I read the whole thing and found nothing remotely pro-Russian. Care to elaborate?
And, well, if the idea of CIA agents propping up pro-capitalism opposition figures is “pro-Russian”, then every Hollywood spy movie is pro-Russian. I have no idea how common “CIA meddles, all the way to the top” really is, or was, but it’s a common narrative across western culture so it didn’t strike me as super weird.
I’ll admit that the idea that Havel did little by himself to become the President, that it was all due to support by the CIA people, which wasn’t said so literally but certainly suggested, felt rather unrealistic.
And on top it also ignores stuff like Operation Gladio going on for decades in Europe during the Cold War.
Very. E.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
It’s clear the author doesn’t love everything about western capitalism, but that, I think, is a widely held opinion across Europe. It does not imply, to me, a suggestion that Russian style kleptocratic capitalism is a better form by any means so if the author makes that argument elsewhere, I didn’t see it here.
I guess I’m trying to say that I enjoyed the article, and learning that I don’t share the author’s politics hasn’t changed that.
Of course, that is a completely legit view that I also partly hold. However, this author is known for his looking up to a regime that is way worse (or 'not better form' as you say).