Translated by Captain Ahab
Washington’s accusations that Moscow interfered in the US elections in order to help get Donald Trump into the Presidency brings back the memory of the US’ interference in the 1996 elections to guarantee a second term for Boris Yeltsin, which was part of a much larger plan to control and dominate what was previously the Soviet space.
Special attention was given to Russia
20 years was enough to reverse the roles in US-Russian relations, in quite a dramatic way. The US, after imposing itself as the “supreme power”, following the downfall of the USSR, today hurls accusations that it’s sovereignty has been violated, and that it’s “democratization” scheme, which was being forced on every country, including former USSR countries, is dithering.
Today, Washington accuses the Russian government and President V.V.Putin of interfering in the US presidential race, by cyber attacks and waging intense media propaganda campaigns, which according to the US government helped get “Moscow’s guy” Donald Trump into the Presidency, and so this constitutes an infringement on US sovereignty. President Obama previously said that President Putin has in the past interfered in the internal policies of European countries, “First, in former Soviet countries that used to be controlled by Moscow, where there are many Russian speaking communities, and later in Western democracies”. Obama also warned that Russia will be looking to influence the upcoming elections in European countries that are allies of the US.
The spokesperson for the Kremlin, Dimitry Peskov, responded yesterday to US accusations, saying that “the accusations are unfounded, evidence that could prove these allegations has not been presented, these allegations are merely sentimental outbursts, and cannot be the fruit of professional security apparatuses that are internationally renowned”. The accusations give out the image of America being a victim, while Washington willfully forgets that the country it’s accusing of interfering in is the same country the US boasted of “saving” by supporting “America’s man” in Russia, Boris Yeltsin, during the 1996 Russian presidential elections.
Russia’s former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov in his book “A world without Russia” says that “Western leaders did everything possible to prevent Russia from regaining it’s former strength, and the plan worked during Boris Yeltsin’s presidency”. Even the American magazine named “Politico” in one of it’s articles headlined “Putin’s revenge”, published last month, goes as far as saying “After years of humiliation during the 90’s, Russia’s ruler aims at winning the second cold war, and he might pull it off”.
It goes on to say “According to one man in Russia – Putin, Yeltsin’s reign was catastrophic”, pointing out that the Russian President conveyed a message to the Russian forces, a short time after claiming power in 2000, that they should set their sights at “Regaining Russia’s lost honor and dignity”. In 1996, the Americans acknowledged the fact that they intervened to nudge Yeltsin into office. In July of that year, Times magazine issued an article about the American advisers that helped Yeltsin (even though there were in the polls growing resentment and disillusionment) become President by using “American tactics” in his electoral campaign.
In a hotel located in the heart of Moscow, American advisers George Gorton, Joe Shumate, and Dick Dresner all worked previously in Peter Wilson’s campaign for the office of Governor of California. These advisers started working for Yeltsin, drawing the road map that would guarantee Yeltsin’s election. The advisors worked closely with Yeltsin’s daughter and campaign manager, Tatyana Yumasheva, they started teaching her the “American tactics” that would help get the Russian public to support the campaign. Speaking about Tatyana, Gorton said “She’s smart, and could express herself eloquently, she was strong-willed as well. But she did not have the faintest idea/knowledge of elections, she couldn’t even tell what was going on inside the mind of a 10-year-old child”.
According to news reports that were published after Yeltsin’s win, the advisers gave instructions on how to organize the campaign, how to use polls strategically and tactically, the central message of the campaign was “No to Communism”. They encouraged Yeltsin to assume tyrannical authority by convincing him to use state funded TV channels to deliver his message. All this was going on, while they boasted of how they saved Yeltsin from defeat and Russia from going back to a cold war situation. They admitted of having manipulated the public by planting fear into the hearts of Russians.
In the mean time, Yeltsin’s team were quick to deny, or to downplay the influence of the American advisers in achieving the win. The New York Times as well as the Washington Post relayed the reactions of Yeltsin’s advisers who said “They came up with the No to Communism slogan by themselves”. However, analysts have said that the way the campaign was run showed very clearly that “American” hands were involved, a new New York Times correspondent said, after Yeltsin’s victory, that “Democracy won, and with it came the modern methods of campaigning, which includes deceit, lies and other such methods that Americans know so well. Even though these methods are not always great, the result achieved in Russia is certainly one that is”.
On top of that the US financed Yeltsin’s campaign to the tune of “Billions of dollars”, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl offered an extra “2.7 billion dollars”, and French Prime Minister Alain Juppé donated 392 million dollars, according to American news reports published in 1996.
The Myth of US assistance
In a report headlined “The Myths of Democracy assistance: US political intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe”, writer Gerald Sussman said that “American aid to Russia was part of a greater goal, that of turning the country to an open market economy and putting it under the control of elected officials that are loyal to the US and capitalism, no matter how bad their anti-democratic measures were”. Sussman points to the fact that the US did not rely on the CIA, rather they intervened “transparently” through initiatives that are sponsored by private and public organizations, such as: National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Freedom House, George Soros’s Open Society, and a network of other well-financed globetrotting public and private professional political organizations, whom Washington use to camouflage their colonial projects while at the same time maintaining a facade of democratization. This has proven to be a very effective tool in furthering American geopolitical interests and further cementing previous relations with foreign countries by extending economic and military services.
Sussman further documents in his article that American intervention did not stop with Russia – Washington, through the NED, financed political movements that looked favorably towards the US in the Post-Soviet space, countries such as Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, Serbia, Belarus, and by 1990 US advisers were running many of these election’s campaigns in countries that were previously part of the USSR.
An American report….with no evidence
“Rarely if ever does the CIA share the data that they’ve used to collate a report with the public”. “The report cannot contain all the information that would support it’s allegations, including intelligence reports, sources and methods”. These are excerpts from the first page of the CIA’s report (of which Obama asked to be published) on Russia’s interference in the US presidential elections, where in the first page the lack of any concrete evidence is excused. This was something that even some American journalists couldn’t swallow, some have even ridiculed saying that simply relying on the US’ government’s “honesty” is not sufficient a reason to persuade Americans.
The report, 25 pages long, did not have in it anything new, it simply repeated what the CIA, FBI, and NSA had come up with. It says that Russia hacked into the DNC emails, Hilary Clinton’s, and John Podesta’s and with the help of Wikileaks the information was released to the public, which undoubtedly affected American public opinion. The report mentions “Russian propaganda” quite a few times, singling out RT (Russia Today) which according to the report covered Occupy Wall street extensively in 2011, and also third-party candidates in the 2012 presidential elections. It further adds that Russian media sources portrayed Clinton negatively.
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.