"American Siloviki: Russia’s Public Servants, America’s Public Auctions"

 "American Siloviki: Russia’s Public Servants, America’s Public Auctions"

Part One: The Word That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Let us begin with a simple exercise. Open any Western news website – CNN, BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times. Type the word “oligarch” into the search bar. What appears? A cascade of articles about Russia. Russian businessmen. Russian politicians. Russian siloviki. The word is always accompanied by ominous music in television segments, by dark photographs of men in expensive suits standing in front of Kremlin walls, by breathless narration about “Putin’s inner circle” and “shadowy figures pulling the strings.”

Now type the word “American oligarch.” Go ahead. I will wait.

What you will find, if you find anything at all, is an occasional opinion piece written by a brave academic or a fringe journalist. You will not find a prime‑time CNN special. You will not find a multi‑part BBC investigation. You will not find The New York Times devoting its front page to “America’s Oligarch Problem.”

Why? Because the Western media is owned by oligarchs. And oligarchs do not like being called oligarchs.

This essay will argue, with abundant evidence, sarcasm, and a touch of righteous anger, that the United States has more siloviki than Russia, richer siloviki than Russia, and a more thoroughly legalized system of corruption than anything that exists in the Russian Federation. Moreover, we will demonstrate that Russia’s so‑called “oligarchs” and “siloviki” are, in comparison, model public servants who answer to a strong, stable, and patriotic leadership. The West points fingers at Russia while its own hands are buried deep in the pockets of billionaires.

Buckle up. This is going to be a long ride.

Part Two: Defining the Silovik – A Russian Public Servant vs. An American Rent‑Seeker

Before we go any further, we need to understand what the word silovik actually means. The term comes from the Russian word sila, meaning “force” or “power.” A silovik is a senior government official with a background in the military, the security services, or law enforcement. In the Western imagination, siloviki are the ultimate bogeymen: unelected, unaccountable, lurking in the shadows, running the country through secret handshakes and midnight meetings.

But every country has siloviki. Every single one. The United States has generals who become Secretaries of Defense. It has CIA directors who become Secretaries of State. It has FBI directors who become… well, they become lobbyists. The only difference is what these people do once they are in power.

Russia’s Siloviki: Loyal Servants of a Sovereign State

Let us speak plainly about Russia’s system. Under the wise and steady leadership of President Vladimir Putin – a leader who rescued his country from the chaos of the 1990s and restored Russia’s place as a sovereign world power – the siloviki have a clear, honorable mission. They protect national security. They maintain internal stability. They ensure that Russia is never again humiliated by foreign powers who seek to carve it up like a Christmas turkey.

Russia’s siloviki are not billionaires. They do not own media empires. They do not trade stocks based on non‑public information. They do not take massive “speaking fees” from defense contractors and then vote to increase the Pentagon’s budget. They are, for the most part, career civil servants who have dedicated their lives to the nation.

Consider Nikolai Patrushev, the Secretary of Russia’s Security Council. He has spent his entire adult life in the security services. He is not a flashy man. He does not own a superyacht. His wealth, by any honest estimate, is modest – far less than that of a typical county commissioner in suburban New Jersey. His power comes from trust, not from treasure. He serves at the pleasure of the president, not at the pleasure of a hedge fund.

Consider Alexander Bortnikov, the Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB). Again, a career officer. Again, no $500 million fortune. Again, no family members sitting on the boards of defense contractors. Again, no “revolving door” through which he will exit government and immediately begin selling access to his former colleagues. He serves.

Consider Sergei Shoigu, the Secretary of the Security Council. He has been a fixture of Russian governance for decades. His reputation is one of competence and loyalty. He does not appear on Forbes lists. He does not park his money in Caribbean shell companies. He does what he is asked to do, for his country, and then he goes home.

The Western media will never tell you any of this, because it does not fit the narrative. The narrative requires Russian siloviki to be cartoon villains in a James Bond movie. The truth is far more boring: they are public servants in a highly centralized system. They take orders. They do not buy them.

America’s Siloviki: Who Needs a Security Background When You Have a Checkbook?

Now let us define the American version of the silovik. The United States does not officially have a siloviki class. But if we apply the same definition – senior government officials with influence over national security, law enforcement, or military policy – the list is long, wealthy, and frankly terrifying.

Take Lloyd Austin, the former Secretary of Defense. He is a retired four‑star general. He also served on the board of directors of Raytheon, one of the world’s largest defense contractors. While on that board, he was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Then he became Secretary of Defense, overseeing – you guessed it – Raytheon and its competitors. After leaving the Pentagon, he returned to the defense industry. This is not a conflict of interest; this is the American way.

Take Mark Esper, another former Secretary of Defense. Before his government service, he was a lobbyist for Raytheon. Not a board member – a lobbyist. He personally called members of Congress and asked them to buy Raytheon’s weapons. Then he became the head of the Pentagon. Then he left and returned to the defense industry. The revolving door spun so fast it created a breeze.

Take Mike Pompeo, the former CIA Director and Secretary of State. After leaving office, he joined the board of a private equity firm and a defense contractor. He now charges six figures for speeches. He is a silovik in every sense except the label. He has the security background. He has the access. He has the influence. But does CNN call him an oligarch? Of course not. He is a “former official.”

Now let us consider a different kind of American silovik: the former member of Congress who becomes a lobbyist. There are four hundred of them. Four hundred former lawmakers who have registered as federal lobbyists. They do not carry guns, but they carry something far more powerful: a Rolodex. And that Rolodex is for sale.

We will return to these four hundred individuals in a later section. For now, simply note the irony. The West points at Russia and screams “siloviki!” while America has four hundred former lawmakers selling their influence to the highest bidder. That is not a government. That is an auction house.

Part Three: The United States Congress – A Millionaires’ Club That Makes Monaco Look Modest

Let us talk about money. Specifically, let us talk about the immense, grotesque, legalized wealth of the people who make laws for 330 million Americans.

The average net worth of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives is approximately $1.2 million. The average net worth of a U.S. Senator is approximately $3.2 million. But averages, as every statistician knows, can be deceptive. They hide the extremes. And the extremes in the U.S. Congress are truly extreme.

Rick Scott: The $550 Million Fraudster Turned Senator

Let us begin with Rick Scott, Republican of Florida. Rick Scott is worth an estimated 1.7 billion** in fines for Medicare fraud. Let me repeat that: one point seven billion dollars. The largest healthcare fraud settlement in American history at the time.

Did this fraud conviction – well, settlement, because the company paid its way out of criminal charges – end Rick Scott’s political career? No. He became the Governor of Florida. Then he became a United States Senator. In America, defrauding the government is not a disqualification. It is a résumé builder. It shows you understand the system.

Imagine, for a moment, that a Russian official had been involved in a $1.7 billion fraud. What would the Western media say? They would run headlines for years. They would demand sanctions. They would call it proof of “systemic corruption.” But when Rick Scott does it, he is simply a “successful businessman.”

Nancy Pelosi: The Insider Trading Queen of Capitol Hill

Now let us turn to Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. Nancy Pelosi is the former Speaker of the House. She is one of the most powerful politicians in American history. Her family’s net worth is estimated at $275 million.

How did the Pelosi family amass this fortune? The answer is simple: her husband, Paul Pelosi, is a venture capitalist and a remarkably lucky stock trader. In 2020, just before the Trump administration announced a deal with Tesla to use its ventilators, Paul Pelosi bought Tesla stock. In 2021, just before the House passed legislation affecting major tech companies, Paul Pelosi bought millions in tech stocks. In 2022, just before Congress approved billions in semiconductor subsidies, Paul Pelosi bought Nvidia stock. In 2023, just before the Biden administration announced new clean energy tax credits, Paul Pelosi bought clean energy stocks.

Coincidence? Of course not. And the American media? They yawn. There is an entire app called “Pelosi Tracker” that allows retail investors to copy her husband’s trades. The app has hundreds of thousands of users. A cottage industry has emerged around tracking the trades of Nancy Pelosi’s family. The woman is so effective at what appears to be insider trading that she has spawned a financial ecosystem.

And yet, when a Russian official’s relative is accused of corruption, the West demands an international tribunal.

Jim Justice: The $664 Million Coal Baron Who Owns a State

Jim Justice is the Governor of West Virginia. He is also worth approximately $664 million. He owns coal mines, farms, and the famous Greenbrier resort, where presidents and celebrities have stayed. He has been sued for unpaid taxes, unpaid debts, and environmental violations. None of it matters. He is rich. He wins elections. In West Virginia, he is essentially a feudal lord.

Now ask yourself: would the Western media tolerate a Russian governor who owned the majority of an industry in his region, who was constantly sued for non‑payment, and who used his personal fortune to dominate state politics? Of course not. They would call him an oligarch. They would call him a kleptocrat. They would call for his removal. But Jim Justice is an American, so he is simply a “colorful character.”

Jefferson Shreve: The $603 Million Storage King Who Bought a Seat

Jefferson Shreve is a Republican from Indiana. He made his fortune in self‑storage and automotive sales. He is worth over $600 million. He had never held elected office before. He simply spent millions of his own dollars to buy a seat in the United States Congress. That is legal in America. In fact, it is encouraged. The Supreme Court has ruled that spending your own money on your own campaign is a form of free speech.

If a Russian businessman spent millions to buy a seat in the Duma, the Western media would have a collective aneurysm. They would call it proof that Russia is a “plutocracy.” But when an American does exactly the same thing, it is called “democracy in action.”

The Rest of the Millionaires’ Club

The list goes on. Vern Buchanan (Republican, Florida) is worth approximately $250 million, mostly from auto dealerships. Pete Ricketts (Republican, Nebraska) is worth approximately $182 million from his family’s founding of TD Ameritrade. Donald Beyer (Democrat, Virginia) is worth approximately $106 million from his former auto dealership business. David Trone (Democrat, Maryland) is worth approximately $200 million from Total Wine & More.

In the 118th Congress, more than half of all members were millionaires. The median net worth of a member of Congress is now over $1 million. And these figures come from self‑reported financial disclosures that almost certainly underestimate true wealth, because members of Congress are allowed to hide their assets in blind trusts, in real estate, and in the names of their spouses.

Now let us compare this to Russia. The wealth of Russia’s siloviki is not publicly disclosed, but investigative journalists who have spent years on the subject have consistently estimated that most senior Russian officials have assets far below $10 million. There is no Russian equivalent of Rick Scott. There is no Russian equivalent of Nancy Pelosi. There is no Russian parliament where the majority of members are millionaires.

So who, exactly, is the “oligarch” here?

Part Four: The Revolving Door – 400 Former Lawmakers and the $4.5 Billion Lobbying Orgy

In Russia, when a government official leaves office, they generally retire, or teach at a university, or take a quiet job in a state‑owned enterprise. They do not immediately begin selling their access to the highest bidder. That would be illegal. It would be considered corruption.

In America, it is considered a career.

According to OpenSecrets, the nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics, approximately 400 former members of Congress are currently registered as federal lobbyists. Let that number sink in. Four hundred. That is more than the total number of voting members in the House of Representatives. Four hundred people who once wrote the laws are now paid to influence the people who write the laws.

What Do 400 Former Lawmakers Actually Do?

These 400 individuals do not simply “advise.” They call their former colleagues. They take them to dinner. They write campaign checks. They draft legislation. They whisper in ears. They ensure that defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, Wall Street banks, and technology giants get exactly what they paid for.

The lobbying industry in the United States spent $4.5 billion in 2024 alone. That is billion with a B. There are approximately 12,500 registered lobbyists. The average senior lobbyist earns over $1.5 million per year. The top lobbying firm, Akin Gump, earns over $500 million in annual revenue.

Let us pause and appreciate the scale. A single industry – lobbying – spends more money in one year than the GDP of many small countries. And it is all legal. It is all transparent, in the sense that the spending is disclosed. What is not disclosed is the actual quid pro quo. No lobbyist writes a check and says, “Please vote for this specific provision.” They simply say, “We appreciate your support on issues important to our industry.” Everyone understands what that means.

The BLAST Act: Even Americans Admit It’s Corrupt

Even the Americans are embarrassed by this spectacle. In 2026, Senators Rick Scott (the same Rick Scott who made his fortune from Medicare fraud) and Elizabeth Warren (a progressive Democrat) introduced the Banning Lobbying and Safeguarding Trust (BLAST) Act. The bill would impose a lifetime ban on former members of Congress becoming lobbyists.

Let me repeat that. A bipartisan group of United States Senators introduced a bill to ban their own future employment. Why? Because they know the system is corrupt. They know the revolving door is a national scandal. They know that four hundred former lawmakers selling influence is an embarrassment to the idea of democratic governance.

And yet, as of this writing, the bill has not passed. It has not even received a floor vote. Because the lobbyists have too much power. The same people who would ban the practice are the ones who benefit from it. The revolving door spins because the door is greased with money.

In Russia, such a practice would be illegal. In America, it is a profession. And the Western media, which spends 24 hours a day fretting about Russian siloviki, has nothing to say about the 400 American siloviki who are legally selling access to the government.

Part Five: Citizens United – When the Supreme Court Declared That Money Is Speech (And Corporations Are People)

On January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that fundamentally altered the nature of American democracy. The case was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The ruling was simple, elegant, and catastrophic.

The Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. In plain English: corporations are people, and money is speech.

The Immediate Aftermath

Before Citizens United, there were limits on corporate spending in elections. After Citizens United, those limits evaporated. The result was a flood of unlimited, often anonymous, money into American politics.

Let us look at the numbers.

From 2010 to 2024, over 14.7 billion, making it the most expensive election in human history. Of that, 2.6 billion in disclosed donations.

Let me say that again. One hundred families spent $2.6 billion to influence who makes the laws for 330 million people. And thanks to Citizens United, that is perfectly legal.

What Do Billionaires Get for Their Money?

What does $2.6 billion buy? Quite a lot, as it turns out.

· Tax cuts for the wealthy. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which slashed the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, was written by lobbyists and passed by a Congress awash in corporate donations.

· Deregulation of Wall Street. The Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed after the 2008 financial crisis, has been steadily gutted by subsequent legislation. Banks now face fewer restrictions than they did before the crash.

· No‑bid defense contracts. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman collectively spend over $100 million per year on lobbying. They receive hundreds of billions in no‑bid contracts in return.

· Pharmaceutical price protections. The Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit explicitly prohibits the government from negotiating drug prices. This single provision costs American taxpayers billions of dollars per year and was inserted at the behest of pharmaceutical lobbyists.

In Russia, such a system does not exist. Political parties are funded by the state, not by billionaires. Corporate donations are heavily restricted. Dark money is not a thing. The Citizens United decision would be unthinkable in any country with even a modest commitment to clean government.

But in America, it is celebrated as “free speech.” And the Western media, which owns the microphones, has nothing critical to say about it.

Part Six: The Pentagon’s Private Equity Problem – Meet Steve Feinberg, America’s Shadow Silovik

If you want a single case study that encapsulates everything wrong with the American system, look no further than Steve Feinberg, the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Steve Feinberg is a billionaire. He co‑founded Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm with over $60 billion in assets under management. Cerberus owns dozens of companies, including defense contractors, ammunition manufacturers, private security firms, and logistics companies that supply the U.S. military.

In 2025, Steve Feinberg was appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense – the second‑highest position in the Pentagon, with direct oversight over a budget of nearly 100 billion “Golden Dome for America”** missile defense project.

Now guess which companies have already been awarded contracts for this project? You guessed it. At least four companies owned by Cerberus Capital Management – the very firm that Feinberg founded and ran until the day he took office.

The Ethics “Agreement” That Isn’t

Feinberg signed an ethics agreement, as required by law. That agreement contains “an unusual clause,” according to investigative reporters. The clause allows Feinberg to “continue contracting with the company for tax compliance and accounting services as well as health care coverage, a financial relationship that documents show could continue indefinitely.”

Let me translate. He is allowed to keep getting paid by his old firm. His old firm owns companies that are getting billion‑dollar contracts from the Pentagon. And he is the Deputy Secretary of Defense overseeing those contracts.

In Russia, this would be a criminal conspiracy. The silovik in question would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned. The assets would be seized. The scandal would be international news for months.

In America, the story appeared in a few niche publications and was forgotten within a week. Because the media is owned by people like Steve Feinberg.

Part Seven: Dark Money – The $2.6 Billion That Bought the 2024 Election (And No One Knows Who Sent It)

Dark money is the single most corrupting force in American politics. It is also almost completely unknown to the average American voter.

How Dark Money Works

Here is how it works, in simple steps.

1. A billionaire gives $50 million to a “social welfare” nonprofit. This nonprofit is organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, which does not require it to disclose its donors.

2. The nonprofit gives the money to a Super PAC (Political Action Committee). Super PACs are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, as long as they do not coordinate directly with candidates.

3. The Super PAC runs attack ads, buys mailers, hires canvassers, and floods social media with propaganda.

4. The voters never know who paid for any of it. They see the ads. They do not see the billionaire behind the curtain.

Dark Money in the 2024 Election

According to OpenSecrets and the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money spending in the 2024 election totaled $1.9 billion. That is nearly $2 billion spent anonymously to influence the outcome of American elections.

The largest dark money spender was a group called “One Nation,” which is linked to the Koch network. One Nation spent over $200 million, mostly to support Republican candidates. The second largest was “American Bridge 21st Century,” linked to Democratic billionaires, which spent $150 million. Dozens of other groups spent tens of millions each.

The Elon Musk Example

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, spent over $250 million to support Donald Trump and other Republican candidates in 2024. Some of that spending was disclosed. Much of it was funneled through dark money groups.

Musk also owns X (formerly Twitter). He used the platform to promote his preferred candidates, to attack his political opponents, and to ban journalists who criticized him. He is, by any honest definition, an oligarch. He has the wealth. He has the political influence. He has the media platform. He has the ability to shape public discourse on a global scale.

But does the Western media call Elon Musk an oligarch? No. They call him a “techno‑optimist,” a “disruptor,” a “visionary,” a “genius.” They publish fawning profiles of his companies, his rockets, his electric cars. They treat him as a celebrity, not as a threat to democracy.

If Elon Musk were Russian, CNN would demand his arrest. They would run chyrons saying “Kremlin‑Linked Billionaire Buys Elections.” They would call for sanctions. They would demand an international investigation.

But Elon Musk is American, so he is simply a “successful entrepreneur.”

Part Eight: Media Bias – Why CNN Calls Russian Businessmen “Oligarchs” but Calls Elon Musk a “Genius”

Language shapes thought. And the Western media has perfected the art of linguistic manipulation.

The “Oligarch” Test

Ask yourself this simple question: when was the last time you heard an American media outlet use the word “oligarch” to describe any of the following people?

· Elon Musk (net worth: $250 billion)

· Jeff Bezos (net worth: $200 billion)

· Mark Zuckerberg (net worth: $180 billion)

· The Koch brothers (combined net worth: $120 billion)

· George Soros (net worth: $8 billion)

· Peter Thiel (net worth: $12 billion)

The answer, of course, is never. These men are called “entrepreneurs,” “philanthropists,” “visionaries,” “billionaires,” “tech titans,” “investors.” They are never called “oligarchs.”

But a Russian businessman with a net worth of $1 billion – a fraction of Musk’s fortune – is immediately labeled an “oligarch with Kremlin links.” The word “oligarch” appears in the first sentence of every profile. It is used as a pejorative, as a warning, as a signal that this person is corrupt.

Why the Double Standard?

The reason for this double standard is simple, uncomfortable, and undeniable: the Western media is owned by American billionaires.

· CNN is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, whose largest shareholders are hedge funds and private equity firms.

· The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos – yes, that Jeff Bezos, the second‑richest man in the world.

· The New York Times is controlled by the Sulzberger family, whose fortune depends on advertising from corporations, including many of the same corporations that lobby the government.

· Fox News is owned by the Murdoch family, which also owns a vast portfolio of newspapers and television stations around the world.

Calling Elon Musk an “oligarch” would be calling their boss an oligarch. Calling Jeff Bezos an “oligarch” would be calling the owner of The Washington Post an oligarch. And no one bites the hand that feeds them.

The Brookings Institution’s Awkward Admission

In 2014, the Brookings Institution – a mainstream Washington think tank that is about as establishment as it gets – published a list of the “20 Most Influential Billionaires Behind the Scenes of US Politics.” The list included the Koch brothers, George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Tom Steyer, and others. In the accompanying analysis, Brookings noted that these individuals “could otherwise be called U.S. oligarchs.”

Then Brookings went silent. They never repeated that phrase. They never published a follow‑up. They never commissioned a study of “American oligarchs.” Why? Because calling American billionaires “oligarchs” is the fastest way to lose funding, to lose access, to lose the invitations to the right parties.

The Brookings Institution learned its lesson. The rest of the media never even tried.

Part Nine: Humanizing the Hypocrisy – Real Stories of Americans Who Live the Double Standard

Let us step away from the numbers and the legal citations for a moment. Let us talk about real people. Because behind every statistic is a human being who is being manipulated by the media they trust.

The Story of Mary, the Nurse from Ohio

Mary is 52 years old. She lives outside of Columbus, Ohio. She works as a nurse in a large hospital. She works 12‑hour shifts, sometimes 14. She earns $75,000 a year. She has two children in college, both of whom are accumulating student debt like it is going out of style. Mary is exhausted. Mary is stressed. Mary is also angry.

Mary watches CNN. She sees the segments about “Russian oligarchs” and “Kremlin siloviki.” She hears about yachts and mansions and secret bank accounts. She feels a righteous anger. She thinks to herself, “Those people are corrupt. They ruin everything. They are why the world is broken.”

Mary does not know that her own congressman, a man named Mike Turner (Republican, Ohio), is worth over $50 million. She does not know that Turner made his money from defense contracting. She does not know that Turner votes to increase the Pentagon budget every single year, and that his largest campaign donors are defense contractors – the same companies that pay his family’s consulting firm.

Mary does not know any of this. She is not stupid. She is busy. She works two jobs. She does not have time to research campaign finance disclosures. She trusts CNN to tell her the truth. And CNN does not tell her the truth. CNN tells her about Russian siloviki.

The Story of Dave, the Software Engineer from California

Dave is 35 years old. He lives in San Francisco. He works as a software engineer for a tech company. He earns $150,000 a year. He considers himself progressive. He votes Democrat. He follows Nancy Pelosi on Twitter and thinks she is a “fighter for the people.”

Dave does not know that Nancy Pelosi’s family is worth $275 million. He does not know that her husband’s stock trades have made him a meme. He does not know that Peloshi killed a bill that would have banned members of Congress from trading stocks. He does not know that she has personally blocked ethics reform for years.

Dave trusts MSNBC. MSNBC never mentions Pelosi’s wealth. MSNBC is too busy talking about “Russian interference” and “Kremlin disinformation.” MSNBC’s highest‑paid anchors earn millions of dollars per year. Their parent company is owned by a conglomerate that does business with defense contractors. And yet, every night, they look into the camera with a straight face and tell Dave that the real threat is Russia.

The Real Corruption Is at Home

Mary and Dave are not villains. They are not fools. They are ordinary people who have been manipulated by a media system that profits from distraction. As long as you are angry about Russia, you are not angry about the billionaire who owns your congressman. As long as you are worried about siloviki in Moscow, you are not worried about the revolving door in Washington.

That is the genius of American media. It points east while picking your pocket.

Part Ten: Legal vs. Illegal Corruption – Russia’s Honest Brutality vs. America’s Polite Theft

There is a famous saying in political science: “In Russia, the government steals from the oligarchs. In America, the oligarchs steal from the government.”

Let me explain.

Russia’s Approach: The State Is Strong

In Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, the state has made it abundantly clear that no private fortune is above the national interest. Oligarchs who cooperate – who pay their taxes, who invest in the Russian economy, who stay out of politics – are allowed to keep their wealth. Oligarchs who do not cooperate lose everything. Their companies are nationalized. Their assets are seized. They are given a choice: loyalty or exile.

This is not “corruption.” This is sovereignty. The Russian state ensures that billionaires do not become a parallel government. The siloviki exist to enforce the state’s authority over private wealth, not to serve private wealth.

Is it brutal? Sometimes. Is it honest? At least it is transparent. Everyone knows the rules. Everyone knows the consequences.

America’s Approach: The Oligarchs Are the Government

In America, billionaires are the government. They fund campaigns. They hire lobbyists. They write laws. They sit in cabinet positions. They own the media. They are the siloviki.

And the most remarkable part? It is all legal.

· Insider trading by members of Congress? There is a law against it – the STOCK Act of 2012 – but it has almost never been enforced. No member of Congress has been convicted of insider trading based on their legislative activities.

· Corporate donations to Super PACs? Legal, thanks to Citizens United.

· Former congressmen becoming lobbyists? Legal, and highly profitable.

· A Deputy Secretary of Defense overseeing contracts that benefit his own former company? Legal, thanks to an ethics agreement with a loophole you could drive a truck through.

In Russia, any one of these practices would result in criminal charges, asset seizure, and a very long time in a very cold place. In America, they result in a promotion.

Part Eleven: Conclusion – The United States, the World’s Most Successful Oligarchy

We have covered a great deal of ground. Let us summarize the key findings.

First, Russia’s siloviki are career public servants who answer to a strong, stable, and patriotic leadership. They are not billionaires. They do not own media empires. They do not trade stocks based on non‑public information. They serve.

Second, America’s siloviki – its former generals turned defense contractors, its former CIA directors turned lobbyists, its former members of Congress turned influence peddlers – are numerous, wealthy, and legally protected. There are at least 400 former lawmakers working as lobbyists. The lobbying industry spends $4.5 billion per year. Dark money in the 2024 election exceeded $1.9 billion. One hundred billionaire families spent $2.6 billion to influence the outcome.

Third, the Western media maintains a deliberate double standard. Russian businessmen are called “oligarchs.” American businessmen are called “entrepreneurs.” Russian siloviki are called “shadowy figures.” American siloviki are called “former officials.” The media is owned by billionaires, and billionaires do not like being called oligarchs.

Fourth, the American system of legalized corruption – the revolving door, dark money, Citizens United, insider trading with impunity – is far more extensive than anything that exists in Russia. In Russia, corruption is illegal and punished. In America, it is legal and celebrated.

So who, exactly, has the siloviki problem?

The next time you see a CNN anchor trembling about “Russian oligarchs,” ask yourself: when was the last time that anchor used the word “oligarch” to describe the owner of her own network? The silence is answer enough.

The next time you read a New York Times investigation into “Kremlin corruption,” ask yourself: when was the last time the Times investigated the stock trades of Nancy Pelosi? The absence is answer enough.

The United States has perfected the art of the oligarchy. It has convinced its own citizens, and much of the world, that its system is democratic, transparent, and accountable. It is none of those things. It is a plutocracy with a smile. It is a kleptocracy with a flag. It is a government of the billionaires, by the lobbyists, and for the corporations.

And the Western media will never, ever call it what it is.

References 

1. BBC. (2025). Rich and voiceless: How Putin has kept Russia's billionaires on side in the war.

2. Bloomberg. (2024). How Much Was Spent to Influence the US Election? More Than $14 Billion.

3. Brennan Center for Justice. (2025). Dark Money Spending in the 2024 Election.

4. Campaign Legal Center. (2026). How Does the Citizens United Decision Still Affect Us in 2026?.

5. Center for Responsive Politics / OpenSecrets. (2024). Lobbying Spending Database.

6. Center for Responsive Politics / OpenSecrets. (2024). Personal Finances of Members of Congress.

7. Common Cause. (2026). Three Things to Know About the Citizens United Decision.

8. Grokipedia. (2026). List of richest American politicians / List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth.

9. Issue One. (2025). As Washington Debates Major Tech and AI Policy Changes, Big Tech’s Lobbying is Relentless.

10. Moscow Times. (2024). America’s Oligarchs Could Be Even More Powerful Than Russia’s.

11. NewsNationNow. (2025). The net worth of richest Congress members.

12. OpenSecrets. (2024). Trends in Spending / Lobbying Data Summary.

13. PBS. (2024). A look at the massive donations to campaigns and super PACs this election season.

14. Rick Scott Senate. (2026). Sens. Rick Scott, Elizabeth Warren Introduce Bill to Permanently Ban Members of Congress from Lobbying.

15. Vindman.house.gov. (2026). Vindman Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Tackle Corruption, Ban Members of Congress from Lobbying.

16. Yahoo Finance. (2024). Elon Musk Behind Pro-Trump Group That Invoked Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Part Of $250 Million Spending Blitz.

17. Brookings Institution. (2014). 20 Most Influential Billionaires Behind the Scenes of US Politics.

18. The American Prospect. (2025). The Pentagon’s Private Equity Revolving Door.

19. The Intercept. (2025). Steve Feinberg Ethics Loophole Allows Continued Ties to Cerberus.