The Jihadis - A Pawn for the West

A recent confab took place in Saudi Arabia which included "opposition" leaders from the factions fighting in Syria, namely Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam, both affiliated to Al-Nusra Front who are a designated foreign terrorist organisation according to America - Saudi's greatest ally.

After great strides made in Syria against Assad it was about time that they'd be put back into their place by America's "enemy" Russia - but what has this achieved?

1) Allows the West to negotiate with the "rebels" temporarily until a deal is struck
a) Then wipes them out after claiming they have sided with Al Qaeda - similar to how most of the Jihadi factions were used and abused in the past after they've aided in the West's plans.

2) It forces the many factions on the ground to compromise the political solution for Syria

a) Giving up the Sharia in return for a liberal democratic form of governance, contrary to what most of the factions call for.

3) Preserves the face of America as it is the 'Russian Bear' that is delivering the blows while America are the peacemakers that will inevitably be the leader in coming to a political solution. 

a) At the same time it weakens the Russians, pulling them in to a battle that they'll never be able to come out of without a dent, both domestically and internationally. 

b) Creates a wedge between Russia and Turkey that will affect Russia moreso than Turkey due to its high dependency on trade after the sanctions with the European states. 

As for the Jihadi's, well... better luck next time. Sincere intentions, but the wrong method. However the sympathy shouldn't be with them but rather the millions of innocent Muslims that will die due to their carelessness and inability to stick to the Prophetic method of bringing Islam back as a State. 

May Allah make us one of those who persevere in the correct manner and in the manner that won't be detrimental to the Ummah of Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi wasallam)

Kam Kashem

Putin’s aspirations lead Russia towards disaster

The Russian military operations in Syria still raise many questions regarding the objectives, limits, duration and chances of achieving their goal of reinstalling Moscow as a dominant world power.

Russia’s conflict with the West came about as a result of the deployment of a US missile shield in Europe, Washington’s update of its tactical nuclear weapons and NATO’s advancement towards its western border. After Putin’s enthusiastic efforts to achieve closer integration with Europe and the West in general during his first three years in power, he changed direction suddenly and worked towards building a strong state. His strategy was based on two axes: Russia’s near neighbours and those further away. He has sought to regain control of what he considers to be Russian territory annexed by neighbouring countries and to restore Moscow’s control in the former Soviet Union countries under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. The goal behind the second axis is to limit America’s global role and influence and to allow Russia to play a prominent role in international decision-making.

These efforts include working towards Russia regaining its position in an international system based on bipolarity alongside the US. In order to achieve this, Putin launched economic and military programmes to regain balance within Russia and increase its ability to take regional and international action to impose its presence and boost its prestige.

Hence, he worked on strengthening Russia’s military presence in the former Soviet Union by means of military bases and strengthening the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. He also called for the formation of a customs union to include the former Soviet Union countries and for the adoption of a military doctrine based on reinforcing missile defences and the development of carrying systems for nuclear warheads, such as missiles, submarines and strategic bombs. Conventional weapons have also been modernised, with an operational command and naval fleet based permanently in the Mediterranean. In addition, a network of military bases has been built to house air defence forces, rapid reaction brigades and navy vessels deployed above the Arctic Circle.

Having adopted brinkmanship as a tactic, Putin is also doing a lot of muscle-flexing, and is hinting at the possibility of the outbreak of a world war. Russia’s spending on arms now exceeds 9 per cent of GDP as the president deploys aircraft and ships around the world.

The outbreak of the Arab Spring revolutions sparked additional disputes between Russia and the West, especially after the latter’s intervention in Libya, depriving Russia of its piece of the cake, as well as threatening its interests in Syria. This pushed Russia into engaging in an indirect confrontation with the West by supporting the Syrian regime in its fight against the revolution and protecting the regime politically by using its veto at the UN on four occasions. Moscow has supplied Damascus with weapons, money and military experts, and has coordinated with Iran to prevent the Assad regime from collapsing under too much political and military pressure.

The moves by the European Union and NATO to allow Ukraine to join them irked Russia, due to Moscow’s imagining of a Eurasian Union. This has escalated the tension in the region, with Russia pushing ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine to hold a referendum and declare the establishment of the “Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic”.

Russia has exploited the cool relations between the US a number of its allies, such as the Arab Gulf states on the back of the Iranian nuclear deal, and Egypt on the back of Washington’s reservations over political oppression, the use of excessive force against the Muslim Brotherhood and the politicisation of the judiciary. Putin has used this to make trade, arms and investment deals as well as contracts to build nuclear power plants, all in the hope of forcing Washington to deal with Russia as another world power.

This was achieved and Russia is now living with inflation and deflation due to Western economic sanctions and the fall in oil and gas prices. Some Russian observers predict the fall of oil prices to $40 or even $20 per barrel. It is worth noting that for every $1 drop per barrel of oil, Russia loses $2.5 billion.

We must not forget that a fifth of the external debt of $700 billion and the debt accumulated by Russian companies, which amounts to $500 billion, must be repaid this year; nor that capital ranging from $100 and $200 billion was taken out of Russia in 2014. An increase in oil and gas supply after recent large discoveries will reform the market and impose a new balance in which Russia’s share will drop; gas and oil represent about 74 per cent of Russian exports and its revenues make up 50 per cent of the state’s resources, both of which are the main source of hard currency. Western business investments are likely to be withdrawn; indeed, 87 companies have already liquidated or reduced their presence in Russia. This has caused a fall in the value of the rouble; the exchange rate against the dollar has fallen by 20 per cent. It is worth noting that at the beginning of 2014, $1 was equal to around 33 roubles; it is now 66 roubles. This has led to a 30 per cent increase in the price of basic foodstuffs and the decline of growth to below zero per cent.

Despite the fact that Russia’s revenues from oil and its by-products, and natural gas, reached about $3.2 trillion between 2000 and 2013, it did not result in the modernisation of the Russian economy, its diversification or ending its dependence on the export of raw materials and the import of advanced technology. It was growth without development. This caused a contradiction in Russia’s structure between the military and economic forces; the label attached to the Soviet Union of being a giant with two legs, one powerful (military) and the other weak (economy), also applies to the Russian Federation.

Which brings us to American historian Paul Kennedy’s equation regarding the rise and fall of great powers: a strong economy that finances an army deployed abroad and a lack of financial ability to spend on overseas military operations both put great powers on the path towards failure. The continuation of the Russian-Western conflict and Moscow’s military involvement in Ukraine and Syria, as well as the possibility of its involvement in Iraq, will lead to the exhaustion of Russia's money supply and push it to the brink of bankruptcy.

This worries Russian citizens and has widened the gap between them and their leadership. The situation does not align with the doctrine and principles of the populist government and its sole hero Vladimir Putin, which depends on the enthusiasm of the Russian people and their ardent nationalism in order to mobilise behind him and protect him from their anger. He does so by promoting his description of the situation that the Russians have found themselves in as part of a Western conspiracy.

The Russian military intervention in Syria is based on opportunities and risks. Such opportunities include reinforcing Russia’s influence, limiting Washington’s ability to take unilateral action in the Middle East and other parts of the world, and forcing the US to negotiate with Moscow on regional and international issues, thus recognising Russia as an equal partner in global decision-making. However, it involves greater risks, as Washington does not accept Moscow as an equal or an influential player in the international arena. Indeed, it treats it like a junior partner there to serve the interests of the stronger party, according to the intersection theory spoken about by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US National Security Advisor in his book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era.

Many analyses have predicted that domestic criticism will increase when soldiers start going home from Syria in body bags. Despite the fact that Russia is relying on air strikes to wear down the opposition in preparation for a ground attack by the Assad regime, its Iranian allies and the militias associated with Iran, in order to regain control of the territories lost in recent months and keep the opposition forces away from the coast, where the Russian naval base is located, this tactic is facing many obstacles. The first of these is the lack of effectiveness of the air strike in achieving decisive results in the asymmetric war. Another obstacle is the fact that Russia is linked to a weak ally — the regime — making it more difficult and placing a heavy burden on Moscow.

If the Syrian opposition forces succeed in avoiding Russia’s air strikes, and containing them, and then respond with powerful blows to the regime and its allies, they would have stopped the “tsar” from achieving quick results, such as reinforcing the regime’s position and pressuring the West to accept a trade-off. They would have a tactical victory in light of the unbalanced nature of the conflict and in accordance with the rule that, “The army is defeated when it is not victorious, while the resistance is victorious when it is not defeated.”

This could put the Russian leadership in a confrontation with public opinion at home, which is still suffering from Afghanistan syndrome; the people have a deep-seated fear of slipping in a foreign war.

Pushing Russia to withdraw from Syria without any positive results will reflect negatively on the “heroic” image of Putin and will lead to a decline in Moscow’s international role. That would push it back and force it to accept Washington’s conditions for a resolution of the crisis in Syria, the first of which is a new leadership in Damascus.

Russia’s involvement in such a war as Syria’s involves great risks for a country that is suffering from economic problems and is on the verge of bankruptcy, unable to pay its debts. Add to that the fact that it is suffering from social problems and existential concerns due to the demographic and religious structure of society, in order to achieve a near-impossible goal — a return to a world of bipolarity — and it is clear that Russia is reflecting a number of disparities in its strategic outlook.

Translated from Al Jazeera net, 4 November, 2015.

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/22131-putins-aspirations-lead-russia-towards-disaster

Minsk II: Derailed Before the Ink Was Dry

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/minsk-ii-derailed-before-ink-was-dry.html

Minsk II: Derailed Before the Ink Was Dry

February 24, 2015 (Eric Draitser - NEO) - When the Minsk II agreement was officially announced on February 12, 2015, there was, for the first time in many months, a real belief that a cessation of hostilities was at the very least possible, if only conceptually. It seemed that the parties to the conflict finally had a framework within which they could move toward a peaceful settlement to end the dreadful war that has claimed the lives of thousands of innocent civilians in Donetsk, Lugansk, and surrounding areas. But perhaps this was simply wishful thinking.

While the “Normandy 4” (France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine) were negotiating the terms of the agreement, developments on the ground in Donetsk and Lugansk told quite a different story. Ukrainian forces continued their criminal shelling of civilians in Donetsk, while the anti-Kiev rebels continued sporadic fighting around Debaltsevo. Of course a war is always messy, and one cannot expect fighting to halt, or even necessarily decrease, while political leaders sit around the table.

But the continuation of military hostilities was not the only issue. Rather, actions taken by Kiev’s military and fascist paramilitaries, in addition to their patrons in Washington, demonstrated that, rather than peace, the US-Kiev faction was interested in escalation.

But how is this possible considering the string of defeats the Ukrainian military suffered at the hand of the rebels? Simple. Under the cover of media darkness cast by the shadow of the Minsk talks, the US and Kiev quietly connived to escalate the war and, simultaneously, violate multiple key provisions of the agreement. In effect, Minsk II was null and void the moment the clock struck midnight on Sunday February 15, 2015, the appointed time at which the agreement allegedly took effect.



Minsk II: Dead on Arrival 

Although everyone was (and is) hopeful that the Minsk II agreement will lead to at least a temporary peace, the inescapable reality is that it is a political document designed for public relations, rather than a true agreement between equal parties. Moreover, Minsk II should be understood as the “peace” side of the Tolstoyan war and peace coin – a seemingly contradictory, but in fact quite complimentary, two-pronged approach taken by the US and its puppet regime in Kiev.

On one level, the strategy is to bring negotiations front and center, highlighting the West’s so called “commitment to peace” as evidenced by the much vaunted jet-setting diplomacy of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Indeed, Germany has much to lose given a continuation, and likely expansion, of the war in Ukraine; many in the German establishment correctly interpret the conflict as a proxy war between Washington and Moscow, a war in which Washington stands everything to gain, and Berlin everything to lose.

And so, the view from Berlin was that Europe had gambled on Ukraine and lost, and that conciliatory negotiations had become paramount both to ease tensions with Russia, and to pull Europe back from the brink of a wider, and far more dangerous war. However, at the very moment that Merkel was seated across the table from Putin in Minsk, her partners in Washington were pursuing a decidedly different, and much more aggressive and dangerous policy.

On Wednesday February 11, literally the very day that the Minsk talks were taking place, Reuters ran a story headlined U.S. army to train Ukrainians in March: commander U.S. army Europe which quoted U.S. Army Europe commander Ben Hodges as saying, “We will train [Ukrainian military] in security tasks, medical (tasks), how to operate in an environment where the Russians are jamming (communications) and how to protect (themselves) from Russian and rebel artillery.” So, at the moment that Western media were busily lauding Merkel and Hollande for offering an olive branch, US military officials were describing how Washington would be escalating the war.

It is important to note that Hodges described the initial mission as training three battalions, but no specific limits in terms of time or manpower were presented by any US official. Presumably then, this escalation program would go on indefinitely, and would impact far more than simply three battalions. Moreover, a careful reading of the language of Hodges’ statement certainly should give anyone pause.

For instance, what exactly is meant by “security tasks”? Does this include policing the streets of captured territory and/or Ukraine proper? It would certainly stand to reason considering the repeated warnings from President Poroshenko about possibly instituting martial law on the streets of Ukraine.

Hodges’ declaration should be read as a carefully constructed statement designed to present the illusion that US military forces would be providing only “defensive” training and support. However, any serious political observer understands that such training will go far beyond simply teaching soldiers how to “protect themselves.” Rather, a more realistic interpretation of that statement would conclude that counterattack strategies and tactics are really the objective.

Of course, Hodges is not the only one hinting at US plans. President Obama himself stated on the eve of the Minsk negotiations, “The possibility of lethal defence is one of those options that’s being examined…but I have not made a decision about that yet,” and that the US would consider “whether there are additional things we can do to help Ukraine bolster its defences in the face of Russian aggression.” Naturally, the phrase “bolstering defenses” is really just a politically acceptable euphemism, coded language for providing lethal weapons. Translation: the US wants to escalate the war by providing more material support to Ukraine in hopes of forcing Russia to respond in kind, then blaming Russia for precisely the escalation Washington itself initiated.

So, on the one hand you have NATO allies Germany and France allegedly brokering peace, while the US foments war. While this should surprise no one who has followed the trajectory of the war in Ukraine, it does illustrate the degree to which US-NATO has come to accept the inevitability of a military defeat for Kiev. That is, unless the strategic calculus is altered significantly.

In effect, the US killed Minsk II before any agreement was even reached. But, what of the agreement itself? Are the provisions even possible to implement and uphold?

Minsk II: The Foreign Elements 

One of the key provisions in the text of the agreement relates to the presence of foreign elements and their necessary withdrawal. The agreement calls for, “Pullout of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under OSCE supervision. Disarmament of all illegal groups.” It stands to reason that the West and its puppet Poroshenko demanded this provision be included so as to immediately be able to cry foul on the rebels who Kiev has always maintained are “foreign terrorists” (regardless of whether they are Ukrainian or not).

Indeed, the provision would require any volunteers from Russia, or those who have come from Spain, France, the US, and elsewhere to fight alongside the anti-fascist rebel forces, to withdraw from the territory. However, it is quite likely that Moscow agreed to this provision knowing that it is impossible for Kiev and Washington to live up to it. Why? Because US mercenaries have been operating inside Ukraine all along.

According to German intelligence, at least 400 US mercenaries from Academi aka Blackwater, the infamous military/security contractor responsible for documented war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere, have been operating inside Ukraine from the very beginning of the conflict. Exactly what actions and/or crimes they might be responsible for is still unknown. However, their very presence inside Ukraine should raise eyebrows around the world, much of which has been inundated with the meme of “Russian aggression.” So, if Russian and other volunteers aren’t the only “foreigners” inside Ukraine, why is it that Russia is the only party being held up as a “foreign armed formation”?

It should also be pointed out that this German intelligence report is only one snippet of information that was leaked to the German press. Typically, a leak indicates a far larger body of information. Who knows how many other US-NATO mercenary “formations” have been, and continue to be, involved in Ukraine?

One should also remember that there have been numerous pieces of video (14:40 mark) andphotographic evidence, not to mention written testimony, demonstrating that Academi/Blackwater (and possibly other mercenary groups) has been active in Ukraine. In late 2014, Russia’s ITAR-TASSreported that $3.5 million will be used to train an “experimental battalion” of 550 Ukrainian soldiers in “marksmanship, operations by assault groups in urban conditions, close combat and combat and logistics support.”

Taken in total, the case for US-NATO mercenary involvement in Ukraine is quite strong. But this somehow never makes it into the mainstream narrative about Ukraine in the West. Moreover, the media never seems to question the fact that the line between official US military, and unofficial mercenary forces, exists for a simple reason: Washington can disavow any knowledge of unofficial forces operating inside Ukraine.

And this is precisely the point. The US is able to simultaneously say it is “considering” arming Ukrainian forces, while already having other forces on the ground. With one hand the US holds the knife to the throat, and with the other it holds the gun to the temple. So much for Minsk and diplomacy.

While the politicians dance their danse macabre and talk of peace, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and demilitarizing the conflict, the US and its associated military and quasi-military appendages works diligently to escalate an obviously failed proxy war. In so doing, Washington undermines both the interests of its nominal European partners, and any prospects for peace. But of course, that’s precisely the point, isn’t it? The US is perfectly happy to pay its geopolitical tab in the currency of Ukrainian blood, while constantly pointing the finger at Moscow.

But it’s not Washington’s fault, is it? The Empire is doing what empires do. It is the fault of all those in the media, both mainstream and alternative, who refuse to examine the evidence, who choose to reduce everything into simplistic black and white terms – they are the ones who must be held accountable. For the blood of innocents in Donetsk and Lugansk stains all. And those stains will never be washed away.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Using Propaganda to Win the War in Ukraine

The Western media has been abuzz in recent days with the claim that videos posted to youtube, which show Ukrainian prisoners being “mistreated” by anti-Kiev rebels, amount to war crimes. Naturally, such claims deserve attention as violations of international laws governing war and treatment of prisoners are of concern to all. However, it is equally true that those calling for prosecution of the anti-Kiev rebels are applying a farcical double standard as they have utterly ignored the exponentially more egregious war crimes committed by the Ukrainian military and its neo-Nazi auxiliaries.

This complete whitewashing of countless war crimes committed by Kiev is not coincidental, nor is it a mystery. In fact, it is part of a coordinated campaign by the western media and western non-profit industrial complex to frame the narrative in such a way as to cast Kiev ‘s forces as righteous and just, while the anti-Kiev rebels are terrorist criminals. This complete inversion of reality is par for the course for the West, which, recognizing it cannot achieve its geopolitical ambitions in Ukraine by force, instead will seek to do it through propaganda.

Essentially, Gorbunova and her colleagues are cherry-picking their information so as to charge anti-Kiev rebels with war crimes, while completely ignoring the widespread war crimes committed by pro-Kiev forces, including indiscriminate shelling of civilians,deliberate targeting of journalists and medical personnel, mass killings and mass graves, the use of internationally banned weapons, etc., all of which have been documented. Even Human Rights Watch (HRW), the very organization Gorbunova works for, and not exactly an objective party as it is part and parcel of the US soft power apparatus, has documented a number of egregious war crimes committed by the Ukrainian military and neo-Nazi militias.

In its report Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians, HRW documented that “Unguided Grad rockets launched apparently by Ukrainian government forces and pro-government militias have killed at least 16 civilians and wounded many more in insurgent-controlled areas of Donetsk and its suburbs in at least four attacks between July 12 and 21, 2014.” We did not hear an outcry from Gorbunova over these heinous war crimes which have killed, and continue to kill, hundreds (if not more) innocent civilians in Donetsk, Lugansk, and the surrounding areas. Can one be considered a serious human rights investigator if one makes an equivalence between marching soldiers publicly through the streets and the deliberate shelling of civilians? Such an obvious bias certainly calls into question the objectivity of Gorbunova and HRW.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/on-war-crimes-and-double-standards-in.html

Opinion: Putin's Remarks Indicate the Struggle is with America and not Ukraine

It does not come as a surprise that America are leading the struggle against Russia for separating Ukraine from the former USSR (soviet union) in order to weaken Russia's dominion and undermine their influence. President Putin's remarks clearly attest to this fact when he said "Ukraine's crisis has been caused by the West" and not by the Ukrainians aspiration for an independent state. He went on to say that "Western countries had broken pledges not to expand Nato and forced countries to choose between them and Russia".

America cannot keep its choke hold on the Russians without the help of  the Europeans because the majority of the gas and oil deals, as well as trade-expo agreements, are between Russia and Europe. It is clear that the Europeans are working in behest of American plans as Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, is due to brief President Obama in Washington on the progress of the 'peace' plan - although she herself has commented that she could not "imagine any situation in which improved equipment for the Ukrainian army leads to President Putin being so impressed that he believes he will lose militarily", while America is preparing to arm the Ukrainians showing that it is ultimately America's plan and not the Europeans.

John Kerry's reassuring comments to the media in regards to unity with the European leaders when he said "I keep hearing people trying to create one. We are united, we are working closely together." comes at a time when France's Hollande was considering lifting the sanctions off Russia to ease the detrimental effect it was having on France's economy, and now Merkel's disapproving opinion on arming the Ukrainians.

It is important to remember these remarks by President Putin as it clearly demonstrates that it is America, the superpower of the world that is dominating the globe and controlling nations to secure it's own interest. It also shows that some nations attempt to secure its own national interests and do not always play by the books of America, but often are put back into check through shrewd political manoeuvres by the West.  Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said Russia "will not sacrifice its national interest but is ready to engage constructively".

“It felt like orchestrated hate fest. Obviously these people live in a surreal world. The US try to change the balance of forces in eastern Europe and the EU join the band wagon,” Srdja Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor of the Chronicles magazine told RT, adding that “whenever a major power wants to change the status-quo, the result is a crisis.”

The Munich conference has been dominated by the Ukrainian crisis rather than the issue of ISIS. This is most likely due to the fact ISIS is a controlled, directed and manipulated scheme by the West and therefore does not require diplomacy whereas the Russian issue can give the Americans some headache, especially due to the fact the biggest supporter of Assad in Syria are the Russians, and without them the continuing escalation in the Middle East cannot continue. It is as if the Russians are using this pretext that they are helping the Americans in their plans in the Middle East but a little 'cheesed off' that they are being attacked at the same time in their own back yard and retaliating with a bit of resistance. 

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31289051

http://rt.com/news/230291-munich-conference-ukraine-crisis/

Russian opposition Ilya Ponomarev seeking the West's blessings to overthrow Putin

Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/did-russian-parliamentarian-just-commit.html#more

Key Points:

The event, “Russia’s Opposition in a Time of War and Crisis,” featured prominent Russian liberal opposition parliamentarian (member of the Russian Duma) Ilya Ponomarev, a noted critic of Russian President Putin, providing a detailed presentation regarding the current political climate in Russia, and the potential for the ousting or overthrow of the Russian government. Yes, you heard that right. A Russian elected official came to the United States to give a talk about how best to effect regime change in his own country.

The most significant portion of Ponomarev’s presentation centered on a slide titled “Conditions for the Change of Power in Russia,” which laid out essentially a roadmap or blueprint for regime change in Russia. Ponomarev’s slide outlined what he believes to be the essential elements for successful overthrow of the democratically elected government. These include:

 Organized street protest (versus spontaneous one)
Appealing vision of the future presented to the majority of Russians
Leader, acceptable for all protesters and the elites
Access to some financial resources
Part of the elites should support the revolution
Trigger event

Examining these points, it is clear that Ponomarev is not merely “informing” the assembled policymakers, journalists, and guests about what should happen, but rather is making a case for what must bemade to happen. This is no educational exercise, but a thoughtfully crafted appeal to the political establishment of the US to support Ponomarev and his faction both financially and politically.

And Ponomarev is perfectly aware of this fact. Indeed, he included in the slide entitled “Conditions for the change of power in Russia” the following points:

 Unlikely – elections
Likely – revolution (non-violent or violent)
Compromise with the current elites increases probability of non-violent changes, but decreases the probability of successful reforms in the future

Here, Ponomarev is openly acknowledging a number of critical points. First, that regime change is unlikely to come through elections. This is a blatant admission that not only is Putin democratically elected and wildly popular, but that the opposition will never have anything close to enough popular support to defeat him. In other words, Ponomarev is tacitly saying that Putin must be overthrown precisely because the Russian people support him, and will likely continue to do so. Imagine: a democratically elected politician from a country supposedly run by an “authoritarian dictator” comes to the US – allegedly the world’s great champion of democracy – to advocate an anti-democratic regime change scenario. The hypocrisy is beyond words.

CSIS, with its long association with individuals such as Zbigniew Brzezinski who come from the uppermost echelons of power, is one of a small number of hugely influential think tanks that directly impact US foreign policy. CSIS, along with the Rand Corporation, Council on Foreign Relations, and a handful of other groups, are a useful barometer for measuring the pulse of the US establishment, and for individuals such as Ponomarev to get close to the levers of US power.

Third, and perhaps most telling about Ponomarev, is the fact that he openly warns against any form of compromise with the government, or the elites with influence in the government. Such a preemptively hostile, and inherently adversarial, relationship with the government precludes any possibility for dialogue or even negotiation. Considering the fact that, at best, Ponomarev and the liberal opposition represent a relatively small proportion of the Russian people (primarily the western-oriented business, finance, and media community, and the young liberals they can mobilize on the streets), the net effect of what he is advocating is that a small, foreign-backed minority with deep pockets seize control of the government in a quite possibly violent putsch. Ukraine anyone? Treason anyone?

However, when one examines key figures and institutions of the liberal establishment in Russia – both in politics and civil society – it becomes clear that some of the most influential are in fact collaborating with foreign powers (especially the US) to undermine the Russian government.

Beyond just the individuals, a number of influential “civil society” organizations deeply tied to the US establishment figure prominently in the liberal opposition. These organizations (Strategy 31, theMoscow-Helsinki Group, Levada Center, GOLOS, and many others) are either directly or indirectly funded by the United States through its myriad soft power organs, the most infamous among them being the National Endowment for Democracy. That these organizations knowingly take money from the US Government, and then present themselves as objective, disinterested civil society organizations is the height of cynicism and hypocrisy. What does one call such an organization if not an “agent of a foreign power”? I would again refer readers to the above-cited definition of “treason.”