The USA doesn’t even try to hide the fact any more that it’s actively attempting to subvert the Russian government; it’s funding and supporting those within the Russian Federation who’d attempt to do so for their own selfish gains. American-backed Russian NGOs and their American colleagues continue to push for “tougher measures” against the Russian Federation, many even calling for the USA and the West to implement a policy of “containment”, something Washington did during Soviet times to “stop the spread of Communism”. One has to wonder as to the real motivations of these organisations and individuals, as they’re on the American payroll and receive funds from American taxpayer monies routed to them by hawkish right-wing groups and individuals, who seek to propagate outdated Cold War clichés and Russophobic hysteria. Their reasoning is open to question… contain what? Some sort of undefined “evil” ideology or some non-existent military expansionism? It’s utterly ludicrous.
The continuing activities of most of these bodies, many of which only exist for the sole reason of subverting (in this case) the Russian government, weakening the Russian Federation internationally on all fronts, giving reason and justification to American expansionism, military build-up, and meddling and interference in the internal and external affairs of the Russian Federation have proven the wisdom and the necessity for the recently-passed Russian legislation requiring all members of foreign-funded NGOs to register with the government as foreign agents. Bringing the problem to centre-stage again is an American taxpayer-funded NGO called Freedom House, which has gathered an all star cast of American-backed and funded Russian “opposition” members, US Congressmen, NGO operatives from the USA and Russia, as well as EU officials for an upcoming forum entitled, New Approach or Business As Usual? US-EU-Russia Relations After Putin’s Crackdown.
I’m still wondering what “crackdown” they’re talking about, but I’d suppose they’re referring to the recent law mentioned above and perhaps to the recently-adopted Dima Yakovlev law that protects Russian children, or, perhaps, to the expulsion of USAID for their questionable activities throughout Russia. I believe that the real reason is that Russia is strengthening ties and increasing trade with Europe, especially in the energy sector, and this hasn’t pleased Washington, who sees Europe as their minion. The adeptness with which the USA continues to demonise Russia is daunting due to the level and the massive scale it’s attained, as well as increasingly more obvious, this time the more so, especially in light of the fact that the two above-mentioned laws were enacted because there were and continue to be clear and present threats against the sovereignty of Russia and against the Russia people.
We know the following is true for the USA… Russia must be kept weak politically, militarily, economically, and socially. This is for the sole reason that Russia must be brought under the control of the USA and that control must permanent and complete. A strong democracy and civil society are bad for the USA because a well-off and satisfied citizenry aren’t as pliable and less subject to go against the state. Hence, the funding of NGOs and the Russian opposition, who sow discontent and strife with false-flag arguments, straw-man evils, and phantom wrongs and injustices.
Just ask any member of the so called “opposition”… “What would you change, give me an example of what is wrong with Russia?” Like brainwashed hypnotised people just waking from a sleep, they’d probably answer something to the effect, “Putin bad. America good!” I oversimplify, but that’s what it boils down to. America doesn’t want a strong leader in Russia, they need someone they can manipulate. The President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, unfortunately for the USA, isn’t that man. Keeping a country economically-weak is also good for the USA, as a country that’s weak economically is easy to manipulate, its markets are easier to access for the dumping of goods and for exploitation, its workforce is easier to exploit, its citizens are easier to manipulate and direct against the state, and its officials are easier to bribe and buy. Any country, such as Russia, which has an assertive and independent foreign policy, is also bad for the obvious reason that it isn’t under the control of the USA. This is particularly bad when such countries form alliances, groupings, organisations, treaties, and cooperate independently and without the control of the USA or kowtowing to Washington.
The script being used by Freedom House is as old as are most of Washington’s attempts at forming “colour revolutions”, usurping power, overthrowing governments, getting rid of leaders, and justifying their own expansionist policies. We’ve seen the script in use repeatedly, and, in fact, frankly, it’s gotten old. Demonise, repeat key words repeatedly until the world accepts them as truth, and, then, move in with “humanitarian” sanctions or missiles. In this case, the key words are “Putin and crackdown”. What we’re seeing with Freedom House is a clue as to where things are going, especially after the banning of USAID and their activities on the territory of the Russian Federation. The US government will now attempt to use those inside Russia more and more to subvert the Russian state. This would include politicians, the “opposition”, members of NGOs, academics, and even “the man in the street”. Not to mention the members of the US Foreign Service, who’re now increasingly being tasked with what could be called subversive activities. Anyone who can spread discontent and destabilise the country will be fair game.
In a recent analysis for VOR, Edward Lozansky, President of the American University in Moscow, gave some insights into Freedom House. According to Mr Lozansky, Freedom House is damaging the national interests of the USA, whilst receiving taxpayer funding. He said, “This organisation has already wasted enormous amounts of taxpayers’ money on supporting the colour revolutions in the post-Soviet space, which ended in total fiascos. Now, they want America not only to ‘stand in solidarity’ with Russian activists, but also to challenge the various authoritarian groupings in which Russia plays a prominent role, such as the Eurasian Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)“.
I’m sure that Mr Lozansky calling these groups “authoritarian” was a tongue-in-cheek stab at the ridiculousness of the classification. He continued, “One item on that agenda is particularly laughable… the call to challenge the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, where China plays a key role. In other words, Freedom House expects China, a top foreign American lender, to provide more funds to the US Treasury to finance a challenge against itself”. As for the Russian division of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he said, “One of its senior associates, (an American-paid Russian) finds the Freedom House challenge approach too modest; she calls for a “new way to contain Russia”, no more and no less”.
Of course, we’re all used to American hypocrisy, but they’re growing bolder and bolder with every passing day. If the shoe were on the other foot, as I love to point out, things would be entirely different. Were a group of American politicians and civic “leaders” to appear before the Federation Council or the RF Gosduma and ask the Russian government to expand sanctions, to implement harsher measures against the elected government of the USA, and continue to isolate and “contain” the USA, those involved would surely be charged with treason and put in front of a firing squad. Nevertheless, when it comes to Russia, this is supposed to be OK, and any move against these individuals, whose sole aim is to assist an increasingly hostile foreign power to harm their own country, is called a “crackdown”.
As for the shoe being on the other foot, Russia would have far more justifiable and legitimate reasons to take such actions as I detailed above. Russia would have the moral high ground in areas such as drone attacks, the unbelievable numbers of civilians killed in the Global War on Terror, the meddling into the internal affairs of countries worldwide, the expansion of the NATO/US military presence all over the planet, and even in the deaths of so many Russian orphans. Yet, as always, it’s the pot calling the kettle black…
For the members of the Russian “opposition” who’re attending the event, one last thought… if there were, in fact, such a “crackdown” here in Russia, as Freedom House claims, then, these individuals would be thinking twice about engaging in such activities or in trying to subvert the state and recreate it in Washington’s image from the outside, such activities used to be called treason, and such individuals used to be shot. That means that their presence at such a forum negates their very argument of totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
25 February 2013
John Robles
Voice of Russia World Service
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_25/Freedom-House-crackdown/
Editor’s Note:
There are analogues of the Freedom House slimers here in diaspora Orthodoxy. All Orthodox people should be wary of four toxic individuals in the District. One is Freddie M-G, who works (or worked) for National Public Radio… that is, she’s a paid minion of the US government. Then, there’s Victor Potapov, who works (or worked) for RFE/RL, a well-known Langley front. Indeed, a ROCOR priest told one of my Cabinet members in the late 80s, “You know, Potapov’s a spy”. That is, I’m unmasking no-one… he’s been a known quantity for some thirty years. Alexander Webster is a stink-tanker and a reserve chaplain in the American forces who writes “religious” apologias for the American warmongering in foreign parts. Bringing up the rear is the clown jester of this ragtag lot, Rod Dreher… he’s a stink-tanker and he pals about with Patrick BuKKKanan. He’s the lightweight of the bunch… he’s bound to go off half-cocked, but then again, he’s a drifting wanderer (he’s lived in Brooklyn, Texas, and the District… all in less than ten years’ time… a veritable rightwing Bedouin!) without roots or compass. These people are haters of the Orthosphere and proponents of Consumerist America (and strong supporters of the Rightwing of the Republican Party).
Don’t forget… during the Cold War, Jordanville lied about its ties to a non-existent “catacomb Church” (to get money from the CIA, as Alexander Lebedeff admitted, “We needed the money and we’re grateful for it”). Sadly enough, the ROCOR was ridden with KONR traitors… whose descendants are still within the body, who’re of suspect loyalty to the Orthosphere and its ethos (they’ve capitulated completely to American Suburban Materialism).
The four named individuals are allied with a suspect “bishop”… James (Jonas) Paffhausen. Paffhausen was a long-time disciple and devotee of Gleb Podmoshensky, a sodomite defrocked by the ROCOR. He lied about his status at Valaam Monastery, and his elevation to “abbot” only one year after his tonsure is questionable, to use the kindest term (Tikhon Fitzgerald was stupid enough to do so). His term as First Hierarch of the OCA (after NO experience at all as a ruling bishop) was, perhaps, the most ludicrous period of history in Orthodoxy in the Americas. As Far Right as the four previously-named individuals are, Paffhausen is worse. He wanted to ally Orthodoxy with Evangelical swine who deny the Eucharist, the Communion of Saints, and the Holy Church Itself (the “invisible Church” heresy). Besides that, he wished to ally the Church with the Uniate traitors… who’ve killed Orthodox clergy and faithful and stolen Orthodox churches.
These five individuals are the diaspora Orthodox equivalent of the Freedom House traitors. Note this well… many of the konvertsy worship these people… I kid you not. Don’t argue with them… but do mark down who they are and where they are. God willing, they’ll leave us because we’re not “good enough” for them… that can’t happen soon enough for my taste, let me tell you. It’ll be “interesting times” until they leave… God do help us…
BMD
13 April 2013
“The Sentiments Expressed by the Bolotnaya Square Protesters are Different from those Expressed by Other Protesters in Russia”: Natalia Narochnitskaya
Tags: Bolotnaya Square, Corporate Media, Cyprus, dissident, EU, European Union, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, intellectual standards, intellectuals, journalism, journalists, Konrad Adenauer Foundation, mass media, media, Media bias, Moscow, Natalia Narochnitskaya, NGO, Non-governmental organization, political commentary, politics, Russia, Russian, Russian culture, Russian dissident, Soviet Union, United States, US media, USA, USSR, West, Western Europe, Western media, Western world
______________________________
Valdaiclub.com interview with Natalia Narochnitskaya, Director of the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation in Paris and president of the Historical Perspective Foundation in Moscow
VC
Do you think the inspections of NGOs by the Prokuratura discredit these groups in the eyes of society, which is the goal, or do they discredit the government?
Narochnitskaya
It depends. The Western media are sure that these inspections discredit the authorities… that’s how they portray these audits. These NGOs, especially the most-high-profile ones, are their icons and they’ll portray them as heroes. As for Russian society, certain people, mainly in Moscow, share this view, but people in the rest of Russia don’t see these inspections as discrediting the authorities in any way. It’s important to understand that our society doesn’t have a united stand on this issue. The sentiments expressed by the Bolotnaya Square protesters are different from those expressed by other protesters in Russia. That’s my answer.
VC
Will these inspections further strain relations between activists and the authorities?
Narochnitskaya
Again, it depends. I think there are two unequal camps in the activist community. The *liberal Western-oriented camp that calls itself the “non-systemic” opposition is concentrated in Moscow and it’s very small on a national scale. However, this is the only opposition that the West notices, and, as a result, they’ll probably grow even more hysterical in their hatred of the Russian government.
As for the majority of activists in the rest of Russia, they lean more towards left-wing views. They aren’t sad that the 1990s are over, but they feel like the car broke down on the road leading away from the ‘90s. These people are more worried about pensions, re-industrialisation, jobs, fighting corruption, and the decline of Russians as the dominant ethnic group in the country. However, they like Russia’s strong foreign policy and tough response to Western pressure. I don’t think these audits had any effect on their attitudes. They might even welcome them.
VC
Do you think there’s a connection between the audits of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES), during which the auditors removed their computers and papers with Angela Merkel’s position on Cyprus?
Narochnitskaya
Maybe, but I don’t think so. By the way, in the West, many experts believe this, and in private conversation they’ll say that EU leaders probably gave Cyprus an ultimatum… make no agreements with Russia, or you won’t receive any cash and the EU will simply engineer its collapse in one week. I’ve heard this from British and French experts. In a brief statement on Cyprus’s collapse, Viktor Gerashchenko said off-the-cuff that probably this decision was directed against Russia and that Cyprus was being punished for its pro-Russian position and refusal to let the West anywhere near the deposits discovered on the country’s continental shelf. There was a risk that Russia might get a hold in this key strategic area in the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, I still believe that the EU had bigger motives in Cyprus. We can hardly consider the removal of computers as a “retaliatory measure”. They simply caught these NGOs in the same net as all the others.
VC
Do you think that these inspections are a pretext to put off the issue of establishing visa-free travel between Russia and Europe?
Narochnitskaya
For Europe and the EU, this is the pretext they’ve been looking for in order to hold up a process that they’re simply not ready for. No doubt, they’ll use it and cling to it. However, in reality… and experts have long known this… they aren’t ready for visa-free travel with Russia. They’re doing everything to impede the process, saying that they’ll have to deal with a wave of illegal workers from Asia and the Caucasus.
VC
What problems are Russian NGOs facing abroad?
Narochnitskaya
The media speaks ill of Russia or not at all. The French press is in the lead and the European media in general is acting in much the same manner. They welcome only those Russian NGOs that rabidly insist that no country in the world is worse and has fewer rights than post-Yeltsin Russia. They invite such people to speak on television very often. By the way, they’re from NGOs that receive official funds from the US budget. The US Congress is partially-financing institutions of the Republican and Democratic parties, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, and many Russian NGOs. I shudder to think what they would’ve written about my Institute of Democracy and Cooperation if we’d received a penny from the Russian budget.
By the way, I’ve just come back from America where I had a conversation with a prominent banking analyst. I asked him directly what he thinks about the campaign in the press against the new law requiring that NGOs funded from abroad must declare this if they conduct political activities in Russia. He laughed and said that in the USA foreign funding of political activities carries criminal penalties. He said a man from China contributed to a local election campaign in one city and received a 10-year prison term.
No matter what we do and what important events with distinguished people we hold, there’ll be little or no coverage. Sometimes, they invite us to be on television. If a Russian NGO in a foreign country doesn’t spew hatred for the government, even if it readily discusses our sins, they’ll always describe it as a Kremlin agency funded by the budget, even though this is a total lie. This is the constant insinuation you hear, based on some blogs. The academic community in Europe is much fairer and more objective, and it’s easier to work with them. We’re trying to involve them in serious roundtables where we always criticise corruption and other vices in Russian politics or the economy. Three years ago, our office in Paris opened with a seminar offering a comparative analysis of anti-corruption laws in France and Russia, which put Russia in an unfavourable light. We had interesting speakers on our side, and we acknowledged that corruption is a systemic problem that can’t be resolved quickly. However, nobody cares about this.
Here’s another example of what often happens. When my name came up in connection with the establishment of my institute’s office in Paris, many newspapers asked me for an interview… l’Express, Le Figaro, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and The Chicago Tribune {did Sophia Kishkovsky or Serge Schmemann interview Professor Narochnitskaya? Perspirin’ minds wanna know…: editor}. I talked with all of them at least for an hour about everything, including culture, insight into life in each other’s countries, and the desire to break the glass wall of misunderstanding that separates us. A French woman from l’Express and I even got to talking about Baudelaire’s poetry and hugged each other goodbye. You should’ve seen what her newspaper wrote! I regretted that I was so naïve and didn’t switch on the recorder. I could’ve published it online so that everyone could see that they clearly instructed her to write a negative story. Nevertheless, I didn’t say anything negative and she published in her newspaper three routine anti-Putin paragraphs that had nothing to do with our conversation and one sentence about our meeting… “This is the aim of the agency that will be headed by Natalia Narochnitskaya, whom I had a chance to meet”.
Frankfurter Allgemeine was the only newspaper to report what I said without sneering and in good faith. Its coverage reflected their understanding of what I said. An article in Le Figaro read, “Oh what a fierce debater they’ve sent from Russia!” I take pride in this! Speaking about freedom of the press in the West, the press is so subordinated to editorial policy that it’s long ceased to reflect the diversity of public thinking and public opinion in its own countries. Public opinion in these countries is much more complex, and many more people are quite fair in their views of Russia. I won’t say they’re fond of Russia, but they’re willing to listen calmly to positive information about the country. My European friends and partners tell me they’re sick and tired of hysterical Russophobia in the press. Incidentally, already, Russophobia has become marginal. The articles by André Glucksman have become so grotesque that they remind me of our incomparable Valeria Novodvorskaya {a pro-Western Quisling… she writes for the New York Times… did this traitor mentor Sophia Kishkovsky? Interesting angle, no?: editor}. The press has taken it so far that soon its coverage will have the opposite effect. This is what happened with anti-capitalist propaganda in the Khrushchyov era. We’ll discuss this problem… the origins of Russophobia… at a conference at Sapienza University of Rome in Italy in May, which I’m attending. The Italian side, not us, suggested the idea. This is already a good sign.
8 May 2013
Valdai Discussion Club
http://valdaiclub.com/politics/58200.html