Russian foreign policy has been pretty consistent for centuries. Hence they started preparing for the demise of Communism in the 1980s, just in case.
In Poland they decided to run the underground press and legitimise the anti-system credentials of certain individuals. The byword was credibility. Opposition figures had to look and smell like opposition figures. They also had to be slightly conservative, holding back the more extreme elements and maintaining some sort of cohesion that steered away from rampant populism, which by its very nature is unpredictable and uncontrollable.
In the worst-case scenario of Communist collapse, their medium term goal was to infiltrate the body politic and military and to ensure that bad business practice and corruption delivered: (i) personal benefit (ii) long-term disruption to the administration and economy and (iii) military intelligence.
Longer term, they were to try their utmost to (i) infiltrate EU and especially NATO bodies and (ii) try to sow discord and confusion in EU politics. The byword - credibility. "Of course people in these circles would say this or do that - it's normal isn't it?" - that's the reaction they seek.
Who fits these criteria? Who is in the 21st Century Big Game?
Or perhaps the Russians decided to capitulate their position entirely and say "We lost fair and square!" Does that sound believable? A total and utter volte-face after hundreds of years of subterfuge? Really. Has anyone seen Russia Today run a positive news story about any of Russia's neighbours?
In Poland they decided to run the underground press and legitimise the anti-system credentials of certain individuals. The byword was credibility. Opposition figures had to look and smell like opposition figures. They also had to be slightly conservative, holding back the more extreme elements and maintaining some sort of cohesion that steered away from rampant populism, which by its very nature is unpredictable and uncontrollable.
In the worst-case scenario of Communist collapse, their medium term goal was to infiltrate the body politic and military and to ensure that bad business practice and corruption delivered: (i) personal benefit (ii) long-term disruption to the administration and economy and (iii) military intelligence.
Longer term, they were to try their utmost to (i) infiltrate EU and especially NATO bodies and (ii) try to sow discord and confusion in EU politics. The byword - credibility. "Of course people in these circles would say this or do that - it's normal isn't it?" - that's the reaction they seek.
Who fits these criteria? Who is in the 21st Century Big Game?
Or perhaps the Russians decided to capitulate their position entirely and say "We lost fair and square!" Does that sound believable? A total and utter volte-face after hundreds of years of subterfuge? Really. Has anyone seen Russia Today run a positive news story about any of Russia's neighbours?