First, Russia is a kleptocracy. Probably true. But some historical context is urgently in order.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, there were no Soviet billionaires. The capital assets were owned and managed by the state. A policy was adopted by the Russian government that those assets were to be evenly divided among the Russian people. However, a few ruthless but enterprising individuals -- former communist apparatchiki instantly transformed into enthusiastic capitalists -- grabbed these assets for themselves. They are now the ruling oligarches: Russia's counterpart of our "one-percent of the one-percent," who effectively "own" the Congress of the United States. President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev are, almost certainly, among the Russian oligarchs. TV news images of mansions, private jets, and other evidence of lavish extravagance appear to confirm this conclusion.
However, it is important to note that this looting took place during the Yeltsin administration, aided in no small part by carpetbagging American libertarian "experts" with their "free market" and privatization dogmas. (I sat next to one of these "experts" on a flight back from Moscow in the early nineties. He talked at length about what he had "taught" the Russians, with scarcely a word about what he had learned from them ). And it is noteworthy that Russia today is not an oligarch's paradise. Several Russian oligarchs have been tried and convicted and their assets seized. Others have taken their money and fled Russia, presumably never to return.
Second: Vladimir Putin is a killer. Possibly, but the evidence is inconclusive. Never mind that, the MSM has no doubt about it. One friend, a former KGB officer turned dissident and now an American citizen, describes Putin as a "war criminal," due to his conduct of the Chechin conflict. The most prominent examples of Putin "hits" put forth by the Russophobes are Anna Politkovskaya (2006), Dmitri Litvinenko (2006) and Boris Nemtov (2015). Litvinenko had many enemies among his former colleagues in the KGB/FSB. But did Putin order the murder? Plausible, but unproven. Politkovskaya (interestingly, born in New York City and a dual American-Russian citizen) had many enemies, including the Chechin autocrat, Ramzan Kadyrov. The manner and location of the Nemtsov murder is problematic for Putin. If Putin had ordered the killing of Nemtsov, he couldn't have chosen a worse place -- in the shadow of the Kremlin. The "Putin guardians" described by my friend "Misha" might have been the culprits. But Putin himself? Again, plausible, but unproven.
And just a couple of weeks ago in Kiev, another suspicious "hit:" Denis Voronenkov. Predictably, the MSM has blamed the Voronenkov assassination on Vladimir Putin. Given the poisonous state of Russo-American relations, this rush to judgment was to be expected.
While I would not rule out Putin's involvement in this murder, I have three observations:
-
The MSM seems uninterested in the plain fact that Russian politics today is very complicated, with numerous factions struggling for control. Some of these factions are criminal and ruthless. Barack Obama was plainly wrong when he commented that "nothing happens in Russia that Putin doesn't know about." Putin's rule in Russia is undoubtedly stronger than a nation claiming to be democratic should allow. But his control is not total. Putin in neither omniscient or omnipotent.
-
Denis Voronenkov had many mortal enemies, which is why he traveled with a body guard.
-
Putin's clear desire to portray Russia as a respected and trustworthy player on the global stage is seriously undercut by political assassinations, both inside and outside of Russia. And what does Putin gain? None of these victims was a clear and present threat to Putin and his regime. Putin arguably lost far more than he gained by their elimination. Protests in Russia over these murders continue to this day. Surely Putin would prefer that these victims were all alive and the Russian streets empty and calm.
Granted, Russia is a dangerous place for journalists. But, according to the
Committee to Protect Journalists it
was twice as dangerous under Yeltsin (40 killed in eight years) than it is
under Putin.(40 killed in sixteen years). About two-thirds of those killings
were murders.
And finally: Russia is an expansionist threat to American interests. In a TV
interview that I watched a couple of years ago, Hillary Clinton was asked,
"just what is the nature of the Russian threat? She replied, "Russia is a
threat to America's interests." I don't recall that she identified these
"interests." While I can't document that interview, it doesn't really
matter. That question is routinely asked and that same reply is answered by
prominent American politicians and pundits. And just as routinely, those
"interests" are mentioned vaguely, if at all.
Is it not possible that the Russians are threatening the American "interest"
in becoming the enduring unipolar global "hegemon," with the self-appointed
privilege of toppling uncooperative regimes, imposing trade rules, and
ignoring United Nations resolutions and international law (e.g., regarding
due process and torture) whenever convenient? This was the clear intention
of the neo-con "Project for a New American Century:"
"A hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America's position in the world today... The appropriate goal of American foreign policy, therefore, is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible."
To this end, the US has spread over 800
military bases around the world and it spends more on its military than the
next seven nations combined (most of whom are US allies). In contrast,
Russia has just two military bases outside of its national territory.
Furthermore, the Russian government has announced a 26% cut in its military
budget, which puts it at ten percent of the US budget. With these cuts, the
Russian military budget will now be
ranked eighth in the world, behind India and France. What?! You haven't been told this by the Mainstream Media? Why am in not
surprised?
As for an American unipolar "hegemony," Putin and his government will have none
of it. For that matter, neither will the Chinese and increasingly many
European nations, but we're talking about Russia right now. As Putin is
reported to have said, "We wish to be partners with the Americans; they wish
us to be their vassals." Putin refuses to allow Russia to be an American
"vassal," as does the vast majority of the Russian people. As would all
Americans, should the Russians aspire to make us their "vassals."
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
