TrueScotsman
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“I tried your link, TS, but that particular page was not available.”
I have no trouble accessing the story here in Japan. Maybe the censors in the UK don’t like the truth getting out?
The bogus think tank behind Russia’s ‘infiltration’ of Europe myth
Tomas Hirst Feb 18, 2015,
Greece Golden Dawn Neo Nazi
Supporters of the far-right Golden Dawn party wave Greek national and party flags during a rally in Athens January 31, 2015.
REUTERS/Kostas Tsironis
Over the past few years a sinister story has been doing the rounds throughout the world’s press — that Russia has been infiltrating Europe through deepening ties with far-right parties.It’s a great headline that vividly recalls the Cold War days of Soviet moles in prominent positions across Europe and the puppet masters in the Kremlin pulling the strings.
It’s also (mostly) nonsense.
The first thing to point out is that the story is not new. It’s been written about repeatedly since at least 2009 (and very likely before that as well). But with the Ukraine crisis raising people’s concerns over the possible threat posed by Russia the subject has suddenly leapt in importance.
Last year, Mitchell Orensteinhe from the august title Foreign Affairs told us that “[Putin’s] regime is growing closer by the month to extreme right-wing parties across Europe”, while Time magazine claimed the Kremlin was “embracing the European right”. And in Europe itself German newspaper Spiegel Online warned that “cooperation between the European far right and Russia has been developing for some time” while the Guardian accused the Kremlin of having “actively cultivated links with the far right in eastern Europe”.
Those are just a tiny sample of the wealth of coverage that this story has generated over the past 12 months. Mostly they repeat the same claims — that pro-Russian statements by these parties are proof of Russia’s involvement in a plot to undermine Europe’s political establishment that has been weakened by years of economic crisis and social unrest.
None of these articles offer much evidence beyond a few choice quotes from Russian politicians and public relations officers expressing their broad support for nationalist movements attached to a few anecdotes.
So what are the facts behind these claims?
This is what we know: In 2014, French far-right party National Front party was granted approval for a €9.2 million loan from First Czech Russian Bank, based in Moscow. The funds arrived following a period of intense lobbying by leaders of the party in Russia as it sought to build up a war chest to spend on its electoral campaigns. The FCR Bank is owned by Roman Popov, a government-friendly oligarch, but it’s not a specifically government-controlled bank.
A visit by Gábor Vona, leader of Hungary’s radical nationalist Jobbik party, to Moscow at the invitation of Moscow State University and members of Russia’s parliament has been interpreted as Kremlin efforts to secure its support. The party has indeed spoken out against European sanctions against Russia and called the independence referendum in Crimea, following its annexation by Russia, “exemplary”.
There are also unsubstantiated rumours that Russia has also funded Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn and right-wing Italian party Northern League, while Bulgaria’s far-right Ataka party was alleged to have close ties with the Russian embassy in a diplomatic cable made public by Wikileaks.
Even Syriza, Greece’s radical left coalition that took power in last month’s election, has been accused of having close ties to Moscow in recent weeks.
These may be indicative of Russia fanning the flames of dissent in Europe, but they do not prove the case that Russia has actual control or genuine political influence. Here is an extract from a 2009 article by think tank Political Capital, the source often cited as the origin for the story:
Recent press reports claim that extreme right-wing parties in Europe are being financed – at least in part – by Russia. While such allegations are wanting for proof, it is a fact that far-right parties in several eastern European countries have become prominent supporters of Russian interests and admirers of the Russian political-economic model.
In recent months some of the evidence used to support these claims has become downright bizarre. A website for a supposed new think tank called the “Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence” (CESI) mysteriously appeared last year. The website claimed to “provide analysis and surveys of political, economic and security processes in Eurasia region”.
And so it did. In December it produced a research report showing all of the political parties in Europe that it claimed were under the thumb of Moscow. Unfortunately, a large chunk of its research appeared to have been plagiarised from other sources and its analysis appeared suspiciously superficial.
Anton Shekhovtsov, a blogger and researcher of the European extreme right, looked into the story. What he found was even more interesting than the think tank’s incendiary claims.
‘William Fowler’ Facebook page used a stock photo as a profile image. Facebook/Masterfile
The think tank listed “William Fowler” as its chairman and chief executive. A Facebook page purportedly belonging to Fowler boasted a picture of a besuited, grey-haired businessman but there was very little information on him otherwise. It turns out that the picture is actually a stock photo with the title “suited old businessman” and “grey hair man glasses”, Shekhovtsov says.The only member of the think tank that appeared to exist at all was Alex Kraus, its supposed chief analyst, who appeared in videos on the site speaking with what is described as a Slavic (but not Russian) accent.
Facebook
Since Shekhovtsov’s investigation the CESI website has been taken down, as has Fowler’s Facebook page. Indeed the only evidence of the think tank’s existence online appears to be a LinkedIn page here which claims that the company has 11-50 employees but lists none, and a Facebook page that was last updated in December blaming an “attack” for the website going down.It is undoubtedly true that Russia is happy to accept useful idiots who are willing to argue against what it sees as an anti-Russia consensus within the European Union. The fact that Moscow felt compelled to pressure Kiev into walking away from an integration pact with the EU — a decision that spurred the protests that ultimately led to the government’s collapse — demonstrated that it now views Europe’s expansion eastwards with the same level of suspicion as it previously held NATO’s.
However, that they are willing to indulge nationalist movements is not the same as controlling them or using them as a Trojan horse in European politics. There are nationalist factions in Moscow pleased to see how disruptive these groups are proving, many of them members of the current administration such as deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin, but it was ever thus. Their alliance is much more likely to be a tactical move rather than a strategic alignment of long term interests (e.g. their support is likely to quickly evaporate once a resolution is finally found to the Ukraine crisis).
Beyond that one loan to the French National Front, there is no evidence that Moscow is funnelling huge sums of cash to fuel nationalist movements all over Europe.
Much though we might like to blame the rise of the xenophobic, authoritarian right as a product of Moscow’s devious plotting, the support for these parties appears to be largely organic and springs predominantly from the general disillusionment with mainstream politics that can be seen across Europe.
In other words, they’re our fault, not Putin’s.
Kremlin’s links to European far-right a bogus myth.
https://www.insider.com/russia-infiltration-of-europe-far-right-is-a-myth-2015-2
Merkel reveals West’s duplicity regarding Minsk.
“Allegations of the summary executions of civilians by Russian troops.
United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – pfawwww…what do they know being the puppets of the West and anti-Russian. Fake news. Ukrainian propaganda.”
Wow, for once All-in with the CIA is actually saying something sensible.
The very first Russian “war crime” mentioned in the article is Bucha which was a Ukrainian massacre of “collaborators”. The UN “investigation” is a joke.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/the-bucha-provocation.html
“At the same time, the Kremlin’s growing cooperation with the far-right parties across Europe”
Fake news debunked years ago. You must do better with your NATOstani propaganda Lobotomy.
https://www.insider.com/russia-infiltration-of-europe-far-right-is-a-myth-2015-2
“”To duplicate the personal fiefdom of Ramzan Kadyrov. What an aspiration.”
Lol. You think that’ll threaten the authority of the Kremlin? What you smoking?
“So bad are conditions that the exiles in the Chechen diaspora refuse to return and outnumber the population of Chechenya”
BS.
“However, you may also have overlooked the existence of the Dzhokhar Dudayev Battalion, Sheikh Mansur Battalion, and the Separate Special Purpose Battalion in the Ukrainian army.”
Oohh, scary! Not. What rubbish. Let’s be generous and say that’s another 10,000. So all up 25,000 out of 500,000. You’re an idiot.
“If you deign not to read the article, then you will never know the answer.”
Fine with me.
“Other than the continued exchanges of artillery fire, there was no attack on the separatist republics by Ukraine that acted as a trigger”
Artillery barrages are an attack. The 150,000 Ukrainian troops were not mobilized on the deconfliction line for a camping trip. They were in place to invade. Russia pre-empted their attack.
“even though you claim there was preparation for such a planned attack.”
There was. There are mountains of evidence to support such a consclusion. Much of which has been presented here. The Russians could provide it all in far more detail.
“You are re-writing history with your own facts.”
No, you are. Because your main source of information on the conflict is the lying western press which convinced dupes like you that Iraq had WMDs, that Gadaafi was giving rape pills to his troops and Assad gassing his own people. It has now convinced you Russia was the aggressor and you swallow it hook, line and sinker. It’s sad and pathetic that a grown adult can be fooled so easily. You are a useful idiot and willing dupe of the NATOstani elite. Bravo.
“Let’s stick to actual events and stop making them up.”
Agreed. Only you’re not capable of actually doing so.
“Are you seriously suggesting that I am wrong in saying that Putin’s aspirations declared in his 2021 essay of a comradely union with Ukraine is impossible now?”
I assume you mean
“possible” not “impossible”. No doubt the same thing was said about Chechnya.“What fantasy are you living in?”
Chechnya.
“Gulnaz Sharafutdinova is Professor of Russian Politics and Acting Director of Russia Institute at King’s College London. Author of ‘The Red Mirror: Putin’s Leadership’ and ‘Russia’s Insecure Identity and Political Consequences of Crony Capitalism Inside Russia’ so she is no journalistic light-weight but a scholar.”
I have very little respect for western “scholars” when it comes to discussion of “official enemies”. They lie as much as “journalists”.
““The shift of power and influence away from the official security and defence institutions towards non-state organisations, such as Wagner and Kadyrov’s forces (also known as kadyrovtsy), who feel empowered to openly and sharply criticise state officials and army generals, might have significant consequences…””
Wagner and Kaydrov’s forces are but a tiny fraction of a fraction of Russian personnel. There are somewhere around half a million Russian troops in theater now. Wagner is around 5,000 the Chechens 10,000 if I recall. Your “scholar” thinks them significant how exactly? Lol, Lol, Lol
“Putin’s three key demands were the end of the expansion of NATO, no deployment of offensive weapon systems close to the Russian borders, and returning NATO to the status quo of 1997.”
Point one required implementation of Minsk 2.
“The rest was all window-dressing, the genocide claims, the invasion of DPR and LPR, the De-Nazification.”
Rubbish. You’ve created a false dichotomy.
“Political fiction to garner domestic support from Russians”
Nothing fictional about it at all. The Kiev Nazis wanted to ethnically cleanse Donbass. They probably foolishly believed Russia would not intervene. Well, they were wrong about that.
“Global geo-politics was always the real issue.”
Again a false dichotomy. Both can be true at the same time.
“Ukraine and the separatist republics mere pawns.”
Yes, Ukraine is a NATOstani pawn.
“Look once again at the beginning of this topic thread and you will find repeated posts stating that the war was provoked by the West’s economic and military expansion.”
Yes, but the trigger was Kiev’s attack on Donbass.
“Russia’s self-interest was to counter it for its own strategic reasons as specified by Putin a year earlier in his famous essay…An expansion of the Russian Federation to include Belarus and Ukraine”
Its existential interest.
“We oppose both sides in this war because workers have no vested interest in who prevails.”
Workers absolutely do have a vested interest in a Russian victory. It will very likely lead to a collapse of NATO and the eventual creation of a multipolar world free of Washington’s hegemony.
“Has the invasion succeeded in achieving these aims?”
It’s half time. Stop calling the match.
“More expansion with Sweden and Finland joining.”
Actually, Turkey is blocking their membership. But Russia is not concerned if either join. If Finland builds NATO infrastructure however, then Finland has a problem.
“More NATO forces to Poland and the Baltic States with even more integration with all the NATO countries committing increased military budgets. DUH”
NATO is a paper tiger. Its economies are in crisis. The alliance is likely to crumble upon Russia’s victory over the Ukrainian Nazis.
“Any hope Putin had of returning Ukraine to being an ally has totally disappeared.”
And what are next week’s lotto numbers?
“I can speculate that in Belarus increased opposition to Lukashenko has weakened it.”
And Starlight the rainbow unicorn has invited all her friends to a lollipop party.
An excellent discussion of western/Ukrainian duplicity regarding Minsk Agreements. Starts at 43:40.
“Russia could easily have gone to the general assembly and appealed to the court of public opinion.”
Lol. Public opinion doesn’t stop Nazis, violence does.
“Instead, it spent weeks and months positioning its forces under the guise of military exercises, denying its intention to invade Ukraine.”
Meant to dissuade the Nazis from doing something stupid. Except the Russian decision to intervene in the conflict was last minute. So yet one more thing you are wrong about brah.
U.S. Intelligence Says Putin Made a Last-Minute Decision to Invade Ukraine
“Ritter himself emphasises for a pre-emptive attack, there has to be an imminent threat.”
Must we chase our tails on this? Yawn.
“There was no imminent threat to justify an invasion.”
There was.
“The majority of NATO nations did not believe Russia would attack despite US intelligence.”
Because the Kremlin did not know it would intervene in the conflict. Its hand was forced by Kiev Nazi aggression.
“(The French chief of intelligence had to resign for not fully appreciating the warning signs of a Russian invasion)”
The world’s smallest violin is playing for him.
“All we have is Russian and separatist (and your) claim that Ukraine were preparing an attack whereas Ukraine could explain that they were preparing to defend itself against those threatening Russian troop movements which were a prelude to the war.”
Erm no. We also have the shelling, the troop build-up, the admission Minsk was used as a smokescreen to re-arm, the promises to retake Donbass and Crimea, the threat of acquiring nuclear weapons, etc. Forget about all that?
“In spring 2021, Russia began a major military build-up near the border. A second build-up followed from October 2021”
Both precipitated by Ukrainian build-ups.
“Russia was seeking a pretext for invading.”
BS. Russia wanted Minsk 2. I prefer to think you’re too dim to be a liar. But you’re certainly giving Pinocchio a run for his money.
“Even under your own scenario (which I don’t accept) Ukraine had positioned an invading army with heavy weapons and been conducting artillery barrages to soften up the separatists. Ample time for Russia to appeal to the UN and furnish the evidence.”
The Minsk Agreement had already been enshrined as a UN resolution at the Securty Council. France and Germany were not fulfilling their obligations to press for Ukrainian compliance. The UK was arming and building numerous bases in Ukraine. The US was arming and training Ukrainian troops and directing Ukraine into a confrontation with Russia. The UN mechanisms established to prevent conflict had not only failed but were being actively undermined. Russia had no choice but to act.
https://ru-main.ru/russian-officials-seek-for-effective-ways-to-stop-war-in-donbass/
“Can you direct me to any Russian resolution or was it all so sudden that Russia didn’t have the time to provide proof of Ukraine’s intentions?”
I’m not aware of any. But we both know the US and UK are active participants in the conflict and would have vetoed any Security Council Resolution. The time lost on any such Kabuki theater, which the US and UK were no doubt counting on, would have benefited the Kiev Nazi invasion of Donbass.
“There may well have been such a diplomatic approach at UN level but I have failed to find it. You may have better luck in directing us to such a move at the UN.”
Russia wasn’t going to play games with the US and UK. It was going to act to prevent a Nazi invasion and ethnic cleansing of Donbass.
“Countless organisations declared the Iraq invasion illegal and numerous have called for Bush and Blair to be charged with being war criminals. Not just individual commentators but well-respected NGOs.”
It was precedent setting. And what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But like you say, it’s just Scott Ritter’s interpretation of the law. The Kremlin has its own, and if asked would no doubt provide its legal reasoning.
“Ritter’s faulty logic says that one illegal war legitimises another.”
That’s your opinion. And you’re entitled to it.
“So can you link me to someone who practises international law, a credible professional, who declareD the invasion of Ukraine as legal? I am sure there must be such a person and we be interested to read his or her informed legal opinion.”
I’ve already provided a source that gives a legal defence of the invasion. You don’t like it, I don’t give a shit. I’m not your librarian. You want another source, find it yourself.
“Five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States”
So three there.
“I make it two, Albania and Norway with Ireland, a half member.”
So that’s five and a half then. UAE is a US protectorate so that may as well be six and a half. Ghabon, Ghana and Kenya no doubt easily bullied by NATOstan. Nine and half, rounded up to ten.
France out of weapons to send Ukraine.
“Under what clause of the United Nations allows a foreign country to invade another to intervene in an internal affair of that country even if justified as pre-emptive.
The self-declared governments of LPR and DPR were not recognized by any governments other than Russia. There was no attack on Russia to claim self-defence.”
See Scott Ritter’s piece.
“There was no invasion of the separatist republics although you insist there was going to be.”
I do. And the evidence is overwhelming in support of that conclusion.
“Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have called for Russia to immediately cease its attack on Ukraine.”
As is its right.
“China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstained from the vote”
Right.
“the eleven remaining members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution.”
How many are NATO members I wonder?
“A General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian invasion was passed with a 141–5 vote majority, with 35 nations abstaining.”
Just shows how many nations crumble in the face of US/EU bribes and intimidation.
“Just because various Western countries have broken international law doesn’t lead to another wrong being right.”
Actually, law often works by precedent. So not sure the law’s on your side on that one. At any rate, fighting Nazis is never wrong.
“The international community has made it clear who started the war. It was not Ukraine.”
And which countries make up the “international community”? Let me guess, the US, EU and their allies?
“No doubt you will produce counterclaims from various so-called experts in international law such as Scott Ritter whose authority is not recognised by any other legal expert as you have done previously. But who are you trying to convince. Yourself?”
You probably haven’t even read the article so what would you know?
“It doesn’t matter how often you repeat your mantra that this “special military operation” was a war of aggression under the terms of the UN charter.”
No, it was pre-emptive self defence which is not illegal.
“There was no genocide although a bitter bloody civil war”
Only because of Russia’s intervention. You get that, right? Admittedly it’s a little chicken and egg but it’s really not that hard to understand. The answer is proto-chicken. The proto-chicken came first.
“You ignore that Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov offered amnesty to the separatists if they laid down their arms and surrendered, and also offered concessions that included devolution of power to regions, and the protection of the Russian language in law. Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko also announced a fifteen-point plan for peace.”
There was Minsk 2. The Nazis ignored it.
“You ignore the opposition to separatism by many in Donetsk.”
Minsk 2.
“You call the Maidan events a coup.”
And what do you call it? Am I about to hear a “socialist” whitewash a Nazi coup? Comedy gold.
“Others call the separatist action a putsch.”
Minsk 2.
“You ignore that the Crimea Tatars reported that they were being persecuted by the new Russian authority in 2014 and many fled to Ukraine.”
Nope. Didn’t.
“You talk a lot about Ukrainian refugees being a burden on the West but ignore that Donbas refugees to Russia are also thought of as a burden”
Refugees are by definition
a burden. But whereas Russia is willing to sustain that burden I’m not so confident NATOstan will.“You forget all about the pro-Ukrainian loyalists who fled the separatist republics and who became IDPs”
Minsk 2.
“And from well behind the front lines.”
The Donbass militia’s are also fighting. So however you spin it it’s a Russian effort.
“As i said in an earlier post, those unfortunates in what can now only be described as penal battalions”
No, they’re not. No one is forced to join the Wagner group and I suspect most are former serving military. What evidence do you have that a majority are convicts?
“are being used as cannon fodder and forced forward into suicide attacks”
Rubbish. Casualties are 10:1 in Russia’s favour. It is the Ukrainians who are committing suicide not the Russians.
“all for the glory of Prigozhin and his political ambitions”
Nope, to stop the relentless 8 year shelling of Donbass innocents by Nazi scum.
“Did you ever answer why the name Wagner was chosen for the organisation, Hitler’s favourite composer?”
Don’t know, don’t care. And neither do you.
“Sadly, very sadly, this war is long from being over. You conceded it will last another year.”
Compared to what? Afghanistan? Vietnam? WW2. Any war is too long but Russia didn’t start it it’s finishing it.
