Has Russian Meddling Been a Long Time Coming, America? Russia?

I pose this question for 2 reasons: 1) the CIA has been known for supporting opposition groups abroad for decades, and 2) what happened in 1991...

New light shed on 1991 anti-Gorbachev coup



No love lost: Boris Yeltsin, left, and Mikhail Gorbachev never spoke after 1991

President George Bush despatched Ambassador Matlock to the Kremlin to warn Mr Gorbachev that further violence would affect US-Soviet relations.

"He listened carefully," Matlock recalls. "And then he said: 'Jack, please explain to your president, this country is on the brink of civil war. And as president I must do all I can to prevent that. And that means I'm going to have to zig and zag. My goals are the same. Please reassure your president and help him understand'."

"When they finally put me through to Gorbachev, Yeltsin was already on the phone to Bush. So I told Mikhail Sergeyevich (Gorbachev) and he said: 'Can you imagine what the outside world will think of this?' In other words: 'You idiots for getting involved in this.' And I said, 'Well, actually, Yeltsin is speaking to President Bush right now.' On the other end of the phone there was a silence, and then Mr Gorbachev hung up."

Click to expand...

The rest of the article offers more details, but it is no secret that Yeltsin and Gorbachev were rivals, if not out-and-out enemies. It goes into detail on how Yeltsin exploited the coup attempt and actively colluded with the first Bush administration (and vice-versa) to replace Gorbachev, who was - at the time - attempting to liberalize the Soviet government, hence the coup attempt by rebelling Soviet organs. Mr Gorbachev had no choice but to resign. After six years in power, he stood down at the end of December 1991, just before the Soviet Union ceased its existence. He handed over all the relevant papers and authorities to Boris Yeltsin. The two men never spoke again.

To be clear, I'm not saying that the dissolution of the USSR was a bad thing - I've made clear many times I'm no supporter of communism - but it certainly looks like the whole thing was based on ulterior motives. Yeltsin turned out to be corrupt and instrumental in the corruption we see in the Kremlin today, nearly 30 years later.

And Vladimir V. Putin was his protege.

CONTD...

Yeltsin during the signature ceremony of the START II in Moscow, January 1993

US agents helped Yeltsin break coup

The US intervention, which may have been critical in defeating the coup, has been kept secret to avoid the accusation that Washington was interfering in Russian affairs. It also started a row between the White House and the code-breaking National Security Agency, which strongly objected to revealing to Moscow that its most secure communications were compromised.

Click to expand...

As soon as the coup started on 18 August 1991, the NSA, America's largest intelligence organisation, was able to decrypt conversations between the coup's two leaders, Vladimir Kryuchkov, chairman of the KGB, and Dmitri Yazov, the Defence Minister, taking place over a supposedly secure landline. President Bush ordered the information to be given to Mr Yeltsin but, fearing Russian reaction if word of American interference leaked out, broke the law by not telling Congress.

Mr [Seymour] Hersh says: 'The US intelligence community may no longer be in a position to have advance warning of momentous events inside Russia - as it had months before the coup that brought Yeltsin to power.'

Click to expand...

The fact that President Bush decided a law he himself signed did not apply to him (despite it being the explicit purpose of the act to begin with) isn't even the most disturbing part of this story. The fact that his active collusion with a foreign power and going behind the backs of the U.S. intelligence community to support Gorbachev's political opponent may have directly resulted in the successful intervention by Russia in the 2016 United States presidential elections, due to Yeltsin's tip off by Bush administration officials during the coup event, informing the Russian political elite of inside knowledge of the sheer breadth and scope of the U.S. intelligence apparatuses, and what they could do. With this knowledge, the Russian government was able to stay one step ahead, and do what they did over a year ago to Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

I was inspired to post this due to the mainstream media's non-stop coverage of the Russian collusion with President Trump, yet failure to even bring this up (while at the same time promoting his son's 'seeing of the light' so to speak, despite the fact that he largely followed in his father's footsteps, and was even along with his successor, visibly conciliatory - if not friendly - with Putin, and while we're at it was played by Putin, despite being warned about it by Mitt Romney of all people, but I digress). The more the establishment press ignores the fact that Trump is a symptom, not the cause, and tries to treat this like it's the opposite going on here, the more they (the establishment) becomes just as much a part of the problem as Trump and the Populist Right, and anyone who colludes with Russia (or any adversarial foreign power, for that matter), if not more so. I'm not saying the Bush dynasty is not also a symptom, and that this problem predates even them (going back as far as late-19th, early-20th century Wall Street). But that is another topic (sort of...).

The point being, history repeats itself because ****ers don't listen, but more so - this is intriguing and I wanted to share my findings. But also promote critical yet civil debate and discussion on Pre-Trump Russian-American collusion. Enjoy!

Edit: See Also

Chickens know how to find their way home..........

This has been bothering me for awhile.

We have plenty here running around with their arms flailing in the air all upset that Russia meddled in our election, all the while we have been doing this to plenty of other nations for decades now. Sometimes we do not even bother to hide that we are more interested in one candidate or political party in some nation over another. Support, insider shenanigans, you name it. We do it.

But Russia picked Trump over Hillary.... OMG, the sky fell.

OrphanSlug said:

This has been bothering me for awhile.

We have plenty here running around with their arms flailing in the air all upset that Russia meddled in our election, all the while we have been doing this to plenty of other nations for decades now. Sometimes we do not even bother to hide that we are more interested in one candidate or political party in some nation over another. Support, insider shenanigans, you name it. We do it.

But Russia picked Trump over Hillary.... OMG, the sky fell.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it amazes me some individuals will support the establishment for the sake of opposing Trump/Russia, despite it being the very same establishment that largely set this whole game up to be played out in the first place. They claim Hillary Clinton is this victim for so many angles and is the most unfairly-treated politician (despite being the only politician in history to have been the First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator for New York and Secretary of State, in addition to being the first woman nominated for President by a major party, and on top of that being one of the wealthiest and well-connected and elite and powerful office-holders in the history of the United States as a whole, and using this as a talking-point promoting her, whilst simultaneously - and extremely hypocritically and contradictingly - claiming she's some sort of victim), despite her former Boss's DAD essentially setting up the stage for the establishment of the Russian Federation and the Putin Regime which is allegedly soooooo out to get her (and even Trump and Hillary were buddy-buddy up until like the last quarter of the 2016 election, their daughters were probably even chilling and hanging out when Russia hacked the DNC).

OrphanSlug said:

This has been bothering me for awhile.

We have plenty here running around with their arms flailing in the air all upset that Russia meddled in our election, all the while we have been doing this to plenty of other nations for decades now. Sometimes we do not even bother to hide that we are more interested in one candidate or political party in some nation over another. Support, insider shenanigans, you name it. We do it.

But Russia picked Trump over Hillary.... OMG, the sky fell.

Click to expand...

The US Media also meddles in elections.

Mircea said:

The US Media also meddles in elections.

Click to expand...

Shhh! That is a big secret, don't let it get out.

Okay, so I agree with your general premise that the US has intervened/influenced the elections or governments of other nations for decades, so why should we be immune from the same, but I think you're creating as much of a narrative here as you think the media is with the Trump/Russia collusion story.

First off, the choice to use solid US intelligence (taps of Soviet officials) to help a potential American ally (Yeltsin) who is trying to establish a form of democracy in replacement of our major foreign enemy (USSR) is in my view completely defensible. Bush Sr. knew a ton about the Soviet hierarchy and how their government worked due to his experience as CIA chief & Vice President, so his decision to flout the law (problematic) is in my opinion understandable given the extreme extenuating circumstances that were involved here: the actual fall of the world's other superpower in the midst of a military coup. If that's not an emergency situation, I don't know what is.

Yeltsin at the time was the closest thing we had in Russia to a friend who could be used to help us end the Soviet Union and bring some semblance of democracy to that region. The fact that he later turned out to be a corrupt, drunken boor isn't really Bush's fault, and Clinton likely could have managed the relationship better. I think what you miss with Yeltsin is his (non)relationship with Putin, and the connection, or lack thereof, between the 1991 coup and the 2016 election interference. Putin was a relative political nonentity when he was brought in as Yeltsin's successor, having only previously been a KGB officer and a local St. Petersburg politician before coming into Yeltsin's orbit as a chief-of-staff-type figure and FSB director. Yeltsin seemed to only really want a successor who could assure him that he would not be criminally charged for his blatant and increasingly obvious corruption, which Putin seemingly would agree to.

Today, I think Putin is looking out for himself and his regime, which means doing what he can to destabilize the enemies of his state. Those include the United States, Europe, and Western institutions more broadly. That is why he has invaded Georgia and Ukraine, and has intervened and Syria and the 2016 elections. All are moves to undercut the international order and his enemies in the West in general.

RationalPolicy said:

First off, the choice to use solid US intelligence (taps of Soviet officials) to help a potential American ally (Yeltsin) who is trying to establish a form of democracy in replacement of our major foreign enemy (USSR) is in my view completely defensible. Bush Sr. knew a ton about the Soviet hierarchy and how their government worked due to his experience as CIA chief & Vice President, so his decision to flout the law (problematic) is in my opinion understandable given the extreme extenuating circumstances that were involved here: the actual fall of the world's other superpower in the midst of a military coup. If that's not an emergency situation, I don't know what is.

Click to expand...

I don't think 'problematic' really begins to describe it here, and is a blatant understatement of how egregiously it flies in the face of everything the 'rule of law' stands for. So, what you are saying is basically "when the President does it, it's not illegal?" Nobody is above the law, emergency situation or not. And it is fairly obvious that Yeltsin was corrupt and duplicitous from the get-go. He was never intending to establish a democracy. If he were, he wouldn't have groomed an Imperialist right-wing authoritarian like Vladimir Putin to be his successor and co-opted naive Bush administration officials to establish the Russian Federation kleptocracy we see today.

Yeltsin at the time was the closest thing we had in Russia to a friend who could be used to help us end the Soviet Union and bring some semblance of democracy to that region.

Click to expand...

Except there is no democracy, seeing how Vladimir Putin is ruthlessly crushing the opposition to maintain the status quo established by Yeltsin and Bush.

The fact that he later turned out to be a corrupt, drunken boor isn't really Bush's fault,

Click to expand...

He was the President of the United States at the time, meaning it was his responsibility. Is it not George W. Bush's fault that Iraq became destabilized along with neighboring Syria by ISIL filling the vaccuum formed by American troop presence that shouldn't have been there in the first place considering the fact it turned out that there were no WMD and Iraq had little to zero role in 9/11. Is it not Trump's fault that White Nationalism has become emboldened by his sowing of sectarian and racial strife and promotion of it based fallaciously on "defending the first amendment"? If you're going to base his supposed credibility in installing Yeltsin by his tenure as CIA head, then you must also acknowledge that he should have known based on his contacts in said intelligence apparatuses indicative therein. There is absolutely no excuse for why H.W. should have, or justified to have 1) meddled in Russian domestic politics, 2) lied to his own administration and legislature, 3) broken the law, and 4) supported an authoritarian and corrupt oligarch even if it wasn't completely 100% blatantly obvious.

and Clinton likely could have managed the relationship better.

Click to expand...

Agreed...

I think what you miss with Yeltsin is his (non)relationship with Putin, and the connection, or lack thereof, between the 1991 coup and the 2016 election interference. Putin was a relative political nonentity when he was brought in as Yeltsin's successor, having only previously been a KGB officer and a local St. Petersburg politician before coming into Yeltsin's orbit as a chief-of-staff-type figure and FSB director.

Click to expand...

I doesn't matter whether or not they had a personal relationship or not. Yeltsin appointed Putin to be his successor and groomed him for such. Also, you said,

Okay, so I agree with your general premise that the US has intervened/influenced the elections or governments of other nations for decades, so why should we be immune from the same,

Click to expand...

Which clashes with and contradicts

I think what you miss with Yeltsin is his (non)relationship with Putin, and the connection, or lack thereof, between the 1991 coup and the 2016 election interference. Putin was a relative political nonentity when he was brought in as Yeltsin's successor, having only previously been a KGB officer and a local St. Petersburg politician before coming into Yeltsin's orbit as a chief-of-staff-type figure and FSB director.

Click to expand...

This particular (fallacious) absolutism. To say you agree with the general premise of the articles indicative therein yet contradict yourself by saying there must either be 100% connection through personal relationships or 0% at all, is a logical fallacy.

Furthermore,

YELTSIN RESIGNS: THE OVERVIEW; Yeltsin Resigns, Naming Putin as Acting President To Run in March Election

Boris N. Yeltsin shocked his nation and the world today, announcing his resignation as president six months before the end of his term and handing over power to his favored successor, Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin.

Click to expand...

They may have been two completely different people with different views (which weren't all that different in all actuality) in the private sphere, but in public they unquestionably contributed to one another far, Far FAR more than Yeltsin and Gorbachev. Even if Yeltsin and Putin (in some alternate reality) hated each other out-and-out as much as Gorbachev and Yeltsin (which is patently absurd to even TRY to make an attempt at crafting a narrative thereof, you'll get laughed off this site by the historians here if you do that), there is no doubt that the elevation of Yeltsin inevitably would result in Putin taking power unless some unforeseen circumstances and/or crises comparable to that of the the 1991 coup-de-tat attempt were to unfold (in fact the Chechnya wars would CONTRIBUTE to Putin's rise, ironically enough), as it is commonly accepted fact and knowledge that Yeltsin's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was relevant for the simple fact alone that he was Yeltsin's second-in-command,

Mr. Putin, 47, is the latest and most popular of a string of prime ministers Mr. Yeltsin had appointed in hopes of finding a malleable and viable successor. Since his appointment in August, Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. official, has become Russia's most popular politician because of his tough-minded conduct of the war in Chechnya. He is now more than ever considered a strong favorite for the March elections.

There was speculation in Moscow that one factor in Mr. Yeltsin's timing was to push Mr. Putin forward before the war in Chechnya could begin to sour and his ratings to fall. One of Mr. Putin's first decrees as acting president was to grant Mr. Yeltsin immunity from criminal or administrative investigations, including protection of his papers, residence and other possessions from search and seizure. The decree, however, granted legal protection only to Mr. Yeltsin, and not to his relatives or aides.

Click to expand...

Yeltsin laid the foundation for the Russia Putin built

On July 3, 1996, Boris Yeltsin (right in photo) was re-elected with 53.8 percent of the vote - 13 points ahead of his opponent, Gennady Zyuganov of the Communist Party. A clear victory was anything but certain, and the ramifications continue to resonate two decades later, with the reign of President Vladimir Putin (left in photo).

Click to expand...

It was also under Yeltsin (shortly after his reelection) that Putin became the head of the FSB, the successor to the KGB.

Today, I think Putin is looking out for himself and his regime, which means doing what he can to destabilize the enemies of his state. Those include the United States, Europe, and Western institutions more broadly. That is why he has invaded Georgia and Ukraine, and has intervened and Syria and the 2016 elections. All are moves to undercut the international order and his enemies in the West in general.

Click to expand...

Still, the effect of this blow-back of such scale that it is clouding the ability of the establishment to think logically about the real root cause of the problem, and neglecting to acknowledge the fact that Putin and Trump are symptoms, is compounding the issue and is comparable to the arming of Al-Qaeda against the Soviet Union in the Cold War on steroids, except this time we armed a rival power with crucial knowledge of internal mechanisms of the U.S. Government which they have had through Yeltsin and now Putin.

And the correlation of the U.S. meddling in their elections to Russia meddling in ours cannot be stressed enough.