Putin Did Win - The Fraud Allegations Make No Sense
The western media is again alleging election fraud by the leading party in Russia. It also did so in December after the elections for the Russian Duma, the parliament. But those allegations made no sense at all:
United Russia's share of the vote was less than all the independent polls predicted. If the party or the government it leads really manipulated the election why would that be the case? Did they really give themselves less votes than the pre-election polls have led anyone to expect?Would someone manipulating an election in the U.S., local or nationwide, organize for less votes to their cause than independent pre-election polls would suggest? Why?
The same question has to be asked today. The independent Levada Center polled 1,600 Russians and on March 2 published the result (Google translation):
Forecast the results of voting in the presidential elections in 2012, filed with the CEC March 2, 2012 to participate in the contest forecasts prepared on the basis of a series of surveys conducted from February 24 to March 1, 2012 on representative samples of urban and rural population of the Russian Federation, 1600 at the age of 18 years and older in 130 localities 45 regions of the country. The statistical error of the survey data does not exceed 3.4%These are translated to the number of intending to vote and decide on their choice. Projections free from systematic sampling error, defined according to the prediction of voting in elections to the Duma in 2011
They polling result is an expected turnout of 60.3% and a vote for Putin of 61.5%.
The turnout in yesterday's election was 64% and thereby slightly higher than expected. Putin won 63.7% of the vote, also slightly higher than expected but well within the 3.6% margin of error of the Levada poll.
One should notice that Putin got less than 50% of the votes in the big cities, Moscow and Leningrad, and as usual more than 70% in the more conservative countrysides. This might also explain the slightly higher turnout and Putin result than in the poll as such polls tend not to include smaller villages.
As I wrote back in December:
Russia is a big country. It is likely that there were some irregularities in this or that polling station. Such manipulations happen everywhere and that is why we have laws against them. But given the pre-election polls and the election result it is not plausible that the manipulations in Russia were organized by, or in favor of United Russia.Stoking up rumors and creating serious unrest in Moscow is still a wet dream for "western" cold-war warriors, neocons and their "liberal" allies in Russia. They wish back the days of Yelzin when they robbed Russia blind. But as the election showed those times are over and Russians will no longer fall for their false promises.
We can now expect the usual claims of fraudulent elections and an attempt of color-revolution theater the west is always using when the public opinion and the politics of certain countries are not in its favor.
And sure, the U.S. financed GOLOS Center claims it has received over 5,000 calls with allegations of fraud. That sounds like a lot until you notice that there were over 96,000 polling places in Russia with webcams installed in 91,000 of them and over 300,000 election monitors watching for the various candidates.
There is therefore no reason to fall for the fraud accusations. Putin, with the advantage of being the best known public figure and the incumbent, has won fair and square. His people will see him as their fully legitimated leader.
Posted by b on March 5, 2012 at 15:21 UTC | Permalink
next page »Fraudulent elections are just a propaganda ploy--something the bad guys do--Iran, Russia, Venezuela. In countries ruled by Democracy, Inc. elections are always presumed to be clean. Even Karzai has been anointed as "democratically elected," though some of his opponents in Washington had trouble swallowing that whopper initially.
Of course, if the quisling, corporate media ever wanted to find election fraud, they could just go next door to Mexico or just dig a little in Ohio (2004).
Posted by: JohnH | Mar 5 2012 15:34 utc | 2
ahahahaha. Fucking b. Right on cue. b loves his anti-US oligarchic kleptocrats. Huzzah for the Chechen Butcher!
Posted by: slothrop | Mar 5 2012 15:34 utc | 3
b
First, I think we can all agree that there was at least *some* fraud in this election - as in all elections (certainly here in the US there a quite a bit of fraud and manipulation, not to mention the ridiculousness from Diebold...).
That said, I have to agree with you that, statistically (I happen to be a statistician), it seems unlikely that this can be demonstrated, given what I understand of the polling numbers and the subsequent results. However, there have been a few different types of analyses performed to attempt to detect this sort of thing. I will try and dig up the Russian election data and see how it shakes out.
Base
Posted by: Base | Mar 5 2012 15:34 utc | 4
Russia has a readily available means of retaliation at hand and I don't understand why they don't use it. There are a number of suspicious events that took place during the US presidential primaries in the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington state. These irregularities invariably favored Mitt Romney against Ron Paul, and (to a much lesser degree, Rick Santorum)
RT and other international media, in English as well as other languages, should be spotlighting these events non-stop. In the US, there are substantial numbers of Ron Paul supporters who are convinced (rightly or wrongly) that fraud had indeed taken place. They will pass around youtubes of any RT or other media segments that cover the issue and make them go viral.
I'm curious why they are not taking advantage of this opportunity.
Posted by: Lysander | Mar 5 2012 15:58 utc | 5
An example of what I mean.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2012/03/watching-cnn/
"When the results started coming in tonight, the first 12% came in within fifteen minutes. It was 31% for Romney, 27 for Paul, and 24 for Santorum. Things were looking good. But then weirdly nothing for more than a half an hour. I had CNN on. Usually they are all over election results, but tonight they seemed to be hiding out for most of the first hour.Finally—a whopping—1.8% more came in. This huge amount suddenly changed everything. Romney's lead grew five points; Santorum jumped into a tie with Paul. Fifteen minutes later the returns had more than doubled to 29%. Paul and Santorum were still tied—EXACTLY—4203 to 4203. Romney's lead was now 11 points. Perhaps sensing that the coast was clear, CNN sprang into action with their fulltime coverage. The hacks were all achatter; Romney is 'propelled' 'springboarded' 'has got the organization' 'the momentum' 'the psychological boost' blah blah blah, and this: 'What a huge disappointment for Paul.'"
Posted by: Lysander | Mar 5 2012 16:03 utc | 6
Ben: "Ah yes, we all "know" the only true and fair elections are the ones that favor the interests of the empire."
My favorite twist is the election boycott by the party with no chance of winning. (Gary Kasparov?) It's a two-fer: You can claim fraud and avoid showing your actual shallow reservoir of support.
Posted by: Matthew | Mar 5 2012 16:15 utc | 7
So far its looking calm. Putin's United Russia party got almost 100,000 supporters out today at the Kremin for a victory celebration, after his speech last night. I guess they are hoping the showing will counter any attempts to instigate a "White Revolution" which seems to be the color of choice for this one.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Mar 5 2012 16:43 utc | 8
Lysander: Maybe the Russians don't take advantage of it because most people think their governments are corrupt and unrepresentative. The agony and the glory of being American is that we have a corrupt and unrepresentative government but we just can't ditch the fantasy that things might change.
Posted by: Matthew | Mar 5 2012 16:45 utc | 9
I am inclined to believe you Colm O'Toole, according to the Western Press, however, there are only protesters in Moscow :-))
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2012/mar/05/russian-election-reaction-putin-live
Ah I see, they say Pushkin square ...
Posted by: somebody | Mar 5 2012 16:56 utc | 10
@Base - First, I think we can all agree that there was at least *some* fraud in this election - as in all elections (certainly here in the US there a quite a bit of fraud and manipulation, not to mention the ridiculousness from Diebold...).
In the piece above I wrote:
It is likely that there were some irregularities in this or that polling station. Such manipulations happen everywhere and that is why we have laws against them.
The results from Chechnya, with 98% for Putin, are of course fraudulent. Nothing else to expect from that tribal/clannish mafia state. But those few votes are not enough to change the results in any significant way. (Chechnya has 1.2 million inhabitants, Russia in total 144 million)
b,
I wonder what you think about the allegation that Putin is really working with the West?
Here are some striking allegations that Yeltsin and Putin benefited from the securities Greenspan and George H.W. Bush created to attack the Soviet Union. The author claims clearing these securities was one of the financial motives of the 9/11 attacks.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 17:18 utc | 12
There is no doubt that Putin does "work with the west."
The problem is he doesn't accept every humiliation of Russia that NATO chooses to inflict. He doesn't go along automatically with extreme zionist policies in the middle east either, although Russia has treated Iran very shabbily over both the nuclear power station and supplying defensive weapons. Had Russia carried out its promises to Iran the nuclear question would have been a fait accomplis years ago,and AIPAC would have found it impossible to choreograph the campaign for war over the matter.
And NATO depends on Russia for its supplies to Afghanistan. Had Russia treated the US forces as its forces were treated by the US, had it even looked the other way as the Taliban was armed, the US position, shaky as it is, would be even worse.
Essentially Russia wants to avoid confrontations, which powerful parties in the "west", bent on another round of regime change and further plundering of the old Russian Empire, are eager to promote.
On the other hand Russia sees the dangers of isolation so it dare not allow its enemies to attack it with impunity, surround it with bases and fill its political arena with puppets owned by international finance.
As to the Guardian? Remember when Al Jazeera seemed the most reliable network new? So good that it was banned from cable in the US and Canada? That didn't last long.
And the same is true of The Guardian which has become to Russia (and Syria) what Al Jazeera is to Syria. I read The Guardian regularly for more than 50 years. I stopped six months ago.
Anyone checking the Russian election results might want to look into the Communist Party's totals. My guess is that this party, which generally has grievances about the electoral system that the "west" never listens to, will have come second, while the neo-liberals, even more deeply detested in Russia than elsewhere, will have been lucky to get more than 10%.
Posted by: bevin | Mar 5 2012 17:46 utc | 13
Elections, more or less everywhere, though there are some exceptions, have become a ritual that endorses the elites, those in power.
One might compare some of them to a predicted outcome referendum, or an exercise for the world news / cameras, to legitimize the mainstream opinion, or just serve the PTB, a sort of magic trick that makes one respectable.
“ We did the elections! Krapossky was elected with 95%!”
“It was an exhilaratin’ close race, we are a democracy, three cheers for all the participants, and Schweiner won by 52%, a majestic ultimate staggerin' victory over his opponent Korpfest, the voters chose, now some music.”
da da da guitar intro, orchestra cuts in, girls dancing waving flags, lovely legs.
:) :(
Posted by: Noirette | Mar 5 2012 17:54 utc | 14
‘Fragments of a Defunct State’Putin doesn’t represent a return to Soviet ways; it’s something very different and more anarchic. … a consequence of the bureaucratic fragmentation that followed the break-up of the Party in 1991. …
That the principal players in ‘the greatest corruption story in human history’ … include the fabled siloviki – the ‘heavies’: the army, the intelligence agencies etc – is the strongest sign of the absence of a hierarchy. In a hierarchy, local officials would answer to their Moscow superiors: but they don’t. …
When the CPSU collapsed, it left behind not only the FSB and its associated agencies but a constellation of other ‘orphans’, highly developed and now essentially autonomous fragments of a defunct state. In a desperate but ultimately successful endeavour to survive in an unforgiving environment, various former subsidiaries went in search of new sponsors. …
[T]he highest fliers among Russia’s nouveaux riches lead an essentially borderless existence, their most prized gated communities are located in the West. Those who own real estate abroad include numerous public officials and civil servants: … They keep their money outside Russia because none of them believes in Russia and none of them believes in official stability. ... They don’t believe in official stability because, as the ones responsible for guaranteeing it, they are aware of their own limitations.
NYU prof Stephen Holmes in the London Review of Books, January 5, 2012
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n01/stephen-holmes/fragments-of-a-defunct-state
Posted by: Watson | Mar 5 2012 18:10 utc | 15
There's not going to be any real challenging of this election. Russians are pragmatic, and there are no elements that signal any other than reforms initiated by Putin, for a long time ahead.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 5 2012 18:16 utc | 16
The Telegraph
In Pushkin Square, where the sanctioned protest against Mr Putin took place, Reuters quoted police as saying about 14,000 people had gathered - though the opposition put it at closer to 20,000.
From ABC
A few hundred demonstrators remained on the square after the rally was over, heeding protest leaders call to stay and raise the heat on authorities. Hundreds of riot police surrounded them, but didn't make any immediate attempt to disperse the protest.
[snip]
Sergei Udaltsov, one of the organizers, urged protesters to stay on the square until Putin steps down.
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Mar 5 2012 18:23 utc | 17
bevin
the same as you - though there was very good coverage on telesur
fatigued, really fatigued by the sanctimony of the guardian, le monde, libération, la repubblica - they are every bit the enemy as murdoch
the guardian has never acknowledged for example that their phone hacking was written on the back of scum like paul mcmullan
they are collectively, pieces of shit
their pomposity is equally sickening as their pornography. what i detest most is their evident belief that the poor & the marginalised have no interiority
i see no qualitative difference, for example between a nick davies & a piers morgan, flesh of their flesh
these shits had their editorials written a year ago
fuck them
their world is finished
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 5 2012 18:27 utc | 18
if the notion of maturity has a real weight, then the russians really do possess a political maturity unimaginable in the infantilised west (with their 'you folk', ' bad guys' & '30 insurgents/taliban/militants/pirates etc etc)
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 5 2012 18:35 utc | 19
@WWM Here are some striking allegations that Yeltsin and Putin benefited from the securities Greenspan and George H.W. Bush ...
I have yet to see something that convinces me that Putin is in it for his personal gain. He is, in my observation, a nationalist trying to find and clear a path back to Russia's glory.
Noirette @ 14: "Elections, more or less everywhere, though there are some exceptions, have become a ritual that endorses the elites, those in power."
Yep, well said, and more and more true as the consolidations of wealth and power continue.
Posted by: ben | Mar 5 2012 18:54 utc | 21
The Yeltsin years were terrible for Russia. Russians of course blame Gorbatchev and not Yeltsin for this: life expectancy was reduced drastically, people weren't able to take their life savings from the banks.
My Russian guide last year told me that they used to have savings during communist years because there was nothing to buy in the stores and now that there are things to buy they don't have the money for it.
But Russians are resilient and optimistic. They need a strong leader who can steer this vast country and its resources in the right direction.
The reason Putin is not loved in the West is simply because he was able, at the last minute, to steer Russia away from western domination and they don't forgive him for this especially the British...
I am convinced that in 50 years from now, Berlin would be the center of Europe, not France, not the UK, and Russia will have an important role to play in this new Europe...
Re Putin's personal wealth.
I see there are conflicting reports and a threatened libel suit that muddy the waters.
Also, if you read my link in #12 it seems there is a precedence for secret financial deals between the West and the Russian oligarchs:
"When Khodorkovsky was arrested, his secretive business arrangement with the Rothschild family was exposed as Jacob Rothschild assumed Khodorkovsky’s 26% control of Yukos while Khodorkovsky’s directorial seat on the Yukos board went to Edgar Ortiz, a former Halliburton vice president during Dick Cheney’s reign as CEO at Halliburton."
Maybe Putin has a similar arrangement?
That story also goes through the history of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union and how Western interests like BP Aramco secretly benefited even though they didn't outwardly appear to benefit. So it makes on wonder how many other secret arrangement there are.
Plus, the quick phone call to Bush on 9/11 is odd. As is the fact Putin had a premonition about it.
Furthermore, his actions after 9/11 seemed to support the U.S.:
"When the United States prepared to attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Putin offered more than words of support.
"Russia will continue to provide intelligence information we have collected on the infrastructure, location and training of international terrorists," he said.
In a stunning decision, the Russian president coordinated with central Asian nations to allow U.S. forces, for the first time, to use military bases of the former Soviet Union.
More concessions by Putin followed. When Bush announced the United States was pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, Putin took it in stride -- suddenly ending a quarrel that once threatened to disrupt U.S.-Russian relations.
And when Washington sent U.S. military trainers to Georgia near the border with Russia, Putin didn't bat an eye."
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 19:18 utc | 23
As an American who was brainwashed during the Cold War (by our system of education), who served with honor in Southeast Asia, who finally woke up in the 90's and began studying the reasons for our course of action during the past 50 years....I agree with #22...I hope that my grand children will not suffer the consequences that our current direction will bring about...
Posted by: georgeg | Mar 5 2012 19:20 utc | 24
Hmm. I seem to have lost my last comment and will try to recreate it.
b,
As mentioned in my link at #12, there is a precedent for secret deals with the West:
"When Khodorkovsky was arrested, his secretive business arrangement with the Rothschild family was exposed as Jacob Rothschild assumed Khodorkovsky’s 26% control of Yukos while Khodorkovsky’s directorial seat on the Yukos board went to Edgar Ortiz, a former Halliburton vice president during Dick Cheney’s reign as CEO at Halliburton."
Is it possible Putin also has a secret deal?
"And then we have his actions around 9/11. He was quick to call Bush and evidently had a premonition. Plus, his foreign policy helped the U.S. in many ways:
When the United States prepared to attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Putin offered more than words of support.
"Russia will continue to provide intelligence information we have collected on the infrastructure, location and training of international terrorists," he said.
In a stunning decision, the Russian president coordinated with central Asian nations to allow U.S. forces, for the first time, to use military bases of the former Soviet Union.
More concessions by Putin followed. When Bush announced the United States was pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, Putin took it in stride -- suddenly ending a quarrel that once threatened to disrupt U.S.-Russian relations.
And when Washington sent U.S. military trainers to Georgia near the border with Russia, Putin didn't bat an eye."
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 19:28 utc | 25
I'm curious why my comment about Putin is getting eaten up. I've tried to post twice now. Is it being erased?
Here's the first part:
b,
As mentioned in my link at #12, there is a precedent for secret deals with the West:
"When Khodorkovsky was arrested, his secretive business arrangement with the Rothschild family was exposed as Jacob Rothschild assumed Khodorkovsky’s 26% control of Yukos while Khodorkovsky’s directorial seat on the Yukos board went to Edgar Ortiz, a former Halliburton vice president during Dick Cheney’s reign as CEO at Halliburton."
Is it possible Putin also has a secret deal?
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 19:33 utc | 26
Also, Putin's actions after 9/11 were suspicious.
He was quick to call Bush and evidently had a premonition. Plus, his foreign policy helped the U.S. in many ways:
"When the United States prepared to attack al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Putin offered more than words of support.
"Russia will continue to provide intelligence information we have collected on the infrastructure, location and training of international terrorists," he said.
In a stunning decision, the Russian president coordinated with central Asian nations to allow U.S. forces, for the first time, to use military bases of the former Soviet Union.
More concessions by Putin followed. When Bush announced the United States was pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, Putin took it in stride -- suddenly ending a quarrel that once threatened to disrupt U.S.-Russian relations.
And when Washington sent U.S. military trainers to Georgia near the border with Russia, Putin didn't bat an eye."
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 19:34 utc | 27
Not to completely change the subject, but....
Report: 13 French Soldiers Captured in Syria
Posted by: Base | Mar 5 2012 19:46 utc | 28
The last thing Russia would do after spending years fighting Saudi (and western) sponsored Islamists in Chechnya would be to defend the Talibans. Also they represented, although they were not exactly the same group, those who 'beat' the Russian Army. So for a chance it's not strange that the Russians thought that the US and them would be on the same side of the fight.
Posted by: ThePaper | Mar 5 2012 20:21 utc | 29
ok. the subject is changed
the empire has gone mad and the meaning of humanitarian has been changed to warfare:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73627.html
“Therefore, at the request of [opposition forces], the United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad’s forces.”
An estimated 7,500 Syrians have been killed by the military during the past year, including hundreds in the city of Homs which has been targeted by tank and artillery attacks.
McCain, the GOP presidential nominee in 2008, said the goal of the U.S. air strikes should be to “establish and defend safe havens” in Syria where opposition forces can organize and plot political and military attacks against Assad. The international community could also deliver humanitarian and military assistance to these safe zones, including food, water, weapons and training."
Posted by: somebody | Mar 5 2012 20:23 utc | 30
frothslop, heaven forfend we should hear the, I don't know, Russian side?
Posted by: yes_but | Mar 5 2012 20:31 utc | 31
rt tries too much to be like the pox ridden bbc - telasur is really for my tastes the most dignified international news
to hear whitey talk about corruption in russia, give me a fucking break.......
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 5 2012 20:38 utc | 32
I've been wondering whether the new slothrop is the same as the old. The old slothrop had his point of view, the new is simply wildly anti-b. Perhaps slothrop or b (through his access to URLs) could confirm whether it is the same person.
Posted by: alexno | Mar 5 2012 20:55 utc | 33
Me, I would be surprised if Putin cheated a lot in order to win (maybe a bit). Many Russians would go for solid government, which they didn't have under Yeltsin. Putin may be a super-macho (ridiculously so), but his government is as stable as one can expect, in the present atmosphere.
Posted by: alexno | Mar 5 2012 21:11 utc | 34
The Paper:
"The last thing Russia would do after spending years fighting Saudi (and western) sponsored Islamists in Chechnya would be to defend the Talibans. Also they represented, although they were not exactly the same group, those who 'beat' the Russian Army."
hmmm. At first this sounded good and I was inclined to agree. Sure, I see the motive. The Russians can avenge their losses in Afghanistan by letting or helping the Americans beat the Taliban.
But these reasons against are more powerful:
1) Why would they let this support extend to the American presence in the rest of Central Asia? Did you see this: "In a stunning decision, the Russian president coordinated with central Asian nations to allow U.S. forces, for the first time, to use military bases of the former Soviet Union." This is a resource rich region supposedly contested by these powers. And the Russians could have merely shared intelligence or agreed not to oppose the U.S. diplomatically, but it didn't need to give up this big strategic concession.
2) Wouldn't the bigger motive be revenge against the U.S. for supporting the forces that led to the Taliban rather than going after the Taliban itself? Why not use the very same forces the U.S. supported against the Americans? Wouldn't this be more satisfying to a Russian than helping an American occupation?
3) Surely the Russians recognized the weak case against Bin Laden and presented to the Taliban. The U.S. never formally indicted Bin Laden and never even presented any evidence of his guilt to the Taliban. Indeed, the FBI never sought Bin Laden because of a lack of evidence and Dick Cheney said in the mid 2000s that he never claimed there was any connection between 9/11 and Bin Laden. Bin Laden denied culpability and the Taliban demanded that normal international law be followed. The U.S. refused and attacked and here we are ten years later.
Why would Russia leap to help the U.S. violate international law like that? Wouldn't it normally want to prevent a precedent like this and help a beleaguered small state like Afghanistan against a bully like the U.S?
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 21:11 utc | 35
'His people will see him as their fully legitimated leader.'
the people who dont want him inp power are in power in Washington London Paris Brussels Canberra etc...by their seething agitation they keep showing their hatred of democracy..when the 'wrong' people get elected. the medias role is to stir up their clueless public to denouncing on cue elections in a target state.
Posted by: brian | Mar 5 2012 21:14 utc | 36
Today, on The Diane Rhem Show on NPR, one of the experts on the program said that if Putin had "let" the opposition candidates get over 50%, then won the run-off in a landslide, he would have been able to run for a 4th term in 2016, but that since he "manipulated" the election to win by a majority in the first vote, he now would be finished after this term. Okaaaay.
Hearing over and over and over how corrupt the Russian elections are, per the sycophantic MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) currying favor with the Powers That Be, and the criticism coming out of the current US government, I figure it won't be long before there will be demands from the West that Putin step down, with claims that he is an illegitimate leader. All the code words used against leaders, whether freely elected or just dictators, that the US doesn't like will be used against Putin.
Unless he "cooperates." Fully.
But there is all that natural gas coming through Russia to Europe, which means the countries there may not be so easily manipulated by the US to take stands against Russia. Hillary has certainly been belligerent because Russia and China didn't go along in the UN with setting up Syria for foreign intervention. (I remember when Hillary actually was nearly crucified by the Repub rightwingers for applauding a speech by Yassar Arafat's wife, spoken in Arabic, which had some mild criticism of Israel. The press and Israel Firsters chiming in of course.) Something bad seems to happen to people who work for the most recent US presidents.
After 9/11, the US seems to have a huge chip on its shoulder and goes around daring other countries to just try and knock it off. The US needs a strong and well-armed opponent in the world to keep it within the bounds of international civility. At least back in the Cold War, the US didn't brag about its breaking international laws....
Posted by: jawbone | Mar 5 2012 21:22 utc | 37
Just because I'm a cynical bastard . . . and not that I'm missing the obvious U.S. propaganda and hypocrisy.
But is Diebold in Russia? My search seems to indicate they are. I wonder what these machines are, I don't speak Russian so idk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FrCZTfMWNM
Anyway, if one were to truly investigate Russian elections I would imagine looking at electronic machines would be important and therefore it would also be helpful to read up on U.S. election fraud.
The same perps could be tampering with both Russian and U.S. elections.
And here's something I just found re Diebold in Russia:
"Diebold Inc. (DBD) has removed five top-level employees from its Russian operation, Chief Executive Tom Swidarski said in an interview, as the company continues an internal investigation related to potential breaches of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The ATM manufacturer and security services company last month disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Department of Justice had both asked for information on the matter. Diebold first announced in July that it was investigating payments the subsidiary had made that may have been in breach of the foreign bribery rule's provisions on books and records."
http://www.advfn.com/nyse/StockNews.asp?stocknews=DBD&article=45196526
Re Syria.
It seems Putin already sold Syria out. He said Assad was a dead man if he doesn't step down (but he said it in a cute way so he cloaked the sinister intent--he is a spook, right?).
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 21:46 utc | 38
what a disgusting species the western elites & the scribblers who serve them are
when their societies are based on fraud, inequality, & corruption - they think they are in a position to criticize russia - these pumped up impostors who trick their population at every opportunity, in law without justice & in finance without equity
this world, when not a butchershop, is a bad joke
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 5 2012 21:46 utc | 39
I'm not so sure about Putin ... he certainly kept Russia together just when it was about to be colonized, and is hated for this (in London, especially); but I have the impression Gazprom is at the top his thoughts, at least when international policy is considered;
he twice angered the West: in Georgia and in Syria; but consider how both times he was practically cornered, and forced to react, after too many concessions: on the matter of NATO expansion in the first case, and on ME politics in the second;
I suspect the army pressed him to take action in Georgia and to oppose the UN resolution on Syria
but his internal policy must be certainly different from Eltsin's, if the people vote him
Posted by: claudio | Mar 5 2012 21:50 utc | 40
His people will see him as their fully legitimated leader
And that's all that matters. It's all about managing perceptions, and if people believe he's legitimate, he's legitimate....even when he's not.
Posted by: Darn Herb | Mar 5 2012 21:51 utc | 41
Putin is the only force that can unite Russia in a constructive way. And the rest of the world need a strong Russia to keep the rouge states of the west (USA&Israel and NATO countries) from destroying the arab middle east with their forced democratic campaigns.
When I say USA&Israel and NATO/EU i imply of course the covert influence of CIA and oil-economies, and even direct action by CIA, as much of the arab spring revolts have the hallmarks of the CIA, no doubt.
US congress should have the CIA disclose and keep the pentagon/CIA in a tight leash. Having a huge budget that is not transparent for the taxpayers invites corruption and dodgy behaviore.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 5 2012 22:03 utc | 42
The most hilarious aspect of this is that the Western punditocracy had persuaded itself that the results would be rigged several days before the first vote was cast.
With Putin back in charge, NATO will soon be taking lessons in back pedalling.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 5 2012 22:09 utc | 43
i read in a number of languages, newspapers on the internet & within 15-30 minutes - they had interchangeable headlines - electoral fraud, very evil dictator/tsar/kgb agent, honorable opposition representing 'real' aspirations of what for them is an inherently dumb population
continuing today, trying to represent a smattering of people in pushkin square as an 'occupy' movement, while the only significant opposition electorally, the communist party, never mentioned
& the french commentariat, laughable when not weeping
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 5 2012 22:27 utc | 44
Alexander, I agree that the rogue western states absolutely need to be counterbalanced on the international scene; when the Us became the only superpower it was caught in a delirium of omnipotence (and Europe along with it); also this continuous questioning foreign leaders' legitimacy, or asking them to "step down", etc, displays an intolerable arrogance and a persistence willingness to use violence whenever possible, to achieve its ends
but we won't have a functional "balance of powers" until Europe remains a Us colony through neoliberal policies and NATO
Posted by: claudio | Mar 5 2012 22:52 utc | 45
The media was expecting a electoral fraud, and didn't take into account that Putin has massive legitimate support. i don't think the media was instructed by any CIA, but they get "hints" from dodgy sources, I mean counter-intelligence, from among others, CIA, MI6, and what-have-you.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 5 2012 22:58 utc | 46
the elites are so, so loved by the people, they cannot meet in chicago but are forced to hide out at that gangster's retreat, camp david
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 5 2012 22:58 utc | 47
'Anyway, if one were to truly investigate Russian elections I would imagine looking at electronic machines would be important and therefore it would also be helpful to read up on U.S. election fraud. '
how strange..so Diebold helped elect Putin?,,,a man so hated by the US they backed the communists!
Posted by: brian | Mar 5 2012 23:16 utc | 48
"how strange..so Diebold helped elect Putin?,,,a man so hated by the US they backed the communists!"
Why is that strange? And Putin is a communist? News to me.
The theory is he is a servant of the elite and has been enriched himself (others have alleged he has billions and I'm pointing to a history of secret deals in capitalist Russia).
And I believe the theory would be that Putin has the same disregard for his own people that the American politicians do for theirs. His allegiance, just like Obama's or Bush's, is to the global elite. And the theory would be that they colluded and divided up the oil profits and only pretended to oppose each other. Furthermore, they are using similar psy operations and methods of mass control in order to get the people to go along with their plans.
Fixing elections would be an integral part of this plan.
It's the democracy is a sham theory. Not saying I buy it entirely . . just throwing it out there and saying while I agree the U.S. is being hypocritical about election fraud in Russia and the media is probably propagandizing, it's worth considering on its own terms.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 5 2012 23:37 utc | 49
Re: Diebold
I think that electronic voting is a disaster. I’d much prefer paper ballots deposited in clear plastic boxes, which generates tangible, preservable documentation, verifiable by lay people.
Posted by: Watson | Mar 5 2012 23:40 utc | 50
"except for the returns from Chechnya…" hahaha. That's a good one.
"Let's hear the Russian side of the story…" You mean let's hear the side of the story from Russian media terrorized by Putin.
r'giap: guh. This awful world, this awful world, as r-giap sits and waits for his welfare checks to arrive. read the completed works of Cioran, and shut up.
Posted by: slothrop | Mar 5 2012 23:46 utc | 51
'Why is that strange? And Putin is a communist? News to me. '
Putins a nationalist...not a member of theCommunist party or at least he didnt run for them!
'The theory is he is a servant of the elite and has been enriched himself (others have alleged he has billions and I'm pointing to a history of secret deals in capitalist Russia)'
now we enter the area of speculation....this reads like a left wing version of the MSM...hes a communist and servant of the elite...what elite?
'Fixing elections would be an integral part of this plan. '
if Putin wasnt so popular you may have a point...
'And I believe the theory would be that Putin has the same disregard for his own people that the American politicians do for theirs'
the modern ideologue believes in theories..as his religious counterpart believes in dogmas.
I believe Walter has shown which side his bread is buttered
Posted by: brian | Mar 5 2012 23:51 utc | 52
I believe in logic brian. That's the butter I'm looking to butter my bread with.
Often times there are conspiracies. It's a fact of life. Yes, I am entertaining bigger conspiracies than I would have entertained just a year ago. But that is because I am applying logic--we are discovering very significant conspiracies, like the one uncovered in the last thread about media manipulation in Syria. Or do you not thing lying the the U.S. into WWIII is a big deal? Do you dispute the millions the U.S. has killed in secret wars since WWII? Are these figments of my imagination? Because conventional thinkers and government toadies have told us for years there was nothing to see only to find out years later the U.S. was indeed fomenting war and assassination and terrorism, etc.
So I am quite right to be skeptical and the people we should be suspicious of are those who tell us not to ask critical questions.
And really brian, you are the only one mentioning communism. Why are you conflating what I'm saying with red baiting? I would not red bait.
And that's cute that you play coy by pretending not to know who the global elite are . . . as if they don't exist and it's crazy to mention the 1%. Did you read the link at #12? Again, I'm not saying I buy the theory, but it does seem like the Russians gave the Rothschilds and Western oil interests favorable terms in the new Russia.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 0:01 utc | 53
The saving grace of the current system of capital/cannibalism, under whose rule we live, is that there is competition among the various power centres.
This means that what is good for a Russian kleptocracy is often not good for rivals elsewhere.
Putin might be no better than Obama but his interests, and the interests of those for whom he serves as a figurehead, differ from Wall Street's and Obama's.
Why is that so hard to understand? All criminals are criminal but they are not all members of the same gang.
What is interesting about Putin is that he appears to recognise that in order to protect his power and the independence of his sponsors he has to start looking after the interests of the Russian people (condemned by the "west" and its allies to starve in the 1990s.
This is something that Obama and his fellows might want to start thinking about: idiotic xenophobic pseudo nationalism of the "My Policeman's prick is bigger than your Policeman's" kind has a very short shelf life. And when the beer and drugs run out it quickly loses its appeal.
In America living standards (aka beer and drug money) are hollowing out rapidly. A population beginning to freeze in the dark over a a day old can of cat food, is apt to be short tempered, even if the cable is still on.
War as a spectator sport loses much of it appeal when the price of admission includes no education, no jobs, no medical care, no social security, no government cheques (unless like slothrop you're ready to sing for them), no land to till and no home to live in.
For millions of Americans and Europeans that's already the reality, for many more millions, like the Brits waiting for the April cuts and the PIIGs people (or the swinish multitude as the IMF calls them) it is about to become reality.
The Russian people have already seen the worst, courtesy of the IMF and Wall St. Here the fun is just about to begin. Let us hope that Putin has some NGO financing available for Occupations, strikes and other democracy building activity in the NATO lands. And you can colour code any revolutions red.
Posted by: bevin | Mar 6 2012 0:46 utc | 54
'I believe in logic brian. That's the butter I'm looking to butter my bread with'
logic in an illogical world can be very misleading.
of course conspiracies happen...no need to invent any!
Why opine that Putin is bad for russia? it only makes you look like a troll.
Posted by: brian | Mar 6 2012 1:05 utc | 55
Tell me slobroth, do you ever refer to the murderous scum who run the US, Israel, UK, or France as butchers?
Or is that designation reserved for those who refuse to genuflect before their Usraeli masters?
Posted by: ran | Mar 6 2012 1:58 utc | 56
So the results in Russia are that Putin gets 63.6%; Zhuganov of the old CP picked up 18%; Prokhorov who owns the NJ Nets and much of the Russian people's nickel, gold and other mineral resources gets 8%; Zhrinovsky 6% and Mironov 4%.
So in fact the neo-liberals in love with the American Way manage to get less than 10% of the vote. The fact that their candidate is one of the richest men in the world (thanks to years of hard work and creative thinking) suggests that his voice was not totally blotted out and that his campaign was not without resources.
In a crude attempt at satire the Organisation for Security and Cooperation complained that, (in sharp contradistinction to the recent Yemen election and the epic battles between Tweedle Dee Wall St and Tweedle Dum Wall St, not to mention the fierce fights between Blair's successors and his other successors) the Russian people had no real choice. And the result was never in doubt.
(Next week Baroness Ashton will report on the Parliamentary battles in Saudi Arabia.)
Posted by: bevin | Mar 6 2012 2:05 utc | 57
Good post by 'b'.
On 29 Feb 2012 Vladimir Putin said: “The opposition will surely claim that the results of the presidential election will have been falsified, like it claimed after the recent Russian parliamentary elections.” Mr. Putin called on the Russian opposition to not use “dirty tricks”. “The opposition will probably use the old trick – toss in fake bulletins themselves and, then, accuse the authorities of falsifying the results. Announcing the elections' results illegitimate before the elections are held is an instrument of political struggle which is unacceptable in a democratic society. We respect everyone’s opinion, but we call on everyone to always act within the law,” Mr. Putin said. http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_02_29/67190925/
I'm now going to talk about the upcoming elections in Syria, where the ruling party will have to deal with similar dirty instruments of political struggle from the Syrian opposition. By law Syria must conduct parliamentary elections less than 90 days from today (the exact date hasn't been announced yet). By law, the elections shall be free and fair except that religious and tribal parties are banned. And the Syrian opposition will surely claim that the Syrian parliamentary elections results will have been falsified, just as they did concerning the 26 Feb 2012 referendum on the new Constituton of Syria. They had no decent evidence to support their allegation about the referendum, and they'll have no decent evidence about the Parliamentary election. The following are some details about how the vote counting will be done in the Parliametary election.
A new Elections Law was enacted in Syria in year 2011. It applies to the parliamentary elections and also to the municipal or local council elections. The new law gives the representatives of each political candidate the power to oversee the vote counting in his/her district. Objections or allegations of improper counting raised by these overseers are referred to panels of law judges. The panels of law judges have been created in each Syrian province for the sole purpose of supervising the elections. The panels include altogether dozens of law judges. Until 2011 the vote counting was under the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior. The 2011 Elections Law totally transferred the supervision to the judicial panels (together with the candidates own overseers). The dozens of law judges on the panels are ordinary decent human beings who believe in honesty, the rule of law, and respect for the Will of the People of Syria. The Local Council elections held on 12 Dec 2011 were held in accordance with the new law. Many objections were raised by the candidates in practice in that election. The final results weren’t announced until 22 Dec 2011 due to adjudicating objections and doing recounts. The official turnout was 41% in the local council elections on 12 Dec 2011. The dissidents had called for a boycott of that election. I accept the 41% figure as true and correct because so many interested people were overseeing the counting at the micro local level. On 12 Dec 2012 there were 42,889 candidates competing for 17,629 seats (including a sizeable number of uncontested seats where no one had launched a contest against a returning incumbent), spread across 1,355 local councils and other local administrative entities. http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2011/12/22/389985.htm , http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2011/12/11/387431.htm , http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2011/12/12/387681.htm .
Sergey Lavrov said on 2 Mar 2012: “The alternative to government elections in Syria is a destructive civil war. It is not the Syrian regime that Russia supports but fairness and Syrians’ right to a peaceful, democratic choice of government.” http://twitter.com/#!/MFA_Russia . Similary on 1 Mar 2012 Lavrov said “Russia supports not the regime but justice, sovereignty, the sovereign right of the people of Syria for the democratic choice of the government it wants to have, in full accordance with the principles of the UN charter.” http://rt.com/politics/lavrov-foreign-minister-syria-635/ . I say this is the only sane policy by outsiders regarding the upcoming Syrian parliamentary election.
claudio @ 45
won't have a functional "balance of powers" until Europe remains a Us colony through neoliberal policies and NATO
For sure, EU and NATO-countries have to stop following US on every foreign policy move. NATO in itself makes member states hostages in the sense they have to abide by US policy abroad, often at expense of own interests. Hopefully this will change somehow.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 6 2012 11:07 utc | 59
talk about delusion...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/fraudulent-votes-for-putin-abound-in-chechnya.html
I wonder if all these conspiracy blogs are part of some unorthodox treatment of Stockholm syndrome, it seems endemic in some quarters.
Posted by: what not | Mar 6 2012 12:55 utc | 60
No.. Putin had a national majority, unlike the US first election of Bush jr.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 6 2012 14:06 utc | 61
The US establishment, which promotes low voter turn-out, money-dominated politics, and voter suppression policies, lacks standing to criticize the electoral exercises in other countries.
It should support implementation of a uniform international voter rights protocol**, applicable in Moscow and Miami, Ramallah and Riyadh.
(** e.g., Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm)
Posted by: Watson | Mar 6 2012 14:51 utc | 62
For anyone interested in what ideology drives the current crop of malignant 1%ers, this is it...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/05/new-right-ayn-rand-marx
Posted by: ben | Mar 6 2012 15:31 utc | 63
Watson @ 64 -- I've been thinking the same thing: Here in the US we do have election observers, but with the computerized systems for voting it's nigh on impossible to detect vote manipulations/changes.
And, if we have paper ballots, precincts might of necessity be smaller, which would allow more everyday citizens to take part in the overseeing of the vote counts. And there would be the paper record of each vote. Paper can be gamed, but not as effectively as computer counts.
Re: US low vote turnouts -- The Republicans are working overtime at the state level to insist on government issued photo ID requirements for votingm with several forms of ID required to get one, and their objective is to lower the number of poor (especially minority poor), rural, and older voters. They are so obvious about it it's laughable...painfully so.
Posted by: jawbone | Mar 6 2012 15:36 utc | 64
Putin and 9/11 (thus vital international politics)
Putin has kept his attitude up, see from 2011, RT:
9/11 inside job impossible to conceal (ha ha as if Putin could be that naive)
http://rt.com/politics/9-11-putin-seliger-investigation-toronto-355/
Putin called Bush the day after the murder of Massoud, The Lion of Panshir, (9 sept), thus on 10 sept. (from Putin himself...) He also called again immediately after the attacks (mainstream press.)
Putin made hay. Arms reduction, membership in G8 (? iirc), that kind of thing.
His interest in having a war on terrorism as internationally accepted and ‘noble’ requires no explanation. Besides that, it was an entry wedge to be exploited.
Russia was one of the countries that sent ‘warnings’ about 9/11. Documented in various places (link) That doesn’t mean much, in fact various parties were only trying to preemptively show clean hands, genuine concern, cannily and gingerly expressed, etc.
http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus
Putin played all that skillfully, for whatever that is worth. He had a grand opportunity, and he knew it, he called the US bluff to his own advantage.
Posted by: Noirette | Mar 6 2012 17:21 utc | 65
C'mon,the Zionist monsters hate Putin for interfering with their expansion program,his cutting off of the Russian peoples treasure stealing scheme by the Zionist oligarchs,and his fierce nationalism in this age of traitors.With all the Islamic revolts in the Russian Federation,and the murder of Russian citizens,he of course backed our alleged attempt to bring the alleged perp of 9-11 to justice,but I think he has seen that as a scam in the interim, as just another neolibcon enrichment scheme.
Posted by: dahoit | Mar 6 2012 17:42 utc | 66
Good catch Noirette.
Putin's comment that it would be impossible for U.S. intelligence to conceal if it was an inside job has to be a lie.
Surely he knows it is not "impossible" to compartmentalize information or keep something like this secret.
In fact, since I believe many terrorist acts were staged in addition to 9/11, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's terrorist problem was also created by perps rather than being organic acts of violence.
Let's see . . . PNAC started in about 1997 as it appears did some of the other planning for 9/11 . . . and when did the Chechnya terror campaign begin? 1999?
Was terrorism in Russia and the U.S. manufactured to create a police state at home and to get the people to go along with the U.S. occupation of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa?
I want to look into the terrorist bombing campaign of 1999 in Russia.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 17:45 utc | 67
This is an interesting website dealing with the 99 terror campaign in Moscow: http://eng.terror99.ru/
"In September 1999, a series of middle-of-the-night explosions shook Russian cities destroying several apartment blocks. More than 300 people died as they slept. The attacks, attributed to Chechen separatists, boosted the popularity of the hawkish would-be President Vladimir Putin. Then, a strange thing happened. A bomb was defused by the local police, and the trail of evidence led to the door of the FSB, the secret service. The FSB was forced to admit "an ill-conceived exercise", which was remarkably similar to the earlier explosions. Ever since, a question has lingered over Mr. Putin's presidency: Who Done It? Why was the “esxercise” incident covered up? Witnesses disappeared? Inquisitive journalists intimidated? Critical TV stations closed down? And who was behind the assassinations of two members of Russian Parliament, who persisted with their own investigation?"
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 18:11 utc | 68
Re: Diebold
Not in Russia.
Russia votes on paper ballots. The ballots then get scanned locally and counted in a self-developed centralized system. (The paper ballots are kept and counted as a control.)
dahoit,
Why would a fierce nationalist allow the United States military into Central Asia when he didn't need to? I guess his feeling of solidarity with countries fighting terrorism is greater than his nationalism? So his nationalism must not be very fierce. Or he must be an even fiercer terror fighter, eh?
Also, did Putin act as a fierce nationalist with regard to U.S. troops in Georgia and the U.S. leaving the ABM treaty? Is the above CNN reporting/interpretation of these events wrong? Was he more fiercely nationalistic and it wasn't reported correctly? I do remember it being tense.
Maybe he figures aligning with the U.S is in Russia's interest? But it seems like this is a 180 degree turn in policy and that he would want to get approval from the Russian people first.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 18:38 utc | 70
b,
Thanks for the link.
But I read that article differently. It says Russia has used electronic voting since 1994 and quotes an official bragging about this fact:
“With the creation of the SAS Elections software, we became pioneers. And to this day, not a single country in the world has a system like ours,” said a very proud Mikhail Popov . . . ."
"It was during the blighted year of 1994 (when the budget for all of Russia was commensurate to that of New York City alone) that the State Automated System (SAS) Vybory (“Elections”) software was developed in Russia.
It was tested a year later. Prior to its introduction, electoral rolls were printed on typewriters and ballot papers were hand-counted (in 1993, for example, it took 12 days to count the votes). "
But the real interesting fact that jumped out at me was this:
"The speedy development and launch of the system was helped, of course, by Soviet technological innovations. But world-leading IT companies HP, Oracle and Cisco Systems also contributed."
Uh, so American companies, and probably the CIA, had easy access to and actually helped develop the Russian electronic voting software? That's a shocker! I would have to look into State Automated System (SAS) Vybory (“Elections”) software further, but I would bet it's a lot like U.S. (Diebold) software in that its easily hackable. And who is going to have back doors or easy access to do this? Why the very CIA perps that helped set up the Russian election software.
Are we really sure there weren't secret deals with the Russians and U.S./Western leadership back in the 90s? I'm getting more and more suspicious.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 18:47 utc | 71
I'm sorry, it wasn't first used in 1994. It was first "tested" in 1995.
More on the Vybory State Automated System here: http://cikrf.ru/eng/fci/sas_vybory.html
Some relevant parts:
"- a number of presidential decrees have been issued to establish certain rules to develop, deploy and grow the “Vybory” State Automated System
All functions relating to possession, use or administration of information packages and databases developed and grown by territorial or district information services when preparing and running the scheduled elections (referenda) are handled by the relevant election (referendum) commissions.
All functions relating to possession, use or administration of information packages and databases developed and grown with participation of pertinent heads of municipal (town, district) formations are supported jointly by the relevant election commissions and heads of municipal formations.
SAS “Vybory” information packages or databases shall not be traded in the market."
It seems like they use this as a database as well and use if for other purposes.
I see from another site the State Automated Information System was created on August 23, 1994, by a special order of the President and since then has been used in all elections.
See also this PDF of a speech by Mr. Ivanchenko from 2010 advocating the reform of Russian law to allow more electronic voting and even remote voting: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=state%20automated%20system%20(sas)%20vybory%20development&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ved=0CEIQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.osce.org%2Fcio%2F71347&ei=rmJWT4umBJPXiQLV7vHsBw&usg=AFQjCNHGW2SjJnlgj31aK9-qxEzOQ3w02Q&cad=rja
Be interested to see more about the early development of this software though.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 19:26 utc | 72
@ 72
Actually, SAS Vybory is a system for adding up the numbers after a tally, and maintain a database for uses like displaying the results in graphics on TV, the actual voting is done by paper ballots in a clear plastic container.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 6 2012 20:25 utc | 73
'The attacks, attributed to Chechen separatists, boosted the popularity of the hawkish would-be President Vladimir Putin. '
Putin as hawk....when the entire US political system is full of hawks...or at least chicken hawks from Mr Bomb Bmob Bomb Iran to Obomber.
Posted by: brian | Mar 6 2012 20:42 utc | 74
But it's counted by software, right? Software that U.S. companies helped build.
Is this one of the scanning machines? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FrCZTfMWNM
Scanning paper ballots may be better than using other electronic machines, but they are still susceptible to manipulation, right?
And is it uniform across Russia? The one official in the report I cite above wants to change the law to allow more electronic voting.
I'm not saying Russia's system is less vulnerable or fraudulent than the U.S. It sounds like it could be superior. But that is not a very high standard and now there is evidence that it is really easy to manipulate electronic means of voting and voting tabulation.
This is an issue about democracy in general and not specific to Russia. The U.S. faces similar issues and we should be asking the same questions about who developed our software and how it could be manipulated.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 20:48 utc | 75
brian,
Why does it matter that the U.S. are hawks as well? I totally agree that they are hawks and indeed they have much more blood on their beaks and talons.
But we are talking about Putin. Is he a hawk as well?
You seem to be saying, "so what if Putin is a hawk, the U.S. is a hawk too." Can't you discuss the issue directly?
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 6 2012 21:17 utc | 76
WWW @ 75
I too have big reservations about electronic voting, and the only secure way would be to have accountable voting, that is, without anonymity. The principle of voters being controlled against the national people-register has been proposed implemented into the SAS Vybory system too, but time will tell. Anyway, for now, the numbers fed into the system are available for manual control, the only uncertanties of the russian system, are voters voting several times at different districts, voter-bus frauds, and sloppy control of ballot-counting. Though, I'm no expert.
As fas as the US electronic voting-machines go, I wouldn't trust them. And Electronic voting on the Internet, wich has been introduced in Norway, is no safer than the Internet, though electronic banking seems to work pretty good. But electronic anonymous voting has inherent vulnerabilities, and that will never change.
All in all, I'd trust the Russian system over any other I know of.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 6 2012 21:53 utc | 77
Trolls like brian are what hamper what could be a great discussion on this site.
brian has yet again demonstrated that he has no interest in contributing substantively to the discussion. Notice he hasn't come back to discuss whether or not Putin is a hawk. He doesn't care. All he wanted to do was throw monkey poop at others and create division.
He just popped in to throw some monkey poop and stop people from discussing certain subjects.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 7 2012 0:44 utc | 78
Yeah, at times the trolls seem to pop up as if they were on the job.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 7 2012 1:29 utc | 79
WWW is floating the standard misdirection about khodorkovsky and the rothschilds...
dorky gave his yukos shares to yukos enforcer leonid nevzlin, who was purged by putin and fled to israel
nevzlin was then convicted in absentia by russian courts for five murders...
...which qualifies him for invitations to obama's whitehouse shindigs.
the main thrust of this bullshit rothschilds argument being: israel and the neocons are not to blame for this commotion because they're just following rothschilds' orders.
nevermind that there's a covert war going on now, between the europeans, who still have their delusions of grandeur, and the neocons and goldman sachs, who think that they're entitled to run the world because they've got the most powerful military in the world, and their basic moral belief is "might makes right".
too bad so many jews are starting to wonder about tikkun olam and benevolent global hegemony, isnt it? ...they're thinking, "how much of the world do we have to blow up before we start repairing the motherfucking thing?" ... and "how many people do we have to kill to demonstrate the benevolence of our hegemony?"
utter bullshit
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 7 2012 11:11 utc | 81
retreatingbladestall:
"dorky gave his yukos shares to yukos enforcer leonid nevzlin, who was purged by putin and fled to israel"
Thanks for the information retreatingbladestall! So you confirm the basic facts that were alleged in my link at #12. The Rothschilds did get a 26% share in Yukos, right? As was reported at the time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3235429.stm
Yet you call it utter bullshit. I don't follow your logic.
Is it "bullshit" because you believe the theory that Nevzlin is bad guy that basically stole the shares and gave it to the Rothschilds simply because he was a bad guy? Why doesn't the Russian government repatriate the shares if this was basically a shady way for Khodorkovsky to hie the shares?
I certainly don't understand how you interpret the "thrust" of the argument in #12 as being: "israel and the neocons are not to blame for this commotion because they're just following Rothschilds' orders." Did you read the link? The argument is the opposite of what you claim. There is a whole section in the article titled "The Return of the Vulcans" that discusses the return of the neocons in George W. Bush's White House. The article does not excuse neoliberals or Israel. It blames them. It speculates they planned and executed 9/11, among many other things.
It also points out that Western interests secretly benefited from the "opening" of Russia, like Halliburton and BP Amoco. The article implies that Yeltsin and Putin worked with neoliberals (and thus Israel) and secretly benefited.
I fail to see how asking these questions is trolling. I recently saw the article in #12 and found it interesting so wanted to run it by people I thought knew about Russia. If anything, I have a pro Russian bias vis a vis the West. But I'm more interested in the truth than I am any agenda.
Which is why I am now interested in the history of the SAS “Vybory” software and database. This database was created by a series of presidential decrees in 1994. It was created with help from Oracle, HP, and Cisco. Oracle was started with a grant from the CIA and is in fact named after a CIA database. So it's interesting that Oracle helped design this Russian database and software that is used for a number of purposes. In fact, I see others have speculated that Oracle became super profitable in the mid 90s because it stole Soviet technology. I have no idea about these allegations because I don't have the technical expertise and it doesn't appear this issue has gotten much attention from my google search.
But don't you think this is pretty big? If a private Russian firm associated with the KGB developed the main U.S. software that tabulated elections and runs other programs and databases on citizens for varied purposes . . . and we found out the software was susceptible to hacking and that the information in the databases could be used for nefarious purposes . . . wouldn't you at least want to find out more details about the role this company played creating the software? These are not stupid questions.
So I'm not saying I buy the theory that Putin (which really means certain Russian elites) is a perp just like Obama and Bush, and that Russian democracy is just as much a sham as American democracy. But I don't understand the hostility to even considering these facts.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 7 2012 16:46 utc | 82
And I see that I misread the claim--it's that Nevzlin and not Rothschild got the voting shares . . . but it's still very murky and it's odd that the facts can't be nailed down more definitively. And once again, why didn't the government repatriate the shares?
It seems like the truth about the shares is being hidden. And that fact itself indicates something shady is going on.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 7 2012 17:06 utc | 83
it's all the rothschilds' fault... they are telling the AEI/PNAC people what to do, the rothschilds needed a new pearl harbor to kick off the oil acquisition project, and they manipulated the 2000 election recount in florida so that the PNAC people would be in position to make their new pearl harbor happen.
the rothchilds also control israel, and will inform israelis when it's time to pull the samson option trigger, starting a nuke world war that everbody will benefit from.
the fact that the so many of the russian oligarchs wound up in israel is coincidental, and has nothing to do with the fact that israeli russinas were scheduled to guarantee russian oil to israeli america as the middle east was remodelled by israeli america to israeli specifications, including establishing tame regimes in syria and lebanon, so persian gulf oil could be plumbed to the mediterranean once the rothschilds' war with iran war gives them a pretext to close hormuz to force pipeline construction.
too bad khodorkovsky tried to sell yukos to the AEI/PNAC allies, exxon, as putin was cracking down on the israeli russians... that kinda gave the game plan away, didnt it?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 7 2012 17:09 utc | 84
you guys keep throwing out this "rothschilds" red herring when it's quite obvious, once you do your homework, that israeli americans have been planning this operation for decades.
putin put a serious kink in the neocon operation when he busted yukos, and now the big neocons are grasping at straws, which accounts for the anti-putin rhetoric that's resurfaced lately.
meanwhile, the big money guys arent helping the situation, as they loot america, which only hastens the day of reckoning.
i got to say, though, that it's a good thing zionist jews are so far out in front of this push towards more wars... that will make it easier for americans to figure out what happened to them and their country.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 7 2012 17:21 utc | 85
@ #84 retreatingbladstall,
That sounds like a reasonable theory. Don't know if I accept all of it, especially the focus on Rothschild, but sounds reasonable.
"that kinda gave the game plan away, didnt it?"
Actually, I would have thought Putin calling Assad a dead man was more of a tell.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 7 2012 20:04 utc | 86
the rothschilds angle is nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention from the real instigators of this project, those instigators being the israelis and the israeli americans of the AEI/PNAC.
apparently, with you, sarcasm is a poor investment.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 7 2012 20:09 utc | 87
israel's american protection is about to go tits up from peak oil and looters.
since the official 9/11 investigation was such a farce, we are reduced to the old "motive, means, and opportunity" method when compiling a suspect list... well, the israelis and israeli americans win the "means and opportunity" contest, hands down, over any competing suspects.
what do you spose could have been their motive?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 7 2012 20:16 utc | 88
I agree with you retreatingbladestall.
The Americans (and to a lesser extent, Israelis) had the greatest means, motive, and opportunity to pull it off.
Why do you falsely characterize me as predominately blaming Russia, or something? I say above I'm actually probably biased toward Russia (for instance in the Georgian conflict I thought Russia was telling the truth while the West was lying).
But on the other hand, why are Russians immune from suspicion? The suspicion is that some of the Russian elite are working with the Western elite. Why are you so quick to shut off any inquiry into this? Why won't you concede there is some evidence? How can you be so absolutely certain the Russian elite like Putin are NOT in cahoots with the West and why is any skepticism crazy?
You aren't even addressing the substantive points in favor of this theory. Putin said Assad is a dead man. How do you reconcile that with the theory he's standing up to Western aggression in Syria? That's just one point and I've hardly seen any good rebuttal to the points in the CNN article above.
Oh, and re motive . . .
If you read the article in #12 you will see a number of motives the Americans had. Trillions of dollars of missing Pentagon money was not investigated, billions of black op securities were cleared (involving economic war against the Soviet Union), billions were made off the insurance claims (like Larry Silverstein), billions were made in insider trading, billions were made from the victims compensation fund, and probably trillions more was made off the increased war and police spending. There are probably other motives as well. Oh, destroying SEC investigation records and giving perps new secret identities by falsely killing them off, etc. It was the crime of the century, if not history.
Posted by: Walter Wit Man | Mar 7 2012 20:38 utc | 89
PNAC said they needed a new pearl harbor... there must have been a motive there, someplace. to make their new pearl harbor happen.
netanyahu said he thought 9/11 was "very good" for israel, so israel must have had some motive to make it happen.
what could that motive have been?
dont forget that it took putin until late 2004 to purge the israeli russians who were allied with the PNAC/AEI...
meanwhile, a neocon sub-project in chechnya failed when putin cracked down on the neocon-sponsored chechens... the neocon chechen project was intended to deprive russia of its only outlet to the med, and it failed, much to richard perle's dismay.
you can whine and skate and tapdance til the cows come home, you can say you're a big fan of russia, you can wheedle and wring your little hands, but the upshot of your posting here reveals a certain congruency with neocon policy when it comes to putin and russia.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 7 2012 20:52 utc | 90
You guys are good, but your missing the elephant. Bush could introduce a new set of patriotic laws to really crack down on any unpopular movement, with that most useful tool - misinformation.
As far as foreign policy goes, afer Bush jr., the government can now fire off missiles from drones in any country killing whoever, with no trial, and no investigation. Now, that's real power. And now there is the fancy geopolitical campaign to throw off all territory surrounding Israel. That's pretty badass.
And they do it in such a way thet even the countries falling over do it with a warm and fuzzy feeling as it is happening. And every hippie in western countries feel it's their moral obligation to facilitate the arab spring making all but Israel drop like flies. Until now, when Russia stops the whole show - and believe me, they will.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 7 2012 21:19 utc | 91
@Alexander 91
i'm not missing the elephant, i'm just trying to pry the elephant out of WWM...
maybe i'll try to pry an elephant out of you...
under what conditions, from a neocon viewpoint, would drastic curtailment of civil and human rights become necessary?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 7 2012 21:30 utc | 93
When illegal wiretaps and political surveilance of opponents are extra useful when it becomes legal, and they won't have to deal with Watergate type problems.
Knowing what human-rights activists and humanitarian organisations, etc. make it easier to know what kind of hints need to be dropped in the news-world when they are going about it with their misinformation campaigns.
As well as instilling fear to unite the voters against a common enemy is an old trick.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 7 2012 21:55 utc | 94
what if the neocons saw an intolerable truth coming, a truth so obvious that it was undeniable?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 7 2012 22:01 utc | 95
I happen to be a NJ Devils fan, so I was delighted when they acquired stylish skater llya Kovalchuk. He seems like a good guy as well as a great player, but I don’t know about his politics, and I don’t understand Russian. Does his video testimonial dispose of all the issues raised in this thread? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlYfbrEjU0g
Posted by: Watson | Mar 8 2012 20:52 utc | 96
*we need to be saved from the United States. I know it seems odd to be looking for allies among the Russians, the Europeans and the Chinese. But, as they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.*
http://tinyurl.com/5jlxm4
Posted by: denk | Mar 10 2012 2:55 utc | 97
denk @ 97
Bush should be hauled to Hague.
That one is a given.
And this... this has been due for some time!
And Obama should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Price, damn - I can't believe that one, a f..intercoursing Peace Price!, I should kick the stupid bastards that gave it to him, I know where they live, I live in Norway too. Really, we all had hopes about Obama, but he turned out as bad as anyone, he's a damn warcriminal, and really, it's not legal to execute someone who's not had due process with trial and jury, and definitely not in some arbitrary country that you don't have jurisdiction over. It's not enough to get permission from the local warlord either.. And whatever happened to Guantanamo? Obama... You don't get the peace price for not bombing Iran! You bastard, start respecting international law, and maybe we'll consider not recalling your Peace Price. F..Intercoursing hell! Go intercourse yourself, you should never have axepted the damn thing if you knew you were going to turn out that bad, you lying dick!
That's aproximately what the Norwegians think about the Nobel Peace Price committy choosing Obama, these days.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 10 2012 3:58 utc | 98
denk @ 97
we need to be saved from the United States
I couldn't agree more! Although I don't agree with everything in that article, like EU being a rival to NATO, no way - EU is an extension of the US and NATO.
EU-countries follow every whiff of a hint from the US.
sorry about @ 98, I got off track, but my point remains valid.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 10 2012 4:06 utc | 99
alexander
obama became a war criminal just 3 days into office
thats some achievement !
http://tinyurl.com/4je9t2f
the nobel piss prize was just two neocons scratching each others back
http://tinyurl.com/765ceeo
*I don't agree with everything in that article, like EU being a rival to NATO, no way - EU is an extension of the US and NATO.
EU-countries follow every whiff of a hint from the US.*
i think in 2000
eu did look like shaping up to be a rival to fukusi
coz we know now nato has become the cat paw of the nwo
i pasted this article coz everything today is so deja vu
the same lawless fukusi
the whinning about putin election etc etc
Posted by: denk | Mar 10 2012 4:34 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
Ah yes, we all "know" the only true and fair elections are the ones that favor the interests of the empire.
Posted by: ben | Mar 5 2012 15:34 utc | 1