Over Putin worden de meest vreemde dingen verteld, zo zou hij o.a. corrupt zijn en zich zo verrijken middels zijn functie als president van Rusland.

Niet dat men met bewijzen komt waarmee e.e.a. wordt aangetoond, maar dat maakt niet uit, immers Putin is de kwaaie pier en barbertje moet hangen, daarvoor houdt men met grote graagte leugens in de lucht, of die leugens nu van de media, politiek of de geheime diensten komen (leugens die men uiteraard  van elkaar overneemt en steunt door deze te herhalen…)….

Voorlopig heeft Putin voorkomen dat in Syrie de boel niet veel verder escaleerde, neem de belachelijke beschieting van het vliegveld van Homs, na de zoveelste vermeende gifgasaanval van het Syrische leger, die ook in dit geval niet bleek te kloppen…… Vandaag wordt het Syrische leger weer beschuldigd van het aanvallen van doelen in de provincie Idlib met chlorine (chloorgas)…..

BBC World Service meldde rond 11.35 u. (CET) vanmorgen dat het Syrische leger gifgas zou hebben gebruikt bij een aanval in de provincie Idlib. Het bewijs daarvoor? Een woordvoerder van de White Helmets had e.e.a. van horen zeggen, voorts heeft de BBC correspondent Martin Patience ook van alles gehoord, terwijl hij in Beiroet (Libanon) zit……..

De woordvoerder van de White Helmets voerde de haat tegen Syrië verder op, door te stellen dat het in Idlib om veel vluchtelingen gaat die uit Aleppo zijn gevlucht en wel een kwart miljoen mensen……. Het grootste deel van de bewoners van Aleppo is al lang terug, blij dat de fundamentalistische terreurgroepen (‘gematigde rebellen’) niets meer te vertellen hebben in hun stad….. De bedoelde vluchtelingen zijn dan ook voornamelijk families van de terreurgroepen die in Aleppo op basis van de sharia wetgeving, een ware terreur uitoefenden, voordat het Syrische leger de stad weer innam………

De presentator van het BBC programma had het lef te durven zeggen dat (de bewering dat Syrië gifgas heeft gebruikt): “This is proven (to be true….)”

Door naar een ‘wat eerlijker’ verhaal over Putin:

Is
Putin Profoundly Corrupt or “Incorruptible?”

Sharon
Tennison recounts her personal experience of and observations about
Vladimir Putin

By Sharon Tennison

Sharon
Tennison recounts her personal experience of and observations about
Vladimir Putin. first published in 2014 and first appearing on this
site in April 2017, we are re-airing this alternative analysis in the
year of the Russian presidential election as being of continuing
relevance in the struggle to separate truth from #fakenews. Tennison
presents a view of VVP as essentially “incorruptible”. To those
who get their information from the mainstream media, and even from
many alternative news sites this will seem a slightly incredible
idea. Yet Tennison’s opinion is not unsourced or unconsidered. And
the numerous claims of Putin’s massive personal wealth and
“gangster” mentality remain entirely uncorroborated. Where does
the truth lie?

February
04, 2018 “Information
Clearing House” – As the Ukraine situation has
worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on
Russia and Vladimir Putin. Journalists and pundits must scour the
Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to
describe both. Wherever I make presentations across America, the
first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, “What
about Putin?” It’s time to share my thoughts which follow:

Putin
obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier
experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including
U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of
years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally
inventive man.

He
is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an
excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work
toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been
steadily leveled at him since he became Russia’s second president.

I’ve
stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it
began in the early 2000s –– I pondered on computer my thoughts
and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was
published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly
than this article.

Like
others who have had direct experience with this little known man,
I’ve tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin
apologist”. If one is even neutral about him, they are considered
“soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who
get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

I
don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR
and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have
had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes
across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that
matter any of Washington’s officials.

I’ve
been in country long enough to ponder on Russian history and culture
deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand
the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which
so complicate our political relations with their leaders.

As
with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it
takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable
relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has
been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and
attempting to meet Russia halfway.

In
addition to my personal experience with Putin, I’ve had discussions
with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had
years of experience working with him––I believe it is safe to say
that none would describe him as “brutal” or “thuggish”, or
the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in
western media.

I
met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia,
as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since
all of the slander started, I’ve become nearly obsessed with
understanding his character. I think I’ve read every major speech
he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long
telephone “talk-ins” with Russian citizens).

I’ve
been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since
being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight
character cast into a role he never anticipated––and is using
sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under
extremely difficult circumstances.

If
the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks
for his performance over the past 14 years. It’s not by accident
that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing
Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one
personal experience with Putin.

The
year was 1992

It
was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was
St.Petersburg.

For
years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the
two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their
entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in
my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the
Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made.

My
friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to
the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown
office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit.

He
inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I
provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my
answers, he asked the next relevant question.

I
became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet
bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with
foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the
Americans’ requests. CCI stood
on the principle that we would never, never give bribes.

This
bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After
more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly
explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was
legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few
good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply
and kindly showed us to the door.

Out
on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “Volodya,
this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat
who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!”

I
remember looking at his business card in the sunlight––it
read Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin.

1994

U.S.
Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in
St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American
Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in
the next three days. He needed immediate help.

I
scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to
brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador.

I
was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were
furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted
them to hear the”good news” about CCI’s programs that were
showing fine results. In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up
“home” meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs’ small
apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State
Department people were aghast, since it had never been done
before––but Jack overruled).

Only
later in 2000, did I learn of Jack’s former three-year experience
with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the
city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.

December
31, 1999

With
no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the
announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was
vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown
Vladimir Putin.

On
hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered––he
could never lead Russia. The next day a NYTarticle
included a photo.

Yes,
it was the same Putin I’d met years ago! I was shocked and
dismayed, telling friends, “This
is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he is too
introverted and too intelligent––he will never be able to relate
to Russia’s masses.”

Further,
I lamented: “For
Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The
arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the
Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses
(governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions”.

It
was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the
instincts or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.

February
2000

Almost
immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge. In
February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a
question and his answer:

What
should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as
anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair
shop.

This
was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to
flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the
Kremlin. It also made the West’s capitalists nervous.

After
all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen––good
capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and
were putting their profits in offshore banks.

Four
months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them
his deal:

They
could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises
and they would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their
revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics.

This
was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near
impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put
Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to
champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

The
latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to
being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major
portion of Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to
Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures,
Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).

March
2000

I
arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since
1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, “Lena
what do you think about your new president?”
She laughed and retorted, “Volodya!
I went to school with him!”

She
began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial
arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She
remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB
prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and
told him to get an education).

He
went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have
grimaced at this, because Lena said:

Sharon
in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who
worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We
thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career.

My
next question was:

What
do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?

Putting
on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied:

If
left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be
sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them
know that he is watching. If they don’t respond, he will address
them personally, then if the behaviors don’t change–– some will
be in prison in a couple of years.

I
congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in
real time.

Throughout
the 2000s

St.Petersburg’s
many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP
business training program was working and how we could make the U.S.
experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most
believed that the program had been enormously important, even life
changing. Last, each was asked:

So
what do you think of your new president?

None
responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated
Russia’s bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, “Putin registered
my business a few years ago”.

Next
question:

So,
how much did it cost you?

To
a person they replied, “Putin
didn’t charge anything”.
One said:

We
went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at
the Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.’

Late
2000

Into
Putin’s first year as Russia’s president, US officials seemed to
me to be suspect that he would be antithetical to America’s
interests––his every move was called into question in American
media. I couldn’t understand why and was chronicling these
happenings in my computer and newsletters.

Year
2001

Jack
Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship
with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two
of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to
promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin
was always straight up, courteous and helpful.

When
Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the
liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and
airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told
Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous
offer, but ended saying that he couldn’t accept this favor, that
Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital.

She
did––although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the
1990s.

A
senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely
with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He
reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable,
that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour
reputation from U.S. media.

Matter
of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about
Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn’t be acceptable if others were
listening.

Another
former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working
closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery,
pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.

I
had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding
Putin:

At
the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously
yearned to get answered:

When
did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why??

Without
hesitating the answer came back:

The
knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the
next president.”

I
questioned WHY? The
answer:

I
could never find out why––maybe because he was KGB.”

I
offered that Bush #I, was head of the CIA. The reply was

That
would have made no difference, he was our guy.

The
second was a former State Department official with whom I recently
shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting,
I remarked, “You might be interested to know that I’ve collected
experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of
years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin
and there was no evidence of taking bribes”. He firmly replied:

No
one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against
Putin.”

From
2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting
against Putin …. even accusations of assassinations, poisonings,
and comparing him to Hitler.

No
one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations.
During this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times
every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s
watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in
place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were
growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were
becoming stocked with food.

Alcohol
challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and
life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the
country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places,
and the banking industry was becoming dependable. Russia was
beginning to look like a decent country –– certainly not where
Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for
the first time in their memories.

My
2013/14 Trips to Russia:

In
addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to
the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm.
We traveled between cities via autos and rail––the fields and
forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction.
Today’s Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from
China).

Old
concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story
private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business
centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place––and
ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private
homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow.

We
visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets.
Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now,
service stations look like those dotting American highways. In
January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new
architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable with constant
snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of
new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have
appeared.

It
is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14
years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s
presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.

So
why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???

Like
Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?

Psychologists
tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they
don’t want to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow”
when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we
are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.

Could
this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?

Could
it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our
leaders?

Could
it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the
corruption within our corporate world doesn’t exist?

Could
it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing
the fact that we haven’t solved our own?

Could
it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR”––because
of what we do to remain the world’s “hegemon”?

Could
it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that
is what we have become and we don’t want to face it?

Could
it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we
have done over the past several administrations?

Some
of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your
opinions, pro and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It’s
important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and
get the record straight. I’m quite sure that 99% of those who
excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with
him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication,
or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters.
This is how our nation gets its “news”, such as it is.

There
is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair,
Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for
All Concerned?

It
seems to me that if our nation’s leaders would commit to using
these four principles in international relations, the world would
operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across
this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.

As
always your comments will be appreciated. Please resend this report
to as many friends and colleagues as possible.

Sharon
Tennison ran a successful NGO funded by philanthropists, American
foundations, USAID and Department of State, designing new programs
and refining old ones, and evaluating Russian delegates’ U.S.
experiences for over 20 years. Tennison adapted the Marshall Plan
Tours from the 40s/50s, and created the Production Enhancement
Program (PEP) for Russian entrepreneurs, the largest ever business
training program between the U.S. and Russia. Running several large
programs concurrently during the 90s and 2000s, funding disappeared
shortly after the 2008 financial crisis set in. Tennison still runs
an orphanage program in Russia, is President and Founder, Center for
Citizen Initiatives, a member of Rotary Club of Palo Alto,
California, and author of The
Power of Impossible Ideas: Ordinary Citizens’ Extraordinary Efforts
to Avert International Crises.
The author can be contacted at sharon@ccisf.org

This
article was originally published by “Off Guardian”
–