Trump Revolution: From Russia With Revenge

Trump and Putin. (Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Aleksey Nikolskyi/Getty Images and Jim Watson/Getty Images.)

Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Aleksey Nikolskyi/Getty Images and Jim Watson/Getty Images. 

2016/11/04 - 23:37 • Analysis & Opinion, Russia

Last week the Washington Post Deputy Editorial Director Jackson Diehl published an article titled “Putin’s hope to ignite Eurasia-style protests in the United States.” The author states:

Putin developed an obsession with ‘color revolutions,’ which he is convinced are neither spontaneous nor locally organized, but orchestrated by the United States — and in the case of the Moscow protests four years ago, by Hillary Clinton herself.”

That’s the context in which Russia’s intervention in the 2016 U.S. presidential election must be understood. Putin is trying to deliver to the American political elite what he believes is a dose of its own medicine. He is attempting to ignite — with the help, unwitting or otherwise, of Donald Trump — a U.S. color revolution.

Indeed, the Republican presidential candidate has repeatedly echoed talking points of Russian state propaganda media RT  [formerly known as Russia Today] with the accuracy of a diligent schoolboy:

“Putin outplayed everyone, and America needs to have a good relationship with him,”

“Russia is fighting terrorists in Syria,”

“Putin is not involved in the hacking attacks against the United States,”

“America is a disaster, and there’s really no democracy,”

“Obama created the chaos in Ukraine” and, to top it all off,

“American elections are rigged.”

Of greatest concern is Trump’s threat to refuse to recognize the results of the election, a threat he is voicing a full three weeks ahead of the actual vote.

Trump is essentially pre-announcing the strong likelihood of confrontations with authorities, including riots, before the election even takes place. Some American commentators are already calling this a “revolution.”

Rally at the Academician Sakharov Avenue, Moscow, 24 December 2011 (Image: PL Bogomolov / Wikipedia)

Rally for fair elections at Academician Sakharov Avenue, Moscow, 24 December 2011 (Image: PL Bogomolov / Wikipedia)

This development, though reminiscent of the “Protests For Fair Elections” which took place in Russia in 2011-12, actually only resembles the way those protests were perceived by the Russian government and Putin himself. One gets the impression that Donald Trump is not so much following a “color revolution” scenario, but rather this statements are like a scene from an exposé from an NTV  [one of the large government-controlled TV networks in Russia – Ed.] film like “Anatomy of a Protest,” though done rather clumsily.

First of all, before the start of the Russian protests, no one was calling for protests in advance. These were the first-ever large-scale protests under Vladimir Putin’s rule, and their scale in many ways surprised even the participants. People were not preparing to reject the elections results before they began. People rose up in direct response to actual falsified results, which speaks to their spontaneity rather than being staged. It was only later, after the first instances of mass fraud, that the opposition began to question the results, and began sending observers to certain areas, demanding transparency in voting, etc. And this only happened because we were faced with flagrant and unprecedented election violations.

Trump’s statements, in contrast, appear to be precisely the kind of pre-planned actions Russian propaganda wanted us falsely to believe the US plotted inside Russia: organized riots to undermine the legitimacy of the government.  Not only has the US election not yet happened, but fears of voter fraud just doesn’t match reality. Expert studies show that between 2000 and 2014, there have been only 31 recorded cases of voter impersonation fraud out of one billion votes cast.

I had the opportunity to attend nearly all of the protests for fair elections in my hometown of Yekaterinburg, and I was also at the “Occupy Abai” opposition sit-in camp on the same matter in Moscow, and I can confirm that they were the result of very real grievances. And not all of the protesters there were revolutionaries who wanted regime change. Some of them only wanted to have the results of the election reviewed (remember, it was the parliamentary elections to the Russian State Duma, and they didn’t affect the president as such). In fact, many protesters would have even acknowledged the victory of Putin’s United Russia party, but by a smaller percentage. That is to say, people just weren’t happy with the fact that their real grievances were being ignored, and the regime felt it could just lie to their faces.
Police crackdown of opposition protests in Moscow, Russia (Image: Denis Vyshinsky, kommersant.ru)

Police crackdown of opposition protests in Moscow, Russia (Image: Denis Vyshinsky, kommersant.ru)

A good many of the protesters, mostly young people, used the wave of protests as an opportunity to have their innovative ideas be heard, to propose reforms to local authorities, to improve feedback mechanisms and to create additional opportunities for people to have a say in their governing institutions. Many quite constructive ideas were discussed in order to reform the system, not to overthrow it, and most of them expressed that openly at the “Occupy” protests. Another group of people at the camp, those who had been subjected to some form of lawlessness or arbitrary injustice at the hands of the authorities, hoped that now the government would have to hear them out. Of course there were among all these groups some more radical types who chanted slogans such as “we will not leave until they go,” but their activity never progressed beyond sloganeering.

Russian opposition activist Ildar Dadin inside of the police station, after his arrest in August 2014. In December 2015 he was sentenced to three years in jail for peaceful street protests.

Russian opposition activist Ildar Dadin inside of the police station, after his arrest in August 2014. In December 2015 he was sentenced to three years in jail for peaceful street protests.

As for the Russian regime repeatedly insisting that the protests were “incited,” the “foreign element” was actually negligible during those protests. As mentioned above, the protests arose spontaneously, and it’s only logical to assume that the US would show some manner of support for the massive commitment to freedom displayed by the citizenry of an authoritarian state, if only for the sake of appearances. By the way, foreign “support” was carried out very clumsily, and mainly consisted of a few people including those who had some media prominence, marching to the American Embassy in the midst of the protests, all of which was recorded by NTV cameras, who appeared as if on cue to film the scene, as if something super sinister was happening. The Kremlin simply couldn’t help but take advantage of this “gift,” and so, quite expectedly, it fell back on the most reliable way to quell the protests, discrediting them by deeming them pre-meditated, “organized by the CIA,” essentially, an attempt by the US to incite an artificial “color revolution.”

Police crackdown on Putin opposition, Moscow, Russia

Police crackdown on Putin opposition, Moscow, Russia

Another way the FSB secret police and Kremlin propagandists branded the protests as a US plot was by targeting NGOs and non-profit civic and human rights organizations, who often received grants from US-based institutions. These groups did indeed receive foreign money, but, of course, the money was not for organizing street protests, but for the substantive work of those organizations, e.g. human rights, charitable, environmental, etc. The day-to-day work of these non-profits included hanging memorial plaques with the names of victims of repression during the Great Terror, or running a treatment center for children with Down syndrome. Here again, it is only logical that those who had long-standing ties with Western foundations and NGOs would have quite pro-Western views, and participation in such protest actions had been absolutely natural for them. There was no US conspiracy, in other words.

The protests turned out to be a real boon to Russia’s secret services, which had finally been given the opportunity to prove their worth.

TV screens were splattered with a steady stream of “kompromat” collected over the years, such as secret recordings of private conversations, photocopies of financial statements and data on foreign internships. In fact, it was during that time that the standards, methods and format of today’s propaganda broadcasts had developed their final form, into the style of an “investigative exposé.” These early “exposés” differed from today’s broadcasts only in that they contained slightly less slander and falsifications. The primary slander of the time was the grossly exaggerated role of foreign interference in Russia’s internal processes. This very exaggeration was to determine the fatal vector of the entire future of Russian politics.

The primary slander of the time was the grossly exaggerated role of foreign interference in Russia’s internal processes. This very exaggeration was to determine the fatal vector of the entire future of Russian politics.

Dmitry Kiselyov and image of nuclear mushroom cloud, boasting Russia's ability to turn US "Into Radioactive Dust." Dmitry Kiselyov is the head of the Kremlin's RT (Russia Today) news agency, a soapbox to promote the Kremlin's policies, denigrate the West and speculate about Western-led conspiracies as well as attack the political opposition to Putin. (Image: screen capture)

Dmitry Kiselyov and image of nuclear mushroom cloud, boasting Russia’s ability to turn US “Into Radioactive Dust.” Dmitry Kiselyov is the head of the Kremlin’s RT (Russia Today) news agency, a soapbox to promote the Kremlin’s policies, denigrate the West and speculate about Western-led conspiracies as well as attack the political opposition to Putin. (Image: screen capture)

The second method used by the authorities to beat down the protest movement was to divide it, and not only to foment a split in the ranks of the opposition leaders, but to purposely chip away certain sectors of the population away from the opposition. A striking example of this was the case of Pussy Riot, which was designed to have people of faith, even those adhering to pro-European values, break from the opposition protest movement. Divisions were skillfully handled, between liberals and nationalists, between right and left, between the representatives of the workers and the intelligentsia, all of which led to a serious reduction in the overall number of people in the protest movement.

Members of Pussy Riot in their February 2012 performance-protest at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Moscow. (Image: MoMA PS1)

Members of Pussy Riot in their February 2012 performance-protest at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Moscow. (Image: MoMA PS1)

However, the government’s most serious and terrible crime of that period was pitting against each other different societal groups: the Bolotnaya against the Poklonnaya, “revolutionaries” against “counter-revolutionaries.”  Fearing civil unrest, the cowardly Russian authorities hid behind the rabid calls from Kurginyan “to destroy liberal scum.” In fact, to stay in power, Putin had already by that time brought the country to the brink of civil war, pitting one group against another. When we add to this the mistakes made by protest leaders together with the repression of so many protesters following the May 6 Bolotnaya protests, it became clear that before long the protest movement would all but come to a halt.

As a result, Putin did conquer his own people, but he achieved this victory at the price of two irreversible consequences: he created a sharply-polarized society while decisively convincing himself that the United States was the one to blame for all of the popular discontent. Increased demand generated more “investigative exposés” with increasingly false content, with the authorities increasingly succumbing to their own propaganda.

It is precisely these myths, created at the FSB’s infamous Lubyanka headquarters, that Putin is now trying to export to the United States.

Of course, history repeats itself as farce, but it should be recognized that the Kremlin has been fairly successful in pitting different parts of society against one another, spreading chaos and organizing provocations. We can only hope that American society will be more stable, resistant and resilient, and that US politicians will have the wisdom to produce a more centrist line, not adding fuel to the fire of an already extremely fragmented society.


Related:

Translated by: Paula Chertok
Edited by: A. N.
Source: 7days.us

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Turtler

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; some days it is like this website is trying to destroy every barleycorn of respect I once had for it.

    I yield to none in my contempt for and hostility to the Bear and the Bald Dwarf save those who have risked attack in the field. I cannot approve of Trump’s mollycoddling of them, but the relentless demonizing of everybody on the opposite side of the Atlantic who does not want to elect an American Putin just because she and the Russian one don’t get along well gets on my nerves.

    “Trump’s statements, in contrast, appear to be precisely the kind
    of pre-planned actions Russian propaganda wanted us falsely to believe
    the US plotted inside Russia: organized riots to undermine the
    legitimacy of the government. ”

    The legitimacy of the government was undermined with the knowledge that the Secretary of State and several of her high ranking allies- including the current lame duck President of the United States and former appeaser of the Bear- set up an illegal bathroom server, shamelessly, thoughtlessly endangered classified information to anybody who could hack, and connived against those she sought to ally with. Ironically if Clinton had been less corrupt and not shown such flagrant disregard for message security Putin’s mouthpieces- including Wikileaks- wouldn’t be exposing that.

    Call it karma.

    “Not only has the US election not yet happened, but fears of voter fraud just doesn’t match reality.”

    We have videotaped proof of both honest people admitting that the illegal busing of “voters” into districts happen (see Veritas) and corrupt ones admitting they do it (along with organizing things like false flag attacks on opposition rallies).

    If you’re saying it isn’t an apocalyptic, single handed, Libertian-Election-of-1927 scale voter fraud, I am inclined to agree. However, the fact that it is happening is not something to laugh off.

    ” Expert studies show
    that between 2000 and 2014, there have been only 31 recorded cases of
    voter impersonation fraud out of one billion votes cast.”

    Oh PUHLEAZE.

    The number of confirm-ably fraudulent votes coming out of Chicago alone are well in excess of that. Heck, they were well in excess of it about half a century ago. No, I do not think the voter fraud is all THAT significant or can decide an election overwhelmingly by itself. But this relentless, condescending, factually inaccurate spitting in our face is no way to defend the law or democracy.

    “Of greatest concern is Trump’s threat to refuse to recognize the results of the election, a threat he is voicing a full three weeks ahead of the actual vote.”

    This is one of the many things Trump did that I do not necessarily support, but here’s a little reality check.

    Firstly, Hillary Clinton cannot legally hold the office of President, no matter what the votes say. Due to her destruction of work related emails and the corresponding punishment that they hold barring violators from government office.. Personally I support acknowledging her running mate Tim Kaine as the legal POTUS if the Democrat Party wins, but that does not change the fact that his running mate is illegal.

    Countless people- including both the current Democratic candidate and the previous one of 2000- have either refused to or withdrew acknowledgement of the result of the 2000 Election. “You Won You Won You Won” and all that. And guess what? The country did not utterly explode then, or since.

    Now, to be fair to Gore he did not make this statement well before the election like Trump did, so I can understand if people do not trust him on that basis. But the fact remains: merely this kind of grandstanding does not condemn someone.

    In the end, it seems like this site- on behalf of the Clinton campaign- are echoing the party line that Putin used against his own people. That this campaign and movement are primarily driven by the Kremlin and owe it to that. To which I say that it might be worth looking at what you yourself said.

    “There was no US conspiracy, in other words.”

    Occam’s razor takes affect, and the idea that millions of people- many of them who have spent months or years condemning Putin- would suddenly be driven to do what they did because of Putin’s manipulations rather than other factors (like the emerging evidence of corruption) is conspiracy mongering nonsense.

    This does not mean that Trump’s Russian connections are not worrying, they are. And it does not mean that Putin may not be interfering in the election, he might be. But if you insist on painting all of us with a broad brush and ignoring the crimes of someone who is legally incapable of holding the office of President, why should we trust you?

    • Mephisto

      You are manipulated without knowing you are being manipulated. Russia invested large sums of money to infiltrate Western societies – politics, media, economy, probably secret services etc. They have a lot of moles in the west. They have been doing this since WW2. They are supporting populists and nationalists – google about the connection of Europan right wing populist parties to Putin. Brexit was the result of Russian long term subversioin, paying trolls to denigrate the EU. Trump is a Russian witting or unwitting mole, he is backed by russian propaganda machine, by russian hackers, by russian secret services, he is a populist. I do not like Clinton, but she is (in my opinion) the lesser evil. Incidentally, the highest placed russian mole within the US was probably Kissinger

      You will have a hard time reconsiling being a Trump suporter and agreeing to views presented at this website. They are mutually exclusive. Trump is pro-Putin, this website is anti-Putin and probably anti-Trump. Just to be sure, I am in no way associated with the website. I am just honestly convinced that if Trump gets elected, it will be bad not only for the US, but for the whole western world.

      • Turtler

        “You are manipulated without knowing you are being manipulated.”

        Perhaps, but the same can be said of most people who look at advertisements as they drive down thestreet. It rarely amounts to crippling

        “Russia invested large sums of money to infiltrate Western societies –
        politics, media, economy, probably secret services etc. ”

        Indeed, I am well aware.

        Fortunately, they haven’t done nearly as good a job of it as their Soviet predecessors have.

        “They have a lot of moles in the west.”

        Sure, but on the grand scale fo danger they are much, much less than what the Soviets could muster when they had a party in every Western nation obeying the whims of the Kremlin.

        “They have been doing this since WW2.”

        Actually, you’re being too kind to them. They began well before that. The Reichstag Fire was almost certainly started by a Dutch Communist (who may or may not have been held hostage by the NSDAP at the time, and who may or may not have received orders from the Kremlin to do so. My gut feeling on both is “Not”). Even within a few years of the Bolshevik coup Lenin and his satanic “disciples” were trying to extend their reach across the world and helped foment things like dock strikes to interfere with the supply of Poland as the Soviets invaded it in 1919-1920. In fact, Soviet power was one of the three great causes of WWII (along with the resurrection of German militarism- itself aided by the Soviets- and Japan going apeschiesse).

        And this is before we talk about the attempts by the Tsarist regime to play influence games abroad (which fortunately tended to peter out outside of Central and Eastern Europe, though it notably helped deter British and French intervention in the American Civil War).

        They’ve been playing this game for a long, long time.

        And if anything they are a shadow of what they once had.

        “They are supporting populists and nationalists – google about the connection of Europan right wing populist parties to Putin”

        I am well aware they are supporting several of them (as well as a lot of nutty left wing parties like some of the Communists). In particular I know and despise many of their minions like Orban and Zeman.

        But while it is something to keep abreast of, that does not mean I have to reorient my entire belief about it,.

        “Brexit was the result of Russian long term subversioin, paying trolls to denigrate the EU.”

        Dear sir/ma’am, a century of paid Russian trolls could not do half as much work to denigrate the EU as the EU itself did in a mater of years.

        I have reason to believe that Putin did in fact want Brexit. However, I also have plenty of reason to believe that his influence played a very distinct second fiddle to things like a culture of arbitrariness, inconsistency, and unresponsiveness to public opinion (and thus democracy itself) that would be akin to Putin if he were forced into a lighthearted show like Yes, Minister.

        In the end the combination of irresponsible handling of the migrant issue (which raised the possibility that an already ravaged UK would face a new deluge of hostile Islamists and people they could feed off of) coupled with Years and YEARS of EU shunting of British traditions (like the Pint and mandating the elimination of the customary system of measures) coupled with Britain’s traditional skepticism towards continental entanglements- which well predates Putin- helped cause this storm. That and a lot of high handed doomsaying from the “Stay.”

        And it is that pervasive doomsaying- the inability to imagine that the vast majority of Brexit supporters were anything but Xenophobes and/or Putin puppets and refusal to address several of the issues the British had with the EU and the way it functions- probably does more to nourish Putin than Brexit alone ever will.

        Does this mean I supported Brexit? Truth be told I was ambivalent of it. And I generally have been supportive of the EU and its’ expansion, because for all its’ problems I do think it has accomplished great things that Putin’s nightmare can only dream of.

        But I certainly can understand why Brexiters got fed up with it, and i do believe it will need many reforms in order to truly function well.

        So the question is this : why on EARTH should free people cower in their own shadows and turn away from addressing highly, Highly relevant and important matters of policy for fear of a tyrannical KGB spook hiding on the margins?

        Why must we worship at the altar of “Unity” at high cost and submerge what we really feel?

        This is something I have been disturbed about by the Leave campaigning and now the relentless vilification of Trump. And frankly I think it is a greater victory for Putin than he could ever hope to accomplish with his own dwindling resources.

        “Trump is a Russian witting or unwitting mole,”

        Which we could say the same about Hillary Clinton, especially given that deeply illegal and irresponsible private server.

        The irony of this election is that had Hillary not shown Absolutely Indefensible and Disqualifying contempt for the safety of American national security and its’ secrets, Putin wouldn’t have the opportunity to slam her over the head with what she emailed now. Call it Karma.

        So if we assume that both the frontrunners are Russian moles (whether wittingly or unwittingly), why not vote for the one that hasn’t done as much damage at present?

        “he is backed by russian propaganda machine, by russian hackers, by russian secret services, ”

        And I remember when she and Obama were backed by the Russian propaganda machine too, especially over the Georgian War and “Reset.”

        My response remains the same as before. Why on Earth should I as a free person hold my vote hostage- not merely leave it open to interpretation or influence mind, since it is worth considering, but hold it completely hostage- for what the morons at the FSB’s Troll Farms say?

        Half the reason I cherish being free is so that I have the ABILITY to ignore state run propaganda like theirs. And while I distrust Trump and his connections with the Kremlin, the fact remains that HILLARY CANNOT BE A LEGAL POTUS. And in her role in the Executive ranch she oversaw one of the most catastrophic security breaches in world history all because she valued keeping her private dealings secret over Standard Operating Procedure.

        And this is before I talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of her actions, such as Benghazi, the Iran Nuclear capitulation, and yes “Reset” with Putin.

        “he is a populist.”

        I dislike it when people use that term as an instant scare cue. II think more people should check what it means.

        I am not a defender of Populism-for-Populism’s sake, but the idea that it needs to be avoided like poison is even more deadly in a democracy.

        And frankly, my bigger issue with Trump is that to the best of my knowledge he isn’t particularly sincere as a Populist (among other things). Which in other races would be a problem.

        But then the Democrat party made the decision to run Hillary Farqing Clinton.

        “I do not like Clinton, but she is (in my opinion) the lesser evil.”

        With all due respect, I do not think an informed opinion can substantiate that stance. Especially if one understands the laws government classified intelligence handling and its’ effects on government law.

        I have this friend online who (at least claims to be) ex-Air Force intelligence who did more than anyone else to educate me on what intelligence handling is like (originally for a roleplay and my own previous historical knowledge and curiosity about it, but now for this).

        He occasionally comes around here (mostly when I point out a highlight of his ), so he might be able to put in his two cents far better than I. But suffice it to say, Hillary Clinton’s criminality, immorality, and corruption are endemic. Just check a cursory look at what the FBI Director listed.

        This is a pretty good summary of it, including exact quotations of US law and the sworn testimony of the FBI Director. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xNLLcS2Yx8

        So ultimately I think it comes down to this: do we value defending American law and opposing a provably corrupt woman’s attempt to usurp the most powerful office in the US, or do we value *maybe* needling Putin a bit indirectly and showing up a boorish cheeto guy?

        Well, I am an American patriot like many of the authors here are Ukrainian patriots. The option is very clear for me. It is akin to telling me I would have to support a magically anti-Russian Yanukovych and his crimes or else Putin would win.

        Frankly, I view defending freedom and the rule of law to be more important. Because that is the reason why I oppose Putin in the first place.

        “Incidentally, the highest placed russian mole within the US
        was probably Kissinger”

        I could believe it given how inept his detente proved to be, but I doubt it. Especially compared to the FDR Presidency (who unfortunately had a number of leading Soviet spies or sympathizes in it).

        “You will have a hard time reconsiling being a Trump suporter and agreeing to views presented at this website. ”

        I’ve never been under any obligation to reconcile my views and principles with those of this website. I have been perfectly willing to absolutely castigate this website and castigate it harshly even before Trump came and I will do so long after he is gone. Whether on bogus claims like Moscow being made by Finnic tribes or the claim that we MUST ignore Savchenko after all her sacrifices for Ukraine.

        I am only on here because I generally find value in this website. It provides a lot of interesting information about Ukraine and its’ struggles and Eastern Europe as a whole. Especially since I recognize in Ukraine’s struggle for freedom the issues that have echoed down in my own country and which will affect it.

        But if that changes- and sometimes it seems like this website is determined to do it- I will not torture myself sticking around.

        “They are mutually exclusive.”

        No, they aren’t. Only some of this.

        This logic is like claiming that it is mutually exclusive to point out that Moscow was NOT in fact formed by non-Slavic, Finnic tribes. Which I have pointed out many, many months ago.

        Or that Olha of Kyiv was a genocidal ruler who commuted perfidy several times.

        But in any event, let’s run with it. So you’re saying that this website wants me to make a choice between defending my nation’s Laws (as clearly outlined here) about its’ most prize secrets, and patronizing it? Because it would rather embrace an irredeemably corrupt woman?

        Well, in that case I would be gone. There is no question about it. Because for all my sympathies for Ukraine and most of people on this site I WILL NEVER place it above the election of someone who will taint the office of President with illegality merely by holding it.

        Never.

        Ever.

        A tyrant a thousand miles away is better to deal with than a tyrant one mile away. I do not ask Ukrainians fighting for their country in the battlefields of Donbas and who would appreciate aid no matter how corrupt the government giving it may be to endorse my stance. But it is what it is.

        “Trump is pro-Putin, ”

        Maybe, regretfully. Though again, people seem to have a deeply selective memory of when Obama and Clinton were pro-Putin around 2008 and in the years after. And how it’s only now with their own personal dirty laundry being turned up that they have magically discovered they are not friends with the despot in the Kremlin.

        If Putin is true to form like he has been for years, I believe he will ultimately alienate even those who would fully want to be his Useful Idiots. Familiarity breeds contempt.

        It is a risk I find more palatable than undeniably letting the Presidency be usurped by someone legally forbidden to hold it.

        “this website is anti-Putin and probably anti-Trump. ”

        And pro-Moscow-was-formed-by-Finnic-tribes.

        “Just to be sure, I am in no way associated with the website.”

        Fair enough, and I appreciate the candor you had in discussing this.

        “I am just honestly convinced that if Trump gets elected, it will be bad not only for the US, but for the whole western world.”

        The sad thing is that I can believe that might be true.

        The issue goes back to what I see. I do not trust Trump, but I Cannot trust Hillary. And while Trump may be bad for the US and the whole Western World, Hillary Clinton absolutely Will be.

        Because she already has been.

        Anyway, I might see if I can get the two cents from my friend on here, he knows the ins and outs of handling sensitive info better than I do.

    • Wolf Winterheart

      Bravo! Great refutation of this “journalist’s” pro-Hitlery propaganda, Turtler.

      • Turtler

        Thank you kindly.

  • zorbatheturk

    Putin has zero chance of instigating any revolutions in the USA. Putin is a klutz. A thief. A murderer. And a loser. Russians who oppose Putin are good Russians!

    • Alex George

      Its similar to the Kremlin’s desire to instigate hybrid warfare in the Baltics. It clearly has plans for that, but its best shot was in Ukraine, where it failed. In the end, it was the Russian-speaking people who weren’t interested in joining a pro-russian revolution.

      Now the Kremlin has a problem – what if they were to try the same thing in Estonia or Latvia and the Russian-speaking population there also turned against them?

      • zorbatheturk

        Good point. Those guys have EU passports and earn euros – something a RuSSian would lose a kidney for. My Irish friend tells me he is encountering Russians with Polish passports working in Ireland, they speak about two sentences of Polish but have wrangled a Polish grandparent via either real or forged papers and so sneaked into the EU with Polish nationality. They get quite aggressive and unsociable when drunk, he tells me. Types to avoid. Lidl shelves being empty of €10 vodka on Sunday morning is another sign of them.

        • MichaelA

          Like russian tourists
          mostly very unpleasant people
          perhaps living in the west will civilise them

  • Alex George

    I am sure Putin does believe that all pro-democracy protests in Russia are run by the CIA, but there is little objective sign of that.

    People protest for democracy because they see it as a good thing.

    As for Trump, he is likely to be only relevant for another week . Then Putin will have to find something else to get excited about. Meanwhile, his country’s economy implodes and the Chinese are infiltrating Siberia, while Putin watches hawkishly in the wrong direction…

    • Alex George

      Ha ha, so Trump now is not “only relevant for another week”

      But that still might prove to be the case (to Putin), if he just becomes another run-of-the-mill President. On the other hand, if he decides to lift sanctions and give Putin a free hand in Ukraine…

  • White Taxpayer

    You lose.