Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's hard to characterise the "movement" the article is critiquing because it isn't a movement, still less a neoconservative conspiracy against Russia. (personally if I wanted to facilitate the spread of liberal ideas in Russia, the very last thing I'd do is boost US power to be a convenient bogeyman for Russians to unite against)

The idea that the Guardian is reluctant to publish anything likely to unduly upset multinational corporations or powerful Westerners - as expressed in the original article - is a bit hard to take seriously if you've ever read the Guardian.

The idea that liberals are actually part of some general movement to orchestrate a "move to a unipolar world" because they have the temerity to criticise Russian policy (as well as US policy, especially US interventionism) is lunacy.




You say "personally if I wanted to facilitate the spread of liberal ideas in Russia, the very last thing I'd do is boost US power to be a convenient bogeyman for Russians to unite against", and characterize my ideas as a "conspiracy", but how else can you explain how the groups I described united to support the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine[1]?

The liberals I'm referring to are certainly not especially critical of US interventionism. I'm not referring to Chomsky or even Bernie Sanders here, I'm talking about George Soros and his camp.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

The Democratic party's National Democratic Institute, the Republican party's International Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros's open society institute.

US pollsters and professional consultants are hired to organise focus groups and use psephological data to plot strategy.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: