Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

Politics

Russian presidential candidate is offended RT questioned her outrageous phone behavior

Kseniya Sobchak angrily interrupted the interviewer when asked about a rude phone call which has become public

Published

on

0 Views

Presidential hopeful Ksenia Sobchak slams RT Journalists, for criticizing her very offensive behavior which she didn’t even deny doing!

During an interview, RT’S Oksana Boyko discussed Sobchak’s platform in a fair and balanced way, but when the journalist wanted to discuss Sobcak’s own actions, the “candidate against all” felt she was above scrutiny.

RT reports:

Boyko suggested that a certain part of the Russian public sees Sobchak as quite a snobbish person, because of past public statements and some leaked telephone conversations. In particular, she referred to a 2013 leaked phone conversation between Sobchak and her house manager, in which she complained about noise caused by repairs in the building and about noise restrictions that would allow children to have a short nap during the day.

After the leak initially appeared on the internet, it drew some attention from the press and the public – mostly because of Sobchak’s extremely rude language and manners, along with statements like: “If you plan to have some sort of ‘quiet hours’ for these little bastards, I will be having rave parties at exactly this time,” as quoted in a report by Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper.

The election hopeful interrupted the interviewer and began shouting that she would not answer the question because the leak had resulted from eavesdropping by Russia’s federal security service, the FSB. Sobchak also noted that she has a right to say anything during her private conversations, or write anything in her private correspondence, adding that it was unethical for reporters to bring up such things in interviews.

Apparently, it’s unacceptable to criticize someone’s poor behavior, if they didn’t want said behavior to become public. Apparently, people cannot be scrutinized for poor behavior, or expected to answer for it, so long as that behavior was in private.

Sobchak’s line of defense in the story is not new. Back in 2013, she first claimed that the recording of the conversation had been heavily doctored, and the comment about the “little bastards” was taken out of context. A short time later, she switched to portraying herself as the victim of unnamed pranksters with alleged connections to the Kremlin.

He excuse and blatant evasion of responsibility reminds me of a story on the 29th of January, when a youtuber, Ayra Mosallah, threw water in the face of London pedestrians in a “prank” video. His actions caused outrage, as London is suffering an acid attack epidemic, and his water “prank” terrified several people initially. He defended his vastly inappropriate behavior as the typical “it’s just a prank”.

He claimed he was being “slandered”, because the media drew attention to the actions which generated outrage, the very actions that he didn’t deny doing. This brings up a really good point that must be hammered home, as we have seen this pandemic – a failure to talk responsibility for ones own actions – happen all to often lately.

Thanks to the internet, something you say, write, or do, can be immortalized for potentially centuries to come. A Public figure is slammed for doing something inappropriate, and instead of denying the actions due to the existence of proof, they begin to say they are being slandered by the media.

News Flash: When journalists, critics, or the general populace calls you out for something you don’t deny doing, something which makes you look like a complete moron, unimaginably cruel, or profoundly insane, that’s not slander!

People who criticize you for massively offensive (and possibly criminal) actions are not “haters”, they may or may not hate you, but it’s not hateful to point out when someone is doing something deplorable or otherwise unethical.

In the case of Miss Sobchak, we have seen another defense, that her statements were “taken out of context” as RT reports.

If that is true, then that is a valid argument. President Putin’s comments are constantly taken out of context. Take for example when he speaks about the tragedy of the fall of the Soviet Union (he wasn’t talking about communism or political power, he was talking about a humanitarian tragedy), or when he spoke about Lenin’s body being similar to the idea of venerating Orthodox relics, (he wasn’t saying he believes Lenin is a Saint, he is saying the Bolsheviks stole the idea from Orthodox people). We discussed how the west misunderstands him in great detail here.

In our day and age, it is all too common for overly sensitive people to become offended at everything, and for journalists to rush to publish any statement before fact-checking or clarifying.

In the case of Miss Sobchak, if her arguments are truly taken out of context, and we can only truly know if we were there, then she may have a valid argument, however, it seems as if she isn’t denying saying the actual words.

It’s like if someone says “Those children are hideously ugly” and then says “That was out of context! I was referring to their outfits, not to their faces!”. The defense falls flat.

It seems like Miss Sobchak did indeed say what she said, but her argument seems to actually be the media has no right to report on it, (you can tell she is embracing western democracy there) along with the infamous “that isn’t me, that’s not who I am as a person”, that we hear ad nauseum.

Anytime a poor innocent girl is sexually assaulted, or a mother leaves her children unattended and they get injured, or someone spouts a racial slur that goes viral, we constantly hear from the criminal about how that’s not really them. How they are actually a devout feminist, or a dedicated mother, or we get a long list of how many friends of X race that person has, and how they love “those people”.

This happens especially when alcohol is involved, apparently drinking turns you magically into a different person, and whatever you do while intoxicated can’t be blamed on you. People make mistakes, but some mistakes can’t be washed away by claiming you just weren’t feeling like yourself, or your incredibly vile behavior was just misunderstood.

In this situation, Miss Sobchak was rude to RT’s Oksana Boyko, when being interviewed about her actions, switching the subject, and threatening to contact the authorities if reporters continue to criticize her outrageous behavior.

According to RT:

Oksana Boyko said she did not consider the issue to be Sobchak’s private affairs, and it should not be protected from scrutiny by the press. Instead, it was an insight into how someone who is seeking a top public post communicates and negotiates with her neighbors.

That is the issue at hand: Sobchak claims she is against corruption, for an open and fair media (so long as they criticize her opponents), but seemingly becomes infuriated when the media criticizes her.

Anyone with aspirations to become a Head of State must understand they are no longer a private figure, they forfeited that right the moment they expected people to grant them the senior executive post.

Such a person would do well to understand that their actions have real consequences, especially know when anything you say can be remembered forever.

In all, it is this failure to take responsibility for one’s own actions that is plaguing the world today.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

US continues to try to corner Russia with silence on Nukes

Moscow continues to be patient in what appears to be an ever more lopsided, intentional stonewalling situation provoked by the Americans.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

TASS reported on March 17th that despite Russian readiness to discuss the present problem of strategic weapons deployments and disarmament with its counterparts in the United States, the Americans have not offered Russia any proposals to conduct such talks.

The Kremlin has not yet received any particular proposals on the talks over issues of strategic stability and disarmament from Washington, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Sunday when commenting on the statement made by US National Security Adviser John Bolton who did not rule out that such talks could be held with Russia and China.

“No intelligible proposals has been received [from the US] so far,” Peskov said.

Earlier Bolton said in an interview with radio host John Catsimatidis aired on Sunday that he considers it reasonable to include China in the negotiation on those issues with Russia as well.

“China is building up its nuclear capacity now. It’s one of the reasons why we’re looking at strengthening our national missile defense system here in the United States. And it’s one reason why, if we’re going to have another arms control negotiation, for example, with the Russians, it may make sense to include China in that discussion as well,” he said.

Mr. Bolton’s sense about this particular aspect of any arms discussions is correct, as China was not formerly a player in geopolitical affairs the way it is now. The now all-but-scrapped Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, was a treaty concluded by the US and the USSR leaders Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, back in 1987. However, for in succeeding decades, most notably since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been gradually building up weaponry in what appears to be an attempt to create a ring around the Russian Federation, a situation which is understandably increasingly untenable to the Russian government.

Both sides have accused one another of violating this treaty, and the mutual violations and recriminations on top of a host of other (largely fabricated) allegations against the Russian government’s activities led US President Donald Trump to announce his nation’s withdrawal from the treaty, formally suspending it on 1 February. Russian President Vladimir Putin followed suit by suspending it the very next day.

The INF eliminated all of both nations’ land based ballistic and cruise missiles that had a range between 500 and 1000 kilometers (310-620 miles) and also those that had ranges between 1000 and 5500 km (620-3420 miles) and their launchers.

This meant that basically all the missiles on both sides were withdrawn from Europe’s eastern regions – in fact, much, if not most, of Europe was missile-free as the result of this treaty. That is no longer the case today, and both nations’ accusations have provoked re-development of much more advanced systems than ever before, especially true considering the Russian progress into hypersonic and nuclear powered weapons that offer unlimited range.

This situation generates great concern in Europe, such that the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called on both Moscow and Washington to salvage the INF and extend the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or the New START as it is known.

“I call on the parties to the INF Treaty to use the time remaining to engage in sincere dialogue on the various issues that have been raised. It is very important that this treaty is preserved,” Guterres said at a session of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on Monday.

He stressed that the demise of that accord would make the world more insecure and unstable, which “will be keenly felt in Europe.” “We simply cannot afford to return to the unrestrained nuclear competition of the darkest days of the Cold War,” he said.

Guterres also urged the US and Russia to extend the START Treaty, which expires in 2021, and explore the possibility of further reducing their nuclear arsenals. “I also call on the United States and the Russian Federation to extend the so-called New START Treaty before it expires in 2021,” he said.

The UN chief recalled that the treaty “is the only international legal instrument limiting the size of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals” and that its inspection provisions “represent important confidence-building measures that benefit the entire world.”

Guterres recalled that the bilateral arms control process between Russia and the US “has been one of the hallmarks of international security for fifty years.”

“Thanks to their efforts, global stockpiles of nuclear weapons are now less than one-sixth of what they were in 1985,” the UN secretary-general pointed out.

The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (the New START Treaty) entered into force on February 5, 2011. The document stipulates that seven years after its entry into effect each party should have no more than a total of 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and strategic bombers, as well as no more than 1,550 warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and strategic bombers, and a total of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and strategic bombers. The new START Treaty obliges the parties to exchange information on the number of warheads and carriers twice a year.

The new START Treaty will remain in force during 10 years until 2021, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement. It may be extended for a period of no more than five years (that is, until 2026) upon the parties’ mutual consent. Moscow has repeatedly called on Washington not to delay the issue of extending the Treaty.

 

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Ariel Cohen exposes Washington’s latest twist in anti-Russia strategy [Video]

Excellent interview Ariel Cohen and Vladimir Solovyov reveals the forces at work in and behind American foreign policy.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

While the American people and press are pretty much complicit in reassuring the masses that America is the only “right” superpower on earth, and that Russia and China represent “enemy threats” for doing nothing more than existing and being successfully competitive in world markets, Russia Channel One got a stunner of a video interview with Ariel Cohen.

Who is Ariel Cohen? Wikipedia offers this information about him:

Ariel Cohen (born April 3, 1959 in Crimea in YaltaUSSR) is a political scientist focusing on political risk, international security and energy policy, and the rule of law.[1] Cohen currently serves as the Director of The Center for Energy, Natural Resources and Geopolitics (CENRG) at the Institute for Analysis of Global Security (IAGS). CENRG focuses on the nexus between energy, geopolitics and security, and natural resources and growth. He is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, within the Global Energy Center and the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center.[2] Until July 2014, Dr. Cohen was a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. He specializes in Russia/Eurasia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

Cohen has testified before committees of the U.S. Congress, including the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committees, the House Armed Services Committee, the House Judiciary Committee and the Helsinki Commission.[4] He also served as a Policy Adviser with the National Institute for Public Policy’s Center for Deterrence Analysis.[5] In addition, Cohen has consulted for USAID, the World Bank and the Pentagon.[6][7]

Cohen is a frequent writer and commentator in the American and international media. He has appeared on CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, C-SPAN, BBC-TV and Al Jazeera English, as well as Russian and Ukrainian national TV networks. He was a commentator on a Voice of America weekly radio and TV show for eight years. Currently, he is a Contributing Editor to the National Interest and a blogger for Voice of America. He has written guest columns for the New York TimesInternational Herald TribuneChristian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, EurasiaNet, Valdai Discussion Club,[8] and National Review Online. In Europe, Cohen’s analyses have appeared in Kommersant, Izvestiya, Hurriyet, the popular Russian website Ezhenedelny Zhurnal, and many others.[9][10]

Mr. Cohen came on Russian TV for a lengthy interview running about 17 minutes. This interview, shown in full below, is extremely instructive in illustrating the nature of the American foreign policy directives such as they are at this time.

We have seen evidence of this in recent statements by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo regarding Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine, and an honestly unabashed bit of fear mongering about China’s company Huawei and its forthcoming 5G networks, which we will investigate in more detail in another piece. Both bits of rhetoric reflect a re-polished narrative that, paraphrased, says to the other world powers,

Either you do as we tell you, or you are our enemy. You are not even permitted to out-compete with us in business, let alone foreign relations. The world is ours and if you try to step out of place, you will be dealt with as an enemy power.

This is probably justified paranoia, because it is losing its place. Where the United Stated used to stand for opposition against tyranny in the world, it now acts as the tyrant, and even as a bully. Russia and China’s reaction might be seen as ignoring the bully and his bluster and just going about doing their own thing. It isn’t a fight, but it is treating the bully with contempt, as bullies indeed deserve.

Ariel Cohen rightly points out that there is a great deal of political inertia in the matter of allowing Russia and China to just do their own thing. The US appears to be acting paranoid about losing its place. His explanations appear very sound and very reasonable and factual. Far from some of the snark Vesti is often infamous for, this interview is so clear it is tragic that most Americans will never see it.

The tragedy for the US leadership that buys this strategy is that they appear to be blinded so much by their own passion that they cannot break free of it to save themselves.

This is not the first time that such events have happened to an empire. It happened in Rome; it happened for England; and it happened for the shorter-lived empires of Nazi Germany and ISIS. It happens every time that someone in power becomes afraid to lose it, and when the forces that propelled that rise to power no longer are present. The US is a superpower without a reason to be a superpower.

That can be very dangerous.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Even a Vacuous Mueller Report Won’t End ‘Russiagate’

Too many reputations and other interests are vested in the legend for it to vanish from American politics anytime soon.

Stephen Cohen

Published

on

Authored by Stephen Cohen via The Nation:


Russiagate allegations that the Kremlin has a subversive hold over President Trump, and even put him in the White House, have poisoned American political life for almost three years. Among other afflictions, it has inspired an array of media malpractices, virtually criminalized anti–Cold War thinking about Russia, and distorted the priorities of the Democratic Party. And this leaves aside the woeful impact Russiagate has had in Moscow—on its policymakers’ perception of the US as a reliable partner on mutually vital strategic issues and on Russian democrats who once looked to the American political system as one to be emulated, a loss of “illusions” I previously reported.

Contrary to many expectations, even if the Mueller report, said to be impending, finds, as did a Senate committee recently, “no direct evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” Russiagate allegations are unlikely to dissipate in the near future and certainly not before the 2020 presidential election.

There are several reasons this is so, foremost among them the following:

  1. The story of a “Kremlin puppet” in the White House is so fabulous and unprecedented it is certain to become a tenacious political legend, as have others in American history despite the absence of any supporting evidence.
  2. The careers of many previously semi-obscure Democratic members of Congress have been greatly enhanced—if that is the right word—by their aggressive promotion of Russiagate. (Think, for example, of the ubiquitous media coverage and cable-television appearances awarded to Representatives Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Maxine Walters, and to Senators Mark Warner and Richard Blumenthal.) If Mueller fails to report “collusion” of real political substance, these and other Russiagate zealots, as well as their supporters in the media, will need to reinterpret run-of-the-mill (and bipartisan) financial corruption and mundane “contacts with Russia” as somehow treasonous. (The financial-corruption convictions of Paul Manafort, Mueller’s single “big win” to date, did not charge “collusion” and had to do mainly with Ukraine, not Russia.) Having done so already, there is every reason to think Democrats will politicize these charges again, if only for the sake of their own careers. Witness, for example, the scores of summonses promised by Jerrold Nadler, the new Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
  3. Still worse, the top Democratic congressional leadership evidently has concluded that promoting the new Cold War, of which Russiagate has become an integral part, is a winning issue in 2020. How else to explain Nancy Pelosi’s proposal—subsequently endorsed by the equally unstatesmanlike Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, and adopted—to invite the secretary general of NATO, a not-very-distinguished Norwegian politician named Jens Stoltenberg, to address a joint session of Congress? The honor was once bestowed on figures such as Winston Churchill and at the very least leaders of actual countries. Trump has reasonably questioned NATO’s mission and costs nearly 30 years after the Soviet Union disappeared, as did many Washington think tanks and pundits back in the 1990s. But for Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, there can be no such discussion, only valorization of NATO, even though the military alliance’s eastward expansion has brought the West to the brink of war with nuclear Russia. Anything Trump suggests must be opposed, regardless of the cost to US national security. Will the Democrats go to the country in 2020 as the party of investigations, subpoenas, Russophobia, and escalating cold war—and win?

Readers of my new book War With Russia?, which argues that there are no facts to support the foundational political allegations of Russiagate, may wonder how, then, Russiagate can continue to be such a major factor in our politics. As someone has recently pointed out, the Democrats and their media are now operating on the Liberty Valance principle: When the facts are murky or nonexistent, “print the legend.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending