2 ms·
I do not disagree with you. This article does not cover current campaigns nor does it cover "controversial" campaigns. For example the bugging of Angela Merkel
by chvid 6y ago
I do not disagree with you.
This article does not cover current campaigns nor does it cover "controversial" campaigns. For example the bugging of Angela Merkel and similar interferrence in the politics of allies. The article is interesting none the less - in a from the horse's mouth sort of a way.
Also the numbers are interesting: Spending 40 mio usd in Serbian politics. Given what Serbia's GDP was in the year 2000, that would correspond to a foreign government spending billions of dollars trying to sway US politics.
- cycomanic 6y agoI also agree with you that the article is interesting. It would have been nice if the journalists would have asked some tougher questions though. Your point about the spending in Serbia is a good one, I had not thought about it that way.
- 082349872349872 6y agoNot a journalist, but an author. I would not be surprised if he'd softballed this piece to get it into FA, as the tone of the book (judging solely by its cover) appears darker[1]. (there's also a question of access, and he has CIA endorsement blurbs...) I've seen claims on Runet (from, I'm guessing, ER voters) that Yeltsin had been a "Washington Consensus" puppet. On the other hand, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin_1996_presidential_campaign#Team_of_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin_1996_presidentia... minimises the Americans' role. We might hope to know the truth sometime before 2096. (there are JFK files which are still classified) [1] then again, election finessing is actually mild compared with Operation Condor, which only came out around the turn of the century.