Radio NZ interviews the crook Browder who is wanted in Russia for embezzlement

Radio NZ joins the worst of the agents of disinformation with this interview with Bill Browder who, they fail to mention, is wanted in Russia for the embezzlement of billions of rouble.

He is simply a crook.

Instead to RNZ he is simply an “enemy of Putin”.

Be sure to watch the Rossiya-1 documentary about Browder. The documentary below on the rise of Vladimir Putin and the fall of the Jewish oligarchs is relevant because Browder is part of this world.  

Putin's enemy says Skripal attack an act of terrorism

Radio NZ,

9 March, 2018

Bill Browder, who has been described as Vladimir Putin's number one enemy, says the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in England was an act of terrorism by Russia.

 

Mr Browder was an American-born finance executive in Russia who was refused entry to the country in 2005 as a threat to national security.

He claimed it was because he and his lawyer Sergei Magnitsky had exposed corruption in the country.

Mr Magnitsky died while being held in prison in Russia. In a posthumous case against the lawyer, Mr Browder was indicted and tried in absentia. He was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison.

Mr Browder told Morning Report Mr Skripal's poisoning fitted the Russian government's modus operandi, with strong similarities to the 2006 death of Alexander Litvinenko, a defector and former officer of the Russian FSB secret service who died from radiation poisoning in London.

Mr Skripal and his daughter are both in critical condition after a chemical attack on them in England. Mr Skripal had been a Russian spy before defecting to England and working with MI6.

"This is a man considered to be a traitor to security services in Russia; nerve agent can only be produced by a government; what else could it be but a Russian hit in the UK?" Mr Browder told Morning Report.

Mr Browder said the killing of Mr Litvinenko and lack of serious repercussions had created an environment where Mr Putin and the Russian government felt they could get away with these kinds of attacks.

"I don't think Putin really cared one way or another about this individual, but he cares very profoundly about all the other people around him who are less and less loyal to him because the money is drying up in Russia," he said.

"I've been doing this for a long time now" - Bill Browder duration 7′ :30″ from Morning Report

"I've been doing this for a long time now" - Bill Browder

"People are starting to privately grumble and Putin's way of dealing with that is to terrorise them.

"He's sent the most powerful message to everybody around him that if you even think about doing something which is disloyal, terrible things will not just happen to you, they will happen to your family."

Mr Browder said Russia wanted legal deniability but was winking and nudging about the attack.

"They got caught last time when they did the same type of thing with nuclear materials with Litvinenko. They were very happy because there were no consequences."

As an enemy of the Russian government, Mr Browder said he was at risk of a similar attack and had already faced death threats, kidnapping threats and extradition threats.

However, he says he was not living in fear.

"I continue to live with a clean, balanced psychology because if I lived in fear they would have already achieved their objective and I'm not going to let them do that."

Mr Browder said he could not describe the types of precautions he takes in his own life as it would provide the Russian government with too much information.

This short documentary from Rossiya-1 gives a background on who this person really is

The Browder Effect

Rossiya -1

This documentary caused an uproar in Russia when it appeared in April of 2016.

This film was made by the main Russian government news broadcasting company, Rossiya 1.

It alleges that Bill Browder, the legendary American hedge fund manager who from 1995 - 2005 was the largest foreign investor in Russia, controlling billions of $ and a significant share of Russia’s leading companies, was in fact a CIA front.

At one point his funds owned 7% of Gazprom, using what the film argues were illegal schemes to acquire shares

The film argues that Browder’s whole involvement with Russia was a CIA operation to disrupt Russia politically and economically

It alleges that in 2006, Browder was instructed by the CIA to provide financial support to the rising opposition politician, Alexei Navalny, and that the two then closely cooperated for the next 5 years.

As evidence, the film cites hacked CIA email and skype correspondence which it claims fell into Russian hands during the government upheaval in Kiev in 2014.

When the film appeared, Browder and Navalny charged that the evidence was faked, and Navalny sued Rossiya 1 for libel. As of the translation of this video, (July 2016), the suit has not been concluded.

Browder was expelled from Russia in 2006, after which he led a highly successful public campaign criticizing Russia and Putin. The film argues that the campaign was financed by the CIA.

The campaign demanded sanctions against Russia for what Browder alleged was the murder of one of his employees, Sergei Magnitsky, and theft from his companies, by corrupt Russian officials.

His campaign resulted in the famous “Magnitsky Act” sanctions against Russia, passed by Congress in 2012.

The film alleges that this cynically misrepresents the facts. It alleges that Magnitsky ended up in jail for carrying out major fraud for Browder, and that he was on the verge of testifying against Browder when he died. It cites the hacked CIA mail as evidence that the CIA managed to orchestrate Magnitsky’s death in prison.

The film argues that the only people with a motive for Magnitsky’s death were Browder and the CIA, because his testimony about the tax fraud would have been devastating.

The film includes embarrassing details of tax avoidance schemes used by Browder and Magnitsky, including hiring barely literate invalids in remote corners of Russia as fake executives in order to receive tax breaks amounting to 100s of millions of $.

The film then alleges, again citing the hacked CIA correspondence, that in 2010 Browder paid Navalny $300,000 to conduct a PR campaign in Russia in support of the Magnitsky Act.

This documentary was never aired separately, rather appeared as a segment within the April 13, 2016 episode of the popular Russian political talk show “Spetsialnii Korrespondent” https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAkt...

The episode consisted of an emotional 1.5 hour discussion of the film, with several people who appeared in the film present https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37GZ3... (only in Russian)

Of the 10-plus guests, all but one, an American journalist, argued heatedly that Browder had clearly committed gross financial crimes and agreed with the film.

The comment leading into the beginning of the film is typical of the tone of the talk show, where the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s parliament compares Browder to an “intestinal tapeworm”.

At the conclusion of the film, the talk show guests discussed the film for a further 1.5 hours. About half of the guests were also featured in the film, and they were able to go into much more detail about their knowledge of the Browder case.

The discussion became very emotional, with some guests shouting about what they alleged are Browder’s crimes.

The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs

Ukraine: Poroshenko vs Kolomoiskii

Is Uncle Sam “tossing” Kolomoiskii?

Kolomoiskii

the Saker,

23 March, 2015

Events in the Ukraine are taking a very serious turn: Poroshenko has declared that private “pocket” armies of governors will no longer be tolerated and he has now given Kolomoiskii 24 hours to lay down arms.  Poroshenko’s chief henchmen – Arsen Avakov and the CIA’s Valentin Nalivaichenko – have indicated that Poroshenko has their full support and loyalty.  In other words, the full power of the junta is now threatening to come down on Kolomoiskii’s head.  Kolomoiskii, in turn, is preparing some kind of pro-Kolomoiskii “maidan” in Dnepropetrovsk for Wednesday.  In order to prevent that, several death squads (“national guard battalions”) have been sent to the city.

It sure looks like the freaks are really going to go after each other.

It will be very interesting to observe how this will play out.  The US seems to be fully supporting Poroshenko as will most other countries.  For the Empire, it might be a good moment to get rid of such a fantastically odious figure like Kololmoiskii.
Interestingly, Kolomoikii has recently declared in an interview that if new elections were organized in Novorussia he believed that Zakharchenko and other Novorussian officials would probably be reelected.  Such overtures to the Novorussian leadership are a sign that Kolomoiskii is in a tough spot and that he is considering his options.

As for Poroshenko, he appears as bellicose as ever, making grand statements about everything and running around in battle fatigues. Whether that will be enough to impress a thug whose net worth is estimated at 1.3 billion dollars is unclear to me.  And yet, I don’t see Kolomoiskii prevailing in this fight.  Not only is the Empire clearly supporting Poroshenko, as key “power figures” in the junta, but even Russia has (reluctantly) accepted that, at least for the time being, Poroshenko was if not fully legitimate, then the real de-facto leader of the Nazi occupied Ukraine.  So while left one on one Kolomoiskii would probably easily defeat Poroshenko, the fact that the latter has the full backing of the Empire will probably be crucial.

I would add that for the Empire to support the weaker party is normal, but not out of some sense of justice for the little guy, but simply because the stronger party does not need external support to win whereas the weaker party always does.  This is the real reason why the Empire will always side with the minority, with the smaller group – it is easier to control.   Siding with Poroshenko just makes the him even more dependent on US support.

So it all adds up: Kolomoiskii is a universally loathed figure, there is a very good chance that MH17 can be fully dumped on him (thereby providing the Empire with a face saving “out”), he is probably very hard to control and he is threatening the junta.  If I was sitting in Langley my recommendation would be clear: send him to Muzychko.

The Saker

Kolomoisky finishing Ukraine up

By Valentin Katanosov

Source: http://m.fondsk.ru/news/2015/02/21/kolomojskij-doedaet-ukrainu-31862.html

Translated by Claudio

the Saker,

23 March, 2015

About 15 years ago, “natural selection”-based oligarchic capitalism started being developed in Ukraine: oligarchs devoured small and medium businesses, as well as state-owned assets. As resources of primitive accumulation were going to be exhausted, oligarchs began to devour each other by means of administrative pressure, raider attacks, corrupt courts, trumped-up charges and, if necessary, murder. This process was quite similar to a fight of scorpions in a can.

After the 2014 coup, this “natural selection” fight sharply escalated. Such oligarchs as Dmitry Firtash fizzled out, whereas other oligarchs are still struggling to survive. For instance, Ukraine’s former oligarch n.1, Rinat Akhmetov, has been already eliminated from the world’s 100 richest people list: according to Bloomberg, he dropped from 88th to 121th place. Just last year, Akhmetov’s wealth decreased by 4.3 billion USD and dropped down to 9.6 billion USD.

Be that as it may, only two scorpions succeeded in coming through to the final battle: Petr Poroshenko and Igor’ Kolomoisky…

Even if evaluating Poroshenko’s position in the business world became a somewhat difficult task after his election, it’s still possible to say something about Kolomoisky’s.

Let’s see the latest news about him. On February 19, it was reported that Kolomoisky’s company shares, traded on the London Stock Exchange, had lost a quarter of their value just in a day. We are talking about oil-and-gas company JKX Oil & Gas (hereinafter – JKX), which is registered in the UK. Well, its blocking stake (27.47 %) belongs to an offshore structure called Eclairs Group Ltd. Eclairs. 

As Nagel Moore, Chairman of the Board of Directors, reported last spring in a letter to the shareholders, this company was registered “through an intricate network of offshore trusts” in the British Virgin Islands, its 59.1% share is owned by Kolomoisky, the remainder belongs to Ukrainian oligarch and Kolomoisky’s closest business partner Gennady Bogoljubov and his family.

As for the 19 February losses, the largest slump in JKX stock prices was recorded in the middle of the day: 34 % below its opening price, whereas there was a 25% rate to the end of the day. According to a Reuters survey, at the beginning of February JKX had a market capitalization of 90 mln USD. The company operates mainly in the Ukraine (85% of revenues).

JKX has also assets in Russia, Hungary and Slovakia. In Ukraine JKX holds “Poltava Petroleum Company” (PPC), which is licensed to develop Novo-Nicholas complex’s oil-and-gas fields in Poltava region, as well as to explore the potential of Zaplavskoe, Elizavetskoe and Chervonojarski-Vostochnoe oil fields.

Analysts attributed the JKX February 19 stock collapse to Russian investment group Proxima Capital, which, after two weeks of careful consideration, eventually gave up its initial intention to acquire JKX. The reasons of such a choice are quite understandable: JKX has been rapidly losing ground all last year. As of February 4, company’s securities had a 73% price loss in comparison with the same activities in the previous year. In absolute terms, we’re talking about a 250 million USD loss.

Kolomoisky invested millions of dollars in JKX a few years ago, hoping to turn them into billions in a short time. The company was expected to do business in dealing with shale fields. In 2013, JKX launched a major multistage fracturing project, which is still considered to be the largest in Europe. According to experts, this project was going to lead the country to an environmental disaster, with consequences spreading far outside Ukraine and affecting Russia as well as neighboring countries in Europe. But chaos started in Ukraine soon after the project had been launched and JKX’s plans were thwarted. An important role was also played by oil-price collapse, which made a great deal of shale projects unfeasible.

To Kolomoisky (an Israeli citizen) and his company is related another, even more interesting story. JKX, which is controlled by Kolomoisky and is based in UK, recently filed a 180 million USD lawsuit against Ukraine government for violation of the European laws concerning the Energy Charter and several bilateral investment protection agreements (both signed by Ukraine with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands ).

JKX applied to the International Court of Arbitration, seeking compensation for the oil-and-gas exploitation rental payments, which the Ukrainian division of JKX «has been illegally compelled” to pay out since 2011.

As it was stated in the lawsuit, official Kiev, though not being able to fulfill such obligations, guaranteed JKX “stable and fair” investment conditions. Bilateral agreements were intended to protect foreign investors from the growth of tax burden, as well as from any other change in the “rules of the game” in the oil-and-gas sector in Ukraine.

However, Kiev suddenly increased rental fee royalties from 28% to 55% for oil and gas deposits, reaching a depth limit of five kilometers. In addition to that, there were imposed some other toughening conditions concerning taxes and rental payments, that had not been fixed in the initial agreements. In mid-January 2015, the arbitration held in Stockholm Chamber of Commerce confirmed that the company’s rental fee should not exceed 28%. Official Kiev did not respond to this decision at all.

It’s funny that Kolomoisky, who has been holding the post of Dnipropetrovsk region governor since March 2004, is making such high demands of the same power he belongs to. He is accustomed to making money through the use of “administrative resources”, anyway. If the International Arbitration Court upholds the claim of JKX as well as of the Ukrainian ” beneficiaries” behind it (namely, Kolomoisky and Bogoljubov), Kolomoisky will make pretty sure through all of his “administrative resources ” that Ukrainian treasury fulfils the Court’s decision and pays the necessary “compensation” .

Igor Kolomoisky should be viewed as the perfect type of parasite that feeds on state treasury. Here it is a recent example. “Naftogaz Ukrainy” (dealing with oil extraction, transportation and refining) is the largest state-owned company in Ukraine. “Naftogaz” controls a number of subsidiaries, whose parent company has a full (100 %) share capital or controlling stakes. One of “Naftogaz”’s most famous “daughter” in ukrainian oil-and-gas market is the company “Ukrnafta”, whose 51% share capital is owned by “Naftogaz”, i.e., formally “Ukrnafta” belongs to the category of state-owned companies. But only formally. Because it is actually run by Kolomoisky’s trusted people. So, on February 10 Kolomoisky’s management team of the state-owned “Ukrnafta ” filed a lawsuit against the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Ministry of Economy and the Energy Ministry. “Ukrnafta” is pressing for the disaffirmation of the 16 October 2014 Ukrainian Governments decree on the allotment of four “Naftogaz” representatives into the auction committee for the sale of crude oil, condensated and liquefied gas. 

“Ukrnafta” is also expecting the exclusion of these representatives.

Verkhovna Rada’s Deputy Serhiy Leshchenko disclosed the reasons of such a strange claim by a state-owned company to state-run public authorities:
“Before filing that claim, Kolomoisky has exhibited ‘Ukrnafta’ resources in fictitious (in essence) stock exchange market auctions for many months. These resources were bought by Kolomoisky’s companies on a non-competitive basis at the starting price (even with a 15 per cent allowance!). Kolomoisky’s savings and state-owned “Ukrnafta”’s losses amounted to 0.5-1 billion hryvnias at each auction”. According to Leshchenko, last week Kolomoisky was denied any allowance and was prevented from holding an auction, where oil was calculated at the rate of 15 hryvnias for one dollar (at a real exchange rate of more than 23 hryvnias). “That’s why now “Ukrnafta” is sabotaging a new auction, where oil is going to be sold at real market rate. It could seem to be an absurd approach, because “Ukrnafta” is depriving itself of additional profit. However, there is no absurdity at all: actually, state assets, no longer hiding, are working in the interests of “patriot” Kolomoisky”.

Last year, Kolomoisky suffered serious losses in different fields and became much poorer. Only in Crimea, he estimated his own losses at 2 billion USD. To these figures we must add the arrests of some other assets in Russia and loss of assets in south-eastern Ukraine. According to “Forbes”, in early 2015 his fortune was estimated at 1.3 billion USD (whereas two years earlier it reached 2.4 billion USD) 

 Although Kolomoisky became poorer, other Ukrainian oligarchs are losing their money even faster. In order to somehow compensate for his losses, Kolomoisky is showing some quite remarkable resourcefulness. He is cunning and ruthless. It is not even excluded that he will succeed in eating that other big parasite Poroshenko. What next?

Well, then there will be nothing to devour anymore. Economy and State will be destroyed completely in Ukraine. According to experts, Ukraine’s overall production will fall from 10 to 20 percent in the current year. And then Ukraine will be affected by a very different, world-caliber kind of parasites, who will expropriate anything Kolomoisky managed to steal. In other words, present-day Ukrainian expropriators will be expropriated in their turn. Ukraine and Ukrainian oligarchs are a visual aid for those who want to study “natural selection” processes in a world of predators.

'New details of assassination attempt on Givi' Interview with Givi

23.03.2015 Ukrainian crisis news. Latest news of Ukraine, Kiev, Kolomoisky, DPR, LPR, NATO

Kolomoisky stand off heats up at Odessa Oil Refinery

Коломойский проиграл битву за Одессу?

Fort Russ

23 March, 2015

Translated by Kristina Rus



The Odessa oil refinery (NPZ) workers reported that there are fifty armed men at the factory. Who are they? They say it is the punisher battalion Dnepr-1. What mission do these militants have at the Odessa enterprise? By the way, the current owner pan Kurchenko does not have his own army of loyal and ruthless guard dogs ["dogs" refers to the Right Sector - KR]. Did he borrow them from the famous feudal Lord?


The employees of the company think quite differently: here, besides the fighters are also civillians and their mission is not constructive! The goal - is the dismantling and removal of the most valuable equipment and supplies of oil products.


Wow!


I.e. the people of Kolomoisky are preparing for the flight from Odessa, under the good traditions of marauders, grabbing the most valuable property from the local population.


And surely no one in town will protect the interests of the citizens, many of whom are fed by this famous plant!


Of course, you cannot count on ALPHA of the SBU - for several weeks these valiant fighters against separatists are sweeping the Nikolaev and Kherson regions from undesirables.


May be Odessans can count on other law enforcement agencies? Could... if the law enforcement chiefs were not Avakov and Katerynchuk!


Who will dare to quarrel with Benya because of some Kurchenko? And as for the fate of the citizens of this "separatist" city, the care for them does not extend beyond attempts to take their last, and to sent the naked and the hungry to the trenches of Debaltsevo or Izvarino.


Would anyone dare to shout: help, robbery!



Silence in response...

Analyst: The conflict between Poroshenko and Kolomoisky could bury the Ukrainian economy 

Fort Russ

23 March, 2015

March 23, 2015
Translated by Kristina Rus



The conflict between the authorities and Kolomoisky can derail the entire economy of Ukraine. This opinion was expressed by the head of the Kiev Center for Political Studies and Conflictology, Mikhail Pogrebinsky in an interview to "Kharkov News Agency".



According to the analyst, Kolomoisky has already shown his power to the authorities, and he really has something to back it up.



"The oligarch owns "PrivatBank" - the largest private bank in Ukraine. And the collapse of such a giant can bury the entire banking system of the country. Kolomoisky also has great assets in the oil industry, which brings him the largest profit. In addition, Kolomoisky controls not only Dnepropetrovsk region, of which he is a governor, but also has influence on the situation in the Odessa and Zaporozhye region. So you cannot fight with him, you have to negotiate with him. Otherwise, this war could bury the entire economy of the country", - says the analyst.



According to Pogrebinsky, in resolving the conflict, much will depend on the U.S. Ambassador. Meanwhile, according to the analyst, Jeffrey Payett failed to influence Kolomoisky to the extent that was expected in Kiev. The scandal around "Ukrtransnafta" quieted down, but is not over.



Earlier, the analyst suggested that if the President decides to refuse the services of Kolomoisky, it can lead to the formation of another self-proclaimed Republic in Ukraine.



"I can argue with anyone that Kolomoisky is not going anywhere, and then battalions of Kolomoisky can create a third People's Republic," - Pogrebinsky said at a press conference, commenting on the creation of a parallel general staff [by Dmitry Yarosh] in Dnepropetrovsk.



To the question of "Kharkov NA", if the likelihood of such a scenario increased today, the analyst explained that he spoke of such an option hypothetically, and in reality he hopes, this will not happen.



"But much in this conflict depends on the actions of the U.S. Ambassador", - he stressed.




Last week, the Parliament amended the law on joint stock companies, resulting in Kolomoisky loosing control of Ukrnafta. In addition, his protege Aleksandr Lazorko was dismissed from his position as the head of the company. The oligarch "showed his teeth" and took over the office of the company with his "private army". The President of Ukraine reprimanded the Governor of Dnepropetrovsk, but not for the armed seizure, but for being rude to the journalist of "Radio Liberty" (Svoboda). In response Kolomoisky blocked the accounts of Poroshenko for 50 million dollars in his "PrivatBank".

Kolomoisky vs. Poroshenko: Kiev junta split into two camps because of a secret Minsk protocol?

Олигархическая революция

Yurasumy

Translated by Kristina Rus

Fort Russ

23 March, 2015

It happened. The junta finally split into two camps. Benny yesterday went all in. Poroshenko accepted the game. Today was very eventful. 

1. Nalyvaychenko accused the circle of Kolomoisky of involvement in the murder of SBU captain.

2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".

3. Continuing the theme, Poroshenko said:

"Territorial defense will obey the clear military vertical of power and no Governor will be allowed to have his own pocket UAF (armed forces of Ukraine).

4. In response to this four deputies withdrew from the faction of PPB (Peter Porosjhenko Bloc): Korban, Liynyl, Filatov, Denisenko and made a statement:

Peter Poroshenko has decided to implement one of the decisions of the secret protocol of the Minsk agreements. In it was the item on the destruction of the "Right Sector".

"I hope it's not true. But there are doubts, based on the reaction and persecution," - said the deputy governor of Dnepropetrovsk, Gennady Korban, stressing that "against him there are 8 criminal cases, and none against the deputies of the Opposition bloc".

"Putin broke his teeth on Dnepropetrovsk region, Poroshenko will break them too. I'm out of the party. We invite all to the new veche (popular assembly) on Wednesday at 18:00 on the square of Heroes of Maidan. Petro Poroshenko has no relation to the revolution of dignity. He is afraid of the third maidan, but actually the second revolution is not over yet".

5. A complete list of claims to the authorities was announced by Deputy Kupriy.

The Kiev regime has long been going towards this split. At the end of last year only the US intervening in oligarchic quarrels was able to keep the imaginary unity of the Maidan. But today even they were powerless (or vice versa - managing the process of demolition of the junta).  

The question of autocracy is relevant to any power: whether it's the junta, or whether it's LDNR. LDNR was dealing with issues of autocracy since the fall. Mostly successfully, but there are problems. Now Poroshenko decided to deal with this problem.

Kolomoisky, who is unwelcome on the ship of power, is not just going to go away. Against him is the state apparatus. But he is not what he was a year ago. Plus the popularity of Poroshenko is moving towards zero. People are tired of war and all that is connected with it (death, poverty, lack of prospects). The army is tired of constant betrayals, which are associated with military leaders loyal to the President. Thus Kolomoisky has a chance. He went for an open rebellion against Kiev. His trumps are the Right Sector and other "volunteers", whom Kiev sentenced to slaughter, and PrivatBank, which can crash the finances of Ukraine. 

In any case, the dice is cast. Any coup lives by its own laws. It must escalate. Anyone who will slack and backs off, will be swept away and crushed. The coming days will clarify who is better prepared to fight.

P. S. This battle could have happened in November-December, February, but each time the puppeteers delayed it. Apparently now is the time. It is important that the initiator is Poroshenko. Kolomoisky actually is only defending himself. Benya [Kolomoisky] cancelled his coup in February (on the order from Washington).

PPS An important indication of victory will be the kneeling proclamations of loyal followers. For now everyone is frozen and waiting, afraid to bet on the wrong side, which indicates some uncertainty of the situation. Kolomoisky needs to raise the stakes and to be half a step ahead. Otherwise, he will lose. For Poroshenko to win it will be enough to stop the attempts of the opponent in the early days.

PPPS It is noteworthy that Kolomoisky and his underlings began to make quite socialist slogans about nationalization of unlawfully privatized property.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Gordienko:

I remember how Kolomoisky's appointment saved the country. How Dnepropetrovsk became a fortress, I remember how Odessa breathed with hope [crediting Kolomoisky for Odessa massacre? - KR]

I am convinced that one of the conditions of the Minsk agreement is to destroy Putin's personal enemy - Benya.

Putin is not afraid, but is amused by the militant bunny [Yatsenyuk] and the candy king. And all the firtashs-levochkins-akhmetovs are just his personal slaves.

The scumbag Yeremeev with his gang are just refurbished bastards. Stalin described these people well: you are like an apple - red on the outside, white on the inside.

There is no doubt that these #ssholes will give up the country, without blinking an eye, and cheaper then for 30 silver coins.

But Benya wouldn't.

This is why the howl of the journalists, who don't see any enemies, besides Benya, is not journalism, it's a contract killing.  

I agree that we should deal with Benya as an oligarch, but he should be last in line. 

On the collapse of the Soviet Union, Putin and contemporary Russia

Just before sitting down to write this my attention was pointed to the following:

Putin's high approval ratings not real: protest group

 Perhaps we ought to hire Pussy Riot for all our analysis and commentary on Russian politics?!! lol.

Why Putin has 80 % popularity in Russia

Seemorerocks

"People in Russia say that those who do not regret the collapse of the Soviet Union have no heart, and those that do regret it have no brain. We do not regret this, we simply state the fact and know that we need to look ahead, not backwards. We will not allow the past to drag us down and stop us from moving ahead. We understand where we should move. But we must act based on a clear understanding of what happened."

V.V.Putin

The last couple of mornings I have been waking up in the mornings with some version of the above question in my mind. Various thoughts have been going through my mind about the "Putin phenomenon" as well as about  the collapse of the Soviet Union and its subsequent history.

I have to make clear from the outset that these are the views of an outsider. I have been to the country several times (mostly during the Soviet period - I was married for a time to a Leningrader), only once during the post-Soviet period.

So, I do not have the benefit of an inside knowledge but I do have a good sense of the culture and history of Russia and am able to look sympathetically from the side.

As I write this I realise my age - that many people who read this will have no firsthand knowledge of the Soviet period and will possibly be only vaguely aware of the collapse and the disastrous years of the 1990's.  It is essential that we are reminded of this history for, in my mind, context is everything.

"SOVIET REALITY'

In the Russia that I knew (at the end of the 70's) the economy was right in the middle of the period of stagnation.  When I visited I would be given a whole shopping list of goods to bring. These could be resold on the black market and go towards financing the move out of the Soviet Union.

I can remember visiting GUM (the department store on Red Square) with Natasha and can recall the feeling of elation on managing to score a packet of Dutch washing power!

This was a period when Soviet citizens spent hours standing in queues for basics and grocery store shelves were empty while the private markets (tolerated by the authorities out of necessity) were full of expensive food grown by collective farmers on the side).

You can get a good sense of 'Soviet reality" ( 'советская действительность ' was an official buzzword of the era) through its jokes.

What that I remember went like this:

"What will it be like when they introduce socialism in the Sahara desert? Very little change but then at the end of the First Five Year Plan there will be a shortage of sand"

If you want a good background to the collapse of the Soviet Union you can't go much further than this series (almost lost to posterity) Russian Revolution in the late 1980's - early 90's. The first part is HERE

THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION

By the time that Brezhnev died (and was succeeded, in close succession by  Andropov and Chernenko the country was (like its leader) sclerotic and so, was badly in need of change.

Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and after a disastrous attempt to force the country into teetotalism engaged in a program to reform the economy (perestroika) and democratise the country (glasnost).

From what I can see (and I know there will be more people that disagree, than agree), for the first time in its history Russia was ruled by someone who was motivated by a real desire to reform the country and introduce democracy while maintaining the Soviet  and (by-and-large) socialist character of the country.

He is perhaps, according to historian, Stephen F Cohen, the only example of a leader who was willing to give away his own power.

As an aside I will say I have been influenced in what I say Stephen F Cohen's Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to Putin.  He is, in my opinion, one of the very few western academics to look at recent Russian history from a reasonably objective and non-ideological point-of-view.  He is, however, avowedly sympathetic to Gorbachev).

Cohen disputes the idea that the USSR collapsed because of the economy and argues that the economy could have limped on for some time but it was politics that destroyed the Union, essentially the existence on the historical stage at the same time of two larger-than-life figures, Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Paraphrasing another aphorism ("without Kerensky there could have been no Lenin") Cohen says "without Gorbachev there could have been no Yeltsin"

Stephen Cohen reserves much of the blame for what happened on Boris Yeltsin, who, (as head of the Russian Federation motivated primarily by political power destroyed the Union by top secret negotiation. Yeltsin was consumed by hatred of Gorbachev.

Cohen maintains that there was no public consensus in favour of ending the Union; at the beginning of 1991 polls taken show that a majority of Soviet citizens wanted to maintain the Soviet Union, even in Ukraine.

By this time, however Gorbachev was reviled, by the public at large (blamed for increasing privation) as well as conservatives and reformers in the Communist Party alike.

In June, 1991 Yeltsin won 57% of the popular vote in the democratic presidential elections for the Russian republic, defeating Gorbachev's preferred candidate, Nikolai Ryzhkov who got just 16% of the vote, and four other candidates.

On 18 August 1991, a coup against Gorbachev was launched by the government members opposed to perestroika. Gorbachev was held in Crimea while Yeltsin raced to the White House of Russia (residence of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR) in Moscow to defy the coup, making a memorable speech from atop the turret of a tank onto which he had climbed. The White House was surrounded by the military but the troops defected in the face of mass popular demonstrations. By 21 August most of the coup leaders had fled Moscow and Gorbachev was "rescued" from Crimea and then returned to Moscow. Yeltsin was subsequently hailed by his supporters around the world for rallying mass opposition to the coup

Although restored to his position, Gorbachev had been destroyed politically. Neither union nor Russian power structures heeded his commands as support had swung over to Yeltsin. Taking advantage of the situation, Yeltsin began taking what remained of the Soviet government, ministry by ministry—including the Kremlin. On 6 November 1991, Yeltsin issued a decree banning all Communist Party activities on Russian soil. 

In early December 1991, Ukraine voted for independence from the Soviet Union. A week later, on 8 December, Yeltsin met Ukrainian president Leonid Kravchuk and the leader of Belarus, Stanislav Shushkevich, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. In the Belavezha Accords, the three presidents announced the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the formation of a voluntary Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in its place

This was a top-secret, undemocratic and illegal act by Yeltsin (apparently he was drunk much of the time). This was the trigger for the collapse of the the Soviet state.

Stephen Cohen reserves much of the blame for what happened on Boris Yeltsin. He was motivated very largely by craving for power and his actions at Belovezha were largely motoivated by hatred for Gorbachev .

Beyond these purely political considerations I would say that although political machinations played a major role in provoking the actual collapse (which came as a surprise even to Washington), there were several underlying factors without which the collapse would have been impossible

LOSS OF BELIEF

One factor that I think is absolutely indispensable is that from 1960's belief in the underlying ideology started to erode and by the end of the existence of the Soviet state nobody believed in anything any more.

An underlying cynicism is reflected by the expression

"They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work"

Two anecdotes might help to understand this.

In the first case, the KGB authorities would regularly turn up to search and ransack the flat of the famous Russian poet, Anna Akhmatova, especially on those days that her son visited her.  On one of these occasions after ransacking her apartment the KGB colonel knocked on the flat next door and when the fearful neighbour opened her door she was old: "You look after Anna Andreyena. After all she is our national treasure!"

The second is when a Russian friend of mine came to leave the Soviet Union for Israel in the mid- 70's. He was taken aside for interrogation by another KGB man who asked him why he was leaving the Soviet Union. My friend honestly said, "because I hate the regime"  "Why do you need to leave - I hate the regime too!"
Finally, he was told (unlike most of the emigrants who either smuggled or bribed officials to get valuable art out of the country),  that they would let him go because "you are an idealist".

Quite simply, nobody believed in anything any more, so when the events of autumn and winter, 1990 came along nobody had any investment any more in the Soviet Union, including the communists who voted for the disestablishment of the country that sustained them and their power.

The other aspects that are little talked about, except by a small number of people is the role of Peak Oil and of the United States.

The United States did its best to undermine the Soviet Union economically and militarily. The Soviet Union was in a position of increasing its military expenditure at a time when its economy was stagnating. To make things worse its production of oil was starting to peak (with the technology it had available at the time) and the world price of oil fell sharply at the beginning of a period of low oil prices that began at this time and lasted right through to about 2007 when world production started to peak.

The Soviets were more or less lured into Afghanistan by continuing American aid to the Mujahadeen and American aid kept them there throughout the 80's.

All of this helped to bankrupt an already inefficient and stagnating economy so that when a loosening of the political chains and a transition to a market economy which began already under perestroika produced the disastrous political events of 1990 the country was ready for total collapse.

I do not personally believe that Gorbachev deserves to take all the responsibility for the collapse of the Soviet state although objectively this is the case.  Most significantly, in return for guarantees that were betrayed by the West, Gorbachev allowed the fall of the Wall in Berlin and the withdrawal of Soviet troops (in a fairly chaotic manner) from Eastern Europe.

Whatever the rightness or wrongness of this it has led to the situation of today where instead of disbanding with the fall of the USSR NATO has expanded eastwards and is now threatening Russian from former Soviet satellites that are now part of NATO.

THE YELTSIN YEARS

Just days after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin embarked on a programme of radical economic reform. Unlike Gorbachev's reforms, which sought to expand democracy in the socialist system, the new regime aimed to completely dismantle socialism and fully implement capitalism—converting the world's largest command economy into a free-market one and a 500 -day programme of privatisation was embarked on.

This was the period when western "specialists" were brought in to instruct on how to privatise and build an economy on their neo-liberal lines.

It was a disastrous period for the Russian people, when living standards fell precipitously as did life expectancy.  Major causes of death during this period were  alcoholic poisoning and violent death.

I remember a film from the mid-90's which starred Sergei Bodrov, called Brat (Brother) which portrayed the chaos and violence of the era. i can recommend it if you have time.

This was the era of robber barons, known to the world now as the oligarchs who used the opportunities presented to them during the closing years of perestroika and the privatisation to strip the assets of the Soviet state and enrich themselves.

The process of "privitatisation" was known  popularly (and appropriately) as PRIKHVATISATSIYA  (прихватизация - grab-it-isation).

The "democracy" of the Yeltsin era was known as DER'MOKRATIYA  - (дермократия - shit-ocracy)

The following two-part documentary on the rise and fall of the Russian oligarchs, which provides an excellent insight into the phenomenon sometimes in the words of the characters themselves.

I like to avoid the danger of the anti-semitism label but it is true that the majority of the Russian oligarchs spoke about here are Jewish, just as it is true that the majority of the original Bolshevik leadership after the October, 1917 cup were also Jews.

The western press would like us to believe that this was a time of "democracy" and "reform" under Yeltsin before Putin came long and destroyed democracy.

This documentary gives the lie to that as it shows the machinations behind the scene throughout the Yeltsin years, the attack on the Russian parliament in 2003 that led to the death of 150 people until the election was bought by the now all-powerful oligarchs who dictated to politicians, officials and media alike what they could and couldn't do and say.

It is also exposes the darling of the liberal media, MTV) that was eventually closed down under Putin) as a private-enterprise tool of the oligarchs.

It was Vladimir Putin who was brought to power by oligarch- mafia chief, Boris Berezovsky in the hope that he would do his bidding (and with Yeltsin's bidding) who gathered the oligarchs together to tell them that their era was over and they would have to be a normal part of Russian society.

If you look across the western media the view is that Putin's struggle against the oligarchs like Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky and others the view is that this was part of Putin's crushing of "democracy" in Russia.

See - The Silent Coup: Putin vs. the Oligarchs

It is interesting in this regard to read this article from the Guardian from 2002 written before the newspaper changed its narrative.

Privatiser Putin begins to win war against Russia's mafia (24 September 2002)

World power in oil and equities is erasing wild east image of the 90s

"Mr Putin has brought more discipline and stability to the political and economic scene through a series of reforms , aiming to follow the lead of China by taking Russia into the World Trade Organisation.

He has just shrugged off political opposition to push through legislation privatising the ultimate symbol of the Soviet era: Mother Earth. Domestic companies are queueing to buy Russian agricultural land, including the best plots that were controlled by the cooperatives.

Mr Putin has brought more discipline and stability to the political and economic scene through a series of reforms , aiming to follow the lead of China by taking Russia into the World Trade Organisation.

He has just shrugged off political opposition to push through legislation privatising the ultimate symbol of the Soviet era: Mother Earth. Domestic companies are queuing to buy Russian agricultural land, including the best plots that were controlled by the cooperatives.....

Corruption and bribery by state officials are still serious problems for businesses in Russia while a relatively small number of oligarchs still control the vast bulk of the nation's wealth.

Competition regulations are weak and Mr Putin knows he must take on some of Russia's biggest vested interests if he is to tackle crucial issues such as restructuring the civil service and the judiciary.

Analysts such as Christopher Granville at Russian investment bank United Financial Group believe the country has a bright future but he expects no big boost in Russian stocks until presidential elections are over in March 2004. "It is still a good safe haven in the short term," he says - words that would have sounded ridiculous two years ago.

The above article dates from a period before the narrative changed.  

Now Russia is, according to western media (led these days by the Guardian), is now an aggressive, anti-democratic, mafia state led by a tyrant, Putin. 

Vladimir Putin: 'the godfather of a mafia can

Russian oligarch's arrest a warning from Putin, says hedge fund boss

HOW HAS RUSSIA CHANGED UNDER PUTIN

Putin has good reason to be popular among the Russian populace at large.

From being truly a chaotic and violent state run by Mafia and oligarchs Putin has done much to restore the Russian economy and to balance Russian society.

Putin has cracked down on organised crime, reduced the worst excesses of the oligarchs and taken on corruption.

Putin himself is the first to admit that all of these remain problems but the situation is much improved. I remember Putin's words in a recent interview, corruption is a particular problem we have in Russia".

Russia remains a country with a high level of crime, in particular, homicides. But comparing with 2000, the year with the greatest number of murders (41,000) the situation with 16,700 murders in 2011 is much improved.

When it checked it out it appears that since 2002 Russian has a system of social security and despite it being woefully inadequate to provide an income to those affected, does have an unemployment benefit.  Pensioners in the Crimea after it was incorporated into the Russian Federation saw their pensions double.

“Since 2002 Russia has adopted the pension system including obligatory pension insurance, state pension support and non-state pension insurance.

In Russia all citizens of elderly age receive pensions independent of their seniority. The standard labour pension age is: 55 for women, 60 for men; social pension: 60 for women, 65 for men.”

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.pfrf.ru/ot_en_system/

In terms of the political situation I think that Stephen Cohen characterised it well when he said Russia does not have free and fair elections but they are more free and air than at any time during the post-Soviet period.

The United States, with its manipulation and electoral fraud should not be the one to cast the first stone.

In terms of freedom and democracy, one just needs to look at video footage of demonstrations in Moscow against the results of recent election, and even demonstrations by neo-nazis in favour of the regime in Kiev and compare that with #Occupy and police brutality in Ferguson to get one's answer.

Yes, Putin did crack down on some privately-owned TV stations that were controlled by oligarchs and used in their attempt to gain political power, and the media is largely controlled by the state, in terms of many of the issues that concern us there is a wide range of views expressed across the political spectrum.  

In terms of telling the truth about what is happening in Ukraine and relations between Russia and the West I think I prefer Russian coverage overall, thank you very much.

While life, no doubt continues to be very difficult for ordinary Russians it has improved greatly and there continues (as best I can see from outside) to be optimism. This contrasts with the West where both living standards have deteriorated greatly and the political situation is dire.

Russia, although it has great challenges (many of which are created directly by America - such as sanctions) still has a positive outlook while the West moves towards collapse.

In the present geopolitical climate Russia has stable leadership and with the threat from the American Empire Putin is the one factor that may stand between stability and a Moscow Maidan.  Putin may need to be as wily as Fidel Castro to avoid retribution from the Empire.

I pray that he does not fall victim to poisoning or a plane "accident".

If I was Russian, despite any reservations,  I would be among the 80 per cent that support him