And so I am not an ordinary American observer of Russia and Vladimir Putin. Nonetheless, my dissenting views are shared by many highly qualified former diplomats, scholars and journalists, many of whom have lived in Russia and speak the Russian language. Among them: Jack Matlock (ambassador to the Soviet Union under Reagan, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, (Colin Powell's Chief of Staff), John Mearsheimer, (University of Chicago), Stephen Cohen (Princeton University), former US Senator Bill Bradley, Journalist Robert Parry, and more. Their opinions may be found on these websites: American Committee for East-West Accord, The Center for Citizen Initiatives, US-Russia.org, among others. These dissenters are rarely, if ever, invited to participate in mainstream media news programs.
III
Because my perspective on Russia is "unorthodox" and likely to provoke resistance, I will endeavor, as much as possible, to ground my arguments on verifiable facts. Among them:
-
Fact: Vladimir Putin is the President of the Russian Federation. As such, it is his Constitutional duty to assure the security and defend the sovereignty of Russia. If he does not, he will be replaced, most likely by a leader even more hostile toward the United States.. Accordingly, Putin must be expected to gather information about, and to favorably influence the policies of, countries perceived to be the rivals of Russia. That is his job. The American president and his intelligence agencies are expected to do the same, and so they do. We would be justly outraged if they did not.
-
Fact: In the open and contested election of 2012, Putin received 62% of the official vote count, which means that more than a third of the Russian voters voted against him. While critics, both inside and outside of Russia, say that there was much voting fraud in that election, it is more than likely that Putin did receive a majority of the votes which, by the way, were cast on paper ballots. In addition to Putin's "United Russia" party, there are several competing parties in the Russian "Duma" (parliament), where Putin's party has a bare majority.
-
Fact: Currently, Putin has the support of a majority of Russians. The independent and non-governmental Levada Center reports an 84% public approval of Vladimir Putin (February, 2017). While that number is probably inflated, one might still assume that a substantial majority of Russians support Putin.
-
Fact: There are several independent media sources in Russia, some openly critical of Putin and his government and accessible to the American internet. Among them (in English): Russia Insider, Moscow Times, Meduza. In Russian (with rough English translations available from Google and Yahoo): Novaya Gazeta, Otkritaya Rossiya.
-
Fact: The international internet is available to any Russians with a computer and a command of foreign languages -- in particular, of English. (Most Russian scholars, scientists and journalists understand English). I know this as a fact from my email exchanges with friends in Russia who have told me as much. As proof, I can report that I freely exchange website addresses with these friends and have never been told "that site is not available in Russia."
Contrary to all this we are told by our media that Russia is a "closed
society," that Russian media is "totally controlled" by Putin and his government.
We are told this by a "mainstream media"
90% of which is owned and
controlled by six mega-corporations
that speak with one voice in their condemnation of Putin and Russia.
To be sure, government control of the Russian media is pervasive and far
greater than that which should be tolerated in a nation claiming to be
"democratic." Even so, that control is not complete.
The US media tells us that Russia today is ruled by a corrupt autocrat who
murders journalists and political rivals and terrorizes dissenting citizens.
If so (and, as noted, I am not convinced either way), then I grieve for my
Russian friends and with them, I look forward to the day when this allegedly
evil regime is overthrown. But that "liberation" is their concern and
responsibility, not ours. If the United States and its NATO allies appoint
themselves the "liberators of Russia," you can be sure that those Russians
will unite behind their leader and will steadfastly resist any "assistance"
on our part. Just as we would do if the roles were reversed. The fate of
Hitler's "Operation Barbarossa" should have taught us that much.
So when I express my concern about the economic and political conditions in
Russia, many of my Russian friends reply, in effect: "Cool it! It's true
that we have much to complain about here, but it's not all that bad.
Economic conditions are tough, but despite the sanctions, these conditions
are much improved from the Yeltsin era. As for the politics, we endure what
we must and push back as we can. This is not Stalin's Soviet Union."
Case in point: my friend Misha, a research scientist. (Not his real name).
He is steadfastly opposed to Putin, who he describes as a "thug," and
Putin's regime, which he describes as "a mafioso."
I tell Misha that I am astonished by his candor. "Misha," I reply, "here you
are, openly insulting your President in an email to the United States which,
we must assume, is being read by the FSB (successor to the KGB). Aren't you
concerned for your safety?"
"Naw," he replies. "I don't worry about the government. I am only worried
about the extra-legal gangs that have appoint themselves as 'Putin's
guardians,' to the great distress and embarrassment of the government, much
like your right wing 'citizen militias.'" (Misha, as it happens, is an avid
reader of the unrestricted American internet).
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
