The closer we approach the presidential election in Russia, the more hysterical the Western propaganda machine gets in a desperate bid to somehow to discredit Vladimir Putin and his closest associates, as otherwise Washington is clueless about ways of keeping Russia’s growing influence in check. That is pretty much the sole gole of the investigation that is being led by the US Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, aimed at establishing the degree of the alleged Russian interference in the US presidential election in 2016. Additionally, Washington is planning to introduce new sanctions against specific certain Russian politicians and businesses.

At the same time, Western media sources tend to agree that before indulging in the yet another witch hunt, Washington must honestly admit that the US has been doing exactly what it accuses Russia of for decades in other countries.

Just take a look at the New York Times stating that:

“If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,” said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States “absolutely” has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, “and I hope we keep doing it.”

Furthermore, it would present a statement made by Loch K. Johnson, the dean of American intelligence scholars, who began his career in the 1970s investigating the CIA as a staff member of the Senate’s Church Committee. The dean would add that the alleged Russia’s 2016 operation was simply the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades, adding that the CIA has been doing this kind of “thing” to other states since the moment when it was created in 1947.

In the run-up to the presidential election in Russia, one can’t help but notice the striking similarity of Washington’s actions aimed at removing the Russian leader from the political arena with those the CIA and the Pentagon were taking in the course of its Shock and Awe operation in Iraq that would latter be relabled as the Operation Iraqi Freedom. The sole goal of this operation, no matter how it’s now called, was the downing of the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

In this regard, it must be recalled that long before the armed invasion of Iraq in 2003, the CIA and the Pentagon would be taking every effort of discrediting of Saddam Hussein himself along with his closest associates.

Among the intitial steps Washington would take against Iraq was the controlled destruction of the Iraqi banking system, triggered via NGO-sponsored opposition forces and a series of acts of sabotage, that would bring Iraqi economy at a screeching halt. struck the country’s economy, the introduction of malicious viruses into vital systems management. Additionally, Western media sources would start bashing Iraqi political and military figures, thus discrediting them.

High-profile cyber attacks against Iraq that started as early as 2002 were accompanied by the use of terror attacks, blackmail, and intimidation aimed at disheartening the Iraqi political and economic elite. By abusing its top-of-line hacking tools, the CIA and the Pentagon would infiltrate Iraqi governmental networks to bombarde the ruling Baath party and the military brass with faxes, e-mails and phone calls, urging them to launch a coup d’état in exchnage for handsome rewards that would be handed out afterwards.

Those who agreed to betray their country wouldn’t be mentioned in the daming Western media reports for a while, while those refusing to assist the would be invaders were subjected to daily provocations, that went as far as to publish anti-Saddam articles in various blogs signed by those who remained loyal to him till the bitter end.

A month after the end of the Iraqi war, the then Commander of the US Central Command, Tommy Ray Franks would reveal in one of his interviews that the anti-Iraqi operation started in 2002, more than a year before the actual invasion, with the CIA and the Pentagon spreading disinformation in Iraq, while bribing its officials, businessmen and military figures. The now retired US General was particularly pleased with the fact that he accumulated a mountain of receipts in which bribed Iraqi officials would proivde written consent to abet the United States.

On top of the bribed Iraqi officials and generals, Washington would pay handsomely to all sorts of liberal thinkers for them to spread calls to “overthrow the tyrant” at local parties and assemblies. Among those who fell victims of American meddling were prominent artists, prominent thinkers, political scientists and leading journalists alike, that were now able to rent condos in Miami and other resorts while enjoying their multimillion dollar accounts in Western banks that they received in exchange for “selling themselves to the rich and influential people. ” The imminent US success was ensured by the unprecedented level of corruption that reached an all-time high in Iraq back in 2002. For sure, this process was facilitated by the corrupt practices that existed in local oil producing countries for decades, which would become an environment which citizens of such states would face on the dialy basis.

What we’re witnessing today is the image of the Operation Iraqi Freedom in Russia, with similar tactics being applied to the local elite, including publications of damning reports about Vladimir Putin’s closest entourage, countless cyber attacks being launched against the Russian banking sector and local companies, accompanied by arrests of foreign accounts of Russian businessmen, columns “and their use in information anti-Russian campaigns. We are witnessing various figures across Russia being bribed into submission, as was the case with the delirious “doping scandal” on the eve of the Winter Olympics.

Additionally, Washington has made sure to announce to various political leaders across the globe that any instance of economic cooperation with Russia may result in US sanctions. The US Department of State acknowledged that American ambassadors around the world were instructed to discourage from cooperating with Russia, as it was revealed by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov.

At the same time Washington is engaged in saber-rattling activities along Russia’s borders, while increasing its its “strategic military presence” in the Black Sea, while persuading Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia to join an anti-Russian bloc. It’s no wonder Western think tanks argue there’s a real possibility of military clashes between the US and Russia, as they were instructed to do so.

It’s curious that the apocalyptic prophecies released by Stratfor are no different from predictions made by US official bodies that all seems to agree that the world is doomed to die in a nuclear conflict with Russia.

Therefore, one cannot help but to agree with the course of action taken by the Russian president aimed at ensuring his country’s defense capabilities in the face of ongoing US provocations.

As for the propaganda and cyber attacks aimed at bring Russia down, it is clear to everyone that they are unable to undermine the determination of the absolute majority of Russian citizens to elect a president that would remain faithful to his country and its people, and Vladimir Putin has proven time and time again that he fits the description.

Grete Mautner is an independent researcher and journalist from Germany, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

It seems that the US can be considered the only state currently redrawing the entire map of the world for it to better suit the interests of its own political, financial, and military cycles. In fact one can’t help but to be amazed by the maniacal zeal with which the White House advances its agenda upon the international stage. It was this zeal behind the decision to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the stagings of war in Vietnam and on the Korean Peninsula, and the launch of the Cold War against the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. Those events were followed by countless wars across the Middle East and North Africa: in Iraq, in Syria. Afghanistan, and Libya. But special interests continue advancing their agenda regardless of the consequences, now pitting the US against North Korea and Iran.

In addition to repeated instances of armed aggression against any state refusing to obey Washington’s dictates, the White House has been engaged in the physical elimination of individual politicians that head undesirable governments. It goes without saying that for a government to fall into this category it’s enough for it to try to defend its own national interests in a bid to ensure the well-being of its people. Those politically motivated assassins have been examined in much detail in a number of media publications, including those featured in the New Eastern Outlook.

By establishing an elaborate network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in various countries of the world, sponsored through a number of off-the-books operations of the CIA, the State Department has been political conflicts in various countries of the world, while being supported by a number of private foundations, including those founded and financed by George Soros. This fact constitutes a gross violation of all international norms, since a great many of these conflicts result regime change often described by the popular euphemism of “color revolutions”. There are several prime examples to consider.

Iran

Last summer, in a letter submitted to the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, Iran would accuse the United States of repeated attempts of taking down the government of the Islamic Republic. This official appeal to the UN appeared to be Tehran’s reaction to repeated attempts by Washington to interfere in Iran’s sovereign political affairs, including Rex Tillerson’s statement made last June at a hearing in the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which he stated that Washington’s approach to Iran can be summed up in its support of anti-government elements inside Iran, which were aiming at taking power in Tehran. Never before has such a high-profile diplomat officially pledged his support to the staging of a so-called “peaceful internal political transition”, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the Algerian Accords of 1981, signed and ratified by both Iran and the United States. After all, according to existing US-Iranian agreements, Washington promised not to interfere, both directly or indirectly, through the use of political or military force in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The fact Washington was behind the recent demonstrations in Iran is evident by the well-coordinated support that Washington has been providing to the local opposition. The White House has already stated that in the very near future it will allocate yet another billion dollars to support Iran’s “freedom fighters”, while imposing sanctions against the key political figures ruling Tehran. An attempt to make anti-government rhetoric in Iran more popular has also been made by current US president, Donald Trump himself. Using his Twitter account, Trump would urge individual representatives of Iranian society to break away from the “repressive” regime, while tagging his messages with the #IranProtests hashtag.

Netherlands

On the eve of the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, which were due to take place last March, local politicians would voice a concern that the right-wing Party for Freedom was receiving funds from the US. Among the foreign bodies involved in the sponsoring of this party one can find such American conservative organizations as the Gatestone Institute and Freedom Alliance. It is noteworthy that the Freedom Alliance enjoys the support of Robert Shillman, a prominent supporter of President Trump.

It’s been noted that America’s neoconsorvative David Horowitz donated nearly 150,000 dollars to the Party for Freedom, making it the largest individual official donation that year within the Dutch political system, which may seem a modest contribution compared with donations made in the US. It’s curious that by making this donation via a fund overseen by David Horowitz, it violated existing US federal laws, which prohibit such funds from sponsoring political parties.

Ronald van Raak, a deputy of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands, on behalf of all Dutch politicians expressed outrage over this instance of foreign interference.

Armenia

The US Embassy in Armenia has been engaged for years in consistent attempts to make the representatives of the local opposition more combative in a bid to prevent candidates that are sympathetic to Russia from coming to power in upcoming presidential election next March. At the same time, the sitting US ambassador to Yerevan, Richard Mills is known for pledging all sorts of US support to the opposition at countless meetings he holds with them.

Venezuela

In recent years, there’s been a mounting number of well-founded accusations against the CIA and the White House due to their attempts to take down the current government of Venezuela. A Venezuelan-American lawyer, Eva Golinger in her interview with teleSUR, shared a number of details about Washington’s role in the staging of the attempted coup d’etat in Venezuela back in 2002 and the possible murder of President Hugo Chavez.

Recently, the Venezuelan Commander-General, Jesús Chourio, announced that US-sponsored mercenaries attempted to pull off yet another coup last year by launching an attack against the military in the city of Valencia. Earlier that year, according to Venezuelan authorities, a helicopter that opened fire at the building of the Interior Ministry and the Supreme Court of Venezuela was hijacked by a policeman suspected of having links with the CIA.

In order to force Venezuelan authorities into changing their policies to satisfy American special interests, the United States introduced harsh sanctions against Venezuela, while providing open support for opposition forces.

Cambodia

Washington has recently come forward with a direct ultimatum to Cambodia, aimed at discrediting its authorities. This step was provoked by Phnom Penh’s decision to dissolve the main opposition party – the Cambodian National Rescue Party. In response, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders would be as bold as to announce (emphasis added)

As a first step, we will terminate support for the Cambodian National Election Committee and its administration of the upcoming 2018 national election. On current course next year’s election will not be legitimate, free or fair.

End Notes

And list goes on and on, well beyond anybody’s ability to present all of Washington’s sins in a single article. However, it should be added that in a bid to hide from the international community the fact it’s been interfering in elections worldwide on such a scale, Washington unleashed a campaign accusing Russia of the very sort of interference Washington itself has been plying for decades. However, realizing the groundless nature of such allegations against Russia, a number American political figures have come forward to dismiss the charges. Even the director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Pompeo has recently been forced to admit that he was in possession of no evidence of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s election campaign members.

So wouldn’t it be better for Washington, instead of voicing far-fetched accusations against Russia, to admit its own destructive role in influencing democratic procedures in other states?

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”   

The string of unfounded accusations against Russia for its alleged interference in various elections across the world has been voiced by Western political and media figures for over a year now. In fact, we’re witnessing an unprecedented propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting a single country. Yet, with the next presidential election nearing in Russia, the West doesn’t seem to be ashamed to make an attempt to rig the election process in Russia. First of all, it has started publishing a series of publications aimed at discrediting the candidates that are not pedaling Western agenda. Then, there a string of Russian-language sites that are living off the money of American taxpayers provided by Washington speading anti-Putin propaganda, so it’s no wonder that those sites are officially recognized as foreign agents in Russia. It’s been reported that every second article on those websites is aimed at discrediting  Russia’s President Vladimir Putin or urges Russian citizens to boycott the election. What is especially striking to any objective pro-democracy observer is that no other opinion is being allowed to be featured in those peaces, even though those sites are owned by the self-proclaimed champion of democracy – Washington. The days when Western media sources even tried to pretend that they were aware that journalism as a profession is an art of various opinions are long gone now, alas.

As for English-speaking media platforms, those couldn’t care less about covering the upcoming election objectively, as they are just ignoring the statements made by Russian authorities, while claiming to be innocent in spites of their repeated violations of the fundamental principle of impartiality.

The all-out propaganda assault against Russia is led by the well-known CIA mouthpieces – the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Those are trying to show the White House that they can still be viable in its face-off with Russia by accusing various officials in of various abuses aimed at  illegally obtaining signatures in Putin’s support. At the same time, even the most die-hard Putin bashers recognize that he leads the presidential race in Russia, with more than 70% of Russia’s population being willing to vote for him, as polls show. This fact by itself excludes any need for any of Putin’s supporters to try to cut corners in assisting Putin in obtaining enough signatures to become a nominated candidate. However, those Western journalists prefer to ignore such facts all together, as they’ve been paid in advance to jump on the anti-Russian bandwagon early.

In order to explain to the American reader the differences between the Russian “undemocratic” election process and the American “ultra-democratic” one, The National Interest chose to publish a comparison in a bid to glorify the “US-style democracy.” However, this attempt was clearly not in favor of the US, showing that in the last year’s parliamentary election in Russia a total of fourteen parties was allowed to compete.

Against this backdrop things don’t look all that grand in the US, as only two parties are allowed to compete for power in the US. It’s true that in recent years certain representatives of libertarians and greens have been allowed to take part in televised debates in the US. However, those parties present no competition to the leading contenders whatsoever as they’ve been under harsh control of US intelligence agencies for decades, avoiding every chance to ask uncomfortable questions, choosing to advance such ideas as weapons bans and abortion rights.

There’s yet another joke that Western media sources are trying to present to their readers with a serious face that can be summed up in the notion that the all-powerful Kremlin is somehow afraid of a single pro-Western candidate – Alexei Navalny. However, Western states do not allow convicted criminals to contend in any officially recognized elections, but they still insist that Russia should try doing it for a change. Why not? Maybe then we will see all sorts of felons winning elections in the US, UK and other Western states.

Even a person that hasn’t been following Russia’s politics for a considerable period of time is able to spot that Western media sources have abandoned any attempts to analyze Navalny’s political views. Every single media source one can come across tells his about his allegedly brilliant idea of boycotting the presidential election, but that’s pretty much it. Yet, last year some Western media sources would be bold enough to criticize him for his racist views. As it’s been noted by the Salon magazine, any mention of Navalny’s links with neo-Nazi groups, xenophobic comments and extreme anti-immigrant views have miraculously disappeared from the Western media.

So, in spite of the media support Navalny receives in the West, the reasoning behind the decision of the Russian Constitutional Court to put an end to his attempts to compete in the presidential election is pretty much self-explanatory. So any further attempts to make Navalny look as the ultimate victim of the “repressive regime in Moscow” fail to hide the fact that he has been transformed into a “political tool” of the Western elites a long while ago. As it’s been noted, we should always be asking ourselves: what kind of freedom is absolute? Which right is inherent?

That is why one can’t help but agree with the Italian Secolo d’Italia that underlines the fact that the Western propaganda campaign against Putin is devoid of any sense, as it tries to support two liberal pseudo-candidates sponsored by the West: Ksenia Sobchak, known as the “Russian Paris Hilton”, and Alexei Navalny, known for a long list of crimes he committed in Russia. Those two are no match to Putin, a seasoned politician that is well-respected across the world. Both Sobchak and Navalny criticize Russia’s reunification of Crimea with Russia, that was supported by 97% of Crimeans back in 2014. They also criticize Russia’s participation in the Syrian conflict, while ignoring the fact that it was started after an official invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, while all of the Western states are still operating in Syria illegally. If one wants to know who are Putin’s competitors for real he should take a look at the Social Party leader Gennady Zyuganov and the charismatic ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

Grete Mautner is an independent researcher and journalist from Germany, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

After a nearly year-long marathon of daily, acrimonious accusations against Moscow for alleged, yet-to-be proven interference in the 2016 US presidential elections, Washington finds itself increasingly mired in its own hypocrisy – openly and eagerly pursing the very sort of interference abroad in multiple nations regarding elections and internal political affairs it has accused Russia of.

A particularly acute example of this is Cambodia where recently, the government has begun uprooting and expelling US State Department-funded fronts and media organizations as well as arresting members of the US-backed opposition party while disbanding the party itself – for interfering in preparations for upcoming elections.

The New York Times in its August article, “Cambodia Orders Expulsion of Foreign Staff Members With American Nonprofit,” would claim:

Cambodia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday ordered foreign staff members of an American nonprofit that gets support from the United States government to leave the country within a week, part of an apparent attempt to silence opposition voices before national elections next year.

The NYT would elaborate, reporting:

The nonprofit, the National Democratic Institute [a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)], is loosely affiliated with the Democratic Party in the United States, and has provided training to various Cambodian political parties, including those from the opposition. Local news media organizations with ties to Mr. Hun Sen’s party have accused the nonprofit of conspiring against him.

Unsurprisingly, the NYT attempts to portray Cambodia’s uprooting of US government-funded fronts, media, and opposition directly and openly manipulating its political affairs as undemocratic. Such a narrative concurrently takes shape in the NYT’s pages side-by-side an entire section titled, “Russian Hacking and Influence in the U.S. Election.”

While Western media like the NYT claims foreign interference in America’s affairs constitutes the destruction of American democracy, it simultaneously proposes that extensive US meddling in elections abroad – including in Cambodia – constitutes the promotion of democracy.

Unfortunately for many, the hypocrisy this glaring double standard represents goes unnoticed – due in part to the notion of American – and to a larger extend – Western exceptionalism.

Washington’s Khmer Marionettes 

The move by Phnom Penh is the culmination of years of US meddling in Cambodia’s internal political affairs and political processes including its elections.

The opposition party – the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) – is led by long-time US proxies Sam Rainsy and Kem Sokha. Both have divided their time and activities between politicking in Cambodia and residing in Western capitals, including Washington D.C. openly conspiring with the US government to overthrow Cambodia’s current political order, and install themselves into power.

Kem Sokha in particular has been seen on video and quoted by the Cambodian press on numerous occasions causally discussing his leading role in US-backed sedition.

And, the USA that has assisted me, they asked me to take the model from Yugoslavia, Serbia, where they can changed the dictator Slobodan Milosevic,” he continues, referring to the former Serbian and Yugoslavian leader who resigned amid popular protests following disputed elections, and died while on trial for war crimes.

“You know Milosevic had a huge numbers of tanks. But they changed things by using this strategy, and they take this experience for me to implement in Cambodia. But no one knew about this.”

Kem Sokha is referring to the openly admitted US-engineered regime change mechanism known as “color revolutions” and in particular the successful use of such “revolutions” in the overthrow of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.

It is also mentioned in the article that Kem Sokha has traveled to the United States every year since 1993 to “learn about the democratization process.”

The video producer mentioned in the above article, the Australian-based “Cambodia Broadcasting Network” (CBN), had published a video of Kem Sokha with US Senator Ed Royce in Washington DC openly calling for the deposing of the Cambodian government.

This clear cut evidence was cited by the Cambodian government upon Kem Sokha’s arrest on charges of treason. It would be difficult to fathom Washington not likewise responding with swift and severe charges of treason in light of similar, explicit evidence of a US politician collaborating with a foreign power to overthrow the US government – especially considering the current fallout in the US over mere innuendo and outright fabrications. 

Yet Washington’s hypocrisy is once again highlighted by its counterstroke to Cambodia’s efforts to uproot foreign interference. 

Washington Strikes Back 

In the wake of Cambodia’s moves against US government-funded media, opposition fronts, and the nation’s main opposition party itself, a quickly escalating confrontation with Washington is unfolding.

The Phonom Post in its article, “US says more sanctions on table in response to political crackdown,” would report:

Visiting US State Department official W Patrick Murphy yesterday warned that further punitive action could be forthcoming in response to the government’s recent crackdown on the main opposition, while repeatedly pointing to the US’s warm relationship with the people of Cambodia – if not their leaders. 

In diplomatic but firm remarks made at a press roundtable yesterday, Deputy Assistant Secretary Murphy noted recent “negative developments with regards to democracy”, and implied that the US would be unable to recognise the legitimacy of an election that took place without the now-dissolved opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party.

The article would also report (emphasis added):

…in Washington, a panel of “witnesses” convened by the House Foreign Affairs Committee – including Kem Sokha’s daughter, Kem Monovithya – called for additional action in response to the political crackdown. In a statement, Monovithya urged targeted financial sanctions against government officials responsible for undermining democracy. She also called on the US to suspend “any and all assistance for the central Cambodian Government”, while “continuing democracy assistance programs for civil society, particularly those engaged in election-related matters”. 

Monovithya also asked America to review “Cambodia’s eligibility for the Generalized System of Preferences”, a program which gives favourable trade treatment to Cambodia’s garment exports.

In other words, not only has Kem Sokha and the CNRP been accused of treason, but in its response, the Cambodian opposition has doubled down in its open collaboration with the United States to attack and undermine the Cambodian government while working its way – with continued US support – into power.

Realism Required to Break Free from the Illusion of “Democracy” 

One can only imagine the headlines in the NYT should a US politician passionately plead within the walls of the Kremlin for Russian intervention in American elections – for the enacting of sanctions to target incumbents in power and for additional and open financial support to contest those elections.

In reality, democracy is – at its core – a process of self-determination. Self-determination is untenable if any “democratic process” is subject to outside interference, particularly the full-spectrum institutional meddling the United States engages in.

And despite America’s immense hypocrisy, the geopolitical maxim of “might makes right” prevails, enabling the US to both accuse and attack other nations for alleged political meddling, while overseeing institutionalized political meddling and electioneering abroad on a global scale.

Cambodia has taken a risk in directly confronting Washington’s “democracy promotion” racket head-on. It risks not only sanctions and additional political subversion underwritten by the United States government, but also covert military aggression, proxy terrorism, and economic warfare – all ushered in under a US-sponsored color revolution. It was a color revolution that Kem Sokha sought US assistance in organizing in Cambodia.

To confront this, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has publicly warned about a color revolution by name and is making preparations to combat it.

The Phnom Penh Post in its article, “New spy school announced,” would report:

Prime Minister Hun Sen announced the creation of a school to train spies to combat “colour revolution” and terrorism in Cambodia yesterday, tapping his son and Ministry of Defence Intelligence Director Hun Manith to lead it. 

In front of an audience of hundreds of military and police officials, Manith said the facility will train soldiers and police in intelligence-gathering and maintaining “covert identities”.

The article would also cite Human Rights Watch – a US-European government and corporate-financier-funded front posing as a rights advocate – attempting to dismiss the threat of color revolutions as “non-existent.” Human Rights Watch would claim:

The government has excelled in manufacturing non-existent threats, like a colour revolution, to justify its crackdown on human rights and civil society. And now it’s going a couple steps further by creating permanent intelligence training facilities to combat these and other threats, like Islamic terrorism, which has also yet to appear in Cambodia.

And yet, there is nothing at all “non-existent” about the threat of color revolutions. Kem Sokha himself openly admitted he was conspiring with the US to organize one. The same Western media dismissing Cambodia’s concerns as a pretext for an otherwise unwarranted crackdown, has openly admitted that the US organized and executed color revolutions from Eastern Europe to North Africa and the Middle East.

The New York Times itself would admit regarding the so-called “Arab Spring” in an article titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” that: