Monday, May 11, 2015

Putin is the West's Creation

When the media creates an object of hate, it is amazing to watch the coordinated flood of attacks that none will admit is coordinated. The pure anger the media complex feels towards Vladimir Putin is strong enough to be felt through computer screens. Whether it is legitimate criticism, snarky insult throwing or ethnic animus fueled diatribes, the American media is unrelenting. There is an undercurrent of fear in all of it. A fear that Putin, and what he represents (Russia's deep state), understand the current USG leadership and can break free from it, pulling others away as well. What all of these pundits and righteous keyboard warriors miss is that Putin is a result of the West's predatory moves in the 1990s.

Putin the man is a product of Russia. Son of a military veteran, KGB agent, reliable comrade. He is a man made in the late Soviet era. How he became leader of the Russian nation is a creation of the West's suite of moves throughout the 1990s. There is a wonderful article that describes the rise and fall of the '90s Russian oligarchs. Read as a simple record of the rocket like rise of a handful of men who often had dual citizenship (Russia and Israel) followed by a nearly as quick crash to earth, one can miss the deeper read to it. These handful of men were the prime beneficiaries of the US guided privatization system of the 1990s. The system was based on vouchers for shares of firms where companies would be auctioned off. The initial idea would be that many of the management teams and professional workers would end up with a share of the equity in firms. This did not happen. The speed of the auctions with little educational efforts and confusing presentation of the system in a nation with a different history for law gave an advantage to anyone with insider access and who had some banking expertise. The bankers with capital also went around with cash and bought up vouchers from the little people to amass tons of vouchers for auctions. If this sounds like what Alexander Hamilton did with scrip and federal debt, it's close. The later loans for shares program allowed rigged bids so that bankers like Khodorkovsky could gain 78% of Yukos which was valued at $5 billion for just $310 million dollars. Berezovsky got oil giant Sibneft worth $3 billion for just $100 million. This is how so much wealth was consolidated in the hands of so few.

If you read the linked article, it is not just money moves that were a problem. These new tycoons were eager for joining forces with the West. They were also eager for political control, including control of the armed forces. Each suggestion they had was for greater control over the state apparatus and a quick engagement with the same power that had just spent decades demonizing Mother Russia. The end of Communism was just junking a system of governance for a new one, as the same crew was still in charge, so these moves by the oligarchs were legitimate moves to upend the order of the prior decades. To the security state hierarchy, that is a direct challenge and immediate threat. The men making these moves own the media, own an insane percentage of the national means of production, and have continuously amassed millions (or billions) as the nation has experienced a crash in social standards and a hyperinflation. These are the billionaires that pushed to keep Yeltsin in power when it was blatantly obvious by 1996 that his reforms were serving so few. Come 1999, the wonder must be, "when will it ever be enough for these men".

The link explains how the real battle was between Berezovsky and Primakov. Primakov represented the security state, and he wanted to make moves against Berezovsky. Berezovsky struck first to have Primakov removed, but Primakov struck back. Berezovsky liked to think he was the man who found Putin in his obscure position for the leadership role. The article above considers Putin a compromise candidate, and one that tilted towards the security state. Let's get real about this, and read Putin's page on La Wik. Putin was a KGB agent who worked in East Germany, which was the Cold War hot spot, had worked his way up not just on a security basis to circles of power in St. Petersburg and then Moscow, to later be the head of the FSB (post-USSR KGB). That guy is not obscure. Putin was a piece of the security state machinery. Primakov, and the itnerests he represented, would have to use a face of a younger generation to get back at the oligarchs.

Putin's installation was a compromise but a move by the more nationalist feeling and paranoid elements of the Russian state. If the US sticks to the Bush 41 idea of not encroaching on the old USSR sphere of influence regions, the Russian security state probably does not react in that manner. If the Harvard-Wall Street-US Treasury boys do not pillage the economy with help by favored insiders, the entire domestic evolution in Russia is different. Hyperinflation, default, massive concentration of wealth... does any of it happen without the US pushing as hard as it did financially? Creating mega-wealthy insiders who then manipulate an election to continue their pillaging of the economy, how much paranoia and defensiveness is due to American moves?

The American academic and media infrastructure is quick to point out any American origins to foreign figures that come back to bite American interests. There are books about Vietnam that try to spin Ho Chi Minh as American aided because he may or may not have received a rifle during WW2 despite the fact that he was leading a liberation group for decades before that mythical meeting. These pundits who froth at the mouth when reporting on Putin could do us all the favor of explaining how his rise and stance towards America is all due to American meddling in the domestic realm of a beaten foe. They cannot do so. It would admit fallibility, and their insecurity and control of the system depends on righteous infallibility.


deconstructingleftism said...

I would say in the same way Hitler was a creation of the West. Germany was fertile ground for all sorts of evils, but the Western desire to crush Germany, especially Britain's desire to have no competitors in Europe, made it all the more likely.

The total destruction of Russian society by communism can't be denied though. Anyone not a craven coward or suck up was killed or ruined. The church was suborned to the limited extent it destroyed. Communism actively discouraged pity and compassion. Nothing and no one was prepared to offer any resistance. The KGB was never as powerful as depicted, it was just another mid-level bureaucracy, and not prepared to run the country.

As for the nation being run by billionaires of a different ancestry- well, how does that make them any different from us?

Russia is probably permanently destroyed. I don't think Uncle Sam is in a lot better shape.

Toddy Cat said...

Yes, Communism wrecked Russia. After the Cold War, what the former USSR needed was actual help and guidance from the West, in re-establishing a civil society, and recovering its traditional culture. What it got was George Soros, kleptocracy, and a bankster cabal looting a country already on its last legs. Russia could have been, should have been, a partner and an ally. That opportunity is now gone forever. If the West hates Putin, our elites have only themselves to blame, and they know it.

Anonymous said...

The question is what comes now? Cold War 2.0 or something much worse?

sykes.1 said...

It wasn't just the unlamented oligarchs. Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Medvedev and Putin all wanted Russia to be part of Europe, a single Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals (Putin as DeGaulle). But the US would have none of it, and continued the Cold War driving NATO's borders into the Russia's historic heartland, and driving Russia into China's arms. Some reset.

Saturday, Russia's victory celebrations were attended by dozens of countries. Most importantly, both China's Xi and the President of India attended and made formal speeches praising the USSR's contribution to victory in WW II. Chinese and Indian troops and the troops of 8 other countries marched in the parade. (Russia and China will conduct joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean shortly.)

Merkel placed a wreathe and then petulantly boycotted the parade and berated Putin for the sins of Stalin. (Did Putin know Merkel in East Germany? Was she STASI?) Other Western leaders boycotted the entire celebration.

I think May 9th in Moscow will prove to be a major historic event. A turning point where non-Western, mostly Asian, countries found common cause against an American hegemon and began the long process of unseating it. Inda's presence is a warning flag.

IdahoRoyalist said...


I agree on the India warning. The United States, never the strongest link when it comes to foreign policy, will absolutely be the reason why India winds up in Russia's orbit. Our neocons and current policy, for some profoundly retarded reason, believe in Pakistan as this dependable, stable ally. Allying with a horrible mess like Pakistan did nothing to gain any favor with India.

Son of Brock Landers said...

US had been anti-Modi because Modi is an Indian nationalist, not a globalist stooge. The cathedral is worried. Obama himself wrote the Time 100 most influential essay on Modi. It might as well read, "Please dont align with Russia and China".

NYC Shyster said...

I knew a Customs agent from NYC who was contracted by the Summers/Harvard Russia sell-off crew to travel around Russia disposing of factories and equipment. They would go to some town to dispose of the factories. Limousines of Russian black marketeers (soon to be oligarchs) with their bodyguards would shadow them as they traveled form town to town, hoovering up the employees' vouchers. The chump Russian workers had no idea what they were getting or what it was worth -- other than a few bottles of vodka.

But not to worry. As one of the Harvard guys (Samuelson?) said to a friend, "It will all wind up in the right hands."

Just a few years later, this guy I never heard of (Putin) was running for office and my father read his book (maybe speeches or interviews, I can't remember exactly). He gave them to me, I read them, and we were both impressed. The guy was a man of the people and was committed to doing what's right by the Russian people. My opinion hasn't changed. We both wished America had a guy like Putin running for president of the USA.

Not an Oligarch said...

India is rumbling against the Ford Foundation for funding anti-Modi activists: and Robert Kaplan, interim CEO of the Harvard Management Company, is also a Ford Foundation trustee.