Monday, December 03, 2007

Russia rejects neo-con stooges

Zero is often a nice number. Especially today. Zero is the number of neo-con stooges who have been elected to the Duma in yesterday's Russian elections. Putin's United Russia scored a resounding victory, with the Communists, the second largest party. Only two other parties made it in to the Duma, neither of them could be described as 'pro-western'. In short, the Russian people have voted for parties that will promote Russian interests, not those of the Empire. And understandably, given this humiliating rejection, the Empire isn't happy. "The Bush administration has called on Russia to investigate claims the vote was manipulated" reports The Guardian.
"Opposition parties have called the "most irresponsible and dirty" poll in the post-Soviet era."
Well, they must have pretty short memories. Just 11 years ago there was a very "irresponsible and dirty" poll in Russia, but because the west's man-the drunk Yeltsin won, the result, instead of being condemned was applauded by the neo-cons. (You've probably worked this out by now, but for the neo-cons an election is only deemed "fair" if it produces a pro-US government- any election which doesn't- be it in the former Yugoslavia, in Iran, Venezuela, Belarus or Palestine, is deemed to be "invalid" or "undemocratic").

With western backing, Yeltsin stole the 1996 Presidental election and for the next four years, the ordinary Russian people paid the price. And Yeltsin knew what the deal was: in 1999 when the US led an illegal and barbarous assault on Yugoslavia, the drunken western stooge kept his country out and allowed Russia's historic ally to be bombed into submission.

The neo-cons would love a 'Boris Yeltsin Mark Two' to emerge in Russia, to hand over to them the country's enormous assets and to acquiesce in their planned aggressions against Iran, Syria, Serbia and anyone else who dares to stand up to their bullying.

But it is not going to happen. Russia is growing stronger and more confident by the day. And for all of us who want to see a truly multipolar world, with illegal neo-con aggression defeated, these are encouraging times.


David Lindsay said...

Apparently, the Russian Elections were marred by limited political choice, by the misuse of public resources for electioneering purposes, and by biased and manipulated media.


Meanwhile, let joy be unconfined. The Axis of Hope, the Axis of Peace, is emerging.

Neil Clark said...

Quite. Neo con definition of 'wide political choice': where all the parties support globalised capitalism, privatisation and Pax Americana. If any leader doesn't support those then he's a dictator!
Perhaps I'm being a little harsh: the Weekly Standard's William Cristol did once say that 'social democracy' was acceptable- the strong implication being that democratic socialism, or indeed any other form of socialism, wasn't.

Roland Hulme said...

Ha ha ha ha ha... Oh, wait, you're not joking...

That election was totally rigged - and sabre-rattling Putain (oh, whoops, I mean Putin) is driving Russia back to the cold war.

He is a WARMONGER and a MURDERER - look at Alexander Litvinenko. His tactics and ambitions are right out of Stalin's playbook. He's a GHASTLY HORRIBLE HIDIOUS EVIL man and his victories carry a heavy cost in Russian blood.

You don't have to be a 'neo con' or a 'nulab' or a labrador or a turbocapiglobalista or whatever bollocks it is to realise that Putin is bad news - for Russia and the world.

Anonymous said...

You are totally avoiding the question. If you denounce the electoral irregularities that happened then, and you do, I presume you will denounce any irregularities happening now. Do you?

Neil Clark said...

Roland: Litvinenko was certainly murdered, but we still don't know by whom. If you've got proof that Putin ordered it, then I suggest you send it to Scotland Yard. I haven't seen any evidence that proves that Putin was responsible.

I notice you're pretty keen to label leaders you don't like dictators- on your blog you recently wrote:
"The 'bad guys' like Putain and Chavez will always be petty crooks and dictators".

Let's leave Putin out for a minute- do you concede that Chavez' graceful acceptance of the referendum result was not the hallmark of a dictator? And what evidence have you got that he's a crook?

Going back to Putin, do you seriously beleive he's responsible for driving Russia back to a new Cold War? The people to blame for a new Cold War are the neocons who want Russia to be totally subservient, as it was in the Yeltsin years.

On a lighter note, send some of that snow you've got over here- we could do with some in Blighty, it beats all the mild, damp stuff.

Neil Clark said...

anonymous: of course I denounce election irregularities whether they occur in Russia in 1996, 2007 or in Florida in 2000. But I certainly don't want lectures from George W Bush or anti-democratic neocons on what constitutes a 'democratic' election. I've always argued that what we need is more democracy and not less, and that just doesn't mean making sure there is no ballot rigging, but making sure that economic power is widely disperesed, so big business can't buy elections as it does in the US and Britain. The biggest threat to democracy in the world today is money power. We need to take power away from the wallet and back to the ballot box.

On the subject of Putin's popularity and the second placed position of the Communists: I was in Russia last autumn and I didn't meet anyone who did not support either Putin or the Communists. I met no one who expressed support for pro-US neoliberal parties and indeed NO ONE who had a good word to say about Boris Yeltsin, the neocons favourite Russian leader. The reason the pro-US neoliberal groupings have no support is simple. People can't stand them, after all they went through in the Yeltsin years. For the neocons that makes Russia 'undemocratic'.

Charlie Marks said...

The media gave us a good laugh today by describing Gary Kasparov as "the leader of Russia's opposition". Now, in the real world it'd be Gennady Zyuganov of the CPRF, the second largest party.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Kasparov in some trouble with the Western (NATO) countries awhile back because he played in a chess match in Yugoslavia while West had Yugoslavia under a "boycott" due to the civil war in that country? I think that he had some assets in the USA held up by USA authorities as a result of the match and could not travel to the USA. And, NOW he is the "chosen one" of the USA to run for the President of Russia. WOW!! Wonder what he did to get back in the "good graces" of the USA and the West???? Hmmm, becoming a CIA agent comes to mind. And, of course, becoming a traitor to his OWN country can pay big BUCK$ from the USA!!

Anonymous said...

whwpLeaving aside the neo-cons under the bed, the tragedy of the Russian election was that was no open, free contest of ideas as to what kind of Russia does its people want for the future; and, the process itself was manipulated to achieve the answer that the Russian elite wanted.

In spite of Putin's wide (but shallow) popularity, many Russians stayed at home (as you no longer had the choice for voting for none of the above) recognising it as a 'Potemkin' contest that will not yield an outcome that fundamentally addresses any of their daily problems.