NYT: "Agents Tried to Flip Russian Oligarchs. The Fallout Spread to Trump."
Every once in while, every 80,000 years or so, the geopolitical magnetic poles flip and truth slips through the cracks onto the front-page of the New York Times. This is such a moment.
Here it is:
NYT: Agents Tried to Flip Russian Oligarchs. The Fallout Spread to Trump.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/us/politics/deri...By Kenneth P. Vogel and Matthew Rosenberg
Sept. 1, 2018WASHINGTON — In the estimation of American officials, Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with close ties to the Kremlin, has faced credible accusations of extortion, bribery and even murder. They also thought he might make a good source.
Between 2014 and 2016, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department unsuccessfully tried to turn Mr. Deripaska into an informant. They signaled that they might provide help with his trouble in getting visas for the United States or even explore other steps to address his legal problems. In exchange, they were hoping for information on Russian organized crime and, later, on possible Russian aid to President Trump’s 2016 campaign, according to current and former officials and associates of Mr. Deripaska.
In one dramatic encounter, F.B.I. agents appeared unannounced and uninvited at a home Mr. Deripaska maintains in New York and pressed him on whether Paul Manafort, a former business partner of his who went on to become chairman of Mr. Trump’s campaign, had served as a link between the campaign and the Kremlin.
The attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader, clandestine American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining cooperation from roughly a half-dozen of Russia’s richest men, nearly all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska, depend on President Vladimir V. Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials said.
___________________
As I and some others around here have been saying for a while, “Russiagate” started years before Trump entered the scene. He stumbled face-first into a CIA/MI-6 effort to use Russian oligarchs to regime change Putin. It’s right there, if you read between the lines and the usual NYT spin.
Look at the dates. Also be aware of the larger context here. As we know, this obviously didn’t start with Russian “meddling” in US elections – and it isn’t about law enforcement. The FBI is the junior partner in such matters of Oligarchs, Big Politics and Big Money. For decades, the FBI and DOJ knew about and did surprisingly little about international organized crime, and its movement of capital into the United States -- most of it into the Eastern District of New York -- even Russian organized crime has been largely hands off. That's why they actively helped Mr. Deripaska with his visa problems so he could move his Manhattan bank accounts around after he began cooperating with western intelligence in 2009.
What we’re finally seeing is the lid coming off is the dying vestiges of an ongoing, covert program to promote regime change in Moscow. Because since that has already failed, Plan B is to escalate the Cold War and wipe out any chance of continued detente with Russia. That'll teach 'em, even if we have to bring our own corrupt empire down around our ears. It'll be a miracle if we not to blow up the world this time 'round. We've already been improbably lucky too many times.
As the world shifts, this is also an opportunity for the CIA to settle some old scores, using Robert Mueller's Star Chamber to punish Americans such as Mike Flynn and Manafort who for various reasons -- good and bad -- tried to push back during the last Administration against failed regime change programs in Syria and Ukraine.
If you buy into Russiagate, better be aware of the backstory what goes along with it. As the lid comes off, who knows what else might crawl out.
Comments
They wanted another Yeltsin
The day Boris kicked the bucket was the day our oligarchs started losing theuir ability to strip mine Russia of its assets.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Is the failing NYT trying to claw back some respectability?
Really, publishing a story which doesn't actually accuse El Trumpo of Russian collusion. Is the geomagnetic pole starting to shift--after all both polar ice caps are melting, throwing the celestial orb off track.
The brilliance of the FBI! Boy, it is unmatched in the files of history. Trying to "turn" a Russian billionaire who not only owes his wealth to V.V. Putin, but also his life? Oleg must have laughed his head off after the Feebs left his home.
"What kind of story, boys, do you want me to tell you? About the Chinese masquerading as Russians? About the Awangate? About Difi's Chinese spy 'about which she didn't know--nor did you'?"
From NYT:
I would change rogue officials to "all of the senior officials". Of course NYT won't admit to this silent civil war between two factions of the Deep State.
Did Mr. Oleg get to deduct his money paid to the Feebs to rescue Levinson from the Imams? It definitely was a loss. Apparently, though--and this is the good news, The FBI doesn't get much funding from drug running, at least unlike the CIA, so they had to rely on a furriner to bail them out. And then they try to use him again, gratis, to pin a big one on El Trumpo.
The tides are slowly turning and lying assholes like Rachel Madcow are beginning to slowly pirouette away from Russia-Russia-Russia. She actually gave Brennan some hardball questions in her interview with the Ringleader on MSDNC. Now perhaps Mr. Slim will be deprived of his part ownership of the Slimes under Trump's new SHAFTA.
I did not see Maddow's interview of Brennan. However, I was
a fairly frequent and close observer of Tim Russert. Part of what I observed was his asking both Democrats and Republicans what he called "the hard questions. However, he would allow Republicans to complete their answers in peace. Sometimes, he even nodded as they spoke, looking for all the world like he was agreeing with what they were saying. Then, he would go on to the next question, or ask a softball follow up question. So, the "hard question" merely gave Republicans the opportunity to give their side of a story on national television.
When he questioned Democrats, however, he would cut them off while they were speaking, talk over them and barrage them with follow up questions, sometimes not even waiting for them to respond before asking his next question. I saw one interview of Ted Kennedy that could not have been more disrespectful, with cutting off Kennedy repeatedly while shouting at him.
The first time Obama was on MTP, Russert hammered him about, of all things, something controversial that Harry Belafonte had recently said, spending most of Obama's air time on that one comment that Obama had not even made! (I suppose it only made sense to insist that one Democratic black man defend the comment of another Democratic black man?/s)
But, Russert would brag that he asked "both" sides the hard questions and show video to back up his claim. Problem was, the video showed only the initial question and not what followed. And it was only in what followed the initial "hard question" that Russert's bias showed.
Yeltsin, Deripaska and the Oligarchs we could "work with"
We helped put the Oligarchs into business, Putin reigned them in so he has to go
From before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been cultivating a commercial and political elite abroad that we could “work with.” As in most of the developing world during the Cold War, that meant that post-communist Russia was an oligarchy kept in money and power by IMF loans, graft, private militias and death squads.
Such was the case during the Boris Yeltsin’s government that presided over the Russian Federation, a self-contained trading bloc shorn of half of its richest territories. The result of loss of most military spending and trade resulted in an average 50% loss in real living standards for the typical Russian in the depths of the Depression during the early 1990s. What grew out of the rubble was the New Russia controlled by the Oligarchs, run by returning members of Russian ethnic organized crime families once scattered around the world and remnants of the KGB, party bosses, and former Soviet military who couldn't move enough their assets out of the country while the door was still open. For Deripaska, that door closed the other way in 2006, when he lost his US B-1 visa, which meant that he had to make a deal with the FBI's McCabe and other US intelligence handlers to reenter the U.S. to access his stash deposited in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Is Oleg really Putin's "closest oligarch", as is again repeated here in the Times?
The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the owner of Yukos Oil Co., one of the world's major oil suppliers on October fifth, 2003 was a signal that things would never be the same for the oligarchs. By the time he took his third term as Russian President in 2012, Putin had put highly concentrated large industries increasingly under state supervision, curtailing the effective power and range of operation of many oligarchs, restricting the movement of private wealth out of the country, including that of Oleg Deripaska, whom he publicly humiliated in 2009, as seen in this video.
Putin's deal was simple
You stay out of politics and keep your money...then, sotto voce..If you don't, you know what happens.
We need a Putin contract with our oligarchs. Debate on the ethics of such a deal can wait until such a hoped-for occurrence happens.
Putin demanded several more caveats
in addition to staying out of politics:
1) You pay your taxes
2) You pay your employees
3) There will be no asset stripping
Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia. From 1995–2006 his company, Hermitage Capital Management, siphoned untold billions of dollars out of Russia into offshore accounts while paying no taxes and cheating workers of wages and pensions.
Putin put an end to US and UK backed shysters stealing Russia blind. Is it any wonder the western oligarchs hate him with such a passion?
In the US the oligarchs run the country in Russia Putin runs
the oligarchs. This has been a common historical issue for Russia over many centuries. Successful Czars controlled the oligarchs. If you were in favor you could attend court and keep your position and wealth in Russian society. Otherwise not.
The US deep state figured that they had won the cold war with Russia. Reality had a different tale to tell. They are a bunch of sore losers and revengeful bastards. Thinking that they could find another wedge to neuter Russia by working with Russian oligarchs was wishful thinking, and showed a fundamental misunderstanding of modern Russia. Today the neocons can't work through the oligarchs, or NGOs, can't find any serious "Liberal" opposition and can't generate any dislike of President Putin through the media. It's amazing to travel in Moscow and talk to Russians about their government. They love Vladimir Putin. Their attitude is the exact opposite of Liberal America today. No hatred, just love and appreciation. It's really nice. The hate in this country is disgusting and dangerous. Right mow Democrats are seething with hate for both Presidents. I sat at a meeting of local Democrats led by our Rep, seething with hate for Russia-- how dare they hack our pristine god-sent democratic process? Unfortunately they betray themselves for who they really are, and it's pretty ugly.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
And we're stuck
with politicians that sell-out the citizenry at all levels of government.
Trump fights for the US - whether or not you agree with his efforts or policies (which may or may not be effective), and that is why his base supports him. Nobody else even tried to represent them.
dfarrah
@The Wizard Well, I don't really
Well, I don't really blame Americans for hating their politicians, but I do blame Americans for degrading our public discourse to the level of Joe McCarthy.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Great and insightful comment
in another outstanding essay, leveyng.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Thank you for another informative essay, leveymg.
One after another,
. leveymg, you're on a roll.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Of course, predatory capitalism was the object of the game
...until Putin was elected in 1999 and began to rein in the robber barons.
By then, the Russian people had fallen into poverty from a decade of asset stripping, and their life expectancy had taken a steep dive.
The next decade, from 2000 to 2010, saw a reversal of those fortunes under Putin's guidance. The people's standards of living had improved significantly, and medical services were made available to them. Year-over-year economic improvements made Putin a popular figure in Russia. That's when the US sanctions and fear mongering began in earnest, along with NATO'S push to the West and myriad military provocations against Russia, including the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government.
But I would suggest that the unintended consequences of US aggression against Russia, coupled with larger geopolitical developments created a condition that took regime change off the table and replaced it with a mad grab for global supremacy and empire.
Sensable analysts would have seen by 2015 that regime change in Russia was impossible — especially after the failed attempt to seize Russia's only warm water Navy base in Crimea (which was the key strategic purpose of the Ukraine overthrow). The Russians are more attached to their 200-year-old navy base than the West can ever begin to understand. It was a catastrophic move. As a consequence, the US pushed Russia and China together and triggered the explosive rise of Eurasia. In the face of illegal sanctions, Russia grew stronger and opened markets decades into the future. Trading alliances formed throughout the Eastern Hemisphere favoring Russia and China. The roles of currencies transformed and comprehensive new banking systems that could replace US controlled banking and hegemony were successfully established.
Almost immediately, the US was facing the reality of multipolar world powers — which replaced their dream of a New American Century. Even with regime changes, the die had been cast. One hundred nations are now Members of the Asian Investment and Infrastructure Bank AIIB, which will stand at the center of global trade. The US is no longer the largest trading partner of anybody, outside of Canada and Mexico. The US Dollar is optional, not mandatory.
I would suggest that the US provoking Iran, Russia, and China is a desperate attempt to undo the terrible consequences of the neocon's Ukraine fiasco; it is their last, insane push to secure the American Empire they thought was theirs already. Hillary Clinton devoted her time as SoS putting the Empire timeline in place. She ushered in the TPP, the TTIP, and the Pivot to Asia to wrap it up. As President of the United States, she was going to oversee the final execution of the plan.
But the Neocons spoiled everything with the Ukraine coup.
Thanks for this stimulating essay. Your very first sentence got me laughing. Good one.
Brilliant analysis, Pluto
Your exposition is so clear and logical that it's a wonder the genii at HFA, DNC, NeoCon Central didn't get it. Oh, wait...they didn't want to "get it". They never acknowledge their fiascos. It's what narcissistic sociopaths do.
Heh. I was going to comment on your responses.
The author had put me in a funny mood and I found your rifts on the topic both amusing and insightful, especially your view on the contortions of the NYT and Maddow. Do you think many readers can see this embarrassing clawback? It seems so obvious.... but we are dealing with an intellectually tased readership, so it's hard to know.
you mean Hillary is
off the hook??
I So wanted to see her in orange, frog marched off to the hooscow.
{sigh}
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
excellent analysis
Russia is the gift that keeps giving...since our childhood and still delivering.
Look...squirrel!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
@Pluto's Republic I don't get it; I thought
I don't get it; I thought Hillary was one of the PNAC types, IOW a neocon. She has neoliberal domestic and neoconservative foreign policy (two great tastes that taste great together, and, in fact, the former might require the latter).
Are you saying the neolibs and the neoconservatives are different factions; Hillary is one of the former and set things up for a New American Century but her allies in the neoconservative faction staged the Ukrainian coup? Would that mean that Hill's faction was not the one that engineered the coup?
I know forces in the U.S. engineered the coup, and that Nuland was heavily involved; I'm inclined to think that that makes the Ukrainian coup something that comes squarely out of the Clintons' political machine, although I know Kerry was in charge at State at the time. Nuland's career began in the Clinton administration, and her connections all seem to be to the Clintons and, to a lesser extent, the Bushes, not to Kerry or Obama, or even their allies (like Ted Kennedy). Not saying Kerry or Obama opposed the coup, but if we're talking about what faction caused it, wouldn't the Clinton machine have to be deeply involved?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Hillary Clinton is the Neocon Queen.
She was groomed at the Council of Foreign Relations, which has been running the State Department since the 1940s. She proved her Neocon cred while Secretary of State. She is a destroyer of nations and a warrior for Empire. Neuland, Powers, Rice were her handmaidens, incubated in the same witch's brew. These are some of the Deep State embeds and operatives committed to the Neocon agenda. They are highly placed in the DOJ, the Intelligence Agencies, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the West Wing. They concentrate their powers and direct the nation's foreign policy. Others are positioned in the influential think tanks that surround the capital, funded by grants, government contracts, and endowments from the corporations and the oligarchs. The Neocons lust for the unimaginable power of Empire.
The Neoliberals are caught up in a resurgence of a 19th-century fad that is associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. They talk about individual liberty and free markets while privatizing the nation's commons and deregulating the people's protections. They want to believe that this time their economic ambitions will surely work because it makes them very rich through corruption. But it never works. Neoliberals manipulate the nation's domestic policies, where they cause great economic suffering to ordinary citizens and harm to the environment. It's an economic theory that devolves into predatory capitalism.
John Maynard Keynes described this flawed thinking: "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
Neoliberals and Neocons can be independent from each other.
There is no speculation here. This explanation conforms to the descriptions commonly expressed by those at the very highest levels of governments.
@Pluto's Republic IMO, you can have
IMO, you can have neocons who aren't neolibs (Teddy Roosevelt would fit in fairly well with them) but not neolibs who aren't neocons, because these days, in order to have that kind of laissez-faire economics really work for you, it must be international, and sooner or later, somebody's going to object strenuously to the economics you inflict on their country. You'll need that neocon war machine as soon as they do.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Can't argue with your logic, there.
The more I look at US history in the past 100 years, the more I see of the missing overarching narrative. Perhaps historians were blind to it, or the arc of time is too long for them to see the cycle. Although they see the trees just fine. They see the leaves and the fauna.
It's the motivation of the forest itself they're missing. And the flow of benefits. The consciousness inherent in a complex system is too high a concept for them. Entanglement bewilders them. They've been doing civilization a disservice.
The human lifespan is too short for evolutionary adaptation. All that weapons and war money (the killing sciences) should have gone into the life sciences. That's why this species is dying. That should be recorded for the next sentients to emerge.
Excellent job on this
and excellent comments too. This is why this blue blog rocks.
Russia Gate boils down to this.
We helped put the Oligarchs into business, Putin reigned them in so he has to go.
Good point. Manafort was working with the Ukraine president before Obama, Biden, McCain and Nuland threw him out of his country because he accepted the loan from Russia instead of the IMF which would bankrupted the country unless he allowed foreign corrupt to steal the resources. And just like every other country we have "meddled" with Ukraine is full of violence and being run by despots. But why did Podesta get immunity for doing the same things that Manafort did? John Podesta worked with Manafort on many issues. Could it be because he's a friend of the Clintons?
And when Oleg refused to play along with the FBI:
During the previous Russian election the streets were full of protesters against Putin's presidency. Putin wanted a more peaceful one during the last one so he kicked out a bunch of NGOs and that made all the difference.
I reference to the Alligator's comment Rachel pinned down Brennan on his tweet accusing Trump of committing treason. I wonder if she had a flash back to when she had a conscience and reported on the heinous acts that the intelligence agencies committed? But Rachel isn't the only one kissing Brennan's buttocks.
In fit of anti-Trump pique, American liberals shamelessly embrace ‘deep-state’ criminals
Trump derangement syndrome has infected the country. Everyone who spoke at McCain's funeral had to get a dig in about Trump. Great way to honor the biggest war hero in the history of the country wasn't it?
Snoopy, allow me to fine tune some bits in your comment, please
Number one:
Since "we" have meddled plenty with this our own country, we are full of violence and being run by despots, who in the U.S. are generally called billionaires--large beasts, ravenous appetites, and very little brain in the small cranii.
Number two:
I missed the /shark label--oooh, never could spell well, er, I meant /snark label. Surely you thought the Quote would be recognized for what it is.
I don't mean to rain on this parade,
or to mess with a pretty good essay and thread but,
Putin reined the oligarchs in. Like the reins on a horse, or a reindeer.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Hoot, hoot!
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I got a new favorite band ...
The Whiskey Lickers. They're at the Grand every Thursday.
They do this one. They don't have anybody that can flat-pick like this though.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug8p5pVsj9U width:400 height:240]
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
@Azazello They reined in the reign
They reined in the reign in Spain, in the rain.
Hee hee.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Sanctions helping Putin against Oligarchs
One Russian analyst said the Trump sanctions have given the upper hand to Putin against Russian oligarchs. In effect the West abandoned them and they are at Putin's good graces and mercy now.
They could lose ALL their ill gotten gains
due to Trump's sanctions. The only way they can keep some of it is to repatriate it back to Mother Russia. Putin has offered an amnesty for the less egregious pirates. Bring back the money to Russia, pay some taxes due and live a (more) honest life of luxury. Keep your millions outside Russia and Uncle Sam will steal it and bankrupt you.
Many of the Russian 'oligarchs' are now realizing they have to get their money back into Russia (where it came from to start with) if they want to keep it.
CIA usually burns its assets once a program has failed
There is only one job in the world that is more dangerous than CIA-supported dictator, e.g., Manuel and Saddam. That is, wannabe CIA-supported dictator.
If we don't acknowledge helping you, don't bother calling us when the hangman comes to your door.
Of course, Oleg has been walking the tight rope between the two sides for years. Hard to do when you're carrying so much cash on a pallet. Do I smell smoke on the western side?