The New Russophobia 2

663 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NDPP wrote:

Kissinger's Vision For US-Russia Relations  -  by Henry A Kissinger

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/kissingers-vision-us-russia-relation...

"Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium..."

Good article NDPP. Although I consider Kissenger a war criminal he has had a major influence over US foreign policy at various times in his life so his opinions are worth reading. I found it interesting that the working group that was in place during the Bush administration seems to have been abandoned as soon as Obama took office at the start of 2009. Hopefully Sanders will win the election and unlike Obama he will prove to be a man of peace.

Quote:

From 2007 into 2009, Evgeny Primakov and I chaired a group composed of retired senior ministers, high officials and military leaders from Russia and the United States, including some of you present here today. Its purpose was to ease the adversarial aspects of the U.S.-Russian relationship and to consider opportunities for cooperative approaches. In America, it was described as a Track II group, which meant it was bipartisan and encouraged by the White House to explore but not negotiate on its behalf. We alternated meetings in each other’s country. President Putin received the group in Moscow in 2007, and President Medvedev in 2009. In 2008, President George W. Bush assembled most of his National Security team in the Cabinet Room for a dialogue with our guests.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/kissingers-vision-us-russia-relation...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

BBC: ITS THE RUSSIAN APOCALYPSE! No, really! Would the objective BBC lie to you?

Western MSM is a caricature of real news. The dissemination of mass idiocy. Truly.

BBC - How do you STOP the Russkies?

Quote:
Once again, Russia is being featured as Dr. Evil Incarnate, the villain that regularly plays opposite peace-loving NATO nations, in a BBC program that has Moscow initiating an invasion on Latvia followed up with a nuclear strike on Britain.

And just in time for the military-industrial shopping season.

This last comment refers to the "timely" discussion of 100 Billion to be spent on "aging" nuclear submarines. What's interesting about Latvia is that is has become a kind of imitation Israeli-style apartheid state, with ethnic Russians treated like sub-humans.

I do like the Kremlin's immediate response, however. lol.

Quote:

"Unfortunately, our colleagues from the BBC have lately resorted to making public products, of quite low-quality. Therefore, we haven't always been in a hurry to familiarize ourselves with them," Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters when asked whether the Kremlin has stayed up late to catch the film.

"It's simply not worth the time it takes to watch," Peskov said.

Bwa ha ha ha! Bwa ha ha ha!

NDPP

And in Canada too, we have been so stuffed with similar media 'public products of quite low-quality' that even our so-called progressive class and left has become infected, toxic and automatic in its Russophobia.  This hot-button is now available, hot and ready for the PTB to marshall their pawns and ready them for battle on behalf of the empire of chaos and its grotesqueries like Israel or Ukraine.

monty1

NDPP wrote:

And in Canada too, we have been so stuffed with similar media 'public products of quite low-quality' that even our so-called progressive class and left has become infected, toxic and automatic in its Russophobia.  This hot-button is now available, hot and ready for the PTB to marshall their pawns and ready them for battle on behalf of the empire of chaos and its grotesqueries like Israel or Ukraine.

If, or when it heats up in the ME, there is now a good possibility that Canada won't be in one of the front row seats. Like as in a bomber that gets shot down by the Russians. That's got a lot to do with the US being so pissed off or the Conservatives being so pissed off. Nobody really cares why the NDP'ers are pissed off.

And ya know, that is too bad from my POV. You can figure out why if you like. Or don't.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

"Some of the Russophobes will simpy have to drop dead. Their minds cannot be changed." (paraphrased)

Making Russia into an Enemy - Canadian Patrick Armstrong

Patrick Armstrong wrote:
Note February 2016. I wrote this in June 2012 as a suggestion to a website on what to do to counter the endless anti-Russia propaganda. In many ways, it summarises the theme of everything I have written since the early 1990s: the end of the Cold War gave us an opportunity to integrate Russia and the other USSR successor states into the winners’ circle. We failed to do that and, thereby, have set up the conditions for what we see today. And, there was no reason to do it. Moscow is now trying to counter the propaganda as I wished it would then; with some success, given the hysteria in the West about its loss of narrative control.

Here is where I paraphrased above ...

Quote:
Who’s guilty? Well there are those for whom Russia is and always will be the Eternal Enemy. And there are those who have a personal interest in denigrating Russia. There’s nothing that we can do to change their minds: we cannot reason them out of ideas they were not reasoned into. These people will die off eventually. As to the others, the imitators, the lazy, perhaps we can.

So, yeah. Russophobes will eventually drop dead. And, like linguistic conservatives (enemies of change in language, usage, etc.), that is good and right.

Quote:
What to do? All I can suggest is to keep chewing away at the memes – but it always takes more effort to defeat a meme than it does to re-type it. It’s like Hercules and the Hydra: as soon as you destroy one, another two are created.

One suggestion is to create a website – a sort of reference library – with pieces that counter some of the memes. (Although many of them cannot be countered by mere facts). I expect no great effect from this but it would at least make our jobs easier if we had a single source to point to.

Finally: I do wish Moscow would put more effort into countering this. I sometimes think that Russians are too proud to engage in PR. But they should.

 

Well put. And Russophobes? Drop dead. Even a former diplomat says you're a waste of time.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Putin - Putout!

Quote:
Slovenian comic and showman Klemen Slakonja has made a Eurovision parody song in which he mocks Vladimir Putin.
"When I play chess be quiet - or eat my Pussy Riot!" - would the song have any chance of winning Eurovision with these lines?


ikosmos ikosmos's picture

An interesting story in support of the just struggle of the Kurds and how pathological Russophobia hurts the left.

Quote:
Many on the left have been always consumed by an irrational hatred of all things Russian and are deeply suspicious of any action taken by Moscow. This prejudice is shared with liberal opinion and is compounded by the propaganda efforts of NGOs, such as those sponsored by the wealthy Soros Foundation, which promote a narrow Western neoliberal agenda.

This is all adding to the confusion among the left on the Kurdish issue. Anti-Russian attitudes widely persist today and tend to distort analysis of Syria too. The left needs to beware of how Turkey has been seeking to exploit this issue by cynically branding the Kurds as working for Putin and Assad.

We should repudiate these baseless insinuations and show solidarity with the Kurds in their heroic struggle against both Isis and Erdogan’s increasingly rogue state.

See more at Kurds Deserve a Wider International Recognition at PD Morning Star

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Water is wet and Russia is bad.

Why do Russians even exist? Shouldn't they just all die in a pool of their own blood? Can't we just bomb them? Why not??

 

Supplemental: the website, Russian Universe,  celebrates 3 years. There is a set of links relating to Essential Reading, Through the Looking Glass (Western Media Coverage of Russia), and so on. You'll learn what Klyukvification is (cranberry-ization is the literal translation. But the term has little to do with fresh fruit.), Some good, if brief, reading.

3 Years of Russian Universe.

Crussialism is a new, interesting term developed by the author. It refers to the eternal collapse of Russia, ever falling apart, much worse off than we are in the West, always rotting away.I quote at length.

Quote:
In Western mainstream political discourse there’s one concept that remains no matter what. The eternal return of this concept can be witnessed in news programmes, talk shows, newspapers and films over and over again. I’m talking here about the ‘Fall of Russia’. The Eternal Fall.

The idea of Russia as a country in terminal state has a long history behind it. The image of Russia as a ‘collossus on clay legs’ was popular way before the 1917 coup, then after the Soviet Union was established, then after the fall of the USSR in 1991, then – during the Yeltsin’s turbulent 90s and finally – fast-forward to Putin’s Russia of nowadays.

Don’t get it twisted – Russia has many serious economic and social problems. I know it much better than any BBCNN ‘Russia watcher’ because I’m a common Russian living in Russia, so I see the signs of crisis every day. But ‘crisis’ doesn’t mean it will necessarily result in a revolution/regime change (we had enough), and even the latter isn’t equal to ‘collapse’.

Thus, these real Russia’s problems do exist and they serve as the realistic basis for the mythology of ‘imminent Russian collapse’. This Western ‘collapsophilia’ can be referred to as crussialism (from crush + Russia + [certain amount of] realism). Crushialism has been an inseparable part of Western master discourse of Russia for years, just like, for example, Russian mainstream media recently exploits the migrant crisis in Europe. The plot is simple: ‘we’ are not as f*cked as ‘we’ are – look – ‘they’ have so many problems in Russia/Europe. If we adopt this collapsophilic vision, then Russia is in the mode of Eternal Fall, yet it is always reintepreting itself and coming back to normal like nevalyashka (Russian for roly-poly toy).

 

Incidentally, Patrick Armstrong, a retired (USSR and Russian) analyst for the Canadian government, is getting more attention as an amusing, but sober-minded observer of all things Russian. He recently wrote a highly amusing piece, commented upon approvingly by no less than Peter Lavelle of Crosstalk (RT flagship program), in which he compared the endlessly bellicose NATO to an alcoholic who has a few the morning after another fiasco and failed state, forgets everything he did, and gambles everything on the next war that will solve all problems.That got a few chuckles.

Patrick Armstrong: NATO, Alcoholism, and Homer Simpson

Quote:
NATO is a geopolitical alcoholic: last night's binge is the need for this morning's hair of the dog which lays the foundation for tonight's bender. Every weekend is a lost weekend for NATO.

Cheers. Drink up, O Angels of Death.

NDPP

Good stuff ikosmos! Armstrong's HATO piece is excellent indeed. Thanks for posting it...

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I'm not posting the bulk of the comical and idiotic Russophobic/Putinphobic items around the Panama Papers. But the following is just too amusing to leave alone.

The Guardian even had a yellowed photo or two of the Russian President for extra emphasis.

Putin bad. Understand?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'm not posting the bulk of the comical and idiotic Russophobic/Putinphobic items around the Panama Papers. But the following is just too amusing to leave alone.

You certainly didn't leave it alone.  You posted the same cartoon here, about seven hours ago.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Yeah, thanks Magoo. People can go there if they want more details: guilt by association, innuendo, etc.

I understand Putin is responsible for the bad weather we've been having. Bastard.

NDPP

The Destiny of Russia or a Secret Thousand Year Plan  -  by Vladimir Martin

http://thesaker.is/the-destiny-of-russia-or-a-secret-thousand-year-plan/

"...Right up until the 2nd of July, 2014, people could still be deceived by the lie of the 'well intentioned' Western press. However, there could have been no 'louder' effect on that than the 'friendly' silence of the Western media, which without exception, failed to report a single one of the rocket strikes by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the peaceful city of Lugansk.

That did it! From that moment on, no one but the dim-witted could preserve any illusions about the reality of the West's fully-coordinated informational warfare. Today's Western mass media is in full-siege warfare and news blackout mode..."

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Putin is the bogey man.

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, is the bogey man. You can sell anything using this terrible villain as your backdrop.

Quote:
Today, consumers across the Western hemisphere are daily subjected to an Orwellian 'Two Minute Hate', where Vladimir Putin - substituting for Oceania's much-reviled Emmanuel Goldstein - is portrayed as a brutal dictator hell-bent on restoring Russia's lost empire. The drugged-up and dumbed-down audience swallows the propagandist's Happy Meal and then asks for seconds.

 

NDPP

It's embarrassing the degree to which Westerners, those who actually believe they are informed and of liberal view, buy this ridiculous Russia-hate nonsense pumped out incessantly by the old Guardian etc . And then go on as well to accept the necessity of their military industrial complex to arm itself against  'Puntler's resurgent Russia'. Even a cursory familiarity with the subject immediately reveals the outrageousness of the spurious claims and evil powers attributed to VP, in Russia considered  a politically moderate politician, seeking peaceful relations with the 'western partners,' no matter how relentless their mendacities, deceptions and ill intentions.

Putin on Trudeau government

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/putin-economy-agriculture-1.3535105

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Does anything good ever happen In Russia?

Certainly not!

Quote:
If you relied on the Western media to inform you about Russia, you could be forgiven for believing that it’s a joyless hellhole. The kind of place Tom Waits and Nick Cave would design if given a blank canvas....

To answer the American boy’s question. Yes, lots of good things happen in Russia. This week, for example, the Vostochnny Cosmodrome opened in the Far East region. This is especially noteworthy considering Russia is the only country currently capable of launching a human being into space.

Naturally, Western media focused on the maiden launch being delayed for 24 hours, due to safety concerns, rather than the event itself. Presumably, they'd have preferred if the rocket had exploded on the platform. That would have garnered zillions of clicks. Even then, The Guardian claimed the Russian space industry was in "crisis."

Don't worry though; the UK's intergalactic enterprises are doing great. Even though they don't exist.

Bwa ha ha ha

Quote:
Some hacks also highlighted a corruption scandal which hampered construction, without seeming to know anything about it. In fact, if they’d bothered to cover the story properly, they’d have realized the sordid affair was greeted with relish in the Far East. You see, as a result, two families which have raped and pillaged the region for years have had their domination broken. One faction is already imprisoned and the other under house arrest.

Russia - bad! Next question. Because Russophobia is the gift that just keeps on giving...

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

"... Foreign Affairs has so clearly shown its true face: hate-filled russophobia. Russia as a drunken, frustrated and wounded bear."

Here's the slick video. Fill your boots, eh?

The quote is from an article that reviews Russian domestic media's coverage of "critics" of Russia under Putin. It's very interesting and informative. It outlines how rabid Ukrainian extreme nationalists, Polish Russophobes, hired guns of Western media, etc., get plenty of coverage in Russian domestic media - much more so than in English-language Russian media - as a way to simply show the block-headed stupidity and Russophobic idiocy of these spokespersons. Immunity by exposure.

As I've thought, Putin's most trenchant critics are the Communists. But nobody in the West wants to talk about that because it contradicts some sacred principles: (a) never give any Communists good press, ever; (b) Communist critics of Putin undermines the narrative of Putin as an "unrepentant" Communist and Soviet-era KGB spy turned President. Hence the dead silence - even from our most pure-as-driven-snow liberal mass media.

The Saker: Counter-propaganda, Russian-style

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Maria Zakharova, official rep of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (gently) mocks US Sec of State John Kerry for his endless calls with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, to the tune of "My Heart's in the Highlands" by Robbie Burns ...

Мария Захарова

Quote:

«His heart is in Moscow.His heart is not there.

His heart is in Moscow, a chasing a bear.

Chasing not a grizzly, but a kremlinese.

His heart is in Moscow wherever John is»

Robbie Burns: My Heart's in the Highlands

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

US Bullying Canada to Pursue Anti-Russian Foreign Policy

E Draitser wrote:
Most recently, former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul expressed his extreme displeasure (dare I say revulsion) at the idea that the Canadian Government, and specifically its Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion, could possibly make the independent decision to not follow the diktats of Washington in adopting a Canadian version of the Magnitsky Act, a piece of proposed legislation which would have severe repercussions for the Russia-Canada relationship.  McFaul, a staunch anti-Putin crusader whose time as ambassador was marred by countless failures and embarrassing public blunders, went so far as to cast doubt on the commitment to human rights of Mr. Dion and the Canadian Government.

Former [and present] US Ambassadors seem to be good at unintentionally exposing the subservient relationship with our American overlords.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Of all the countries with regimes characterized by feverish Russophobia, none, perhaps, are as into their "two-minute hate" (Orwell) of all things Russian as the Baltic regimes of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

But this latest really takes the cake.

Latvia Decides Putin Is Weaponizing Names - Bans Russian Names for New Babies

Sadly, I'm not kidding. It really is that bad. The Latvian regime could care less that 40% of the population are ethnically Russian.

Quote:
If the world has a problem with Russia weaponizing everything, then the Balts have another one in addition: banning everything Russian. Be it the Russian language, Russian TV, or the refusal to medically treat a disabled girl because she didn't understand Latvian. Now the Balts have another brilliant idea — just ban Russian names entirely

Geez. I wonder if this will get the silent treatment in the Western MSM?

Answer: more than likely. Because freedom.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The Long History of Rusophobia, Starting With Its Religious Roots

Interestingly, the author goes all the way back to Charlemagne.

He quotes Guy Mettan - the author of Russia and the West: A Thousand Year War.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

A good piece at the Off Guardian (a satirical site that, VERY SUCCESSFULLY, lampoons the idiocy of The Guardian. Criticizing The Guardian's Russophobia - in particular - is rather like shooting fish in a barrel. Embarrassingly easy. But The Guardian makes it that way.)

Deconstructing Russophobia by Catherine Brown

Quote:
I know no Russian who has any knowledge of Russia’s representation in Britain who is not strongly critical of it. I too am depressed by it, specifically because I think that it is intellectually and morally demeaning, and counter-productive to a dangerous degree....

What I will try to do is describe a few of the ways in which what I consider to be a false image is constructed, and the factors favouring the survival of this image – in the hope that if my description of those processes rings true, then it may influence your responses to the media’s representations henceforth. Finally, I will consider the practical effects of the media’s image of Russia.

The means of its creation are the usual suspects in cases of bias: distortion of fact through exaggeration, understatement, and fabrication; false inferences; inconsistent application of standards; and misuse of language.

The author concludes:

Quote:
Russophobia is composed of ignorance, a failure of scepticism and reasoning, pride, hypocrisy, condescension and churlishness, turned to the service of the military-industrial complex and NATO. It supports a one-sided Cold War against a country which is only just getting on its feet after collapse, is primarily focused on improving the living conditions of its people, wants war nowhere, and has no desire to be our enemy unless forced to defend itself. I wish it well.

NDPP

Renaissance (and vid)

https://youtu.be/9fuFTBSShcQ

Revival of far-right nationalism in Latvia, etc

NDPP

IOC Supports IAAF Decision To Ban Russia's Track and Field Team Ahead of 2016 Olympics

https://www.rt.com/sport/347306-oaaf-ioc-russia-ban/

"Both active and former Russian athletes have spoken out and are slamming the decision as politically motivated and unfair."

unprecedented collective punishment of Russian athletes

Rev Pesky

NDPP wrote:

IOC Supports IAAF Decision To Ban Russia's Track and Field Team Ahead of 2016 Olympics

https://www.rt.com/sport/347306-oaaf-ioc-russia-ban/

"Both active and former Russian athletes have spoken out and are slamming the decision as politically motivated and unfair."

unprecedented collective punishment of Russian athletes

To say nothing of the fact that drugs permeate ALL amateur and professional sports, in all countries. Especially true of the industrialized nations. 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

wheels finally come off The Guardian’s Russophobia

offguardian quoting The Guardian wrote:
Senior government officials fear the violence unleashed by Russian hooligans at Euro 2016 was sanctioned by the Kremlin and are investigating links with Vladimir Putin’s regime.

As they note in the offguardian piece, there is no need to deconstruct this shite. A superficial examination is all that it takes to expose the ridiculousness of such claims.

Maybe the Guardian can have a little Sunday piece on how Vladimir Putin is really a space alien put here by evil-doers from Planet Rigel-7. Because, yes, it is that bad ... so why not? Some idiots will lap it up. And that's the main thing, after all ...

NDPP

More than 'some' it would appear. It's very alarming and ridiculous. Dangerous obviously since we see where it leads. And Russophobia is the spoonful of sugar that helps this deadly 'medicine' go down.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The Latvian regime could care less that 40% of the population are ethnically Russian.

It's true.  Latvia was a former colony of the USSR.  Those Russian settlers have rights too!!!

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The Latvian regime could care less that 40% of the population are ethnically Russian.

It's true.  Latvia was a former colony of the USSR.  Those Russian settlers have rights too!!!

That's pretty rich coming from someone participating on a discussion board in the settler state of Canada. Take the plank out of your own eye, hmm?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Do you mean the thing that you said or the thing that I said?  Or both?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

lol. If you can't figure it out Magoo, then I'm happy to leave you in your bliss, unclouded by distressing thoughts of self mockery.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The Magnitsky Act — Behind the Scenes: Why Was This Film Banned in Europe?

Quote:

Nekrasov’s film, The Magnitsky Act — Behind the Scenes, has caused great controversy by presenting a side of the story of Sergei Magnitsky seldom heard in the West. Nekrasov has been known for most of his career as a fierce critic of the Russian government, and was embraced by the pro-Western opposition. This has all dramatically changed with the release of The Magnitsky Act. Nekrasov attempted to screen the film in several European countries, but the film was blocked.

The official story in the mainstream media about Sergei Magnitsky goes something like this: Magnitsky was a courageous lawyer, who uncovered huge government fraud that implicated members of the Russian government. He was imprisoned on trumped up charges, beaten and tortured in prison, and finally died as a result of this abuse and medical neglect about a year into his pretrial detention. However, Nekrasov’s film challenges this narrative. It argues that in fact Magnitsky may have been Browder’s accomplice in one of the largest cases of tax fraud in Russian history. Browder, with the help of his accountant Magnitsky, may have falsely claimed that they had taken a loss on what was in fact a tremendously profitable investment. In doing so, they may have been able to claim a tax rebate of $230 million.

The controversy over Magnitsky’s death has had serious implications for U.S.-Russia relations. In the context of growing hostility towards Russia as their geopolitical interests came increasingly into conflict, the U.S. Congress passed a law in 2012 called the Magnitsky Act (from which the film takes its title). This law imposed sanctions on a wide range of Russian officials the U.S. government accuses of being involved in Magnitsky’s death.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

"Putin's Russia is a poor, drunk soccer hooligan." - Russia bashing hits a new low

Quote:
Hysterical op-eds about the Evil Empire and its malevolent leader are ten a penny these days — and most of them, while very often scant in the facts department and ample in the conspiracy department, can be skimmed over and forgotten about. More of the same. No point getting too hyped up about it.

But every so often, a piece comes along that is so bad, on so many fronts, that it deserves a response. A recent piece in the Boston Globe meets the requirements. "Putin’s Russia is a poor, drunk soccer hooligan,” proclaimed the headline. If there was an award for excellency in Russia-bashing, this piece would surely be the winner.

And then we have Russophrenia ....

Quote:
‘Russophrenia’ — a condition whereby the sufferer believes simultaneously that Russia is both about to collapse and take over the world. Many sufferers are employed in the media world and regard Russia both as a distant speck of irrelevance in world history and at the same time see Putin and the KGB floating nefariously in their cornflakes every morning.

One day, Russia is a washed-up has been, a pathetic, insignificant nothing. The next day, some other columnist will write that Russia is a menacing bear threatening world domination; there’s a madman at the helm and there’s nothing he is not capable of orchestrating from his Kremlin lair. And the cycle will continue.

 

6079_Smith_W

It wasn't banned. Two screenings were cancelled - one at the European Parliament because of complaints, and ARTE put it on hold because it was warned it would be liable for broadcasting factual errors.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/controversial-film-russia-...

http://www.rferl.org/content/magnitsky-film-on-hold-european-tv-channel-...

It was screened in Washington two weeks ago.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/14/russias-big-lie/

And had its pubic world premiere in Norway last weekend, sponsored in part by Norwegian PEN, and the Freedom of Speech Foundation.

http://www.nfi.no/english/news/the-magnitsky-act-behind-the-scenes-will-...

contrarianna

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It wasn't banned. Two screenings were cancelled - one at the European Parliament because of complaints, and ARTE put it on hold because it was warned it would be liable for broadcasting factual errors.

Major screening venues and public access were severely curtailed, not to mention financial loss.

"No Official government banning therefore freedom reigns."  

Or so implies the deceptivel use of the anonymizing passive voice by a free speech poseur: "screenings were cancelled" "it was warned" "it would be liable for broadcasting factual errors" "there were complaints".

No need to include the active noun: the intimidating legal threats from Magnitsky's billionaire employer, Browder--now anti-Russian US foreign policy generator.

For a different topic, we get a different concern for free speech:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Yeah, and the issue for me isn;t that media should have immunity to publish libel, but as the article says, the danger of this being in the hands of people with virtually unlimited resources.
Consider if it was not an outing, but a whistleblower.
http://rabble.ca/comment/1570715#comment-1570715

FromThe Nation:

Quote:
By Screening ‘The Magnitsky Act,’ the Newseum Stood Up for the First Amendment

Should ultra-wealthy foreign nationals be ableto transform their personal vendettas against foreign governments into law?By James CardenJune 20, 2016

....That the film was shown at all is something of a story in itself. In April, Browder was able to stop a screening of the film for a group of European MPs in Brussels. His attorneys also successfully shut down a screening in Norway and Arte, a German-French television network, also canceled plans to run the film. Upon seeing the film, one can easily understand why Browder and his attorneys would go to such lengths. 

....[Seymour] Hersh told the audience before Tuesday’s screening, “This is a core issue about getting points of view into the public domain.” Yet not everyone sees it that way. Two analysts from the NATO and US government–funded Atlantic Council recently complained that the “Newseum did what the European Parliament was too principled to do: it showed The Magnitsky Act.” ...

https://www.thenation.com/article/by-screening-the-magnitsky-act-the-new...

Philip Giraldi gives a balanced weighing of the details of the film:

Quote:
The Magnitsky Hoax?Who stole all the money?Philip Giraldi • June 28, 2016

....Nekrasov by his own account had intended to do a documentary honoring Magnitsky and his employers as champions for human rights within an increasing fragile Russian democracy. He had previously produced documentaries highly critical of Russian actions in Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine, and also regarding the assassinations of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London as well as of journalist Anna Politkovskaya in Moscow. He has been critical of Vladimir Putin personally and was not regarded as someone who was friendly to the regime, quite the contrary. Some of his work has been banned in Russia......

Given the adversarial positions staked out, either Browder or Nekrasov is essentially right, though one should not rule out a combination of greater or lesser malfeasance coming from both sides. But certainly Browder should be confronted more intensively on the nature of his business activities while in Russia and not given a free pass because he is saying things about Russia and Putin that fit neatly into a Washington establishment profile. As soon as folks named McCain, Cardin and Lieberman jump on a cause it should be time to step back a bit and reflect on what the consequences of proposed action might be.

One should ask why anyone who has a great deal to gain by having a certain narrative accepted should be completely and unquestionably trusted, the venerable Cui bono? standard. And then there is a certain evasiveness on the part of Browder.... In one case he can be seen on YouTube running away from a [subpoena] server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide....


http://www.unz.com/article/the-magnitsky-hoax/

NDPP

No surprise either to find arch-Zionist Irwin Cotler was the main push behind the  Canadian version of the Magnitsky bill.  At the time I easily found ample evidence that Browder was in fact a crook and a hustler with a very dodgy version of reality. Why did not a single Canadian MP bother to do any background research on this? Repeatedly we find this pattern, is as with this, bombing Libya or support for the coup-installed Nazi oligarchy in Ukraine  -  that our 'representatives' are both spectacularly uninformed and their decisions motivated  by political self interest and/or their instructions from above.

All Parties Signal Support For Magnitsky Law to Sanction Russian Officials

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/all-parties-signal-support-...

Even more unfortunately, so-called 'progressives' seem to support this unsatisfactory state of affairs. Russophobia is always too easy a sell in Canada.

6079_Smith_W

What is your problem contrarianna? Did I say I thought it was a good thing they cancelled the screening and airing? I did not, and I do not. Perhaps you should ask for clarification before making false assumptions. There is no contradiction. I think it is good they showed it in Washington, though I wish it had been public, as it will be soon enough now that it has been shown in Norway. .

That doesn't change the fact sputnik should know better than to publish something so inaccurate. It discredits what could have been a solid story.

contrarianna

6079_Smith_W wrote:

What is your problem contrarianna? Did I say I thought it was a good thing they cancelled the screening and airing?....

Your posting, as usual, was designed to support your anti-Russian agenda  as well as slipping in a link to Orlov's pro-Browder, "the film's a Moscow conspiracy" piece:

Quote:
Russia’s Big Lie:A new Russian documentary about the Magnitsky case takes tried and true propaganda methods to a new level in its attempts to sway the U.S. government.

The "problem", and hypocrisy, is yours not mine:

Your obvious selection of weasel wording (see previous post) to studiously avoid the origin of the "blocking-not-banning":  billionaire Browder's use of libel law as a means of intimidation against free speech, an issue which elsewhere you found worthy of starting a thread about.

You were more convincing when you openly supported Nazi militias in the Ukraine.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You were more convincing when you openly supported Nazi militias in the Ukraine.

If this is indeed what he said, and not some partisan spin on what he said, then babble's no home for him, and I'd urge the mods to act.

But if this is just another attempt to silence disagreement by flouting Godwin's law then I'd be just as happy to see the mods tell us whether this kind of smear is what we want babble to be.

6079_Smith_W

Scuse me contrarianna, but my name is not Polly, and I am not your talking parrot. If I don't say things the way you think I should, too bad. But if there is any question about whether I think this film should be seen, you might consider the fact that the article I did post would not have been written if the author had not been able to attend that screening in Washington. 

The attempts to prevent it have been covered in the media without resorting to lies about nonexistent bans. 

As for the rest of it, if I had a dollar for every time some dolt on here called me a Nazi supporter I'd have my mortgage paid off by now. 

contrarianna

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You were more convincing when you openly supported Nazi militias in the Ukraine.

If this is indeed what he said, and not some partisan spin on what he said, then babble's no home for him, and I'd urge the mods to act.

But if this is just another attempt to silence disagreement by flouting Godwin's law then I'd be just as happy to see the mods tell us whether this kind of smear is what we want babble to be.

The bolding and bracketed remarks are mine.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

....As for the situation in Ukraine, do you remember what was happening in March, with the regular army driving up to rebel territory, handing over their vehicles and arms, and taking the bus back home?I can appreciate that the Ukrainian government is in a difficult position, given that their most important battalions (and remember, Azov is 300 people, 600 at the outside) includes some[sic] fascists. But given that they are under attack, that the these are some of the first groups that could be counted on to fight for their[sic] country, I don't see that they had much choice. It is not as if they haven't laid criminal charges in some cases - against members of Pravy Sektor. After all, it is not a crime to be right wing, just to act on those beliefs in a way that is against the law. And not to excuse Azov, but it is not as if there aren't just as many if not more fascist-leaning idealogues on the other side.

http://rabble.ca/comment/1460494#comment-1460494

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

You have a problem with that comment? Surely you don't think people should face criminal charges simply for their political beliefs if they have committed no crime.

I can see why they'd want to focus on the best fighting unit, and the one based on the front line. But if you want to talk contradictions, there are fascists on both sides of that confict, and both sides have committed atrocities. 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

contrarianna wrote:
You were more convincing when you openly supported Nazi militias in the Ukraine.

bwa ha ha ha. You naughty, naughty girl.

eta: I'd just like to thank Smith for providing a rich source of endless Russophobia in this thread. Saves me a lot of work.

6079_Smith_W

Actually it is just contrarianna recalling a previous occasion of contrarianna calling me a Nazi apologist because I pointed out the Ukrainian government was not associated with the commemorations of ww2 soldiers.

And I expect if contrarianna was  reading to hear my point rather than reading to look for attempted smears it should have been clear I was not defending neonazism, but rather the difficult position that government was in. 

We can get back to talking about Russia anytime you want. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 it should have been clear I was not defending neonazism, but rather the difficult position that government was in. 

I agree that it should have been clear if that is what you think but sadly it is not clear and your posts are easily mistaken for what contrarianna believes they mean.

 

6079_Smith_W

Mmmm...

It is actually quite clear if you care to go back and read it.

Let's cut to the chase here, kropotkin. We all know we have differences of opinion on some of this, and I am not surprised some people read their own shit into stuff, and aren't too concerned about accuracy (strangely enough, the reason why I spoke about that sputnik article in the first place).

I don't actually care what any of you think of me personally or my opinions. But if  anyone here has anything serious  to say - and an accusation of defending nazism is serious - instead of some baseless smear, do your homework.

Digging back to repeat stuff that has no more validity now than it did two years ago is really lame. Even ikosmos cheerleading from the sidelines doesn't give it any more weight. Sorry.

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The problem with your style of posting is you often try to suck and blow at the same time so it leaves people wondering which side of the issue you are on because they read like you are trying to have it both ways. You claim objectivity and frankly if your audience doesn't see it as objective then it is your writing that is lacking not them. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9Nso94ZMgY

6079_Smith_W

Where do I claim objectivity?

I just said precisely the opposite - that we have differences of opinion, so it is no surprise that we are adversarial on some of these issues.

I just posted an article entitled "Russia's Big Lie". Do I need to explain the rhetorical point? Does it sound like fence-sitting?

And I also just pointed out that that article would not have been possible if the film had been prevented from being screened, and that they are two separate issues.

Do you want me to explain that distinction to you?

My point is that it serves no one's case here if points of fact are ignored in people's haste to push their own opinion. Like a banning that did not happen, or recognizing what was actually a complex and difficult situation in 2014.

And in a similar vein, if some people here have an assumption the onus is on them to ask for clarification and check their facts before they make an accusation.

We are all pretty used to the term Nazi being thrown around here with little regard for what it actually means, but  if you are going to make an claim someone is defending Nazism with no clear evidence, other that what you think someone meant, you can expect to have it called out as bullshit.

Of course, if some here want to hijack their own thread from its topic so they can play junior Star Chamber, I don't really care, though I don't promise to stick around for the fun.

Frankly, if this was a serious concern why are you bothering to argue with me rather than taking it to the people who really have the power to do something about it.

Or not, if it is baseless.

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Frankly, if this was a serious concern why are you bothering to argue with me rather than taking it to the people who really have the power to do something about it.

Or not, if it is baseless.

Thanks for making my point. Engaging with you is like trying to nail jello to a wall. Bob and weave and sidle sideways is always a good tactic for one who wants to obfuscate.

Pages

Topic locked