Regime change needed in Russia? A debate

[Jerry Russell]

Kit Knightly challenges Mark Rice-Oxley of The Guardian, regarding his thesis that the Anglo-Americans need to push for regime change in Russia.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/03/09...an-restarts-push-for-regime-change-in-russia/

The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a weapons lab that might not even exist anymore. Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.

For example, Mark Rice-Oxley’s column in today’s Guardian:

Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury, one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war.​

Read this. It’s from a respected “unbiased”, liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet, and has no place in our media.

If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.

To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.​

 

[Richard Stanley]

Is this related to the Russophobic MSM's parallel war on Reason and Science Jerry? http://quillette.com/2018/03/11/steven-pinkers-counter-counter-enlightenment/

Do you think that Putin is correct, that some Russian Jews colluded to elect Trump? Or did Putin really say this?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Sounds like a Cookie Dynasty. Probably has placed some Russian cookies in our machines, and they're not chocolate chip either.

Spiridon Putin cooked for Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin
The film also reveals that Putin's paternal grandfather Spiridon Putin served as a cook for leaders Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.

Remembering him as a highly regarded staff member, Putin says he "was a cook at Lenin's and later at Stalin's, at one of the dachas in the Moscow area."

Spiridon Putin served the Soviet establishment up until he died in 1965 aged 86.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/timeli...eals-lesser-known-things-about-vladimir-putin
​

 

[Jerry Russell]

Is this related to the Russophobic MSM's parallel war on Reason and Science Jerry?

Why yes, that makes perfect sense, now that you mention it. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be any basis in Reason, Science or Humanistic Philosophy, for these virulent attacks on Putin and Russia. But there's plenty of Romantic, Nationalistic and Authoritarian bias to support it.

Do you think that Putin is correct, that some Russian Jews colluded to elect Trump? Or did Putin really say this?

Haha. No, that's not what he said. Here is the actual quote, from Putin's interview with Megyn Kelly:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-says-jews-apos-russian-164905319.html

“Maybe they are not even Russians but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews, but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked; maybe they have dual citizenship of a green card; maybe the U.S. paid them for this. How can you know that? I do not know either,” he said.

He said he was indifferent to the indictment.

"It's all the same to me. To me it absolutely makes no difference because they do not represent the government," Putin answered, according to the Russian-language interview transcript posted Saturday by the Kremlin.
​

Probably has placed some Russian cookies in our machines, and they're not chocolate chip either.

Considering how easy it is to hack our Diebold machines, it's impossible to prove whether the DNC, RNC, Deutsche Bank, or some kid in a garage in Seattle, have been tweaking our elections. Probably all of them have been doing as much cheating as they think they can get away with. For decades it's been anyone's guess who really has been the winner in any close, hard-fought national election. It would almost be surprising if the Russians haven't tried their hand too.

And whose fault is that? Do we complain about the Russians taking advantage of an opportunity handed to them on a silver platter, or do we improve our election counting security & accuracy?

However, a basic humanistic principle is "Assume Good Intentions", or if you prefer, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". There's no actual evidence linking Putin's government to any US election interference. Putin says he didn't do it.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Yes, I agree that we should return to paper ballots. But I did not mean 'cookies' so much in voting machines but elsewhere.

And whose fault is that? Do we complain about the Russians taking advantage of an opportunity handed to them on a silver platter, or do we improve our election counting security & accuracy?

We should not complain that the Russians might financial and other data on Trump to influence his actions in the White House? Why were so many of the Trump campaign team so desperate to establish back-channel communications (out of oversight by the government - whether one likes them or not) with the Russians before the inauguration? When if they had merely waited till after the inauguration they would have been in control of the government communication channels? It seems like illicit money and maybe something else was in play here.

I see no reason to take Putin's word for anything, any more than Trump's, or Obama's, or Hillary's, or ...

 

[Jerry Russell]

We should not complain that the Russians might financial and other data on Trump to influence his actions in the White House?

As I understand it, there's pretty solid evidence that Trump has been laundering money for Russian oligarchs. The article from Off-Guardian briefly mentions an aspect of this: "The reason oligarchs launder their money here…is that WE let them. Oligarchs have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin’s government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes." So according to Knightly's analysis, this would mean that Trump's activities would have been undercutting Putin's governmental interests, rather than supporting Putin.

Also it seems that Trump and/or his team (including Kushner) want to continue doing business with Russian oligarchs, criminal or not. So, the sanctions against Russia are against their business interests.

None of this necessarily implicates Putin, or the Russian government. It does say that Trump is sleazy, but the worry about blackmail seems overblown. If Trump's base doesn't believe Rachel Maddow when she presents this evidence against Trump, why should they believe it if Putin or some double-crossed Russian oligarch presents the same evidence?

Apparently, Mueller and the Democrats are not generally pursuing this angle because it's not really a crime in the US to launder funds for Russian oligarchs? And also, because it doesn't implicate Putin and it's obviously not such a good reason to start WWIII?

I see no reason to take Putin's word for anything, any more than Trump's, or Obama's, or Hillary's, or ...

According to www.politifact.com, Trump's factually verifiable statements are mostly false, false, or "pants on fire" some 69% of the time. He gets the "pants on fire" score 15% of the time. Obama's scores are 26% and 2% respectively, and Hillary's scores are also 26% and 2%.

Of course if our various theories are correct about 911, the true nature of the US empire, and so forth, then both Obama and Hillary would get substantially lower scores. Politifact can only judge them according to mainstream media's view of the facts.

But at any rate, it seems that Trump is in a league by himself, when it comes to being "Truth challenged". There's good basis to disbelieve anything he says, just because it's so rare that he gets his facts straight about anything. And if you want to disbelieve statements from Obama and Hillary, I'd agree that you have good solid grounds for skepticism.

But where's the evidence that Putin is a serial liar? Politifact is basically no help. For Putin, they only tried to score two items, and they rated his statement "homosexuality is a felony in some US states" as FALSE because those laws have been ruled unconstitutional even though they're still on the books. So it seems to me that Putin's error was probably based in an honest lack of full understanding of the US legal system.

 

[Richard Stanley]

As I understand it, there's pretty solid evidence that Trump has been laundering money for Russian oligarchs. The article from Off-Guardian briefly mentions an aspect of this: "The reason oligarchs launder their money here…is that WE let them. Oligarchs have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin’s government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes." So according to Knightly's analysis, this would mean that Trump's activities would have been undercutting Putin's governmental interests, rather than supporting Putin.

So this is why Trump is so consistently nice to our allies, and so consistently mean to Putin?

Which oligarchs are they talking about? The original oligarchs or the current ones that do Putin's bidding? No one is putting the latter in jail.

Also it seems that Trump and/or his team (including Kushner) want to continue doing business with Russian oligarchs, criminal or not. So, the sanctions against Russia are against their business interests.

Jerry, the sanctions on Russia are Obama's and the bi-partisan US Congress, the latter of which Trump has refused to enforce, apparently because he hates Putin so much (while sneaky-praising him profusely).

None of this necessarily implicates Putin, or the Russian government. It does say that Trump is sleazy, but the worry about blackmail seems overblown. If Trump's base doesn't believe Rachel Maddow when she presents this evidence against Trump, why should they believe it if Putin or some double-crossed Russian oligarch presents the same evidence?

Which double-crossed Russian oligarch?

Let's be clear here that I believe that the American deep Deep State placed Trump into power, not Putin.

Apparently, Mueller and the Democrats are not generally pursuing this angle because it's not really a crime in the US to launder funds for Russian oligarchs?

How do you know Mueller is not pursuing this angle, when he has involved the FinCen investigators and prosecutors that specialize in such?

And also, because it doesn't implicate Putin and it's obviously not such a good reason to start WWIII?

I don't even know what to say about this speculation.

Of course if our various theories are correct about 911, the true nature of the US empire, and so forth, then both Obama and Hillary would get substantially lower scores. Politifact can only judge them according to mainstream media's view of the facts.

Not necessarily. The numbers all depend upon the subject matter of the statements, they certainly don't weight them according to the size of the matters.

But where's the evidence that Putin is a serial liar? Politifact is basically no help. For Putin, they only tried to score two items, and they rated his statement "homosexuality is a felony in some US states" as FALSE because those laws have been ruled unconstitutional even though they're still on the books. So it seems to me that Putin's error was probably based in an honest lack of full understanding of the US legal system.

OK, you and Vltchek can consider him a saint. I believe that he is just the opposite side of the same Roman Coin, one side is 'neoWestern Rome' and the other side is 'neoEastern Rome'.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Which oligarchs are they talking about? The original oligarchs or the current ones that do Putin's bidding? No one is putting the latter in jail.

What exactly does it mean for a Russian "oligarch" to "do Putin's bidding"? Knightly's analysis is that Russian businessmen who operate lawfully and pay their taxes, have nothing to fear from Putin, and no need to launder money.

Within any capitalist system, don't successful businessmen emerge as an inevitable result of the system operation? Why would you assume that all Russian businessmen belong in jail, or would have any need to launder funds?

You'll notice that I'm not sure this word "oligarch" should apply to Russian businessmen. In the USA, I feel it's appropriate, because wealthy businessmen can control public opinion via our highly concentrated mass media, and they essentially control the politicians by lobbying and campaign contributions. Does the same situation pertain in Russia, or are the people more independent minded?

At any rate, if we are going to refer to Russian businessmen as "Oligarchs", then clearly Soros and Rockefeller and Zuckerberg and Bezos (etc.) are "Oligarchs" too.

Jerry, the sanctions on Russia are Obama's and the bi-partisan US Congress, the latter of which Trump has refused to enforce, apparently because he hates Putin so much (while sneaky-praising him profusely).

Right, and apparently the US president has authority under the law, to enforce such sanctions or to refuse to enforce them. His decision not to enforce, does not create any constitutional crisis, or any right or obligation on the part of Congress to impeach him.

Apparently Trump doesn't hate Putin nearly as much as you do.

Which double-crossed Russian oligarch?

We were discussing the theoretical Russian oligarch who is supposedly blackmailing Trump. According to this scenario, Trump is quaking in fear that this Russian oligarch is going to release damaging information, thus ruining Trump's career.

But, as long as Trump is compliant with this hypothetical Russian oligarch, there would never be a need for the information to be released. It's only if Trump double-crosses this oligarch by failing to provide the agreed-on benefits, that the information is released and Trump is ruined. Right?

In my opinion, the whole scenario is ridiculous, because Trump's base doesn't care what sort of business deals Trump makes with Russian oligarchs. They don't care whose pussy Trump is grabbing, either. Trump is more Teflon-coated than Reagan ever was.

How do you know Mueller is not pursuing this angle, when he has involved the FinCen investigators and prosecutors that specialize in such?

I don't have any idea what might be secretly going on behind the scenes. I do know that about 99% of the political and media hubbub is focused on the election hacking issue, with the goal of implicating Putin and the Russian government as well as Trump.

OK, you and Vltchek can consider him a saint.

There's a huge range of behaviors between "Saint" and "Liar". He's certainly not a Saint, he's a Russian politician. But, not all politicians are criminals or liars.

I believe that he is just the opposite side of the same Roman Coin, one side is 'neoWestern Rome' and the other side is 'neoEastern Rome'.

So, what exactly does that mean? Could it be that Putin, as a sane and competent oligarch, is trying to peacefully create a globalist New World Order in which Russia can take its place as the neoEastern part?

My primary and immediate concern is that Trump, and indeed the entire neoWestern part of the Roman Empire, have gone stark raving insane, not to mention being also liars and criminals. They are too stupid and psychopathic to understand the likely consequences of their actions.

I still maintain that Putin can't begin to hold a candle to the level of lying, criminality, and psychopathy exhibited by the Anglo-American establishment. Your argument to the contrary, is thin on evidence.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Interesting analysis of constitutional issues raised by Trump's refusal to enforce Russian sanctions.

https://rare.us/rare-politics/issue...mp-refuses-can-the-president-legally-do-this/

Congress overwhelmingly passed, and President Trump unwillingly signed, a bill targeting Iran, North Korea, and Russia with sanctions as a means of punishing each state’s past behavior and coercing its future cooperation with Washington’s aims. A presidential veto would have been easily overridden, so though the White House wasn’t happy with the final bill, Trump decided to approve it while issuing two signing statements.

Now, a signing statement is a curious and controversial thing. It’s when the president signs a bill but does so while publishing an explanation of how he intends to enforce it—or not enforce it. A study published by the Congressional Research Service in 2009 found post-Carter presidents increasingly use signing statements to register their objection to portions of the bills they make into law. President George W. Bush issued 152 statements, and eight in 10 included an objection. President Obama pledged “not to use presidential signing statements to get [his] way” in office. Though he did issue far fewer statements than Bush, Obama broke that promise.

....Trump approved the bill while announcing his disapproval of parts of it on constitutional grounds.

Space here won’t permit an examination of whether Trump’s assessment was correct, though given his expansive view of executive power—a view our Constitution’s framers did not share—I have my doubts.

That said, raising a constitutional objection is in theory (if perhaps not in this specific instance) the right thing to do, for there’s an important difference between the president not enforcing laws he believes are unconstitutional and not enforcing ones he simply dislikes. There is also a distinction to be made between declining to enforce laws that limit government power (like President George W. Bush’s deplorable decision to ignore a congressional ban on torture) and declining to enforce laws that exert government control over the people (like many presidents’ decision not to prosecute marijuana use on college campuses).

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the constitutionality of signing statements, and maybe it is time it did.​

 

[Jerry Russell]

Newsbud's Kurt Nimmo just posted this story and video report, "Seth Rich and the Mueller Russian Hacking Frameup".

https://www.newsbud.com/2018/03/12/seth-rich-and-the-mueller-russian-hacking-frameup/

On this edition of The Geopolitical Report, we look at new information on the Seth Rich murder case. On March 1, Ed Butowsky, who offered to help the family of Seth Rich defray the cost of a private investigator, told Gateway Pundit Seth’s father admitted his son had passed the DNC emails on to WikiLeaks. Prior to this, Butowsky told Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in a recorded conversation there is a purported FBI report that establishes Seth Rich sent the emails to WikiLeaks. All of this blows an even bigger hole in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s case accusing the Russians of hacking Democrats during the 2016 election. Mueller has based his case on the analysis of cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike was discredited as a reliable source after it revised and retracted a report over Russian hacking of Ukrainian military equipment. Last March, the company told Congress the hack was carried out by Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, allegedly two Russian intelligence operations. In an editorial published by The Washington Times, James Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, who was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, asked why congressional investigators haven’t looked into the murder of Seth Rich considering the growing amount of evidence his death was the result of a hit. It can now be speculated with a fairy degree of accuracy that somebody within the DNC or its associates put out a hit on Seth Rich.​

 

[Richard Stanley]

The following excerpted article discusses the common timely sex scandal components of Obama's and Putin's respective rises to political power. Now we have the infamous Steele Dossier that alleges that Putin has a kompromat sex tape on Agent Orange Leaks, perhaps explaining the latter's odd treatment of Russia compared to traditional allies of America. AOL has denied that he would engage in such leaky activities, including that he has a bigly aversion to germs, ala Howard Hughes, yet we find out that he has had many extramarital liaisons with women like Stormy Daniels, paying them big league bucks to keep quiet.

Surely Mr. Putin would have reformed from his old ways by now, and not use any such methods to keep AOL from leaking. Would he, Mr. Russell?

As rapid as Barack Obama’s four-year rise from Illinois state senator to U.S. president was, it feels downright sluggish when compared with Vladimir Putin, who went from a deputy chief of staff to Russia’s acting president in just over 18 months. While Putin’s and Obama’s politics and paths to power differ — a little community organizing here, a little KGB organizing there — the rapid political ascendancy of both men was facilitated by a common event: an opponent’s sex scandal.

In 1999, Yuri Skuratov, a 46-year-old lawyer and politician serving as prosecutor general, the Russian equivalent of attorney general, was conducting investigations into government corruption under then-president and Putin mentor Boris Yeltsin. The case stopped dead in March of that year when a state-controlled television network aired excerpts of a videotape showing a nude man resembling Skuratov in a hotel bed with a pair of prostitutes.

By all appearances, it was a classic use of the old KGB tool of kompromat (compromising information). Shortly thereafter, another 46-year-old Russian lawyer named Vladimir Putin, a former deputy chief of staff for Yeltsin, entered the picture. Looking more like a regional bank president than a former KGB officer and future world leader, Putin, who had recently been appointed to head the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB), the modern KGB, held a press conference in which he claimed that the man caught on tape was indeed Skuratov. President Yeltsin would dismiss the prosecutor in the wake of the scandal, calling upon his newly positioned chief legal officer, Putin, to explain to the Russian public why the dismissal was justified and constitutional.

With his prosecutor and a potential rival out of the way, Yeltsin’s rule continued unchallenged, and Putin, now a household name thanks to the scandal, would soon be appointed Russia’s new prime minister by the grateful Yeltsin. When Yeltsin suddenly stepped down from power on Dec. 31, 1999, it was Putin who became Russia’s new acting president. And Putin’s first decree as president? You guessed it, granting Yeltsin and his family immunity from any future corruption probes. ...
http://www.ozy.com/flashback/obamas-and-putins-sex-fueled-journeys-to-power/39785​

 

[Richard Stanley]

From a recent profile on Putin:

...
On February 27, 2015, Nemtsov was killed, shot in the back and head as he walked one evening near the Kremlin.

No one witnessed the murder and the CCTV cameras on the Kremlin walls were coincidentally switched off at the time.

The message was clear: Cross me and I will kill you.

Next came the accusations that Putin had ordered interference in the US Presidential elections and, despite the weight of evidence, no one seems able to land a knock out blow to prove it.

As much of the world struggles to find a new order amid democratic elections and referendums it seems Putin, who has created a domestic situation where he is all powerful, is indestructible.

Now in the US outspoken critic Kasparov is clear that Putin is more dangerous today than ever.

He said: "Putin wants chaos because that is how he installs his authority inside and outside, he can't compete in a free world.

"He wants wars because he can make quick decisions, he doesn't bother with parliament or free press."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/vladimir-putin-profile-russian-president-12144576​

BBC docu of Putin's rise to power: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09vb7m3 , unfortunately I can't find a way to play it, and even YouTube has blocked pirated versions. Ah!! Here it is:

Here is a tepid critique of the BBC docu: http://subscriber.telegraph.co.uk/t...eview-attempt-diagnose-putin-addict-absolute/

What if we propose to Putin that he release the tape on Agent Orange Leaks in exchange for letting him take over all of AOL's golf resorts, renaming the activity there Putin Holski Topless Polo (PHiTPolo for short - and as it just rolls of the tongue - in Russian, that is)? And, of course, we'd get 9.41 percent of the gross action (finder's fees and royalties).

Putin getting ready to play PHiTPolo at his Siberian resort:

BTW, there are scurrilous claims that Putin was really an orphan, and that the photos of his 'parents' are fake. Thus that he was made to act as a boy prostitute before his employment with the KGB. Certainly this is outrageous, but if true, imagine that he might be under someone else's control, but whose?

Putin, or his sponsors(?), have indeed branded him as something of a macho James Bond figure, including his being an expert in martial arts, with Putin even having a book published on the topic. Including having a book, he is posed as a narcissistic poseur like Agent Orange Leaks. Look at those man boobs and sixless 6 pack above.

Putin co-authored a book on his favorite sport, published in Russian as Judo with Vladimir Putin, and in English under the title Judo: History, Theory, Practice (2004).[447] Benjamin Wittes, a black belt in taekwondo and aikido and editor of Lawfare, has disputed Putin's martial arts skills, saying that there is no video evidence of Putin displaying any actual noteworthy judo skills.[448][449] ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin​

 

[Richard Stanley]

While apparently not making the claim that Putin was a boy prostitute, as mentioned in the prior post, a Russian tabloid writer makes the claim that Putin is indeed a closet gay. This narrative is much like the claim made by Machtan is his Hidden Hitler, where Hitler and his inner circle were thus coerced into their role because of the threat of being outed in an otherwise conservative (Catholic and Lutheran) society - obviously ignoring the libertine excesses of the Wiemar Republic era in places like Berlin. However, Machtan provided plenty of evidence for his claim, different than such as Putin posing to appear to be a macho man, aka 'over-compensating'.

To supporters, Russian President Vladimir Putin is his country's savior. To his opponents, he's little more than a relentless tyrant. In the Wikileaks diplomatic cables, he is likened to cartoon superhero Batman; US business magazine Forbes has just chosen him as one of the most influential people on the planet. Yet there is one thing that pretty much no one has claimed before: That the ruler of the world's largest country (by land), with 143 million inhabitants, nuclear weapons and huge quantities of natural resources, is in reality a pathetic weakling.

But Moscow political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky, 42, has alleged exactly that in his new book, whose subtitle promises no less than "the whole truth about Putin." Russian publishers steered clear of the scandalous work, and Belkovsky has stood out for years, popping up again and again with his impudent and salacious claims about Putin. A not small number of people even believe that the reporter is given protection by high-ranking members of the Russian intelligence community.

Belkovsky, the star columnist at a Moscow tabloid, believes the key to understanding Putin lies in his unhappy childhood.

"The small Vladimir, who grew up practically without a father and without the love and care of his parents, was a withdrawn and grim child," the political scientist wrote. According to this version of events, Putin was born the son of an alcoholic two years before his official birth date. His mother had moved to Georgia with Vladimir, only for the child to be shunted off to what was then called Leningrad a short time later to the couple who would become the official parents of the future president.

Belkovsky is unable to provide proof, such as extracts from the registry of births, to back this up. Instead, he talks darkly about the mysterious death of a well-known investigative journalist who had been trying to unravel the mystery surrounding Putin's birth before he was killed in a private jet crash. According to Belkovsky, Putin has spent his entire adult life in search of a surrogate family. In Boris Yeltsin, he saw a surrogate father and in the oligarch and football club owner Roman Abramovich, an orphan, he saw a surrogate brother. ...
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ian-president-flees-from-people-a-936801.html​

 

[Richard Stanley]

The followed excerpt is the opening of a long article on Putin's method of controlling his particular fake democracy. Somewhat similar to Trump, Putin is an authoritarian, fake populist, while he seems better at hiding his alleged ill-gotten gains. Trump has something of an advantage in having more maneuvering space to garner money ... and Trump enjoys showing it off as well.

The narrative that seems to emerge from here and above, correctly or not, is that Putin claims to have desired to develop closer ties to the 'West' so as to improve the status of Russia, economically and otherwise. But, apparently unable to keep his hands off of the typically corruption cookie jar these ambitions fell in priority to his personal ambitions for wealth and power. The drive to maintain power for as long as possible is also likely fueled by the knowledge that once he leaves power that his thefts will more likely be exposed.

In any case, the picture described below does not sound like a Vltchekian worker's paradise to me.

What might Russia look like if someone other than Vladimir Putin was the country's president? A video making the rounds on Russian social networks recently provided an answer to that question. It's an advertisement encouraging people to take part in the upcoming presidential election on March 18.

The clip shows a man climbing into bed on the eve of the election and telling his wife that he's not planning to vote. When he wakes up, Russia has completely changed. At the door is a black soldier who is part of an army unit seeking to conscript the man into the military. The man's son is wearing a pioneer kerchief of the kind children wore during Soviet times. And in the kitchen is a gay man the state has sent to the family for accommodation.

The whole thing, of course, is a nightmare from which the protagonist awakens with sufficient time to rush to the ballot box after all. He has understood that Russia could fall into dangerous hands if he doesn't act.

It has now been 18 years since Vladimir Putin was first elected president of Russia. But of all the elections in which he has been a candidate, the one scheduled for March 18 is perhaps the most absurd -- something that the video clearly illustrates. It implies that the coming vote is vital for the fate of the country, essentially making a mockery of itself. A Russia without Putin, the director of the video seems to be suggesting, can only be imagined as a joke: with blacks at the door and gay men at the kitchen table. Voters are being called on to prevent a scenario that isn't even possible in the first place.

In hindsight, the election six years ago seems so different. A wave of protest was crashing over Moscow and St. Petersburg at the time. "Putin is a thief!" the masses chanted at large rallies.

Today, it's hard to imagine a Russia without Putin at the helm. In the last 18 years, he has become synonymous with his country; he has become just as omnipresent and pervasive to Russians as the country's flag. Essentially, holding an election is unnecessary, a viewpoint that Putin himself would no doubt agree with. Thus far, he has chosen to forgo anything resembling a campaign. And as if to prove that he no longer sees a difference between himself and the office he holds, he presented his campaign platform last Thursday during his annual address to the two houses of Russian parliament.

There was something in it for everyone. Putin pledged to slash poverty in half, but also promised new miracle weapons for the army, including long-range nuclear missiles that can "reach anywhere in the world." An animated clip projected on giant screens showed the new weapons destroying their targets, presumably located in America. There was ample applause. ...
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ssia-and-its-eternal-president-a-1197076.html​

 

[Jerry Russell]

President Yeltsin would dismiss the prosecutor in the wake of the scandal, calling upon his newly positioned chief legal officer, Putin, to explain to the Russian public why the dismissal was justified and constitutional.

With his prosecutor and a potential rival out of the way, Yeltsin’s rule continued unchallenged, and Putin, now a household name thanks to the scandal, would soon be appointed Russia’s new prime minister by the grateful Yeltsin. When Yeltsin suddenly stepped down from power on Dec. 31, 1999, it was Putin who became Russia’s new acting president. And Putin’s first decree as president? You guessed it, granting Yeltsin and his family immunity from any future corruption probes. ...

I agree this is troubling, that Putin gained power as Yeltsin's protege. The evidence against Skuratov was sketchy at best -- showing that when one's political goose is cooked, there doesn't need to be real evidence to create a scandal.

So Putin made a deal to pardon Yeltsin and his family, and let them go free, in exchange for turning power over to Putin. But the next part of the saga is, that Putin made some real changes in Russian policies. He quit rolling over to IMF demands, and stopped the looting of the country by the West.

The change in policy, and the results, are documented in this little film from South Front. I have no idea who these guys are. They point to a number of other factors in play at the time that power was transferred from Yeltsin to Putin.

Or, transcript here:

https://southfront.org/russias-long-road-toward-resurgence/

On February 27, 2015, Nemtsov was killed, shot in the back and head as he walked one evening near the Kremlin.

No one witnessed the murder and the CCTV cameras on the Kremlin walls were coincidentally switched off at the time.

The message was clear: Cross me and I will kill you.

Whether the message was clear, depends on who you believe. But, it's not true that "no one witnessed the murder". Nemtsov's girlfriend was right there. The killers were careful to leave her alive.

Putin's government moved quickly to investigate the killing, and a group of Chechen radicals was arrested. Greanville Post translated from Fort Russ Dispatch (whatever that is):

http://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/03/03/suspects-named-in-nemtsovs-murder/

The Nemtsov murder investigation has focused on the theory that the crime was organized by a Chechen militant commander Adam Osmayev, of the Dzhokhar Dudayev battalion, who also was named in the case concerning the attempt to assassinate Vladimir Putin. Investigators are allowing for the possibility that the militants, who fought against DPR and LPR, operated at the behest of Ukrainian secret services, since the murder of the opposition leader would have discredited the Russian leadership and destabilize the political situation.
​

According to RT, the group of five Chechens was convicted of murdering Nemtsov in exchange for a payment of 15 million rubles. Who paid for the murder remains an unsolved mystery.

https://www.rt.com/politics/394585-jury-court-passes-verdict-in/

Stephen Lendman argued that the criterion of cui bono points strongly at the Americans, not Putin.

http://stephenlendman.org/2015/02/nemtsov-murder-anti-putin-false-flag/

His demise has all the earmarks of a CIA-staged false flag. Expect no evidence whatever surfacing suggesting Putin’s involvement.

Nemtsov’s martyrdom is much more valuable to Washington than using him alive as an impotent opposition figure.

Despite challenging economic conditions, Putin’s approval rating exceeds 85%. Nemtsov’s party has less than 5%. He was no popular favorite. Most Russians disliked him.

Expect his hyped martyrdom to be fully exploited in the West. Does Washington plan more political assassinations to heighten the Nemtsov effect?

Expect Sunday’s march to be nothing more than another US failed attempt to enlist anti-Putin support.

Russians aren’t stupid. They know how Washington operates. How it vilifies their government. How neocon lunatics in charge are capable of anything.​

In hindsight, the election six years ago seems so different. A wave of protest was crashing over Moscow and St. Petersburg at the time. "Putin is a thief!" the masses chanted at large rallies.

In spite of that, Putin won that election with 63.6% of the vote. The #2 candidate was Zyuganov of the Communist Party. I'm stumped as to who those chanting masses voted for, if anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012

A Russia without Putin, the director of the video seems to be suggesting, can only be imagined as a joke: with blacks at the door and gay men at the kitchen table.

Umm... the described video would be portraying a Russia invaded by America; or rather, Russia's worst fantasy view of what America has become.

Apparently it worked, the Russians overwhelmingly voted for Putin again. I honestly doubt that they are worried much about whether he's an orphan, or whether he's really as much of a Judo master as he claims to be.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Here is the video discussed in the Spiegel article. I think it's telling that Spiegel completely misses the point of the video, which is either that Russia has been invaded by Americans, or has elected a pro-American liberal candidate. (In a dream, it's all the same.)

The video exhibits exactly the same horror of "cultural degradation" that we've heard about before around here. The fear is that this "degradation" will be forced on the hetero-normal "victim" by the state.

There's a video by The Young Turks that portrays this as if it's an un-ironic exhibition of homophobia.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Umm... the described video would be portraying a Russia invaded by America; or rather, Russia's worst fantasy view of what America has become.

So you agree that this is horrible Russian propaganda. I have no blacks or gay men at my door (well except for some black Jehovah's Witnesses that is).

Overall, I would say that the entire gestalt is not in favor of Putin, as it is the same for the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama, etc.. The words straight out of the Russian mouths of Putin's former associates (in the BBC docu) are damning enough. Putin is going to act in Putin's interest, just like Trump does, which both align with the 'revelatory' script.

If my End Times analysis is correct, then the Russians are indeed scripted, in the scriptures, to be playing the dialectic role with the ... uhmmm 'West'. Just as many apocalyptic minded Xians believe.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Here is the video discussed in the Spiegel article. I think it's telling that Spiegel completely misses the point of the video, which is either that Russia has been invaded by Americans, or has elected a pro-American liberal candidate. (In a dream, it's all the same.)

I don't see anything that indicates that Russia is being portrayed as being invaded by Americans in the video. Exaggerated Western cultural norms, yes.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I don't know if I can stomach that BBC propaganda video. It opens by calling Putin "The world's most powerful and feared leader." I call bullshit: Trump should be mentioned as competition, at least.

Look at this BBC picture of Britain's opposition party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. He had the temerity to question the ridiculous narrative about the Skripal poisoning, and in retaliation he's portrayed with a Russian bearskin hat, in red tones, with the Kremlin behind his back. And I'm supposed to trust this source for an unbiased view of Putin?

I don't see anything that indicates that Russia is being portrayed as being invaded by Americans in the video. Exaggerated Western cultural norms, yes.

Exaggerated Western cultural norms, yes, I'll buy that. But where did that black guy come from?

 

[Richard Stanley]

But where did that black guy come from?

I'm not sure, but you said that I said all those things, when in reality those were from excerpts, not me.

I'm more than willing to accept that such as the USA and Britain have dirty hands in these affairs, as with elsewhere, but neither am I willing to grant Putin any Vltchekian credibility whatsoever. It is a Hobson's Choice as far as I'm concerned.