Russian-Led Organization Deploys Peacekeepers to Kazakhstan at Their Request

..

Kazakhstan intervention sees Russia set a new precedent

Foreign actors may not have started the unrest, but they’ll play the deciding role in how it ends

By Fyodor Lukyanov,

the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

Protesters take part in a rally over a hike in energy prices in Almaty on January 5, 2022.

© AFP / Abduaziz Madyarov

The sudden outbreak of violence in Kazakhstan has taken analysts and international observers by surprise. Now, the decision to deploy a regional peacekeeping force has become the latest major milestone for the post-Soviet space.

In the early hours of Thursday morning, the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which joins the armed forces of six former republics of the USSR, including Kazakhstan, announced that it would send a peacekeeping force to help maintain order as unrest spread across the vast Central Asian nation. 

This is the  first I have ever heard of this organization. But it changes the dynamics of NATO's efforts to recruit old Soviet countries. 

The move represents a blurring of the line between internal and external processes – the reasons that the Kazakh government is teetering on the brink of collapse are domestic in nature, and are related to the prolonged and increasingly weird transfer of power after the almost three-decades-long rule of veteran leader Nursultan Nazarbayev.

However, the street protests, which were sparked by fuel prices and have seen government buildings torched and troops surrender to demonstrators, have been immediately presented as an act of outside aggression on the part of foreign “terrorist groups.” From now on, it seems, the enemy always comes from the outside, even if it is actually inside. That claim gives formal grounds to declare the country is under attack and call in the CSTO.

This was not the case in the past, when similar recurring events were seen frequently in Kyrgyzstan, nor in Armenia three and a half years ago. Back then, the CSTO – Moscow mainly, but also the other members themselves – highlighted the internal nature of the unrest, saying there was no need for a foreign intervention.

However, this time it’s different, and the lines between foreign and domestic affairs are getting blurred across the globe. Several decades ago, liberals and human rights activists were the driving force behind the increasing confusion between home and abroad, advocating that national sovereignty could be set aside when human rights and freedoms were at stake. Today, the given justifications are about protection and preservation: a threat to the national security of the country in question and its neighbors justifies the intervention.

It is worth noting that, this time, the request for peacekeepers came from a government with undisputed legitimacy – even the protesters themselves have only publicly demanded the departure of Nazarbayev, who maintains a hold over domestic politics, and not the current president. This is what makes it different from the events of 2010 in Bishkek, when acting Kyrgyz president Roza Otunbayeva tried to call the CSTO in after his predecessor, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, was ousted by mass protests. 

Kyrgyzstan’s entire government system collapsed, which made any intervention highly questionable from a legal perspective. The legal grounds for the current decision are also stronger than those for the West’s so-called “humanitarian interventions” that resulted in toppling governments recognized at the international level, no matter how dubious their reputation.

In the future, we will probably learn more about how everything happened – the decision-making process in both Kazakhstan and Russia and who suggested involving the CSTO. For now, though, it’s clear that the Russian government chose to stay one step ahead instead of waiting for the kindling flame to turn into a blaze. This is the evolution of the approach used a year and a half ago in Belarus, when it was enough for President Vladimir Putin to warn that Russian forces were ready to intervene if the worsening domestic situation required it. This time, Moscow skipped the warnings and jumped straight into action, probably thinking that the Kazakh government might not hold out on its own.

But the lines must not fade away completely. The important question now is whether or not deploying the CSTO peacekeepers would spell the end of clan rivalry in Kazakhstan, as manifested by the “transition of power,” and instead lead to consolidation of power (and in whose hands?). Moscow has every chance to benefit from this, as it will now have a military presence in the state, central to its policy as a guarantor, whose actions might determine how the situation will unfold. This is similar to what happened in Armenia after the 2020 war. It’s only a temporary solution, but it provides an effective set of tools for the near future. 

Many analysts urge that Russia should follow the example of the US and the EU, approaching “all stakeholders,” placating the opposition and shaping the balance of power favorable to Moscow in key states, but they do not take into account the fact that each political culture has its own strengths and weaknesses. In reality, Moscow does not know how to do this – it never did – and when it tried, it always failed. The ideal scenario for Russia is to have a military safeguard there that could spare it the headache of having to deal with complex local political life. In other words, no matter who wins, they would have to act with Russian military presence in mind and not disregard the country’s long-standing partner altogether.

About four or five years ago, what we call the post-Soviet space entered a crucially important stage when these countries had to prove that they were fully functional sovereign states. Back in 1991, they were recognized as such simply because the USSR collapsed rather than for any other reason. While their respective comings of age took different forms, the wider context was the same, with significant interest both from Russia and the West, and some on the regional level, but to a lesser degree. External players fighting over the post-Soviet space became a destabilizing factor, but it lent a certain logic to the developments and made them part of larger international processes.

However, at a certain point, political heavyweights started losing interest in whatever was happening in the “new independent states,” as they were referred to in the 1990s. Amid global shifts, international powers became more and more focused on their own ever-growing list of problems. They didn’t exactly turn away from the former Soviet states, but they started spending much less of their time and resources on them. This goes for Russia too, even though it has a special status in this configuration, and it was looking for optimal forms of influence in the context of its shrinking sphere of interests.

So the political landscape in the former Soviet states has been shaped through internal processes that reflected the interactions between the various actors involved, the local political culture and social structure.

There is also the fact that a new political generation is entering politics across the post-Soviet space and in some cases challenging older leaders.

These changes are not brought about by external influence. Foreign players have to react to them, intervene or threaten to intervene, as they did in Belarus, adapt and try to make it all work in their favor, but the final result depends on how mature and efficient a country’s new social and political systems are rather than on any foreign patrons.

This is an acid test, and not all countries will pass it. Armenia’s case shows that the consequences for a nation can be dire (and it’s not quite over yet), even though the dominant idea there was that, some glaring problems aside, the country had a strong identity and could successfully mobilize its resources and survive when faced with an old adversary. Kazakhstan might also turn out to be an example of how a long-cultivated façade of success is actually hiding a deeply problematic and twisted core. And this case is definitely not going to be the last.

This is the first time Russia is using an institution it controls to pursue its own political goals. Until now, it seemed that such structures were purely ornamental. It’s clear that the CSTO peacekeepers deployed to Kazakhstan will be made up mainly of Russian troops. First of all, that guarantees an effective response. Secondly, while Kazakhstan can agree to have Russian troops on its soil, Armenian or, say, Kyrgyz forces are absolutely out of the question. Still, using the coalition brand gives Moscow more opportunities and additionally justifies the existence of this alliance. Time will tell whether any other CSTO member states will face a Kazakh scenario, but the precedent has been set. 

With Russia-US talks on security issues around the corner, this is a timely reminder that Moscow can make swift and unorthodox military and political decisions to influence the events in its sphere of interests. The larger this construct, the bigger the shouldered responsibility becomes, of course, including the responsibility for the developments in the countries where troubles are far from over. Of course, Moscow would have to deal with any fallout from these troubles anyway, and it’s easier to do so proactively and through a variety of tools at hand.

What is clear is that while branding the demonstrators foreign “terrorists” has allowed the Kazakh government to bring in heavyweight support from abroad, it has booted the conflict firmly into the international arena. It’s not yet clear what consequences this could have for the post-Soviet space, or for the world.

Putin on Religion - An Interesting Look at the President's Outlook on Religion and Society

..

Love thy neighbor? Putin says religious values of ‘mercy’ & support for vulnerable underpin Russian civilization through history

8 Jun, 2021 15:07

Russian President Vladimir Putin holds a meeting with representatives of social organizations on Social Worker's Day

via video conference at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence outside Moscow, Russia. © Sputnik / Sergei Ilyin

Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared that brotherly love and care for those in need are the values shared by citizens in his country, and are essential to maintaining the essence of its traditional culture and society.

In a speech to social workers on Tuesday, marking the profession's national day of recognition, Putin emphasized the importance of helping the vulnerable. “The very values of mercy, love for one's neighbor, and support for those in need bind and consolidate the entire centuries-old history of our people. They constitute the spiritual basis of the traditional religions of Russia,” he said.

Except, of course, the 70 years of communism.

Insisting that “people of various classes” understand the fundamental aim of life should be to do good, the president said that charity and being a good neighbor were of paramount importance.

Last December, as Europe grappled with a brutal attack that saw a Parisian schoolteacher beheaded over claims he had showed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad to his class, Putin launched a spirited defense of traditional values and the rights of believers. “It is well known that where one man’s freedom begins, another’s must end,” he said. As a result, those who “act thoughtlessly, insulting the rights and feelings of religious people, should always remember there will be an inevitable backlash. But, on the other hand, this shouldn’t be an aggressive one,” he added.

He cited the case of Samuel Paty as evidence that “multiculturalism has failed,” and also instructed the country's Foreign Ministry to prepare a report on “issues relating to those insulting the beliefs of religious people, and inciting inter-religious hatreds and conflict."

Despite frequently associating himself with Orthodox Christian rituals and emphasizing the role that religious values play in Russia, Putin has been reticent on questions of his personal faith. Asked in 2018 about when he started to believe in God, the politician said that it was “a very personal question, and it is hard to talk about it in public.”

At the same time though, he added that even “confirmed atheists going over the trenches during World War II thought about God,” and that “extreme situations bring out the faith in everyone.”

Russia is consistently ranked as one of the most religious nations on the continent. In 2018, a Pew Research Center survey found that more than half of Russians say it is important to be a Christian in order to truly belong in the country, and 42% believe that the government should actively promote religion.

However, in practice, Russian society diverges from many positions traditionally held by Christians abroad. According to data from 2016, the country's divorce rate far outstrips the rate at which new marriages are being registered. At the same time, the nation has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, despite opposition to the medical intervention from the Orthodox Church. Research and anecdotal accounts have also consistently found that while the bulk of Russians consider themselves to be Christians, a far smaller percentage regularly attend church services.

That, unfortunately, is true of almost every country when it comes to Christianity. Most Christians are Christian in name but not in Spirit.

Subjects avoided by the writer here are homosexuality and transgenderism. Russia has unashamedly pushed back against the hard lobbying of the LGBTQ etc. They are protective of children being exposed to either whereas western countries put such people in charge of children's education. The consequence being great confusion in children and a much higher rate of attempted suicide.

The Media is the Message - BBCs influence in the demonizing of Russia exposed by Anonymous

..

Leaked files indicate UK state media engaged in anti-Moscow information warfare operations in Eastern Europe

11 Mar, 2021 09:10

FILE PHOTO: The main entrance to the BBC headquarters and studios in Portland Place, London, Britain, July 16, 2015

©  REUTERS/Peter Nicholls

By Kit Klarenberg, an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.

New documents raise serious questions about how well-deserved British state broadcaster BBC’s 'unimpeachable' reputation is, and also what impact its relationship with the UK government has on its supposedly ‘impartial’ output.

Within a tranche of secret UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) papers, recently leaked by hacktivist collective Anonymous, are files indicating that BBC Media Action (BBCMA) – the outlets ‘charitable’ arm – plays a central role in Whitehall-funded and directed psyops initiatives targeted at Russia.

American journalist Max Blumenthal has comprehensively exposed how, at the FCDO’s behest, BBCMA covertly cultivated Russian journalists, established influence networks within and outside Russia, and promoted pro-Whitehall, anti-Moscow propaganda in Russian-speaking areas.

However, the newly released files reveal BBCMA also offered to lead a dedicated FCDO program, named 'Independent Media in Eastern Partnership Countries' and targeted at Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. This endeavor forms part of a wider £100 million ($138.9 million) effort waged by London to demonize, destabilize and isolate Russia, at home and abroad.

A Whitehall tender indicates that under the auspices of the project, set to cost a staggering £9 million ($12.5 million) from 2018 to 2021, participating contractors are charged with crafting “innovative… media interventions” targeting individuals throughout the region, via “radio, independent social media channels, and traditional outlets.”

Further detail was offered by FCDO Counter Disinformation & Media Development (CDMD) chief Andy Pryce at a June 2018 meeting with prospective suppliers.

He made it clear that the effort’s ultimate goal was to “weaken the Russian state's influence,” via the co-option of journalists and media organizations in target countries via funding, training, and surreptitious production of anti-Russian, pro-Western content. “Girls on HBO… but in Ukraine” was, bizarrely, one suggested example of such activity.

In response, BBCMA submitted extensive proposals, in conjunction with Thomson Reuters Foundation (TRF), the global newswire’s “non-profit” wing, and since-collapsed veteran FCDO contractor Aktis Strategy.

The project was to be managed and coordinated directly by BBCMA from BBC Broadcasting House headquarters in London, with local support provided by Reuters newswire offices in Kiev and Tbilisi, and Ukraine’s Independent Association of Broadcasters.

A dedicated board, comprised of representatives of the contractors involved, the FCDO’s CDMD program, and British embassies in the target countries, would also meet privately every quarter to discuss the operation’s progress. Publicly, Whitehall’s funding and direction of the vast project was intended to be completely hidden.

The consortium boasted of having an existing “strong profile” in Eastern Partnership countries, and conducting “broad consultations” with a number of major news outlets, media organizations and journalists in the region in advance of its pitch.

For example, the National Public Broadcasting Company of Ukraine (UA:PBC) had been approached and offered “essential support,” aimed at “improving its existing programs” and “developing new and innovative formats for factual and non-news programs.”

BBCMA was moreover said to be “already” working on building the capacity of Kiev-based Hromadske TV, and wished to use the FCDO program to extend this assistance to “co-productions” and “building support to Hromadske Radio.”

Launched with initial funding from the American and Dutch embassies in Ukraine, Hromadske began broadcasting in November 2013 on the very day Viktor Yanukovich’s administration suspended preparations for the signing of an association agreement with the European Union, and went on to extensively cover the resultant Euromaidan protests, which eventually unseated the government the next year.

It subsequently received support from Pierre Omidyar, billionaire founder of The Intercept, who bankrolled a number of opposition groups in the country prior to the coup. In July 2014, Hromadske anchor Danylo Yanevsky abruptly terminated an interview with a Human Rights Watch representative after she consistently refused to blame Russia for civilian casualties in the Donbas conflict, despite his repeated demands.

Beyond dedicated news platforms, the consortium also pledged to enlist “local” and “hyperlocal” media outlets, as well as “freelancer journalists,” bloggers and “vloggers” for its information warfare efforts.

BBCMA argued “journalism education” locally would be a “long-term investment” – in other words, the identification, cultivation, and grooming of a network of reporters in the countries who could be relied upon to take the Whitehall line in future.

As such, the organization sought to establish a journalism training center in Gagauzia, Moldova in collaboration with NGO Media birlii – Uniunia. The autonomous region, bordered by Ukraine’s Odessa Oblast, was said to be home to “six TV companies, four radio stations, six newspapers and five web portals” potentially ripe for influence and infiltration by BBCMA – and in turn, the FCDO.

In Georgia, BBCMA visited the offices of Adjara TV“to discuss training priorities and possible co-productions.” The station was reportedly interested in developing “youth programming,” which represented “a gap in the market” in the country.

In June 2020, Georgia’s Coalition for Media Advocacy slammed Adjara for its “persecution” of “outspoken journalists expressing dissenting opinions,” after it fired newsroom chief Shorena Glonti.

Strikingly, the Coalition is funded by US regime-change agency, the National Endowment for Democracy, which supports numerous anti-Moscow initiatives worldwide. Perhaps Glonti had been too well-trained in “weakening the Russian state” for the broadcaster’s liking.

The consortium furthermore proposed to tutor and support “independent” online Georgian news outlets, including Batumelebi, iFact, Liberali, Monitor, Netgazeti, and Reginfo.

Estonia’s Digital Communications Network – financed by the US State Department – would be central to these efforts, offering lessons in “building online audiences, innovative business models and reaching out to breakaway regions susceptible to Kremlin narratives.”

The importance of “target audiences in breakaway regions” is outlined in another file, which explicitly states that the consortium would work closely with “independent outlets in proximity of non-government-controlled areas of Donbas in Ukraine, Transnistria in Moldova and Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia.”

This undertaking aimed to counter the output of “separatist” media, and thus manipulate “hard-to-reach audiences,” which was “critical to achieving the project’s objectives.”

Any and all support covertly provided under the program was to be thoroughly intimate indeed, with “mentors” from the consortium “embedded” in target organizations, in order to provide “bespoke support across editorial, production and wider management systems and processes as well as on the co-production of content.”

These “mentors” include current and former BBC journalists.

“Our ability to recruit talented and experienced BBC staff is a great asset which will be harnessed for this initiative,” BBCMA promised.

These individuals may have been central to program efforts, if BBCMA’s pitch to the FCDO was accepted. For instance, UA:PBC was said to be “very interested” in receiving help from BBCMA to develop a “new debate show” and “discussion programming” to “enable audiences to think critically about the process and choices,” “counter disinformation” and “dispel rumors.”

Lofty objectives indeed, although commitments to nurturing analytical skills, thinking and debunking propaganda ring rather hollow when one considers the station’s output was perceived to be so overwhelmingly biased in favor of the government, opposition candidate Volodymyr Zelensky boycotted the channel’s official election debate during the 2019 presidential election.

BBCMA also proposed to establish an “independent” news platform in Ukraine, “timed for the run up to the 2019 election,” which would publish “vetted news content” freely syndicated to local and national media.

If the approach in Kiev was “successful,” the consortium would replicate the exercise in Georgia for the country’s 2020 election. Strikingly, the proposal brags of TRF’s experience establishing such platforms elsewhere, for example “the award-winning Aswat Masriya” in Egypt.

Other leaked files indicate the endeavor, founded after the 2011 revolution in Cairo, was secretly funded by the FCDO to the tune of £2 million ($2.8 million) over six years, and run out of Reuters’ Egyptian offices.

Over its lifespan, Aswat Masriya “became Egypt’s leading independent local media organization” and one of the most-visited websites in the country, providing news in English and Arabic, which was syndicated widely the world over. Its true, clandestine purpose seems to have been granting London a degree of narrative control over news coverage as events unfolded in the country, during its difficult and ultimately ill-fated transition to democracy.

That BBCMA likewise intended to use news coverage to influence politics in Eastern Partnership countries is amply underlined in the newly leaked files, with the organization pledging to “encourage” local news outlets to meet with “local stakeholders,” including lawmakers and community leaders, in order to “cement the media as a key governance actor.”

The organization furthermore sought to “foster a debate” in target nations, by producing wide-ranging analysis of the media environment therein. Its “long track record” of comparable efforts in “diverse” countries, including those “experiencing Arab uprisings,” had allegedly “shifted government policy.”

One objective of these lobbying efforts was achieving “a more enabling operating environment” for “independent” media in the target countries – i.e. ensuring regulations in the region were suitably conducive to and protective of the FCDO’s secret army of information warfare agents, to allow them to prosper for the duration of the consortium’s three-year offensive, and “post intervention.”

It’s not yet clear if BBCMA was successful in its pitch, and if so, which BBC journalists contributed to the program and as a result are implicated directly in cloak-and-dagger attempts to shape politics and perceptions in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine for London’s benefit.

It’s also unknown whether their commitment to fulfilling the FCDO’s objective of undermining Moscow, and furthering Whitehall’s interests, truly ends when they return to their day jobs as “objective,” “neutral” purveyors of news.

As BBCMA boasts in its pitch, the BBC is “well-known and highly regarded” in the Eastern Partnership countries, and provides “millions of viewers, listeners and online users in the region with world-class news on a daily basis.” At the very least, the leaked files make clear that neither the British state broadcaster, nor its FCDO paymasters, has any qualms about exploiting that standing and perceived credibility for malign ends.

Will the Demonization of Russia By America and NATO Continue, or Get Worse Under Biden? Brilliant Op-Ed

..

Knowing ‘liberal international order’ needs Russia as enemy to galvanize West,

Moscow braces for aggressive Biden foreign policy

22 Jan 2021 13:47

FILE PHOTO. © Sputnik / Vladimir Astapkovich

By Glenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenndiesen

Donald Trump’s efforts to reduce the ideologically driven base of US foreign policy fuelled great resentment among those who believed it betrayed Washington’s leadership position in the so-called “liberal international order.”

Now that power has changed, will the pendulum swing in the opposite direction, with Joe Biden’s administration applying a radical ideological foreign policy?

A recent article by Michael McFaul, once Barack Obama’s ambassador to Russia and a noted ‘Russiagate’ conspiracy theorist, indicates what such an ideological foreign policy would look like. McFaul’s article, ‘How to Contain Putin’s Russia’, makes a case for a containment policy.

Containment: learning from the past or living in the past?

To advance his argument, McFaul quotes George Kennan, the author of the Long Telegram and architect of erstwhile US containment policy against the Soviet Union. McFaul suggests that Kennan’s advocacy for a “patient but firm and vigilant containment” against the revolutionary Bolshevik regime 75 years ago remains as valid as ever.

It would have made more sense to quote Kennan when he condemned NATO expansionism and predicted it would trigger another Cold War. As Kennan noted: “there was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves.”

Kennan continued to express disbelief over the rhetoric by the misinformed US leadership, presenting “Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.” Kennan then went on to correctly predict that, when Russia would eventually react to US provocations, the NATO expanders would wrongfully blame Russia.

Ideologues often have nostalgia for the Cold War, when the bipolar power distribution was supported by a clear and comfortable ideological divide. The Western bloc represented capitalism, Christianity, and democracy, while the Eastern bloc represented communism, atheism, and authoritarianism. This ideological divide supported internal cohesion within the Western bloc and drew clear borders with the adversary.

The liberal international order has attempted to recast the former capitalist-communist divide with a liberal-authoritarian divide. However, the ideological incompatibility between American liberalism and Russian conservatism is less convincing. For example, McFaul cautions against Putin’s nefarious conservative ideology committed to “Christian, traditional family values” that threatens the liberal international order.

The new ideological divide nonetheless advances neo-McCarthyism in the West. McFaul presents a list of European conservatives and populists that should be treated as American conservatives, purged from political life as enemies of the liberal international order and thus possible agents of Russia. Hillary Clinton even suggested that the Capitol Hill riots were possibly coordinated by Trump and Putin – yes, Russiagate is here to stay. The solution, for McFaul, is for American tech oligarchs to manipulate algorithms to protect populations from Russian-friendly media.

An American ideological project

McFaul cautions against what he refers to as “Putin’s ideological project” as a threat to the liberal international order. Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the liberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War era.

With no sign of US returning to fold, Russia is preparing to withdraw from 'Open Skies' treaty - Foreign Ministry

After the Cold War, liberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition – suggesting that liberal democracy should be at the center of security strategies. However, by linking liberal norms to US leadership, liberalism became both a constitutional principle and an international hegemonic norm.

NATO is presented as a community of liberal values – without mentioning that its second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative and authoritarian than Russia – and Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility to revert to its original mission as a military bloc containing Russia.

Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until the West supported the coup in Ukraine. Yet, as Western “fact checkers” and McFaul inform us, there was a “democratic revolution” and not a coup. Committed to his ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its borders, as it would give hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul’s ideological lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails to explain why Russia does not mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good relations.

Defending the peoples

States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that endow them with the right to defend other peoples. The French National Convention declared in 1792 that France would “come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to recover their liberty,” and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 “the duty to render assistance, armed, if necessary, to the fighting proletariat of the other countries.”

The American liberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the world with “democracy promotion” and “humanitarian interventionism” when it conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that democracy is advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack if Russia interferes in the domestic affairs of US. The liberal international system is one of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.

McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are merely motivated by the objective of liberating Russians from their government, which is why he advocates that Biden “distinguish between Russia and Russians – between Putin and the Russian people.” This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the Cold War – the US supposedly does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.

McFaul and other liberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a “defensive alliance,” which does not make much sense after the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011. However, under the auspices of liberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as it defends the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn’t have rational reasons for opposing the liberal international order.

McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US, before outlining his strategies for interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American “non-governmental organizations” that are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He goes on to explain that the US government must counter this by establishing new “non-government organizations” to educate the Russian public about the evils of their government.

The dangerous appeal of ideologues

Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom tend to promise perpetual peace. Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed defender of the ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world and utopia can be bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power politics.

Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for “revisionism.” Raymond Aaron once wrote: “Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides states into good and evil, into peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist, believing he has broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes.” 

Lavrov - Russian Foreign Minister Agrees That NATO's Raison d'être is to Maintain Tensions With Russia

Fighting Russia has become an existential necessity for NATO, if tensions are reduced alliance has no purpose – Russia FM Lavrov

Admittedly, this article comes from RT (RussiaToday), which is blatantly nationalistic.

However, what Lavrov is saying is what I have been saying for several years now,

even before I had ever heard of RT. It's just that obvious.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov © Sputnik / Press service of the Russian foreign Ministry

Confrontation with Russia has become the sole reason for NATO’s existence, and this encourages instability in Europe, creating artificial dividing lines on the continent. That's according to Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov.

The veteran diplomat told the Moscow daily Trud that everyone knows there are no real threats to security in Europe but that NATO needs to invent them in order to keep itself relevant. Lavrov also drew attention to the fact that Russia has repeatedly proposed measures to reduce tensions and reduce the risk of incidents on the continent.

A Reading Error, or Freudian Slip? - Esper Says NATO Must 'Avoid Peace' in Europe

The Real Bill Browder Story (part one): What US/UK Media Won’t Tell You About Billionaire Lobbyist’s Dubious Narrative

“Now, just like during the Cold War, fighting Russia on all fronts, including information and propaganda, has become the alliance’s reason for existence,” he explained. “NATO has deployed extensive resources on the eastern flank, near our borders, including conducting exercises and improving military infrastructure.”

“The alliance continues to expand its area of military and political influence, inviting all new countries under its ‘umbrella’ under the pretext of protecting them from Russia,” he added.

Lavrov further explained that the alliance adheres to the line of “containment and dialogue” in relations with Russia, although “as a result, there is practically no place for a real and open dialogue on pressing problems.”

In the same interview, the foreign minister accused Ukrainian authorities of not hiding their desire to use the conflict in the Donbass to preserve European Union sanctions pressure on Russia, by not fulfilling their obligations under the Minsk Agreements.

According to him, Kiev takes advantage of the fact that the EU continues to link the issue of improving relations between the bloc and Russia with the implementation of the Minsk agreements, to which Russia is not a party. “Alas, this artificial and short-sighted link persists to this day – to the great satisfaction of the Kiev authorities, which not only do not fulfill their obligations under the Minsk Package of Measures, but also make no secret of their desire to use the unresolved conflict to maintain sanctions pressure against Russia,” Lavrov said.

He added that any questions about the prospects for improving relations between Moscow and Brussels should be addressed to colleagues from the EU, who initiated curtailing cooperation.

I have doubts that while trying to convince Europe and America that He is not dangerous, that Putin would authorize a pathetic attempt to poison Alexie Navalny. He may be an annoyance to Putin, but he is certainly no danger. Political enemies and NATO itself would have a far better reason to poison Navalny, if, in fact, he was poisoned. 

Trump Signs International Religious Freedom Executive Order, Approving $50 Million for Programs

Some good news in the War on Christianity, for a change, I think

Ben Kennedy
CBN News

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump called upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution on Tuesday.  

"Because there is so much religious persecution in the world it also hurts all the other human rights," said Sam Brownback, US Ambassador At Large for Religious Freedom.

In the Oval Office, Trump signed an executive order that appropriates $50 million for programs that advance international religious freedom around the world. 

"I think it can be massive, but part of my modeling in this program is wanted to have religious freedom be like the human trafficking issue," Brownback said. "It would be one that embraces everybody and it goes grassroots."

Under the order, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will develop country-specific action plans for prioritizing religious freedom.

To top that, all personnel assigned to positions overseas will now receive international religious freedom training. 

"It makes international religious freedom a whole of government approach on our basic foreign policy apparatus," Brownback said.

The executive order comes as Christian persecution and anti-Semitism are on the rise around the world. 

North Korea, Afghanistan, and Somalia top the list as the most dangerous countries in the world for Christians, according to Open Doors USA's 2020 World Watch List. 

Russian Communists Prepared to Abandon Atheism - Delicious Irony

Lenin would be rolling in his grave, if he had one: Russian Communists back plan to put 'God' in constitution

Gennady Zyuganov © Sputnik / Vitaly Belousov

By Jonny Tickle

It's not so long ago that they were known as the "Godless Communists." Which means it still comes as a surprise that the party has no objection to the idea of including a reference to the man upstairs in Russia's constitution.

A century on from the Bolshevik revolution, things have come a long way. Russian and other Soviet Communist officials once reveled in their promotion of state atheism, so present leader Gennady Zyuganov's reasoning has also raised a few eyebrows.

Far from being the ‘Opium of the People,’ Zyuganov said that Communism is actually derived from Christianity. Leaving no doubt that party founder Vladimir Lenin would be to rolling in his grave – if he had one.

“When I studied the Bible, in the gospel of the Apostle Paul ... there was the main slogan of Communism. He who does not work does not eat.” he explained. “Actually, in many ways, the moral code of a builder of Communism is built on the Bible.”

While Orthodox Patriarch Kirill and the rest of his church surely welcome the sentiment, they may also dwell on the fact that the Soviet-era Communist party brutally suppressed Christians and murdered thousands of clergy.

Although Zyuganov’s beliefs are very far from Marxism and traditional communist doctrine, his colleagues in the State Duma weren't hugely surprised by his views. This isn’t the party leader’s first flirtation with religion – he once called Jesus Christ the first communist on earth.

Before the establishment of the Soviet Union, Russia was a profoundly religious country. The integration of the Orthodox Church into the government meant that Lenin considered them an organ of the bourgeoisie. Thus, the revolutionary leaders adopted an official atheist policy and, after decades of propaganda, religion in the Soviet Union was absent from mainstream thought.

The break-up of the USSR led to faith being thrust back into the limelight within Russia, and many former staunchly Communist Russians began to turn to Christianity. With over 80 percent of the modern Russian population believing in a God, it's not a shock to see products of the Soviet system simultaneously promoting God and Communism.

There is no confirmation yet if God will be included in the new Constitution. A working group is currently designing all the proposals, and a confirmatory national vote is due to be held on April 22, 2020 – Lenin’s 150th birthday.

Can Russia Handle the Truth About Stalin? Will Putin Allow It to Emerge?

Stalin’s shadow won’t disappear until criminal case

launched against him – investigator

A demonstrator takes a selfie with a portrait of Josef Stalin. © Reuters / Andrey Volkov

A former high-ranking investigator is fighting for a criminal case to be launched against Joseph Stalin, insisting that the legal evaluation of the ex-Soviet leader’s crimes is the only way to finally end his cult in Russia.

Igor Stepanov, who used to be a major crimes detective, addressed the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee, saying that Stalin must be considered “an organizer of mass killings, meaning genocide of Orthodox clergy and other citizens.”

His accusations are based on an NKVD (the USSR’s secret police) order from July 1937 to repress former kulaks (wealthy farmers deprived of their property), ex-convicts, and other “anti-Soviet elements.” The paper, which was signed by Stalin himself, includes the precise number of those to be purged, with 82,700 to face firing squads and 193,400 to be sent to labor camps.

Among those persecuted were around 20 of Stepanov’s relatives, most of whom were priests.

His plea has been rejected by several local investigative bodies already, but he persistently appeals the rulings. He says he will go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to see that justice is served.

Stepanov said he’s well aware that a criminal case against Stalin can’t be launched “due to the death of the suspect” in 1953. But this was never his aim, as the former investigator is only looking for an official legal evaluation of the ex-Soviet leader’s actions. According to Russian law, prosecutors are obliged to carry out the evaluation before rejecting the case.

“Now, no such legal evaluation exists and that’s why the cult of Stalin remains,” Stepanov said.

Though it has been 66 years since he passed away, Stalin remains a widely discussed and highly controversial figure in Russia. Many argue that he led the Soviet Union to victory against the Nazis and created major industries in the country from scratch, but others accuse him of masterminding the merciless purge of hundreds of thousands of dissidents and creating a personality cult around himself.

His approval rating is currently the highest since the USSR collapsed in 1991. A poll in April revealed that more than 50 percent of the population consider Stalin a “positive figure.”

In May, a bust of the ex-Soviet leader was placed outside the Communist Party HQ in Siberia’s third largest city, Novosibirsk. 

The crimes of Stalin haven’t been officially condemned in Russia and what Stepanov is doing is “quite innovative,” Nikita Petrov, from the Memorial human rights group, which among other things investigates the purge of 1936-38, told Kommersant.

“In our country, there’s some special reverence towards Stalin; an unwillingness to admit that he was an ordinary criminal,” he said.

The only case investigated was the Katyn massacre of 1940, in which thousands of Polish POWs were executed, Petrov said. But the blame was placed on NKBD boss Lavrenty Beria and his associates.

Of course he was no ordinary criminal! How many thousands of Mennonites did he starve to death by stealing all their crops and selling them abroad? 

It was the Russian people who defeated Hitler, not Stalin. Stalin was a monster! He eliminated most of his own family because of his paranoia. Communism and paranoia are fused together.

Russian Court Jails Danish Jehovah’s Witness for 6 Years in First Religious Extremism Case

Dennis Christensen leaves after a court session in Oryol © Reuters / Andrew Osborn

Danish Jehovah’s Witness Dennis Christensen has become the first member of the religious group to be jailed for extremist offences in Russia. The group has been banned in the country since 2017.

A district court in Oryol, some 320km south of Moscow, sentenced Christensen to six years in prison after finding that he was the “de facto leader” of a local branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and had been responsible for organizing its activities.

Christensen, a 46-year-old construction worker and son of a Jehovah Witness missionary, had been living in Russia since 2000. He and his wife Irina were preaching for years, although Christensen was not officially a member of the group, the court heard.

He pleaded not guilty, claiming that he had been merely practicing his religion, in accordance with the Russian constitution. Before the verdict was announced, he shouted, calling for religious freedom to be protected in Russia.

Yaroslav Sivulsky, a spokesperson for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, told Reuters that they consider the verdict to be unjust.

In 2017, Russia’s Supreme Court declared the Jehovah’s Witnesses an “extremist organization,” and ordered all of its 395 regional branches to be disbanded. All of the group’s property was handed over to the state.

The conflict between Russian authorities and the religious group had been brewing since at least 2004. The national health authorities objected to the group’s strict rule prohibiting blood transfusions, especially in cases involving children.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses argued that the Russian law on extremism does not mention blood transfusion in any way, but the court rejected its defense. Since then, more than 100 criminal cases against the organization’s members have been opened and dozens of printed booklets have been put on a list of banned extremist literature.

However, last December, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during his annual media Q&A session that branding the Jehovah’s Witnesses as extremists is “utter nonsense,” and promised to look into the prosecution of the group’s members.

Non-Consensual Sects: Senators Prepare Bill to Protect Russians from Destructive Cults

A sectarian prayer house in the village of Nikolskoe, the Penza Region, Russia © Sputnik

A group of Russian senators are preparing a bill to protect the population from destructive sects, including those of foreign origin and those that mask themselves as ‘schools of leadership’, the principal sponsor of the motion told the press.

“Sects are a very dangerous environment. The legislation on this subject needs to be corrected. We are now preparing proposals how to protect our citizens. Unfortunately, at present moment not a single region in the country is without such sects,” RIA Novosti quoted Senator Elena Mizulina as saying on Thursday.

She said that the bill would be prepared in cooperation with government experts and presented to the lower house before November 30.

Mizulina noted that many of the destructive sects arrived in Russia from foreign countries and that not all of them presented themselves as religious groups – some acted as various leadership courses and the like.

“By using various psycho-techniques these sects are defrauding our citizens of their property. In very widespread cases the sects attempt to manipulate the people’s conscience,” she said.

According to the upper house’s working group for countering the threat of destructive sects, about 500 such groups are currently active in Russia.

In 2012, President Vladimir Putin urged the government to toughen the laws governing the activities of the totalitarian cults cropping up across the country. Totalitarian religious groups pose a threat to the society and people, he said: “It’s a hunt not only for souls, but also people’s property.”

Shortly before this, a reclusive Muslim sect had been discovered in Russia’s Tatarstan. Over 70 people, including 27 children, spent a decade in an eight-level catacomb without access to education, healthcare or daylight. In 2007, a similar story was uncovered in Russia’s Penza region, shocking the entire country: Nearly 30 cultists dug a shelter, stocked it with food and spent several months waiting for the apocalypse, which they expected to happen in May 2008.

In February 2016, the State Duma announced that its members had started preparing a bill to protect citizens from destructive sects, but this initiative has not taken the form of a concrete legislative draft.

In June, 2016, President Vladimir Putin signed legislation that severely restricts freedom of religion by prohibiting any religious speech or evangelization outside of places of worship.

In June, 2017, Russian security forces raided the offices of the Church of Scientology.

In August this year, the Justice Ministry listed the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious group as a banned extremist organization. This happened after a lengthy court process that had been started because some members of this group had endangered the life of their children by refusing to allow blood transfusions – which is in line with Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs.

Russian law currently allows religious groups to form, including both those that require no official registration and legal formation and ones that should be officially registered. The sects are allowed to stage any activities if they don’t violate existing laws.

It will be very interesting to watch the development of this bill. How far will Russia go in restricting 'foreign' religions? Will only certain Muslim sects like Sunni or Shia be permitted. Will Salafism and Wahabism be outlawed? Will evangelical Christianity be driven out and only Russian Orthodoxy survive? 

Russian Security Forces Raid (Extremist) Church of Scientology

Free speech has never been a 'right' in Russia and that has led to many an atrocity.

But I can't help but wonder if it has not also led to some good.

Cracking down on Scientology, and Jehovah's Witnesses is a frightening thing to all religious people, and yet, both churches are off-track and Russian people are better off without them. Perhaps there is good and bad in everything.

By Ray Downs 

Police during a search of the premises by investigators at Scientology Church In Moscow last June.

Photo by Maxim Shipenkov/EPA

UPI -- The Russian Federal Security Bureau raided a Church of Scientology office in St. Petersburg, calling it an effort to uncover information about religious extremism.

"Searches are being conducted in connection to the criminal case concerning illegal entrepreneurship, incitement to hatred and the establishment of an extremist association," a source told the Russian news agency, TASS.

The raid comes about one year after the FSB raided several locations in St. Petersburg connected to the Church of Scientology due to allegations of "illegal business dealings."

The Russian government has previously ruled that, because it is not recognized as a religion, proselytizing is a form of money laundering.

I'll need help wrapping my head around that!!!?????

St Petersburg, Russia

I love this image with its beautiful display of pre-Soviet Russian splendour,

 alongside the drab, unimaginative structures of communism

The church, a controversial religious group founded in the United States that is derided by some as a cult, has long been at legal odds with the Russian government.

In 2015, a Moscow court ruled that the group cannot be considered a religion because its name is trademarked in the United States and prohibited it from engaging in its religious activities.

"When decisions like this are handed down, actually everyone loses, and this decision affects not only the Church of Scientology of Moscow. This decision is a sign of disease in the justice system," the group's Moscow branch said in a statement.

But the legal entanglements go back even further.

According to court documents from the International Center for Non-Profit Law, the Church of Scientology first opened its doors in Russia in 1994. But in 1998, the Moscow Justice Department required religious organizations to re-register with the government and refused to grant the Church of Scientology its religious organization status.

Since then, there has been a steady back and forth of legal pushes between the two entities and the Church of Scientology is now considered an "extremist" group by the Russian government.

One wonders how much the Russian Orthodox Church is behind Putin's war on western religions?

In April, Russia's Supreme Court outlawed Jehovah's Witnesses, declaring that an extremist organization and banned its 175,000 adherents from congregating on Russian territory.

Russia outlaws Jehovah's Witnesses as 'extremist'

Court ruling puts Christian denomination in same category as

Islamic State militants

By Mike Bambach  

Yaroslav Sivulsky, a member of the managerial center of the Jehovah's Witnesses, discusses Thursday's ruling by Russia's Supreme Court banning the Christian denomination. 

Photo by Dmitry Tischenko/www.jw-russia.org courtesy Human Rights Watch

April 20, 2017 (UPI) -- Russia's Supreme Court outlawed Jehovah's Witnesses on Thursday, putting the Christian denomination that rejects violence in the same category as Islamic State militants.

The court declared Jehovah's Witnesses an extremist organization and banned its 175,000 adherents from congregating on Russian territory.

Jehovah's Witnesses said it would appeal the decision.

The group's headquarters in St. Petersburg and 395 churches will become state property, according to the Tass news agency.

The Russian government filed suit on March 16 to outlaw the organization, which was already considered an extremist group in St. Petersburg.

Human Rights Watch criticized the decision as "a serious breach of Russia's obligations to respect and protect religious freedom."

"Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia are now given the heartrending choice of either abandoning their faith or facing punishment for practicing it," said Rachel Denber, deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

Russia's Justice Ministry said Jehovah's Witnesses "violate Russia's law on combating extremism" and their pamphlets incite hatred against other groups.

One can only hope that these actions are in preparation for a crack-down on Islamic extremism which is the real problem for Russia and the world.

‘Crackpot Idea’: German Govt Dismisses ‘Islam Law’ Proposed by Merkel’s Party

See no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil - is that a good ideal for a government?

© Wolfgang Rattay / Reuters

The German government has slammed a proposal put forward by Chancellor Merkel’s CDU party, which would see a Muslim registry introduced and the country’s mosques monitored, as nothing but a “populist crackpot idea” incompatible with freedom of religion.

Ahead of September’s looming general election, Julia Kloeckner, the deputy head of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU), and Jens Spahn, a member of the party’s executive committee, floated the idea of passing the so-called ‘Islam law.’

However, Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, dismissed the idea, telling reporters on Monday that “such a law is not now an issue for government business.” He also said Merkel’s cabinet considers freedom of religion “one of the central freedoms safeguarded by our constitution.”

The CDU’s former secretary-general, Ruprecht Polenz, also dismissed the proposal as a “populist crackpot idea.”

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said the proposal is not compatible with Germany’s constitutional order. “Religion is a mark of our society and it must not become a wedge in our society,” he told N-TV, adding “that’s why we ensure that no hate is preached in mosques and that German should be spoken there.”

If 'no hate' is preached in mosques than there is no freedom to proclaim evil and what is perceived to be evil. Are the religious now required to accept evil? Is that freedom of religion? 

Islam will eventually become a wedge in society as it grows in numbers and political power. You cannot avoid the 'wedge in society' by pretending that this will not be the case.

Spahn proposed the so-called ‘Islam law’ earlier this week, arguing that the country’s authorities “had to know what happens in mosques.”

He also advocated the introduction of language tests for imams, saying that many Islamic preachers delivering sermons in German mosques have little or no command of German, as they have come from abroad, according to Berliner Morgenpost. 

Spahn, who maintains that many imams preaching in Germany are on the payrolls of other countries, stressed that it was unacceptable that the authorities “did not know how many mosques there are in Germany, where they are or who finances them.”

Authorities “did not know how many mosques there are in Germany,

where they are or who finances them”

The CDU’s calls for the ‘Islam law’ have come as the outcome of Germany’s September elections look increasingly uncertain. Throughout the past months, more and more conservative voters have turned to the far-right populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which has gained in popularity since the refugee crisis of 2015.

At the CDU’s last convention in December of last year, Merkel called for a ban on full-face veils “wherever legally possible,” signaling that she was ready to take a tougher stance on immigration and refugee issues.