W. Niederhut

The West deserves much of the blame for Putin’s rise to unchecked power By Vladimir Kara-Murza Global Opinions contributor|Follow June 21, 2023 at 2:11 p.m. EDT PRETRIAL DETENTION CENTER NO. 5, MOSCOW — Dictatorial regimes can come to power in different ways. Sometimes, it is through years of civil war, as with the Bolsheviks in Russia after 1917. Sometimes, it is through democratic procedures, as in 1930s Germany. Or, as in Chile in 1973, it can happen as the result of a military coup. Vladimir Putin achieved power in 1999 by a backroom deal in the top ranks of President Boris Yeltsin’s administration. But the new Kremlin leader needed time to transform Russia’s imperfect democracy into the seamless authoritarian system it is today. No one can pinpoint the precise moment Russia ceased to be democratic. But the year can be named with certainty. It was 2003 — and this week marks exactly 20 years since the first turning point in that transformation. On June 22 of that year, Putin’s press ministry turned off the broadcasting signal of TVS, Russia’s last independent television network. In a characteristic display of Soviet-style hypocrisy, the official reason it cited was “viewers’ interests.” This was the final step in Putin’s campaign against independent television, which he had launched days after his inauguration with a security raid on the offices of Russia’s largest private media holding. Within three years, all major independent broadcasters — NTV, TV-6 and finally TVS — fell silent, giving the Kremlin a complete monopoly on the airwaves. Controlling public sources of information is a prerequisite to any dictatorship. Two other milestones came later that year. In October 2003, Putin’s security services arrested Russia’s richest man, oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The official charge was tax evasion. But the real reason was Khodorkovsky’s funding of civil society groups and opposition parties and his public confrontation with Putin over government corruption. This was a clear signal from the Kremlin to all of Russia’s business community: Stay loyal or stay out. Finally, in December came Russia’s parliamentary election that — for the first time since the end of Soviet rule — was assessed by international observers as unfair. It resulted in the ejection of pro-democracy parties from the Duma. With the Russian parliament becoming — in the unforgettable words of its speaker — “not a place for discussion,” Putin’s authoritarian transformation was complete. Follow Vladimir Kara-Murza's opinions Follow For those of us who had been involved in the democratic opposition to Putin from the very start of his rule, it was painful to watch how calmly most of Russian society seemed to accept the dismantling of the nascent freedoms of the 1990s. There were street protests against the state takeover of NTV — but nowhere near the scale merited by the situation. There were principled voices in the Russian parliament against Putin’s authoritarian moves — such as Boris Nemtsov — but they were not matched by a mass popular movement. As a candidate for the Duma in the critical 2003 election, I remember well how indifferent most voters even in my Moscow district were to the country’s authoritarian turn. After the economic hardships that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet system in the 1990s, many people were willing to accept Putin’s unspoken social contract: higher living standards (bankrolled by rising oil prices) in return for giving up political freedoms. So when politicians and opinion-makers in the West today speak of Russian society’s responsibility for allowing Putin’s rise to unchecked power (and ultimately leading us to the current war), they have a point — but only partly. Why? Because a very large part of that responsibility lies with the West itself. When Putin came to power, Russia was fully integrated into the international rules-based system. It belonged to the Group of Eight industrialized democracies; it was a member of the Council of Europe, which serves to safeguard human rights on the continent; it was (and still is) a participating state in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, whose statutes explicitly assert that matters relating to democracy, human rights and the rule of law are of legitimate concern to all member states. So when Putin launched ever more active efforts to dismantle Russia’s democratic institutions, we in the Russian opposition naively thought the free world would express criticism. Instead, American presidents of both parties applauded Putin’s rise. George W. Bush called him “a new style of leader, a reformer … who is going to make a huge difference in making the world more peaceful.” Barack Obama lauded his “extraordinary work … on behalf of the Russian people.” One German chancellor even went to work for one of Russia’s biggest state-controlled companies. But perhaps the most grotesque gesture came from the British government, which welcomed Putin for a lavish state visit — complete with a horse-drawn carriage ride with the queen and billions of dollars in lucrative contracts — literally two days after he pulled the plug on TVS in June 2003. I covered that visit as a journalist, and I will never forget the surreal spectacle of Britain’s political and financial elite hosting the emerging dictator at an ornate banquet at the London Guildhall. The immorality and cynicism of this realpolitik aside, the architects of the Western policy of embracing Putin ignored two fundamental warnings from history: that internal repression in Russia always translates into external aggression and that appeasing an aggressor always leads to war. Again, the free world has learned this the hard way. After he got away with so much else over the years, both at home and abroad, it is not surprising that Putin thought he could get away with occupying Ukraine, too. Incredibly, there are still voices in the West who are suggesting that he should. Day after day, Russian state television (which I am forced to watch in my prison cell) relays statements by Kremlin-friendly politicians and talking heads in Western Europe and the United States calling for some kind of an “understanding” with Putin over Ukraine. I can think of no better recipe for disaster — and for a new, even larger war a couple of years down the road — than handing the aggressor yet another cave-in. There is only one outcome of this conflict that would be in the interests of the free world, of Ukraine and, ultimately, of the Russian people: resounding defeat for Putin, to be followed by political change in Russia and a Marshall Plan-type international assistance program both to rebuild Ukraine and to help post-Putin Russia build a functioning democracy so that it never again becomes a threat to its own people or its neighbors. That is the only way to make sure Europe can finally become whole, free and at peace — and stay that way. Both Russian society and the West are responsible for letting Putin come as far as he did. Both of us also share the responsibility to get it right this time. Vladimir Kara-Murza is a Russian opposition politician and Post contributor who has been imprisoned in Moscow since April for speaking out against the war on Ukraine. He has been designated by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience.

Jim, Hold on... Aren't these multiple JFK Peace Speech threads implicit criticisms of Biden's support for Ukraine following Putin's 2022 invasion? How, then, is a discussion of Putin irrelevant? And aren't they also repeatedly linked by you and Ben Cole to RFK, Jr.'s anti-Biden Presidential campaign-- which has been promoted by the Fox "News" Anti-Biden Propaganda network? Meanwhile, you ducked my related question yesterday about why JFK went to Berlin in June of 1963.

And yet, Doug, we need to learn from our disastrous mistakes, don't we? How did a disaster like Donald Trump happen to the United States?

Actually, Paul, I have asked Larry an array of questions about his comments regarding RFK, Jr., Russ Baker, Fox News, Ukraine, and his low opinion of Vice President Harris. Where's the reduction? Isn't this a discussion forum?

Michael, Perhaps you missed the big news from one of Trump's former professors at U. Penn, to the effect that, "Donald Trump was the single worst student (he) ever taught at Penn." Trump's older sister also wrote papers for him, so that he could grift his way through two years at Fordham and two at Penn. It was the academic equivalent of allegedly having bone spurs. Incidentally, can you specify which of Russ Baker's criticisms of RFK, Jr. were "wrong or exaggerated" in your opinion?

Huh? It's "presumptuous" to ask forum members to clarify their statements on the forum? When was that standard of Education Forum discourse established?

Paul, Where does RFK, Jr. stand on some of the major domestic and foreign policy crises of our time-- the rise of the anti-democracy, proto-fascist Trump cult, Putin's brutal, illegal war against Ukraine, wealth inequality and the Reaganomic national debt, gun homicides, etc.?? Is RFK, Jr. a champion of progressive, liberal democracy? Is he a bona fide progressive? Has he condemned Trumplicon fascism and Putin's fascist dictatorship? Has he advocated gun control? Has he advocated increasing taxes on the rich? Thus far, most of his fluffing has happened on the plutocratic Faux News Anti-Biden Propaganda network.

Yeah, Matt, and the guys in the MAGA-verse who have been selling Durham nothing burgers probably don't even know. That is one issue I have with the reality-based news and opinion being exiled to this Water Cooler board on the forum. The result is that political reality has been marginalized, while the Fox News/Joe Rogan alternate reality propaganda is still being posted daily on the JFKA forum. Not sure how to fix that problem. I agree that the political discussions should be separated from debates about the JFK assassination.

Larry, It was unfair of me to attribute your slur about Vice President Harris to racism, and I do apologize-- especially if you can provide a rational explanation for your slur. Here's what you wrote: "If all RFK Jr's campaign does is force Biden out of the race, then that is a victory for the country. we cant afford to have Harris or Trump become president." Are you likening Vice President Harris to an uneducated sociopath like Donald Trump? Harris has had to run the gauntlets of racism and misogyny-- which were, obviously, deployed by the Fox News propagandists, for years, against Obama and Hillary Clinton. Did you watch the 2020 Democratic primary debates, or Harris's Vice Presidential debate against Mike Pence? The lady is highly intelligent, articulate, and well educated. More importantly, she is committed to the public good. So, what are your grounds for claiming that "the country can't afford to have Vice President Harris become President?" As opposed to whom-- Anti-Woke Ron DeSantis? The shameless Trump apologist Mike Pence? As for your Joe Rogan comment, I am quite familiar with the scientific "merits" of RFK's anti-vaccine disinformation in recent years. I prefer written analyses to podcasts. Now, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer a few of my unanswered questions (above.) 1) Which of Russ Baker's specific criticisms of RFK, Jr. do you disagree with? 2) Should the West have refrained from intervention following Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939? 3) Was the American Revolutionary War essentially a "proxy war" (between Britain and France) in your opinion-- as opposed to a war for independence? 4) Was Alexander McCaskill-- the anti-Biden propagandist-- your Fox News/Tucker Carlson contact person?

Lauren Boebert says she's being 'directed' by 'God' to impeach Biden - Raw Story - Celebrating 19 Years of Independent Journalism

Reality check about John Cotter's latest false claims, folks. 1) I was, in fact, reprimanded by the mods here for accurately referring to John Cotter as an "anti-vaxxer" in one of our discussions about RFK, Jr. His whining about this was puzzling at the time, since many people, including RFK, Jr. are known "anti-vaxxers." The term "anti-vaxxer" is standard parlance here in the U.S., and John Cotter has repeatedly posted about his opposition to the use of COVID vaccines during our pandemic. Nevertheless, John's whining about being called an "anti-vaxxer" was taken seriously by the mods. 2) Cotter posted a recent ad hominem t-r-o-l-l slur suggesting that I had been "institutionalized"-- in the context of his off topic anti-psychiatry disinformation posts.

Has anyone else noticed that the same Fox News/Joe Rogan/RFK, Jr. fans who have repeatedly denied and downplayed Donald Trump's crimes against the U.S. are now denying and downplaying Putin's war crimes in Ukraine? The main political crises (domestic and foreign) facing the U.S. and the West today are the inter-related anti-democracy movements of Trump-ism and Putin-ism. Where is RFK, Jr. on these two critical issues? Democracy is betrayed by silence.

The RFK Jr. Threat June 20, 2023 at 1:06 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 261 Comments Jonathan Last argues that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential candidacy is a “fifth column.” “I could be wrong about this, but I believe that Kennedy will absolutely be speaking at a party convention next summer. But it won’t be the Democratic convention. He’ll have a slot speaking at the Republican convention where he will endorse whoever the Republican nominee is.” “All of which is why it is best to understand the Kennedy campaign not as an intra-party challenge to Biden, but the first phase of a two-stage gauntlet Biden is running against Trumpian populism.”

Gee, Larry, thanks for your expert Dr. Joe Rogan medical reference. We should all get our medical opinions from talk radio. I don't know how I ever got admitted to Harvard Medical School back in the day without such judicious medical advice from an NYU lawyer. Did you and RFK, Jr. ever study microbiology, virology, or immunology during the course of your law school educations? What you guys are doing is known in medical circles as giving bad medical advice outside of your area(s) of expertise. As for RFK, Jr.'s idiotic claims about antidepressants and America's gun homicide epidemic, it's a subject that I understand in considerable detail, having spent a great deal of time during my 40-year psychiatric career treating mood disorders and, at times, evaluating and assessing homicide risks. RFK, Jr.s mental health concepts seem to be based on Scientology disinformation. All of the best multi-factorial analyses of our sky-high U.S. gun homicide rates have shown that the basic problem in America is the prevalence of guns. RFK, Jr.'s solution is to assure his Fox News/Joe Rogan fan club that he, "will not take away their guns." Terrific. Meanwhile, since you persist in calling Putin's invasion of Ukraine a "proxy war," let me ask. Do you also conceptualize the American Revolutionary War as a "proxy war" (e.g., between Britain and France?) It, certainly, wasn't viewed as a "proxy war" to the American colonists who were fighting for independence! As for your racist slur (above) about Vice President Harris, it's beneath contempt.

Larry, I take it that you support RFK, Jr.'s continued promotion of the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism? Do you also agree with RFK, Jr.'s claim that antidepressants are responsible for America's epidemic of gun homicides? What are your thoughts about Russ Baker's specific critique of RFK, Jr.'s position on Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine? Should we let the Little Dictator subjugate a sovereign nation and ship citizens and opposition leaders to his Gulag? Do you have a similar opinion about the impropriety of Western intervention following Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939? And, if not, why not? Explain.

Jim, I don't want to unnecessarily clutter the JFKA forum with old baggage from the 56 Years thread, but you are, evidently, unaware of Ben's lengthy, redundant history of bending over backwards to cover Donald Trump's derriere on the Education Forum. Let's set the record straight, in the context of understanding Ben's numerous, daily RFK, Jr./Biden snuff job threads here promoting RFK, Jr.'s anti-Biden candidacy. Ben doth protest too much about allegedly being non-partisan, while repeatedly bashing the "Donks," denying Trump's J6 coup attempt, Trump's Russia-gate scandal, etc., prior to the closure of the 56 Years thread. You, yourself, encouraged Ben to finally watch the Congressional J6 hearings last summer, after he repeatedly, erroneously dismissed them as a "circus." So, in fact, Denny Zartman is correct. Ben's daily RFK, Jr. threads on this forum are redundant, indirect attacks on Biden and the Donks, in the guise of references to the JFK records.

Jim, You, obviously, know the history better than I. Why did JFK fly to Berlin in late June of 1963 to give his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech? Wasn't West Berlin being threatened with a new Soviet blockade of some sort?

Ad hominem jargon. You ducked Baker's critique of RFK, Jr.'s dubious policy positions. Meanwhile, I notice that RFK, Jr.'s fan club on the forum is comprised of the same people who have tended to reference Tucker Carlson, Jim, Russ Baker has published a number of articles on the JFK assassination at Who What Why. I don't recall off hand whether he reviewed A Lie Too Big to Fail. As for Family of Secrets, you made a number of valid points in your review of the book, especially the relative neglect of GHWB'S October Surprise and Iran-Contra history. But you overlooked some nuances in Baker's coverage of GHWB's history on 11/22/63. For example, to whom was Barbara Bush's bizarre, formal letter "to her family" about 11/22/63 addressed? How old was Jeb Bush on 11/22/63? In any case, no less an historian and intellectual than Gore Vidal had high praise for Family of Secrets. As for our Fox News liaison Larry Schnapf's comment that Baker is suffering from "RFK Jr. derangement syndrome," it's a vacuous ad hominem slur that glosses over Baker's accurate critique of some of RFK, Jr.'s questionable judgments. And Baker's series about RFK, Jr. originated as a response to his readers who support RFK, Jr. Schnapf's comment reminds me of the Fox/MAGA habit of dismissing substantial criticisms of Donald Trump as "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

Roger, You misinterpreted my comments. I believe JFK was quite sincere about pursuing peace as an ideal, de-escalating the nuclear arms race, and "breaking the CIA into a thousand pieces." I view his subsequent Berlin Speech as a counterpoint-- a statement to the Kremlin that the U.S. was simultaneously committed to defending freedom and democracy in Europe. When people use only the Peace Speech to criticise Biden's support for Ukraine, they are overlooking what JFK said in Berlin.

Ben, I disagree with your "larger concerns" take here. IMO, the major crises of our time are issues like climate change, the proto-fascist, anti-democracy GOP cult centered on Trump, and Putin's war on Ukraine. RFK, Jr. has a good track record on environmental issues, but where does he stand on GOP voter suppression, anti-Woke-ism, Trump-ism, and Putin-ism? These are questions that progressive journalists like Russ Baker and Naomi Klein are asking. It's specious to dismiss them as "hit pieces." Also, Jim D. asked what Russ Baker's article has to do with JFK, but we could ask the same question about the daily pro-RFK threads on this board.

Ron DeSantis? Rupert Murdoch has been fluffing DeSantis for the past two years.

I've been a fan of investigative journalist Russ Baker ever since I read his great book, Family of Secrets, about the "untold history" of the Bush family. He is a Deep State critic, and a JFKA Truther. In recent years, Baker has run an independent news site called Who What Why. He has recently published a series of op-eds about RFK, Jr.'s candidacy. Since the JFKA forum has become a site for Ben Cole's daily threads about RFK, Jr.'s 2024 Presidential candidacy, here is this morning's Russ Baker op-ed. If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Were President, How Safe Would We Be? - WhoWhatWhy

Anthony, I have always respected your research and insights on this forum. Two non-rhetorical questions. 1) Has Putin, possibly, had a long-term goal of annexing Ukraine, in accordance with Aleksandr Dugin's popular 1997 Russian military textbook on The Geopolitical Future of Russia? 2) If so, isn't it likely that Putin would have aggressively promoted propaganda about various pretexts/excuses for invading and annexing Ukraine-- e.g., claiming that Russia was threatened by Ukraine, that Ukrainians are N-a-z-i-s with bio-weapons labs, etc.?

Yeah, Matt, and there is a misperception in the RFK, Jr. fan club on this forum that only the M$M has been critical of RFK, Jr. RFK, Jr. has also been criticized recently by some reputable, independent, progressive journalists like Naomi Klein and Russ Baker. Russ Baker published a new op-ed today (at Who What Why) raising some serious questions, among other things, about RFK, Jr.'s position on Putin's invasion of Ukraine.