Second Round Is What They Are Fighting For
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 12:35AM Russian liberals really want the second round of elections, and they are willing to predict it in advance (see my whole catalogue of cases)...
Few days ago I made few searches for 'second round of Russian presidential elections', and came upon an article by Grigorii Golosov in OpenDemocracy, bearing the title: 'Anyone but Putin: How Russians should vote in March'. The article urges to vote for anyone but Putin because a second round would mean the liberal opposition can put pressure on the government. I quote:
The fact is, of course, that in the first round any vote not given to Putin is a loss for him. So in terms of the opposition’s primary goal – to cause the greatest possible harm to the official candidate – it is the “voting for any other candidate” option that will be most effective, whereas any strategy aimed at artificially limiting the voters’ range of options will be counterproductive. If Putin gets 49% of the vote in the first round, then it makes no difference whether his nearest rival has 40% or 20%. The outcome of the election will be decided by the second round. A second round is what we are actually fighting for. And even if we don’t achieve that, the parliamentary election results have shown that the less decisive the victory of the official candidate, the greater the strategic opportunities available to the opposition, and the more concessions can be wrung from the government.
From that point of view, the most effective strategy is to vote for any other candidate. The second lesson learned from the parliamentary campaign was that this strategy must be accompanied by civil action, both in the form of mass protests against electoral fraud, and especially in active attempts to prevent it by observers at polling stations on the day. This, and not a desperate search for the most acceptable candidate, is our best chance of retrieving from these undemocratic elections at least something of benefit to Russia’s future development.
Notice the formulation: 'civil action... in the form of mass protest against electoral fraud'. The liberals have one protest action planned for 5 March, that is right after the elections. And what else than some presumed electoral fraud are they going to protest about? Meanwhile, the Russian liberals are actively trying to spread the notion that Putin cannot win the first round without the help massive electoral fraud (see my coverage of liberal rants in the English language), probably sensing that Putin will win in the first round. And even if Putin does not win in the first round, they will still protest against electoral fraud. But are Russian liberals genuinely concerned about electoral fraud? The answer is they are not.
Beating the drums on electoral fraud is simply a technique the liberals use to delegitimise the electoral process, and by extension the government as well. Does anybody remember how it was with electoral fraud during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine? The opposition upon losing the election took people to the streets to protest against electoral fraud. This has eventually led to a re-run, and since the previous results of the elections were rather tight, the campaigning on the streets provided the Orange camp with some extra votes. Once the Orange camp won, it conveniently forgot about electoral fraud, and nobody was ever prosecuted for electoral fraud, a serious criminal offence by the way.
Russian liberal way of thinking was rather well expressed by Boris Berezovsky in his open letter adressed to the Patriarch of All Russia, Kirill. In it the former drops this line:
Even if the government conducted the most clear elections, and no matter who will win, the society will not accept the results.
It always amazes me when Russian liberals, and not to mention people like Berezovsky, try to speak on behalf of the people. Russian liberals are a small, albeit vocal, minority with access to media. They cannot even claim to have the support of half of the country, something Yushchenko had in 2004. All this is rather puzzling. Are the liberals concerned about few extra votes for the Communists, or for Zhirinovsky? Are they masochists who like to get booed by a crowd where their ideological followers are the minority? Or are they just attention whores trying to remain relevant?
Frankly speaking, whatever that is, Russian liberals are doing a good job at delegitimising their own cause, whatever it is. I am getting quite frankly bored by writing on Russian liberals preparing for the elections. Mike Averko recently sent me an article by Jon Hellevig noticing the same issue I have been posting about in the last weeks. You can read that for a change, as I will probably not addressed the issue again. The case is settled, Russian liberals are nothing but a bunch of dishonest propagandists.
Reader Comments (78)
But Leos, you've not really proven that Putin and his political machine is incapable of electoral fraud? Even you have admitted that some amount of fraud is bound to effect the vote. Why even countenance 'small amounts' of fraud. And if 'small amounts' of fraud are allowed to exist, then why not slightly larger than 'small amounts'...and on and on. Shouldn't the correct standard involve 'no fraud' at all??.....
@ Hack
No election is ever without problems, just look at US, but Russian liberals are not genuinely concerned about these problems.
' Russian liberals are not genuinely concerned about these problems.'
Mayve they're not concerned about these problems, just like Putin is not really interested in conducting fair and transparent elections? Since neither of us has a crystal ball, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. By the way, when exactly in March are the elections to take place?
Besides the presidential post, are their any other offices and/or referendums up for consideration?....
Regarding some of the anti-Putin mindset:
Who does Washington prefer - Putin or Zyuganov?
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=257032
USA wants Comrade Zyuganov to be Russia's next president
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/16-02-2012/120529-usa_zyuganov-0/
I think it's rich that the opposition claims to want "something of benefit to Russia's future development", when in fact all they want is enough power for themselves so that they can hobble the government from taking any action without their consent. That's not a recipe for progress and "future development"; it's a recipe for infighting and coalition-building and influence-peddling and bureaucratic inertia. Could somebody point me in the direction of any serious plan the opposition has for "Russia's future development"? They haven't thought beyond beating Putin, and if they accomplished that, they'd look at each other and say, "Now what?" Never fear, though - there'd be plenty of offers of "help".
I imagine they're planning a big protest about vote fraud for right after the elections in the hope that either the protests will gather momentum, or that Putin will crack down and break a few heads so they can scream, "Authoritarianism!! We warned you!!!". It's pretty much no-lose for them.
Some people don't deserve responsible government.
@Latvian Crowd Cheering Hack
There are reported to be some funny numbers in regards to Ron Pauls votes in the US not to mention more favourable coverage of other candidates in the Jewish owned mass media in the United States of Israel.
@ Hack
First, let me break your naive opinion that the elections, and their transparency, are somehow dependant on Putin. Putin is not a god, although the way Russian liberals talk about him, he might as well be divine. The votes are counted by committees composed of representatives of all parties, these representatives put their signatures under electoral protocols. There are many ways of verifying weather electoral fraud had occurred or not, but this is what we do not see Russian liberals doing. Did you know they actually spread false reports of falsifications? If they are happy to spread false or unverified claims of electoral fraud, then maybe they are not genuinely concerned about electoral fraud after all?
I guess I owe you guys an apology....I don't know what ever got into me for even suggesting that Putin and his cronies might resort to vote tampering...And if it weren't for Putin and his crowd owning and controlling 99% of the press in Russia, it too might have a similar problem as
in the 'United States of Israel'...Thank God for Putin...and pass the pieroshki!!!
Mickey - you ball less wonder...are you going to let Jack4 get away with his blatant, childish anti-semetic remarks again??...Or have you hidden your face into a TV watching hockey again???.....
@ Hack
Mickey is not here as you see. Why don't you admonish jack yourself?
'Mickey is not here as you see'
All that I see is a coward who is hiding somewhere, who fails to acknowledge that many hard core russophiles are quite anti-semitic. He was in plain view when you submitted and wrote this piece:
' Mike Averko recently sent me an article by Jon Hellevig noticing the same issue I have been posting about in the last weeks.'
Averko has a habit of countenancing Jack4's anti semitic slurs...yet has more than enough time in trying to 'debunk' my pro-Ukrainian rhetoric!
'
@ Hack
He made a comment some time back, I did not notice it, it is above.
Well, maybe he'll finally find time on his busy schedule (doing the 'round table' circuit, no doubt), and respond directly to Jack4's comments this time.........
Following up on my own (:-)) shrewd observation above:
'And if it weren't for Putin and his crowd owning and controlling 99% of the press in Russia, it too might have a similar problem as
in the 'United States of Israel'...'
One can read of yet another of Putin's very own (Gasprom's) takeover bids of yet one more independent news source here:
'Few doubt that Gazprom’s decision was a response to the most serious challenge to Putin in his 12-year rule: the mass pro-democracy protests that swept Russia since December. “This step is being taken now precisely because the situation in the country and in society is changing,” wrote opposition leader Grigory Yavlinsky, “It is not surprising that the reaction is repressive. The authorities do not know otherwise … But the movement that began in society cannot be stopped by repression or bribery … People want freedom … The stronger ‘the screws are tightened’, the more evident the deficit of freedom will become.” This assessment is hard to dispute. Even the Kremlin, it seems, is beginning to realize that 2012 is not 2001. The time when the regime could do as it pleased—and expect silence in return—is over. Solidarity, the liberal movement which was instrumental in organizing the recent protests, pledged to “call Muscovites and residents of other cities onto the streets to protect their beloved radio station from Vladimir Putin.” Even pro-Kremlin analysts admitted that the destruction of Ekho Moskvy in the midst of anti-government protests would anger millions of its listeners and further embolden the opposition.' http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/vladimir-kara-murza/kremlin-moves-silence-independent-radio
Dear Leos,
An excellent article with which I am in complete agreement.
It is completely absurd for people to announce that they are going to hold a rally protesting against fraud in an election which has not even happened! It speaks volumes for the surreal quality of much of this debate that such a ludicrous proposition is taken seriously.
There is point that I repeatedly make about electoral fraud in Russian elections, which it seems to me even some people who are broadly sympathetic to Putin have difficulty taking on board. This is that it is for those who claim that fraud is taking place to prove it. It is totally unreasonable to demand that the government "prove" that it is not engaging in electoral fraud since to demand such a thing not only reverses the burden of proof but demands from the government that it prove a negative with all the well known evidential problems that involves.
At the end of the day the only "evidence" people seem to have that Putin is deliberately rigging the elections is that Putin is supposedly a bad man and the sort of person who axiomatically rigs elections, which therefore must mean that he is in fact rigging them. This is exactly the same sort of flawed logic that was used prior to the Iraq war to "prove" Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Frankly no election can take place in Russia that the liberals will accept as free and fair unless it is an election that they win. Any election they do win is by contrast automatically free and fair even when (as in the case of the Presidential election in 1996) it obviously is not.
I think Russian liberals are like classical liberals anywhere, forcing their will on others under politically correct slogans. People have to be forced to be free, like Rousseau or some other 18th century 'philosopher' said.
"There are reported to be some funny numbers in regards to Ron Pauls votes in the US not to mention more favourable coverage of other candidates in the Jewish owned mass media in the United States of Israel."
I posted on the other blog that Ron Paul had the entire primary election in Maine stolen from him. Total fraud, but no media. Him and Dennis Kucinich are the only consistent people in Washington.
I'm not the gutless wonder hiding under a moniker, who repeatedly targets an individual with diatribes, while making false comments like Putin controlling 99% of media.
As previously noted, I've made it a point to be against suggestively inaccurate caricatures against a given group. Not all Jews are neocons and neolibs. Conversely, most people of Ukrainian background don't share the views of Russia favored by anti-Russian leaning sources.
Note that the Anthony Salvia article I linked at this thread appears in The Jerusalem Post. Salvia has been involved with the American Institute in Ukraine, whose views I generally agree with. For all I know, the author of the Pravda article I linked at this thread might be Jewish. I make it a point to judge people more on what they say as opposed to their ethno-religious background.
Leave it to a troll like Hack to overlook these particulars.
Dear Cartman,
I read the link you gave and I was astonished both at the fact of the fraud in Maine and at the silence with which it is surrounded.
Nothing illustrates the transformation of US politics so much as the career of Ron Paul. Ron Paul is today considered an eccentric maverick on the fringes of US political life. The political establishment is determined to crush him and as we saw in Maine it shows no hesitation in using fraud to do so. Ron Paul's views are however essentially the same as those of the great Senator Robert Taft of Ohio who was not only fully part of the US political mainstream but who almost became the Republican Presidential candidate in 1952. In 1957 Taft was declared one of the five greatest US Senators of all time. His ideological heir Ron Paul is by contrast consigned to the wilderness.
@ Hack
Ekho is a property of Gazprom, therefore calling it independent is a bit off the mark. Ekho has a tendency to broadcast damaging and unpatriotic views, this is why some people might call it independent. I actually wish Gazprom did not back down to demands of liberals, and hope they will finish the work they have begun after elections. Ekho needs some serious housecleaning. As for independent media, the liberals have the option of starting an independent station, instead of mooching off Gazprom. And believe it or not, they are also able to find funding.
"...yet has more than enough time in trying to 'debunk' my pro-Ukrainian rhetoric!"
****
As has been authoritatively shown in several instances, it's not so difficult for me to successfully debunk the idiotic comments coming from the above excerpted troll.
The facts and fact based opinions are typically downplayed by fools like Hack.
Instead, they turn the subject over to other matters like what someone else says on another subject.
Jack doesn't regularly launch diatribes against other thread participants like Hack. People who're the recipients of diatribes have a right to respond if they choose to do so.
Like I said, I don't judge people on their ethno-religious background. Along with my not stereotyping Jews and repeated disagreement with such manner, refer to how Milan Marinkovic is answered after stating that he's Serb:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-west%E2%80%99s-rube-goldberg-schemes-the-balkans-come-apart-5715
'Ekho has a tendency to broadcast damaging and unpatriotic views... Ekho needs some serious housecleaning.'
Spoken like a true neo-faacist! If someone, somewhere disagrees with a viewpoint expressed at Ekho, install government censors. In the old days Leos, your sovok progenitors would do the same, calling the viewpoints expressed as 'dangerous, with no redeeming social values lacking progressive socialist aspirations' Today, the modern day sovok would slightly adjust his criticism to include 'damaging and unpatriotic views' and suggest that some 'serious housecleaning' is in order. And you claim at times to have been brought up in the west? Amazing!
Mickey - you still just don't get it and are trying to totally skirt the issue....I've clearly made an issue of Jack4's flagarant use of economic anti-semetic stereotypes while you just sit idly by and let his slurs slide by. You really are a ball less wonder! :-)
Here Mickey, let me help you write a more appropriate response:
Although I and Hack often butt heads at this site and express differing viewpoints, I agree with his accurate depictions of Jack4's anti semitic
statements, that he so often expresses at this site. To portray Jews as some sort of leaders of a world wide conspiracy to control either Russia or the US has clearly been a tool of conspiracy theorists for a very long time and has no actual basis in reality. Their reliance on so-called document as the 'Elders of Zion' has long since been debunked as a massive hoax. It's time that anti-semites like Jack4 to wake up to reality and stop trying to spread their anti-semitic garbage at this site and elsewhere!
Now, would something clear and to the point really be that hard to come up with Mickey??.......
@ Hack
You are idiot if you do not understand that Ekho has owners, and those owners are the State Corporation Gazprom. If Ekho broadcasts content damaging to the state, Gazprom has all the right to do some housecleaning. If Ekho wants to be independent, it should find itself some other patrons. That's reality, there is nothing neo-fascist about it.
@ Hack
And by the way, in the West, if you anger your patrons, you are fired, why should Russia have different standards in your opinion?
It's too bad that what had hithertoo been regarded as 'an independent' radio station that often allowed dissenting viewpoints to be expressed, had been bought up by a state owned engterprise. I'm not aware of independent US radio or TV stations that are bought up by the federal government, and then not allowed to express anti-Obama viewpoints? What you find as a normal practice, I find to be reminiscent of state owned media control during soviet times. But as both you and I seem to have missed in Kara-Murza's eye opening piece:
'On Wednesday, Gazprom Media backed down. For whatever it’s worth, the company has pledged not to make “any changes in personnel, including the editor,” or “changes in the editorial policy.” It is now up to Russia’s newly empowered civil society to ensure that the country’s most prominent independent media voice is not silenced.'
Let's hope that Kara-Murza's prognastications for Russi's future remain fulfilled!
Leos - your inability to maintain a normal tone in discussing issues, and reverting to name-calling again is really quite childish. In addtiion to your past exhibitions of impulsiveness directed towards me ('you imbecile'...'grow a brain'...''Man, you are a psycho'..) you now call me an 'idiot'??
Based on these outbursts, it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to maintain my image of you as a modern, hash smoking ex-seminary student. I'm beginnnig to envision you as a sort of mad, extremely dour Nikita Khrushchev type figure who in addition to spurting out explatives is often seen beating hisa shoe on a wooden table! Get a grip on man and keep it more low level, please!....:-) :-)......
@ Hack
If you can maintain honest discussion, people will maintain normal tone with you. Otherwise stop complaining!
And where exactly have I posted less an honest approach to discussion than you, prey tell, Leos??............:-)
@ Hack
After you. ;-)
Well, you could start by retorting to my observation above regarding the paucity of government owned radio and TV stations in the US that prohibit criticism of Obama....I just don't buy your own observation that ' If Ekho broadcasts content damaging to the state, Gazprom has all the right to do some housecleaning.' You seem to be blurring the line between legitimate criticism of Putin and 'content damaging to the state'...
They're not one and the same...you should know better!!
I used to occasionally voice concerns on how many Canadian businesses were being bought up by international - chiefly American - interests. I was told bluntly, "If you don't want somebody to buy something, don't sell it".
GAZPROM Media has owned a majority stake in Ekho Moskvy for 10 years. It has never attempted to interfere with the editorial content to this point, and there's no particular reason to assume it will now. If the staff are concerned, they can always buy GAZPROM out. In fact, Mikhail Prokhorov offered to buy it last week, and Venediktov refused. Meanwhile, in order to get rid of the editor GAZPROM would have to increase their share ownership to 75%. Venediktov resigned from the board of directors in protest, which was entirely his own decision. If the editor has not been pressured to change the station's direction in the last 10 years, what's the rationale to suggest he will be now?
Political pundits prematurely announced "the death of independent radio in Russia" back in the late 90's when GAZPROM Media bought a controlling stake in Ekho Moskvy. Since then, they have been delighted by - as Putin colourfully described it - Ekho Moskvy pouring shit over him from morning until night. If that sort of hysterical gobbling is what turns you on, I'm sure it'll be around for the forseeable future.
If you are really committed to raging against government control over the media, however, I can perhaps save you an expensive plane ticket.
http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
Nice try Mark...the use of reporters by the CIA to augment their intelligence gathering capabilities is one thing, but there is no indication in the article that you sight that the CIA has been used as an instrument to discredit or muffle the voice of prominant US political candidates to the highest office of the presidency?? Spying on foreign governments is one thing, but tampering to change the election results for the presidency is quite another. Or are they one and the same in your book? No doubt that other foreign countries to the US (Russia included), use journalists in a similar capacity? As your article clearly indicates though:
'■ The use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence‑gathering employed by the CIA. Although the Agency has cut back sharply on the use of reporters since 1973 primarily as a result of pressure from the media), some journalist‑operatives are still posted abroad.'
But I will agree with you that a vigilant eye monitoring the activites of the CIA is needed, as has been done (as your article indicates) by the Congress. How about in Russia? Does the Duma also get to monitor the activities of Putin's loyal FSB operatives??.....
If anything, Ekho Moskvy has been more hard hitting of Russia's government and Russia at large than NPR has been of Democratic and Republican presidential administrations. Moreover, Ekho Moskvy's slant has often been unfair to the Russian government and Russia at large.
Regarding the idiot troll Hack's ongoing stupidity, he's the one changing topic by flippantly mentioning how I should reply to what another commenter says on comments pertaining to Jews and Israel - something not specifically related to this thread and a matter I've discussed in the past. I don't express that commenter's views, while having a clear position against ethno-religious caricaturing.
In the West, the protestation of anti-Jewish/anti-Israel commentary is more stringently monitored than the kind of unfair coverage accorded to some others. I tend to concentrate on some ethically valid positions which the establishment tends to overlook.
On the matter of selective sensitivity, the opening skit of the last SNL did this spoof:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/linsanity-postgame-cold-open/1386272
Fat chance, that I need a ****** **** like Hack as an editor.
Well, this certainly takes the conversation in an interesting new direction: do you have any evidence to suggest media outlets in Russia have "tampered to change the election results for the presidency"? And by "evidence", I don't mean the opinions of Vladimir Kara-Murza, whose dislikes are already quite well known.
Forgive my inability to multi-task, but you appear to be jumping all over the place. Is it also your contention that the FSB is "being used as an instrument to discredit or muffle the voice of prominent Russian political candidates to the highest office of the presidency"? This is alarming; have you any supporting evidence?
In fact, the American media industry is deeply involved in support of government policy, regularly downplaying or ignoring reports of corporate malfeasance or conducting "softball" interviews of preferred political candidates that are essentially platforms allowing them to transmit their message free of critical examination. There are dozens of examples, from the White House personally censoring EPA reports
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/politics/19CLIM.html?ex=1371441600&en=95b0a43f25f8e0c8&ei=5007
to granting White House press access to a gay prostitute posing as a reporter because he would "set up" President Bush with questions that allowed him to exploit a particular viewpoint, or even inject disinformation as part of the question.
http://www.salon.com/2005/02/15/guckert/
As the reference accurately points out, the White House gave a man with an alias and no journalistic experience daily access to the West Wing. Background checks for press credentials for White House reporters are typically conducted by the FBI.
I wonder how such shenanigans in the Putin government would be treated.
@ Hack
It is also besides the point that Ekho is critical of Putin, that is only the tip of the iceberg.
".... or conducting "softball" interviews of preferred political candidates that are essentially platforms allowing them to transmit their message free of critical examination. "
****
On a related note, Charlie Rose seems to gives a longer leash to the likes of Tom Friedman when compared to some others such as Vitaly Churkin and Amy Goodman.
Mike; exactly.
'do you have any evidence to suggest media outlets in Russia have "tampered to change the election results for the presidency"? And by "evidence", I don't mean the opinions of Vladimir Kara-Murza, whose dislikes are already quite well known.'
Oh c'mon Mark, another 'nice try'. Just google in 'election fraud Russia' or 'vote rigging Russia' and you'll find many outlets expressing 'proof' of election fraud in Russia. This one includes an interesting 'video to support its conclusion of electoral fraud. But then somebody like you, whose 'dislikes are well known' too, isn't really interest in any proof now?? Watch the video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw-5y9fy4zU&feature=channel_video_title
'Regarding the idiot troll Hack's ongoing stupidity, he's the one changing topic by flippantly mentioning how I should reply to what another commenter says on comments pertaining to Jews and Israel - something not specifically related to this thread and a matter I've discussed in the past. I don't express that commenter's views, while having a clear position against ethno-religious caricaturing...Fat chance, that I need a ****** **** like Hack as an editor.'
Actually Mickey, you do need a '********** Hack' as an editor,for you've not addressed Jack4's adamantly anti-semitic remarks in a responsible manner. It's the type of pasivity that you've shown in this respect that allows anti-semitic bigots to feel empowered to spread their false visions to others. 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' See, I'm giving you, Mickey the benefit of the doubt and including you in the company of 'good men'. Get on the schtick and start being a mensch!!!
'
Mickey - if by ********** Hack you mean 'antisemite' Hack, then you're once again expressing your stupidity. I have many jewish friends and am especially indebted to the jewish community for its contributions to the arts, science and education (not to mention entertainment). My quarrels with you have nothing to do with your eethno-religious background, but are solely limited to your often unpalatable and unreasonable russophilic viewpoints.
Sorry; I did look, but I could not find any evidence in the video you linked that the Russian media or the FSB were involved in rigging the election. I didn't say there was no fraud at all; I questioned your assertion that the Russian media and/or the FSB are helping Putin rig election results. You and your wingman Kara-Murza have still not offered any evidence of that at all.
In fact, if there is a media that is guilty of supporting vote-rigging, it is the western media with its deliberate falsehoods regarding Putin's popularity rating. As both Mike and Leos have pointed out, as well as Moscow Exile on my blog (regarding the strange case of Alexei Bayer of the Moscow Times - who actually lives in New York - and his assertion that Putin's poll ratings are "plummeting" while they are actually headed in the opposite direction), the western media is setting the stage for the assertion that it was statistically impossible for Putin to win in the first round; therefore, there must have been massive fraud. This, I presume, will be a dog whistle for Navalny and his 100,000 or so protesters.
Putin is popular, and a plurality of Russians wants him in a governance position despite a concerted effort by the west to topple him. I don't know why you can't simply accept that. Poll after poll indicates that he is strongly favoured over all his opponents, and while you might be able to make a point that candidates like Nemtsov and Navalny are not running, that might be a blessing in disguise. Nemtsov has proved consistently unpopular despite repeated tries and the best exposure the west can give him, and Navalny might be surprised to find a proportionately huge blog audience does not translate to broad political approval. Both candidates are much stronger in the eyes of their western backers as long as they don't have to actually prove anything.
The most reasonable polls suggest Putin will win with about 58% in the first round. He doesn't need any fraud at all to achieve that, in other words. The west would be wise to get its strategy straight now, because time is running out - is it going to go with "massive fraud", will it suggest that the 58% win (if that's what happens) was a "vote target", or is it going to simply smirk that this is much less than what Putin won with in 2004, therefore it signals broad disapproval of him and his policies?
So Mark...by deduction we can conclude that if it's not Putin behind the vote rigging, it must be CIA plants in support of Nemtsov and Navalny.
I think I finally got it! :-)
@ Hack
There is no proof that either Putin or FSB are behind vote rigging. If any ever happened, it would be on the initiative of a corrupt MP in need of re-election, or something of the kind, as there is no proof of there actually being a systematic vote rigging. Actually US State Department plants have a tendency to report unverified information on vote fraud, so I think that they can be trusted.
Not so quick Leos:
'MOSCOW (AP) — The election official had a problem. Workers at his polling station had been stuffing ballot boxes with votes for Vladimir Putin’s party all day, he says, but when the votes were counted United Russia still didn’t have enough. So he huddled with the election commission he chaired at the Moscow precinct.
The decision: Putin’s party would get the desired 65 percent. One member objected, but relented when the others tossed his Communist Party a few dozen votes.
The commission chairman spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job. He also said he could be punished for disobeying orders to report any contact with foreign observers or journalists to the FSB, the successor to the Soviet-era KGB.
His account closely matches reports by independent observers of rampant vote-rigging during Sunday’s election, in which United Russia maintained its majority in parliament. Amateur videos posted on the Internet also appeared to show falsified ballots spilling out of boxes at polling stations.'
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/an_insiders_account_of_vote_ri.html
""So Mark...by deduction we can conclude that if it's not Putin behind the vote rigging, it must be CIA plants in support of Nemtsov and Navalny."
Sorry - I was under the impression we were having a serious discussion. You must have bigger pockets than most people, because you seem to have an unlimited supply of red herrings. This is just going round and round, with you building one silly strawman after another. I only wish I had the time for such frivolities.
Mark - well, if it's not Putin's folks and not Western operatives rigging the vote, then who might it be??....As for an abundance of 'red herrings' and overly 'big pockets', you don't seem to be doing too badly either? As for a more serious discussion, I've submitted a lengthier comment three times today, to have it kicked back for review. Once Leos 'reviews' it and posts it, you'll have your own opportunity to go 'round and round', and offer your own 'strawman'! :-)
Oh, Gee, I don't know....maybe THE VOTE IS NOT RIGGED, certainly not to the extent you suggest. I note VTsIOM exit polls missed the actual vote for United Russia by less than a percentage point, although everyone crowed that the exit polls proved the vote was rigged. After the squawking was over, it turned out that the actual percentage of fraud was relatively insignificant, about 5%. It would not have been near enough for the next-closest party to take the win, or for ER to lose their majority. Yes, there were a few video clips of what might have been fraud - how many? 5? 10? These were used to bolster the notion that there was "massive fraud", based on the assumption "if we saw this many, there must have been a great deal more". Investigation suggested that was not so, and the allegation of "massive fraud" cannot be justified.
But you lot have a pre-determined story for everything. If you can find any evidence of fraud, it's proof that there was a lot. If any representative of ER says anything, he's lying. If any representative of the opposition - especially Navalny - says anything, it's so beautiful in its truth that you are speechless.
And the outright lies that Putin's popularity is "plummeting" is just more of the same - stage-setting for a mathematical impossibility when Putin wins with around 58% of the vote. Since that's what conservative estimates predict now based on surveys of decided voters, just exactly the same as it's done everywhere in the world that claims to be a democracy, naturally that will be billed as the "vote targets" that the polling agencies were "assigned by the Kremlin".
So predictable.
Most long comments (if they include links) go to moderation automatically. My above comment was actually submitted last night.
@ Hack
So you have a report by AP? Wow, you rock! Unidentified source, AP might have pulled the entire piece out of their butts for all I know. Like FOX broadcasting Athens protests as if they happened in Moscow. Those so called videos on the internet were later proven to be posted before the actual elections from somewhere in America. There is a lot you don't know I guess. ;-)
As you probably know, there is a problem with the comment section here, this is something I received from Mike in the email today:
Awhile back, I recall Leon Aron saying that the vote tampering matter in Russia appears more localized as opposed to something ordered from the top. In that same instance, Aron added that this issue isn't something that has been so pleasing to the Kremlin, because it serves as a talking point criticism against the Russian government's legitimacy. At likely issue are motivating factors like the perceived perks an area might get with a greater United Russia turnout.
It's one thing to have a situation where others can't express their views and an election result is severely twisted from what actually occurred. There's enough freedom in Russia for an opponent of Putin to show that he or she won an election against him. Yes, imperfections exist. To one degree or another, this kind of issue exists elsewhere, including the US.
On an ongoing off topic matter, some like Hack have a way of dodging what has been communicated. There's a good deal of anti-Jewish/anti-Israel monitoring when compared to the scrutinizing of biases against some other groups. I caution against unfair caricaturing, while not being in disagreement with what IMO is legitimate analysis like this piece on Jews and The NYT:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/21/meet-the-new-york-times-new-israel-palestine-news-chief/
Elsewhere, there're Jews who've been more critical of Israel. The coverage isn't always influenced by ethno-religious background.
As one prime example, consider how RFE/RL has utilized Serbs, who haven't come close to challenging that news organization's blatantly anti-Serb biases, which are far greater than the overall criticism levied against Israel in The NYT.
Somewhat similarly, when appearing in formal commentary at openDemocracy, people of Russian background haven't taken noticeable issue with the anti-Russian views of Andreas Umland - a point which can be easily and authoritatively followed up on. Russian based Russia Profile has a former Kyiv Post (KP) staffer, who in a not so distant article of his (posted at Johnson's Russia List) stated the hypocritical KP slant about RT (no longer formally known as Russia Today) being a questionably biased news organization. When running material from RT, KP puts forth this hypocritically childish disclaimer:
"Editor's Note: The following story was published online by Russia Today, a Kremlin-funded information organization that has been criticized for its anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian propaganda."
In contrast, the KP doesn't offer disclaimers when it frequently runs material from contributors like Alexander Motyl, who exhibit clear biases against Russia - which arguably appear greater than what RT can be generally accused of.
Related commentary to such matter are typically downplayed at the more high profile of venues. Concerning this issue:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/15112011-russia-as-provocateur-analysis/
http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/expert.xml?lang=en&nic=expert&pid=2355