The U.S. Embassy rejected accusations of meddling in Russian elections

The Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an argument in favor of intervention called the participation of us diplomats in opposition rallies

MOSCOW – the Press-Secretary of the US diplomatic mission in the Russian Federation Maria Olson has denied the charges the foreign Minister of Russia Sergei Lavrov as saying on Friday about the alleged systematic interference in the electoral process in Russia from Washington in General and the American Embassy in particular.

“The allegations are malicious and false. Such statements as made the accusation against the US of supporting ISIS in Syria represent a dangerous trend that undermines the efforts to establish a more stable bilateral relations, which is supported by both our President,” said Mary Olson.

Earlier Sergey Lavrov at the meeting with journalists in Moscow remarked that the Russian elections “constantly interfering”, and President Vladimir Putin “repeatedly cited specific examples,” as if to prove it.

“The U.S. Embassy is engaged in, including through the involvement of its diplomats in the rallies of opposition parties, including non-system,” – said the Minister.

Recall that in the course held on the eve of the “final” press conference, Vladimir Putin also expressed confidence that the doping scandal, which resulted in the Olympic team excluded from participation in the winter Games in Pyeongchang “develops in anticipation of domestic political calendar in Russia”, in fact, accusing the IOC of political bias and interference in the elections.

On Friday, the Federation Council officially announced the start of the presidential campaign from 18 December this year. Elections are scheduled for March 18, 2018.

The head of the Fund “Public examination” Igor Yakovenko, last General Secretary of the Union of journalists of Russia, believes that “special operation”, scheduled for March 18, 2018, is irrelevant to the narodoizyavlenie and therefore has no meaning.

“Because everyone knows that March 19, the President is the same person who is now, he explained in an interview with “Voice of America”. – But we need some drama and intrigue. For this and made all sorts of things – is put in play Ksenia Sobchak and uttered all sorts of nonsense, like stating that the us Embassy intervened in Russian elections. I wonder how can it do it – to blow up the ballot boxes?”

According to the journalist, the arguments Sergey Lavrov does not stand up to scrutiny.

“This is absurd, he says. – What does participation or the participation of the representatives of the Embassy in the actions of the opposition? For example, representatives of the American media participated in the press conference Putin. This means that they support it? Absolute nonsense”.

As seen Igor Yakovenko, equally inappropriate to argue that the IOC specifically started the story with the suspension of the Russian team from the Olympic games in South Korea, to harm Putin.

“Find more Russophile person than the head of the IOC (Thomas Bach), probably only in the walls of the state Duma or the Federation Council, he suggested. – But there are objective data, the results of the investigation, the forensics, which prove that our state is part of the sports Ministry and intelligence services were involved in the organization of doping by substitution of urine and other, excuse me, the attendant circumstances. To take this further it was simply impossible, and the IOC took the harsh decision. Why then blame the blame on others?”

However, the reporter thinks all this verbal intervention of Russian leaders capable of “a little to cheer Putin’s electorate.”

“Putin needs someone to fight someone to win, but to win no one, –he stated. – In Ukraine all victories ended with the theft of Crimea. More there is nothing to steal. So Putin has no choice but to fight with the American Embassy, the IOC and all of them to win. Well, do not fight him, in fact, with the leaders of the LDPR and the Communist party? People do not understand”.

It seems Igor Yakovenko, in fact, due to the fact that Putin has no vision of the future to which it is going to lead the country. And this is really a serious problem, he said.

Many experts say that Vladimir Putin’s rating went up sharply after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, but this effect dissolves that creates a dilemma for Russian authorities, who don’t know anything else to think for consolidation companies.

At the same time, the head of the Center for modernization studies at the European University in St. Petersburg Dmitry Travin is not sure that the Kremlin is now required to make something “uplifting” is akin to the seizure of the Peninsula. What appears to support Putin after Crimea, is saved.

“Elections, he is likely to win under the old baggage – analyst suggested in a commentary, “Voice of America”. – Not even the fact that you need to send in resignation of the government Medvedev. Although, in General, it is clear that the Prime Minister – the one bargaining chip that can be always to play, saying the economy is bad not because I, Putin is a bad politician, but because the government can not cope with their duties”.

Assessment Dmitry Travin, there is nothing radical Putin isn’t going to undertake.

“And when the thunder clap, for us, it again sounded unexpectedly, and quite possibly will be associated not with the capture of Transnistria, and Northern Kazakhstan or something else, and manifest in a very different region, he said. – Unfortunately, over the 18 years of the stay of Putin in power, we the people one way or another involved in the analysis of the political and economic situation in the country, never predicted any really important actions on the part of the President.”

Assessment Dmitry Travin, the experts all the time behind and looking for is not there, “where you lost the key” “We often talked about the fact that Putin is necessary to go on dialogue with a society that otherwise the regime will fall, that it is necessary to boost the economy, otherwise people will take to the streets. Putin behaved in a completely different way and was right from the point of view of retaining power”.

For the country it was disastrous, to hold power – is useful, he concluded.