6 ms·

1. It is great this this information is published. People should know about these crimes. I sincerely hope that all involved with rot in jail (or worse, for all

1. It is great this this information is published. People should know about these crimes. I sincerely hope that all involved with rot in jail (or worse, for all I care). It would be even better if it also would drop the curtain on the people who (so far) remained out of view in all this. 2. What is absent (surprisingly, if you're naive), both in this publication and in general regarding the topic, is the relationship between Russian oligarchs, their rise to power after the collapse of the USSR, and the assistance they got from mostly foreign/US "advisers", "investors" and "businessmen". All of which were eager to at least make as much profit from the chaos, and probably had full blessing of the US government to corrupt Russia as much as they could. 3. Somehow, the foreign individuals who played key roles in creating the Russian "reality" as it exists today, just happen to (mostly) stay out of view in every publication. That some of these individuals are themselves under investigation in Russia, some of which lost much of their "gains" made in Russia, and now some of the most vocal driving factors behind the current anti-Russia rhetoric/hysteria in the USA, can of course be all just coincidence. 4. Looking at the list of supporting organizations on the OCCRP's web site, it would be rather extraordinary if this publication does not have a political bias, since many of these supporters have rather blatantly open political agendas (with some of them at least being suspect of being criminal organizations in their own right). 5. What if this publication is first and foremost a political chess move, in a large scale turf war between competing criminal organizations? All of which are effectively outside the reach of legal scrutiny. I do not claim that this is the case, but it might be worth considering.

mprev 8y ago
I don’t deny that there is more to all of this than most of us see. However, much of your comment leaves me feeling “citation needed”. What supporting material can you link to?
- elmo2you 8y ago
  I understand that feeling and I agree that it requires citations. Yet, I will not give any. I have my reasons for that. Either way, a little bit of personal digging should unearth more than enough to keep one reading for a while. On the other hand, feel equally free to consider/dismiss it all as mere speculation.
free652 8y ago
> What is absent (surprisingly, if you're naive), As someone that is a lot more familiar with the situation, Russian elite didn't need help to be corrupted. They were already corrupted to the core.
- elmo2you 8y ago
  You are no doubt right that the Russian elite was already corrupted to the core, when the USSR collapsed. I can not confirm/deny whether you are more or less familiar with the situation. Still, and this is in no way unique to Russia, when a country goes through a chaotic "restructuring" (like the collapse of the USSR), assistance from "instruments" provided by (more stable) foreign institutions/individuals will open opportunities to criminals that would otherwise be far out of their reach. I do not claim that it was not the Russian elite that did this to their own country (I believe they did). But without the foreign support/facilitation, it may never have gone as far and "successful" as it did. In general, because Russia is definitely not the only country that suffers from this phenomenon, the success and perseverance of this kind of kleptocracy usually leans a lot on cross-border assistance/facilitation. Without it, people would actually have a change to do something about it. But in reality, they often do not (as in Russia).
  - free652 8y ago
    >I can not confirm/deny whether you are more or less familiar with the situation. "Great" arguments.
    - elmo2you 8y ago
      It's not an argument at all. I'm just stating that I do not claim to know more (or less) about the matter than you do. I don't have the knowledge to make such a claim. You, on the other hand, apparently (think you) do.
mrleiter 8y ago
>4. Looking at the list of supporting organizations on the OCCRP's web site, it would be rather extraordinary if this publication does not have a political bias, since many of these supporters have rather blatantly open political agendas (with some of them at least being suspect of being criminal organizations in their own right). What are the blatantly open political agendas of those supporters? I'm asking seriously. All seem to be about human rights and civic societies and so forth.
- dpwm 8y ago
  Well, US Agency for International Development is one of them. Whilst I have no doubt it has done some good stuff, it's also been directly involved in funding attempts at regime change. This usually done under the guise of promoting democracy – often in places that were once US puppet-states. It's interesting that the US speaks of promoting democracy, when it is fiercely supportive of some of the least democratic states. If USAID's plans would be so widely supported by the US taxpayer, words like "discreetly" [0] should not need to be used. [0] https://www.scribd.com/document/122217408/USAID-DAI-Contract https://www.scribd.com/document/122217408/USAID-DAI-Contract
  - mrleiter 8y ago
    Thanks! Very interesting document.
- elmo2you 8y ago
  > All seem to be about human rights and civic societies and so forth. That is indeed what it says on the label, doesn't it? Yet, most (if not all) of the supporters hail from countries that have an active (some may argue: notoriously aggressive) foreign policy towards Russia. At best, they all belong to a group of countries that (especially in recent years) has been known to be far from balanced and unbiased (regarding anything but their own interests, international law and human rights included). Maybe (even) more telling, what's missing are the organizations from countries that do not belong to this "front against Russia" group of countries. While most of these organizations claim to be independent of their host country's governments, many of them have a proven track record of going beyond their stated mandate, and actively promote (or even force) the political foreign policies of their host country, often under the guise of "humanitarian aid" or spreading "freedom and democracy". (use Google; it's not rocket science) Just as a practical example (already mentioned partially by somebody else), USAID is supposed to be an independent organization, yet it operates subject to the guidance of the US President, Secretary of State, and the National Security Council. Can somebody open a dictionary and search for the meaning of "independent"? I can/will not blame anybody for not believing me (fair enough), for I will not give specifics. But I have personally witnessed several of these organizations doing things (in particular in the South-East of Europe) that would get them into (legal) trouble if they would do the same "at home". At least on a personal level, that is enough for me to be suspicious about the real motives of these organizations. Maybe not so much regarding their volunteers, which I believe have (mostly) good (but often misguides/arrogant/brainwashed) intentions, but regarding the higher-up management, I am far less positive.
pjc50 8y ago
I'll grant you 1 and 2, but accusing the OCCRP of being a front for organised crime is a huge accusation and sounds exactly like how a campaign to discredit independent journalism would sound. It is not a bad thing in and of itself to have a political agenda, so long as it's overt.
- elmo2you 8y ago
  I am aware that it is a huge accusation. And I am not making any claim that it is. But there are definitely a number of things about this organization that make alarm bells ring. I agree that there isn't anything wrong with a political agenda (as long as it is overt), but that's exactly the problem here. Many of the OCCRP supporters are know for officially pretending to be non-political, yet having track records to the contrary. It's entirely possible the the OCCRP itself is not aware of whatever political agenda they may serve. From their perspective, any exposed crime might be a good thing (and I agree with that). However, it is the absence of information I would expect to be part of their data/investigation (as was the case with their Panama Papers), that makes me suspicious of the real goals behind this operation (which might go way beyond the awareness of OCCRP itself).
  - pudo 8y ago
    Hi. I work at OCCRP. I understand and appreciate your concerns. Our organisation has a simple goal: uncovering what happened in places where that does not happen much. That can only ever be done partially (which opens any news media up to accusations of bias - often justified). But I think it's a worthwhile thing to do. Please don't think that people at OCCRP are unaware that they are acting in a political context. Working there for the past few years, I've become more and more convinced that our reporters and editors are controlled by strong professional ethics and a real desire to get the deeper levels of a story. Money-wise: I'd love for us to be funded by non-political funds. Can you name any? We do a niche thing that is extremely expensive, advertising and subscriptions don't give us a workable math.

mprev 8y ago

I don’t deny that there is more to all of this than most of us see. However, much of your comment leaves me feeling “citation needed”. What supporting material can you link to?

elmo2you 8y ago
I understand that feeling and I agree that it requires citations. Yet, I will not give any. I have my reasons for that. Either way, a little bit of personal digging should unearth more than enough to keep one reading for a while. On the other hand, feel equally free to consider/dismiss it all as mere speculation.

free652 8y ago

> What is absent (surprisingly, if you're naive), As someone that is a lot more familiar with the situation, Russian elite didn't need help to be corrupted. They were already corrupted to the core.

elmo2you 8y ago
You are no doubt right that the Russian elite was already corrupted to the core, when the USSR collapsed. I can not confirm/deny whether you are more or less familiar with the situation. Still, and this is in no way unique to Russia, when a country goes through a chaotic "restructuring" (like the collapse of the USSR), assistance from "instruments" provided by (more stable) foreign institutions/individuals will open opportunities to criminals that would otherwise be far out of their reach. I do not claim that it was not the Russian elite that did this to their own country (I believe they did). But without the foreign support/facilitation, it may never have gone as far and "successful" as it did. In general, because Russia is definitely not the only country that suffers from this phenomenon, the success and perseverance of this kind of kleptocracy usually leans a lot on cross-border assistance/facilitation. Without it, people would actually have a change to do something about it. But in reality, they often do not (as in Russia).
- free652 8y ago
  >I can not confirm/deny whether you are more or less familiar with the situation. "Great" arguments.
  - elmo2you 8y ago
    It's not an argument at all. I'm just stating that I do not claim to know more (or less) about the matter than you do. I don't have the knowledge to make such a claim. You, on the other hand, apparently (think you) do.

mrleiter 8y ago

>4. Looking at the list of supporting organizations on the OCCRP's web site, it would be rather extraordinary if this publication does not have a political bias, since many of these supporters have rather blatantly open political agendas (with some of them at least being suspect of being criminal organizations in their own right). What are the blatantly open political agendas of those supporters? I'm asking seriously. All seem to be about human rights and civic societies and so forth.

dpwm 8y ago
Well, US Agency for International Development is one of them. Whilst I have no doubt it has done some good stuff, it's also been directly involved in funding attempts at regime change. This usually done under the guise of promoting democracy – often in places that were once US puppet-states. It's interesting that the US speaks of promoting democracy, when it is fiercely supportive of some of the least democratic states. If USAID's plans would be so widely supported by the US taxpayer, words like "discreetly" [0] should not need to be used. [0] https://www.scribd.com/document/122217408/USAID-DAI-Contract https://www.scribd.com/document/122217408/USAID-DAI-Contract
- mrleiter 8y ago
  Thanks! Very interesting document.
elmo2you 8y ago
> All seem to be about human rights and civic societies and so forth. That is indeed what it says on the label, doesn't it? Yet, most (if not all) of the supporters hail from countries that have an active (some may argue: notoriously aggressive) foreign policy towards Russia. At best, they all belong to a group of countries that (especially in recent years) has been known to be far from balanced and unbiased (regarding anything but their own interests, international law and human rights included). Maybe (even) more telling, what's missing are the organizations from countries that do not belong to this "front against Russia" group of countries. While most of these organizations claim to be independent of their host country's governments, many of them have a proven track record of going beyond their stated mandate, and actively promote (or even force) the political foreign policies of their host country, often under the guise of "humanitarian aid" or spreading "freedom and democracy". (use Google; it's not rocket science) Just as a practical example (already mentioned partially by somebody else), USAID is supposed to be an independent organization, yet it operates subject to the guidance of the US President, Secretary of State, and the National Security Council. Can somebody open a dictionary and search for the meaning of "independent"? I can/will not blame anybody for not believing me (fair enough), for I will not give specifics. But I have personally witnessed several of these organizations doing things (in particular in the South-East of Europe) that would get them into (legal) trouble if they would do the same "at home". At least on a personal level, that is enough for me to be suspicious about the real motives of these organizations. Maybe not so much regarding their volunteers, which I believe have (mostly) good (but often misguides/arrogant/brainwashed) intentions, but regarding the higher-up management, I am far less positive.

pjc50 8y ago

I'll grant you 1 and 2, but accusing the OCCRP of being a front for organised crime is a huge accusation and sounds exactly like how a campaign to discredit independent journalism would sound. It is not a bad thing in and of itself to have a political agenda, so long as it's overt.

elmo2you 8y ago
I am aware that it is a huge accusation. And I am not making any claim that it is. But there are definitely a number of things about this organization that make alarm bells ring. I agree that there isn't anything wrong with a political agenda (as long as it is overt), but that's exactly the problem here. Many of the OCCRP supporters are know for officially pretending to be non-political, yet having track records to the contrary. It's entirely possible the the OCCRP itself is not aware of whatever political agenda they may serve. From their perspective, any exposed crime might be a good thing (and I agree with that). However, it is the absence of information I would expect to be part of their data/investigation (as was the case with their Panama Papers), that makes me suspicious of the real goals behind this operation (which might go way beyond the awareness of OCCRP itself).
- pudo 8y ago
  Hi. I work at OCCRP. I understand and appreciate your concerns. Our organisation has a simple goal: uncovering what happened in places where that does not happen much. That can only ever be done partially (which opens any news media up to accusations of bias - often justified). But I think it's a worthwhile thing to do. Please don't think that people at OCCRP are unaware that they are acting in a political context. Working there for the past few years, I've become more and more convinced that our reporters and editors are controlled by strong professional ethics and a real desire to get the deeper levels of a story. Money-wise: I'd love for us to be funded by non-political funds. Can you name any? We do a niche thing that is extremely expensive, advertising and subscriptions don't give us a workable math.