Faina Savenkova: What’s wrong with you, USA?

I recently came across an interesting and enormous article at intelligencer.today
about Soros and the US State Department instructing the “Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project” (OCCRP) to attack Trump supporters in the midst
of the 2024 election. It was surprising to me, because it’s commonly believed that
there are still groups in the US capable of constructively criticizing the US
government without repercussions and harassment from the state. But what
puzzled me most was the lack of response from a foundation with the startling
name of OCCRP. And while I was minding my own business, the response came —
a scary investigation about Igor Lopatonok, director, producer and screenwriter. As
you can imagine, I couldn’t resist it. There is a kind of amusement in it. And the
investigative style is very recognizable.

So, what is Igor Lopatonok accused of? The first thing that strikes me most of all is
the attempt to belittle this man, to say nasty things about him. Literally: “In 2008,
he emigrated to the United States, and a year later he opened a modest by
Hollywood standards firm Grading Dimension Pictures Inc. It has only 31
followers on Facebook. In broken English, the page states that ‘the studio
specializes in film making — from pre- to post-production.’”

What did we just see? Well, ladies and gentlemen, first of all they are trying to
show us that Mr. Lopatonok is a loser who didn’t bother to learn English. Unlike
the authors of the exposé, apparently. But I would like to ask the gentlemen from
the foundation with a name that not only I, but also many Americans, I think, will
not be able to pronounce the first time: do you know how many famous people
came to live in the United States, speaking, as you say, broken English? Do you
know how much these people have done for America’s fame and prosperity? I
always “like” the attempts by some journalists to insult and belittle the person they
are writing about. Can’t you find better ways to assert yourself? Then it remains to
be seen who you are belittling more: the target of your next “exposé,” or yourself.

“Although Lopatonok moved to the United States and obtained American
citizenship, he still openly expresses pro-Kremlin views on social media and
appears on the Russian state media outlet Sputnik. He visits a YouTube channel
called The Politics of Survival, hosted by Tara Reid.” What a horrible character!
Truly — world class evil is going on here! I hope I don’t need to clarify that this is
sarcasm. As far as I know because of my age, the US was considered a free
country until recently. Or has something changed? According to the logic of these
journalists, freedom of speech and opinion should not exist in the US, thanks to the
efforts of the valiant workers of the OCCRP. Come on, Lopatonok is appearing in
Russian media! This is a disgusting act according to the OCCRP’s grievous
investigators. But… One detail that is already worth paying attention to in order to
understand that the OCCRP article was commissioned and written solely to smear
Trump supporters: Tara Reid, who accused the current US president of
inappropriate behavior and was forced to leave the US. Why was she — an
American woman who spoke out against Biden — singled out in this article as a
villain apparently even greater than Igor Lopatonok himself? Is it actually because
this organization is being used for the benefit of a group of people in power in
order to shape public opinion before the elections? Meaning that the initial
accusations against the Soros Foundation were not unfounded?

Going back to Lopatonok’s appearance in the Russian media, one can’t help but
wonder why this is such a terrible thing according to OCCRP journalists. Has the
US declared war on Russia? Or vice versa? Doesn’t a person in a free democratic
country have the right to stand up for his or her own beliefs and visit the TV
channels he or she sees fit? Yes, a person can dislike fascism in Ukraine. Yes, a
person can dislike Biden’s administration. But isn’t it a sign of the rule of law when
you can say it without being harassed by business organizations and biased media?

And really, the journalistic investigation that comes to us with such assertions is
perplexing from its very first words:

“The main points of the investigation:

- Lopatonok’s team prepared scripts for movies about Alexander Lukashenko,
Ilham Aliyev and other authoritarian leaders.

- Judging by the presentations, the purpose of these films was to “white-wash” their
reputations: the dictators were invited to discuss issues related to the protection of
human rights and democracy.

- The interviewer for the two films was to be Oliver Stone. It is not known how
much he was aware of these projects. Neither movie was ever made.

- Judging from the leaked emails, one of Lopatonok’s films about Ukraine was
probably sponsored by Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch and close
associate of Vladimir Putin.”

So is this really an investigation that took two years to complete, as the journalists
claim? Just these assumptions and statements along the lines of “someone said
something to someone and we think they meant this and that.” Really? “Probably”,
“judging by the presentations” — this is the proof of “white-washing” the reputation
of dictators? “None of the movies were ever made.” Or am I confusing things? In
general, discussing nonexistent movies in an exposé article, if it’s not an
investigation into the embezzlement of the budgets of these movies, is kind of…
weird, don’t you think? But okay, let’s say that the dystopian era described by the
science fiction classics has come to pass: thought crime is a crime after all.
However, the unnamed witnesses to this… Oh, and no sources other than general
“writing” and the like are cited…? As far as I know, when exposés were posted on
Wikileaks, the evidence there was on a slightly different level, not just gossip from
unknown persons. Why is the article full of personal photos, but no screenshots or
photos to support any point of the allegations? Oh, right, they didn’t make the
movies… and in all fairness, the presentation covers are not much of an argument
either. But that’s just nitpicking.

Still, they are revealing the level of their investigation in all its glory. And by the
way, it took two years to present us with pictures from the Internet instead of
actual evidence. But why now, during a presidential election? Why not six months
ago? Or a year? Because there was no order for the media to harass the
undesirables? Or did carefully guarded, unnamed sources suddenly remember
their stories just before the election? Well, it’s a kind of amusement for people:
before the US presidential election, they suddenly remember their grievances
against members of a candidate’s team. As long as the candidate is not the
incumbent president, of course, otherwise it will be awkward and they will have to
forget their offenses until better times.

By the way, an interesting piece of the overall puzzle: “Our editor ended the
conversation when a flustered Lopatonok started shouting threats like ‘we will deal
with you personally’ and ‘we will destroy you.’” In Igor Lopatonok’s interview, as
far as I know, OCCRP was quite Russian in recommending that he go on a trip and
in wishing him a happy personal life. Why are you taking such sincere wishes so
personally? And yes, I would like to know why Igor Lopatonok calls one of the
OCCRP informants a murderer? Isn’t that why the journalists carefully shield his
name from the public’s ears?

And a small example from the same interview:

“We saw the movie about Nazarbayev.”
“You couldn’t see all the episodes. They were not online.”
Just like that. Deception is deception.

What did I personally learn from the OCCRP investigation? That besides listing
biographical facts about Igor Lopatonok’s life and career, other facts are hard to
find. But it becomes clear that the reason for the appearance of this
misinvestigation was so that an article from a private foundation, apparently
sponsored by George Soros, was inserted into the media in order to form the
desired public opinion, and the state is involved. All in all, the OCCRP has
engaged in their usual harassment of the undesirables.

Sad. But such is journalism in modern America, it seems.

English translation: D. Armstrong