Nothing is True and Everything is Possible

By David Michael Newstead.

In Nothing is True and Everything is Possible, Peter Pomerantsev discusses his nine years working in reality TV in Moscow. It’s a place where beautiful gold diggers who never knew their fathers dream of meeting a rich husband, ex-gangsters become local heroes who direct action movies, and religious cults try to warp the minds of their followers to an absurd degree. But as he looked deeper, the British producer finds the scripted reality of television merging with the scripted reality of authoritarian politics into something new and frightening.

The book opens with Pomerantsev reflecting on his time in Moscow.

“Performance” was the city’s buzzword, a world where gangsters become artists, gold diggers quote Pushkin, Hells Angels hallucinate themselves as saints. Russia had seen so many worlds flick through in such blistering progression – from communism to perestroika to shock therapy to penury to oligarchy to mafia state to mega-rich – that its new heroes were left with the sense that life is just on glittering masquerade, where every role and any position or belief is mutable. “I want to try on every persona the world has ever known,” Vladik Mamyshev-Monroe would tell me. He was a performance artist and the city’s mascot, the inevitable guest at parties attended by the inevitable tycoons and supermodels, arriving dressed as Gorbachev, a fakir, Tutankhamen, the Russian President. When I first landed in Moscow I thought these infinite transformations the expression of a country liberated, pulling on different costumes in a frenzy of freedom, pushing the limits of personality as far as it could possibly go to what the President’s vizier would call “the heights of creation.” It was only years later that I came to see these endless mutations not as freedom but as forms of delirium, in which scare-puppets and nightmare mystics become convinced they’re almost real and march toward what the President’s vizier would go on to call the “the fifth world war, the first non-linear war of all against all.”

The author discovers how control of the media, particularly of television, allows for Orwellian levels of manipulation over the truth, creating phantom threats to the country and phantom supermen to defend it. And on TV channels like RT, journalism and propaganda go hand in hand, while every political voice seems to just be playing a part in some stage production mimicking a democracy. In particular, Pomerantsev focuses on key Kremlin spin doctor, Vladislav Surkov, as he churns out post-apocalyptic novels and discusses art ad nauseam, while simultaneously orchestrating the elaborate political theatre in Russia as well as the wave of propaganda that engulfed neighboring Ukraine. Of other politicians like Surkov, Pomerantsev writes:

Glance through the careers of these new religious patriots, and you find they were recently committed democrats and liberals, pro-Western, preaching modernization, innovation, and commitment to Russia’s European course, before which they were all good Communists. And though on the one hand their latest incarnations are just new acts in the Moscow political cabaret, something about their delivery is different from the common Russian political performer who gives his rants with a knowing wink and nod. Now the delivery is somewhat deadpan. Flat and hollowed-eyed, as if they have been turned and twisted in so many ways they’ve spun right off the whirligig into something clinical.

He continues:

The Kremlin switches messages at will to its advantage, climbing inside everything: European right-wing nationalists are seduced with an anti-EU message; the Far Left is co-opted with tales of fighting US hegemony; US religious conservatives are convinced by the Kremlin’s fight against homosexuality. And the result is an array of voices, working away at global audiences from different angles, producing a cumulative echo chamber of Kremlin support, all broadcast on RT.

But behind that curtain of misinformation, Pomerantsev details a system that robs owners of their businesses, proliferates corruption at all levels, and embezzles massive wealth right out of the country into the welcoming arms of Swiss and British banks. Eventually, the author returns to London only to find it inhabited by many of the Russian oligarchs and supermodels he thought he left behind in Moscow. Dismayed, Pomerantsev learns of a young tax attorney named Sergei Magnitsky who died horribly in a Russian prison for exposing a corruption scheme: money that eventually made its way to safe havens in the West. And in an excruciatingly relevant interview, he quotes Magnitsky’s former boss, Jamison Firestone, on the changes already in progress.

London shocked me. The whole system is built around wanting that money to come here. We want their money. We want their trade. And now you’ve got former German chancellor Schroeder and Lord Mandelson and Lord So-and-So working for these Russian state companies, and you know I think they should just be honest and say ‘some Kremlin company offered me 500,000 to sit on their board and I don’t do anything and I don’t know anything about how the company is run but sometimes they ask me to open some doors.’ And the argument I hear from everyone is ‘well if the money doesn’t go here it will go somewhere else’: well here ain’t going to be here if you take that attitude, here is going to be there. We used to have this self-centered idea that Western democracies were the end point of evolution, and we’re dealing from a position of strength, and people are becoming like us. It’s not that way. Because if you think this thing we have here isn’t fragile you are kidding yourself. This,” and here Jamison takes a breath and waves his hand around to denote Maida Vale, London, the whole of Western civilization, “this is fragile.”

Timely and ominous, the book is a must-read and perhaps a warning of things to come.

Read Nothing is True and Everything is Possible

Top Putin Critic Discusses the Legacy of Sergei Magnitsky

By David Michael Newstead.

SWITZERLAND - JANUARY 25: HermitageCapital Chief Executive Bill Browder speaks an interview in Davos, Switzerland, Wednesday, January 25, 2006. The World Economic Forum opened Wednesday in Davos. (Photo by Adam Berry/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Bill Browder is at the center of one of the most well-documented human rights cases in history. The 2009 death of his attorney, Sergei Magnitsky, galvanized the former investor into becoming an activist and a staunch critic of the Kremlin. Since then, his work has led to the passage of the Magnitsky Act in the U.S. and similar efforts in the E.U., which ban the 32 Russians implicated in Sergei’s death from traveling to or banking in those countries. Currently, a proposed expansion to that law is being debated in Congress, which would place the same restrictions on human rights abusers from all over the world through targeted sanctions.

But Browder’s campaign has also unleashed increasingly bizarre reactions from the Russian government. In 2012, authorities in Moscow put Sergei Magnitsky on trial despite the fact that he died in 2009 – making this the first trial of a dead person since the medieval Catholic Church prosecuted a corpse in the year 897. Russia would further retaliate for the U.S. Magnitsky Act by banning American couples from adopting Russian orphans, even those already assigned to parents. Meanwhile, Putin’s government has issued so many arrest warrants against Bill Browder that they are now ignored by Interpol, citing that such charges are predominantly political.

Browder recently wrote about these experiences in his book, Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice. At one time, he was the single largest foreign investor in Russia. Now, he’s considered a top enemy of Vladimir Putin and he frequently comments on the war in Ukraine, the murder of Boris Nemtsov, and more. Today, Bill Browder joins me to discuss the current situation in Russia and the legacy of Sergei Magnitsky.


David Newstead: I want to start by asking about Sergei Magnitsky, the man. How would you describe him and how do his loved ones remember him today?

Bill Browder: The best way to describe him is that he was one of the most principled, moral, reliable people I’ve ever met. You generally only know a person when they’re faced with some type of duress. And when Sergei Magnitsky was faced with the most horrendous duress, his true colors of integrity showed through in an amazing way.

David Newstead: The corrupt officials responsible for Sergei’s death stole $230 million from Russian taxpayers. Recently, you said $15 million of that money was seized in the United States in the form of luxury apartments in Lower Manhattan. Is that correct?

Bill Browder: Yes. The U.S. Department of Justice has seized $15 million of property in New York, which was purchased using some of the money from the crime that Sergei Magnitsky exposed.

David Newstead: So without the restrictions that you helped put in place through the Magnitsky Act, Sergei’s murderers could hypothetically be walking around New York or traveling anywhere throughout the U.S.?

Bill Browder: There’s actually two separate things going on. The apartments were not frozen under the Magnitsky Act. They were frozen under just more generic money laundering laws in America. The Magnitsky Act itself has sanctioned 32 people, taken away their visas, and frozen their assets. And those people certainly can’t go to America. They can’t use the U.S. banking system. And they will have a pretty hard time using the global banking system, because almost no bank in the world would open an account for somebody who’s on the U.S. Treasury sanctions list. But the New York case is actually a case that would have gone through with or without the Magnitsky Act.

David Newstead: Are there specific human rights abusers from other countries who are good examples of why we need a Global Magnitsky Act?

Bill Browder: I think I could spend all week listing human rights abusers around the world who should be sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act. But one case in particular, which has really touched me and many others, is a case in Azerbaijan of Khadija Ismayilova. Khadija was an investigative reporter who was working on corruption in the Azerbaijani ruling family. And in retaliation for some hard-hitting reporting that she did, they arrested her, tried her for a mutating list of bogus allegations, and sentenced her to 7 years in prison. I can’t think of a more deserving bunch of people to be sanctioned than those people who arrested her and imprisoned her.

David Newstead: So because the Magnitsky Act only applies to Russia right now, human rights abusers from other countries are still able to come to the United States and use our banking system if they haven’t violated other U.S. laws?

Bill Browder: Correct. That’s why the Global Magnitsky Act is such an important next step. Russia doesn’t have a monopoly on human rights abusers.

David Newstead: Who opposes this law exactly? Because it seems straight forward.

Bill Browder: Well, there are the people I describe as the real-politickers who oppose it. These people say, “If we do a Global Magnitsky Act, that might sanction the ‘good’ human rights abusers.” Meaning those human rights abusers who are seen to be allies of the United States. You know, for example, Turkey and even Azerbaijan are considered to be strong allies of the United States in various geopolitical squabbles. So, the thought is that you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. I believe you can have a mature relationship where you have diplomatic relations on one side and sanction certain corrupt officers on the other.

David Newstead: Besides that, are there any major roadblocks to the law’s passage and when do you think that might happen?

Bill Browder: The law is very quickly moving its way through the Senate. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has already approved it, which is the last bottleneck in the Senate. In the House, there is very strong bipartisan support. There’s also strong support from many different human rights groups from all around the world.

It’s very hard to say the timing of legislation in Washington, because it doesn’t just depend on the virtue of one’s legislation. It depends on the environment in which there’s a relatively limited amount of time for the lawmaking process to deal with all sorts of other issues. So, it all depends on priorities and politics. And as we get closer to the U.S. presidential election, you’re going to see much less bipartisan cooperation on anything as people want to score points. So, I think it’s either going to happen this year or probably after the presidential election, but before this Congress is dismissed.

David Newstead: You’ve said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is evil and probably a sociopath. If that’s true, how do you think Western governments should behave towards a sociopath who runs a major nation-state?

Bill Browder: I think that the simple answer is that he’s not a man who can be engaged with under normal rules of diplomatic engagement. Don’t expect any word that he says to be true or that any promises he makes will ever be honored. So in a situation like that, you have to deal with him in terms of containment not in terms of engagement.

David Newstead: What do you think the explanation is for Putin’s constant need to project strength and manliness? A cult of masculinity, if you will. Last week, for instance, there was a video of him lifting weights with Dmitri Medvedev. What’s behind that?

Bill Browder: Well, lack of strength and lack of manliness. You know, he’s kind of like an athlete who cheats. Imagine the scenario of a soccer player dribbling the ball towards the goal. Someone comes up to him to try to take the ball away and Putin pulls out a gun and shoots the person. Then, Putin gets close to the goal and the goalie is sitting there trying to guard the goal, so Putin shoots him as well. And then, Putin kicks the ball in and raises his hands in victory like this great soccer player when, in fact, he’s just cheated all the way through the game. That analogy is what he does in all aspects of his political life. And he’s cheating by eliminating all of his opposition by either putting them in jail, sending them to exile or killing them.

David Newstead: Is it accurate to say that Sergei Magnitsky and Vladimir Putin are complete opposites as men?

Bill Browder: Well, Sergei Magnitsky was a patriot – an honest patriot who wanted to help Russia. Putin is a dishonest kleptocrat who wants to steal all the resources of Russia for himself. So, they’re exactly the opposite.

David Newstead: Whenever I talk to people unfamiliar with the Magnitsky case, you know they’re always struck by the fact that he was put on trial years after he died. Do legal scholars ever comment on this to you? I mean, what was your reaction at the time, because this hasn’t happened since the Middle Ages?

Bill Browder: Absolutely. One of my most trusted advisers is the former chief prosecutor for the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal for Sierra Leone. He’s a professor named David Crane at Syracuse University. He wrote a whole series of articles in the legal academic press about the posthumous trial. He said he’s never gotten more feedback. In the legal world, it’s something that nobody can conceive of.

David Newstead: Everything ends someday. If you had to speculate, how do you think Putin’s presidency will end?

Bill Browder: I think that there’s 3 different political scenarios. The first is what I call the Mugabe scenario, which is that he somehow holds it all together for decades through further hyperinflation, destroying institutions, and driving the Russian people into poverty. And I think that could be the most likely scenario. The second is the Palace Coup scenario, which is the oligarchs and secret police officers at some point decide Putin’s a liability. And they gang up to overthrow him.

And the third is what I call the Maidan scenario, which is the name of the square in Kiev where the people of Ukraine overthrew President Yanukovich. I think that the Mugabe scenario probably has a 65% probability. The Palace Coup scenario maybe a 20% probability and the Maidan scenario 15% probability.

David Newstead: Is there any hope that opposition figures like Alexei Navalny, Gary Kasparov, or Mikhail Khodorkovsky might one day succeed, because that wasn’t on your list?

Bill Browder: Well, they would be part of the Maidan scenario. Those would be the people who become the new government of Russia once the people overthrow Putin. Having said that, all these men are either in exile or effectively in jail. Putin doesn’t allow any oxygen for the opposition. It’s like the cheating in sports analogy. If you don’t have an opposing team, it’s easy to win.

David Newstead: In your view, what will Russia be like in 10 or 20 years?

Bill Browder: I think if everything is status quo, it would be a Venezuela or Zimbabwe type of scenario. Hyperinflation. Mass poverty.

David Newstead: In addition to discussing Sergei’s imprisonment, your book Red Notice is really an autobiography with a good amount of personal detail, family history, and the progression of your career right up to the present. Do you plan on writing follow-up books as the campaign for a Global Magnitsky Act moves forward or if the political climate in Russia changes?

Bill Browder: The next step in my campaign is to find a way to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film. Film is a very emotive median by nature. I think by bringing it into popular culture our campaign will be more effective. That will make the Magnitsky Act more well-known, broadening it in Europe, and also globalizing it as it applies to other human rights abusers.

David Newstead: Is that effort still in the early stages?

Bill Browder: Movies take a long time to make, because there are so many different people involved. We just started that process and we’ll see where it goes.

David Newstead: In the book, you’ve said that you have to take elaborate counter-measures based on death threats and harassment from Russian authorities or their proxies. Without commenting on the specifics of your counter-measures, can you say more about how they go after you?

Bill Browder: Well, the objective is to destroy me either physically, legally, or reputationally. So in their perfect world, if they could just get away with it, they would kill me. But so far they haven’t, probably because they haven’t figured out a way they could get away with it. And so, the next step is to try to destroy me legally. In other words, to try to get me arrested and extradited back to Russia. Through Interpol red notices or bilateral extradition requests. So far, that hasn’t succeeded. Then, the third thing they try to do is to destroy me reputationally by putting shows about me on their television, accusing me of crimes of murder and massive fraud in Russia. They provide dossiers of fake information to foreign governments and parliamentarians. So far, none of this has worked, but it’s a constant fight with the Russians to make sure they don’t succeed.

Question from a Reader: What’s your opinion on investing in Russia today? And what would it take for you to re-enter the market as you did 20 years ago during the fall of communism?

Bill Browder: It’s an un-investable country today. You have a regime that’s hostile to business and hostile to the West. And so you can’t bring in any money at any price level, because it’s absolutely uncertain what the next political decision will be. You know if you owned a media company before and they changed the media laws, your company was basically destroyed completely. And they do that all the time with all sorts of businesses and all sorts of rules. All sorts of arbitrariness. So, what would make me go back in? Well, I went in after the fall of the Soviet Union. I guess I would probably go in after the fall of the Putin regime, depending on who followed.

David Newstead: Final question. If people are interested in helping to pass the Global Magnitsky Act, what should they do?

Bill Browder: They should get in touch with me. There’s lots of very specific tasks to do in our campaign. There’s no petition or some easy thing to do. But if someone’s seriously interested, we want people to join the effort.

Read Red Notice by Bill Browder

Red Notice and Sergei Magnitsky

By David Michael Newstead.

SWITZERLAND - JANUARY 25: HermitageCapital Chief Executive Bill Browder speaks an interview in Davos, Switzerland, Wednesday, January 25, 2006. The World Economic Forum opened Wednesday in Davos. (Photo by Adam Berry/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Three biographies converge in Bill Browder’s new book, Red Notice. The first is Browder’s own life, which follows the ebb and flow of modern Russian history. The grandson of an American communist leader, Browder set out to become a successful investor in Eastern Europe 25 years ago as communism was collapsing. And with considerable humor, he writes about the start to his career when he was often ridiculed as “that crazy fuck who wouldn’t shut up about Russia.” But not long after that, his foresight proved to be wildly profitable and Browder became the single largest foreigner investor in the country throughout the 1990s and the early 2000s. During that time, his business was able to thrive through its research abilities and by publicizing widespread corruption and malfeasance in companies like the energy giant Gazprom. But this also made him some powerful enemies. And in 2006, Bill Browder was unexpectedly deported and declared to be a threat to national security. Browder would go on to hire several lawyers to determine what was happening and among them was a tax attorney named Sergei Magnitsky.

Born in Odessa, Sergei was a married father of two employed at the law firm Firestone Duncan in Moscow where he specialized in civil law. Quiet and studious, Magnitsky uncovered a complex plot by corrupt officials in the Russian government to steal millions of dollars of taxpayer money. When things became increasingly dangerous during the investigation, Sergei was steadfast, refusing to flee his country and he would later testify against the officials involved. Not long after that, Magnitsky was arrested by those same officials and forced to endure horrific conditions in an attempt to make him recant his testimony and sign false confessions. Again, Sergei refused.

Over the next year, he was denied badly needed medical care, transferred to ever worsening prisons, and forbidden any contact with his family. Despite this treatment, authorities failed to obtain a false confession and they never broke Sergei’s spirit. In 2009, Sergei Magnitsky would die at age 37 in Butyrka prison, having been beaten to death by guards there. But the information highlighted in the 450 criminal complaints he filed while in jail document consistent refusals of medical treatment as well as human rights abuses designed to coerce a seemingly mild mannered tax attorney. This detailed evidence combined with the brutality of his death compelled people like Browder and others to push for some form of justice for those responsible, realizing this case to be emblematic of problems that plague Russia today. The result was the 2012 Magnitsky Act in the United States and a similar 2014 law in the European Union, which place visa bans and asset freezes on corrupt officials involved in Sergei’s death and the ensuing cover-up. It is considered a major piece of human rights legislation and a particularly effective tool for punishing criminals who act with impunity in their own countries.

But beyond the crimes of a few mid-level government employees, the information presented in Red Notice is very much an indictment of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Looming large as the book progresses, Putin’s system of government is gradually revealed to be one of corruption and violent repression completely at odds with men like Sergei Magnitsky. It’s worth noting that all the corrupt officials named throughout the book went on to be promoted and awarded top honors, while financial records reveal that their lavish spending in places like Italy and Dubai could not possibly come from their modest salaries. But while his killers walk free, Sergei Magnitsky was put on trial in 2012, despite the fact he had been dead for 3 years. In some perverse caricature of the law, Sergei was found guilty as guards stood watch over an empty cell throughout the proceedings.

Ultimately, the events in Red Notice are a telling sign of life in Putin’s Russia – where criminals run rampant and the innocent are prosecuted even after they’ve died. But even then, if history were to compare these two Russian biographies, Putin and Magnitsky, you would find one person who desperately tries to project strength and manliness in everything that he does. Then, there’s the other man who fought for the principles he believed in, refusing to ever give in.

Read Author Interview

The Sinyavsky–Daniel Trial – Vlad Men Companion Piece

Authors_Andrei_Sinyavsky_and_Yuli_Daniel_during_their_trial_in_1956-66

By David Michael Newstead.

Vlad Men discusses elements of the Sinyavsky–Daniel Trial, which took place in the Soviet Union between 1965 and 1966. The verdict in this case is historic for marking the end of the Khrushchev Thaw and its more liberal policies. Under those policies, artistic liberties were allowed, political prisoners were freed, and the falsely accused victims of state repression were officially rehabilitated (often posthumously). Premier Khrushchev began a de-Stalinization campaign and attacked the deceased dictator’s personality cult. In literature, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn published One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which was groundbreaking at the time for criticizing the horrific legacy of Stalinism in Russia. But when Nikita Khrushchev was overthrown in 1964, that limited ability to speak your mind came to an end.

The Sinyavsky–Daniel Trial soon followed.

In 1966, a Soviet court convicted two obscure writers to seven years of hard labor based solely on the content of their literary work. Andrei Sinyavsky was the author of the novel, The Trials Begins. His friend, Yuli Daniel, was the author of the novel, This is Moscow Speaking. Despite being works of fiction, these books were deemed to be Anti-Soviet and both men were imprisoned because of it. At the same time, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and other prominent authors were also being persecuted as the Soviet system became increasingly stagnant and closed to discussion.

This characterized much of the remaining years of the USSR until the Gorbachev era. And while the Sinyavsky–Daniel Trial is famous for being a milestone to Soviet dissidents, it arguably relates to the legal system of contemporary Russia as well. Today, the law in Russia is often arbitrarily enforced and twisted to serve repressive ends like in the case of Sergei Magnitsky. Furthermore, writing about the government is extremely dangerous and there have been numerous, high-profile murders of Russian journalists and critics in the last decade, including the killing of Boris Nemtsov this February.

For me, reading through the 1966 trial transcript was a lengthy, but informative window into a courtroom discussion about irony, metaphor, and literary criticism that resembled a college class. But unlike your undergraduate course in literature, people’s lives hung in the balance during these surreal legal proceedings.

Unfortunately, that tradition continues today.

Read an Excerpt