[secondary_op]

This smear content is produced by Khodorkovsky [1], oligarch in exile who is now for many years after release from jail in 2013 on a mission to destabilise Russian society trough various NGO and nonprofits.

In comparison, USA with its national state security policy and foreign power would never allow for any individual to destabilise country from foreign land for so many years.

    NGOs give the impression that they are filling the vacuum created by a retreating state. And they are, but in a materially inconsequential way. Their real contribution is that they diffuse political anger and dole out as aid or benevolence what people ought to have by right. They alter the public psyche. They turn people into dependent victims and blunt the edges of political resistance. NGOs form a sort of buffer between the government and the public, between empire and its subjects. They have become arbitrators, the interpreters, the facilitators. In the long run, NGOs are accountable to their funders, not to the people they work among. They're what botanists would call an indicator species. It's almost as though the greater the devastation caused by neoliberalism, the greater the outbreak of NGOs. Nothing illustrates this more poignantly than the phenomenon of the US preparing to invade a country and simultaneously readying NGOs to go in and clean up the devastation. In order to make sure their funding is not jeopardized and that the governments of the countries they work in will allow them to function, NGOs have to present their work in a shallow framework, more or less shorn of a political or historical context. – Arundhati Roy, the Indian writer, about the NGO influence in India.[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky

[2] https://socialistworker.org/2004-2/510/510_06_Roy.php#Top

[southernplaces7]

Smear content you say? Because it describes well-known aspects of the pervasive corruption in Putin's Russia? And your use of the word "destabilize" is interesting too. It's a favorite label of dictators, authoritarian fans, sock puppets and ideological cheerleaders, usually applied when dissidents try to expose grotesque corruption in shitty government. To them, destabilizing their gravy train of power is a terrible thing, of course.

Whatever their defects, NGOs aren't automatically the tools of western imperialism or whatever idiocy you seem to be promoting about conspiracies against the kleptocratic Russian state. As for Khodorovsky, regardless of his sins, the way in which he was legally treated inside Russia for years was a shameful demonstration of how the Russian state works against basic legal principles.

And yes, many foreign organizations regularly, openly work against the U.S. through NGOs and other organizations with much less danger to themselves than faced by people working against the Russian state. At least within the U.S. one can openly criticize its government without usually being in danger of a prison sentence or state murder.

(though to be fair, the slow creep towards authoritarian behavior by a growing number of governments even in the west is something to really worry about. Cheerleaders of things like blanket TikTok bans and "fighting disinformation" without very seriously qualifying such things should take note of the hole they're digging for the future of free expression.)

[bitsinthesky]

Imagine your country was so fragile an ngo focusing on climate change or human rights could destabilize it.

[HeftyBandit]

>> In comparison, USA with its national state security policy and foreign power would never allow for any individual to destabilise country from foreign land for so many years

If it's the Foreign Agent law (Foreign Agent Registration Act, FARA for short) you're talking about, a common Russian propaganda trick these days, it does allow this kind of activity, but imposes public disclosure of individuals or organisation receiving money from foreign governments, not other individuals as in this case.