесь за демократию в Беларуси! Когда коснулось реальной помощи – все моментально испарились…

Осло встретил холодным пронзительным ветром… В комнате, так сказать, ожидания примерно сто человек, основная масса которых - выходцы из африканских стран. Помещение со всех сторон заколочено, жуткая вонь. Ощущение удушья. С ужасом начинаем осознавать, что только практически мы одни там белые…

…И вот мы в транзитном лагере Танум, что недалеко от Осло. Такое ощущение, что нахожусь где-то в Кабуле или Могадишо... Ноль цивилизации.

…После заселения нас сразу же сделали дежурными по уборке. Козлами отпущения, иными словами. Это означает, что мы должны были мыть весь этаж плюс туалеты (общие) и душ. Я категорически отказываюсь. С таким африкано-афганским контингентом... - еще не хватало какой заразы подцепить! Кто их вообще проверял на наличие каких-либо болезней/инфекций?

…Я не могу понять. В предыдущем году 111 тысяч иностранцев получили вид на жительство в Швеции. Можно догадаться, кто именно: африканцы и арабы. Я жила среди этих людей. В основном - паразитирующие элементы, которые никогда не интегрируются здесь, никогда язык не выучат, не будут уважать эту культуру. И, когда мне, как маме шведского гражданина, среди этих 111 тысяч места не нашлось, это коробит. Как они это все формулируют и как относятся - это натуральное бесчеловечное скотство...

…Прихожу в столовую. На ужин - тарелка макарон и чай (по-моему, без заварки). Вся столовка забита сомалийцами и афганцами. Жрут руками. Отрыгивают…. Ублюдки-работники подкатывались ко мне с нелицеприятными предложениями. Подонок, который забрал бутерброд (не положено), открытым текстом предложил вскоре: «А давай сходим погуляем вместе... Я тебе тогда очень много хлеба и сыра разрешу вынести из столовой! Никогда не будешь голодать со мной!.. В столовой нас кормили, как скотов. Плюс из железной многоразовой посуды (как-то не очень приятно было есть из тарелок/ложек/вилок общего пользования). В меню - то макароны, то рис. Мясо дали только один или два раза.

…Миграционное управление сообщило, что в любой момент меня могут выслать. Причем я уже не просто человек, который просит политического убежища. Я вышла замуж здесь, родила ребенка от шведа. Я подала заявление на гражданство уже как мать гражданина Швеции. И все равно угрожают депортировать.

…Вырвать зуб - тоже из области фантастики. Нужно заплатить большую часть пособия. А потом жить на что целый месяц? Чем питаться?

У меня так вообще там было незавидное положение. Единственная девушка-славянка. Вокруг тысячи африканцев и афганцев. Мне постоянно били стекла в комнате. Ломали двери. Приставали. Унижали. Пытались купить, заплатить деньги. Миллионы раз разговаривала с местной администрацией по этому поводу. Просила защиты. Не для того я убежала в Норвегию, чтобы еще и здесь иметь дополнительные проблемы и преследования. Но меня никто даже и слушать не хотел. Съездила я и в местный филиал Amnesty International. Они вообще отказались мне помогать и даже не выслушали до конца...»

Люди даже не знают, как унитазами пользоваться. Приходилось учить. И, когда мне, как маме шведского гражданина, среди этих 111 тысяч места не нашлось, это коробит. Как они это все формулируют и как относятся - это натуральное бесчеловечное скотство. Мою старшую дочь Мирославу в школе побили арабы. Я даже вызвала полицию, побои сняли у ребенка. Полиция сфотографировала синяки. И потом дело закрыли. Полиция - коренные шведы - говорит: вы же должны понимать, что у них другая культура.

Речь просто об издевательском отношении, пренебрежительном. Никаких прав нет. Я не могу здесь пользоваться медициной, хотя замужем официально, не могу получать на ребенка декретные. Знаете, еще немного - и я начну думать, что у нас в Беларуси права человека больше соблюдаются. В частности, в отношении семейного законодательства, прав женщины и прав ребенка.

Это можно цитировать ещё долго. (Читаем рассказ.) Но портрет, кажется, уже нарисован.
Если коротко. Перед нами журналистка (!), считающая, что:
1) Европейские ценности – это такая штука, когда ты веришь, что должна быть свобода, демократия и общее равенство перед законом.
2) И если ты в эту свободу, равенство и демократию веришь – то тебе в Европе положено больше, чем неучёным (может, даже заразным) ниггерам. Особенно если ты белая и носитель культуры.
Как-то так”.

Ещё про одну жертвочку пропаганды я писал в статье Что там случилось в Голландии с перебежчиком Долматовым?

Записки наивного человека - Информационная война 19-го века

Информационная война 19-го века
June 24th, 23:08
Нас учили, что Фаддей Булгарин - это душитель свободы, гонитель всех прекрасных литераторов того времени, цербер на службе у охранки, крайне глупый и злой человек, от своей злобы писавший наветы на свободолюбивых современников. Наши литературоведы нарисовали такой зловещий образ Булгарина, что помню ещё, как со школы он мне представлялся этаким тупицей и чуть ли не дегенератом. И так получилось, что я не прочитал почти ничего из творчества Булгарина. А вот сейчас наткнулся на его записку Дубельту от марта 1846 года под названием "Социализм, коммунизм и пантеизм в России в последнее 25-летие", где он рисует крайне интересную картинку просвещённой части России и влияния на эту часть группы так называемых просветителей-революционеров.

Когда читаешь эту записку, то с каждой строчкой открывается вся глубина и сложность ситуации. Ведь, по сути, информационную войну с русским сознанием вели уже тогда, в 19-м веке, и с огромным напором. Булгарин описывает, как крупнейшие издатели России, и прежде всего Краевский, прикрываясь высочайшим покровительством, буквально подмяли под себя всё информационное поле и вели через свои издания ярую антимонархическую революционную пропаганду.

О каком быстром очищении современных СМИ от либерал-фашизма может идти речь, если уже в середине 19-го века Правительство не могло справиться с революционным засильем в крупнейших изданиях страны, которые, по сути, готовили поколения будущих революционеров? Это же не сегодня появилось! Государство Российское находится под постоянным прессингом гусинских и березовских, краевских и киреевых, которые полностью заполняют информационное пространство и разрушительно влияют на русское сознание. Вся литература 19-го века фактически цензурировалась не государственной цензурой, а Белинским - человеком, который яро и искренне ненавидел всю исконную русскую традицию, от Церкви до народных праздников и обычаев. И уже тогда призывал к свержению монарха.

Я приведу весь обнаруженный мной отрывок из этой записки Булгарина со своими комментариями. Он немаленький, но в каждом его абзаце столько важной, на мой взгляд, информации, что открываются глаза на многие процессы, происходящие в России не первую сотню лет.


"Социализм и коммунизм, два вида одной и той же идеи, породившей якобинизм, санкюлотизм, карбонаризм и все вообще секты и общества, стремившиеся и стремящиеся к ниспровержению монархий и всякого гражданского порядка, созревали в Германии гораздо прежде, чем в других странах, в которых слабость правления позволили им обнаружиться. В Германии разрушительные идеи скрывались и скрываются во мраке так называемой немецкой философии и религиозного мистицизма, породившего идею ниспровержения христианство и принявшего наименование пантеизма, или общебожия. Основная идея пантизма: всё в Боге и Бог во всём, т.е. Бог – вся натура вместе взятая – чистый материализм. (Булгарин в высшей степени правильно указывает на связь пантеизма, материализма и социализма, общая цель которых одна - христианство и монархия. Утверждение о том, что нет Бога-творца, а есть бог везде и во всём - хитрая ересь, пытающаяся обходным путём придти к тому же отрицанию Бога.)

Адепты этой философии, не составляя тайных обществ и не следуя особым уставам, действовали и действуют в духе социализма или коммунизма и пантеизма, потому что это надёжное оружие к приобретению влияния на народ и богатства. Германские правительства, хотя видели зло, но не знали, где скрыто это гнездо, и никак не воображали, что самые опасные революционные идеи (коммунизм и безверие, пантеизм) происходили из философии, которой протестантские немецкие государи почитали своею обязанностью покровительствовать духу Реформации, основанной на умствовании и критицизме, т.е. на праве каждого человека подвергать всё разбирательству или анализу.

Спокойно проповедовал профессор Гегель безбожие в Берлине (а ведь Гегелем в то время упивалась вся образованная Россия), наслаждаясь уважением и покровительством покойного короля, по воле которого вся система высшего учения Пруссии основана была на Гегелизме. По смерти Гегеля два ученика его, Страус и Фейербах, обнаружили тайну Гегелизма, начав явно проповедовать против христианской веры – и теперь только и христианские учёные, и немецкие протестантские государи постигли, какое неисцелимое зло нанесли они человечеству, споспешествуя его отраве превратными идеями. Социализм или коммунизм суть нераздельные части той же философии и пантеизма, вперяющих идеи равенства между людьми, натурального права на общее владение землёю и уничтожения всех различий между людьми и всякого частного имущества. Между сектаторами выбираются всегда два рода людей к действованию на народы явно: смелые или дерзкие – в государствах, где существует свобода книгопечатания, и хитрые и прозорливые – в странах, где нет свободы книгопечатания, но где открыто свободное поприще для действия, по невниманию правительства к умственной жизни народа.

Разрушительные идеи проникли в Россию в двух видах. Под именем свободы и конституции (то есть под очень красивым именем) они перешли к нам после Рейнского конгресса и сосредоточились в так называемом Союзе Благоденствия, из которого потом составилась возмутительная и кровожадная шайка, и под именем немецкой философии, обуявшей московских учёных и мнимых ревнителей просвещения. Эту немецкую философию привезли в Москву из Германии в начале двадцатых годов профессоры Давыдов и Павлов, может быть, и не подозревая, что они привезли яд, увлечённые блеском новизны и лаком мудрости. В Москве тотчас образовалась огромная партия философов. Бакунин, отказавшийся от русского подданства, и один профессор (не помню названия) – Бабкин, купец Клюшин, ныне сумасшедший, профессор Редкин и проч., избравших орудием своим «Московский Телеграф», издававшийся покойным Полевым, и они начали сильно действовать на читающий класс идеями свободы и патриотизма. (И опять же красивая обложка в виде свободы и патриотизма прикрывала разрушительные смыслы) Быстрая развязка 14-го декабря устрашила философов, но не уничтожила их намерений, и, когда, наконец, запретили «Московский Телеграф», партия, считая своим патриархом знаменитого Новикова, шествовавшего ещё при императрице Екатерине II к той же цели путём мортилизма, вознамерилась перенести свои действия в Петербург, чтобы овладеть властями, найти сильное покровительство и поставить себя в безопасное положение. (О, вот это очень интересный момент! Понимая, что в Москве нет достаточной власти и их будут из Питера время от времени закрывать, революционеры, по уверениям Булгарина, поменяли тактику и решили придти поближе к власти и заручиться поддержкой питерских боссов, имеющих связи с царским двором. И это, на самом деле, всегдашняя тактика революционеров-организаторов. Ни одна ересь не распространяется без высоких покровителей. И именно поэтому её крайне трудно истребить.)

Многие попытки не удались, но, наконец, нашёлся человек, который достиг своей цели и поставил себя в такое положение, что правительство уже не в состоянии уничтожить его влияния, потому что он имеет самых сильных заступников и покровителей во всех правительственных лицах, которые, чтоб не скомпрометировать себя, должны скрывать истину перед Престолом и убийственный яд, который они допустили разлиться, представлять безвредным.

Этот человек есть Краевский. Он родился в Москве от незаконной связи бывшей содержательницы женского пансиона, г-жи фон дер Пален, с неизвестным человеком. Бедный и развратный белорусский шляхтич Краевский, как говорят, за 300 рублей ассигнациями согласился дать дитяти свою фамилию. […]

Между тем, журнал «Отечественные записки», издаваемый явно, без всякого укрывательства в духе Коммунизма, Социализма и Пантеизма, произвёл в России такое действие, какого никогда не бывало. С одной стороны, раздаётся вопль благонамеренных и истинных христиан, которые не постигают, как Правительство может терпеть такой журнал; с другой стороны – разорившееся и развратное дворянство, безрассудное юношество и огромный класс, ежедневно умножающийся, людей, которым нечего терять и в перевороте есть надежда всё получить, - кантонисты, семинаристы, дети бедных чиновников и проч., и проч., почитают «Отечественные Записки» своим Евангелием, а Краевского и первого его министра – Белинского (выгнанного московского студента) – апостолами. Всего этого не видит Правительство, а напротив, награждает Краевского и поручило ему издание своей официальной газеты «Русский Инвалид».

(Понимаете? Революционерами очень чётко была просчитана аудитория. И они эту аудиторию кормили антимонархическими и "свободолюбивыми" материалами, из года в год. В то время очень сильно росло число студентов и прочих учащихся. Это были люди только-только оторвавшиеся от земли, приехавшие в столицы из регионов и вовсе беззащитные перед манипуляцией и революционной пропагандой. Им жутко нравилось, как смело пишут "Записки" и как они не боятся монарха. Для них это была, по всей видимости, игра. Но на самом деле постепенно происходило разрушение сознания).

Как действует Краевский в своих журналах, особенно в «Отечественных Записках», в которые Правительственным лицам тяжело заглядывать по толстоте книжек. Действует умнее Марата и Робеспьера. Вся прежняя наша литература, поэзия и проза, сатира и комедия, имела характера монархический и религиозный. Бог и Царь были священны и неприкосновенны. Краевский стал разрушать всю прежнюю литературу, доказывая, что она никуда не годится, устарела, обветшала и что наше молодое поколение требует новой литературы. Карамзин, Державин, словом, всё прежнее до Гоголя уничтожается в «Отечественных Записках». Стариков мудрено соблазнить переворотами, и старики могут удержать юношей, а потому в каждой книжке «Отечественных Записок» доказывается, что человек, доживший до 40 или 50 лет, ни к чему более не способен и должен почитаться мёртвым и что миром должно управлять новое поколение. Несколько раз указывала на это «Северная Пчела», но правительство на это не смотрит, а цензуры не позволяет другим журналам делать выписки из «Отечественных Записок», потому что сами же цензоры – сотрудники этого журнала. Всё направление, или tendence, «Отечественных Записок» клонится к тому, чтобы возбудить жажду к переворотам и революциям, и это проповедуется в каждой книжке. Выбирать трудно примеры, потому что зло в духе и направлении и, читая журнал сплошь, ясно видишь, к чему направлена каждая статья. Но, чтоб Правительство видело хоть каплю этого духа, возьмём кое-что наугад, что под рукою […]

(Видите?! Это было в середине 19-го века и всё уже было испробовано тогда. И низвержение старых авторитетов, и сладкий елей в уши молодым, что старикам здесь не место, пора брать власть в свои руки. Хотя елей этот им лили такие же старики. Точнее, оплачивали его создание. Меня поразило более всего совпадение с нынешней пропагандой относительно возраста: что, мол, человек после 40-50 ни к чему не годен. Я как-то об этом писал уже. Получается, что это не нынешняя дурацкая придумка, а часть разрушительной стратегии. Со стариками действительно труднее справиться, а молодёжью манипулируй как хочешь.)

Впрочем, декабристская книжка «Отечественных Записок», на которую Правительство обратило внимание, хотя и исполнена вообще духа превратного и революционного направления, но гораздо безвиннее других книжек, потому что вышла в свет в то время, когда новый попечитель Мусин-Пушкин обратил на журнал некоторое внимание. Тут Краевский сыграл мастерски комедию. Пришёл сам к попечителю, которому прежде был рекомендован князьями Вяземским, Одоевским и правителе канцелярии министра народного просещения Комовским, и объявил, что в журнале находится кое-что не так, как бы следовало, но виновен в том сотрудник Белинский, которого он якобы удаляет от журнала и, чтоб замять дело, дал Белинскому денег на поездку в Крым, якобы лечиться, обязав его, однако ж, писать оттуда. В публику пущен пуф, якобы Краевский с Белинским рассорились, но это обман.

(Блестящее замечание Булгарина. Много говорящее об этих ребятах. Вообще, о роли Белинского в истории российской мысли я обязательно выскажусь, потому что эта роль, на самом деле, колоссальная и зловещая. Чего стоит одно его убийство Гоголя. По сути, Белинский своим огромным талантом и благодаря монополию в критике искусственно направлял русскую литературу по пути разрушения и высмеивания всех самых важных узловых моментов российской цивилизации. И это неспроста.)

За что запретили Дельвигу «Литературную Газету», за что запретили «Московский Телеграф» Полевому. Да в этих журналах нет и миллионной части того, что ежемесячно появляется в «Отечественных Записках», где Краевский покровительствуется Правительством. В последнее время он присоединил к себе ещё и Полевого, с которым был в ссоре, и отдал ему «Литературную Газету», с тем, чтобы действовать в одном духе. Полевой умер, и Краевский ищет теперь помощника. Краевский – хозяин «Литературной Газеты» и «Отечественных Записок» и полный распорядитель в «Русском Инвалиде», имея звание только помощника редактора. Краевский составил теперь компанию с Киреевым (театральным) и бывшим банкрутом купцом Кушинниковым, зятем книгопродавца Глазунова, и хотят взять на откуп "С.-Петербургские Академические Ведомости», чтобы иметь ещё большее влияние на публику. Компания эта уже имеет свою книжную лавку под именем торговли Ратькова. Словом, скоро Краевский овладеет совершенно общим мнением. Журналы его разбираются в училищах, и студенты списывают революционные идеи. (Неплохой такой набор изданий. По сути, это крупнейший магнат того времени, монополист с огромным влиянием).

Правительство молчит и покровительствует, а после удивляется, откуда берутся злодеи. Цель Краевского не та, чтоб теперь возжечь бунт, но чтоб приготовить целое поколение к революции, - подарок Наследнику. Белинский, у которого собиралось юношество, явно называл себя русским Иисусом Христом (чему можно представить свидетелей), а Краевский верит, что ему будут воздвигнуты монументы. […]
(Про Белинского, опять же, пока не буду. Но вот стратегия Краевского и иже с ним была очень точной и неторопливой, говорящей о том, что он был не одинок и что этот процесс имел не только российские масштабы, но мировые. Думаю, Булгарин даже не оценил весь этот масштаб. Они готовились даже не к Наследнику, они планомерно расшатывали основы монархии, Православия и русской государственности и не считались ни с затратами, ни с временем - им важно было не к какому-то конкретному времени разрушить, а разрушить в принципе! Вот о чём нам надо задуматься. Эта борьба не на десятилетия, не на столетия, она навечно. И длится она всё существование человека. Пока мы проигрываем. Слишком неравны силы.)

Имея более 100 т. руб. годового дохода, три журнала, книжную лавку, сильных покровителей, Краевский хорошо знает, что ему никто ничего не сделает и что Правительственные лица, чтоб избежать нарекания: «а чего вы до сих пор смотрели?» - не посмеют представить истины Государю. Вот такое обширное поприще злодеям, когда нет никаких средств подданному довести прямо правду до Престола, и оттого слышно, что за границей печатается книга, в которой будут помещены все выписки из «Отечественных Записок» и все подвиги Краевского. Мельгунову, напечатавшему за границей пасквиль на преданных Престолу людей, никто не сказал ни слова, и книга его, где Пушкин изображён мучеником свободы, даже допущена к привозу в Россию, - посмотрим, что будет с книгой «О Коммунизме в России».

(Вот когда уже рисовался образ Пушкина-демократа-революционера! Конечно, это чушь полная. Равно как и приписка Высоцкого к диссидентам. Пару стихотворений пытаются выдать за выражение главной сути поэта. Это Пушкина-то! Самого аполитичного и предельно гармоничного художника во всей русской литературе. Но это очень важно для них. Прилипнуть к гению, чтобы использовать его в своих целя, потому как сами они ничего создать не могут, они чистые разрушители).

«Вера и верность, благо человечества и Отечества требуют, чтоб истина дошла, наконец, до Престола». […]"


Как видите, картина прегрустнейшая. Разрушительные силы работают в русском сознании уже долгие годы, и во многом, как мы видим сейчас, они добились успеха. Впрочем, мы ещё хотя бы сопротивляемся, многие уже давно перестали. Именно поэтому нам надо настроиться не на сиюминутную борьбу с оранжевыми, а понять, что это надолго. Что это вечная борьба с силами хаоса. Что чуть расслабишься, и тебя тут же развели на какой-то красивый фантик "социализма, капитализма, свободы слова" и пр. Не надо опускать руки; в конце концов, жизнь - это борьба, но борьба не друг с другом за миску похлёбки, а борьба со злом. И если не бороться со злом, то зачем тогда жить на грешной земле? Без зла это уже рай.

И ещё. Меня поразил Булгарин своей проницательностью, честностью и смелостью. Ведь надо понимать, что он шёл против модных и очень влиятельных в общественном мнении людей. И если Булгарин - тупой охранитель, то я хотел бы быть таким же "тупым охранителем". Лучше быть честным перед своей совестью и оболганным информационными монополистами, чем популярным лгуном и быть в тренде.

Recommended Links

Softpanorama hot topic of the month

Softpanorama Recommended