Among the banned group of seven were the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy and the Open Society run by capitalist billionaire-speculator George Soros. These organizations have launched numerous “civil-society groups” in Moscow over recent years which allegedly are involved in promoting “democracy”, “business enterprise” and “free media”.
It is a moot point why such American outfits that have demonstrable political allegiance to Washington and its inimical agenda towards Russia were even allowed to set up in the country in the first place.
US ambassador to Russia John Tefft decried the latest sanction by the Kremlin. He said: “We see this move by the Russian government as another deliberate step to further isolate the Russian people from the world.”
The arrogance in the American ambassador’s words are astounding, but typical of Washington’s supremacist self-regard.
So Russian people are, we are told, being isolated from the rest of the world? Notice how US-based advocacy groups are somehow equated with access to “the world” and as if they are paragons of virtue.
The quickest way to gain a reality-check is from asking this question: how many Russian NGOs are operating in the US? That’s right – none. Yet, the self-proclaimed “exceptional” Americans consider it their prerogative to export groups to promulgate supposed “Western values” in Russia and dozens of other countries around the globe.
Bear in mind, too, RT and Sputnik are publicly recognized news channels. They are not clandestine organizations operating with a hidden agenda.
Now, if that’s the kind of hostility which legitimate Russia-based international news channels are hit with, one can only imagine the uproar if there were actually Russian-sponsored “civil-society” groups based in Washington that published reports and press releases which continually sought to undermine the American constitution, institutions and government policies.
Such hypothetical Russia-supported networks would be booted out of the country as “agents of a foreign enemy” if not facing jail time as “spies”.
Again, as a measure of the likely furore, look at the recent alleged computer hacking of the Democrat party’s database and how that has been rabidly attributed to “Russia trying to interfere in the US presidential elections”. There isn’t a shred of evidence for such alarmist hacking claims, but the point to note is how knee-jerk bellicose Washington is to even the mere notion that Russia could possibly be intruding in American domestic politics.
But in Russia’s case against the US organizations, this isn’t hypothetical. The list of American NGOs banned this week by Russia are provably inimical to Russia’s domestic politics, its constitution and institutions.
The term “non-governmental organization” is a complete misnomer. It is a clever fraud, just like many of the other claims made by these groups. Far from being supposedly independent and private, the blacklisted groups are bankrolled by the US State Department and Congress, and, especially in the case of Soros’ Open Society, are intimately linked with Washington’s foreign policy goals.
That makes them very much “American governmental agencies”.
Under the thinly veiled guise of promoting “democracy” the US-sponsored agencies are all about destabilizing Russian society and undermining the governing authorities. This subversive activity would not be tolerated for one second if the shoe were on the other foot over in the United States. So why should Russia accept unilateral American subversion and sanctimony?
The insidious, and frankly dangerous, purpose of the National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society and all the other Orwellian-named American outfits can be gleaned from the way these same groups are responsible for a host of “color revolutions” and regime changes since the dissolution of the Soviet Union nearly a quarter of a century ago. They serve as the soft power arm of US imperialism.
Former Soviet Republic Ukraine was a prime target. State Department official Victoria Nuland is on record for disclosing that $5 billion was funneled into the country from the early 2000s to precipitate regime change that culminated in 2014 when the elected government in Kiev was ousted by CIA-backed fascists. The new regime is responsible for a war on ethnic Russians in the east of the country since 2014 which has killed 10,000 people, and for ongoing efforts to sabotage Crimea. The bigger purpose of the US-backed regime change operation in Ukraine is to act as a spearhead against the real prize, Russia.
It was the US State Department and George Soros who were instrumental in overseeing the Kiev regime-change coup.
Translated from Orwellian lexicon, “promoting democracy” means promoting Washington’s version of “democracy” which is to install vassal regimes that will roll over for American capitalists like Hungarian-born Soros.
Previous Russian elections have been disparaged by the NED, Soros and the other US-sponsored agents. With the forthcoming Kremlin elections one could expect that a major negative media onslaught was being prepared by these same Washington-funded groups. Allegations of election fraud flagged by Soros and NED-funded networks in Moscow would have been amplified by Western media outlets in the usual manner.
Also, if Democrat contender Hillary Clinton wins the US presidential poll in November it is a safe bet that the Washington warmongering cabal in the CIA and foreign policy establishment would have ramped up the subversive thrust of the US agencies in Moscow.
Russia is therefore right to pre-empt. After all, would the reverse have been accepted in the US. No way.
The inevitable Western outcry alleging Russia “clamping down on democratic rights” is laughable for its arrogant double think.
The West imposes sanctions on Russia over trumped-up claims, then expects to get away with Washington-funded groups infiltrating with destabilizing disinformation; and then when the Russian government restricts these groups, Washington has the brass neck to protest.
This is the mindset of a megalomaniac. What does it want next? Russia to apologize for existing?
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.