The Propaganda War

[lordtiberius]

Still got nothing.

[Boethius]

This could be subtitled the "useful idiots" thread -

From the far right to the radical left, populist parties across Europe are being courted by Russia's Vladimir Putin who aims to turn them into allies in his anti-EU campaign.

The Front National (FN) in France, Syriza in Greece and Jobbik in Hungary may be the most famous ones but they are far from being alone. Some, like Britain's UKIP, have adopted a "benevolent neutrality" toward Putin.

They are united in their objective to "challenge the EU", and this in turn aligns them with Russia's wish for a "weak and divided Europe", explains Hungarian political analyst Peter Kreko.

In the longer term, the Kremlin banks on these parties' accession to power to change Europe and separate it from NATO and the United States.

"Moscow wants to establish long-term alliances with all those loyal to Russia," says Russian analyst Konstantin Kalatchev of the Political Expert Group.
These parties also help to promote the Kremlin's internal communications. When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, self-proclaimed "monitors" from the FN and Austria's Freedom Party (FPO) told Russian TV that due process had been followed.

A whiff of the Cold War pervades "this outdated Communist-era style of spreading propaganda and finding allies," said Jean-Yves Camus, a specialist of the French extreme-right.

But there exists, nevertheless, "a community of shared values", he argued, including opposition to gay marriage, an issue that fuels the idea of a decadent Europe -- "a hot topic in Moscow".

Russia's seduction strategy is also aimed at factions of the European left. "In Germany, the left is the biggest critic of Merkel's Russia policies," notes Kalatchev.

One of the benefits of closer ties with Moscow could be financial support. The FN recently received a loan worth nine million euros ($9.8 million; £6.6 million) from the Czech Russian Bank.

French news website Mediapart reported this week that hacked text messages exchanged between Russian officials proved there was a link between Russian financing and party support for Putin.

Despite lingering suspicions, there is no further proof of direct party funding, even if the WikiLeaks affair revealed that the US ambassador in Sofia had expressed worry about possible Russian transfers to Bulgaria's ultra-nationalist Ataka (Attack) party.

Ataka leader Volen Siderov launched his 2014 European election campaign in Moscow, just as the Ukrainian crisis erupted.

A majority of European populist parties have sided with Russia over Ukraine.

The FN, for instance, has repeatedly described the country's east and Crimea as Russia's historical cradle.

New Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras flew to Moscow in May 2014 while he was still opposition leader. The visit came two months after Crimea's annexation.

His far-left Syriza party illustrates the blurring of political etiquette whenever Moscow is involved.

Greece's Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias, a former communist, was photographed in 2013 with Russian ultra-nationalist Alexandre Douguine, an influential promoter of a Russian-led Eurasian alliance between Europe and Russia.

Yet, now that Tsipras and Kotzias are in power, their party no longer advocates Greece's exit from NATO.

But Greece could still "paralyse" Nato by vetoing military action against Moscow, warns former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

However, for now the Kremlin and its populist allies have been unable to break Europe's unified pro-sanctions stance against Russia.

The populist parties also failed to form a cohesive political group in the European Parliament in 2014.

But the Kremlin's right-wing strategists have long-term ambitions, according to Kalatchev.

In their eyes, "now is the time to create links with those who could become useful in the future. It's the dawn of a new Europe."

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/26931202/russia-gambles-on-populist-parties-in-anti-eu-campaign/

[SANDRO43]

In their eyes, "now is the time to create links with those who could become useful in the future. "

Nothing new, the Soviets did that during the Cold War with various extreme-left-wing movements. The apparent irony is that Russia is now courting European right-wing formations , but no great surprise since that country is becoming more and more similar to a banana republic .

[Boethius]

Yes, and the Soviets funded them as well.  I know the Italian communist party received funding from the USSR.


This reminds me of a story.  I was staying with a close high school friend, and phoned hubby while there.  In those days, it was incredibly expensive.  My friend had a wide circle of acquaintances, and one, who I never met, was always lecturing her on how others should live, was the communist party candidate in our federal election.  My friend is Jewish, German surname, though her father was from Poland.  Her mother was from Germany, and converted to Judaism when she married.  But most people didn't know that, and assumed she was German. 


When the commie saw the telephone bill, casually on the front table, with a call to "USSR" (it never specified where), her eyes just about popped out of her head.  My friend never explained why she had a call to the USSR, and the commie treated my friend with kid gloves thereafter.

[lordtiberius]

Nothing new,  . . .  but no great surprise since that country is becoming more and more similar to a banana republic .

We agree.  But in fairness, banana republics were more rational.

[southernX]

good move imo
 could it spark something within lithuania by pro russians ??
SX
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lithuania bans Russian TV station


Lithuania’s media watchdog has blocked broadasts by Russian TV channel RTR Planeta on grounds of inciting hatred over Ukraine.

Its Radio and Television Commission took the decision on Wednesday (8 April), with the three-month ban to enter into force on 13 April.

“In the light of events in Ukraine, the channel transmitted propagation of violence and instigation of war”, Mantas Martisius, a member of the Lithuanian regulator and a scholar at Vilnius University, told EUobserver.

The commission said RTR Planeta is portraying Ukrainian people as enemies of Russia and showing contempt for Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

It referred to a show including remarks by Vladimir Zhirinovski, a Russian nationalist MP and Duma vice chairman, who, the commission says, called on people to “deal with Ukraine”.

The Lithuanian military’s strategic communications bureau, which consults the Radio and Television Commission, pushed for the ban and defended it on Lithuanian public radio.

“When we deal with open lies, the state has to react and to show people that it cares about core values”, the bureau’s Karolis Zikaras said.

He described Russian propaganda as “information nihilism”.




He also said Lithuania should promote Lithuanian and Western media products because some Russian media benefit from Russian state subsidies while most Western broadcasters have to compete on the open market.

RTR Planeta is a cable and satellite TV channel owned by Russian state firm VGTRK.

It is licensed in Sweden and broadcasts in the Baltic states but all its cotent is made in Russia and aired in Russian.

The blanket ban on all of RTR Planeta’s shows in Lithuania is a first in the EU, the Lithuanian media regulator noted.

It comes after initial warnings and mini-bans, last March, on some RTR Planeta content, as well as bans on some shows by, Ren TV, another Russian state firm.

The RTR Planeta decision has stirred some debate in Lithuania.

There is criticism of the involvement of the military in the procedure.

There is also discussion on the merits of a new Law on Public Information.

The bill, proposed by president Dalia Grybauskaite, is to impose penalties on broadcasters and re-broadcasters that spread war propaganda, try to instigate changes to the constitutional order in Lithuania, or which are deemed to harm Lithuanian sovereignty.

For his part, Vilnius University’s Martisius said there should be better EU-level regulation on propaganda.

Referring to the EU’s audiovisual media market and TV without frontiers directive, he said hostile states are using EU freedoms to harm EU insterests.

He said some Russian broadcasters, which are licencsed in, say, Sweden or the UK, violate both national and EU-level hate speech laws, but procedures are too slow and too complicated to take them off the air.

“The idea was to create an open liberal media market but we have to understand that regulations are being exploited,” Martisius said.

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShare on linkedinShare on printMore Sharing Services2

http://euobserver.com/beyond-brussels/128267

[AkMike]

Good for them! 

 Isolate the creeping crud. 

[Photo Guy]

Omit

[fathertime]

As I was browsing about the internet, I ran across this piece of what might be propaganda on FOX NEWS:    According to the General in charge of our Air Force, we will no longer have air superiority against Russia and China in the next 3-5 years. 


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/25/budget-cuts-impact-us-ability-to-fight-enemy-air-force-general-warns/


Budget cuts impact US ability to fight the enemy, Air Force general warns

In an exclusive interview with Fox News, Gen. Mark Welsh, the head of the U.S. Air Force, warns that severe defense budget cuts will impact U.S. air superiority against enemies that the nation may not be thinking about right now.

“China and Russia are two good examples of countries who will be fielding capability in the next three to five years; if they stay on track, that is better than what we currently have in many areas,” Welsh said during a three-day visit to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia.

“Fighter aircraft in the next three to five years that have more capability than what we currently have sitting on the ramp......



Fathertime! 

[Muzh]

As I was browsing about the internet, I ran across this piece of what might be propaganda on FOX NEWS


Fathertime!

GASP!!!


Say it ain't so!!!


The only propaganda you will see on TV is from George Stephanopoulos.

[mendeleyev]

Russian female sues government over her employment as a paid Putin propaganda troll.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/29/russia-troll-sues-former-employer

[jone]

I would expect that story to be widely trolled by her former workmates.

[JayH]

Still speaking out-it just needs more Russians to be brave enough.

Daughter Nemtsov asks EU sanctions to punish Putin's propagandists


The daughter of murdered Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov Jeanne Speaker of the Senate of Poland gave a list of Russian media propaganda employees responsible for the harassment and incitement to murder her father.  She asked the Polish authorities to facilitate the introduction of EU sanctions against these persons, writes Radio Poland
Більше читайте тут: http://tsn.ua/svit/dochka-nyemcova-prosit-yes-pokarati-sankciyami-putinskih-propagandistiv-430929.html




Більше читайте тут: http://tsn.ua/svit/dochka-nyemcova-prosit-yes-pokarati-sankciyami-putinskih-propagandistiv-430929.html

[JayH]

The information keeps coming- the more time that goes by -the more information is coming to light. The contempt Russia is showing to the truth is so dangerous in it's execution-- it is about time western countries woke up and did something about it.

Even today--on this forum-under the heading "Russian News" -- a member here has posted more Russian lies over  the shooting down of MH17- it is NOT "news"-- but an attempt to portray propaganda lies as news.

Wake up people and see how this is an abuse of the truth.

Below is another story that illustrates the depths that the Kremlin is going to to perpetrate Russian lying-- and the resultant confusion created must have them laughing themselves silly at how stupid western media is .

The Agency
From a nondescript office building in St. Petersburg, Russia, an army of well-paid “trolls” has tried to wreak havoc all around the Internet — and in real-life American communities.

Around 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 11 last year, Duval Arthur, director of the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness for St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, got a call from a resident who had just received a disturbing text message. “Toxic fume hazard warning in this area until 1:30 PM,” the message read. “Take Shelter. Check Local Media and columbiachemical.com.”

St. Mary Parish is home to many processing plants for chemicals and natural gas, and keeping track of dangerous accidents at those plants is Arthur’s job. But he hadn’t heard of any chemical release that morning. In fact, he hadn’t even heard of Columbia Chemical. St. Mary Parish had a Columbian Chemicals plant, which made carbon black, a petroleum product used in rubber and plastics. But he’d heard nothing from them that morning, either. Soon, two other residents called and reported the same text message. Arthur was worried: Had one of his employees sent out an alert without telling him?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=2

[fathertime]

As I was casually browsing about the internet I came across a story that seems to demonstrate that WE, the American's are also victims of propaganda and don't seem to recognize it, which I imagine is what makes the propaganda so effective.


I recall many years ago, we were told how we do not torture prisoners, then I later recall later admissions that we do 'waterboard' prisoners on occasion.  NOW many, many years later more is coming out. Apparently we conducted a hell of a lot more than waterboarding.  In this particular Reuters story, what has been recounted is definitely pure torture. 


I am not giving an opinion here regarding whether the torture should or should not have happened.  The point is that we were likely lied to for many many years, and only now when the issue is far in the background is the truth slowly being exposed.  Our media was kept in the dark, and hence all we received was propaganda.    if this can happen regarding this story, it can and does happen with other stories currently in the forefront, especially regarding Russia/Ukraine.  I have to chuckle when I read from those who are so brainwashed as to think that only others are subjected to propaganda...


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/us-usa-torture-khan-idUSKBN0OI1TW20150602


Exclusive: Detainee alleges CIA sexual abuse, torture beyond Senate findings



The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a wider array of sexual abuse and other forms of torture than was disclosed in a Senate report last year, according to a Guantanamo Bay detainee turned government cooperating witness.

Majid Khan said interrogators poured ice water on his genitals, twice videotaped him naked and repeatedly touched his "private parts" – none of which was described in the Senate report. Interrogators, some of whom smelled of alcohol, also threatened to beat him with a hammer, baseball bats, sticks and leather belts, Khan said.....




Fathertime!

[Anotherkiwi]

The information keeps coming- the more time that goes by -the more information is coming to light. The contempt Russia is showing to the truth is so dangerous in it's execution-- it is about time western countries woke up and did something about it.

Agreed.

Even today--on this forum-under the heading "Russian News" -- a member here has posted more Russian lies over  the shooting down of MH17- it is NOT "news"-- but an attempt to portray propaganda lies as news.

Wake up people and see how this is an abuse of the truth.

Jay, I responded in the other thread as well.  What Bill posted IS news: where is the propaganda in the main point of the article?  The head of the company which makes BUK missiles has admitted that a BUK was used to shoot down MH-17. This, as a headline, should take up the front page of every newspaper in the free world.  I'll agree that his going on to say that it was "an earlier model that Russia doesn't use any more" and therefore it must have been used by Ukraine can surely be seen as nonsensical propaganda.  Unless the part of the missile which had its part number and serial number stencilled on it was recovered, how could ANYBODY possibly be so certain which version of the missile was used?

Below is another story that illustrates the depths that the Kremlin is going to to perpetrate Russian lying-- and the resultant confusion created must have them laughing themselves silly at how stupid western media is .

The Agency
From a nondescript office building in St. Petersburg, Russia, an army of well-paid “trolls” has tried to wreak havoc all around the Internet — and in real-life American communities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=2

That is an amazing article by Adrian Chen.  Thank you for posting it.

[calmissile]

Quote "Unless the part of the missile which had its part number and serial number stencilled on it was recovered, how could ANYBODY possibly be so certain which version of the missile was used?"

As I recall, some fragments of the warhead were recovered at the crash site and it is claimed that they are from the warhead of the later design and not used in the earlier design.

[Photo Guy]

Netflix:
'Hitler and the Nazis'.
I just finishing watching this series. It's amazing and jolting to see that Hitler used a lot of the same propaganda techniques as Putin is now using. Putin has increased Russia's isolation while using that isolation to create a martyr complex among his people. It's an 'Us versus Them' mentality. Putin cares only about his imaginary empire that must expand and defend itself against imaginary threats- the USA and the EU. Putin rarely speaks of democracy, because he's a throwback to a time of tyrants. Like Hitler, a lot of who he is, is based on a cult of personality. He's up there on a pedestal and his own people can't see that he's ruining Russia. Check out the Netflix series! 

[Photo Guy]

Fighting Russian Propaganda:
Who can trust this guy? Putin's lies:

http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-russia-lies-ukraine-state-department-2014-4

[calmissile]

Fighting Russian Propaganda:
Who can trust this guy? Putin's lies:

http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-russia-lies-ukraine-state-department-2014-4

I am surprised that Obama had the balls to allow the state department to release this.  Now that Putin has near total control over the media that Russians have access to, it seems unlikely that the ordinary Russian will see the truth about their dictator.  It might help if the gutless EU would also widely publish a similar list.  Perhaps it can get through to at least a few in Russia.

Seems to me that with Putin following much of Hitlers methods, he has much more in his future plans than just Crimea and Ukraine.  Putin has a dilemma.  He knows that Europe is too cowardly and ill equipped to defend themselves against an invasion.  At the same time, he has only a year and one half of Obama remaining in office.  He risks that a new US President will take a much stronger position toward containing his aggression toward other nations.

Basically, Putin has a year and one half to achieve any new conquests.  This should be an interesting period to watch.

[Anotherkiwi]

Fighting Russian Propaganda:
Who can trust this guy? Putin's lies:

http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-russia-lies-ukraine-state-department-2014-4

I am surprised that Obama had the balls to allow the state department to release this.

Guys, guys, guys - did you not see the date?  April 2014!!!!  Rather a lot has happened since then.

Now that Putin has near total control over the media that Russians have access to, it seems unlikely that the ordinary Russian will see the truth about their dictator.  It might help if the gutless EU would also widely publish a similar list.  Perhaps it can get through to at least a few in Russia.

It would be extremely interesting to see an update - if the State Department is allowed to.

[Boethius]

Yesterday, Corriere della Sera, one of Italy's' oldest newspapers, published an interview with Putin.  Much of what Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia, stated in an interview about a month ago is foreshadowed in that interview, in particular, about splitting Western alliances and justifying their heinous policies.

Below is the interview with Mr. McFaul.


U.W.: When western policymakers were trying to democratize Russia, why did they overlook – intentionally or not – the rise of the regime that Russia has today?

The first thing that I would say is that outsiders have very limited influence on democratic processes internally, especially in big countries. So, the influence of the West was always very marginal in Russia. And it should never be overestimated. The biggest difference of Russia compared to more successful democratic transitions in the post-communist region was that there was a division between those who wanted to move forward and become more democratic and those who did not. In other countries, such as Poland or Estonia, there was more consensus from the very beginning. So they had a better start.

The second thing is that old institutions of the Soviet system, such as the KGB, remained in place. And we didn’t pay enough attention to them, whereas they totally collapsed in other places.

The third thing we generally know about democratic transitions is called the ‘resource curse’ in the Western academic literature. It says that if you get the majority of revenues from natural resources, you are not dependant on tax payers to raise money for the government. If you are dependent on the taxpayers to raise revenues, then you have to listen to the taxpayers. And there is a lot of research that shows that countries, which are heavy oil and gas exporters around the world, not just in Europe, tend to be more autocratic than democratic.

I also think the failure for Russian democracy to consolidate was very contingent. One can imagine just a few facts being different that might have changed the trajectory. The Russian people did not select Putin. Yeltsin did. There is no way that Putin would have become the President of Russia, if Yeltsin hadn’t selected him. He had never won an election at any level before 2000. So it was not inevitable, that whoever came after Yeltsin would stay in power for fifteen years. Had he chosen Nemtsov, who was one of other candidates at that time, Russian political history could have been very different.

People often forget that, but I think it’s an important point. There is some assumption that it was inevitable, that Putin would be the next leader after Yeltsin. I think that’s not true. It was an accident of history.

U.W.: The U.S. used to consider Russia as regional leader. Has this vision changed? If so, what country or a group of countries is considered to be a potential strategic leader in Eastern Europe now?

There have been periods in the U.S.-Russia relations after the Cold War, when we cooperated very closely on big important issues. One was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The beginning of the Clinton Administration was certainly like that. There was still a high degree of cooperation with the Bush Administration after September 11, then during the “reset” in the early years of the Obama Administration. It’s not true today. We are now in a much more competitive environment with Russia. Therefore, those who are competitive with Russia are like our allies. So without question Ukraine is a very important country right now for not just this part of the world, but for the entire world – because of the norms that were violated with Russian intervention into Ukraine. It’s not just about Ukraine, it’s about the international system that is being challenged by what Russia is doing.

U.W.: Going back to the “reset policy”, why do you think it has not brought forth the expected results?

It had delivered lots of results in the beginning. We got a new START treaty, sanctions on Iran, new supplies to our groups in Afghanistan, and we got Russia into the WTO. Those results were and remain good. The change then happened in Russia internally. Putin had a different view about America, so our ability to work with him diminished. The “reset” was really over in 2012.

U.W.: Now we see that Putin is winning more and more allies in the West among the EU countries. Do you think there is a way to restrain him somehow?

I believe that to maintain unity is No1 foreign policy challenge for the United States. I’m really nervous about it. I think the allies in NATO need to remember why the alliance was created in the first place and to reaffirm solidarity to it. It has been the most successful alliance in modern history. What comes to the EU, of course we are not a member of it, but we have an interest in seeing the EU succeed. And you are right, Putin is challenging that. I think it is really a new drama that we have not experienced for many-many years, when Russia is trying to peel away allies and to peel away members of the EU. It is a very serious question.

U.W.: Can the supply of arms to Ukraine be approved before the presidential election in the U.S.? Under which circumstances?

It all depends on Putin. If Putin escalates the military campaign in Eastern Ukraine, that will lead to more weapons for Ukraine. If he doesn’t, then I don’t expect the Obama Administration to send new weapons. I do however think there could be changes after the election in the United States.

U.W.: What do you see as the future scenario for the Donbas and Crimea?

I’m not optimistic. I think Putin has made a decision to pursue aggressive policy and he has explained to his people that he is fighting NATO, Nazis, and evil. That already describes it. It’s hard to negotiate with Nazis, it’s hard to negotiate with the devil. How does he then reverse his propaganda and say: “Well, now we’re going to negotiate with these very evil people”? That would be hard to do in domestic terms.

Ukraine and Ukrainian partners in the West should continue to try to negotiate and seek a settlement. War serves nobody’s interest and there have been so many needless, totally tragic, unnecessary deaths in Ukraine already. But I’m not optimistic.

U.W.: If a new political leader comes to power in Russia?       
It all depends on who will come to power. But I do think that would create a moment for change, like it does in all countries.

In the long run, however, I’m actually optimistic about Russia. When people become economically rich they demand a more representative government. It happened in Europe, Asia and Latin America. And I have no reason to believe that Russia will somehow be unique in that respect. Russian leaders today talk about how unique and different Russia is, but I met a lot of Russians when I lived there and they didn’t seem that unique to me. They seemed like they cared mostly about their own financial situation, the future of their children, and wanted to live peacefully and free of corruption. They did not seem too interested in supporting the revival of the Russian empire, supporting a war, or securing some special place for Russia in the world.  Maybe people who think this way are not in the majority right now, but I expect that those people will define foreign policy twenty years from now.

U.W.: How much does the future of the Donbas and Crimea depend on Russia now?

It’s mostly about Russia, unfortunately, because I don’t see the will of the international community to use coercive power to change the situation in either place. There would be a change option theoretically, in terms of capacity, but I don’t see one in terms of intentions. There are very few people who want to go to war with Russia over Crimea of the Donbas in my country. My guess is that the same is true in most of Europe. I do believe, however, that there are many people in the United States who want to help Ukraine to defend itself. I am one of them. That debate is still ongoing.

In the long run, however, Ukraine’s economic and democratic success is crucial for reunification. Ukraine is not the first divided society. Other countries have endured this kind of occupation and division. Success stories after the division are those where it was clear that one side lived better than other. In Germany, for instance, the attractiveness of West Germany’s model helped bring about reunification. 

U.W.: You mentioned earlier that big decisions in politics are often made based on emotions rather than logic. Do think that Putin is acting based on emotions? How would you describe his psychological portrait as a politician?

So in the long run that’s a very important thing for the Ukrainians to remember that they need to make their country a much more attractive place to be part of, compared to the alternative of living in Russia or some ambiguous zone of sovereignty like the Donbas right now. People in the Donbas should clearly understand that Russia is not helping them. Putin is just using them to weaken Ukraine, not actually thinking much about their wellbeing or future; he is deliberately keeping it ambiguous. If I were living there and were thinking about how I am going to raise my kids in a place that is ambiguous in terms of sovereignty, I would want to leave.  Are people in the Donbas better off today than they were two years ago? The answer is no? Why are they worse off?  Because Putin’s proxies showed up and seized power. Someday, I hope they will understand the source of current economic despair and seek a return to normal life.

I see Putin more as a tactical leader, not a strategic one, and making emotional decisions. There is no question on my mind that that’s what happened with Crimea. When it was cheap to take Crimea, he became tempted to go further. That was unfortunate. Annexation should have been more costly to him. That could have helped to prevent the future aggression.

The other thing I would say is that he believes that time is on his side. He believes that the West will become disinterested. He believes that Ukraine will fail with its economic reforms, that it will not be able to recover economically and that would lead to political unrest and division again. They are waiting for the day when there will be massive protests against the government in Ukraine because of the new prices for energy or something like that. So Putin can be patient. He does not need a settlement; he can let things go for a very-very long time.

U.W.: What do you see as factors hampering reforms in Ukraine, in addition to war?

The main criticism and worry in the West about reforms in Ukraine is about corruption. In Washington, Brussels, and throughout the West, when Ukraine is mentioned they talk about the oligarchs and corruption with energy pricing on a massive scale. Tackling that in a serious way, especially right now, when there is enthusiasm for change in the society, as you said, may be the most important thing.

Some people say that criticism is not fair: “What about Russia? Russia is corrupt too”. But it’s not about fairness, it’s about reputation, it’s about trying to rehabilitate Ukraine’s image in Europe. Ukraine should become a normal, democratic, boring European country. That’s what we all aspire to see: just a normal, boring, democratic country. Not so much excitement any more. You had enough of excitement.

http://ukrainianweek.com/World/136638

[Brasscasing]

..."U.W.: When western policymakers were trying to democratize Russia, why did they overlook – intentionally or not – the rise of the regime that Russia has today?

The first thing that I would say is that outsiders have very limited influence on democratic processes internally, especially in big countries. So, the influence of the West was always very marginal in Russia. And it should never be overestimated. The biggest difference of Russia compared to more successful democratic transitions in the post-communist region was that there was a division between those who wanted to move forward and become more democratic and those who did not. In other countries, such as Poland or Estonia, there was more consensus from the very beginning. So they had a better start."...

..."The second thing is that old institutions of the Soviet system, such as the KGB, remained in place. And we didn’t pay enough attention to them, whereas they totally collapsed in other places."...


..."I also think the failure for Russian democracy to consolidate was very contingent. One can imagine just a few facts being different that might have changed the trajectory. The Russian people did not select Putin. Yeltsin did. There is no way that Putin would have become the President of Russia, if Yeltsin hadn’t selected him. He had never won an election at any level before 2000. So it was not inevitable, that whoever came after Yeltsin would stay in power for fifteen years. Had he chosen Nemtsov, who was one of other candidates at that time, Russian political history could have been very different.

People often forget that, but I think it’s an important point. There is some assumption that it was inevitable, that Putin would be the next leader after Yeltsin. I think that’s not true. It was an accident of history."...

As an aside, I've mentioned this a few years ago elsewhere but back around '93 or '94, while still in uniform, I had occasion to attend a security/intelligence briefing. There was also an officer in attendance who offered an opinion that went something like this;

20 years...maybe two generations and Russia will reassert itself back on the world stage. I remember him commenting that regardless of the move towards democracy (at the time) historically the Russian people had never known democracy and chances were they would return to an authoritarian government/state at sometime in the near future, or words to that effect.

Not much weight was given to the young officer's remarks at the time by the others in attendance.

Every now and then when something crops up in the media (like Bo's article) it  reminds me of that officer and how eerily accurate his assessment was.

Brass

[Photo Guy]

Nemtsov's Report (with help from his friends)(English)
Putin. War
http://4freerussia.org/putin.war/Putin.War-Eng.pdf

[Photo Guy]

As I was casually browsing about the internet I came across a story that seems to demonstrate that WE, the American's are also victims of propaganda and don't seem to recognize it, which I imagine is what makes the propaganda so effective.


I recall many years ago, we were told how we do not torture prisoners, then I later recall later admissions that we do 'waterboard' prisoners on occasion.  NOW many, many years later more is coming out. Apparently we conducted a hell of a lot more than waterboarding.  In this particular Reuters story, what has been recounted is definitely pure torture. 


I am not giving an opinion here regarding whether the torture should or should not have happened.  The point is that we were likely lied to for many many years, and only now when the issue is far in the background is the truth slowly being exposed.  Our media was kept in the dark, and hence all we received was propaganda.    if this can happen regarding this story, it can and does happen with other stories currently in the forefront, especially regarding Russia/Ukraine.  I have to chuckle when I read from those who are so brainwashed as to think that only others are subjected to propaganda...


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/us-usa-torture-khan-idUSKBN0OI1TW20150602


Exclusive: Detainee alleges CIA sexual abuse, torture beyond Senate findings



The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a wider array of sexual abuse and other forms of torture than was disclosed in a Senate report last year, according to a Guantanamo Bay detainee turned government cooperating witness.

Majid Khan said interrogators poured ice water on his genitals, twice videotaped him naked and repeatedly touched his "private parts" – none of which was described in the Senate report. Interrogators, some of whom smelled of alcohol, also threatened to beat him with a hammer, baseball bats, sticks and leather belts, Khan said.....

Fathertime!

You are right. There is a degree of propaganda, which is presented by various Western governments. So?
It's a ridiculous comparison because of the scale, the size of the infractions. It's like saying some murders in a Chicago neighborhood are comparable to Hitler's exterminations. The enormity of one violation, in contrast to a relatively small violation. The CIA's terrible tortures pale in comparison to the thousands of deaths in Ukraine, at the hands of Putin's devout pawns, who appear to be severely brainwashed by his propaganda. So, it's a question of degree. The West is NOT squeaky clean, but Putin's propaganda machine has lots of blood on its hands.