zlacker

>>pepys+(OP)
When the Soviet Union fell apart BBC opened a number of journalism schools in Russia. The schools were sponsored by George Soros. My dad attended one of those and then was called into FSB office (former KGB) to be questioned.

My suspicion to this day is that these schools were both a spy front and long-game propaganda, where they were teaching how to make news more western-aligned.

Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? How do they benefit from that? How does Soros benefit from that?

>>moltar+o88
The goal there is similar to why the US state department sponsored the Tor project. They want a democratic society in Russia, and they want the Russian people to have friendly views of the west. The objective wasn't so much to teach them their ways, but to establish rapport with the journalism community in Russia. Journalists decide if for example Putin's power grabbing and dictatorship is covered as a negative or a positive thing. That rapport goes a long way with influencing their unavoidable bias. I think "influence" is correct, not "propaganda" unless there was specific messaging being disseminated.

Also, look up "confucius institutes" all over the US and the world setup the Chinese government to do something similar.

>>notepa+Ab8
>They want a democratic society in Russia

They don't give a damn about democracy. There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America. Hell, they even helped steal the 1996 Russian election.

>>sudden+El8
Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them.

>>There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America

And that is for the exact reason I mentioned above. With a democracy it's just much easier to make sure the government is alligned with you(look at American meddling in UK politics), with a tsar like Putin it's not, because at this point he's beyond bribery or red carpets rolled out for him. So sure, for now anyone with any kind of position of power will tell you that they would support democracy in Russia - because then there is hope normal trading relationships could be restored and money made.

This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not.

>>gambit+Mq8
> Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them.

I would say that's partly true, but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil? Not having to fight wars with russia seems to be the overarching goal (proxy, cold or any other type of 'war').

> This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not.

Yes, as it should. I don't know why people expect the US to be some beacon of global morality or democracy. First and foremost, the people of the US expect their government to protect their security and economic prosperity, we don't car as much about our "image".