2014 should be called the year of propaganda. It is also a year of start of new cold war with Russia
in another attempt to crush Russian economic progress (and simultaneously cripple EU). China is the
nest winner. Russia and EU are losers. The USA is just playing usual dangerous game so it is too early
to tell whether this is good or not -- dollar is weakened as the result of those actions as Russia
in now openly hostile toward the USA led financial system.
Patrick Buchnan on Dec 9, 2014 published an interesting article --
A Foreign Policy of Russophobia The American Conservative -- in which it tried to analyse the paranoya
of US elite toward Russia which is coused by imperial pretentions of Washington.
thinking or actions of the U.S. government.
Last week, the House passed such a resolution 411-10.
As ex-Rep. Ron Paul writes, House Resolution 758 is so “full of war propaganda that it rivals the
rhetoric from the chilliest era of the Cold War.” H.R. 758 is a Russophobic rant full of falsehoods
and steeped in superpower hypocrisy.
Among the 43 particulars in the House indictment is this gem: “The Russian Federation invaded
the Republic of Georgia in August 2008.”
Bullhockey. On Aug. 7-8, 2008, Georgia invaded South Ossetia, a tiny province that had won its
independence in the 1990s. Georgian artillery killed Russian peacekeepers, and the Georgian army
poured in. Only then did the Russian army enter South Ossetia and chase the Georgians back into their
own country.
The aggressor of the Russo-Georgia war was not Vladimir Putin but President Mikheil Saakashvili,
brought to power in 2004 in one of those color-coded revolutions we engineered in the Bush II decade.
H.R. 758 condemns the presence of Russian troops in Abkhazia, which also broke from Georgia in
the early 1990s, and in Transnistria, which broke from Moldova. But where is the evidence that the
peoples of Transnistria, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia want to return to Moldova or Georgia?
We seem to support every ethnic group that secedes from Russia, but no ethnic group that secedes
from a successor state. This is rank Russophobia masquerading as democratic principle.
What do the people of Crimea, Transnistria, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Luhansk, or Donetsk
want? Do we really know? Do we care?
And what have the Russians done to support secessionist movements to compare with our 78-day bombing
of Serbia to rip away her cradle province of Kosovo, which had been Serbian land before we were a
nation?
H.R. 758 charges Russia with an “invasion” of Crimea. But there was no air, land, or sea invasion.
The Russians were already there by treaty and the reannexation of Crimea, which had belonged to Russia
since Catherine the Great, was effected with no loss of life. Compare how Putin retrieved Crimea,
with the way Lincoln retrieved the seceded states of the Confederacy—a four-year war in which 620,000
Americans perished.
Russia is charged with using “trade barriers to apply economic and political pressure” and interfering
in Ukraine’s “internal affairs.” This is almost comical. The U.S. has imposed trade barriers and
sanctions on Russia, Belarus, Iran, Cuba, Burma, Congo, Sudan, and a host of other nations.
Economic sanctions are the first recourse of the American Empire.
And agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy and its subsidiaries, our NGOs and
Cold War radios, RFE and Radio Liberty, exist to interfere in the internal affairs of countries whose
regimes we dislike, with the end goal of “regime change.”
Was that not the State Department’s Victoria Nuland, along with John McCain, prancing around Kiev,
urging insurgents to overthrow the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych? Was Nuland
not caught boasting about how the U.S. had invested $5 billion in the political reorientation of
Ukraine, and identifying whom we wanted as prime minister when Yanukovych was overthrown?
H.R. 578 charges Russia with backing Syria’s Assad regime and providing it with weapons to use
against “the Syrian people.”
But Assad’s principal enemies are the al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate, and ISIS. They are
not only his enemies, and Russia’s enemies, but our enemies. And we ourselves have become de facto
allies of Assad with our air strikes against ISIS in Syria.
And what is Russia doing for its ally in Damascus, by arming it to resist ISIS secessionists,
that we are not doing for our ally in Baghdad, also under attack by the Islamic State? Have we not
supported Kurdistan in its drive for autonomy? Have U.S. leaders not talked of a Kurdistan independent
of Iraq?
H.R. 758 calls the President of Russia an “authoritarian” ruler of a corrupt regime that came
to power through election fraud and rules by way of repression. Is this fair, just or wise? After
all, Putin has twice the approval rating in Russia as President Obama does here, not to mention the
approval rating of our Congress.
Damning Russian “aggression,” the House demands that Russia get out of Crimea, South Ossetia,
Abkhazia, and Transnistria, calls on Obama to end all military cooperation with Russia, impose “visa
bans, targeted asset freezes, sectoral sanctions,” and send “lethal … defense articles” to Ukraine.
This is the sort of ultimatum that led to Pearl Harbor.
Why would a moral nation arm Ukraine to fight a longer and larger war with Russia that Kiev could
not win, but that could end up costing the lives of ten of thousands more Ukrainians?
Those who produced this provocative resolution do not belong in charge of U.S. foreign policy,
nor of America’s nuclear arsenal.
Or an attempt to describe how US problems correlate with international security.
On several past occasions I have written that the United States is deliberately destroying the
entire system of international security, the same system that they had built together with the
USSR. Why did they start dismantling the international security system is also understandable, in
the 1990s the generation of "victors" came to power in that country, these people are convinced that
they had "defeated" the USSR (as our theory explains it is obviously not so, please refer to
http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/188291
) and because they are "victors" they may do anything they please. They decided that collective security
arrangements are onerous, and that they need their own security system, the one that only they will
have control over.
If we were to evaluate rhetoric of individuals who were in charge of the states that were admitted
as new NATO members in the last 20 years, then we can figure out the logic that stands behind the
expansion (and perhaps a bit even farther still). "We are being threatened and the USA is our only
possible protection, therefore we must all be integrated within a US-centered security structure."
This was all going on while Russia, as a matter of principle, was not participating in affairs of
those countries (not even in those of the Ukraine, which was abandoned to its own devices, something
that has to a great extent caused the recent events in that country), Russia was not a threat to
anyone (and of course it is not a threat to anyone now), the point of this all was deliberate destruction
of the old global security system, in which Russia used to play a key role.
Obviously constructing a new security system from scratch is an endeavor that is both expensive and
slow, and that is the prime reason why on some issues (such as nuclear disarmament) the United States
continued to talk with Russia although the background of those communications can be best expressed
through a formula: we only talk about questions which we consider to be of interest to us, and the
rest is not really your business. The trouble is that all those plans, which were developed in the
90s and which they began to implement during 2000s (quite possibly, the events of September 11, 2001
http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/86502
were organized to launch the execution of those plans, same way as the Pearl Harbor was staged to
extract the United States from its "embrace of isolationism"), so those plans had been based on the
premise of continuous economic growth, itself founded upon the primacy of America's resources. Instead
they ended up with a crisis, which has significantly reduced those available "resources."
I must note that the period of capture of former Socialist Commonwealth's markets has indeed become
"the golden age" of American economy, even their budget scored a surplus. But our work in 2001 in
which we evaluated the balance between different branches of American economy in the 1998 showed
that ( http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/73174
) already then the US economy was standing on the brink of abyss comparable to where it found itself
in the early 1930s. Today's picture is far more frightening and what can be done about it unclear
as well. The old security model has been destroyed. Trust cannot be restored, a new model does not
exist, there are some elements of it here and there, but they function only if the US directly intervenes
into the process. Intervention factually consists of allocating large sums of money to all participants
in the process, and it is faulty: Palestine, ISIS, etc.
This is happening while the situation inside the US worsens. The problem is that for a long time
they have a barrier in place that has separated the elite from the rest of the society, the barrier
of the kind that's only being built here (in Russia). American educational system, and I mean educational
system that prepares societal leaders, has been destroyed already back in the 1960s, an average citizen
(the sheep in the parlance of the elite) has actually no chances of advancement to an upper "elite"
level, the one from which the society is being governed. A successful marriage could serve as a theoretical
exception, but this social advancement mechanism cannot be employed in a systemic fashion. However
for those few who are born active, unless the punitive psychiatry destroys them at a tender age or
they fall victim to juvenile justice, something that now gets written a lot about, for them there
are still mechanisms for upward social mobility which could bring them up to the level of technocratic
elite.
The trouble is that in the course of this half of a century they've had accumulated lots of people
who are absolutely unprepared to tolerate a sharp decline in their standards of living. But along
with the worsening of the economic crisis, in order to maintain their grip on power and their status
the "actual" elites must most definitely reduce the living standard of these population strata of
the American society. And that can push the system up onto the critical level of mutual contradictions.
Because internal resources necessary for maintenance of the quality of life of this so called upper
middle class are depleted, they need to find some substitute external resources. To phrase it differently:
the United States can only preserve domestic social stability at the expense of someone else.
Here we stumble upon remnants of the old security system. The Bretton Woods system was based upon
a premise that all assets of participating member states will be dollar denominated. So fresh dollars
were printed along with introduction of new assets into the system, and the US elites could then
work out how those dollars are to be shared with the elites of those new countries (or regions) that
were about to be incorporated within this dollar zone. How those regional elites were going to split
those dollars with their own population was their own concern. But there are no more assets to be
brought into the system, consequently no new dollars are being printed, and worse than that, existing
dollars are being redistributed for America's benefit through US controlled world dollar system.
This makes internal conflicts in many of the world's countries all but unavoidable.
Some of those conflicts are at their beginning stage while others are already burning hot, but their
essence is all he same, counter-elites, the ones who were not let into the proverbial dollar cookie
jar now make claims upon existing elites demanding either to restore the scale of support they get
(that means that the old elites must commence financing of the economy from their own pockets) or
yield power and get out of the way. Most obvious that because those existing elites are all pro-American,
the scenario is developing under accompaniment of increasingly anti-American rhetoric.
We would like to remind you that similar processes already took place in Latin America after the
investment flows from the United States changed their direction in aftermath of the Second World
War. There the finale was either a breakdown of the economy or emergence of new forces at the helm
of the state, frequently personified by brutal dictators, and sometimes, like in Chile, both a combination
of both developments. What is going to happen to the world's regions is an open question, but the
choice of means to control the situation which remains at America's disposal is shrinking dramatically.
The United States are obviously witnessing these processes and are impotent to do anything about
them. From that standpoints, Obama's officials are no different from Putin, he might not like Nabiullina's
policies but he cannot just fire her because giving her the boot would destroy the consensus of the
elites (and he's too hesitant as doesn't venture to reign in the elites), likewise the administration
team in the US is unable to go against their elites, which adamantly refuse considering anything
that might somehow threaten their status. And that in turn means that rocking the boat is forbidden!
That can be defined as: sudden moves that can be interpreted as a game changer which in turn might
alter the very rules that the United States has introduced in the decade of 2000 and such moves are
not allowed. For example, you cannot just change borders. Possibly, if the United States could turn
the clock back, then they might have left the Pandora's box safely closed and would not have amputated
Kosovo from Serbia, but what's done is done, besides that all happened during prosperous 90s. But
to permit the phenomenon of Crimea (or anything similar) is just impermissible. Because if we allow
to change borders on a regional level, then entire Eastern Europe, the Middle East and many other
areas will turn into serious war theaters.
Essentially we are the ones who understand that this is unavoidable, but American elites will never
come to grips with that (and that's why our economic theory is something they would never agree with),
this why they will do whatever it takes to postpone their own end, they'll drag it until the whole
structure collapses upon them on its own. In that sense, it is implausible to expect that they would
remove sanctions or that they will somehow agree to us acting independently. Perhaps they would be
happy to but they are prisoners of their own system.
The price of the Russian ruble begun to drop in
December 2014 as a consequence of the economic siege on the Russian Federation, the drop in global
energy prices, and speculation. "Judging by the situation in the country, we are in the midst of
a deep currency crisis, one that even Central Bank employees say they could not have foreseen in
their worst nightmares", Interfax's Vyacheslav Terekhov commented on the currency crisis while talking
to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a Kremlin press conference on December 18, 2014. [2] Putin
himself admitted this too at the press conference. While answering Terekhov, Putin explained that
"the situation has changed under the influence of certain foreign economic factors, primarily the
price of energy resources, of oil and consequently of gas as well". [3]
Some may think that the drop in the Russian ruble's value is a result of the market acting on
its own while others who recognize that there is market manipulation involved may turn around and
blame it on the Russian government and Vladimir Putin. This process, however, has been guided by
US machinations. It is simply not a result of the market acting on its own or the result of Kremlin
policies. It is the result of US objectives and policy that deliberately targets Russia for destabilization
and devastation. This is why Putin answered Terekhov's question by saying that the drop in the value
of the Russian ruble "was obviously provoked primarily by external factors". [4]
Both US Assistant-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland - the wife of the Project for the New American
Century (PNAC) co-founder and neo-conservative advocate for empire Robert Kagan - and US Assistant-Secretary
of the Treasury Daniel Glaser told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives
in May 2014 that the objectives of the US economic sanctions strategy against the Russian Federation
was not only to damage the trade ties and business between Russia and the EU, but to also bring about
economic instability in Russia and to create currency instability and inflation. [5] In other words,
the US government was targeting the Russian ruble for devaluation and the Russian economy for inflation
since at least May 2014.
It appears that the US is trying to manipulate the Kremlin into spending Russia's resources and fiscal
reserves to fight the inflation of the Russian ruble that Washington has engineered. The Kremlin,
however, will not take the bait and be goaded into depleting the approximately $419 billion (US)
foreign currency reserves and gold holdings of the Russian Federation or any of Russia's approximately
8.4 trillion ruble reserves in an effort to prop the declining value of the Russian ruble. In this
regard, while holding a press conference, President Putin stated the following on December 18, 2014:
"The Central Bank does not intend to 'burn' them all senselessly, which is right". [6] Putin emphasized
this again when answering Vyacheslav Terekhov's question by saying that the Russian government and
Russian Central Bank "should not hand out our gold and foreign currency reserves or burn them on
the market, but provide lending resources". [7]
The Kremlin understands what Washington is trying to do. The US is replaying old game plans against
Russia. The energy price manipulation, the currency devaluation, and even US attempts to entrap Russia
in a conflict with its sister-republic Ukraine are all replays of US tactics that have been used
before during the Cold War and after 1991. For example, dragging Russia into Ukraine would be a replay
of how the US dragged the Soviet Union into Afghanistan whereas the manipulation of energy prices
and currency markets would parallel the US strategy used to weaken and destabilize Baathist Iraq,
Iran, and the Soviet Union during the Afghan-Soviet War and Iraq-Iran War.
Instead of trying to stop the value of the ruble from dropping, the Kremlin appears to have decided
to strategically invest in Russia's human capital. Russia's national reserve funds will be used to
diversify the national economy and strengthen the social and public sectors. Despite the economic
warfare against Russia, this is exactly why the wages of teachers in schools, professors in post-secondary
institutions of learning and training, employees of cultural institutions, doctors in hospitals and
clinics, paramedics, and nurses - the most important sectors for developing Russia's human capital
and capacity - have all been raised.
... ... ...
Both US Assistant-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury
Daniel Glaser even told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives in May 2014
that the ultimate objectives of the US economic sanctions against Russia are to make the Russian
population so miserable and desperate that they would eventually demand that the Kremlin surrender
to the US and bring about "political change". "Political change" can mean many things, but what it
most probably implies here is regime change in Moscow. In fact, the aims of the US do not even appear
to be geared at coercing the Russian government to change its foreign policy, but to incite regime
change in Moscow and to cripple the Russian Federation entirely through the instigation of internal
divisions. This is why maps of a divided Russia are being circulated by Radio Free Europe. [17]
According to Presidential Advisor Sergey Glazyev, Washington is "trying to destroy and weaken Russia,
causing it to fragment, as they need this territory and want to establish control over this entire
space". [18] "We have offered cooperation from Lisbon to Vladivostok, whereas they need control to
maintain their geopolitical leadership in a competition with China," he has explained, pointing out
that the US wants lordship and is not interested in cooperation. [19] Alluding to former US top diplomat
Madeline Albright's sentiments that Russia was unfairly endowed with vast territory and resources,
Putin also spoke along similar lines at his December 18 press conference, explaining how the US wanted
to divide Russia and control the abundant natural resources in Russian territory.
It is of little wonder that in 2014 a record number of Russian citizens have negative attitudes
about relations between their country and the United States. A survey conducted by the Russian Public
Opinion Research Center has shown that of 39% of Russian respondents viewed relations with the US
as "mostly bad" and 27% as "very bad". [20] This means 66% of Russian respondents have negative views
about relations with Washington. This is an inference of the entire Russian population's views. Moreover,
this is the highest rise in negative perceptions about the US since 2008 when the US supported Georgian
President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi's war against Russia and the breakaway republic of South
Ossetia; 40% viewed them as "mostly bad" and 25% of Russians viewed relations as "very bad" and at
the time. [21]
Russia can address the economic warfare being directed against its national economy and society as
a form of "economic terrorism". If Russia's banks and financial institutions are weakened with the
aim of creating financial collapse in the Russian Federation, Moscow can introduce fiscal measures
to help its banks and financial sector that could create economic shockwaves in the European Union
and North America. Speaking in hypothetical terms, Russia has lots of options for a financial defensive
or counter-offensive that can be compared to its scorched earth policies against Western European
invaders during the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, and the Second World War. If Russian banks
and institutions default and do not pay or delay payment of their derivative debts and justify it
on the basis of the economic warfare and economic terrorism, there would be a financial shock and
tsunami that would vertebrate from the European Union to North America. This scenario has some parallels
to the steps that Argentina is taken to sidestep the vulture funds.
You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done.
"The Gambler" by Kenny Rogers
The entire world is watching Putin play poker with the Western politicians lead by Obama and followed
by Washington quislings in London, Brussels and Berlin. America's goal since the end of the Cold
War has been to weaken by financial, economic and, if necessary, military means any real competition
to its global financial and resource domination through the petrodollar and dollar world reserve
currency status.
The current trade and economic sanctions against Russia and Iran follow this time-tested action
that is never successful on its own, as we know from the 50-plus-year blockade of Cuba. But this
strategy can lead to opposition nations retaliating by military means, often their only alternative
to end blockades etc., which are an act of war and allow the US and other democracies to bring their
ultimate superior military power to bare against the offending sovereign state. This worked for Lincoln
against the Confederate States of America, by Woodrow Wilson against the Central Powers before World
War One, against the Japanese Empire before World War Two, Iraq, Libya – the list is endless.
Recently the US has created the oil price collapse, working closely with its client state Saudi
Arabia, in order to weaken the economic power of both Iran and Russia, the two main nations opposing
US hegemony, foreign policy and petrodollar policy. Yes, this will play havoc with the US shale oil
industry as well as London's North Sea oil industry but oil profits pale in comparison to the importance
of maintaining Western power over Russia and China.
I hope Putin realizes the US is not playing games here, as this is a financial and strategic game
to the death for Washington and it's Western allies that have foolishly followed the Goldman Sachs/central
banking cartel's deadly sovereign debt recipe and for growth and prosperity. The time is up; the
debts can never be repaid and sooner or later must be repudiated one way or the other.
China is waiting in the wings as the new world economic power and while it is too big to challenge,
US strategy is to take out its top two allies, Iran and Russia, to buy time for Wall Street and Washington.
The strategy might be a competitive economic course of action but the risk of military consequences
and even a third world war loom on the horizon and no country has ever defeated Russia in a land
attack. This is risky brinkmanship just to protect our banking and Wall Street elites and their profits
at the expense of the American people, I might add, but the US has done this before.
Is This Just a Repeat of the Versailles Treaty, Russian-style?
This has all happened before. It's the same old game with different players. I fear we are watching
a repeat of the Versailles Treaty, Russian-style. If you look closely at real history rather than
the establishment-directed propaganda dished out to the public, you'll realize that the Western financial
elites and central banking cartel seldom change tactics. Why should they? Their financial empires
continue to grow during all major wars and financial crises and if they should guess wrong, then
they get taxpayers to bail them out.
The Goldman Sachs, Rothschild and Soros types control the Western democracies as well as the financial
markets and use paid or blackmailed cheerleaders and front men to advance their best interests to
the populace as acceptable economic or political policies.
For example, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points statement given on January 8, 1918, claiming the
war and US intervention was a moral cause to advance peace in Europe after World War One, was one
of the leading reasons the Germans sued for peace. In hindsight, we know that American intervention
was really instituted to prevent an Allied loss or negotiated settlement that could make it impossible
for French and British banks to pay back their massive loans to the US banking establishment and
thereby bankrupting our leading banks of the day.
Once the war was over the platitudes about freedom, self-determination and making the world safe
for democracy dissolved into the Treaty of Versailles, probably one of the most vengeful and unfair
peace treaties ever forced on a defeated foe. The entire Austrian-Hungarian empire was totally destroyed
except for the small area of present Austria and Germany, which was stripped of much of its territory
and subjected to a vengeful, unpayable war debt comparable to America's current national debt today.
Sadly, the treaty created the public anger and economic chaos that eventually brought Hitler to power
and set the stage for the Second World War.
So Where Does Russia Go from Here?
First, the US cable pundits are suggesting that Putin might retaliate by invading Ukraine. Why
would Russia want Ukraine? Except for substantial agricultural resources that can be purchased on
the open market, this is a bankrupt country with a long list of failed governments. The country has
become a pawn in the battle between East and West, and its people have already suffered so much.
Now Russia might move in the East to protect Russian-speaking areas and could be willing to suffer
the additional economic consequences of creating a land bridge to Crimea but the military option
appears quite limited and counter-productive at best.
No nation will win a shooting war between the US, UK and EU versus Russia and China. The consequences
are too horrible to be contemplated but Russia has an ace in the hole that can win the financial
and economic battle going on today.
First, Russia should join with China in a new gold, oil and natural resource backed monetary
union as an alternative to the failed debt democracy model pushed by Wall Street, the central
bank cartel and self-serving politicians in the West. It simply does not work in the long term to
finance prosperity and improved standards of living through mountains of debt placed on future generations.
Washington has destroyed every tax haven and bit of personal and financial privacy in the world
because of its desperate need for revenue. Every financial haven has caved, including Switzerland,
because they cannot hope to prevail against the US, UK and EU. The US intends to make Russia a pariah
state and cut it off from trade, funds transfer, banking and Western credit markets. It will
not relent until Putin is overthrown and Russia is compliant with and a supporter of the New World
Order. Next in line following Russia will be China. Thus, a monetary union could provide the
needed support for Russia necessary to guarantee the independence and self-determination of China.
Second, Russia should act offensively rather than defensively on the financial front by creating
corporate tax-free/low income tax zones and welcoming corporations, successful individuals and entrepreneurs
to take up residence and create jobs and prosperity. The Hong Kong model does work to create
industry, service industry and free-market prosperity and to win, Russia needs far more than a resource-based
economy.
Russia needs more population and a larger middle class and should offer residency and citizenship
opportunities to productive and successful workers, entrepreneurial businesses and corporations etc.
with the right of reasonable financial and corporate privacy along with the low tax benefits.
Canada, the wonderful country I live and work in today, offers permanent residency benefits and
citizenship to hundreds of thousands of foreigners wanting to work and immigrate to Canada together
with low corporate tax benefits.
Russia can and should do the same, although the market will require bargain prices as Russia does
not have the long history of rule of law, security and peace like Canada does. Russia should look
at good climate areas like Crimea and other areas around the Black Sea and maybe Kaliningrad in the
north directly in the middle of the EU.
Competititon, free markets, minimal regulation and low taxes are the 21st century solution to
military aggression, over-indebted and resource-hungry empires. Putin said it best in his news conference
last week.
"They won't leave [the bear] alone. They will always seek to chain it. And once it's chained,
they'll rip out its teeth and claws. The nuclear deterrence, speaking in present-day terms. As
soon as this happens, nobody will need [the bear] anymore. They'll stuff it. And start to put
their hands on its Taiga [Siberian forest belt] after it. We've heard statements from Western
officials that Russia's owning Siberia was not fair." – Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin, now is the time to play your ace in the hole. Russia can win the financial and
economic war being waged against it but not by playing the same old game of poker where cheating
prevails. Show the world that Russia is worthy of 21st century leadership in a peaceful and competitive
manner by using the debt, currency and banking weaknesses of the West to defeat an opponent out to
chain Russia as it has the rest of the world into surrender and serfdom.
... ... ...
Ron Holland [send
him mail], a retirement consultant, works in Zurich and is a co-editor of the
Swiss Mountain Vision
Newsletter. He is the CEO of
Biologix Hair Inc.,
providing a revolutionary way to regrow your natural hair with the Biologix Hair Therapy System™.
Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information
purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived
from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for
any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal
financial advisors.
Germany hurts itself following the USA foreign policy. You can expect German trade with Russian
to be halved: "Including other companies like BMW, Mercedes and Ford of Europe, which is based in Cologne,
German automakers will lose 15 billion euros, or about $18.3 billion, in Russian sales and €600 million
in profit through 2017, according to estimates by Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, a professor at the University
of Duisburg-Essen. "
FRANKFURT - Few countries have invested more heavily in
Russia than
Germany has, rushing in to exploit new trade opportunities that opened up after the Cold War
ended. More than 6,000 German companies set up operations there, and Russia became a major customer
for German cars, pharmaceuticals and machinery.
But now the rush is going in reverse. The announcement last week by the German chemical giant
BASF that it had canceled a planned deal with
Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, involving
natural gas extraction and distribution, was the latest example of how German companies are delaying
projects and investment.
... ... ...
Russia's largest trading partners
Total trade, January through August 2014 (billion $)
China 43.4
Netherlands 38.2
Germany 34.3
Italy 25.2
Ukraine 16.1
Belarus 15.7
Turkey 15.5
Japan 15.3
USA 15.0
Poland 12.1
... ... ...
...Russia's problems have helped slow Germany's momentum. Exports to Russia fell 22 percent through
October compared with the same period a year earlier.
... ... ...
Last weekend, the two most prominent Social Democrats in Chancellor Angela Merkel's grand coalition
government of center right and center left - the party leader, Sigmar Gabriel, and the foreign minister,
Frank-Walter Steinmeier - voiced concern that sanctions might hobble the stricken Russian economy,
and they opposed tightening them.
Ms. Merkel, clearly frustrated with the behavior of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, has
so far taken a harder line. But the potential for conflict within Ms. Merkel's government complicates
her efforts to use Germany's close ties with Russia as leverage to fashion a solution to the crisis
in Ukraine.
Business groups, normally strong backers of Ms. Merkel's Christian Democrats, have agreed with
the Social Democrats on Russia and warned against using economic means to put pressure on Mr. Putin.
"Sanctions are not the proper means to resolve this political crisis," Eckhard Cordes, a former
Daimler executive who is chairman of the Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations, which
represents companies doing business in the former Soviet bloc, said in an email. "The West cannot
have an interest in destabilizing the Russian economy or Russian politics."
... ... ...
The Russian market has turned sour for German automakers. Opel said in September it would cut
production at its main factory in St. Petersburg, where it makes Opel Astra and Chevrolet Cruze cars,
eliminating a shift and 500 out of 1,600 jobs.
Volkswagen halted production for 15 days at a plant in Kaluga in recent months, in addition to the
usual Christmas and New Year's shutdown. The company said in a statement it remained committed to
Russia but was "watching the market with concern."
Including other companies like BMW, Mercedes and Ford of Europe, which is based in Cologne, German
automakers will lose 15 billion euros, or about $18.3 billion, in Russian sales and €600 million
in profit through 2017, according to estimates by Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, a professor at the University
of Duisburg-Essen.
"According to the US sanctions imposed against Crimea on December 19, 2014, Visa currently cannot
provide services and offer their products in the Crimea. This means that we can no longer issue or
accept bank cards in Crimea, and service them in ATMs," the company has confirmed to TASS.
"As
for the time period, these limitations will last until the sanctions are lifted from Crimea. At the
moment it is unclear when this will happen; it will depend on the development of the political and
diplomatic situation. VISA continues to follow closely the events and will provide you with the information
as soon as it appears,"a statement to journalists added.
The Central Bank of Russia has promptly responded saying Crimea banks continue to operate as usual,
TASS says.
"Russian credit institutions operating in the territory of the Republic of Crimea and the city
of Sevastopol work as usual, including the opening of bank accounts, transferring funds, and deposits
and withdrawals of funds," said the Central Bank.
As of December 16, about 31 banks were operating in Crimea.
Last week US President Barack Obama authorized individual and sectoral sanctions against Crimea.
This included a ban on the export and import of goods, technology, and services, as well as new investment
in the peninsula.
The head of the Duma financial markets committee, Natalya Burykina, has said the move isn't new
and plastic cards haven't been working in Crimea since March.
"Visa did not provide a card service in Crimea," Burykina said, as cited by RIA Novosti.
She explained the cards in use since March had been issued by Russia's Sberbank, and were part
of their inner payment system.
"This happened after Crimea joined Russia," she said, adding that it's the same with MasterCard.
READ MORE: Obama authorizes 'economic embargo' on Russia's Crimea
In March Visa and MasterCard temporarily stopped servicing clients of blacklisted Russian banks,
which triggered concerns in Russia over the excessive reliance on the Western financial system.
Since then the Central Bank and economic ministers have accelerated efforts to develop a self-sufficient
and independent financial system in Russia.
On Friday, the CBR launched its domestic alternative to the SWIFT global system for banking transactions.
In mid-December, Russia's sanctioned Rossiya and SMP banks started testing the country's own payment
system.
On Friday, Ukraine also cut off electricity and train services to Crimea. It is the second time
in a week that Crimea has been hit by blackouts because, according to the Ukrainian energy ministry,
the peninsula failed to curb consumption as required.
"There remains an energy deficit in Ukraine and they [Crimea] exceeded their limit and therefore
electricity supplies were switched off. As soon as they return to the limit, they'll be reconnected,"
an energy ministry spokesman said.
Ukraine's state rail company has also ceased operating its Crimean service for an uncertain time,
including both passenger and cargo trains to the Black Sea peninsula.
"In order to ensure the safety of passengers … [the railway] will cut the route to Crimea off
at Novooleksiyvka and Kherson," the company said in a statement.
Sophia Musik
This American believes Russia got a raw deal and will emerge more powerful when this soap opera
is over.
Our country has deep troubles. America needs a leader like Putin.
Russia has agreed on a new deal to supply coal and electricity to Ukraine, which is struggling
with a lack of raw fuel for power plants due to a separatist conflict in the industrial east,
Russian officials said on Saturday.
The move comes a day after Kiev said it would suspend train and bus services to Crimea, effectively
creating a transportation blockade to and from the region annexed by Moscow in March this year.
Kiev has briefly cut off electricity to Crimea before.
Russia will supply coal and electricity to Kiev without advance payment as a goodwill gesture
from President Vladimir Putin, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov told TASS news agency.
"Putin made a decision to start these supplies due to the critical situation with energy supplies
and despite a lack of prepayment," Peskov said.
Russia plans to supply 500,000 tonnes of coal to Ukraine per month, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry
Kozak told Rossiya 24 television. It is ready to supply another 500,000 tonnes per month if an
additional agreement is reached, he added.
Ukraine's coal reserves stand at 1.5 million tonnes compared with normal winter stocks of 4-5
million tonnes, according to energy ministry data.
The country used to be self-sufficient in electricity, but months of fighting a pro-Russian uprising
has disrupted coal supplies to thermal power plants, which had generated around 40 percent of
its power.
Last week Ukraine's energy minister, Voldymyr Demchyshyn, said he was holding talks with Russia's
energy ministry on coal and power supplies. Earlier attempts to import Russian coal have been
hampered by supplies being held up at the border.
Supplies will come at Russian domestic prices, Kozak said, adding that he hoped the move would
help ensure reliable energy supplies to Crimea.
He did not say whether the transportation hold-ups at the border had been resolved.
Russia will also supply electricity to Ukraine, Kozak said, without giving supply volumes.
Kiev's pro-Western government has accused Russia of orchestrating the rebellion in Ukraine's east,
a charge Moscow denies.
Fear, vengefulness or arrogance would justify a different response. Russia has none of these.
If Russia were a business it would be doing well in the market by building a great reputation
for customer service and warranty support. Their less-than-ethical competition would respond by
smear campaigns and dirty tricks.
Even if the management of the competition had a come-toJesus moment, it would make no difference
because their employees have no experience, no processes, no procedures to operate differently.
Essentially, their corporate culture, vision and mission consigns them to unethical and "dirty"
behavior until the doors are closed, the lights turned off and the "out of business" sign hung
from the chain link fence.
If I were responsible for seeking a supplier, a company acting like Russia would have a considerable
advantage over the better known but unethical competition.
Business analogies can be quite useful at times and this is one of them.
So you really see this as a goodwill move against Ukraine, and not something that Russia just
had to do because of Ukraine's blackmail over Crimea's energy supplies?
But if we pretend that you are right then Russia should have at least demanded pre-payment
for its coal and electricity.
If Russia were to withhold electricity or coal imports to Ukraine, the damage to Ukraine would
be orders of magnitude more devastating than a Ukraine blockade of Crimean energy imports. Their
economic "kill ratio" would be 10:1 figuratively so if they wanted merely to cause damage to millions
of civilians, they should not sell coal or electricity.
So what is motivating Russia? Try this – Russia does not want a country with tens of millions
of destitute people on its border regardless of their political or religious beliefs. Heck, they
don't want Novarussia for that matter. Russia is offering the energy at a fair price which is
to my mind fully justifiable on business as well as longer term objectives.
Russia needed Crimea and they got it in the most humane, adroit and fair way possible. They
had no interest in the rest of Ukraine.
While you consistently attack Putin, note that the Russia population seems to be solidly behind
him regarding Ukraine. They do not want to ride to the rescue.They support easing the suffering
and seeking a peaceful resolution but do not want to invade much less take ownership of that mess.
By your reckoning that makes the majority of Russians stupid and/or greedy and/or fearful as you
seem to recognize no other human motivation in your world. How dismal.
Regarding your question of prepayment, I don't have the information to make a judgement. A
company or country always has recourse for those who do not pay their bills.
Karl, I wonder if you're not getting unnecessarily wound up here. If Russia has made this coal
offer in response to Ukrainian blackmail, isn't it likely to be a short-term pragmatic solution
to the problem of ensuring continuation of the power supply to Crimea? Russians are not exactly
dumbos when it comes to engineering projects so sorting out Crimea's utilities must be more complicated
than it seems. Sometimes a situation has to be tolerated until it can be ultimately resolved and
eliminated. As with gas transit, Russia has put up with endless Ukrainian shenanigans for years
but Gazprom has made it clear that its ultimate goal is to take Ukraine out of the game.
There's another issue which is a kind of spin off from the points patient observer makes below.
I've long suspected that Kiev wants large-scale deaths from the cold which can be laid at Russia's
door thus cranking up the propaganda and sanctions machines. The coal transports head that off
at the pass as well as, hopefully, making more Ukrainians think about who is actually offering
real, practical help – the EU that prates about values non-stop but is actually absent of any
or Russia.
Yes, that is a good extrapolation of what I was trying to say. Russia is not interested in
revenge or body counts (that sort of focus is something quite Western where death becomes another
metric in its "success").
Most people look at geopolitical interests and at the military-industrial complex, when they think
about the economy of war. This might be right for the small ones, but it underestimates the impact
of the big ones. Whole industrial empires rose from the profits of war, and not necessary in the
areas of weapons production. The Quandt dynasty in Germany (they own f.e. BMW) started from selling
uniforms in WWI and continued benefiting from slave labor in WWII. Bertelsmann, one of the biggest
global media companies, turned from a tiny publisher of Christian literature to a big publishing
house through selling 20 million books to the Wehrmacht. And when the big chemical corporation IG
Farben was broken up after WWII, each of the three companies created out of it, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst,
was as big as IG Farben itself before the war. They made a handsome profit from synthesized petrol...
(not to mention a more gruesome product called Zyklon B).
For an industry desperately looking for demand this is the ultimate Keynesian kick. A big war is
programmed obsolescence on speed – products intended for destruction, on a market free of competition,
paid for by the customer of last resort, the state, who in his turn posts a bet upon refinancing
the cost through plunder. If the bet goes wrong and the war is lost – well, that´s what Swiss bank
accounts were invented for...
The present economic crisis is not a financial one. Finance is just the surface. The wave of deindustrialisation
sweeping over most of the Western economies during the last decades tells another story. Industry
became too efficient; it doesn´t generate enough jobs, therefore it doesn´t hand out wages sufficient
to pay for all the products produced. For some time this problem could be covered up by credit-financed
consumption and the roving circus of low-cost-country production, but finally it came back to roost.
Industrial production recovered nearly nowhere to it´s pre-2008 level; so even if there were a beneficial
wizard who took all the states debts out of the system, and all the fictive capital called derivatives
or MBS or what-so-ever, it still would be dead-end-street.
But who wants to relinquish power? Concede that the famous invisible hand turned rheumatic, leave
those beautiful mansions with well-cultivated lawns and share an ordinary life? Unimaginable. As
long as there is a single card left inside the sleeve the gamble continues. And this last card is
called war. On a large scale.
Now, let´s look at it from an economic perspective. There is an enormous need for demand; all those
peripheral conflicts simply don´t size up to answer it. They generate profits for small, specialized
segments of industry, but they don´t require enough material to set the whole industrial machinery
back in motion. They don´t destroy a sufficient quantity of real values, which would also create
a need for reconstruction – which values are left over to destroy in Afghanistan?
So what would be the criteria for the ideal enemy? There should be enough bounty, so that the whole
enterprise can be refinanced by resources to be stolen. Cross out all countries that lack natural
resources. The area that is fought over should contain a sufficient quantity of real values. Scratch
out all non-industrial countries The enemy should be able to resist, because time equals demand.
Scratch out all countries with weak armies. This seriously limits the choice. Adding the point that
it´s not really advantageous to start an attack from the see, you can have a look at the globe and
you will end up with one single option. Russia.
Oops. They got nuclear bombs. Isn´t it absolutely insane to risk a nuclear confrontation? It is,
but – there are two points to consider.
The first one has to do with human memory. After a certain period, historic research talks about
more or less eighty years, an event moves into the realm of legend; as soon as there are too few
living persons around that have experienced it themselves. A few weeks ago this split in perception
got very visible in German politics – the people who signed the appeal for reasonable politics towards
Russia simply belong to an older generation, for them the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still
real. The politicians who lead at the moment know them only from tales; this is a weak argument against
an economic collapse they can see and feel and taste.
The second point is the mindset of the ruling classes themselves. There can be no doubt they are
better informed about the real state of capitalism than we are, and even we can read the writing
on the wall. So why shouldn´t they play their last card? Just because there is a risk of total oblivion?That
doesn´t change much from their point of view. Novels of the 18th and 19th century are full of aristocrats
that prefer death over a loss of status. The character-masks of capital pass their lives considering
the rest of humankind some type of cattle. And not because they lack brains or suffer from a faulty
character; it´s a necessity for their self-legitimation. They couldn´t stand to be what they are
and do what they do if they saw the world from a normal perspective. What seems completely irrational
therefore turns into a rational choice. A peaceful continuation of collapse will definitely end in
them losing their status. A bet on war might end in them losing their lives. And it might not. Marie
Antoinette for sure would have turned the planet into a radioactive ashtray without hesitation, if
she had the possibility.
It is our tiny problem that we don´t just share the same planet with these people; we still accept
their rule.
The civil war in Ukraine demonstrated the absence in the world of absolute values. Human rights,
tolerance towards minorities, the rejection of neo-Nazism - all what seems to be the cornerstone
of contemporary Europe - was exclusively "for friends only". Not that we did not suspect this attitude
before - Syria was an earlier example -- but Syrian example was not crystal clear.
Baltic example of mass human rights violations were "not enough brutal". Well, they deprived hundreds
of thousands of people political rights; destroyed education in the Russian language contrary
to EU standards - but they did not kill people!
Well, we now got that: in Ukraine people killed, thrown in jail for knowingly fabricated cases
(tried to poison the reservoir - remember?), kidnapped - and all of OK for good old Europe. The EU
provides comprehensive support of neo-Nazi regime. Because violate the rights -- of Russian speaking
aliens. Everything is normal.
Actually, this is probably the most terrible and the most obvious result of 2014. Contrary to the
fantasies about the "end of history", we still live in a dangerous world - essentially the same as
it was in a tragic twentieth century. The only think that increased is the level of hypocrisy.
For almost a year Ukrainian events are deeply concerned about all of us, the descendants of white
emigration, especially in contrast to the people around us we are because of our origin, we have
access to comprehensive information. Knowledge of the recent past, namely the last pre-revolutionary
Russia, gives us the opportunity, and with it the duty to expose the obvious historical falsifications
that led to the current drama in Ukraine. In the face of heightened tensions in the Donbas and in
international relations conclusion is that aggressive hostility, unfolding now against Russia, devoid
of any rationality. The policy of double standards rolls.
Where is the European values?
Russia accused of all crimes, without a priori evidence it is declared guilty, while other countries
have shown an amazing condescension, in particular with regard to human rights.
We are in no way refuse to protect those values upon which our ancestors taught us, doomed to
exile after the 1917 revolution. We do not refuse any condemnation of the criminal acts of the Bolsheviks
and their successors, or by restoring the historical truth about that terrible time. But this does
not mean that we can live with every day falls on us slander against modern Russia, its leadership
and its president, which is sanctioned and mixed with mud, contrary elementary common sense.
This self-destructive for the European countries and ridiculous idea firce to think seriously
everybody who see in it more of the desire to prevent the development of Russia than to settle the
crisis in Ukraine. Especially ridiculous systematic attack on all, that somehow relates to the "Russian
world": we are talking about the historical, geographical, linguistic, cultural and spiritual realities
of the great civilization that has enriched the world that we are proud of.
We also resent the shameful silence European official institutions and the media of the brutal
bombing that Ukrainian army, supported by military groups wearing Nazi symbols inflicts on Donbass
civilians and civilian infrastructure. Such silence is perceived as the sign of approval by the Kiev
authorities and is equivalent to the right of right to continue those killing and destruction. For
months, children and old people are killed or seriously injured, and prisoners are tortured. Now
the Kiev government has introduced complete blockade (gas, electricity, railways, pensions, salaries,
medication, institutions, hospitals, etc.), to finally destroy the region, which it declared to be
that part of their territory. And how not to condemn violent acts committed by supporters of Kiev
in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine ?! Priests are persecuted, forced to flee and
even killed; fifty temples was bombed, of which twenty were completely destroyed; believers
are persecuted. Where is the European values?
We can not put up with the daily falls upon us slander against modern Russia
Despite the complete rejection of the Soviet Union, our fathers and grandfathers grieved suffering
endured by the Russian people during World War II. In turn, we will not stay indifferent and silent
witnesses in the face of the systematic destruction of the population of Donbass, blatant Russophobia
and hypocritical approaches, completely contrary to the interests of our beloved Europe. Really want
to hope that the country gave shelter to our families again take the path of prudence and impartiality.
Paris, November 26, 2014
Google Translate for Business
Krugman as an establishment neoliberal decided to play the role of presstitute. And I would say
that he succeeded beyond expectations. He completely lacks understanding of Russian foreign policy and
Ukrainian coupe d'état and try to to pronounce some platitudes to cover his ass. From comments:
"The point is that there is a still-powerful political faction in America committed to the view that
conquest pays, and that in general the way to be strong is to act tough and make other people afraid.
One suspects, by the way, that this false notion of power was why the architects of war made torture
routine - it wasn't so much about results as about demonstrating a willingness to do whatever it takes."
... "Krugman is pure liberal establishment through and through albeit that ox is a moron. Krugman
lacks the neocon taste for muscular millitaristic hegemony and expresses his putrification of it along
with a necessary measure of hyperbole to keep it clear what side of the fence that he is on. Krugman
has probably never met a global production oligopoly petite hegemone that he did not like."
Conquest Is for Losers, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: More than a century has passed
since Norman Angell, a British journalist and politician, published "The Great Illusion," a treatise
arguing that the age of conquest was or at least should be over. He didn't predict an end to warfare,
but he did argue that aggressive wars no longer made sense - that modern warfare impoverishes
the victors as well as the vanquished.
He was right, but ... Vladimir Putin never got the memo. And neither did our own neocons, whose
acute
case of Putin envy shows that they learned nothing from the Iraq debacle.
Angell's case was simple: Plunder isn't what it used to be. You can't treat a modern society the
way ancient Rome treated a conquered province without destroying the very wealth you're trying
to seize. And meanwhile, war or the threat of war, by disrupting trade and financial connections,
inflicts large costs over and above the direct expense of maintaining and deploying armies. War
makes you poorer and weaker, even if you win. ....
The point is that there is a still-powerful political faction in America committed to the view
that conquest pays, and that in general the way to be strong is to act tough and make other people
afraid. One suspects, by the way, that this false notion of power was why the architects of war
made torture routine - it wasn't so much about results as about demonstrating a willingness to
do whatever it takes.
Neocon dreams took a beating when the occupation of Iraq turned into a bloody fiasco, but they
didn't learn from experience. (Who does, these days?) And so they viewed Russian adventurism with
admiration and envy. ...
The truth, however, is that war really, really doesn't pay. The Iraq venture clearly ended up
weakening the U.S. position in the world, while costing more than
$800 billion in direct
spending and much more in indirect ways. America is a true superpower, so we can handle such losses
- although one shudders to think of what might have happened if the "real men" had been given
a chance to move on to other targets. But a financially fragile petroeconomy like Russia doesn't
have the same ability to roll with its mistakes.
I have no idea what will become of the Putin regime. But Mr. Putin has offered all of us a valuable
lesson. Never mind shock and awe: In the modern world, conquest is for losers.
Second Best :
Doing nothing in self defense invites war, then it is too late. Every terrorist attack was
precipated by warnings ignored by passivists like Krugman. According to the Cheney doctrine even
if the risk of terrorism is only 1% it is worth it to go to war with the 100% to stop the 1%,
or give Haliburton more business, whichever comes first.
"Forward defense" had been the paradig since Xerxes saw Athens as a threat.
Pearl Harbor happened because the US withdrew from the Riyuku Islands after opening Japan!
Second Best -> ilsm...
Torture photos from the Senate report were blocked as a forward defense measure to prevent
their use against the US as propaganda and encourage more terrorist attacks.
They flipped a coin that came up heads for this decision. If it came up tails they had planned
to release the photos as a deterrent to further terrorist attacks since torture is known to work.
Maybe next time.
{PK: ... a British journalist and politician published "The Great Illusion," a treatise
arguing that the age of conquest was or at least should be over. He didn't predict an end to
warfare, but he did argue that aggressive wars no longer made sense - that modern warfare impoverishes
the victors as well as the vanquished.}
How I wish that were true - but it didn't and it isn't. Not in the US, anyway.
What do we learn from the numbers? The "winners" (US/UK/Austraila) lost mostly military personnel.
The loss of civilian lives was extremely high for the "losers". (And I count those who were defeated
by the Nazis amongst them.)
Meaning what? Meaning this: Of the winners, who walked away with the most and least dread of
war. Evidently the US, since we've become used to it (and it does provide high P/E ratios for
some companies ...)
Who are the most abhorrent of war and remain leading "peace-mongers" after successive generations.
I suggest it was the losers, mostly because their civilian-deaths were more and therefore the
combined memory of war (and its vestiges) is still very much alive despite the fact that three
generations have been born since.
America inherited a sense of "invincibility" - as if it were predestined to win, whatever the
cost. We've had how many minor and major wars since?
And for what benefit? As an American, I cannot set foot in any Muslim country today without
the least thought of danger. And just yesterday a French Muslim plowed his car into a crowded
bus-station, yelling Al-Akbar! (God is Greater!) here in France.
"As an American, I cannot set foot in any Muslim country today without the least thought of
danger."
Sad...and probably naive. Until recently at least, homicide rates in the United States were
higher than those in Arab countries.
In the last five years, I visited four Arab countries, including Syria in 2010. I had far less
worry of danger than what I would experience in any big American city.
Now, the situation may well have changed, at least in the Eastern Mediterranean. American and
Israeli interventions and destabilization campaigns have taken their toll.
Apropos, why Krugman doesn't mention the most obvious conqueror of recent times -- Israel?
Why doesn't he talk about their conquests and invasions? I guess it's good if Israel annexes territory,
but bad if Russia does it.
Israel is a good mention. She has spent the last 40 years attempting to digest her conquests,
one has trouble seeing how this has been at all profitable on the whole.
I think at one time I estimated the cost of buying out the settlers on the west bank would
be perhaps $5-10 billion. That's not a lot of money.
Not to mention the cost of the Iraq occupation ran the US about $40,000 per Iraqi....
The Soviet Union lost between 20 and 50 million in the war. Belarus lost more than a quarter
of its entire population.
Lafayette -> odikhmantievich...
The French are running a very good BBC-program on WW2 at present.
It seems that total Russian prisoners from the Nazi invasion were about 2/3 million. They were
left to starve in Polish prison camps (that had been set up to exterminate the European Jewish
population and extended to house them in rudimentary barracks - no beds, no covering in winter,
a perfect breeding ground for lice and diseases).
Only a few thousand of the Russian-speaking soldiers survived, though they were not gassed.
The Nazis simply did not feed them - they fed only the workers and arrivals were gassed immediately.
Of course, the treatment against soldiers was against the Geneva Conventions. For the Jews, however,
it was the intended liquidation of an entire race of people.
The enormity of what the Nazis did is mind-boggling even to this day. It was highly effective
- murderous but efficient given the numbers.
Otoh, the Allies bombed German cities populated by civilians, for which there was no strategic
military objective.
War is insane ...
ilsm :
"Vladimir Putin never got the memo." WRONG!!
The US disdained that memo in 1950.
Vlad's predecessors never had the empire, nor the CIA the US imposed since 1945.
Trillions for empire (not paying for itself), the money inside the beltway is good and the
safety nets pay!
At least India paid for the Bengal Lancers!
ilsm -> pgl...
I do not waste time on NPR, but I hear NPR wasted hours dissing Putin, every sense applies
the US not only the neocons: Obama, W Bush, war profiteering salespitches......
yuan -> ilsm...
npr gives fox news a run for it's money when it comes to chest-thumping jingoism.
bakho :
Krugman condemns the Russian takeover of Crimea (are they complaining?) but ignores the Neocon
backed ouster of an elected president in Ukraine by appealing to right wing ethnic nationalists
to provide the violent rioters necessary for the coup. Our press continues to unquestioningly
support the Neocon position.
Crimea and East Ukraine reacted vehemently to the overthrow of an elected government and the
inclusion of Svoboda and other right wing ethnic nationalist elements in the new government. The
new government welcomes participation by ethnic nationalists in powerful positions, has few institutions
to protect minority rights and little commitment to a multiethnic, multicultural state. Instead
they bomb their own citizens to gain ethnic dominance rather than recognize the legitimate fears
of their large minority populations, allowing a minority voice and self rule in majority-minority
areas. The Neocons got their revolution by enlisting unsavory right wingers. They got the pyrrhic
victory of a state in open conflict because ethnic intolerance does not play well in Crimea or
East Ukraine. The Ukraine people are suffering because of a game played between Greedy Neocons
with unholy allies and the Russian Mafia.
Russian sanctions cut both ways. Ukraine is short on coal for electric generation (should reduce
global warming). Many states with ties to the EU can no longer trade with Russia because Russia
has countered with their own sanctions and lacks the money to buy. States such as the Baltics
are getting an economic hit as they can no longer pass through EU products to Russia and some
of their own produce is blocked. The FT ran an article on spillover into Europe; Not whether it
would happen but how bad the spillover would become.
It is a mistake to back the Right Wing government in Ukraine. The US should use its influence
instead to demand institutions for protection of human and minority rights, negotiations with
the minorities who are legitimately revolting against a government that is hostile and to purge
the government of disruptive right wing Nationalists. Ukraine can have government by ethnic nationalists
and a divided country (or half a country) or Ukraine can create a new multiethnic coalition government
to run the country with respect for minority rights.
JMW -> pgl...
Also by the $5 billion we poured into Ukraine.
Dan Kervick -> pgl...
Nevertheless, Crimea, which was already a quasi- independent republic within Ukraine, seceded.
Krugman's piece is not very nuanced. The Russian policy of defending ethnic Russians abroad
when they are threatened is indeed very dangerous. Nevertheless, the events in Ukraine must be
terrifying to many of the (very numerous) ethnic Russians who live there. And the revolutionary
government, which is suffused with some very scary nationalist types, made things infinitely worse
by voting overwhelmingly to undo the Russian language law (only vetoed after much international
protest) and tolerating a great deal of belligerent ethnic hate speech.
The neocons are not just active now, but have been driving policy in that part of the world,
even under the current administration, by continuing their obsession with completely surrounding
Russia with EU and Nato states. Pre-revolutionary Ukraine was clearly very divided politically
between those who wanted to to to Europe and those who wanted to tilt Russian. The US has shouldn't
be in the business of promoting revolutions to enable one side to win the argument by force.
US policy in Ukraine has been incredibly reckless. There is absolutely no reason in the world
why this administration should have allowed itself to be maneuvered into stumbling into another
Cold War with Russia. The US doesn't need this; the world doesn't need this; and it was avoidable.
When Hilary Clinton's new bro Robert Kagan is invited to join her administration, will Krugman
continue his criticisms of neocons?
bakho -> Dan Kervick...
Well Stated.
My Hope for President Hillary is better domestic and labor policy. Her Neocon buddies scare the
heck out of me.
Obama Mr Anti-war seems perfectly content with the Neocons driving his foreign policy.
DrDick -> bakho...
Hillary is well to the right of Obama on economic issues.
pgl -> bakho...
"The US should use its influence instead to demand institutions for protection of human and
minority rights, negotiations with the minorities who are legitimately revolting against a government
that is hostile and to purge the government of disruptive right wing Nationalists. Ukraine can
have government by ethnic nationalists and a divided country (or half a country) or Ukraine can
create a new multiethnic coalition government to run the country with respect for minority rights."
Yes! But the Russians need to leave Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Lots of luck with seeing this
actually occur.
DrDick -> bakho...
"The US should use its influence instead to demand institutions for protection of human and
minority rights, negotiations with the minorities who are legitimately revolting against a government
that is hostile and to purge the government of disruptive right wing Nationalists."
Now would you care to apply that same logic to Russia, which has an abyssmal record in this
regard? Dagestan, Chechnya, and many othrs await your answer.
bakho -> DrDick...
This is why conquest is for losers. As Russia conquered new territory, it became increasingly
multicultural. To be stable, Russia actively suppressed ethnic nationalism and promoted secularism
as an antidote to long standing religious and ethnic hostilities. Stalin deported whole populations.
After the breakup of the FSU, ethnic nationalists were no longer suppressed and tensions increased
as Nationalists sought independent states that were ethnically pure or ethnically dominated. This
movie has been repeated in numerous places. In 1989, Chechnya was over 20% ethnic Russian. Today,
it is under 5%. People can argue whether the ethnic Russians left voluntarily or were forced out
but the outcome resembles ethnic cleansing.
This is what ethnic nationalists do. They force out the minorities. Russians living in Eastern
Ukraine have seen this movie before. The Ukraine government bombs its own citizens. The US media
and the Neocons don't consider this to be a problem. I do. Ethnic minorities will fight, get the
message and abandon their former lives and property or be run out by the Ukrainian Nationalists.
It does not excuse bad Russian behavior, but it takes a very naive person to believe that these
governments are run by nice people. They are not. The agenda of the more radical nationalists
is nasty. Radical Ethnic Nationalism is the elephant in the room that everyone ignores.
DrDick -> bakho...
Actually, the Soviets deliberately seeded the conquered territories with ethnic Russians to
suppress ethnonationalist revolts. It still does not address the horrific Russian treatment of
ethnic minorities living in Russia. You focus only on the former republics and not the heart of
the empire. Putin has enthusiastically embraced and promoted Russian ethnonationalists both at
home and in the FSR.
Krugman Joins the Anti-Putin Pack
Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as
"everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy
in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock.
By Robert Parry
When America's opinion-making herd gets running, it's hard for anyone to get in the way regardless
of how erroneous or unfair the reason for the stampede. It's much easier – and career-wise safer
– to join the pack, which is what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has done regarding Russia,
Ukraine and Vladimir Putin.
In the latest example of the New York Times' endless Putin-bashing, Krugman begins his column
* with what you might call a "negative endorsement" of the Russian president by claiming that
ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has "an embarrassing crush on the swaggering statesman."
But Krugman misleads his readers. Giuliani wasn't really praising Putin when he said "that
is what you call a leader" in commenting on Putin's decisiveness. Some liberal defenders of President
Barack Obama simply cherry-picked the quote to counter Giuliani's attempt to disparage Obama by
comparing Obama's chronic indecisiveness to Putin's forcefulness.
In the fuller context, Giuliani was not expressing a fondness for Putin at all. Indeed, he
disparaged the Russian leader as "a bully" and urged a tough-guy response to Putin over Ukraine.
"Instead of him pushing us around, we push him around," Giuliani said in the Fox News interview.
"That's the only thing a bully understands."
So, why did Krugman begin his Putin-bashing column by misrepresenting what Giuliani was saying?
It may have been a form of "negative endorsement." Since many American liberals hate Giuliani,
Giuliani's praise is supposed to translate into liberal hatred for Putin.
But "negative endorsements" are inherently unfair. Just because Josef Stalin might have liked
Franklin Roosevelt and because we may hate Stalin, that doesn't mean we should hate Roosevelt,
too. The use of "negative endorsement" is akin to guilt by association. And, in this case, Krugman
was playing fast and loose with the facts as well
Krugman also opts for some of the most hyperbolic language that has been used in the U.S. mainstream
media to distort events in Ukraine. For instance, Krugman claims that "Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine
without debate or deliberation." But that really isn't true either.
The Ukraine crisis is far more complicated and nuanced than that, as Krugman must know. If
he doesn't, he should consult with fellow Princeton professor Stephen F. Cohen, who has bravely
challenged the prevailing "group think" on both Ukraine and Russia.
Cohen, one of America's premier Russia experts, has even warned that "American media coverage
of Vladimir Putin … has so demonized him that the result may be to endanger U.S. national security.
…
"Mainstream press reporting, editorials and op-ed articles have increasingly portrayed Putin
as a czar-like 'autocrat,' or alternatively a 'KGB thug,' who imposed a 'rollback of democratic
reforms' under way in Russia when he succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president in 2000. He installed
instead a 'venal regime' that has permitted 'corruptionism,' encouraged the assassination of a
'growing number' of journalists and carried out the 'killing of political opponents.' Not infrequently,
Putin is compared to Saddam Hussein and even Stalin."
Yet, Cohen said, "there is no evidence that any of these allegations against him are true,
or at least entirely true. Most seem to have originated with Putin's personal enemies, particularly
Yeltsin-era oligarchs who found themselves in foreign exile as a result of his policies – or,
in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in prison. Nonetheless, U.S. media, with little investigation
of their own, have woven the allegations into a near-consensus narrative of 'Putin's Russia.'"
**
'Shock Therapy'
Indeed, much of what Krugman finds so offensive about Putin's Russia actually stemmed from
the Yeltsin era following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 when the so-called Harvard
Boys flew to Moscow to apply free-market "shock therapy" which translated into a small number
of well-connected thieves plundering Russia's industry and resources, making themselves billionaires
while leaving average Russians near starvation.
When Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin in 2000, Putin challenged some of the oligarchs and pushed
others out of the political arena, while also moderating some of the extreme policies and thus
making life somewhat better for the average Russian, thus explaining Putin's broad popularity.
Putin could be fairly criticized for not going further, but economist Krugman must surely know
this history regarding how the Russian "kleptocracy" got started.
Yet, Krugman slides into the now common demonization of Putin. "Mr. Putin never had the resources
to back his swagger," Krugman smugly writes.
"It's quite a comedown for Mr. Putin. And his swaggering strongman act helped set the stage
for the disaster. A more open, accountable regime - one that wouldn't have impressed Mr. Giuliani
so much - would have been less corrupt, would probably have run up less debt, and would have been
better placed to ride out falling oil prices. Macho posturing, it turns out, makes for bad economies."
In other words, Krugman buys into the "group think" that blames Putin's "macho posturing" over
Ukraine for the current financial crisis in Russia, which has resulted from falling oil prices
as well as the U.S.-led sanctions punishing Russia for its alleged "aggression" in Ukraine.
That puts Krugman in the same camp as the neocons who have pushed the bogus narrative that
the megalomaniacal Putin is trying to reconstitute the Russian Empire. The actual facts, however,
disprove that narrative. ["The Crazy US 'Group Think' on Russia."]
Putin himself has a much better understanding of recent Russian history – and what Official
Washington's goals are regarding him and Russia – as he explained in an end-of-year news conference
on Thursday.
Asked if the economic pain was the price for accepting Crimea back into Russia, Putin responded:
"No. This is not the price we have to pay for Crimea. … This is actually the price we have to
pay for our natural aspiration to preserve ourselves as a nation, as a civilization, as a state.
…
"I gave an example of our most recognizable symbol. It is a bear protecting his taiga. … Maybe
it would be best if our bear just sat still. Maybe he should stop chasing pigs and boars around
the taiga but start picking berries and eating honey. Maybe then he will be left alone.
"But no, he won't be! Because someone will always try to chain him up. As soon as he's chained
they will tear out his teeth and claws. In this analogy, I am referring to the power of nuclear
deterrence. As soon as – God forbid – it happens and they no longer need the bear, the taiga will
be taken over. … And then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no use
at all. Perhaps they'll stuff it and that's all.
"So, it is not about Crimea but about us protecting our independence, our sovereignty and our
right to exist. That is what we should all realize."
The Neo-Nazi Reality
There is another unpleasant reality about Ukraine that Krugman ignores - its neo-Nazi element
- apparently not wanting to be out of step with his New York Times colleagues who have studiously
looked the other way. Again, Krugman could learn something from his fellow Princeton professor
Cohen, who has recounted the grim facts about neo-Nazism in Ukraine, facts that would put Putin's
supposed "invasion" in defense of Ukraine's ethnic Russians in a different light.
In an article for The Nation magazine, Cohen wrote: "Independent Western scholars have documented
the fascist origins, contemporary ideology and declarative symbols of Svoboda and its fellow-traveling
Right Sector. Both movements glorify Ukraine's murderous Nazi collaborators in World War II as
inspirational ancestors. Both, to quote Svoboda's leader Oleh Tyahnybok, call for an ethnically
pure nation purged of the 'Moscow-Jewish mafia' and 'other scum,' including homosexuals, feminists
and political leftists.
"And both hailed the Odessa massacre [on May 2 when ethnic Russian protesters were trapped
in the Trade Union building and burned alive]. According to the website of Right Sector leader
Dmytro Yarosh, it was 'another bright day in our national history.' A Svoboda parliamentary deputy
added, 'Bravo, Odessa…. Let the Devils burn in hell.'
"If more evidence is needed, in December 2012, the European Parliament decried Svoboda's 'racist,
anti-Semitic and xenophobic views [that] go against the EU's fundamental values and principles.'
In 2013, the World Jewish Congress denounced Svoboda as 'neo-Nazi.' Still worse, observers agree
that Right Sector is even more extremist. …
"In December 2012, a Svoboda parliamentary leader anathematized the Ukrainian-born American
actress Mila Kunis as 'a dirty kike.' Since 2013, pro-Kiev mobs and militias have routinely denigrated
ethnic Russians as insects ('Colorado beetles,' whose colors resemble a sacred Russia ornament).
More recently, the US-picked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, referred to resisters in the Southeast
as 'subhumans.' His defense minister proposed putting them in 'filtration camps,' pending deportation,
and raising fears of ethnic cleansing.
"Yulia Tymoshenko - a former prime minister, titular head of Yatsenyuk's party and runner-up
in the May presidential election - was overheard wishing she could 'exterminate them all [Ukrainian
Russians] with atomic weapons.' 'Sterilization' is among the less apocalyptic official musings
on the pursuit of a purified Ukraine."
By leaving out this troubling context, it's much easier to mislead Americans about what is
actually happening in Ukraine. Instead of understanding Russia's interest in protecting ethnic
Russians in eastern Ukraine from these brutal neo-Nazis, the crisis can simply be presented as
Putin's "aggression" or – as Krugman says – how "Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine." ***
More fitting Krugman's expertise about the dangers of free-market extremism, he might do better
looking at the consequences of those strategies on both Russia and Ukraine, where corrupt oligarchs
also took power and have now moved to the center of Ukraine's U.S.-backed regime.
And, if Krugman wants some current example of cronyism, he might look at the curious case of
Natalie Jaresko, a former U.S. diplomat who parlayed $150 million in U.S. AID funds designed to
help Ukraine develop an investment-based economy into a personal fortune and now into the post
of Ukraine's new Finance Minister.
According to corporate records, the U.S. government-funded investment project for Ukraine involved
substantial insider dealings by Jaresko, including $1 million-plus fees to a management company
that she also controlled. Meanwhile, the $150 million stake provided by the U.S. taxpayers appears
to have dwindled to less than $100 million. ["Ukraine's Made-in-the-USA Finance Minister."]
But critical reporting about the U.S.-backed Ukrainian regime would violate Official Washington's
narrative that prefers the Kiev authorities to be dressed in white hats while Vladimir Putin wears
the black hat.
American pundits are often more interested in scoring points against their partisan rivals
than in the pain that U.S. policies inflict on people in faraway lands, as columnists Paul Krugman
and Thomas L. Friedman are showing regarding Russia and Ukraine.
By Robert Parry
JohnH -> anne...
Go Anne! Unfortunately, McCarthyism by pretend liberals is thriving. Remember when
anyone tried to raise a voice against invading Iraq? Or Libya? What about those who point out
US involvement in stoking conflict in Syria and Ukraine?
Well, they were summarily dismissed by the media, who persists in genuflecting to their gods--neocons
and liberal interventionists.
The same seems to happen to anyone questioning Obama's presumed progressive instincts. Anyone
criticizing the president who proposed cutting Social Security gets immediately labeled all sorts
of nasty things by "liberals" who are content to parrot Washington's Democratic spin masters.
pgl -> JohnH...
McCarthyism? WTF? No one is doing that. To cry McCarthyism is such a pathetic little ploy in
this context.
JohnH -> pgl...
Apparently you're too young to remember the efforts to cleanse universities of dissenting
professors after the invasion of Iraq. And you've forgotten what happened to Phil Donahue,
who dared to question the invasion on his TV program.
And you're probably unaware of Steven Salaita who got fired from the University of Illinois
for offenses against "civility and collegiality."
Renowned Middle East expert was refused a chair at Yale for the same reason.
And you have probably forgotten the cases of James Risen, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
The folks behind these assaults on free speech are the usual suspects among the neocons and
liberal interventionists, latter day McCarthyites.
As for leftist criticism of Obama, no one is losing his job yet. Instead criticism is just
blocked from the media. And there is plenty of it in the Democratic base. Just look at the polls
and results from the last election, where Democrats just stayed home.
JohnH -> JohnH...
Renowned Middle East expert Juan Cole was denied a chair at Yale for his views on Israel.
pgl -> JohnH...
No I am very aware of the neo-Mccarthyism that has plagued this nation ever since the 9/11
excuse to invade Iraq. How the hell does this apply to anyone who has commented here? How does
this justify Anne going all Pravda on us. One can blast Putin and the neocons at the same time.
JohnH -> pgl...
Why do you get so upset by someone who offers opinion that differs from the conventional
wisdom vomited by the corporate media?
Actually, Iraq was different: there were large marches against it, and support for those in
Congress who voted against the war resolution (much good it did us, but that's another discussion).
By Lybia time, as anne keeps reminding us, any opposition was marginalized and ignored. I suspect
part of the reason was that the Iraq experience got the wind out of our sails.
The discussion about Ukraine is now reached similar levels. Any attempt at a description of
what actually went on in the coup is drowned by chants of "Putin bad!".
Actually, Iraq was different: there were large marches against it, and support for those
in Congress who voted against the war resolution (much good it did us, but that's another discussion).
By Libya time...any opposition was marginalized and ignored. I suspect part of the reason
was that the Iraq experience got the wind out of our sails.
The discussion about Ukraine is now reached similar levels. Any attempt at a description
of what actually went on in the coup is drowned by chants of "Putin bad!".
"Russia Experts See Ranks Thin, and an Effect on U.S. Policy": * I protest the way my views
and I were characterized in your article. I am called the "dissenting villain" in today's media
commentary on Ukraine who presents a "perspective closer to that of Mr. Putin." This may have
the effect (intended or not) of stigmatizing me and discrediting my views.
For more than 40 years, I have taught thousands of undergraduates and trained scores of future
Russia specialists at Princeton University and New York University. My many scholarly books, articles
and media commentaries have been published in diverse mainstream places, including The New York
Times many years ago. And my views are based on my years of study, not on what President Vladimir
V. Putin or anyone else thinks.
Indeed, my current perspective is similar to what Henry A. Kissinger wrote ** in The Washington
Post this month: "The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence
of one."
I would go farther: The Ukrainian crisis, the worst and most fateful of the 21st century, is
the outcome of Washington's 20-year bipartisan policy toward post-Soviet Russia, spearheaded by
NATO's eastward expansion. I have been arguing this since the early 1990s, long before Mr. Putin
appeared on the scene.
In this regard, I am a true patriot of American national security - perhaps a heretic, but
certainly not the "villain."
Isn't there a limit to the amount of times one can post the same column?
If not, there should be.
We understand that all American foreign policy is evil and constitutes some sort of colonization
on our part. We also understand that every single country in the world, from Russia to China to
Haiti would be far better off(and so would the world) if the US never existed. And we all understand
that only the US and its allies (whenever it talks its allies into acting in concert) take actions
that are aggressive in nature as opposed to the actions of Russia and China which are done to
reunite various ethnic groups or to reclaim property stolen by fascist, colonial powers in the
past.
We've got a thousand or so posts to make us understand.
bakho -> EMichael...
Remember, under Reagan and Bush41, the US helped destabilize overthrow the progressive secular
government in Afghanistan that had been backed by the FSU. Proxy War!
How well has that worked our for the US?
How well has that worked for the Afghans?
Reactive foreign policy that is anti-Russian "just because" does not always lead to successful
outcomes.
EMichael -> bakho...
Never said it did.
Not in favor of any (well, many) foreign entanglements at all.
I just get a little tired of constant repetitions of the same thing. US bad. Russia good. China
good.
In terms of the current situation in Russia, most of its problems are based on having a limited
economy dominated by oil and the actions of the leaders of the country in allowing money to flow
to the rich, and from there out of the country.
The US did none of that.
paine -> EMichael...
Tired of citizen criticism of the one state a citizen might influence
Their own ?
Surely u c s n still hear uncles cheer leaders thru the media din of boos
paine -> EMichael...
The US and the kgb engineered the present system in the 90's
The Putin gang sculpted it some in the '00"s
DrDick -> bakho...
"Remember, under Reagan and Bush41, the US helped destabilize overthrow the progressive
secular government in Afghanistan that had been backed by the FSU."
Krugman is actually on record as supporting most of this (and was in real time, not just after
the fact). Indeed, he quite explicitly links those policies to those of the Putin government in
the piece under discussion.
The fact that US nationalist demagogues acted badly does not excuse Russian nationalist
demagogues doing the same.
paine -> EMichael...
I agree. One is unlikely to convince most white americans about the deeper signifigance
of uncle sam as hegemonic power
Hegemons impact on planetary welfare can be compared only to the impact of prior hegemons
Uncle from 1946 to 1965. Looks great compared to the UK 1919 to 1938
But anne opposes all hegemons
And rightfully so
Darryl FKA Ron -> paine...
"But anne opposes all hegemons
And rightfully so"
*
[I can agree in theory, but I am not sure that civilization has reached the point that it can
work in practice. There are certainly political "scientists" that have defended the role of hegemon
in terms of global political and economic stability and order.
I know enough to know that I do not know nor am I concerned at all about something so far from
the present realm of plausibilities.
If that were someones preferred form of mental masterbation, well then to each his own.]
ilsm -> paine...
uncle since 2001 gives hitler
a run for worst pretend hegemon
no doubt this is a republic
according to the neohegecon
no less oligarchic than the old roman
et te brute
kthomas -> paine...
...yeah, right.
Anytime there's a need for clarity and conciseness, ole paine slithers out of the mud to lecture
us all about hegemony, crafted plans, or what is in anne's left wing head.
Krugman has hit the nail on the head, and the man is entitled...its his job!....to point out
what a crook and grifter that runt Putin, not to mention the fact there are people in this country
of ours, left and right, who think Putin is a nice fatherly man with only the dearest of interest
for his people. And the mean ole USA should do nothing while he annexes territory, supplies wmd
to regimes like Syria, and send submarines and warplanes into friendly skies.
Stop pretending you care.
JohnH -> kthomas...
You are obviously in need of some guidance on how to read the news:
1) What political leaders say is about as credible as the guy selling the Brooklyn Bridge.
Bottom line, politicians have an agenda, will say whatever they believe will make their case,
and the truth counts for little, as long as they can make what they are saying seem plausible.
2) If US intelligence services go against that agenda, you can bet that what the intelligence
services say is true. Case in point, the Iran nuclear program, which most politicians swear is
a threat, while the consensus opinion of the US intelligence services says does not exist, as
stated in a National Intelligence Estimate.
3) If the intelligence services support the politicians' statements, that is no guarantee that
what they are saying is true. They may have been compromised, as we say during the invade Iraq
frenzy. More recently, however, they have tried to stick to the truth.
4) US intelligence services have not said that Russia invaded Ukraine. Their silence is very
significant, because it goes against the agenda of the political establishment, the corporate
media, and Paul Krugman. If the Russian is as obvious as the political and media lynch mob says,
why doesn't the CIA confirm it?
Maybe, but I was thinking it may need to include the carpal tunnel syndrome caused by the constant
scrolling.
JohnH -> anne...
This was begun by kthomas charging that anne had no credibility...because she offered evidence
to show that the mainstream account of Ukraine is BS.
All kthomas could come up with is "no credibility" without being able to bring any facts to
dispute anne's sources.
And this is the essence of much of the current debate--one side offers data, while the other
side resorts to name calling and other unsubstantiated charges.
Now if someone has evidence that Russia invaded Ukraine, I'd sure like to see it. Just because
Krugman has joined most of Washington lynch mob, who says it's so, doesn't make it so. Practically
all of Washington said that Saddam had WMDs, too. And those voices who disagreed were marginalized
at best and made to fear for their jobs at worst (Phil Donahue), which is getting perilously close
to McCarthyism.
anne -> kthomas...
....you have no credibility anymore, darling ----.
[ Simply notice the language used in characterizing Russia and the President of Russia as a
symbol for Russians, simply notice the vehemence of stereotyping language and the widespread "elite"
use of the prejudiced language and understand that we are returned to the time of Senator Joseph
McCarthy with pretend liberals among the most vehement.
The prejudices and intimidating language of Senator Joseph McCarthy are returned in pretend
liberal as well as conservative clothes. ]
Stephen Heyer -> kthomas...
kthomas: "...you have no credibility anymore, darling anne."
Anne has plenty of credibility with me, even though I sometimes don't agree with her.
I trust she will be doing her best even if mistaken. Besides, there is just the slightest chance
that it is I who is wrong :)
DrDick -> anne...
You really need to overcome your ethnic bias and improve your reading skills. Krugman is clearly
equating the policies of the two and doing so in an even handed manner. He is also not targeting
"Russia", but rather Putin personally. The fact that you do not see the similarities is your problem,
not his.
paine -> DrDick...
Its not ethnic bias
its humanist
universalism
paine -> paine...
Even handed ness
given the balance
of public opinion
Favors the hegemon decisvely
Darryl FKA Ron -> paine...
The fear of global chaos is a bitch. Secondarily, no matter how bad things seem then they can
always be worse, much worse even. Imagination to be useful must be able to work both ways, imagine
both the potential for better, but also for worse.
DrDick -> paine...
Sorry, but Anne will tolerate no criticism of Putin or Russia, even where well deserved (as
here). You and she seek to privilege the alternative (aspirational) hegemon, while Krugman critiques
both.
C'mon Wall Street - plenty of good money to be made.
Darryl FKA Ron -> pgl...
Thoma's reference to the song "War" (War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin') had me stumped
so I had to Google. I remember the sound as it played repeated on the Armed Forces Radio Service
in Viet Nam along with Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction." I was shocked to see that the Temptations
recorded it first, but the version burned into my mind was by Edwin Starr.
1. EU
2. US (+ WW2 victor)
3. China +?
4. Japan (- WW2 loser)
5. Germany -
6. France +
7. UK +
8. Brazil
9. Italy -?
10. Russia +
11. India
12. Canada +
Conquest does pay! If you're a defense contractor or government official closely aligned
and invested with them. These wars are about personal enrichment.
I had seen some news reports that some pretty dodgy groups were central to the overthrow of
the elected Ukraine government.
Parry's article, quoted entirely by Anne earlier, appeared to be pretty detailed, and for me
at least, fleshed out why there were early concerns over the groups involved in the overthrow.
Both sides appear unsavory to me. From the beginning I expected Putin to do something,
anything, to keep Ukraine in the Russia gravity field. There are centuries of Russian involvement,
if not domination, over the Ukraine.
"...He has a very poor sense
of hegemonist's
constraints
The bulk of the planet
must remain open for mnc Business..."
[Maybe or maybe not.]
"...But a financially fragile petroeconomy like Russia doesn't have the same ability to roll
with its mistakes..."
[It is all in the matter of scale and also a matter of tastes. Krugman is pure liberal
establishment through and through albeit that ox is a moron. Krugman lacks the neocon taste
for muscular millitaristic hegemony and expresses his putrification of it along with a necessary
measure of hyperbole to keep it clear what side of the fence that he is on. Krugman has probably
never met a global production oligopoly petite hegemone that he did not like.
You still got to watch out for nukes in the hands of a desperate man with too much political
and millitary power for one man to have just in case the tables turn and he comes out with his
back against the wall.
Psychologically consider Ismaaiyl Brinsley scaled up to a global actor.]
"...He has a very poor sense of hegemonist's constraints"
[Maybe or maybe not.]
"The bulk of the planet
must remain open for mnc Business..."
[Definitely and Krugman knows that too. My guess is that Krugman knows that neocons are
wasteful and arrogant while Putin backed into a corner might be dangerous having much less to
lose and not being vetted by major corporations on his way up the political ladder. OTOH, being
an establishment liberal comes with its own compulsory fair and balanced political correctness
where all reactionaries must be thrown under the same or at least very similar busses.]
IF I had to choose then the hegemonic state that best suited contemporary global civilization
was the cold war with two great powers faced in a Mexican stand-off of globally catastrophic proportion.
It was the big dogs' world and the little dogs all cowered on their porches.
We are not ready for global freedom from the hegemon yet. If the US falls then another will
rise to take its place, but it will be hell to pay on the way and for quite a while after.
Yves here. The triumphalism among Western commentators as the ruble plunged last week is more
than a little cringe-making. We're not yet in Two Minute Hate territory yet, but this feels like
a warmup. Robert Parry provides an insanity check:
"Official Washington's 'group think' on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it
as 'everyone who matters' joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes
joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock…
"Indeed, much of what Krugman finds so offensive about Putin's Russia actually stemmed from
the Yeltsin era following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 when the so-called Harvard
Boys flew to Moscow to apply free-market 'shock therapy' which translated into a small number
of well-connected thieves plundering Russia's industry and resources, making themselves billionaires
while leaving average Russians near starvation."
The piece goes on to debunk in considerable detail the caricature of Putin presented in America,
the most important element being the charge that Putin was the aggressor in Ukraine and is therefore
getting what he deserved....
It was nearly eleven hundred, and in the Records Department, where Winston worked, they were
dragging the chairs out of the cubicles and grouping them in the centre of the hall opposite the
big telescreen, in preparation for the Two Minutes Hate. Winston was just taking his place in
one of the middle rows when two people whom he knew by sight, but had never spoken to, came unexpectedly
into the room. One of them was a girl whom he often passed in the corridors. He did not know her
name, but he knew that she worked in the Fiction Department. Presumably-since he had sometimes
seen her with oily hands and carrying a spanner-she had some mechanical job on one of the novel-writing
machines....
{Putin's Russia actually stemmed from the Yeltsin era following the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991 when the so-called Harvard Boys flew to Moscow to apply free-market 'shock therapy'
which translated into a small number of well-connected thieves plundering Russia's industry and
resources, making themselves billionaires while leaving average Russians near starvation."}
Yes, YS, that's why it's called a kleptocracy.
They literally finagled mineral rights that once belonged to the state (I.e., Russian people).
Smart fellow?
No, not terribly smart. Just the right connections of a fellow-traveler ex-KGB agent, and Kung-fu
fanatic, who was desperate to build a legacy for himself.
This one is indeed the kind that will go down in the history books.
But there wont be much marching down Red Square commemorating his birthday. In his TV-spot
just three days ago, he showed once again that he hasn't a clue of what to do in the face of a
major financial calamity ...
No, not terribly smart. Just the right connections of a fellow-traveler ex-KGB agent, and Kung-fu
fanatic, who was desperate to build a legacy for himself....
[ What is the point of such language, which is milder than much of the language being used
but tells us nothing rather than creating a stereotypical image? ]
Have you read his biography? I have - he has a Very Complicated upbringing. He has to win at
everything he does, typical of a person who is (actually) unsure of himself.
There is a video running on U-Tube that shows Obama and Putin sitting together (for photo-shots).
Putin is mimicking every gest, including facial, that Obama does. It is called "mirroring".
There is perfect silence between them, but the facial expressions are identical. This is a
trick that was taught him by the KGB, and its intent is to at once approach your opposite (towards
establish a rapport) but also to not antagonize him (if there is no rapport).
In the video, one can see that Obama is visibly upset and that no communication passes between
them. Putin mirrors Obama in order not to antagonize him - but the fact remains that these two
"World Leaders" are not communicating.
The video was taken at a G-20 summit meeting, the intent of which is to "exchange POVs".
My point: The guy, once he has made up his mind, is inflexible and untreatable. Hitler had
the same unfortunate characteristic ...
Putin is ex-KGB. KGB are NOT nice people (ask any of my Russian refugee or East German friends).
HE routinely engages in macho posturing (engaging in "manly activities" shirtless for the press).
He actively supports far right Russian nationalists (as in his anti-gay pogrom). Putin is not
a positive influence.
I have said exactly the same thing about the US Neocons and nationalists. I have opposed every
US military intervention during my lifetime except one, Korea, and I am ambivalent about that.
I talk about the negative impacts of US neocolonialism in my classes. None of that, however, makes
me blind to Russian transgressions, or the clear desire of many to regain their hegemonic role
during the Cold War. Nor does it blind me to the questionable actions of China in Africa and South
America (or to the role of prison labor and systematic abuse of labor in their massive economic
development).
"This is a trick that was taught him by the KGB, and its intent is to at once approach your
opposite (towards establish a rapport) but also to not antagonize him (if there is no rapport)."
Wow, what will those diaboloical Ruskies think of next? More horrible diplomatic techniques
for developing rapport with your negotiating partners and not antagonizing your enemy?
Both are poorly reasoned emotional responses to real world issues, imo, b/c Thoma's question
is framed improperly as is Krugman's title which is the logical fallacy, Beginning the Question.
War is not so simple as outlined.
It is not always for plunder, it is frequently for pride, protection, family rivalry, religious
rivalry, etc., etc.
Nor are all wars global and or so called World Wars, most are local and regional, very contained
and ongoing.
In short, while a case can be made, as Angell did, against wars of plunder that range the
globe and or World Wars being too expensive and not worth the ECONOMIC cost the same cannot
be said - GENERALIZED - to the smaller conflicts where Economic issues are not front and center.
Time to open your eyes to unfiltered reality and see the real world as it is rather than
wish it were not so.
DrDick -> im1dc...
I think you may want to look at the actual data. The Europeans were already losing money on
their colonial empires long before they relinquished them. There may be short-term benefits, but
war has not actually been a profitable enterprise, except to the arms makers, since the beginnings
of the 20th century.
One of the things I learned today is that any of us who question Putin's intentions in Ukraine
as "pretend liberals" who are practicing neo-McCarthyism - at least according to those who think
Putin is an awesome leader. Me? A neo-McCarthyite. And if you think I'm about to call this for
the nonsense it is - you are almost right. I'm actually calling it desperate bullshit. Thank you
for your indulgence.
I agree, the response to Krugman's last two Russia-related columns has been hard to believe.
It's strange to see so many commenters here, normally capable of nuanced views, revert to a black-white
duality when it comes to Russia and Putin.
Regarding Putin himself, Krugman's remarks, though not central to his primarily economic analysis,
seem right on the mark. Putin is indeed a KGB-era thug to like to ride around on horseback shirtless
and otherwise engage in gratuitous displays of manliness. US/EU complicitity in the Ukrainian
revolution doesn't make this any less true.
And the conservative love affair isn't based on a misinterpretation of a few offhand remarks
by Guliani, it's been expressed by a number of prominent right-wing pundits.
Then to hear otherwise intelligent people claiming with that Russia never sent any troops into
Ukraine, well, my head nearly exploded.
We all know that Anne has always had her quirky blind spots (China, Bill Clinton, etc.), but
to hear so many others voice similarly simplistic black/white opinions was quite shocking.
What? Speaking the truth about Putin is prejudice? Putin is quite clearly a macho imperialist
who wishes to reestablish the Russian empire. That does not make him any different from the American
Republican Party, but it is still reality.
C'mon. I can't believe you can be played so easily by this kind of visual propaganda. We shouldn't
be making our foreign policy based on these kinds of emotional reactions to Putin as an individual
character as measured by some US cultural sensitivity and correctness meter.
Teddy Roosevelt was also an outlandish "macho man". But helped drive the reforms of the progressive
era to fruition.
Are we really down to this level of thinking about grave matters of regional conflict between
nuclear armed powers?
DrDick -> Dan Kervick...
While there are parallels (both men are/were macho posturing imperialists), comparing Putin,
as regressive and authoritarian as any modern Republican, and TR is rather a stretch. It is also
totally irrelevant to the current context. The evaluation of both men is based on their actions
and words, not their personalities.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
Dan, you're a nice guy and often offer insightful commentary, but here I think you're out of
touch with reality. (Kind of like Putin, at least according to statements by Angela Merkel.)
This person you apparently see as a patriotic hero "driving reforms of the progressive era
to fruition" is by most accounts just a continuation or even escalation of the Yeltsin-era kleptocratic
tradition.
If anyone here is engaged in simplistic thinking regarding grave matters of regional conflict,
it's you. I don't understand why you can only see things in terms of black and white, as though
alleged US support of the Ukrainian opposition somehow makes Putin's motives pure as the driven
snow. Others here can acknowledge the complexity of the situation and understand that all parties
have motives other than the official propaganda provided for mass consumption, what can't you?
Amend the above with the thought that there are still those whose last hope for the resurrection
of Communism is through China and Russia and so any criticism of these countries must be rejected
then you'll get near the problem.
pgl -> am...
Earth to Anne. My name is not Peter Dorman. We over at Econospeak are all independent thinkers.
So I don't dictate anything to Peter. Nor would I call anyone McCarthy for having a different
view. That was MY point.
DrDick -> pgl...
Spot on. There are some here who do not seem to think it is possible to both deplore American
military adventurism and Russian overreach.
American pundits are often more interested in scoring points against their partisan rivals
than in the pain that U.S. policies inflict on people in faraway lands, as columnists Paul Krugman
and Thomas L. Friedman are showing regarding Russia and Ukraine.
By Robert Parry
Among honest and knowledgeable people, there really isn't much doubt about what happened in
Ukraine last winter. There was a U.S.-backed coup which ousted a constitutionally elected president
and replaced him with a regime more in line with U.S. interests. Even some smart people who agree
with the policy of going on the offensive against Russia recognize this reality.
For instance, George Friedman, the founder of the global intelligence firm Stratfor, was quoted
in an interview with the Russian liberal business publication Kommersant as saying what happened
on Feb. 22 in Kiev – the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych – "really was the most blatant
coup in history."
Brushing aside the righteous indignation and self-serving propaganda, Stratfor's Friedman recognized
that both Russia and the United States were operating in what they perceived to be their own interests.
"The bottom line is that the strategic interests of the United States are to prevent Russia from
becoming a hegemon," he said. "And the strategic interests of Russia are not to allow the U.S.
close to its borders."
Another relative voice of reason, at least on this topic, has been former Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger who – in an interview with Der Spiegel – dismissed Official Washington's conventional
wisdom that Russian President Vladimir Putin provoked the crisis and then annexed Crimea as part
of some diabolical scheme to reclaim territory lost when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
"The annexation of Crimea was not a move toward global conquest," the 91-year-old Kissinger
said. "It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia" – as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
had suggested.
Kissinger noted that Putin had no intention of instigating a crisis in Ukraine: "Putin spent
tens of billions of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The theme of the Olympics was that
Russia is a progressive state tied to the West through its culture and, therefore, it presumably
wants to be part of it. So it doesn't make any sense that a week after the close of the Olympics,
Putin would take Crimea and start a war over Ukraine."
Instead Kissinger argued that the West – with its strategy of pulling Ukraine into the orbit
of the European Union – was responsible for the crisis by failing to understand Russian sensitivity
over Ukraine and making the grave mistake of quickly pushing the confrontation beyond dialogue.
While the comments by Henry Kissinger and Stratfor's Friedman reflect the reality of what demonstrably
happened in Ukraine, an entirely different "reality" exists in Official Washington. (Note that
both interviews were carried in foreign, not U.S. publications.) In the United States, across
the ideological spectrum, the only permitted viewpoint is that a crazed Putin launched a war of
aggression against his neighbors and must be stopped.
Facts, such as the declaration in September 2013 from a leading neocon, National Endowment
for Democracy President Carl Gershman, that Ukraine was "the biggest prize" and an important step
toward ousting Putin in Russia, do not fit into this story frame. ["A Shadow U.S. Foreign Policy."]
Nor do the comments of neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland,
who was caught in a pre-coup phone call, handpicking Ukraine's future leaders and discussing how
to "glue this thing." Nor her public statements about the United States investing $5 billion in
Ukraine's "European aspirations."
White Hats, Black Hats
Instead of dealing with what actually happened in Ukraine, U.S. pundits and politicians – from
conservative to liberal – have bought into a fantasy version of events in which the coup-makers
all wore white hats and the elected president and his eastern Ukrainian supporters – along with
Putin – all wore black hats.
But there are, as always, rhetorical differences across the U.S. partisan liberal-conservative
divide. On Ukraine, the American Right urges an escalation of military tensions against Russia
while chiding President Barack Obama for weakness (when compared with Putin's toughness) – and
liberals cheer on Obama's supposed success in driving the Russian economy into a painful recession
while accusing the Right of having a man-crush on Putin.
This liberal "theme" of jabbing the Right for its alleged love of Putin takes the Right's comments
about his forcefulness out of context, simply to score a political point. But the Right-loves-Putin
charge has become all the rage with the likes of Paul Krugman, Thomas L. Friedman and other liberals
who are bubbling with joy over the economic suffering being inflicted on the people of Russia
and presumably eastern Ukraine.
Krugman, who is quickly jettisoning his reputation for thoughtfulness, published a second columnon
this topic in a row, showing that he has fully bought into all the propaganda "themes" emanating
from the U.S. State Department and the compliant U.S. mainstream news media.
In Krugman's mind, it was Putin who instigated the crisis with the goal of plundering Ukraine.
Operating from that false hypothesis, Krugman then spins off this question: "why did Mr. Putin
do something so stupid? … The answer … is obvious if you think about Mr. Putin's background. Remember,
he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug.
Violence and threats of violence, supplemented with bribery and corruption, are what he knows.
"And for years he had no incentive to learn anything else: High oil prices made Russia rich,
and like everyone who presides over a bubble, he surely convinced himself that he was responsible
for his own success. At a guess, he didn't realize until a few days ago that he has no idea how
to function in the 21st century."
But Krugman is not only operating from a false hypothesis – the reality was that the Ukraine
crisis was forced on Putin, not that he went seeking it – Krugman also has a simplistic view of
the KGB, which, like the American CIA, certainly had its share of thugs but also had a significant
number of smart analysts. Some of those KGB analysts were in the forefront of recognizing the
need for the Soviet Union to reform its economy and to reach out to the West.
Putin was generally allied with the KGB faction which favored "convergence" with the West,
a Russian attitude that dates back to Peter the Great, seeking Russia's acceptance as part of
Europe rather than being shunned by Europe as part of Asia.
Putin himself pined for the day when Russia would be accepted as a part of the First World
with G-8 status and other big-power accoutrements. I'm told he took great pride in his success
helping President Obama in 2013 resolve crises with Syria over the mysterious sarin-gas attack
and with Iran over its nuclear program.
As Kissinger noted, Putin's hunger for Western acceptance was the reason he obsessed so much
over the Sochi Olympics – and even neglected the festering political crisis in neighboring Ukraine.
In other words, Paul Krugman doesn't know what he's talking about regarding Ukraine. His stab
at offering a geopolitical analysis suffers from what an economist should recognize as "garbage
in, garbage out." ["Krugman Joins the Anti-Putin Pack."]
A Spreading Idiocy
Still, this liberal mindlessness appears to be catching. On Sunday, the New York Times' star
columnist Thomas L. Friedman weighed in with his own upside-down analysis, smirking about the
economic suffering now being felt by average Russians because of the U.S.-led sanctions and the
Saudi-spurred collapse of oil prices.
Friedman wrote: "In March, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Mike Rogers, was asked
on 'Fox News Sunday' how he thought President Obama was handling relations with Russia versus
how President Vladimir Putin had been handling relations with the United States. Rogers responded:
'Well, I think Putin is playing chess, and I think we're playing marbles. And I don't think it's
even close.'
"Hmmm. Marbles. That's an interesting metaphor. Actually, it turns out that Obama was the one
playing chess and Putin was the one playing marbles, and it wouldn't be wrong to say today that
Putin's lost most of his - in both senses of the word."
Ha-ha-ha. Putin has lost his marbles! So clever! Perhaps it also wouldn't be wrong to say that
Tom Friedman has lost any credibility that he ever had by getting pretty much every international
crises wrong, most notably the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 when he was just as smarmy in paving
the way for that bloody catastrophe.
Washington Post liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. also joined in the "group think" on Monday,
writing"even … some of [Obama's] older bets were paying off. The Russian economy is reeling from
sanctions imposed in response to its invasion of Ukraine (and from low oil prices). An approach
seen by its critics as not tough enough is beginning to show its teeth."
Beyond the propagandistic quality of these columns – refusing to recognize the complex reality
of what actually happened in Ukraine, including the overwhelming referendum by the voters of Crimea
to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia – there is this disturbingly smug pleasure at how the
U.S. actions are hurting the people of Russia.
Whatever you think of Putin, a key reason why he has remained so popular is that he brought
some stability to the Russian economy after the "shock therapy" days of plunder under Boris Yeltsin
when many Russians were pushed to the brink of starvation. Putin pushed back against some of the
corrupt oligarchs who had amassed vast power under Yeltsin (while also striking alliances with
others).
But the cumulative effect of a more stable Russian economy was that a fragile middle class
was taking shape in a country that has notoriously failed to generate one over the centuries.
Because of the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine, which essentially forced Putin's response and then
led to Obama's sanctions, the Russian middle class is losing its modest savings as the ruble's
value collapses.
In other words, the part of Russia's population that could best propel Russia toward a more
democratic and progressive future is being dismantled, in part, by punitive U.S. policies – while
liberals Krugman, Friedman and Dionne celebrate.
Insider Rivalries
What really seems to matter to these pundits is getting a shot in at their conservative rivals,
not the fate of average Russians. This attitude reminded me of an earlier phase of these mindless
liberal-conservative food fights – in 1990 when conservative Robert Novak looked for ways to resolve
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait by accepting Saddam Hussein's private offers to withdraw rather than
resorting to war.
Yet, when Novak appeared on CNN's "Capital Gang," Al Hunt, a centrist who played the role of
liberal pundit on the show, ridiculed the old "Prince of Darkness" for his uncharacteristic bent.
Hunt hung the nickname "Neville Novak" around Novak's neck, comparing him to British Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain who sought to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II.
When I later asked Hunt why he had derided Novak for looking at more peaceful solutions to
an international crisis, Hunt defended the "Neville Novak" line by noting all the times that Novak
had baited opponents for their softness against communism. "After years of battling Novak from
the left, to have gotten to his right, I enjoyed that," Hunt said.
Yet, the human consequences from the failure to resolve the Kuwait crisis peacefully have been
almost incalculable. Beyond the hundreds of U.S. and coalition deaths and the tens of thousands
of Iraqi soldiers and civilians killed, the Persian Gulf War set the stage for a decade of harsh
economic sanctions against Iraq and marked a turning point for Saudi Osama bin Laden to begin
targeting the United States.
Arguably, if Novak had been listened to – if Hussein's peace feelers had been taken seriously
– history might have taken a very different and less violent course. However, among Washington's
insiders, it seems that nothing is more important than their sparring with each other, in television
and in print.
Now, these liberal columnists are enjoying bashing conservatives over their supposed love of
Putin and their tolerance for Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine. Not only are the likes of Paul Krugman,
Thomas L. Friedman and E.J. Dionne Jr. spreading dangerous propaganda, they are setting the stage
for a new Cold War and possibly even a nuclear confrontation.
"The point is that there is a still-powerful political faction in America committed to
the view that conquest pays, and that in general the way to be strong is to act tough and make
other people afraid. One suspects, by the way, that this false notion of power was why the architects
of war made torture routine - it wasn't so much about results as about demonstrating a willingness
to do whatever it takes."
In ''A Burden Too Heavy to Put Down,'' * David Brooks writes, ''Inevitably, there will be atrocities''
committed by our forces in Iraq. Did he forget to add that they must be prosecuted?
War crimes are indeed more likely if influential commentators foreshadow impunity for perpetrators
of the ''brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt.''
The choice is not between committing war crimes and retreating ''into the paradise of our own
innocence.'' A third option is for the United States to strive to avoid complicity.
It is untrue that ''we have to take morally hazardous action.'' Those who choose it, or urge
others to, cannot evade or distribute responsibility by asserting that ''we live in a fallen world.''
{PK: The Iraq venture clearly ended up weakening the U.S. position in the world, while costing
more than $800 billion in direct spending and much more in indirect ways. America is a true
superpower, so we can handle such losses.}
Manipulating a housekeeping budget is a solid educational exercise. Each family should have
one, and should plan accordingly. Our larger family (the nation) is also one that should learn
how to balance-a-budget, if only it were forbidden to borrow enormous sums perpetually into the
future.
Because the consequence would be to understand "the rule of trade-offs", meaning you can't
have all you want, so you need to prioritize.
Were that the same rule at the level nationally, perhaps we'd have a more perceptive view of
how we spend our money? And since there is rarely any great debate about "budgeting" in primaries
or even a presidential election – an elected PotUS does whatever they damn well please.
And we pay the consequences. Which is why, rather than pissing almost a trillion bucks into
Middle-east sandbox, we should indeed ask that budgets be balanced by each administration.
Think of this:
*We have 20 million students annually pursuing a postsecondary education, one of the most important
investments they will ever make in themselves.
*The average cost per annum in a public institution of a 2- and 4-year schooling is $13.3K
and $21.7K respectively.
*Furthermore, let's presume that 60% are two-year and 40% 4-year tertiary schooling attendees.
By those numbers, the total cost is about $350B per year. The DoD budget is $840B.
Nasty surprise for Western geopolitical planners-- at the end fo 2014 there are no Russian troops
on the territory of Ukraine. The appointed aggressor ignored the appointment and did not come. Kiev
junta is in a panic. Something went wrong. Putin had to bring in troops. The Russian army had in
two days to walk to Kiev and in for four to Lvov. To occupy. To absorb. The Yatsenyuk-Poroshenko
government had to flee the country and comfortably live in the West. And Europe - to give up on Russian
energy resources. The USA should have been declare Russia the "aggressor" and put a new "iron curtain".
But Putin behaved differently then was expected of him. South Ossetian scenario does not work.
To push Russia into the civil war in Ukraine failed. Plans for 1025 need to be corrected tanking
into account new reality... http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1880361.html
All eyes are on the ruble this week after its spectacular crash that sparked fears of a new currency
crisis in Russia, and the possibility it could spill over into Europe and put the world economy at
risk.
The ruble has lost more than 45 percent against the dollar and euro since the beginning of the
2014, mostly due to falling oil prices and the tightening of Western sanctions.
"We just rescued all those European banks, and they all have huge loans in Russia. If the
ruble devalues as it did in recent days, then Russian companies will have trouble paying back dollar
and euro debts. From this perspective we will face even bigger problems," Michael Mross, chief
editor of MMNews.de, told RT.
Many Russian companies have borrowed money from European and American banks, but now the value
of their domestic currency has decreased by more than 50 percent against the dollar, so the cost
of the loans has doubled in ruble terms.
The risks of a volatile Russia "will come to the surface very soon. Then we will have a banking
crisis triggered by the sanctions and also triggered of course by the ruble devaluation," Mross
warned.
The Russian government has debt of about $150 billion it needs to pay off in 2015, much of it
foreign held. Sanctions now bar many state-owned Russian credit institutions from borrowing long-term
from Western capital markets.
Major retailers like Sweden's IKEA, Germany's Metro, Finland's Stockman want to stay in Russia
but have halted sales to recalculate their prices. If they are raised, sales are likely to be dented.
As many as 2000, or one in three German companies doing business with Russia, may have to fire
employees or cancel projects as a result of the weakening ruble, warns Volker Treier, the managing
director of the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce.
"We would be sawing off the branch we are sitting on if we erected a new wall to Russia's
economy," Austrian Chancellor Werner Raymann said.
Apple has increased prices for iPhones in Russia by another 30 percent when it reopened its online
store Monday. That was the second time Apple adjusted prices in Russia in less than a month, as it
seeks to compensate for the falling ruble. At the end of November, Apple raised prices in Russia
by about 25 percent. The tech giant doesn't operate any stores in Russia, but has made clear it is
a target market, selling through thousands of licensed retailers. Lost sales mean the company will
incur some losses in the market.
Last Thursday, longtime partners Gazprom and Germany's BASF abandoned a long-planned $12 billion
energy asset swap, citing growing political tension between Russia and the West.
Automakers take a breather
European carmakers are having trouble steering through the volatile ups and downs of the Russian
currency. Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, Jaguar Land Rover all said they would slow down investment in Russia
given the predicted downswing. Volkswagen saw sales decrease by 13 percent in November, when the
ruble crisis was just beginning to present itself. BMW predicts it could lose €150 million if it
doesn't readjust for ruble fluctuations.
Korean automaker KIA has suspended sales and even stopped shipments of already paid for cars to
Russia, according to Kommersant. The paper's sources suggest the company is considering returning
money for existing contracts and then reselling the cars at higher prices. KIA itself, however, says
that the delay in shipments is temporary and caused by increased demand.
General Motors, America's biggest carmaker with plants in Russia has completely halted sales over
the rapidly changing ruble.
"In view of the volatility of ruble exchange rate and with the aim to manage its business risk,
GM Russia has decided to temporarily suspend wholesaling of vehicles to its dealers in Russia as
of Dec. 16," GM's European Opel division told Reuters.
Ed Jobb
On the economic front, Europe is stuffed. They talk about austerity like it's some bad thing.
Austerity is an effect not a cause, and it is short-lived only if you get on it early. Austerity
can't help a dead market.
Germany looks to be OK because it's vendor financing Club Med to buy German goods. For every
100 residents of Belgium, 28 are working in the private sector. European unemployment is soaring,
especially among youth. Household debt in England is 170% of disposable income, while the Danes
are at 265%. Italy is insolvent to the point of not paying suppliers, and let's not even talk
about Greece.
Their guns are out of bullets, ie. Almost all debt has been monetized; zero interest rates,
borrowing to pay the interest on money they already borrowed, they can't even reclaim their own
gold back from the good old USA.
Ruble crisis? Ha! Looks like a walk in the park by comparison.
Frank Wolstencroft
The blame rests with the Russian Central Bank, which is privately owned by the international
banking cabal.
"Give me control on a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws"
Mey Amschel Rothschild
Like in case of Iraq war the economic war with Russia is based of manufactured evidence and reflects
the same ruthless desire of the US elite for the world dominations and security of hydrocarbon supplies.
Putin might not be too accommodative for neoliberals in Washington, but at least he is predictable.
At the same time Western elite, at first of all the US elite once again demonstrates some kind of sociopathic
behaviour -- the desire to dominate at all costs. West is a 1000 pound guerilla that is perfectly capable
to crash relatively small Russian economy. and probably even remove Putin form power. Then what?
If I remember correctly Jana attacked the USA in Perl Harbor when it decided that economic sanctions
are strangulating. Or what if sanctions lead the civil war in the nuclear armed state, following Ukrainian
scenario, when fifth column will try to get to power via a coup? Or what if radical nationalists
will come to power if Putin are forced out, with the increased change of "accidental" nuclear accident
and "nuclear winter" aftermath? Stronger alliance of weaken Russia with China which moves
China into completely different category military wise ? What is the end game after destabilizing Russia.
The US neocons and neolibs (who are often the same people) want another drunkard Yeltsin at the
helm and camarilla of western neoliberals "guiding" him. That's a pipe dream. With the level of animosity
and the fact that many Russian consider the USA to be a fascist (Guantanamo,
Abu Ghraib
torture and prisoner abuse ) ) or at least a national security state (Snowden revelations) chances
of positive for the West change of Russian regime are pretty slim even with billions of dollars of bribes
and support of fifth column. The USA lost moral standing for the successful regime change into satellite
neoliberal mold and brute force might or might not work in the way originators wish. Also technology
of color revolutions is now is much better known then in 1991 or, even, then in 2012. Actually Russian
fifth column itself was completely decimated by Ukrainian events, event of the USA making.
As for the west's sanctions, they were introduced with one explicit aim – to force Putin to change
tack in Ukraine. At least,
that was the stated aim. But since the measures show no sign of having any effect on his thinking,
and yet the west is considering even more sanctions, there is obviously another goal – to punish
Putin for his actions, regardless of whether he changes his mind. Sadly, it is not Putin who feels
this punishment. It is the Russian people.
... ... ...
Perhaps it is time to recognise that George W Bush's disastrous foreign policy legacy encompasses
far more than just Iraq, torture and the fanning of terrorism. Bush also understood nothing about
Russia – right from the moment that he looked into Putin's eyes and told us how he "got a sense of
his soul" – and now we are living with the consequences.
It was the Bush administration that created the sense of insecurity that has caused Russia to react,
and overreact, to every perceived threat – including, most recently, the perception that Ukraine
was being forcibly dragged out of Russia's orbit and into the west's. Bush unilaterally
abandoned
the anti-ballistic missile treaty , seen by Russia as the cornerstone of strategic balance; he
began building a missile shield on Russia's doorstep; he expanded Nato to Russia's frontiers, blithely
granting the east Europeans "security" while causing Russia to feel threatened.
Laurence Johnson -> HansB09, 19 Dec 2014 08:30
Former US diplomats have repeatedly stated that Washington controls Germany and that has always
been the case since WW2.
If Washington controls Germany, and Germany controls the EU, then its clear where all this
is going and is going to cause some very red faces if the UK leaves the EU.
Will D 18 Dec 2014 18:57
Such hypocrisy by the West. And also nasty and vindictive. Compared to the aggressive global
bullying performed by the USA and its tame allies, Russia is positively saintly. Russia doesn't
go around starting wars or bombing innocent 'collateral damage' women and children, or apply economic
embargoes and sanctions on countries it doesn't like. It doesn't use its economic might to force
unfair trade deals on other countries.
The USA and NATO have been squeezing Russia ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, trying
hard to weaken it and corner it. Apart from the freezing northern ports, Russia has only
one other exit point, the Crimea and Black Sea, which the West has tried on various occasions
in the past to close off.
The credibility of the USA has declined massively in the last few years, and few people or
countries really trust it anymore, but are locked into an uneasy alliance which would be difficult
to break. Many don't want to keep supporting the USA's global imperialist aggression.
Angus is right, the solution is to bring Russia in from the cold and to stop the hostile
expansionism by the West. It needs one of the USA's major allies, preferably Britain, to
take a brave stand and change its USA-lapdog tune over Russia, and force the USA to back down.
The rest of Europe would probably support Britain since the sanctions are causing them some pain.
Rozina 18 Dec 2014 17:09
Dear Angus,
I am no fan of the former US President George W Bush or his administration but to blame Cheney
and Co for expanding NATO and creating "insecurity" for Russia is A PLAIN LIE. The process to
expand NATO began earlier during Bill Clinton's time as US President:
Hungary, Poland and
the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999.
Even if GWB had allowed the ABM treaty to lapse, the Obama government could have revived it.
But the Democrats are as much under the control of US neoliberal robber barons as the Republicans
are.
This and other idiocies about appeasing Putin and his government, as if they (and not the current
US government and the corporations that hold its politicians in their pockets) are the spoilt
global bullies, that you assert demonstrate that your articles are not to be trusted.
Russia did, the Soviet Union didn't. It isolated itself and fell of its own weight and its
own Vietnam in Afghanistan. Why was it the West's fault that the USSR had top invade Hungary in
1968 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 or couldn't even supply their people with toilet paper?
Cris Lesniak -> Ibn al Zaqqaaq 18 Dec 2014 10:09
I agree that Russia seems to be moving closer to the Erdogan regime. However, there are some
conflicting FP goals, particularly in relation to Syria.
There is no question the USA can severely undermine Russia economically, but what it the net result?
Absorption of Russia into Greater China ? How America diplomacy and cultural hegemony contributed
to the partitioning of Ukraine and converting it in new Yugoslavia where Eastern Ukrainian population
now hates Western and vise versa.
In one of the final votes of the year and without general debate, both Houses of Congress passed
the "Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014." The legislation is part of a larger effort by the American
foreign policy apparatus to dictate policy in Ukraine.
This week, US President Barack Obama signed the "Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014." "Lethal"
American military aid to Ukraine is the current stage of the ongoing trade war. The modern dispute
began with Yanukovych's decision to forego signing the EU trade agreement, and has escalated into
a civil war in Donbas.
In one of the final votes of the year and without general debate, both Houses of Congress passed
the "Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014." The legislation is part of a larger effort by the American
foreign policy apparatus to dictate policy in Ukraine.
On January 15, 2014, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hosted a hearing on the "Implications
of the Crisis in the Ukraine." The groundwork for the legislation began with testimony from Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, Deputy Assistant Secretary
of State for Democracy Human Rights, and Labor, Thomas Melia, and former National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski.
'Ukraine Freedom Support Act' Advocates War, Not Freedom
Less than a month after Ms. Nuland testified that the United States would "not support any specific
candidates or parties," a leaked phone call with Ambassador Pyatt proved the opposite true. In addition
to declaring her support for Yatsenyuk, Nuland ended the call by noting the willingness of Vice President
Biden to go through with the operation.
The Maidan coup occurred two weeks after the recording was leaked.
Vice President Biden did not visit Ukraine until November. He was accompanied by Ms. Nuland. During
the visit, the two received an official request from the Ukrainian military for lethal aid. It is
unknown how much influence Ms. Nuland had in the preparation of the request.
Biden's influence in Ukraine was felt in May, when it was revealed that his son, Hunter Biden,
joined the board of a Ukrainian gas and oil company. The holding company, Burisma, is run by Ihor
Kolomoisky, the oligarch who was appointed governor of the gas-rich Dnipropetrovsk region.
Burisma is registered in Cyprus, meaning that they could have faced high tariffs if they controlled
a Ukrainian company which is extracting and exporting resources from Ukraine to Europe.
Thankfully, the EU Association Agreement passed by the Yatsenyuk government would remove these
tariffs, allowing profits from the oil fields to flow into the bank accounts of Kolomoisky, Biden,
and others, rather than the people of Ukraine.
The unpopularity of fracking is matched by the general unpopularity of the austerity agenda which
Yatsenyuk was tasked with implementing. Anti-austerity protestors in Greece, Belgium, and France
(among others) are showing the beginnings of a movement against this economic exploitation. Economic
tension exacerbates ethnic tensions.
These tensions have led to the deaths of over 4,000 Ukrainians this year, a number which will
hopefully grow at a slower rate if a cease fire holds. But rather than continue on a path that could
result in the rebuilding of Donbas and stabilization of economic and military relations between Ukraine
and her neighbors to the east and west, the American government will send more weapons.
Senator Corker, who is set to Chair the Foreign Relations Committee in the next Congress, trumpeted
passage of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act by declaring that despite turning Ukraine into a military
dependent, the legislation supports a "a firm commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty."
The legislation authorizes $350 million to be provided over three years for "increased military
support for the Government of Ukraine" and was hailed by State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki
as part of the American government's pursuit of a "diplomatic solution."
Despite those assurances, former-Congressman Dennis Kucinich suggested the legislation would
"reignite the Cold War." He warns that "under the guise of democratizing, the West stripped
Ukraine of its sovereignty with a U.S.-backed coup, employed it as a foil to advance NATO to the
Russian border and reignited the Cold War, complete with another nuclear showdown."
It is yet to be seen how Secretary Kerry will use these new sanctions during his meetings with
Lavrov, but it is clear that if a diplomatic solution moves forward, it will be despite the best
efforts of the American government to escalate and prolong the conflict.
During his annual press conference Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the West's approach
to Russia is reminiscent of trying to put a bear on a chain.
MOSCOW, December 18 (Sputnik) – The West's approach to Russia is reminiscent of trying to put
a bear on a chain, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday during his annual year-end press
conference.
"No matter what we do, we are always met with problems, opposition, and fights with us… Do you
think that if our bear sits quietly and stops chasing piglets around the taiga, then they'll leave
him alone? They won't. They will always try to put [the bear] on a chain," Putin said.
If the bear is chained, the West will "pull out its teeth and claws," Putin continued, adding
that the West had an anti-Russian stance long before the current crisis in relations between Russia
and the West started.
The evidence includes the creation of NATO anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe, and
the way the western media covered the Olympic Games in Russia's city of Sochi, the president said.
Geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West intensified after Crimea's referendum to join
Russia. Accusing Moscow of meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs, the West imposed several rounds
of sanctions against Russia, targeting its energy, defense and banking industries.
Another step taken by Western states in response to Russia's alleged interference in Ukraine's
affairs was NATO's stepping up of military presence on Russian borders.
An economic was declared on Russian, require conversion of Russian economy on military rails. The
Ukrainian crisis, the worst and most fateful of the 21st century, is the outcome of Washington's 20-year
bipartisan policy toward post-Soviet Russia, spearheaded by NATO's eastward expansion. I have been arguing
this since the early 1990s, long before Mr. Putin appeared on the scene.
In March, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Mike Rogers,
was asked on "Fox News Sunday" how he thought President Obama was handling relations with Russia
versus how President Vladimir Putin had been handling relations with the United States. Rogers
responded: "Well, I think Putin is playing chess, and I think we're playing marbles. And I don't
think it's even close."
Hmmm. Marbles. That's an interesting metaphor. Actually, it turns out that Obama was the one
playing chess and Putin was the one playing marbles, and it wouldn't be wrong to say today that
Putin's lost most of his - in both senses of the word.
Rogers was hardly alone in his Putin envy. As Jon Stewart pointed out, Fox News has had a veritable
Putin love fest going since March: Sarah Palin opined to the network that: "People are looking
at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears
mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates." Fox contributor Rudy Giuliani observed on the same day
that in contrast with Obama, Putin was "what you call a leader."
Only if leading your country to economic ruin is a form of leadership. And this is not Monday-morning
quarterbacking. It has been obvious for months that Putin was fighting the market, Moore's Law,
Mother Nature and human nature all at once.
He bet almost his whole economy on oil and gas that only can be exploited long-term at the
risk of disruptive climate change; he underestimated the degree to which technological innovation
has enabled America to produce more oil, gas, renewable energy and greater efficiency, all at
the same time, helping to undermine crude prices; he talked himself into believing that Ukrainians
toppled their corrupt leaders only because the C.I.A. told them to - not because of the enduring
human quest to realize a better future for their kids; and he underestimated how integrated and
interdependent Russia is with the global markets and how deeply sanctions, over time, would bite
him.
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs:
You could say a lot of this about G W Bush and Barrack Obama.
I love it when we hear that Russian
propaganda is demonizing the US while NYT blither (as Faux News) is considered an editorial.
Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm:
Yes, in the sense that
Russia has designs on
the Black Sea area, just
as we do on the Caribbean &
China on the South China Sea.
The only thing worries me is nuclear winter. Much more likely in next 20 years than anthromorphic
climate and too much profit (war profits are like oil profits) to stop it.
Hey, I wonder if
Qatar can afford the 10 Patriot batteries they just signed up to buy!
Wrong choice. This particular Friedman is a regular presstitute (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=presstitute).
Nothing to quote unless you want to know talking point from the State Department. But Jen Psaki
briefings can help you more and are more entertaining
Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it
as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes
joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock.
By Robert Parry
When America's opinion-making herd gets running, it's hard for anyone to get in the way regardless
of how erroneous or unfair the reason for the stampede. It's much easier – and career-wise safer
– to join the pack, which is what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has done regarding Russia,
Ukraine and Vladimir Putin.
In the latest example of the New York Times' endless Putin-bashing, Krugman begins his column
* with what you might call a "negative endorsement" of the Russian president by claiming that
ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has "an embarrassing crush on the swaggering statesman."
But Krugman misleads his readers. Giuliani wasn't really praising Putin when he said "that
is what you call a leader" in commenting on Putin's decisiveness. Some liberal defenders of President
Barack Obama simply cherry-picked the quote to counter Giuliani's attempt to disparage Obama by
comparing Obama's chronic indecisiveness to Putin's forcefulness.
In the fuller context, Giuliani was not expressing a fondness for Putin at all. Indeed, he
disparaged the Russian leader as "a bully" and urged a tough-guy response to Putin over Ukraine.
"Instead of him pushing us around, we push him around," Giuliani said in the Fox News interview.
"That's the only thing a bully understands."
So, why did Krugman begin his Putin-bashing column by misrepresenting what Giuliani was saying?
It may have been a form of "negative endorsement." Since many American liberals hate Giuliani,
Giuliani's praise is supposed to translate into liberal hatred for Putin.
But "negative endorsements" are inherently unfair. Just because Josef Stalin might have liked
Franklin Roosevelt and because we may hate Stalin, that doesn't mean we should hate Roosevelt,
too. The use of "negative endorsement" is akin to guilt by association. And, in this case, Krugman
was playing fast and loose with the facts as well
Krugman also opts for some of the most hyperbolic language that has been used in the U.S. mainstream
media to distort events in Ukraine. For instance, Krugman claims that "Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine
without debate or deliberation." But that really isn't true either.
The Ukraine crisis is far more complicated and nuanced than that, as Krugman must know. If
he doesn't, he should consult with fellow Princeton professor Stephen F. Cohen, who has bravely
challenged the prevailing "group think" on both Ukraine and Russia.
Cohen, one of America's premier Russia experts, has even warned that "American media coverage
of Vladimir Putin … has so demonized him that the result may be to endanger U.S. national security:.
"Mainstream press reporting, editorials and op-ed articles have increasingly portrayed Putin
as a czar-like 'autocrat,' or alternatively a 'KGB thug,' who imposed a 'rollback of democratic
reforms' under way in Russia when he succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president in 2000. He installed
instead a 'venal regime' that has permitted 'corruptionism,' encouraged the assassination of a
'growing number' of journalists and carried out the 'killing of political opponents.' Not infrequently,
Putin is compared to Saddam Hussein and even Stalin."
Yet, Cohen said, "there is no evidence that any of these allegations against him are true,
or at least entirely true. Most seem to have originated with Putin's personal enemies, particularly
Yeltsin-era oligarchs who found themselves in foreign exile as a result of his policies – or,
in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in prison. Nonetheless, U.S. media, with little investigation
of their own, have woven the allegations into a near-consensus narrative of 'Putin's Russia.'"
**
'Shock Therapy'
Indeed, much of what Krugman finds so offensive about Putin's Russia actually stemmed from
the Yeltsin era following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 when the so-called Harvard
Boys flew to Moscow to apply free-market "shock therapy" which translated into a small number
of well-connected thieves plundering Russia's industry and resources, making themselves billionaires
while leaving average Russians near starvation.
When Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin in 2000, Putin challenged some of the oligarchs and pushed
others out of the political arena, while also moderating some of the extreme policies and thus
making life somewhat better for the average Russian, thus explaining Putin's broad popularity.
Putin could be fairly criticized for not going further, but economist Krugman must surely know
this history regarding how the Russian "kleptocracy" got started.
Yet, Krugman slides into the now common demonization of Putin. "Mr. Putin never had the resources
to back his swagger," Krugman smugly writes.
"It's quite a comedown for Mr. Putin. And his swaggering strongman act helped set the stage
for the disaster. A more open, accountable regime - one that wouldn't have impressed Mr. Giuliani
so much - would have been less corrupt, would probably have run up less debt, and would have been
better placed to ride out falling oil prices. Macho posturing, it turns out, makes for bad economies."
In other words, Krugman buys into the "group think" that blames Putin's "macho posturing" over
Ukraine for the current financial crisis in Russia, which has resulted from falling oil prices
as well as the U.S.-led sanctions punishing Russia for its alleged "aggression" in Ukraine.
That puts Krugman in the same camp as the neocons who have pushed the bogus narrative that
the megalomaniacal Putin is trying to reconstitute the Russian Empire. The actual facts, however,
disprove that narrative. ["The Crazy US 'Group Think' on Russia."]
Putin himself has a much better understanding of recent Russian history – and what Official
Washington's goals are regarding him and Russia – as he explained in an end-of-year news conference
on Thursday.
Asked if the economic pain was the price for accepting Crimea back into Russia, Putin responded:
"No. This is not the price we have to pay for Crimea. … This is actually the price we have to
pay for our natural aspiration to preserve ourselves as a nation, as a civilization, as a state.
…
"I gave an example of our most recognizable symbol. It is a bear protecting his taiga. … Maybe
it would be best if our bear just sat still. Maybe he should stop chasing pigs and boars around
the taiga but start picking berries and eating honey. Maybe then he will be left alone.
"But no, he won't be! Because someone will always try to chain him up. As soon as he's chained
they will tear out his teeth and claws. In this analogy, I am referring to the power of nuclear
deterrence. As soon as – God forbid – it happens and they no longer need the bear, the taiga will
be taken over. … And then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no use
at all. Perhaps they'll stuff it and that's all.
"So, it is not about Crimea but about us protecting our independence, our sovereignty and our
right to exist. That is what we should all realize."
The Neo-Nazi Reality
There is another unpleasant reality about Ukraine that Krugman ignores - its neo-Nazi element
- apparently not wanting to be out of step with his New York Times colleagues who have studiously
looked the other way. Again, Krugman could learn something from his fellow Princeton professor
Cohen, who has recounted the grim facts about neo-Nazism in Ukraine, facts that would put Putin's
supposed "invasion" in defense of Ukraine's ethnic Russians in a different light.
In an article for The Nation magazine, Cohen wrote: "Independent Western scholars have documented
the fascist origins, contemporary ideology and declarative symbols of Svoboda and its fellow-traveling
Right Sector. Both movements glorify Ukraine's murderous Nazi collaborators in World War II as
inspirational ancestors. Both, to quote Svoboda's leader Oleh Tyahnybok, call for an ethnically
pure nation purged of the 'Moscow-Jewish mafia' and 'other scum,' including homosexuals, feminists
and political leftists.
"And both hailed the Odessa massacre [on May 2 when ethnic Russian protesters were trapped
in the Trade Union building and burned alive]. According to the website of Right Sector leader
Dmytro Yarosh, it was 'another bright day in our national history.' A Svoboda parliamentary deputy
added, 'Bravo, Odessa…. Let the Devils burn in hell.'
"If more evidence is needed, in December 2012, the European Parliament decried Svoboda's 'racist,
anti-Semitic and xenophobic views [that] go against the EU's fundamental values and principles.'
In 2013, the World Jewish Congress denounced Svoboda as 'neo-Nazi.' Still worse, observers agree
that Right Sector is even more extremist. …
"In December 2012, a Svoboda parliamentary leader anathematized the Ukrainian-born American
actress Mila Kunis as 'a dirty kike.' Since 2013, pro-Kiev mobs and militias have routinely denigrated
ethnic Russians as insects ('Colorado beetles,' whose colors resemble a sacred Russia ornament).
More recently, the US-picked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, referred to resisters in the Southeast
as 'subhumans.' His defense minister proposed putting them in 'filtration camps,' pending deportation,
and raising fears of ethnic cleansing.
"Yulia Tymoshenko - a former prime minister, titular head of Yatsenyuk's party and runner-up
in the May presidential election - was overheard wishing she could 'exterminate them all [Ukrainian
Russians] with atomic weapons.' 'Sterilization' is among the less apocalyptic official musings
on the pursuit of a purified Ukraine."
By leaving out this troubling context, it's much easier to mislead Americans about what is
actually happening in Ukraine. Instead of understanding Russia's interest in protecting ethnic
Russians in eastern Ukraine from these brutal neo-Nazis, the crisis can simply be presented as
Putin's "aggression" or – as Krugman says – how "Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine." ***
More fitting Krugman's expertise about the dangers of free-market extremism, he might do better
looking at the consequences of those strategies on both Russia and Ukraine, where corrupt oligarchs
also took power and have now moved to the center of Ukraine's U.S.-backed regime.
And, if Krugman wants some current example of cronyism, he might look at the curious case of
Natalie Jaresko, a former U.S. diplomat who parlayed $150 million in U.S. AID funds designed to
help Ukraine develop an investment-based economy into a personal fortune and now into the post
of Ukraine's new Finance Minister.
According to corporate records, the U.S. government-funded investment project for Ukraine involved
substantial insider dealings by Jaresko, including $1 million-plus fees to a management company
that she also controlled. Meanwhile, the $150 million stake provided by the U.S. taxpayers appears
to have dwindled to less than $100 million. ["Ukraine's Made-in-the-USA Finance Minister."]
But critical reporting about the U.S.-backed Ukrainian regime would violate Official Washington's
narrative that prefers the Kiev authorities to be dressed in white hats while Vladimir Putin wears
the black hat.
"Russia Experts See Ranks Thin, and an Effect on U.S. Policy": * I protest the way my views
and I were characterized in your article. I am called the "dissenting villain" in today's media
commentary on Ukraine who presents a "perspective closer to that of Mr. Putin." This may have
the effect (intended or not) of stigmatizing me and discrediting my views.
For more than 40 years, I have taught thousands of undergraduates and trained scores of future
Russia specialists at Princeton University and New York University. My many scholarly books, articles
and media commentaries have been published in diverse mainstream places, including The New York
Times many years ago. And my views are based on my years of study, not on what President Vladimir
V. Putin or anyone else thinks.
Indeed, my current perspective is similar to what Henry A. Kissinger wrote ** in The Washington
Post this month: "The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence
of one."
I would go farther: The Ukrainian crisis, the worst and most fateful of the 21st century,
is the outcome of Washington's 20-year bipartisan policy toward post-Soviet Russia, spearheaded
by NATO's eastward expansion. I have been arguing this since the early 1990s, long before Mr.
Putin appeared on the scene.
In this regard, I am a true patriot of American national security - perhaps a heretic, but
certainly not the "villain."
All true-believing
progressives loathe
Tom Friedman anyway.
EMichael -> anne:
After a couple of days of reading the Putin defense, I am trying to figure out why the Lithuanias
are building up their defenses.
ilsm -> EMichael:
So that Putin can take US weapons on the cheap.
EMichael -> ilsm:
That might be the result, but as far as I know there are no "ethnic Russians" in Lithuania that
need to be protected from "brutal neo-Nazis".
ilsm -> EMichael:
You mean the CIA has no influence in Lithuania?
EMichael -> ilsm:
I have no idea.
But if so, they would have had to plant ethnic Russians in country a while ago.
Fred C. Dobbs -> EMichael:
Ukraine Crisis in Mind, Lithuania Establishes a Rapid Reaction Force
http://nyti.ms/1Ca0Qig
NYT - Dec 19
(Lithuania being a NATO member, things could get very dicey.)
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs:
You can google the papers, studies in the past couple of years warn against small "tactical" nuclear
exchanges and climate effects. NATO in Lithuania implies a trip wire.
likbez -> EMichael:
It's easy. They want attention and some money from EU
JohnH -> anne:
As a I wrote a few days ago: "merican triumphalism is in vogue, which makes me think that American
elites haven't really thought this through.
Those who supplied Russia with debt are going to
be hurt. And those who export to Russia will be hurt. With the dubious health of European banks
and with the Europe on the verge of recession, there are probably lots of European elites who
are not pleased with American triumphalism and who are as concerned about their own future as
much as Putin is about his.
How much American policy can Europe tolerate having shoved down their throats before they get
completely fed up and give Russia a break?"
Why would the US media deign to cover such a story that conflicts with official group think?
The US is perfectly happy to undertake policies that harm their allies. IMO Ukraine, like Kosovo,
is all about putting the US putting its "protection services" between Europe and its energy resources.
Why Europeans allow this to happen is beyond me:
World Awaits Russian Response As Obama Makes "Lethal Aid" To Ukraine Legal
As we explained
previously, quietly hidden within the humanitarian-sounding "The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of
2014″, under the premise of enabling further sanctions on Russia, is the provision of "lethal
aid" to Ukraine. Today, President Obama signed it into law…
•OBAMA SIGNED RUSSIAN SANCTIONS BILL TODAY, but
•OBAMA SAYS HE DOESN'T PLAN TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS UNDER NEW LAW
Because he knows full well that is not the important part. The "lethal-aid" aspect is a direct
provocation to Russia.. and he knows exactly how Putin will respond. …
… As we reported over the weekend, in the tumult surrounding Citigroup's annexation of Congress
with the passage of the theatrically dramatic $303 trillion derivative quid-pro-$1.1 trillion
spending quo, what most missed is that Congress also unanimously passed the The Ukraine Freedom
Support Act of 2014, which not only expands Russian sanctions (read the details here) but far
more impotantly, provides "lethal assistance to Ukraine's military." And as we explained, passage
of this law is just the pretext some Russian legislators needed to push for a full-blown, preemptive
military incursion in east-Ukraine.
The "isolation of Russia" idea is one which has been receiving a lot of traction of late. Russia's
recent economic woes have sometimes been covered with barely contained glee despite the hardships
that average Russians may have to endure if the rouble continues to collapse … not to mention
the inevitable geopolitical backlash.
Russia has become isolated from its western neighbours on account of the putsch in Ukraine
which led to the predominantly ethnically Russian Crimea seceding from Kiev through a democratic
process.
European governments slavishly adhere to U.S. imposed sanctions. So from a western elite point
of view, Russia is indeed isolated.
Whether antagonising Russia is damaging to Russia is a moot point. Certainly in Russia's current
straits the bankrupt west is in no position to help. European farmers are suffering from a loss
of export markets while Europe is still dependent on Russian natural gas.
Putin Paints a Besieged Russia, Says U.S. Wants to 'Rip Out Its Teeth and Claws'
…"[H]e believes that the economy is capable of withstanding the shock," said Alexei Makarkin,
deputy director of the Moscow-based Center for Political Technologies. "Putin's psychology is
very simple. From his point of view Russia has made concessions for years and to no effect."
Anti-Islam Rally Grows as Immigrant Backlash Hits Europe
…[T]hree firebombing attempts have taken place in Berlin since August on the Reichstag which
houses parliament, a parliament office building and the headquarters of Merkel's CDU, according
to German news agency DPA. In all three attacks, which didn't cause any damage, far-right propaganda
or a letter claiming responsibility was left at the scene.
Three buildings due to be used as housing for asylum seekers were also burned on Dec. 11 in
the Bavarian town of Vorra, state Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said in a Bayern2 radio interview.
The attacks "are very clearly arson and the swastikas daubed on the walls lead to the suspicion
that the culprits were right-wing extremists," he said.
Within five days, of which two were output, the Central Bank has twice raised its discount rate:
December 11, up to 10.5%, December 16 - to 17% per annum. Such a rapid and unprecedented sharp increase
of the rate of only three working days may indicate a complete loss of control of the situation.
While the Central Bank continues to ignore the administrative measures for the stabilization of
the situation - for example, mandatory sale of currency proceeds. Reliance on "market" methods in
environment destruction market says anything about the helplessness of the monetary authorities,
either on a conscious policy, which executes someone plan.
Rate of 10.5 percent was already beyond - this is a bet for speculators, but not for production.
17% mean that any investment activity in the real sector will have to forget - very few
people have such profitability today. In fact, the Central Bank finishes the Russian economy, and
a festive week in January and already makes it worst month in a year in production.
The situation has clearly cannot be explained by problems in the oil market - it obviously is
controlled character. The question is whether, in the proportion whether the management of the Central
Bank or customers of collapse just used his professional unsuitability.
Krugman's jumping on the anti-Putin propaganda band wagon suggests that he's angling for a top
job in Washington. Not that Putin--or Bush, Cheney, or Obama--are any saints!
A look at the
Ukraine at provisions of the sanctions bill (passed by 'unanimous consent' with three House members
present!') reveals what the whole dust up with Putin is really all about:
"- Provisions for privatization of Ukrainian infrastructure, electricity, oil, gas and renewables,
with the help of the World Bank and USAID.
- Fifty million dollars to assist in a corporate takeover of Ukraine's oil and gas sectors.
- Three hundred and fifty million dollars for military assistance to Ukraine, including anti-tank,
anti-armor, optical, and guidance and control equipment, as well as drones."
Meanwhile the Ukrainian parliament passes a bill declaring that "Ukraine should become a "military
state...[and] increase military spending in Ukraine from 1 percent of GDP to 5 percent, increasing
military spending by $3 billion over the next few years." http://www.truthdig.com/search/results?q=Kucinich
Looks like the banking, energy and weapons industries just got a huge Christmas gift from Obama,
Boehner and Reid.
And Krugman singles out Putin as a crony capitalist?
bakho :
The one constant in the war and division that has hit some states of the FSU is the rise of
ethnic nationalism. The Czechs and Slovaks were able to divide their country peacefully into Bohemia
Czech Republic (Majority Czech) and Slovakia (mostly Slavic). There was no Nationalistic Party
demanding dominance of the whole in power. Other states with majority ethnic groups have had Nationalists
rise to power, demanding ethnic dominance, official language and no guarantee of minority rights.
These have seen war and conflict.
The West enlisted Ukraine Nationalists to overthrow the elected government of Ukraine. The
Nationalists were brought in to the new government. Only when these ethnic tensions divided the
country did Russia move to take back Crimea and support ethnic Russians who are being bombed by
their own country.
Ukranians who only want to live in peace are caught in a war between the Russian Mafia and
Greedy Neocons. The West made a pact with divisive Right Wing Nationalists to overthrow an elected
government. Ukraine has no institutions to protect minority rights. Powerful Ethnic Nationalists
who do not support a multicultural state and institutions have been encouraged. They want to crush
the minorities. Lacking internal institutions to protect minority rights, external forces have
moved in. Arming the Ukrainian Nationalists is exacerbating the problem. The Nationalists must
be purged from power and the new government told to fight Nationalism an pursue institutions and
protection of minority rights. A multi ethnic Ukraine is possible but so is further division of
the country.
A country who bombs its own citizens is not good.
ilsm -> bakho...
Vladimir the Terrible!
A stable Russia seems not in US' interests. The influence of the CIA.
What if Vlad imported French tutors?
pgl -> bakho...
Seriously? This President has no interest in regime change in Russia. If Putin pulls his troops
out of Ukraine, this crisis would end immediately.
likbez -> pgl...
I think you are either deluded or naïve. Coup d'état in Ukraine was directed exactly against Russia
and indirectly designed (yes designed and financed) to facilitate regime change (as previous attempt
failed in 2012).
You can't be a part of neoliberal world and not to obey the dictate of
the USA. I think this is one thing that Putin failed to understand. Now he and his country are
paying the price.
anne :
If you're the type who finds macho posturing impressive, -------- ----- is your kind of guy....
-- Paul Krugman
[ A viciously prejudiced opening to a supposed analysis. The disdain for and hatred of Russia,
especially through the ridicule of the Russian President, that is being fostered in the United
States is shameful and dangerous and will prove self-defeating.
Repeatedly, we have turned to ridicule of leaders in other countries that we wish harm to.
That a Princeton Professor would so contribute to fostering such harm of another people is shameful.
]
Johannes Y O Highness :
"accountable regime - one that wouldn't have impressed Mr. Giuliani so much - would have been
less corrupt, would probably have run up less debt,
"
~~pK~
Here is my impression of William S Buckley talking on TV :
Thank you professor pK! You have just elucidated the inner workings of an inherently corrupt
junta not at all unlike our very own Capitol Hill! As you can easily visualize from the Nobel
Laureates summary, within each heavily-financially-oriented-regime lies a wide open channel running
from public debt directly to the pick-pockets who so deftly skim the buying power of the hapless
but loyal American military and civilian citizens. And now back to our spiffy new commercial announcement
from your friendly Rigger National Financial Conglomerate Holding Company.
These are the messages that blared forth from my TV screen and broker
notes this morning. Monday - hereafter branded as "Red Monday" - was a day of reckoning for the Russian
economy. The schadenfreude on display in Western media is nearly as relentless as the ruble's sell-off:
"It couldn't happen to a nicer guy" - WSJ, on Putin
"Russian sanctions could be lifted 'within days' if Vladimir Putin makes different choices,
John Kerry says" - Daily Telegraph
Let's disregard the fact that Secretary Kerry may be a bit premature with the sanctimony after
two years of diplomatic outmaneuvering and general ????????? (beatings) at Putin's hands in Syria,
Libya, and Ukraine. It might be easy to get caught up in the media hype around yet another Russian
currency crisis, but time can be better spent in considering what Putin's next moves might be, and
the ramifications for the global economy.
Few will disagree that Vladimir Putin is easily the most effective head of state on today's world
stage. Americans may not like him, but Russians love and adore him. Trust me on this one, Mr Putin
is not going anywhere and the only effective outcome of Kerry's sanctions has been to unite the Russian
people in defense of their president.
Let's quickly recap the facts as we know them now:
Crude prices are at a five-year low; WTI traded below $57, and Brent just passed through $60
for the first time since 2009.
On Monday the ruble (RUB) dropped nearly 10% against the US Dollar (USD) in a single day of
trading.
In the early morning of Tuesday the Russian Central Bank (CBR) raised rates from 10.5% to
17% - a 62% increase in the overnight lending rate. This stopped the RUB's downward slide - for
less than two hours - before continuing down past the 75 handle.
The RTS, Russia's benchmark equity index, was down 12% on Tuesday when I wrote this and lost
nearly 40% in the month of December.
Courtesy: Financial Times
All of this information is readily available - but what does this mean for the global markets?
How can we predict the "second bounce of the ball" or the unintended consequences of the Russian
implosion?
I lived and worked in Moscow for a couple of years, and during my tenure the RUB never breached
the 32 handle. This morning a friend told me via email that middle-class Muscovites are piling into
IKEA, 7th Continent and other large retailers to buy every consumer good on the shelves before the
inevitable mark-ups are applied. I only wish that I were there to load up on deeply-discounted bottles
of Kalashnikov vodka - a much better souvenir than the NFL-themed matryoshka dolls from the tourist
traps at Ismailovskiy Park.
Russia's first post-Soviet currency crisis, in 1998, pre-dates my arrival there but I often heard
about how market traders would price their goods in "conditional units" instead of rubles - a thinly-veiled
attempt to price their goods in USD (which is illegal; Russian businesses can only price their goods
in RUB).
It is virtually indisputable that Russia will experience a painful recession next year; their
economy's most significant shortcoming is its near-total reliance on resource exports. Russia's break-even
production cost of crude oil is just over $100, so the country's famed $400bn "stabilization fund"
will soon begin to draw down. Russia has its problems, to be sure, but their fiscal policy has actually
been quite solid since they launched this fund in 2004 to mitigate volatility in the crude oil market.
Let's tick off some other, lesser-known (but no less true) facts:
Remember the European mega-banks that were imperiled in the Greek sovereign debt crisis of
2012? Disaster was only averted when ECB President Mario Draghi pledged to do "whatever it takes"
to save the Euro? Let's take a look at current exposure to Russia for some of the largest European
banks (courtesy
of Bloomberg). How much of this exposure was denominated in US Dollars? I suspect that we'll
soon find out. This week's events will surely serve as a wake-up call for the sovereign debt markets
- remember that, less than three months ago, Spain and Italy were pricing bond issuances at a
lower yield than US Treasuries!
Russia's gold reserves are at a 20-year high now, with over 1,150 tons (worth over US$ 1.5B)
on record. Theirs is the fifth-highest stockpile, having just passed China and Switzerland. Does
the US hold more in Fort Knox? Good question! The Fed refuses any attempt to independently audit
its reserves. Even if you're not a "gold bug", you have to appreciate the (image of) stability
that these holdings can convey to the world in a full-on currency crisis.
Russia has made no secret of its interest in dethroning the US Dollar as the global reserve
currency. Recent moves such as the establishment of the New Development Bank (also known as the
"BRICS Bank"), and joint efforts with China to begin direct currency conversion with their respective
trading partners (and each other) are beginning to chip away at global dollar hegemony.
Make no mistake, this sell-off is a big problem - not just for Russia, or for the other over-levered
emerging market currencies (TRY, INR, ZAR) that stand to be traumatized by a rising US dollar, but
ultimately even for the US itself. As US capacity utilization returns to pre-2001 levels, and inflation
gains momentum, dollar-pegged currencies around the world are about to come under increasing strain.
I expect that Putin's plans to chip away at the global reserve currency - the US Dollar - are about
to shift into high gear.
I'll be watching this situation closely. In the meantime, some food for thought... it might be
time for investors to give some serious thought to the major Russian names out there. Here is what
I saw in the GDRs this morning...
Current prices, P/Es and dividend yields for Russian majors:
Of course one must remember that these companies' ability to pay such attractive yields may be
imperiled by crude prices that are currently 40% below Russia's production break-even. Nonetheless,
it's indisputable that there are going to be some real bargains in this market. (Disclosure:
I own all of the stocks on this list in my personal account. This is not a recommendation; make your
own decisions please!)
I'll write more about this in a few days. I'm increasingly of the opinion that 2015 is going to
be a year that investors will someday tell their grandchildren about.
------------
Certainly something to think about over the weekend which I hope you enjoy as much as I plan to.
I'll be enjoying some quiet time and staying well away from any retail outlets where people will
be amassing in force trying desperately to figure out what to buy for people who don't need anything
and who in turn will be out doing the same thing, all the while maintaining the same fake enthusiasm
for Christmas as North Koreans did for Jim Jong Il.
- Chris
"Under the most negative external economic scenario, this situation can last two years."
- Vladimir Putin on 18 December, 2014
Let's begin by what I personally consider bad news: either Putin really believes in liberal market
economics or he has to say he does. He began his Q&A and ended it with a categorical expression of
full support for the policies of the Central Bank and its Chairwoman, Nabiulina, and a no less categorical
expression of support for the Government and its Prime Minister, Medvedev. Worse, Putin declared
that he believes that market forces will by themselves correct the current disequilibria. At most,
he agreed that certain decisions should have been taken earlier or more forcefully, but that's it.
Some will love it.
Lew Rockwell went as far as to say that he would hand Elvira Nabiulina the award of "Central
Banker of the Year". Not everybody agrees. For example, Victor Gerashchenko, a former Chairman of
the Central Bank, declared that
if he had been in the position of Nabiulina today he would have "asked for a gun to shoot himself".
I have to admit that I personally am dismayed by Putin's apparent beliefs in market economics.
I say 'apparent' because there might be things going on which I am not aware of. For example, while
Putin speaks of "market forces" China seems to get heavily involved in the Russian economic crisis.
For those interested in these developments, please check the following sources:
The Chinese friend who sent me the article in the People's Daily made a particularly interesting
comment. He wrote:
"Yin and yang politics? I cannot help but notice a strong pattern. China and Russia each engages
each other's enemies/allies with whom they have friction in order to bring them into the Eurasian
fold. What do you think? Is this intentional? I had my doubts earlier in the year, but more and
more this keeps happening".
I think that he is spot-on here. It is very much in the Russian strategic interest to have China
applying some "Yuan diplomacy" in the EU not only because China is a close ally, but mainly because
China is "not the USA". At this point in time, *anything* which can weaken the total control of the
USA over its EU colonies is welcome. Any Yuan invested in the EU is one Dollar which is not.
This
is just an example. Putin probably knows a lot of things which we don't and he probably cannot say
everything he thinks or plans. But my purely subjective impression is that Putin simply does
not have the power needed to confront the Atlantic Integrationists head on. Mikhail Khazin,
who knows a lot, recently even declared that there were Atlantic Integrationists in the "power ministries".
And since I am pretty sure that he was not referring to the Ministry of Defense that leaves either
Internal Affairs or State Security. If true, that is not good. Either that, or Putin sincerely believes
in liberal market-economics. I most definitely don't believe in them at all.
There are, in my opinion, two major problems with Putin's logic. First, Russia needs not less,
but more regulation and more state control. At the very least, I really believe that
the very institution of the Central Bank is a toxic one: it was created by the US-controlled Eltsin
regime to subordinate Russian politics (and politicians) to the international banking cartels and
we see that it works perfectly. Putin can send bombers to the Gulf of Mexico, but he is unable to
remove Nabiulina, nevermind take control of the Central Bank. Nikolai Starikov has even said that
there is a joke going around now saying "Putin, send the troops into the Central Bank!". That is
how disgusted many Russians have become with this supra-national institution which is accountable
to nobody. But there is even worse.
The choice of a free-market non-regulated "solution" basically leaves Russia fully enmeshed into
the AngloZionist controlled financial system. How can Russia free herself from the "Dollar yoke"
while remaining fully part of the Dollar-dominated international system?!
I have to tell you that while I gratefully posted Peter Koenig's excellent "Free
Fall of the Ruble – A brilliant ploy of Russian economic Wizards? Who's chess game" this was
one of those instances when I post something I find very interesting but which I do not agree with.
I just don't get the sense that Putin is about to pull some clever judo-move on the western plutocrats.
I most sincerely hope that I am wrong here, but that is my gut-feeling.
Generally, Putin was clearly defensive when asked questions about the Central Bank and the Government.
Especially in contrast to the absolutely magnificent way he handled the questions about the Ukraine,
even when asked by a very hostile Ukrainian journalist. Again, as I so often say this, I am not a
mind-reader or a prophet. I cannot tell you what Putin thinks or what he will do. But I think that
many years of studying the man give me a pretty decent gut feeling about him and that gut feeling
tells me that while he has a clear and strong vision on international politics in general, and especially
about the Ukraine, he lacks such a vision for economic problems.
For the Ukraine his position is crystal clear: "Crimea is ours forever, we will not let you crush
the Donbass, we want a untied Ukraine in which the rights of all people and regions are respected
and you will have to negotiate with the Novorussians who have a right of self determination" (which
leaves open the possibility that while Russia might "prefer" a united Ukraine, the Novorussians have
the right to decide otherwise).
Clear, direct and, I would argue, perfectly reasonable. In contrast, in economic I get a sense
of faith-based politics: "market forces will correct the current artificial situation and within
2 years the crisis will be over". The problem with that is that the very same Putin ALSO says that
the West is completely manipulating the markets and not allowing them to act. So what he is really
saying is this: "the Empire does not have the means to artificially skew the markets for more than
two years". Oh really? I am not so sure of that at all. In my book the Empire has been skewing the
markets for many years already (I would argue since 1971).
Bottom line, what I hear from Putin is "more of the same" and since I don't like what I have seen
so far, I can only add "only worse".
Can this nightmare be averted?
Still, the situation is not necessarily hopeless. While I think that Putin's economic policies are
wrong and while I believe that the Russian Central Bank is very much part of the problem and not
the solution, this is not a black and white binary kind of choice: playing by the wrong rules or
on the wrong field does not necessarily mean that you will lose, only that you have made the wrong
initial choice. For one thing,
you can make the argument that the Ruble is a much more credible currency then the Dollar. Second,
I do agree that market forces are resisting the US distortion and that the integration of China and
Russia will inevitably contribute to help the Russian economy. Third, the EU is already in recession
and if that get's worse, and it will, this will start pulling down many US banks who are heavily
linked to the EU market. Fourth, in objective terms, Russia is sitting on a tangible fortune
of natural resources and she has full access to the gigantic Chinese market. In these conditions,
it is going to be awfully hard for the AngloZionists to "isolate" Russia. So, objectively, Putin
is right about one thing: even if it does get worse before it gets better, it will inevitably get
better.
So is Putin a genius chess player? That is not quite how I would put it. He definitely
has a record of absolutely brilliant moves, but right now he is clearly struggling. I am like everybody
else, I would like him to pull yet another brilliant "chess move" and stick it to the Empire but
I don't see how we could do that, at least not in this point in time.
What I saw today is a Putin clearly on the defensive who had to invest a lot of his personal capital
of popularity and trust. He honestly admitted that things might get worse and that there is no quick
fix to the current crisis. He did commit to a time frame of 2 years which is both very shot and very
long. It is plenty enough time to lose his popularity and very little time to turn around such a
huge country like Russia.
The most poignant moment of the entire 3 hours came when Putin explained what was at stake today.
He :
You know, at the Valdai [International Discussion] Club I gave an example of our most recognisable
symbol. It is a bear protecting his taiga. You see, if we continue the analogy, sometimes I think
that maybe it would be best if our bear just sat still. Maybe he should stop chasing pigs and
boars around the taiga but start picking berries and eating honey. Maybe then he will be left
alone. But no, he won't be! Because someone will always try to chain him up. As soon as he's chained
they will tear out his teeth and claws. In this analogy, I am referring to the power of nuclear
deterrence. As soon as – God forbid – it happens and they no longer need the bear, the taiga will
be taken over (...) And then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no
use at all. Perhaps they'll stuff it and that's all. So, it is not about Crimea but about us protecting
our independence, our sovereignty and our right to exist. That is what we should all realize.
Amazing words which fully confirm one of the most important facts of the current situation: the AngloZionist
Empire and Russia are at war, a war in which either the Russian Bear will be "stuffed and that's
all" or the AngloZionist Empire will crumble. This is an existential war for both sides, for the
AngloZionist Empire and the Russian Civilizational Realm - one of them will defeat the other.
This
is not the first time that Putin explains this, but this time I felt an urgency in his voice which
I have not heard before. He was both warning the Russian people and asking for their support for
him personally. My guess is that he will get it, I just don't know for how long.
The world is still hell-bent for hydrocarbon-based energy. Russia is the world's largest producer
of energy. Russia has recently announced that in the future she will no longer trade energy in US
dollars, but in rubles and currencies of the trading partners. In fact, this rule will apply to all
trading. Russia and China are detaching their economies from that of the West. To confirm this decision,
in July 2014 Russia's Gazprom concluded a 400 billion gas deal with China, and in November this year
they signed an additional slightly smaller contract – all to be nominated in rubles and yuan.
The remaining BRICS – Brazil, India and South Africa – plus the members of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) – China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirgizstan, Uzbekistan and considered
for membership since September 2014 are also India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mongolia, with
Turkey also waiting in the wings – will also trade in their local currencies, detached from the dollar-based
western casino scheme. A host of other nations increasingly weary of the decay of the western financial
system which they are locked into are just waiting for a new monetary scheme to emerge. So far their
governments may have been afraid of the emperor's wrath – but gradually they are seeing the light.
They are sensing the sham and weakness behind Obama's boisterous noise. They don't want to be sucked
into the black hole, when the casino goes down the drain.
To punish Russia for Ukraine, Obama is about to sign into law major new sanctions against Russia,
following Congress's unanimous passing of a recent motion to this effect. – That is what the MSM
would like you to believe. It is amazing that ten months after the Washington instigated Maidan slaughter
and coup where a Washington selected Nazi Government was put in place, the MSM still lies high about
the origins of this government and the massacres it is committing in the eastern Ukraine Donbass
area.
Congress's unanimity - what Congress and what unanimity? – Out of 425 lawmakers, only 3 were present
for the vote
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40489.htm. The others may have already taken
off for their year-end recess, or simply were 'ashamed' or rather afraid to object to the bill. As
a matter of fact, of the three who were present to vote, two at first objected. Only after a bit
of arm-twisting and what not, they were willing to say yes. This is how the 'unanimous' vote came
to be, as trumpeted by the MSM – unanimous by three votes! The public at large is duped again into
believing what is not.
What new sanctions does this repeatedly propagated bill entail? – It addresses mostly Russian
energy companies and defense industry with regard to sales to Syria, as well more anti-Russia propaganda
and 'democratization' programs in Ukraine – and Russia; all countries with the objective for regime
change.
How do these sanctions affect Russia, especially since all Russian energy sales are no longer
dollar denominated? – Sheer propaganda. The naked emperor once more is calling an unsubstantiated
bluff. To show his western stooges who is in power. It's an ever weaker showoff.
Now – as a consequence of declining oil prices and of western 'sanctions' – of course, what else?
- Russia's economy is suffering and the ruble is in free fall. Since the beginning of the year it
lost about 60%; last week alone 20%. As a result and after serious consideration, says MSM, the Russian
Central Bank decided a few days ago to increase the interest of reference from 10.5% to 17% to make
the ruble more attractive for foreign investors. It worked only for a few hours. Raising the interbank
interest was Putin's reply to Obama's bluff – feeding at the same time western illusion about Russia's
decline.
The propaganda drums tell you Russia is helpless because the world has lost the last bit of confidence
in President Putin – of course. Regime change is on the agenda. Mr. Putin must be blamed as the culprit,
hoping to discredit him with his people. He is leading Russia into a deep recession; the worst since
the collapse of the Soviet Union. The mainstream media show you interviews with average mainstreet
Russians saying they have lost all their savings, their salaries and pensions are worth nothing anymore
and they don't know how to survive this coming calamity.
In reality, at least 80% of the Russian population stands solidly behind Vladimir Putin. He has
brought them universal education, health care and fixed infrastructure that was decaying after the
fall of the Soviet Union. President Putin is literally revered as a hero by the vast majority of
Russians – including the country's oligarchy.
In fact, nobody in the western economic system these days is dealing in rubles. In short-sighted
connivance with Washington, the treasuries of the western vassals are releasing their ruble reserves
– which Russia does not buy, thereby flooding the market. Russia not only has large dollar reserves,
plus the ruble is backed by gold, a fact consistently omitted in the MSM. For now, Russia prefers
to let the ruble plummet.
Under another 'arrangement' by bully Obama, Middle Eastern oil producing puppets like Saudi Arabia
and the Gulf States are overproducing and flooding the market with petrol and gas, thereby driving
the price down to the ostensible detriment of Russia and Venezuela, both countries where Washington
vies for regime change. A double whammy thinks Washington, buying kudos with the stooges. The sheiks
that control their energy output apparently have been promised enough goodies from Washington to
bite the bullet and take their own losses.
Russia needs rubles. That's her currency. That is the currency Russia needs for future trading
– detached from the western monetary system.
When Russia deems that her currency has reached rock-bottom, she will buy back cheap rubles in
the market with massive amounts of dollars. Russia may then flood the western market – with dollars,
and by now we know what that does to a currency – and simultaneously buy back rubles from the West.
A brilliant move to reestablish Russia's currency in a new emerging monetary system – which Europe
would be welcome to join, but willingly, no by Washington style arm-twisting.
Is this another precursor to war? A nuclear confrontation or Cold War II? – Precursor to a false
flag attempting Moscow to fall into the trap? - Not necessarily. Russia is playing a clever chess
game, diplomacy at its best. Instead of sabre rattling – Russia is coin rattling. It might lead to
a western financial fiasco early in 2015 for the dollar and euro denominated economies. And the winner
is…?
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank
staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He
writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, the Voice of Russia, now Ria Novosti, The Vineyard
of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller
about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years
of World Bank experience around the globe.
86 comments
...Have questions about our unwillingness to go to war (well, as in the USSR in June 41). Wars
of the 21st century differs from wars in the 20-m and involves finances.
Action of CB small with last minute impromptu action, and not with the routine, designed in advance
actions. And the search for the least damage (to throw into the furnace billions or to pay for damage
from a speculative attack the same money), counterattack, etc. All this can be oput into a mathematical
model and simulated. This is the work of not one Nabiullina, it is the analysis and forecast of economically
tied institutes and universities
There are questions to understand - and who attacks the ruble and the official version. These
futures contracts on foreign exchanges, etc, - who is this? Names, passwords, addresses.
Az for internal players there is some clarity. And even as for them, not everything is clear.
Rabbiits breaders like faithful Sancho Dima Medvedev with his statement "the ruble is clearly
undervalued" on Monday and Tuesday cannot convince anyone. As before, his words had no weight. His
words does not mean anything. Accordingly, it can in no way affect the financial market.
Tasks of the American PR and financial fifth columns (read American agents such as RBC , newspaper
"Vedomosti", and so on) try to push the explantaion of deep slide of ruble by deep, fundamental factors.
This is what Jew call chispan, but nothing suprising as this is a war against us. That is, short-term,
artificially created situation which they try to sell us as the reason of changing out strategic
course. While what is needed now are emergency mesures. And thatn we can talk about staragic changes.
It is the same con the was used by bandits of 1990th. Take you on speed. And who BTW were was
more stupid than the American gansters who try to play this trick now. "Decide now, otherwize it
will be too late".
Having started at noon Moscow time (4am Eastern), Putin's annual Q&A run for a massive three and
a half hours, during which the Russian leader took numerous questions from the public and as expected,
reiterated the key "rally around the flag" talking points that have permeated Russian rhetoric over
the past few weeks as the economic situation in Russia deteriorated.
As
Bloomberg notes, the conference was attended by hundreds of reporters and carried live on television
around the world, the event took on heightened importance this year as the president sought to reassure
a Russian public unnerved by the ruble's plummet.
While he did acknowledge the difficult economic reality, Putin sought to reassure his countrymen
that the current weakness "would last no longer than two years." Putin promptly pivoted against the
west and accused the U.S. and European Union of trying to undermine his country and blaming external
factors for the sharp plunge in the ruble, notably the drop in oil saying that "the economy will
naturally adapt to the new conditions of low oil prices."
... ... ....
He accused the West of building up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization toward Russia's borders
and expanding an antimissile systems.
"It's not a matter of Crimea. We are defending our independence, our sovereignty and our right
to exist, we should all understand this," he said later in response to a question about whether the
current economic troubles were "payment for Crimea."
In tough language, Mr. Putin returned to an analogy he'd used earlier this fall, comparing
Russia to a bear in the Siberian Taiga wilderness, saying it was naive to hope that the West would
leave Russia alone.
"They will always try to put it in chains and once they have it in chains, they will take out
its teeth and claws, which in this case means our strategic nuclear deterrent," he said. "Once they've
got the Taiga, they won't need the bear," he said, accusing Western leaders of saying publicly that
Russia should be deprived of its vast natural resources.
Asked
about tensions with the West, Putin struck a harsh tone, accusing it of seeking to subdue and
disarm Russia. Acknowledging that Western sanctions over the country's role in Ukraine were biting,
he said the current economic troubles "are payment for our independence, our sovereignty."
... Putin again accused the U.S. and European Union of using the Ukraine conflict as way to contain
Russia as they have done since the end of the Cold War through the expansion of NATO, comparing the
current situation to a new division akin to the Berlin Wall.
"This is payback for our natural desire to preserve ourselves as a nation, as a civilization and
state," Putin said. "The crisis in Ukraine should make our partners understand that it's time to
stop building walls."
drendebe10
..3 1/2 hours... no teleprompter no doubt... could anyone imagine the most transparent corrupt
incompetent arrogant narcissistic illegal indonesian kenyan alien muslim sociopathic pathological
liar in chief fudgepacker doing that.... har de har har har....
Silky Johnson
That guy is on point. He's not mealy mouthed or vague. He tells them there is going to be pain
and the reason for it. That's a dude!
Arius
Somewhat ironically, Putin said that Russia shouldn't waste currency reserves protecting the
ruble as the country prepares for a downturn brought on by the collapse of the oil price and sanctions
over the Ukraine conflict, he said.
"Under the most negative external economic scenario, this situation can last two years," Putin
said. "If the situation is very bad, we will have to change our plans, cut some things."
This doesnt sounds like someone in a rush to sell ... in exchange for your trouble of typing
a few zeros in your laptop
Torgo
To paraphrase Amon Amarth: His spirit was forged in snow and ice to bend like steel forged
over fire. He was not made to bend like a reed nor to turn the other cheek.
McCormick No. 9
A free-flowing, non-rehearsed press conference...Who can remain unimpressed?
Meanwhile Obama waits until the last minute to free Cuba, something he should have done with
courage the one minute into 2008. Since Obama is on the way out, here's a preview of how to compare
Hillabitch to Putin, or Jubhead to Putin:
Hillabitch: What did you say? Guards take that man away! I never want to see him alive again!
Jubhead: I can't answer that question, as my interactive response algorythm seems to be breaking
down into pure jibberish.
HardAssets
Even for us who don't speak Russian . . . you can watch the man's body language and you get
the sense that its no bullshit when he talks.
The difference appears to be that the Russian leadership cares about their country and its
people. Russia has gone through hell over the centuries.
With American 'leadership' it all seems to be about disdain for, lies to, and the intentional
destruction of the citizenry in order to deflect attention from that 'leadership' when everything
inevitably collapses.
Day_Of_The_Tentacle
I watched it all live despite my ever instant nausea, when it comes to anything remotely related
to politicians. He did a very good job. Including when asked less pleasant and quite critical
questions. Including when asked frivolous privacy prying questions. Including when asked ridiculously
longwinded and fuzzy questions. Including when asked questions of populist and incendiary nature.
Including when asked questions with extreme emotional charge due to recent tragedy and deaths.
Good job.
Edit: And I agree with others. There were no lashing out or flailing arms at all. There were
a few well articulated uppercuts with a quick series of jabs in the middle prompted by chosen
questioners - but those jabs were completely deserved. I would not have been able to stay that
cool on those particular subjects.
ebworthen
"It's not a matter of Crimea. We are defending our independence, our sovereignty and our right
to exist, we should all understand this,"
BINGO! Putin is not going anywhere. He makes our leaders look like spoiled kids at a Chuck
E. Cheese b-day party.
blaireauhedge
De Gaulle from France used to do that. No prompter. Not notes. He would throw dates, statistics,
litterary and historic quotes, etc. at journalists. It was something else. And all done in absolutely
perfect, classic French.
Find me ANYBODY in the western world that could do that today.
I can't speak for Putin's Russian (its style), but he does seem to have a great grasp of a
wide array of topics.
Bollixed
When you don't tell lies it's easy to remember how the story goes. When everything is spun
the stories never match across scripts. Is it any wonder all we get is gibberish out of our leaders?
For them the events change faster than their writers/propaganders can keep up with. Trying to
balance all the lies across so many scenarios is a hard task. Actually, it's a fool's errand.
Son of Captain Nemo
Find me ANYBODY in the western world that could do that today.
De Gaulle is dead and all that is left are politicans that clutch teleprompters like "gy gy
blankets"... More importantly what does it say about the rest of us who allow them to become our
leaders when they are incapable of holding a thought in their head for more than 2 minutes that
requires assistance!
They are a lost breed, and once they are gone they are near impossible to get back!
taraxias
He handled himself extremely well as any great leader would but this man didn't just read The
Art Of War, he lives it everyday. It's what he didn't say that's the real bitch. Blowback is in
the works for the US and its puppet allies. I don't know how, when or where but you can count
on it. I suspect not too long from now either.
blaireauhedge
I did not find him "defiant" at all.
And much to the dismay of those who support him, and I'm actually one of them, he absolutely
did NOT lash out at the west.
At some point this site will have lost all credibility.
Kinskian
"This is payback for our natural desire to preserve ourselves as a nation, as a civilization
and state," Putin said.
Note that he did not say "as a people". I like Putin, but in the end he's just holding out
for a more senior position in the JWO.
Son of Captain Nemo
In the end m g we either understand our history, our direction, purpose and the current state
we have created for ourselves.
Good or bad choices we're eventually forced to pick a side.
I used Putin's quote about the wall because it speaks so enduringly to Russia's history and
the fact that Western Europe has always been antagonistic towards it -like that fact or not. Pick
a timeline starting with Napoleon, "charge of the light brigades", WWI, WWII and you get a " Defensive
Wall" when your adversary who you helped win the war that should have ended all wars with 20 million
of your own countrymen dead after they declare victory turns around and threatens you!
Less than 40 years later that Defensive Wall comes down and gives way to detente which allegedly
begins only to make way for an "Offensive Wall" by the same cast of characters that made you their
enemy 69 years earlier after they helped you win that "war to end all wars"?...
Needless to say I picked my side and know a winner when I see one!
If you're still querying any economic freeze between Russia and the West, digest this line from
VTB bank the day Europe's sanctions took effect: The European Union "have gone against their own
interests to do the bidding of their senior colleagues from across the ocean," the Russian financial
giant said.
That's a publicly-traded, Western-style bank bluntly calling European governments lapdogs of the
U.S. It's not a statement likely to win Western business in the future.
.... ... ...
But European companies are suffering. Adidas is closing stores in Russia in anticipation of
deteriorating sales. Volkswagen and Renault have already noted a slowdown that pre-dates the sanctions.
Industrial and engineering giant Siemens has said it sees a "serious risk" to European growth as
a result of the sanctions.
... ... ...
I do wonder if changing sentiment will generate the most long-term pain between Europe and Russia.
More sectors could be hit as financiers fear future sanctions and retaliation from Moscow, deals
could dry up and finance could flee. That, in turn, could put a chill on European firms doing deals
in Russia even if they are is not impacted by sanctions.
An economic cold wind, if not war, is certainly blowing through the financial capitals of Europe.
The quality of the USA comments suggests that the USA would be much better off staying British colony.
Compare with Guardian comment section or Telegraph...
A funny thing happened on the way to Vladimir Putin running strategic laps around the West. Russia's
economy imploded.
The latest news is that Russia's central bank raised interest rates from 10.5 to 17 percent at
an emergency 1 a.m. meeting in an attempt to stop the ruble, which is down 50 percent on the year
against the dollar, from falling any further. It's a desperate move to save Russia's currency that
comes at the cost of sacrificing Russia's economy.
Sim Gu, 12/21/2014 9:23 AM EST
Ukrainian Major and military expert Oleksandr Taran who's been on the "enemy" territory and
drove about 300km in current conflict zones says that he did see Cossacks and volunteers that
came from Russia fighting on the militia's side, but didn't see any regular Russian military units.
He also says that the Ukrainian government and security services act like terrorists.
Russia will be able to overcome economic problems - Chinese Foreign Minister
Economy
December 21, 15:44 UTC+3
"If the Russian side needs it, we shall offer all possible support we may have," the foreign minister
said.
Atanesyan Artur, 12/19/2014 11:20 AM EST
Germany started World War II.
The US used nuclear weapons in Japan.
Russia has saved the world from fascism!
Ettore Murabito, 12/17/2014 12:43 PM EST
I don't think this article grasp the real deal here. A more insightful analysis is provided
here:
A (very) week ruble may serve Russia's interest right now.
Maria Radkevich, 12/17/2014 10:15 AM EST
It was good that the American establishment does not understand Russian. And all because of
ignorance and lack of understanding of history that not everyone in this world is driven by money
... The paradigm of development in Russia is fundamentally different from the Anglo-Saxon. You
capture territory and start to rob her. So believes that the more grip, the more you earn ...
In Russia, everything develops completely different. Our country is attacked from outside enemies.
Arrange the atrocities and war crimes, but in the end are completely destroyed. To make it clear
in 1610 - the invasion of Poles in Russia and the capture of Moscow. In 1612, the people raised
a general uprising and drove the Polish and Swedish invaders, as well as the democratic choice
made on the basis of the ruling dynasty all secret and equal suffrage. Was chosen by an electoral
college, and she was the king. 1740 - War with Prussia 1812 - Napoleon's invasion, 1914 - The
Great War (salvation from taking Paris by the Germans), 1922- invasion of Poland, 1941 - Hitler's
invasion ... And we beat all ... except that in 1918 there were problems of -this actions of Wall
Street when they prepay Lenin and his gang. So, when we chased the enemy, we instead otbrat they
all began to support them, gave money, creating industry, given education and science ... For
example the Baltic republics (illegally created by the German command in all occupational 1918).
After returning from the part of Russia for these plants were built, to create a high-tech production,
all the conditions for national development. Warsaw Pact countries ... Denial of reparations from
the German Democratic Republic and the restoration of their industry and the economy. Hungary
- the same as Bulgaria, again, the same as Poland, so there were also spent huge amounts of money
for the restoration. Recent history - Afghanistan - the creation of modern industry and the secular
state, the elimination of Islamic terrorists bombed ...
Mariia Kobzeva, 12/17/2014 5:35 AM EST
US trying to implement their actions a coup in Russia. Dear Americans, tell your president
that he will not succeed. We survived and in the worst of times. We are Russians - you do not
understand. Let the euro and the dollar even fly into space, we will go to the village, dig potatoes,
and will enjoy Smile
Todd Ojala, 12/17/2014 11:35 AM EST
The problem with trying to reason with Americans, Mariia, is that they are both stupid and
uninformed. Or rather, they are informed only by the fake hyper-reality of the media... that is,
claims are believed simply because they appear in the lying media. Tell Putin and your leaders
that you must completely disengage from the dollar system, and create a completely separate, parallel
system of currencies with China and the BRICs. De-dollarization is necessary for any nation or
block of nations that wishes to enjoy sovereignty. The dollar's reserve currency status is a weapon
that the Anglo-zionists will use mercilessly until they destroy the dollar's reserve status. Use
the current crisis to motivate your people. The world's defense against the neo-fascism of the
EU and USA depend on it.
dimitrovgrad, 12/17/2014 4:11 AM EST
It's true that the US plays dirty economic games and uses economy as a geopolitical tool against
Russia. Ukraine was a part of the USSR. The US says Russia can't meddle in Ukraine but what did
they do in february, when Kiev was called Nulandistan and the democratically elected president
was evicted? Surely enough the US is mad at Russia for more than one reason. They blocked attempts
to bomb Syria into submission and bring jihadi's to power there, and they gave shelter to political
refugees such as Snowdon. They annoyed "the empire", as the US is called in Latin America.
Fine, but on the long term this is not going to make the US any more popular in Russia. People
will remember. And by the way if Putin falls down, the ones replacing him are more than likely
the communists, the only credible opposition. They urge for even closer ties to China. On the
long run US policy is counterproductive, as was their aggressive policy in Afghanistan in the
80's, hich resulted in 9/11...
cesaralvarezmoreno, 12/16/2014 9:31 PM EST
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Russians; they have an uncanny way of overcoming adversity.
All you have to do is look at the 20th century. Three times they were attacked by the West; first
by Germany in 1914 during the First World War; ; second by the United States and Britain in 1919
after the Bolshevik Revolution against the capitalist and imperial government, and the Russians
pulling out of the war, after the Germans failed to defeat them, then again by the Germans during
World War II. Each time they defeated their adversaries and by a huge margin. Six out of every
10 German soldiers, pilots and seamen who were wounded or killed during the Second World War was
on the so-called Russian Front, in reality the Soviet Union front.
They have an uncanny ability to pull together and confront adversity when they are under threat.
It's been a long time since those earlier exploits; rather than count them out, let's see how
they respond to the coordinated challenge directed at them by the European Union and the United
States over their defense of their sphere of influence in Ukraine and Afghanistan.
The United States wouldn't for more than a minute or two allow Russia to step into Mexico or
Canada and overthrow that government. But it's ok if John McCain and other congressmen go to Ukraine
and foment insurrection.
The Russians may have to respond
Alfonso Galindo, 12/16/2014 7:19 PM EST
US Federal Reserve only has a basic capital ratio of 1.26%. Talk about razor thin. (This is
down from 4.5% just a few years ago)
That means if the value of the Fed's assets declines by only 1.26%, the issuer of the world's
dominant reserve currency becomes insolvent.
Now, what happens to the liabilities of an insolvent entity? They decrease in value. Just like
how Greek bonds (the liabilities of the Greek government) collapsed a few years ago.
What are the Fed's liabilities? Open your wallet. Those green pieces of paper aren't 'dollars'.
Just look. They have "Federal Reserve Note" (i.e. debt) printed on them.
So the Fed's pitiful financial condition directly affects the value of the dollar over the long-term.
On the other hand, the Russian central bank's ratio is 12.5%-literally almost TEN TIMES GREATER
than the Fed.
central bank's GOLD reserves as a percentage of the money supply, i.e. how much gold backs the
money supply.
In Russia, it's 6.2%. And rising. Last year it was 5.5%, and the central bank is continuing to
heavily stockpile more.
How much gold backs the dollar?
Precisely zero point zero percent. Zilch. NADA
Moderate312, 12/16/2014 6:51 PM EST
Just like the 1980s--we don't need bombs and troops. Well just destroy you economically. Boy
I bet those people in the Crime would like a re-do.
DragonStrike, 12/16/2014 6:49 PM EST
God, americans truly are incompatible with logic. Just in case, the following info. you can
easily google'up if you want to.But i encourage you to do so, for self-educational reasons.
Russia is leading in space programme, owns 60% of ISS, and still helping US with their space programme.
Russia beating US in warpower,"Nuclear shield",and nuclear weapon stockpile
Russia has much lesser government debt than US.
Russian economy is 5th largest in the world, 30 places up in the rating since 2005, you can't
do that with only just oil.
Russia have much more highly-educated people than the U.S.
Which makes it the most educated country in the world.
Russia is still the most powerfull and influential country.
You should reconsider your opinions, and accept the fact, that Russia is not that weak-post-USSR
country, Russia ruled USSR, Russia survived after it's fall, Russia rised up, and going to return
the title of superpower country.
So it's pretty funny though, to read your absolutely stupid comments, well, nice time to you,
americans..Or mexicans...i think they're making the top etnicity in america.
AmbassadorIII, 12/16/2014 6:37 PM EST
By the way, Matt please get your facts straight. Russia did not invade Ukraine. And Russia
entered Tskhinvali only after 150 of its peacekeepers were butchered and the US puppet regime
in Georgia began its genocide. The European commission that investigated the events confirmed
as much. The rehash of incorrect White House propaganda is fatiguing.
thump41, 12/16/2014 6:38 PM EST
AmbassadorIII
6:29 PM EST
The US will end up falling on its own sword. Russia will exit the Fed system and take with it
most of the world. With the debt being what it is Russia's exit will mean the collapse of the
US dollar.
____________________________________________________
Who are you trying to convince of this?
Archy Bunka, 12/16/2014 6:27 PM EST
You may not like this idea but, it is an important time now for Obama to reach out to Russia,
and let them know we are not reveling in their downspin.
Hard times makes for desperation and drastic acts, we have had enough of those the last few months.
A statesman would do this.
Certainlyso, 12/16/2014 6:28 PM EST
I completely agree. A failed nuclear state is not a good option.
Archy Bunka, 12/16/2014 6:28 PM EST
Will we be screwed again, probably, but that beats a war.
Russian2014, 12/16/2014 6:35 PM EST
I have to say that people sometimes blame US for everything, these russian people are wise
enough to see the root cause of the problems in our own economy. Putin or government may of course
point fingers to US or EU, but do not underestimate average russian. So, no hard feelings, actually.
We surely might work on our economy more during previous 15 years and be prepared better. In a
way, this average russians even supports sanctions and visa bans to some of our oligarkhs, because
they are really greedy and stupid.
Our sanctions caused Russia's downturn. They protect Big Oil, the well-connected,
and make the world more dangerous Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, looks back at US
President Barack Obama, left, as they arrive with Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, at the the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit.(Credit: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
You can look at the Russian economy two ways now and you should. So let's: It is an important
moment in the destruction of something and the construction of something else, and we had better
be clear just what in both cases. The world we live in changes shape as we speak.
Truth No. 1: Russians are besieged. Sanctions the West has insisted on prosecuting
in response to the Ukraine crisis - Washington in the lead, the Europeans reluctant followers
- are hitting hard, let there be no question. Oil prices are at astonishing lows, probably if
not yet provably manipulated by top operatives in the diplomatic and political spheres.
Truth No. 2: Russians are hot. With an energetic activism just as astonishing
as the oil prices, Russian officials, President Putin in the very visible lead but with platoons
of technocrats behind him, are forging an extensive network of South-South relationships - East-East,
if you prefer - that are something very new under the sun. Some of us were banging on about South-South
trade and diplomatic unity as far back as the 1970s; I have anticipated the arriving reality since
the early years of this century. But I would never have predicted the pace of events as we have
them before us. Stunning.
Holiday surprise: There is a Truth No. 3 and it is this: Truth No. 1, the siege of the Russian
economy, is proving a significant catalyst in the advance of Truth No. 2, the creative response of
a nation under ever-mounting pressure.
Timothy Snyder, the Yale professor whose nitwittery on the Ukraine crisis is simply nonpareil
(and praise heaven he has gone quiet), exclaimed some months ago that Putin is threatening to undermine
the entire postwar order. I replied in this space the following week, Gee, if only it were so.
Already it seems to be. But miss this not: Russia is advancing this world-historical turn with
a considerable assist from its adversaries in the West, not alone. For all the pseuds who pretend
to know Schumpeter but know only one thing, the creative destruction bit, how is this as a prime
example of the phenom?
Details in a sec, but this thought first: We are all bound to pay close attention to these events
because they matter to everyone, whether this is yet obvious or not. Probably in our lifetimes -
and I had it further out until recently - we will begin to inhabit a different planet.
And it stands to be a better one, if you accept that equilibrium, interdependence, cooperation and
all those other notions Washington is frightened to death of will make for a more secure world than
our lopsided primacy, incessant confrontations, drone murders, waterboarding, nuclear arsenals and
the National Endowment for Democracy's subversions will ever deliver for us.
How much more capable,
equally, will be a human community that addresses its problems with the wisdom not of one civilization,
which happened by historical circumstance to modernize in the material sphere before others, but
with the smarts and imaginations and perspectives of many?
Those details come in flurries now and fall into two files, destruction and construction. To the
former first.
The economics ministry in Moscow has just
forecast a swoon in its outlook for 2015. On a dime, it shifts from a prediction of 1.2 percent
growth to 0.8 percent contraction. The math is easy: This is a rip of 2 percentage points right out
of Russia's middle. No sentient American should have any difficulty understanding what these numbers
will mean to many millions of ordinary Russians.
The ministry's report is the first to anticipate the consequences of the several rounds of sanctions
imposed this year, the 34 percent drop in the ruble's value this year and the collapse in oil prices.
The last are now far below what Russia needs - about $105 a barrel - if the petroleum sector is to
contribute to national revenues. As detailed in this space a few weeks ago, there are ample grounds
to question whether price patterns in global oil markets are the consequence of American manipulations.
As to the ruble, we saw this coming months ago as reports of "silent sanctions," as financial
services people call them, began to come through. Off-the-books sanctions is the better term. A few
at a time - HSBC, Lloyd's - banks began denying credit to Russian enterprises; as documented, these
decisions were at the Treasury Department's informal urging.
Reflecting the creep of interdependence in the global economy, financing from Western banks is
vital to Russian corporations of all sizes. At this point, my sources in the markets tell me, the
spigot is off: Credit and all customary loan rollovers are virtually unavailable across the board.
This is the anatomy of much suffering that is about to get done. Is the course wise? Is there
a point? Is it other than ridiculous to posit some "net-positive" justification for this?
I see nothing good in this whatsoever. I see recklessness.
Think of it this way, as an old friend from Asia days suggests. Currency speculators abandoned
the Thai baht en masse in 1997 and before we knew it Thailand had dragged all of East Asia into prolonged
crisis. Remember? Now consider the size of the Thai economy - tiny in the scheme of things, and heavily
agricultural still.
Now consider the size of the Russian economy. It is the world's No. 2 producer of natural gas
and No. 3 producer of oil. In terms of nominal gross domestic product - standard measure - Russia's
economy, at $2.1 trillion, is slightly larger than Italy's. Another measure, purchasing power parity,
values Russia's economy at $3.5 trillion, but never mind: Even by nominal GDP, Russia is the world's
No. 8 economic power.
Comfortable now with the sanctions regime, are we?
The cliques in Washington are because the U.S. trades very little with Russia and they have no
grasp of limits of any kind. This is cynicism made flesh when you consider Europe's vulnerabilities.
The
contagious economic and social crisis is already spreading to nations near Russia's borders.
As Germans and other Europeans understand, take down this beast and the blood will spatter everywhere.
Now you can see, maybe, why one consequence of the Ukraine crisis is a serious deterioration of relations
between America and those known as "the allies," a term that has masked many complications since
the Cold War's onset.
As to the point of it all, it gets bitterer the more we learn of Ukraine and its arriving future.
Long ago, an English diplomat in Tokyo wrote to his Foreign Office in London, "The Japanese can
neither love the Americans nor endure being loved by them." It is dead on the fate of Ukrainians
so far as one can make out. All signs are they are in for the suffocating embrace. Here comes the
neoliberal order. It will be very weird to watch.
My jaw hit the corner of my desk when I read last week that Ukraine's new finance minister, one
Natalie Jaresko, is 1) an American citizen, granted a Ukraine passport simultaneously with her cabinet
appointment, 2) a former State Department officer, 3) recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars
in that $5 billion Victoria Nuland famously bragged of spending in State's effort to yank Ukraine
westward and 4) a participant in apparently extensive insider dealing via the investment management
company she co-founded after leaving State.
Get this:
Jaresko served as president and chief executive officer of Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF),
which was created by the U.S. Agency for International Development with $150 million to spur business
activity in Ukraine. She also was co-founder and managing partner of Horizon Capital, which managed
WNISEF's investments at a rate of 2 percent to 2.5 percent of committed capital, fees exceeding $1
million in recent years, according to WNISEF's 2012 annual report.
Her title at Horizon Capital must be CCIO, chief conflict of interest officer.
Full credit, given with gusto: The above passage is from the long exposé of this sordid business
by Robert Parry, whose work on Ukraine is invaluable.
Read this piece here: a riveting read covering a tangled web. Parry, in turn, cites John Hellmer,
a former Moscow correspondent who recently explored Jaresko's story as State Department official
(and diplomat in post-Soviet Kiev) turned recipient of USAID funds.
Surely this is the right person to regulate Ukraine's financial markets, counter corruption with
archangelic purpose and negotiate with Washington, the Europeans and the IMF in behalf of Ukrainians'
interests. No wonder the parliament in Kiev erupted when Jaresko's appointment was announced.
Footnote here: That $150 million fund State handed Jaresko has lost more than a third of its value
since the Ukrainian economy tanked. As she steps into office, Kiev's foreign reserves are down to
$10 billion and shrinking, while inflation roars at 22 percent.
My jaw has been bruised, to be honest, since, as the Ukraine crisis got hot, Vice President Biden's
son, R. Hunter, was named to the board of Burisma Holdings, Ukraine's No. 1 producer of natural gas.
I cannot make out who is the chief conflict of interest officer here, Joe or the boy.
News comes of our Hunter, it turns out. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that he was
bounced from the U.S. Navy Reserve earlier this year after a positive drug test. If the 44-year-old
were Ukrainian (or any other nationality) and had been so charged, he would not be allowed into this
country. This is the kind of person America is now happy to send abroad.
More substantively, Burisma announced last month that it will now commence drilling near Slavyansk,
where Ukrainian troops have been dodging bullets while installing the company's hydraulic fracturing
equipment. Slavyansk, alert readers will recall, was the object of three months' sustained bombing
and artillery shelling prior to this announcement.
Overseeing all this is Jaresko and - second of three foreigners named to a new cabinet - Aivaras
Abromavicius, a Lithuanian and a partner in an asset-management firm called East Capital. He will
be the incoming economy minister, such as there is an economy.
Why these foreigners? In my read, Biden is a straight-out emissary sent to shepherd American corporations
into the resource game via joint ventures or what have you, we will have to see, and the others are
roughly the equivalent of compradors - in effect, bought-off locals.
Here is a tableau worth a moment's consideration: Over here, Vicky Nuland
stands before a Chevron plaque
as she explains to business executives how well the $5 billion was spent. Here we have Hunter Biden
doing Burisma's legal work. Over here we have a small-town mayor in Romania who is run out of town
for selling Chevron a fracking lease. (This
you can read of in the Times.) And over there, also in the Times report, we have the Lithuanians
forcing Chevron to abandon a shale-drilling project after widespread demonstrations opposing it.
You want to know why I hold the neoliberal agenda and those who advance it in contempt? This is
why. We watch a corporate shark-feed. It has nothing to do with democracy. There is nothing in this
for Ukrainians. They are about to hear their first lectures on the virtues of "austerity."
I have three remarks.
One, the greed at the cost of human life and society is so brazen here it causes me to stop typing
to reread the sentences. Can market-consciousness have brought us this low?
Two, please count the number of times you have read the words "Chevron," "Burisma" or "shale-gas
interests" in any account of Ukraine by correspondents covering it. I can find no mention of any
from those in the field. This is "the power of leaving out," as I often put it, in spades. I rest
the case (for now).
Three, there is a deeper tragedy. Ukrainians live between East and West. This is not only a matter
of geography: There is among them a mix of Eastern consciousness and Western consciousness. Accordingly,
they had a chance to stand as the very best the new century offers us, a planet whose old divisions
could be erased in favor of a more fulsome idea of the successful society and its potential.
This chance is now all but lost - destroyed by those who resisted it.
What I find remarkable now is that Moscow does not seem to be taking Ukraine's misfortune and
the West's aggressions against Russia itself passively - or even negatively, for that matter. So
we pass from the destructive file to the constructive.
Neil MacFarquhar, a standout in the New York Times' Moscow bureau for his full-frontal prejudices,
gave
as negative an account as he could when he covered Putin's year-end address. I had another read.
This guy is bloodied, O.K., but he is not bowed, and I would advise against waiting for it.
I did like the Times' head, parenthetically: "Putin, Amid Stark Challenges, Says Russia's Destiny
Is at Hand." Without going histrionic, that is likely to prove precisely what is at hand. My favorite
MacFarquhar sentence: "Mr. Putin enjoyed ever-greater support from March to August, but in the months
since, as sanctions began to bite with inflation, support began to erode - though his approval ratings
remain in the 80s."
You have to love a paper that will publish this. Somehow.
Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an
intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more
recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has
forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list.
A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a
trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas
from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this
gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market.
Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the
South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers.
But two points: One, it was soon enough clear that the Europeans, having used South Stream as leverage
in the sanctions game, probably overplayed their hand. The day following the announcement they were
struggling for composure so far as I can make out.
Two, Putin stunned everyone with his decision from Ankara, where he stood with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
to announce that South Stream would be rerouted to serve the Turkish market. Think about this: It
is more than a new deal; there are significant political and diplomatic implications in this,
given Turkey's traditional alliances, its EU aspirations and so on.
This is the way the world changes shape, the way new worlds get built. Think of these new ties
in terms of the old trade routes. Many things other than goods traveled along them. As then, the
traffic will run in both directions, making our latest globalization the two-way street it should
have been from the first.
One could say it is not the West's world any longer, and I called it "post-Western" in a book
several years ago. This is not quite so. It is ours, but only to the extent that it is destined to
be everybody's, if I read history rightly. As an American, my biggest regret on this score - apart
from all the suffering caused in our names - is that my country seems bent on doing almost everything
it can to lose out on a great deal of what would be its share in the arriving era; this in the name
of prolonging a time that is no longer.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century."He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau
chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from
Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently
to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on
Twitter, @thefloutist.
RT is full of US trolls yucking it up at the present trials of the struggling ruble and rejoicing
at the prospect of abject poverty in Russia because of the Evil One's policies and the Home of
the Brave's rightful retaliation… and the misery that they hope it will cause. (No mention, of
course, that Banderastan is now in the knacker's yard.)
At the root of all this is the USA's
belief that it has the God-given right to punish those whom it considers miscreants, assuming
this right from its self-appointed moral high ground, where there flutters the banner of "freedom"
and "democracy".
The USA only punishes – physically punishes – those who it knows cannot retaliate: Iraq, Libya
and Serbia have all been attacked from afar with aerial bombardment and with seeming impunity,
albeit the seemingly backward, peasant European Serbs managed to down one of their super, state-of-the-art,
can't-be-seen aircraft.
And then it came to "punishing" Assad of Syria in like manner – as a "warning" – and in stepped
Russia.
In O'Bummer's words, Russia crossed the red line – and the US government chickened out.
They won't admit that, of course, but they know that Russian can and would retaliate in kind
if need be.
And if there's one thing that the USA hates more than anything else in the world, it's the
label "loser" and Russia must be punished for its effrontery and its shaming of the USA on the
world stage.
But how to punish the Empire of Evil?
The reason why no punishment missiles have been launched from US warships in the Black Sea,
why no bombardment of Russian military establishments by units of the USAF scattered around Russia's
borders have taken place is simply because the bully knows that the Russians will return any such
blow meted out to them – and in trumps, because the Russian military, unlike the US and other
Western armed forces is – and always has been – willing to suffer losses in order to achieve its
aims. The Russian military has long had a tradition similar to that of Bushido: a soldier's duty
is to die and for that reason he must always be ready to meet death.
Western generals, however, don't like the idea of their soldiers dying – because these Western
powers, it is maintained, are "democracies", where the public at large would not tolerate a stream
of body-bags coming home. That's why there are none of these much talked about boots on the ground,
US personnel for the use of: if the much vaunted US Marines dared to land, say, in the Crimea,
there would be no shilly-shallying in response from the Russian forces there.
And so we have economic warfare: firstly, because of the logistical problems that the US military
and its lick-spittle European underlings would face in delivering sufficient military force to
engage with the Russians and secondly, because they cannot launch their wonderful drones, cruise
missiles, stealth bombers etc. against Russia without suffering retaliation.
So brave with Afghans, Libyans, Iraqis, Serbs – but with the Russians? It seems not.
So economic warfare it is, and the target is the lifeblood of the Russian economy: oil.
(Well, crude oil is not the lifeblood, as a matter of fact: natural gas has that honour – but
the US has this thing, as voiced by idiot senator McCain, about Russia being just one big "gas
station" – that's "gas" as used in the US vernacular, meaning gasoline – and that those dumb Russians
are incapeable of manufacturing anything of value and that their military is totally useless and
has outdated, crappy weaponry.)
So they have had to resort to striking a deal with their sodomist, misogynist, paederast, fornicating
– you name it, they do it around the world's fleshpots – so-called princes of the family Saud
in order to "punish" Russsia.
I couldn't agree more, especially with your assertion about the american belief in the god-given
right to govern the planet as they see fit. I believe this american exceptionalism is one of the
root causes for the death and destruction we have seen in the past 20 or so years. Putin pointed
out this idea of exceptionalism in the new york times and we all saw what the response to that
op-ed was. Americans responded not by saying that Putin is wrong and at least pretend that they
dont believe in it, on the contrary, they screamed "How dare he!!!!???" while arrogantly and openly
supporting this idea of exceptionalism.
i agree with moscow exiles overview.. i would suggest that the reason the us is able to bully
others financially is because the world financial structure definitely needs to change whereby
one nation's currency is not allowed to be the de facto world currency. this is all about power
and obviously there are those with the power unwilling to relinquish it.. just how this changes
is anyone's guess, but it's important to realize just how central finances and the world financial
system is to what is taking place today.. why fight a physical war when you can do it via finances?
Agreed with everything you wrote. I would add that another reason why the US does not directly
challenge Russia is to maintain its mythical invulnerability and overwhelming military superiority
nurtured by 3rd world cakewalks, Hollywood movies and video games in order to 1) keep the US population
convinced that overseas wars will never have blow-back (i.e. murder with impunity) and 2) cower
any country with aspirations for freedom.
Even a small military confrontation with Russia that ends in a US defeat would have repercussions
far beyond the tactical losses. The US would be compelled to double down risking an even great
loss. We have become slaves to our cultivated arrogance.
When you squint your eyes just right, the US appears to be nothing more a mafia state using
a mixture of intimidation to those who may resist and crumbs for those who comply.
Just two days before the Russian Central Bank is scheduled to a hold a meeting to set interest rates,
analysts' forecasts about the bank's plan to rescue the rouble are all over the place.
Market analysts
are forecasting a hike of the central bank's key interest rate of 9.5% by anything from 25 basis
points to as much as 250 basis points,
according to the Wall Street Journal. That is, people are expecting anything from 9.75% to 12%!
Inflation in Russia hit 9.1% last month as sanctions on imports and the collapsing rouble drove
up prices in the country. The Economic Development Ministry is forecasting that prices are unlikely
to level off until at least the end of the first quarter of 2015.
The rate of price rises and ongoing falls in the value of the currency has put pressure on the
central bank to increase interest rates in order to slow the pace of spending in the economy by encouraging
people to save more of their money. However doing so risks worsening the already parlous state of
Russia's economy, which is now expected to fall into a recession next year.
Piotr Matys, rates strategist at Rabobank, is one of the outliers and is quoted as saying that
he expects the Bank of Russia to raise rates sharply despite the risks to the economy (emphasis added).
"I expect the Bank of Russia to raise its base rate to 12% from 9.5%. The rouble rout not only
worsened the outlook for inflation, but more importantly poses a major threat to financial stability
in Russia. Fairly aggressive interest rate hikes should prove a far more efficient tool to finally
discourage speculators and stabilise the battered rouble rather than large scale FX interventions.
Admittedly, such a strong dose of monetary policy tightening would have serious negative
implications for the Russian economy. However, at this stage of the crisis stabilising the rouble
should be priority with the economy already heading for a recession."
And he is not alone in expecting a sharp hike. Tatiana Orlova, Russia economist at RBS, and Per
Hammarlund, emerging markets strategist at SEB, also expect a sharp increase in rates, albeit only
to 11%.
The problem is that the central bank has tried to use shock tactics before to limited effect.
At the end of October it raised rates from 8% to 9.5% in a widely unexpected gamble that higher rates
will halt the rouble's slide against the dollar and the euro. Unfortunately, while the economic outlook
certainly declined as expected the move failed to prevent the rouble from sliding.
The central bank has admitted that it has been forced to intervene again in currency markets spending
over $1.9 billion on Monday. So far in December it has spent over $4.5 billion in an attempt to prop
up the currency, despite announcing the "abandonment
of unlimited foreign exchange interventions" last month.
One dollar would have bought you around 46 roubles a month ago. The same amount will now buy you
54.
By imposing sanctions on Moscow, the US aims to change the political leadership, says the Russian
Foreign Ministry, adding that Washington is "twisting the arms" of its allies so that they can continue
an "anti-Russian front."
"Behind the formally-declared aim to make us alter our position towards Ukraine, [we] see
the [US] plan to form social and economic conditions to change leadership in Russia," said Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.
According to Ryabkov, first of all Western countries wanted "to punish" Russia for "free will
of people in Crimea and [the city of] Sevastopol," who in a March referendum decided to separate
from Ukraine and to join Russia.
Then they decided "that Russia has to, according to US opinion, totally change course towards
the Kiev authorities and Eastern Ukraine in general, and to re-evaluate its foreign policy,"
he said.
Ryabkov noted that apart from plans to destabilize Moscow leadership, US are "twisting arms"
of their own allies so that they could continue "Anti-Russian front" and follow US policies
on sanctions against Russia.
"But the US is not ashamed of insisting on cooperation with us [Russia] on matters affecting
its own interests," he said. He used the example of the Iranian nuclear talks, in which both
Russia and the US take part.
... ... ...
Ryabkov doesn't exclude that there will be further complications with the US in the future.
Moscow is "trying hard to stabilize relations" with Washington, but the resolution is
a barometer of quite different attitude in the US towards Russia, he added.
"We are not ready to make concessions to the US on principal questions, but we are ready and
will be looking for the balance of interests and common denominator where it is possible," he
said.
Pretty clueless for the voice on NY bankers... I think this was written by Victoria Nuland or her
husband Robert Kogan ;-). and again they want regime change. Kick in a chin compradors got in 2012 probably
was not enough...
In the short term, Putin appears well equipped to survive the malaise. His military adventures
and the attendant propaganda have boosted his approval ratings to new highs. Even the sanctions to
some extent play into his hands, allowing him to cast economic suffering as a necessary consequence
of standing up to the West, rather than a result of his own mismanagement. In one stroke, Putin has
rewritten Russia's social compact, justifying the Kremlin's grip on power not with the promise of
prosperity but with an appeal to nationalist pride.
In the longer term, though, Putin's position is more precarious. His ability to mollify soldiers,
state workers and pensioners -- and to distribute billions of dollars in contracts to powerful allies
-- depends heavily on the oil and gas revenue that make up about half of the federal budget.
Although the government has set aside almost $90 billion to insure against an energy slump, prices
are now so low that Russia could easily burn through the rainy-day fund in a couple of years.
If borrowing remains difficult, Putin will then face the politically fraught task of cutting
spending or raising taxes to make ends meet.
... ... ...
The longer Russia's economic malaise lasts, the greater the chances that the opposition to Putin
will turn into something more virulent. At that point, unless some faction of Russia's elite managed
to remove Putin and hold free and fair elections, revolution would be the most likely route to
regime change. The middle-class Muscovites who led the rebellion of 2011 and 2012 failed because
too few of them were desperate enough to risk their lives. Next time around, the outcome could be
different -- and much worse.
While Russia faces difficult times, the ability
to keep oil prices below $70 might well be limited to a year or two. After that the lack of infrastructure
investment that are now frozen might provide upswing, as is natural for capitalism. The EU faces real
possibility of losing a large chunk of Russia market to China and other countries. And not a temporary
loss -- permanent loss. And that's a lot of money. Neither Ukraine nor Moldova can compensate for this
loss. d now EU need to pay for its Ukraine coup d'état. Supporting Ukrainian nationalists in their colonization
of South-East is an extensive proposition. In other words EU now faces consequences. The USA is the
net winner of the mess as it managed to considerably weaken both EU and Russia using minimal spending
for the support of Ukrainian nationalists and organization of the color revolution. But it is unclear
what is coming next and despite current huge success in destabilizing both Russia and EU in a long run
the US elite might be burned in its desire to impose Pax Americana over the whole world.
An angry claim by Sergei Ryabkov, Russia's deputy foreign minister, that the US and its allies are
plotting regime change in Russia is further evidence that the east-west standoff over
Ukraine is hardening.
... ... ...
"It is hardly a secret that the goal of the sanctions is to create social and economic conditions
to carry out a change of power in Russia," Ryabkov told Russia's parliament on Monday. Relations
with the US were deeply chilled, he said. Washington was deliberately trying to drive a wedge
between Russia and Ukraine
and other former Soviet republics.
Western sanctions were illegitimate and Russia would neither enter into negotiations for their
removal nor reverse its annexation of Crimea, he said. "There
will be no easy or fast way out of this."
Ryabkov's remarks echoed those of his boss,
Vladimir Putin. Faced
by a devaluing rouble, plunging oil revenue, and price inflation fuelled by sanctions, Russia's president
remains defiant. The country's woes were the direct result of western efforts to carve up Russia,
he said last week.
The US would have acted against Russia even if the Crimea annexation had not happened,
he said. "The policy of containment was not invented yesterday … Every time when anyone thinks
Russia has become strong, independent, such instruments are applied immediately."
Putin and his circle have an unwritten social contract with the Russian people. The regime provides
rising living standards and economic prosperity. In return, citizens do not question too closely
its undemocratic and authoritarian behaviour. But this tacit deal is breaking down.
Last week Putin could only offer increased austerity, while appealing for national unity to confront
a predatory external enemy. His tactics appear to be working, for now at least. A Levada opinion
poll released on Monday showed 74% of Russians have negative views of the US. But growing domestic
discontent, for example over
wage freezes and public spending cuts, is evident.
... ... ...
Analysts at the Berlin thinktank Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, and the European Council on Foreign
Relations warned last week that if the rift with Russia over Ukraine was not overcome, Europe
could – in one scenario – face 15 years of protracted confrontation, including a military buildup
in eastern Europe, a new
arms race with Nato, and the creation of a semi-permanent "zone of instability" from the Baltic to
the Balkans and the Black Sea.
Yesterday the US House passed what I consider to be one of the worst pieces of legislation
ever. H. Res. 758 was billed as a resolution "strongly condemning the actions of the Russian
Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against
neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination."
In fact, the bill was
16 pages of war propaganda that should have made even neocons blush, if they were capable of such
a thing.
These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed
as "harmless" statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly
against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did
not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of
Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq
would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened
next.
That is why I can hardly believe they are getting away with it again, and this time with
even higher stakes: provoking a war with Russia that could result in total destruction!
If anyone thinks I am exaggerating about how bad this resolution really is, let me
just offer a few examples from the legislation itself:
The resolution (paragraph 3) accuses Russia of an invasion of Ukraine and condemns
Russia's violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The statement is offered without any proof
of such a thing. Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space
we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion. None have been offered. As to Russia's
violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, why isn't it a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty for the
US to participate in the overthrow of that country's elected government as it did in February?
We have all heard the tapes of State Department officials plotting with the US Ambassador in Ukraine
to overthrow the government. We heard US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragging
that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. Why is that OK?
The resolution (paragraph 11) accuses the people in east Ukraine of holding "fraudulent
and illegal elections" in November. Why is it that every time elections do not produce
the results desired by the US government they are called "illegal" and "fraudulent"? Aren't the
people of eastern Ukraine allowed self-determination? Isn't that a basic human right?
The resolution (paragraph 13) demands a withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine even
though the US government has provided no evidence the Russian army was ever in Ukraine.
This paragraph also urges the government in Kiev to resume military operations against
the eastern regions seeking independence.
The resolution (paragraph 14) states with certainty that the Malaysia Airlines flight
17 that crashed in Ukraine was brought down by a missile "fired by Russian-backed separatist forces
in eastern Ukraine." This is simply incorrect, as the final report on the investigation
of this tragedy will not even be released until next year and the preliminary report did not state
that a missile brought down the plane. Neither did the preliminary report – conducted with the
participation of all countries involved – assign blame to any side.
Paragraph 16 of the resolution condemns Russia for selling arms to the Assad government
in Syria. It does not mention, of course, that those weapons are going to fight ISIS – which we
claim is the enemy -- while the US weapons supplied to the rebels in Syria have actually found
their way into the hands of ISIS!
Paragraph 17 of the resolution condemns Russia for what the US claims are economic
sanctions ("coercive economic measures") against Ukraine. This even though the US has
repeatedly hit Russia with economic sanctions and is considering even more!
The resolution (paragraph 22) states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in
2008. This is simply untrue. Even the European Union – no friend of Russia –
concluded in its investigation
of the events in 2008 that it was Georgia that "started an unjustified war" against Russia not
the other way around! How does Congress get away with such blatant falsehoods? Do Members not
even bother to read these resolutions before voting?
In paragraph 34 the resolution begins to even become comical, condemning the Russians
for what it claims are attacks on computer networks of the United States and "illicitly acquiring
information" about the US government. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations about
the level of US spying on the rest of the world, how can the US claim the moral authority to condemn
such actions in others?
Chillingly, the resolution singles out Russian state-funded media outlets for attack,
claiming that they "distort public opinion." The US government, of course, spends billions
of dollars worldwide to finance and sponsor media outlets including Voice of America and RFE/RL,
as well as to subsidize "independent" media in countless counties overseas. How long before alternative
information sources like RT are banned in the United States? This legislation brings us closer
to that unhappy day when the government decides the kind of programming we can and cannot consume
– and calls such a violation "freedom."
The resolution gives the green light (paragraph 45) to Ukrainian President Poroshenko
to re-start his military assault on the independence-seeking eastern provinces, urging
the "disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine." Such a move will mean
many more thousands of dead civilians.
To that end, the resolution directly involves the US government in the conflict by calling on
the US president to "provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles,
services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty." This means
US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia.
Does that sound at all like a good idea?
There are too many more ridiculous and horrific statements in this legislation to completely
discuss. Probably the single most troubling part of this resolution, however, is the statement
that "military intervention" by the Russian Federation in Ukraine "poses a threat to international
peace and security." Such terminology is not an accident: this phrase is the poison pill planted
in this legislation from which future, more aggressive resolutions will follow. After all, if we
accept that Russia is posing a "threat" to international peace how can such a thing be ignored? These
are the slippery slopes that lead to war.
This dangerous legislation passed today, December 4, with only ten (!) votes against!
Only ten legislators are concerned over the use of blatant propaganda and falsehoods to push such
reckless saber-rattling toward Russia.
Here are the Members who voted "NO" on this legislation. If you do not see your own Representative
on this list call and ask why they are voting to bring us closer to war with Russia! If
you do see your Representative on the below list, call and thank him or her for standing up to the
warmongers.
1) Justin Amash (R-MI)
2) John Duncan (R-TN)
3) Alan Grayson, (D-FL)
4) Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
5) Walter Jones (R-NC)
6) Thomas Massie (R-KY)
7) Jim McDermott (D-WA)
8 George Miller (D-CA)
9) Beto O'Rourke (D-TX)
10 Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Former US congressman Dennis Kucinich has revealed that the House of Representatives is
about to give a green light to another Cold War against Russia.
Kucinich, former US Representative from Ohio, wrote in an article on portal globalresearch.ca
that Washington has plans for restarting the Cold War against Moscow.
House Resolution 758, which cited a list of "grievances, old and new, against Russia" is "tantamount
to a 'Declaration of Cold War'," Kucinich wrote.
He believes that if the resolution gets approved, it will effectively open the gates of global
catastrophe. House Resolution 758 is up for debate last Wednesday.
"NATO encirclement, the US-backed coup in Ukraine, an attempt to use an agreement with the
European Union to bring NATO into Ukraine at the Russian border and a US nuclear first-strike
policy are all policies which attempt to substitute force for diplomacy", he added.
Kucinich also warned US Congress that the country's treasury is being drained for Washington's
"military adventures".
He noted that the resolution demanded Russia to be isolated and in other words, "let's get
ready for war with Russia".
In an interview last week, hawkish Republican Senator John McCain rejected a possible conflict
between the United States and Russia.
"There would never be an all-out war with Russia that I know of. I know of no scenario where
that would happen", he said in an interview with euronews broadcast on Friday.
Ties between Washington and Moscow have been deteriorated over the crisis in Ukraine.
The US and its allies accuse Moscow of sending troops into eastern Ukraine in support of the
pro-Russian forces. Russia, however, denies the accusation.
The United States and the European Union imposed sanctions on Moscow. Russia, for its part,
has imposed retaliatory bans.
I'm posting Neuters Highlights article in full as it is 99% made up of Putin's quotes. My
highlighting.!
Neuters: HIGHLIGHTS-Putin delivers keynote speech on economy, Ukraine
Here are quotes from Russian President Vladimir Putin's annual state of the union speech to
members of parliament and other top officials in the Kremlin on Thursday.
ROUBLE
"The central bank has moved to a floating rate but that does not mean that the central bank
has moved away from influencing the rouble market, that the rouble exchange rate can be the subject
of financial speculation without any consequences."
"I ask the central bank and the government to carry out tough coordinated action to fight off
the desire of the so-called speculators to play on the fluctuations of the Russian currency."
"The authorities know who these speculators are and have instruments to influence them. The
time has come to use those instruments."
"The weakening of the rouble creates risks of a short-term spike in inflation."
SANCTIONS
"This is not just a nervous reaction of the United States and their allies to our stance in
regard to the events and coup in Ukraine; not even in regard to the so-called Crimean spring.
I am certain that had all this not taken place… they would come up with another reason to contain
Russia's growing capabilities, to influence it or, even better, use it for their own goals."
"The policy of containment was not invented yesterday. It has been applied to our country for
many, many years.. every time when anyone only thinks Russia has become strong, independent, such
instruments are applied immediately."
"But there is no point in talking to Russia from a position of strength."
"We will never pursue the path of self-isolation, xenophobia, suspicion and search of enemies.
All this is manifestation of weakness, while we are strong and self-confident."
"Our goal is to have as many equal partners in the West and in the East … Under no circumstances
are we going to wind down our ties with Europe."
"The so-called sanctions and external limitations are a stimulus towards a more effective,
accelerated achievement of our goals."
ECONOMY
"I propose freezing the current tax conditions and not changing them for the next four years."
"I propose a full amnesty for capital returning to Russia … This means that if people legalise
their resources and property in Russia, they get firm guarantees that they won't be bothered by
various bodies, including law enforcement bodies; that they won't be bothered or asked about the
source and the ways the capital was acquired; that they won't fall under criminal or administrative
persecution; that there will be no questions from the tax and law enforcement bodies to them."
"Let's do it now but (only) once."
"Everyone wishing to should take this (opportunity)."
"We all understand that the origins of money can be different, they were earned and obtained
in various ways, but I am confident that the offshore page in the history of our economy, our
country should be closed."
"As for small business, I propose providing 'inspection holidays' for them. If an enterprise
enjoys a solid reputation, and it had no significant complaints in three years, then over the
next three years I propose not to carry out planned checks on the state and local levels at all."
"The quality and the scale of the Russian economy should correspond with our geopolitical and
historic role. We should escape the trap of zero growth. In three to four years we should reach
a growth pace exceeding the global average."
"This is the only way to raise Russia's share in the global economy, which means to strengthen
our influence and independence."
"We should wipe the critical dependence on foreign technologies and industrial production."
"Russia will be open for the world, for cooperation, for attracting foreign investments, for
carrying out joint projects. But the main thing we need to understand is that our development
depends on ourselves first and foremost."
"By 2018 we need to bring the level of annual investments to 25 percent of GDP."
STATE BUDGET
"For the next three years we should set a goal of cutting budget outlays and ineffective spending
by no less than five percent from the overall spending in real terms."
CRIMEA
"Finally, there was a historic reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol with Russia."
"For Russia, Crimea … has a great civilisational and sacred meaning."
"And this is exactly how we are going to treat this from now on and forever."
UKRAINE
"Every nation has an inalienable, sovereign right to its own path of development … Russia always
has and always will respect that. This applies fully to Ukraine, the brotherly Ukrainian nation."
"We have condemned the coup, the forcible seizure of power in Kiev in February. What we are
seeing now in Ukraine, the tragedy in the southeast, fully confirms that our position is right."
"How can one support an armed seizure of power, violence, murder? … How can one support the
attempts that followed to suppress with the help of armed forces the people in the southeast who
did not agree with this lawlessness? … This is pure cynicism. I am sure that the Ukrainian nation
itself will judge these events in a just way."
DEFENCE
"We do not intend to get involved in a long-term arms race but we will securely and in a guaranteed
way safeguard the defensive capabilities of our country in new conditions."
"There is no doubt about it – this will be done. Russia has the capabilities and non-standard
solutions. No one will manage to gain military superiority over Russia."
"Our army is modern, combat-ready. As they say now, it is 'polite' but formidable. We will
have enough strength, will and courage to protect our freedom."
"Persistent work to develop the U.S. anti-missile shield system, including in Europe, continues.
This poses a threat not only to Russian security but to the whole world … in terms of a possible
violation of the strategic balance of forces."
"I think this is also bad for the United States itself since it creates a dangerous illusion
of invulnerability, strengthens the drive to unilateral decisions that are often, as we see, not
thought-through."
"Inappropriate use or embezzlement of budget allocations for state defence orders should be
considered a direct blow to national security … We have just had a traditional meeting in Sochi
with the leadership of the Defence Ministry, with commanders of types and branches of the armed
forces, with leading designers of defence enterprises. For some items, prices grew two, three,
four times and there are also cases when the price rose 11 times since the start of work. That
does not correspond with inflation, with nothing at all… I want to highlight again that I am drawing
the attention of law enforcement bodies to this. In this regard, I instruct the Defence Ministry…
other structures involved to work out a system of tough operational control over the use of resources
from state defence orders."
AGRICULTURE
"Efficient major agricultural companies and farms have appeared in Russia and we will support
them."
"The current growth in the agriculture industry stands at six percent."
RUSSIA
"If for a number of European countries national pride is a long-forgotten term and sovereignty
is too much of a luxury, for Russia real state sovereignty is an absolutely indispensable condition
of its existence."
"We will be sovereign or be dissolved, lost in the world."
"There is no doubt they would have loved to see the Yugoslavia scenario of collapse and
dismemberment for us – with all the tragic consequences it would have for the peoples of Russia.
This has not happened. We did not allow it."
"Hitler also failed when, with his hateful ideas, he was going to destroy Russia, throw
us back behind the Urals. Everyone should remember how it ended."
"We will stand up for the diversity of the world. We will deliver truth to people abroad… And
we will do this even in those cases when governments of some countries are trying to build around
Russia something next to a new Iron Curtain."
"As of Jan.1, 2014, Russian population stood at 144 million people, 8 million more than forecast
by the United Nations … It is expected that at the end of 2014, taking into account Crimea and
Sevastopol, Russia's population will exceed 146 million people."
"A healthy family and a healthy nation; traditional values passed on to us by our ancestors
combined with a dedication to the future; stability as a condition for development and progress;
respect for other nations and states with guaranteed safeguarding of Russian security; defending
its legitimate interests – these are our priorities."
"The difficulties we are facing also create new possibilities for us. We are ready to meet
any challenge of the times, and win."
###
Criminals legalise their property and assets in Russia? How will that work? OTOH I would be
against letting this scum in yet OTOH, it allows the to return home after accepting to follow
the system which should autoregulate the kinds of behavior they get away with abroad.
Nowhere near enough help for small and medium sized enterprises. They should be forming the
bulk of employment and creating the new industries to help propel Russia's growth internally.
Disappointed.
You broke Yugo and look what happened. Try it with this big boy and you will see what happens.
FY! Marevellous!
Overall, very clearly hostile to those who wish to do harm to Russia, but not foreign citizens,
investors or others. I've noted that quite a few of the Pork Pie News Networks prefer to focus
on Medvyedev apparently snoozing in the front row. I bed he knows the speech by heart and probably
had more than a hand in writing it…
In his annual address to the nation on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced
that the country's reserve funds, usually earmarked for investment in state projects, should be
used to bail out troubled Russian banks.
...Russian banks face major challenges funding this, with Western sanctions freezing them out
of global capital markets on the one hand and a weakening domestic economy putting pressure on
profits on the other. These issues have been compounded by a fall of about 40% in the value of
the rouble since June. As the rouble loses ground to foreign currency, those debts become increasingly
difficult to pay back.
On Thursday
the Russian central bank cut the foreign exchange repo rate, the interest rate it charges
on the currency it gives to banks. The rate fell from 1.5% above the London Interbank Offered
Rate (Libor) - the benchmark interest rate at which banks lend to one another - to 0.5% above
Libor. A lower interest rate should make it less expensive for banks to borrow from the central
bank and therefore more appealing.
It means that we must invest as much as we save. Our savings must work for the national economy
and development, rather than the export of capital. To be able to do this, we must seriously
strengthen the stability of our banking system – the Central Bank has been working towards
this end quite persistently – and also reduce the dependence of the national financial market
on external risks.
I propose using our reserves (above all, the National Welfare Fund) to
implement a programme for recapitalisation of leading domestic banks, with funding to be provided
under clearly specified conditions to be funnelled into the most significant projects in the
real economy at affordable interest rates. Furthermore, banks will have to introduce project
financing mechanisms.(Kremlin.ru)
FOR centuries, European navies roamed the world's seas - to explore, to trade, to establish empires
and to wage war.
So, it will be quite a moment when the Chinese navy appears in the Mediterranean next spring,
in joint exercises with the Russians. This plan to hold naval exercises was announced in Beijing
last week, after a Russian-Chinese meeting devoted to military cooperation between the two countries.
The Chinese will doubtless enjoy the symbolism of floating their boats in the traditional heartland
of European civilisation. But, beyond symbolism, Russia and China are also making an important statement
about world affairs. Both nations object to Western military operations close to their borders.
China complains about US naval patrols just off its coast; Russia rails against the expansion
of Nato. By staging joint exercises in the Mediterranean, the Chinese and Russians would send a deliberate
message: If Nato can patrol near their frontiers, they, too, can patrol in Nato's heartland. Behind
this muscle-flexing, however, the Russians and Chinese are pushing for a broader reordering of world
affairs, based around the idea of "spheres of influence".
Thanks for producing another great article. Too bad it is so depressing to see the stream of idiocy
from the west. What happened to the war on terror? We are back to the big bad Russian bear scaring
poor little western children. Do the western elites to expect a in like in 1991? They could nudge
the Soviet system into collapse, but it collapsed through its own internal failings. What are
they going to nudge now? Russian self identity?
They can pull the Banderite card in Ukraine but no such thing exists in Russia. Russians aren't
going to hit the streets to stage a revolution over western BS about corruption. They can see
the level of corruption with their own eyes.
The west should get over itself. No intelligent human would sacrifice everything just to move
to some suburban shack with a two car garage. The artificial deficits of consumer junk in the
USSR are no longer a factor in Russia.
Thanks, Kirill – it's funny to think how adversarial we were when we first met on Anatoly's blog.
I understand your frustration. There is no substantiation for the current western assault on Russia
– it has simply decided, among its 'leaders', that now is the time for another of history's great
existential battles.
It is going to hurt everyone and set us all back years, but it will not hurt those who are
driving it on because they are already wealthy and comfortable.
"Do the western elites to expect a in like in 1991? They could nudge the Soviet system into
collapse, but it collapsed through its own internal failings. What are they going to nudge now?
Russian self identity?"
That's a great point. Sadly I think it would go over the heads
of our betters in government over here. Yes, they are just that stupid. The media covers this
unrelentingly if also unwittingly.
Patrick Armstrong has a great contest going over at Russia Insider, in which contenders vie for
the Porcelain Cup by submitting entries for the very worst piece of reporting on Russia. There
are some lulus there, I think you will agree, but I feel quite safe with my entry – the Michael
Weiss piece featured at Paul Robinson's "Irrusianality"
It's a collection of the dumbest dung that Neocons came up with, nicely summarized in one "book".
Calling it fiction would be nice; willful and blatant ignorance is more like it. Those "brainiacs"
cannot even do PR right:
"This book is designed to present the facts about the events of August 2008 along with comprehensive
coverage of the background to those events. It brings together a wealth of expertise on the South
Caucasus and Russian foreign policy, with contributions by Russian, Georgian, European, and American
experts on the region."
And the first "unbiased" review: "Brief AND well managed chapters, especially Chapter 1 for
those who want to get the historical perspective in the nutshell…but super interesting facts"
It's, uhh, like, so super comprehensive, it has like super interesting facts in a, uhh, super
nutshell, like and such as…
Other reviews are equally, erm, "stellar": "This is a very well researched and documented study.
The arguments advanced in the book are supported by factual evidence which is mostly unknown to
western media."
You heard it there folks! The Western coverage of the Ossetian War wasn't pro-Georgian enough!
And Putin simply bought Switzerland, so that he could have the Swiss confirm that Saakashvili
started the unjustified war.
The Porcelain Cup should be like the Oscars if only because there will be such a shit-storm of
nominations. If Russia Insider had the time and inclination, the Porcelain Cup could have the
following categories:
– Most Abusive Piece against Putin
– Most Consistently Biased Journalist
– Most Consistently Biased Media Outlet
– Worst Cartoon
Surprisingly the fall of the Berlin Wall didn't bring an end to Russian villains onscreen. Perhaps
for a while their presence eased off but Russians remain the studios' favored villains.
"You can't even turn the TV on and go to the movies without reference to Russians as horrible,"
says US-based Russian-American professor Nina Khrushcheva, the great-granddaughter of the Soviet
leader Nikita Khrushchev.
... ... ...
Given that Russia represents the seventh biggest movie market in the world why would the studios
risk antagonising one of its more significant customers? One possibility is that Russia's complaints
over Hollywood movies may have a public relations impact that plays positively in the studios' favour.
"They'll be glad for the interest and the attention," says James Chapman. Also, Klaus Dodds, Professor
of Geopolitics at Royal Holloway, University of London, says, "I think Hollywood is far more concerned
about the Chinese market." Indeed there's almost an obsession over China in Hollywood – but now
that Russian displeasure could depress box office revenues there may be some reassessment.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that Western sanctions against his country could backfire.
Speaking in an interview with German ARD television broadcast Saturday as he was attending the
Group of 20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, Putin said that cutting Russian access to capital
markets would hurt Western exports.
"If the resources of our financial institutions are cut off, they can extend fewer loans to the
Russian companies that work with German partners," he said. "Sooner or later, it will begin to affect
you as much as us."
He also said the sanctions could hurt some Russian banks, leading them to demand repayment of
multibillion loans they have given to Ukraine, damaging its economy. Putin cited Russia's state-controlled
Gazprombank, which he said issued loans worth $3.2 billion to Ukraine before being hurt by Western
sanctions that barred it from borrowing in capital markets.
The United States and the European Union have targeted Russia with sanctions over its annexation
of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and Moscow's support for a pro-Russian insurgency in Ukraine.
The Western sanctions have badly hurt the Russian economy, sending investors fleeing Russian markets
and causing the ruble to nosedive.
Putin acknowledged that the sanctions have hurt the Russian economy, but sought to put
a brave face to that, saying that the Western punishment would encourage Russia to ease its dependence
on oil and gas exports.
"The comfortable life, when all we had to do was produce more oil and gas, and to buy everything
else, is a thing of the past," Putin said. "Now we must think about producing goods ourselves, not
just oil and gas. "
He voiced hope that the Ukrainian crisis will end and Russia-West ties will improve, adding:
"We want to have normal relations with our partners, including in the United States and
Europe."
Yves here. Understandably, US reporting on the just-finished APEC summit focused on Obama's objectives
and supposed achievements. Russia has historically not been a major force in the region and thus
received less coverage here. It was therefore surprising to see our man in Japan Clive tell us that
Japanese media coverage of Putin at APEC was on a par with the column-inches given to Obama.
On Real News Network, Michael Hudson describes how Putin is shifting Russia's export focus and economic
alliances towards Asia, particularly China. This has been underway informally for a while but clearly
became a higher priority after Europe, at US behest, imposed economic sanctions on Russia over Ukraine.
Hudson's roundup of what Russia achieved in Asia, and the bigger implications for the US, is a
tad more positive than circumstances warrant. I'd put this in the category of Putin doing a good
job of making lemonade from lemons.
PERIES: Before you move on, Michael, isn't it a bit ironic that on one hand China signs an accord
with the United States making a commitment to cut emissions, but on the other hand they're making
a deal with Russia that includes oil, a fossil fuel that will obviously increase emissions, not reduce
them?
HUDSON: Every economy needs oil to some extent. China has to use oil for many things that gas
simply won't work for. Every country's GDP goes up in keeping with its energy consumption. You could
say the rise in productivity for the last hundred years, throughout the Industrial Revolution, has
been an increase in energy use per worker or per unit of output. So it's energy that's pushing growth.
And of course China needs oil. In fact, one of its problems is that when people are getting richer,
they want to have cars, and they use gasoline. So of course China's going to be dependent on oil
from Russia.
Mr. Putin said that as a result of these deals, Russian trade with China and the rest of Asia
is going to increase from 25 percent to 40 percent of Russia's GDP. This leaves Europe out in
the cold. What's been clear at the meeting is that there's a coming together between China and Russia.
This has been the opposite of what American foreign policy has been trying to push for since the
1980s. What is ironic is that where the United States thought that it was putting pressure on Russia
and sanctions following the NATO adventure in Ukraine, what it's actually done is bring Russia
and China closer together.
The most important way in which they're coming together is reflected in Mr. Putin's announcement
that Russia is setting up its own bank clearing house system independent of the so-called SWIFT system.
When you transfer funds from one bank to another, or when any bank uses U.S. dollars, it has to go
through the SWIFT clearing house system in the United States.
Right now the only country that's not part of this is Iran. To Russia, this has tipped America's
hand. It showed that what U.S. Cold Warriors really want is to break up Russia and China, and to
interrupt their financial and banking services to disorient their economies. So Russia, China
and Iran – and presumably other Asian countries – are now moving to establish their own currency
clearing systems. To be independent of the SWIFT system and the U.S. dollar, Russia and China are
denominating their trade and investments in rubles and yuan instead of the dollar. So what you've
seen in the last few days in Beijing is a rejection of the dollar standard, and a rejection of American
foreign policy behind it.
China has doubled its military spending since Mr. Obama was there in 2009. The president of China
politely said, let's make sure there's not an accidental bang up in the air or on sea. What he means
is, "We've defined our airspace over the islands that we're claiming as ours, so if one of your planes
comes too close to ours and we bump into it and knock it down, please don't take this as an attack
on America. We don't really mean it personally." So China's really throwing its weight around.
That's why Mr. Obama has looked so uncomfortable at these meetings. He knows that he hasn't gotten
anything he wants. Asian countries are not about to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and they're
moving on now to Brisbane, Australia.
In the next few days you're going to see Europe being left out. The sanctions that the United
States and NATO have insisted that it impose on Russia have led to Russian counter-sanctions against
French and Baltic and European exports. French farmers are already demonstrating, and Marine Le Pen's
nationalists are likely to win the next election. The Baltic States are also screaming from losing
their farm exports. France, Latvia, and even Germany had been looking to Russia as a growing market
the last few years. Yet their leaders obeyed U.S. demands not to deal with the Russian market. This
leaves Europe in a position of economic stagnation.
As for the sanctions isolating Russia economically, this is just what it needs to protect its
industrial revival and economic independence. In conjunction with China, it's integrating the Russian
economy with that of China, Kazakhstan and Iran. Russia is now going to be building at least two
atomic reactors in Iran. The center of global investment is shifting to Asia, leaving the United
States out as well as Europe.
So you can expect at the G20 Brisbane meetings next week to increase pressure from Europe to break
away from the U.S. sanctions. All the United States has diplomatically at the present time is military
pressure, while Russia and China have economic growth – markets and investment opportunities opening
up. Despite the fact that there was an agreement on high-technology trade between the United States
and China, the U.S. is basically being left out. This seems to be why Mr. Obama was looking so out
of sorts at the meetings. He knows that the strategy that he was given by his neocons is backfiring.
PERIES: Finally, Michael, how do you think this is going to be dealt with by Congress and a Republican-controlled
Senate now?
HUDSON: Obama said that he looked forward to dealing with the Republicans now that he doesn't
have to deal with the Democrats anymore. Republicans are the only party that would agree to his pro-corporate,
anti-labor Trans-Pacific Partnership. He has shown himself to be a Republican in the same spirit
as Cheney and George W. Bush. The noises coming out of Washington from Harry Reid and the Democratic
leadership are blaming Obama for mishandling the economy so badly and losing them the election –
as if it were not their own doing and Steve Israel's support for Republican-striped Democratic Blue
Dog candidates. So if I can paraphrase what Obama essentially said, it's "I'm a Republican and
I'm supporting Wall Street." He's letting the Republicans know he's pushing for the kind of
giveaways that the lobbyists have written into the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I think you've had
Lori Wallach on your show explaining exactly what this is. So you can expect Obama to move even more
sharply to the right, getting Republican support while the Democrats pretend to scream in agony and
say, "My God, what have we ever done with bringing this guy in?" – while supporting Hillary.
James, November 14, 2014 at 10:49 am
In the following decade, we won the cold war.
We know one side gave up the fight for sure, and has since rebounded rather nicely. Whether
or not we can say the other side actually "won" remains yet to be seen, since it's still fighting
against countless "enemies," some possibly real, but most purely imaginary.
Vatch, November 14, 2014 at 11:46 am
Russia has rebounded thanks to petroleum and natural gas. That doesn't alter the fact that
it is a kleptocracy with severe problems of inequality. Putin is popular because he is standing
up to the "foreign devils".
Of course, much of this is also true about the United States, but not the part about the
leader being popular.
James, November 14, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Putin is popular because he is standing up to the "foreign devils".
Well, I guess you could say that the US MIC is providing Putin with valuable marketing
services then. I must say, they're certainly worth every dollar, err… ruble he's paying them.
Vatch, November 14, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Mutual hostility usually benefits the elites of both nations. It is far less likely to benefit
the typical citizens of the nations that are hostile to each other. On the contrary, it's likely
to worsen the lives of people in both nations.
James, November 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm
I must say that as the initial coup unfolded after the Olympics I was wary of some sort
of "joint disinformation" campaign on the part of both the US and Russia playing to some sort
of higher regional goal. But events in the interim have led me to conclude otherwise. This one's
an entirely US instigated fiasco.
Vatch, November 14, 2014 at 6:59 pm
Coup? What coup? Are you referring to the mess in Ukraine?
Yves Smith, November 15, 2014 at 2:54 am
Yes, the US supported a coup against a democratically elected leader. You are ignorant of that???
Lordie.
And elections were mere months away.
Vatch, November 15, 2014 at 10:33 am
First of all, my question was rhetorical. And no, the U.S. was not "entirely" responsible;
the people of Ukraine opposed a corrupt administration and their president fled the country.
The U.S. was heavily involved, but they were not the only cause. I keep trying to teach
people that reality is complex, yet they still often want simple answers. Those simple answers,
such as that the Ukrainian trouble is "entirely US instigated fiasco", are usually, as in this
case, false.
As I have explained many times over the past several months, the Ukrainians have enormous grievances
against the Russians.
As things have turned out, Putin won, and the Ukrainians, of both the western part of the country
and the eastern part, have lost. The easterners have lost because that's where the fighting is.
S Brennan, November 15, 2014 at 3:44 pm
I saw an error in your opening and I've fixed it below:
First of all, my question was disingenuous…
"The former Republican congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul has launched
a scathing attack on what he calls a US-backed coup in Ukraine, insisting the Crimean people
have the right to align their territory with Moscow and characterising sanctions against Russia
as "an act of war".
He also said providing economic aid to Ukraine was comparable to giving support to rebels in
Syria knowing it would end up in the hands of al-Qaida."
optimader, November 14, 2014 at 7:04 pm
"This one's an entirely US instigated fiasco."
HUH??? this "one" refers to what?
James, November 14, 2014 at 8:37 pm
Wow, you guys really are daft, aren't you.
YES, THE US INSTIGATED COUP IN UKRAINE!!!
Vatch, November 15, 2014 at 10:33 am
See my response to Yves. You have oversimplified a very complex reality.
myshkin, November 14, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Though the Soviet empire toppled first, the US empire has disastrously hollowed out its putative
republic. The Cold War was a continuity of the dark inertia of the armaments based recovery of
WWII, weaponry being the only public spending TPTB will ever countenance. I've argued with various
older friends who had passed through the depression and WWII, who were convinced that the nuclear
standoff and arms race of the Cold War was a great success, having forestalled nuclear annihilation.
My point, that only a logic invented by Dr. Strangelove could view the march to the precipice
of world war, armed with doomsday weapons, bought with national treasure, drained from the welfare
of the people, as a success. It also countenanced or ignored the millions who did die, casualties
of the Cold War that infected and inflamed corners of the world with proxy wars and anti democratic
coups while baking the worst ingredients of a militarized, deep security state into the US
sociocultural cake. It was evident to me but an unimaginable leap of faith to them.
flora, November 14, 2014 at 11:45 am
I think for at least the last 20 years Washington DC and Wall St have lived in a bubble that
prevents them from seeing the real economy or effectively engaging in realpolitik. It gives me
no happiness to write this.
Thanks for this article.
susan the other, November 14, 2014 at 11:53 am
It is all interesting, amusing and frightening. And shameful if you once loved your country
and the things it stood for. We have dealt ourselves a fatal blow by using the EU to sanction
Russia. That's gotta be the dumbest thing we ever did. We managed, in our arrogance, to isolate
ourselves and our asinine cowboy neoliberalism, almost as if we built the great wall of America
around our shores. Xi is a fox. So is Putin. The difference being that Putin once took a chance
on trusting us. The worsening debacle in the EU is because we are imposing strict neoliberalism
on them and are demanding they dismantle all forms of a mixed economy, while Xi, in Asia where
anything of importance is now happening, calmly states the Chinese position that SOEs are OK if
they are beneficial to the health of nations.
susan the other, November 14, 2014 at 11:58 am
So of course that raises the question, Why can't the great United States survive in a mixed
economy? Is it because our corporations are so distorted by their theft, productivity, efficiency,
and labor-slashing pogroms, that they really have become absurd economically? Just a rhetorical
question. Everybody, including Xi, knows the answer.
Vatch, November 14, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Businesses in China are also distorted by various forms of evil. The hell of Foxconn and the
air pollution of Beijing are just two examples.
optimader, November 14, 2014 at 7:01 pm
"The difference being that Putin once took a chance on trusting us."
HUH?
James, November 14, 2014 at 9:05 pm
Hard of understanding, ain't ya?
susan the other, November 15, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Putin started off with Little George opening up oil development to US majors and they were
both interested in making it go. Putin came to the White House and gave a little speech referencing
this partnership. Etc. Some analysis (forget where, maybe foreign affairs) claimed Putin himself
was a Russian Atlanticist – meaing his faction was leaning toward business relationships with
the US and the EU.
Then everything fell apart. It is hard to tell just how cooperative RU and we are these days.
But yesterday at the G20 everybody ganged up on Putin and accused Russia of being the aggressor
in Ukraine and Putin said he had more urgent business to take care of in Moscow and left.
Putin himself has spoken clearly on the US and NATO being the aggressor and wanting to
create crises to maintain power. So unless it is all theater, Putin did give it a try and became
the goat. And now he has gone home.
Banger, November 14, 2014 at 12:26 pm
The issue is not the U.S. vs. China and Russia. China and Russia are centrally governed nation-states
with, at least for China, imperial ambitions – but these ambitions are of limited Empire not
like the American dreams of Empire which is to control the entire globe not just politically but
culturally.
That ambition though is largely fantasy at least in political terms. The U.S. is not any longer
what I would call a nation state with particular "interests." Israel, for example, is more supported
in the U.S. than, say, Ohio or some segment of the U.S.
The USG sees its constituency as an international elite – whether British, Polish
or Saudi–the people, as a population are, increasingly an afterthought. Washington is an international
capital (as is NYC) that focuses on the multi-national corporation.
Russia and China, while not immune to such pressures, does recognize the importance of the
population or power-factions that are native to it.
By forcing Russia, Iran and other states to the periphery they are moving them into a Chinese
orbit. Now, how China chooses to react is something should make an interesting discussion.
James Levy, November 14, 2014 at 1:04 pm
I've argued to my students that the reason America is so dangerous is that Americans are
the most ideological people on Earth without any understanding that they are ideological.
Most Americans (certainly the foreign policy decision-makers) see doing anything dissimilar to
the way "we" want it done as perverse (France), stupid (Venezuela), or malign (Iran).
The old Burkean notion that nations are what they are because of their history and traditions
is unthinkable in Washington or on Wall Street.
America is the model and its up to every other country to conform – or else. Between
Wilson and Truman a carapace formed over US thinking about itself and the world that has become
impenetrable. It will only be burst when America is too broke or ecologically devastated to
continue trying to re-form the world in its image. That's why I fear that a whole cadre of
nuts would rather the world go down in flames than that the "last, best hope of humanity" not
get to "tutor" the nations into doing thing
Banger, November 14, 2014 at 5:42 pm
Technically you are right–the USA is the last great remnant of the great ideologies of
the 20th century and the ideology of American Exceptionalism is related to fascism and communism
in the sense it is deeply nationalistic and also global - America wants everyone to become American.
But I think this is largely over.
Leaders today only half-believe in these notions and the body politic is increasingly cynical
and too self-centered to care much about "destiny" and the grand sweep of history that people
like Henry Luce or Walter Lippmann articulated back in the day both on the left and the right.
Government is increasingly staffed by self-serving careerists and yuppies who long ago sold
their souls. The ideologues are now mainly are inarticulate and no more than the equivalent
of soccer hooligans.
Michael, November 14, 2014 at 6:59 pm
Neo-cons…. I assume that is who you meant.
Not much more too add. The people with real power do not show their faces. They write memos
and let buffoons try to articulate them to the public. The public will buy into the ideology because
they've spent their lives learning facts with out learning the importance of those facts.
Also most people are too busy trying to survive to learn enough to understand the games
that the elites are playing. Hell, even the elites don't understand the system they have
built. All energy is basically used to maintain the system which will eventually collapse in on
itself…
I just hope I am self sufficient at this point….give me 5 more years and I should be set…homesteading
is in my future.
madisolation, November 15, 2014 at 8:30 am
I just read Pepe Escobar's
take on the
APEC summit. There's a lot to absorb, but here is an excerpt:
Washington/Wall Street elites – talk about Cold War hubris – always took for granted that Beijing
and Moscow would be totally apart. Now puzzlement prevails. Note how the Obama administration's
"pivoting to Asia" has been completely erased from the narrative – after Beijing identified it
for what it is: a warlike provocation. The new meme is "rebalance".
German businesses, for their part, are absolutely going bonkers with Xi's New Silk Roads uniting
Beijing to Berlin – crucially via Moscow. German politicians sooner rather than later will have
to get the message.
flora, November 15, 2014 at 11:03 am
This sentence:
"Washington/Wall Street elites… always took for granted that …"
Perfect description of the neo-con and neo-liberal ideological bubbles. Elite thinking is so
captured by their ideologies that they can't clearly see facts on the ground, can't effectively
respond to the facts, and can't accept their realpolitik failures as the consequence of their
ideological capture. The 'shrewd yankee' has been replaced by the 'true believer'.
Interesting that Al From and the New Democrats have been described as idealists. No doubt they
are.
Steven, November 15, 2014 at 11:29 am
Dr. Hudson has long had the right take on all this. But he doesn't seem to be able to take
the last step in simplifying his analyses and prescriptions. Elites in the West and in particular
the United States have no clue about the real sources of wealth and power in the modern world.
Those elites, having long ago converted their wealth (the natural resources, skilled labor and,
above all, the inanimate energy required to power the machinery and computers that do much of
the world's real work) into money, now 'keep score' only by how much more money they can add to
their bank accounts.
For those elites – and especially for the financiers and bankers to whom they have entrusted
the wealth extracted from the labor of preceding generations and the spoils of pillaged continents
– money is all there is. This is the core of 'American exceptionalism'. Anyone who doubts
the omnipotence of money doubts the divine order of things. Educating, feeding and caring
for the West's "labouring cattle" has long been viewed not as 'investment', a source of wealth,
but an impediment on the more rapid accumulation of money. The only thing 50% of 'the people'
are good for, in the words of Jay Gould, is slaughtering the other 50%.
The bottom line here is that real wealth and prosperity for the population at large represents
a mortal threat for people whose power and social status is dependent only on money. A really
wealthy population doesn't need money. For the monetarily affluent, the only possible use for
advances in science and technology is the destruction of those who refuse to worship the golden
calf. For the last century Western nations have removed the threat of general prosperity to their
ruling classes through wars with each other and beyond their nations' borders.
Devastated by global war, much of the world managed to free itself from this self-destructive
propensity by exporting the responsibility to defend their money-based ruling classes and the
sanctity of money as embodied in the world's US dollar-based reserve currency to the United States.
Thus we have arrived at the current division of labor in the world economy with the once 'developing
nations' exporting the things people really need to live and the US and other Western nations
exporting debt and death. This is the real mission of the military-industrial complex – absorbing
advances in science and technology in ever more deadly weapons systems and ever mounting national
debt. It can only end badly.
Events since 2008 have proved the world doesn't need the West's money. If the West's central
banks can create tens of trillions of dollars, euros, yen, etc out of thin air to prevent the
insolvency of its ruling elites, it can create the money it needs to pay for the real wealth required
for a sustainable future.
Steven, November 15, 2014 at 11:49 am
The "last step" is dropping the 'growth' prescription. My suspicion is that a world economy
purged of its waste, economic sabotage and above its weapons would be more than adequate at its
current size for a long time to come.
"Karl, do you find it as amazing as I do that the Russian basket case economy
churns out state or the art (or beyond) technologies in aerospace, nuclear engineering, power
generation, heavy industrial production technology, etc."
Russian economy is not a basket case economy or a collapsing economy. It is a stagnant economy.
It is also an economy which starting level is way lower than in the West. That is why Russia's
growth should be a lot higher than it is in the Western countries.
If Russia ever wants to catch up the GDP/capita of the Western countries Russian economy must
still grow at 6-8% a year for a couple of decades at least. Russia still has a relatively low
GDP/capita which means that there is a lot of room for growth. Lack of growth suggests that there
is structurally something wrong with the Russian economy.
I don't deny that Russia does well in some areas (aerospace, nuclear engineering etc.) but
these sectors alone do not offer enough high productive jobs for a large number of people in Russia.
The GDP/capita in Russia is relatively low because Russian economy is structured in a way that
does not produce enough per one worker. Without Oil&Gas and minerals (and all the other natural
resources) the GDP/capita would be even a lot lower than it currently is.
The major task for Russia is to reform their economy in a way that increases the production
per one worker in the economy. This requires improving the efficiency and competitiveness in all
sectors of the economy. Getting rid of useless/low-productive jobs should be a priority as well.
This will be painful and unpopular because it will increase unemployment, but it must be done.
Russian non-resource exports must also become competitive in the world markets outside of the
nuclear and weapons export too.
Russia will likely never be an engineering/industrial powerhouse like Germany but Russia has
too much room for improvement to settle for the current relatively low level.
You also said that Russians hold more college degrees as a percentage of population than any
other Western country. That may be true, but for some reason Russian businesses have not yet been
able to make use of these highly educated people the way they should. The economic success is
just not there, yet.
My first priority in discussions with you is to euthanize the concept that Russia is doomed due
to a damaged genome. Such claims are utterly ridiculous and without the slightest evidence in
support. I hope that you have come to realize this.
I think Western metrics of economic activity
are heavily skewed toward factors that have little to do with the physical economy. As indirect
proof of this, China is second to the US by Western standard of economic activity yet China has
stunningly large leads in the production of steel (8 times more), concrete (26 times!), ammonia
(5 times more), electricity (20% more), cars (twice as much) and the list goes on. My estimate
is that the Chinese physical economy is three times the size of the US yet its GDP is variously
listed as approximately 60% of the US. Based on the forgoing, GDP understates the physical economy
by 4-5 times. Applying this correction factor to China suggest its "real" GDP is at least twice
the US value.
Russian metrics related to the physical economy (steel, concrete, sulfuric acid, electricity,
ammonia, etc.) suggest its economy is about 80% of the US value yet with 1/2 the population. The
US has a much larger service sector (legal, financial, health, etc.) whose value to overall wealth
is debatable. For example, an attorney may make $250K/year, 5 times more than an industrial worker
but to what degree does the attorney contribute to the overall wealth? The massive deindustrialization
of the US has been more than compensated by growth in the service sector resulting substantial
GDP growth yet we make less and less THINGS. Something really stinks in US GDP figures.
Focusing on Russia, it produces approximately (relative to the US), 80% of steel, 80% of sulfuric
acid, 88% of concrete, 110% of ammonia, etc. Car production is only 25% of the US yet that likely
reflects a very well developed mass transit system rather than a deficit in transportation capacity.
So, Russia is not really a land of low productive workers but rather a land of workers that
produces THINGS and not services with questionable value. Perhaps that is why they can excel in
the hard stuff like nuclear engineering and aerospace technologies with a population a small fraction
of the US and its economic colonies (Japan, EU, etc.).
You mentioned that Russia will never be an engineering/technical powerhouse like Germany. I
contend that Russia is far and away a stronger engineering/technical leader than Germany in the
hard technologies. Germany is good at cars, transportation equipment, chemicals and pretty good
in machine tools. They are weak in aerospace, nuclear engineering and military technology (the
stuff that separates the men from the boys).
A few more items – Russia has a very harsh climate and long distances both of which creates
a large economic overhead.
Russia is not living on borrowed money unlike the US. Take away the debt growth in the US and
I believe that even its inflated GDP growth would become negative.
Russia has a huge potential for further growth and they are achieving that potential through
a combination of great human capital, political stability, national security and a growing sense
of self-reliance.
Karl, remember that Russia has a population of only 50% of the US and a tiny fraction of the
US economic block. Russia is punching well above its weight. The West will continue to stick its
head up its economic ass and bray about how its GDP is growing is as it produces less and less.
Rossiya Segodnya sat down recently with Dennis Kucinich, Former US Representative from Ohio
and two-time candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. He spoke about the recent elections,
the situation in Ukraine, and the need for America to shift its foreign policy away from the notion
of perpetual war, to perpetual peace.
Hello Dennis, Thank You for speaking with us, one of your most recent political drives
has been "Redefining National Security From Terror to Peace". What does the Republicans' victory
in midterm elections mean for US national security?
Dennis Kucinich: American people define national security as human security, as a security
of a job, decent wages, healthcare that is not determined by insurance companies. They determine
national security in terms of human security with respect to education of the children, safe neighborhoods,
clean air, clean water. They talk of national security in terms of the protection of their civil
liberties, the right to be free from government spying, intrusion into private communications. And
they speak of national security in very personal terms that again can be described as human security.
When Washington speaks of national security, Washington means perpetual war and the rise of a national
security state with the military industrial complex determining the priorities of the country, and
the intelligence agencies getting more and more money to reach more deeply into the personal lives
of American people. So, there is a great divide here.
Because the Democratic party voted most recently to support giving arms to the so-called Syrian
rebels, the democrats once again voted for war. And the party has consistently voted for war. It
has not distinguished itself from the Republican Party at matters of perpetual war which means that
there is a vacuum in American politics, there is a vacuum with respect to addressing the need of
the people for jobs, the need of the country for rebuilding its infrastructure which is in need of
trillions of dollars worth of repairs, and the need for redefining America's role in the world as
a means of recognizing that this is not a unipolar world. This is a world of multiple interests and
multiple countries, and there is folly for any nation including America to try to sell itself up
there as the only nation that matters because indeed we have to be ready to recognize the concerns
of all people.
Will the President allow the expected Congressional increase of sanctions against Russia
and Iran?
Dennis Kucinich: The United States is going to have to move into a position of economic
leadership for the people here at home. We have to start taking care of things here at home. And
we have to stand for human rights here at home. So again, there is a vacuum. Neither party has addressed
this.
We have not honored an international system of checks and balances. We need to realize that the
cohesive force in the world is human unity, that we are interdependent, and interconnected. And for
that reason the use of force undermines Americans' position in the world community. The arbitrary
use of force, the illegal interventions that have occurred undermines America's moral authority and
undermine our own national security. We have to be very careful that we do that squander the resources
of our country in perpetual war. And yet both political parties have failed to come up with a means
of taking a new direction.
Certainly, this 2014 election isn't going to any dramatic change in the direction America has
already taken. We have to understand that continued unilateralism, interventionism have abandoned
the world order and made the world more dangerous place for everyone including Americans actually
by helping to fuel the ambitions of extremists . We have to envision the world and act upon envision
of the world as one. The world is interconnected and is interdependent, and our policies should be
aligned with that. ...
How do you think the outcome of these elections is going to affect Ukraine? Do you think
the US will supply arms to Kiev now? Or will they try and handle this as a political matter instead
of a militaristic one?
Dennis Kucinich: I think that the world community needs to give the people of Ukraine
and the people of Russia an opportunity to work out their difficulties for good without outside interaction.
It's quite regrettable that the events in Ukraine were triggered by my country's involvement in
a coup proving once again that America really needs to pay attention to things closer to home that
respond to practical needs of the people. Our founders warned about being involved in foreign tricks.
That seems to be a lesson that has yet to be learnt.
The other thing I want to say, the West gave Ukraine a non-negotiable demand that did not benefit
the people of Ukraine. And what that non-negotiable demand included was putting NATO at the Russian
border. And that was not a defensible position, and also did not provide for the people of Ukraine
to have the kind of movement throughout the European Union which would provide for the kind economic
freedom and the economic opportunities which the people of Ukraine have been looking for. The bottom
line is as we like to say in the US the people of Ukraine were not given a very good deal. And when
the government didn't accept it, the government was overthrown. We have to find a more logical, coherent
and sane way of conducting our international relations.
Do you expect serious changes in US foreign policy over the next two years?
Dennis Kucinich: The next two years I would not expect to see too much changing internationally,
because America can not afford to plunge deeper into these wars. The US involvement in Syria has
been characterized as one blunder after another. We switch sides so quickly that we are chasing our
shadow now. This is a very dangerous position to be in, now to the extent that we have created the
unleashed forces that are not easily contained. And the solution is not going to be more violence.
The US truly must work to reestablish friendly relations with the government and the people of
Russia. There is absolutely no reason why we should permit the reemergence of cold war psychology,
because we remember from the last cold war that the only people who benefitted were the arms manufacturers.
Our people have much in common and we need to focus on that again.
I intend to continue to travel the country to talk about the importance of America taking a new
direction and in making sure that our national security includes a discussion about the imperative
of jobs, and wages, and healthcare, and education, and housing, and our constitutional freedoms.
That is part of our national security as well. And I'm not the only one saying that, I am getting
that directly from thousands of people who I met in the last months while travelling the country.
Terrific article, Mark. I'd missed this story but it does sound as though it's yet another episode
in the never-ending psych-op campaign being waged against Russia in the west.
The story of Russian cyber attacks of one kind or another has been running for a while now
– NATO's General Breedlove, carrying out his main mission of expanding his organisation's role
in the world, was the first to posit the idea that a 'NATO for the 21st century' could see cyber
attacks as a justification for invoking Article 5 of the NATO Charter – an attack on one is an
attack on all – so the incremental build-up of Russia as the world's most devious hacker is probably
serving this sort of purpose.
Back to Ukraine for a moment. An iconic Kiev cinema has been destroyed in an arson attack during
a screening of an LGBT film. Fortunately, no-one was hurt. There seem to be two possible explanations
for the incident – either a protest against the showing of this particular film or a shortening
of whatever planning process operates in Kiev in order to realise the value of the site. It will
be interesting to see whether the EU reacts to this.
In the long term, the EU and US will prefer the LGBT and other marginal freakish groups over nationalists.
However, instead of physical intimidation, the new coalition of AngloZionist-empowered marginal
minorities will use the law to criminalize previously widely-held values and beliefs. This is
usually done through "hate crime" laws - as if any crime toward a victim is done out of love…
Other means, such as the mainstream media and well-funded violent Trotskyite groups may be
used against patriots as well, but this will take years, and like I said before, will only happen
if the AngloZionists gain total control over Ukraine. As long as the country is hanging between
the AngloZionists and Russia, the AngloZionists will use the shabbos goyim nationalists against
the Moskali.
A certain Eugen Zelman is
quoted is quoted in the article. Poor guy, he's just trying to spread some European values. Why
do these people always find me?
A very good edition of RT's 'CrossTalk' on the Ukrainian elections. Peter Lavelle's guests are
Nebojsa Malic, Eric Krauss and Dimitry Babich. At one point, Nebojsa sums up the choice voters
faced as 'Oligarchs, Nazis and Nazi-Oligarchs' which sounds like it covers a lot of the bases.
"Having the whole world in search of the unknown submarine with a hint of Russian trace, Swedish
military, as it turned out, was looking for a budget increase for military needs. And achieved
his goal."
According to Finnish media Russia is suffering from a big brain drain.
203,659 people moved out of Russia in January-November which is more than any other year during
Vladimir Putin's presidency. In fact more people moved out of Russia during the first seven months
of this year than in any other full year since 2000.
It looked as if Russia had managed to tackle the brain drain, but this year the the number
of people emigrating has exploded.
What is worrisome is that the emigration figures seem to have multiplied in a year or two.
This is not a modest increase, but a big spike in emigration. Many times more people are moving
out of Russia now than three years ago.
MOSCOW - Making clear that the Kremlin has no intention of backing down from the worst Russia-Western
crisis since the Cold War, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the United States on Friday
of trying to "reshape the whole world" for its benefit, in a fiery speech that was one of the
most anti-American of his 15 years as Russia's paramount leader.
Seven months into a conflict over Ukraine that has seen at least 3,400 people killed, Putin
predicted that the clash would not be the last to pit Russia and the United States against each
other, excoriating the White House for imposing sanctions against his nation that he said were
simply aimed at forcing Russia into submission.
In nationally broadcast remarks that lasted nearly three hours, Putin gave no hint of concessions
to Western consternation over Russia's role in Ukraine, where Putin first pressured former president
Viktor Yanukovych over his plans to sign a European-friendly trade deal, annexed the Crimean Peninsula
after pro-European protesters forced Yanukovych's ouster and then helped fuel a pro-Russian rebellion
in eastern Ukraine.
Russia "is not asking anyone for permission" in its conduct of world affairs, Putin said.
Although there was little new substance in the angry address, it was a bitter distillation
of Putin's anti-American rhetoric at an annual forum originally intended to put a Western-friendly
spin on Russia's image. Putin speaks every year before the Valdai Club, a gathering of Western
and Russian analysts, journalists and officials, some of whom are critical of the Kremlin. This
year's meeting was held in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, second from the right, speaks in a session of the political
discussion club Valdai in Sochi, Russia. The Russian president said the United States is trying
to remake the world for its own interests. (Mikhail Klimentiev/Ria Novosti/Kremlin Pool/European
Pressphoto Agency)
In the past, Putin has used the forum to offer olive branches to those critics. Last year,
he took questions from opposition lawmakers a day after his aides had offered them political concessions.
Sometimes he has also made jokes.
This year's speech and question-and-answer session contained none of that image-polishing.
Instead, Putin delivered an unsmiling, straightforward worldview that blasted the United States
as taking advantage of its powerful post-Cold War position to dictate misguided terms to the rest
of the world. Putin faulted the United States for a rise in global terrorism, a resumption of
a global arms race and a general worsening of global security.
"It never ceases to amaze me how our partners have been guilty of making the same mistakes
time and again," Putin said, accusing the United States of breeding terrorists by upsetting the
established order in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.
One participant said that he was left with the impression that the ouster of Yanukovych in
Ukraine - a nation with deep historical and cultural ties to Russia - was the final straw that
unleashed years of anti-Western anger.
"It was an emotional broadside against U.S. foreign policy," said one participant, Cliff Kupchan,
a longtime Russia analyst who is chairman of the Eurasia Group, a New York-based political and
business consultancy.
"If this is a turning point," Kupchan said, "we're going from bad to worse."
Kupchan said that other meetings with Russian officials over the closed three-day conference
left little optimism for a durable peace in Ukraine, where a Sept. 5 cease-fire has frequently
been broken. He said that officials at the meeting saw Cyprus and Bosnia as models for handling
Ukraine's divisions. Neither is an exemplar of comity between ethnic groups.
Advertisement
Russian officials also said that they still will not tolerate Ukraine's establishing stronger
ties with the European Union, suggesting that a 15-month delay in the effective date of a landmark
trade deal simply delays yet another confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, Kupchan said.
Putin offered brief praise to recent instances of Russia-Western partnership, such as removing
Syria's chemical weapons and the ongoing multilateral negotiations to halt Iran's and North Korea's
nuclear programs. But that was just a brief moment in a long anti-Western diatribe.
The real audience may not have been the assembled Valdai elite but Putin's domestic electorate,
which thrives on his delivering powerful and angry messages to the West, said Vladimir Frolov,
a Moscow-based foreign policy expert and former diplomat.
In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Friday that "the United States does
not seek confrontation with Russia, but we cannot and will not compromise on the principles on
which security in Europe and North America rest."
"Our focus is on continuing to engage with Russia on areas of mutual concern," she said.
...Instead of supporting democracy and sovereign states, Mr. Putin said during a three-hour appearance
at the conference, the United States supports "dubious" groups ranging from "open neo-fascists to
Islamic radicals."
"Why do they support such people," he asked the annual gathering known as the Valdai Club, which
met this year in the southern resort town of Sochi. "They do this because they decide to use them
as instruments along the way in achieving their goals, but then burn their fingers and recoil."
The goal of the United States, he said, was to try to create a unipolar world in which American
interests went unchallenged.
... ... ...
"We are at a dangerous point where on both sides, unilateral grievances have thoroughly spilled
over into very, very emotional policies toward each other," said Cliff Kupchan, the chairman of the
Eurasia Group, a Washington-based risk analysis organization, who was at the meeting.
"I think it is on a new level of acrimony," Mr. Kupchan said of Mr. Putin's speech. "I think this
is a genuine message that 'Enough is enough, and I don't like being grouped with
Ebola and I don't like these sanctions
However, when one British newspaper reporter asked him specifically about the repeated reports
of Russian army troops operating in east Ukraine, Putin chose to ignore the question completely.
Our friend Shaun, after a pleasant conversation with Ukrainians "who refused to give his name",
informs us now on unnamed journalists who ask tough questions to Putin. So probably this is about The
Guardian journalist Seumas
Milne. He actually asked to Putin two questions, after which Putin asked him to clarify his second
question. In this sense, it turns out that Putin really avoid answering the first question. But, in
the previous question, the Russian troops were not mentioned at all. However, it is better to read it
yourself...
Puutin said that over the past two decades, the US had behaved as if it were someone "nouveau
riche who had suddenly received a lot of wealth – in this case, global leadership". Instead
of using its powers wisely, said Putin, the US had created a unilateral and unfair system.
The Russian president's sentiments were nothing new, but appeared to be a more concise and concentrated
version of his grievances at a time when relations between Russia and the west are more strained
than at any period since the cold war.
In a terse opening statement before taking questions for nearly three hours, Putin : "The
exceptionalism of the United States, the way they implement their leadership, is it really a benefit?
And their worldwide intervention brings peace and stability, progress and peak of democracy?
Maybe we should relax and enjoy this splendour? No!"
In regards to Islamic terrorism I agree. How many potential terrorists has the USA created by
starting a war which has killed over half a million people?! How can they fight a 'war on terror'
by bringing terror to millions of innocent people? It's all so illogical and tragic and there
seems to be no end to this killing.
It seems obvious that America isn't killing so many civilians
in the middle east for the good of the middle east civilians. They have been planning this
for years. This video is a much watch! It has a former four star general and supreme commander
of NATO explaining America planned to invade 7 countries. Why this video isn't more widely seen
is a travesty.
George Soros wants war with Russia and he wants the EU to help pay for it by way of inflation
via the printing press i.e. further destroying the middle classes.
Are you ready to confront Russia in the name of Soros' billions?
The man has already invested quite a bit in shady NGOs like Open Society and the man was knee-deep
in the theft and plundering of Russia during the 1990s by way of Renaissance Capital and other
financial outfits.
How soon before Soros teams up with Khodorkovsky and his "Open Russia" NGO? Khodorkovsky wants
to get back what he rightfully stole so that he can placate former business partners like Dick
Cheney.
Nobody wants war with Russia and to suggest that Khodorkovsky is driven by a desire to placate
Cheney seems ludicrous.
The point I was illustrating is that Soros wants the EU to become more confrontational with
Russia, at the expense of its own security and economic well-being, the latter of which would
actually help his own financial interests.
The second point is that Khodorkovsky and Cheney were business partners in the past and that
much of the opposition to Putin by men such as Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky, Kasparov, and Zakayev
is closely linked not only to financial players like Soros but to the neo-conservatives as well;
whose media figures have been the most hawkish re: Russia and not just since Ukraine blew up (again).
Yucos was comprehensively stolen from him under the direction of perhaps Russia's second
most influential man - Sechen. This was at a time when Putin wanted to prevent Khordorkovsky
moving into politics and Igor Sechen had an eye on the potential spoils of Yucos. Khordorkovsky
has expressed a desire to see Russia become a successful democracy.
That's why I said that "Khodorkovsky wants back what he stole in the first place".
The idea that he wants Russia to be a successful democracy is laughable, especially in light
of his treatment of employees during his heyday, in particular when he had police beat striking
workers.
All these figures: American neo-conservatives, western finance, and Russian 'opposition' are
bound in their desire to re-open Russia like the Yeltsin days so that it be plundered once again,
for varying reasons ranging from personal power to the extension of American hegemonic ambitions.
You missed this nugget that explains his world view
The world works like this: the more loyalty you have to the single centre of power in the
world, the more legitimate your govt is
. To be fair has has a point. Syrian government not legitimate but Bahrain and Saudi governments
are...can anyone explain the difference to me? (other than the syrian regime is more secular and
protective towards minorities than the other two)
What would Ukraine be like today without US-EU support for the violent revolution/coup in February
in Kiev?
- There would be by now a normal presidential election with a new government (Ukraine for all
its faults had a democracy and Yanukovitch and before him pro-Western Yushenko were elected)
- There would be no war in the Russian-speaking east and south
- Crimea would be safely in Ukraine
- Gas imports and trade with Russia would go on as before accounting for 30% of Ukraine's trade
Instead, Ukraine has a "revolutionary" government with all kinds of street radicals and pro-Western
oligarchs running around saying some of the more stupid things in recent memory (US is going to
give Marshall Plan, EU is going to open its borders to Ukrainian migrants, Russia has used nuclear
missiles in Ukraine, etc...
The economy is dropping almost 10% a year with the worst still coming. There are 3,000 dead
and the blood-thirsty rhetoric is still escalating.
Yes, this is a result of US meddling and support for the Maidan street protests. This is a
result of 5 billion dollars spent by US on "NGO's" in Kiev. This is a result of Nuland's cookies.
Seems to me that it is self-evident that US has supported Ukraine's revolution. It is also
self-evident that it has been a failure and Ukraine will suffer for a very long time. But since
Putin said it, I am sure many will scream and shout and demonize instead of rational thinking.
Quite a spectacle we see among Western intellectuals.... Were you always like this? Or is it something
about Russia that drives you incoherent with rage?
The Ukrainians would also have 15 billion extra. It is not as if the deal with Russia would have
left some of the idiots in Ukraine without any further scope for leverage between the EU and Russia.
I'm not sure if the EU will open up it's doors or conjure up some scheme that makes it more possible
for a higher number of Ukrainians to at least be able to work in Poland, the supposedly "prosperous"
Baltic states or Hungary.
EU is not exactly suffering from labor shortages today. So more Ukrainian workers, in Poland
or anywhere, would just lead to even worse labor market for everybody. Actually, Russia is suffering
from labor shortage, there are 3 million Ukrainians working there already.
In any negotiation one loses power and leverage by emotionally preferring one side. Ukraine
has lost any leverage over EU by so visibly "loving EU", or US (who get anything they want anyway),
or Russia by showing undisguised hatred - when Ukrainian leaders make Russo-phobic speeches (Yatsenyuk)
and then remain as Ukrainian leaders, well that reflects on all Ukrainians.
So today, Ukraine has no room to negotiate anything. They are left with pleading for mercy
and charity. That has never led to anything good.
The attempted takeover of eastern Ukraine has been way more violent and damaging than any
of the protests in Kiev and I don't see how you can contest that.
Ukraine is a corrupt
state but to imagine that this corruption would have gone away naturally following another election
is naive. Generally I ignore posts that mention Nuland, Nazis and $5 billion but I feel compelled
to disagree with you.
Months ago, many were comparing Putin's moves in Ukraine to a chess game being played masterfully.
Now, many of the same voices are saying that Russia had no influence in Ukraine and that any problems
there are the fault of the US.
The chess game analogy might be quite apt - Putin appears to see conflict as adversarial rather
than a drive to find equilibrium and compromise. The drive to capture Crimea might have also been
made in order to divert attention away from problems in Russia itself and I'm worried that he
might become ever more paranoid as Russia's economy slips and that speeches such as this one might
become a little more common.
Putin makes a general observation that is well grounded. Over the past two decades, yes. In his
ex Soviet backyard. Yet if one thinks back further the US has often acted thus - through her proxy
allies such as Turkey, Israel; through a host of coup-empowered autocrats the likes of Iraq's
Saddam Hussein and Chile's Pinochet and through support for failed insurrection in Cuba, Nicaragua
and indeed, after a long period of misrule, in Iran.
Why do we so easily overlook Turkey's incursion
into Cyprus and her continued support for militarized ethnic enclaves ..but pillory Russia for
her support for similar dissident pro-Russian populations in Ukraine? Particularly when in
Russia's case, there are sound strategic reasons for her apprehension about the way a potentially
hostile linked-with-Nato military alliance has openly seized opportunity to place forces ever-closer
to her heartland.
I still believe Russia should have invaded Ukraine after Yanukovich who was elected by the
popular vote was ousted by a western backed coup. Perhaps this was what the Nato planned so Russia
would be sucked into a war, but it did not work. their plans all have been dumped into the bin.
also, on the point of Putin ignoring one British paper's question; the British media has
been lying for a year on the Ukraine issue. It has been publishing bias news and has been a dark
page in journalism.
Anyone familiar with the context and history of NATO expansion, and the facts surrounding the
US-sponsored coup in Ukraine, knows full well that the Russians have shown tremendous restraint.
It has been the US who has been aggressive (along with their pathetic allies, like my country)
in Ukraine, as they have been on the global stage for more than half a century.
The Guardian's
dismissal of the facts, and their downplaying of US government behaviour is nothing new.
Putin once again delivered an outstanding speech. He speaks the truth, in a straightforward manner,
there is no malice nor hate. Just a fair understanding of the present situation and a clear view
on Russia's future aspirations. Putin loves his country and his people rewards him a hundredfold.
There is a lot of food for thoughts in his speech.
We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world
politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal
nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time,
total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as
black and black as white.
Caught some of it. Brilliant stuff from a highly intelligent and decent man.
It is incredible
though some of the dumb questions these morons in the US and UK press ask. Not all of them but
many..it defies logic. One overemotional American woman asked a stupid series of questions of
pointless rhetoric that leave no scope for decent answers. The Financial Times man even worse
( a misleading question with the answer obvious) with imbecilic rudeness and fake posturing over
the "accuracy" of one his reporters latest propaganda pieces .Completely out of place to mention
in a meeting like this with a head of state.
I also would have liked some question from any nationality on why the US,Russia and Ukraine
are all involved in obfuscation of the MH17 crash. One would assume that all 3 parties know exactly
what happened from where and when and it would have been good for the President to be cornered
on this,even though a direct answer would have been unlikely to have been given...everything else
though was answered as usual with a great degree of detail that shames the empty headed, 15 minutes
at best, nonsense from the likes of Obama and Cameron.
Putin stands head and shoulders above the various western leaders, from the Pillsbury Doughboy
Cameron to the "constitutional scholar" Obama.
Only the blind and the stupid don't understand that the US staged a neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine.
The neo-Nazis then went on a campaign of slaughtering civilians, even burning them alive. The
people in the eastern Ukraine said no to this psychopathy, and they in essence have won. The Kiev
government trembles because it knows now that neither Nato nor the USA would come to their aid
should Russia really attack them.
And a not so subtle threat underlies Putin's speech, because he basically has said Russia
has had enough with US criminality. I think this foreshadows the eventually break from the
petro-dollar by the BRICs, protected by Russia nuclear arms.
The federal reserve has to print out money by the untold billions in order to keep the US economy
from another crash. Behind the facade of the increases in stock prices hides a cowering economy
ready to crash at any unexpected event.
It's beyond tragi-comic belief the amount of psychophantic scaremongering, lies, half-truths
and propaganda America, Britain and others use to demonise Russia.
Luckily, there seems to be a huge disconnect between what is told/reported by governments and
official (corporate) media and what many, many people actually believe.
The Russian president "has won because we were not ready to die for Ukraine, while apparently
he was," Ambassador Gerard Araud said yesterday at a Bloomberg Government breakfast in Washington.
Donetsk is 300 miles from Volgograd (Stalingrad) where 1 million (1 million?) German soldiers
died in the legendary battle. Nearly 2 million Russian died too.
And these stupid bureaucrats are surprised that the Russians are willing to fight for... their
land?
This level of incompetence is hard to bear. Moronic, completely and utterly moronic.
Was once told that the purpose of education was to equip one with a 100% efficient bullshit
detector. There are a lot of sad, trusting folk on the site tonight; one would think uncle Jo,
Adolph and their like had never trod the earth. How can anyone take seriously a man who parades
half naked in front of his people looking like some extra from a homoerotic sword and saddles
bash? I 'll take Putin seriously when he stops banging up journos and the singers of mildly ironic
songs. Until then he's damaged goods.
This is the opening paragraph of the National Liberation Movement of Russia's manifesto which
is for the removal of unfriendly domination by the US of its economic, governmental and constitutional
arrangements. For the complete manifesto go to:
www.geopolitica.ru
The National Liberation Movement in Russia has only one goal that unites everyone regardless
of their political views: the restoration of the sovereignty of the country and liberation from
its occupiers. The inhabitants of Russia must break free from their chains of slavery and become
free citizens in a free (non-occupied) country.
To achieve these goals, the government should become ours, i.e. we must completely change the
nature of the state, including through amending the Constitution. Society is a broader concept,
and in fact, it should feel necessary to partake in this goal because the national liberation
struggle is a struggle of the society for the restoration of sovereign control over Russia, including
control over state institutions. Today, the state in Russia, as in any colony, works for the occupier
under the rules established by it, placing it under the rulers' direct control. This provision
is captured in the existing Constitution. Every day the main task of those millions of officials
who go to work is to improve living standards and the solve the problems of the American and European
peoples. That is their main function today. At the level of daily activity, it is hard to recognize
this without desire and sufficient time for the conceptualisation of our historical facts and
the current state of affairs in the country as a whole.
Since WWII, America has had plenty of wars, Committed plenty of war crimes, destabilized plenty
of countries all over the world, not all for good, but for self-interest. Yet If Putin says this,
it is labelled as propaganda, But it is true. America causes trouble everywhere it goes, if they
don't get their way, the so called "west" defends any old stupidity they come out with. Creating
chaos then try to manage it, but time and time again, it is botched up. Always defended by "compliant
allies" who follows America with their follies all over the world. America has an army that don't
win wars, it has too much money that is back by, god only knows, it's governance is irrational
and dysfunctional, a country who votes in the dumbest individuals into positions of power and
then try to dictate. I have said this plenty of time on these pages, Why do we follow them!......If
the answer is WWII, the USSR won the European theatre practically by themselves.
"When the British reporter asked about Russian troops operating
in the Ukraine, Putin did reply according to the English translation to which I was listening.
he even admitted that Russian troops were used to prevent Ukranian troops from leaving there base.
Maybe Shaun Walker should have gone to Sochi, or perhaps have watched RT.
As to describe Putin as railing against the U.S.A I wonder if Shaun actually knows the definition
of railing ?
This whole piece is just another stick to beat the bear with.
I am not fan of Putin but then I am no fan of Obama, but can Shaun really tell us where Putin
Lied about the historical past and what the recent history has been about the Ukraine?
I think Shaun should read "A Peoples Tragedy" by Orlando Fuges
As Sergei Lavrov said to the US "we are sorry our country is so close to your bases". Lavrov's
recent UN speech is a masterclass in diplomatic rhetoric. He is a million miles ahead of any US
spokesperson - they are all incapable of any sort of sensible dialogue. Is anyone now listening
to the constant Russophobia from the MSM.? Look what is actually happening on the ground, not
what the press is reporting. It is clear that Russia has been a model of self restraint in the
face of many provocations. The West has only succeeded in driving Russia closer to China.
And Putin is right . Putin's Russia does not send drones to kill on other continents . Putin's
Russian did not cause chaos in Libya , Iraq and Afghanistan . Putin's Russia did not spend billions
of dollars creating fundamentalist Islamic movements on the Pakistani / Afghan border in the 1980's
. Putin's Russia did not invite and fund Arab Jihadists to wage war as proxies of Russia as did
the USA , a price we all suffering now . Russia does not supply arms to Israel to bomb Palestinians
. Russia does not give Israel its ' veto ' on the UN Security Council to give it immunity from
International law . Russia does not station its military bases throughout the world . As for US
activities in toppling Governments , destabilizing countries and covert operations in Southern
and Central America I'd still be typing this post tomorrow without even then revealing the tip
of the iceberg !!
The USA , lovely people unfortunately living in a global Rogue State .
Uncle Scam is in deep doggie-do now. Russia and China aren't just some little third-world countries
that Washington can wipe its ass on then throw away. Oh no... Uncle Scam is after big game now!
These two animals can defend themselves. And this time, they're on the same team.
The rest of the transcript will no doubt appear over the next several hours. I suppose it's better
than waiting until the whole thing is translated before posting anything.
Putin said nothing in this speech that wasn't patently obvious. There is really nothing that could
reasonably be denied because most statements were pure statement of facts. He just said all this
very bluntly. He started his speech by saying that he was going to speak him mind, otherwise he
sees no reason to speak at all.
I am old enough to remember as in early 1990s the American press cried every day all the time
"We won! We won! We are the sole remaining superpower!" I thought: Aren't we supposed to be all
friends now? As it became clear very soon, no, we weren't. We were expected to be servants to
"indispensable" American people destined to rule the Universe. I can't speak for the rest of the
Universe, but that role somehow doesn't appeal to me.
The exceptionalism of the United States, the way they implement their leadership, is it
really a benefit? And their worldwide intervention brings peace and stability, progress and
peak of democracy? Maybe we should relax and enjoy this splendour? No!"
This is a mistranslation. Puting didn't say anything about splendor. He did say "relax
and enjoy" but he was referring to the saying" What should you do when you are being raped? Relax
and try to enjoy". A somewhat different meaning, isn't it?
"There is a lack of critical assessment of the past. But you have to understand that the
current ruling elite is actually the old ruling elite. So they are incapable of a self-critical
approach to the past."
Ryszard Kapuscinski
Are they incapable, or merely unwilling? That is the credibility trap, the inability
to address the key problems because the ruling elite must risk or even undermine their own undeserved
power to do so.
I think this interview below highlights the false dichotomy between communism and free market
capitalism that was created in the 1980's largely by Thatcher's and Reagan's handlers. The dichotomy
was more properly between communist government and democracy, of the primacy of the individual over
the primacy of the organization and the state as embodied in fascism and the real world implementations
of communism in Russia and China.
But we never think of it that way any more, if at all. It is one of the greatest public relation
coups in history. One form of organizational oppression by the Russian nomenklatura was
replaced by the oppression by the oligarchs and their Corporations, in the name of freedom.
Free market capitalism, under the banner of the efficient markets hypothesis, has taken the place
of democratic ideals as the primary good as embodied in the original framing of the Declaration of
Independence and the US Constitution.
It is no accident that the individual and their concerns have become subordinated to the corporate
welfare and the profits of the upper one percent. We even see this in religion with the
'gospel of prosperity.' In their delusion they make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness,
so that after they may be received into their everlasting habitations.
The market as the highest good has stood on the shoulders of the 'greed is good' philosophy promulgated
by the pied pipers of the me generation, and has turned the Western democracies on their
heads, as a series of political leaders have capitulated to this false idol of money as the measure
of all things, and all virtue.
Policy is now crafted to maximize profits as an end to itself without regard to the overall impact
on freedom and the public good. It measures 'costs' in the most narrow and biased of terms, and allocated
wealth based on the subversion of good sense to false economy theories.
Greed is a portion of the will to power. And that madness serves none but itself.
This is a brief excerpt. You may read the entire interview
here.
Henry Giroux on the Rise of Neoliberalism
19 October 2014
By Michael Nevradakis, Truthout
"...We're talking about an ideology marked by the selling off of public goods to private interests;
the attack on social provisions; the rise of the corporate state organized around privatization,
free trade, and deregulation; the celebration of self interests over social needs; the celebration
of profit-making as the essence of democracy coupled with the utterly reductionist notion that
consumption is the only applicable form of citizenship.
But even more than that, it upholds the notion that the market serves as a model for structuring
all social relations: not just the economy, but the governing of all of social life...
That's a key issue. I mean, this is a particular political and economic and social project
that not only consolidates class power in the hands of the one percent, but operates off the assumption
that economics can divorce itself from social costs, that it doesn't have to deal with matters
of ethical and social responsibility, that these things get in the way.
And I think the consequences of these policies across the globe have caused massive suffering,
misery, and the spread of a massive inequalities in wealth, power, and income. Moreover, increasingly,
we are witnessing a number of people who are committing suicide because they have lost their pensions,
jobs and dignity.
We see the attack on the welfare state; we see the privatization of public services, the
dismantling of the connection between private issues and public problems, the selling off of state
functions, deregulations, an unchecked emphasis on self-interest, the refusal to tax the rich,
and really the redistribution of wealth from the middle and working classes to the ruling class,
the elite class, what the Occupy movement called the one percent. It really has created a very
bleak emotional and economic landscape for the 99 percent of the population throughout the world."
"This is a particular political and economic and social project that not only consolidates
class power in the hands of the one percent, but operates off the assumption that economics can
divorce itself from social costs, that it doesn't have to deal with matters of ethical and social
responsibility."
I think that as a mode of governance, it is really quite dreadful because it tends to produce
identities, subjects and ways of life driven by a kind of "survival of the fittest" ethic,
grounded in the notion of the free, possessive individual and committed to the right of individual
and ruling groups to accrue wealth removed from matters of ethics and social cost.
That's a key issue. I mean, this is a particular political and economic and social project
that not only consolidates class power in the hands of the one percent, but operates off the assumption
that economics can divorce itself from social costs, that it doesn't have to deal with matters
of ethical and social responsibility, that these things get in the way. And I think the consequences
of these policies across the globe have caused massive suffering, misery, and the spread of a
massive inequalities in wealth, power, and income. Moreover, increasingly, we are witnessing a
number of people who are committing suicide because they have lost their pensions, jobs and dignity.
We see the attack on the welfare state; we see the privatization of public services, the dismantling
of the connection between private issues and public problems, the selling off of state functions,
deregulations, an unchecked emphasis on self-interest, the refusal to tax the rich, and really
the redistribution of wealth from the middle and working classes to the ruling class, the elite
class, what the Occupy movement called the one percent. It really has created a very bleak emotional
and economic landscape for the 99 percent of the population throughout the world.
And having mentioned this impact on the social state and the 99%, would you go as far
as to say that these ideologies have been the direct cause of the economic crisis the world is
presently experiencing?
Oh, absolutely. I think when you look at the crisis in 2007, what are you looking at? You're
looking at the merging of unchecked financial power and a pathological notion of greed that implemented
banking policies and deregulated the financial world and allowed the financial elite, the one
percent, to pursue a series of policies, particularly the selling of junk bonds and the illegality
of what we call subprime mortgages to people who couldn't pay for them. This created a bubble
and it exploded. This is directly related to the assumption that the market should drive all aspects
of political, economic, and social life and that the ruling elite can exercise their ruthless
power and financial tools in ways that defy accountability. And what we saw is that it failed,
and it not only failed, but it caused an enormous amount of cruelty and hardship across the world.
More importantly, it emerged from the crisis not only entirely unapologetic about what it did,
but reinvented itself, particularly in the United States under the Rubin boys along with Larry
Summers and others, by attempting to prevent any policies from being implemented that would have
overturned this massively failed policy of deregulation.
It gets worse. In the aftermath of this sordid crisis produced by the banks and financial elite,
we have also learned that the feudal politics of the rich was legitimated by the false notion
that they were too big to fail, an irrational conceit that gave way to the notion that they
were too big to jail, which is a more realistic measure of the criminogenic/zombie culture
that nourishes casino capitalism.
If President Vladimir Putin is Russia, as a senior Kremlin official
said this week, then this country is angry, humiliated and suffering from an almost paranoid
fixation on the U.S. as the root of all the world's troubles.
In a
closing speech and question-and-answer session today at Russia's annual state-sponsored Valdai
conference, Putin said he was going to be frank
-- he was more than that. He dived into a long list of slights and wounds inflicted by the U.S. on
Russia and the world since the end of the Cold War, and gave every sign of digging in for a long
period of confrontation.
The U.S., according to Putin, is a global Big Brother that blackmails and bullies its allies while
producing instability and misery around the world. Because the U.S. realizes it no longer has the
ability to succeed as the lone hegemon in an age of rising powers, it is trying to recoup that status
by re-creating the Cold War and producing a new enemy against which to rally countries, he said.
According to Putin's tour of contemporary world history, aggressive U.S. interventionism is responsible
not just for the destabilization of Iraq (which it was) and Libya, but also for Syria (where the
U.S. didn't intervene against President Bashar al-Assad) and the creation of al-Qaeda, the Taliban
and Islamic State. And that's before you get to the Maidan protests and "state coup" this year in
Ukraine.
As for the economic sanctions the European Union has imposed over Russia's annexation of Crimea
and destabilization of Ukraine, that again was all because of pressure from the U.S., he said --
not any action Russia might have taken.
There is plenty of truth salted through Putin's complaints, enough to make him -- as one fawning
Russian state TV anchor put it in what passed for a question -- "the face of resistance" for many
around the world.
What is worrying is that the post 1990s narrative Putin laid out -- in which the U.S. has ignored,
humiliated, encircled and isolated Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union -- is one most Russians
whole-heartedly believe. They, too, can't imagine that ordinary unarmed citizens -- whether in Kiev,
the Arab Spring countries or elsewhere -- might act of their own volition, rather than as pawns in
a U.S. game.
"What's in his mind is what Russia is thinking. It's like you're mad at someone and just let it
out," said Toby Gati, a former U.S. diplomat in the audience. Gati had told Putin she didn't recognize
the U.S. he described, drawing a rare conciliatory comment that he wasn't seeking confrontation.
The wellspring of popular support Putin enjoys for any potential escalation, as unwise as that
would be for Russia's long-term prosperity, allowed him to be defiant on sanctions and fatalistic
on continued bloodshed in Ukraine.
Sure, Putin called for a new rule-based world order and insisted that his country had no ambitions
to re-create the old empire. And no doubt he was talking, on state TV, in part to the home audience.
Yet the broad thrust of his remarks was defiant, arguing that if the U.S. gets to throw its weight
around and break rules, why shouldn't Russia? "What's allowed for Jupiter isn't for the bull," Putin
said. "Well, the bull may not be able to, but the bear isn't going to ask anyone's permission."
There's plenty of blame to go around for allowing the situation to get this bad, but for anyone
who wants to see the Ukraine crisis solved, sanctions lifted and a repaired relationship between
Russia and the U.S. and EU, this was a dark and depressing performance that came close to a threat.
I can't believe I'm saying this...but Putin is right. You want to talk about a system that
should cease to exist, it's this one.
And before you point to the Constitution and say "not gonna happen," there are plans out there
that would render it a moot point, like states pledging to award electors to whoever wins the
popular vote nationwide. And they'd easily pass constitutional muster.
jaysonrex1
Actually, Putin is right. After all these years, it is high the time a constitutional amendment
changes this system for the straight voting method used in the entire world by democracies and
even by dictatorships.
And while we are at it, maybe it is also high the time U.S. abandons the imperial system (it
inherited from Britain - a country that already abandoned it many years ago) and finally adopts
the metric system thus joining the civilized world - so to say.
And while we are at it, U.S. should get rid of the Senate. It serves no useful purpose apart
from representing a unacceptable drain of public funds.
And while we are at it, .....
mvymvy
A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular
Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to
the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all
laws for awarding electoral votes.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No
more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no
longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than
those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the
conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes-that
is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from
all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner
method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored
by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political
parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed,
in the Constitution.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue,
and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with
165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the United States on Friday of endangering the international
order by trying to "remake the whole world" for its own, exclusive interests, and he predicted that
Ukraine would not be the last conflict to embroil the major powers.
Putin charged that the United States has escalated world conflicts by "unilateral diktat" and
by imposing sanctions that he said were aimed at pushing Russia toward "economic weakness," while
he denied that Russia aspires to rebuild an empire or reclaim its Cold War-era stature as a superpower.
"We did not start this," Putin said of the worsening world climate. "These policies started
a few years ago; it hasn't just started today because of sanctions."
The Russian president's comments, among the most incendiary he has ever directed against the United
States, were made during a speech before the Valdai Club, an annual gathering of international analysts
and scholars held this year in the southern Russian city of Sochi, where Russia staged the Winter
Olympic Games earlier this year.
Since then, Russia's annexation of Crimea and involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine have
driven relations between Moscow and Washington to their lowest point since the end of the Cold War.
Putin said the United States had adopted a Cold War victor's mindset that was clouding its
view of the world, leading to "serious delusions" about what changes are needed in the international
system.
"It never ceases to amaze me how our partners have been guilty of making the same mistakes
time and again," Putin said. He said past U.S. support for Islamist extremists had helped to create
the current crises in Iraq and Syria, and he charged that U.S. backing for revolutions in former
Soviet states now contending with chaos - such as Ukraine - were tantamount to "letting the genie
out of the bottle."
magnifco1000
Trust me, if Putin weren't there, Russia would splinter into a dozen nations with half of them
"Islamic States." They'd make ISIL look tame by comparison. Our interests are currently served
with Russia under central control and with leadership that hate the Islamists as much as we do.
magnifco1000
The US approach to Russia is totally idiotic and unproductive. I'm a businessman and know Russia.
These "Russian scholars" from Ivy League schools know nothing. Left over neocons from the
Cold War just make things worse.
Russia should be engaged and worked with. We missed a golden opportunity when the Cold
War ended. We don't have to feel afraid of Russia. It just has a conscript army and can barely
hold it's territory together.
What's the sense of kicking them when they are down.
Giantsmax
from my own objective point of view, it is hard to argue with Putin, I think what he says bears
a lot of truth.
Archy Bunka
It is hard to argue with Putin, because if you are a Russian citizen he will lock you up.
Giantsmax
But since I am an American citizen that is a moot point.
Beau7890
Of course the U.S. is trying to remake the whole world for its own interests. It's been doing
this since the early 20th century. So has Russia. So has every other country that tries to lead
the world-it's always for their own interests.
Wow... Putin practically accused the United States in international terrorism. Never mentioned the
term neoliberalism. Does this suggest that Putin feels that neoliberalism is dead and no longer dangerous?
What if he is wrong ? What if this stance is premature? Even in zombie state neoliberalism is a very
dangerous and resourceful opponent.
... ... ...
Today's discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think
that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice
we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know
this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice
the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information
and social technologies.
Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion's participants
have already said. It's practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions,
but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants' views on some points
and differ on others.
As we analyse today's situation, let us not forget history's lessons. First of all, changes in
the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied
by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global
politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension,
including human rights.
The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have
a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system
of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously
weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural
cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times.
Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time
ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress
that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the
rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system's 'founding fathers' had respect
for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.
The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs
to at least be capable of keeping the world's current problems within certain limits and regulating
the intensity of the natural competition between countries.
It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built
over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without
building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.
What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities
in the system of international relations.
But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this.
Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they
took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.
The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent
agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the
impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape
the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations,
international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system
was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with
a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing
their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.
We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics.
International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity
and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations
and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global
mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.
In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather,
the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes.
This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in
their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.
The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative value for most countries. In essence,
what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's sole power centre,
the greater this or that ruling regime's legitimacy.
We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would
also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I
just set out during the upcoming discussion.
The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested
many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs,
and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention
in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too
that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that
'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest
allies, under surveillance.
Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this
world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and
ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are carrying
out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the
world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax
and enjoy it all?
Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.
A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling
conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing
spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from
open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.
Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along
the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed
by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that
is to say, make the same mistake over and over.
They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their
battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not
supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial
support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central
Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself
did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the
first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners
to the terrible tragedy of September 11.
During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight
terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this
threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement,
but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation
in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into
this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground
for terrorists.
Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from
chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies
started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries
from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists?
Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group,
essentially a real armed force?
As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which
has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition
forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money
from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping
prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from
it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or
later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.
Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state's institutions,
including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving
people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don't forget (rightfully or not) that they
were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?
What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists
were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains
why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very
effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers
of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists
and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all
the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results?
We appealed in vain.
We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences
of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created,
and pay an ever-greater price.
Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only
one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable
construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism,
drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened
the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully
and suppress the weak.
Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries.
The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed
leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is
why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as
a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of
the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be
Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy,
or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.
Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together
coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy
as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if
you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know
this. The United States always told its allies: "We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre
of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you
around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs
for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course." In short, we
see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management,
and all this so as to guarantee their [the US'] exceptional position and reap political and economic
dividends.
But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world's
diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite
effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy
and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one's
own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.
Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and
help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community
faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism
can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in danger", "the free world is under
threat", and "democracy is in jeopardy"? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation
policy looks like.
Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle
of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based
on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited
precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation.
We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests
in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust
is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible
now in many countries.
The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened
the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or their regional
groups' desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already
see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and
are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our
American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics
and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that
politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will
come back to this subject later.
We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that
Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door. Russia is
a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape,
develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure
from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us
alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.
Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block
our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness
in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have
no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road,
trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic
and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business
communities in the leading countries.
Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were probably
spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business partners, above
all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific
region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been
following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw
that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there
is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.
Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large
part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages
in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.
Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also
creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural trends
all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that
European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.
Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global
economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific
areas. This is entirely possible.
There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture
are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations,
including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in
developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.
At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention
to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be
the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle,
an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict
and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible;
we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be
made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not
create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for
managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.
Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with
either direct or indirect participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors include
not justtraditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate
states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states' geopolitical
interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.
Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of
the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will
certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system
of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America
when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about
and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system.
Colleagues, friends,
I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when,
instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction
that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments,
arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however,
without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions,
then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.
Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs.
This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but
insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world,
the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament –
but only serious discussions without any double standards.
With sanctions beginning to bite, Russia is starting to play a new economic game. To alleviate
the pain of Western restrictions on its financial and energy sectors, Russia is turning for help
to non-Western partners. Last week alone, Russia and China signed over 40 agreements that provide
Russian firms with lines of credit worth billions of dollars and establish strategic partnerships
in the energy sector.
The United States, in turn, is looking to step up its own game. Policymakers are considering giving
global companies a choice: stop providing long-term financing and energy assistance to major Russian
companies or be kicked out of the U.S. financial system. Such measures resemble the sanctions the
United States placed on Iran a couple of years ago. But Iran was a different problem. And treating
Russia the same way would be a mistake.
Sanctions can be an effective tool for forcing engagement and negotiation. But the pace and implementation
must be tailored to the target. In the case of Iran, the United States was able to tighten the screws
by pressuring foreign firms to stop dealing with the country. That move created some angry blowback,
but it generally worked. And partially as a result, Tehran is at the negotiating table. When it comes
to Russia, though, the political pushback that would come from blacklisting dealings with the strategic
Russian energy and banking sectors would be much more severe because Russia is a more important market.
Further, more companies would likely be willing to forego access to U.S. markets in order to continue
working with the Russians. And that would undermine the sanctions' effectiveness.
More generally, policymakers in the United States should be wary of continually relying on sanctions
that penalize foreign firms by preventing their access to U.S. markets. Ultimately, such a strategy
could backfire. At some point, foreign companies may decide that doing business in U.S. markets
-- and being subject to U.S. sanctions policies -- is simply not worth it. That would hurt the
U.S. economy and diminish the United States' ability to use economic levers to advance its foreign
policy.
Kiev doesn't bother to enforce the Geneva conventions. The army behaves in the Donbass as occupiers.
They consider the local population as a hostile ethnic group like in any civil war.
A casing carrying cluster munitions that landed in a shed. Press officers for the Ukrainian military
denied that their troops had used cluster weapons in the conflict. Credit Sergey Ponomarev for The
New York Times
DONETSK, Ukraine - The Ukrainian Army appears to have fired cluster munitions on several occasions
into the heart of Donetsk, unleashing a weapon banned in much of the world into a rebel-held city
with a peacetime population of more than one million, according to physical evidence and interviews
with witnesses and victims.
Sites where rockets fell in the city on Oct. 2 and Oct. 5 showed clear signs that cluster munitions
had been fired from the direction of army-held territory, where misfired artillery rockets still
containing cluster bomblets were found by villagers in farm fields.
The two attacks wounded at least six people and killed a Swiss employee of the International Red
Cross based in Donetsk.
If confirmed, the use of cluster bombs by the pro-Western government could complicate efforts
to reunite the country, as residents of the east have grown increasingly bitter over the Ukrainian
Army's tactics to oust pro-Russian rebels
... ... ...
On the morning of Oct. 5, Boris V. Melikhov, 37, was chopping wood outside his house in the Gladkovka
neighborhood of Donetsk when he heard the loud clap of an explosion from the street.
His first sensation was "a strong push in the back," and he sprawled onto the grass. More explosions
followed, showering Mr. Melikhov with dust and dirt. Unable to stand, he crawled toward a spigot
in the garden, bleeding profusely and desperate for water.
"I felt the blood running down my back, down my leg," he recalled in an interview last week from
his bed in a hospital, where his uncle took him after the attack. Doctors there found several identical
metal fragments in his leg, chest, shoulder and hand.
Hundreds of such fragments, each about the size of a thumbtack, were sprayed out by at least 11
cluster bomblets that exploded on Mr. Melikhov's street that morning. The 9N210 bomblets are carried
in surface-to-surface Uragan (Hurricane) rockets that are fired from the backs of trucks and have
a range of roughly 22 miles.
Part of one of the rockets smashed into a street a few blocks away, and the impact crater indicated
it had come from the southwest.
The same morning, sunflower farmers near Novomikhailovka, a small village about 20 miles southwest
of Mr. Melikhov's house, saw rockets sailing almost directly overhead toward Donetsk. Local people
said in interviews that the army had been launching Uragan rockets from there for more than a week.
"Trust me, when it is day after day after day, you get to know your Grad launches from your Uragan
launches," said one farmer, who asked not to be named for fear of retribution for discussing Ukrainian
military positions.
... ... ...
Uragan rockets can carry 30 of the submunitions, which look like metal cans with fins. Those bomblets
in turn hold small pieces of chopped steel rod. The rocket releases the bomblets over a wide area,
and the bomblets either explode on impact, flinging out lethal steel fragments, or land unexploded
and effectively become land mines. Children often mistake them for toys.
At the Red Cross headquarters in Donetsk, Human Rights Watch researchers accompanied by a Times
reporter documented 19 distinct impacts of cluster submunitions from the Oct. 2 attack. Judging by
impact craters from rockets fired in the same salvo, the researchers said, the strike came from the
southwest.
A witness to the Oct. 2 launch in Novomikhailovka told the reporter about the malfunctioning rockets
in the fields. Other witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch on the evening of Oct. 2 confirmed
that rockets had been fired from just south of the village toward Donetsk.
An advocacy group called the Cluster Munitions Coalition has been pressing Ukraine to join the
international convention banning the stockpiling or use of the weapons. (Russia and the United States
have not joined it, either.) The group's director, Sarah Blakemore, wrote to the Ukrainian Foreign
Ministry in July after images were published appearing to show the use of cluster munitions against
rebel positions in the cities of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk.
She said in a telephone interview that she had received no reply. "When I say they neither confirmed
or denied, I mean they really just did not do anything," Ms. Blakemore said.
... ... ...
In Donetsk, doctors in a city hospital and morgue said they had found cluster-munitions fragments
in several patients, including Mr. Melikhov, whose spine was nicked by one on Oct. 5. He was lucky
not to have been paralyzed, but the injury made it very painful to sit, stand or lie flat, he said.
"I see it as the senseless destruction of the southeast," he said of the attack. "There's something
wrong in their head."
Left-biased, but still very interesting assessment of the situation. Especially in the first part
(the first 14 questions) Quote: "All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based
on similar strategies (i.e. mobilizing a social response based on discontent) have no future, because
Russia does not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm of Illusion of Hope. "
Un amable lector de este blog ha realizado un resumen en inglés de nuestro artículo Las catedrales
del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar; es un resumen diferente al que nosotros hubiéramos hecho,
pero de interés sin duda alguna. Ha sido publicado como apoyo a una pregunta en un coloquio con el
economista ruso Mikhail Khazin organizado por The vineyard of the saker. Publicaremos aquí la respuesta.
Question: Does Russia represent an alternative to the current western economic/social model?
Or is this view an illusion based only on the conflict between some traditional vs. post-modern values?
/ Arturo
For context to the question I will provide a translation / paraphrase / summary of some key points
in the following article Las catedrales del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar
The article contains and numbers many more points (36 in total) but I have translated/summarized
only the first 14 (the rest is provided is a very raw translation --NNB)
Moscow cannot defeat the American plans – i.e. the Anglo Zionist world elite – without
contradicting the class interests of its own elites (Russian oligarchs): This is impossible
because the system of sanctions and the blocking of access to their accounts and assets in the
West generates such contradictions in the Russian power elites that, in practice, it prevents
them from reacting adequately; it puts them on their knees before the American plans.
Russia *could* resist those plans, since it possesses the strength, sense of identity,
historical memory and material resources to do so. But in order to do so, its ruling elites would
have to take measures that would affect their own class status within both the Russian system
and the international system. And we can see that these are measures they are not willing
to take. On the other hand, the Anglo Zionists suffer no such internal contradiction. Quite the
opposite, in fact: Their own interest as the supporting base of the globalist hyperclass necessarily
forces them to maintain the challenge to the end.
By the term Anglo Zionists, in this analysis, we mean the dominant power group whose territorial
and military base resides in the United States, and whose center originates in the historical
and social links of the Anglo-American oligarchies, branching off to other historical central
metropolis in Europe or other power centers in different parts of the world.
The concept is made up of two elements that must be explained: the first, the "anglo" reference,
has to do with the North American British connection [...] the second, the "zionist" reference,
has to do with the interconnection among the economic and financial power groups that maintain
various kinds of links with Israel. It is not so much a reference to ethnic origin, but rather
to orientations as groups or lobbies of political and economic interests. A good part of this
Zionist component consists of people who are neither Israelis nor Jews, but who feel identified
with the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, Britain and other countries. Thus the term "zionist"
referees here to an ideology, not to an ethnic origin.
The Anglo elites on both sides of the Atlantic have evolved from being national elites
to being the executive base of a world Hyperclass made up of individuals capable of exerting a
determining influence in the most powerful nation, the United States.
The result of the Anglo Zionist line of attack is that the contradiction and internal struggle
is now occurring in Moscow between those who have already chosen to sell out and those who have
not yet found the time to realize that a multipolar global capitalism is not viable.
In this context, recovering Crimea was a mirage, an illusion.
If we compare the implications of the Maidan coup in Kiev with the liberation of Crimea, we
see that the strategic defeat implicit in losing Ukraine as an ally is of such magnitude that
everything else pales by co s (all of them) in Kiev was so gigantic that its implications are
frightening. It was either a failure or something even worse. In any case, the Crimea affair was
merely a small episode in a confrontation that Russia is losing.
Russia arrived very late at modern capitalism, and that is why its current elite will
be unable to occupy a space among the globalist elite without paying the necessary toll, which
is none other than renouncing its territorial power base – its country and its access to
and control of its energy resources and raw materials.
Stubbornly maintaining the dispute in trying to obtain a multi-polar capitalism, leads necessarily
to a intra-capitalist confrontation, as it did in 1914-1918. And because of the nature of the
current actors, nuclear powers … it brings the conflict to 2.0 war versions (color revolutions)
All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based on similar strategies
(i.e. mobilizing a social response based on discontent) have no future, because Russia does
not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm of Illusion of Hope. It
can only elicit some empathy from those who reject the American domination, but here the class
contradictions come into play again, because it is not enough to oppose Washington merely on political-military
grounds, since the key to global power resides in the financial and military structures that
enable global control and plunder: World Trade Organization, IMF, Free Trade agreements, World
Bank, NATO… these are entities in relation to which Russia only shows its displeasure at
not being invited to the table as an equal, not accepting that because it arrived late at modern
capitalism, it must play a secondary role. On the other hand, Russia is ignoring the deep contempt,
bordering on racism, that things Slavic generate among Anglo Zionist elites.
In order to be able to fight the 2.0 versions of war that are engineered today, an alternative
social model is needed. Alternative not only in regard to the postmodern vs. traditional
sets of values, but fundamentally in regard to the social model that stems from the modes of production.
In the postmodern vs. traditional conflict, Russia tends to align with the most reactionary values.
And in regard to the social struggle, they don't want to enter that fray because they renounced
it long ago. They renounced the entire Soviet Union, which they destroyed from within.
The contradictions and the dialectical nature of reality have their own logic, however. Thus,
a coup in Kiev and the widespread appearance of Nazi symbols in the streets of Ukraine was all
that it took to induce a spontaneous reaction in the Slavic world. The popular resistance in the
Donbass took strong root thanks to the historic memory of the people's of the old USSR and its
war against fascism.
If Russia were to abandon Novorossia to the oligarchs and their mafias, the world's "left"
– or whatever remains of it - would come to scorn post-Soviet Russia even more than it already
does. In the months following the brave action in Crimea and the heroic resistance in the Donbass,
many people around the world looked to Moscow in search of some sign that it would support the
anti-fascist and anti-oligarchic resistance, even if only as an act of self-defense by Moscow
against the globalist challenge. If it finally abandons Novorossia, the price in terms of loss
of moral prestige will be absolute.
A support of the left has not been sought, but that is a collateral consequence of the character
of class struggle open that has been given in the Donbas, where Russia has been forced to provide
some assistance that would prevent the genocide at the hands of the fascist Ukrainian.
Cuando say left, we refer logically to the one who has expressed their support to the struggle
of people in the Donbas, as it is very difficult to consider the "left" to those who have preferred
to remain silent or to have directly been complicit in the assault, and the coup in Kiev.
The degradation of the left as politically active social force is very intense, their structures
are embroiled in the collapse, or in the confusion, when not literally corrupt. Then related to
both socialist parties since 1914 and the communists, at least from the time of fracture of 1956.
The social changes experienced in Europe with the systems of welfare state, based on the elevation
of the standard of living of the working population and the obtaining of social peace by sharing
the power with the trade unions are at the base of the post-industrial society and the resulting
profound changes of values.
The suicide of the USSR in 1989-93 marked a brutal global change , in which the balance which
was preserved during the cold war was broken. That led to the capitalist elite in the west, which
we are calling the Anglo-Zionists, to the suspension of the social pact (forced abandonment of
New Deal), that gave rise to the welfare state and the emergence stark reality of a global power
of capitalists without systemic opposition . Today the whole neoliberal globalization system of
capitalism is in danger by the depletion of the natural resources. And to sustain this mode of
production, they need to speed up territorial domination in the form of control and access to
resources of other countries. Now there no space in the global system for spaces, which are managed
autonomously even to a certain level.
The system of global domination, capitalism, ruling elites with a territorial basis in the
area of Anglo-American, global parasitic Hyperclass and depletion of resources, as well as cannibalization
of the other nations, in the midst of troika of crisis of climate change, peak of the energy and
raw materials shortages. those three factors that challenge the current globalization framework
... And the crisis of Novorossia, been demonstrated both impotence and the lack of real political
autonomy of Russian elite with the respect to the dominant power in neoliberal worlds order..
The new citizen movements in the western world are not so much resistance movements as samples
of the discontent of the middle classes in precarious position of marginalization and/or social
trance. This protest led to a "Maidans" which are not permanent and does not question the basis
of the system. The participants seems to believe that it is possible to restore the old good world
of the welfare state.
The western movements are brainwashed by messages emanating from the headquarters of Democratic
party of North America, the propaganda anarcho-capitalist and the various networks of ideological
interference, are managing to break the bonds of historical memory that unite the struggles of
the past with the present, de-ideologize the struggles and conflicts and to deny the tension left
and right, isolating the militants -- or simple citizens who feel identified with the values of
the left - of the masses who are suffering in the first place casualisation. At the heart of this
new "left" are leaders that are co-opted voices, pseudo-intellectuals who destroy the words and
empty of content of key concepts in a way that the alienation of the masses demonstrate at the
language itself, thus preventing putting a real name to social process and things, and to identify
the social phenomena.
Viva to Russia, which the only country which eve in a weak form decided to fight neoliberal
world order and position itself as an anti-imperialist force... It is interesting to observe the
current great moral confusion in political landscape of the societies in decay. Confusion which
have been stimulated by Moscow actions. As the result some the far-right groups that are simultaneously
anti-US that anti-Russian now support Moscow. Also some part of Russia far-right political groups
got the sympathy and support of factions of the anti EU far right forces in France, the Nazis
of the MSR in Spain, and from small groups of euro-asianists. This line of political affiliation
will allow them to simply join the Russia failure [to find alternative to monopolar neoliberal
capitalism] and might well discredit then more profoundly in the future.
The euro-asianists forces technically speaking are reactionary forces, neoliberal forces which
is comparable to the worst of the worst in the western world. Moreover, they do not have any way
to solve the main contradictions that arise in the current neoliberal model in the terms of class
and dominance of Anglo Zionist global elite.
Euro-Asianism is just a suitable ideology for the construction of Russian national idea for
those who seeks to achieve lease to life for Russia sovereignty on the world stage. It is the
actual proof that Russia has come too late to globalised capitalism and fascism...
Huttington and his war of civilizations cynically exploit this confrontation on Anglo Zionist
elite and newcomers, redefining it along the idea of the clash of civilizations which avoid using
the notion of class and thus is ideologically false. Alexander Duguin who promote similar ideas
quite seriously just shows the degree of degeneration of the Russian intelligentsia, which oscillates
between serving as comprador class to the global Anglo Zionist elite and the repetition (as a
farce, and with 75 years of delay ) of fascist reactionary revolutions in Western Europe, which
were phenomenon of the interwar period (rexistas in Belgium, Croix de feu in France, CruzFlechados
in Hungary, Requetés and Falangistas in Spain).
The globalist elite offered a solution formulated in class terms, as it could not be another
way: in the best cases, they proposes the co-optation to a handful of members of the Russian elite
as deserving members of the new global Hyperclass, but this path is opened only the very very
rich, and the pre-condition is the delivery of the country to plunder, where the global elite
certainly would have need of some compradors which will be more or less adequately compensated
depending on their achievements and sacrifices in the name of global neoliberal domination.
The part of the power elite of Russia, which managed to expel the western compradors of the
Yeltsin era, and rein in the oligarchs then, had tried with some success to regain control of
the territory of the country. The illusion of the members of this part of the power elite -- basically
the security services, both civil and military, and various synergies of those with the military-industrial
lobby -- is that it would be enough to neutralize the Russian fifth column of the Anglo Zionists
to take back control of their territorial base of power. this idea is going to be shredded into
pieces when it enter into contradiction with the reality of the class struggle and interests of
the elite at the global level. Russia is, for its size, influence, and resources, so huge that
a line of action based on the defense of its sovereignty strategic enters in collision with the
global power of neoliberalism. And that why it attracts disproportional reaction of the Anglo
Zionists
Supporters of Anglo Zionists that are ready to consent to a German-Russian alliance or Russia-EU
alliance that give the viability of a idea of mutually beneficial co-development of both Russia
and Europe are forgetting that such an action would require European sovereignty. Which is was
non-existent iether on the level of the EU, or on the level of member states. The penetration
of the Atlantism in Europe is already systemic. In the old European states there are still ancient
national traditions, which were based on the basis of cultural, industrial, economic, and political
identity. And they still run strong. But in the current situation for such states there no space
for the sovereignty as the dominant power bloc in the national elite as well as in EU elite are
Atlantists. Where this situation takes the Russian elite and the Russian state without confrontation?
A confrontation that they, on the other hand are not willing and are not able to pursue.
The multi-polar capitalist world had its lifespan which come to an end (exploded) in 1914.
In 2014, the globalization of the elites and the capital is of such magnitude that no serious
resistance is possible on the basis of some capitalist model. In those conditions the idea of
Russian elite ability to enforce change to multipolar version of the currently monopolar neoliberal
world is doomed to be a failure.
Zbigniew Brezinsky has raised things crudely and openly, unlike the ("fake") supporters of
perestroika, and their current heirs in Russia. Brezinsky know how to think in terms of the class
contradiction and knows perfectly well that the Russian oligarchy has directed its monetary
flows abroad, moved families abroad, and moved their investments abroad. That means that
Anglo Zionistscan disrupt any claim of sovereignty over the territory and resources
by simply pressing the local neoliberal elite, giving them to choose between their interests as
a class and their illusionary desire for sovereignty. Because in a globalized world, with its
brutal fight for the natural resources there is no possibility of maintaining both, except what
can be achieved in terms of direct anti-imperialist struggle. There is no space for the national
bourgeoisies in the XXI century. You can only have sovereignty if it is posed in terms of a rupture
with the actually existing neoliberal order of global capitalism, which, in its core is Anglo
Zionistsglobalization. This break does not have to be forced, but in terms of scientific
analysis of the social processes is a logical consequence of following this path one way or the
other. To claim sovereignty over their own resources and territory inevitably leads to confrontation,
and logical needs a break up and confront the Anglo Zionist empire. If you really want to achieve
the goal. And that fact imposes the logic of the relationships and balance of power in the world
today.
The claims of the BRIC countries -- to the extent that you do not question them -- is that
they have an alternative model to the dominant neoliberal capitalism model (Ango Zionist globalization
with the center in the USA) are doomed to be a failure. The efforts of the BRIC countries can
generate a lot of noise and discomfort for the West, but they can not break the global neoliberal
system. Those countries are rightfully fearful of their budget balances -- which are very fragile.
It can be even said that they are on their way to implosion sooner or later, due to the unbalanced
structure of their internal classes, including first of all their own elite.
The claim that it is possible to achieve the multipolar capitalist world (which Russia defends)
and which led to current Ukrainian crisis without confrontation is false. As soon as Russia wanted
to return to the global chessboard. as an independent player, they instantly saw opponents attacking
weak elements of their defense at the borders. Ukraine has been a defeat for Russia and the Crimea
is not a adequate compensation for loss of Ukraine. Now Novorossia is being sacrificed precisely
because the class contradictions that have emerged in Moscow and lack of desire of Russian elite
to go the bitter end.
The situation in the Donbas / Novorossia clearly shows the resignation of Moscow to the victory,
and their desire to avoid the clash with neoliberal world order. The fact is that Royal Dutch
Shell has already begun the fracking in the Donbas, the coup regime in Kiev are already internationally
accepted without reservations, the truce imposed in Novorossia has brought to its knees the armed
resistance to junta. All this leads way to deliver Novorossia to the hands of mafias sponsored
by the local oligarchs with friends in Kiev and Moscow.
Statement that the destiny of Russia was played in the Donbas is something more than a phrase,
It is a claim based on a reality, as the defeat of Novorossia would be the proof that Moscow had
not the will to struggle. The betrayal of the fighters and the hopes of Novorossia is the acceptance
of the defeat and might lead in the future to the victory to the Moscow Maidan, the same alliance
of compradors and nationalists using which as storm troopers the globalist elite achieved their
goal in Ukraine. If Novorossia is defeated, they can expect being able to push a puppet into the
Kremlin the same way. And not without reason. This summer, the heroic struggle of the militia
of the Donbas was the key element that forced the changes of the script designed for Kiev as well
as diminished chances of successful application of the same methods in Moscow. The Minsk Agreements
and the truce imposed by them are putting Novorossia on its knees, allowing for its destruction,
but this time at the hands of their allies. Sad spectacle for the Russian security services, which
were effective enough to organize the Donbas resistance, but now are useless and powerless before
the neofascist Kiev junta.
The struggle of the Donbas does not correspond to the strategic interests of the Russian elite.
They have been forced to intervene to prevent the horror of the mass murder of the population
of the Donbas at the hands of the extreme right. But the dream of a Donbas free of oligarchs and
with a sovereign state, committed to social justice for workers on this Slavic land are completely
incompatible with the post-soviet status quo. Only to the extent that there is a significant faction
of Russian elite aware of the contradictions of the global neoliberal game and who put their sense
of patriotism first can lead them to face the challenge that they face. Only in this case there
would be any possibility of resistance; I would say patriotic resistance, because we already know
no one at the top is able to think in terms of class.
While very unlikely - there can be a move from February to October in Novorossia. You would
say impossible. But he insurrection of the Donbas in March, logically was "February". In order
to achieve victory, to take full control over the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk needs creation
of the Revolutionary Military Council and suspension of the upcoming elections. which looking
to be a smokescreen for capitulation to junta. They need to declare that they are ready to resist
to the end. This output would be desperate move, without a doubt, and would represent the equivalent
of a new "October". The event which of it occurs would force Moscow to show their cards to their
own population. And perhaps it can help to generate a pulse necessary for the organization of
the fight with Anglo Zionists empire between the towers of the Kremlin. That would move the fight
toward more patriotic and popular goals, But this presuppose a lot of assumptions and first of
all that such a "Kremlin tower", which is capable of emitted such a pulse, exists. Only in this
case we can talk about achieving a real sovereignty. As Vasily Záitsev in Stalingrad suggested:
"Maybe we're doomed, but for the moment we are still the masters and lords of our land." In Novorossia
there are plenty of fighters who would agree with Záitsev, but they certainly lack political direction
and, now the lack the support of Kremlin.
The Russian objective is achieving a multipolar capitalism with a Russia united under a nationalist
ideology based on the manipulation of patriotic sentiment, Orthodoxy and various Slavic myths.
This objective is being challenged by the reality of the conflict, which should be defined in
terms of geopolitical goals. The reality is that the Russian elite would be allowed to control
their population as they wish, provided they renounce its sovereignty over territory and resources,
renounce their physical power base, i.e. homeland. This is the nature of the challenge. Putin
is mistaken if he thinks that the Grand Patriarch has the answer in their holy books. There is
not enough incense in the Kremlin cathedrals to mask that reality."
Compare argumentation with Sociología crítica To be a neoliberal
society and be free from US dominance is not very realistic until oil became at least twice more expensive
and neoliberal model of globalization start collapsing. While critique of the US policy is up to the
point, what is the alternative to the current situation? Russia is weaker then the USA neoliberal state
and so far it does not look like it decided to abandon neoliberalism. And if not, then what is the point
of confrontation ? Clearly the USA has geopolitical ambitions in Eastern Europe. And they want to exploit
their status as the pre-eminent neo-liberal state, like Moscow was for socialist camp, so to speak to
squeeze Russia, as a dissident state, which deviates from neoliberal agenda. Ukraine just fall victim
of this squeezing. Collateral damage so to speak. And the key problem with Ukraine neither the USA nor
EU want to compensate the damage their actions inflicted, to offer Marshall plan to Kiev.
...There is growing evidence of the contradiction between the need for collective, cooperative
efforts to provide adequate responses to challenges common to all, and the aspirations of a number
of countries for domination and the revival of archaic bloc thinking based on military drill discipline
and the erroneous logic of "friend or foe."
The US-led Western alliance that portrays itself as a champion of democracy, rule of law and human
rights within individual countries，acts from a completely opposite position in the international
arena, rejecting the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states enshrined in the UN
Charter and tires to decide for everyone what is good or bad.
Washington has openly declared its right to the unilateral use of force anywhere to uphold its
own interests. Military interference has become common, even despite the dismal outcome of the use
of power that the US has carried out in recent years.
The sustainability of the international system has been severely shaken by NATO bombardment of
Yugoslavia, intervention in Iraq, the attack against Libya and the failure of the operation in Afghanistan.
Thanks only to intensive diplomatic efforts, an aggression against Syria was averted in 2013.
There is the involuntary impression that the goal of various "colour revolutions" and other goals
to change unsuitable regimes is to provoke chaos and instability.
Today, Ukraine has fallen victim to such an arrogant policy. The situation there has revealed
the remaining deep-rooted systemic flaws of the existing architecture in the Euro-Atlantic area.
The West has embarked upon a course towards "the vertical structuring of humanity" tailored
to its own hardly inoffensive standards. After they declared victory in the Cold War and the "end
of history," the US and the EU opted for expanding the geopolitical area under their control without
taking into account the balance of legitimate interests of all the people of Europe. Our Western
partners did not heed our numerous alerts on the unacceptability of the violation of the principles
of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, and time and again avoided serious cooperative work
to establish a common space of equal and indivisible security and cooperation from the Atlantic to
the Pacific. The Russian proposal to draft a European security treaty was rejected. We were told
directly that only the members of the North Atlantic Alliance could have the legally binding guarantees
of security, and NATO expansion to the East continued in spite of the promises to the contrary given
previously. NATO's change toward hostile rhetoric and to the drawdown of its cooperation with Russia
even to the detriment of the West's own interests, and the additional build-up of the military
infrastructure at Russian borders made the inability of the alliance to change its genetic code embedded
during the Cold War era obvious.
The US and the EU supported the coup in Ukraine and reverted to outright justification of any
act by the self-proclaimed Kiev authorities that used suppression by force on the part of the Ukrainian
people that had rejected the attempts to impose an anti-constitutional way of life to the entire
country and wanted to defend its rights to a native language, culture and history. It was precisely
the aggressive assault on these rights that compelled the population of Crimea to take destiny into
its own hands and make a choice in favor of self-determination. This was an absolutely free choice
no matter what has been invented by those who were, in the first place, responsible for the internal
conflict in Ukraine.
The attempts to distort the truth and to hide the facts behind blanket accusations have been undertaken
at all stages of the Ukrainian crisis. Nothing has been done to track down and prosecute those
responsible for February's bloody events at Maidan and the massive loss of human life in Odessa,
Mariupol and other regions in Ukraine. The scale of appalling humanitarian disaster provoked
by the acts of the Ukrainian army in southeastern Ukraine has been deliberately underscored. Recently,
new horrible facts have been brought to light as mass graves were discovered in the outskirts of
Donetsk. Despite UNSC Resolution 2166 a thorough and independent investigation of the circumstances
into the loss of the Malaysian airliner over the territory of Ukraine has been protracted. The culprits
of all these crimes must be identified and brought to justice. Otherwise it is unrealistic to expect
a national reconciliation in Ukraine.
... ... ...
Let me recall the not too distant past. As a condition for establishing diplomatic relations with
the Soviet Union in 1933 the U.S. government demanded of Moscow the guarantees of non-interference
in the domestic affairs of the US and obligations not to take any actions with a view to changing
political or social order in America. At that time Washington feared a revolutionary virus and the
above guarantees were put on record and were based on reciprocity. Perhaps, it makes sense to
return to this item and reproduce that demand of the US government on a universal scale. Shouldn't
the General Assembly adopt a declaration on the unacceptability of interference into the domestic
affairs of sovereign states and non-recognition of a coup as a method for changing power? The time
has come to exclude from international interaction the attempts of illegitimate pressure of some
states on others. The meaningless and counterproductive nature of unilateral sanctions is obvious
if we review the US blockade of Cuba.
The policy of ultimatums and philosophy of supremacy and domination do not meet the requirements
of the 21st century and run counter to the objective process of development for a polycentric
and democratic world order.
Russia is promoting a positive and unifying agenda. We always were and will be open to discussion
of the most complex issues no matter how unsolvable they would seem in the beginning. We will be
prepared to search for compromises and the balancing of interests and go as far as to exchange concessions
provided only that the discussion is respectful and equal.
... ... ...
New dividing lines in Europe should not be allowed, even more so given that under globalization
these lines can turn into a watershed between the West and the rest of the world. It should be stated
honestly that no one has a monopoly on truth and that no one can tailor global and regional processes
to one's own needs. There is no alternative today to the development of consensus regarding the rules
of sustainable global governance under new historical circumstances - with full respect for cultural
and civilizational diversity in the world and the multiplicity of the models of development. It will
be a difficult and perhaps tiresome task to achieve such a consensus on every issue. Nevertheless
the recognition of the fact that democracy in every state is the "worst form of government, except
for all the others" also took time to break through, until Winston Churchill passed his verdict.
The time has come to realize the inevitability of this axiom including in international affairs where
today there is a huge deficit of democracy. Of course someone will have to break up centuries-old
stereotypes and abandon the claims to eternal uniqueness. But there is no other way. Consolidated
efforts can only be built on the principles of mutual respect and by taking into account the interests
of each other as is the case, for example, under the framework of BRICS and the SCO, the G20 and
the UN Security Council.
The theory of the advantages of cooperative action has been supported by practice: this includes
progress in the settlement of the situation around the Iranian nuclear program and the successful
conclusion of the chemical demilitarization of Syria. Also, regarding the issue of chemical weapons,
we would like to obtain authentic information on the condition of the chemical arsenals in Libya.
We understand that our NATO colleagues, after bombing this country in violation of a UNSC Resolution,
would not like to "stir up"" the mayhem they created. However, the problem of uncontrolled Libyan
chemical arsenals is too serious to turn a blind eye to. The UN Secretary General has an obligation
to show his responsibility on this issue as well.
What is important today is to see the global priorities and avoid making them hostages to a unilateral
agenda. There is an urgent need to refrain from double standards in the approaches to conflict settlement.
Everybody largely agrees that it is a key issue to resolutely counter the terrorists who are attempting
to control increasingly larger territories in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and the Sahara-Sahel area.
If this is the case then this task should not be sacrificed to ideological schemes or a desire to
retaliate. Terrorists, no matter what their slogans, should remain outside the law.
Moreover, it goes without saying that the fight against terrorism should be based solidly on international
law. The unanimous adoption of a number of UNSC Resolutions including those on the issue of foreign
terrorist operatives became an important stage in this fight. And conversely, the attempts to act
against the Charter of our Organization do not contribute to the success of cooperative efforts.
The struggle against terrorists in Syria should be structured in cooperation with the Syrian government,
which has clearly stated its willingness to join it. Damascus has already proven its ability to work
with the international community by delivering on its obligations under the programme to dispose
of its chemical weapons.
Today I am submitting to your attention two interesting documents. A speech by "ex-oligarch and mobster
now turned democratic activist" Mikhail Khodorkovsky and a reply to that speech by Igor Strelkov.
Make no mistake, there is a war going on. True, it has not yet turned into a shooting
war with armies on both sides unleashing their power, but this is a war nevertheless. This war opposes,
on one hand, the 1% ruling elites of the AngloZionist Empire and their allies in Russia - we can
call them the "5th column" or the "Atlantic Integrationists" - and on the other hand, the Russian
"Eurasian Sovereignists" and their allies in the rest of the world, including the many supporters
of a sovereign and independent Russia in the West. This war has many "fronts" including, of course,
the one between in Novorussia and Banderastan, but there are many more. There is one in Syria, Iran
and Iraq. There is another one right inside the EU. There is another front in Far East Asia, along
the Taiwan Strait, and yet another one in Latin America. In the recent past, these fronts could also
be found running across the Serbian Krajina in Croatia, the border between Israel and Lebanon and
in Chechnia. In fact, this is the first truly a *planetary war* and there are "fronts" everywhere.
Even the Muslim "umma" is deeply split between those who support (US backed) Saudi Wahabism and those
who oppose it (lead by Iran).
Right now, the most important one of these fronts runs across the Donbass, but this can change
tomorrow.
One of these fronts runs across the Russian society. Khodorkovsky is the iconic symbol and spokesman
for the "Atlantic Integrationist" camp while Strelkov is the iconic symbol and spoksman for the "Eurasian
Sovereignist" camp. Please read both of their manifestos and compare them - you will see that the
differences between these two worldviews are not only deep, they are mutually irreconcilable.
A big "thank you!!" to "A" who translated the Strelkov manifesto for this blog.
The following is the prepared
text of the speech delivered by Mikhail Khodorkovsky at the 2014 Freedom House Awards Dinner on October
1. The text was originally posted
here.
The European choice, social justice and national mobilization
1. There is a legend about how nearly 200 years ago, the Russian political émigrés of that time
asked the Russian court historian Karamzin for the news about what was happening in the Motherland.
Karamzin thought for a moment and then replied with a single word: "Stealing". Little has changed
in Russia since those times. Except maybe that the stealing has become even more sophisticated. Everything
gets stolen in Russian, but the main thing – and this is unique, I suppose – is that in Russia even
time gets stolen.
2. A little over 10 years ago I flew away from the USA to Russia, in order to strike out 10 years
from my life and the life of my family. These ten years were taken away from me. In exchange I received
some unique life experience that allowed me to rethink if not everything, then certainly a very large
part of what I had been living by and what I had believed in the previous decade. But there is no
way to bring back the time.
3. But the worst thing that I discovered when I got out of prison was that those ten years had
been stolen not only from me, they had been stolen from the entire country. Time had struck the Putin
decade out of Russia's life. Concealed behind a façade of outward prosperity is the fact that the
country has stopped its development. Not only that, in most areas it has been flung back far into
the distant past: politically, economically, psychologically. The profusion of goods in the stores
and the abundance of money in people's pockets should not fool anybody. The regime can not take credit
for this; it is a function of the oil market.
4. But that is not all. It turns out that the regime has robbed not only Russia, . It is trying
to throw the whole world back into the era of the cold war (if not a hot one), when disputes are
resolved at the point of a gun, while one's superiority is proven not by rates of economic growth,
but by military aggression. Russia and the world have come to a very dangerous point, beyond which
looms a Third World War.
The return to Europe
5. A return to the European values that lie at the foundation of the Euro-Atlantic civilization,
– a mental and political return – is the starting point for the new political course that could help
Russia work its way out of the historical snare it is now in. Russia has just two ways it can go
– forward into the post-industrial era together with Europe, or back into the Middle Ages , and after
that into outright non-existence.
6. All that my country has today, everything that it considers truly "its own", everything that
has allowed it to become a great power and that is now its "calling card": space exploration, the
nuclear shield, literature and art, the high level of education and science (which even thirty years
of "timelessness" were incapable of destroying) – was created within the scope of the European cultural
tradition, in interaction with European culture and within the milieu of European culture. All of
the deeds of spiritual valor of the Russian people, all of the innumerable sacrifices they have brought
to the altar of their independence, were performed within the fold of the Christian tradition, which
was and remains European in its nature.
7. A break with the West, with its values and its knowledge, is a dangerous step, one that leads
to Russia losing its true cultural identity. The "Eurasianism" that is being actively forced upon
society as the new totalitarian ideology is nothing more than a verbose justification for militant
ignorance and barbarism. In order to preserve Russia as a single, independent, and sovereign state,
it is imperative to return it to that path of development which it had followed in achieving its
glory.
8. European values (or Euro-Atlantic, as it is now the common practice to call them) are first
and foremost values of a strong and just state with effective institutions and laws that work. Russia
needs these no less than any other people in the world do. Russia needs a law-based state and an
open economy not because this will please Western Europe and America, but so it can work together
with the Euro-Atlantic world – and if necessary compete with it as well – on equal terms. Peter the
Great did not build the Russian army based on European models just to make the Swedes happy.
9. Whoever wants to be strong must not allow himself to fall behind. Russia can not and shut itself
off from progress with some sort of Chinese Wall (in the literal and the figurative sense of this
word). Anti-Western hysteria is a manifestation of psychological insecurity and fear of competition
on the part of those fringe elements who are today's elite in Russia. Churchill once said that the
reason there is no anti-semitism in England is because the English do not think they are any stupider
than Jews. We have no reason to fear Europe, because we are no stupider than other Europeans.
10. To be together with Europe does not mean dissolving into Europe. Russia has both its own distinct
cultural identity and its own particular national interests, which it has to know how to protect.
Denying Russia a European choice under the pretext of protecting its national interests or using
the European choice as an explanation for refusing to protect national interests are both equally
unacceptable.
A return to fairness
11. Modern Russian society is structured unfairly. Whoever has the biggest fist in it has bigger
rights as well. In Russia today might is right, but it should be the other way around – what is right
has the might. Restoring the "balance of fairness" is a top-priority task for all of the forces that
have the transformation of Russia into a modern and dynamically developing state as their objective.
If a solution is not found for this strategic task, society is not going to put its support behind
any economic, social, or political reform. Paraphrasing Engels, we can say: all previous reforms
in post-communist Russia led to an increase in social injustice; now the task consists of eliminating
or at least reducing this injustice.
12. A return to social justice in Russia is impossible without repairing the damage caused by
an unjust privatization. Privatization was a painful historical task without which Russia's further
development would not have been possible. But the way it which it was accomplished led to the emergence
of extremely severe social side effects. The point of the next stage of Russia's history will consist
of eliminating these "distortions". Today, the power is de facto reconsidering the results of privatization
in its own peculiar way, taking ownership out of the hands of some people merely to transfer it immediately
into other, supposedly more "on our side", hands. This is not what our people are waiting for. This
is not going to lead anywhere except to even more stealing and corruption.
13. To begin with, restoring fairness will have to also address the question of subsoil use –
the main source of the Russian people's wealth, and as of today its only one. At the given stage
of historical development, we need to acknowledge the fairness of a simple formula – the income from
the exploitation of Russia's subsoil needs to belong to the people of Russia. The subsoil can be
in the private ownership of those who extract this income for society – specifically for society
– and who are efficiently managing operations and growing them. But it can not remain at the disposal
of nomenklatura rentiers, who pay themselves disproportionate "salaries" and are incapable of working
efficiently.
14. It is imperative to bring back fairness in income distribution as a whole as well, restoring
proportional taxation rates. . We have got to create the image of the "responsible taxpayer", with
all of his obligations, but also, needless to say, with rights as well. Only someone who pays taxes
has the right to ask the state – what has it done for him with these taxes? A rentier-nation does
not have such a right, and this is why the power is doing whatever it wants with the nation.
15. The vector of development of Russian liberalism, which is exclusively political today, needs
to be rethought. Producing draft constitutions and plans for radical political and economic reforms
is a futile exercise until society begins to feel that the liberal idea is a fair idea.
16. Society has enormous potential for self-organization when there is an idea around which a
matrix can form. For Russia, such an idea can only be a socially oriented nation state. The only
question is will this socially oriented nation state be liberal or fascist?
War – the ultimate unfairness
17. Fascism – this is war. Russia is already making real war. those who send heroes to die not
in the name of national interests, not to defend the Fatherland, but in order to keep in power a
small group of plutocrats who are trying in this way to prolong the life of a regime that has already
outlived itself.
18. War has become the sole driver of the moribund regime. It is happening in the Ukraine, but
this war is not for Ukraine's or Russia's sake, but for the sake of power. What got such a wildly
enthusiastic reaction from the man in the street is going to bring innumerable trials and tribulations
to the Russian people in the nearest foreseeable future already.
National mobilization
19. The ruling regime is turning Russia into a Chinese protectorate. This is not even a question
of the annexation of Siberia,. Today it would be enough just for Siberia to be completely locked
in on China, which for all intents and purposes is going to be sucking resources out of it for free,
like from a colony.
20. Russia has gotten stuck on a dangerous historical track, getting out of which is very complicated.
In order to simply stop, and all the more so to switch to some other track, is going to require mobilization
of all of the energies of the Russian people. The task of true Russian patriots is not in promising
the Russian people smooth sailing but in telling the truth. Only if they understand the scale of
the threat and of the historical significance of the moment can the people be moved to perform heroic
deeds. And without heroic deeds, Russia today can not be saved.
21. The heroic deed of the Russian people must consist of constructive labor, of inculcating discipline
and moderation, and of developing the ability to work together and to help one another – in other
words, of reviving all those moral skills that had helped Russian culture to develop and that have
been lost to a large extent in recent years. In order to raise the people up to be able to perform
this heroic deed, the pro-European minority needs to prove its moral soundness and its readiness
to observe, not in word, but in deed, the principle of equality of all before the law. It is precisely
this equality of all before a law that is the same for all, before an adversity that is the same
for all, and for a common cause that is the same for all, that the true sense of liberalism consists
of. If the people come to believe in this, then everything else will fall into place – the reforms,
economic progress, and prosperity for Russia.
22. Russia has been wasting time these past ten years; now is when we must begin to make up this
lost time.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky
-------
Strelkov's answer to Khodorkovsky Forword by Colonel Cassad:
After a long silence Strelkov speaks with program criticism of Khodorkovsky's manifesto. Transition
to public dispute where Strelkov opposes to vision of the fluent oligarch broadcasting from the USA,
his vision of Russia's future, considerably defines Strelkov's vision of the country's future. In
general, Strelkov's answer to Khodorkovsky, reflect his views that the Crimean Spring is the beginning
of "revolution from above" which is carried out by Putin.
PUTIN'S DECADE RETURNED TO RUSSIA HOPE FOR REVIVAL
At the beginning of October in headquarters of the international human rights organization Freedom
House in Washington, the former head of Yukos Mikhail Khodorkovsky made the speech convicting the
Russian State and the President. The speech which formed the basis of the manifesto published afterwards.
Having secured with support of global financial oligarchy, Khodorkovsky put forward some conceptual
theses, using comparisons, analogy and association, familiar to the Russians, even sometimes copying
methods of patriotic rhetoric. With enviable pathos and a claim for the status of an ultimate instance,
the former oligarch tries to combine the incompatible. He "adds" liberal "values" alien to Russia
and the Russian people to the concept of national pride and justice, close and native to the Russian
heart, creating dangerous illusion of their organic compatibility. Khodorkovsky trying to accustoms
active part of society to the future liberal transformations initiated by the world oligarchy and
moreover – declares them, as only possible and useful. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to
ignore this combination of "warm with soft" and leave it without answer . Too dangerous speeches
were heard from lips of the obvious enemy of Russia and attempt of implementation of the scenarios
offered by him can be way too destructive. We have to give the, Russian, patriotic answer to the
globalistic, liberal scenario imposed by Khodorkovsky under the guise of a new round of "reforms".
After all it is not simply leisure reasonings of the rich and uncommon criminal who ran away from
the Fatherland, it is the ideological program of new revolution in Russia – "road map" of the oligarchical
revolt directed as always in the Russian history, against the Governor, the People and the Power.
Well, we will sort out everything point by point.
Russian choice, social justice and national mobilization
1. 100 years ago the last Russian Tsar-martyr Nicholas II wrote:" Around treason, cowardice and deception".
He meant not the people at all, not "fools and roads", but the political, military and economic elite
surrounding him during that period. Treason by elite ended up with the collapse of the greatest world
power, the Russian Empire. 200 years ago the political elite under the leadership of the British
envoy participated in regicide of the Emperor Pavel that led to Napoleon's invasion and 1812 Patriotic
war subsequently. 400 years ago during the Time of Troubles, political elite of Russia swore to impostors
and the Polish king, committed treason both to the Fatherland and Faith, while only revolt by the
Russian militia saved both Russia and Orthodoxy during this period, having laid the foundation of
a new Russian Tsars dynasty. Since then in Russia a little has changed. The Russian governors with
a support on the Russian people bring their lifes on the Fatherland altar, and the fattened, corrupted
comprador elites doesn't disdain in any ways to betray the Homeland, cowardly treason the Sovereign,
to rob and subordinate the people for the sake of personal instant profit. Pacification always there
came after long and painful years of a distemper – Russia which left behind crisis and bloody wars
started developing progressively again. The history repeated itself 23 years ago (before our eyes)
again: the "red empire" which really needed serious and extremely careful reforming was plundered
instead, stolen and destroyed by rack of "repainted" high-ranking party officials, sold to recent
"ideological enemies" and adjoined them unscrupulous nouveau riches. The history been accelerated
… its rounds become shorter. And here again – the second time on our short century – the country
which is hardly starting being restored after last "disorder" appears under the threat of a greedy
scramble. Those to who were not allowed to plunder finally our distressful Homeland in the 90th,
are eager for a revenge now.
2. 10 years of imprisonment for you, Mr. Khodorkovsky, is a real tragedy. After all, how much
it would be possible to steal during this term! Your only task now is to make up for the lost time.
Let's look past 10 years of your activity. Since 1991 before the arrest, you, Mr. Khodorkovsky, "from
anything" ( without investing a ruble, but having appropriated for tens of billions of dollars of
national property) created the huge financial and industrial empire, having become one of the richest
people of the country. Thus, as well, as all oligarchs of that time, you generously "walked on corpses",
didn't constrain yourself by any moral restrictions, plundered and ruined huge Soviet industrial
heritage. Rolled in money and "elitism", without refusing to yourselves of anything. During the same
years me and many of my friends and comrads were almost permanently at war for the Russian people
and for Russia, against enemies of the Fatherland. At first in Transnistria, then in Bosnia, then
in Chechnya. While we suffered a defeat after defeat because of treachery by so-called "new elite",
receded, gritting the teeth, accompanied by contemptuous and full of hatred comments from so-called
"democratic" mass media, you, Mr. Khodorkovsky and such likes didn't even remember needs of the country
and its people. Therefore our experiences are essentially different. You learned to steal, plunder
and lie and we – to protect Russia and the people. Even when anybody didn't demand it from us. The
prison always changes people, occasionally – to the better. You, alas, didn't obtain due experience
from that. After all, you didn't plead guilty absolutely to anything even after return to freedom.
Moreover, you appeared immediately in the camp of enemies again, thus having confirmed that you was
in prison for a good reason.
3. What are you talking about using word "stole" ? You, whose credo was "to steal, steal and steal"?
Have you build or manufactured something in your life, that would be possible to steal personally
from you? No. Because you weren't engaged in anything, except of theft, fraud and robbery, before
the prison. From all your achievements, I am personally ready to recognize, as socially useful result
only those "boots" which you "stitched" in prison. From the moral point of view, only this your work
also is only worthy in all your, to put it mildly, rather dirty life of the highly professional thief
and talented swindler. But worst of all that this work didn't do for you good at all and, judging
by with whom you act nowadays, it didn't lead you to understanding of your own mistakes and crimes.
When the real Patriots of Russia and the Russian people engaged in Novorossiya, you, having received
pardon from the President Putin, immediately supported his enemies and enemies of Russia. You were
on a Russophobic Maidan and gathered on the enemy territory all "color" of the Russian traitors on
a forum to fight against the Russian Spring. You are saying that "Russia has ceased to grow"? It
is direct result of your activity, your privatization, your comprador policy. Now your call is for
cardinal reforms? With whom in alliance ?? With frank enemies of all Russian? Proceeding from patriotic
motives?
4. Especially brightly your "patriotism", Mikhail Borisovich, is shown in repetition by you of
a "horror movie" about Russia, as a "threat to Europe and the whole world". Once Goebbels, and long
before him – Napoleon and the British lords Palmerston and Disraeli loudly (and it is much more talented
manner) shouted about this "threat". After them Winston Churchill did so and the U.S. President Ronald
Reagan who, without a moment's hesitation called the USSR "Empire of evil". Thus, Mikhail Borisovich,
you went on quite blazed way. It seems, with full confidence that only you are "the smartest" and
something knew about the history, while all Russian people are full blockheads and ignoramuses. Well,
cowards too who are easy for deceiving and intimidating by a ghost of "The third world war" that
they easy agree to refuse the Fatherland and the help to their brothers perishing in Novorossiya
in exchange for "would be no war at all cost". But the main addressee of this address is not in Russia
at all. It is some kind of "oath" to those who during all history of Russia dreamed to liquidate
it. In my opinion, this is typical shulersky reception at which the player operating with marked
cards, understanding takes place that him just about will expose, immediately accuses partners of
deception. The Western world headed by global financial oligarchy which integral part you, Mikhail
Borisovich, endeavor to present us, – being going to destroy or win neighbors, always and everywhere
I started accusing future opponents, attributing it in accuracy own intentions. So it is possible
to state: Russia really threatens with war. In hope that it will be frightened and capitulates, having
allowed to disarm at first herself, and then finally to finish. What here to tell? The task of the
real Russian patriots (but not frequenters Washington "Fried House") consists in preparing for reflection
of aggression from the West because only in this case Russia will have an opportunity to prevent
it and to defend the sovereignty.
Return to Russia
5. Speaking about "the European values", you, Mr. Khodorkovsky, either don't understand or just pretend
that you don't understand) that they have no relation to the real Values, traditional for Europe.
They are revived today in Russia by the President Putin. And those "values" which are imposed by
world financial oligarchy as "European", today are causing hundred thousand-strong protest actions
in Europe. When last time, more than 20 years ago, the management of the USSR decided "to turn" to
these so-called "values", the country was split, as a result, plundered and humiliated, and the Russian
people suddenly appeared to be the largest divided nation in the world. From the moment of coming
to power Putin started correcting catastrophe of the 90th: to subdue absolute power of oligarchy,
to nationalize elite, to restore the destroyed economy. In process of establishment of an order the
President found it possible to show mercy even to such a bastard, as you showed yourself to the world,
Mr. Khodorkovsky, prior to the prison. But you didn't appreciated it. Probably, because you considered
the favor rendered, as a manifestation of weakness. After all you, Mr. Khodorkovsky, of course, wouldn't
bother yourself with such sentiment, isn't it? And now, having deceived the President by the false
remorse, do you intend to take revenge for everything he did? That he relied on strengthening of
the state and protection of national interests to the detriment of comprador elite? That he didn't
allow to sell on cheap the largest stocks of natural resources to "Rotschilds", dooming Russia to
the external management? That he punished you for openly stated intentions to discharge him from
the power via unconstitutional way? From your words: being in prison, you "re-estimated a lot of
things". But just having been released, you appeared on different sides of the front with the Russian
people in war for the Russian World, in direct and rigid opposition on Donbass again. Your hatred
to Putin brought you into a camp of enemies not only personally of the President, but into a camp
of enemies of the Russian state and all Russian people. How can you dare to reproach Putin that he
stood up to defense of the people of the Crimea and Novorossiya, didn't allow the Ukrainian nazis
supported by the West to establish over the Crimea and Donbass a bloody dictatorship? After all Russians
protecting themselves and their lifes. You accuse the victims that they allegedly have the nerve
to defend themselves. The third world war is excluded while Russia is strong and rather powerful
to guarantee, hence asymmetric, but strategic parity and while there are people in charge, who are
not ready to trade off their country and the people for promises to be part of supranational financial
elite. We will give worthy repulse to your persistent and not reclined during years of imprisonment,
aspiration to sell something that doesn't belong to you. We also won't allow repeatedly just as was
23 years ago, to carry away ourselves through the false slogans.
6. Such things which you talking about, as "the European values and the euroatlantic civilization",
not only has no relation to Russia, but directly contradicts our national history, psychology, destiny.
Europe departed from its own Christian values long ago, having plunged into the abyss of the most
vile defects, and eulogized "euroatlanticism" is no more than the geopolitical doctrine of USA global
domination, directed against the people of the whole world still keeping own religion, the sovereignty
and national traditions. Russia was twice affected already in recent times with leprosy of "the progressive
European ideas" and was heavy injured by mad hobbies of its own elites and intellectuals,has two
roads today : either to return to itself, anew to find the Faith, the tradition, the values, the
sovereignty or be dissolved in the global West, get into slavery and to disappear as a civilization,
having lost everything. I will emphasize again, what outstanding hypocrisy Mr. Khodorkovsky, you
possess when you regret about lost art, literature, science, space and other achievements of imperial
and Soviet "totalitarian past". Truly, "the wolf feel sorry for a horse – left tail and mane"! But
even if we assume that something told by you is remotely true, I ask you to learn history a little:
Russia received Christian Faith not from the Catholic West, but from the orthodox East – directly
from East Roman Empire Byzantium, which remained the keeper of true Christianity throughout the whole
millennium . However, how can you argue about Christian Faith?
7. Everything that Russia has today, was created by our people and our state in desperate fight
for preservation of own originality, freedom and sovereignty. In fight against enemies both from
the West, and from the East. Russia developed at first as the national state which grew to the great
Empire because it was rather flexible in ability to perceive positive experience of neighbors. Nothing
in it neither shameful nor superhonourable – because it is a way of all nations having the sane rulers,
which are building and developing own state. Borrow doesn't mean to copy blindly. Enough is enough
… to copy [to that extend]. Only Marxism imported exactly from Europe - what's a cost to the country!
Every nation and very state is unique. As any grass field beautiful by different grasses and a scattering
of various flowers, thus Mankind is beautiful in an inflorescence of the unique people, wrestling
among themselves for "better place under the sun", but not reminding that "flat public lawn" into
which "the euroatlantic universal men".
8. The euroatlantic values are "values of the strong and fair state"? Well done, Mikhail Borisovich!
Now these values lead this greatest Europe, about which our home brew liberals so like to speak,
to extinction of those people of Europe which follow them and which once created it. Is your so-called
"justice" consists in it? However, you, for obvious reasons, don't care about historical destinies
of any those Germans, French or Britons. As well as Russians, Bashkir, Tatars, Lezgians and so on.
And "the strong state", so to think, means the USA? After all, no "strong" (that is rather sovereign
and independent) states left over in Europe. The last sovereign state in Europe outside the former
USSR which dared to defend interests of its citizens was Yugoslavia, has been crushed and subordinated
15 years ago. It was inclined to "the euroatlantic choice" by bombs and rockets, blockade and alien's
mutiny. Now its turn of Belarus and Russia, isn't it? The Base in Ukraine was already created and
the last breakthrough remains? The values spread by world financial oligarchy ("European", "euroatlantic",
"universal", etc.) – these are values of the national states elimination and radical cancellation
of anything that bears a faint resemblance of social justice. Here, Mr. Khodorkovsky, you are either
ignorant or conscious liar. Well about "ignorance" I'm saying "for the sake of a witty remark", as
I have no illusions concerning defects in your education. Liberalism which you defend, has as the
ultimate goal total globalization, leveling of all people and religious communities under one consumer
"comb" and the statement of the power of world financial oligarchy in process of abolition of all
historically developed states (the project of the European Union – the first step in this direction).
In the sphere of economic policy liberalism not only in practice, but in the theory rigidly denies
social justice. Freedom of the market about which liberals go on, is incompatible with redistribution
of profit as supporters of social justice insist. More Russia will be involved in globalization processes,
the quicker will lose the sovereignty and opportunity to pursue social policy. Now on "mobilization".
We, of course, need powerful national mobilization against aggression of the "evroatlantist" aimed
at the accelerated and final plunder of Russia under the pretext of "integration into the world community"
and "global economy". Mobilization both state and public. Because threat hung not only over the state
sovereignty of Russia, but over cultural and moral identity of its people decomposed strenuously
by propagandized and introduced "euroatlantic" defective – sodomy debauchery, pedophilia, murder
of children and old men (abortions and euthanasia), drug addiction, terrorism, etc. brought by a
"new humane world order".
9. "The one who wants to be strong, can't afford to be backward". This is absolutely correct thesis.
For this reason the decision by the President Putin on full modernization of army by 2020 is absolutely
adequate answer to Russophobic hysteria from the West. The Russian military, heads of defense industry
complex, regional industrialists and businessmen have to replace by themselves comprador elite of
90th, the so-called "oligarchs", typical representative of whom you are, Mr. Khodorkovsky. Oligarchs
are alien to Russia, their capitals and families are in the West though they made their capitals
by exploiting the Russian people. They represent interests of global financial oligarchy, think in
categories of ultra-liberalism and, in fact, consider themselves something like colonial administration.
Therefore prefer to speak out their "revelations" by your "prophetical" lips from Washington DC.
10. Today is not Europe that matters, but Russia. Our way is a return to itself. It is necessary
to return to Russia, to our history, to our culture, to our mission. This mission always was and
remains in bearing Christ's light of belief, ideals of good and social justice to people of the world,
to be "keepers" against the evil, as the Apostle Pavel told. We had very heavy past. Russia was shook
all 20th century in fevers of bloody revolutions and destructive wars. But thanks to the passed heavy
tests, Russia managed to save a lot of things which Europe lost almost irrevocably. If Europe wishes
to return to own traditions and the Christian principles, its on the way with us, but not with the
financial oligarchy of the USA bearing to people of the world a godless civilization of moral decay,
ideological zombiing, spiritual and physical death.
Creation of fair society
11. "Modern Russian society is arranged unfairly", you are sayng. I completely agree with that.
But I will repeat written above, it was made by you and such likes. Having used crisis of the USSR,
you began to plunder and kill, appropriating national property. So you and your accomplices laid
the foundation of "modern Russian society" where the most cynical and mean [social] layer, working
on arrangement and instructions of transatlantic curators, got all levers of economic and partly
the political power. Right after coming to power Putin started correcting the situation, but the
injustice, which became in the 90th the principle, has a deep root. Therefore return to our society
of social justice will be long and difficult process. But I believe that we will cope with it without
councils of the fluent ex-oligarch who made a fortune plundering the national wealth, created by
a hard work of generations of the Russian people.
12. While reading your criticism of privatization (by the way, quite reasonable), I was surprised
by your cynicism: You and such likes, acquired the capitals during this criminal capture of public
property, and now trying to accuse anyone, only not those who is actually guilty. Privatization,
for what it was, is not a "distortion", but crime. As a result of it, the property was received not
by ordinary people, but quick and unscrupulous minority. And largest "pieces" of property were acquired
with direct support of the foreign financial capital going literally "on corpses". Who knows this
better than you? Putin started establishing the correct proportions, giving to the state the most
important strategic spheres of economy. Thereby he just tries to correct catastrophic consequences
of criminal privatization. Without eradication of the oligarchy established just on criminal privatization
there will be neither social justice, nor full development of private business.
13. Saying that natural resources has to belong to the people, you are completely right herein.
I already said that sometimes (though it is rare) the prison corrects well. In this point, the shift
is undoubtedly positive. This is exactly whats happened to you: assets of your energy companies,
criminally created, were transferred under management of the state, thus its people. How otherwise
is possible to make natural resources a national property if not through their nationalization and
redistribution of provit, in favor of all citizens? It excludes a private ownership of large objects
in hydrocarbon extraction. History of Yukos is an example of how natural resources comes back to
the people. Efficiency of its use is another question.To start with, they should be taken away from
you and such likes, then it should be used most effectively. It is hard to argue with that fact that
use of a resource rent is far from ideal. The main thing is not to leave anything of natural resources
in a private possession of oligarchy.
14. Proportional tax scale is absolutely correct way. It is also the movement towards social justice.
But only not for you, Mr. Khodorkovsky, grown rich on a robbery of the people and taken fortune abroad,
to argue on it. In what country did you pay taxes? In Switzerland, in England, in the USA? Why dob't
you return to the people stolen, begin with yourself, pay taxes in Russia. Or for this purpose you
should become a president at first? One similar oligarch quite recently assured electorate of the
neighboring country in the same oath. His name is Petro Poroshenko. He swore give to the people of
Ukraine everything sewed by his back-breaking toil -- But he isn't in a hurry. So begin with yourself!
Show to the world an image of "the responsible taxpayer"! Then, perhaps, somebody (strongly naive)
will also believe you.
15. Liberalism as you understand it, Mr. Khodorkovsky, is absolute delusion. This flase doctrine
which is completely ignoring God, spirit, culture, mankind, society and regarding an individual,
his material private interests and the sphere of finance, as of paramount importance. Liberalism,
understood in such manner, is absolutely incompatible with original freedom: how can be a person
free, if society in which he lives, is a slavery of interest rate, a debt bondage of the international
financial oligarchy and its local supervisors? If all human life is subordinated to search and enhancement
of material benefits and the bank account statement is a criterion only? Today liberalism is totalitarian
ideology on which distribution the USA build the world hegemony. It is unacceptable for Russia in
no shape or form – neither in political, nor in economic, in legal. This is most important: for you,
Mr. Khodorkovsky, liberalism is the ultimate truth and national development and social justice is
good for populism. But in Russia liberalism is doomed, it is acceptable neither by right, nor left.
It is the colonial ideology going against our Russian identity. Trying to destroy this identity for
the sake of a celebration of liberal ideology you are destroying Russia too. I thought, it is your
ultimate goal.
16. Socially oriented, based on Christian values state is the purpose, a reference point and strategy
of the real Russian patriots. In achievement of this purpose "right" and "left", supporters of a
monarchy and socialism can unite absolutely freely. And of course, such state has to be based on
a firm observance of precepts of law. But what is your relations to this? After all, you need to
tempt the people and they are now inclined to listen to slogans of creation "the socially oriented
national state" (without understanding how to build the "national" state on a place of the centuries-old
Russian Empire in which hundreds of nations lived peacefully and developed). You throw this bone
to us, the Russian people. But Russians are not any longer the trustful herd, which for the past
century twice "pecked" on promises of "milk and honey" and as a result spilled oceans of the blood.
Sincerely I hope that we learned something and we will manage to distinguish truth from the fake
wrapped in a beautiful wrapper. The socially oriented national state is anything, but you, oligarchs,
footmen of Rotschilds. Leave it, Mr. Khodorkovsky, national and social issues: these concepts demands
clean hands and the faultless biography.
War is the tragedy which sometimes impossible to avoid
17. The USA and the American hegemony is a war. We see it in Libya, in Syria, in Iraq, and Afghanistan,
in Ukraine. Everywhere, USA helps to carry out "color revolutions", fascists, extremists, fundamentalists
come to the power. To be the supporter of the USA, the West and NATO – means to be the fascist helper,
the lawyer of war. This war is waged against the whole Mankind, which is not interested to live by
the American rules and to serve obediently and servilely interests of world financial oligarchy.
18. This war is waged against Russia, against Ukraine. Those heroes who get up in defense of the
Russian World who fights in Novorossiya, didn't want this war. They wanted the peace. But peace can't
be at the price of freedom and dignity. In the conditions of the neo-Nazi junta brought to power
in Kiev by your masters, Mr. Khodorkovsky and supported by you personally, life is not a life, but
peace is not the peace. Russians in both, Crimea and Novorossiya get up for freedom and justice,
for the rights of national development, for the language and culture. It was war against war. Your
appeals to peace isn't simple hypocrisy, this is treachery. However, as all the rest is. We are simply
on different sides of the frontline, and your words for me who took active part in military operations
in Novorossiya sound like appeals from other side: "Russian, give up! There will be a peace! You
were deceived!" In reply to such call during combat conditions there is one answer. Guess, what?
Problem of Russia today is not that a war is (as you say) allegedly "driver". On the contrary, Putin
did everything possible and does everything possible to avoid "big" war (the small one USA is already
launched by the hands of Kiev and goes on, claiming human lives daily). To reproach the authorities
of Russia that she doesn't leave the Russian World to the mercy of fate, blasphemously. Defending
this thesis, you find support of the westernized comprador elite which is regularly gathering for
anti-Russians "Marches for the peace". However, you should say goodbye forever to those who stood
on the side of historical Russia and social justice and this is a vast majority of people. You are
on other side of Crimea and Novorossiya, which now, more than ever, rally the Russians, supporting
unconditionally decisive steps of Putin in this direction.
National mobilization
19. Acting authorities brought Russia to the threshold of decisive breakthrough towards independence,
power and freedom which is capable to bring her out from zone of direct influence by the American
hegemony. Unfortunately, at my private judgment, the specified breakthrough obviously it is slow
down (suspected, by your secret and obvious adherents who still have huge influence, thanks to the
stolen riches and high internal political influence, bought with that). Hesitations regarding the
need to move forward are visible also. But people of the country are quite ready to it and it frightens
you. The hysterics concerning threat of "the Chinese protectorate" also occurs from here. "The Chinese
threat" is in the theory, so far. But open protectorate of the USA established over Russia as a result
of Gorbachev and Yeltsin treason is a fact of life. The main threat to the sovereignty of Russia
is an aggressive impact of the world financial oligarchy frightened by possibility of losing Russia
from a slop trough of "colonial economy". And in its fifth column, where you are one of ideologists.
20. The world financial oligarchy desperately and frenzy struggles against revival of Russia.
If Russia withstands, it has a future; she will return to history and will win. But if the sales
agent of world financial oligarchy hating all Russian (such as you), comes to the power in Russia,
we will fail in a chasm in comparison with gangster era of 90th would seem as a children's game .
Disintegration of the country with all that implies in the form of wars, general poverty, hunger,
epidemics and large-scale technogenic catastrophes, here that waits for us in this box. How it happens,
so far on much smaller scale, I had to observe personally more than once and not two. Quite recently
– in Ukraine, where "cherries" are still ahead. After all, Mr. Khodorkovsky, you want to help the
West to destroy again that Putin in the 2000th started restoring. But you won't be able to manage
it because we are Russians, God is with us! World financial oligarchy, priests of Mammon, having
put itself to the place of God and on its own behalf operating destinies of the world, overplayed
itself. The American hegemony falls, as a colossus on clay feet. The West falls: its indigenous people
dies out; European countries in 20 years will become Muslim; the Christian culture is tired out on
the periphery of public life; China officially became the largest economy of the world; The USA aren't
able to pay its huge national debt; they are shaken by disorders on the racial and social soil, in
an agony the West sows on the world only chaos and destructions, blood and sufferings. We have to
go in other direction, towards revival of Great Russia against all threats and calls. The enormous
turn is already made in this regard- Putin assembled Crimea back to Russia and nobody will be able
to take it away from us!
21. You started talking about the Russian exploits, but reduced it to moderation and labor. Probably,
you believe that future happiness of the Russian people is in a slave labor for a skilly bowl for
the benefit of world financial oligarchy which you represent. And for the low-standard "shows" offered
in addition to a skilly, which guarantee returning the person to a condition of the an animal, following
the simplest instincts. Well, then "only over our dead bodies"! The Russian people have absolutely
other horizons and the purposes, than dumb submission to the corrupted western elites. Here I will
distract from your theses and I will briefly formulate our Russian answer which is expressed by a
simple formula "For Faith, the Tsar and Fatherland". For these sacred concepts the Russian people
from time immemorial went to die, perfectly understanding that battling for them is a battle for
themselves and for the future. Today it means quite concrete loyalty: to the Russian Orthodox Church,
to the Russian state and Supreme Commander V. V. Putin.
22. Last fifteen years Russia prepared itself for breakthrough in the great Russian future. Now
its time to make it.
Left-biased, but still very interesting assessment of the situation. Especially in the first part
(the first 14 questions) Quote: "All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based
on similar strategies (i.e. mobilizing a social response based on discontent) have no future, because
Russia does not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm of Illusion of Hope. "
Un amable lector de este blog ha realizado un resumen en inglés de nuestro artículo Las catedrales
del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar; es un resumen diferente al que nosotros hubiéramos hecho,
pero de interés sin duda alguna. Ha sido publicado como apoyo a una pregunta en un coloquio con el
economista ruso Mikhail Khazin organizado por The vineyard of the saker. Publicaremos aquí la respuesta.
Question: Does Russia represent an alternative to the current western economic/social model?
Or is this view an illusion based only on the conflict between some traditional vs. post-modern values?
/ Arturo
For context to the question I will provide a translation / paraphrase / summary of some key points
in the following article Las catedrales del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar
The article contains and numbers many more points (36 in total) but I have translated/summarized
only the first 14 (the rest is provided is a very raw translation --NNB)
Moscow cannot defeat the American plans – i.e. the Anglo Zionist world elite – without
contradicting the class interests of its own elites (Russian oligarchs): This is impossible
because the system of sanctions and the blocking of access to their accounts and assets in the
West generates such contradictions in the Russian power elites that, in practice, it prevents
them from reacting adequately; it puts them on their knees before the American plans.
Russia *could* resist those plans, since it possesses the strength, sense of identity,
historical memory and material resources to do so. But in order to do so, its ruling elites would
have to take measures that would affect their own class status within both the Russian system
and the international system. And we can see that these are measures they are not willing
to take. On the other hand, the Anglo Zionists suffer no such internal contradiction. Quite the
opposite, in fact: Their own interest as the supporting base of the globalist hyperclass necessarily
forces them to maintain the challenge to the end.
By the term Anglo Zionists, in this analysis, we mean the dominant power group whose territorial
and military base resides in the United States, and whose center originates in the historical
and social links of the Anglo-American oligarchies, branching off to other historical central
metropolis in Europe or other power centers in different parts of the world.
The concept is made up of two elements that must be explained: the first, the "anglo" reference,
has to do with the North American British connection [...] the second, the "zionist" reference,
has to do with the interconnection among the economic and financial power groups that maintain
various kinds of links with Israel. It is not so much a reference to ethnic origin, but rather
to orientations as groups or lobbies of political and economic interests. A good part of this
Zionist component consists of people who are neither Israelis nor Jews, but who feel identified
with the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, Britain and other countries. Thus the term "zionist"
referees here to an ideology, not to an ethnic origin.
The Anglo elites on both sides of the Atlantic have evolved from being national elites
to being the executive base of a world Hyperclass made up of individuals capable of exerting a
determining influence in the most powerful nation, the United States.
The result of the Anglo Zionist line of attack is that the contradiction and internal struggle
is now occurring in Moscow between those who have already chosen to sell out and those who have
not yet found the time to realize that a multipolar global capitalism is not viable.
In this context, recovering Crimea was a mirage, an illusion.
If we compare the implications of the Maidan coup in Kiev with the liberation of Crimea, we
see that the strategic defeat implicit in losing Ukraine as an ally is of such magnitude that
everything else pales by co s (all of them) in Kiev was so gigantic that its implications are
frightening. It was either a failure or something even worse. In any case, the Crimea affair was
merely a small episode in a confrontation that Russia is losing.
Russia arrived very late at modern capitalism, and that is why its current elite will
be unable to occupy a space among the globalist elite without paying the necessary toll, which
is none other than renouncing its territorial power base – its country and its access to
and control of its energy resources and raw materials.
Stubbornly maintaining the dispute in trying to obtain a multi-polar capitalism, leads necessarily
to a intra-capitalist confrontation, as it did in 1914-1918. And because of the nature of the
current actors, nuclear powers … it brings the conflict to 2.0 war versions (color revolutions)
All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based on similar strategies
(i.e. mobilizing a social response based on discontent) have no future, because Russia does
not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm of Illusion of Hope. It
can only elicit some empathy from those who reject the American domination, but here the class
contradictions come into play again, because it is not enough to oppose Washington merely on political-military
grounds, since the key to global power resides in the financial and military structures that
enable global control and plunder: World Trade Organization, IMF, Free Trade agreements, World
Bank, NATO… these are entities in relation to which Russia only shows its displeasure at
not being invited to the table as an equal, not accepting that because it arrived late at modern
capitalism, it must play a secondary role. On the other hand, Russia is ignoring the deep contempt,
bordering on racism, that things Slavic generate among Anglo Zionist elites.
In order to be able to fight the 2.0 versions of war that are engineered today, an alternative
social model is needed. Alternative not only in regard to the postmodern vs. traditional
sets of values, but fundamentally in regard to the social model that stems from the modes of production.
In the postmodern vs. traditional conflict, Russia tends to align with the most reactionary values.
And in regard to the social struggle, they don't want to enter that fray because they renounced
it long ago. They renounced the entire Soviet Union, which they destroyed from within.
The contradictions and the dialectical nature of reality have their own logic, however. Thus,
a coup in Kiev and the widespread appearance of Nazi symbols in the streets of Ukraine was all
that it took to induce a spontaneous reaction in the Slavic world. The popular resistance in the
Donbass took strong root thanks to the historic memory of the people's of the old USSR and its
war against fascism.
If Russia were to abandon Novorossia to the oligarchs and their mafias, the world's "left"
– or whatever remains of it - would come to scorn post-Soviet Russia even more than it already
does. In the months following the brave action in Crimea and the heroic resistance in the Donbass,
many people around the world looked to Moscow in search of some sign that it would support the
anti-fascist and anti-oligarchic resistance, even if only as an act of self-defense by Moscow
against the globalist challenge. If it finally abandons Novorossia, the price in terms of loss
of moral prestige will be absolute.
A support of the left has not been sought, but that is a collateral consequence of the character
of class struggle open that has been given in the Donbas, where Russia has been forced to provide
some assistance that would prevent the genocide at the hands of the fascist Ukrainian.
Cuando say left, we refer logically to the one who has expressed their support to the struggle
of people in the Donbas, as it is very difficult to consider the "left" to those who have preferred
to remain silent or to have directly been complicit in the assault, and the coup in Kiev.
The degradation of the left as politically active social force is very intense, their structures
are embroiled in the collapse, or in the confusion, when not literally corrupt. Then related to
both socialist parties since 1914 and the communists, at least from the time of fracture of 1956.
The social changes experienced in Europe with the systems of welfare state, based on the elevation
of the standard of living of the working population and the obtaining of social peace by sharing
the power with the trade unions are at the base of the post-industrial society and the resulting
profound changes of values.
The suicide of the USSR in 1989-93 marked a brutal global change , in which the balance which
was preserved during the cold war was broken. That led to the capitalist elite in the west, which
we are calling the Anglo-Zionists, to the suspension of the social pact (forced abandonment of
New Deal), that gave rise to the welfare state and the emergence stark reality of a global power
of capitalists without systemic opposition . Today the whole neoliberal globalization system of
capitalism is in danger by the depletion of the natural resources. And to sustain this mode of
production, they need to speed up territorial domination in the form of control and access to
resources of other countries. Now there no space in the global system for spaces, which are managed
autonomously even to a certain level.
The system of global domination, capitalism, ruling elites with a territorial basis in the
area of Anglo-American, global parasitic Hyperclass and depletion of resources, as well as cannibalization
of the other nations, in the midst of troika of crisis of climate change, peak of the energy and
raw materials shortages. those three factors that challenge the current globalization framework
... And the crisis of Novorossia, been demonstrated both impotence and the lack of real political
autonomy of Russian elite with the respect to the dominant power in neoliberal worlds order..
The new citizen movements in the western world are not so much resistance movements as samples
of the discontent of the middle classes in precarious position of marginalization and/or social
trance. This protest led to a "Maidans" which are not permanent and does not question the basis
of the system. The participants seems to believe that it is possible to restore the old good world
of the welfare state.
The western movements are brainwashed by messages emanating from the headquarters of Democratic
party of North America, the propaganda anarcho-capitalist and the various networks of ideological
interference, are managing to break the bonds of historical memory that unite the struggles of
the past with the present, de-ideologize the struggles and conflicts and to deny the tension left
and right, isolating the militants -- or simple citizens who feel identified with the values of
the left - of the masses who are suffering in the first place casualisation. At the heart of this
new "left" are leaders that are co-opted voices, pseudo-intellectuals who destroy the words and
empty of content of key concepts in a way that the alienation of the masses demonstrate at the
language itself, thus preventing putting a real name to social process and things, and to identify
the social phenomena.
Viva to Russia, which the only country which eve in a weak form decided to fight neoliberal
world order and position itself as an anti-imperialist force... It is interesting to observe the
current great moral confusion in political landscape of the societies in decay. Confusion which
have been stimulated by Moscow actions. As the result some the far-right groups that are simultaneously
anti-US that anti-Russian now support Moscow. Also some part of Russia far-right political groups
got the sympathy and support of factions of the anti EU far right forces in France, the Nazis
of the MSR in Spain, and from small groups of euro-asianists. This line of political affiliation
will allow them to simply join the Russia failure [to find alternative to monopolar neoliberal
capitalism] and might well discredit then more profoundly in the future.
The euro-asianists forces technically speaking are reactionary forces, neoliberal forces which
is comparable to the worst of the worst in the western world. Moreover, they do not have any way
to solve the main contradictions that arise in the current neoliberal model in the terms of class
and dominance of Anglo Zionist global elite.
Euro-Asianism is just a suitable ideology for the construction of Russian national idea for
those who seeks to achieve lease to life for Russia sovereignty on the world stage. It is the
actual proof that Russia has come too late to globalised capitalism and fascism...
Huttington and his war of civilizations cynically exploit this confrontation on Anglo Zionist
elite and newcomers, redefining it along the idea of the clash of civilizations which avoid using
the notion of class and thus is ideologically false. Alexander Duguin who promote similar ideas
quite seriously just shows the degree of degeneration of the Russian intelligentsia, which oscillates
between serving as comprador class to the global Anglo Zionist elite and the repetition (as a
farce, and with 75 years of delay ) of fascist reactionary revolutions in Western Europe, which
were phenomenon of the interwar period (rexistas in Belgium, Croix de feu in France, CruzFlechados
in Hungary, Requetés and Falangistas in Spain).
The globalist elite offered a solution formulated in class terms, as it could not be another
way: in the best cases, they proposes the co-optation to a handful of members of the Russian elite
as deserving members of the new global Hyperclass, but this path is opened only the very very
rich, and the pre-condition is the delivery of the country to plunder, where the global elite
certainly would have need of some compradors which will be more or less adequately compensated
depending on their achievements and sacrifices in the name of global neoliberal domination.
The part of the power elite of Russia, which managed to expel the western compradors of the
Yeltsin era, and rein in the oligarchs then, had tried with some success to regain control of
the territory of the country. The illusion of the members of this part of the power elite -- basically
the security services, both civil and military, and various synergies of those with the military-industrial
lobby -- is that it would be enough to neutralize the Russian fifth column of the Anglo Zionists
to take back control of their territorial base of power. this idea is going to be shredded into
pieces when it enter into contradiction with the reality of the class struggle and interests of
the elite at the global level. Russia is, for its size, influence, and resources, so huge that
a line of action based on the defense of its sovereignty strategic enters in collision with the
global power of neoliberalism. And that why it attracts disproportional reaction of the Anglo
Zionists
Supporters of Anglo Zionists that are ready to consent to a German-Russian alliance or Russia-EU
alliance that give the viability of a idea of mutually beneficial co-development of both Russia
and Europe are forgetting that such an action would require European sovereignty. Which is was
non-existent iether on the level of the EU, or on the level of member states. The penetration
of the Atlantism in Europe is already systemic. In the old European states there are still ancient
national traditions, which were based on the basis of cultural, industrial, economic, and political
identity. And they still run strong. But in the current situation for such states there no space
for the sovereignty as the dominant power bloc in the national elite as well as in EU elite are
Atlantists. Where this situation takes the Russian elite and the Russian state without confrontation?
A confrontation that they, on the other hand are not willing and are not able to pursue.
The multi-polar capitalist world had its lifespan which come to an end (exploded) in 1914.
In 2014, the globalization of the elites and the capital is of such magnitude that no serious
resistance is possible on the basis of some capitalist model. In those conditions the idea of
Russian elite ability to enforce change to multipolar version of the currently monopolar neoliberal
world is doomed to be a failure.
Zbigniew Brezinsky has raised things crudely and openly, unlike the ("fake") supporters of
perestroika, and their current heirs in Russia. Brezinsky know how to think in terms of the class
contradiction and knows perfectly well that the Russian oligarchy has directed its monetary
flows abroad, moved families abroad, and moved their investments abroad. That means that
Anglo Zionistscan disrupt any claim of sovereignty over the territory and resources
by simply pressing the local neoliberal elite, giving them to choose between their interests as
a class and their illusionary desire for sovereignty. Because in a globalized world, with its
brutal fight for the natural resources there is no possibility of maintaining both, except what
can be achieved in terms of direct anti-imperialist struggle. There is no space for the national
bourgeoisies in the XXI century. You can only have sovereignty if it is posed in terms of a rupture
with the actually existing neoliberal order of global capitalism, which, in its core is Anglo
Zionistsglobalization. This break does not have to be forced, but in terms of scientific
analysis of the social processes is a logical consequence of following this path one way or the
other. To claim sovereignty over their own resources and territory inevitably leads to confrontation,
and logical needs a break up and confront the Anglo Zionist empire. If you really want to achieve
the goal. And that fact imposes the logic of the relationships and balance of power in the world
today.
The claims of the BRIC countries -- to the extent that you do not question them -- is that
they have an alternative model to the dominant neoliberal capitalism model (Ango Zionist globalization
with the center in the USA) are doomed to be a failure. The efforts of the BRIC countries can
generate a lot of noise and discomfort for the West, but they can not break the global neoliberal
system. Those countries are rightfully fearful of their budget balances -- which are very fragile.
It can be even said that they are on their way to implosion sooner or later, due to the unbalanced
structure of their internal classes, including first of all their own elite.
The claim that it is possible to achieve the multipolar capitalist world (which Russia defends)
and which led to current Ukrainian crisis without confrontation is false. As soon as Russia wanted
to return to the global chessboard. as an independent player, they instantly saw opponents attacking
weak elements of their defense at the borders. Ukraine has been a defeat for Russia and the Crimea
is not a adequate compensation for loss of Ukraine. Now Novorossia is being sacrificed precisely
because the class contradictions that have emerged in Moscow and lack of desire of Russian elite
to go the bitter end.
The situation in the Donbas / Novorossia clearly shows the resignation of Moscow to the victory,
and their desire to avoid the clash with neoliberal world order. The fact is that Royal Dutch
Shell has already begun the fracking in the Donbas, the coup regime in Kiev are already internationally
accepted without reservations, the truce imposed in Novorossia has brought to its knees the armed
resistance to junta. All this leads way to deliver Novorossia to the hands of mafias sponsored
by the local oligarchs with friends in Kiev and Moscow.
Statement that the destiny of Russia was played in the Donbas is something more than a phrase,
It is a claim based on a reality, as the defeat of Novorossia would be the proof that Moscow had
not the will to struggle. The betrayal of the fighters and the hopes of Novorossia is the acceptance
of the defeat and might lead in the future to the victory to the Moscow Maidan, the same alliance
of compradors and nationalists using which as storm troopers the globalist elite achieved their
goal in Ukraine. If Novorossia is defeated, they can expect being able to push a puppet into the
Kremlin the same way. And not without reason. This summer, the heroic struggle of the militia
of the Donbas was the key element that forced the changes of the script designed for Kiev as well
as diminished chances of successful application of the same methods in Moscow. The Minsk Agreements
and the truce imposed by them are putting Novorossia on its knees, allowing for its destruction,
but this time at the hands of their allies. Sad spectacle for the Russian security services, which
were effective enough to organize the Donbas resistance, but now are useless and powerless before
the neofascist Kiev junta.
The struggle of the Donbas does not correspond to the strategic interests of the Russian elite.
They have been forced to intervene to prevent the horror of the mass murder of the population
of the Donbas at the hands of the extreme right. But the dream of a Donbas free of oligarchs and
with a sovereign state, committed to social justice for workers on this Slavic land are completely
incompatible with the post-soviet status quo. Only to the extent that there is a significant faction
of Russian elite aware of the contradictions of the global neoliberal game and who put their sense
of patriotism first can lead them to face the challenge that they face. Only in this case there
would be any possibility of resistance; I would say patriotic resistance, because we already know
no one at the top is able to think in terms of class.
While very unlikely - there can be a move from February to October in Novorossia. You would
say impossible. But he insurrection of the Donbas in March, logically was "February". In order
to achieve victory, to take full control over the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk needs creation
of the Revolutionary Military Council and suspension of the upcoming elections. which looking
to be a smokescreen for capitulation to junta. They need to declare that they are ready to resist
to the end. This output would be desperate move, without a doubt, and would represent the equivalent
of a new "October". The event which of it occurs would force Moscow to show their cards to their
own population. And perhaps it can help to generate a pulse necessary for the organization of
the fight with Anglo Zionists empire between the towers of the Kremlin. That would move the fight
toward more patriotic and popular goals, But this presuppose a lot of assumptions and first of
all that such a "Kremlin tower", which is capable of emitted such a pulse, exists. Only in this
case we can talk about achieving a real sovereignty. As Vasily Záitsev in Stalingrad suggested:
"Maybe we're doomed, but for the moment we are still the masters and lords of our land." In Novorossia
there are plenty of fighters who would agree with Záitsev, but they certainly lack political direction
and, now the lack the support of Kremlin.
The Russian objective is achieving a multipolar capitalism with a Russia united under a nationalist
ideology based on the manipulation of patriotic sentiment, Orthodoxy and various Slavic myths.
This objective is being challenged by the reality of the conflict, which should be defined in
terms of geopolitical goals. The reality is that the Russian elite would be allowed to control
their population as they wish, provided they renounce its sovereignty over territory and resources,
renounce their physical power base, i.e. homeland. This is the nature of the challenge. Putin
is mistaken if he thinks that the Grand Patriarch has the answer in their holy books. There is
not enough incense in the Kremlin cathedrals to mask that reality."
Stephen Walt
sees the U.S. repeating past mistakes in its war on ISIS. The first mistake he identifies is
the tendency to exaggerate foreign threats:
Why is threat inflation a problem? When we exaggerate dangers in order to sell a military [action],
we are more likely to do the wrong thing instead of taking the time to figure out if a) action
is really necessary and b) what the best course of action might be.
It's fair to say that U.S. officials wouldn't have to exaggerate foreign threats so often
if military action were clearly necessary. The U.S. is an extraordinarily secure country, so it requires
an extraordinary amount of dishonesty and exaggeration to convince Americans that launching attacks
overseas is necessary for our security.
Government officials have to overstate threats from overseas in order to justify military action
that they all know isn't strictly necessary, and so they also overstate how many interests the U.S.
has in the world and exaggerate how important those interests are. All of a sudden, the U.S. is defending
supposedly "vital" interests in places that have no importance for American security whatever.
The assumptions behind preventive war also give each administration greater leeway. These allow
presidents to dismiss the lack of evidence of a direct threat right now because of a belief that
a threat might materialize later on. The slightest possibility that there could be a threat at some
point in the future is treated as if there definitely is one, and so the U.S. starts bombing another
country. It doesn't matter that the U.S. isn't actually threatened by the government or whichever
group is being targeted. All that matters is that the U.S. has responded to the overblown threat
with "action." Bombing the supposed future threat becomes self-justifying, and self-defense is expanded
to mean whatever the government wants it to mean.
Egypt Steve says:
October 17, 2014 at 8:15 am
Lincoln understood this:
"Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that if it shall become necessary,
to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and
invade the territory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case,
the President is to be the sole judge…But Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation,
whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever
he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose – and allow him to make war at pleasure….
If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British
from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British
invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'"
bacon, October 17, 2014 at 1:24 pm
Starting at least as far back as Viet Nam, we have found deadly enemies behind many trees and
have gone after most of them with similar results. We kill a lot of them, they kill some of
us, and money that ought to be spent at home on infrastructure, education, health care, and job
creation goes down the rat hole.
The public eventually gets tired enough of the war du jour to scare the politicians, they figure
out some way to disengage, very few if any of the predicted catastrophic consequences of such
a result come to pass, and shortly afterward we start the process again.
Each iteration leaves us, in addition to the unmet needs mentioned above, with a new crop
of permanently damaged men and women at home, new enemies abroad, and further diminished global
prestige. What a mess.
Gerry1211: despabilate amigo - el mundo es bien ancho (wake up buddy, the world's a big place)
Anonymous :
[from Blue]
Hard to hear. I'm downloading it and will try listening in player software that has a spectrum
filter thing to adjust the magnitude of the frequencies -- see if I can filter some of Lavrov's
deeper voice out.
The translator is on the right speaker and Lavrov on the left -- just change the balance between
the speakers and it can be heard perfectly -- actually a very good way of doing things.
Anonymous :
El Murid: military talks took place today in Gorlovka. Moscow sent general Alexander Lentsov
who assumed an openly sharp anti-Novorossiya position. He demanded unilateral withdrawals of the
Army of Novorossiya, their unilateral immediate ceasefire, and threatened with closing borders
and assistance denial
Henry Kissinger recommends West should take constructive approach to Russia.
What a warrior king Lavrov is!!! "we should not allow national egoism to prevail over collective
responsibility" Great summation to a well delivered speech and, by the way, Kudos to the simultaneous
translator who kept up with his headlong pace really well.
He made a very important point about Libya's chemical weapons needing to be accounted for by the
UN. There are those who claim that some have already
made their way into the hands of Turkish intelligence and others. Lavrov rocks!!!
Calumny! This guy smiles and it give me the creeps.
How about urging all sides to resolve the crisis, or how about urging the, I never attack those
with weapons directly, color revolutionary master, and destroyer of worlds to resolve the crisis?
Or how about urging the IMF to stop funding a fratricidal war? That would be impossible without
their blood money?
More to the point, permit me to urge you, Ki-moon, to refresh yourself with the UN charter.I
think it say something about not lying?
Your inference is unbalanced, inflammatory, supportive of a fictional myth as to who is responsible
for sowing chaos in Ukraine.
It is quite clear (to me,at least) that Lavrov should have delivered his speech in English
(as we've seen, he speaks English quite well). He could have begun his speech by saying: "I have
chosen today to speak in English rather than in Russian because I want my message to be perfectly
clear to Americans and Europeans, especially to those people who are actively engaged in aggression
directed against my country." He might have added, but, of course, being a diplomat, he would
not: "Furthermore I don't trust the UN-appointed interpreter to translate my message without distorting
it."
I have great respect for Lavrov and Putin, but they're not perfect, and they make mistakes
(hopefully none fatal to their cause). Lavrov's decision to deliver his speech in Russian is one
example. His choice of Russian ensures that no-one, other than those people who understand Russian,
will take much notice of what he said. An opportunity missed to tell the Western psychopaths clearly
that they, not Russia, are the aggressors and that their diabolical plans will come to naught.
Lumpy Gravy :
@ Gerry1211, 27 September, 2014 22:41
> My brain is not wired to listen simultaneously ...
Don't worry, you're not alone with this.
RT have been practising this kind of "audio editing" since ages. The sheer incompetence of the
RT staff in charge boggles the mind. Or is it deliberate to put people off and to drive them away
from the channel? One can never tell these days what's going on in Russia's rotten msm. Just compare
the search results for the name Strelkov on Russian msm and on western msm ...
... crazy, isn't it?! And to top it all off, last December Vladimir Putin has managed to rid
the country of its last halfway decent international radio station when he
shut down VoR ... probably
following the advice of some of his trusted 5th column rats. It's hopeless, really.
Anonymous :
Last night an unprecedented meeting took place - between Ukrainian generals and Novorossia
military leadership, with Russan military and OSCE as observers. They pulled out a map of Ukraine
and talked about where the border between Novorossia and Ukraine should be. (Russian news program
Vesti)
Kiev is grabbing people on the streets to exchange them for POW's. Novorossiya side halted
the POW exchange, since the flow of Novorosia POW's, according to reqused lists, has been replaced
by random people, who have nothing to do with Novorossiya. The question is, where are the Novrossiya
POW's - dead?
Anonymous :
100 million tons of highest quality oil discovered in the Arctic by Rosneft, comparable to
entire reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Lumpy Gravy :
@ Greg Schofield, 28 September, 2014 02:05
> ... actually a very good way of doing things.
No, it' not. Listening simultaneously to two
different voices speaking two different languages at identical audio levels makes it very hard
to understand what is being said in either language ... and adjusting the stereo balance isn't
an option for people who are trying to listening to Sergey Lavrov's speech in public places (RT
always pride themselves on being available globally in 25 billion airport lounges and in 100 trillion
hotels). Apart from this RT uploaded this video to their English language channel which targets
an English speaking audience. Leaving Lavrov's original audio track at 50% volume is absolutely
inappropriate and unprofessional.
Where-Wolf :
I with the Anglo ethnocentrists on this one.
Lavrov had an opportunity to fire a shot that
would be heard and understood by potentially billions of people. No matter it would be ignored
by the media. Online it could reverberate forever. This is a failure to take the bull by the horns.
I know the Russian game is patient but in respect of the medium, message and timing, Lavrov missed
a glorious opportunity.
The argument that no one has a monopoly on truth seems to be plucked from Western Relativists
in the first place. It makes me naseous to hear it from Lavrov at this time. What good is to say
you have your truth while we have ours when what Lavrov should be saying is that Russia
is on the side of ultimate truth.
That may not be a fair interpretation of Lavrov's words but I am seriously disappointed.
Some people just don't understand the importance of language to a culture...they're so "spoiled"
at having their mother tongue be the language they listen to, that they can't comprehend other
people wanting to hear their language in "important" situations. IMP these people are missing
the entire point of the United Nations and International relations.
Talk about mission creep in the Internet age. It took a few years with Vietnam but already
in a week, Turkey is ready to send in troops into Syria.
This is the same Turkey that supplied
the Sarine gas and killed all those Syrians last year? Turkey is involved in most of the wars
the US is involved in but they usually always have a UN mandate and fall under the UN commander
who is mostly an American.
Why is Lavrov talking in Russian? If he wants to influence people in other countries he should
have talked in English because other wise we only hear the lies and nothing from the other side.
How many people are going to go find out what Lavrov said? It sure wont be published in any western
media. Heck most TV would show him speaking in Russian and scroll what Obama said at the UN and
people would think it was Lavrov who said that.
Mulga Mumblebrain :
Dalpe, the odious Ban was known, I believe, to the South Koreans as 'the slippery eel'. A
perfect selection for Imperial stooge, although not as grotesque as the hideous Kofi Annan. The
last even quarter-way decent UNSG was Boutros-Ghali, was terminated with moderate prejudice by
the USA because of very slight crimes of hesitancy in executing Imperial orders. In the Real Evil
Empire total submission is absolutely mandatory. We in Australia have been blessed by a succession
of leaders whose groveling has been exemplary.
In a courageous and brilliant speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 27,
2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pierced the veil of obfuscation that characterizes too
many speeches at the United Nations, and delivered a scathing denunciation of Western imperialism,
imperialism that can only be accurately described as global theft. Lavrov, on behalf of the Russian
Federation implicitly warned that US/NATO is risking global war in embarking on its campaign to seize
and dominate huge territories, while inexorably and ruthlessly determined to conquer and subjugate
Russia, having learned nothing from the historic reality that Napolean's effort to dominate Russia
led to the collapse of Napoleonic France, and Hitler's attempt to subjugate Russia led to the obliteration
of his Third Reich.
Perhaps this third attempt to conquer and subjugate Russia may lead not only to war encompassing
huge territories of the globe, but, dialectically, may be the catalyst leading to the ultimate decline
of capitalism, an economic system which thrives almost entirely on imperialism, and is undergoing
a possibly terminal crisis, as described by the French economist, Thomas Piketty in his best-selling
work "Capital in the 21 Century." In desperation, dysfunctional Western capitalism is lashing out
recklessly and irrationally, unwilling and unable to preclude the disastrous consequences of its
myopic policies. And one possible consequence of current US/NATO policies is thermonuclear war.
Lavrov stated: "The U.S.-led Western alliance that portrays itself as a champion of democracy,
rule of law and human rights within individual countries, acts from directly opposite positions
in the international arena, rejecting the democratic principle of sovereign equality of states
enshrined in the UN Charter and trying to decide for everyone what is good or evil."
"Washington has openly declared its right to unilateral use of force anywhere to uphold its
own interests. Military interference has become a norm – even despite the dismal outcome of all
power operations that the U.S. has carried out over the recent years."
"The sustainability of the international system has been severely shaken by NATO bombardment
of Yugoslavia, intervention in Iraq, attack against Libya and the failure of operation in Afghanistan.
Only due to intensive diplomatic efforts the aggression against Syria was prevented in 2013. There
is an involuntary impression that the goal of various 'color revolutions' and other projects to
change unsuitable regimes is to provoke chaos and instability."
"Today Ukraine has fallen victim to such an arrogant policy. The situation there has revealed
the remaining deep-rooted systemic flaws of the existing architecture in the Euro-Atlantic area.
The West has embarked upon the course towards 'vertical structuring of humanity' tailored to its
own hardly inoffensive standards. After they declared victory in the Cold War and the 'end of
history,' the U.S. and EU have opted for expanding the geopolitical area under their control without
taking into account the balance of legitimate interests of all peoples of Europe […] NATO enlargement
to the East continued in spite of the promises to the contrary given earlier. The instant switch
of NATO to hostile rhetoric and to the drawdown of its cooperation with Russia even to the detriment
of the West's own interests, and additional build up of military infrastructure at the Russian
borders – made obvious the inability of the alliance to change the genetic code it embedded during
the Cold War era."
"The U.S. and EU supported the coup d'etat in Ukraine and reverted to outright justification
of any acts by the self-proclaimed Kiev authorities that opted for suppression by force of the
part of the Ukranian people that had rejected the attempts to impose the anti-constitutional way
of life to the entire country and wanted to defend its rights to the native language, culture
and history. It is precisely the aggressive assault on these rights that compelled the population
of Crimea to take the destiny in its own hands and make a choice in favor of self-determination.
This was an absolutely free choice no matter what was invented by those who are responsible in
the first place for the internal conflict in Ukraine."
"The attempts to distort the truth and to hide the facts behind blanket accusations have been
undertaken at all stages of the Ukranian crisis. Nothing has been done to track down and prosecute
those responsible for February bloody events at Maidan and massive loss of human lives in Odessa,
Mariupol and other regions of Ukraine. The scale of appalling humanitarian disaster provoked by
the acts of the Ukrainian army in the South-Eastern Ukraine has been deliberately understated.
Recently, new horrible facts have been brought to light when mass graves were discovered in the
suburbs of Donetsk. Despite UNSG Resolution 2166 a thorough and independent investigation of the
circumstances of the loss of Malaysian airliner over the territory of Ukraine has been protracted.
The culprits of all these crimes must be identified and brought to justice. Otherwise the national
reconciliation in Ukraine can hardly be expected."
In total contempt for truth and international law, Kiev's escalation of the Ukranian crisis is
being relentlessly prepared, in an ultimate act of deceit, as Ukranian President Poroshenko assumes
military regalia, threatening Russia's survival, and, indeed the survival of his own bankrupt country,
and is now speaking of all-out war with Russia.
Last month Washington pledged and delivered 53 million dollars of US taxpayer's money to provide
military aid to the Kiev regime, which is using the ceasefire arranged by Russian President Putin
and the OSCE as an opportunity to acquire more sophisticated and deadly weapons and prepare for another
barbarous onslaught against civilians in east and southeastern Ukraine, where the massacre of almost
4,000 citizens of East Ukraine and the desperate plight of more than one million refugees followed
the "secret" visit to Kiev, (under a false name) of CIA Director John Brennan last April.
But perhaps the most brazen announcement of US/NATO intent to inflict further carnage upon the
citizens of East Ukraine , whose rejection of the Nazi infested and Western controlled regime in
Kiev has resulted in Kiev's campaign of extermination of its dissident Ukrainian citizens, is the
return to Kiev this month of the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs,
Victoria Nuland. Ms. Nuland was made world famous (or world infamous) by her February declaration
"Fuck the EU" while, on behalf of her neocon sponsors in Washington, she engineered the destabilization
and overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich, plunging Ukraine into
the civil war that holds the potential of engulfing the world in a conflagration which will be known
as World War III.
In her October 7, 2014 speech to the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev, Ms. Nuland
boasted: "Ukraine this year has received $290 million in U.S. financial support plus a billion dollar
loan guarantee. And now you have what so many of you stood on the Maidan for, you have an association
agreement with Europe and a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement." That "Association Agreement"
holds Ukraine virtual hostage to NATO and the IMF, whose imposition of "austerity measures" will
further degrade the living standards of the already impoverished Ukrainians. Ms. Nuland brings a
Trojan Horse into Ukraine, unctuously flattering gullible Ukranian students, who will ultimately
provide cannon fodder for the war which US/NATO is inciting.
Further on in his September 27 address to the UN General Assembly, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
states:
"Let me recall a history of not so far ago. As a condition for establishing diplomatic relations
with the Soviet Union in 1933 the U.S. government demanded of Moscow the guarantees of non-interference
into domestic affairs of the U.S. and obligations not to take any actions with a view to changing
political or social order in America. At that time Washington feared a revolutionary virus and
the above guarantees were put on record on the basis of reciprocity. Perhaps, it makes sense to
return to this topic and reproduce that demand of the U.S. government on a universal scale. Shouldn't
the General Assembly adopt a declaration on the inadmissibility of interference into domestic
affairs of sovereign states and non-recognition of coup d'etat as a method of the change of power?
The time has come to totally exclude from the international interaction the attempts of illegitimate
pressure of some states on others. The meaningless and counterproductive nature of unilateral
sanctions is obvious if we took an example of the U.S. blockade of Cuba."
"The policy of ultimatums and philosophy of supremacy and domination do not meet the requirements
of the 21 century and run counter to the objective process of development of a polycentric and democratic
world order."
Its passage was all but guaranteed after the government made a dramatic U-turn last week.
Initially the government had claimed that it would not support the proposal from United Russia
deputy Vladimir Ponevezhsky as it "violated international law." However, at the start of this month
Vedomosti, the Russian business daily newspaper, reported Putin's press secretary Natalya Timakova
as saying that:
[Prime Minister] Dmitry Medvedev, supported this initiative from the beginning and knew about
its introduction.
The bill is already provoking controversy within the country, particularly among those concerned
by the flagging economy and
plummeting ruble. The Moscow Times
quotes Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev as saying that "there is no better way
to create capital outflow than passing or even discussing such legislation."
Though it has passed its first reading this is by no means the final step. The Rotenberg bill
will have to be submitted to the Duma for a further two readings before it is passed to President
Vladimir Putin to sign it into law.
The fact that Medvedev supports strongly suggests that this too shall pass.
The Russian Parliament on Wednesday took the first major step to authorize the Kremlin to seize
foreign assets and use them to compensate individuals and businesses being hurt by Western sanctions
over the Ukraine crisis.
... ... ...
The legislation must be approved two more times by the lower chamber of Parliament, or Duma, and
the Russian senate, then signed by the president to become law. The initial passage could well be
saber-rattling but is still an alarming sign that Russia will not take the sanctions lightly.
Even early discussions of the rule in Parliament precipitated a stock sell-off late last month, given
the stakes for international corporations.
In the past, the Russian government has made no bones about taking apart private assets, dismantling
the once-largest domestic oil company, Yukos, and jailing its former owner, Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky,
for a decade. Last month, a court ordered another Russian billionaire, Vladimir P. Yevtushenkov,
placed under house arrest.
American companies with large investments in Russia have been apprehensive about possible
retribution or losing business to Asian competitors, Alexis Rodzianko, the director of the
American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, said
in an interview. Russia, he said, now has a "hierarchy of procurement" putting Asian businesses first.
The only seeming swipe has been at the American corporate icon McDonald's. Russian authorities
closed several of its restaurants in Moscow in August, citing health concerns. But the timing
prompted worries that it was payback for the sanctions.
So far, those actions appear largely symbolic, with most McDonald's restaurants remaining open.
Still, the symbolism was ominous. The opening of the first McDonald's restaurant in 1990 on Pushkin
Square marked the dawning of a new era of post-Soviet business opportunities for Western corporations.
Others followed. Ford operates an assembly plant for Focus compact cars outside St. Petersburg.
A Russian forge stamps nearly half the titanium pieces as measured by weight used in the airframe
of the new
Boeing 787 Dreamliner airliner. Alcoa operates an aluminum smelter.
PepsiCo first came to the former Soviet Union after offering a taste sample to the general secretary
at the time, Nikita S. Khrushchev, in 1959. The company has invested heavily in Russia during the
oil boom and now owns one of the country's largest dairies.
Even without such rules, multinational companies are facing headwinds, as the country's economy
flirts with recession. Ford has said weakening Russian demand for cars, amid all the uncertainty
here, is hurting its global earnings.
Yet other multinationals have inadvertently benefited from Russia's attempts to punish Western
business. The ban on European dairy imports, for example, became an unexpected boon for Pepsi's
local milk and yogurt business.
The legislation, though, is amplifying corporate concerns. Russia's minister of economy, Aleksei
Ulyukayev, said just last week that "there is no better way to create capital outflow than passing
or even discussing such legislation."
Still, the law passed with 233 votes in favor and 202 against. It would allow Russian citizens
to who suffer from an "unlawful court act" of a foreign government to appeal for compensation in
Russia, ultimately by seizing foreign assets here, even those covered by immunity such as diplomatic
real estate.
The Western sanctions were intended to dissuade Mr. Putin from invading Ukraine. The United States
Treasury Department has called some of the targets the "inner circle" of Mr. Putin, or longtime acquaintances
who would presumably have his ear.
But the sanctions appear to have had an unintended consequence...
Its passage was all but guaranteed after the government made a dramatic U-turn last week.
Initially the government had claimed that it would not support the proposal from United Russia
deputy Vladimir Ponevezhsky as it "violated international law." However, at the start of this month
Vedomosti, the Russian business daily newspaper, reported Dmitry Medvedev press secretary Natalya
Timakova as saying that:
[Prime Minister] Dmitry Medvedev, supported this initiative from the beginning and knew about
its introduction.
The bill is already provoking controversy within the country, particularly among those concerned
by the flagging economy and
plummeting ruble. The Moscow Times
quotes Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev as saying that "there is no better way
to create capital outflow than passing or even discussing such legislation."
Though it has passed its first reading this is by no means the final step. The Rotenberg bill
will have to be submitted to the Duma for a further two readings before it is passed to President
Vladimir Putin to sign it into law.
The fact that Medvedev supports strongly suggests that this too shall pass.
Based on Patrushev statements (and the fact of interview itself) Russia will not surrender their
positions under the weight of sanctions. So the Second Cold War can be viewed as officially started.
I think the key calculations of neocons is that Russia is too weak to confront the USA in Ukraine, and
will be forced to accept the USA actions under threat of damage to its economy, especially in financial
area. And that sanctions will not only effectively decimate the Russian economy and greatly damage the
EU economy with minimum damage to the USA. We will see if this calculation is really true, as Russian
try to play sanctions as the opportunity of structural changes and kicking out "hostile" multinationals
from the Russia market. I do not envy now representatives of Coca Cola, or GM in Russia. But what if
Russia attacks the dollar hegemony directly, in the style à la guerre comme, à la guerre. In any case
neocons like Nuland managed to make Russian public more hostile to the USA then before. Probably even
more hostile then during bombing of Serbia.
Both Ukrainian and Syrian crisis has become quite an expected result of systemic activity of the
U.S government and its closest allies, said the FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev. He noted that due
to their efforts in Ukraine had grown a whole generation, poisoned by the hatred of Russia and the
mythology of "European values" ( I think here he exaggerated -- this is natural logic of development
of most xUSSR states, probably only amplified by the USA, -- look at Baltic states, Azerbaijan and
Georgia)
"The Ukrainian crisis has become quite an expected result of systemic activity of the U.S.
and its closest allies. The last quarter of a century, this activity was aimed at a complete
separation of the Ukraine and other former Soviet republics from Russia, total reformatting of
the post-Soviet space in the American interests. They created the conditions and the pretexts
for color revolutions that were supported by generous USA government organizations funding," said
the Director of the FSB.
Patrushev said that the assistant Secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian Affairs Victoria
Nuland has said repeatedly that Washington between 1991 and 2013 has spent five billion dollars to
"support the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to a stronger, democratic government". "According
to the only open sources, such as documents of the U.S. Congress, the total public funding of various
American programs for Ukraine for the period from 2001 to 2012 amounted to not less than 2.4 billion
US dollars. ...
"As a result of this activity in Ukraine was bred a whole generation, completely poisoned by
the hatred of Russia and the mythology of "European values". They are not yet aware that these
values, even in the positive sense of the term, actually are not intended for Ukrainians. No one
is going to try to rise standard of living in Ukraine or to arrange employment of young people
in Europe. Currently Europe itself with great difficulty coping with the serious challenges and
threats in those two area" said Patrushev.
"I think that the "sobering" Ukrainians will be abrupt and painful. We can hope only that this
sobering will happen relatively quickly, due to several objective reasons. I want to mention just
one factor, which is of fundamental importance. Regardless of future developments, the significance
of Russia to Ukraine and vise versa in the future will be restored. Ukraine simply will not be
able to successfully develop itself without Russia, whether you like it or not," he told "Rossiskaya
Gaseta" daily.
"The coup in Kiev, organized with explicit support from the United States, was conducted using
the classical scheme, piloted in Latin America, Africa and the middle East. But never before such
a scheme affected Russian interests so deeply. The analysis shows that, provoking Russia to reciprocate,
the Americans are pursuing the same goals as in the 80-ies of the twentieth century in relation
to the USSR. As then, they try to determine the "vulnerabilities" of our country. At the same
time, by the way, they solve the problem of neutralization of the European economic competitors,
which according to Washington, have grown dangerously close to Moscow", - said the head of the
FSB.
"Even in periods of relative warming in relations between Russia (USSR) and the United
States American partners always remained true to such hostile views. Therefore, regardless
of the nuances in the behavior of the Americans and their allies, the Russian leadership now has
a permanent task: to take necessary measures that guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty
of the Motherland, protection and grows its wealth, and that distribution channels for this wealth
work in the interests of the multinational people of the Russian Federation", - concluded Patrushev.
I can think of worse outcomes than the USA being imbued with the belief that if it can just
hang on and keep tightening sanctions until the end of 2015, Russia will fold.
The European economy would be a smoking ruin by then, assuming they just kept saying "Yessir,
Uncle Sam", and doing whatever Obama told them to do. I don't think they would be very disposed
from that point to help America in its cockamamie campaigns.
...being as accomplished a liar as some others in the US administration, VP Joe Biden has actually
spoken the truth when he revealed that Washington had to embarrass some European states into sanctioning
Russia, British MP George Galloway told RT.
RT:A week has passed since US President Vice Joe Biden gave a surprising
insight about how the EU reached its decision to sanction Russia.
That's quite an embarrassing revelation. Why there has been so little reaction to this from
Europe?
George Galloway: Because they are embarrassed. Joe Bid
en is simple sort of chap and therefore is not as accomplished a liar as some of the others in
his administration. I am not sure he will be allowed out alone again. Because on this and on other
matters, Turkey and its rule in Syria for example with the Islamic State so-called, he told a lot
of truth over a couple of days and will probably be gagged for the rest of the presidential term.
But in this case, I am sure, that he spoke the truth. Of course some of the European leaders probably
needed less pressure than others. Some of them are willing accomplices, are willing poodles of the
US and I'm sitting in the capital of one such state. David Cameron is never usually in second place
to those in the queue to back US policy. But Francois Hollande in France occupies now a similar role.
Indeed both of them vie with each other to be America's best friends.
But the objective truth is that you have just summarized it that at the time of real serious economic
hardship in Europe the very last thing that the European Union's economies needed was to go off on
this foolish attempt to bring pressure to bear on the government of Russia. There are no winners
in that.
RT:Should there be some sort of investigation into what really went on?
Because many people are strongly oppose the sanctions.
GG: The American president often times had to embarrass the governments. Of course,
the ways that the EU at the top level makes its decisions are profoundly undemocratic...If the European
parliament had any real power it would be subjecting the EU to forensic examination on how these
decisions were reached. But it doesn't. The British parliament has very limited scope to question
the Prime Minister on actions taken by the Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels. So when the
Parliament goes back here in Britain we will be pressing for answers. But I'm afraid we will be fobbed
off with the usual London diplomatic speech.
But the facts cannot be denied. We are all in economic trouble. Britain is still in the grip of
austerity. Mass unemployment is still the reality across the EU. Huge cuts in public expenditure
are being levied on the people of the EU. And here we are self-harming, here we are disfiguring the
face of our own economic prospects to please Barack Obama.
RT:Do you think that the pressure will grow to such an extent that Europe
and Brussels will be forced to backtrack on sanctions then?
GG: Of course if the people could be rallied to pressurize their independent
states then the council of ministers outcome would be different. But the fear that we are locked
into this crazy policy of aggression against Russia, at this point only financial, and propaganda
aggression of doing no more than any Russian state led by whomsoever would have to do, which is be
concerned about the rise of far-right ultranationalist even fascist formations in the country next
door, and which is leading to huge large-scale repression of Russian speaking citizens of that country
next door. President Putin is doing no more than any Russian leader would have to do if they were
worthy of the name.
Robert Lung
Biden is DUMBER than an ashtray but at this point of the game does it really matter. All the
European Leaders want is bags of money going into there bank accounts handed over by idiots like
Joe. USA, USA, USA.
Douglas Robertson
He pushed as hard as anyone to start a new cold war. How else was his son going to make money
fracking Ukraine? No one ever said he was bright.
....The U.S. did not have to travel down this road, but it did, and there appears to be no way
to turn back-or no way leaders in the West or Russia are prepared to take. The newly precarious state
of affairs derives, in great measure, from a failure on the part of Western, and mostly American,
leaders to understand Russia, which they should have tried to do, given its strategic importance,
nuclear arsenal, continental dimensions, natural resources, and potential as a troublemaker-or dealmaker-in
many troubled parts of the world. It also stems from America's refusal to recognize Russia's concern
about the eventual expansion of NATO, a military bloc inherently inimical to it, into more terrain
along its western border-terrain that is closer to Moscow than the Baltics. How would the United
States react to a Russian incursion in the Western hemisphere? This is no hypothetical question.
In 1962, President Kennedy took the world to the brink of atomic war to force the Soviet Union to
withdraw its nuclear missiles from Cuba.
A deal ended that confrontation, and one is needed now. But to strike one, Western leaders would
have to reassess their view of, and policies toward, Russia. Russia, for reasons of history, culture,
size, and geography, is what it is: not Western, not Eastern, but sui generis, its own world. Predicating
policy on the hopes of a peaceful uprising and the triumph of democracy here-or, conversely, on predictions
of the country's collapse, with a new, West-friendly government emerging from the rubble-is futile.
In the same vein, announcements of economic sanctions designed to make Russia "pay" for annexing
Crimea or stirring up trouble in eastern Ukraine ring hollow to Russian ears.
And with good reason....
... In any case, Russia has set about decoupling from the West, concluding a major hydrocarbons
deal with China, helping Iran weather the effects of Western sanctions, planning its own alternative
to the interbank messaging service SWIFT, and establishing financial institutions to counter the
World Bank and the IMF. It could at any moment derail the United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan;
the route home for American troops and materiel leads across Russia. Moscow cannot be bullied
into changing course.
While Putin is undeniably popular in Russia now, I am not arguing that Russian democracy has survived.
It has not. But Putin's icy demeanor, agate-blue eyes, and judo-trained physique all befit the current
mood in Russia: seething anger over everything lost with the fall of the Soviet Union-superpower
status, national pride, a generous social-welfare state, a low crime rate, and more. Democracy, barely
tried in the 1990s, did not confer those things on Russia. Putin-plus high oil prices-did. Or such
is the popular perception.
Whether or not Westerners agree with how Putin rose to power or rules today, they need to recognize
that in the interests of peace and stability, Russia's interests have to count and be accommodated
in some way. Russia must have a place at the table. The West did not exclude it (entirely) during
the Cold War years. It cannot afford to do so now.
Nikita Glushkov > Riley 1066
"He is this and that by definition" is, by definition, an example of crude partisan hackery.
If you want to be taken seriously, at least attempt to back up your arguments with evidence. Questionable
privatisation, corruption and cronyism is what happens when a given group of elites captures the
apparatus of the state - these phenomena are found in every modern society and their presence
is merely a matter of degree, and do not provide evidence of dictatorship, merely that people
with power use it to enrich themselves and their friends. "Steals other peoples money regularly"
- Which people and and on what occasions ? Evidence ?
By the way, in case you are trying, as your brethren often do, to canonize Khodorkovsky as a glorious
freedom fighter, its worth reminding you that his wealth was ill-gotten during the Yeltsin years.
Putins popularity is not a mystery - During his tenure, living standards for the majority of the
population, especially the dozens of millions of people who live outside the big cities of Moscow
and St. Petersburg have improved vastly, especially when compared with the 90s. People buy cars
and consumer goods, take foreign vacations, etc. etc. etc. Putin's electorate is not located in
the capital - thus the 60% with which he won the election is not unpredictable - those precentages
represent the percentage of the population who have been the biggest beneficiaries of the Putin
years.
If we conclude, as is obvious, that corruption and nepotism is a feature of all governments
and the elites who man them, It becomes clear that is not corruption or nepotism that Washington
and its lackeys are concerned about, but rather the unwillingness of Moscow to dance to Washington's
tune.
Bulos Qoqish > Nikita Glushkov
He's not a "dictator" in the strict sense of the word. But he IS a classic, far-Right, nationalist,
jingoist, manipulative, corrupt demagogue, who cynically abuses mob hysteria (particularly on
topics like "NATO encirclement", "support for our Russian-speaking brothers and sisters being
'oppressed' in places like Ukraine and the Baltic States", "re-building our military so we're
feared by every other country", "Russia is favored by God, so says the Patriarch of Moscow" and
most of all, homophobia) to advance his personal political popularity.
In other words, he's reading right from the U.S. Republican playbook, going at least as far
back as Ronnie Rayguns. He's certainly learned from the best... hasn't he? All you right-wing
Republicans and Tea Partiers should be proud. Congratulations, Dr. Frankenstein, the experiment
was a success!
Bulos Qoqish > Riley 1066
So there is absolutely NO justification -- of any type, under any circumstances, whatsoever
-- for Russian "anger" with the West in general, or the United States in particular... do I have
that right?
What typical, self-righteous, U.S. neo-con nonsense posturing.
IAF101 > Riley 1066
Who are YOU to decide what is "legitimate" ? Who gave you that authority ??
What makes Obama "legitimate" ? What makes George W Bush "legitimate" ?? What makes Regan "legitimate"
??
Putin has higher approval ratings in Russia than Obama ever had in America today. What does
that tell you ?
You or your country are not the sole arbiter of what's "legitimate", "just", "right" or wrong.
First, hand over George W Bush to the ICC for War crimes trials for illegally invading Iraq, Abu
Ghraib, Guantanomo, rendition flights, waterboarding etc - THEN come and question Putin's legitimacy
or Russia's "aggression".
Bulos Qoqish > Riley 1066
Whatever you think of Putin personally (and as I have stated elsewhere, I think he's a
cynical demagogue), his election as President of Russia (not to mention the election to the Duma),
was far, FAR more "free and fair" than ANY national level American election, what with its gerrymandering,
2-party oligopoly, minority voter suppression, absurd over-representation of thinly-populated,
rural, white, conservative jurisdictions (Montana gets the same number of Senators as California),
antiquated "Electoral College" system, and, last but certainly not least, its grotesquely-inflated
amounts of money spent by rich people and corporations to buy elections.
Don't like hearing that, my American friends? Don't like hearing the (true) statement that
an average Russian, has far more say over his or her government, via elections, than does the
average American?
Then SHUT THE F UP, go fix your system, clean it up, and THEN come back to me with your self-righteous
accusations of "rigged Russian elections". Until you do that, don't you DARE lecture me (or any
foreigner), about "democracy". You wouldn't know it, if it bit you on the leg.
Bulos Qoqish > Riley 1066
How about "you're bluffing with a hand of deuces, pardner".
What's the matter?
I guess you're more comfortable debating people who don't know very much about how your country
really works (as opposed to the propaganda version of it, that the U.S. nationalist Right, wants
everyone else to believe in)? Are you maybe unprepared for a POV that doesn't come from, say,
FOX (sic.) "News"?
Don't get me wrong. I have no special hate for the United States. There are many sensible,
peaceful, reasonable Americans, some of whom are my friends. The American political system (while
antiquated and grossly unrepresentative of the wishes of 90% of its voters), isn't hugely worse
than equally-bad systems in some other so-called "Western Democracies". It's just that you then
get up on this high horse and start calling yourself "exceptional".
It's drivel, and outside your country, we know it is. Before you take it upon yourself to try
to fix Ukraine's (and Russia's... or Syria's... or Iraq's... or... "anyone's") problems, how about
you fix up your own, and THEN come back and tell us how "perfect" and "exceptional" you are.
Bulos Qoqish > Riley 1066
Ah, I see, I SEE -- everybody who disagrees with your U.S.-triumphalist, Russophobic POV is
an "idiot"... do I have that right?
I guess the world must be just FILLED with "idiots", with all the "smart" people (like you)
exclusively populating "God's 'exceptional' country"... right? (Funny, you know... from the way
it looks out here, it seems much more like the other way around. Maybe that has to do with repeated
street-level tests where the Average American voter can't place either Iraq, Ukraine, or -- for
that matter -- even India, on a globe or map.)
Now as to your comments about the political situation in the United States and your supposed
(I think, feigned... but as I don't know you personally, I'll have to give you the benefit of
the doubt) abhorrence of the crew of right-wing lunatics (e.g. the Koch Brothers, FOX "News" and
the whole lot of 'em) to whom I referred in an earlier posting.
Bulos Qoqish > Riley 1066
To which "totalitarian friends" of mine do you refer, sir? If you had read any of my postings
(I guess you're not much up on "reading", are you?), you'd have seen that I have roundly condemned
Putin and his clique.
YOUR problem, sir, is that I condemn ALL totalitarians and authoritarians -- including the
cruel, jingoistic, cynical, 2-party elite plutocracy and oligopoly that runs the United States.
You're fine with people yelling at America's "devil figure of the week" (happened to be Putin
a few weeks ago, this week it's ISIS, a few months ago it was Iran's leadership, next month it'll
be someone different... names and faces change, but the song remains the same, because fundamentally
it's an exercise in propaganda and media manipulation), but you get mad when I point the finger
back at your own country.
Remember what they say about people who live in glass houses?
Bulos Qoqish > Riley 1066
Are you hard of hearing? How many times do I have to (re)explain that I despise Vladimir Putin
and his clique of crony-capitalist stooges?
The real reason you keep repeating nonsense like "you defend Putin" is that your simplistic,
"four legs good, two legs bad", pro-American, anti-Russian propaganda narrative can't account
for someone like me, who likes NEITHER Putin NOR his U.S. elite antagonists.
Well... too bad, squire. The world is a complex place and "the enemy of my enemy ISN'T (always)
my friend". That's the truth, whatever you may be hearing back in "God's 'exceptional' country."
Srikanth > Riley 1066
The western governments are just a power hungry, blood leeching community; first of all they
should stop interfering in to issues of other countries -- in the name of humanitarian aid they
should stop invading other countries...Western media - a propaganda machine, should stop spreading
false news, they just brainwash ppl with false news. USA is the biggest dictator in the world,
they try to dictate foreign policies of other nations, sanctions are their primary weapon, they
are just bad !
I hope the power centre will move to Russia and Asia, so that there will be a power balance
in this world....
Brendon Jaramillo > Srikanth
cultural misunderstanding. we live on one planet. and win win situations do exist. if only
russians werent so paranoid and understood economics.
Bulos Qoqish > Srikanth •
I agree with your depiction of the Western governments (and their motivations); but it's naive
of you to think that Russia -- particularly under Putin or another leader cut from the same cloth
-- would likely be any better. Historical precedent suggests otherwise.
The world doesn't NEED a "policeman". The world needs to enforce international law and stop
larger powers from bullying smaller ones... whether that's the U.S. bullying (for example) Venezuela,
or Russia bullying Ukraine.
Bulos Qoqish > IAF101
"America seems to believe they can do anything without consequences."
Of course they do. They're "exceptional", you see.
Being "exceptional" means that America gets to do things (like, "kidnap helpless victims off
the streets of foreign lands and spirit them away for torture and years of arbitrary confinement,
in a world-wide Gulag of political prisons", "launch bombing raids against countries with which
one is not at war", "invade and occupy other nations", "threaten first use of nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear opponents", "ignore treaty obligations", "ignore U.N. resolutions", "apply
its own domestic laws, extra-territorially, in other countries around the world", "exempt its
soldiers and mercenaries from local laws, even when they rape and murder citizens of other countries",
"violently intervene in the internal affairs of other nations", etc., etc. etc.) that -- if undertaken
by ANY OTHER NATION -- would immediately have screams of outrage emanating from the Washington,
D.C. plutocratic elite, along with demands for "America's young 'heroes' in the Armed Forces to
'teach this lawless enemy a thing or two' about the norms of international conduct" (the cruise
missiles would be flying within the hour).
That this nonsense propaganda -- which IS the unquestioned state dogma of official Washington
and the U.S. military-industrial plutocracy (including so-called "liberals" like Obama) -- is
simply Soviet-style agitprop, is so painfully obvious as not to merit further elaboration. Any
American politician who dares to suggest that the United States isn't, in fact, "God's 'exceptional'
nation, mandated by the Lord Himself to divinely 'lead' the rest of the world to Truth, Justice
and the American Way", will be immediately ruled out of contention (by the pundits of the elite
media) for national public office -- particularly the Presidency. There is a level of monolithic
elite agreement on this subject that rivals, for example, Soviet-era doctrine on "democratic centralism".
The only real difference is what's on the flags, and the language that the propaganda is spoken
in.
What worries ME, frankly, is that having become used to playing the "exceptional" card almost
exclusively against weaker nations (or failed states) such as Iraq, Yemen and Serbia, the U.S.
elite -- facing steady economic decline at home and needing something else to distract American
workers from their falling standard of living -- will at some point think that they can get away
with it, against a country that can and will call the U.S. elite's bluff. It might come in a confrontation
with Russia over Eastern Ukraine, or possibly with China over the South China Sea. Maybe it will
come somewhere that we can't yet imagine.
But when that day comes -- as surely it will, given the mindless, jingoistic belligerence,
siege mentality, opportunism and cynicism of the U.S. military-industrial-plutocratic elite (and
particularly, its Republican / Tea Party lunatic right wing fringe... these are guys who make
Vladimir Putin look like Mother Theresa) -- I am really, really afraid of what might happen next.
After all... an "exceptional" nation, never backs down, after it has started a confrontation...
does it?
Start digging your shelter.
David Giles > MatterOverMind
Actually, you are completely wrong. The USA started the fire. First by starting a war against
Gadaffi and overthrowing a long standing Russian ally. Then by training and arming Muslim Extremists
in Jordan to launch an insurrection in Syria, then by using chemical weapons in Syria in an attempt
to discredit Assad and justify direct American intervention. Remember Oclown's red line. Despite
the massive howls of the American public against action in Syria, Oclown was going to bomb Syrian
military forces anyways. That is until Russia moved their Black Sea Fleet out of Sevastopol Crimea
into the Mediterranean in front of Syria and told the US that attacking Syria would mean war and
quote from Putin and Medvedev "once wars start their is no telling where they can lead, nuclear
war is possible".
Oclown backed down from attacking Syria. But in response to Russia's defense of Syria the USA
CIA and State Department gave $5 billion dollars to criminal gangs in Ukraine to stage an uprising
against the legitimately elected government of Ukraine. They then sent in their special forces
snipers that they have used in several civil disturbances to cause them to get violent, Libya
and Syria being two examples. The goal in toppling the Ukrainian government is multifaceted; the
biggest prize being depriving Russia of the use of the navy base in Crimea. We know how that turned
out NOT!
Other goals include capturing the newly discovered vast natural gas fields in Western Ukraine
and developing those fields to supply Western Europe's energy needs. Doing this deprives Russia
of much needed funds through the sale of their natural gas to Europe. Further, 90% of Russia's
natural gas sales to Europe go through pipelines in Ukraine. Physically controlling these pipelines
puts the West in a much stronger position to negotiate prices for Russian gas as the Western Ukrainian
fields are brought on line. Or so they think.
The likely scenario is Russia is going to get really pissed and cut off the flow of gas right
in the middle of winter. America will try and take up the slack by shipping liquified natural
gas in tanker ships. Expect severe disruption of this attempt both in US and European ports.
In the meantime, Al-Maliki in Iraq was aligning with Iran and consequently Russia and refused
to sign the status of forces agreement with Oclown. Because of ongoing failures in Syria, Oclown
turned his ISIS creation loose on Iraq to disrupt and over turn the Al-Maliki government. It didn't
matter to Oclown and the leaders in Washington that countless thousands have been brutally murdered
by their ISIS puppet. Now using the pretext of combating their own creation they are again calling
for bombing Syria and arming "moderate" rebels. However, the truth on the ground speaks volumes.
ISIS is driving US military vehicles and using US made weapons. As soon as Congress passed the
aid bill, just days ago, ISIS made huge advances in Syria. This is no coincidence as the US military
and Intelligence Agencies had the weapons on site and ready for transfer before the bill was signed.
That is why it only took days from signing the bill to ISIS gaining control of more cities in
Syria.
What you really need to understand is what this is all about. BANKING and control of the worlds
monetary system.
Every country the US invades or topples doesn't support the IMF and World Bank but are debt
slaves to those institutions after invasion is complete. And many including Syria, Iraq, and Libya
planned on a new gold standard that would undermine the US dollar's control of global oil markets.
Even in this article (a well written one), it mentions Russia's creation of alternatives to
the IMF and World Bank. This is the real reason the West is trying to go to war with Russia. Putin
has often openly spoke of combating a global evil, one out to control all nations and install
a world government, an evil who's most public face is the IMF and World Bank. Putin is a religious
man as is most of Russia today. It would not surprise me if they see Satan behind the West Globalist
institutions, certainly Iran doesn't hesitate to say that is the case.
And while you may think that taking down these regimes is good and the US has peoples best
interests at heart...and that we are the good guys. Look at the results of ALL of the Arab Spring.
Look at our ally Saudi Arabia driving tanks into Bahrain to put down that countries democratic
uprising. That western media neglected invasion of a sovereign nation by a totalitarian state
to put down people demanding freedom and democracy, an invasion called for and supported by Washington
because the people of Bahrain would tell the USA to get the F out of their nation and take their
navy base with them if they ever had a voice.
Your simplistic view of the events transpiring in the world indicates you need to lay of the
US MSM koolaid.
provocateur > David Giles
Funny, most nations don't have a problem with the world bank..only backwards, intolerant, self
important countries like Russia do. Whats that? They don't like dancing to the American's tune?
Well build a better country and then you can call the shots. Until then, post rambling, incoherent
nonsense (like your post) or kindly shut up. People realize how terrible this planet would be
with Russia in charge.
Nikita Glushkov > provocateur
Your comment provides an interesting insight into the American imperial psychosis - "Well build
a better country and then you CAN CALL THE SHOTS." You literally are functionally incapable of
concieving that other great powers are not motivated by a desire "to call the shots" everywhere
in the world. You forget that Putin does not go on television talking about "Indispendible Russia
Leadership, only about local Russian national interests. You forget that only in Washington do
the power elites peddle self-serving propaganda about "American global leadership." It would be
great if Washington stopped forcing itself down everyone's throats and focused it's interests
on it's own immediate borders, but they aren't going to do that, are they ? They would rather
send Mrs. Nuland of the State Department to stage right-wing coups in Kiev. We don't want to be
in charge of the world, we want Washington to stop cocking it up in our local sphere of influence.
Funny, plenty of nations and international organization, especially those that represent developing
economies, have problems with the World Bank, primarily because of it's promotion of the Washington
concensus and conditional predatory lending that eviscerates pensions, social spending and domestic
production and investment and perpetuates a vicious cycle of dependency whereby the developing
world is forced to provide raw materials to the Western nations, who then create added value which
the producers never see. It's really very simple.
provocateur > Nikita Glushkov
Yeah yeah. Russia just wants everyone to get along in their multi-polar pinko paradise. The
World Bank, and global economy in general is primarily an American institution as it is based
on rampant capitalist ideals. You are clearly (and maybe rightfully so) frustrated at what you
see as American hegemony in the financial arena. That's what happens when the state of California
makes more money than 80% of the countries on Earth. As I said before, when poor, bullied Russia
gets that kind of power, I wonder if you will still be whining?
Nikita Glushkov > provocateur
What on earth are you blathering on about ? Did you bother reading my comment above at all
? We couldn't care less who "gets along" in a "pinko paradise" - we have always operated on the
assumption that individual states engage in policy actions motivated by their proprietary interests
and this ensures a durable, if imperfect balance of stability in the world system. Like I said,
WE, unlike your people in Washington, don't presume that for some reason, we are fit to tell other
states how to conduct their affairs near their borders. We couldn't care less which countries
the World Bank is currently beggaring, as long as Washington keeps it various institutional attack
dogs away from our doorstep. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp ? The State of California
makes more money than 80% of individual sovereign states ? - care to provide evidence for that
fantastical claim ? Russia would have been "bullied" in this case if we allowed Obama to get away
with Ukraine in one piece - as it is, our goal, guaranteed non-expansion of NATO, has been achieved
at relatively little cost and the immediate threats to our national security have been brought
under control. We don't have designs for global domination. because we operate under the assumption,
unlike Washington, that it's an impossible goal. So, no, we won't acquire "that kind of power"
(whatever that means) because acquiring "that kind of power" was never on the agenda to begin
with - leave us alone in our backyard, and we won't bother you in yours. How difficult is that
to wrap your head around ?
provocateur > Nikita Glushkov
Just blindly assuming that I'm American because I dont agree with your tin foil hat theories.
Im from England. Typical Russian flattering himself about how NATO wants to encircle your country.
Only a Russian could not see the irony of a massive bloated nation crushing its neighbor and then
making claims about how you are being "bullied." Also, LOL @ "world domination." Your paranoia
is truly incredible.
Maybe the countries next to you are ASKING to join NATO because Russia is a deceitful menace
to them? Isn't that more probable than whatever Nazi Alien Anti-capitalist rant you are spouting?
Your writing doesn't do much to dismiss the widely held image of Russians as cabbage eating, drunken
liars.
DrOph > David Giles
I see where your heart is, which is nice. But your intel is all mixed up. The fact that this
exchange has garnered so much attention (regardless of the poor perspectives they both offer)
is a testament to the prevailing ignorance which reigns supreme in the world. Thank god nobody
cares about comments. Read the article. This is a very well articulated and reasoned piece. Heed
this warning, and check this hideous rashness
Bulos Qoqish > David Giles
What I'd like to know is, "if a group of far-Left revolutionaries (including a large number
of Trotskyists who were publicly pledging to 'cleanse Mexico of its filthy Jewish capitalist scum'),
who were dissatisfied with the outcome of a recent election in Mexico and with the pro-American
policies of the resulting Mexican government, started staging a series of violent street demonstrations
in Zocalo Plaza -- thereby resulting (eventually) in the violent overthrow of the elected Mexican
government, and its replacement by a far-Left successor regime far more friendly to Russia or
Cuba... what would be the reaction of the United States?"
Because substitute "Mexico" for "Ukraine" and "United States" for "Russia", and there you have
an EXACTLY parallel situation.
Yet America whines and shrieks about Russia's behavior. I would suggest that you Americans
check the history books regarding your own track record, in Latin America, before you entertain
us with your stupid posturing about "the awful Russians".
Nikita Glushkov > SgtKonus
I'd wager it's because there cannot exist separate standards for the foreign policies of various
great powers - unless said separate standards can be enforced. In a world of realist power politics,
it is nonsensical and disingenuous for one power to attack another for not being moral, friendly,
or nice, when the prevailing state of the world is one where being moral, friendly or nice will
compromise your security and survival. Feel me ?
hailexiao > Bulos Qoqish
If we instigated and supporteds separatist/US annexationist movements in Baja California and
Coahuila, we would be in the wrong, just as Russia is in the wrong right now. Just because we
won't do any better doesn't mean Russia or anyone who acts similarly isn't also wrong. Glass houses
need to be broken by thrown rocks anywhere they exist without exception.
Bulos Qoqish > hailexiao
Suppose "we" (by "we" I assume you mean "the United States"... remember, I'm not an American)
did that (note that you are, here, disingenuously implying that ALL the separatist movements in
Crimea and Ukraine were purely and simply created by the Russians, out of whole cloth, and that
they have absolutely no popular support in places like Crimea or Donetsk... an assertion that
is obviously false).
It would still not make America's likely reaction any different. So the entire point is irrelevant.
The point IS, of course, that, in true, hypocritical "U.S. exceptionalist" style, all of the
Russia-baiters on these forums are frothing at the mouth to denounce Russia for doing things that
their own country also does (actually, does much worse), on a routine basis.
Whether or not this kind of nonsense propaganda is appealing to Americans, I can personally
attest that it has ZERO credibility or traction, outside of "God's 'exceptional' country".
Nobody out here particularly likes Putin or his cynical tactics in Ukraine. But the United
States comes into this dispute as a hopelessly tainted, discredited interlocutor. America's past
track record of gross violations of international law and cavalier disregard for the rights of
less powerful nations, disqualifies it from being a positive force not only in this dispute...
but in ALL disputes.
Jack P > David Giles
Cogent post. Thought I'd mention it because I've been through the ringers dealing with the
drivel on the Russia-Ukraine situation, and commiserate. Apparently anarchists, communists, progressives,
some libertarians like Ron Paul, socialists, syndicalists, and others are Putin trolls or Kremlin
shills because they contradict the State Department party line. Better yet, Larry King,, Amy Martin
on Breaking the Set, and economist Max Keiser are Putin trolls because they're on Russia Today.
The brainwashed boneheadedness of many of these commentators is rather pathetic.
Hristo > mtbr1975
First off. As everybody knows it started with a coup against the legit Ukrainian government.
This coup was initiated and backed by US mainly and EU following the "bigger brother", cause this
is what they best do. They are followers. Secondly the russian "invasion" actually never happened.
It wasn't confirmed by any of the official observers. Ukrainian government came up with it cause
they were ashamed of loosing to significantly smaller army. So they needed an explanation. And
knowingly that the west is going to hope in the wagon for political reasons they invented the
"russian invasion".
Hristo > xi557xi
"an agent of irrational Russian behavior"
Wow finally you called somebody to come and help you with the writhing. Unfortunately for you
it sounds, how to put it mildly - stupid. Send this person back home. You were doing better without
him. Now some answers:
1. Russia proposed cheap gas and 15 billion USD loan to Ukraine. EU proposed-wait for it-nothing.
Yanukovych of course the pragmatic he is new that it will take years for the Ukrainian economy
to be able to integrate with EU. So he chose the logical one. That is the truth. Everything else
is just your wet dreams.
2. It is good that you have evolved as a result of our discussion and now you acknowledge that
there wasn't a Russian invasion. If there is (and this is a big if) any " Russian military officers,
vehicles, weapons, equipment, and training involved" it is only fair since there are American
such in Ukraine. Somebody's got to level the play field, eh
3. I don't know but I would guess that you do. Since the Dutch in their report didn't come with
an answer either, one may suggest that you probably was the one shooting the plane, cause this
is the only way to now with any certainty.
Jack P > Kevin
"Supported various genocides such as Syria." That's a real howler. The anti-Syria jihadists
- the origin of IS - was supported by US/NATO via Turkey and the CIA. Yeah, I'm sure that conflict
had nothing to do with Georgia's independent policies that irked the kremlin" is a classic straw
man argument. It doesn't refute that Georgia and Saakashvili, with arm stockpiles provided by
the US, perpetrated the murderous assault on South Ossetia. Chechnya is Russian Federation land.
And yes, there is evidence that Russia has shown itself to be "caring humanitarians." Witness
the three aid convoys bringing food, water and other supplies to Eastern Ukraine. What exactly
has Kiev brought to that region?
Bulos Qoqish > MatterOverMind
"Appeasement". The standard, nonsense "nuclear weapon" used by the U.S. neo-con Far Right to
shut off debate and stop any intelligent, reasoned, fact-based discussion of any topic that the
Right doesn't want to examine.
How typically... "American".
Nikita Glushkov > MatterOverMind
Yes, my man, a fine question. Let's examine the history, shall we ? At the end of the 80s,
Gorbachev, bless his heart, decided to pretend that realist great power politics ceased to exist
and decided to unilaterally surrended Soviet interests on out Eastern border. In return, his naive
expectation was in the absence of a "threat", Washington and it's West European lackeys would
do the same. in fact, Baker, then Bush Srs. Secretarty of State, told Gorbachev clearly that if
he were to allow the reunification of Germany, NATO would not be advanced, and I quote here, "not
even an inch to the East." We know very well with hingsight that those promises were shat upon
- instead, we got a Clinton-manufactured war to dismantle Serbia and make Kosovo essentially a
huge offshore US military base, we got pretty obvious NATO expansion, we got Bush-era attempts
to place so-called ABM installations on our borders (Oh, don't pay any mind to the fact that there
are outside your door, they are actually aimed at the Iranians. What, the Iranians have no long
range missiles ? Oh well.) So don't give me Putin restablishing the Soviet empire shtick, it's
just juvenile. Thoughout this crisis, we have made clear that we will be perfectly satisfied with
a non-aligned, neutral Ukraine along the Finland model - because that is the only sitation that
allows for the preservation of our security interests. Putin, unlike your people,
boca_grande
Russia, has always wanted to be part of Europe. St. Petersburg was a testament to that wish,
a capital built in Europe and meant to impress Europe's then heads of state. (Royal Europe) but
Russia was barely European mostly Asian. And it's early history was not civilized as was Europe.
Millions of uneducated surfs wedded to the land, no hope of emancipation. After this emancipation
in the revolution came an expanded more enlightened population, but also a feeling of national
inferiority lingered. Everything had to be Russian and big, not the best, but the biggest. The
communist system failed and this empathized their degree of sophistication in governing, manufacturing
and arts. Yes, Americans managed to insult the Russians, but I think they would have never really
integrated with the west, as this Raw Russian history would prevail and they would have turned
away from the civilized west. They see the west as decadent, and reject principles we impose on
them like the extreme degree's of free speech etc.
Putin is trying to build a Russia with more discipline and control then the west.
Something like the US was in the 50's. It will be time that tells just what will come of it. Putin
shows his citizens how he can thumb his nose at the EU and US and get away with it. And China
is going right along with him. They are forming a new hemisphere more energetic and exciting,
the west just isn't offering. The tables are turning way from he west and they know it. American
leaders realize the same but don't know what to do. Cut debt??? I think the only thing the world
knows universally, is American leadership has faltered and the world is in a mess or influx.
David Giles > boca_grande
The Civilized West you mention created ISIS and is currently arming them despite that organizations
brutal, murderous, genocidal behavior. They are doing this to take down nations that don't adhere
to their banking systems. The great civilized west killing for money again. Russia has no desire
to align with the godless, homo loving, baby killing west.
American leadership has not faltered, it has failed. It has failed to live up to its oath of office
for over 100 years now, all selling out to the One World Government movement and betraying the
American public and nation.
End the Federal Reserve, end fiat currency, end the license to steal and kill.
Jack P > SgtKonus
Only partially true. The US/NATO was arming and training Al Nusra in Turkey to go into Syria.
The CIA was also involved. Of interest is that well-known picture of McCain meeting with several
of the "legitimate" opposition in Syria. Who's t he guy sitting across from McCain, front left
(those who want to can easily find the pic). He ends up being the head of ISIS.
Jack P > SgtKonus
Link to a treatment of McCain purportedly meeting the "legitimate Syrian opposition." The author
of the commentary contacted the McCain camp wondering if he was meeting a later ISIS head. At
first they said it wasn't the same person, to which the author asked for the name. They didn't
provide it. So either it is a cover-up, or McCain and his camp didn't vet who he was meeting.
In the case of the latter, it puts to shame the point that arms were being shipped to non-radical
elements in Turkey and Syria.
Wow, you really are deluded. Well try then Saudi Arabia. How many be headings and stoning s
have they performed this year? And this differs from ISIS how? And they are whose allies? This
thing about Iraq's weapons is hog wash and just a phony alibi.
SWalkerTTU > Laura •
Maybe we should consider the policy of the Roman Empire, which Tacitus (I think?) sarcastically
described as "They make a desert and call it peace."
Laura > SWalkerTTU
What peace is, is a complex thing. If everyone is dead, that's pretty peaceful. If one side
is cowed into silence, that's peaceful.
Jack P > vkg123
Not deep in the woods at all. Given that there are Chechen separatist terrorists in the area
who are going under the radar after Russia gaining control of the territory. Some of the volunteers
who went to East Ukraine were formerly fighting the terrorists - or separatists however you want
to look at it - in previous Chechen battle. Many of them went elsewhere, to places like Turkey
and eventually where they gained US/NATO largesse.
In fact Right Sector thug Yarosh, currently in high position in the Kiev government, praised
Right Sector Alexander Muzichko for his role in fighting against Russia in Chechnya. Muzichko
is known for torture and murder of prisoners. That's the side that transmuted into the Syrian
"opposition" and eventually the current ISIS.
From comments: "Latvia is a country of 2 million people who have economic decisions made for them
by the world bank, the IMF and the EU parliament." Nationalists after coming to power treat Russians
as second class citizens. thanks God they can move to Western Europe which is less xenophobic. Most
professionals I used to know left the country long ago. So what they are building is Ethnographic museum
with banking sector specializing in laundering Russian dirty money. We can talk about democracy in apartheid
country, like Latvia, only as a joke.
The results will give Harmony 25 seats in Latvia's 100-seat parliament, six fewer than they had
before the elections, when they were also the largest single party in parliament. Other parties,
however, were reluctant to enter a coalition with what is seen as the "Russian party".
... ... ...
A third of Latvia's population is Russian-speaking, but about 280,000 are "non-citizens" of the
country, holding special passports that bar them from voting. In order to become citizens, they have
to take an exam on Latvian culture and history, a process which Russian rights groups say amounts
to discrimination, but Latvian authorities say is necessary given the history of Soviet occupation
and forced Russification policies of the past.
Ilja NB, 05 October 2014 1:42pm
So far the democracy in Latvia. Fanatic Latvians op purpose exclude the largest elected party.
This is how extreme hate is created which eventually will reach boiling point like in the east
of Ukraine.
NSAhunter -> IljaNB, 05 October 2014 2:05pm
Oh please, the largest party many times are excluded if they can't gain support from other
parties to form a government.
The Social democrats got the most seats but the second largest party ended up making government
instead because they found more allies to outnumber the largest party.
Also happened in Germany when the SPD and FDP outmaneuvered the larger CDU despite CDU having
the largest share of votes because SPD and FDU combined outnumbered CDU voters.
I doubt many baltics want "closer ties with russia" given what happened to Ukraine.
The ukrainians sure got "closer ties" alright.
Hermann22 -> Ilja NB, 05 October 2014 5:27pm
The largest party had 23% of the votes. The coalition had 56%. The coalition wins by more than
2 to 1. This is democracy. Of course, this is not what Mr Putin understands as democracy but it
is how things are done in the free world.
Abdullah Ahmed Faraz, 05 October 2014 1:44pm
Failure to give ethnic Russians a fair representation would lead to more unrest.
Due to some strange discriminatory laws in Latvia, more than 10%
of the population are banned from any voting, and something tells me they most probably would
have voted for Ushakov, wouldn't they?
On the other hand, ethnic Latvians refrain from voting for Ushakov because he is an ethnic
Russian (as this very article suggests).
In other words, discrimination in all directions.... looks like it is the way of living in
Latvia, unfortunately...
onu labu -> voltaire17, 05 October 2014 7:36pm
out of 2 million people in Latvia, 1.5m are eligible to vote; some 520k are ethnic Russians,
plus another 110k are Ukrainians and Belarusians, adding up to a total of 630k 'Russian speakers',
of whom less than half - 280k - can't vote because they can't be arsed to learn the language of
a country they came to live in uninvited.
Nobul -> onu labu, 05 October 2014 7:53pm
Were the Americans, Australians, Kiwis and Afrikaners invited into their countries and learned
the native languages?
GoodmansParadox -> Phalanxia, 05 October 2014 2:52pm
Crimea is Russian, was Russian, and its people want to remain Russian, not be controlled by
Russophobes in Kiev by a quirk of history (Khruschev's largesse would never had happened if the
potential of the Ukrainian SSR breaking away from Russia had been contemplated). Why do you hate
self-determination? Because the vast majority of Crimeans reject Ukraine. This was not an invasion.
Phalanxia -> Alex Kuk, 05 October 2014 3:02pm
They can choose whatever they like - apparently a large number of them chose Europe over Russia.
Because the vast majority of Crimeans reject Ukraine.
If this was so obviously true, the referendum could have been conducted within the Ukrainian
Constitution rather than at the gunpoint of the Russian soldiers who Putin now admits had invaded
Crimea.
Crimea is Russian, was Russian
It was actually originally Tatar, an indigenous people which the Russian authorities have wasted
no time in repressing.
whyohwhy123 -> Phalanxia, 05 October 2014 5:14pm
Phalanxia : "In other words, this is a loss for the pro-Moscow party.
It's interesting how Harmony are pursuing the same have-cake-and-eat-it-too policy the Party of
Regions and Russophiles in Ukraine pursued (
===========
pro-Moscow?....so any russian party is pro-Moscow?...and of course by this token any Russian
party is a BAD party in your opinion...do you know that you are a racist?
Dimmus -> Phalanxia, 05 October 2014 7:02pm
< the referendum could have been conducted >
under the OSCE monitoring, but OSCE refused to monitor.
< rather than at the gunpoint of the Russian soldiers >
- show me any photos or videos of russian guns pointing on someone who votes.
< It was actually originally Tatar, an indigenous people which the Russian authorities have
wasted no time in repressing. >
- The recorded history of the Crimean Peninsula begins around the 5th century BC when several
Greek colonies were established along its coast (Wiki). Then it had been settled by Scythians,
Tauri, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Kipchaks and Khazars. Then Kievan Rus' and partly
by Byzantium. Then Golden Horde, Venetians and by the Genovese. Then the Crimean Khanate and the
Ottoman Empire. Then the Russian Empire. Then... some time later, under Soviets the Ukraine was
formed and Crimea was given to Ukraine... May be historically it belongs to Greeks, but not to
Tatars or Ukraine?
mattijoon Dimmus, 05 October 2014 11:12pm
< It was actually originally Tatar, an indigenous people which the Russian authorities have
wasted no time in repressing. > - The recorded history of the Crimean Peninsula begins around
the 5th century BC when several Greek colonies were established along its coast (Wiki). Then
it had been settled by Scythians, Tauri, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Kipchaks and
Khazars. Then Kievan Rus' and partly by Byzantium. Then Golden Horde, Venetians and by the
Genovese. Then the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire. Then the Russian Empire. Then...
some time later, under Soviets the Ukraine was formed and Crimea was given to Ukraine... May
be historically it belongs to Greeks, but not to Tatars or Ukraine?
Well, you point it out. No piece of land "historically belongs" to anybody. Borders have been
shifting, peoples have been moving, the Earth does not know any political boundaries.
The annexation of Crimea by Russia is not legitimate. The Russians violated the papers they
signed.
SHappens, 05 October 2014 2:02pm
Harmony favours closer ties with Moscow, while maintaining Latvia's Nato and EU membership
The right thing to do. This is highly compatible and respectful for all. The same approach
shall not be a problem elsewhere in Europe.
stuperman -> SHappens, 05 October 2014 2:21pm
''Harmony favours closer ties with Moscow, while maintaining Latvia's Nato and EU membership.''
That's its comment today. Tomorrow it can change its mind. As mayor of Riga why did Ušakovs
visit senior Moscow officials three weeks ago? He said it was to discuss Russian sanctions of
Latvian exports. That is not his responsibility; it the role of national government. We in Latvia
are fully aware where his loyalties lay.
starfield, 05 October 2014 2:11pm
they have to take an exam on Latvian culture and history, a process which Russian rights groups
say amounts to discrimination
Hmm, they could always go and live in Russia then if that's the culture and history they prefer.
It seems quite clear to me that there is a push to recreate the USSR but instead of having the
other states still seen as states, Russia wants to just make them a part of Greater Russia.
speakout99 -> starfield, 05 October 2014 3:02pm
Nonsense. What would Russia want with a tiny, troublesome state like Latvia? In any case, it's
part of the EU and NATO. You are just fantasizing.
Bythemilkwood -> starfield, 05 October 2014 5:02pm
Would you consent to be driven out of your home by ethnic cleansing?
whyohwhy123 -> starfield, 05 October 2014 5:36pm
Hmm, they could always go and live in Russia then if that's the culture and history they prefer.
===========
its like in Belgium you would say for French-speaking minority - you can always go to france
and leave Belgium alone...or you can say for French-speaking minority in Switzerland - go to France
if you want to speak your langauge....or in Spain and Scotland you can say to locals you can...ups
!!!! - no, no, no....in other words you get it - what you have just said is total nonsence
(and pretty fascist one nonsence by the way).
Gernot Kramper, 05 October 2014 2:17pm
On the long run, Lativa must face the russian speaking minority. degrading them to ciztizen
without rights is far below EU standards and makes sure, "evil" putin has a foot in the door.
They can solve their problems now - or someone else will do in future
Matt Long, 05 October 2014 2:26pm
Latvia is a country of 2 million people who have economic decisions made for them by the
world bank, the imf and the EU parliament.
They cannot change taxation levels, raise pensions or set budget levels without other people's
say say.
Any country that took a bailout is in the same position. Fear of the Russians is the only
way to be heard when you are a corrupt small nation.
I feel for the people, both ethnic latvian and ethnic russian caught up in self serving
political b***s**t.
dyatel42, 05 October 2014 5:00pm
I wonder how many people would be disenfranchised if Wales insisted that an exam in Welsh had
to be passed before being allowed to vote?
Presumably, Russian speakers in the Baltic states are permitted to pay taxes to the state even
though they are unable to participate in the democratic process.
However, it would appear that many Russian speakers who do possess a Baltic state passport
simply move to the UK, judging by the number of Russian speakers my wife overhears around town.
stuperman -> dyatel42, 05 October 2014 5:21pm
There is a difference between an ''exam'' and a test. It is a test in Latvian similar to the
one in the UK for those seeking UK citizenship..
edwardrice -> stuperman, 05 October 2014 5:26pm
But Latvia is a newly independent country and the people denied citizenship were born in the
territory or moved and lived in the territory for many years and called it home.
The ethnic Russians denied equal rights by the Latvian authorities didn't move to Latvia, they
were already living there.
Quote: "I like the bit at 5:40 where Rogozin describes how USA uses its military capability
to solve political and economic issues as well, comparing to a Mafia gangster who lays a gun on the
table while conducting an economic negotiation! ". He actually quoted Al Capone - Wikiquote "You can
get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."
Rogozin interview on youtube. Saker added English subtitles.
I like the bit at 5:40 where Rogozin
describes how USA uses its military capability to solve political and economic issues as well,
comparing to a Mafia gangster who lays a gun on the table while conducting an economic negotiation!
ArneViman1
Great guy -- The attitude is top and how they value the young engineers.. Rogozin is not somebody
caught up in a web of lies and hidden agendas as we are so used to seeing western politicians.
TheFinnmacool
Meanwhile in America the value that our young people have is their ability to go into student
loan debt and forever be beholden to the banking industry.
Once someone takes on all the debt and gets old enough to realize what's happened to them
they are quite jaded and demotivated.
As The Wall Street Journal's Jeremy Page writes, In the recommended-reading section of Beijing's
Wangfujing bookstore, staff members have no doubt which foreign leader customers are most interested
in: President Vladimir Putin, or "Putin the Great" as some Chinese call him.
[B]ooks on Mr. Putin have been flying off shelves since the crisis in Ukraine began,
far outselling those on other world leaders, sales staff say. One book, "Putin Biography: He is Born
for Russia," made the list of top 10 nonfiction best sellers at the Beijing News newspaper in September.
China's fascination with Mr. Putin is more than literary, marking a shift in the post-Cold War
order and in Chinese politics. After decades of mutual suspicion-and one short border conflict-Beijing
and Moscow are drawing closer as they simultaneously challenge the U.S.-led security architecture
that has prevailed since the Soviet collapse, diplomats and analysts say.
The former rivals for leadership of the Communist world also increasingly share a brand of anti-Western
nationalism that could color President Xi Jinping's view of the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
Beijing accuses Western governments of stirring unrest there, much as Mr. Putin blamed the West for
the pro-democracy protests in Kiev that began late last year.
Russia has begun portraying the Hong Kong protests, too, as U.S.-inspired. Russian state-controlled
television channels this week claimed that Hong Kong protest leaders had received American training.
The King of Chutzpah, otherwise known as Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission, has
written to Putin to express the EU's distress over Russia's position on trade with Ukraine once
the EU Agreement kicks in. Just to remind folk of what the Evil One is proposing when the Agreement
does come into force:-
"This does not mean we will forbid the import of Ukrainian goods into
the Russian market. But it does mean those goods will not benefit from preferential conditions
within the free trade zone, although they will be subject to the so-called "most favoured nation"
regime. In other words, goods produced in Ukraine will be categorised in the same way as all other
WTO member states.
That Ukrainian goods will be treated in exactly the same way as goods from all other WTO member
states. Truly shocking, no? Barroso seems to think so:-
"We have strong concerns about the recent adoption of a decree by the Russian government
proposing new trade barriers between Russia and Ukraine. We consider that the application of this
decree would contravene the agreed joint conclusions and the decision to delay the provisional
application of the trade related part of the Association Agreement," Barroso's letter to Putin
reads.
Barroso added that further consultations could be held in order to address Russian concerns
over the free trade zone between the EU and Ukraine.
"We are ready to continue engaging on how to tackle the perceived negative impacts to the
Russian economy resulting from the implementation of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area,"
the letter reads.
Barroso also reminded that the Association Agreement is a bilateral agreement, "any adaptations
to it can only be made at the request of one of the parties and with the agreement of the other."
This is clear evidence, if any were needed, that the EU thinks Plan A is still in play – Ukraine
will move into the western orbit while Russia continues to subsidise it. Surely the EU's time
would be better spent on working out how it can import more from Ukraine and export less? Personally,
I hope Russia refuses any further dialogue with the EU on this and simply takes the actions it
has warned of once the Association Agreement comes into force.
I doubt that he really thinks any such letter would have an effect on Putin. Remember, this is
the same Barroso who retreated from his declarations about Putin when the latter threatened to
disclose the full content of their conversation.
I cannot imagine what he would tell Putin to
be so embarassing.
More likely he engages in writing such essays for the benefit of the gullible, which may even
include certain Ukrainians. Bruxelles must be desperate to convince them that Kiev is not being
thrown under a triple decker bus.
Barroso points out that this is a bilateral agreement. I don't see "trilateral" in there anywhere,
and I understand the two parties implied in "bilateral" to be Ukraine and the EU. I'm afraid I
don't understand how this is Russia's problem. Similarly, when he speaks of "this decree contravening
the agreed joint conclusions", he is not talking about conclusions to which Russia was a contributing
party, and therefore I do not see why Russia should be sensitive to the concerns of a trade agreement
to which it was not a party, or to interpret itself as being bound by these conclusions.
More
to the point, Barroso well knows that there is nothing illegal, or even unreasonable, about what
Russia is doing vis-a-vis cross-border trade – if there were, the Council of Europe would be screaming
that the law be enforced, immediately. Ukraine's bizarre behaviour merely lends weight to an argument
that such trade would be a threat to Russia's national security. But Barosso is like Fonzie on
"Happy Days" – physically
incapable of admitting he was wrong. So he is attempting to push Russia with the sheer deadweight
of stuffy officialdom into doing something which is not only against its interests, but which
will bring it no benefit and will instead benefit its declared enemies. Good luck with that, Jose.
How on earth does Russia's restructuring of its trade links with Ukraine affect the EU-Ukraine
Association Agreement? Did Barroso think that EU goods going into Ukraine under a free trade regime
can simply pass through and enter Russia under similar terms it has with Ukraine (but not with
the EU)? Either Barroso himself hasn't actually read the agreement or he has the mind of a black
marketeer.
Damage is done. Especially to EU. While sanctions allow Russia somewhat rebalance its economy and
squeeze the most obnoxious Western companies (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Auditing companies, etc) dependency
of Western financial sector also hurt greatly.
Speaking at an investment forum, Putin described the sanctions as "utter silliness" that hurt
Western business and offered an opportunity for others to expand in the Russian market.
Europe On Triple-Dip Alert After German Manufacturing Posts First Contraction In 15 Months
It is as I have said – Europe cannot afford to keep sanctions in place, it needs every opportunity
for growth it can get. All the leaders want to play tough guy, but they are ruining their nations'
economies all to please Washington, which is rubbing its hands with delight at the mayhem it has
caused without suffering any damage itself.
Europe seems to suffer from Battered Wife Syndrome (aka Stockholm Syndrome). However much successive
US Administrations abuse them, they come back for more. Surely it can't all be because the US
owns the Internet?
Where's a counsellor when you need one? Nowhere to be seen!
Quote: "So the future of the presentation of Russia as a hodgepodge of unflattering stereotypes
seems bright. The naive liberal notion that the world has a teleological disposition toward a progressive
end-if only holdouts like Russia would get with the program-is deeply entrenched. Headlines datelined
in Russia-on corrupt oligarchs, or on control-freak KGB-generation political operators-will continue
to nourish sweeping criticism of Russians, from their leaders on down, as primitive and psychologically
ill. Probably no other nation is so easy (or so safe) to caricature."
RUSSIA, IT IS often said, is a country that is barely able to stumble out of bed and put on matching
socks in the morning. In the lead-up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi and continuing during the Games,
the U.S. media declared open season on the nation. Americans were told that Russia is a country just
about bereft of functioning elevators or toilets. Or even a national food, "except perhaps bad sushi."
Its people "hardly know who they are anymore" and its essence is defined by copyright infringement
and "all-encompassing corruption." All in all, Russia is "a country that's falling apart," as a
New Republic cover story in February put it.
It's a hardy theme. It's also a completely
bogus one. But that hasn't stopped the media from reviving it again and again.
Thirteen years ago, for example, the Atlantic published a cover story, "Russia Is Finished,"
on "the unstoppable descent of a once great power into social catastrophe" and ultimately "obscurity."
That was a particularly bad year to predict Russia's demise, as an economic revival was starting
to take hold. And these days, Russia is proving itself to be anything but "finished" as a geopolitical
actor, with its aggressive seizure of Crimea and its arming of pro-Russia separatists in eastern
Ukraine-who appear to be responsible for the July shooting down of a Malaysia Airlines passenger
jet as it flew over rebel-held territory. Nor is Russia's determined and so far successful backing
of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and its nascent alliance with China based on a historic energy pact,
suggestive of a nation that is no longer a consequential player on the world stage. Russia remains
a risk-taking nation-and as questionable, even reckless, as its gambles may be, as in its support
for the rebels in eastern Ukraine, this is not the behavior of a country destined for insignificance.
And while there is a great deal that is second-rate about Russia, from its sagging transportation
infrastructure to its shoddy health-care system, such blemishes, common to many nations, including
the United States, are hardly evidence of a fatal malaise.
The interesting question, then, is what lies behind this unbalanced mind-set-what might be called
the "Russia Is Doomed" syndrome. What is the source of such stubbornly exaggerated thinking-and why
is Russia chronically misdiagnosed in this fashion?
IT FEELS right, as a first line of exploration, to call in Dr. Freud. Maybe the strange idea that
"the drama is coming to a close," as the Atlantic piece prematurely declared of Russian
history, is actually a wish of the collective Western subconscious-the silent urge of the id. The
Freudian recesses can subtly affect our political desires, after all, and our twenty-first-century
nervousness about Russia can be traced to long-standing European anxieties about despotic Russia
as a kind of repository of the primitive in the human condition-dangerously and infuriatingly resistant
to higher and hard-won European values. In his popular and bigoted early nineteenth-century travelogue,
the French aristocrat Marquis de Custine said that in Russia "the veneer of European civilization
was too thin to be credible." His dyspeptic view of Russia has lived on ever since.
Russia was indeed less developed than Europe-according to standards of modernity such as science,
technology and industry-but there was a self-serving element of power politics as well as cultural
hauteur behind such disparagements. It is no surprise that the notion of Russia and Russians as representing
an Other-as in, apart from "us Westerners"-was strikingly prevalent in nineteenth-century Victorian
England. That was the time of the Great Game-the competition between Britain and Russia for influence
and spoils in a swath of Asia stretching from the Indian subcontinent to the Black Sea.
The Crimean War of the 1850s, pitting both the French and the British against the Russians, sparked
an especially intense British animus against a marauding Russian bear, pitted against the regal British
lion, as the political cartoonists of the day had it. (Or a meek lion, as some illustrators sketched
the scene. In one such cartoon, a massive bear, a Russian soldier's cap on its head, sits atop a
prostrate Persian cat, a lion looking on helplessly in the background.) Negative images of Russia
seeped into British literature. George Stoker wrote an anti-Russian travelogue, With the Unspeakables,
drawn from the Russo-Turkish war of 1877–1878. That book, in turn, may have supplied an impetus for
his older brother, Bram, who later wrote of a pair of fantastical novels, Dracula and
The Lady of the Shroud, that can be read as conjuring an "Eastern" or Slavic threat to England.
In the end, of course, Count Dracula has his throat slashed and is stabbed dead in the heart.
Granted, the British Empire was a promiscuous slanderer of its motley rivals-consider the aspersions
regularly cast toward the French. Still, British feelings toward Russia were notably raw. The historian
J. H. Gleason, in his 1950 book The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain, characterized
the nineteenth-century English public's "antipathy toward Russia" as the "most pronounced and enduring
element in the national outlook on the world abroad." The sentiment, Gleason concluded, was concocted
by a manipulative, imperial-minded elite-and was off base, anyway, since Britain's foreign policy
was actually "more provocative than Russia's" in this period. Others concur. "The world champion
imperialists of modern history, the British, were in a permanent state of hysteria about the chimera
of Russia advancing over the Himalayas to India," Martin Malia observed in his 1999 book Russia
under Western Eyes.
What about Russia's grim demographic profile? The analyst Nicholas Eberstadt at the American Enterprise
Institute labeled Russia "The Dying Bear" in a 2011 essay in Foreign Affairs. "The country's population
has been shrinking, its mortality levels are nothing short of catastrophic, and its human resources
appear to be dangerously eroding," he wrote. Critics of that piece pointed out that Russia in 2010
actually had a lower mortality rate than in 2000. And this progress has continued. In a Wall Street
Journal piece earlier this year, Eberstadt conceded:
Russia's post-Soviet population decline has halted. Thanks to immigration chiefly from the
"near abroad" of former Soviet states, a rebound in births from their 1999 nadir and a drift downward
of the death rate, Russia's total population today is officially estimated to be nearly a million
higher than five years ago. For the first time in the post-Soviet era, Russia saw more births
than deaths last year.
It seems the ursine creature is not, after all, dying.
In any case, our taste for a country-favorable or unfavorable-shouldn't dictate our foreign policy,
which is properly shaped by a cool calculation of our national interest. On these terms, America
is right to resist Russia if Putin seems truly bent on bullying his way to a redrawn map of Europe,
but also right to try to keep working with Russia on matters of mutual concern such as Islamic militancy.
And that same calculation will hold when Putin, as must happen eventually, exits the Kremlin, willingly
or unwillingly, whether replaced by a new autocrat or a more democratic figure. Today's heightened
tension between the United States and Russia, conceivably the first chapter of a new cold war, with
Europe as ambivalent as ever about its role, underscores that Russia is likely to remain one of America's
most vexing and formidable diplomatic challenges for a long time to come.
So the future of the presentation of Russia as a hodgepodge of unflattering stereotypes seems
bright. The naive liberal notion that the world has a teleological disposition toward a progressive
end-if only holdouts like Russia would get with the program-is deeply entrenched. Headlines datelined
in Russia-on corrupt oligarchs, or on control-freak KGB-generation political operators-will continue
to nourish sweeping criticism of Russians, from their leaders on down, as primitive and psychologically
ill. Probably no other nation is so easy (or so safe) to caricature.
And the "Russia Is Doomed" syndrome is bound to survive because Russia, alas, still matters. The
object of such concentrated anxiety over the centuries, far from heading down a path to obscurity,
remains a global force and impossible to ignore. So the worries will live on, too, as will the sublimated
wish to efface Russia. But perhaps the good news for the critics is precisely that Russia is not
about to go away. They will have plenty of grist for their mill for decades to come.
Paul Starobin is a former Moscow bureau chief of Business Week and the author of After America:
Narratives for the Next Global Age (Viking, 2009).
Peacen1k
The author Paul Starobin lists and presents examples of Western propaganda, misconceptions,
and disinformation as the causes for misrepresenting and misunderstanding Russia, but in the process
adds a bunch of his own into the mix (the source for which is the same as for the ones he lists).
Was that intended as some kind of half-assed disclaimer and a placating bone thrown at an average
Western reader? Was the author afraid that this reader would simply stop reading if some of the
more recent propaganda wasn't used to calm the Westerner's nerves?
Very sad that this just keeps happening with no end in sight...
smoothieX12 -> Peacen1k
Very sad that this just keeps happening with no end in sight...
All "sources" of Western media in Russia are limited to Urban ultra-liberal "intelligentsia"
(which is insult to this title) and those who by definition hate Russian guts. At least author
had guts to point out the religious affiliation of some of those "sources". "Russian narrative"
in US historically was set up by Russian Jews and other minorities and dissidents. Thus the caricature
and failure to even react properly to a real information and facts, such as this crisis in Ukraine.
No surprise here, when US Networks, from CNN to NBC, use Pavel Falgenhauer (MSU graduate with
degree in biology) as "Russian military expert" (the guy is moron, basically) what else should
one expect?
ProV -> smoothieX12
Too many soothsayers, and not enough critics. Stephen Cohen is blacklisted now for ever daring
to criticize people like Strobe Talbott.
The Guardian started its campaign against disagreeable commentators by labeling them all FSB
trolls. Now you cannot read anything BTL because there are literally hundreds of accusations like
this in every single article. Interestingly, GCHQ has for a number of years employed an astroturfing
campaign to influence blog posts and online comment boards.
AlexZhukov > WBC
In spite of the abundance of ways available for American people to obtain all kinds of
information on all subjects, US still remains a formidable bastion of bigotry and ignorance in
the world, so it is no wonder that you get to read these wacky bloopers here.
This is what happens when your average Joe The Clown suddenly swings his "attention" from porn
to politics.
Hegelguy
It is the same with India: according to the Anglo-American press, India can NEVER do right
unless it unconditionally capitulates to every idea hatched in Washington. The West is a
great hater: any sizable country that poses the smallest possible challenge to total US domination
is treated with relentless hostility.
The Russians are just waking up to this truth well known to Lenin.
Jon Lester > Hegelguy • 14 days ago
I didn't learn of the disastrous anti-Bolshevik "Polar Bear" and Siberian expeditions until
adulthood, and it wasn't because I missed any history classes at school. Not unlike how US actions
in the Philippines in the 1890's and early 1900's tend to get passed over in most textbooks, too.
evangelical > Jon Lester • 14 days ago
Oh you mean they conveniently forgot to teach that the US killed 250,000 Filipinos after they
"liberated" the islands from spain?
Guest > Hegelguy • 14 days ago
"It is the same with India: according to the Anglo-American press, India can NEVER do right
unless it unconditionally capitulates to every idea hatched in Washington."
Not fair at all. It's not that the stories about India in the American press are bad, so much
as they're non-existant. India gets about as much airtime in the American press as Canada. The
reception towards Modi has been generally positive despite the U.S. government's past issues with
him. In fact, I can't think of a major story portraying India badly in the U.S. except for the
ones about religious riots years ago. The closest thing to negative press are stories about jobs
going offshore--but those aren't India-specific.
You risk falling into the same spot as Russia--where a country we do a lot of business with,
have no beef with, have helped out signicantly in the past (Google "Rockefeller Foundation," "famine,"
"1970"), and should by all rights be close allies with insists on becoming an enemy because of
the gigantic nationalistic chip on their shoulder.
Mike > Hegelguy • 14 days ago
Hegelguy, Anglo-American press? It's 2014, America is anything but Anglo these days. In fact,
the largest ancestry group in the US is German followed by African! English is fifth on the list
for ancestry. All of that being said. India occupies about 0.1% of American news. India isn't
even on the radar. No one here cares what India does or doesn't do.
ning05 • 17 days ago
It was Hitler's Nazi Germany that invaded and laid waste Soviet Russia through the corridor
of Central and Eastern Europe, and it was the Red Army, not the armies of the
Western allies, which at horrendous cost broke the spinal cord of the Wehrmacht.
A nation that willingly sacrificed 14% of its entire population or more than 30% of its entire
male population in the Great Patriotic War rather than surrender will never collapse. China realized
that truth about Russia long time ago and pragmatically settled the border disputes and gave up
the claims on a million square kilometers territory (formerly of Manchuria, not really Chinese
to begin with) seized by Russian Czar more than a century ago. It is lucky for China in this century
to have Russia as its ally or at least tacitly supporting and providing a strategic hinderland
for China.
Oh yeah? when did you last time read the historical books?
In 1919-1920 the Polish ruling circles declared out to restore the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
in the borders of 1772 and the conquest of the corridor to the Black Sea (Poland from sea to sea).
Poland seized Vilnius and Lithuania in the field in direct violation of the treaty between
Lithuania and Poland in 1920 . March 17, 1938 Poland declared ultimatum to Lithuania to cancel
the article of the constitution, declaring Vilnius the capital of Lithuania, and guarantee the
rights of the Polish minority in Lithuania. In case of disagreement on the requirements within
24 hours Poland threatened to occupy Lithuania, which then was done so.
Poland was the first State to conclude a nonaggression pact with Hitler's Germany. January
26, 1934 was signed the Polish-German non-aggression pact for 10 years. The Polish ambassador
in Berlin, Jozef Lipski said on this occasion the French reporter, that "now Poland does not need
in France anymore". "We are delighted with our first agreements with Hitler" - said the head of
the Polish state Pilsudski to the French Foreign Minister Louis Bart in spring 1934. From 1934
to 1939, a strategic partnership with the Nazis was the core of the Polish foreign policy.
In 1938 Poland, together with Hitler'r Germany attacked Czechoslovakia and shared it.
Churchill called Poland a vulture of Europe.
But then in Poland did not manage to communicate well with Hitler, because the Poles wanted
too much, and Hitler decided to do without them what he did.
Russia wanted to prevent the start of war by any price, only France and England wanted to push
Germany closer to Russia's birder by making the Minich Treaty, which was actually a betrayal of
both POland and Russsia. Actually in 1939 there was total chaos in Poland, so USSR had to proceed
to POland to save its population from Bandera nationalists and create a buffer in otderno separate
Germany from direct contact with Russia's border.
There was chaos and mess in Poland in September 1939, a process of disorganization of the entire
Polish state machine. on the first day of the war the Polish president 72-year-old Ignatius Mościcki
left the capital . On September 4, the evacuation from Warsaw to Lutsk was started for facilities,
gold reserves, the diplomatic corps and for the government there was nothing to control. And a
senseless from political point of view two-week trip to safe places of officials and government
was made thereby paralyzing the work of the entire administrative system and demoralizing the
population.
Supreme Commander also decided to retreat to 180 kilometers from capital. As noted by the Polish
author, Rydz Smigly felt kind of leader of the nation rather than a military leader directly responsible
for the defense of the country. Unfortunately, he was not Pilsudski and not equal to him in any
moral authority or political talent. Smigly was a graduate of the Faculty of Philosophy. He selectes
as his Headquarters Brest and moved there. After him, it is not clear from what reasons, apart
from the government and ambassadors, followed Minister of Foreign Affairs with the most important
departments. And to cover the new precious command post the air cover Fighter Aviation Brigade
has been removed from capital to Brest.
As suddenly was revealed the Brest fortress was completely not adapted for the work as military
headquarters for Polish strategists, secondly, in Brest there was no connection to army. Had brought
the station which could not be used as codes were forgotten in Warsaw. Twelve hours later they
managed to establish telephone communication with the army in Lublin and Narew. Finally, the railway
brought codes, but by this time the radio was already was not working.
After that USSR has made an official notification that due to the fact that Poland does not
control its territories , a bufer zone between Germany and USSR must be created. It saved thousands
of pooles from Ukrainian Nazis.
Василий Батарейкин > harryposter • 14 days ago
lier! lier! March 17, 1938 Poland declared ultimatum to Lithuania to cancel the article of
the constitution, declaring Vilnius the capital of Lithuania, and guarantee the rights of the
Polish minority in Lithuania. In case of disagreement on the requirements within 24 hours Poland
threatened to occupy Lithuania, which then was done so.
Poland was the first State to conclude a nonaggression pact with Hitler's Germany. January
26, 1934 was signed the Polish-German non-aggression pact for 10 years. The Polish ambassador
in Berlin, Jozef Lipski said on this occasion the French reporter, that "now Poland does not need
in France anymore". "We are delighted with our first agreements with Hitler" - said the head of
the Polish state Pilsudski to the French Foreign Minister Louis Bart in spring 1934. From 1934
to 1939, a strategic partnership with the Nazis was the core of the Polish foreign policy.
In 1938 Poland, together with Hitler'r Germany attacked Czechoslovakia and shared it.
Churchill called Poland a vulture of Europe.
But then in Poland did not manage to communicate well with Hitler, because the Poles wanted
too much, and Hitler decided to do without them what he did.
Василий Батарейкин > Mriordon
Darn, you lost 14% of your population in world war 2, was that before or after you switched
sides? Stalin murdered at least another 14% and 10% drank themselves to death- hard to imagine
you have enough people left to make the vodka.
Stalin has killed 700 000 of former revolutionaries and trozkists, not more, all the rest is
your propaganda.
the population was only growing all the time. there was only a decline in population between
1941-1945 (8,4 mln dead soldiers and 14 mln dead civilians):
January 1897 (Russian Empire): 125,640,000
1911 (Russian Empire): 167,003,000
January 1920 (Russian SFSR): 137,727,000*
January 1926 : 148,656,000[2]
January 1937: 162,500,000[2]
January 1939: 168,524,000[2]
June 1941: 196,716,000[2]
January 1946: 170,548,000[2]
January 1951: 182,321,000[2]
January 1959: 209,035,000[2]
January 1970: 241,720,000[3]
July1977: 257,700,000
July1982: 270,000,000
July 1985: 277,700,000
1990: 290,938,469
July 1991: 293,047,571
You just justify yourself, saying "we are bad but you are worse", but you just lie.
Alexey Strelkov
A more or less reasonable Western article about Russia. A rare breed and, I am afraid, a dying
one. However, I have to note several inconsistencies:
"his efforts to dodge any responsibility for the downing of the Malaysia Airlines plane"
- it wasn't Russia who signed the NDA regarding the investigation of the crash. Evenmore -
Russian envoy to the UN Security Council has asked his Ukrainian colleague 4 (four) times whether
they have provided the investigation with recordings of Dniepropetrovsk traffic control and
MH17 (they were the last one who were in contact with the plane). No conclusive answer was
provided.
"Politkovskaya was certainly not wrong to discern a thuggish element in Putin's Russia-she
herself was murdered in Moscow in 2006, on the day, suspiciously, of Putin's birthday." - according
to BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russi... that data may be a little outdated now) 47 journalists
died un Russia since 1992, and 14 of them died during Putin's reign. So it looks like Putin
has actually improved the situation.
"okroshka, typically made of sour cream, vinegar, potatoes, cucumbers, eggs and dill" -
its main ingredient is kvas (Slavic fizzy drink made of bread and yeast, it's a bit of an acquired
taste but I still urge you to try it. Just remember that real kvas has a very short shelf life,
so the best place to try it is where it is made - Eastern Europe) or sometimes kefir (fermented
milk drink very popular in Russia. Imagine thin sour drinking yoghurt)
The problem with Ioffe and Gessen is not their ancestry (at least, for normal people and
not neo-Nazis), but their sweeping statements on amateur culturology and history. There is
also some problem with English language itself - in English "Russian" means both ethnic Russian
(russkiy) AND citizen of Russia (rossiyanin - note that these are two DIFFERENT words), so
Russians (and here I mean both rossiyane and russkie) get very confused when, for example,
Masha Gessen says "we, Russians, are lazy/stupid/aggressive/etc" - she is neither ethnic Russian
nor she lives in Russia, so we don't know whether she is being slightly racist or making a
very broad statement about different peoples of a very diverse country.
P.S. While I do not usually agree with what Ioffe writes about politics (her political writing
usually lacks any primary data and sources), I have to note that I find her non-political writing
to be often interesting and insightful. In that sense she is the opposite of Mark Adomanis whose
analysis of statistics is very convincing.
Shane
Fascinating.
I've noticed that commentators in many countries despair of their own societies and seem
to see preferable societies abroad, that's not restricted to Russian elites.
Left-leaning commentators in Britain or Ireland might identify Scandinavian countries as examples,
and denounce the perceived failings of their own state.
smoothieX12 .
The truth is, Russia often has been maddening to a certain strata of educated Russians (and
by Russians I mean not just ethnic Russians, strictly speaking, but all peoples native to or attaching
themselves to Russia)
I think that author of this piece should open Isaiah Berlin's masterpiece "Russian Thinkers"
and may be not try so hard.
Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Lavrov said the crisis in Ukraine
was the result of a coup d'etat in that country backed by the US and the European Union for the purpose
of pulling Kiev out of its "organic role as a binding link between" east and west, denying it the
opportunity for "neutral and non-bloc status".
Lavrov also said the Russian annexation of Crimea earlier this year was the choice of the largely
Russian-speaking population there.
Immediately before Lavrov spoke, the German foreign minister had said Russia's actions to retake
Crimea were a crime.
"Russia has, with its annexation of Crimea, unilaterally changed existing borders in Europe and
thus broke international law," Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in his address to the world body. He
spent considerable time speaking about what the west sees as Russian meddling in Ukraine.
the increasingly anti-western stance of Russia's president, Vladimir Putin
Or how about 'the increasingly defensive Russia' that has been targeted by US provocations in
Ukraine, a constant programme of media destabilisation using CIA "pet" oligarchs and a network
of Ngo front organisations.
The US plan with the Ukraine operation was to split EU-Russian trade and political relations.
No doubt 10 years of NSA surveillance of all EU leaders and top civil servants helped generate
some "leverage" to persuade Europe to go along with this self-harming plan.
All this anti-Russia or anti-Putin media crusade is aimed at destabilising Russia politically.
Then Iran will be a sitting duck for the US-Wahabi terror sponsors to destroy it with jihadi proxies
like they're doing to Syria.
Oh, and the "pet" oligarchs can then return Russia to the broken kleptocracy that Bush1 oversaw
there.
Russia was progressing with European relations. This "increasingly anti-western stance" is
code for "having taken measures to prevent US subversion" and for having rebuffed attempts to
pin the MH17 attack on them or the rebels. So it's more a question of "America's increasingly
desperate measures in attacking Russian stability".
The US has to destroy this emergent Russian stability (it's just 14 years since the end of
the Yeltsin chaos) that represents an obstacle to the US-Saudi-Israeli Eurasian ambitions. They
want the Qatar-Turkey pipeline - Russian backed Assad said no. Russian backs Iran, long a target
for Saudi hatred (and Israeli), and surviving even after years of strangulation sanctions. They
have huge oil & gas reserves. Russia stands in the way of the Brzezinski-Wolfowitz plans for domination
so they must be attacked.
The US has lusted to colonize Russia and exploit its natural resources as far back as the
US invasion of Russia in 1918. It is a forgotten military disaster for the US but not forgotten
by Russia.
goatrider, 27 September 2014 9:07pm
Lavrov said the crisis in Ukraine was the result of a coup d'etat in that country backed by the
US and the European Union for the purpose of pulling Kiev out of its "organic role as a binding
link between" east and west, denying it the opportunity for "neutral and non-bloc status".
Well said
davidpear -> goatrider, 27 September 2014 9:48pm
Well said
It was the EU that offered an unacceptable miserly trade deal to Ukraine and then said that
they had to choose between the EU or Russia but could not take both trade deals. It intentionally
drove a wedge between already existing divisions within Ukraine.
Bosula, 27 September 2014 9:09pm
Crimea has had three referendums since 1991 and they have all supported independence from Ukraine.
Two of these referendums were organised by Kiev and they refused to recognise the results.
Crimea has consistently not seen itself as part of Ukraine.
sodtheproles -> Bosula, 27 September 2014 9:25pm
What has democracy got to do with it? That's our prerogative, to impose on or deny to others as
we see fit, and in this instance, the Crimeans plainly aren't suited to democracy, since the results
of their ballots fail to pass the basic democratic test of coherence with Western policy on Ukraine.
davidpear -> sodtheproles, 27 September 2014 9:51pm
What has democracy got to do with it? Nothing. US foreign policy has nothing to do with democracy,
freedom, human rights and even life itself. It is all about what is best for US and multinational
corporations.
RedPeony, 27 September 2014 9:29pm
Lavrov is right. USA acts like they are above everybody else. The sooner we learn that their
way is the only way the better. It's frustrating. I don't know what's worse: when they openly
bully you or when they pretend to be your friends (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs).
Papistpal -> RedPeony, 27 September 2014 10:15pm
RedPony,
No hard feelings. We want to be your friend. Please provide your address and we will send our
special "Friendship Drone" with special gifts and prizes for you and all your friends.
HansVonDerHeyde -> RedPeony, 28 September 2014 2:26am
U.S "Democracy" and "Freedom" coming to a country near you.
To us old folks to hear a German foreign minister preaching about invasion of other countries
sounds like bitter irony.
Just fill in the blanks in the sentence " The Reich has, with its annexation of ****, unilaterally
changed existing borders in Europe and thus broke international law" Uh huh, nihil sub sole
novum
1. Russia's long term end goal is to survive and prosper through the collapse of the AngloZionist
Empire.
2. Russia's mid term goal is to create the conditions for regime change in Kiev,
because Russia will never be safe with a neo-Nazi russophobic regime in power in Kiev.
3. Russia's short term goal is to prevent the Kiev junta from over-running Novorussia.
4. Russia's preferred method to achieve these goals is negotiation with all parties involved.
5. A prerequisite to achieve these goals by negotiations is to prevent the Empire from succeeding
in creating an acute continental crisis (conversely, the imperial "deep state" fully understands
all this, hence the double declaration of war last week by Obama and Poroshenko).
the German foreign minister had said Russia's actions to retake Crimea were a crime.
You need some neck, the size of a lamp post, to make such statement.
Your country Monsieur started 2 world wars, killing 27 million Russians during the second.
Your country dished out cruelty only matched by the Americans, and their Supermaxes.
I happen to be British, but If I was Russian, and I mean Sergei Lavrov, I would be permanently
having your country in my nukes eye sights.
I'm British too. You really need to examine what you were taught about the wars:
Nazism is usually
depicted as the outcome of political blunders and unique economic factors: we are told that it
could not be prevented, and that it will never be repeated.
In this explosive book, Guido Giacomo Preparata shows that the truth is very different: using
meticulous economic analysis, he demonstrates that Hitler's extraordinary rise to power was in
fact facilitated -- and eventually financed -- by the British and American political classes during
the decade following World War I.
Through a close analysis of events in the Third Reich, Preparata unveils a startling history
of Anglo-American geopolitical interests in the early twentieth century. He explains that Britain,
still clinging to its empire, was terrified of an alliance forming between Germany and Russia.
He shows how the UK, through the Bank of England, came to exercise control over Weimar Germany
and how Anglo-American financial support for Hitler enabled the Nazis to seize power.
This controversial study shows that Nazism was not regarded as an aberration: for the British
and American establishment of the time, it was regarded as a convenient way of destabilising Europe
and driving Germany into conflict with Stalinist Russia, thus preventing the formation of any
rival continental power block.
Guido Giacomo Preparata lays bare the economic forces at play in the Third Reich, and identifies
the key players in the British and American establishment who aided Hitler's meteoric rise.
Referencing German FM Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the author said that
He spent considerable time speaking about what the west sees as Russian meddling in Ukraine.
The author grossly misstates the facts.
Mr. Steinmeier's prepared speech contained 27 paragraphs. 6 referred to the UN in general.
5 referred to Ukraine. 4 referred to the ME crisis. 2 referred to Ebola.
In reading the 5 paragraphs involving Ukraine, only 1 can be categorized as substantive criticism
of "what the west sees as Russian meddling..." Indeed, 2 were 1 sentence paragraphs.
See for yourself:
That's why I must mention the conflict in Ukraine here. Some people in this chamber may
regard this as nothing more than a regional conflict in eastern Europe. But I am convinced
that this view is incorrect; this conflict affects each and every one of us. Not just any state,
but a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia has, with its annexation of Crimea,
unilaterally changed existing borders in Europe and thus broken international law.
We had to counter this dangerous signal, because we must not allow the power of international
law to be eroded from insidel We must not allow the old division between East and West to re-emerge
in the United Nations.
Because so much is at stake in this conflict, not only for the people in Ukraine but also
for the future of international law, Germany and its partners have taken on responsibility
and committed themselves vigorously to defusing the conflict.
I am under no illusion. A political solution is still a long way off. That said, however,
just a few weeks ago we were on the brink of direct military confrontation between Russian
and Ukrainian armed forces. Diplomacy prevented the worst. Now the priority must be to bring
about a lasting ceasefire and to arrive at a political solution, a solution based on the principles
of the United Nations and preserving the unity of Ukraine.
But I am not only talking about Ukraine! As long as this conflict is simmering, as long
as Russia and the West are in dispute over Ukraine, this threatens to paralyse the United Nations.
But we need a UN Security Council at is able and willing to act in order to tackle the new
and, in the long term, far more important tasks we are facing. For the world of 2014 is plagued
not only by the old ghost of division, but also by new demons.
I might note that the "political solution" and "diplomacy (that) prevented the worst" did not
originate in the efforts of Herr Steinmeier, nor of Sec.St. Kerry, nor FM Hammond, nor Mr. von
Rumpuy. The political solution was brought about by the diplomacy of Russia, which sought diplomatic
resolution to the conflict since the US and EU helped regime change the Yanukovych government
in February and then saw CIA Director Brennan secretly travel to Kyiv just days before the post-coup,
unelected government unleashed the dogs of war on the eastern Ukrainians who rose in opposition
to the coup that reversed their two victories in the democratic elections of 2010 (presidency)
and 2012 (parliament).
As this short but sweet article demonstrates, the western "free press" continues to serve as
nothing but the mouthpiece for the US & NATO globalist elites to distort the facts and reality.
The reason they do that is to condition the western audience for the oncoming global conflict
being brought upon the world courtesy of the US Neocon warhawk's implementation of its declared
national security strategy, called the "Wolfowitz Doctrine," to prevent Russia or any other country,
or group of countries, from challenging our unilateral dominance of the world. And those Neocons
are clearly willing to go to war to maintain that hegemonistic position.
Can anybody, reasonably. disagree with this analysis?
American "leadership" is not a constant
in an uncertain world, it is a myth only Americans ever believed. American foreign policy is to
protect American political, economic and corporate interests - that is all. They push selfish
aims behind a mask of "democracy" and have done nothing but sewn chaos around the world.
American "leadership" is a meaningless lie that fewer and fewer people can even speak with
a straight face. Its economy is propped up with imaginary money and crushing debt and in its panic
to secure its place at the head of the table it is pushing insane policies against China, Russia
and various countries in the middle east.
America is not a good guy, and only Americans ever thought it was.
American foreign policy is to protect American political, economic and corporate interests
- that is all.
Sometimes I think it is less than that.. Who benefited from the mess in Iraq, Libya, Syria?
American people or economy certainly did not. Very few people did, and I think it is all about
them.
The German FM knows the truth of it, as we all do, and the recent debacle in Ukraine proves there's
a limit to how far Europe is prepared to go in order to sustain the US's insane aims for global
dominance.
"And Crimea was not "annexed," the Crimean people voted to secede in a referendum. The fact that
the new illegal and unelected government in the Ukraine argued that the secession of Crimea violated
the Ukrainian Constitution was truly ironic given that same government came to power through the
unconstitutional overthrow of the country's democratically-elected president. And given the number
of people in Crimea who voted to secede and the vast numbers of people in Eastern Ukraine who
are fighting for secession rather than live under the new US and EU backed government, it is clear
that the Euromaidan movement did not speak for all Ukrainians."
Nazi Germany was a criminal State but Hitler did the world a favour by provoking a global war,
the consequence of which was the end of European colonialism. Hitler even did the Jews a favour:
the Jews finally received a homeland. Without the WW2, decolonialization by Britain, France, Belgium,
Netherlands, Portugal would never have happened. History is complicated. Russia will be doing
humanity a favour if Putin triggers a full sanctions conflict with the West, and that sanctions
conflict leads to the end of US-EU hegemony, the collapse of the US Dollar, and the end of the
Washington Consensus, IMF; World Bank, UN, mass consumerism, denial of climate warming, and more.
Trudi Goater, 27 September 2014 8:21pm
Actually I'd say he's right it is about time America stopped telling everyone how unique it
is! it's unique in it's ability to chaos chaos and mess the wold up and that's it as far as I
can see!
MikeBB2 -> Trudi Goater, 27 September 2014 8:27pm
Indeed - all that "uniqueness' is as mythical as the supposed benefits brought to the world
by the British Empire!
Barbacana -> MikeBB2, 27 September 2014 10:02pm
as mythical as the supposed benefits brought to the world by the British Empire!
Well at least the Brits built railways in some of their colonies. The US on the other hand
blows them up. So I think you're being too kind to the US.
Saint_mean -> Barbacana, 27 September 2014 10:47pm
The railways that were conceived and built for the primary purpose of accomplishing the primary
goal of empire building - that is, total appropriation and exploitation of the riches of the colonized
countries for the main benefit of Britain? Now, many years after, any suggestion that this is
a credit to Britain, or that the dispossessed should be thankful for this is not only a crude
attempt at revisionism, it is also tantamount to asking the victim of a violent robbery to recognize
some 'benign' act of the robber to the victim while he was being violently robbed.
GoodmansParadox -> ElectroMagneticPulse, 27 September 2014 11:42pm
It never ceases to amaze me how the practice of repeating a lie can be interpreted as becoming
proof.
We know that the "little green men" in Crimea weren't Russian troops, although Russian troops
ensured there would be no conflict between the Crimeans who shrugged off Kiev's authority, and
the poor Kievan forces confined to bases. As Lavrov said As Putin said.
A peaceful counter-revolution happened in Crimea, and the Crimean people gained their self-determination.
Let's applaud this, hey?
The same happened in Donetsk and Luhansk, but because Russian forces weren't there to keep
the peace, Kiev sent in the tanks, slaughtering the civilian population and causing mass displacement.
Yet some people still support the murderers from Kiev.
Why is that?
LeDingue -> GoodmansParadox, 27 September 2014 11:56pm
It never ceases to amaze me how the practice of repeating a lie can be interpreted as becoming
proof.
Well said.
Some people just never tire of repeating it!
Otuocha11 -> ElectroMagneticPulse, 28 September 2014 2:27am
"Lavrov's reputation was trashed yonks ago, he is just a Putin yes-man. He just stirs and
lies, as it suits him."
If Lavrov's reputation is questionable what would you say about Kerry, Blair, Clapper, and
those three-tongued Americans who keeps on deceiving the public? Are there no 'yes' men in the
US? The first yes-man is you, period.
littlebigcoala -> ElectroMagneticPulse, 28 September 2014 2:31am
ElectroMagneticPulse : "is it normal in Ukraine, and perhaps Russia too, for local militias
to be equipped with vast amounts of modern weaponry, enough in fact, to overrun the territory
of another country?
They were decked in the full kit, from boots to helmets, with flak-jackets, camouflage,
equipment, and assault rifles (current models, in use with the Russian army). There were no
rag-tag soldiers, with Wellington boots and pitchforks.
==============
1. remember Chechnya? - where did chechens got their weapons and equipment that helped them
actually to win in first chechen war against Russian federal forces?
2. Local regional police in Crimea actually sided with militia from the very begining - maybe
it was another source of weapons
3. your photo may depict local militia as well as Russians troops - but whae (what date) it
was made? - you can aquite (buy) uniform in Russia and they had support from business I am sure
- so it is not a proof - there were some well equiped, others badly equipped - we saw both
4. Crimean Riot Police regiment "Berkut" accused in Kiev in supporting Yanukovych on Maidan
was on the side of separatists of Crimea from the first day of separatist protest - they (Crimean
riot police regiment were under investigation by Kiev and immidiatelly openned their storage/uniform/arms
and even vehicled for separatists...
etc.etc...
are you honest enough to agree that you was wrong with your "arguments"?
Indianrook -> ElectroMagneticPulse, 28 September 2014 2:58am
The uniqueness of the veracity is that it can be said by anyone.
It is also not correct that only idiots believe the lies. In history there were incidents like
the (in) famous WMD search that was supposedly existed in the middle east and almost all in the
west had believed that story. Unfortunately there still exist many who believe in the similar
type of stories land certainly they are not idiots.
davidpear, 27 September 2014 8:51pm
Vladimir Putin, who is riding a wave of popularity at home
Russians are united because the rightfully feel under attack. It is the US lead NATO that is
militarily encircling Russia. Not the other way around. The US and the EU are turning logic on
its head by blaming Russia for the destabilization of Ukraine.
ElectroMagneticPulse -> davidpear, 27 September 2014 9:10pm
The good thing about Russia losing the Cold War, and its status as a superpower, is it can
no longer project its military strength. It is limited to playing in its own backyard, and harassing
places like Chechnya and Ukraine - albeit with fearsome casualties.
Since Putin invaded Crimea, NATO has been resurrected. It is reforming, deploying troops eastwards,
and Russia's worried neighbours are ardently flocking to NATO and pledging their allegiance.
After the Cold War, NATO was virtually defunct, and for the last 25 years has been scrabbling
around for a reason to exist - but Putin has gifted it new purpose. This could end with NATO bases
and troops strung along Russia's borders from the Black Sea to the Baltic.
Might be that Putin has committed a massive strategic blunder.
davidpear -> ElectroMagneticPulse, 27 September 2014 9:28pm
playing in its own backyard
If the US would stick to "playing in its own backyard" the world would be a more peaceful
place.
foolisholdman -> ElectroMagneticPulse, 27 September 2014 10:33pm
After the Cold War, NATO was virtually defunct, and for the last 25 years has been scrabbling
around for a reason to exist - but Putin has gifted it new purpose. This could end with NATO
bases and troops strung along Russia's borders from the Black Sea to the Baltic.
Might be that Putin has committed a massive strategic blunder.
For something that was "virtually defunct" it certainly cost!
If it has been defunct all this last 25 years what is it going to cost now that it has come
back to life?
Where did all the money that was spent on this moribund, shadowy organisation, go? Any ideas?
Since the West is allegedly "virtually bankrupt" can it afford a newly revitalized NATO?
secondiceberg -> ElectroMagneticPulse, 27 September 2014 11:00pm
Intolerably turbulent and bloody is exactly what the world is now. The U.S. and some of its
allies have broken more international laws than any other country.
Really? Ukraine's decision to move towards adopting EU models of governance and economics,
and leave Russia's behind is the West's fault? If you hadn't noticed, almost every former Warsaw
Pact and USSR member has run away from Russia by choice.
Shame on you for buying Lavrov's rationalization for Putin's Folly.
So Maidan Protesters beating kids who wore St.George Ribbons or Russian Flags never happened?
Protesters throwing molotov at the police , taking and burning government buildings never happened
right? Protesters parading police officers with the word "slave" written on their head never happened?
Protesters shooting at the police , patrolling Kiev streets with guns and bats also never happened
?
U.S sending Senators, Diplomats, Secretary of State, CIA Director to Maidan also never happened.
Shame on you for missing a lot of chapters on Ukraine Crisis and not thinking enough.....
In view of events in Ukraine Russia treatment of foreign MSM is very lax and is bordeline to betryal
of national interests. Also they are trying to re-invent the bicycle. They should borrow the USA practice
without any major modifications instead.
Parliament passes law barring foreign investors from holding more than a 20% stake in Russian
media outlets
The legislation, which was passed by the state Duma without debate on Friday with a vote of 430-2,
forbids international organisations and foreign citizens, companies and governments from founding
or holding more than a 20% stake in Russian media businesses. Although it will come into force at
the start of 2016, media owners will have until 1 February 2017 to bring their holdings into compliance.
Foreign ownership of radio and television outlets, as well as print publications with a circulation
of more than one million, was previously limited to 50%. The law will affect a wide variety of publications,
including the country's leading business daily, Vedomosti, the Russian versions of glossy magazines
such as Esquire, GQ and Cosmopolitan, and television channels such as Disney and Eurosport.
Listening to Poroshenko a few days ago and then to Obama at the UNGA can leave no doubt whatsoever
about the fact that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with Russia. Yet many believe that the
Russian response to this reality is inadequate. Likewise, there is a steady stream of accusations
made against Putin about Russia's policy towards the crisis in the Ukraine. What I propose to do
here is to offer a few basic reminders about Putin, his obligations and his options.
First and foremost, Putin was never elected to be the world's policeman or savior, he was only
elected to be president of Russia. Seems obvious, but yet many seem to assume that somehow Putin
is morally obliged to do something to protect Syria, Novorussia or any other part of our harassed
world. This is not so. Yes, Russia is the de facto leader of the BRICS and SCO countries,
and Russia accepts that fact, but Putin has the moral and legal obligation to care for his own people
first.
Second, Russia is now officially in the crosshairs of the AngloZionist Empire which includes
not only 3 nuclear countries (US, UK, FR) but also the most powerful military force (US+NATO) and
the world's biggest economies (US+EU). I think that we can all agree that the threat posed by
such an Empire is not trivial and that Russia is right in dealing with it very carefully.
Sniping at Putin and missing the point
Now, amazingly, many of those who accuse Putin of being a wimp, a sellout or a naive Pollyanna
also claim that the West is preparing nuclear war on Russia. If that is really the case, this begs
the question: if that is really the case, if there is a real risk of war, nuclear or not, is Putin
not doing the right thing by not acting tough or threatening? Some would say that the West
is bent on a war no matter what Putin does. Okay, fair enough, but in that case is his buying as
much time as possible before the inevitable not the right thing to do?!
Third, on the issue of the USA vs ISIL, several comment here accused Putin of back-stabbing Assad
because Russia supported the US Resolution at the UNSC.
And what was Putin supposed to do?! Fly the Russian Air Force to Syria to protect the Syrian border?
What about Assad? Did he scramble his own air force to try to stop the US or has he quietly made
a deal: bomb "them" not us, and I shall protest and do nothing about it? Most obviously the latter.
In fact, Putin and Assad have exactly the same position: protest the unilateral nature of the
strikes, demand a UN Resolution while quietly watching how Uncle Sam turned on his own progeny and
now tries to destroy them.
I would add that Lavrov quite logically stated that there are no "good terrorists". He knows that
ISIL is nothing but a continuation of the US-created Syrian insurgency, itself a continuation of
the US-created al-Qaeda. From a Russian point of view, the choice is simple: what is better, for
the US to use its forces and men to kill crazed Wahabis or have Assad do it? And if ISIL is successful
in Iraq, how long before they come back to Chechnia? Or Crimea? Or Tatarstan? Why should any Russian
or Syria soldier risk death when the USAF is willing to do that for them?
While there is a sweet irony in the fact that the US now has to bomb it's own creation, let them
do that. Even Assad was clearly forewarned and he obviously is quite happy about that.
Finally, UN or no UN, the US had already taken the decision to bomb ISIL. So what is the point
of blocking a perfectly good UN Resolution? That would be self-defeating. In fact, this Resolution
can even be used by Russia to prevent the US and UK from serving as a rear base for Wahabi extremists
(this resolution bans that, and we are talking about a mandatory, Chapter VII, UNSC Resolution).
And yet, some still say that Putin threw Assad under the bus. How crazy and stupid can one get
to have that kind of notion about warfare or politics? And if Putin wanted to toss Assad under the
bus, why did he not do that last year?
Sincere frustration or intellectual dishonesty?
But that kind of nonsense about the Syria is absolutely dwarfed by the kind of truly crazy stuff
some people post about Novorussia. Here are my favorite ones. The author begins by quoting me:
"This war has never been about Novorussia or about the Ukraine."
and then continues:
That statement is too vacuous and convenient as a copout. Do you really mean to say that the
thousands of people murdered by shelling, the thousands of young Ukrainian conscripts put through
the meat grinder, the thousands of homes destroyed, the more than 1 million people who have turned
into refugees... NONE of that has anything to do with Novorussia and Ukraine? That this is only
about Russia? Really, one would wish you'd refrain from making silly statements like that.
The only problem being, of course, that I never made it in the first place :-)
Of course, it is
rather obvious that I meant that FOR THE ANGLOZIONIST EMPIRE the goal has never been the Ukraine
or Novorussia, but a war on Russia. All Russia did was to recognize this reality. Again, the words
"do you really mean to say that" clearly show that the author is going to twist what I said,
make yet another strawman, and then indignantly denounce me for being a monster who does not care
about the Ukraine or Novorussia (the rest of the comment was in the same vein: indignant denunciations
of statements I never made and conclusions I never reached).
I have already grown used to the truly remarkable level of dishonesty of the Putin-bashing crowd
and by now I consider it par for the course. But I wanted to illustrate that one more time just to
show that at least in certain cases an honest discussion is not the purpose at all. But I don't want
to bring it all down to just a few dishonest and vociferous individuals. There are also many who
are sincerely baffled, frustrated and even disappointed with Russia's apparent passivity. Here is
an excerpt of an email I got this morning:
I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS would be a counter force.
What I fail to understand is why after all the demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn't Russia
retaliate. The sanctions imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in
euros/dollars and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand why they
do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very little against the U.S , even though
they fully understand that if Russian is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk
of lifting the sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow them
to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole charade. Sometimes I wonder if
we are all being played, and this is all one big game , which no chance of anything changing.
In this case the author correctly sees that Russia and China follow a very similar policy which sure
looks like an attempt to appease the US. In contrast to the previous comment, here the author is
both sincere and truly distressed.
In fact, I believe that what I am observing are three very different phenomena all manifesting
themselves at the same time:
An organized Putin-bashing campaign initiated by US/UK government branches tasked with manipulating
the social media.
A spontaneous Putin-bashing campaign lead by certain Russian National-Bolshevik circles (Limonov,
Dugin & Co.).
The expression of a sincere bafflement, distress and frustration by honest and well-intentioned
people to whom the current Russian stance really makes no sense at all.
The rest of this post will be entirely dedicated to try to explain the Russian stance to those
in this third group (any dialog with the 2 first ones just makes no sense).
Trying to make sense of an apparently illogical policy
In my introduction above I stated that what is taking place is a war on Russia, not hot war (yet?)
and not quite an old-style Cold War. In essence, what the AngloZionists are doing is pretty clear
and a lot of Russian commentators have already reached that conclusion: the US are engaged into
a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian. Thus, for the Empire,
"success" can never be defined as an outcome in the Ukraine because, as I said previously,
this war is not about the Ukraine. For the Empire "success" is a specific outcome in Russia:
regime change. Let's us look at how the Empire plans to achieve this result.
The original plan was simplistic in a typically US Neocon way: overthrow Yanukovich, get the Ukraine
into the EU and NATO, politically move NATO to the Russian border and militarily move it into Crimea.
That plan failed. Russia accepted Crimea and the Ukraine collapsed into a vicious civil war combined
with a terminal economic crisis. Then the US Neocons fell-back to plan B.
Plan B was also simple: get Russia to intervene militarily in the Donbass and use that as a pretext
for a full-scale Cold War v2 which would create 1950's style tensions between East and West, justify
fear-induced policies in the West, and completely sever the growing economic ties between Russia
and the EU. Except that plan also failed -- Russia did not take the bait and instead of intervening
directly in the Donbass, she began a massive covert operation to support the anti-Nazi forces in
Novorussia. The Russian plan worked, and the Junta Repression Forces (JRF) were soundly defeated
by the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) even though the latter was suffering a huge deficit in firepower,
armor, specialists and men (gradually, Russian covert aid turned all these around).
At this point in time the AngloZionist plutocracy truly freaked out under the combined realization
that their plan was falling apart and that there was nothing they could really do to rescue it (a
military option was totally impossible as I explained it
in
the past). They did try economic sanctions, but that only helped Putin to engage in long overdue
reforms. But the worst part of it all was that each time the West expected Putin to do something,
he did the exact opposite:
Nobody expected that Putin would use military force in Crimea in a lightening-fast take-over
operation which will go down in history as at least as amazing as
Storm-333.
Everybody (including myself) expected Putin to send forces into Novorussia. He did not.
Nobody expected Russian counter-sanctions to hit the EU agricultural sector.
Everybody expected that Putin would retaliate after the latest round of sanctions. He did
not.
There is a pattern here and it is one basic to all martial arts: first, never signal your intentions,
second use feints and third, hit when and where your opponent doesn't expect it.
Conversely,
there are two things which are deeply ingrained in the western political mindset which Putin never
does: he never threatens and he never postures. For example, while the US is basically at war with
Russia, Russia will gladly support a US resolution on ISIL if it is to Russia's advantage. And Russian
diplomats will speak of "our American partners" or "our American friends" while, at the same time,
doing more than the rest of the planet combined to bring down the AngloZionist Empire.
A quick look at Putin's record
As I have written in the past, unlike some other bloggers and commentators, I am neither a psychic
not a prophet and I cannot tell you what Putin thinks or what he will do tomorrow. But what I can
tell you is that which Putin has already done in the past: (in no particular order)
broken the back of the AngloZionist-baked oligarchy in Russia.
achieved a truly miraculous success in Chechnia (one which nobody, prophets included, had
foreseen).
literally resurrected the Russian economy.
rebuilt the Russian military, security and intelligences forces.
severely disrupted the ability of foreign NGOs to subvert Russia.
done more for the de-dollarization of the planet than anybody before.
made Russia the clear leader of both BRICS and SCO.
openly challenged the informational monopoly of the western propaganda machine (with projects
like RussiaToday).
stopped an imminent US/NATO strike on Syria by sending in a Russian Navy Expeditionary Force
(which gave Syria a full radar coverage of the entire region).
made it possible for Assad to prevail in the Syrian civil war.
openly rejected the Western "universal civilizational model" and declared his support for
another, a religion and tradition based one.
openly rejected a unipolar "New World Order" lead by the AngloZionists and declared his support
for a multi-polar world order.
supported Assange (through RussiaToday) and protected Snowden
created and promoted a new alliance model between Christianity and Islam thus undermining
the "clash of civilization" paradigm.
booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in the Caucasus (Chechnia, Ossetia).
booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in Central Asia (Manas base in Kyrgyzstan)
gave Russia the means to defend her interest in the Arctic region, including military means.
established a full-spectrum strategic alliance with China which is at the core of both SCO
and BRICS.
is currently passing laws barring foreign interests from controlling the Russian media.
gave Iran the means to develop a much needed civilian nuclear program.
is working with China to create a financial system fully separated form the current AngloZionist
controlled one (including trade in Rubles or Renminbi).
re-establised Russian political and economic support for Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador,
Brazil, Nicaragua and Argentina.
very effectively deflated the pro-US color-coded revolution in Russia.
organized the "Voentorg" which armed the NAF.
gave refuge to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees.
sent in vitally needed humanitarian aid to Novorussia.
provided direct Russian fire support and possibly even air cover to NAF in key locations (the
"southern cauldron" for example).
last but not least, he openly spoke of the need for Russia to "sovereignize" herself and to
prevail over the pro-US 5th column.
and that list goes on and on. All I am trying to illustrate is that there is a very good reason for
the AngloZionist's hatred for Putin: his long record of very effectively fighting them. So unless
we assume that Putin had a sudden change of heart or that he simply ran out of energy or courage,
I submit that the notion that he suddenly made a 180 makes no sense. His current policies, however,
do make sense, as I will try to explain now.
If you are a "Putin betrayed Novorussia" person, please
set that hypothesis aside for a moment, just for argument's sake and assume that Putin is both principled
and logical. What could he be doing in the Ukraine? Can we make sense of what we observe?
Imperatives Russia cannot ignore
First, I consider the following sequence indisputable:
First, Russia must prevail over the current AngloZionist war against her. What the Empire
wants in Russia is regime change followed by complete absorption into the Western sphere of influence
including a likely break-up of Russia. What is threatened is the very existence of the Russian civilization.
Second, Russia will never be safe with a neo-Nazi russophobic regime in power in Kiev.
The Ukie nationalist freaks have proven that it is impossible to negotiate with them (they have broken
literally every single agreement signed so far), their hatred for Russia is total (as shown with
their constant references to the use of - hypothetical - nuclear weapons against Russia). Therefore,
Third, regime change in Kiev followed by a full de-Nazification is the only possible way for
Russia to achieve her vital objectives.
Again, and at the risk of having my words twisted and misrepresented, I have to repeat here that
Novorussia is not what is at stake here. It's not even the future of the Ukraine. What is
at stake here is a planetary confrontation (this is the one thesis of Dugin which I fully
agree with). The future of the planet depends on the capability of the BRICS/SCO countries to replace
the AngloZionist Empire with a very different, multi-polar, international order. Russia is crucial
and indispensable in this effort (any such effort without Russia is doomed to fail), and the future
of Russia is now decided by what Russia will do in the Ukraine. As for the future of the Ukraine,
it largely depends on what will happen to Novorussia, but not exclusively. In a paradoxical way,
Novorussia is more important to Russia than to the Ukraine. Here is why:
For the rest of the Ukraine, Novorussia is lost.
Forever. Not even a joint Putin-Obama effort could prevent that. In fact, the Ukies know
that and this is why they make no effort to win the hearts and minds of the local population. If
fact, I am convinced that the so-called "random" or "wanton" destruction of the Novorussian industrial,
economic, scientific and cultural infrastructure has been intentional act of hateful vengeance similar
to the way the AngloZionists always turn to killing civilians when they fail to overcome military
forces (the examples of Yugoslavia and Lebanon come to mind). Of course, Moscow can probably force
the local Novorussian political leaders to sign some kind of document accepting Kiev's sovereignty,
but that will be a fiction, it is way too late for that. If not de jure, then de facto,
Novorussia is never going to accept Kiev's rule again and everybody knows that, in Kiev, in Novorussia
and in Russia.
What could a de facto but not de jure independence look like?
No Ukrainian military, national guard, oligarch battalion or SBU, full economic, cultural, religious,
linguistic and educational independence, locally elected officials and local media, but all that
with Ukie flags, no official independence status, no Novorussian Armed Forces (they will be called
something like "regional security force" or even "police force") and no Novorussian currency (though
the Ruble - along with the Dollar and Euro - will be used on a daily basis). The top officials will
have to be officially approved by Kiev (which Kiev will, of course, lest its impotence becomes visible).
This will be a temporary, transitional and unstable arrangement, but it will
be good enough to provide a face-saving way out to Kiev.
This said, I would argue that both Kiev and Moscow have an interest in maintaining the fiction
of a unitary Ukraine. For Kiev this is a way to not appear completely defeated by the accursed
Moskals. But what about Russia?
What if you were in Putin's place?
Ask yourself the following question: if you were Putin and your goal was regime change
in Kiev, would you prefer Novorussia to be part of the Ukraine or not? I would submit that having
Novorussia inside is much better for the following reasons:
it makes it part, even on a macro-level, of the Ukrainian processes, like national elections
or national media.
it begs the comparison with the conditions in the rest of the Ukraine.
it makes it far easier to influence commerce, business, transportation, etc.
it creates an alternative (Nazi-free) political center to Kiev.
it makes it easier for Russian interests (of all kind) to penetrate into the Ukraine.
it removes the possibility to put up a Cold War like "wall" or barrier on some geographical
marker.
it removes the accusation that Russian wants to partition the Ukraine.
In other words, to keep Novorussia de jure, nominally, part of the Ukraine is the best way
to appear to be complying with AngloZionist demands while subverting the Nazi junta in power.
In a recent article I outlined what Russia could do without incurring any major consequences:
Politically oppose the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc.
Express political support for Novorussia and any Ukrainian oppositionContinue the informational
war (Russian media does a great job)
Prevent Novorussia from falling (covert military aid)
Mercilessly keep up the economic pressure on the Ukraine
Disrupt as much as possible the US-EU "axis of kindness"
Help Crimea and Novorussia prosper economically and financially
In other words - give the appearance of staying out while very much staying in.
What
is the alternative anyway?
I already hear the chorus of indignant "hurray-patriots" (that is what these folks are called
in Russia) accusing me of only seeing Novorussia as a tool for Russian political goals and of ignoring
the death and suffering endured by the people of Novorussia. To this I will simply reply the following:
Does anybody seriously believe that an independent Novorussia can live in even minimal peace and
security without a regime change in Kiev? If Russia cannot afford a Nazi junta in power in
Kiev, can Novorussia?!
In general, the hurray-patriots are long on what should be done now and very short any kind of
mid or long term vision. Just like those who believe that Syria can be saved by sending in the Russian
Air Force, the hurray-patriots believe that the crisis in the Ukraine can be solved by sending in
tanks. They are a perfect example of the mindset H. L. Mencken was referring to when he wrote "For
every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong".
The sad reality is that the mindset behind such "simple" solutions is always the same one: never
negotiate, never compromise, never look long term but only to the immediate future and use force
in all cases.
But the facts are here: the US/NATO block is powerful, militarily, economically and politically
and it can hurt Russia, especially over time. Furthermore, while Russia can easily defeat the Ukrainian
military, this hardly would be a very meaningful "victory". Externally it would trigger a massive
deterioration of the international political climate, while internally the Russians would have to
suppress the Ukrainian nationalists (not all of them Nazi) by force. Could Russia do that? Again,
the answer is that yes - but at what cost?
I good friend of mine was a Colonel in the KGB Special Forces unit called "Kaskad" (which later
was renamed "Vympel"). One day he told me how his father, himself a special operator for the GRU,
fought against Ukrainian insurgents from the end of WWII in 1945 up to 1958: that is thirteen years!
It took Stalin and Krushchev 13 years to finally crush the Ukrainian nationalist insurgents. Does
anybody in his/her right mind sincerely
By the way, if the Ukrainian nationalists could fight the Soviet rule under Stalin and Krushchev
for a full 13 years after the end of the war - how is it that there is no visible anti-Nazi resistance
in Zaporozhie, Dnepropetrivsk or Kharkov? Yes, Luganks and Donetsk did rise up and take arms,
very successfully - but the rest of the Ukraine? If you were Putin, would you be confident that Russian
forces liberating these cities would receive the same welcome that they did in Crimea?
And yet, the hurray-patriots keep pushing for more Russian intervention and further Novorussian
military operations against Ukie forces. Is it not about time we begin asking who would benefit from
such policies?
It has been an old trick of the US CIA to use the social media and the blogosphere to push
for nationalist extremism in Russia. A well know and respected Russian patriot and journalist
- Maksim Shevchenko - had a group of people organized to track down the IP numbers of some of the
most influential radical nationalist organizations, website, blogs and individual posters on the
Russian Internet. Turns out that most were based in the USA, Canada and Israel. Surprise, surprise.
Or, maybe, no surprise at all?
For the AngloZionists, supporting extremists and rabid nationalists in Russia makes perfectly
good sense. Either they get to influence the public opinion or they at the very least can be used
to bash the regime in power. I personally see no difference between an Udaltsov or a Navalnii on
one hand and a Limonov or a Dugin on the other. Their sole effect is to get people mad at the Kremlin.
What the pretext for the anger is does not matter - for Navalnyi its "stolen elections" for Dugin
it's "back-stabbed Novorussia". And it does not matter which of them are actually paid agents or
just "useful idiots" - God be their judge - but what does matter is that the solutions they advocate
are no solutions at all, just pious pretexts to bash the regime in power.
In the meantime, not only had Putin not sold-out, back-stabbed, traded away or otherwise abandoned
Novorussia, it's Poroshenko who is barely holding on to power and Banderastan which is going down
the tubes. There are also plenty of people who see through this doom and gloom nonsense, both in
Russia (M.
K. Bhadrakumar).
But what about the oligarchs?
I already addressed this issue
in a recent post, but I think that it is important to return to this topic here and the first
thing which is crucial to understand in the Russian or Ukrainian context is that oligarchs are a
fact of life. This is not to say that their presence is a good thing, only that Putin and Poroshenko
and, for that matter, anybody trying to get anything done over there needs to take them into account.
The big difference is that while in Kiev a regime controlled by the oligarchs has been replaced by
a regime of oligarchs, in Russia the oligarchy can only influence, but not control, the Kremlin.
The examples, of Khodorkovsky or Evtushenkov show that the Kremlin still can, and does, smack down
an oligarch when needed.
Still, it is one thing to pick on one or two oligarchs and quite another to remove them from the
Ukrainian equation: the latter is just not going to happen. So for Putin any Ukrainian strategy has
to take into account the presence and, frankly, power of the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Russian
counterparts.
Putin knows that oligarchs have their true loyalty only to themselves and that their only "country"
is wherever their assets happen to be. As a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for Putin this
is an obvious plus, because that mindset potentially allows him to manipulate them. Any intelligence
officer knows that people can be manipulated by a finite list of approaches: ideology, ego, resentment,
sex, a skeleton in the closet and, of course, money. From Putin's point of view,
Rinat Akhmetov, for example,
is a guy who used to employ something like 200'000 people in the Donbass, who clearly can get things
done, and whose official loyalty Kiev and the Ukraine is just a camouflage for his real loyalty:
his money. Now, Putin does not have to like or respect Akhmetov, most intelligence officers will
quietly despise that kind of person, but that also means that for Putin Akhmetov is an absolutely
crucial person to talk to, explore options with and, possibly, use to achieve a Russian national
strategic objective in the Donbass.
I have already written this many times here: Russians do talk to their enemies. With a friendly
smile. This is even more true for a former intelligence officer who is trained to always communicate,
smile, appear to be engaging and understanding. For Putin Akhmetov is not a friend or an ally, but
he is a powerful figure which can be manipulated in Russia's advantage. What I am trying to explain
here is the following:
There are numerous rumors of secret negotiations between Rinat Akhmetov and various Russian officials.
Some say that Khodakovski is involved. Others mention Surkov. There is no doubt in my mind that such
secret negotiations are taking place. In fact, I am sure that all the parties involved talk to all
other other parties involved. Even with a disgusting, evil and vile creature like Kolomoiski. In
fact, the sure signal that somebody has finally decided to take him out would be that nobody would
be speaking with him any more. That will probably happen, with time, but most definitely not until
his power base is sufficiently eroded.
One Russian blogger believes
that Akhmetov has already been "persuaded" (read: bought off) by Putin and that he is willing to
play by the new rules which now say "Putin is boss". Maybe. Maybe not yet, but soon. Maybe never.
All I am suggesting is that negotiations between the Kremlin and local Ukie oligarchs are as logical
and inevitable as the US contacts with the Italian Mafia before the US armed forces entered Italy.
But is there a 5th column in Russia?
Yes, absolutely. First and foremost, it is found inside the Medvedev government itself and even
inside the Presidential administration. Always remember that Putin was put into power by two competing
forces: the secret services and big money. And yes, while it is true that Putin has tremendously
weakened the "big money" component (what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists") they are still very
much there, though they are more subdued, more careful and less arrogant than during the time when
Medvedev was formally in charge. The big change in the recent years is that the struggle between
patriots (the "Eurasian Sovereignists") and the 5th column now is in the open, but it if far from
over. And we should never underestimate these people: they have a lot of power, a lot of money and
a fantastic capability to corrupt, threaten, discredit, sabotage, cover-up, smear, etc. They are
also very smart, they can hire the best professionals in the field, and they are very, very
good at ugly political campaigns. For example, the 5th columnists try hard to give a voice to the
National-Bolshevik opposition (both Limonov and Dugin regularly get airtime on Russian TV) and rumor
has it that they finance a lot of the National-Bolshevik media (just like the Koch brothers paid
for the Tea Party in the USA).
Another problem is that while these guys are objectively doing the US CIA's bidding, there is
no proof of it. As I was told many times by a wise friend: most conspiracies are really collusions
and the latter are very hard to prove. But the community of interests between the US CIA and the
Russian and Ukrainian oligarchy is so obvious as to be undeniable.
The real danger for Russia
So now we have the full picture. Again, Putin has to simultaneously contend with
a strategic psyop campaign run by the US/UK & Co. which combines the corporate media's demonization
of Putin and a campaign in the social media to discredit him for his passivity and lack
of appropriate response to the West.
a small but very vociferous group of (mostly) National-Bolsheviks (Limonov, Dugin & Co.) who
have found in the Novorussian cause a perfect opportunity to bash Putin for not sharing their
ideology and their "clear, simple, and wrong" "solutions".
a network of powerful oligarchs who want to use the opportunity presented by the actions of
first two groups to promote their own interests.
a 5th column for whom all of the above is a fantastic opportunity to weaken the Eurasian Sovereignists
a sense of disappointment by many sincere people who feel that Russia is acting like a passive
punching-ball.
an overwhelming majority of people in Novorussia who want complete (de factoandde jure) independence from Kiev and who are sincerely convinced that any negotiations with
Kiev are a prelude to a betrayal by Russia of Novorussian interest.
the objective reality that Russian and Novorussian interests are not the same.
the objective reality that the AngloZionist Empire is still very powerful and even potentially
dangerous.
It is very, very, hard for Putin to try to balance these forces in such a way that the resulting
vector is one which is in the strategic interest of Russia. I would argue that there is simply no
other solution to this conundrum other than to completely separate Russia's official (declaratory)
police and Russia's real actions. The covert help to Novorussia - the Voentorg - is an example
of that, but only a limited one because what Russia must do now goes beyond covert actions: Russia
must appear to be doing one thing while doing exactly the opposite. It is in Russia's strategic interest
at this point in time to appear to:
1) Support a negotiated solution along the lines of: a unitary non-aligned Ukraine, with large
regional right for all regions while, at the same time, politically opposing the regime everywhere:
UN, media, public opinion, etc. and supporting both Novorussia and any Ukrainian opposition.
2) Give Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs a reason to if not support, then at least not oppose such
a solution (for ex: by not nationalizing Akhmetov's assets in the Donbass), while at the same time
making sure that there is literally enough "firepower" to keep the oligarch under control.
3) Negotiate with the EU on the actual implementation of Ukraine's Agreement with the EU while at
the same time helping the Ukraine commit economic suicide by making sure that there is just the right
amount of economic strangulation applied to prevent the regime from bouncing back.
4) Negotiate with the EU and the Junta in Kiev over the delivery of gas while at the same time making
sure that the regime pays enough for it to be broke.
5) Appear generally non-confrontational towards the USA while at the same time trying as hard as
possible to create tensions between the US and the EU.
6) Appear to be generally available and willing to do business with the AngoZionist Empire while
at the same time building an alternative international systems not centered on the USA or the Dollar.
As you see, this goes far beyond a regular covert action program. What we are dealing with is
a very complex, multi-layered, program to achieve the Russian most important goal in the Ukraine
(regime change and de-Nazification) while inhibiting as much as possible the AngloZionists attempts
to re-created a severe and long lasting East-West crisis in which the EU would basically fuse with
the USA.
Conclusion: a key to Russian policies?
Most of us are used to think in terms of super-power categories. After all, US President from
Reagan on to Obama have all served us a diet of grand statements, almost constant military operations
followed by Pentagon briefings, threats, sanctions, boycotts, etc. I would argue that this has always
been the hallmark of western "diplomacy" from the Crusades to the latest bombing campaign against
ISIL. Russia and China have a diametrically opposed tradition. For example, in terms of methodology
Lavrov always repeats the same principle: "we want to turn our enemies into neutrals, we want
to turn neutrals into partner and we want to turn partners into friends". The role of Russian
diplomats is not to prepare for war, but to avoid it. Yes, Russia will fight, but only when diplomacy
has failed. If for the US diplomacy is solely a means to deliver threats, for Russia it is a the
primary tool to defuse them. It is therefore no wonder at all the the US diplomacy is primitive to
the point of bordering on the comical. After all, how much sophistication is needed to say "comply
or else". Any petty street thug know how to do that. Russian diplomats are much more akin to explosives
disposal specialist or a mine clearance officer: they have to be extremely patient, very careful
and fully focused. But most importantly, they cannot allow anybody to rush them lest the entire thing
blows up.
Russia is fully aware that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with her and that surrender is simply
not an option any more (assuming it ever was). Russia also understands that she is not a real super-power
or, even less so, an empire. Russia is only a very powerful country which is trying to de-fang the
Empire without triggering a frontal confrontation with it. In the Ukraine, Russia sees no other solution
than regime change in Kiev. To achieve this goal Russia will always prefer a negotiated solution
to one obtained by force, even though if not other choice is left to her, she will use force. In
other words:
Russia's long term end goal is to bring down the AngloZionis Empire. Russia's mid term goal
is to create the conditions for regime change in Kiev.
Russia's short term goal is to prevent the junta from over-running Novorussia. Russia's preferred
method to achieve these goals is negotiation with all parties involved.
A prerequisite to achieve these goals by negotiations is to prevent the Empire from succeeding
in creating an acute continental crisis (conversely, the imperial "deep state" fully understands
all this, hence the double declaration of war by Obama and Poroshenko.)
As long as you keep these basic principles in mind, the apparent zig-zags, contradictions and
passivity of Russian policies will begin to make sense.
It is an open question whether Russia will succeed in her goals. In theory, a successful Junta
attack on Novorussia could force Russia to intervene. Likewise, there is always the possibility of
yet another "false flag", possibly a nuclear one. I think that the Russian policy is sound and
the best realistically achievable under the current set of circumstances, but only time will tell.
I am sorry that it took me over 6400 words to explain all that, but in a society were most "thoughts"
are expressed as "tweets" and analyses as Facebook posts, it was a daunting task to try to shed some
light to what is turning to be a deluge of misunderstandings and misconceptions, all made worse by
the manipulation of the social media. I feel that 60'000 words would be more adequate to this task
as it is far easier to just throw out a short and simple slogan than to refute its assumptions and
implications.
My hope that at least those of you who sincerely were confused by Russia's apparently illogical
stance can now connect the dots and make better sense of it all.
President Obama addressed the opening of the 69th session of the UN General Assembly today
in New York and gave what could only charitably be called an incomplete accounting of the ongoing
crisis in Ukraine:
Here are the facts. After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform,
their corrupt President fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed.
Russia poured arms into Eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed
thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they
refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its
territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops
across the border.
This is a vision of the world in which might makes right – a world in which one nation's borders
can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are not allowed to recover the remains of their
loved ones because of the truth that might be revealed. America stands for something different.
We believe that right makes might – that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones;
that people should be able to choose their own future.
Aside from what HL Mencken would have recognized as "the usual hypocrisies," there are, it
hardly needs saying, a number of problems with this kind of capsule history of the Ukrainian crisis,
not least the venue and the timing of its airing.
The United States has, as of yesterday, embarked on its fifth war (Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria/Iraq) in 15 years, and this time in the company of five Islamic countries, four of which
are perhaps, and without exaggeration, some of the most odious regimes on Earth. The target of the
U.S.-led airstrikes is a relatively small (30-35,000) army of fanatics and malcontents whose leadership
happens to be made up of more than a few of the former Iraqi Army officers who were summarily dismissed
in the aftermath of our second Iraqi adventure in 2003. The IS Group, ISIS or ISIL, has in addition
to declaring war on the United States (no doubt for recruitment purposes, but no matter), also declared
that none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin is in its sights for, among other things, helping
to arm Assad and for Russia's degradations in majoritarian Islamic Chechnya.
What this might suggest is that Russia, because it faces a challenge from these very same extremists,
and given its vast military superiority over our five allies as well as its longstanding relationships
with Syria and Iran, could be of some assistance in our latest Near Eastern adventure.
All the while, incidents of violence between Russia and Ukraine since the cease fire agreement
took hold on September 5 have sharply declined. And on Friday the two sides will begin talks on how
to address the issue of resuming the transit of Russian gas, which has been on hold since June 15,
to Ukraine. That Mr. Obama thought that the opening of the UN General Assembly would be an opportune
time to hector Russia speaks volumes as to the quality of counsel he must be receiving.
And so rather than issue a plea for the cease fire to hold in eastern Ukraine, and rather than
use his UN address to try and maneuver Russia into assisting the anti-ISIL coalition, the President,
as he so often does, chose instead to grandstand and assert a largely fictitious American moral superiority
before the world.
Paul, September 25, 2014 at 6:57 am
Sir, I take your main point to be that the timing of this address was imprudently chosen, as
it will cause Russia to be more reluctant to provide assistance (in any of its myriad forms) to
US efforts against ISIS / Da'ash.
That being said, we might pause to consider the ways in which the summary provided undercuts
US credibility: "Here are the facts. After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and
calls for reform, their corrupt President fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea
was annexed."
All the people of Ukraine? Is popular protests and calls for reform" meant to refer to nonviolent
demonstrations and calls for reform within established constitutional parameters? Was the government
in Kiev at the time of the annexation legitimate in terms of the existing constitution (although
one presumes that the preceding government also would have refused to consent)?
The implicit answers which the US President desires that we give to these questions are, in
fact, false; to the extent that he understands this, the address asserts lies. This is the sort
of thing that we used to decry about Soviet propaganda - not merely that it was overtly biased,
but that its premises required one to deny facts which left its prescriptions open to debate.
Paul Grenier, September 25, 2014 at 12:26 pm
"Incomplete accounting" indeed (forgot to mention, for example, that the U.S. helped bring
about the coup that got this war started). What Obama gave the UN, as usual with any American
president (at the least since Kennedy's death), was propaganda. When a whole society allows itself
to be immersed in warm-and-fuzzy-propaganda, as America has done for many years, the facts sound
harsh and hateful; and those who speak them are attacked. Thanks for giving it your college best,
Mr. Carden. TAC is doing essential work.
JohnG, September 25, 2014 at 2:19 pm
In total agreement with SDS here.
It's all about ethnic and religious rivalries which should be none of our business. ISIS is
a direct consequence of the raw deal the Sunnis were given in the new Iraq. They want their piece
of territory where they can be and feel safe. The sooner that gets recognized the better, and
the sooner we get rid of ISIS, which is something only the Sunnis can do, as it CANNOT be imposed
by external powers. And, BTW, has anyone noticed how our "allies" the Kurds (and the Iraqi army)
have no wish to go on a conquest of the Iraqi Sunnistan, while they are perfectly happy to get
and protect their Kurdistan (Shiastan)? So why not just leave it at that?
Russian speakers and Russophiles in Eastern Ukraine the same thing. The central government
(admittedly corrupt, but so are most governments in this world) gets overthrown and another one
is installed against their will. So they rebel and demand autonomy, big deal! Give them their
share and I don't see them marching on Kiev or L'viv any time soon. End of story. I am sorry but
I just don't buy the idea that this would somehow be new Munich and that Putin is about to invade
Ukraine, much less Poland or some other country. So the whole Polish vs. Russian army debate is
throwing gasoline on a warm place where, depending on one's point of view and goals – fortunately
or unfortunately, there is no fire.
Fran Macadam, September 25, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Gotta love all these armchair strategists safe in their recliners ready sacrifice so many innocent
lives and livlihoods in the name of "Full Spectrum Dominance" – that is, world domination.
What is it about those among the powerless who salivate at the proxy experience of dreaming
of domination of others, by slavish devotion to their own masters' appetites?
James Ward, September 25, 2014 at 5:06 pm
These attempts to downplay Russian actions so that we may cooperate with them smacks of an
apology for the devil. It would be hard to devise a less sympathetic argument. Either the whole
moral perception of the situation must be challenged directly or the subject should be left alone.
As it happens the moral perception can be challenged and should be. America is at least as
culpable as Russia for the conflict in Ukraine, perhaps much more so. This is not the proper space
to lay out that argument but here are a few points that are a matter of public record and may
be easily verified:
Yanukovich was ousted unconstitutionally and without the support of the majority of the country.
The Crimea referendum reflected the real wishes of its residents.
Nato members supported Kiev morally, financially, and with promises of future support in launching
a war in Eastern Ukraine – this despite eastern rebels doing nothing that had not been done by
Maidan protestors in Western Ukraine when such potential actions were condemned by Nato members.
The Geneva agreement of April, which clearly applied to the whole country, was treated as applying
only to Eastern Ukraine by Kiev. Despite this clear breach Nato members blamed Russia solely for
the failure of the agreement without providing any evidence that Russia had the power to ensure
the agreement was followed in the East and even though the agreement did not require Russia to
do so.
The State Department repeatedly lied about or concealed air and artillery attacks carried out
by the Ukrainian army against civilian targets. It likewise denied the existence of hundreds of
thousands of refugees and the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Ukraine.
All this was done without challenge in the U.S. media, nor did it gain serious attention in
journals of foreign policy.
philadelphialawyer, September 25, 2014 at 8:20 pm
Why can't we just butt out…of the Ukraine and the alleged "crises" over ISIS?
I fail to see why either the Russians or the ISIS folks have to be our enemies. Ukraine is
none of our business, nor is the Iraqi/Syrian Sunni borderland.
Yes, Obama "flubbed" it. But not because we should be sucking up to Russia so that it might
join us in our absurd, never ending, pointless, fruitless, as well as illegal and immoral wars
in the Middle East. Yeah, I don't see that happening, Chechnya or no Chechnya. Why would Russia
be so stupid? Russia is not beholden to Israel as we are.
No, Obama "flubbed" it because, viz a viz Russia, unlike the Middle East, rather than a powerful
and vociferous and wealthy and engaged lobby working overtime to ensure our continued subservience
to the wrong side (or, at a minimum, to a side that doesn't deserve it), there is only the kind
of tedious, easily rebutted, E European, weak sister cry babyism such as we see here in the comments.
There is no Ukrainian equivalent of AIPAC and Obama actually could, if he wanted to, make a deal
with Russia and end the controversy altogether, in a way that political reality doesn't really
allow him to in the Middle East.
VikingLS, September 26, 2014 at 6:14 am
"Obama's accounting of the crisis in Ukraine was charitable toward Russia in my view as it
left out Russia's responsibility for the generations of disorder and corruption that the Maidanists
were protesting."
No one is responsible for that other than the Ukrainian political class which has done little
other than engage in court intrigues since the country gained its independence. This is not Russia's
fault (nor America's), it's Ukraine's.
They are dangerous because the power system is instantly built a pyramid, where virtually all
the rights and responsibility for decisions rests with one person. And he
Might be wrong
Can't be eternal
This means the whole system of government, and therefore the state when such a high ranking leader
becomes extremely vulnerable and this situation is almost always ends in tragedy:
Ivan the terrible - the Great sedition
Peter 1 - the Era of Palace revolutions
Stalin - Khrushchev
Are we not yet tired of stepping on the same rake?
pre_jane
2014-09-25 08:08 pm (UTC)
this is not about ratings. We are talking about the closure system on the same person. And
so what percentage idealizes/ demonizes - again.
And, Yes, absolutism make me also a little scary. I hope that this tendency will not be exaggerated
this time, and after the decline of the crisis, the functional need for such rule will diminish
:)
And if there is no need, such phenomenon can't last a long time. Maybe it's a bit idealistic,
but it is my sincere conviction that complex systems are capable of self-regulation.
By driving a wedge between President Obama and President Putin over Ukraine, America's neocons
and the mainstream media can hope for more "shock and awe" in the Mideast, but the U.S. taxpayers
are footing the bill, including $1 trillion more on nuclear weapons, writes Robert Parry.
The costs of the mainstream U.S. media's wildly anti-Moscow bias in the Ukraine crisis are adding
up, as the Obama administration has decided to react to alleged "Russian aggression" by investing
as much as $1 trillion in modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal.
On Monday, a typically slanted New York Times
article justified these modernization plans by describing "Russia on the warpath" and adding:
"Congress has expressed less interest in atomic reductions than looking tough in Washington's escalating
confrontation with Moscow."
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the Ukraine coup
and helped pick the post-coup leaders.
But the Ukraine crisis has been a textbook case of the U.S. mainstream media misreporting
the facts of a foreign confrontation and then misinterpreting the meaning of the events, a classic
case of "garbage in, garbage out." The core of the false mainstream narrative is that Russian
President Vladimir Putin instigated the crisis as an excuse to reclaim territory for the Russian
Empire.
While that interpretation of events has been the cornerstone of Official Washington's "group think,"
the reality always was that Putin favored maintaining the status quo in Ukraine. He had no plans
to "invade" Ukraine and was satisfied with the elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Indeed, when the crisis heated up last February, Putin was distracted by the Sochi Winter Olympics.
Rather than Putin's "warmongering" – as the Times said in the lead-in to another Monday
article – the evidence is clear that it was the United States and the European Union that initiated
this confrontation in a bid to pull Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the West's
orbit.
This was a scheme long in the making, but the immediate framework for the crisis took shape
a year ago when influential U.S. neocons set their sights on Ukraine and Putin after Putin helped
defuse a crisis in Syria by persuading President Barack Obama to set aside plans to bomb Syrian government
targets over
a
disputed Sarin gas attack and instead accept Syria's willingness to surrender its entire chemical
weapons arsenal.
But the neocons and their "liberal interventionist" allies had their hearts set on another "shock
and awe" campaign with the goal of precipitating another "regime change" against a Middle East government
disfavored by Israel. Putin also worked with Obama to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program,
averting another neocon dream to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
The Despised Putin
So, Putin suddenly rose to the top of the neocons' "enemies list" and some prominent neocons quickly
detected his vulnerability in Ukraine, a historical route for western invasions of Russia and the
scene of extraordinarily bloody fighting during World War II.
National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, one of the top neocon paymasters spreading
around $100 million a year in U.S. taxpayers' money,
declared in late September 2013 that Ukraine represented "the biggest prize" but beyond that
was an opportunity to put Putin "on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia
itself."
The context for Gershman's excitement was a European Union offer of an association agreement to
Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych, but it came with some nasty strings attached, an austerity
plan demanded by the International Monetary Fund that would have made the hard lives of the average
Ukrainian even harder.
That prompted Yanukovych to seek a better deal from Putin who offered $15 billion in aid without
the IMF's harsh terms. Yet, once Yanukovych rebuffed the EU plan, his government was targeted by
a destabilization campaign that involved scores of political and media projects funded by Gershman's
NED and other U.S. agencies.
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover who had been
an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney,
reminded
a group of Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European
aspirations." Nuland, wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, also showed up at the Maidan square
in Kiev passing out cookies to protesters.
The Maidan protests, reflecting western Ukraine's desire for closer ties to Europe, also were
cheered on by neocon Sen. John McCain, who appeared on a podium with leaders of the far-right Svoboda
party under a banner honoring Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. A year earlier, the European Parliament
had
identified Svoboda as professing "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views [that] go against
the EU's fundamental values and principles."
Yet, militants from Svoboda and the even more extreme Right Sektor were emerging as the muscle
of the Maidan protests, seizing government buildings and hurling firebombs at police. A well-known
Ukrainian neo-Nazi leader, Andriy Parubiy, became the commandant of the Maidan's "self-defense" forces.
Behind the scenes, Assistant Secretary Nuland was deciding who would take over the Ukrainian government
once Yanukovych was ousted. In
an intercepted phone call
with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland crossed off some potential leaders and announced that
"Yats" – or Arseniy Yatsenyuk – was her guy.
The Coup
On Feb. 20, as the neo-Nazi militias stepped up their attacks on police, a mysterious sniper opened
fire on both protesters and police killing scores and bringing the political crisis to a boil. The
U.S. news media blamed Yanukovych for the killings though he denied giving such an order and some
evidence pointed toward a provocation from the far-right extremists.
As Estonia's Foreign Minister Urmas Paet
said in another intercepted phone call with EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Asthon, "there
is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody
from the new coalition."
But the sniper shootings led Yanukovych to agree on Feb. 21 to a deal guaranteed by three European
countries – France, Germany and Poland – that he would surrender much of his power and move up elections
so he could be voted out of office. He also assented to U.S. demands that he pull back his police.
That last move, however, prompted the neo-Nazi militias to overrun the presidential buildings
on Feb. 22 and force Yanukovych's officials to flee for their lives. Then, rather than seeking to
enforce the Feb. 21 agreement, the U.S. State Department promptly declared the coup regime "legitimate"
and blamed everything on Yanukovych and Putin.
Nuland's choice, Yatsenyuk, was made prime minister and the neo-Nazis were rewarded for their
crucial role by receiving several ministries, including national security headed by Parubiy. The
parliament also voted to ban Russian as an official language (though that was later rescinded), and
the IMF austerity demands were pushed through by Yatsenyuk. Not surprisingly, ethnic Russians in
the south and east, the base of Yanukovych's support, began resisting what they regarded as the illegitimate
coup regime.
To blame this crisis on Putin simply ignores the facts and defies logic. To presume that Putin
instigated the ouster of Yanukovych in some convoluted scheme to seize territory requires you to
believe that Putin got the EU to make its reckless association offer, organized the mass protests
at the Maidan, convinced neo-Nazis from western Ukraine to throw firebombs at police, and manipulated
Gershman, Nuland and McCain to coordinate with the coup-makers – all while appearing to support Yanukovych's
idea for new elections within Ukraine's constitutional structure.
Though such a crazy conspiracy theory would make people in tinfoil hats blush, this certainty
is at the heart of what every "smart" person in Official Washington believes. If you dared to suggest
that Putin was actually distracted by the Sochi Olympics last February, was caught off guard by the
events in Ukraine, and reacted to a Western-inspired crisis on his border (including his acceptance
of Crimea's request to be readmitted to Russia), you would be immediately dismissed as "a stooge
of Moscow."
Such is how mindless "group think" works in Washington. All the people who matter jump on the
bandwagon and smirk at anyone who questions how wise it is to be rolling downhill in some disastrous
direction.
But the pols and pundits who appear on U.S. television spouting the conventional wisdom are always
the winners in this scenario. They get to look tough, standing up to villains like Yanukovych and
Putin and siding with the saintly Maidan protesters. The neo-Nazi brown shirts are whited out of
the picture and any Ukrainian who objected to the U.S.-backed coup regime finds a black hat firmly
glued on his or her head.
For the neocons, there are both financial and ideological benefits. By shattering the fragile
alliance that had evolved between Putin and Obama over Syria and Iran, the neocons seized greater
control over U.S. policies in the Middle East and revived the prospects for violent "regime change."
On a more mundane level – by stirring up a new Cold War – the neocons generate more U.S. government
money for military contractors who bestow a portion on Washington think tanks that provide cushy
jobs for neocons when they are out of government.
The Losers
The worst losers are the people of Ukraine, most tragically the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine,
thousands of whom have died from a combination of heavy artillery fire by the Ukrainian army on residential
areas followed by street fighting led by brutal neo-Nazi militias who were incorporated into Kiev's
battle plans. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Romantic' Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers."]
The devastation of eastern Ukraine, which has driven an estimated one million Ukrainians out of
their homes, has left parts of this industrial region in ruins. Of course, in the U.S. media version,
it's all Putin's fault for deceiving these ethnic Russians with "propaganda" about neo-Nazis and
then inducing these deluded individuals to resist the "legitimate" authorities in Kiev.
Notably, America's righteous "responsibility to protect" crowd, which demanded that Obama begin
airstrikes in Syria a year ago, swallowed its moral whistles when it came to the U.S.-backed Kiev
regime butchering ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine (or for that matter, when Israeli forces slaughtered
Palestinians in Gaza).
However, beyond the death and destruction in eastern Ukraine, the meddling by Nuland, Gershman
and others has pushed all of Ukraine toward financial catastrophe. As "The Business Insider" reported
on Sept. 21, "Ukraine
Is on the Brink of Total Economic Collapse."
Author Walter Kurtz wrote:
"Those who have spent any time in Ukraine during the winter know how harsh the weather can
get. And at these [current] valuations, hryvnia [Ukraine's currency] isn't going to buy much heating
fuel from abroad. …
"Inflation rate is running above 14% and will spike sharply from here in the next few months
if the currency weakness persists. Real wages are collapsing. … Finally, Ukraine's fiscal situation
is unraveling."
In other words, the already suffering Ukrainians from the west, east and center of the country
can expect to suffer a great deal more. They have been made expendable pawns in a geopolitical
chess game played by neocon masters and serving interests far from Lviv, Donetsk and Kiev.
But other victims from these latest machinations by the U.S. political/media elite will include
the American taxpayers who will be expected to foot the bill for the new Cold War launched in reaction
to Putin's imaginary scheme to instigate the Ukraine crisis so he could reclaim territory of the
Russian Empire.
As nutty as that conspiracy theory is, it is now one of the key reasons why the American people
have to spend $1 trillion to modernize the nation's nuclear arsenal, rather than scaling back the
thousands of U.S. atomic weapons to around 900, as had been planned.
Or as one supposed expert, Gary Samore at Harvard, explained to the New York Times: "The most
fundamental game changer is Putin's invasion of Ukraine. That has made any measure to reduce the
stockpile unilaterally politically impossible."
Thus, you can see how hyperbolic journalism and self-interested punditry can end up costing the
American taxpayers vast sums of money and contributing to a more dangerous world.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush
Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's
Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click
here.
Russian politicians are seeking to reduce western ownership of its media.
The
Financial Times reports that a bill to limit foreign investment in its media to 20% has received
parliamentary support.
At present, foreign stakes in radio and television are capped at 50%, but no such restrictions
have previously applied to print media.
Significantly, the proposal was supported by president
Vladimir Putin's party,
which suggests it has a strong chance of becoming law.
If it does, the shake-out would affect several of the world's leading media groups. They include
Condé Nast, Disney, Bauer, Burda
and German's Axel Springer. And
Russia's leading business daily, Vedomosti, is part owned by the
Financial Times and
the Wall Street Journal.
Given the role played by media with foreign sponsorship in Ukraine, to harness, propagandise and
promote the Maidan protests - the "cover" for the coup d'etat - it is absolutely no surprise that
Russia might take this defensive measure.
People in the Britain (or just England really) try
not to talk about the direct personal role played by Rupert Murdoch, via his media, in pretty
much deciding who will control parliament. For the last 35 years it has been possible to identify
the winner of an upcoming election by looking at headlines in The Sun and spotting those small
news stories about which politician has been "summoned" to Murdoch's yacht.
Obviously in Ukraine it was a more focussed and planned strategy to create multi-media platforms
for what was a mass propaganda drive, EuroMaidanPR, InterpreterMag Kiev Post (in English) etc.
Not only Ukrainians were the targets of this strategised propaganda but also the diaspora and
us citizens of "Nato countries".
It looks like the "Maidan Moscow" plan of Western intelligence & their "pet" Russian oligarchs
will not succeed, the RF government has already taken a variety of anti-subversion measures. Of
course the media and internet are important "weapons" to seek to destabilise another country.
It won't stop the US trying of course....returning Russia to economic & political chaos is
their objective, just like Bush1 in the 90s.
Russian politicians are seeking to reduce western ownership of its media. The Financial Times
reports that a bill to limit foreign investment in its media to 20% has received parliamentary
support.
=========
what is % of foreign pownership in BBC,. CNN, ABC etc...I mean REAL foreign ownership as Murdoch
as an Australian is hardly REAL ALLIEN for UK or USA....
The arguments for "free market" private ownership of media as being beneficial for an open pluralist
society, that some people make in complete ignorance of reality, are confounded when one observes
two things:
-- the process of concentration through corporate acquisition
-- the overlap on corporate boards across companies (and sectors) of a relatively small number
of people, their political connections and the "revolving door" covert corruption of legislature--private
interests--regulatory bodies.
"Free market" is a confidence trick and a lie that conceals the
reality of corporatism and oligarchy. This has corroded and hollowed out what is euphemistically
still called "democracy" in the US, and increasingly in the UK.
"Foreign ownership" is a key tool to promote transnational corporatism and the media is one of
the keys to controlling and manipulating populations into being blind to the confidence trick
(and to corruption).
Another step towards Putin's total suffocation and control of the media in Russia. Once he invokes
'emergency powers' and shuts of the Internet he can do a 'China' and have almost total control.
Whilst we're all so terribly concerned about the 14 year path of social development in Russia,
from the very low base of chaos and kleptocracy of Yeltsin's era -- just 14 years --, one
could also wonder about the concentration of media control in the US as well as their Patriot
Act-NDAA provisions, not to mention the ever handy 'continuity of government' tool always handy.
Oh, and the mass surveillance of the Echelon grid.
Suffocation and control indeed. US military
grade anthrax, when needed to silence discussion of particular ideas, also proved exceptionally
effective.
Mr. Russian, 24 September 2014 8:27pm
Russia finally acknowledged that MSM is used as weapons inside the country. Anyway, whoever wanted
to read BBC in Russian will continue doing so and whoever was reading RT in English will do so
as well.
The former tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who spent a decade in jail after challenging the Kremlin,
says he would be ready to lead Russia if called upon.
Khodorkovsky's statement, at the launch of an online movement called Open Russia, appears to break
his promise to steer clear of politics, which he made after being pardoned by president Vladimir
Putin in December.
"I would not be interested in the idea of becoming president of Russia at a time when the country
would be developing normally," he was quoted as saying by Le Monde newspaper.
"But if it appeared necessary to overcome the crisis and to carry out constitutional reform, the
essence of which would be to redistribute presidential powers in favour of the judiciary, parliament
and civil society, then I would be ready to take on this part of the task."
Open Russia is intended to unite pro-European Russians in a bid to challenge Putin's grip on power.
"A minority will be influential if it is organised," Khodorkovsky said during a ceremony broadcast
online from Paris.
Khodorkovsky and his allies said political change could come quickly and insisted the time had
come to think of Russia's future after Putin.
He stressed that his project – named after his charity that was shut down after his imprisonment
– would be an online "platform" for like-minded people, not a political party.
But he did not anticipate Putin would approve.
"I expect him to be upset," Khodorkovsky said.
Russian activists and prominent emigres including Paris-based economist Sergei Guriyev and London-based
businessman Yevgeny Chichvarkin – both of whom fled the country under pressure from security services
– joined the online ceremony.
Khodorkovsky, who lives in Switzerland with his family, openly supported the Ukrainian uprising
that ousted a Moscow-backed president in February, but indicated he did not want a bloody revolt
for Russia.
The former head of the defunct Yukos oil firm sakd all those supporting a pro-European course
for Russia should before parliamentary elections scheduled for 2016.
"We support what they call the European choice or a state governed by the rule of law," he said.
"We believe that the statement 'Russia is not Europe' is a lie that is being imposed on society
on purpose.
"This is being done by those who want to rule the country for life, those who want to spit upon
law and justice," Khodorkovsky said in a thinly veiled reference to Putin.
"We are Europe, both in terms of geography and culture.
"We are not simply Russian Europeans. We are patriots. And true patriots even during pitch-dark
reactionary times should serve their country and their people."
Khodorkovsky's supporters expressed hopes his project would raise awareness among Russians and
help them see through state propaganda.
"It is time to open our mouths," Chichvarkin said.
"We are ahead of a long, hard and dangerous path," the former deputy finance minister and economist
Sergei Aleksashenko said.
Russian state media appeared to enforce a blackout on news coverage of Khodorkovky's project.
His spokeswoman Olga Pispanen said the project's website, openrussia.org, became the target of
distributed denial of service attacks.
Attempts to prevent activists from joining the ceremony were reported in the central Russian cities
of Nizhny Novgorod and Yaroslavl.
While many scoffed at Khodorkovsky's effort to rally Russians while in exile, some said the project
could pay off in the long run.
"Such a project is sorely needed," political analyst Mark Urnov said, calling it an "antidote"
to the country's grim reality.
imperfetto, 21 Sep 2014 11:56
I used to be on his side, when Khodorkovsky was kept in jail.... But now I'm very suspicious
of him, since he has backed Maidan's fascist coup. I would through a question for him, right now:
what are you going to do with Russia's natural resources? the ones which the multinationals and
the Americans are so eager to place their hands on (just like drunken Yielstin happily allowed...remember?
); would you sell them out at a friendly price? Would you let the CIA and their corrupted servants
intrude in the heart of the Russian system in the name of the magic word: democracy?
What democracy? the one that feels the pockets of the criminals that, facing right punishment,
have fled to USA, UK, Switzerland etc.?
Leigh Pankhurst, 21 Sep 2014 11:53
I expect him to have a nasty mishap courtesy of Putins henchmen.
Russian activists and prominent emigres including Paris-based economist Sergei Guriyev and
London-based businessman Yevgeny Chichvarkin – both of whom fled the country under pressure
from security services – joined the online ceremony.
"under pressure from security services"....to stop defrauding people, return their stolen money
and stop bribing politicians.
Apparently nobody at this paper understands, or wants to understand, Yeltsin's Russia. It was
a total mess, with gangsters making billions while ordinary people suffered. Russia is still recovering,
slowly, and the USA will do anything to make sure it doesn't.
Oh of course. The nice lovely pretty man made a personal fortune in excess of $15bn in deregulated
90s Russia totally honestly.
There is no evidence he was ever "set up" that was the Western
spin. He was one of the worst offenders of the Yeltsin era.
It's totally backwards how Yeltsin is seen over here, he was drunken corrupt fool who degraded
and destroyed his country, and he's a "good Russian leader", and Putin - who has made it his policy
to fight Yeltsin-era corruption is portrayed as corrupt. It's totally arse about face.
federalreservesystem 21 Sep 2014 11:36
Hodorkovslkij did his time for fraud and tax evasion, now he's a free man, who kept his billions
and freely expresses his "political" views.But hey there is no freedom in Russia according to
The Guardian
Isn't this the guy who sued Russia, and every Russian has to pay out about 300$ in debt? He
might be interested in becoming the Russian president, might even have some imaginary support
or he might get real support with US / EU lobbying and funding.. but after Ukraine, what sane
Russian would vote for such a puppet who has served time in jail, when there is a couple thousand
more FSB stock-blank-no-namers
who can supersede Putin, in a way emulating him and getting people in line and to do stuff instead
of selling out every national asset to the west like Yeltsin did.
By - The Washington Times - Sunday, November 2, 2003
LONDON (Agence France-Presse) - Control
of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's shares in the Russian oil giant Yukos have passed to renowned banker
Jacob Rothschild, under a deal they concluded prior to Mr. Khodorkovsky's arrest, the Sunday Times
reported.
Oligarch's arrest deepens fears over Russian economy
Vladimir Yevtushenkov under arrest and facing prospect of selling Sistema company in what critics
call 'undisguised theft'
Yevtushenkov's holding company, Sistema, whose board directors include the Labour peer Lord
Mandelson.
in the not so distant past I supported this Khodor...y (too difficult name to spell!), in fact,
I thought his release was good news. I was hardly interested in what was happening in Russia or
around it. I was also cheering at the news that Gaddafi was caught...
Things changed since the
Snowden affair. I started digging into the politics beyond what the mainstream media preaches.
I now support Russia because I understand that the US is trying to bring Russia down all in
the name of greed. Just the way they brought down Iraq, Libya, Egypt, trying to bring down Syria
and Iran.
The US is trying to turn the whole world into a Guantanamo. In Europe we are not going to be
spared either.
The world will be a safer place without the US political/banking elite.
I actually think this particular rant by Khodorkovskij is not related to hopes to put him instead
of Putin but more related with allegation against Systema and oil in Bashkiria. Is lord Mandelson
related to Systema? UK is all over that lot with GSK making a deal with Russian Systema owned
pharma pushed through the top of British politics. Any news on that front? People in Bashkiria
have something to say - nothing dropped into local budget from that oil asset grab which was done
by their former governor together with the said Systema oligarch now under investigation. The
west sanction Russian deals on Arctic's sea oil? There is enough oil on Russian main land. Like
this Bashkiria resort.
This is interesting...I take it then that Oligarchs in Russia fear the government leaders and
Here our Leaders fear the Oligarchs ..and why in the latter case they dance with who paid for
the prom and limo...and not who brung them to the dance..the voter.
My take on this gentlemen
is that he is no different than any of the oligarchs before he him and after..here nor there.
The extreme sense of entitlement and the world is my sandbox is extremely evident imo.. .
If we compare what is happening now to us with these Titans and ever increasing wealth gap
and disconnect from our own problems..then we kno he would not lead Russia in any different direction
than a billionnaire here pulling the strings be it Koch or Soros..
An excellent but rather long read..but worth it...then come back and re read our Freedom loving
Oligarch in exile.
The Rebirth of Family Capitalism or How the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Sam Walton,
Bill Gates, and Other Billionaires Are Undermining America By Steve Fraser
George Baer was a railroad and coal mining magnate at the turn of the twentieth century. Amid
a violent and protracted strike that shut down much of the country's anthracite coal industry,
Baer defied President Teddy Roosevelt's appeal to arbitrate the issues at stake, saying, "The
rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for... not by the labor agitators,
but by the Christian men of property to whom God has given control of the property rights of the
country."
To the Anthracite Coal Commission investigating the uproar, Baer insisted, "These men don't
suffer. Why hell, half of them don't even speak English."
We might call that adopting the imperial position. Titans of industry and finance back then
often assumed that they had the right to supersede the law and tutor the rest of America on how
best to order its affairs. They liked to play God. It's a habit that's returned with a vengeance
in our own time.
Our imperial tycoons are a mixed lot. They range from hip technologists like Zuckerberg to
heroic nerds like Bill Gates, and include yesteryear traditionalists like Sam Walton and the Koch
brothers. What they share with each other and their robber baron ancestors is a god-like desire
to create the world in their image.
Watching someone play god may amuse us, as "the Donald" can do in an appalling sort of way. It
is, however, a dangerous game with potentially deadly consequences for a democratic way of life
already on life support.
stuperman : OK, stay comfort from a change for the better by accepting your Kremlin controlled
media and corrupt government.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
you have already changed for the better the Ukraine, Egypt, Iraq, The world will never cope
with the chaos caused by the "democracy" you've given birth to in these countries. Thank you very
very very much.
That's the example of the democracy in an American (Ukrainian) way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2s0LxoSotE
A Ukrainian MP is in a trash can. It's useless to apply at the police.
There is some settle difference between abuse of personalities and court decisions. Nobody penalized
Kasparov. He is from Azerbaijan not Russia. He does not like something in Russia, can say whatever
just like yourself. Navalnny is under house arrest for some meddling with regiinal timber business.
Khodorkovskij was in jail for stealing state assets, avoiding tax and ordering killing of former
partner. The human rights court found these charges valid.
And the influence of media in the west is any different?
The Scotland referendum had a great analysis piece done by a professor supporting the Yes campaign
explaining the BBCs bias. And in the US a politician is only as influential as their media coverage,
which typically requires lots of money, which requires lots of donations through lobby groups.
The only difference imho is that the US is effectively politically controlled by powerful corporations,
i.e. they decide policy and appoint politicians, whereas in Russia (and Ukraine) powerful oligarchs/business
people are directly involved in politics
Here is a story that shows how wacky the regime in Kyiv has become,a regime backed by the Guardian.
'Ukrainian military chief's allegations about the use of tactical nuclear weapons at Lugansk's
airport in eastern Ukraine.' Yes according to Ukraine the war went nuclear and amazingly no one
noticed. Still I wouldn't want this nuke thing to detract from the new claim from Ukraine that
the Ukrainian military would have punched its way out of the paper bag if it had been wet and
but for the unexpected arrival of 100,000 Martians with flaming ray guns.
I think Russian's have had enough of the old guard and remnants of the clan(s) of oligarchs and
their merry men, who became so rich and powerful, by ripping off the very people, during the "free
for all" and "grab it while you can," Yeltzin years...I.e. The very people they now pretend to
speak out for.
Let us not forget.. that pre - Putin's years...these clans of the (then) emerging
and merging oligargh's - Khorodokovskiy included, had turned the Kremlin into nothing less than
their very own personal coffee shop: with the sole intention on agreeing on how to carve up their
ill - gotten gains between them, with little more than a nod and a handshake agreement between
them.
Would the majority of Russian people accept the return of these people as heads of state..?
I think not.
Memories are long and their past deeds are still far from forgotten nor forgiven.
I don't even think they care about women's rights. Rarely see them write an article about women
in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan... And if they do its usually a 'things are getting so much better'
feel good bollocks.
If they cared about women's rights they would not have supported the Muslim
Brotherhood in Libya and Syria. Set rights back about 1000 years there.
Lol, yet more shoddy anti-journalism, Guardian. Orientalism at work: when they support the West
then they're a 'Tycoon' but when they don't suit our purposes they're an 'Oligarch.' And he went
to jail simply for upsetting the Kremlin did he, that's just reported as fact now is it?
Noticed that as well. When they are Jihadis in Syria they are 'democracy activists' when they
are Al Qaeda in Iraq, they are blood lusting Jihadis ISIL
Is this news the first checking ball to investigate reaction and popularity or the first implant
of the idea to brains to start a new media company? As otherwise it is not more than a nonsense
and a wear attempt to revive political face of one almost forgoted person.....
Democracy would suggest to become Russian president he has to move to Russia and get majority
of votes. All all know it is not going to gappen. So hexwill never be a president by legitimate
means. You want to talk us into a coup putting some questionable gemagogia above thee key principles
of Russian society. A man to rule Russia has to serve Russia and Russian people. Simple rule.
Works well. That is how a german born Ekaterina could become a Great Russian Queen. And Georgian
Stalin could lead Russians through destruction of the war into strong industrial state and space
pioneering. This man got no substance. Can write something to contribute to russian soul searching.
any more - not his calible.
People follow patterns. The pattern of democracy is only strong in the West; elsewhere it blurs
into other ways. No easy answer to Russian problems. Democracy could be one aspiration but its
history ties it too strongly to its past. Central Planning, the Czars, the Tartars and back to
the Mongols.
Other ways?
One could be to observe a state going through the process of EU accession. This would take several
years; i.e. real time. Despite flaws, EU structures have value; even if only to offer something
different to Russian soul-searching (which is a statutory duty!).
The pattern of democracy in the West? There us no represebtative politics in the west gor long
time. You call one power - rulling party a demicracy? Without proportional representation, direct
eldctions and devision of power? With queen own land and inherited sits. With no minority representation
in any form or shape? You can live in your bubble. While Russians can continue developing modern
institutions for three separate powers ballancing each other, two directly elected, with full
proportional representation by population coubt in one chamber of parliament and one voice per
nationslity in another, by clear split between federal and local power with delegation scope defined
by constitution.You live in political stone age and the only way you are aableto hold on is self
absorbtion on own racial superiority supported by no ending brainwash on alleged faults of other
nations.
As a High School teacher, I must say that this 'putinbot' sneer sounds much like the 'yer mom'
which the Year 9 boys yell at each other in the playground.
Sure. We saw whathigh school students are tild in the UK. My 10 years old demanded we kill our
ill cat as it is inhumane to get her treated. Major re- education effort was requied. At 11 she
took part in a school play showing ww2 as a fun time. Nobody killed a lot if fun of all kind.
Like a field trip with added flirting with american soldgiers. Had to make a history lectures
of ww2 atricities and death toll. at 12 she said british troops in Afghanistan defending thier
country. That one was easy. Just bought her a map. At 14 there was a story of a gitl fingered
by 5 at school yard. Whole year of re-education on sex matters. At 16 she has whole year on Kennedy
assacination. Had to tell her to add Olof Palma and Patris Lumumba and Salvador Aliende to the
mix. British school program sucks.
I know it is fanciful fiction, but whenever I watch The Bourne Supremacy I can't help seeing the
Gretkov character as a sort of shady Khodorkovsky figure...
I've no idea if the real life Khodorkovsky
was quite as deadly corrupt as that in his rise to prominence but I just can't help making the
leap of imagination...
I wonder who the script writers were actually thinking of as a template for the character.
according to a German TV programme, this guy is a crook who stole from the people by not paying
his fair share of taxes thus becoming an oligarch. Putin did the right thing by imprisoning him,
but he did the wrong thing by letting him out.
These oligarchs mostly became rich by avoiding
taxes, selling oil, the natural resource that should belong to everybody, and putting the profits
into their pockets.
Who is going to listen to him? This is another US-paid agent.
He was let out as his mother had cancer and she was about to die. He was taken on german private
plain directly to Germany while his mother was dying in Russia. Cheap man. Sold his soul.
Mr. Khodorkovsky could roundly beat Putin on one issue-Announce he'll immediately re-open all
8 McDonalds Putler had closed. 2 of the 8, were the world's busiest McDonalds franchises.lmao
The logical gaps in western propaganda are striking. First you hear Russia is a country full of
babushkas with covered heads and alcoholics not able to afford the basics. Them you hear they
would die for McDonalds as the only source of good food and culture. While real russians wear
expensive fur, go to opera and thier kids eat hot freshly cooked dinner in every school.
"...Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who spent a decade in jail after challenging the Kremlin"
The
European Court of Human Rights determined that the criminal charges against Khodorkovsky were
not politically motivated. So this would be more honest if it read "who spent a decade in jail
after breaking the law".
Also, as covered before, he's a former oligarch, a more concise description than "tycoon".
What is most significant about the oligarchs seems to be that none of them seem to have actually
built a business empire in the genuine sense from the ground up but seem only to have been people
who could navigate the administrative process of acquiring divested state assets:
In the right
place at the right time, and made the right connections with the right people and greased the
right hands whilst successfully warding off the worst of the lethal gangster violence of the time
(or in some cases successfully perpetrating the worst of the violence whilst leaving no credible
witnesses alive).
Difficult to say from the outside exactly what was the profile for Khodorkovsky's rise, but
the common denominator is that he surely did not actually build anything from scratch? He is not
a James Dyson or an Alan Sugar or a Richard Branson is he?
Interesting times. The last politician with pretensions to lead Russia and based (briefly) in
Switzerland was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, also known as Lenin.
why not? tsarist russia was destroyed and some parts of it became eastern regions of the west,
soviet Russia was excluded as economic competitor and contained mainly in isolation so that the
west could get raw materials from there and sell its production back.
Your ideas seem odd. Lenin was backed by Germany. You seem have forgotten bits of Russian and
Soviet History that don't fit with current international political realities. You forget that
in WWI Tsarist Russia was an ally of Great Britain, France and (laterally) the United States.
Russia's collapse, the Bolshevik revolution, and the treaty of Brest-Litovsk between the Bolshevik
Russia and German were certainly not welcome by Britain, France or the United States. Lenin's
attempts to export the revolution threatened the power of those states, and undermined the international
order under those states' tutelage (revolutions in Bavaria, Hungary, and laterally Austria).
Those states, as you should recall, tried to oust Lenin and overturn Bolshevik rule by sending
troops into Russia, and bolstering White forces. In the end they realized that they did not have
the ability or political will to overturn the Bolsheviks, and that the Whites could not win the
war. The Soviet Union became a great power, nonetheless, under Marxist-Leninism - and Russia's
reappearance as a great power, under its new name, is undeniable. It is also undeniable that,
until the export of the revolution to China, Lenin's creation was the only real alternative (and
threat) to Western hegemony.
To claim that Lenin was "good" for the West is to ignore all that. Moreover, by doing so you
negate a large part of Russian history and ignore the great power status of the USSR - something
today's Russia has not even begun to approach.
yes, i believe ussr was bad for russian people and without october revolution russia would be
much stronger, in my opinion, than ussr was.
the whole story is complex, but what i actually
say is this - the west is desperate to control other nations and it not always works ideally for
the west. however the tactics of the west is exactly this - to undermine competitors, and for
this purpose - to propel wars and revolutions abroad.
if you check facts from european history then you probably will see that each of european countries
at some point in its history was in hostile and brutal opposition with each of its neighbour.
it's a pattern. the both world wars originated in europe. so, it will be good for russia to
stay away from europe at longer distance and do not mix as much as it was during last 20+ years.
I agree that the USSR was bad for Russians (and Ukrainians, and all the rest). I think a prosperous
Russia, or rather prosperous Russian citizens (big difference!) would be excellent for the entire
world, not just Russia.
Security is also important. If a little distance from Europe would make
Russians feel more secure, that can't be a bad thing. It could make all of us feel more secure,
here in the West as well.
To give that distance, it might be nice if the EU, NATO and Russia could agree to allow Ukraine
to be a non-aligned buffer state.
Something like Tito's Yugoslavia, only without the communist ideology this time. I am afraid
that, now, the race is on to take Ukraine, not to allow it to develop as a neutral country - and
this is no good for anyone. Please note that I am not blaming any one power for the situation
in the Ukraine.
Interference is coming from every direction, so I don't expect this solution to be accepted
by anyone, which seems a shame.
i agree that longer distance between the west and russia is in their own interests. i think that
contacts between these went too far and too fast after collapse of soviet union in 1992 - there
were alot of false hopes on both sides. i actually rather blame my country (russia) for this as
it allowed too much to westerners, imo.
about ukraine, i think that army of novorossia has to
advance and defeat kiev, and then split ukraine so that it will be twice less or even lesser in
size that it's now. if the west will get involved then russia has to nuke the west on massive
scale.
That seems insane, to me, and rather hard on Ukrainians. They must endure war, civilians will
be killed, because they have a regime you do not like. Why should Ukraine be made smaller? What
benefit would that bring, and to whom? How will that make anyone more secure, anywhere?
No one doubts Russia can do what it wants with Ukraine, through violence. NATO made it clear
that it will not go to war for Ukraine. But if Ukraine is crushed and divided by Russia, NATO
will be strengthened ideologically as never before.
As to your other idea:
NATO is giving weapons to Ukraine, and the EU is sending cash. If Russia nukes the West, we
will all be dead - including you - , except some few in distant rural areas. Moscow will be ash.
Washington will be smoke. St Petersburg will be no more. London will be gone. Almost all of the
European continent, from France to the Urals, will be uninhabitable. Novosibirsk will be flattened,
and so will Denver.
Mutually assured destruction used to assure nuclear weapons would not be used. In Soviet times
(I remember) Moscow never threatened - not once - to use nuclear weapons first. Indeed, Moscow
always said that to do so would be disgusting, and inhuman. Moscow always claimed that the threat
of nuclear war came from the West, and that the West would use them first - never Moscow. The
USSR would, however, respond with total destruction of the West (first of all, the US) if attacked
with nuclear weapons.
This insistence that the Soviet Union would never use nuclear weapons first, and the fear that
America might, was something repeated by ordinary Russians in those times.
I find it not only strange, I find it terrifying and even disgusting that ordinary Russians
- and even some statesmen in the Duma and elsewhere - talk so glibly about the need to "nuke the
west."
destruction of the west might be the only way to stop the current western foreign policy. it's
basically the motivation.
p.s. i do not see really any kind of self-curing mechanism in the
west that would properly address the issues raised by snowden, for example and the other issues
- such as going into wars abroad on feeble grounds, support for a coup in kiev.
You should change your internet name to Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper.
So, just because the West is corrupt, you think its citizens should be turned to ash? (along
with most Russians). The only way to save us all is to kill us all, is that it? There is no other
way? No half-measures will do? It's change, or die?
Before you press that button, before we are all incinerated, allow me to assure you that we
do not want to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids. We certainly do not wish you to put
fluoride in your water.
In no way would we wish to threaten your life essence. Do, please, keep denying that essence
to women and others - as the purity of your thought shows you do now.
if the west starts the wars abroad it has to be ready for backfire.
about ukraine - that's actually
'not harsh on ukraine'. if you check the results of its their presidential elections during two
decades of independence then it will be obvious that there is a tendency for fifty-fifty split
(pro-western and pro-Russian) on the map. i.e. i's political and geographical split simultaneously.
so dividing ukraine into two (or more) parts can be a good thing for all sides, imo, as a part
of political settlement of the crisis. unfortunately, Kiev is not ready for such split (as it
would be seen as a defeat for kiev) so it's likely to settled on ground by rebel forces.
Throughout its history it has been the victim of
invasion after invasion(by Britain, France, Germany, Poland and the ottomans). Even became vassals
to the aisans in the east at one time. The tatars sold them as slaves to the turks. And now everyone
calls them paranoid.
Then we look at some of the leaders of the Soviet union. You have Stalin, he could be considered
one of the most evil men in history. But he was Georgian. Then there is Khrushchev. The man on
the trigger of the greatest threat America has ever known. (Cuban missile crisis). He and Brezhnev
were both Ukrainian.
So three very dangerous Russians, who were not Russian. But had absolute power.
Gorbachev (Russian) is credited with Perestroika and Glasnost - Cold War - HISTORY.com
I could go on in more detail but I think you can see the picture I am painting here.
Russia is envied: farm fields, minerals, now technology (strong weapon industry), cheap labor
force. Regardless who is in power at Kremlin - the financial mafia from Wall Street wants to make
profit on Russia's resources!
So - the gangsters who are managing the world's money need a puppet
to serve them in Kremlin.
Putin is a strong president - and above all he LOVES Russia and wants to make it strong (he might
be an autocratic leader - but he is a PATRIOT as well). This is a great threat for US and its
allies.
I don't even think they care about women's rights. Rarely see them write an article about women
in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan... And if they do its usually a 'things are getting so much better'
feel good bollocks.
If they cared about women's rights they would not have supported the Muslim
Brotherhood in Libya and Syria. Set rights back about 1000 years there.
The word "diffamare" in Latin, from which comes the word "defamation" means "to besluit", "to deprive
of a good name". Defamation has different manifestations. It may manifest at the individual level,
when a person spreads false information about another person. For example, from the point of view
of Mr. Lembergs, false information was disseminated Mr. Sprogis. In the case of defamation at the
individual level may appeal to the court, as did Mr. Lembergs.
But defamation can occur at
the collective level, when some people spreading false information about other people. At the
collective level can be expressed not only for other people, but also to the country of another people.
In the case of defamation on a collective level, the appeal is not possible.
Defamation at any level is intrinsically linked to xenophobia - a deep dislike of foreign
people, foreign people, nation, race or country. In short, when you try to explain defamation,
and xenophobia, it is necessary to consider the factors psychology, morality, upbringing, education
and civility.
It is a foreign word is very convenient from a literary point of view - in one word, you can display
a whole range of phenomena and not have to repeat every time "spreading false information" (three
words).
Among the countries and peoples of Europe most of all defamation is directed toward Russians and
Russia. Hardly any other European country to such an extent over the centuries was shown in a bad
light.
One gets the impression that if Europeans want someone to shame, they automatically choose Russian
and Russia. It does not matter, whether they visited Russia, seen live Russians, do they speak English
and read in your life something serious about Russia. The reproach of Russia and Russians for Europeans
is a kind of paranoia, allergies, psychopathology. In the area of collective defamation in Europe
from the Russians and Russia there are no competitors.
"The process of" defamation of Russia and Russians began several centuries ago and continued intensively
until now. For example, "large" media Latvia slander on Russia and Russians from morning till evening.
Those who gladly lick the pudding, villiany our capital European media, swear to this.
It is clear that paranoia, allergies, psychopathology related to medicine. These concepts provide
professional comprehensive and objective answer about phobias Europeans - the defamation of Russia
and Russians. However, Europeans are not the only lovers of defamation, and rivals of Russia and
Russians not only in Europe. Globally, there are people and countries that defamation face more often
than Russians and Russia.
In fact, defamation is instinctive hobby all inhabitants of the planet. This is testified by the
citizens ' attitude to Jews and Americans. On the planet it is difficult to find a territory whose
inhabitants deeply and sincerely would love Jews and Americans, and Latvia is no exception. It is
known that even in Israel there are ethnic groups who hate Jews.
In addition, with regard to the Jews and Americans, there is a special terminology, which is not
found in the attitude of Russia and Russians.
Since 1879 there is the concept of "anti-Semitism". They represent the ethnic and religious hatred
directed against Jews. The term "anti-Semitism" conveys a negative attitude in the context of racial
theory and theology. But also, it is possible to characterize the negative attitude of people who
dislike relate to the presence of Jews on the street, you feel jealous of the talents of the Jews
and hate the tricks of the trade and usury, which use the Jews.
For example, Alexander Solzhenitsyn
(he wrote fundamental research on the life of Jews in Russia) concluded that the Russians did not
like the approach of Jews in the alcohol trade. Jewish shopkeepers were allowed to pay later, but
under a large percentage. The Russians and looted Jewish shops, so you don't have to pay for drinking
vodka. Of course, this doesn't sound very serious, but psychologically close to the real atmosphere
in the attitude of Russians towards the Jews during the tsarist Russia.
Investigation of the sources of anti-Semitism for a long time is a separate research topic. But
scientists, including Jewish scholars, still not come to the same conclusions. Sources of anti-Semitism
is still not revealed to such an extent that we could view them. Sources of anti-Semitism may vary
depending on historical circumstances and peculiarities of the local culture and mentality of the
non-Jewish peoples.
Since 1948, there is the concept of "anti-Americanism". First used in France. Now it is spread
all over the world.
Compared to the defamation of the Jewish people, which has various causes, discovered only a few
sources of defamation Americans. The inhabitants of the planet mainly don't like the spiritual culture
of Americans, foreign policy and the desire to rule the Nations of the world.
Investigation of the sources of anti-Americanism is a separate research topic. Of course, this
is not such an ancient theme of anti-Semitism because intellectuals are interested in them for 2000
years. Universal hatred Americans have earned recently - after the Second world war, when the mania
of the chosen people in the minds of politicians reached a climax, and leaders possessed by lust
for power, began to tyranite the entire planet.
About the anti-Americanism written many books. His research mainly Americans. For example, in
the latest books made unpleasant conclusion about the causes of hatred towards the United States.
The aggressive foreign policy of the Americans ensured that the international community sees hostility
any political solution to the United States. The international community does not trust U.S. foreign
policy. In the latest publications analyzed the distrust of the citizens of the entire world in relation
to the political actions of the Americans during the turmoil of the "Arab spring". In publications
of the past months are dominated by mistrust of U.S. policy in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine. Thinking people
all over the world shocking sharp contradiction between the declared principles and real political
activities of the United States.
About the beginning and the reasons for defamation of Russia and Russians in Europe achieved quite
unanimous opinion. When this is considered two structural prerequisites.
First, defame Russia and Russians was only after the emergence of the Russian state and the Russian
people was associated with a stable ethnic population. In the minds of Europeans beginning of Russia
(and also Russian) is associated with the reign of Peter I, that is, from the beginning of the eighteenth
century.
Secondly, the Europeans could begin to vilify Russia and Russians only after the occurrence of
a specific psychological reasons. It was a vast territory of Russia. In the minds of Europeans, the
idea of the vast territory of Russia also emerged in the early XVIII century. But the main psychological
reason was that in 1721, Russia declared itself an Empire. New information is strongly influenced
by the mass consciousness of the Europeans.
Europeans have always been scared vast territory of Russia. So it was in Soviet times, so it remains
now, when the territory of the Russian Federation is not so great. Before many Europeans complained
that Russia is the largest country in the world. This is the case. Just a small note: once the territory
of the British Empire was still more to the British belonged to a huge colony. But not all Europeans
knew or wanted to know.
Now there was a similar situation: not all Europeans know or want to know what the Crimea belonged
to Russia since 1783.
In 1791, this was recognized by the Ottoman Empire, which rules on the Crimean Peninsula. After
the Turkish Crimea part of Russia recognized and the United Kingdom, France, Austria, Prussia and
other influential European countries. Obviously, Europeans not funny funny trick of the leader of
the USSR Nikita Khrushchev, who being "drunk" and stupidity unlimited power (in accordance with folklore
and stories did not dispute competent people) gave Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR.
But the ignorance of people in and out of her defamation is one thing, but ignorance of political
leaders and the use of coming from her defamation in ideology - is quite another.
Already defined allowable proportion of truth and lies in the ideology. Smart ideologues know
that people cannot be fed lies. Current American ideologues ignore this rule or have not heard about
it. Therefore, in the analytic world of global processes often are extremely critical conclusions
about weak erudition American (Western) politicians and the lameness of common sense.
Without a doubt, unreasonable actions of politicians only exacerbate the disaster of Western civilization.
Thus spreading hatred among peoples, and politics turns into irrational hysterical and immoral farce.
Society can no longer trust policy and its compliance with its objectives. Therefore, there is
no confidence in the chief instrument of socio-political management. This results in a sharp thin
fabric of society. Seeing degradation policy, people throw up their hands and also indulge in irresponsible
daily farce.
For example, at the moment questioned the knowledge of American political leaders and responsible
statesmen about the history of Ukraine and Crimea, as has the professional ability of Barack Obama
and his companions to act in international politics.
From the point of view of common sense political actions of the White house envious compare with
the actions of politicians intellectually outstanding and logically-minded politicians of the so-called
generation Kissinger. Representatives of this generation are so smart scouts, analysts and grandmasters
international policies as Bush, dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and, of course, Henry Kissinger. These
people would never be tolerated foolish ideological actions based on historically inadequate material,
which allows the administration of B. Obama's ties with Ukraine.
No wonder that when trying to find the answer to the question of why people hate the US, often
indicating a huge lie to the American ideological machine. Sooner or later the truth comes out even
in the masses. But in the Internet age, the truth can be revealed instantly.
Often the Americans themselves reveal the truth of the new rash step. For example, recently they
revealed the truth about his notorious democracy and the famous freedom of speech. In may this year,
was dismissed chief editor of the newspaper "The New York Times Jill Ellen Abramson (Jill Ellen Abramson).
The reason for the dismissal was not disclosed, but it is no one and did not cause the slightest
doubt: may 3, in the newspaper published a report by correspondent of this newspaper from Slavyansk.
The article was disclosed the truth about the Ukrainian events.
Publication sharply condemned the State Department - the U.S. state Department. It was enough
that the owners of the newspaper dismissed Ms. Abramson, the first woman in the above-mentioned high
positions in the entire history of the publication (it was founded in 1851). Incidentally, replacing
Dean Bucket (Dean Baquet) is also a unique record. For the first time one of the most famous publications
in the world will be in charge of the Negro (as well as the American state).
Classic element of defamation Russia is a rebuke in the absence of democracy. No one ever treated
Russia as a democratic country. So it was during the reign of unparalleled Democrat Yeltsin, when
in Russia, as in his pockets, hosted "the Chicago five" and other consultants American neoliberalism,
and the White house had no reason to complain about the lack of democracy in Russia.
The Russians acted honestly. They were not trying to prove to the whole world. Russian objectively
recognize authoritarian rule during the time of the tsars and General secretaries. But many people
think that it is not enough to recognize this unique sin. Still Russia accused of authoritarianism.
It has become fashionable to publicly compare Putin with a black symbol of political regimes - Hitler.
Such techniques are now using our brethren in the neighboring country. We hope this insanely disgusting
fashion passes, at least in the ruling circles, because no one can't predict in the comments on the
Internet.
It is naive to combat defamation, pursued by hunters. It should be condemned, but it is unlikely
that anything will change in the near future.
In the minds of the masses compared Putin to Hitler became a stereotype, resulting from the indoctrination
of the American ideology. Moreover, it is associated with a theoretical understanding of democracy.
Weight (like many modern politicians may not understand that democracy is not a form of political
system, and the process of political existence.
Nowadays, the understanding of democracy has become a very controversial and mythological. For
several decades, spreading democracy "willfully". Well-known Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky
said vulgar, but relish: "Dictatorship is constipation, and democracy - diarrhea".
In fact, in this vulgar-savory aphorism is hidden very deep thought. Russia traditionally criticized
for lack of democracy. But the current hegemon - the United States - the lack of democracy is characterized
by much more than tsarist Russia, the USSR and the Russian Federation.
You need to understand this
political premise: if the US were a standard of democracy, they would never have reached the present
power - the United States would not rule the world.
World history clearly shows that the state, suffering from "diarrhea", cannot become a mighty,
with "diarrhea" unable to create the Empire and save it. Even a dwarf, as pre-war Latvia, couldn't
exist in the "diarrhea", and took "constipation" in 1934, so that people begin to respect our country.
World history clearly and unambiguously: right "constipation" ("strong hand")to reach the level,
which has now risen United States of America, and in the past has reached the Roman Empire, Austrian,
Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, German Empire, and in the recent past - and the British Empire.
Change of chief editor of the famous journal in may of this year is just a small episode, topolmadim
characteristic "constipation", which actually rules in the US - and always rules on her way to the
crown of the Lord of the unipolar world. Americans can be praised for what they know very well how
your "constipation" all mankind to present as "diarrhea".
And something else. It is advisable to thoroughly think: why American politics are so diligently
preach the necessity of democracy?
The answer is very simple. They stimulate stinking streams "diarrhea" in other countries, in order
reigned everywhere ideological and organizational chaos ("pluralism"), so there are no stable policy,
stable government, stable Parliament, stable political party, consolidated civil society, conceptually
unified public organizations, in order not to develop economic activities that in any issue there
was not national unity.
In this case, large countries (including Russia) will not be able to compete with the United States.
About the glorification of democracy can be : while unreflecting and partially reflecting part of
mankind will be with pleasure to sniff for "diarrhea"in the world ye shall have dominion Americans.
Certainly, the Russians are also interested in the sources of bullying. This topic is already
in the XIX century, deeply considered Nikolai Danilevsky (1822-1885) in his book "Russia and Europe".
It was first published in the journal in 1869, and in 1871 was first published.
The work gained much attention on the part of the Russian intelligentsia. In the nineteenth century
the book was published again in 1885 and 1887, Obviously, the educated Russian society took into
account the recommendations of Fyodor Dostoevsky. He wrote that "Russia and Europe" should be required
reading for all Russian people.
The biggest value of the book is an original conceptual contribution of the author to the theory
of civilization. The author also expresses a very deep and important thoughts about the Russian people,
Russian civilization and the role of Russia in Europe. The study Nanyavshego is still relevant, because
Russian science cannot boast of fundamental works on the relations of Russia and Europe. In fact,
the book Nanyavshego in this area is still considered the most thorough work.
The second section of the book is devoted to answering the question "why Europe is hostile to
Russia?". The epigraph of this section: "We hear slander, we know insults / Tysyachegolovy lie Newspapers
/ Betrayal, jealousy, and fear of causing. / Friends in Russia no!". The author of these verses himself
Danilevsky. It is now cited by many scientists, publicists, bloggers. This is the most popular poem
in relation to defamation of Russia and Russians.
Nikolai Danilevsky calls the two main causes of hatred towards Russia.
Europeans believe Russia relentless aggressor, which is continuously someone wins and annexed
its territory foreign lands. This is the first reason.
The second reason was the conclusion of Europeans that Russia is a dark, hostile to the progress
and freedom force. Also Ndonesi believes that Russia psychologically depressing Europeans with its
mass - Grand territory.
A reasoned refutation of the reasons for the hostility of Europeans Ndonesi very carefully characterizes
a specific military, diplomatic and political events. For example, he recalls that in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries Russia several times fought in the interests of Europeans. Russia defeated
Napoleon's army and saved Europe from its domination. Russia at one time defended the Austrian Empire,
at that time the most powerful state in Europe.
The author stresses that the political system in all countries of Europe before the French revolution
was the same. During the reign of Catherine II of Russia was politically the most advanced country
in Europe. In addition, this was the opinion of the Europeans, not the Russians.
Nikolai Danilevsky indicates a lack of information. Europeans know nothing about Russia, because
Russia does nothing for the dissemination of information about the country, its history, nation and
culture.
Why do Europeans know only what I want to know. That is why the Europeans create stereotypes and
live for centuries in their captivity.
Danilevsky tried to find out where it originates defamation of Russia and Russians. He believes
that the information war Europe against Russia began during the reign of Peter I. Europeans scared
the rapid growth of the power of Russia. Russia quickly became an influential pole of the political
and geopolitical forces in Europe. This is not liked by anyone, and most of all - England, France
and Prussia. Their ideologists contributed to the fact that Russia began to call bloody and terrible
country.
For example, the English artists drew and published caricatures of Alexander Suvorov. Brilliant
commander displayed them in a ruthless killer. The caricature he holds a huge fork, on which hang
the French soldiers, and Suvorov eats them. The other figure Suvorov gives the Queen the head of
the Polish children and women.
From the very beginning of defamation of Russia and the Russians appeared popular visual image
of the "Russian bear". In illustration of this essay Russia displayed octopus (Octopus Vulgaris),
ready to strangle Europe. This nonsense that octopus in Russian waters do not live. (In Europe, North
trait area of life octopus passes near the British Isles, so the image of the octopus more suitable
for defamation of the British Empire.)
The author of the book "Russia and Europe" explains that in the minds of Europeans symbol of Russian
atrocities became Ivan the terrible.
No matter that during his reign he was sentenced to death 4200 people, and the king of France
Charles IX for one night on August 24, 1572 killed 30 000 Huguenots, and 200,000 were forced to emigrate.
Charles IX Europeans do not consider it a symbol of atrocities - he's not Russian.
Defamation, and any other psychologically unbalanced action smacks of bigotry and madness, as
it is typical casual nuances of randomness that cannot be the basis for generalization.
For example, Western sociological studies usually indicate the similarity of Russian and Nordic
mentality. But the latest research there are funny observations. Supposedly, during the reign of
Vladimir Putin, the Russian mentality has changed and is not similar to the mentality of the people
of Northern Europe. During Putin's Russian steel archaicness and stronger admire traditional values.
Thus, they lost modern Western aura, due to the authoritarian Putin regime.
Many may believe amusing observations opportunistic sociologists. Not all know that the mentality
of the nation is one of the most conservative spiritual complexes. Not all know that the mentality
of the people is not changed for a couple of years and dynamics of mentality does not depend on the
change of ruler. Funny observation opportunistic sociologists - sheer stupidity.
For example, in the history of the Republic of Latvia, the trend of frequent changes of government.
This trend is clearly linked to the Latvian mentality.
But this does not mean that together with the new government immediately changed the Latvian mentality.
If it were just some regular government could finally be eradicated these passions, which are clearly
visible evidence of the Latvian social-political mentality. But nothing like that there. The mentality
of Latvians does not change with the government. Latvians are no exception. The same applies to other
countries. And the mentality of the Russian people does not change in connection with the change
of President.
Spiritual values of the people determines its capacity for self-criticism. Russians listen to
the accusations made against them. They are not contentious, and do not try limited to negate the
criticism expressed in their address. They recognize that this criticism is to some extent justified.
But what is most interesting. Actually stronger than all Russians blamed Russians themselves.
The format of defamation was harsh self-criticism. So happened already since ancient times. For
example, a ruthless criticism of Russians expressed P. Chaadaev (1794-1856), the famous publicist
"Westerners" in the second half of the nineteenth century and sarcastic sayings of Leo Tolstoy about
the shortcomings of Orthodoxy, for which he was excommunicated from the Church.
Even today, Russians can not complain about the absence of self-criticism. It is very important
that at the moment the national awakening of the Russian people and the revival of patriotism go
hand in hand with ruthless and objective criticism of his own life. This is manifested, for example,
in the movement of Sergei Kurginyan "Essence of time", the Institute of dynamic conservatism "Izborsk
club" and in the center of the "New age".
Much depends on how many Ukrainians understands that they became just a pawn in a dirty geopolitical
game, a cannon fodder for the USA imperial ambitions. In an interview with TASS Lavrov : the conflict
the US with us is fundamental, principled and deliberate. Accordingly, the Kremlin realize this
change of the US and satellites policy toward Russia not yesterday too and considers the situation along
the line of the Syria - Iran - Ukraine as a chain of correlated events, as the episodes of one big campaign
to destroy Russia.
"Really blank statement. Rarely, very rarely, you can hear the so-called "direct text" when a
top politician says exactly what he thinks, rather than what is required by the rules of international
diplomacy or political expediency. I have a suspicion that the recent statements Lavrov just for
those who care about the damn Russian question, "does the Kremlin understands what's happening?".
In an interview with TASS (by the way, I congratulate our colleagues with the return of the historical
names), Lavrov put all points above i in terms of how the Kremlin sees the situation on the Western
Front: the conflict the US with us is fundamental, principled and deliberate.
Quote:
"Would not it be the Crimea and the South-East of Ukraine, the West would find something
else. The goal at any cost to bring Russia out of balance. This task was formulated long ago.
the first try was Syria. A couple of years ago they tried to charge us to be the defenders of
evil dictator."
For gifted Lavrov reiterates this message again, well, just plain text:
"It there a desire, one can always find a suitable pretext. Washington and some European countries
yesterday decided to isolate Russia. And this decision was not made yesterday"
Accordingly, the Kremlin realize this change of the US and satellites policy toward Russia not
yesterday too and considers the situation along the line of the Syria - Iran - Ukraine as a chain
of correlated events, as the episodes of one big campaign to destroy Russia.
In this context I want briefly to comment on a few recent events:
1. The truce in South East Ukraine will not live long. ...
2. Blocking reverse gas flow to Ukraine by Gazprom. The Europeans were sent a signal that winter
is near" and that Gazprom/Kremlin is quite serious in his intentions to bring the gas conflict to
end.
... ... ...
6. The contract with Iran for oil begins yet to crystallize. Separately I would like to thank
especially frostbitten friends in Washington, who decided in late August to impose new sanctions
against Iran - it was an unexpected move, so to say "diplomacy in the style of Klitschko", which
can assess not only only all. In Tehran is not appreciated. We can say that the Iranian leadership
has successfully passed the IQ test.
7. Putin has invited India, Iran, Pakistan in the SCO. If you implement at least one of these
invitations, it will be a huge victory for the anti-American coalition.
8. Hints at the possibility of Russia's withdrawal from various international treaties. It's not
about the ECHR, no. ECtHR - detail of life. Much more interesting than the various treaties on nuclear
weapons, including prohibiting the deployment of nuclear weapons in outer space and underwater platforms
(off the coast USA) - these areas might be much more interesting. They do not require special technologies
but have a distinct ability to create horror among the US elite.
As you might expect, despite having signed in Minsk by some individuals (judging from the absence
in the document of the official positions of some of the "Protocol on the results of the consultation..."fighting
in the Donbass not continue. In some areas, according to eyewitnesses, there is not only mutual fire
positions, but also clashes with the goal of "probing" gaps in enemy defenses. Moscow and Kiev synchronously
pretend that it was a truce.
At the same time, in the rear of the warring parties intensive regrouping of troops. Judging by
the actions of the Ukrainian army, at the moment of the APU are actively preparing a new offensive.
They are preparing DND-LNR it is difficult to understand, but it is doubtful that they are prepared
to civilian life.
The current "peace" at the Donbass differs from war only by the fact that none of the parties
does not perform large-scale offensive. But this is not Minsk "Protocol", and the physical inability
of Ukrainian Donbas armies to launch such an operation. The offensive potential of the Kiev troops
substantially undermined, and the militia for this there is no sufficient forces.
Both sides periodically each other "biting" preparing for a new round of large-scale military
confrontation.
In this situation the question arises: can the current conditional by Protocol "truce" to grow
into the real?
To answer this question, we must consider that the ruling of the Ukrainian elite war in the Donbass
it is not only war, but also the basis of the current domestic policy. All political forces, now
struggling for power, build their actions within one of the main ideological - military struggle
of the Ukrainians with "terrorists" and "Russian invaders" for the independence and territorial integrity
of Ukraine. If before competing financial-political groups promised the electorate a developed economy,
General welfare, high pensions and salaries, quick integration and other material goods, but now
all the rhetoric of the Ukrainian ruling class tailored to the promises of quick and effective destruction
of Donbass "terrorists" along with "Russian occupation". And only then, it is assumed that a single
happy and Ukraine will come a protracted era of total welfare with elements of chronic massive overeating
and rampant cabaretstyle comfort. Maybe she would have come, Yes "separatists" and Putin interfere.
Actually at the moment the current political regime in Ukraine - the hostage of war in the Donbass.
All the political rhetoric, all PR, all known current political careers depend directly on Donbass
bloodshed. The ruling of the Ukrainian elite has nothing to offer people besides the Patriotic war
to a victorious end. Because of the financial, economic and social situation in the country every
month acquires features a total disaster. And to justify it can only be war.
That is why Kiev cannot afford any concessions "terrorists" and "oppressors". Any Ukrainian politician,
speaking for peace, and means for recognizing the independence of Donbass, in the eyes of the electorate
will automatically turn into a traitor. In the new Verkhovna Rada will get only one who will be able
to more convincingly demonstrate their Patriotic militancy, supported by footage from his immediate
presence in the area of the ATO, and better still bandaged body parts. Up until the war will not
go beyond the Donbass, the Ukrainian electorate will need only the warriors and fearless heroes.
This means that at the moment Ukrainian ruling regime is not beneficial to end the war without
achieving bright victory. The situation can change only if for the majority of Ukrainian citizens,
the war will leave the TV screen, and break into their personal lives. Only then the country will
begin its triumphal procession mass pacifism.
Not right now, the world and thousands of people, protecting the rebellious Republic. At least
they want the whole Donbass. For many of them, lost their home and loved ones, war has become something
personal, mainly on the meaning of life. Together, they dream to reach Kiev. They need a victory.
In addition, the termination of the war does not serve American interests. Ukraine needs to Washington
as the new "Afghanistan" for Russia. Its main objective is to directly involve Moscow in military
conflict, and then to be secured with military support of Kiev, the stream of coffins in the Russian
city. Thus, the U.S. elite is hell bent on undermining Russia's internal position of Vladimir Putin
and subsequently to removing him from power.
Ukraine without Crimea and Donbas in a state of economic collapse, bankruptcy and socio-political
instability, exactly what the White house needed. To him, Ukraine is only required as an element
of American foreign policy towards the Russian Federation. For Americans Ukraine justifies its existence
(i.e. the resources committed to them only as a lever of pressure on Russia. If it ceases to be such
a leverage for the United States and Ukraine will be no need ballast.
Very ambiguous is Moscow's position as well. On the one hand, the conversion of part of Donbass
in the next "Transnistria" for the Kremlin may be a compromise that allows you to get away from the
growing external pressure of the West and a certain kind of "victory" for Patriotic Russian citizens.
Apparently, the "special status" part of the Donbass headed Russian protege (Medvedchuk, Akhmetov,
etc), this is something that is now trying to organize a group Surkov, leading active behind-the-scenes
dialogue with Poroshenko. And signed in Minsk "Protocol" is, obviously, part of Surkov's version
of the efforts in this direction. However, this tactical compromise, at first glance allows you to
go to Vladimir Putin from a very difficult situation, carries a powerful strategic threat...
First, freeze the Donbas conflict (it is freezing and not settlement) allows Ukraine in the near
future become a member of NATO with all the ensuing military-political consequences for Russia.
Secondly, freezing Donbass conflict allows Ukraine/USA the most thorough way to prepare for a
new war for Donbass: to create an effective Mat, reinforcing their full potential by countries-members
of NATO.
Thirdly, the continued presence of Ukraine in the state of anti-psychosis with the possibility
of political and economic claims to Russia itself is a prerequisite that the U.S. will continue to
maintain and protect the current political regime in Kiev as a time bomb planted at Russia.
And, finally, fourth, freezing Donbass conflict, under certain conditions, is capable of swinging
in the direction of Russia thousands of armed, more experience and motivated soldiers in the army
of the Russian volunteers and units DND-LNR. Roughly speaking, if their movement to the West in the
name fundamental to their ideals will be impossible, they may move to the East, in order to realize
these ideals there. And in this case, the support of the West they will be provided.
Thus, by and large, the termination of the war in Ukraine without someone's victory, at the moment
it is not profitable Kiev, neither Washington nor Moscow, or the Donetsk Lugansk.
The author's opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the publisher. Responsible for quotations,
facts and figures given in the text, is the author.
The US is now pushing for a major confrontation with Russia. And for reasons that are hard
to understand we are forcing the EU to join even though it will definitely hurt Europe. Push, push,
push for war ... EU today announced
that the new sanctions will be implemented immediately...
The ceasefire of Minsk between the Ukrainian coup-government and the federalists of east Ukraine
was something both sides needed.
The Ukrainian army was on the verge of completely loosing it. It was temporarily defeated and
needed to rearm and reorganize. While the federalist insurgents were successful and probably able
to continue their fight for a few days their forces were overstretched and needed to consolidate.
But many on the insurgent side did not like the ceasefire. It did not give them the federal autonomy
they demanded. The neo-nazi "national-guard" battalions on the other side also criticized the ceasefire.
They want the total destruction of their enemy and ethnic cleansing of all Russia-affine Ukrainians.
Russia had pressed for the ceasefire to avoid further sanctions. It was an offer to the "western"
side to step back from the cliff of an economic war. Obama and NATO tried to sabotage the ceasefire
through false claims of a Russian invasion and other propaganda. But the Ukrainian president had
to ignore the pressure from Washington and Brussels or he would have lost another city, Mariupol,
to the insurgents.
The main Russian reason to support the ceasefire, to hold back sanctions, has now vanished. Three
days ago the EU, against the will of several of its members,
decided on new sanctions on Russia:
The European Union adopted new sanctions against Moscow on Monday despite the leaders of Russia
and Ukraine vowing to uphold a truce aimed at halting a devastating five-month war.
...
In Brussels, the EU formally approved fresh sanctions against Russia but said they would not come
into force for a few more days, effectively delaying the measures to see if the current
truce will hold.
The truce held and despite that facts and its earlier claims the EU today
announced that the new
sanctions will be implemented immediately:
The European Union has agreed to impose further sanctions on Russia on Friday over its role in
the Ukraine crisis, diplomats say.
The move is aimed at maintaining pressure on Russia, the sources said.
Russia says it is preparing a response "commensurate with the economic losses" caused by the
EU sanctions.
This is another catastrophic and escalating EU move with regards to Ukraine and Russia. This turns
the conflict into an economic war between the EU and Russia in which no side can win. Only the United
States and China will profit from it.
Additionally Poland had the crazy idea of supplying gas which it purchases from Russia to Ukraine
which is not willing or able to pay for direct deliveries from Russia. This is a breach of contract
as the deliveries from Russia to Poland are not allowed to be resold to other Russian gas customers.
Russia allegedly responded by lowering the volume of gas it supplies to Poland and Poland immediately
folded and stopped the reverse gas flow to Ukraine:
Russia's OAO Gazprom limited natural gas flows to Poland, preventing the European Union member
state from supplying Ukraine via so-called reverse flows.
Polskie Gornictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo SA, or PGNiG, got 20 to 24 percent less fuel than it
ordered from Gazprom Export over the past two days and is compensating flows with alternative
supply, the company said today in an e-mailed statement.
Poland halted gas supply to Ukraine at 3 p.m. Warsaw time today, according to Ukraine's
UkrTransGaz.
We can be not sure that this is the whole story though. Gazprom says it provides all the gas Poland
ordered through its pipelines but
hints that
Ukraine, where those pipelines cross, may be the party which is taking the gas:
Russia has denied that its state-run gas giant Gazprom has been limiting flows to Poland.
"Reports by news agencies on the reduction of volumes of gas supplies by Gazprom to Poland's
PGNiG are incorrect," Itar-Tass reported Gazprom spokesman Sergey Kupriyanov as saying. "The same
volume of gas as in previous days – 23 million cubic meters a day – is being supplied to Poland
now."
Before Gazprom issued its statement, Uktransgaz's Prokopiv blamed Russia for trying to "derail"
the plan for Poland to supply Ukraine with "reverse" gas, while Ukraine refused to pay its debt
to Gazprom and is currently cut off from Russian supplies, and accused Russia of limiting the
supply of gas.
...
In August, Russia's energy minister, Aleksandr Novak, warned that in the upcoming winter Ukraine
may begin siphoning off Russian supplies intended for Europe if it fails to build up its reserves.
There is more conflicting news. The Ukrainian president Poroshenko
claimed that most of the "Russian troops", which no one, including the OSCE observers in the
area, has ever seen, have left Ukraine:
"Based on the latest information I have received from our intelligence services, 70 percent of
the Russian troops have moved back across the border," Poroshenko said. "This bolsters our hope
that the peace initiatives enjoy good prospects."
NATO, likely fearing that Poroshenko was again moving towards a peaceful solution,
disputed the claim:
"The reported reduction of Russian troops from eastern Ukraine would be a good first step, but
we have no information on this. The fact of the matter is there are still approximately 1,000
Russian troops in eastern Ukraine with substantial amounts of military equipment and approximately
20,000 troops on the Russian border with Ukraine," the NATO military officer said.
Push, push, push for war ...
But some parts of the "western" media are slowly waking up to the fact that not all is well with
Ukraine and the "western" strategy. They note that
Ukraine can not afford the IMF's 'Shock Therapy' and needs money without conditions which it
will likely never pay back:
Absent this "bail-in" of foreign creditors, Ukraine will simply be taking on more debt that it
lacks the capacity to service, risking a long-term compound debt spiral for the country and practically
guaranteeing a wholesale default down the road -- and continuing political instability.
After months of ridiculing anyone who pointed to neo-nazis within Ukraine's regime and military
forces as "Putin lover" reports about those neo-nazis now pop up in
several ->
"western" ->
media.
Russia best reason to hold the insurgents in east Ukraine back from further fighting has vanished.
The economic war is escalating no matter what Russia does or does not do. As the media have more
time to look into the real issues in Ukraine the state of the sorry affair will become more clear
and "western" public support for Ukraine will decline. This is a threat to "western" warmongering
and to again escalate to fighting is the best method to suppress such news.
Hawks on both sides now have reason to restart the fighting. Expect the ceasefire to completely
fail very soon.
It must be time for another one of those false flag things. May a good old fashion beheading
that seems to have worked well in Syria. I guess shooting down the airliner wasn't enough for
Amerikas crazies or their Nazis puppets.
James your last 2 sentences nails it. The Amerikan system is so corrupt it hard to figure out
were to cut off it's head or heads. Sad days ahead for those of us that live here.
In the meantime, however, despite the previously imposed sanctions, US oil giant ExxonMobil
and Russia's Rosneft continue their joint exploitation of the Russian Arctic, and last month
began drilling a $700 million Universitetskaya-1 well in the Kara Sea that may hold 9 billion
barrels of crude, equating to $894 billion.
Exxon currently owns drilling rights across 11.4 million acres in Russia, after it signed
a $3.2 billion exploration pact in 2011. "We are assessing the situation," Alan Jeffers, an
Exxon spokesman, told Bloomberg. "We always follow the law."
The Royal Dutch Shell Plc ventures in Russia may also be affected. "We are continuing to
review the latest sanctions to assess the potential impacts on our business, and engaging with
the respective authorities to gain further clarity," Kayla Macke, a Shell spokeswoman, told
the publication. "We are taking action to ensure we comply with all applicable sanctions or
related measures. We're keeping the situation under close review."
BP is also worried about the prospects of its 19.75 percent ownership stake in Rosneft –
the biggest direct foreign investment in Russia. "We will look at any new sanctions and we
will of course comply with all applicable sanctions," Toby Odone, a spokesman for BP, told
Bloomberg.
Other European oil companies that may suffer if the new sanctions are introduced include
French Total SA, and Norwegian Statoil ASA.
Thanks for such a thorough overview of the current situation. Poor Ukraine, caught between
the neo-cons/NATOcrats and old Mother Russia, which won't allow the neo-cons ambitions to sack
and pillage Russia's enormous resources.
Wonder if you have any inklings into the positioning of the different parties in the Ukraine
vis-a-vis the upcoming elections. Any chance the Ukraine can regain some footing and make sense
of the mess it has been pushed into by the Kaganate of Nuland?
the upcoming elections. Any chance the Ukraine can regain some footing and make sense of the
mess it has been pushed into by the Kaganate of Nuland?
No. By now Kiev and its bureaucracy
is infested with the neo-nazis. The communist party, 13% in the last election, and Yanukovich's
party have been purged. The pro-Russian opposition is no longer able to exist in a political "legal"
form. Any election under these circumstances is a sham with a known outcome.
The international community continues to seek a genuine negotiated solution to the crisis in
Ukraine. I encourage President Putin to work with Ukraine and other international partners,
within the context of the Minsk agreement and without setting unreasonable conditions, to reach
a lasting resolution to the conflict.
There are many differences between Putin today and Milosevic 15 years ago, all of which boil
down to the fact that Putin is a lot stronger and harder to remove-all the more reason for
the U.S. to put its best minds to work on helping Russians accomplish just this. It may be
our only chance of righting the course of history.
Igor Strelkov held a small press conference today which gives a good impression of what non-traitorous
Russians think of Putin and the significance of the fascist coup in Kiev: it was part of a long-standing
US plan to destroy Russia.
The US keeps pushing their EU vassals to put increasing economic pressure on Russia. NATO increases
its threats. Unless cooler heads contain the hotheads in the West this will lead to war between
NATO and Russia. The US assumes it will impoverish Europe and Russia like WWII.
The US may
think it will prosper after another war in Europe but if the war gets hot enough (like nuclear)
nobody wins; we all lose.
@26 demian.. thanks. his talk is quite disturbing in many ways. and, i don't think it is far from
the reality either.. 'ulcer bleeding at russia's border' is an apt description..
In February I honestly believed that Obama and Kerry did not want a crisis in Ukraine, it looked
like they just happened to get sucked into another unwanted crisis because they let the neocons
inside State run amok. It seemed clear that they had enough problems in Syria, Iran and Libya
to not want to complicate things elsewhere. In addition, it looked like the US was seriously interested
in the pivot to Asia and were seeking a confrontation with China. I assumed they would quickly
accept some kind of quick settlement with Russia.
However, my position seems completely wrong.
The US is now pushing for a major confrontation with Russia. And for reasons that are
hard to understand we are forcing the EU to join even though it will definitely hurt Europe. That
I do not understand. Why would Europe join the US in another adventure in Ukraine? Even while
the Libyan, Syrian and now Iraqi crises is spinning out of control? Why would the US let this
happen even with all of those problems?
Maybe at some level Obama and Kerry realize that they have lost influence in all of those countries
(including China) and somehow think they can now make up for it by defeating Russia over the Ukrainian
crisis. That looks even more insane. Are we witnessing the desperation of he world's only hyper-power
in its terminal decline?
"In February I honestly believed that Obama and Kerry did not want a crisis in Ukraine,
it looked like they just happened to get sucked into another unwanted crisis because they let
the neocons inside State run amok"
Obama loves golf. 'Nuff said on that. As to overarching matters over which they don't seem
to have any semblance of control ; it's because they don't have control.
Since the National Security Act of 1947 POTUS has been a symbolic throne of power.
He has as much control as Queen Elizabeth or the Pope. Yeah they can get some good press by kissing
babies and making profound declarations of their commitment to human rights, but those words and
a buck-fifty will get you on the metro to the end of the line; no further.
That I do not understand. Why would Europe join the US in another adventure in Ukraine?
It appears that Continental Europe has succumbed to the Anglo-Saxon model of financial
interests being dominant. Thus, Sergei Lavrov gives the answer to your question
in an interview I linked to
yesterday:
The world is changing, the share of the United States and Europe in the global GDP is shrinking,
there have emerged new centers of economic growth and financial power, whose political influence
has been soaring accordingly. As concerns economy, there seems to be growing awareness of that.
…
A really tough struggle is underway for keeping unchanged the state of affairs in which
the Western civilization determines the shape of the world order. This is a faulty policy
with no chances to succeed, objective processes are developing in opposite direction. The world
is getting really polycentric. China, India, Brazil, the ASEAN countries, Latin America and,
lastly, Africa – a continent with the richest natural resources – all begin to realize their
real significance for world politics. There will be no stopping this trend. True, it can
be resisted, and such attempts are being made, but it is really hard to go against the
stream. This is the cause of many crises.
The underlying cause of both world wars was the emergence of Germany as a power that overtook
Britain economically. The anglosphere fought two world wars to maintain its domination over the
world. The present crisis is being produced for the same reasons. European elites are instinctively
Atlanticists, seeing their interests as being aligned with those of the Empire. Of course, the
interests of the European 99% are aligned with those of Russia.
Lavrov's statement makes total sense to me.
But it does not answer the question I posed: Why would Europe join the US in another adventure
in Ukraine?
I am aware the people like John Majors and Blair have become wealthy because they turned
UK national interests over to the US it still does not make sense to me that every European country
have sold out. There must be some European leaders that still have their national interests
in mind.
@46 The EU is structurally weak, and there are no popular leaders within the nation states. Without
single women voting in solidarity with Merkel, she would be gone if she was a man, and many of
the center right governments are only there because the former nominal left parties can be described
as trans-elitist corporatists. Hollande is just a loser who rose because scandal and defeat to
Sarkozy knocked out other "lefty" candidates. Italy is still Italy. Does Belgium have a government
yet? The PIIGS are where they are.
... ... ...
I know the NSA is a great refrain to all concerns, but who in Europe would dare to speak for
Europe and then would be heard? De Gaulle wasn't a student council loser and amateur boot lick
who rose because he was a friendly guy. Population, economics, and good ole fashioned racism give
you the UK, a junior member of the EU and the Pentagon's puppet (half of Scotland wants to secede
and those people think Doctor Who is high culture), France (Hollande is giving rise to Marie Le
Pen), I think I made my case for Germany, Poland (insert joke), and Italy which hasn't been on
the ball since before Septimius Severus. The rest are just are nothing micro-states unless they
learn to act together.
You purport that "it's just not wise to presume that EVERYTHING neocons
do is and will always be wrong. I can definitely assure you that terms like "coup-government"
and "neo-nazi" are much more applicable to modern Russia than to Ukraine."
I beg to differ on both points.
What have the neo-cons done right? Their dreams of remaking the Middle East into obedient
clients of Washington and Tel Aviv (I still refuse to recognize Occupied Jerusalem as the capital)
collapsed in the quicksand of the 2nd. Gulf War, and ISIS is pulling it down even deeper.
"Coup goverment" for the Russian Federation? Maybe Mr. Yeltsin's shelling of the Duma. The
media control Washington affects to deplore is Yeltsin's creation. Yabloko and other parties have
marginalized themselves. "Neo-nazi," for the survivors of the Great Fatherland War? Surely you
jest.
Please put you head together with Cold N. Holefield (you'll find him easily enough, or he'll
find you) and perhaps together you can defend his earlier assertion that somehow Stalin "subsumed"
instead of defeated the Nazis.
Fascism is a reaction against the workers movement, using it as an epithet vs. politicians
or states one dislikes is dishonest; it is used to inflame, not analyze. Russia today is hardly
a paragon of democracy, but it's far from the levels of authoritarianism seen in numerous regimes
Washington, and the neo-cons, support.
Ukraine's Banderaists are direct descendents of collaborators, so the qualifier of "neo" is
unneeded. There assaults on Communists, even in the chambers of the Rada, is one clear proof.
I believe others here have shown that workers and their defenders have been a key target of the
Maidan coup.
Look at the Ukraine situation in the context of TTIP (and TPP): instead of a soft economic
empire based on the US dollar as reserve currency - which is failing - instead you have an extranational
legal framework by which the US and US corporations can directly affect other sovereign nations'
internal laws. Argentina's vulture distressed debt hedgies are simply a test case.The
EU's member nations, however, have always been extremely sensitive to external pressure to open
up their markets - in particular agriculture. They aren't going to accept TTIP without some external
factor forcing them to.
The "Russian Threat" is one which the US evidently thinks can be used as the stick - one which
the ISIS/Muslim threat cannot.
The battleground extends far beyond just the Ukraine.
And it is far from clear to me that this attempt to back into an American Commonwealth is going
to succeed: the US just isn't the only game in town anymore. Ironically, it is many of the 2nd
world nations/BRICS which have large monetary surpluses; the IMF/World Bank's ability to control
via access to loans is thus significantly offset. Witness China's dipping of its US dollar reserves
into Argentina...
As you may have noticed, combating cheap Russophobia and anti-Sovietism is a particular bugaboo
of mine, esp. as we embark on Cold War 1.5. Particularly conflating Soviets with the Nazis, whom
they destroyed at Stalingrad. @ 21 too egregious, though I have lightened up on CDH.
And the Ayn Rand cult is so annoying, it's acolytes can't be given a free ride. I ploughed
through the "Virtues of Selfishness," that was all I could stomach, it's blessed short compared
to her novels of straw men and boilerplate.
There is something going on in US foreign policy that is just too nuts. A few years ago the US
decided to 'pivot to Asia' which was without any doubt in anyone's mind a foreign policy to isolate
China. This policy was directed to bringing in Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam and the
usual American lackeys into some kind of anti-China coalition. Part of it was the Trans Pacific
trade agreement (sans China). No sooner do we announce this policy but we (excuse me, the US govt)
support the anti-Russian coup in Ukraine. Very sensibly the Chinese and Russians enter into an
alliance of common interest. They also bring along with them South America, Africa and South Asia.
For reasons I still do not understand, the US has convinced the EU and the "United Kingdom" to
join us in this policy.
Obama is in the process of upending a policy that Richard Nixon put
in place. I quess it no surprise that Kissinger is utterly appalled at what is happening right
now. I happen to be on the radical end of the spectrum of US politics and I should be happy to
see US imperialism suffer major set backs. But there is so many US own goals one can witness and
wonder: What the hell is Obama trying to achieve? This has to end badly for the US empire.
"Only the United States and China will profit from it"
Nobody will profit from this except perhaps several thousand top war profiteers, and a few
military careerists, and EU and NATO flunkies. The US is rapidly destroying whatever precious
credibility it has left before the now almost incredulous and horrified world stage, and money
coming in from other nation's lost business is but a trickle in an austere bucket full of holes.
What China gains in time and influence, it loses in business with the US. China badly wants stability
to grow, and so will continue to throw away its hard earned cash, buying worthless US t-notes
to ensure it.
"If the Empire will just dissolve gracefully, we will do everything possible to aid it." This
is what other countries are thinking, even as they come to understand that hope is not a policy.
"Disarming" must become more than a party compliment; it must grow into a real and hard strategy,
if it is to succeed and save the world.
But that is not what is happening -- the Empire, a wild bloodied beast, refuses to go gracefully.
Rather, the Empire has been panicked into the desperate rear-guard action of a final play
to regain its lost hegemony (which, by its very nature is a zero sum game), upon the surface of
what is now a slowly deflating global balloon. Should the balloon deflate before a winner is declared,
all will lose.
Several week ago, I detailed Merkel's bloody body being impaled upon the ideological fence
she was attempting to straddle. It seems NATO has finally mercilessly pulled her off and onto
their side, in the nick of time, while there is still some life left in her much diminished political
figure. Germany will lie with the devil for now.
European agriculture is dead -- planting decisions will have to be made in just five months
time. They will have no export markets for a second year in a row. Concerns will merge and eventually
be bought off by big agribusiness and GMO firms for pennies on the dollar. Hurray Syngenta! With
no real home market to protect, ironically, subsidies to giant agribusiness will increase, as
in the US.
And Toivo, yes, while I admire your honesty, you should realize by now that everyone is
bought off. Everyone with real power, at least. Everyone to the last soul -- if they still
have one, that is. If they refuse the blandishments of their betters, they are simply disappeared,
as Denk details, or if they are lucky, only McKinney'ed. Buying off the entire political class
of Europe could cost what, several billion a year in newly printed fiat dollars? (10,000
people x $1M/yr. = 10 B/yr., or 100,000 people x $100k/yr., or even more for far less, all = 10
B/yr.) The Empire doesn't even blink at spending several hundred billion a year on prosecuting
hot wars; so why should it leave anything to chance? With literally trillions in drug money (remember
the first act after 9-11 was cornering the opium/heroin market in Afghanistan and then growing
it exponentially, while protecting it with US forces), stolen money, QE money, arbitrage money,
derivatives money, and all manner of funny money sloshing around in the pockets of those who own
the world, why would they not own the one thing that is important, namely, power? The same logic
goes for the media. True resistance only lies with the general population, which has been systematically
ripped off to pay off those corrupted at the top. But we can keep waiting for the next glam/glib
politician to save us if we insist on believing that hope is a pro-active policy, even after have
been fleeced by the flim-flam man, Barak Obama.
Democracy, if she ever existed as more than a reified aspirational meme, intended to stand
lithe and seductively clad in our imaginations beside her hallowed companion muses: Kalliope,
Kleio, Thaleia, and Melpomene in flowing gowns of grace, has now become commoditized into another
grungy, soul-less, chthonic, profit-making industry. Money is to be donated, ads are to be run,
products pushed and sold, and everything, from beliefs in hope and change, to campaign hot dogs
are to be consumed until sickness overtakes satiety and good sense.
If there are any Gods left to us after our modern day Demiurges have worked their monetary
magic upon the power aspiring class, it is the rare soul who refuses to stay bought and silenced;
the puppet who like Shakespeare's jester-fool, against all odds, manages to talk sense to the
senseless; or the proud and incorruptible general who stays loyal to his unbuyable leader, Assad.
These, it should be obvious, are as rare and valuable as live oysters after the Deepwater Horizon
spill.
It should be obvious by now that NATO and the banks function as one overweening hegemonic totalitarian
force. Think tanks, too -- thus the formulation "Banks 'n Tanks." The propaganda system is like
the emperor's resplendent robes. (And only very few of us have the power to see through them.)
Large traditional manufacturers, who once had some say, are now just the banker's bitches. Much
new technology, like cell phones, is ideological in nature, and hence, just a physical subset
of the propaganda system. Only the energy giants have the capital, reach, power and vision to
defy their governments.
Yet, much is going on deep below the surface, which we can't see. There is a conflict of unprecedented
dimensions raging among the elite in Europe. Atlanticists are fighting with Eurasianists for supremacy.
The intellectual class is split. There are some small splits within the media. Those with the
power of vision in Europe know that the old order is dying, and that the sooner they jump on the
bus of the new order, the better they will be.
If there still exists a productive ownership class (a nationalist bourgeoisie) separate from
the globalist finance class on top, then it must choose to go against its instincts and, to survive,
ally with the working class to throw off their controllers -- otherwise there is no hope. The
finance class is not interested in pan-Asiatic railroads they cannot finance and control, but
Germany's tool manufacturing industry should be. The nationalist elements within the military
(the power behind Chavez's unlikely rise, for instance) must be persuaded to break with their
NATO trainers and paymasters.
But those are the elements which must unite to avert a World War: Nationalist and Eurasian
elements of the bourgeoisie, big energy, the media, and the military, along with anti-austerity
populist movements. Those are the configurations we should be supporting in a move towards a poly-centric
world.
Then, and only then, is real change is possible. Populist movements alone are not strong enough
these days. Their power, when threatening, is too easily sidetracked into schismatic identity
movements, like Scottish independence, which refuse to address change of alignment as a core value.
One might as well change ponies on a merry-go-round.
At the present, the NATO Atlanticists hold sway, while the other factions sit on the fence
and watch. Are the Atlanticists being given enough rope to hang themselves? Must they prove their
dominion in battle? There is always the problem of the battle escalating beyond control, perhaps
due to an unexpected coup. Do the Eurasianists hold an unexpected trump card up their sleeve?
And whom does Father Time favor?
As the snows of winter approach, Lady Europe lies helplessly passive to her fate -- almost
somnolent, like a medieval patient upon the pure white sheets of her destiny. She is in that initial
state that the poet Syvia Plath once described as "Stasis in darkness." The cure of blood-letting
has been prescribed by Dr. NATO, and the Nazi-bred leeches of war and austerity are to be affixed
and stuck hard to her body. They will not be removed until complete submission is achieved. Are
the Atlanticists monitoring the blood loss? Do they even care if the patient survives? After all,
they have been planning to consume the remains regardless of what happens to the patient.
Is there any chance for the patient to miraculously come to her senses, and throw off those
sucking the very blood out of her? Can she then escape from the sexual predations of the evil
Dr. NATO? Could she then still have the energy to find the presence of mind within her, and run
headlong into the warm awaiting arms of her betrothed (in a union foretold by propinquity), virile
Asia -- in what promises to be a glorious marriage?
Ah, well, there is a true romantic in all of us geomancers, I guess.
And for reasons that are hard to understand we are forcing the EU to join even though it
will definitely hurt Europe. That I do not understand. - Toivos
Following on from Malloga (yes) and to put it in somewhat simplistic, potted geo-political
terms:
The USSR was destroyed, and the US 'won' the cold war, and the world became uni-polar. US attention
turned elsewhere. Putin managed to get Russia back on its feet in an unexpected and spectacular
fashion, and its economic ties and collaborative partnerships, particularly with Europe, grew.
Putin then began putting Russia back on the map, on the world stage, which returned pride to
the Russians, which then fed back into the leadership. The code word for this is he became 'autocratic.'
Russia became a 'normal' country, entertaining relationships within the 'international order /
rules' (say like Brazil) and its power, and potential, became visible once more.
The Anglo world is riven with hate of Russia, it seems built into their genes, so this state
of affairs was not bearable and at some point it became time to strike 'the bear' again. (Of course
formented for decades, see partly below.)
Growing ties and alliances between a strong, stable Russia (not an impoverished, insecure,
oligarch hell-hole) and Europe are extremely dangerous for the US. A European continent from
Lisbon to Vladivostok with strong, cohesive relations between all the countries puts paid to US
hegemony and world power - forever - and probably very rapidly too.
Therefore, the vital need to expand NATO to the East (which was bound to lead to the kind of
clash we see now), and at the same time make absolutely sure that Europe realizes, accepts its
vassal status, an acts in accordance with it. We have a new entity now: from USuk (Iraq war) we
have passed to USEU (Ukraine - and it is not a partnership.) The aim of the US is not only
to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia (or to built a 'wall', isolating Russia, such as in
the cold war) but to get them to fight each other, thus damaging, crippling if possible, both
parties. (Economic war for now.)
The first to be instrumentalised in service of this aim was Ukraine (it was a good oppo and
others pose a lot of problems), more specifically its Russophobic, fascist elements, which were
brought to power; at the same time Ukraine was hazily or potentially brought into the EU. (European
Association agreement, IMF, etc.) So now it is necessary to cast Russia as an aggressor, attacking
a country that is 'almost European / wants to be European' etc. The Big Bear at the doors of Europe.
China - that will have to wait...
By taking this step, the European Union has made its choice against a peaceful settlement
of the internal crisis in Ukraine, which all responsible forces in Europe should have supported
instead.
Very good synopsis. I would only add some of negative (for the US) side effects
of their actions:
*Driving Russia and China much closer together -- that's a real Bozo No No. US's Asian
policy was predicated upon keeping the two great powers of Asia at each other's throats. (see
Sino-Soviet split (1960–1989))
*Driving the Brics closer together, esp. India and Russia. US Central Asian influence greatly
diminished.
*Russia and China competing with US for influence in S.A. - the US backyard. also Egypt,
a biggie.
*Accelerating the rush to alternative global financial mechanisms, global media.
*Countries rush to learn how to defend against destab/CRs with some, and increasing success.
Then, I would add that US policy, as it loses influence, IS becoming more desperate,
hysterical, and incoherent.
*Hence the rapid pivots back and forth (cycling before accomplishing objectives).
*Burning a lot of political capital in Europe in a very risky gambit. If the US fails to
create an enduring schism between Europe and Asia, they are absolutely finished as global hegemon.
(Although still the dominant global power)
Still, the US has had successes in the past years:
*Soft coups/more amenable gov'ts in: Thailand, Burma, Malaysia (at play again with the
two plane destructions), Phillipines, Possible destabilization/color rev in Hong Kong. Coup
in Honduras, Haiti under control. Venezuela seriously destabilized. Mexico/Columbia remain
solid. Rwanda, Kenya, Zinbabwe moving in the right direction. South Sudan split. CAR and Congo
solid.
*stolen wealth from libya
Longer term:
Up for grabs: Argentina
Expect: Nicaragua destabilization
*China/Russia will seek to break US high tech/social media monopolies, world will absolutely
move away from Windows.
*Growing imbalance and anger between Germany and the rest of Europe. Expect at minimum
some strong push-back. Southern tier could be first to gravitate towards Russia in response
to public unrest over continued austerity policies.
*US at near max neo-liberalist policies. Little to no windfall profits from increased trimming.
Increasing expenditures for social control.
"the Empire, a wild bloodied beast, refuses to go gracefully" is Marxist tripe. There is more
money in circulation in the world now than in all of human history before it, and it is concentrated
into a very few hands, as it has always been: 100 Familias.
Yes, but US loss of hegemony is still an important change.
MoA reminds me of BoingBoing, a nihilistic need for the 'shiny new bauble' with a penchant
for social science fiction of the most extreme, and refusal to accept reality that this was
the exact same conversion in 2004 over Iraq, nothing changed; no effective action; twaddle.
Except you were "loose shanks" back then. Still enjoy your fun writing though!
It's going to be a big surprise when it will appear that Russia isn't
"autocratic" and isn't all "Putin" - in fact Putin has been braking Russia hard for the last half
a year. Overthrow him if you want an endgame. Cause the nation is really pissed off.
It is ok to break international law outside Europe?
NATO countries went on a global rampage invading and partitioning countries without a UN mandate.
They established an international torture network with secret jails and kidnapping. Now these
NATO countries are going to ignore the core value of international law and violate a sovereign
state's borders to bomb their stooges who turned bad.
The US really wants to destroy Russia.
I am beginning to feel very pessimistic about the future.
The Russians are extremely unlikely to back down.
It's going to be a cold cold winter.
A few years ago there were two super powers in the world. Now there is only one. And America is
now slapping around the former super power Russia and showing her who is Boss.
Putin needs balls
of steel to go forward from here. Rothschild will net be pleased, the child needs to behave itself,
central bankers rule the world, didn't you know,,,,
Neo-Marxists and Trotskyite students at
my university were telling me that 40 years ago: America is about to implode. So "showing signs"
is a definite improvement, all told. The US still remains the only real superpower in the world.
this move is no doubt is intended to suffocate Russia economically in hopes that the CCCP's collaple
of the 1990 will repeat itself. But it is a different Russia and a different, multi polar World
today. So i do look forward to the boomerang effect, which is not so much the Western economies
harming themselves, but the third World and competing economies suceed
The propaganda pile is getting deeper. Not to worry Putin, they are probably doing you
a favor in the long run, and they hate the long run, heck, they thought Ukraine would be short
and sweet, just like Iraq.. Again I have to agree with him, The less time officials and business
leaders spend overseas and the more time they spend dealing with current issues the better.
One senior administration official in Washington claimed the measures were in response to recent
incursions by Russian troops and were "about restoring respect hope I'm wrong but I've a horrible
feeling we're about to find out we're more dependant on them, than them on us...
So who is going to sanction the U.S. and EU for their illegal wars? These idiot hypocrites are
trying to shipwreck the world's economy for something they've been doing already for over 10 years
now, and it's only the poor that will continue to suffer.
NATO and the EU need to be disbanded.
These morons still haven't come to understand that their actions continue to foment more unrest
and radicalism throughout the world. ...Or they do understand very well and are behind the chaos
for they are in the business of war!
Kind of a head scratcher here. Why add sanctions if Russia is removing its troops and aiding in
bringing peace to eastern Ukraine? Would have thought that act would come with removing sanctions,
not adding. I must be living in a parallel universe or something, because this semms illogical.
Here is a kicker... Russia never had its troops in Ukraine. The one time they were "close" is
during an exercise, but still hundreds of miles away from the border.
How about those Ukrainian
BMPs caught crossing into Russian territory on multiple occasions and getting stuck? Or the provocative
shelling of Russian territory by Ukrainian artillery? I bet Psacky "has no such information"?
The plan was to make Russia invade, impose sanctions,
cut trade, make Russian economy crash, and then overthrow Putin.
Too bad, we were too slow to send even volunteers.
Too bad, sanctions aren't working on a country which has principles.
Too bad, even cutting trade doesn't work as planned.
As for the last one, I'm sorry to say this, but it's thanks to Putin we have a planet to chat
on by now. If somebody weaker would be charge - nuclear exchange would already happen some time
ago.
Everyone agrees by now that the plan is crap. But they don't have another plan in the West,
so they keep going. Good luck guys! Success to your endeavours!
And sweeping Russian sanction will target EU exporters to Russia and possibly the energy supplies
from Russia. Than EU will retaliate, Russia will respond. Sooner or later, the economic activity
will drop and drop. We will all be happier, I have always argued that what is needed is less work
and more yelling at each other, it is more fun.
And then maybe, just maybe, some reason will
be re-introduced into the system. We will revisit the same places on the way up as we are on the
way down. A pointless symbolic exercise.
Ukraine and EU have just agreed to "postpone the EU Association until the end of 2016". In
other words, what Yanukovitch did last November - postponed because Ukraine cannot afford to lose
its Russia trade. There is a deal that is being obscured by western PR and propaganda.
Like small boys way over their head, Western leaders will agree to anything as long as it doesn't
look like they are losing. Thus the PR. But they are losing this one. So is Ukraine. Why was this
madness of a coup in Kiev during Sochi Olympics organized by the West? Is the Peace Price winner
so powerless or so clueless?
ah yes. the 850 million people of the european union and
the united states will be brought to their knees by the might of 143 million russians and an economy
6% the size of the unprincipled west. can one laugh.
If we could get passports and travel visas confiscated from all of our banksters, arms merchants,
Nobel Piss Prizers, "states(wo)men" et al. -- regardless of what nationality or religion they
claim-- the world would be a kinder and gentler place.
No, what IS ridiculous is us talking about how Russia should "respect international law and sovereignty"
and yet we ourselves have been invading other nations constantly! Just last night on the news
I saw a guy saying "oh yes we definitely! need to bomb Syria"... WHAT!?
It is sad that we are allowing our government to treat us like dumb cows.
We lie to the world, we make conflict after conflict, we invade, we bomb, and yet we talk about
international law? We, the US, poke our nose everywhere in other's business, we have purposefully
nurtured the fascists in Ukraine, have created this conflict, we lie about "evidence" that we
don't really have, as always, and WE? talk about respect and sovereignty?
Oh, that's right, those stupid laws don't apply to us, we are the United States! As Obama said
at West Point, we are special.
The hypocrisy and and double standards are mind boggling. Makes me want to stop paying taxes
to these bastards so they can't use my hard earned money to make war and stuff their own pockets.
What a shower of idiots, you would think that Obama, Cameron and the rest would get off their
asses and go and visit Putin face to face instead of poncing about hiding .
They would if they wanted to solve the problem - clearly they don't want to, That is why they
keep stoking the fire and poking the Bear. What I don't understand is what EU/US's goal is. I
can only guess it has to do with competing pipe lines from the gulf and the petro$ but unfortunately
our press never ask any of the important question.
This market is too small not to be manipulated - anyway Rosneft will be persecuted all over the
world to repay the assets to Yukos and they willk loose so much money you better not have money
in that company! greetings jacob Schonberg
The market rises because for the oil in north Russia was agreement in big USA company, now the
USA company is prohibited by USA alone to work there and Rosneft will get it.
There is a basic rule which every Russian kid learns in school, in street fights, in the
military or elsewhere: never promise and never threaten - just act.
Surely most of the stuff Russia buys from EU businesses is either already made in China or else
there's a passable substitute / knock-off available. So basically all we're saying is: 'Hey, cut
out the middleman and go straight to the source.' And that's meant to be threatening? How?
That's not fair what the EU/U.S is doing to Russia. It's OK for the EU/U.S to have military intervention
against Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghan for its own economic interest but its not OK for Russia
to give a hand to nation who desperate need humanitarian aid such as Ukraine. Bad bully EU/US
Why is EU Association Agreement implementation postponing is still not in the news? Funny how
originally it was what brought Yanukovich down, but now is not even worthy of writing about? Ouch...
It seems completely crazy that the US and EU impose more sanctions on Russia but are willing
to agree to this delay (with Russia in the tripartite talks) so that Moscow can hold off on threatened
retaliatory trade measures.
I'm probably wrong but it may be that this whole Ukraine business has shifted from being a crisis
in the making to a "lets all find a way out without losing face" negotiation phase.
After all, if Russia and the West want a public squabble there is still always Syria to grab the
headlines.
Baloney as the EU slides into full blown depression. Expect new elections and possible EU defections
in the months ahead as unrest sweeps Europe. Russian counter moves will cause numerous bankruptcies
and especially injure the German economy giving the US a leg up as Germany is put in her place
while US companies feel less pain initially. Net result will not change Russia's course since
for them it is a matter of survival as the west tries to dismember Russia piece by piece.
And why would they change course? As the senior official in Washington said this about teaching
Russia a lesson and that lesson is that when the West says jump, Putin`s only answer can be "
How High".
What Russia is learning is that the West is all bluster and hype. There is no fire
under all that smoke.
'Sweeping new sanctions' despite a Russian-initiated ceasefire threatened mostly by Kiev-sponsored
neo-Nazis who openly announce they will use the lull in fighting to prepare further attacks on
the people of Donbass.
It has been quite obvious to many of us, from the beginning of this mess,
that what we are witnessing is the execution of the West's longstanding policy of isolating, surrounding
and -- ultimately -- dismantling Russia, the better to destroy competition and secure control
of resources. It should be becoming more obvious, to more people, with each passing day, that
this is exactly what is happening.
The Guardian: "The US Treasury and European Union announced on Friday that Russia's largest bank,
SBERBANK, would be barred from accessing... "Russia's economic and diplomatic isolation will continue
to grow as long as its actions do not live up to its words," said US Treasury secretary Jack Lew."
... Probably very few people know, that "Sberbank" is one of the few banks that has successfully
worked in the Soviet era as the "Savings cash desk" or "Sberkassa". It was a truly people's bank,
which exists on deposits of the ordinary people. The current leadership of Sberbank believes,
that successful operation of the bank is due to their credit. However, I think that the Russian
people are still in need of mutual assistance and consider this bank as their own bank. That is
why, the American sanctions cannot undermine the well-being of the bank. However, they certainly
cause people's anger and hatred towards those people who interfere in their affairs from a distance
of 10,000 km.
Hell, I'm IN the US and even I am hating :) My tax money is being used to fund stuff i am against
and to stuff someone else's already deep pockets, meanwhile we Americans can't afford universal
health care and are in deep debt with education loans, bank loans, housing loans, and etc.
Sanctioning Sberabank is a slap on the face of every average Russian. The US and EU make themselves
look really bad with this one. It is like stealing pennies from orphans.
I don't know if this is true, but recently I read that one-tenth of the US annual military budget
could eliminate poverty and provide universal healthcare for all Americans.
Now that Ukraine forces and separatists have the peace deal, what is the point of more sanctions?
Backing Russia to a corner won't bring peace to Ukraine. On the contrary, it will result in a
sanction war from both sides.
No one benefits. If Russia feels whatever they do will always bring sanctions, they won't sit
down with EU to discuss a Ukraine solution. That would be a point of no return.
Well actually they tried. remember all the US companies and politicle hacks that were in Russia
after the breakup of the Soviet Union? Russia`s economy promptly shrunk by 40% with all of theri
expertise. Only Putin saved the country from the western thieves.
No he has another opportuniy, to kick out the American and British oil companies. he should
do it right now while the iron is hot.
Oh and sanctions? Well if I were Putin I would make a list of the most belligerent EU countries
and I would place them on a priority list and I would begin at the top and turn off the gas to
one country at a time until the EU regains the balls to stand up to the US:
Did you mean to say that Russia should have continued on the path to becoming America's bitch
like all other European countries, and keep letting American oligarchs to ravage it like under
Yeltsin?
And by the way... we the US are the LEAST democratic nation. We are a Police State and our
elections are a farce. There is a reason they are often referred to as "the greatest SHOW on earth".
The stupidity is that after throwing off the yoke of communism, instead of becoming a mainstream
democratic, prosperous and (largely) peaceful European country like France, UK, or Germany, Russia
has chosen oligarchs as leaders who have lead Russia into a confrontation with the West. The mismatch
in economic strength between Russia and the US/EU/Japan means Russia is going to come out the
looser
ROTFL, the US is an oligarchy -- The biggest one! Russia did exactly the same. The only
difference is that in the 90s Russians were naive and let the US and European corporations pillage
it, in addition to its own oligarchs, which promptly led to a complete economic collapse despite
such people as Larry Summers advising Russia.
Putin protected Russian interests and forced oligarchs to behave.
Aren't we the original bad faith actors in this drama? Didn't Clinton dishonor a 'gentleman's
agreement" with Gorbachev, crafted during the reuniting of Germany. At the time the Russians were
negotiating from a position of strength, they had 350,000 troops in Europe. Yet they agreed to
let Germany reunite if we agreed NOT TO EXPAND NATO!
How well have we honored our end of this
bargain? I think there are ten more NATO members, all of whom bear a historical brief against
the Russians.
Talk about Janus-faced Capitalistas!
Why did the US whine about the Monroe doctrine if there is no need of buffer states? I know
Kerry declared it dead but we were squealing as late as the 90s. Does anyone seriously think we
would let Al Qaeda take over Cuba?
It is easy to make moral pronouncements when you have two huge oceans between you and everyone
else, not so easy if they are right across some little river.
Isn't there a double standard going on here? We invoke the Monroe doctrine to keep Russian
missiles from our borders but we can get so close via NATO, the Russian bear's hairs tickle our
nose?
Remember the Monroe doctrine which Kennedy cited in 1962 over the Cuban Missile Crisis? Look
at it from Putin's point of view, this noose of NATO is tightening around Mother Russia, when
Gorbachev had an implicit guarantee it wouldn't.
From a 2009 NYT article, by Mary Elise Sarotte, Enlarging Nato, Expanding Confusion, discussing
the 'gentleman's agreement' that Gorbachev understood as meaning no NATO expansion, applying to
his agreeing to German reunification.
NYT says "Did the United States betray Russia at the dawn of the post-cold war era? The short
answer is no. Nothing legally binding emerged from the negotiations over German unification. In
fact, in September 1990, an embattled Mr. Gorbachev signed the accords that allowed NATO to extend
itself over the former East Germany in exchange for financial assistance from Bonn to Moscow.
A longer answer, however, shows that there were mixed messages and diplomatic ambiguities.
By acknowledging that there might be some substance to Russian grievances, the Obama administration
would strengthen our relations with Moscow. Given that NATO enlargement has already taken place
and efforts for further expansion are stalled, little would be lost with such an acknowledgment
but much could be gained." Unquote
We, in the West, are the original bad faith actors, we come from a dishonorable world…and we
act accordingly.
How leaders see their Lies as Truth. The west has never stopped battling for propaganda to be
as accurate as possible.
THEY prefer being cynical and brutal to being caught in a lie people say
Do not let yourself be disconcerted by the worldwide clamour that will now begin. There will
come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph."
The winter will prove harsh for Eastern and Central Europe.
I hope the Poles are getting ready
to ask the EU for more subsidies over the winter, as they already have for their agricultural
sector after the "shocking" ban by Russia hurt their fruit production.
Honestly, I for one, see no reason why my country in crisis needs to further spend itself down
the hole for the sake of the Eastern Europeans' centuries old grudge against and amongst themselves.
The Poles, hardly the most generous and communal people in good times, are annoyingly good
at asking for solidarity and aid in bad times.
I clearly remember the extra subsidies from the EU that the Poles demanded when they first
joined in the early 2000s, only to go off and spend that money acquiring American armaments.
I recall that Jacques Chirac was livid.
Part of the Polish economic miracle has been due to 220+ billion Euro aid package. The sum is
bigger than the aid packages provided by the Marshall Plan.
Sanctions are the coward's weapon. (As against Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Burma, ...) Who will pay for
these this time around? People in Europe, Ukraine (especially), and Russia. Probably not the US,
as it has far more experience in dishing out sanctions, always keeps the domestic costs low, and
sets them up favorably for its banks and arms merchants.
said the Treasury department's under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence
A completely trustworthy department . Wonder if they gave input to the Joint Inquiry into
Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001
Whatever they think I guess we'll never be sure. Not where powerful financial interests lie anyway. *
Russia has control of most of the oil and gas, these sanctions will have little affect on Russia
if any , but they will cause long term damage to the USA and Europe. These sanctions really fail
to under the basic idea of the balance of power or understand Russia ..
Hah. Russia, with its $2T GDP, will not only struggle to withstand an economic standoff with the
US and EU, combined GDP's $34t, it will also face an acute problem involving hard currency liquidity.
Just as the costs of Putin's Ukraine folly begin to weigh heavily on Russia's budget, Putin will
find it harder to find the revenues to sustain it.
It turns out 70% of Russia's exports
consist of gas and oil, coming to $350b in 2013. That accounts for fully 17.5% of Russia's
entire GDP. As they say, Russia is basically a big gas station with nukes. That lack of economic
diversity is a huge Achilles heel, one even Palin can see it from her house. If that weren't enough
of a problem, half of Russia's budget revenues come from gas and oil sales.
Who does Russia rely upon for that lifeblood of its economy, i.e., revenues from oil and gas
exports? You guessed it, the EU. While Europe imports less than half its energy from Russia, about
40%, its purchases comprise around 80% of Russia's oil and gas exports. That's $280b, or fully
14% of Russia's total GDP, not to mention 40% of Russia's budget revenues.
That means, even a relatively small change in European purchasing habits will have considerable
impact on Russia's economy. A 10% reduction would amount to a 20% loss, to the tune of $28b in
hard currency revenues for Russia. That's 1.4% of Russia's total GDP.
Until that pipeline to China is complete, some 3 years hence, Putin is in no position to withstand
the economic consequences of his folly. There is nothing the 'BRICS' can do to help him out here.
Even then, it will provide little succor. By the time that pipeline is up and running, Russia
will be in such dire straights, China will be able to set the price.
In the end, Putin's folly will make Russia China's gas station and nothing more. He just lost
his best counter balance to the dragon rising to Russia's East, the West.
You forget that although it will hurt Russia's revenues if they turn off gas, it will simply devastate
the EU.
Gas is a fraction of total Russian energy exports, most income comes from oil exports, which
will continue regardless (oil is traded on tankers).
Aside from heating households, gas is a main input of many industries like chemicals, refineries
and so on. When there was a hickup in winter deliveries a few years ago, some EU countries had
to shut down whole industries to keep their citizens warm.
So if Russia really wanted to hurt the EU very badly, it can do it with a 100% certainty.
I take on broad your view but find it unbalance because it lack the understanding of the demand
for gas and oil from Europe, have you been wondering why they are fracking the hell out of the
UK and the USA ? And how low the supplies are? It's really like a druggie telling it supplier
to stop selling him drugs, could happen but very unlikely. Yes Russia now selling it power to
china, it really does not want to sell it Europe anymore and the lights go out all over Europe
what a petty ..
Sorry Milogram, but you are mistaken. I note that unlike my post, you cite to no source for your
assertion.
That said, Russia's oil production is in jeopardy for lack of technology to maintain
the productivity of current oil fields and to open new ones. You know where that technology comes
from? You guessed it.
I respect your view however your theory is biased of free market ideas, and not taking into account
theory of scarcity. If the world market was able to balance itself the price of gas and oil would
be falling. You could say that fracking in the USA has made the price drop in the USA, but as
you may know such gas extractions costs are being masked by the printing of the dollar and the
cleanup costs are going to have be paid one day .
I also remind you that Saudi Arabia have lied about their reveres, the oil will run out soon.
And we are unlikely to able to access Syria gas at this time. Which leaves Iran; that's not going
to work, just look at who supplied them with that nuclear tech.. Also let take into account politics
and history , OPEC and their pasted history, free market , I real do not think so ..
Brussels (AFP) - The European Union said Friday it will delay implementation of a free trade
deal with Ukraine by more than a year until the end of 2015.
Well, Yanukovich lost his presidency for proposing such a delay, which led to a certain chain
of events resulting in current mess. Can it now get even messier?
The neocons are still in charge in the US and are about to launch another war in Iraq and
possibly Syria. It's the US neocons who want to bring Russia to its knees, as per the Wolfowitz
Doctrine.
Your attempt to pretend that somehow Obama's warmongering is different from Bush's
because he's a Dem, even though his administration is still stuffed with neocons and following
neocon policies, is simply the insane self-delusion of the old style Democrat who doesn't want
to admit he's been conned. Your attempt at claiming Russia are the new neocons is simply projection.
The arms industry still not happy and dissatisfied?
May I suggest Mexico as the next target? It would make it so easy and it is just there.
Something not in Europe, preferable. And since the Middle East is an old affair better to add
a special tickle to it.
Lots of fun . . . for the big corporations and Wall Street, as usual.
America and the EU just wants to get their hands on Ukraine and...especially the east and south-east
of Ukraine; in order to get their hands on the very abundant natural gas reserves there, which
is suitable for fracking. US Vice President, Joe Biden's son has already been installed in Ukraine's
gas (whatever it is called) company.
The reality is...I doubt the US doesn't even know where exactly the fuck Ukraine is:
And, our lives safe in the hands of these neo cluster fucks...??? Yeah, right.
Just wait until Russia closes off its air corridors and the Afghan-NATO supply transit routes.
The UK shall then be presented with a logistical nightmare of getting all of our military hardware
back. And, guess who shall then be picking up the tab for those extra costs involved? Yep...the
UK tax payer.
Then there is always the thought of preventing the US and EU from using its rockets, for hitching
a ride to the space station.
The short answer to your question is 1) to disappear, and 2) to allow american oligarchs to pillage
it again and become America's unworthy slave and 3) pay to American taxes, preferably at those
high European rates?, just for the privilege of being America's btch.
THEN Russia will be a "good" country and its US-appointed leaders will not be called "psychopaths"
by media and some commenters.
This now seems to have little to do with Ukraine and a supposed "invasion," The west is hell-bent
on picking on Russia now. So it's punishing Russia no matter what Russia does (much to Merkel's
chagrin, I guess because Russia can hit back at Europe.
This round of sanctions is a "spectacular" and "well timed" "thank you" to Putin for his ceasefire
initiative for Ukraine and follow through on it, as well as for humanitarian assistance that Russia
provides to the devastated areas.
The West really "knows" how to reward the desirable actions.
Shock horror. I'm astounded by this news. Still no UN/US/EU humanitarian aid to the east of Ukraine.
Still no western condemnation of the killing of civilians. Still no encouragement and/or praise
of the ceasefire and prisoner handover.
Syria was a wake up call for America, for the first
time in 25+ years it couldn't get its own way, and this is the response. Following the Wolfowitz
Doctine to the letter.
America protecting it's "interests" with bomb and banks is nothing new, the really pathetic
thing is the conduct of the EU. Slashing their own wrists for some imaginary moral high-ground.
America has set the tune, and the EU dances it's feet bloody for scant applause and rancid table
scraps. It's embarrassing.
12 September 2014 – The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is rolling out its first
operation in Ukraine, providing food assistance to vulnerable people affected by the conflict
with distributions in transit centres and public shelters in Donetsk and Luhansk in the country's
east.
Since the beginning of September, WFP in cooperation with local partners has distributed food
boxes containing ready-to-eat canned food such as meat, fish, vegetables as well as biscuits,
jam and tea. So far, 10,000 daily rations, enough to feed 2,000 people for five days, have been
distributed, the agency said in a news release.
Yeah, its funny how when MH-17 was shot down The US was so quick to blame Russia and Putin, even
before ANYTHING could be inspected, based on some "evidence" that they "have, but can't show"
other than some sloppy photoshopped picture released by Kiev? And now stalling and hiding results.
Senator George McGovern ran an anti-war campaign against incumbent Republican President Richard
Nixon in 1972. He was the last of the New Deal, Democrats to run for President. This is how much
the Democratic Party has been transformed. From Democracy to Fascism. In the schools today they
do not teach about the New Deal; in fact it has been scrubbed from the textbooks like in Stalinist
times in the Soviet Union. The New Deal is never talked about and or never referenced in movies,
tv shows, it is a taboo subject today? If you watch tv shows from the early 70's like Maude; she
called herself a McGovern Democrat on the show. She talked openly about being against the War;
and how evil the the military industrial complex was. It's eerie watching this today knowing there
are no tv shows where characters talk like this. Maude would be considered an enemy of the state
today!
To paraphrase Gray Falcon on blogspot:.." Watching the American neoconservatives (a deranged
cadre of warmongers) and their European puppets escalating the economic war against Russia..It's
like watching the coyote from the old cartoons, chasing the road-runner bird over a chasm. Once
he realizes he's running on air - but not a moment sooner - he immediately plummets to the ground.
It now appears as if the Imperial government has convinced itself that so long as it pays no attention
to the chasm, the law of gravity does not apply.
Over e400bn lost in trade & 140,000 EU Jobs undermining EU Economic Recovery threatened by Russia
Sanctions despite a major Peace Effort by Putin-Poroshenko albeit early is holding.
This show
Obama-NATO-Defence Companies / military infrastructure don't want Peace but Dollar making opportunities
Ukraine is schnorring gas from Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary. Gas which those countries paid
for, but Ukraine didn't, but expects to receive hand-outs of their spare gas.
Russia is dealing with each nation in its own way. For example, Russia ships X amount of gas
to Slovakia. Slovakia "donates" a portion of this gas to Ukraine (via "reverse flow"), Russia
allows them to do this, and neither increases nor decreases the amount of gas it sends to Slovakia.
If Slovaks are willing to sacrifice their own needs to help a neighbour, then glory be to them.
Poland is treated differently. For every drop of gas that Poland "donates" to Ukraine, Gazprom
decreases by that amount its shipments to Poland. (Although Gazprom denies that and says it continues
to send the same amount every day: 23 million cubometers.)
However, Poles say that for the days September 8-9, Russian gas flow into Poland dropped dramatically,
and Poles saw this as punishment for donating their gas to Ukraine.
When Russian gas supplies dipped, the Poles hastily stopped their "reverse flow" of siphoning
gas to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the head of Ukrainian gas firm, Igor Prokopiv, announced yesterday that all is well:
He says the Poles have found another source of gas besides Russia, and will start to ship this
"found gas" to Ukraine very soon.
The Polish yapping about Russian supplies dropping is a bald face lie. They are actually talking
about extra supply from Gazprom that they demanded and Gazprom refused to supply. This all makes
perfect sense. In order for reverse flow to work, there has to be spare capacity since all the
gas comes from a single source. In the summer, Poland and friends had gas to spare but winter
is coming and the slack is disappearing. So these fuckers decided to play smart and wanted Gazprom
to supply them more, which they would then ship to Ukraine.
Gazprom needs to reduce supplies for real and see these haters flail in the wind.
Analogies between Yugoslavia and the Ukraine
by Stephen Karganovic
###
My only comment is that it goes to show how strength and lessons learned count. In the Yugo
case, the Serbs were their own worst enemies, constantly fighting amongst each other, reinforcing
divisions and reliving history (Četnik v. Partisan) when if they had stuck together, buried the
differences and worked on Regan's "Trust, but verify", they would have been much better off rather
than believing over and over again any promises that came from the West and stopping short of
wreaking a decisive military victory from the outset. Either you do it properly or you don't do
it at all.
On Friday, Ukraine's 'sanctions' against Russia come into effect including a ban on the transit
of Russian gas to European customers. The collective stupidity of the EU leaders in backing Ukraine
must be without parallel.
I would like to see a cogent analysis of how the proposed sanctions-and those already in effect-are
legally enforceable in terms of their compelling private entities e.g. Exxon Mobil not to conduct
business with Russia. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101990949#.
Has the US Congress passed any legislation comparable to Hill-Burton in terms of sanctions against
Russia.?
I suppose they would appeal to Title II Sections 202, 203 and 204 of RAPA. The rabid foaming
at the mouth lunacy not yet enacted (I think)
But here's the thing….RAPA defines what Russian entities are to be targeted and arrogates to
Obama power to initiate sanctions against the targeted individuals or business/commercial entities
But even so I think Exxon Mobil could argue that the proposed curtailment of *its* Russian
business is constitutionally impermissible unless the absence of said curtailment would present
a clear and imminent threat to US national security. Why?
I know ..it's kind of a reach..but ..might be worth a shot in District Court!
I guess I just don't see where in the Constitution Obama derives the authority to bind and
gag Exxon Mobil-or anyone else- from doing business with Russia.
Russia Responds To The Latest European Sanctions: "You Leave Us No Choice"
As usual,
every European snaction (sic) has an equal and opposite Russian reaction. Here is how the
Russian Foreign ministry responded to what van Rompuy announced earlier today would be a new round
of Russian sanctions, which wil finally be enforced tomorrow. First from the Russian foreign ministry:
*BY PASSING NEW ANTI-RUSSIAN SANCTIONS, EU EFFECTIVELY MADE CHOICE AGAINST PEACE PROCESS
IN UKRAINE – RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY'S STATEMENT
And from Russia's European ambassador:
*NEW EU SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA LEAVE RUSSIA NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO GO FOR CERTAIN COUNTER-MEASURES
– RUSSIA'S PERMANENT REP TO THE EU CHIZHOV
*EU SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA DEVOID OF ELEMENTARY LOGIC, COMING SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH DE-ESCALATION
OF UKRAINIAN CRISIS – RUSSIA'S AMBASSADOR TO EU CHIZHOV
Ukraine Admits Resurgent Separatists Extend Control All The Way To Sea Of Azov
The Ukraine "ceasefire" may be raging, but don't tell that to the "rebel", "separatists", "pro-Russian
terrorists" or whatever it is that the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine are called nowadays, because
a few short hours ago even Kiev finally admitted that the insurgency, with or without Russian
backing, has finally hit the beach of the Azov Sea, which implicitly means that the only thing
that is prevent the formation of a land connection from Russia to Crimea is the city of Mariupol,
which as Ukraine reported overnight, it is now massing heavy weapons for what may be the most
critical fight of the entire Ukraine civil war to date.
Poland Says Russian Gas Deliveries Tumble By 45%; Europe To Launch Sanctions On Friday,
Russia Will Retaliate
Yesterday, when Gazprom was supposedly "troubleshooting its systems", we reported that in what
was the first salvo of Europe's latest cold (quite literally, with winter just around the corner)
war, Poland complained that up to 25% of its usual gas deliveries from Russia had been cut. Russia
indirectly hinted that this was also a result of Ukraine using "reverse flow" to meet its demands,
with Europe allowing Kiev to syphon off whatever gas it needs without paying Gazprome for it.
It also led Poland to promptly admit it would halt reverse flow to the civil-war ridden country.
Fast forward to today when Polish financial website Biznes reports that things are going from
bad to worse in Russia's energy retaliation war, after Poland claimed a 45% shortfall in Russian
natgas imports as of Wednesday.
Full European Commission Statement On Next Round Of Russian Sanctions
From Europe's Chief Haiku Officer, Herman van Rompuy (now that he is president only in legacy
terms, replaced by the guy who will lie – and allegedly drink – every time it gets serious):
Statement by the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy on further EU restrictive
measures against Russia
The set of measures adopted on Monday will enter into force on Friday 12 September 2014.
At the same time, it is my understanding that the Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER)
before the end of the month will carry out a comprehensive review of the implementation of the
peace plan on the basis of an assessment carried out by the European External Action Service (EEAS).
We have always stressed the reversibility and scalability of our restrictive measures. Therefore,
in the light of the review and if the situation on the ground so warrants, the Commission and
the EEAS are invited to put forward proposals to amend, suspend or repeal the set of sanctions
in force, in all or in part.
It is expected that the Council will consider these proposals urgently with a view to take
action if appropriate.
It goes without saying that the market is far more interested in the Kremlin counterstatement
which should be due shortly.
Can you believe these Polish fuckers and their screaming? They are claiming that they got 45%
less gas. What actually was the case is that they want 45% MORE gas and Gazprom, as per its rights
under contract, refused to supply them.
So you can expect the same BS from the west as during
2006 and 2009. When Ukraine starts to siphon gas flowing to the EU this winter, the EU fucktards
will start screaming at Russia. The amount of hate from these self-righteous vermin makes me sick.
Can you believe these Polish fuckers and their screaming? They are claiming that they got 45%
less gas. What actually was the case is that they want 45% MORE gas and Gazprom, as per its rights
under contract, refused to supply them.
So you can expect the same BS from the west as during
2006 and 2009. When Ukraine starts to siphon gas flowing to the EU this winter, the EU fucktards
will start screaming at Russia. The amount of hate from these self-righteous vermin makes me sick.
"A spokesperson for PGNiG, Dorota Gajewska, refused to indicate if the level of Russian deliveries
constituted a reduction from any prior periods, reiterating only that delivered volumes are below
the contractually requested level, she said in an interview for broadcaster TVN24."
No confirmation of any reduction, just yapping about less than *requested*.
One can't help but think that these Polish screams about baaaad Gazprom turning off their gas
was theatre so that recalcitrant EU members had to agree to give the go-ahead for more Sanctions,
to start today.
The hypocrisy of the EU, in case anybody needed more proof, was the rationale. This time, Russia
'must work for a peaceful solution' for the sanctions to be dropped.
Just remind me who was instrumental in setting up that meeting in Minsk …?
[ThatJ: Wow, they are really going for it! Am I the only one who thinks this move was pre-approved
by the US? Europe obviously doesn't want to take too much economic pain by banning Russian gas,
but the US would rather see the European economies suffer under expensive LNG imports - even if
it meant another great recession or worse, depression - than allow any rapprochement between them
and Russia. Let's be honest here, if the US said no to the ban on Russian gas transport, Kiev
would have obliged, because if the West abandons Ukraine due to its non-cooperation, the country
will simply collapse, and the junta knows it. So Kiev does what the US Deep State neocons want
it to do. The US is in full charge of Ukraine]
-
It's obvious now that
#Ukraine is attempting
2 lure #Russia into
an all out war. #Poroshenko
and the people behind him,must be nuts
#cdnpoli
[ThatJ: Today's Russia is the
30s Germany, plus the
nuclear weapons and a vastly superior military and population and land and resources. In other
words, it's despised as much, but it's not a foe to take directly on]
-
BREAKING #Ukraine
army has killed 30 of its own soldiers, who reportedly wanted to defect from the army unit
located in #Donetsk.
#cdnpoli
[ThatJ: If true, these soldiers have proved their unreliability for being bad goyim. When your
foreign-controlled government demands you to fight for the interests of non-gentile neocons who
want "full spectrum dominance", you just can't say no and go unpunished]
[ThatJ: Wow, they are really going for it! Am I the only one who thinks this move was pre-approved
by the US? Europe obviously doesn't want to take too much economic pain by banning Russian gas,
but the US would rather see the European economies suffer under expensive LNG imports - even if
it meant another great recession or worse, depression - than allow any rapprochement between them
and Russia. Let's be honest here, if the US said no to the ban on Russian gas transport, Kiev
would have obliged, because if the West abandons Ukraine due to its non-cooperation, the country
will simply collapse, and the junta knows it. So Kiev does what the US Deep State neocons want
it to do. The US is in full charge of Ukraine]
-
It's obvious now that
#Ukraine is attempting
2 lure #Russia into
an all out war. #Poroshenko
and the people behind him,must be nuts
#cdnpoli
[ThatJ: Today's Russia is the
30s Germany, plus the
nuclear weapons and a vastly superior military and population and land and resources. In other
words, it's despised as much, but it's not a foe to take directly on]
-
BREAKING #Ukraine
army has killed 30 of its own soldiers, who reportedly wanted to defect from the army unit
located in #Donetsk.
#cdnpoli
[ThatJ: If true, these soldiers have proved their unreliability for being bad goyim. When your
foreign-controlled government demands you to fight for the interests of non-gentile neocons who
want "full spectrum dominance", you just can't say no and go unpunished]
Saying that the European economies will suffer to the point of they slippling into another great
recession or even a depression because of 'expensive LNG' may sound a bit dramatic, but it's not.
The problem with LNG is that:
1) It's more expensive than piped gas,
2) Europe has no terminals to receive and process all of this import,
3) Many European countries are already struggling with their economies,
4) To add insult to injury, there is not enough elasticity in global production to substitute
Europe's 35% dependence on Russian gas. To satiate Europe's needs in face of limited global supply,
the price of the already expensive LNG will skyrocket,
5) Global oil supply is even worse, and if Russia were to withhold its exports, we could be seeing
$200,00+ oil really soon. Russia won't do this, though.
[ThatJ: What about closing the airspace for Western flights to Asia? I think this one may come
in the next response to more sanctions, which IMO will come. It's not just the EU who's
running out of cards, Moscow also has limited leverage, so it has to apply them carefully and
slowly]
Over the more than ten years in office as Russia's foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov has appeared
at thousands of news conferences and granted hundreds of interviews. Minutes before the interview
that follows (which lasted for more than two hours) he first loosened and took off his necktie. Then
he unbuttoned the top button of his shirt, but only the top one.
On the feeling of despair and the boiling point
- Sergey Viktorovich, you've had a really hot time for the past six months.
- And it's not all over yet. Generally speaking, there has been no calm in foreign politics for
a long time. But in summer I did have some time for recreation. In Russia, mind you.
- Don't you get despaired due to the lack of calmness in foreign affairs?
- No, never ever. That's not the type of feeling I may have deep down in my heart. We cannot afford
to get desperate. We must keep doing our job right.
- But sometimes one cannot but reach the boiling point.
- That's no good, either. The two things go hand in hand. Only a novice, who suddenly thinks he
has reached the dead end, can be forgiven for losing self-control and for not knowing what to do
next. Yours truly has had a chance to see a lot over the decades in the diplomatic service, thank
God. Any person needs patience, and in our profession this quality has a double value. Making me
jump out of my skin is a hopeless task. But it's not worth trying, though.
- Can you mention some really tough guys you've chanced to have in front of you across
the negotiating table?
- Come on, how do you think I must go about this business? I may name some, but all the others
will get insulted… All were real professionals!
- Not all, I reckon…
- Why not all? Of course, all. But each of them has certain professional strengths. Some are quite
professional when it comes to grandstand play, to blocking everything, to shirking the search for
a compromise and to avoiding direct answers. People of this sort address some very different tasks.
And nearly all of them lack an independent foreign policy. There are only strict instructions from
this or that high office that have to be followed. And they scrupulously toe the line.
Naturally, you always expect your partners to be consistent in their actions, to observe common
standards. After all, the United States and the European Union have been demanding all the way that
all countries should stick to the principles of democracy and the rule of law in their home affairs.
But as soon as we get to the international level, none of them ever mentions these basic values
any more. That's natural, of course. A democratic world order does not fit in with the policies the
Western world is pursuing these days in its bid to retain its centuries-old foothold. But this is
an ever trickier task.
Both the Americans and the Europeans prefer to keep quiet about the supremacy of law in international
affairs, or at best they pay lip service to it. Mind you, any attempts to apply this rule in practice,
for instance, in Libya, where the UN Security Council's resolution was turned inside out, or in Iraq,
which fell victim to an act of outright aggression without any UN SC resolution being taken, are
harshly suppressed.
For our western partners "the law is an axle – it turns the way you please if you give it
plenty of grease," as a Russian saying goes. I would like to drive the message home: international
law requires both development and interpretation. Someone said with a good reason there are as many
opinions as there are lawyers. But certain things are indisputable. Either you refrain from supplying
weapons to Libya and thereby honor the UN Security Council resolution, or you sell them… It was both
NATO countries and some countries of the region that have abused the embargo. The United States is
positioning itself as the citadel of freedom, but quite often it is very far from truth, to put it
mildly... In other words, the international system is in commotion, its basics are being shaken
loose and rather strongly…
- With our help?
- The other way round. Russia has been consistently pressing for the consolidation of international
law. We have never deviated from this policy just an inch. We have urged compliance with the achieved
agreements and creation of new instruments facilitating proper response to the modern challenges.
Take, for instance, our proposal for codifying the principle of indivisibility of security in Europe
and making this principle legally binding for all. This political declaration of ours was aimed at
preventing crises like the one in Ukraine. The draft of such a treaty, which Russia proposed a while
ago, implied that as soon as any of the signatories (and we had hoped that practically all Euro-Atlantic
countries would put their signatures to it) has any fears about their security, consultations should
instantly follow, with evidence and arguments put on the negotiating table, a collective discussion
held and eventual measures taken to de-escalate the crisis. Our proposals fell on deaf ears. We were
told that an extra treaty was utterly unnecessary. In other words, everybody was saying that security
in Europe was inseparable, of course, and that in terms of international law NATO would provide proper
protection for all of its members. But it does not guarantee the security of all those unaffiliated
with it! Possibly, the original plan was to use this pretext for pulling all post-Soviet countries
into the alliance and thus bringing the division lines closer to our borders. But the idea proved
an abortive one.
- Really?
- Experience has shown that this a vicious logic and it leads to a dead end. Ukraine has demonstrated
this to the full extent. To make NATO and CSTO countries and all neutral countries not affiliated
with any political and military alliance (let me remind you that Ukraine had proclaimed its non-aligned
status, just like Moldova) feel comfortable and secure, a dialogue should have been started precisely
the way we had proposed long ago. Then there would have been nothing like today's tug-of-war situation,
in which Brussels told Ukraine to choose between the West and Russia. Everybody knows the root causes
of the crisis: we were not being listened to, Kiev was forced into signing arrangements with the
European Union, which had been drafted behind the scene and, as it eventually turned out, were undermining
Ukraine's obligations on the CIS free trade area.
When Viktor Yanukovich took a pause for a closer look at the situation, the Maidan protests were
staged. Then there followed the burning tires, the first casualties and an escalation of the conflict…
- One of our satiric writers, Mikhail Zadornov, at a certain point dropped this remark:
America is prepared to fight a war with Russia to the last Ukrainian.
- What can be said in a situation like this? Cynicism has been part and parcel of politics all
along. Possibly, it is inherent in all those who write and speak about politics. We would hate to
see Ukraine being used as a pawn. Alas, it has been otherwise so far – not through our fault and
contrary to Russia's wish. Some partners in the West – not all of them – have been trying to use
the deep crisis of Ukrainian statehood for the purpose of "containing" Russia, for isolating us,
and thereby tightening their looser grip on the international system. The world is changing, the
share of the United States and Europe in the global GDP is shrinking, there have emerged new centers
of economic growth and financial power, whose political influence has been soaring accordingly. As
concerns economy, there seems to be growing awareness of that.
The G20 group has been created. In 2010 the G20 made a decision to reform the International Monetary
Fund to redistribute quotas from the Western countries so that new, growing economies can receive
a little bit more quotas. Then the crisis began to ease somewhat and the United States and the European
Union these days are in no mood to stand by those arrangements. Now they are determined to retain
positions within the IMF that are by no means proportionate to their real economic potential in the
world. A really tough struggle is underway for keeping unchanged the state of affairs in which the
Western civilization determines the shape of the world order. This is a faulty policy with no chances
to succeed, objective processes are developing in opposite direction.
The world is getting really polycentric. China, India, Brazil, the ASEAN countries, Latin America
and, lastly, Africa – a continent with the richest natural resources – all begin to realize their
real significance for world politics.
There will be no stopping this trend. True, it can be resisted, and such attempts are being made,
but it is really hard to go against the stream. This is the cause of many crises.
"Knowing the degree to which Russian diplomats are normally maniacally fastidious and pedantic
with words, I can only conclude that they have deliberately sabotaged this agreement and that
it's sole use what to deflate the bellicose mood of the NATO summit."
What is missing is the preceding and following stance. The full section reads like this:
What is certain is that this documents is imprecise, nebulous, ambiguous and otherwise vague to
such a degree that I would argue that it is basically impossible to implement. Knowing the
degree to which Russian diplomats are normally maniacally fastidious and pedantic with words,
I can only conclude that they have deliberately sabotaged this agreement and that it's sole use
what to deflate the bellicose mood of the NATO summit. But as a basis for a real ceasefire
it is useless, nevermind a real negotiation for a final status agreement or peace treaty.
Same difference? Let's see.
POLITICAL SITUATION:
At this point, I am going to have to post a lengthy quote of Suchan's analysis, I apologize for
that in advance, but it is crucial to follow his logical flow: (crucial parts bolded out be me -
the Saker)
In other words, the implementation of Putin's 7-point initiative was written so poorly
and badly that Saker concluded not only that it must have been written by Russian diplomats, but
that Russian diplomats must have composed the Minsk Protocol so terribly on purpose. For how could
someone comparatively intelligent and reasonably well educated produce something so horrible and
awful? One does not make something so bad by mistake. One has to be a master to be able to do
that. And why would Russian diplomats deliberately sabotage the document and made it so poor and
thus making themselves appear as bad as the document they made? According to Saker, this was not
because they had any intention to sabotage Novorossiya or its struggle, but because they wanted
to sabotage "the bellicose mood" of NATO by appeasing NATO and its bellicosity with the sabotage
of the ceasefire agreement. And why exactly would NATO, receiving such awful provisions for
Novorossiya, find its "bellicose mood deflated"? Because of being in awe of the horrible work
of the Russian diplomats? Or just being stunned by it? Or because in some way this sabotage made
their "bellicose mood" much happier and relaxed? So does this mean that we have at last found
the secret for deflating NATO and its aggressiveness–by sabotaging our own work, by promising
to keep Novorossiya dissolved into several "special regions" for which the Nazis might at some
point write their "Law" and run their "new elections"? Is it really by sabotaging genuine
peace and actual principles that friends of Russia and Putin can appease, deflate and defeat NATO's
intelligence and plans, which were decades in making, as Avakov said the other night? Does this
mean that the worse their work Russian diplomats do, the more they "sabotage," the more NATO
will be deflated and the better and more effective Russian diplomacy is actually going to be?
Now let' take the key parts one by one:
"In other words": this is the crucial introductory
opening - it indicates that what will follow is not what I actually said, but what Suchan thinks
I said and what will be concluded from that is, unsurprisingly, not what I meant, but what Suchan
thinks I meant. In plain English - a strawman.
"they wanted to sabotage "the bellicose mood" of NATO by appeasing NATO": actually that
is not at all what I meant. Notice the missing part of my quote now put together into one:
What is certain is that this documents is imprecise, nebulous, ambiguous and otherwise vague to
such a degree that I would argue that it is basically impossible to implement. But as a basis
for a real ceasefire it is useless, nevermind a real negotiation for a final status agreement
or peace treaty.
Now let us not confuse goals and means. In the sentence above I am looking at the means: to create
a useless document impossible to implement. That is the means. The goal is not to "appease
NATO" as such but to create enough friction inside NATO and the EU to prevent
what was supposed to be a "historical summit" come up with anything useful. As far as that goal is
concerned, I would say that it has been fully achieved. All that this so-called "historical summit"
produced was hot air. Some might say that NATO could not have come up with real actions, but if we
recall the various predictions before this summit that is "Monday morning quarterbacking". Expectations
ranged from overtly anti-Russian ABM deployments, to massive assistance to the Junta, to actual troops
deployments into the Ukraine, to a the adoption of a "special ally status" for the Ukraine to economic
sanctions on Russia. None of that happened. Why? We now know that a number of states blocked that
or demanded a "delay" in implementation (which is a diplomat's way of taking something off the table).
So this part of the "plan" worked.
Now let's look at the two key words I used:
Useless: in other words, it could not be used as a basis to do or achieve anything,
it was designed to have no effect, to prevent any meaningful change in the circumstances on the ground.
Impossible to implement: again, that indicates that even if both parties wanted to do something
with it, on the basis of it, they could not have done so.
What is the key feature of something useless and impossible to implement? That it collapses on
it's own. Neither the Novorussians or Russia could be blamed for its inevitable and almost immediate
collapse.
So we have three characteristics spelled out now:
1) The plan was designed to create friction inside NATO. That worked. 2) The plan was designed to prevent changes on the ground. That worked. 3) The plan was designed to rapidly collapse on its own. That worked.
To suggest, as Suchan does, that this plan could in any way form the basis for a final status
agreement ("promising to keep Novorossiya dissolved into several "special regions" for which the
Nazis might at some point write their "Law" and run their "new elections"?") is, at best, mistaken.
Here is the key point which is so often overlooked or misunderstood: the ceasefire agreement
was not a strategic move, but a tactical one. It was never designed to achieve anything more
than a short term effect on one specific event: the NATO summit.
The real contradiction
Still, those who are upset by the Agreement have, I think, a very valid point. They say that this
agreement was not good for Novorussia. I think that they right, but I also think that they very much
overestimate its magnitude. Let me explain what I mean.
MILITARY SITUATION
It is true that the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) were on the offensive and that the Junta
Repression Forces (JRF) were in full retreat on all fronts. And it is true that in Mariupol the panic
was such that most Ukies were on the run. I don't think that the NAF was about to retake Debaltsevo,
but I will accept that Mariupol was within reach. The strategy chosen to take Mariupol was to envelop
it from the north and surround it. Some (not in the NAF, but commentators who were clearly civilians)
even spoke of going all the way along the coast to "open a land bridge to Crimea". Now let me ask
this: does "creating a long but narrow advance along a barrier" remind you of something? Did we not
see something like that tried out pretty recently?
Sure did.
That is what the Ukies did earlier this Spring with the ill-conceived attempt to encircle Novorussia
along the Russian border. The NAF let them walk in, then they stopped them, then the cut their supply
route, then the cut them into sectors and then the finished them off. And they achieved all that
with numerical inferiority on their side. Now let's look at the situation around Mariupol. Here
are the latest figures
for the NAF forces surrounding it:
About 6'000 soldiers, 28 tanks, 90 armored vehicles, 60 mortars, 60 artillery guns, 20 MLRS. 2'500
of these 6'000 soldiers are needed to occupy the towns around Mariupol and to keep the ONLY highway
connecting the NAF forces to their rear bases in Novorussia.
What does the JRF have inside Mariupol? The same source provides the following figures: 3200 soldiers,
50 tanks, 150 armored vehicles, 120 mortars, 140 artillery guns, 70 MLRS. True, the NAF has much
better morale and tactical combat skills. And the population is massively on the NAF side. But consider
this: just north of Mariupol the JRF also has 3000 soldiers, 100 tanks, 200 armored fighting vehicles,
150 mortars, 140 artillery guns, 100 MLRS. So, in the operational vicinity of Mariupol the NAF is
literally sandwiched in between no less then 6'200 soliders (vs 6'000 for the NAF),
150 tanks (vs 28 for the NAF), 350 armored vehicles (vs 90 for the NAF),
270 mortars (vs 60 for the NAF), 280 artillery guns (vs 60 for the NAF)
and 170 multiple rocket launchers (vs 20 for the NAF). There are three very important
things to keep in mind here:
the NAF force around Mariupol is most definitely the best and most powerful one in the NAF.
the figures above do only include the JRF in the operational vicinity of Mariupol and do not
include the other JRF available to the Junta from it's strategic depth.
there is only one highway connecting the NAF force around Mariupol to the rest of the NAF
controlled Novorussia. This is why the NAF has had to put 2'500 of 6'0000 of its soldiers in protection
of the rest of the NAF force available to attack or blockade Mariupol.
Are you starting to see where I am going here? If not, I will put in plainly even though I know
that the amount of hate-mail is going to spike after I post this.
The attack on Mariupol was an extremely dangerous operation and those who believe that
it would have been a first step towards smashing the JRF, going to Crimea or even to Kiev simply
don't realize how weak the NAF really is.
[I believe that the Russian General Staff fully understood that and that one of the factors
in favor of the otherwise "useless and impossible to implement" was that it made it possible to a)
stop the advance of the NAF beyond Mariupol b) talk to the NAF leadership and make them realize the
risks of this move and c) probably to provide enough time to get the hell out of there before it
is too late. I have no evidence for this and this is purely my guess. Hence I will
put this in brackets].
What evidence do I have for the (relative) weakness of the NAF?
The Donetsk airport is still not taken
There are several "cauldrons" deep inside NAF controlled territory which have still not been
cleared up
Not only has Debaltsevo not been re-taken, it is under huge pressure
The NAF offensive towards Schiastie is, so far, going nowhere.
There is a dangerous NAF offensive from Telmanovo which puts the NAF forces in the south at
great risk
I know that some will say "yes, precisely, if not for that idiotic ceasefire all these problems would
have been solved by now". Except that these "problems" have not been solved for *weeks*, not days.
I will spell out again in clear what I am trying to demonstrate with all this:
1) The ceasefire did not have a significant impact on the military situation on the
ground 2) The ceasefire might well have frozen a disaster in the making
I am sorry that it took such a long way to address a topic which, apparently, Suchan does not
feel needs addressing at all (he does not say a single word about the military situation on
the ground) and which I feel is crucial.
The impact of the Agreement on the military situation has been twofold: it gave the JRF time to
regroup and to bring in reinforcements. From that point of view it is a negative impact for the NAF
and Novorussia. Let me be clear here, I AGREE that this is bad for the NAF and Novorussia.
But I also think that the negative consequences of this indisputable drawback of this Agreement are
dwarfed by the problems which the NAF is facing right now which have nothing to do with this Agreement.
In fact, I am not even sure that the negative consequences of this Agreement are worse than one would
have happened if the NAF had pushed further or attempted to take Mariupol, which I think they were
about to do, and successfully so, but at the cost of creating a cauldron for themselves in
fact cutting off the best and most capable part of the NAF from the rest of the NAF forces in Novorussia
at a time when the Ukies were threatening from at least three directions (Schastie, Debaltsevo, Volnovakha).
Now let me ask you this: let's suppose just for a second that I am correct and that the NAF forces
in and around Mariupol would be "cauldroned-off" by a JRF counter-offensive along the Mariupol-Novoazovsk
highway or an attack from Telmanovo towards Novoazovsk. Can you imagine what would happen to the
rest of Novorussia if at the same time the (very large) Ukie force north of Lugansk would have gone
on the offensive or if Gorlovka would have been surrounded?
So, again, I will clearly spell-out my concern: the tactical offensive towards Mariupol (unless
Mariupol is taken this would not be an operational one) potentially puts at risk the very survival
of Novorussia.
Am I correct? At this point I don't know for sure. Maybe not.
But if we see a NAF withdrawal from Mariupol then this will be a sign that I might be. Besides,
according to Russian sources, Mariupol is not fully surrounded anyway and the Ukies are reinforcing
their garrison there through corridors on the northeast of the city. If that is true, the NAF will
have to withdraw.
IN CONCLUSION
"Lasciate ogni speranza"
But here is the really nasty thing: IF the NAF withdraws from Mariupol the Putin-bashers
will immediately blame the ceasefire agreement for this instead of realizing that this was the only
way to avoid a strategic disaster. I have concluded that no amount of facts or logic will in any
way affect this group. In their minds Putin has betrayed, period, Novorussia has been backstabbed
and sold-out and the Kremlin is firmly controlled by Russian oligarchs. Frankly, I have given up
any hope of even marginally affecting their certitudes or to make them doubt. Every time I try, I
just get more hate mail or even full posts on other blogs explaining that I am either a complete
idiot or a Putin groupie. Fine, I will plead guilty to both charges and I will go on writing for
those who prefer facts and logic over strawmen and ad hominems :-)
For the rest of you
I will admit that I am worried. I have already spelled out what my main concern in my Q&A/FAQ+RFC,
but I will repeat here that the main danger to Novorussia is:
"political infighting. I don't know if this is possible right now, but I would like to see
the emergence of an undisputed Novorussian leader who would have the official and full support
of Strelkov, Zakharchenko, Borodai, Mozgovoi, Kononov, Khodakovski, Tsarev, Bolotov, Gubarev and
all the other political and military leaders. This has to be a truly Novorussian leader, not just
a "Putin proconsul", a person capable of negotiating with Putin for the interests of the people
of Novorussia. (...) Until that happens, I will always be worried for the future of the people
of Novorussia"
I have always said that the interests of Russia and Novorussia are not the same. For one thing, Putin
was not elected to fix the Ukraine or, much less so, start a war with NATO. My personal sympathies
go to both the people of Russia and the People of Novorussia, whom I see as one and the same, really.
But the fact is that Novorussia is not part of Russia (yet?) and that the people of Novorussia
have not elected Putin to represent or, even less so, defend them. The Russian people have.
Putin clearly has his first priority the interests of Russia and the Russian people who have elected
him, and this is how it should be. To expect him to have a higher loyalty to the Novorussian people
would be simply foolish. But these self-evident facts do not mean that Putin does not care or wants
to "sell out" Novorussia. Guys, now please pay attention here, if Putin had wanted to "sell out"
Novorussia he had the *perfect* opportunity to do so earlier this Spring. And if anybody seriously
believes that the immensely successful NAF offensive last month happened without Putin's full support
- I have a bridge to sell to you!
Where do we go from here?
I don't know except for one thing: this will be a very long struggle. Barring a successful JRF
offensive in the next week or so, the frontlines will probably stabilize and freeze up. The "military
action" will be replaced by the "economic and social" action as the Junta-run Banderastan collapses
on its face and serious turmoil begins.
Do I think that the JRF is about to launch a counter-offensive? Yes. Or, should I say, I know
I would if I was in their position. Do I think that their counter-offensive will be successful? Probably
not or, at least, not much. The NAF forces around Mariupol can probably fight their way back to their
rear, they might even preempt the need to do that and withdraw before any such counter-attack (that
is what I would do in their place). I think that the best the JRF can hope for are a few tactical
successes, but I think that by and large the NAF forces will hold. And if that is not the case, Russia
will make sure that it does (as she did earlier this year). This is not about Putin, this is much
bigger than him, and the Russian people or "Russia" as a nation will not allow Novorussia to be run-over
by Nazis. They stopped that one this Spring and, if needed, they will do it again. And after that,
they will again seek a negotiated agreement. As far as I know, not a single person in position of
authority in Russia supports the idea of a "move to Kiev", not by Russian forces, not by NAF. So
two things will not happen: the Nazis will not overrun Novorussia and the (Novo)russians will not
invade/liberate Banderastan. That is something the Ukrainian people will have to do themselves.
The Saker
Personal note 1: Please forgive me if I don't reply to comments or answer emails today.
I am exhausted and, frankly, rather disgusted and discouraged by this feeling that I am banging my
head against a brick wall. If I do post today, it will not be on the "Putin backstabbing Novorussia"
bullshit any more. Besides, I need to make a post thanking the donors to this blog, so I will do
that later today (a far more pleasant task then to deal with the ugly stupidity I mention in the
next personal note).
Personal note 2:I strongly urge all those who want to post hostile, rude, condescending,
hateful, vitriolic or otherwise nasty comments to hurry to do so now. The first rule of the moderation
policy on the new blog (I hope to have it ready very soon now) will be to immediately toss out any
comment which is not 100% polite and courteous to me, the host of this blog, to any guest author
or to any other person posting comments. I have put up with so much crazy shit and outright nasty
attitudes on this blog that on the next one this rule will be absolutely inflexible. You will have
full freedom to disagree with anything anybody writes here, but you will have to make it with
absolute courtesy. But until I move to the new blog, knock yourself out, insult me to your heart's
content - that will only strengthen my resolve to toss any such comments to /dev/null on the new
blog :-P
Anonymous:
Hi, Saker! Here is an interesting text by ZeroHedge/Wikileaks. I wonder if you would want to
repost it...
Confidential memo from Ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns, to the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
on February 1, 2008:
Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over
NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a
major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would
have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
I posted a link to retired Colonel Pat Lang blog, where he too agrees that it was best for
the rebels to have a ceasefire.
Quote:
In spite of their awesome tactics, IMO the militia of Novorossiya was getting dangerously
close to overextending themselves. The drive south from Donetsk began with furtive advances
by small SRGs along the border. It developed into a dash to the coast before turning west to
the gates of Mariupol. SRGs even pushed further west bypassing Mariupol. With Ukie reinforcements
moving from throughout Ukraine to Mariupol, those separatists to the far west wisely withdrew.
Without the ceasefire, those SRGs probably would have continued west towards the Crimean Isthmus.
The Ukie reinforcements would still arrive and the separatists themselves could have been caught
in a cauldron of their own.
The half assed ceasefire may have broken the momentum of the separatist counteroffensive,
but it did not halt the Novorossiyan resistance.
Saker, I agree with you that there is no reason not to trust Putin to make the best decision
for RUSSIA. I also agree that the attack by Suchan was unfair and despicable.
I have no idea about military science, but still from simple logic alone I must say that I don't
find your explanation very convincing.
1) I find it hard to believe that NAF could make such a silly mistake and misjudge the numbers.
I also find it hard to believe that the Russians didn't warn them.
2) Mozgovoy and Streklov are against the ceasefire. If the problem is indeed as you describe
then someone would tell them, and they (Mozg and Strelkov) would shut up and support the ceasefire.
More than that, before going public with their criticism I am convinced that they double-checked
with the higher-ups whether their criticism is valid at all. Obviously they can't have any interest
in dissent within NAF ranks, so if they do oppose the ceasefire then obviously there must be a
very serious problem. --- Please understand this correctly. If the ceasefire is due to military
reasons then neither Mozg nor Strelkov would criticize it. They can only criticize the ceasefire
if it is due to political reasons (which they disagree with, or simply don't understand) at the
expense of military goals.
Let me state very clearly: I PRAY TO GOD that the ceasefire is the correct decision, but from
all I know unfortunately I have doubts. Please address the inconsistencies I have pointed out.
Daniel Rich :
Q: Are NAF leadership incompetent idiots?
R: The person responsible for the attack on the Donestk airport in the earlier days of this
conflict most certainly was.
Personally [from the comfort of my living room], I would not have stopped and kept on annihilating
those KFK goons by the busload and have kept that momentum going. The Ukrainian Netanyahoos
are as sincere in pretending to be all about peace as the Apartheid State's Führer is.
However, you can't expect Mr. Putin to run over eggshells, he has to maneuver very carefully.
The west is literally aching for war, because their collective economies are stalling.
Even Germany, that economic powerhouse is already indebted up to 80% of its GDP. Somethnig
has to give way and peace most certainly is not the answer or an option.
War is a racket.
American Kulak :
Saker, do not let the criticism get to you, even if they come from well-meaning people who've
contributed to this blog like Gleb Bazov or Mark Sleboda.
Mercouris piece I thought was very good at establishing that the Ukies have been forced to
acknowledge the Novorossiya resistance and start negotiating with it. Whatever is going to happen
militarily will happen regardless of this piece of paper, the fact that the Ukies were able to
reinforce Mariupol does not concern me too much because the NAF were not rushing to storm it in
the first place and the more troops they keep bottled up there on the coast uselessly the less
the Ukies will have to resist the counteroffensive after their latest attack gets smashed.
Yes the Ukies will probably attack in smarter ways having learned from their mistakes and they
may even forward deploy drones and use US satellite or SIGINT data to try to avoid driving into
a GRAD kill box. But in the end it won't matter, the forces they've massed are but a fraction
of their former strength, even with some shiny 'new' used armor from Poland, Hungary and Romania
everything they could scrape out of the old Eastern Bloc storehouses being thrown into the battle.
It's like the Wehrmacht thinking at Kursk they're really ready to win this time when the forces
aren't nearly what they were in 1941 or early 42.
I will be trying to contribute maybe a couple of pieces a month, focused as usual on my specialty
European politics and the media/propaganda wars.
blowback :
Putin's "end game" To have Ihor Kolomoisky and perhaps the other oligarchs, launch another
Nazi putsch with Pravyi Sektor and Svoboda against Poroshenko. At which point, the EU association
agreement falls along with EU support for Kiev as while they might accept a dubiously elected
government, a Nazi one is beyond the Pale even for them. That just leaves the US and maybe the
odd eastern European states and their position is so compromised by their support for Poroshenko
that they can't support Kolomoisky's new putschist regime. Putin has demonstrated that he can
deal with oligarchs who go into "politics".
steve :
OT - but interesting piece of the pickle (if they can find any pickles of course) the pickle
the Kiev junta is in economically....
The coup d'état in Ukraine and the subsequent punitive operations against the population of
Novorossiya are serious signals for Russia's foreign policy-makers, for our government. The CPRF
has long been pointing out that the priority relations with the West at the expense of the development
of relations with the fraternal peoples of the USSR contradicted Russia's long-term interests.
The Russian Federation's policies with regard to Ukraine have for many years been aimed solely
at ensuring the transit of natural gas to Europe. The Communist Party has repeatedly warned the
government about the dangers of having Ukraine on the periphery of our foreign policy concerns
and about appointing Mr. Zurabov, who previously failed in the Russian ministerial post, Russia's
ambassador there.
...
The developments in Crimea and Novorossiya are a specific example of how a liberal course is disastrous
for Russia. With the public sector reduced to a mere 10 percent of the whole in the wake of the
total privatization drive, our country has found it extremely difficult to counter the challenges
of the time. Its economic potential, for example, is hardly sufficient for integrating the Crimea.
Dominance of private capital in the financial sector leaves the country without the necessary
funds at the very moment when it is necessary to mobilize resources. It has to take money from
private pension funds and it takes great efforts to form an armed fist required under the current
circumstances, because the army has been reduced almost to paralysis by the liberal gentlemen.
When one hears about the problems that arose with the ferry crossings to the Crimea during the
2014 holiday season, it is sad to recall, for example, the mighty Soviet- era army construction
units which were almost fully written off "as unnecessary" by the government liberals. But we,
the communists, were for years not just warning about the costs that the liberal breaking of everything
would entail but also put forward our concrete and multilateral programme of urgent measures to
strengthen the might of the state. The authorities' Indifference and even hostility towards our
proposals largely predetermined the range of today's troubles.
Recently, the Russian federal leadership has taken a position that is much more consistent
with the country's strategic national interests. The foundation was laid by a much firmer stand
in relation to the events in Syria, where Russia did not let the NATO member-countries to intervene
and overthrow the friendly Bashar al-Assad government. The next step was Moscow's decisive action
on the issue of reintegration of Crimea into Russia. The Communist Party supported all these actions.
We believe that the hard repulse to the Western economic sanctions is an important sign that
the Russian leadership continues to follow the course of realism, the course of protecting the
country's national interests. Of course, we know that it is counteracted by the liberals who control
the economic bloc in the government. But the threats emanating from the West are so strong and
obvious that the country's top leaders simply have to follow the course which the Communist Party
has been strongly suggesting for many years. For example, the authorities have finally realized
how dangerous is the situation in which 60% of the Russian food market is taken by imported products.
And they have started saying that discontinuing agricultural produce supplies from the European
Union will benefit domestic producers, as they alone are capable of feeding the country under
the external sanctions.
It may be that the 'cease-fire' was a clever move afterall. Allowed the NAF to let off some pressure,
and showed-up how the Ukrainians are not in control of themselves, and do not respect the efforts
toward any peace.
To be fair it seems to me that the Kiev Regime (and by extent the hole edifice
of it's Empire-of-Chaos backers) are not able to work toward their own long term interests. Like
a fire that must burn everything and rush on the day when it will finally run out of fuel.
Paul II :
Nora,
There is heaps of dirt on Zakharchenko, but how much is true is the question. Here is one place
to start:
But what I was referring to was on Twitter and in Russian. Anyway, many say he is Surkov's
guy, with a place in Sochi and that he has an unsavory past, with things like beating his wife.
Of course, the Ukraine is so corrupt, one can imagine that police charges could just be shakedowns.
There was supposedly an attempt on his life a few days ago, and he might have a health emergency
in Sochi before too long. He is about as far from Nasrallah as you can get.
If you can't see Akhmetov's and Surkov's hands all over things, you aren't looking hard. However,
that really doesn't answer who Surkov is the bagman for, and what it is that the Kremlin thinks
can be achieved with its maneuvers. Maybe they just want things frozen for a couple of months,
so that Winter will get closer, and the economy will get worse in Kiev.
A video of what seems to be a drunk Poroshenko bragging how he tricked Putin into giving up
Mariupol:
The ceasefire has been a catastrophe for Novorossiia.
But the real catastrophe was the signature of the Minsk protocol, a document of surrender to the
Kiev junta, signed by Zakharchenko & Plotnitskii. Such a document shd _never_ have been signed;
it represents Putin's Munich, since he apparently pushed its conclusion. To borrow a phrase from
WSC: Putin had a choice between shame and war. He chose shame but he will get war too.
Anonymous :
Brad Cabana reporting that NAF is abandoning positions west of Mariupol, lifting siege. A "deal
in the dark" appears to be manifesting between Russia and Ukraine.
Elsewhere, Poroshenko has apparently bragged about having cheated Putin with regard to Mariupol.
In return to these bowing gestures, Poroshenko will introduce a law to give "special status"
to the two oblasts.
Cynics suspect that the special status is likely to include very high rates of intimidation,
political assassinations and disappearances. Russia is assumed to be embarking on long term strategic
planning so that Novorussia will begin to bloom 15-20 years down the road.
Greg Schofield :
Re "Are you suggesting that if more countries simply refuse to pay, the whole house of cards
collapses -- the financial equivalent of the emperor having no clothes? Because of course if the
dollar crashes then NATO goes belly-up too, right? ... So maybe Putin -- while necessarily improvising
-- is also buying time for us to weaken and the pieces ..."
Basically this has had the effect accelerating the de-dollarization of the world economy and
actually strengthened the alternative BRIC multi-polarism. Putin has been a stickler for international
law for this reason, I believe, it also happens to be the practical path to Russia making a place
in a new Eurasian trading bloc. Being the crossroad national bloc (+ Kazakhstan).
Putin does not have to be a genius or a saint, he just has to read history's script.
NATO and the IMF are way overstretched. The US economy has already collapsed along with the
UK (both are now beyond self-recovery). Once the USD goes international debts dissolves, the US
money printing becomes useless overnight and the petro-dollar dissolves.
NATO is expensive and a security liability. The Baltic states are economically unsustainable
in fact bankrupt (they have to trade with Russia just to survive it is a geographical necessity).
Europe needs Russian energy, sheap without incurring USD debts, it also needs to sell into Russia,
Asia and the Middle East and it needs to use its own capital reserves (by state deficits) to get
back to strength (virtually banned in order to force Europe to borrow from the US to expand its
economy rather then flow to Wall Street).
In this sense they all go at once a chronic failure happens any of the parts; military power
(a NATO crisis,a serious military setback), IMF lending (a serious default), Political prestige
(US get blindsided by Russia and China -- ie the Shanghai Cooperation Organization), or Europe
grows a set, maybe on the streets or even in the coming EU parliamentary session.
' And strangely Novorussia has become something of the Paris Commune of the age, national liberation
writ small, but with a little peace perhaps producing an economy that is healthy pointer to what
we all should be doing.
Sorry for the long missive. It is a kind of step back approach, away from the crisis geographically
and temporally, where an eye on the past and future makes the immediate more understandable --
of course it may not end well, the USD will go, but just how and exactly when makes fools of any
oracle
Obi Juan :
Because there are a lot of talk and misunderstanding about the actual reasons of the Ukraine
civil war, therefore let's put a few things clear about what has been happening.
1. There is such thing as bad oligarchs (USA) dumb oligarchs (EU) and good and clever oligarchs
(Russia) and their public face (Obama, Hollande, Putin). All of them are in the same game, squeeze
peoples works in their own benefit.
2. Why the Ukraine oligarchs have been taking side with the western oligarchs?
Very easy, the western oligarchs rule the system, they own the IMF, Financial system (SWIFT, VISA….),
Internet, Sea lines, Food industry…..
Russia oligarchs and Russia state is just collateral to the system. They don't have any weight
in the real centers of power IMF, World Bank. Russia by any advance capitalist standards (USA,
Germany, japan and even China) is a backward country with backward infrastructure and technology,
production system. The space program and military hardware are just a drop in the ocean.
3. Why the oligarchs use fascist gangs to take the power?
The EU Oligarchs need them to squeeze the working population after they take Ukraine assets for
free (Steel mills, shipyards, coal mines, crops…..) to have profits in world market with shrinking
profits. The USA oligarchs need them for the same and to have a cheap militar control over the
population for the future military installations.
4. What happened just after the oligarch and fascist cup?
A huge popular rebellion against this complot, Odessa, Jarkov and Donbass have been witness
of a huge popular uprising against such plan, this was a rebellion of the people for the people.
Due the lack of political and military leadership the rebellion was suppress in most of the country
but not in Lugansk and Donets.
Together with this rebellion, Russia took advantage of the anarchical situation in Ukraine
post cup to take back Crimea with the support of the Crimean population.
5. Even though the bravery and military skills of the Eastern Ukraine people, the lack of political
leadership in Lugansk and Donets with clear economic and political goals persists and is a drag
in their struggle, what makes this regions and their people a very easy target for Russia oligarch's
opportunism and Ukraine oligarch deceived tactics.
6. Now the Ukraine army, fascist gangs, EU, USA and Ukraine oligarchs have learn their lesson,
they smell the danger of what a defeat can means for them. They are more united and willing to
achieve victory than ever, of course the army and fascist gangs want more money in exchange for
their sacrifices.
7. The EU and USA will resupply the Ukraine army and fascist gangs with new and better weapons,
training and advisors. This is a civil war not a weekend picnic and they are willing to destroy
and kill everything that is in front of their goals. Probably soldiers from Poland, Croatia, and
Baltic states…. will fill the ranks of the Ukraine army, besides tanks and equipment and a new
air force with planes from this countries will be created to achieve air superiority.
8. Ukraine oligarchs leadership (Poroshenko or other) will not fall no matter what hardships
the Ukraine people has to support this winter whit or without Russian gas. It has to be overthrow.
9. The question is, What the Donbass rebellion leadership will do?
Gareth :
FWIW I find this new English language web site which debunks USA media lies about Ukraine and
Russia to be very useful:
Yatsenyuk's, Avakov's and Azov battalion's new "National Front" political party excludes Poroshenko
as well as Tymoshenko. New war party, brought to you by an oligarch named K.
Anonymous :
"Besides, Poroshenko does not really control the Junta Repression Forces anyway and the local
Nazis are ignoring his orders."
Oligarchs like Kolomoisky have their own private battalions that have been killing people in
Donbass.
An independent NR might morally (and for economic benefit) decide to nationalize the assets
of such people as punishment for what they did to the local population.
So oligarchs like Kolomoisky might have an interest in using their private battalions to prevent
peace.
Larchmonter445 :
For Andrew and AK and Auslander and others who follow things militarily in great detail:
I tracked this SitRep from Politikus to the source blog.
Predicts one last huge offensive against Novorossiya.
Details militia Army groups and leaders and size of units.
Very comprehensive.
Anonymous :
Fresh exclusive interview of Igor Strelkov's aid Igor Druz for Neyromir TV on his recent meeting
with Igor Strelkov:
1. The "ceasefire" has been salvation to the junta.
2. Mariupol was on the verge of liberation, but the "ceasefire" snatched it back for the junta.
3. The provisions of the Minsk Protocol are disgraceful.
4. The Protocol was co-signed by Kuchma, a private person whose signature means nothing. It has
no binding power for the junta.
5. The Protocol does not recognize the people's republics for they are not even mentioned under
their names.
6. This also means that even the leaders of the people's republics which signed the Protocol also
signed it as private persons for their authority as leaders of the people's republics was not
recognized.
7. Strelkov would never consent to signing anything of this kind.
8. The Protocol was signed mainly under Russia's pressure.
9. The Protocol reflects approach to the conflict as business---oligarchic business.
10. The Protocol is undermining Putin's own position.
11. Patriots don't have the luxury to lie.
12. Ukraine under the junta has been designed as chaos meant to break Russia apart. This chaos
has not been overcome.
[13. The Russian government seems to be so far very far away from uderstanding what the nation
already knows in its heart and soul--that this is for Russia a patriotic war. An ostrich cannot
win a war against hyenas.]
14. Russian Maidan is in the pipeline on the part of the same forces that brought Maidan in Kiev.
Perhaps as early as in the next sixth months. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUZWyPvgOq0
Anonymous :
Dear Saker. Interesting lead item in ITAR/TASS today,
http://itar-tass.com/obschestvo/1432927,
about President Putin visiting the Church of the Holy Trinty (храм Живоначальной троицы) in the
Sparrow Hills in Moscow (near MGU I'd guess), lighting a candle for "those that suffered defending
the people of Novorossiya". The action speaks for itself.
CharlieH :
I'd like to validate and echo Nora's request for a 'primer' on the major oligarchic players
on the scene. With the exception of Kolomoisky and Poroshenko (not himself any longer an oligarch
per se, although he was one before taking the Presidency), I have this 'sense' that the battlefield
resembls that of Europe of the 30 Yeaars' War where private armies fought (under the Catholic
and Protestant rubrics but as private forces).
Along those lines, if there are mercenaries operating, who are they and who are their paymasters?
One does not have the sense that the NAF is using many mercenary forces, although I have seen
reports of volunteers arriving there in support from the Russian Federation, Europe and even Africa
(just yesterday).
Anonymous :
@Nora
"So here's my question yet again: what are all these damned oligarchs/warlords doing in response
to all this wreckage, and who's helping them out behind the scenes?"
I don't think there is a single clear answer to that question.
The oligarchs mostly came to their position during the gangster era after the collapse of the
Soviet Union so they will all have similar - and probably not very nice - personalities.
However part of that similarity will be:
- hyper aggressive
- hyper strong-willed
which means they won't play well with others, which imo means each one - even if they shared the
same interests - will all run their own individual game.
Personally Poroshenko doesn't strike me as a strong man so I assume he's someone's puppet,
currently probably Yatsenuk and the EU/US/UK.
Of the other oligarchs Kolomoisky is the one that stands out to me as the most significant
- with Akhmetov in the wings.
I think the primary concern of the oligarchs will be trying to prevent an honest government
coming to any part of Ukraine or NR but if that eventually doesn't look possible then to at least
preserve as much as possible of what they stole from Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet
Union.
Politics as a part of business rather than politics for its own sake.
"I say to the people of Estonia and the people of the Baltics, today we are bound by our treaty
alliance. … Article 5 is crystal clear: An attack on one is an attack on all. So if … you ever ask
again, 'who'll come to help,' you'll know the answer – the NATO alliance, including the armed forces
of the United States of America."
That was Barack Obama in Tallinn, Estonia, last week, reissuing a U.S. war guarantee to the tiniest
of the Baltic republics – which his Cold War predecessors would have regarded as certifiable madness.
From 1945 to 1989, no president would have dreamed of issuing a blank check for war in Eastern
Europe. Our red line was in the heart of Germany. It said to Moscow: Cross the Elbe, and we
fight.
That red line was made credible by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops permanently stationed
in West Germany.
Yet Truman did not use force to break the Berlin Blockade. Ike did not use force to save the Hungarian
rebels. JFK fulminated, and observed, when the Wall went up. When Leonid Brezhnev sent Warsaw Pact
armies into Czechoslovakia, LBJ did nothing.
Why did these presidents not act? None believed there was any vital U.S. interest in Eastern Europe
worth a war with Russia.
And, truth be told, there was no vital interest there then, and there is no vital interest there
now. If we would not risk war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Hungary or Czechoslovakia half a century
ago, why would we risk it now over Estonia?
Cold War presidents routinely issued captive nations resolutions, declaring our belief in the
right of the peoples behind the Iron Curtain to be free. But no president regarded their liberation
worthy of war.
What has changed?
When did the independence of the Baltic republics, miraculous and welcome as it is, become so
critical to us that if Russia intrudes into Estonia, we will treat it as an attack on our homeland?
In 1994, George Kennan called the expansion of NATO into the old Soviet bloc "a strategic
blunder of potentially epic proportions."
Yet we not only brought into NATO all the Warsaw Pact nations, George W. Bush brought in
the Baltic republics.
To see the folly of what we have done, consider Ukraine, which has been involved in a military
and political collision with Russia ever since we colluded in the overthrow of its pro-Russian regime.
As neocons cheered the ouster of the corrupt and incompetent, but democratically elected, Viktor
Yanukovych, Vladimir Putin moved to secure and annex Crimea, and pro-Russian separatists sought to
break away from Kiev and achieve independence or reunification with Russia.
A question arises: Why do not the pro-Russian separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk have the
same right to secede from Ukraine, as Ukraine had to secede from the Soviet Union?
And why is this quarrel any of America's business? Was it the business of Czar Alexander II when
the 11 Southern states seceded from the Union and, then, West Virginia seceded from Virginia?
Under the new government of Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine sent its forces to the southeast to crush
the separatists. They failed. Rising casualties and a separatist drive on the city of Mariupol have
apparently persuaded Kiev to seek a ceasefire and peace.
Needless to say, those who celebrated the overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Kiev are now
apoplectic at Kiev's apparent defeat.
Yet, on Sept. 5, the New York Times wrote, "The Americans have no illusion that Ukraine could
ever prevail in a war with Russia."
That is realism. But if Ukraine's cause is militarily hopeless, what would be Estonia's chances
in a clash with Moscow? Estonia has three percent of Ukraine's population and is less than one-tenth
its size. If Moscow decided to take Estonia, it could do so in 48 hours.
The article
on the Ukrainska Pravda news site by Mr. Lutsenko, who is leading Mr. Poroshenko's political
party in a bid to win control of Parliament in elections next month, underscored the enormous challenge
in defusing a crisis that has driven tensions between Russia and the West to the highest level since
the end of the Cold War. Deep mistrust on all sides has sharply increased the possibility of a long
standoff even if further hostilities are avoided.
Despite Russia's official position that it is not a party to the conflict in eastern Ukraine,
the Kremlin has laid out in writing its demands for a new political system in Ukraine, including
a new constitution that would turn the country into a federation of largely autonomous regions and
enshrine its "neutral military-political status" - precluding membership in NATO.
The Ukrainian
government's plan would maintain a strong central government in Kiev and increase the budget
authority of local governments while constraining the role of regional governors - a step to prevent
the possibility of powerful regional officials with greater loyalty to Moscow.
In addition to the Kremlin's demands that Ukraine not join NATO and that regional autonomy go
beyond what the Kiev government has proposed, political analysts say any agreement between Ukraine
and pro-Russian separatists would likely have to include some concessions to Russia regarding a new
free trade agreement between Ukraine and the European Union - perhaps establishing a special trade
relationship between Russia and eastern Ukraine.
"In terms of a sort of practical relationship, it seems to me those might be the contours of some
kind of agreement, which over time could be acceptable to the Ukrainian side," said Adrian Karatnycky,
an expert on Ukraine at the Atlantic Council of the United States.
At the moment, with public tensions running high and Ukrainian parliamentary elections seven weeks
away, it may be difficult to reach a deal before the cease-fire crumbles.
"Right now, no Ukrainian official will say this is acceptable," Mr. Karatnycky said.
Given the very high stakes of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, some analysts wonder what's
the real motive for taking this extraordinary risk over Ukraine. Is it about natural gas, protection
of the U.S. dollar's dominance, or an outgrowth of neocon extremism, asks Robert Parry.
A senior U.S. diplomat told me recently that if Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine and even
neighboring Belarus that there would be zero impact on U.S. national interests. The diplomat wasn't
advocating that, of course, but was noting the curious reality that Official Washington's current
war hysteria over Ukraine doesn't connect to genuine security concerns.
So why has so much of the Washington Establishment – from prominent government officials to all
the major media pundits – devoted so much time this past year to pounding their chests over the need
to confront Russia regarding Ukraine? Who is benefiting from this eminently avoidable – yet extremely
dangerous – crisis? What's driving the madness?
Of course, Washington's conventional wisdom is that America only wants "democracy" for the people
of Ukraine and that Russian President Vladimir Putin provoked this confrontation as part of an imperialist
design to reclaim Russian territory lost during the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. But that
"group think" doesn't withstand examination. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who's
Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]
The Ukraine crisis was provoked not by Putin but by a combination of the European Union's
reckless move to expand its influence eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who
were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp down confrontations in
Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change."
Plus, if "democracy promotion" were the real motive, there were obviously better ways to achieve
it. Democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych pledged on Feb. 21 – in an agreement guaranteed
by three European nations – to surrender much of his power and hold early elections so he could be
voted out of office if the people wanted.
However, on Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential
buildings and forced Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Rather than stand
behind the Feb. 21 arrangement, the U.S. State Department quickly endorsed the coup regime that emerged
as "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. press dutifully demonized Yanukovych by noting, for instance,
that a house being built for him had a pricy sauna.
The key role of the neo-Nazis, who were given several ministries in recognition of their importance
to the putsch, was studiously ignored or immediately forgotten by all the big U.S. news outlets.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]
So, it's hard for any rational person to swallow the official line that the U.S. interest in the
spiraling catastrophe of Ukraine, now including thousands of ethnic Russians killed by the coup regime's
brutal "anti-terrorist operation," was either to stop Putin's imperial designs or to bring "democracy"
to the Ukrainians.
... ... ...
The Neocons' 'Samson Option'
So, while it's reasonable to see multiple motives behind the brinksmanship with Russia over Ukraine,
the sheer recklessness of the confrontation has, to me, the feel of an ideology or an "ism," where
people are ready to risk it all for some larger vision that is central to their being.
That is why I have long considered the Ukraine crisis to be an outgrowth of the neoconservative
obsession with Israel's interests in the Middle East.
Not only did key neocons – the likes of Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. John McCain – put
themselves at the center of the coup plotting last winter but the neocons had an overriding motive:
they wanted to destroy the behind-the-scenes collaboration between President Obama and President
Putin who had worked together to avert a U.S. bombing campaign against the Syrian government a year
ago and then advanced negotiations with Iran over limiting but not eliminating its nuclear program.
Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons
to engineer "regime change" in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even
believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential" necessity.
Further, there was the possibility that an expansion of the Obama-Putin cooperation could have
supplanted Israel's powerful position as a key arbiter of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Thus, the Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up – and the Ukraine crisis was the perfect explosive
for the destruction. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
Though I'm told that Obama now understands how the neocons and other hardliners outmaneuvered
him over Ukraine, he has felt compelled to join in Official Washington's endless Putin-bashing, causing
a furious Putin to make clear that he cannot be counted on to assist Obama on tricky foreign policy
predicaments like Syria and Iran.
As I
wrote last April, "There is a 'little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly' quality to neocon thinking.
When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme. If the Palestinians
and Lebanon's Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel, you target their sponsors with
'regime change' – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your 'regime change' in Iraq goes badly, you escalate
the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran.
"Just when you think you've cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against
Syria – with a possible follow-on war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path
out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to agree to constraints on its nuclear
program. So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim at
Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia.
"You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias
are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize
the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych
had his political base.
"When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports
the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target
shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's
resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.'
"Your many friends in the mainstream U.S. news media begin to relentlessly demonize Putin with
a propaganda barrage that would do a totalitarian state proud. The anti-Putin 'group think' is near
total and any accusation – regardless of the absence of facts – is fine."
Yet, by risking a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia - the equivalent of the old
lady swallowing a horse – the neocons have moved beyond what can be described in a children's ditty.
It has become more like a global version of Israel's "Samson Option," the readiness to use nuclear
weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.
But what is particularly shocking in this case is how virtually everyone in U.S. officialdom –
and across the mainstream media spectrum – has bought into this madness.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush
Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's
Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click
here.
The West has the ability to sqeese Russia. But going this path means that EU became even more dependent
vassal of Washington and Russia force to enhance the alliance with China.
Governments have been wrangling over details, partly in the hope of limiting the effects of sanctions
on their own economies and businesses operating in their own markets. Several smaller EU countries,
notably the Czech Republic and Slovakia, dependent on Russian gas, had expressed scepticism about
sanctions.
Full and final texts of the measures will not be published until next week. Countries agreed to
tighten an export ban on "dual-use goods" - articles that can have both a military as well as a civilian
purpose - to include more than a dozen Russian companies, not only defense firms as had been the
case.
Envoys from the EU member states, sitting together in Brussels for the fourth day this week, also
agreed to extend curbs on Russian state-owned banks borrowing or raising capital on EU markets so
that it applies to all state-owned companies.
They also tightened the conditions on what type of borrowing they could still do, by cutting the
maximum maturity of debt they can issue to 30 days from 90.
Sensitive to much of the Western bloc's reliance on Russian natural gas with winter approaching,
EU officials have so far ensured that state-owned Gazprom, the world's biggest gas company, was not
targeted by sanctions.
But one EU diplomat said after the meeting on Friday that Gazprom's banking unit and its oil arm,
Gazprom Neft, could be subject to the new curbs on financing by state-owned companies.
To make it difficult for Russia to finance large projects, such as the current construction of
pipelines and major bridges, the EU also imposed a ban on banks taking part in syndicated loans to
government-controlled firms, a typical form of funding for such ventures.
And a ban on selling advanced technologies in the energy sector to Russia was extended to
include advanced research and know-how for the exploration of difficult deposits like shale gas and
deposits in the Arctic.
Isolation of Russia can hardly be called a successful strategy to resolve the crisis in Ukraine,
write Italian editions. Without Russia, the EU in a few years will be crushed by China and the
United States
Without Russia, the EU in a few years will be crushed by China and the United States
That's the plan, economic emasculation of Russia.
TTIP next then Qatari gas to replace imports from Russia. All the EU politicians have been
under total NSA surveillance for over 10 years so the US corporate TTIP negotiators and the NATO
war-makers will have plenty of personal 'leverage' to railroad their plans through any EU opposition.
And of course the UK security establishment is right behind the US plans.
Without Russia, the EU in a few years will be crushed by China and the United States
That's the plan, economic emasculation of Russia.
TTIP next then Qatari gas to replace imports from Russia. All the EU politicians have been under
total NSA surveillance for over 10 years so the US corporate TTIP negotiators and the NATO war-makers
will have plenty of personal 'leverage' to railroad their plans through any EU opposition. And
of course the UK security establishment is right behind the US plans.
Agree..NSA surveillance coupled with corruption pandemic among the European political leaders
as described by Paul Craig Roberts recently.
Here is an extract from his
article: "..My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to
wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always
do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign aid?" I asked. "No, we
give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale, We bought them. They
report to us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office"...
I sure hope you're wrong,LeDinue. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. (Probably because
I also suspect blackmail has been a factor in the acquiescence/complacency. )
Since it's always been clear what Russia's aims and motivations are in Ukraine and elsewhere,
that people think nonsense like this will fly is hilarious.
I mean, fact one is that NATO is
an alliance against Russia. You have to begin from there. And then ask whether Russia should
be comfortable with the military alliance that exists to oppose it including nations that not
only border it but are important in its strategic picture. Russia doesn't care much about the
likes of Latvia and Lithuania. They aren't particularly important to its economy and make poor
staging points for military activity against Russia. But Ukraine is different.
Without Russia, the EU in a few years will be crushed by China and the United States
Other way. As a lone wolf with a siege mentality and no real allies (just forced clients, as Ukraine
is now being punished for refusing to become), and insisting upon seeing "The West" as its enemy,
Russia will be unable to compete with China and may even eventually become a victim of the same
sort of bully-boy treatment it is presently meting out.
"But they're setting up BRIC together..."
BRIC is a term coined by a British economist to describe a very loose grouping of countries
with developing economies, not a formal bloc with any clearly defined purpose, and will be irrelevant
in the case of conflicts of interest between China and Russia.
I doubt you're as clueless as you claim in this post.
If it were an EU member, Russia could
be no threat to the EU as a whole. Unfortunately, the EU political elite is far more beholden
to the international capital and its friends in Washington than it is to their own electorates,
so it's rebuffed every single approach Russia's made to the EU seeking membership in it. Washington
doesn't want it, and, the spineless lot of traitors to their own people and economies that they
are, the EU political elites keep turning it down and creating the conditions which will, some
time during this century, begin to immiserate the Danes as well as the Germans, the Italians a
well as the French, etc.
For all anybody knows, we'll end up having a Europe-wide social revolution to equal the French
one for both its radicality and its terror. It'd be good to skip the latter this time, but with
the likes of Rasmussen et all around, should their successors prove to be such, too, it may not
be possible.
Kiev army breaks the cease-fire agreements as it transferred buses with soldiers and more than
500 units of tanks and other military technics around Slavyansk, informs rebels commander Bezler.
This night there were army bombings against Donetsk, Gorlovka, Markova Yara, Amvrosievka and
others.
And they will not stop until they have dragged Russia into the fights and into war.
It´s the declared goal of the USA (Brzienski, Wolfowitz et al), not to forget Nuland (Fuck
the EU, hey Mr. Cameron, this was including you!), Albright, Rice, even Obama, the puppet who
dances on the strings of the USA´s real kings Soros, Oil-kings, Halliburton, EXXON, Chevron and
Monsanto and their likes.
They want to split Russia into Oligarch managed small territories, buy the corrupt Oligarchs
and exploit all the resources Russia has.
They never really did hide this intention. It´s only Putin, who has so far stand between them
and their profit. No wonder they hate him so much.
And they will not stop until they have dragged Russia into the fights and into war. It´s
the declared goal of the USA (Brzienski, Wolfowitz et al),
That's exactly what they're doing: they are following the Wolfowitz doctrine to the letter.
not to forget Nuland (Fuck the EU, hey Mr. Cameron, this was including you!), Albright,
Rice, even Obama, the puppet who dances on the strings of the USA´s real kings Soros, Oil-kings,
Halliburton, EXXON, Chevron and Monsanto and their likes.
As you say, folk forget that there are many people who make their livings out of war and its
spoils.
Queen Victoria Nuland and John Insane McCain were making their Ukrainian speeches against the
backdrop of a Chevron logo.
They want to split Russia into Oligarch managed small territories, buy the corrupt Oligarchs
and exploit all the resources Russia has.
They never really did hide this intention. It´s only Putin, who has so far stand between them
and their profit. No wonder they hate him so much.
Yes, this is what the West and their oil companies did just after the USSR broke up. Everybody
was getting a cut of each barrel of oil but Russia. The Yeltsin government put their best troubleshooter
on the case - guy named Putin - and he turned it around. No wonder they hate him.
I cant see the Russians losing this. Most of the Western countries are bankrupt. The UK and
the USA are fighting at least two wars both of which they seem to be losing. And now they want
to take on Russia, too?
They say that it is not soldiers but diplomats who win victories. Look at the Western politicians.
They have no statesmen of the calibre of Putin and Lukashenko.
I am looking forward to finding out what new pin-prick sanctions the EU have for Russia. And
I am looking forward even more the the Russians' reply. It will be something special, I'm sure.
It is by no means certain that the neo-nazi volunteer armies will keep taking orders from Poroshenko.
They have different agendas.
There is actually the real possibility now that western ukraine
could be taken over at some stage by these neo nazis if they choose too. Who could stop them ?...Porosh's
rag tag army?
Nuland and NATO were playing with fire when they unleashed these neo nazis to topple the elected
government of Ukraine.
Good thing Russia saved the U.S from bombing Syria. ISIS would be in control of Damascus right
now, and we'd be facing another massive U.S. fuck-up, just like Iraq.
Yes. Similar to many other cases. As one example: when Human Rights Watch called Poroshenko's
actions a possible war crime when he bombed Donetsk - no reaction from media or politicians except
calling him a good boy.
the only reason for the ceasefire is because the Ukrainian irregulars were losing And the only
reason their are talks is because for the first time the Ukrainian Admin has recognized the DPR
they had no choice
The US has the final say about what Kiev can and can't do, and the ceasefire
won't hold, as soon as the US thinks they have brought enough time for Kiev to regroup rearm it
will start again.
With avid Russophobes like Brezinsky and Soros calling the shots then it's guaranteed they will
continue feeding Ukrainian conscripts into the meat grinder.Asking or demanding the EU take the
hits for whatever is to come SANCTIONS is all well and good, but i'm afraid expecting sacrifices
for Nazis like the Brezinskis is lunacy, and these walking corpses won't be on the frontline we
will Once we sanction the Russian energy market prepare yourself for war
Prime Minister of Slovakia: For the whole world would be better if Ukraine does not join NATO
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico: for the entire world would be better if Ukraine will not
join NATO, noting that joining the EU, Ukraine itself will face a difficult and dangerous political
challenges. The Prime Minister also added that Slovakia does not intend to participate "in any
military adventures" and eliminates the possibility of an armed solution to the conflict in the
east of Ukraine.
The Azov Battalion (Ukrainian: Батальйон "Азов")
is a neo-nazi oriented paramilitary, Territorial Defense Battalion of Ukraine volunteer unit of
the National Guard, operated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. The battalion is
based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.[ The battalion's commander is Andriy Biletsky
(Ukrainian: Андрій Білецький), the head of the national socialist political groups Social-National
Assembly and Patriots of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs special police company
is led by Volodymyr Shpara (Ukrainian: Володимир Шпара), the leader of both the Vasylkiv's "Patriot
of Ukraine" and the Vasylkiv's "Right Sector" organizations in the Kiev region.
Amazing to see the U.S. and Germany aligning themselves with Nazis. Let's remember it all started
with McCain and Nuland kissing up to Svoboda.
Really disgraceful stuff.
The Azov symbol is the wolfsangel (wolfs hook), a notorious Nazi symbol that's not even allowed
to be shown in Germany -- yet Germany is backing Ukraine which has unabashedly labeled the Azov
battalion as heroes and has no qualms with their identity as neo-nazis, so I hope the comment
remains.
It has been reported that the neo nazis are recruiting at a rapid pace now (many have died in
the fighting) and that they still may have no intention of accepting defeat ; Azov battalion opened
new recruitment office in Poltava
.NewsAlliance/DailyAgenda.
Much of it already did,
seizing government administration
buildings and declaring independence before the coup that ousted Yanukovych. Note that Yanukovych
did not respond to those rebellions by unleashing the military to conduct artillery strikes against
Western cities. Because that would be insane.
And from the beginning the best solution was to make the transparent, OSCE observed referendum
with all the international media and polls to see what people wanted. The western answer was clear:
eastern and southern Ukrainians have no rights, Kiev will decide everything for them (with EUUS
consultations, of course). And the conflict blazed up.
How can European leaders still side with the rogue state USA, which has been since a long time
a terrorist state next to none? In Syria they`re allies of the IS as can be seen on photos here: http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html
That creepy McCain is basically licking the ar....s of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Ibrahim al-Badri,
General Salim Idris and Mohammad Nour. In Syria and Libya the Americans initiated and financed
islamic terrorists to start civil wars in those countries.
In Ukraine again McCain, Obama`s ambassador of terror, told Nuland and Ashton doing the same
thing there, but using and paying the fascists. Those guys could come straight out of Hitler`s
book. The commander of the fascist Asov-Brigade told the Telegraph in an interview:
"The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the
world in a final crusade for their survival," "A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tists.html
I hope the cessation of violence will become permanent but the Ukrainian government with US backing
cannot bomb, kill, maim and terrorise so many of its own citizens and expect everything to quieten
down quickly. There will be reprisals. And deep hatred for a generation. Well done John McCain!
Terror and death are never far behind where ever he goes.
Sadly the wild-card unleashed by the Americans in the form of the ultra-nationalist and neo-nazi
olgarch militias may prove an ongoing source of violence against civilians in the south east until
the new oligarch and organised crime landscape settles down. Business imperatives such as for
the Kolomoisky-Biden fracking enterprise may incentivise some kind of stability but it will be
years before the infrastructural damage caused by Kiev can begin to be repaired, meanwhile savage
IMF austerity will be another driver for misery...
Indeed. Sadly the CIA has a conveyor belt of carefully screened psychopaths promoted through
political office. Something equally nasty will replace him, Kerry etc.
They already removed my previous post. Let's see how long this one will stay...
The subject of this news outlet's partiality and post-Snowden editorial policy is a bit of a no-no.
They have their growing US business to think about besides being under the screws in the UK.
But we all understand exactly what you're talking about. I've been reading the Guardian since
the 1970s. Snowden was the last straw for the Powers That Be ....
Long live NATO! Long live the Bandera freedom-fighters! Don't mention TTIP! etc etc
It's more a question of balance, impartiality, the avoidance of "approved language" and speaking
truth to power. The Guardian used to have these things, some writers here still do (Seumas Milne
for example) but things have changed substantially -- especially the transatlantic security establishment
is now off limits for criticism or exposure. You won't read about McCain's dealings with Isis
here.
What ever Kyiv wants its what the US has already okay-ed. When the Rebels
counter offensive threatened to destroy the Ukrainian army in the field there was a choice to
be made . Either NATO had to commit militarily or it was a peace process to save the remnants
of Kyiv's forces. NATO wasn't going to commit any meaningful 'boots on the ground'. And that was
that. Now of course Kyiv can be rearmed by the US ,but the US will have to carry the cost. And
then at some time in the future they can all,be liquidated in a much bigger war with Russia. Which
will end with Russian tanks surrounding Kyiv. Even the biggest pro Western Nit wit must see that
Kyiv has collapsed without Russia exerting itself militarily to any noticeable extent. God almighty
there has not been a single report anywhere of Russia using any of its considerable air force.
The peace deal was okay-ed in Washington . Because they had nothing else to offer Kyiv but a nod.
People thought Bush 'n Blair were mad enough with the West's Invasion of Iraq.
Now we've
got Obama 'n Cameron pushing for a Nato defence shield missile base in Ukr where it would take
a short range ballistic missile about a minute or so to reach Moscow from the nearest point on
the border.
Why are they trying to push Putin into REALLY INVADING Ukr?
This whole bloody spectacle was organised, funded and managed by the US. The regime change,
Right Sektor, Odessa massacre, military attack on civillians, media campaign to demonise Russia,
IMF austerity & asset stripping, imposition of Monsanto gmo and Chevron fracking.
They want to emasculate Russia by coercing EU countries into a trade embargo.
Russia has merely reacted: securing its naval assets in Crimea and supporting resistance to Kiev
military atrocities against civilian centres. All the while urging for negotiation instead of
violence.
Isn't the occupation of a sovereign nation the most popular US/EU/NATO year-around snack with
democracy-now? I remember it begin offered almost everywhere in the past decade: Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria, Ukraine...
States are not divine gifts , they are just result of some agreements between nations. Novorossia
doesn't exist today , it doesn't mean that it will not exist tomorrow.
"Washington has an agenda. Washington has put in place a police state to suppress its own population,
and Washington believes that history has conveyed the right to Washington to exercise hegemony
over the world. Last year President Obama declared to the world that he sincerely believes that
America is the exceptional nation on whose leadership the world depends.
In other words, all other countries and peoples are unexceptional. Their voices are unimportant.
Their aspirations are best served by Washington's leadership.
Those who disagree–Russia, China, Iran, and the new entity ISIL–are regarded by Washington
as obstacles to history's purpose.
Anything, whether an idea or a country, that is in the way of Washington is in the way
of History's Purpose and must be run over."
There are so many rumors and opinions about the latest ceasefire for Novorussia agreed between
the Novorussian leaders and the Junta reps that I have decided to make a small survey of the issues
in the format of a Q&A/FAQ. I will write up a real analysis next week. I also will use this opportunity
to explain a few thing about what my own personal position is. So here goes:
Q: Do you support or oppose the latest peaceplan?
A: Neither. First, I still have not seen the 14 points actually agreed upon and, most importantly,
I don't believe that this plan will hold.
Q: Why not?
A: Because it is opposed by all the following groups: the USA, NATO, the Ukie Nazis, most of the
Novorussian field commanders and a large segment of the Russian nationalist ideologues in Russia.
Furthermore, Poroshenko is so weak that he probably cannot impose his will on others. Finally,
the Ukies and their western supporters have so reneged on every agreement they signed/
Q: So you think that this agreement is irrelevant?
A: No, not at all. For one thing, it's perfect timing took a lot of wind out of the sails of the
anti-Russian crowd at the NATO summit which, after all, did not result in anything more than hot
air and empty threats.
Q: Are you saying that this is a victory for Russia?
A: Hardly, but it has been an effective way to temporarily defuse a potentially dangerous situation.
Also, the very fact that neither the EU or NATO or the US were even present in Minsk is a very powerful
symbol of the fact that the "indispensable nation" and it instruments of colonial domination are
not indispensable after all.
Q: But will this ceasefire not allow the Junta Repression Force (JRF) to regroup?
A: Yes, but that is not that relevant because of the size of its strategic depth the Junta can
to reorganize and regroup anyway. Most the JRF units close to the front are so beat up that "regrouping"
will not help very much. At best ("best" for the JRF of course), this ceasefire will turn a hasty
retreat into a more or less organized withdrawal followed by a much needed break...
Q: What about Mariupol?
A: What about it? The city is still surrounded and the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) will not
retreat. All this ceasefire does is "freeze" the situation around this city. If anything, the Ukies
will use it to cut and run.
Q: Will the NAF benefit ceasefire?
A: Yes. There are several "cauldrons" in the NAF rear which are a pain, well, in the rear, which
will hopefully be flushed out by a mutual agreement to have the JRF units to move out and leave their
weapons behind. If not, then please remember that the NAF control all of the Novorussian/Russian
border and that the "voentorg" (cover delivery of weapons and specialists) will continue unabated.
Q: Are you saying that all is good and we should rejoice?
A: Not at all. First, there are clear signs of infighting in Novorussia. Not only was
Strelkov apparently blackmailed out of control, but there have been rumors of an attempted coup by
Antiufeev yesterday. The Novorussians denied this info, others say that the coup failed, but there
is no doubt that there are real tensions inside Novorussia now and that while some support the current
strategy of negotiations (we can refer to them as the "Zakharchenko clan") others clearly oppose
it (we can refer to them as the "Mozgovoi clan").
Likewise, in Russia there are those who favor this strategy (most of the "near-Kremlin" circles
"околокремлевские круги" - I explain this term
here) and those who oppose it (Dugin, Colonel Cassad, el-Miurid, and many other generally para-Marxist
bloggers and activists).
Q: So you agree that this is bad for Novorussia?
A: No, I did not say that either. I think that this is probably an inevitable and possibly indispensable
temporary phase in this conflict with is neither a triumph nor a disaster, but something which is
a natural consequence of the situation on the ground.
Q: What do you mean?
A: Contrary to most commentators here, I do not believe that the NAF have been "treacherously
stopped in what could have been their triumphant march on Kiev". The amazing successes in the
south have totally obscured in the minds of many the undeniable fact that the JRF forces north of
Luganks are still big, powerful and holding their ground, that the Ukies even managed a (small and
useless) counter-offensive in the region of Dukuchaevsk and that, contrary to initial reports, the
Donetsk airport is still not under full NAF control. Those who had imagined that the
NAF would soon move on and take Odessa, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk or even Kiev just don't understand
the military situation. Right now, the NAF can't even take back Slaviansk, nevermind reconquer all
of Novorussia.
Q: What about the notion that Russian and Ukie oligarchs are the real force behind this deal?
A: What oligarchs? Akhmetov has not only lost Donetsk forever, even the material infrastructure
of this assets is now in ruins. Kolomoiski has had this assets in Crimea nationalized and he is now
locked in a struggle with both Akhmetov and Poroshenko. As for the Russian oligarchs - they have
exactly zero needs for anything in the Donbass and they are way too smart to invest anything
in such a dangerous, unstable and ruined region. At least in the short term, only the Russian state
will provide help for political reasons, but the Russian oligarchs have much safer and lucrative
options than the ruined Donbass.
Q: Okay, then what about the accusation that rather then allowing the creation of a viable
and independent Novorussia, Putin has created yet another Transnistria?
A: What is this thesis based on? On a 14 point plan which nobody has seen and which will be soon
broken anyway?
Q: No, on the fact that instead of fighting Poroshenko and the Nazis, the Novorussians have
been forced to negotiate with them.
A: Oh come on! How many times will I have to explain that, unlike westerners, Russians have
no problems at all talking to their enemies? Study the history of the Tatar-Mongol invasions
of Russia when the Russian Princes were always talking "negotiating" with the Khans of the Golden
Horde, and yet that never prevented them from rising up and fighting them regularly. Russians are
much more Asians than Europeans and in Asia talking to your enemy is normal, it is an integral
part of warfare. If in the West talking or negotiating with your enemy is a sign of weakness,
in Asia it is not talking or negotiating with your enemy which is a sign of weakness.
Q: So what do you think Putin want in this war?
A: What he always said he wanted: a united, independent, neutral, prosperous and friendly Ukraine,
in other words - "regime change" in Kiev.
Q: So will he "sell out" Novorussia to achieve this goal?
A: I don't know. Unlike so many armchair generals who apparently also moonlight as telepaths
and prophets, I cannot read Putin's mind or predict the future. What I can say is that
so far I see no signs of Putin betraying or "selling out" anybody. In fact, it takes an amazing
degree of blindness or intellectual dishonesty not to notice that the first and immediate consequence
of what many assume was a Kremlin-ordered change in the Novorussian leadership has been a huge and
successful offensive which crushed the JRF. If Putin wanted to "sell out" Novorussia to the Nazis,
he could have easily done so just before that counter-offensive was launched.
Q: So you really love and trust Putin, don't you?
A: No, but I will admit that what I have seen this man do for Russia and the world fills me with
sincere admiration, often bordering an awe, and that I see absolutely no signs of him changing course.
What I see is a leader whose methods and strategies are simply too subtle and complex for most "armchair
heads of states" to understand. The very same Putin-bashing crowd which now is hysterically yelling
about betrayal was saying exactly the same things about Syria when Putin single handedly stopped
the US attack on it. And when the Russians told the Syrian to get rid of their (dangerous and useless)
chemical weapons the same Putin-bashers were yelling from the top of their lungs that this was the
ultimate proof of Russian back-stabbing. Now Assad has, if not won the civil war, but conducted a
successful reelection and the West is now eating humble-pie and pondering how to best get Assad's
help in Iraq. So while I don't "love" Putin, I sure despise the Putin-bashers not only for their
short-sightedness and lack of expertise, but for their mind-blowing intellectual dishonesty. They
are like a broken record constantly repeating "Putin betrayed, Putin betrayed, Putin betrayed". In
Russia this kind of rabid nationalists are called "горе патриоты" or "sorrow-patriots". They are
the kind that never actually do anything useful, but are the most vociferous about what should
be done. I want to make it clear that I am not referring to Strelkov, Mozgovoi or any other real
patriot who happens to disagree with Putin. I am referring to those for whom Putin-bashing is an
end in itself and who basically don't give a damn as long as they get to bash the man.
Q: Still, Novorussia wants independence while Putin wants a united Ukraine. Don't you see the
contradiction here?
A: Of course I do. So? That does not mean that one side is "bad" and the other one "good", it
just shows the truth of the US saying that "where I sit is where I stand". The real question is how
this contradiction will be resolved. So far I don't know and I reserve judgment precisely because,
unlike the "professional and full-time Putin bashers" I like to base my opinions on fact, not telepathy
or prophetic visions.
Q: You constantly speak of "Putin bashers" - that is offensive to many!
A: Guess what? I am not a nice guy. I am an direct guy who calls it as he sees it and if that
offends anybody, they are welcome to hug a teddy-bear and go sob on their bed. My message to them
is - grow-up and remember that I owe you nothing. This is my blog and I write it for adults who value
truthfulness and honesty over sugar-coated affirmations.
Q: What about Poroshenko - has he not won a huge break if not victory?
A: Yesterday I was watching the latest edition
of the priceless Ukie propaganda show "Shuster Live" and it felt like I was watching a funeral.
The host and all the guest were in a somber, sorrowful and quasi-depressed mode. Though they did
not want to admit the magnitude of the beating which their "invincible Ukrainian army" just had taken,
it was pretty darn clear that flag-waving was no more the order of the day. One Ukie official even
said "when we are talking about 30 to 40 thousand armed men then we *have to* talk to these "terrorists""
- it was hilarious, really. So no. Poroshenko, far from having "won" anything, is in real deep
trouble. For starters, his own Prime Minister - Iatseniuk - is absolutely outraged about the
deal and makes no bones about it. Ditto for Timoshenko. I won't even go into the Nazi freaks.
The fact is that the protecting Poroshenko will now become a major headache for the local CIA station
in Kiev: the guy is in HUGE trouble and his only hope is that during the next elections
he will look less bad and less crazy then the rest of them. That is assuming these elections are
held and that Iarosh or Tiagnibok do not simply seize power and execute Poroshenko for "high crimes,
treason or being an FSB agent" (he is not, but how cares?!). The regime is so much on the defense
that even though everybody knows that this plan is really Putin's plan, the Junta is engaged in a
massive PR effort to convince the public that this is really Poroshenko's plan. The Russians, typically,
just smile and are happy to give him the credit (remember, this is Asia - different rules apply).
Q: So what will happen next?
A: As I said, I am not a prophet. But what I know is this: Putin clearly has full control of Russia
and Novorussia - what he says happens, he can deliver. Poroshenko has no control over anything, not
even "his" own" ruling coalition. There is no real power in Banderastan right not, not even the local
CIA station. For this simple reason I do not see how the ceasefire could hold. Then I don't see much
change in the military balance either. The NAF is far more capable than the JRF whose only advantage
lies in the huge strategic depth of this territory. The JRF used to (past tense!) have a huge
advantage in hardware and manpower, but even this is changing now. In terms of hardware, most of
the best hardware they had is now either lost or in NAF hands. Yes, they still have huge reserves,
but of old and terribly maintained equipment. As for manpower, the Junta clearly has more and more
difficulties finding enough men to compensate for its huge losses. Just ask yourself a basic question:
if you were Ukie, even a nationalist, would you want to join to JRF and go fight the NAF? Exactly.
Yes, NATO has promised 15 million dollars. That would buy the Ukies, what, maybe 10 old and used
T-72 or 3 T-80? This is a joke, really. But even if the US provides 150 millions in covert aid
- this will not affect the balance, nevermind tipping it. As for the NAF, it is doing well and will
probably get even more men and modern gear through the "voentorg", but it cannot push too far. As
one NAF commander said, "so far we have been liberators, but we don't want to become occupiers".
The rule of thumb is simple: the further west the NAF goes, the less support it will get and
the more it will expose itself to guerrilla warfare lead by a local insurgency.A far smarter
strategy is to sit tight and watch the Ukies go after each other.
Q: Why do you think that will happen?
A: Because no matter what all this still holds true: the Ukraine was always an artificial country,
Banderastan is even worse. There is no real power in control, even the Junta is "kinda"
in power only. The country is economically dead dead dead. The economic crisis is only at it's very
early stages, and from now on it's only going to get worse. Socially, the people are increasingly
mad, disillusioned and feel lied to and, at the same time, less and less afraid to speak up. The
Nazis are by far the most united and best armed group in the country, except for a theoretical "Ukrainian
military" which, at least so far, has no leader and is therefore is not united (might this change
in the future? Maybe). Basically, any person who took Social Sciences 101 in college will tell
you that the Ukies will now turn on each other, God willing just with words and ideas, but violence
is most likely. For the NAF it is far better to wait until Zaporozhie, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov or
even Odessa turn into lawless cities which nobody really controls then to try to take them by force
now. There is even a real possibility that the NAF might be seen as a liberator in these cities if
chaos there reaches a "Mad Max" level.
Q: What if NATO sends in forces to prop-up the Junta?
A: LOL! First, I would strongly advise our AngloZionist "partners" (as they say in Russia) to
first consult with their German, French and Polish colleagues to see if the latter have pleasant
memories of being in charge of the Ukraine. Second, I would remind our AngloZionist partners
that their move into Iraq and Afghanistan was supposed to be a love fest which would pay for itself.
Third, I would also suggest to them that if they did not like Maliki, they might not like Iarosh
either. Of course, sending a symbolic force to some maneuvers with whatever is left of the Ukie military
is a good idea - it's called "showing the flag" - but to try to do something meaningful by trying
to use NATO military forces inside the Ukraine would be very, very, dangerous even if Russia
does nothing at all to make things worse.
Q: What about the EU?
A: I think that it lost it's willpower (not that it ever had much!). That ridiculous performance
by Hollande has already come crushing down: turns out that his loud statement was an
"individual opinion" with no legal meaning. Now, of course, the EU Kindergartgen (Poland, Lithuania,
etc.) will keep on being what it is, a Kindergarten, but the adults (Germany, France, etc.) are showing
signs of getting fed up. I don't expect them to make a 180 overnight, no, but I just expect them
to stop pro-actively making things worse. One of the possible signs of that might be a decrease in
the role of the EU and an increase in the role of the OSCE.
Q: And what about Uncle Sam?
A: He is totally stuck in his only mode: demands, threats, condemnation, demands, threats,
condemnation, etc. etc. etc. Normally "aggression" is part of that mantra, except that neither
the US nor NATO have what it takes to militarily attack Russia. As for the AngloZionist 'deep state'
it will continue to try subvert and economically cripple Russia, but as long as Putin is on the Kremlin
I don't see that strategy succeeding either.
Q: Sounds like you are optimistic.
A: If so, then only very very cautiously so. I don't see a big drama, much less so a disaster,
in what just happened, I think that Russia holds all the good cards in this game, and I see no danger
for the people of Novorussia. To those who wanted to ride on a tank straight to the Maidan I
can only say that even though I very much share their hopes and dreams, politics is the art of the
possible and that smart politics are often slow and time-consuming politics. Maximalism is good
for teenagers, not heads of state whose decision affect the lives of millions of people. Thus my
temporary and provisional conclusion is this: so far, so good, things are better than they seemed
to be only 2 months ago and I see no reason to expect a major reversal in the foreseeable future.
Q: What do you consider the biggest danger for Novorussia right now?
A: Political infighting. I don't know if this is possible right now, but I would like to see the
emergence of an undisputed Novorussian leader who would have the official and full support of Strelkov,
Zakharchenko, Borodai, Mozgovoi, Kononov, Khodakovski, Tsarev, Bolotov, Gubarev and all the other
political and military leaders. This has to be a truly Novorussian leader, not just a "Putin proconsul",
a person capable of negotiating with Putin for the interests of the people of Novorussia. I don't
mean to suggest that these negotiations cannot be friendly, if only because there can be no Novorussia
against Russia, but this leader needs to represent the interests of the Novorussian people,
and not the Russian people whose interests are (very well) represented by Putin himself. Right now,
the main reason why Putin has so much power in Novorussia is primarily because there is still no
real Novorussian political leadership. There is a Novorussian military leadership, and even they
probably have to more or less do what the Russian military tells them to do. Far from being weakened
by the emergence of such a truly independent and truly Novorussian leader, I think that the Russian-Novorussian
alliance would be greatly strengthened by it. Novorussia should not, and cannot, be micro-managed
from the Kremlin. In other words, what I hope is for a "Novorussian Nasrallah" who would be a loyal
and faithful but sovereign and independent ally of Putin (like Nasrallah is for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei),
but not a poodle like Blair or Hollande. Novorussia needs a spokesman and negotiator who could really
have a mandate to speak for the people of Novorussia. Until that happens, I will always be worried
for the future of the people of Novorussia.
*******
That's it for now. I hope that with this self-made Q&A/FAQ I have replied to many, if not most,
of the questions, comments and emails I simply had no time to respond to in the past. I also hope
to have set the record straight about my own views which have been constantly and systematically
mis-represented by either dishonest or plain stupid individuals. If I am succeeded in terminally
offending and discouraging the Putin-haters - good. I am tired of dealing with their illiterate rants.
Ditto for Saker-haters (- : told you: I am not a nice guy :-), to whom I will add this personal message:
stop telling me what I am supposed to do, say, think or write. This blog is like an AA meeting: "take
what you like and leave the rest". But don't expect me to change and don't expect me to change
my views unless you can show me by facts and logic that I am wrong (in which case I
will gratefully welcome the opportunity correct my mistake). Rants just annoy me, especially racist
ones, but they won't make me turn into a clone of you.
Sorry if I forgot many good questions or points and please feel free to post more comments or questions,
and I will try to answer those which a) do not misrepresent my views (no more strawman) or b) which
I have not already answered ad nauseam elsewhere. To those of you who have - correctly - detected
my irritation and/or frustration with certain comments I will simply say "guilty as charged" (- :
told you: I am definitely not a nice guy :-). I won't even bother justifying myself, either you can
or you cannot imagine how frustrating it is for me to deal with, shall we say, some "personality
types". But either way there is nothing I could add to affect that. To the many kind, supportive,
respectful, generous, educated, wise, interesting, funny, sophisticated, compassionate, intelligent,
principled, honest, honorable and otherwise wonderful members of our community I want to express
my most heartfelt and sincere gratitude: I simple don't know how I could have made it through these
terrible and tragic months without your help, support and kindness.
RFC: Now let's get a good brainstorming session going about any and all the topics above.
The ongoing crisis in Ukraine and unseemly role of Poland in its instigation and development makes
us take another look at the historical context of the Polish-Ukrainian relations. We will focus on
dramatic repressions of the Ukrainian minorities in Eastern Poland in 1921-1939 at the territories
annexed by Jozef Piłsudski's government from the Soviet Russia according to Peace of Riga 1921, which
eventually triggered ultra-Nationalist Ukrainian terror against the Poles during the WWII (culminating
in massacres in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia in 1943-1944).
Poland, which used to be a part of
the Russian Empire, emerged at the European political map in November 1918 as a result of German's
defeat in WWI. The period of the so-called Polish Republic, which lasted until 1939, was characterized
by the rampant Polish nationalism. The attempts of ethnic minorities – Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jews,
Russians and Lithuanians – to preserve their national identity were quelled in the cruelest way.
The regime of Juzef Pilsudski and its supports were reluctant to respect the basic minorities' rights.
It had greatly weakened Poland making it doomed to collapse as soon as Germany military delivered
the first strikes in 1939. It suffered defeat not only due to military superiority of Wehrmacht over
the Polish armed forces but rather because of internal divisions tearing up the Polish society from
inside – only few were ready to offer staunch resistance to defend the country which was more like
stepmother than motherland.
Here is the historical paradox. Winston Churchill made an apt remark calling Poland the "Greedy
Hyena of Europe". For many Western historians this role of Poland paled once it became the victim
of Hitler's military intervention. The same way the crimes of German Nazism made pale the ethnic
cleansings and rough treatment of dissidents that the regime of Pilsudski used to commit in its concentration
camps.
Long before the notorious Nazi concentration camps where built in the Third Reich, Poland had
acquired vast experience of getting rid of the dissenters who disagreed with the ruling regime. In
1934 the first concentration camp was organized in Bereza Kartuska (the territory of contemporary
Belarus) to imprison those who were accused of "anti-state" activities: the activists of Ukrainian,
Belarusian and Jewish national movements, Communists, members of underground groups and Orthodox
Church clergymen…There were no clear rules about who to imprison – they were putting all dissenters
without distinction into the camp. The "correctional education" included inhumane conditions, exhausting
labor, harassing labor, beatings and tortures.
Polish "law enforcement" officers were closely linked to its Nazi German colleagues, the same
way as their bosses, Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Göring regularly visiting Poland, foreign relations
chiefs Joachim von Ribbentrop and Josef Beck were often seen together. Józef Kamala–Kurhański, the
commandant of the camp in Bereza-Kartuska, had even received training in Germany. Ironically, he
perished in Auschwitz in 1941. Germans were extremely pragmatic: when you are done, you can go.
Germany needed Poland to do what it wanted – ethnic cleansing in Kresy (today's Western Ukraine,
Western Belarus, as well as Lithuania) captured by Poland as a result of the 1920 war with the Soviet
Russia. Nazi wanted those lands to be free from "aliens" like Ukrainians, Belarussians and Jews.
The Polish regime coped with the task perfectly. Everyone non-Polish was forced to leave, the regime
inspired Jewish pogroms in urban areas and coercive polonization was gaining momentum. No matter
"aliens" accounted for 40 % of Kresy population with Orthodox Church parishioner prevailing, they
were banned of their right to speak, read and teach children in their native tongues, as well as
to pray in their churches. Only 37 Belorussian schools out of 400 remained in Western Belarus. 1300
Orthodox churches were demolished and plundered.
In order to increase the Polish population Piłsudski's regime used to offer extensive land lots
to the retired Polish military officers making them and their families settle down in Kresy (mostly
in Volhynia). They were at the forefront of assimilation policy to evoke the feeling of hatred among
non-Poles. Dr. Gennady Matveev argues that the regime made Poles hostages of their own ethnocratic
policy leading to international strife, in particular the Volhynia massacre of 1943-1944, which claimed
the lives of 80 – 100 thousand Poles and Jews killed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA).
Another aspect is that UIA had its own Nazi ideology which left no place neither for Poles, nor
Russians or Jews on the Ukrainian soil. Hitler used the gangs of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych
to cleanse the Volhynia-Podolian region, as well as some other areas of Reichskommissariat Ukraine,
of Poles and Jews. Inhuman atrocities committed by Bandera followers became a routine matter. They
formed special "instruments" to do the job – from battalion Nachtigall to Galicia Division. The Volyn
massacre was not spontaneous, it was actually a paramilitary operation, thoroughly planned and "effectively"
carried out by the UIA.
Today neither Warsaw nor Kiev seem to be willing to recall these stories. Moreover, they demonstrate
rare solidarity when it comes to fighting the Russian national-liberation movement in Donbass. Polish
involvement on the highest political level in punitive actions in Novorossia was repeatedly reported
(e.g. check the cases of Othago private military company run by the former Internal Affairs Minister
Bartlomiej Sienkiewicz and Jerzy Dziewulski, the security advisor to ex-President Aleksander Kwasniewski).
Unsurprisingly, the Poles and Ukrainians who used to exterminate each other 80 years ago, today
are united on the basis of Russophobia. Ideological descendants of Josef Piłsudski, disguised in
democratic clothes, are using multiple rocket launchers and white phosphorus bombs against civilians
in Donbass. Piłsudski and Poroshenko regimes are not exactly twins, but evidently birds of the feather
flocking together.
It will hardly be a surprise if the Poles share their Bereza Kartuska experience with Poroshenko
and Avakov. In June 2014 Ukraine's Ministry of Defence came out with an initiative to build filtration
camps for all adult people of Novorossia, including women, to find those who have ties with the "separatists".
He suggested that others should be deported to other regions.
Again, as dozens of years ago, political leaders agitate people to make their wild instincts come
out. The majority of Ukrainians and Poles are hardly prone to xenophobia and intolerance to another
opinion, but they are directly incited to be hostile to the neighbors who want to speak another language
and prey in different churches.
We don't want to make open old and still hurting wounds; we're not calling on the Polish people
to always make Ukrainians remember that they were responsible for the Volhynia massacre. But the
lessons of history should not be forgotten. Back then Hitler connived at Pilsudski supporters who
were cleansing eastern Kresy of Ukrainians, Belarusians and Jews. Then Hitler's special services
were condescending when the UIA militants massacred dozens of villages to cleanse them of Poles.
If Warsaw convinces itself that Russia is the main enemy and the Ukrainian ultra-Nationalists are
their best friends, it will face another Volhynia tragedy. Perhaps it would be called differently
but the consequences may be even more tragic.
No doubt if Poland admits its guilt and takes on responsibility for the deeds of the predecessors,
the country situated between Western and Eastern Europe, would pave the way for new promising international
prospects and play an important role defining the fate of the Old Continent.
On hawkish autopilot, America's leaders ignore the obvious off-ramp to the escalating Ukraine
crisis.
What is most striking about the Ukraine crisis is how much the Washington debate lacks any sense
of how the issue might look to other interested parties, particularly Russia. Putin is analysed of
course-is he, as Hillary Clinton suggested, following Hitler's playbook? Or is he merely an aggressive
autocrat? Or perhaps he is "in his own world" and not quite sane? But in open Washington conversation
at least, and perhaps even at the more reflective levels of government, all talk begins with the
premise that Russia's leader is somewhere on the continuum between aggressive and the irrational.
That he might be acting reactively and defensively, as any leader of a large power would be in response
to threatening events on its doorstep, is not even part of the American conversation. Thus in the
waning days of American unipolarism, America diplomacy sinks into a mode of semi-autism, able to
perceive and express its own interests, perceptions, and desires, while oblivious to the concerns
of others.
A rare and welcome exception to blindness was the publication in Foreign Affairs of John
Mearsheimer's
cogent essay on the Ukraine crisis, which with characteristic directness argues that Western
efforts to move Ukraine in the Nato/EE orbit were the "taproot" of the present crisis. Prior to Mearsheimer,
one could find analyses tracing how various neoliberal and neoconservative foundations had, with
their spending and sponsorship of various "pro-Western" groups, fomented a revolution in Ukraine,
but they were generally sequestered in left-liberal venues habitually critical of American and Western
policies. In the Beltway power loop, such voices were never heard. The policy of pushing NATO eastward,
first incorporating Poland and Bulgaria and then going right up to Russia's borders moved forward
as if on mysterious autopilot. That such a policy was wise and necessary was considered a given when
it was discussed at all, which was seldom. Was Obama even aware that
a leading neoconservative,
a figure from Dick Cheney's staff, was in charge formulating American policy towards Ukraine-with
designs on igniting revolutionary regional transformation? One has to assume not; confrontation with
Russia had not been part of Obama's presidential campaign or style, and since the crisis began his
comments have always been more measured than the actions of the government he purportedly leads.
As Mearsheimer points out, there remains still a fairly obvious and quite attractive off-ramp:
a negotiation with Russia which settles formally Ukraine's non-aligned status. There are useful precedents
for this: Eisenhower's negotiation with Krushchev that brought about the withdrawal of foreign troops
from Austria in 1955 is one, and so of course is Finland. No one who contemplates where the Ukraine
crisis might lead otherwise-with a war that devastates the country or perhaps brings in outside powers
to devastate all of Europe, or even explodes the entire northern hemisphere-could sanely consider
Austria or Finland-prosperous and free countries-to be bad outcomes. Nevertheless the entire conversation
in Washington revolves around measures to make Putin back down, and accept the integration of Ukraine
into the EU and eventually NATO. People act baffled that he won't.
There is a mystery to the way Washington works-how an entire political class came to see as
American policy that that Russia be humiliated at its own doorstep as logical, without ever reflecting
upon whether this was a good idea in the larger scheme of global politics nor whether the West had
the means and will to see it through. Because to see it through likely means war with Russia
over Ukraine. (The West-leaning Ukrainians of course, be they democratic or fascist, want nothing
more than to have American troops fighting beside them as they become NATO partners, a tail wagging
the dog). America's policy makes sense only if it is taken for granted that Russia is an eternal
enemy, an evil power which must be surrounded weakened and ultimately brought down. But very few
in Washington believe that either, and virtually no one in the American corporate establishment does.
So it's a mystery-a seemingly iron-clad Washington consensus formed behind a policy, the integration
of Ukraine in the West, to whose implications no one seems to have given any serious thought.
Now they want to negotiate after Ukraine failed military attempt encouraged by USA / NATO /
EU. Wait, is not yet over, NATO will begin military exercises in Ukraine in this month, an escalation.
NATO leaders will discuss the crisis in Ukraine with President Petro Poroshenko on Thursday.
…They are expected to approve a package of support, setting up trust
funds expected to be worth around 12 million euros ($15.8 million) to
improve Ukrainian military capabilities in areas such as logistics,
command and control and cyber defense.
"America's policy makes sense only if it is taken for granted that Russia is an eternal
enemy, an evil power which must be surrounded weakened and ultimately brought down. But very
few in Washington believe that either, and virtually no one in the American corporate establishment
does."
What they do believe, intensified and distilled, made necessary since 2001, is that America
is the "essential nation" which must run the world, so "exceptional" that it is excepted from
the normal restraints that every other nation must follow.
That end must justify any and all means. For the sake of American security (one might ask though,
just which Americans?), every nation on earth – and as Kerry put it in Kiev, there is no place
on the earth so remote as to not be essential to American interests – there can never be allowed
anywhere, any competing power that could ever conceivably challenge American policy anywhere,
or potentially, even in the far future, become a threat to American dominance. Unfortunately,
this comic-book thinking really is official policy.
"There is a mystery to the way Washington works-how an entire political class came to
see as American policy that that Russia be humiliated at its own doorstep as logical, without
ever reflecting upon whether this was a good idea in the larger scheme of global politics nor
whether the West had the means and will to see it through."
That sums up the whole situation rather succinctly. Especially the last part.
I don't think the CIA played a role in taking down Ukraine's government. It's more likely that
diametrically opposed promises were made by political backers in Russia and the West. Regardless,
the end result is the same.
I must add to your little analogy, that the media goes crazy as politicians, talking heads,
and bloviators decry the threat on our border. The National Guard is called up and volunteer
militias muster in the Rio Grande Valley. Because that has already happened under much less alarming
circumstances. It would be no great leap from there to Spec Ops types deploying, and calls for
conventional military action, economic sanctions, and one presumes cyber attacks. Your analogy
is not perfect, but it's pretty useful.
Oh, if only it was about "humiliating" Russia! Somewhere, some cold warriors have much more
serious aspirations, which is ironic given that they are about to lose even UK and France as willing
(read: obedient) allies, just give elections in Europe another round or two.
They, meaning the whole "we create our own reality" crowd, are yet to face how wrong they
have been all along. This would be a fun thing to watch if it was only about them, but the
sad and "real" reality is that we all get to pay for their delusions. I just hope and pray
we don't end with neocon Hillary as next president, as this would multiply the already huge bill
by orders of magnitude.
PS As far as Ukraine, the country is now broken similarly to Iraq. I'd say federalize and
hope it can function and stay together. Otherwise, admit that it's now broken, let it fall apart,
and learn your lesson: don't repeat a similar nonsense again!
There is a mystery to the way Washington works-how an entire political class came to see
as American policy that that Russia be humiliated at its own doorstep as logical, without ever
reflecting upon whether this was a good idea in the larger scheme of global politics nor whether
the West had the means and will to see it through
No mystery whatsoever. Triumphalist school of thought which is responsible for 20th Century
history narrative in general, and "Russia narrative" in particular. Needless to say, both "narratives"
have as much touch with the reality as Star Wars is a documentary. The rest is pretty much derivative
of that.
A very fine, comprehensive analogy and analysis, Scott McConnell! Thank you!
Thank you, too, for the link to "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault" in which John
Mearsheimer writes:
"Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get
into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet
Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think
the same way about Ukraine joining the West."
The October 1962 Cuban missile crisis occurred in the context of the Cold War. Yet the then
basic U.S./Soviet great power relationships and the negotiated solution of the '62 crisis offer
promising parallels for a negotiated solution of the current Ukraine crisis.
In 1962 the U.S. had stationed intermediate-range Jupiter missiles on the southern flank of
the Soviet Union - in Turkey and in Italy - well within range of important Soviet targets.
Alarmed, the Soviets reasoned that Soviet stationing of Soviet intermediate- and medium-range
missiles in Cuba might serve as a proportionate response to the U.S. Jupiter missiles. In addition,
the Soviets likely thought that stationing offensive missiles in Cuba could deter the U.S. from
attempting another Bay-of-Pigs-style invasion of Cuba.
In the negotiated diplomatic solution of the Cuban missile crisis, the U.S. got most of what
it wanted: The Soviets agreed to remove all its offensive missiles from Cuba. Furthermore, all
parties agreed that Cuba would not join a military alliance with the Soviet Union – not then,
not ever.
For their part, the Soviet Union and Cuba got a public U.S. guarantee that it would not invade
Cuba again. Privately (but not publicly), the Soviet Union received a U.S. pledge to dismantle
all U.S. Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy.
A parallel settlement of the current Ukraine crisis might involve these sorts of guarantees:
NATO would pledge not allow Ukraine into the alliance – not now, not ever.
Ukraine would adopt an Austrian-style neutrality and (like Austria) not undertake foreign relationships
of any sort that would compromise Ukrainian neutrality.
Russia would guarantee that it would not invade Ukraine. Russia would not allow Ukraine to
join any military alliances with Russia or to join in other relationships with Russia that would
compromise Ukrainian neutrality.
This article neglects to point out that it was the Georgians who launched the first strike.
I hate to sound 'unamerican', but pretending that the nexus of the Ukraine scenario was the
encouragement and support of a violent revolution against a government that was elected with a
fairly popular vote in a process labeled fair by international observers.
http://www.russia-direct.org/content/sergey-lavrov-truth-must-be-revealed
Amidst a slew of unverified allegations in recent weeks of Russian invasions, violations of Ukraine
sovereignty and NATO's current claim of Russian troops and Russian tanks fighting on the side of
the federalist rebels, the upcoming annual NATO Heads of State Summit in Wales, threatens a widening
violence and heightened military activity throughout eastern Europe.
Add to the equation that the tide of war appears to be turning against the US-imposed Kiev government
as a
successful offensive by the rebels captured the coastal town of
Novoazovsk
near Crimea opening a new front in the southeast and holding the line in Elenovka as rebel forces
maintain their ground in Donetsk, the Kiev government needs to save face by claiming that Russian
troops are aiding the out-manned, under-supplied rebels. Russia's envoy to the EU Vladimir Chizhov
added that the
only Russian troops in Ukraine were the nine paratroopers who wandered across the border recently
while on patrol.
NATO Summit
It is worth noting that the largest gathering of international leaders to ever assemble in the
UK, will include non NATO member Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko as part of a 'special NATO meeting'
on Ukraine but will
exclude Russian President Vladimir Putin. While that omission may be a sure sign that negotiating
a political settlement regarding the US-sponsored fiasco in Ukraine is not a NATO or US priority,
the subject of Ukraine will be front and center on the agenda as the EU/NATO/US alliance
already know their
plans with regard to NATO expansion and the future of Ukraine.
President Obama will attend the Summit after visiting the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania while
'reaffirming' the US commitment to the region. It did not used to be common for the US President
to visit every little nickel and dime country (no offense intended) along the way but in this case
such assurance along with a
Presidential visit can mean only one thing: that those self-proclaimed 'threatened' strategically-located
countries (with Estonia and Latvia on Russia's border and Lithuania and Poland bordered by Russian-ally
Belarus) need the President to personally shore them up for a new NATO missile defense system going
further east than the former Iron Curtain, and in advance of any possible turbulence spillover within
their borders.
On the eve of the Summit, outgoing Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered the
following:
"We are at a
crucial point in history, our peace and security are once again being tested. NATO support
for the sovereignty and total integrity of Ukraine is unwavering. Our partnership is
long-standing. NATO is working even more closely with Ukraine to reform its armed forces and
defense institutions. NATO stands ready to support Ukraine with advisors and assistance. We are
advising Ukraine on defense planning and defense reform and are ready to intensify this cooperation.
As a sign of strong support and solidarity, we have decided to hold a 'special meeting'
with Ukraine at the upcoming NATO Summit in Wales. We will continue to improve the ability of
NATO and Ukraine soldiers to work together. It is the right of every country to choose its
own foreign policy without foreign interference. NATO fully respects that right but today
Ukraine's freedom and future are under attack."
In addition, in a series of recent interviews with European newspapers, when asked whether there
would be
permanent international deployments under a NATO flag in east Europe, NATO Secretary General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen : "The brief answer is yes ….'for as long as necessary.' In addition, Rasmussen
promised a readiness action plan to provide rapid reinforcements with 'a
more visible NATO presence in the east."
In accordance with the
promise
made in Bucharest in 2008 that both Georgia and Ukraine would become members, it is doubtful whether
the Summit will formally act given NATO's inability to accept new members with borders in dispute
but would rather allow each to function as proxy states. As every NATO member fully understands,
membership approval of any of the encirclement countries can be expected to trigger Russia's long
time vehement opposition to a missile presence on its borders.
NATO Accusations
None of this is reassuring especially that the recent
accusations have yet established whether NATO's images are date and time stamped, accurate and
reliable. Nevertheless, just as the unfounded accusations regarding MH 17 flight continue to fuel
enmity toward Putin, the latest 'invasion' charge will be provocative enough, as US-dominated NATO
members congregate, to escalate a war effort that has already claimed over
2,600 fatalities,
according to the UN. It was, of course, the ouster of the democratically elected President Yanukovych
and the imposition of a pro-EU, pro-NATO and a pro-IMF government in Kiev that sparked the revolt
in east Ukraine.
One immediate
flaw
in NATO's latest
assertion is that, given its total dependence on creating military conflict, reliance on their
version of anything should be subject to intense scrutiny. With an estimated 50,000 plus Ukrainian
troops in action (not counting CIA and US mercenaries), the question is whether sending 1,000
Russian
troops into Ukraine is worth the risk to Putin who has consistently followed a diplomatic path
while US diplomacy has been dominated by threats and bullying.
What makes more sense is that if the situation in Ukraine reached the critical point of
no-return, that Putin would send in a sufficient force the size of a field army accompanied by
an impressive number of tank battalions, support convoys and enough heavy artillery to finish the
job – and presumably there would be no doubt about whether or not the Russians had moved into Ukraine
to protect the civilian population from continued merciless attacks. The other option is that the
Russian air force could easily put an end to Ukraine's shelling and bombing of defenseless citizens.
Perhaps the best response to the latest 'invasion' disinformation has come from Alexandre Zakharchenko,
Chair of the Council of Ministers of the Donetsk National Republic, given in a recent
press briefing. When an English speaking reporter inquired whether Russian military units were
fighting with the rebels, Zakharchenko replied that if 'you think that Russia is sending its regular
units here, then let me tell you something. If Russia was sending its regular troops here, 'we would
not be talking about the battle of Elenovka; we'd be talking about the battle of Kiev." Zakharchenko,
an attorney who made an impressive presentation, went on to remind the media that "A territory
has the right of self-determination and separation after a referendum," a referendum that was
approved by Donbass voters in May.
What is not debatable is that for some weeks, a conservative estimate of 4,000 Russian volunteers
(including some 'off duty' military and women) have crossed into Ukraine to fight on the side of
the 'rebels.' That number may have also been augmented by volunteers sent by Chechen president Ramzan
Kadyrov whose "statements in support of the illegal annexation of Crimea and support of the armed
insurgency in Ukraine," were cited as reasons for his inclusion in a recent round of sanctions.
Obama's Unprovoked Attack on Russia
In reaction to NATO's invasion charge, President Obama, whose State Department was intimately
involved in the February coup, spoke at the White House voicing the usual provocations:
"Russia is responsible for the violence in eastern Ukraine. The violence is encouraged by Russia.
The separatists are trained by Russia. They are armed by Russia. They are funded by Russia. Russia
has deliberately and repeatedly violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine."
"In Estonia, I will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the defense of our NATO allies"
and "At the NATO Summit in the United Kingdom, we'll focus on the additional steps we can take
to ensure the Alliance remains prepared for any challenge" and "There is no doubt that
this is not a homegrown, indigenous uprising in eastern Ukraine."
In a stunning denial of self-reflection, the president has consistently failed to mention his
own Administration's role as sole cause of the violence, the $1 billion of Congressional support
for Kiev, the $5 billion of US aid revealed by Secretary of State Victoria Nuland last spring or
the NATO build up in Poland, the Baltic states and elsewhere in eastern Europe. There is never serious
mention of the humanitarian catastrophe on a civilian population, no mention of the fatalities, no
mention of a ceasefire, no mention of the withdrawal of all non-Ukraine factions from meddling and
no mention of requiring the Kiev government's direct negotiations with the federalist rebels to determine
the future of their own country.
Putin Redefines Russia's National Interests
After the Gorbachev – Yeltsin years overseeing the dissolution of the USSR in which much of its
national interests were imprudently relinquished to a market economy, Putin addressed the Munich
Conference on Security Policy in 2007. During that speech, he
redefined contemporary Russia's national interests and its geopolitical concerns as he established
himself as an independent, critical thinker with an international perspective – and, therefore, a
threat to US dominion. The speech is worth
reading in its entirety and here are several excerpts:
Decrying a "greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law.
One state, first and foremost, the United States has overstepped its national borders in every
way."
In referring to "Russia's peaceful transition to democracy. Why should we start bombing and
shooting now at every available opportunity?"
In referring to an earlier speaker, "I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate
when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have
different points of view. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision
is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN."
With regard to
expanding NATO with missiles on Russia's borders: "It turns out that NATO has put its frontline
forces on our borders I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation
with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. It represents
a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right
to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western
partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?"
And lastly, Putin quoted the "speech of NATO
General Secretary Manfred Woerner
in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: "the fact that we are ready not to place
a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee".
Renee Parsons was a staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives and a lobbyist
on nuclear energy issues with Friends of the Earth. in 2005, she was elected to the Durango City
Council and served as Councilor and Mayor. Currently, she is a member of the Treasure Coast ACLU
Board.
Vladimir Putin has criticized Washington's unilateral actions on the international arena, saying
that whatever it touches seems to be turning into Libya or Iraq. Below are the top 10 quotes from
the Russian President's speech at the Seliger youth forum.
Unilateral decisions made outside the United Nations are usually doomed to failure, Putin said
Friday, while speaking at the "Seliger-2014" annual youth forum.
"Do you remember the joke: 'Whatever Russians make, they always end up with a Kalashnikov?'
I get an impression that whatever Americans touch they always end up with Libya or Iraq," Putin
told the participants of the 10th forum held on Lake Seliger in Tver region, some 370 km north of
Moscow.
"When decisions are made unilaterally, they always turn out to be short lived. And the other
way round: it's difficult to reach consensus at the UN because often opposite opinions and positions
collide. But that is the only way to achieve long-term decisions," he said.
When a decision is balanced and supported by key members of the international community, Putin
said, everyone starts working in order fulfill it perfectly.
'UN won't be needed if it serves only US and its allies'
Putin totally disagreed that the UN is inefficient. But the organization needs to be reformed
and its instruments should be used efficiently.
The reform should become a result of a consensus reached by the overwhelming majority of the members
of the organization, he said.
It is also necessary to preserve the fundamental grounds of the UN's efficiency. In particular,
only the Security Council should have the power to make decision on sanctions and the use of military
force, Putin said. And these decisions must be obligatory for everyone. Such mechanisms should not
be eroded. "Otherwise the UN will turn into the League of Nations," the Russian President
said.
The organization will lose its purpose if it is only an "instrument to serve foreign policy
interests of only one country – in this case the US and its allies," Putin. "Then it is
not needed."
Putin compared
the shelling of east Ukrainian towns and cities by Kiev army to actions by the Nazi forces during
the World War Two.
"Sad as it might seem, this reminds me of the events of World War II, when the German Nazi
troops surrounded our cities, like Leningrad, and directly shelled those cities and their residents,"
Putin said.
"Why they (Kiev) call this a military-humanitarian operation?" he said, adding that the
conflicting sides should get to a negotiating table.
Ukrainians who did not support the coup mounted by "our western partners" with the backing
of radical nationalists, are being suppressed by the military force, Putin said speaking about the
situation in the neighboring state.
"We're no fools. We saw symbolic cookies handed out on [by Victoria Nuland] Maidan, information
support, political support. What that means? A full involvement of the US and European nations into
the process of the power change: a violent unconstitutional power change."
"And the part of the country that disagreed with that is being suppressed with the use of
jets, artillery, multiple launch systems and tanks," Putin said. "If these are today's European
values – I'm gravely disappointed."
Putin said that Russia did not "annex" Crimea, as the peninsula's reunion with Russia is often
described by foreign media and politicians.
"We didn't not annex it, we didn't take it away. We gave people an opportunity to have their
say and make a decision, which we took with respect. We protected them, I believe."
"We had to protect our compatriots, who live there (in Crimea). When we look at events in
Donbass, Lugansk, Odessa, it becomes clear to us what would have happened to Crimea if we had not
taken measures to provide free expression of will to people."
'Russia to beef up nuclear deterrence potential'
Russia is going to boost its military forces and nuclear deterrence potential, Putin told the
youth forum.
"Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear states. It's not words, it is the reality,"
he said. "We are strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces, we are strengthening our armed forces…We
are beefing up our potential and will continue doing so."
This is being done "not to threaten anyone, "but to feel secure," he added.
'Russia is not going to get involved in large-scale conflicts'
Russia will not get engaged in any large conflicts, but will defend itself in case of aggression,
Putin warned.
"Russia is far from getting involved any large-scale conflicts. We don't want that and we
are not going to do it. And, naturally, we should always be ready to repel any aggression against
Russia," Putin said.
"Our partners – whatever condition their countries are in and whatever foreign policy concept
they adhere to – should understand that it's better not to mess with us," Putin said. "Thank
God, I believe it doesn't occur to anyone to unleash a large-scale conflict with Russia."
'Russia will seek acceptable compromises on Arctic'
Russia admits that other states have their interests in the Arctic – the region that is thought
to contain vast reserves of oil and gas.
Both Russia and
Canada,
who along with the US, Norway and Denmark constitute the five states with Polar claims, have made
legal attempts to secure their rights to large swathes of the Arctic, which is thought to contain
15 percent of the oil reserves and 30 percent of all natural gas in the world.
"We will take the interests of these states into consideration and seek acceptable compromises,"
Putin said, adding that Russia would "naturally" also defend its own interests.
The five Arctic states - Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russia and the US – have for several years
now been in a bitter dispute over how to divide up this resource-rich 'pie'.
'Crimea recognition will be long and tedious'
It will take a long while for Crimea to be internationally recognizes as part of Russia, Putin
believes.
He said he finds it "strange" and referred to an example with the recognition of Kosovo
independence where a political will and desire were enough to make such a decision "easily."
He also recalled that in case with Kosovo, no referendum was held: the decision on independence
was made by the parliament of the Serbian breakaway republic. In the situation with Crimea, there
was both a decision by the parliament and a referendum. In Putin's view, the latter was a more democratic
way for a nation's self-determination.
A very good analysis from Alexander Mercouris on the Minsk meeting – I've posted it in full
because it is really worth reading:-
"TOTAL DEADLOCK IN MINSK – ON THE WAR, ON GAS AND ON THE EU ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT. THE WAR
CONTINUES AND A GAS WAR LOOMS
We now have the details of Putin's press conference in Minsk and this helps to get a sense of
what happened there.
1. On the civil war in the eastern Ukraine this is what Putin says he said to Poroshenko
"Question: You talked about a ceasefire. Did you speak substantively about the conditions
for a ceasefire to be possible.
Putin: No. We did not discuss this matter substantively. Frankly speaking, we cannot discuss
any conditions for a ceasefire or possible agreements between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. This
is not our business; it is a domestic matter of Ukraine itself. We can only support the creation
of an environment of trust during this possible, and in my view, highly necessary negotiation
process. We spoke about this. We spoke, where possible, about what Russia could do to make
this process possible. But Russia did not impose any conditions. We cannot do that, and we
do not have any right to do so. This is a Ukrainian affair; it is up to Donetsk and Lugansk".
In other words Putin made it absolutely clear to Poroshenko and to Ashton that Russia will
not put any pressure on the NAF on any subject and that if they want peace in the Ukraine they
must talk directly to the NAF.
Incidentally I know there are some people who question whether Poroshenko and his European
backers really did come to Minsk to look for a way out. I don't think there is any doubt that
they did. That is why Merkel went to Kiev and said there the things she said there (see the
Moon of Alabama on this), that is why the German vice Chancellor resurrected the topic of federalisation
on the eve of her visit, that is why during the Minsk summit Poroshenko talked about the peace
of Europe being in danger and that is why Ashton during the visit was the one who brought up
the question of a ceasefire. It is quite clear to me that the idea was to get the Russians
to put pressure on the NAF to accept Ukrainian sovereignty in return for an offer of discussions
on some vague form of decentralisation (which would certainly in the end amount to a lot less
than real federalisation) and a possible end to hostilities. Putin firmly rejected that idea.
No other interpretation of his words makes sense.
I would also refer to Putin's pointed use of the word "trust". This is a word rarely used
in diplomatic discussions. The fact that Putin used it is obviously because he knows that following
Maidan's string of broken promises there isn't any.
2. On the gas talks Putin said the following:
"It is no big secret that Gazprom has advanced payment for the transit of our gas to Europe.
Ukraine's Naftogaz has returned that advance payment. The transit of our gas to European consumers
was just about suspended. What will happen next?
This is a question that awaits painstaking investigation by our European and Ukrainian partners.
We are fulfilling all the terms of the contract in full. Right now, we cannot even accept any
suggestions regarding preferential terms, given that Ukraine has appealed to the Arbitration
Court. Any of our actions to provide preferential terms can be used in the court. We were deprived
of this opportunity, even if we had wanted it, although we already tried to meet them halfway
and reduced the price by $100″.
The importance of these words have been ignored and they confirm that a major crisis is
looming. We are looking at a gas war with pan European implications. The Ukrainians have been
trying to force Gazprom to lower its gas price by threatening to cut off Russian gas to Europe.
Putin has rejected that blackmail and has rejected any suggestion that Gazprom grant Naftogaz
even a temporary discount pointing out that the Ukrainians would treat it as an admission in
the legal proceedings in Stockholm that the existing contractual price is too high (people
constantly harp on Putin's KGB background. They forget that he is also a trained lawyer). What
that means in effect is that there is or will shortly be no Russian transit gas going through
the Ukraine to Europe. Unless the Ukrainians change course a cold winter looms not just for
the Ukraine but for Europe as well.
3. On the EU association agreement
Putin stuck to the Russian position which is that in its present form it is incompatible
with the existing free trade arrangements between the Ukraine and Russia. The Europeans and
the Ukrainians have very belatedly woken up to the implications of this. They have pressed
for the setting up of an expert group supposedly "to iron out the problems". Essentially they
continue to want to have their cake and eat it ie. they want the Ukraine to join the European
Single Market via the association agreement whilst remaining in a free zone with Russia, which
is not part of the European Single Market and which does not have a free trade agreement with
it. Putin again said that is impossible. Ulyukaev, the Russian economy minister, made it clear
today that any retention of trade preferences for the Ukraine would require amendments to the
basic text of the EU association agreement (see this report from Itar Tass
http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/746874
). Yatsenyuk has again today ruled that out. On this issue again we have deadlock.
In summary, Putin took an unyielding line on every issue. The Europeans and the Ukrainians
got nowhere and they now have a growing crisis on their hands. No wonder Poroshenko couldn't
bring himself to speak to the waiting reporters and rushed to talk to Ashton instead. Not surprisingly
in light of the failure to agree on any substantive issue the Minsk summit ended with no final
communique http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=531683
As proof – if any were needed – that the EU is led by idiots, a report has emerged that these
geniuses conducted no studies WHATSOEVER on the financial impact on Europe of the sanctions it
imposed on Russia. So I think we can take it as read that the same big brains never, for one moment,
gave any thought at all to what Russia might do in retaliation.
"The European Parliament
did not conduct any of its own official studies on the impact of its sanctions against Russia
prior to their implementation or to this day, said Director-General of the European Parliamentary
Research Service (EPRS) Anthony Teasdale and Secretary-General of the European Parliament (EP)
Klaus Welle on Tuesday. "On sanctions, no we have not, in the European Parliament Research Service, done any analysis
on the financial implications," said Teasdale in response to a question from RIA Novosti at a
Wilson Center event on EU economic integration.
He said there had been no requests from parliamentary committees, noting that "the committees
have not been meeting for the last three or four months, because we've been having European elections."
The West from the very beginning skillfully dictated the way the world will look at the crisis
in Ukraine. Moreover, old anti-Russian propaganda which created the image of "eternal evil" out of
Russia helped greatly in this brainwashing. Putin does not know how to run a smart and clever "soft"
propaganda campaign. And even prestigious news agencies are now amenable to "political activism",
because there is no time for good journalism, says Czech media analyst Irena Rysankova.
Many spoke and wrote about the information war, which accompanies the Ukrainian crisis from
the very beginning - with demonstrations on the square, during the annexation of the Crimea, the
war in the Donbass, the fall of the Malaysian flight MH17 - and still being played. What weapons
and how successful the opponents are using in this war?
For simplicity I will call one side Pro-European and the other Pro-Russian. "Pro-European" definitely
has or used to have an advantage. Their method "injecting of news" and the wording of news articles
was such that it was clear - there are consultants. Moreover, it was this side which began informing
the public new event, such as about MH17, at all levels.
"Pro-Russian" side was actually forces into defense from the very beginning and can only refute
the new and new speculations about the events that none of the readers has the ability to reliably
check. they also defined the vocabulary for description of events, while taking advantage of the
fact that simple and less educated users of the media, and according to statistics those are the
majority still perceive Russia as evil. More specifically, this is due to the invasion of the occupation
forces in 1968 in Czechoslovakia and later in Afghanistan. Just Russia in the minds of many is still
identified with the Soviet Union, and due to this is viewed from the same position, as during the
cold war.
In propaganda campaign of "Pro-European" forces that were active event before the key events,
which served simply as a trigger, were creatively used all the tools for the management of public
opinion. Every time they defined the agenda (agenda setting) that was imposed on the other side.
Violent actions (fire on protesters on the Maidan, the plane crash, the shooting of the "convoy of
refugees") were used to inject emotions into initially rational thinking about the conflict. this
was they frame the information perception (framing) in terms of our pre-existing attitude to the
parties. This way the polarization without regard to the facts is achieved: who is good and who is
evil ("They only wanted to join the EU", "They wanted to stand in their way to freedom", "They shoot
again on our children"). This way the coverage turned into the game of "good" and "bad" guys. Facts
are never analyzed independently and impartially, because they always created the circumstances which
prevented this. I think that in no way we can talk in information about Ukraine in terms of "people's
struggle". On Maidan there were not "the people", but political activists and militants. As well
as mercenaries. A naive public intellectuals who joined them, very quickly disappeared after the
first blood was shed. Professionalism dictates that, rather, the event were orche4strated by a good
consultants.
Russia is losing and will continue to lose. Neither the Kremlin nor the Lubyanka, most likely,
have not read the basic labor American Professor from Harvard Gina Sharpe, even though it was first
published in 1973 under the title "the Politics of nonviolent action". His main book "From dictatorship
to democracy" was released 20 years later in response to the popular uprising in Bangkok and was
published in Russian in 1993, after the collapse of the USSR, when the candidate Yegor Gaidar as
Prime Minister was rejected, Yeltsin came to power, the putschists made a move against him and civil
war could well start, which would finally erased from the face of the earth "the evil Empire". Then
it didn't work out, but still even in Russia color revolution scenario got pretty far. In Ukrainian
the book "From dictatorship to democracy" was translated in 2004 in connection with the Orange revolution.
After centuries of use "hard power" Russia does not understand how to use "soft power", does not
speak of non-governmental diplomacy, you need it to support financial and organizational. Russia
is not able to involve themselves in support of stars in pop culture, universities and charitable
foundations, commercial companies and non-governmental organizations. Russia had and still has the
major drawback - its reputation inherited from days of the USSR, although this is the country in
which the majority of European countries exported goods or collaborated in large projects. Thanks
to Russian gas we have light, warmth, we travel by car. But for many in Europe they are still "those
Russians" of August 1968, the invaders, drunk from vodka. And many of the "new Russians" reinforce
the Soviet stereotype. They defiantly proud of his wealth, and so manifestly disregard the law. So
we should not be too surprised.
Already in the winter and after the collapse of Viktor Yanukovych Czech blogosphere, or the
field of "alternative" media, began to protest that information about the "Maidan" in the Czech Republic
is manipulates and that the coverage is Pro-Ukrainian and selective. For example, we can talk about
the suppression of information about the aggressiveness of protesters on the Maidan and the focus
of the news on police brutality. Whether these claims to Czech media fair?
Partly were and still are. But this is just a problem with the progress of information war, which
Russia loses. There are several reasons for bias in the direction of Maidan then they new Kiev government.
First, it is Maidan declarations about the liberation from the clutches of the Russian bear and the
adoption of European rules, and secondly, the preponderance of professionally prepared Pro-Maidan
information, which the media simply replayed. In such situation there is huge demand for news coverage
and those who provide the news stream can correct the event or their view on the event as they wish.
None of the current journalists want to be engaged in a truly independent "dirt-digging" investigative
journalism. In fact, today it is impossible. Sooner or later you will need some research material,
sooner or later you will need professional information back office. And then you have the embedded
journalists.
Moreover, today the media has no time to think: electronic online world is faster then anything
else and the ability to sigh the issue to print at midnight is now a sweet dream about which was
only can have nostalgia. I always joke that Karel Capek today would have had no chances at all. Publishing
houses want cheap labor, that is, pipeline employees who toss news without too much thinking. Bloggers,
as a rule, are either analysts themselves or those who are interested in in the subject for some
reason and who understands it. That is, they are not objective. Even respected Agency now send to
the frontline hired local people, about professional past and views of which they have little information.
Thus, under the guise of top military journalism often we see the work of local journalists, which
were hired by agencies.
But lately, we can see some changes. Even mainstream media begin to think about the ethics of
their work. Perhaps because some BBC reporters have already begun to publish information about Ukraine,
which is not exactly fit "revolutionary enthusiasm" meme: the neofascists of the Right sector, corrupt
oligarchs, unscrupulousness members of the government.
In addition, Ukraine government go over the top in this information war. The manner in which President
Poroshenko and the Prime Minister Yatsenyuk spread is now simply despicable. The Declaration about
the elimination of the Russian convoy, not supported by any evidence, photographs or other materials,
and other excesses of the last days show that the information war starts to get out of control, and
the Ukrainian government propaganda machine is faltering. If the Ukrainian troops destroyed the Russian
convoy, would there no single photo? why they did not show us the corpses, their military ID and
uniforms? The serial number of weapons they have had? In is impossible not to notice complete incompetence
here. I remember Saakashvili claimed that Russia used in Georgia ballistic missiles "Point". But
the evidence of the damage they caused was very badly staged. But in the Czech Republic, Russia priori
is guilty or, at least, suspicious. Our indignation about what "those Russians" (more precisely,
the Brezhnev of the USSR) did, is passed from one generation after another - to those who do not
remember the Prague spring of 1968, not to mention the previous years.
Today it is difficult to determine who is right and who is lying. if the known liar lies again
when he said that his opponent is lying. Can he at this time speak the truth? How to find out when
the during war, of course, the first victim is truth?
The problem arises when facts themselves incriminated the liars, as happened with the leaked photos
downed Malaysian Boeing. Round, smoothly bent in the tin holes with a diameter of 30 mm give to those
who are familiar with missiles "BUK", understanding that the plane was shot down but by the rocket
but the cockpit was pulverized with guns of the fighters. There were two fighters. Today there are
only to answer the question, whose to whom they belong and who gave them the order to shoot.
Both Russia, calling for the unification of the "Russian world", and the EU and the US, referring
to the European and Western values, according to some opinions, have polar sympathies: on the one
hand citizens fighting the Donbas and the Crimea, and on the other, the rest of Ukraine, mainly Western.
Which party do you think the more intensely promoted this propaganda? And with what implications?
How to respond to the claim that Russian TV using hostile nationalist programs (for example show
Dmitry Kiselev) sparked a civil war in the Donbass?
How can we measure the level of sympathy? with "Applause meter" ? The number of casualties on
each side? I don't think the war in the Donbass unleashed by some shows with anchors/talking heads
known for their nationalism, such as Dugin or Kiselev on Russian side, or Poroshenko fifth channel
and youths from the Right sector on the other side. Propaganda is directed to strengthening of the
morale of the combatants. Soldiers who are poorly paid, need to know that they are fighting, and
dying for just cause. If there are two warring parties, it is clear that each side produce corresponding
stream of propaganda. Both sides try to justify the right to kill fighters from the other. On both
sides historians, myth-makers and ideologues work on such a justification. But we must not forget
that "the war for Ukraine" is actually an economic war. For displacement from the Ukrainian market
of Russia and for a new economic world order. In other words this is struggle is for gas and oil,
coal and steel. All those resources are the cornerstone of both the European Union and the Russian
power. Ukraine (rather, consultants that support Ukrainian side) have better propaganda. As Europe
and the United States have always been more receptive to the stories of the victims of Russian expansion.
That means that from the very beginning the emotional advantage was on the side of smaller Ukraine
abused by a larger, more powerful neighbor.
Shooing down of MH17 is a new milestone in the crisis. What cant you say about this event?
Who presented the more convincing evidence? Which side of the conflict behaved more honestly? And
how to evaluate the Russian, Czech and Western media?
- The basic rule of journalism is fair comment must be preceded by a message that will be facts,
not guesswork. The statements that the plane was shot down by Pro-Russian militia, appeared too quickly.
The culprit was appointed earlier than it was revealed what exactly was the plane that was shot down..
The name of the air traffic controller, who was the first to report that shot down the plane, now
is hidden by the Ukrainian secret service (SBU). In this case, neither party behave honestly form
the very beginning. The plane crashed in the area of military action, that is a given. Perhaps we
ought to ask the question about what experts had learned from black boxes, and why suddenly everyone
is silent about their content. And why around this story suddenly there was silence. Downed aircraft
perfectly fit the image of the "bad Russians" and "criminal separatists". Czech, and most importantly,
the Western media gladly sat down to write the comments.
- With what media and PR reputation Russia coma out of the Ukrainian crisis? The scientist
Veronica Suchava-Salminen wrote that the Arsenal of the Russian "soft power" virtually destroyed.
Does Russia have a chance in the coming years to cause at least some sympathy in the Western public?
Conversely, can we say that the Russian public opinion hostility to the US and the West increased
to the maximum?
The question is How important for Russia's is Western public opinion, or she stopped being interested
in it long ago? Russia is able to pursue the classical "hard" propaganda. It never has the arsenal
of soft power. Putin is an example of courage and determination, on horseback, fishing, tigers, nuclear
submarine... "Soft" propaganda is not very well done by Russians. They don't have it, and most importantly,
they have no such tradition, although Putin is advised by U.S. PR Agency. Soft power should be carried
out systematically, carefully, with knowledge of psychology. Russian propaganda relies on force.
The United States, despite all its problems, seem to the outside world to be the promised land. Russia,
despite many successes, still looks cold dark Empire. But on the other hand, Russia Today is an excellent
start. The broadcast goes 24 hours a day in English, Russian, Arabic and Spanish. Audience of those
channels is over 1 billion people.
Speaking about the Russian media, of course, impossible to suppose that in the country there
is pluralism in the Western sense. What Putin has done over the years of his reign with the Russian
media? What rules do they work, what to speak and write without problems, and what is hard, what
can be harassment?
Do you really mean there is pluralism in Western media? And if it exist can you explain in what
particular form? The West has reached the stage when (as a Russia) you can write on the Internet
to whatever you want, but that nobody reads. And if somebody read, they often do not believe and
do not follow blindly. Russians may also, like you, travel freely, if they have the means. They can
do business and become bankrupt, can go to Church, can watch satellite TV and use censored words
on the Internet. So what? Is this a sign of citizen participation in the actual governance in the
country, as implies by the word democracy? Active readers and strong, authoritarian media, which
we knew 30 years ago, has been replaced by indifference on the one hand and cynicism of managed media
with another. And in general, trolling and viral marketing changed the game and made everything suspicious.
Today can be anywhere - and we, in Russia - successfully manipulate the opinion of anybody. Without
the ability to defend themselves.
Russian media world is a special conversation. Yes, undoubtedly, for the most part he is not "anti-Putin",
but, by the way, why would it be so? Putin after a drunken Yeltsin, the first defender of Russian
pride, power, before his arrival decaying, country. Putin knows how to be creative with the media.
And with those who intrude into his private life, he is able to quickly deal, which confirmed the
tabloid edition of "Moskovsky Korrespondent", which was closed after publishing an article about
the fact that Putin to marry a gymnast. Newspaper is unprofitable, said its owner. On the other hand,
in addition to state television, Putin has created public television, albeit without concession fees,
as willingness to pay in Russia. But given a guarantee of independence. By the way, today Russia
Today is one of the best news channels, at the level of CNN and BBC. Russia is a country, which at
a cursory glance it is difficult to understand. It is a mixture of almost anarchic democracy and
the rule of hard, sometimes very hard hand. Democracy should not always mean freedom. Putin himself
said about managed democracy, and this to some extent overlaps with essay Fareed Zakariya "Illiberal
democracy", published in the journal Foreign Affairs in early 1998.
Indeed, the Kremlin sees primarily for heads of state media and agencies. The head of the new
Agency "Russia today", for example, was the former head of channel Russia Today. However, the Kremlin
has no impact on diverse media stream and never will. This is, probably is unfortunate. In old days
at least it was clear that information published by any newspaper can't be one hundred percent false.
So there is no such assurance. Money, lies and manipulation become a global weapon of mass destruction
of this civilization.
It will destroy America, destroy and Russia. No one will believe anyone. Yes, this is the situation
we are already leaving in.
The Obama administration has responded to increasing Russian aggression by stepping up its own
efforts to inflict economic pain on Moscow and isolate it diplomatically. The United States and the
European Union announced a
new round of sanctions on July 29 that bar a number of Russian banks from U.S. and European capital
markets, deny Russian energy companies sophisticated oil development technologies, and expand restrictions
on Russian defense technology.
Even worse for Moscow, the new measures
make it harder for Russian companies to raise medium- and long-term financing in Western markets,
and extract oil from the Arctic and new deep water and shale reserves. They also
hurt the Russian economy by increasing investor anxiety, which is likely to accelerate capital
flight and cause foreign bankers to cut back on loans to Russia.
After announcing the latest sanctions, U.S. diplomats
traveled to China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea to urge their Asian partners to support
efforts to tighten the economic vice on Russia.
From a Ukraine-centric perspective, this makes good sense. A U.S.-EU-Asian sanctions regime could
inflict serious damage on the Russian economy. The EU is Russia's largest trading partner. And Russia's
trade with China, Japan, and South Korea amounts to about 45 percent of total Russian-EU trade. In
addition, access to U.S., European, and Asian markets and currencies is necessary for Russian
The West's malevolent sanctions on Russia were not imposed because Russia had in any way affected
the well-being, economic circumstances, territorial integrity or social structure of the United States
or of any nation that jumped on the US sanctions' bandwagon. There was no question of enforcing sanctions
because Russia's actions anywhere in the world had impacted adversely on one single citizen of any
Western nation. But they were imposed, anyway, just to try to make things difficult for Moscow and
to try to ratchet up tension between Russia and the West.
The sanctions have been an irritant to Moscow, but sanctions are usually more than that, and in
the past have proved useless in persuading governments to act contrary to what they perceive as national
interests - but they've been effective in destroying the lives of ordinary people who have done no
harm to anyone.
... ... ...
Russia decided to hit back against US and EU sanctions by barring some US and EU imports. And
why shouldn't it, after such gross provocation? But there's a definite downside for innocent people.
For example, Russia is the biggest market for French apples and pears, of which 1.5 million tonnes
were expected to be exported this year. Now, thanks to Russia's reply to the US/UK-sponsored embargo
there are hundreds of small farmers in France who are going to have a miserable Christmas. The Scottish
and Norwegian fishing industries are suffering appallingly because their exports to Russia were enormous.
Now - nothing.
And there is now a curious lack of reporting about all this in the Western media. It's a major
story, but after the first couple of days of media interest in it suddenly became back page stuff
in the print media, and blank-out on radio and television.
They're not interested in Polish, Spanish, Dutch and Greek fruit-growers going bankrupt. Poland,
for example, exports over a billion dollars-worth of food to Russia every year, and is suffering
accordingly, and a Greek spokesman said that "Russia absorbed more than 60% of our peach exports
and almost 90% of our strawberries," as over 3,500 tonnes of peaches lay rotting in stores and trucks.
Ten per cent of the EU's annual agricultural exports went to Russia. Now - thanks to Moscow's riposte
to US-led imposition of sanctions, there won't be any.
Russia may ban import of cars if West applies new sanctions - paper
August 18, 2014
MOSCOW, Aug 18 (Reuters) - Russia may tighten retaliatory sanctions against Western nations to
include a ban on imports of cars, among other things, if the United States and the European Union
impose additional sanctions on Moscow, Vedomosti daily newspaper said on Monday.
Following Russia's stand off over Ukraine, Western nations imposed sanctions on Moscow including
on its financial and energy sectors, and put dozens of Russians close to President
Vladimir Putin on a sanctions list.
Imported vehicles accounted for 27 percent of sales of passenger cars in the first half of 2014,
for trucks imports accounted for 46 percent, and 13 percent for buses, according to Vedomosti.
Russia, which denies allegations it is arming separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine, may fully
or partly ban imports of cars, the Vedomosti newspaper said, citing sources.
The new ban would not apply to foreign automakers' production inside Russia, the paper said. Ford,
Volkswagen , Ford Renault,
Toyota and
Hyundai Motor Co all have production facilities inside Russia.
The paper added that proposals for new measures had already been sent to Putin for consideration
but that no decision had been taken to prepare any new sanctions yet.
New trade restrictions are possible in the event Western nations impose additional sanctions on
Moscow, the paper added.
Russia has imposed a ban on certain agricultural imports from the European Union, the United States,
Australia, Canada and Norway.
It has also said the government could introduce protective measures in aircraft, shipbuilding
and automotive industries (Reporting by Katya Golubkova; Editing by Christian Lowe)
It is not really that much polarized. There are some people in Finland who understand what
happens in the world correctly and who wish Russia well, but my estimate is that they represent
maybe 5% of the total population. Around 30% are neutral (due to lack of interest) and
the rest are more or less anti-Russian.
Winter War plays a part in anti-Russian feelings
in Finland, but that is not all. You have to remember that the strongest anti-Russian sentiment
in Finland existed between 1918-1944. It began way before the war. Anti-Russian sentiment was
(forcibly) toned down after the lost war, but in the recent years it was grown wider especially
in the mainstream media. Right now our mainstream media is 100% anti-Russian. Only so called alternative
medias and some individual bloggers offer lone Russian friendly tones.
My impression is that Finland is naturally an anti-Russian state in a same way was Sweden
and Poland are. This is a feature that cannot be changed. Maybe 100-200 years without wars
between the two nations could change things, but I will not be there to witness it. Another option
would be disintegration of Russia into smaller states, which most Finns could except without hate
(but the contempt and feeling of superiority would probably still remain).
Draufganger was talking about our foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja. He must be almost 70 now.
In the 1960's he was a young left winger radical, but I don't think he was ever pro-Soviet or
pro-Russian. He was one of those liberal leftist radical anti-war types and Soviet Union was not
exactly a pacifist country in Tuomioja's youth.
But as a foreign minister Tuomioja has forgotten all of his ideals from his youth. He has become
a supporter of western military and economic hegemony. Without this "change" he would have never
been given this job. His father was a wealthy businessman and I think he might have rebelled against
his capitalist father when he was young. But now he has become a conservative.
"Not to be rude but isn't such generational hatred generally based on a perceived genetic superiority
(i.e. racism)? You know, damaged genomes for the mud people versus the genomic purity of the Nordics?
Or is there some other madness at work?"
Well, what can I say? Finns have always had a "superiority
complex" towards Russia and "inferiority complex" towards western Europeans and especially Swedes.
Finland was a part of the Russian Empire from 1809 to 1918. Finland was a piss poor country
in 1809, but Finland developed very well as a grand duchy of Russia. Finland was a part of the
Empire, but it was still a separate country with it's own laws, money, parliament, languages (officially
Swedish but mainly Finnish) etc. Finland was never russified and Finns always considered Russia
a different country even if being part of the Russian Empire.
Being part of Russian Empire was beneficial for Finland. We didn't have to pay any taxes to
St.Petersburg. We didn't have to serve in Russian army. We even had a right to tax Russian products
that were exported to Finland. Russian army provided security for Finland. We got cheap grain
from Russia.
Very soon Finland became a lot richer than Russia was on average. I have read stories from
Finnish travelers and historians who went to Russia in the late 1800's and early 1900's. They
mainly visited Olonets and East Karelia, and they described how poorly people lived there compared
to Finland. There were mini-famines in that area while Finland was living quite well. Finnish
elite, that was mostly ethnically Swedish and oriented towards Sweden, started to look down at
Russians as lesser because of their poverty.
But Finland lived well within Russian Empire and there were no secessionist movements in the
19th century. In early 20th century so called "slavophiles" rose to power in Russia. They saw
Finland's position was unfair, because Finland was sucking resources out of Russia while giving
nothing in return. They wanted to remove Finland's autonomy and make Finland an integral part
of the rest of Russia without any privileges.
Finnish elite started to rebel against these ideas and this is the first time that a strong
hate of Russia developed among Finnish elites, who were not Russian and wanted to remain "un-Russian".
The governor-general of Finland, Nikolai Bobrikov, was murdered by a young Finnish nationalist
Eugen Schauman. Schauman was still considered a national hero in Finland.
The First World War was a catastrophe for Russia, but it was a stroke of luck for Finland.
That gave Finland a freeway to independence. Russia was very weak after the World War had destroyed
it's army and the ongoing Civil War in Russia was eating up it's resources. Finland declared to
be independent and Lenin's government in St.Petersburgh did not object. They were busy fighting
the Whites and did not have resources to stop Finland from seceding.
Finland had it's own quite bloody Civil War in 1918 that lasted about 3-4 months between Whites
(represented by the aristocratic elite, merchants, landowners, industrialists and backed by Germany)
and Reds (represented by the working class and somewhat backed by Russian Bolsheviks). Whites
won this war eventually pretty easity, and Finland avoided becoming a Communist country.
During and after the war Finland wanted to remove every Russian element out of Finland. Russian
soldiers in Finland were in disarray and they did not put up a fight when Finnish Whites disarmed
them. These soldiers were put to trains and sent to Russia. But now it is clear that a big portion
of these trains never reached Russian border. It is likely that the Finnish Whites executed these
Russian soldiers and buried them to mass graves instead of letting them return to Russia.
There were also brutalities against Russian civilian population in different Finnish cities.
Vyborg (then belonged to Finland) had the largest Russian population in Finland back then. After
winning the Civil War the Finnish Whites committed a genocide of Russian civilian population in
Vyborg. Up to 500 to 1000 Russian civilians, including women and children, were shot and buried
to mass graves in that town. Some of the executed Russians had fought in the Finnish Civil War
in the White side, but it didn't save them.
Finland also gathered volunteer armies who attacked Olonets and Eastern Karelia and Kola peninsula
in an attempt to annex them to Finland. Those attempts were not successful, but Finland managed
to grab a part from Kola peninsula called Petsamo.
In the coming two decades (1920's and 1930's) hatred of Russia was almost a state ideology
in Finland. Children in schools were taught to hate "ryssä" (Russians). Even priests preached
to hate Russia. They called it a "country without God" because of atheist Communist ideology.
But I have to say that among the simple and common people the hatred of Russia was not as strong
as it was among the Finnish elite these days. The Finnish elite has always been the one with the
strongest hatred towards Russia. And it still is.
After the lost war the semi-official state ideology of hatred towards Russia was forcibly changed.
Communists and Social democrats gained a strong foothold in Finnish political scene. Finnish-Soviet
Club of Friendship was established. Finland had a lot of Soviet guests in cultural scene to perform
here. Finnish radio and TV showed Russian music and movies. I would say that 1950's and 1960's
were the best overall decades between Russian and Finnish relations, at least from Russia's perspective.
Finland was deeply in Russia's pocket and had no change to integrate to the West.
But Finland again benefited greatly from this relationship economically (like it did as a grand-duchy
of Russia). Finland again sucked a lot of resources out of Russia without giving much in return.
The economic relationship was heavily favoring Finland. Finland grew very rich while Soviet economy
started to stall in the 1960's and 1970's. Finnish tourists in Soviet Union could easily see that
an average Soviet lived far worse than an average Finn.
The next two decades of 1970's and 1980's were a time when Finns started again look down at
Russians because of their poverty. At the same time we also started to idolize America. In the
1920's and 1930's we looked up to Germany, but now we looked up the America. American music, movies
and TV-shows appeared to our TV and radio. America was rich and beautiful. Russia was poor and
ugly. Finnish exchange students became to go to America. Today our current and former prime ministers
are former exchange students in America. Both of them are extremely pro-Western.
Our political elite covertly started to form closer relations to the West in spite of officially
being in the Soviet sphere of influence. Soviet Union was getting weaker with an accelerating
pace and that gave Finland boldness to make moves towards the West. Once the Soviet Union collapsed
in 1991 Finland very quickly accelerated the integration process towards the West and joined the
EU.
The 1990's was a decade when Russia was seen in nothing but with contempt. Russians lost their
empire. Russia was poor. Russia was riddled with decease. You could buy a Russian woman with a
pair of stockings. Russians can't do anything right. They always fail. All of them are lazy drunks.
Finland was a part of the rich West now. Russia will disintegrate soon and Finland will always
be safe from a threat to becoming "Russian". These were the common stereotypes back then. Most
of Finns and especially our elites were very happy about that. They wanted (and still want) to
see a weak Russia.
The 2000's was a change for negative because Russia started to rebound as a country. This was
not wanted. While the growing trade with Russia benefited our economy, the desire to see Russia
weakened and eventually broken up was stronger. The mainstream media became very hostile towards
Russia. Formerly the tone was more like amused or filled with contempt, but now it was increasingly
hostile. Vladimir Putin became easily the most demonized person in our media.
Russia was no longer mainly poor and riddled with decease, but increasingly authoritarian,
undemocratic, no freedom of speech etc. In a way now we are at the same stage of the cycle that
we were in 1930's when the hostility towards Russia was also very strong. I just hope that the
next phase of this cycle will not be a war like it was back then.
I would also like to say that the recent 10-15 years have been the only time in Russian-Finnish
trade that the trade has benefited Russia at least as much as Finland. This is mainly because
the prices of oil and other raw materials have gone up. This is the reason why Russia has a huge
surplus in it's trade with Finland.
Jen, August 19, 2014 at 4:49 am
Very interesting potted history of Finnish-Russian relations. The Western stereotype is that
Finland from 1945 to 1991 was a captive of Russia, almost as much as the Warsaw Pact nations were
without actually being Communist. But I understand that Finland and Russia had a special economic
relationship that almost amounted to barter or some kind of similar exchange and the accounts
were always totted up and balanced annually. The Finns actually benefited from this arrangement
which enabled them to move away from producing just primary products like raw timber to making
finished goods. This was the period when the country began specialising in niche industries like
building icebreakers.
Совпало сразу несколько событий. Во-первых, Сергей Лукьяненко написал отличный текст "Мы - жиды",
где сравнивал европейские гонения на евреев с нынешней русофобией.
Украина запретила
показ фильма "Белая гвардия" по Булгакову за неуважение к украинскому народу. Украинская певица Карпа
выступила
в платье с матерной надписью в адрес президента РФ.
Российское общество окончательно разделилось на людей, для которых самое важное, что сейчас происходит
в мире, - это уничтожение им подобных в Новороссии, и тех, кто разделяет "европейские ценности в
еде" и не понимают, ради чего им теперь оставаться без итальянского сыра.
Во всём потоке рыданий о хамоне и пармезане наиболее выпукло выглядит
текст Валерия Панюшкина "Пармезан
- это духовность":
"Я полагаю, что говорить: "Не нужен нам ваш пармезан, гречневую кашу будем есть вместо
пармезана" - это и есть бездуховность. Так может говорить человек, которому еда нужна просто для
того, чтобы набить брюхо, человек, не ценящий ни вкуса, ни культуры, ни технологии".
"Известный тезис о том, что "могуч русский язык", - категорически ложен: он слаб. Чтобы
описать моё отношение (как историка и гражданина) к режиму, к рабскому агрессивно-послушному большинству
- не хватает слов. Сказать, что я всё это презираю, что мне это отвратительно, омерзительно, назвать
это скотством, убожеством, гнилью, грязью и т.д., и т.д. - это НИЧЕГО не сказать. Мат - ещё акварельнее.
Слаб русский язык, чрезвычайно слаб и беден. По крайней мере, для описания самой России".
Если вам кажется, что между этими фактами нет никакой взаимосвязи, - вы ошибаетесь.
На самом деле за всеми этими на первый взгляд разрозненными фактами скрывается одна из уже причин
начинающейся Третьей Мировой Войны.
Для войны всегда находится множество причин. Тут и геополитика с экономикой - точнее говоря, жажда
власти и жажда богатства. Тут и личные амбиции, обиды, счёты, комплексы, влияющие на решения, принимаемые
элитами. Война - это всегда мерзкая каша из малых и больших преступлений, гордынь, похотей, сребролюбий
и много ещё чего.
Но в войнах между Россией и остальным миром всегда есть в клубке сюжетных линий одна особенная
- та, что придаёт каждой такой войне эсхатологический оттенок.
Со странным восторгом Европа рассуждает о "загадочной русской душе" и немедленно срывается в животную
пещерную русофобию. Европа с восхищением рассказывает себе самой сказки о волшебной России - стране
святых, стране царей, стране могучего таинственного народа, а затем внезапно начинает заходиться
в истерике про унтерменшей, диких азиатов, чужое страшное племя.
Отчего так?
Почему сами азиаты не вызывают у Европы и Запада такой странной реакции?
Тут, конечно, много геополитики и жадности. Да, им очень бы хотелось, чтобы мы были не Россией,
способной ощетиниться штыками и ядерными боеголовками, а чем-то вроде Африки - богатой страной, приспособленной
для несения в неё Бремени Белых. Это вполне объясняет агрессию, русофобию и прочий негатив.
Но откуда же восхищение?
Откуда же европейская интеллигентская русофилия с постановками Чехова в театрах, с постоянными
попытками экранизаций Толстого?
Проблема ведь не в ненависти или в любви. Загадка отношения Европы к нам заключается в постоянном
трагическом сочетании. Европейская культура несколько больна нами. Европейское сознание воспринимает
нас одновременно как объект поклонения и как источник опасности и даже скверны. Европейская культура
полагает нас понятием сложным, высоким - "тайной, упакованной в загадку", но одновременно с этим
мы для них низки и примитивны.
... ... ...
Сейчас в жизненных интересах США и Запада - любой ценой сохранить свою власть и богатство. И,
следовательно, Запад как система адаптируется именно к этой задаче - карать и подавлять, порабощать
и грабить. Соответственно этой задаче и кооптируются элиты от Мари Харф и Френсиса Фукуямы до Бернара
Анри Леви - идеологов подавления всего мира, певцов палачей.
The Telegraph readers' reactions against the EU are somewhat more harch the Guardian commenters
and so a certain extent reflect British conservatives' deep dislike of the "EUSSR". And, of course,
Guargian comments are more heavily censored.
Just hours earlier Russian president Vladimir Putin had given a conciliatory speech and seemed
to be searching for a way out. "The country has plunged into a bloody chaos, a fratricidal conflict,
a humanitarian catastrophe has hit south-eastern Ukraine. We will do all we can to stop this conflict
as soon as possible and end bloodshed in Ukraine," he said. Veteran Kremlin watchers noted that the
speech was not broadcast live in Russia.
The escalating clash is now haunting the European economy, already on the brink of fresh recession,
with a string of southern states in debt-deflation. Italy has collapsed back into a triple-dip recession,
and Germany is contracting. Marcel Fratzscher, head of the German Economic Research Institute (DIW)
warned of "technical recession" after manufacturing orders to the rest of the eurozone fell 10.4pc.
Gabriel Sterne from Oxford Economics warned that a full-blown conflict in the Eastern Ukraine
could lop 2pc off eurozone GDP over the next two years through trade damage and financial channels,
with a contraction of 0.5pc in 2015. "The markets have been far too sanguine about the whole crisis,"
he said.
Mr Stern said Ukraine's economy is likely to shrink by 8pc this year. He warned that there is
now a 50pc chance of default on the country's external debts, partly owed to Russian institutions
and banks. This would send shock through the European financial system, and beyond. Franklin Templeton,
the global asset group, held $7.3bn of Ukrainian bonds at the end of 2013, insisting that the country
was in a "sweet spot" and would nurture good relations with Russia.
... ... ...
Ukraine's hryvnia has crashed by 40pc since January, making it much harder for the government
and Ukrainian companies to cover foreign currency debts of $145bn. Ukraine has secured a rescue from
the International Monetary Fund of up to $18bn but this is likely to prove far too little if the
crisis deepens.
... ... ...
Chris Weafer from Macro Advisory in Moscow said the Russian economy is effectively frozen by sanctions.
The country faces a fresh threat as oil prices drop to $102, from $115 earlier this year. "If it
cracks below $100 it could fall a lot further, Russia will come under serious pressure," he said.
Interest rate rises by the central bank - to defend the rouble - has choked credit from small
firms and led to a 23pc crash in car sales in July. "Everything is tightening. The contagion from
sanctions is causing US and European banks to shun almost all Russian risk. No Russian company was
able to take out any loans in dollars, euros, yen, or sterling in July," he said.
Lukoil has since secured a $1.5bn loan from Citigroup and JP Morgan, and Evraz has raised $500m,
but the door is shutting again. Russia's oil giant Rosneft has requested $40bn of support from the
country's sovereign wealth fund to meet a cluster of foreign debt redemptions over the next few months.
"Rosneft doesn't need the money right now but they are trying to get to the head of the queue just
in case. If these sanctions go on until early next year there are going to be a lot of companies
queuing up for money," he said.
Robert Kohn
I'm German and everyone I know is against this European Circus. Don't trust the information
in the newspapers. More and more of my fellow countrymen realize, that we all get pranked. The
EURO was the biggest mistake after WWII.
And the USA is a dangerous warmonger Nation.
J Moller
If the civilian plane was indeed shot down by Ukraine or just mechanical problems, would we
ever know the truth? It just makes me sick. Everybody lies. Both sides.
brit-exit
EU & NATO released the following statement tonight.
The war being mongered by both sides of the East will not be entered into or supported by
allied forces of the EU or NATO. We understand this is probably hard to understand, our reasons
why we refuse, because they are many fold. We feel it properly prudent that instead of concentrating
on an escalation in tensions, Ukraine should be turning it's attention to the dire economical
& humanitarian situation it currently finds itself in & meeting the long term commitments it
has already made.
Any intervention by outside forces will only add to the situation & that is a price we are
not willing to pay. We believe our position is clear & both sides should now move together
to seek their own long term solution to the problems. While there are many willing to act as
a regional intermediary in talks, including an offer from Finland, Germany, France & the UK,
the will to exploit these offers must be made directly by those involved. ...
I think that's pretty much exactly what the 'White House has already said today' after the
Ukrainian claims of the last couple of months has been exposed as a 'tissue of lies!' by the latest
US intelligence satellite experts proved, there was NO Russian incursion & there was No Ukrainian
bombing of Russian forces!'.
pontiacos > brit-exit
Bullsh*t.
How naive can people get?
"We understand this is probably hard to understand..."
We're looking at baby impaling NATO here, not a doctor telling a teenager she's pregnant.
asprag > brit-exit • 5 hours ago
Where did you read this, it sounds like a translation.
brit-exit > asprag
Check out (sky & Reuters) & you'll notice it's a copy paste of their transcript. Also watch
the White House video statements (today) ... you'll also notice when the reporter asks for
an update on the 'data of MH17' their was an instant 'red faced blank!' no comment, next question.
asprag > brit-exit
Could not find any mention of this statement neither on Reuter's nor on sky. However, I found
this headline on sky news which brings some hope:
Kiev and Moscow have reached agreement on the passage of a Russian aid convoy into eastern
Ukraine, according to the Red Cross.
asprag > brit-exit
It does seem rather fishy this long silence on the outcome of the investigation..I am all in
favour of a U-turn and a more conciliatory tone in the discussions over the Ukraine crisis. Don't
understand this death-wish of pushing each other closer to the cliff's edge.
brit-exit > asprag
Ditto, it's a pointless position to be in all round, especially with what the world will be
facing in the coming months. That's a downturn that'll make 2008 look like a prime time!
Idjit As Hael > brit-exit
The Euro-Americans should take better care of their puppets.
This is just embarassing.
brit-exit > Idjit As Hael
Reading between their joint statements, it seems to me 'they are much more concerned about
the much bigger economic issues they are all now going to be facing in the coming months.
There also now seems to be a 'brick wall' regarding MH17 & the 'evidence' & the now proven
repeated attempts by Ukraine using lies to drag the EU into some kind of war. In short, they 'cried
wolf' once too often as the 'White House' put it tonight.
They really should have known better, but having spend 3 years in Ukraine myself & knowing
it really is a place where 'hi-tech' is simply something in a glossy mag. Never considering I
guess, that a satellite can pick out a car registration, let alone 'all the claims they keep making'
to try & get their war.
But now it's finally over for them, they really do need to concentrate on matter to hand &
their IMF commitments, if not they'll make Greece look like a boom town!.
Idjit As Hael > brit-exit
All I will say on the matter is my thoughts and prayers are with the Ukranian population, the
real victim of this whole mess.
Harsh times ahead indeed.
Anon_Wales
America yanks the lead and Britain and the rest of the EU barks. Silly silly corrupt people.
c1sp
It's unfortunate to see Europe and the UK blindly following the US' orders from one crisis
to the next when they are clearly not in our interests. Germany is falling back into recession,
presumably dragging the the rest of us down with it, and for what? Because of Victoria "Fxck the
EU" Nuland's coup and the wildly optimistic goal of getting Russia to give up it's military port
at Sevastopol? The Malaysian airliner crash seems increasingly unlikely to have been dropped by
Russian rebels since the Yanks refuse to release the satellite imagery of the incident. Based
on these two situations and a general hunch that Moscow must be behind the turmoil in Eastern
Ukraine we are undoing the greatest accomplishment of the past 50 years -- the end of the Cold
War.
As the German Industrial companies get into trouble, they will no doubt be snapped up by American
funds, just as our Cadbury's and Boots were.
everhardus > c1sp
For goodness sake, are you comparing Cadbury and Boots with Siemens, Daimler Benz, VW, Bosch,
BASF, Bayer, Boehringer, ThyssenKrupp, to name only a few.
runawaysomeonescoming > c1sp
Merkel has scored a spectacular own-goal. She, single-handedly, halted work on the South Stream
pipeline (W.Siberia to N.Italy) which would have by-passed the Ukraine.
At the same time, with Merkel's hysterical condemnation, threats and ultimatums to Russia she
also dashed the UK gas industry hopes of a 600km extension to the Nord Stream (Lubin, N. Germany
to Bacton, Norfolk) for UK gas supply reinforcement.
Nice one Angela!!!
runawaysomeonescoming > Pavel Chichikov
Work stopped on 17th April, 2014. Instigated by Merkel and confirmed by the EU Parliament.
The EU adopted (laughingly) a proposal to seek alternative sources of supply.
Needless to say the proposal has not succeeded!
asprag > runawaysomeonescoming
"She single-handedly halted the work on the South Stream".
Not possible, Germany's share in the project is only 15%. (Italy 15%, France 20%, Gazprom 50%).
It was a decision made by the EU which was ignored by Austria whose energy company OMV signed
an agreement with Gazprom in June to build the section to Austria which is scheduled to come into
use in 2017 (much to the irritation of Brussels).
May be you want tell me otherwise with some credible links?
Pavel Chichikov > runawaysomeonescoming
I thought it was still in play. Did not Austria recently approve?
runawaysomeonescoming > Pavel Chichikov
Yes. On 29 April 2014 a memorandum on the implementation of the Austrian section was signed
in Moscow but the commissioning (estimated to be 2018) still needs full EU approval - unlikely
with the current Ukraine stand-off.
In June 2014, Bulgaria stopped construction due to the European Commission's infringement procedure
against Bulgaria for non-compliance with European rules on energy competition public procurements.
With these geo/politico problems mounting we are unlikely to see any physical progress until
someone knocks Nato/Russian/EU heads together!
asprag > runawaysomeonescoming
Not what I read in the press. The argument is about whether the supplier of the gas (Gazprom)
can also be in control of the access to the pipeline (Gazprom).
I would venture that these companies investing billions of euros in the project will circumvent
the EU like Austria did. Not to mention that it is in these countries' interest to come to an
agreement, and that includes Russia.
Pavel Chichikov > runawaysomeonescoming
We are obviously headed towards war unless there is a full stop by all parties.
One wonders if control has already been lost and the brake disconnected from the juggernaut.
Chris
Has anyone else noticed the brainless anti-Russian posts on threads like this?
Mostly they are slagging Putin personally, and have no argument or insight into the issues
They should be ignored, they are mostly US servicemen (REMFs) paid to sit on computers and fill
social networks and threads of this nature with the American horses***
The Guardian did an expose' in March this year
Chris
Drawing Russia into a conflict with Ukraine is all part of the US plan to increase EU sanctions
against Russia
Don't for one moment be seduced into the idea that the US or NATO fancy their chances against
the old bear - they definitely don't. America are only any good at standing off, out of range,
and murdering civilians in cities with Tomahawk missiles.
Seeing they and NATO have just had their a**** handed to them in Afghanistan by a bunch of
hill farmers on mopeds tends to prove my point
Observers will note that if confronting Russia - there is no 'out of range'
This is all about economics and the threat Russia and the rest of the BRICS countries present
to the dollar (and thus further US hegemony)
Until the US (and Israel) are severely slapped down - there will never be peace in the world
So long as Russia refuse to be drawn into any militarism they have the Ace card in their gas supply
to Europe. I hope the economic war is the chosen option
runawaysomeonescoming > Chris
Regardless of east and west posturing the Ukraine remains a tinderbox.
Fortunately Moscow has behaved with some restraint and it would be refreshing if that feeble,
arrogant and self-deluding pomposity shown by Brussels is summarily ended.
Chris is right; the Ace card, if Russia chooses to use it, would be catastrophic for the UK.
Although the UK receives no gas from Siberia, Germany does (a sizeable 44% of their demand) -
and there's our problem.
The only other viable supplier, Norway, feeds both Germany and the UK. Berlin has contractual
arrangements with Stavanger while the short-sighted UK only buys on the spot market (invariably
cheaper but interruptible).
Norway would have their hands full trying to make up the German shortfall leaving the UK 36%
light in an already parlous supply/demand scenario.
With winter slowly approaching the outlook for the UK is potentially bleak indeed.
everhardus > runawaysomeonescoming
Are you telling us that that the whole of Western Europe is being held to ransom by Russia?
runawaysomeonescoming > everhardus
Not at all - Norway, the only remaining viable supplier, would be able to make-up some of continental
Europe's needs.
The UK is the one directly in the firing line and our gas requirements (since we criminally
wasted our own precious N.Sea gem) would, especially in the winter, be disastrously below demand.
The outlook, primarily for the UK, is a potential nightmare in the making.
tomaso > Chris
Didn't they teach you about the Russia (USSR) Afghanistan war?
Your lot had to leave tail-between-legs.
The only pity is that the US and NATO thought they could do better. Well, they can't, and will
leave with self-same tail-between-legs, despite all the hoo-hah!!
cfc2000 > tomaso
Yes, the Russians were trying to keep the mujahadeen from taking Afghanistan back to the middle
ages and the US were supplying them with weapons. Weapons that were later used by the successors
to the mujahadeen, Al qaeda/ Taliban (lately become ISIS, now Islamic State) against the US and
UK. When will people learn who the real enemy is? I wonder sometimes if the Western governments
have been infiltrated. Russia, US, and Europe should be getting together to fight the common enemy.
But for last year's Westminster vote, we would have been fighting alongside the murderous ISIS
forces. Russia and China warned us and they were portrayed as supporters of an evil regime, when
all they were saying is that the opposition was more brutal than the Assad regime. Putin asked
us how could we defend a rebel force that ripped out the beating heart from an opponent and ate
it. The US/UK/EU leaders should be ashamed of themselves.
brit-exit > digpig
Not according to the 'White House!' tonight. In fact they openly called Ukrainian claims 'fictitious
& dangerous!' they've been sussed out, completely. That's why there was no photo's, because it
didn't happen as confirmed, comfortably by the White House.
Israel's Unsurprising Response to Crimean Annexation
"It's obvious that Russia has become the US media's new whipping boy. It could pick on China
or Saudi Arabia but it has chosen to vilify Russia. The Western media's absurdly biased tone against
Russia is to the pro Israel tone - never clearly report any fact that goes against the narrative.
I think Israel is using America, and so NATO, as a proxies to torment Russia and so has no reason
to stick its own neck out. …"
Another comment that I liked: Not only should US foreign policy makers not be surprised that Israel's interests diverge from
U.S. interests in the case of the Ukraine, but, were they not busy being arrogant and ignorant
(especially historically), they would understand that a nation of Jews has every reason to be
skeptical of Ukrainian nationalism. It was Ukrainian nationalists in WWII, anxious to ingratiate
themselves with the invading Nazis, who initiated a vicious pogrom in Lvov, and aided the SS in
finding Jews as well. There were no Russian pogroms in WWII. Did they think the Israelis would
want the Ukrainians to taste such "freedom" again?
Despite the passage of time, you gotta
believe there are still some Jews who care about what happened in Lviv in 1941.
I read a lot about this event. In one account, it was a 10-year-old Ukrainian boy who provided
the trigger for the pogrom. The Nazis had demanded that the Lviv Jews abandon their homes and
move into a ghetto that had been prepared for them. Local Ukrainian citizens were asked to assist
with driving the Jews out of their homes and flats.
A group of ordinary Ukrainians first went to some tenement house where lived an old Jewish tailor.
On encountering the tailor, the mob initially hesitated, not sure if they should actually attack
him. There was a moment when maybe a voice of reason could have told them to stop.
Instead, the ice was broken when a 10-year-old Ukrainian boy suddenly piped up and exclaimed,
"Time for you to go, old Jew!" ("stary Zhid").
That broke the ice, the mob went wild, what ensued was the horrific pogrom, of which we have
seen images, with special attention lavished on the sexual torture of Jewish women and children.
Jews know, maybe even cynical Zionists, that the Ukrainian people bear a collective guilt for
this event, this collective guilt persists to this very day.
Abe Foxman of the ADL criticised Russia for using the anti-semitic card in attacking the junta
back in the days.
The ADL know their stuff and have nothing to worry about. The goyim will be
remolded into model liberasts in the future if the junta fully prevails. Their co-ethnics already
own the majority of TV channels and the NGOs are in place. The junta is a Zionist project of the
US Deep State, and thus the ADL has nothing to fear - otherwise they'd be screaming bloody murder
and the US rhetoric would be totally different. The stupid nationalists are cannon fodder
against Russia, nothing more, nothing less.
In my view, the ADL may talk about Ukraine's anti-semitism, after all this is its job, to stir
up paranoia among the Jews and make the goyim feel guilt for existing or for not sucking up to
the Jews enough. But it's just because they are 'concerned', they always scream anti-semitism
in order to sensitize the targeted subjects.
Many trams are memorable, but they tend to evoke nostalgia rather than embrace the future. You
can't accuse UralVagonZavod (UVZ) of being behind the times with its new
Russia One, though. To begin with,
it looks like the Batmobile on a closed track -- and for good reason. The forward-tilted windshield
helps the conductor spot pedestrians, while the glass composite panels are easy to replace. The tram
is cutting-edge on the inside, too. Dynamic LED lighting and music change the cabin mood to suit
the time of day. You'll also find positioning (GPS and GLONASS), air conditioning, anti-bacterial
hand rails and WiFi. The driver even gets a USB 3.0 port that can keep a phone powered up.
Don't count on hopping aboard one of these mass transit marvels when they go into production,
which should be sometime in 2015. As the Russia One name implies, this machine is partly about national
pride; UVZ believes the vehicle will primarily be used in major Russian cities. Exports to Eastern
Europe and South America aren't more than possibilities at this stage. Nonetheless, it's a big step
forward for a form of public transportation that doesn't get a lot of love -- and it's probably the
first tram that would make Bruce Wayne proud.
Last week Germany reported that in the second quarter,
its GDP declined by 0.2%, worse than Wall Street consensus. This happened a few shorts days after
Italy reported a second consecutive decline in its own GDP, becoming the first Europen country to
enter a triple-dip recession. What's worse, Europe's slowdown took place before
the brunt of Russian sanctions hit. Surely in the third quarter the GDP of Germany,
a nation
whose exports accounts for 41% of GDP, will be even worse, with whisper numbers of -1% being
thrown casually around, but one thing is certain: Europe is about to enter its third recession
since the Lehman collapse just as we forecast at the end of 2013, a "triple-dip" which may become
an outright depression unless Draghi injects a few trillion in credit money (which will do nothing
but delay the inevitable and make it that much worse once the can can no longer be kicked), and unless
normal trade ties with Russia are restored.
Which means one thing: for Europe to resume the status quo, it needs to break away from the "western"
alliance and the sanctions imposed upon the Kremlin which solely benefit the populist agenda
of Washington, and certainly not Europe proper, which it is now quite clear, is far more reliant
on Russia than vice versa. it is also something Putin apparently was aware of from the very beginning.
And now, that realization is starting to spread to Europe's own countries, which - while the new
cold war was only one of rhetoric were perfectly happy to go for the ride - but now that trade war
has finally broken out, suddenly increasingly more want out.
As we reported previously, it all
started with the Greeks, a nation of heavy food exports into Russia, who were the first to announce
their displeasure with the "Stop Putin" coalition:
the moment Russia retaliated, the grand alliance started to crack. Enter Greece which
has hundreds of millions
in food exports to Russia, and which was the first country to hint that it may splinter from
the western "pro-sanctions" alliance. According to Bloomberg, earlier today the Greek
foreign minister and former PM said that "we are in continuous deliberations in order to have
the smallest possible consequences, and if possible no significant impact whatsoever."
...
And making it very clear that this will be a major political issue was a statement by the main
opposition party Syriza which today said that the Greek government's "blind obedience
to the Cold War strategies of Brussels and Washington will be disastrous for country's agriculture."
In a moment of surprising clarity, Syriza asked govt to immediately lift all sanctions to Russia,
as they don't contribute to a solution of the Ukrainian crisis, and "instead fuel an economic
and trade war, in which Greece has unfortunately become involved." Syriza concluded that
the government hasn't weighted Greece's special interests and bilateral relations with Russia.
Then it was Slovakia whose premier Robert Fico
criticized Ukraine for preparing sanctions against Russian persons and companies, and he has
called on Ukraine not to approve them, expressing concerns that the legislation could result in a
halt to natural gas supplies.
If the conflict between Ukraine and Russia escalates, the legal norm could cause interruption
of natural gas supplies to Slovakia (and to Western Europe) via Ukraine from Russia, he said.
Slovakia depends on supplies of Russian gas. However, if gas supplies via Ukraine were interrupted,
Slovakia would get gas through backflow from the West.
"It is strange that a country that has signed an association agreement with the EU
and which we are trying to help is taking one-sided steps that endanger the individual economic
interests of EU member countries, instead of coordinating its approach with the EU,"
Fico said.
"We do not want to be a hostage in the Russian-Ukrainian problem. We expect Ukraine
not to adopt formal steps that, if implemented, can endanger our interests. A country that has
signed the association agreement should not behave like that," Fico declared.
The US is clearly now pushing Russia towards war. But if you read the signs correctly, Russia
has been preparing for exactly this outcome for many years.
Out of several reasons that US power brokers specifically -- but western power brokers more generally
-- are deeply unhappy with Russia right now is that Russia is committing a cardinal sin: it is openly,
brazenly calling for an end to dollar dominance and has moved aggressively with China to achieve
that aim.
No oil-rich country that has tried to move away from the dollar in the past twenty years has managed
to do so without being attacked by the US, suffering a regime change, or being ruined by sanctions.
In some cases, all three.
Not only has Russia managed to secure a string of heavy-duty bilateral trade and currency swap
agreements over the past year, but they've done so despite ever-increasing threats and responses
from the US and its allies. And frighteningly, the equity markets in the West are completely ignoring
the nested set of risks that accompany these moves and countermoves by two geopolitical heavyweights,
which range from punishing trade wars (already underway), to electronic warfare, to an actual shooting
war.
The war in Ukraine became predictable when the great Muslim Brotherhood Project in Syria failed
during the summer of 2012. It became unavoidable in December 2012, when the European Union and Russia
failed to agree on the EU's 3rd Energy Package. The geopolitical dynamics which are driving the war
in Ukraine were known in the early 1980s.
Hundred years after the shots in Sarajevo ignited WW I, Europe is again being driven towards disaster.
Hundred years ago the presence of true statesmen could have prevented the war. Today many of the
selected front figures of western democracies dress up in pilot uniforms while they hardly have the
qualifications needed for a job as flight attendant.
The handling of the tragedy surrounding the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 prompted Malaysian
PM Najib Razak to leash out at those behind the geopolitical chess game that led to the death of
the 298 on board the Boeing 777-200. Showing true statesmanship, PM
Najib Razak :
"As a leader, there has never been an occasion as heart-breaking as what I went through
yesterday. Wives losing their husbands, fathers losing their children. Imagine their feelings
from such a great loss. … This is what happens when there is a conflict, whatever conflict that
cannot be resolved through negotiations, with peace. In the end, who becomes the victim"?
The War in Ukraine Began in Libya and Syria.
In 2007 the discovery of the world's largest known reserves of natural gas, shared by Qatar and
Iran, led to the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project that was sold under the trade mark "The Arab Spring".
A joint Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian pipeline project was supposed to transport Iranian gas from the
PARS gas fields in the Persian Gulf to Syria's eastern Mediterranean coast and further on to continental
Europe. It was this development that played midwife to the birth of the Great Muslim Brotherhood
Project.
The completion of the Iran – Iraq – Syria pipeline would have caused a cohort of developments
which were unacceptable to the US, UK, Israel and Qatar. Several continental European countries,
including Germany, Italy, Austria, Czech Republic saw much more favorably at it. Together with the
Russian gas which the EU received via Ukraine and the North Stream pipeline, the EU would have been
able to cover some 50 percent of its requirements for natural gas via Iranian and Russian sources.
It would be naive to assume that Israel was not gravely concerned about the prospect of Iran becoming
one of the European Union's primary sources of natural gas. Energy security concerns influence foreign
relations and foreign policy. EU – Israeli relations and the influence Tehran would have attained
with regard to the EU's position on Palestine and the Middle East are no exception to that rule.
The US and UK were not interested in competition to the Nabucco project. Qatar, the main center
of gravity with regard to the international Muslim Brotherhood, eyed its chance to become a regional
power to be recogned with and sent a 10 billion US dollar check to Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmed
Davotoglu. The money was reportedly earmarked, to be spent on preparing the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood
for the Great Project.
An additional dimension that was overlooked by many, if not most analysts, was that the US/UK
never would allow Russian – continental European relations to be dominated by an interdependence
that had some 50 percent of continental Europe's energy security at its heart. To explain that point,
allow me to refer to a conversation the author has had with a top-NATO admiral from a northern European
country during a day of sailing on a sailing yacht in the early 1980s. Discussing European security
issues, out of the reach of curious ears and microphones he said that (paraphrased):
"American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow
European – Soviet relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US/UK's political,
economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented
by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe".
It is safe to assume that the discontinuation of the USSR with help of the US and UK has not significantly
changed the principle premises of this doctrine and that it is still valid today.
By 2009 the implementation of the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project was already in high gear. The
former French Foreign Minister
Roland Dumas recalled during an appearance on the French TV Channel LPC in July 2013. (audio
recording).
"I'm going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other
business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something
in Syria. … This was in Britain, not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into
Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister of Foreign Affairs, if I would like
to participate. Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does not interest me. …
" This does not make sense. … There are some sides who have the desire to destroy Arab States,
like what happened in Libya before, particularly given Syria's special relations with Russia., …(emphasis
added)…That if an agreement is not reached, then Israel will attack and destroy the governments that
stand against Israel".
Note Dumas' reference to Libya. Note that the statement came after NATO abused UN Security Council
Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya to implement the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project in that country.
The then U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Ivo H. Daalder and then NATO Supreme Allied Commander
Europe and Commander of the U.S. European Command James G. Stavridis published an article in the
March/April 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, calling NATO's "intervention" in Libya "A teachable moment
and model for future interventions".
The statement was repeated at NATO's 25th Summit in Chicago that year. As
Ivo H. Daalder also explained
in a Forestal Lecure that year, there was a need for a new warfare, special warfare. Traditional
conventional war had become impossible. Moreover,
Libya was necessary as a hub for the shipment of arms and the recruiting and training of mercenaries
for Syria, Mali, and beyond.
Defeat in Syria Made the Ukraine War Unavoidable.
In June and July 2012 some 20,000 NATO mercenaries who had been recruited and trained in Libya
and then staged in the Jordanian border town Al-Mafraq, launched two massive campaigns aimed at seizing
the Syrian city of Aleppo. Both campaigns failed and the "Libyan Brigade" was literally wiped out
by the Syrian Arab Army.
It was after this decisive defeat that Saudi Arabia began a massive campaign for the recruitment
of jihadi fighters via the network of the Muslim Brotherhoods evil twin sister Al-Qaeda.
The International Crisis Group responded by publishing its report
"Tentative Jihad". Washington had to make an attempt to distance itself "politically" from the
"extremists". Plan B, the chemical weapons plan was hedged but it became obvious that the war on
Syria was not winnable anymore. This, and nothing else was why the British parliament turned down
the bombing of Syria in August 2013.
The
war on Ukraine had become predictable from that point onwards and the timing of the developments
in Ukraine during 2012 and 2013 strongly suggest that plans to overthrow the Yanukovich government
and to aim at a long-term destabilization of Ukraine were launched after July 2012.
There was one last opportunity to turn the tide with regards to Ukraine in late 2012, during negotiations
about the European Union's 3rd Energy Package. Relations between Russia and the EU were stressed
by a primarily British-sponsored initiative within the EU that was targeting Russia. The "EU" or
UK/US should not accept that a major energy provider like Russia or Gazprom had the majority ownership
over both the gas and the transportation System.
On 21 December 2012 the leaders of the 27 EU member states and Russia held a summit in Brussels
but failed to resolve the issue. It was from this point onward that the war in Ukraine had become
unavoidable, which means that it was from here on, that powerful lobbies in the US and UK became
hellbent on starting a 4th generation war in Ukraine. On
December 22, 2012, nsnbc published the article "Russia – E.U. Meeting in Brussels: Risk of Middle
East and European War Increased". The December 2012 article stated
"The sudden pullout of the Ukraine on Tuesday is by energy insiders with whom the author
consulted perceived as yet another Ukrainian, US and UK backed attempt to force the expansion
of NATO and to drive a wedge between an increased integration of the Russian and E.U. Economies.
As it will become obvious below, it is related to an aggressive attempt to save the value of the
petro dollar".
By February 9, 2013, relations between Russia and core NATO members had deteriorated so much over
Syria and the lackF of convergence in energy issues, that Russia's Ambassador to NATO, Alexander
Grutchko :
"Someone here in Brussels made a most profound point by saying that if you are holding a hammer,
you should not think that every emerging problem is a nail. We think the world has ample opportunity
to engage in energy cooperation and to ensure energy security without making use of military-political
organizations as an instrument".
There were not many who at that time understood the bearing of the Russian NATO Ambassador's words.
On February 21 the Ukrainian parliament was seized by masked gunmen. The president was removed
from office in a vote held in the presence of gunmen. One of the first official statements of the
new powers at be was that the Russian language would no longer be accepted as the second official
language in the predominantly Russian speaking eastern regions of Ukraine.
The statement was bound to and didn't fail to elicit a response that would tear Ukraine apart.
On February 22, 2013, some 3,500 governors from southern and eastern Ukrainian regions convened in
Kharkov and rejected the legality of the putchist parliament and any of the laws it adopted.
Was the tragedy surrounding MAS Flight MH17 another Sarajevo moment and will it be used to throw
an additional spanner into attempt to peacefully integrate the Russian and European economies?
Michael Emmerson, associate senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies
suggests "After MH17, the EU must act against Putin and stop importing Russian gas".
Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict
resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc,
exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern
Outlook".
MH17 was taken down on July 17. The foregoing is a motive. Per the article, unanimity was required
of the 28 EU members to impose further sanctions. So MH 17 take down manifestly accommodated major
USA global economic control agenda items; monopoly of markets -now absent Russian competition-
governed by TTIP protocols.
Who is Mr. Putin? by Mikhail Khazin (MUST SEE!)
There is a lot of nonsense and garbage floating around on the Internet about the personality of Vladimir
Putin, mostly written folks who not only know nothing about him, but who don't even understand the
basics about how the Russian state works. Today, I want to share with you a video (especially translated
or this purpose by the Russian Team) in which the renowned Russian economic Mikhail Khazin shares
his view of Putin and of Putin's current position vis-à-vis the hostile and russophobic West. I don't
always agree with Khazin, and even in this case I don't fully agree with some of what he says, but
I think that Khazin has really "nailed the bottom line on the head" (how is that for a combo-neologism?).
Seriously, I think that Khazin is fundamentally correct, especially about the West's refusal to accept
Putin has anything else than a very junior partner (and even that was in the past, now they want
him dead). Where I disagree with Khazin is when he implies that Putin wanted or even believed that
such an honest partnership was possible. Medvedev - yes. But not Putin. By training and by trade
he knew the West, and especially its ruling elites, extremely well and I believe that Putin pretended
to play the "partnership game" for as long as possible to buy as much time as possible for his party
which I refer to as the "Eurasian sovereignists" (folks like Shoigu or Rogozin), as opposed to the
"Atlantic Integrationists" (folks Medvedev or Kudrin). Anyway, listen to Khazin - who is superbly
informed and who knows his stuff - and get a rare insider view of what is really happening behind
the Kremlin walls.
The Saker
PS: one more important thing:
according to the anti-Kremlin
polling organization Levada-Center, Putin's popularity is now at its historical highest level:
87%!! Those who constantly bash Putin and predict that sanctions will have a crippling effect
on Russia ought to ask themselves what they (think they) know which the Russian people don't. The
real reason for Putin's popularity is very simple: there is a very large consensus in Russia in
support for the manner in which Putin has been handling the Ukrainian crisis. Furthermore, most Russian
people, even those who used to be critical of Putin, see straight through the real motives of the
current oligarch-financed anti-Putin campaign. However, this support is predicated on the
belief that Putin will not let the Nazis overrun Novorussia. If that happens, then the sky-high
support will drop extremely fast and Putin's entire legacy will be in real danger, which is why I
don't believe that he can, or will, allow that to happen. At the risk of sounding over the top, I
would say that Putin's future is linked to the future of Novorussia. If it manages to survive (in
whatever form), so will Putin. If the Ukies overrun it, then all hell will break lose in Russia.
But, again, I don't believe that this will happen.
The West is so used to the one-sided game that they seem genuinely surprised that Russia has responded
to the West's sanctions against her.
That's ok, let them get used to it. Whoever will come to us with a sword by the sword will perish.
That is only when we are talking about a battle sword and a "hot" war. If this is an economic war
where the weapons are prohibitions and sanctions, the aggressor will end up getting more than he
asked for.
I support with both hands the introduction of the retaliatory sanctions against countries, which
in turn tried to "sanction" Russia. For many reasons:
- it is good for our economy and our producers;
- it is important for the self-respect of our people, who never failed to punish an offender,
who lost the sense of reality;
- it is necessary to foster the respect for Russia not only inside the country but also beyond
its borders.
Russia is a superpower; we retrieved this status again after the reunification with Crimea. Therefore,
the boorish attitude towards Russia as a guilty child, who must be punished and taught a lesson,
is futile.
From now on, any aggressor must get used to the fact that he will pay dearly for his aggression.
Retribution will be measured by the degree of the aggression.
The aggressor will pay dearly with his economy and income for economic aggression. He will pay
dearly with his soldiers' lives and with the loss of freedom of maneuver in the international sphere
for military aggression.
As it has already happened many times in history, we didn't start the confrontation. This is Russia
who is being "punished" because ... a war is going on near our borders, after explicit and practically
overt support of the coup d'état in Ukraine by the West. This is NATO that threatens to expand its
infrastructure near our borders. This is our territory that is being shelled from the conflict zone.
The West itself is not in danger. Russia does not take any hostile actions towards the West near
its borders. But we are being punished. Well, we will punish you. You need us more than we need you.
From now on, not a single cannon has the right to shoot near our borders without our permission.
The world should understand it and remember. That's how it was since the times of Empress Elizabeth
Petrovna to the times of Leonid Brezhnev.
No one has the right to shoot near our borders without our permission, and especially across it.
The whole European part of Eurasia is the area of our vital interests. Get used to it, gentlemen
"partners".
That's how it was and that's how it should be now. In the meantime, military and economic guns
are shooting not only without our permission, but at us. Therefore, the shooters must and will be
punished.
Punished severely. That's enough! Our kindness is mistakenly decrypted by the West as our weakness.
It's time to answer aggression and political pressure on Russia with pain inflicting techniques.
Just over a week ago in the article "Pain inflicting techniques in the protection of Russia" I
wrote the following:
"It's time for Russia to switch to a policy of pain inflicting techniques. Further continuation
of the policy of peace only allows our enemies to increase their strength. We must stop simply smiling
and respond to the attacks on us.
Our actions should be faster and more painful than the blows of our opponents. As like in the
ring, where against a heavyweight boxer, the weaker athlete can have only one advantage: speed.
And deliver painful blows to the sensitive spots of a stronger opponent. What are the pain points
of our geopolitical "partners"? You need to understand, evaluate and pick them out.
So that's what happened. We understood, appreciated, and made our choice. And we have answered.
Already being banned:
According to the measures for implementation of the Presidential Executive Order No 560 of 6 August
2014 "On Adopting Special Economic Measures to Provide for Security of the Russian Federation" a
1-year ban has been introduced on the imports of agricultural products, raw materials, and foodstuffs
from the following countries:
- United States Of America;
- European Union countries;
- Canada;
- Australia;
- The Kingdom Of Norway.
The list includes:
1. chilled, fresh or frozen beef, pork, poultry, salted, dried, or smoked meat, fish and seafood.
2. milk and dairy products, vegetables, fruits and nuts, sausages and similar products, and other
variety meat (including finished food products made on their basis).
3. processed foods, cheese, cottage cheese and other dairy products based of vegetative fats.
It needs to be emphasized that the RF's embargo on products from the Western countries does not
extend to baby food imports and to individuals bringing in goods from countries on Russia's sanctions
list.
In addition, Russia has imposed a ban on the transit of Ukrainian airlines' flights through its
airspace. "There is one solution which was issued by the government. We're referring to the suspension
of Ukrainian airlines' transit flights through Russian airspace to a number of countries – Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Armenia and Turkey," said D.A. Medvedev.
The sanctions that can be further implemented:
1. An airspace ban against European and US airlines that fly over our airspace to Eastern Asia,
namely, the Asia-Pacific Region.
2. Changing the so-called Russian airspace entry and exit points for European scheduled and charter
flights. This will affect transportation costs and fare prices for the Western carriers.
"Our country is ready to revise the rules of using the trans-Siberian routes, that is, to denounce
the agreed upon modernisation principles of the existing system, - stated the Prime Minister D.A.
Medvedev. - This revision will apply in full to the EU countries. We will also discontinue talks
with the US air authorities on the use of the trans-Siberian routes."
The response to the aggression is not only justified, but is the only right step for Russia. However,
Russia is ready to stop the confrontation and to start a peaceful and mutually beneficial cooperation.
Russia was forced to introduce the sanctions in response to those countries which have declared
economic sanctions against us. This is a clear signal to everybody else: don't even think about it!
It'll cost you. Note that our sanctions will remain valid for one year.
It's enough for our "partners" to feel the pain and to change their minds. If this didn't help,
the sanctions can be extended. We'll introduce them to new sectors where they will hurt you most,
and will be suitable for us.
This is our country, and thus, the rules will also be ours. We have played by your rules long
enough. Thank you, our dear partners that you have now abolished your own rules. This has delivered
us from the need to withdraw unilaterally.
You didn't expect this?
Get used to it. We are back..
Nikolai Starikov is the co-chair of the all-Russian political party "Party of the Great Fatherland"
(POF), writer, publicist
The West is demonising President Putin when what set this crisis in motion were recklessly provocative
moves to absorb Ukraine into the EU
Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, : 'The modern Poles look at Russia today, they look at Vladimir
Putin – and of course they want to bury themselves as deeply as possible in the comforting bosom
of a German-led Europe.'
However dangerous this crisis becomes, it is the West which has brought it about; and our hysterical
vilifying of Vladimir Putin is more reminiscent of that fateful mood in the summer of 1914 than we
should find it comfortable to contemplate. Photo: EPA
How odd it has been to read all those accounts of Europe sleepwalking into war in the summer of
1914, and how such madness must never happen again, against the background of the most misrepresented
major story of 2014 – the gathering crisis between Russia and the West over Ukraine, as we watch
developments in that very nasty civil war, with 20,000 Russian troops massing on the border.
For months the West has been demonising President Putin, with figures such as the Prince of Wales
and Hillary Clinton comparing him with Hitler, oblivious to the fact that what set this crisis in
motion were those recklessly provocative moves to absorb Ukraine into the EU.
There was never any way that this drive to suck the original cradle of Russian identity into the
Brussels empire was not going to provoke Moscow to react – not least due to the prospect that its
only warm-water ports, in Crimea, might soon be taken over by Nato.
And still scarcely reported here have been the billions of dollars and euros the West has been more
or less secretively pouring into Ukraine to promote the cause: not just to prop up its bankrupt government
and banking system, but to fund scores of bogus "pro-European" groups making up what the EU calls
"civil society".
When the European Commission told a journalist that, between 2004 and 2013, these groups had only
been given €31 million, my co-author Richard North was soon reporting on his EU Referendum blog that
the true figure, shown on the commission's own "Financial Transparency" website, was €496 million.
The 200 front organisations receiving this colossal sum have such names as "Center for European Co-operation"
or the "Donetsk Regional Public Organisation with Hope for the Future" (the very first page shows
how many are in eastern Ukraine or Crimea, with their largely Russian populations).
One of my readers heard from a Ukrainian woman working in Britain that her husband back home earns
€200 a month as an electrician, but is paid another €200 a month, from a German bank, to join demonstrations
such as the one last March when hundreds of thousands – many doubtless entirely sincere – turned
out in Kiev to chant "Europe, Europe" at Baroness Ashton, the EU's visiting "foreign minister".
However dangerous this crisis becomes, it is the West which has brought it about; and our hysterical
vilifying of Russia is more reminiscent of that fateful mood in the summer of 1914 than we should
find it comfortable to contemplate.
Whos this "WE"? Seeing that this nation has no say in the matter of Eu policy .Nor will it
as it is the antithesis of any UK foreign policy of any merit .
That the Eu by its very nature is a great trouble maker and will be the cause of the loss of any
peace in Europe waking up to what it was doing in the Ukraine now is a bit too late as too the
fact that most media coverage was FOR such moves while it was deluded/deceived by Russia's hibernation.
Its method of bribing nations to join it is its basic flaw and underlines its corrupting influence
as too its economic folly.as all the nations willing to be bought will soon find out the true
cost of joining this new immaculate conception.
c1sp > G Blezard
"WE", unfortunately, is the USA and it's colonies -- which we, the UK, have been reduced to.
The EU is simply doing the US' bidding, because that is what it has been created for.
knave27
A worthwhile article from the Telegraph for a change. But the problem is that Putin with his
stupid decision not to launch an invasion in the East of Ukraine to protect the population from
the genocide ordered by Barry O' Kongo and executed by the freakshow of thugs and psychopaths
that is the Kiev regime, has allowed the West to twist all facts, shoot down planes, hire snipers
to shoot at both sides and yet Putin gets all the blame.
Without decisive action to end the crisis, Putin left himself open and vulnerable to the manipulation
of the west that peaked when the Ukrainians, following orders from the White House, shot down
MH 17 and launched a propaganda campaign against him from which he won't recover.
Choosing to go soft on Ukraine and the west only made things worse for him and for Russia,
refusing to come to terms with the fact that the west will push to the end to remove him and Russia
from the picture. Had he closed the open wound that is Eastern Ukraine none of this would have
happened, and the wound will bleed him and Russia to death. So if anything, the Ukraine crisis
proved Putin's incompetence and that his appeasement policy towards the west has failed.
Richard N
How refreshing to see a one in a thousand articles in the mainstream media that is not pumping
out whatever lies and propaganda narrative is most recently issued by the US media control system.
How disgusting it is that our entire Western media - with very, very few exceptions such as
Mr. Booker's article above - is now nothing at all to do with a free press - but is just a giant,
centrally-controlled propaganda machine for the US.
Most Europeans oppose the anti-Russian sanctions and the ramping-up of the anti-Russian narrative
in the entire Western media machine, all done to try to secure the success of the American land
grab of Ukraine.
But despite this, every Western government - all US controlled puppets, of course - is gung-hu
supporting this vilification of Putin and Russia, totally ignoring the opposition to all this
warmongering amongst their own citizens.
I hope people remember the slavish obedience to the war-mongering US by all the liblabcon puppet
leaders when the next election comes.
evad666 > Richard N
One really should not blame the US when it was the idiots in the EU Commission who triggered
this crisis. After all they need a constant stream of new entrants to the EU to prop up their
little Ponzi scheme.
I see that some people are mentioning the downing of MH17 in the comments on here. This is a run
down of all the (credible) evidence that has been presented so far as to who and what shot down
Malaysian Flight MH17
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2014...
The agriculture and food embargo is set to last a year and includes meat, fish, poultry, milk
products, vegetables and fruit from the EU and the US. Australia, Canada and Norway are also affected.
The Kremlin has already shown it can pinpoint specific countries. Immediately after the EU imposed
encompassing economic sanctions against Russia on July 31, Moscow stopped the import of
fruit and vegetables from Poland, allegedly due to health risks. Poland has always been at the
forefront when it comes to taking a hard stance against Moscow.
Russia threatens further steps
Food imports involve large sums of money: According to the Commission, EU food exports to Russia
were worth almost 12 billion euros ($16 billion) in 2013. For the most part, this trade will now
likely cease to exist. Local Russian producers are expected to fill the gap, though their efforts
are likely to fall short. Imports of Brazilian meat and cheese from New Zealand are expected to fill
some of the gaps.
According to German Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt, the consequences will be noticeable.
Udo Hemmerling, deputy secretary general of the German Farmers' Association, told Germany's DPA news
agency that "Russia is an important market for our main export foods, mainly meat and milk products."
The food embargo might just be the beginning of Moscow's retaliatory sanctions. Prime Minister
Dmitry Medvedev has also threatened that Russia could close its airspace to flights by Western airlines
to and from the Asia-Pacific region or restrict the import of cars and planes. That hasn't happened
yet, but the existing sanctions and retaliatory measures have already begun to ruin trade for European
businesses.
"At the moment we can still take it, but if it goes on Germany's export-oriented industry will
also begin to feel it," said Ralph Brinkhaus, conservative deputy parliamentary floor leader, in
an interview with German public radio on Thursday.
Europe needs a recovery
The economic climate in the eurozone is depressed and in the view of European Central Bank President
Mario Draghi, the Ukraine conflict has only exacerbated the situation. According to the EU Commission,
the European economy will lose 40 billion euros this year due to EU economic sanctions against Russia.
This includes Russia's retaliatory actions and possible future sanctions by the EU.
A general economic downturn would come at a bad time for the ailing European economy. Europe is
laboriously working its way out of years of crisis, not without setbacks: Italy, for example, the
EU's fourth largest economy, has now surprisingly slipped back into recession. The weaker EU members,
especially Italy, France, Greece and Spain, desperately need a boost. These sanctions will have the
opposite effect.
German defense group Rheinmetall
was directly
affected by the EU sanctions after the German government cancelled the delivery of its combat
training equipment to the Russian army, a major contract worth about 100 million euros. As a result,
the company has reported a drop in profits and has said it will seek compensation from Berlin.
It has a good chance to get them; with the cancellation of the contract, the German government
went beyond the current EU sanctions blocking defense contracts. In general, however, the German
Economy Ministry has said it does not plan to support companies which have been threatened with bankruptcy
due to the Russian sanctions.
In contrast, the Finnish government this week brought up the idea of possible compensation on
an EU level if sanctions against Russia continue.
"It is without doubt clear that, if sanctions hit Finland disproportionately, we will seek support
from our European partners," said Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb at a press conference on
Wednesday (06.08.2014).
The Finnish economy is heavily dependent on trade with its large neighbor to the east, and has
already seen a drop in trade with Russia since the start of the Ukraine conflict.
This pressitute is utterly incompetent even in basic Russian footstaff. "Vodka, Matreshka, Balalaika...
Ok, I'm educated enough now to write articles about Eastern Europe on Guardian pages"
Goodbye parmesan, hello pelmeni. Goodbye brie, hello borsch. As Moscow's chattering classes contemplated
the horror of life without salami milano or foie gras, many ordinary Russians said they were quite
happy with the ban for political reasons, even if it meant they would have to bear price rises and
diminished choice.
Ok. Serious point requires a serious response. It all depends whether their policy is strategic
or a tactical reaction. If it is tactical, then their expectation is that the current hostility
from the West is short-lived. There will be a price hike which will die down when things calm
down.
If they are thinking strategically, then there will be a period of product substitution and then
domestic production pickng up things at the tail end. The whole transition will be about 2 years
(with planning and proper macro-management).
The impact on ordinary citizens will be slight either way but not insignificant. They need price
control on the basic diet of the majority. (i.e. dampen speculation) Their imports are mainly
for their newly formed and very affluent middle class. A black market for luxury items will take
care of part of their needs rather quickly. The masses don't eat luxury food.
Finally, alongside product substitution and domestic production, there will be 3rd party middle
men for more essential foodstuffs.
This has been a clever reaction by Russia. They are retaliating at the really high value - added
end of the Western food exports. It is designed to create behind the scene grumbles by influential
people.
From above, "Others, however, immediately took to social media to lambast the import ban, with
some re-tweeting an internet survey that asked people which they valued more, "Crimea or cheese?".
A reported 64% chose cheese."
Is the Guardian putting up its candidacy for 'Gutter Press?
cheetah43, 07 August 2014 7:10pm
Food supplies will arrive from the BRICS, Chile, Argentina, Turkey while Russia starts moving
its agriculture. In 18 months they are aiming at increasing their output by $28bn.
So, the film producer mentioned in the article can taste Turkish olive oil which is as good
as any. Funny that; not long ago they didn't even know what olive oil was.
Nenad Vidovic cheetah43, 07 August 2014 7:20pm
good post. There is no sanctions on Swiss products.
kgb999again, 07 August 2014 7:17pm
The responses sounds somewhat like bravado to me. Everyone interviewed highlighted a reasonably
high-end product they personally associate with being a luxury and asserted that they won't even
miss it. Thing is, those are quite broad sectoral restrictions that certainly include many products
that are not in the class of luxury at all.
A nation doesn't just snap it's fingers and suddenly 20,000 full grown hogs ready to be butchered
magically appear. It would feel more like the Russians interviewed had a grip on reality if they
were saying "pork, bacon and milk? Nope, won't miss those at all". Instead of "Oh, well, I'll
just do without my fancy chocolates until I pick some up some when visiting Switzerland."
madeiranlotuseater kgb999again, 07 August 2014 7:55pm
You almost got it. Russia produces very popular chocolates. Putin has made a decision to accelerate
his already quickly growing agriculture.
They certainly have the space, the climate, the soil and the knowledge to do this.
A long term plan that once again proves the Putin is way ahead of the US and EU sanctions.
wtwister, 07 August 2014 7:20pm
Vodka
Matreshka
Balalaika
Ok, I'm educated enough now to write articles about Eastern Europe on Guardian pages.
During Caribbean crisis, I was young guy, who three years ago graduated from high school. I worked
at the plant "Hammer and Sickle" and I remember this time very well. Now they say that the world
was on the brink of nuclear war. I believe it was.
But outwardly statesmen of that time behaved diplomatically and, in general, as gentlemen.
Nobody allowed a sharp expressions toward the other party of the conflict. In the midst of the
crisis, which lasted only six days, from October 22 to October 28, 1962, John F. Kennedy admonished
Khrushchev " you should show prudence and to comply with the terms of the blockade" (of Cuba).
That's such a polite vocabulary used Kennedy. Khrushchev, in his second letter to Kennedy also
state quite politly: "We do not want to pull the end of the rope on which you have tied the knot
of [themonuctlea] war.
"In order to calm them down" (did did they mean the United States) all of the Politburo, on the
proposal of Khrushchev went in the midst of the crisis to the Bolshoi theatre, saying, behold, nothing
extraordinary happens, it's business as usual. You see we attend the Bolshoi theatre, if we were
going to attack you, would we go to the Bolshoi theatre first ? This was a hidden and pretty diplimatic
message.
Let me remind you, why this crisis broked out. In 1961, the United States deployed in Turkey,
near Izmir, its medium-range missiles "Jupiter". These missiles could from Turkey to reach all the
cities in the Western part of the USSR, including Moscow. When Khrushchev visited Bulgaria, the local
Communists said to him, pointing with her hand towards Turkey: "the American missile can reach us
here in minutes. And in Moscow, too, they will arrive very quickly." Khrushchev then became concerned
and by the autumn of 1962 ordered to place secretly several Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba to restore
the balance.
By 22 October of the same year, the American spy plane found the Soviet missiles on the island,
and pictures of rockets fell on the table Kennedy...
But I wrote this article is not to remind you about the Caribbean crisis. We remember it, and
much has been written about details of this crisis. I wanted now, with our eyes fixed on tragic Ukrainian
crisis, to compare the behavior of the American side then and now.
Then, both parties acted similarly how Lavrov now behaves. Diplomatic and restraint. In fact,
Putin also behaves according to diplomatic etiquette.
But the American side behaves as a team of drunken gangster with indecent girls. We see - impudent,
rude and dishonest Jane Psaki, we see the same Victoria Nuland, we hear hysterical elderly senators
with Vietnamese past, which otherwise as the warmongers will not name. They threaten us with their
fists, they do not hesitate to threaten us. Yes both those elderly senators, and President Obama
many times was called to "punish Russia". "Let Russia feel that on her skin" - echoes one of the
senators.
Sun intimidation is outrageous - in no way we can abandon our foreign policy and obey the dictates
of the United States. To refuse the support of the people of Donbass, and they are part of the Russian
people and are no different from the residents of the neighboring Russian regions, from the residents
of the Rostov region or residents of Krasnodar or Stavropol territories. They speak the same dialect
of the southern Russian regions. They dress like us, behave like us, they are us, we have common
300-year history. The United States, maybe don't know that fact as their citizens do not learn much
history, especially the history of Russia and history of Donbass. So be it. But the level of rudeness,
Lord, goes through the roof! You, I suppose, has taken over your dirty manners at your Kiev brothels
that late Alexander Belogo studied? Or you are trying to learn something from Liashko?
The United States suddenly reached unheard before level of cynicism, they do not hesitate in relations
with Russia to act like a drunk cocky gangsters. Forgetting that the other side has a gun too.
President Obama, before the Ukrainian crisis created an impression of a more or less balanced
person, but he on our eyes turned into a cheeky brat.
Wake up! You should behave no matter what level ofdifferentces in forigh policy objectives we
have.
Kiev's siege of the Donbass, supported by the Obama administration, is escalating an already
perilous crisis.
As The Nation has warned repeatedly, the unthinkable may now be rapidly unfolding in
Ukraine: not just the new Cold War already under way but an actual war between US-led NATO and Russia.
The epicenter is Ukraine's eastern territory, known as the Donbass, a large industrial region heavily
populated by Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens and closely tied to its giant neighbor by decades
of economic, political, cultural and family relations.
The shoot-down of Malaysian jetliner MH17 on July 17 should have compelled the US-backed government
in Kiev to declare a prolonged cease-fire in its land and air attacks on nearby cities in order to
honor the 298 victims, give international investigators safe access to the crash site, and begin
peace talks. Instead, Kiev, with Washington's backing, immediately intensified its attacks on those
residential areas, vowing to "liberate" them from pro-Russian "terrorists," as it brands resisters
in eastern Ukraine, killing more innocent people. In response, Moscow is reportedly preparing to
send heavy weapons to the "self-defenders" of the Donbass.
Now, according to a story in TheNew York Times ofJuly 27, the White
House may give Kiev sensitive intelligence information enabling it to pinpoint and destroy such Russian
equipment, thereby, the Times article also suggests, risking "escalation with Russia." To
promote this major escalation, the Obama administration is alleging, without firm evidence, that
Russia is already "firing artillery from its territory into Ukraine." Virtually unreported, however,
is repeated Ukrainian shelling of Russia's own territory, which killed a resident on July 13.
In fact, Kiev has been Washington's military proxy against Russia and its "compatriots" in eastern
Ukraine for months. Since the political crisis began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director
John Brennan and Vice President Joseph Biden (twice) have been in Kiev, followed by "senior US defense
officials," American military equipment and financial aid. Still more, a top US Defense Department
official informed a Senate committee that the department's "advisers" are now "embedded" in the Ukrainian
defense ministry.
Indeed, Kiev cannot wage this war on its own citizens-a UN spokesperson says nearly 5,000 civilians
have been killed or wounded, which may constitute war crimes-without the Obama administration's political,
economic and military support. Having also created hundreds of thousands of fleeing refugees, Ukraine
is bankrupt, its industrial infrastructure damaged, and it is in political disarray, using ultranationalist
militias and conscripting men up to 60 years of age.
All of this is unfolding in the context of Washington's misleading narrative, amplified by the
mainstream media, that the Ukrainian crisis has been caused entirely by Russian President Vladimir
Putin's "aggression." In reality, his role has been mostly reactive:
In November 2013, the European Union, with White House support, triggered the crisis by rejecting
Putin's offer of an EU-Moscow-US financial plan and confronting Ukraine's elected president, Viktor
Yanukovych, with an unnecessary choice between "partnership" with Europe or with Russia. The proposal
was laden with harsh financial conditions as well as "military and security" obligations. Not surprisingly,
Yanukovych opted for a considerably more favorable financial offer from Putin. Imposing such a choice
on the president of an already profoundly divided country was needlessly provocative.
By February, street protests against Yanukovych's decision turned so violent that European foreign
ministers brokered a compromise agreement tacitly supported by Putin. Yanukovych would form a coalition
government; Kiev street militias would disarm; the next presidential election would be moved up to
December; and Europe, Washington and Moscow would cooperate to save Ukraine from financial collapse.
The agreement was overthrown by ultranationalist street violence within hours. Yanukovych fled, and
a new government was formed. The White House quickly endorsed the coup.
If any professional "intelligence" existed in Washington, Putin's reaction was foreseeable. Decades
of NATO expansion to Russia's border, and a failed 2008 US proposal to "fast-track" Ukraine into
NATO, convinced him that the new US-backed Kiev government intended to seize all of Ukraine, including
Russia's historical province of Crimea, the site of its most important naval base. In March, Putin
annexed Crimea.
Also predictably, the Kremlin's reaction to developments in Kiev further aroused the rebellion
in southeastern Ukraine already under way against the February coup. Within weeks, Ukraine was in
a civil war that threatened to become international.
Since April, Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have repeatedly called for a cease-fire
and negotiations between Kiev and the rebels. Kiev, backed by the Obama administration, has refused
to enact any cease-fire long enough to give negotiations a real chance, instead intensifying its
war on its fellow citizens as "terrorists." The White House, according to the Times article,
is considering a further escalation, possibly with more dire consequences.
This, too, is a matter of "intelligence," if any is being heeded in Washington. For historical,
domestic and geopolitical reasons, Putin-or any other imaginable Kremlin leader-is unlikely to permit
the Donbass to fall to Kiev, and thereby, as is firmly believed in Moscow, to Washington and NATO.
If Putin does give the Donbass defenders heavy weapons, it may be because it is his only alternative
to direct Russian military intervention, as Moscow's diplomatic overtures have been rejected. The
latter course could be limited to deploying Russian warplanes to protect eastern Ukraine from Kiev's
land and air forces, but perhaps not. Kremlin hawks, counterparts to Washington's, are telling Putin
to fight today in the Donbass or tomorrow in Crimea. Or as the head of the Carnegie Moscow Center
summarizes their position, "It is no longer just a struggle for Ukraine, but a battle for Russia."
If the hawks on both sides prevail, it might well mean full-scale war. Has there been any other
occasion in the modern history of American democracy when such a dire possibility loomed without
any public protest at high levels or debate in the establishment media? Nonetheless, the way out
is obvious to every informed observer: an immediate cease-fire, which must begin in Kiev, enabling
negotiations over Ukraine's future, the general contours of which are well known to all participants
in this fateful crisis.
Russian now watch with cynical cold contempt all the Western countries. This mood spread massively
and now includes people who ordinarily would prefer London to Moscow, and the Italian province
to the dacha outside Moscow. Now the collective "West" for the first time in history, perhaps
ever, REALLY is perceived in Russia as a BUNCH of TREACHEROUS BASTARDS, the FILTH and SCUM. This
had never happened in the Russian Empire, nor even in the USSR, where Soviet propaganda against
"capitalist countries of the West" worked clumsy and often was not consistent with reality, reaching
the opposite effect as a result
Anti-Americanism might not yet reached the ultimate stage, but it's rise is somewhat justified.
First, the US prefer to communicate with the world through people with such level of imbecility
and degeneracy that even the Brezhnev Politburo on this background looks like a respectable hereditary
national elite. Secondly, by adopting a policy of spreading around the world "the only true doctrine"
(neoliberalism) America in reality spread the destruction. America, wherever they interfere with
other country, leaves after themsleves not proclaimed benefits of free markets and democracy,
but the devastation of the civil war, the collapse of States and political chaos. And then they
absolve himself of any responsibility.
Today destroyed all the illusions that if Russia became "good " and "behave democratically",
observing all the rules, all smiling, all love, all to strive for justice and humanism, and just
adore Western democracy model, she booked a place in the First World, because Russians there really
looking forward it.
Nobody wants Russia at this place. Russians are feared and hated, with double force trying
to slander, to vilify and to present them as the bloodthirsty scum.
And ahead of everyone now jumps Ukraine, accusing Russia in all the sins of mankind, and on
his knees begging the West for the carpet bombing of cursed Muscovites and simultaneously trying
to re-implement its own nuclear weapons.
To be a neoliberal state and not to be a USA vassal is a pipe dream. The system is Washington-centric
by design. Contrary to Putin's vision, a neoliberal state can't be sovereign, it can only be a vassal
of Washington. As soon as a neoliberal state shows some independence it became a "rogue state" and punishment
via financial system (and for smaller states via military actions) will follow. Dominance in finance
sphere gives the USA the ability to punish Russia to almost any extent they wish without significant
possibilities of retaliation, unless formal block of Russia and China is created. Russia can only retaliate
in selected carefully chosen "weak spots". NGOs, media, the USA food companies (Coca-cola, junk food,
chickens, etc) and consulting firms (and first of all Big Three, as most closely connected with the
USA government) are rumored to get under Russian government knife first.
Found at zerohedge, a US reaction on Russia's reaction to the sanctions:
"Assuming that they take this action, it would be blatant protectionism," Clayton Yeutter,
a U.S. Trade Representative under President Ronald Reagan, said in a phone interview. "There
is little or no legitimacy to their complaints."
Yep, how dare the Russkies retaliate, when they ought to come begging on their knees to
be allowed to do what the grand master in DC wants them to do …
Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging
in trade war – How despicable!
First Russkies pretend to find antibiotics in McDonalds
"cheese" products. But everybody knows the cheese cannot possibly contain antibiotics, because
it's not even real cheese! (it's a kind of edible plastic substance…)
And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental
fruit moths…"
That's a lie too.
Everybody knows that if you eat your Polish quinces with a runcible spoon, then they will not
contain any measurable amounts of moth larvae.
"It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason
to do so".
No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out
of his mouth. It's not unusual for the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political
reason to do so, and fuck-all else.
I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some
of the deals (titanium) are critical for the US's own MIC. Put Kadyrov or someone on the
board and force Congress to slit Boeing's throat.
Or hire him to the company that produces rolled titanium alloys for Boeing and Airbus. A shot
across the bow to say that Western leaders will have to be standing in front of their populations
as they crash their economies. Russia won't do it for them.
Excellent reasoning. The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic
war with Russia, but the cold-eyed businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best. This
is a great plan for achieving leverage cheaply and easily, and the U.S. government would be left
'splaining to Boeing that they had to lay off a couple of thousand workers because a bad man was
appointed to the board of their major supplier.
The west is locked into its lame sanctions groove,
and too proud to back down. This might be
the big shootout from which only one currency will walk away.
Having gone down the path of confronting Russia, politicians feel that their honour is now
at stake, and they have to follow through. They are then stuck in a blind alley from which they
cannot escape without losing face, which they will not do. In addition, politicians suffer from
the same cognitive biases that we all do: confirmation bias, etc – all information which doesn't
fit their preconceptions is blocked out.
Cognitive psychology shows that people will stick with their original opinion as long as the
evidence contradicting it comes in dribs and drabs rather than in one dramatic leap. That is why
the West can ignore the escalation in violence in Ukraine.
If the Ukrainian army had begun by using SSBMs, people would have thought that it was shocking
and disproportionate, and objected. But first they used a handful of APCs, then some light artillery,
then some heavy artillery, then some Grads, and some aircraft, and only now ballistic missiles,
so we have adjusted expectations and no longer consider it shocking.
Thus our leaders will continue to support what is being done.
"The basic problem is that the United States is, and has been for some time, in geopolitical decline.
It doesn't like this. It doesn't really accept this. It surely doesn't know how to handle it, that is,
minimize the losses to the United States. So it keeps trying to restore what is unrestorable – U.S.
"leadership" (read: hegemony) in the world-system. This makes the United States a very dangerous actor.
No small number of political agents in the United States is calling for some sort of decisive "action"
– whatever that could possibly mean. And U.S. elections may depend in large part on how U.S. political
actors play this game.
Immanuel Wallerstein refers
here to two major articles, one an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, and the other, a
major story in Germany's Der Spiegel. Both share a common theme: The German-American
Breakup. Both, Wallerstein writes, are pessimistic that the unprecedented breach can be swiftly,
if ever, repaired. The Der Spiegel piece, published on the same day, has as its headline:
Germany's Choice: Will It Be America or Russia? One section of this latter article is entitled
The Last Straw.
The 'last straw' of course refers to Germany's inability to shake itself free of America's Deep
State: in this case its security Deep State. (Susan Rice peremptorily
told German officials that America would not even extend any "no-spying" guarantee - beyond that
of Merkel herself.) As Professor Hendrickson has
noted "[the spying saga] showed [to Germans] that the U.S. national security apparatus is no
less voracious than the Stasi in seeking to penetrate the deeper recesses of the human soul. It wants
it all; worse, it thinks that 'wanting it all' is perfectly normal".
The spying episode however is merely the tip of a much bigger iceberg (for Germans). The iceberg
itself is that the post-war dispensation of America's insertion into Europe via NATO - effectively
took (and still takes) - security issues off the table for the European Union. EU security policy,
in effect, is NATO policy: which is to say US policy.
It might seem that for the EU there is simply no alternative: the EU could never – with its 28 member
states, and its East European neo-liberal implant – come up with an alternative security structure,
absent the United States. But an alternative is there (although it is not one to be said aloud in
front of the children): "If it had no other alternative, Germany could close its eyes, tap its slippers
three times, and reconstitute the old European Concert [of powers] in short order, with nary an American
soldier or airman in sight", Hendrickson argues. Its central axis of Europe would be less that of
France and Germany, but more Russia and Germany (especially given the UK's present schizophrenia
about its future political orientation, and France's political debilitation).
What has this to do with MH17 and Ukraine? Well … quite a lot: after noting the articles seeing
a German-US 'break-up' to be a major issue, Wallerstein
writes that:
"The basic problem is that the United States is, and has been for some time, in geopolitical
decline. It doesn't like this. It doesn't really accept this. It surely doesn't know how to handle
it, that is, minimize the losses to the United States. So it keeps trying to restore what is unrestorable
– U.S. "leadership" (read: hegemony) in the world-system. This makes the United States a very
dangerous actor. No small number of political agents in the United States is calling for some
sort of decisive "action" – whatever that could possibly mean. And U.S. elections may depend in
large part on how U.S. political actors play this game.
That is what Europeans in general, and now Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in particular,
are realizing. The United States has become a very unreliable 'partner'. So even those in Germany
and elsewhere in Europe who are nostalgic for the warm embrace of the "free world" are reluctantly
joining the less nostalgic others in deciding how they can survive geopolitically without the
United States. And this is pushing them into the logical alternative, a European tent that includes
Russia".
As the Germans and the Europeans in general, move inexorably in this direction, they have
their hesitations. If they can no longer trust the United States, could they really trust Russia?
And, more importantly, could they make a deal with the Russians that the Russians would find it
worthwhile and necessary to observe? You can bet that this is what is being discussed in the inner
circles of the German government today, and not how to repair the irreparable breach of trust
with the United States."
Influential figures in America fear this prospect deeply: it has taken on the quality of being
seen as an existential point of inflection that will determine America's destiny, one way or another,
as a global leader. And Putin plainly understands the stakes: throughout the Ukrainian crisis, he
has focused, above all, on courting European support. So when MH17 is brought down (by persons as
yet unknown – see here and here), it is (as they say), seen by American politicians in terms of 'every
crisis also having its opportunity'.
The stoking of emotional heart-wrench, and the western media's depicting of the militias,
and by extension Putin, as barbarians
inhumanly callous
at the loss of the airliner and civilian life, of course, is intended precisely to close-off German
options – and to leave Merkel with no option but to support 'level three' sanctions on Russia.
John Kerry's rounds of US Sunday TV chat shows to hype a humanitarian 'outrage' at Putin's moral
cynicism and irresponsibility sends the critical message to the German (and European) people that
'you cannot trust the morally-derelict Putin or Russia'.
Just to make it absolutely plain what this effort is all about, Zbigniew Brzezinski also took
to the TV chat shows - in parallel to Kerry - challenging Europe's leaders to "stand up to Putin".
He wonders if "Europe wants to become a satellite" and worries about "a moment of decisive significance
for the future of the system - of the world system". (Kerry
cited
no hard evidence to implicate the Donbass militias or Russia in the aircraft's downing however
– and much of the militia's supposed outrages were exaggerated for their emotional value: see
here)
And the
Wall Street Journal in a front page tap on Angela Merkel's shoulder - reminding her
to vote 'yes' on the next 'Level-3' round of Russia sanctions - warned that "Deutsche Bank's giant
U.S. operations suffer from a litany of serious problems, including shoddy financial reporting, inadequate
auditing and oversight and weak technology systems." This 'hint' follows in the wake of the $9 billion
'fine' imposed by the US authorities on the French BNP bank, ostensibly for financing trade
with Iran, but reportedly intended to punish France for refusing to cancel the Mistral contract with
Russia. (Deutsche Bank is reported to have a total derivative exposure that amounts to just
about $75 trillion (repeat trillion), which is about 100 times greater than the €522 billion
in deposits the bank holds, or five times greater than the entire GDP of Europe.)
There are two 'realities' that flow from all this: Firstly, that Kerry's rounds of the TV studios
probably have so muddied and emotionalized public perceptions that any outcome – whatever
that investigative outcome might be – will not change American settled opinion. See this month's
extraordinarily jaundiced cover of Newsweek for evidence of the impossibility of any subsequent
objective analysis of what happened being a viable option.
Secondly, it will not have changed President Putin's Ukraine calculus (or policy). For all the
stories, questioning
"Can Putin Survive?", one simply has to look to recent polls for the answer: he has
83% approval ratings; whereas the US leadership enjoys the approval of just 4% of Russians: atlanticists
in Russia have lost their entire constituency.
Why then, has Russia begun to offer a different official narrative on the MH17 loss, and backed
it up with evidence from recordings taken off the ATC radar screens? These recordings showed that
there had been a Ukrainian aircraft in close proximity to MH17 at the time of its disappearance (contrary
to what Kiev claimed). The Russian military also produced satellite imagery showing the positions
of Ukrainian SA11s in the locality to the site of the Boeing 777's disappearance (also contrary to
what Kiev and Washington claimed). Russian officials – including the Deputy Defense Minister - however
did not, in contrast to Kerry, seek to speculate on who or what had caused the airliner to crash,
but rather posed
ten searching
questions about the circumstances of the airliner's disappearance, for which they sought answers.
In response, the US was pushed into offering an
intelligence backgrounder to the press which was of a
very different tone to Kerry's Sunday blitz of the talk shows: far from backing up his Sunday
bluster, the briefers 'walked-back' the Secretary of State's stitched together circumstantial evidence
around the repeated refrain of "we know". The briefers did not try to address the ten Russian questions,
but rather US intelligence officials said they did not know who fired the missile, or whether any
Russian operatives were present at the missile launch. They were not certain that the missile crew
was trained in Russia, although they described a stepped-up campaign in recent weeks by Russia to
arm and train the rebels, which they say has continued, even after the downing of MH17. In terms
of who fired the missile, "we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 percent
sure of a nationality," one official said, adding at another point, "There is not going to be a Perry
Mason moment here." They even said that that had been unaware of any SA-11 missiles being in the
hands of the Donbass armed forces before the MH17 downing.
So what is the point of this Russian effort to get the facts out – if, inevitably, the media will
rubbish them - unless they conform to fixed preconceptions? The answer is that the battle for the
facts is the struggle for the confidence of the German leadership (as well as some other Europeans,
including France, Italy and Austria). Russia has conveyed privately
all of its evidence to Europe. Will Kerry's ploy succeed in eviscerating all German options –
other than that of having to follow America's lead? Time will tell. But, if it transpires that the
US is perceived as having stovepiped Europe into level-3 sanctions and to the brink of conflict with
Russia on flimsy circumstantial evidence, this will weigh heavily with a German leadership that –
as Wallerstein already noted – sees the US now as dangerously unguided and incoherent in its foreign
policy.
European leaders would (I guess) largely agree with
Peter Lee
when he writes, that "sanctions [on Russia] have become and end in themselves for the United States
[and that] my outsider's impression is that the US foreign policy for Russia has been pretty much
captured by doctrinaire anti-Russians in a diplomatic and military deep state that pretty much permeates
and survives every incoming administration". It is not surprising that Europeans ask to where will
escalating sanctions take us? What is the end game? Sanctions will hollow out the significant European
trade with Russia, and will leave European economies open and vulnerable to US commercial interests.
That the American establishment sees sanctions as an end itself – sees 'breaking' and humiliating
Putin – as an end in itself is a truly frightening prospect.
Is there a prospect that Putin will back down? How can he? The Ukraine falling entirely into hostile,
anti-Russian, pro-NATO hands would be an existential threat. And why should he? In July, some parts
of the federalists in Donetsk, (those aligned with the Ukrainian oligarch Akhmetov), attempted an
internal coup against the Donbass militants. They had made a secret deal with Poroshenko's people,
and were on the brink of yielding control over Donetsk to Kiev - when the plan was exposed and all
participants purged. In parallel with this, following the retreat from the city of Slavyansk, the
Donbass military forces were not only successful in breaking an attempted encirclement by the Ukrainian
army, but then went on to sandwich the Ukrainian forces between the Novorossian forces and the Russian
border, inflicting a major defeat on Kiev.
As a consequence of the failed Donetsk coup and the military defeat inflicted on Kiev's forces,
a military and political alliance has been forming in East Ukraine, where (former Presidential candidate)
Oleg Tsaryov's group is starting to play a real political role, whilst the military, led by Strelkov,
lays the groundwork for the return to the idea of 'larger Novorossia' composed not just of two, but
of seven to eight regions. This only became possible after the July defeats for Kiev. In short, Putin
has real cards to play both militarily and politically. The Russian parliament has been recalled
from holiday in order to debate an important Ukrainian new initiative (no further details given yet).
We must wait and see.
Finally, does Putin's European 'play' preclude a consolidation of the alliance with China? We
think not. We see the two initiatives linked through the notion of re-shaping the global order.
Alastair Crooke is Director of Conflicts Forum based in Beirut. He was formerly advisor on
Middle East issues to Javier Solana, the EU Foreign Policy Chief. He also was a staff member of Senator
George Mitchell's Fact Finding Committee that inquired into the causes of the Intifada (2000-2001),
was an adviser to the International Quartet and facilitated various ceasefires in the Occupied Territories.
He has 20 years' experience working with Islamist movements, particularly with Hamas and Hizbullah,
and other Islamist movements in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East. He is author of Resistance:
The Essence of the Islamist Revolution (2009) and is a regular media commentator.
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
"It's a troubling continuation/expansion of trade as a geopolitical tool," warns
one Washington-based consulting firm as Russia prepares to unleash retaliatory actions to US and
European sanctions.
As Bloomberg reports, Russia said yesterday it may ban imports of chicken from the U.S.
and fruit from Europe and is investigating McDonald's cheese for safety. In addition, a
Russian lawmaker has drafted legislation that might result in U.S. accounting firms being barred
from doing business in his country. All of this is odd given Jack "trust me" Lew's reassurance
that Russian sanctions would have no impact on the US economy. Russia's response, US
will feel 'tangible losses' from 'destructive, myopic' sanctions.
As Bloomberg reports, while Russia and the U.S. have long sparred over agricultural
trade, the actions fueled speculation they could be retaliatory.
Russia's food safety agency said it may ban imports of U.S. poultry and some European
fruit due to contamination of the products, according Bloomberg BNA, citing Russian state
media. The food safety agency, known as Rosselkhoznadzor, also said it will examine suppliers
of McDonald's cheese for their use of antibiotics.
Russia was the second-largest market,
after Mexico, for U.S. chicken last year, according to the USA Poultry & Egg Export Council.
The U.S. exported about $309 million worth of broiler chickens to Russia last year, according
to the council.
Russia, which joined the World Trade Organization in 2012, is considering banning some
European fruit that includes seeds and pits from the entire EU or from bloc's individual
member countries, said Alexei Alekseenko, an aide to Rosselkhoznadzor director Sergei Dankvert,
BNA reported.
Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths, he said, according
to the Russian news agency RIA. He proposed talks with EU suppliers over the issue.
Seems like that would impact the US and European economy...
"This is not a surprise," Mike Cockrell, chief financial officer at Sanderson Farms Inc. (SAFM)
of Laurel, Mississippi, said by phone. "It's not unusual for Russia to find something
wrong when they have a political reason to do so."
Officials from McDonald's, based in Oak Brook, Illinois, didn't respond to a request for comment.
Russia explained these are not anti-US sanctions...
"These are not sanctions against U.S. We don't have a goal to harm U.S. citizens' quality of
life," Fedorov said. "There are companies in Russia which have sensitive positions in
terms of Russia's sovereignty and economic security."
Fedorov said consulting firms and audit firms will be the first to be targeted by the new bill.
Next will be U.S. media, he said.
And
Russia
issued a statement that US will feel 'tangible losses' from 'destructive, myopic' sanctions.
We have repeatedly spoken about the illegitimacy and groundlessness of the US sanctions
against Russia. Washington will gain nothing from such decisions except for further complication
of Russian-American relations and the creation of an unfavorable atmosphere in international affairs,
where the cooperation between our countries often plays a key role.
The U.S. administration, strained creating the appearance of "sequence" in its current behavior,
in fact, is merely trying to avoid responsibility for the tragic developments in Ukraine.
Not Russia, and Kiev regime and its overseas patrons guilty of a growing number of civilian casualties
in the eastern regions. In his pompous manner prosecutorial White House, covering the bloody
military operation of Kiev, which contrary to all international norms sunk to rocket attacks
peaceful cities, continues to put forward baseless claims against us.
One gets the impression that the U.S. sanctions pressure, transformed now at sectoral level,
has one goal - to get even with us for an independent and uncomfortable for Washington politics.
Please also note the obvious elements of unscrupulous trade and economic competition in the U.S.
actions.
The losses that Washington will sustain from such a destructive and myopic policy will
be very tangible
US officials are not happy...
"Assuming that they take this action, it would be blatant protectionism,"
Clayton Yeutter, a U.S. Trade Representative under President Ronald Reagan, said in a phone interview.
"There is little or no legitimacy to their complaints."
* * *
Putin warned of boomerangs... and sure enough here they come...
*EU ENERGY SANCTIONS `IRRESPONSIBLE' STEP, RUSSIA SAYS
*EU ENERGY SANCTIONS TO CAUSE PRICE INCREASE IN EUROPE: RUSSIA
*RUSSIA TO WEIGH `UNCONSTRUCTIVE' EU ATTITUDE IN FUTURE TIES
*EU BANKS WORKING IN RUSSIA MKT TO SUFFER FROM SANCTIONS: RUSSIA
And France is screwed...
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said Wednesday that Russia has the capability
to build Mistral-class helicopter carriers on its own if France cancels the existing contract,
RIA Novosti reported. "The French must prove they are serious partners and reliable contractors,"
Rogozin said after a meeting between President Vladimir Putin and government ministers.
"If they fail to do so, we will build the [Mistral] ships on our own. We are finally
capable to do it," Rogozin said. On Monday, he expressed doubts that France would cancel
the contract, which he said would be worse for France than for Russia.
And it seems Russia is not as isolated as President Obama would like everyone to think...
VEB IN TALKS W/ CHINA, JAPAN, ARAB COUNTRIES ON FUNDING
Gaius Frakkin' ...
At best Ukraine becomes a failed state which descends into chaos, at worst it becomes a hostile
state toward Russia. The Russian government is trying to prevent this by putting Russian interests
first. It seems to me the US government can learn a few things from the Russian government. But
what do I hear today when I turn on USSA state media? Senator Ron Johnson claiming Putin is a
megalomaniac. Is that what they call politicians with high approval ratings these days? Does Ron
Johnson yearn for credibility? The kind of credibility that exceeds a 15% approval rating?
The world tries to trade, while America terrorizes. Market manipulation and military threat is
what America offers to the world economy, while the MSMedia tries to disguise its vivacious machinations,
putting lipstick on this wild boar.
From comments: "Seriously, Guardian reporting on the Ukrainian crisis has become a bad joke, very
similar in tone and approach to the New York Times reporting on Iraqi WMDs in 2002-2003."
Yes, in contrast we get a much speedier change of tune from the USA. At first we "know that a
Russian missile" downed MH17, then we are just "certain of Russian involvement" in the firing
of the missile, then we have "no evidence of direct Russian involvement" in the missile, and then
simply "Russia creating the conditions" for the MH17 tragedy.
Yes, so much less tiring to have
the tune changed so quickly within the space of little more than a week. What we end up with is
a meaningless accusation, mindless of all of the other actors in the situation in the Ukraine.
Why doesn't the US sanction itself for its role in helping "create the conditions" for the whole
sorry debacle? It's not as if they didn't encourage the collapse of the fragile democracy that
was holding the society together leading inevitably to this civil-war.
The initial accusation has become just another piece of empty rhetoric.
"The missile remained Russian all the way through. Or had you not worked that one out?"
And the car that caused a fatal accident that killed more than one innocent pedestrian was a Ford
Escort, all the way -- so why have we not imposed sanctions upon Ford Motor Corporation or the
Ford dealership that sold the car to the driver who drove it into the pedestrians?
Because the missile was built by Russia does not mean Russia fired it -- in deed, even the
USA admits there is no evidence of that, and Russia is not stupid enough to shoot itself in the
foot by doing so. Or had you not worked that out?
Incidently, I am a non-involved British Citizen, not Russian troll -- I only speak as I did in
my above response to you because the sheer hypocracy of the USA, Britain and the EU sickens me.
Maybe they are doing this to draw attention away from and shelter their pal, the murderous
Israel's horrifying genocide in Gaza being too exposed to totally justified global anger?
The key thing here is, given a ceasefire, would the Kiev government be able to control the volunteer
militia groups, neo-fascist gangsters one and all, setting themselves up and then driving into
rebel-controlled areas to slaughter civilians? I fear the answer is no, so no ceasefire could
hold.
I am sitting in Hackney, East London, no one pays me for my qwerty daily exercises, I do that
because of my own conscience. And yes in the given situation I am pro Russian. Following the track
record it is pretty hard not to be and still have sane mind.
Apropos Figaro, articles of this kind are no more that piece in the jigsaw called overall witch
hunt on Russia. Figaro, it is about democracy boomerang that you are getting back what you been
doing for decades.
ID7015969, 29 July 2014 9:53pm
'The measures do not affect the trading of oil, gas or other commodities'
All or fucking nothing I say.
mauman, 29 July 2014 9:56pm
a declaration of economic warfare. So Russia cannot hit back all that hard economically. But
it can otherwise. Keep pushing Russia.
So Russis is "punished" for providing political support to a segment of the Ukranian population
who took up arms to defend their heritage the moment their mother tongue was banned and they understood
what their future had in store for them under an ultra-nationalist govt who had no qualms about
attacking them and their families and still do. Hundreds of civilians killed/
Our govt want to support AQ inspired fanatics, who behead people on video in Syria and Libya
Our govt backs the one in Israel who have murdered a thousand civilians in Israel in 2 weeks
my goodness. staggering.
photosymbiont, 29 July 2014 9:57pm
Seriously, Guardian reporting on the Ukrainian crisis has become a bad joke, very similar
in tone and approach to the New York Times reporting on Iraqi WMDs in 2002-2003.
Everyone knows that both the leading 'liberal' and the leading 'conservative' news outfits
are united in their service to national self-interest, correct? Anything less would be 'unpatriotic'
- and the liberal press adheres to this concept as much as the conservative press does (and many
suspect that the whole liberal-vs-conservative meme is nothing but a puppet show).
It is not unusual in history to see a small number of people benefiting from government organizations,
while the vast majority suffer. The extent to which this situation occurs is indicative of the
nature of the government and the human society that is woven up with it.
Might we be a bit on the sick and decrepit side, all things considered?
Doug Salzmann, 29 July 2014 10:01pm
More annoying and insulting chest-thumping. Consider re-writing this as a puppet-show script.
When you want to return to international prime-time drama, announce an energy-products blockade.
Please provide lead time for orderly evacuation of cities.
Thank you.
Freddy1957, 29 July 2014 10:02pm
Putin is not going to allow Ukrainian fascists, sponsored by the EU and the US, to ethnically
cleanse the Ukraine of his kith and kin, and rightly so.
The price paid in blood and treasure by the Russian people to secure their borders was horrendous,
and will never happen again.
Not on Putin`s watch anyway.
Haigin88, 29 July 2014 10:12pm
"....deliberate destabilisation of a neighbouring sovereign country could not be accepted in
21st-century Europe.......".
.....by any country whose initials are not 'U', 'S' and 'A'...
Tintinsdog, 29 July 2014 10:12pm
So, the Guardian regurgitates an Associated Press report, a report that is total nonsense,
because of Russian energy supplies, and because Russians now have huge financial interests in
the West.
Both Britain and America are now totally bankrupt, because, in the name of 'neo-liberalism',
they allowed a bunch of spivs and barrow boys to trash the world economy.
These 'sanctions' are just smoke and mirrors stuff, when it comes to the US and UK, and are
just another example of these governments conning their people into believing that they live in
some kind of sane and fair society.
I could quote Johnny Rotten, but will resist...
schooner, 29 July 2014 10:16pm
The problem Obama and his little helper Cameron have is one of credibility ....in other words
,,no one believes a thing they say or the sentiments they pretend to advance , everyone knows
they are immoral and heartless , they have little concern for freedom or values , and only play
this up to move away from just how corrupt their administrations are .
After all they spied and lied to every one in the UK and Usa , they backed an illegal regime in
Ukraine and support Israels planned genocide of the Palestinians
And they have the gaul to impose sanctions on others ,It a clive in
nfnfnf schooner, 29 July 2014 10:26pm
It's sickening to think that these pricks are our representatives on the world stage.
Sasa Jelisavac, 29 July 2014 10:16pm
Its going to be a long and cold winter in EU....
And so soon you have minus 15 in your own house, you will understand that you never had anything
against east Ukraine joining Russia...
Its called freedom...
Sarah7591Wilson Sasa Jelisavac, 29 July 2014 11:50pm
A cold winter in Ukraine, yes, but not in the EU. The sanctions do not affect trade in gas,
oil, and commodities (whatever the last may be).
StonewallJ, 29 July 2014 10:16pm
USA funded, fomented, & facilitated chaos, contention & civil war in Ukraine in pursuit of
global hegemony. They can never grab enough. Now, they want to goad Vladimir Putin into nuclear
war, which is lunacy writ large.
LoicdeMarsillac, 29 July 2014 10:17pm
The world is setting up to be a Mad Max planet, and not by accident, but by intentional neglect
and active incitation. There are untold profits to be had and immense power to be gained by controlled
chaos and the rendering of great swathes of the sphere into zones of lawlessness profitableness,
where the only order is that dictated by venality, merciless force, and the logic of unconstrained
profit--in such a world the U.S., or rather its military and the corporatocracy for which it works,
stands overarchingly as the capo di capi, the determiner and delegator of the rights of banditry
and the despotic dispensation of life and death.
onthebus LoicdeMarsillac, 29 July 2014 11:24pm
and mini Gaza's everywhere
ooTToo, 29 July 2014 10:18pm
. . . According to the Treasury Department, the US penalties target the Bank of Moscow, the
Russian Agricultural Bank and VTB Bank . . . Banks, Banks, Banks . . . The Western Bankers are
after the Banks. Through the banks they control the governments and the populations just like
here in the West.
alves1974, 29 July 2014 10:19pm
Only an idiotic American President and circus performers in Europe would attempt this. US has
a doomed economy and wants everyone to buy their fracking gas at ridiculous pricing. Europe as
always bends over. regardless what it looses and gains.. Moreover look at what US has been doing:
caused civil war in Iraq + Afghanistan + Libia + Ukraine and now whatever it may be said, also
has its finger in Gaza bombing via its other pet Israel. The problem is that only the innocent
pay like in Ukraine people that have nothing to do with this. Then after the silly Obama who come
on? Hilary? 3rd world war. Unfortunately US is no longer (and for over 12 years) an example of
brains but instead of dirty politics, bellow the waist tactics and hypocrisy. And do you know
what? I can't care less if NSA or any other acronymic pathetic USA agency is looking at this email.
HogfartsAcademy, 29 July 2014 10:21pm
Notice no more hot air and bluster from the "International Community" (i.e. the US and its
satraps and no one else) about Crimea. Russia knows it's a fait accompli.
The same goes for the sanctions which will quietly be watered down and withdrawn in months
rather than years - mainly due to heavy pressure on spineless politicians by their corporate paymasters.
All the blusterers and blowhards on this site will by then have moved onto some other "burning"
issue to vent their synthetic rage on.
Freddy1957, 29 July 2014 10:21pm
Commander in Chief Obama too EU and NATO lackeys;
"All we have to do is kick the front door in, and the whole rotten Russian edifice will come
crashing down."
Napoleon and Hitler thought the same Mr President and look where it got them.
Still as leader of the Western world I am sure you know better, not.
Putin deals in realpolitik, not political ideals.
Sarah7591Wilson Freddy1957, 29 July 2014 11:46pm
There's absolutely no evidence that Obama's motivated by ideals.
Amerikan hypocrisy,
yet again. Sanctions against Russia while Israel gets $3,000,000,000 a year from the U.S. with
which to rampage with impunity.
nether, 29 July 2014 10:24pm
"The EU decided that Moscow had not fulfilled the conditions laid down by foreign ministers
last week, to stop the supply of arms to the rebels and provide full cooperation in the investigation
into the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17".
There is enough satellite imagery to show that the 'Russians are still supplying the rebels',
I wonder why none has been produced?
And who is stopping the investigation at the moment? The Ukrainian army that is shelling the
area and giving the inspectors no opportunity to get to the site.
Let's hear it Dave and Barack, 'stop the shelling and let the investigators in'.
But it wont happen because those wanting to secede from the Ukraine, the pro secession democratic
vote, and/or the Russians have been tried, convicted and hung drawn and quartered without any
evidence or investigation.
It looks and smells like the WMD big Goebbels lie all over again.
hatw4pm, 29 July 2014 10:27pm
Why does the US/UK support the coup in Ukraine? To obtain Russian oil and gas. The US/UK wants
the old corrupt Yeltsin dictatorship back to be able to deal with pimps and drug dealers the US/UK
intelligence feels most comfortable with.
The Americans and EU are just going to keep pushing the Russians until they either invade Ukraine
(so that the US & EU can restart the Cold War) or start nuking western cities. Let's hope they
choose the first option.
Maybe the Russians have something similar to Israel's "Samson
Option", if they are pushed too far.
mikedow, 29 July 2014 10:30pm
Sanctions didn't work on Saddam Hussein or in Iran, and they're puny compared to Russia.
underbussen mikedow, 29 July 2014 10:39pm
Sanctions on Iraq killed 500 thousand people, didn't work? They worked exactly as Clinton (the
psychopath) intended.
CalmObserver, 29 July 2014 10:32pm
Sorry, forgot to ask: who shot people on Maidan? Who burned people in Odessa? Who bombed Luhansk?
Who shot down the Boeing? (oops, sorry, this is out of the line)
simonsaint, 29 July 2014 10:34pm
I don't honestly think the West knows what it's doing. There seems little resolve behind the
sanctions and there is an unclear motive as to what they are supposed to achieve. I'm sure Putin
is smirking.
MJMaguire, 29 July 2014 10:34pm
Utterly obscene - EU and Russia attack Russia for spoiling their party. But pour money and
arms into Israel.
stevesharrison, 29 July 2014 10:36pm
The American Economy is the biggest beneficiary of Russian Economic Sanctions whilst Germany
and France, who are pivotal to the Economic Recovery of the Euro and Europe, will suffer. Indeed,
it is the German Economy and German Finance to the European Central Bank which can sustain the
beginnings of that Recovery. Economic Sanctions harm the Peaceful and Prosperous bi-lateral Trade
and Commerce between the EU and Russia. Clearly, the American Economy trades far less with Russia
than the EU, who have been, inter alia, 'encouraged' to open up trade with Russia. Having invested
heavily in Russia and having had massive Russian Investment underpinning many European Industries,
all of this is now in real jeopardy. What has gone wrong?
Firstly, both Germany and France have failed to take Europe forward into a stronger European
Union and strong Euro and whereas a De Gaulle, Schmidt, especially Mendes France and Konrad Ardenaur,
would have seen this as the way in which the European Economy could be truly independent of the
Dollar and US Economic Dominance, they have allowed the Euro and European Economic integration
to drift. The result has been a fledgling recovery, recession in the south and debt.
However, I passionately believe that Germany and France can once again lead the way and lead
Europe into an even greater and more prosperous era. Equally, however, Economic Sanctions will
undermine European Economic Recovery; Underline the capacity of the German Economy to support
the European Central Bank and consequentially, the Euro. This can only benefit the Dollar and
the US Economy which will and Obama has alluded to this several times, 'step in' and seek to replace
Russia as the EU's main trading partner. Where's the evidence for this? Secondly, the evidence
is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal, which will, like Economic Sanctions
'tie' the EU Economy into and dependent upon the US Economy.
Whilst the EU has a commitment to Free Trade; Abolition of Trade Barriers; Anti-State Subsidies
and Government preference and the EU will abide by these Free Market Principles, the US Economy
will not. Protectionist and strictly Regulated in favour of American First Agricultural and Industrial
Concerns, (TTIP) is not a Level Playing Field but a Bon Mart for only the Americans. The US will
'Abuse its Dominant Position' within (TTIP) and exploit and subsequently control the EU. This
is why (TTIP) is not a Bon Mart for the EU.
Thirdly and Finally, the inclusion of Eastern, former Warsaw Pact, States into the EU (and
NATO) has undermined the original idea of Peace and an end to European Wars, which was the prime
purpose of the European Union. Poland, the Baltic States and now the Ukraine have upset the Peace
of the European Union. Consider, for a minute, if they were not EU Members or Associate Members',
would we now have every policy towards Russia dictated by old Enmities; hatred and thirst for
Revenge which, Poland and the Baltic States, especially harbour?
No. Europe and especially Germany and France must strive to reassert an Independent European
Union: Retain Good and increasingly strong Economic Ties with Russia. End the (TTIP) Deal and
look forward to making the Euro a World Currency which can 'De-Couple' from the Dollar and like
Sterling once was, be truly Internationally viable. Those Eastern members' bent on bad relations
with Russia, especially Poland must accept this line else leave the EU which was far more successful
and a promoter of peace when a smaller nucleus centred on Western Europe.
Chris Baron, 29 July 2014 10:36pm
"In London, a No 10 spokesman said the UK expected the Netherlands to publish the preliminary
findings of its investigation into the crash of MH17 next week."
The Ukraine government seem to know the outcome of the 'black box' data already:
"Dutch authorities have criticised Ukraine for releasing information 'too early' and say they
do not know how Ukrainian officials obtained the data."
After Bush suggested to Blair to paint a plane in UN colours and to enable Saddam to shoot
it down, I don't give any credibility to any investigation done to establish facts on the Malaysian
airliner.
The then leader of the 'free' world suggesting a criminal offence to give him a cause for war.
Nothing has changed since we have been told how we are spied on and manipulated to ensure that
US policy can continue the line it has taken for the last decades.
kenlinuk, 29 July 2014 10:40pm
The US and EU blame and punish Russia for their policy of regime change in Ukraine. They got
their political coup, but they also got a civil war. Now they punish Russia for their insane intervention
with full backing from the political parties and the media. It is a shame and a disgrace.
irReginaldLethbridge, 29 July 2014 10:41pm
I can't agree with sanctions, sink sank sunk they ban some things but they don't stop the really
bad ones nor do they stop the companies sneaking in and replacing them, isn't it just a defacto
tariff?
voodoomoo, 29 July 2014 10:42pm
The dogmatic application of more and more sanctions is actually quite worrying because of the
mentality it portrays. Will we be set on a path of no return?
Can our paper economy really cover the cost of war? Not without completely devaluing our currencies
by printing money or defaulting on debts, or bail-ins.
We haven't even seen any evidence of russia's guilt re: mh17. It is not about ukraine or mh17.
It is about russia's emerging economy, masses of resources and spurning of the dollar and US corporate
interests.
Doug Salzmann voodoomoo, 29 July 2014 11:08pm
There's only room for one system of gangster capitalism in this world, and New York and London
have every intention of including Russian resources in their One World Order.
Arise43, 29 July 2014 10:46pm
Meanwhile a bloody slaughter of the innocents is taking place on the Mediterranean, sanctions,
none to speak of, hypocrisy of the highest order. The US and the EU have no credibility.
Corcoran, 29 July 2014 10:48pm
This is evidence that there has been a long-term plan to destabilise Russia, starting with
the EU/US meddling in the Ukraine and creating 'reasons' to pull the plug on them.
I do hope this accelerates the demise of the US. Can't be soon enough.
torraptor, 29 July 2014 10:51pm
As quoted in the Guardian last year John McCain said in Kiev:
"Ukraine will make Europe better and Europe will make Ukraine better"
"We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own
destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe,"
Also last year, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to
Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussed ways and means to get the people they wanted into the Ukraine
government.
The US was clearly involved in directly influencing and trying to control what happened in
Ukraine. Did they think that Putin would allow it? Did the US allow missiles in Cuba?
The Ukraine crisis is the direct result of US involvement and bungling, with the worst possible
outcome. In other words, business as usual.
The only saving grace is that the rebels in East Ukraine did not shoot down the Malaysian plane
with US weapons, since the US has not yet had time to arm their allies there, like in Iraq where
ISIS is now stronger than ever thanks to US weaponry, or like in Gaza where children are being
slaughtered with US weapons. And what will happen when the Saudis start to play with all their
US toys?
As Madeline Albright said "The world is in a mess." Most of the mess has been caused by the
US.
Raj Bhojraz, 29 July 2014 10:26pm
We are talking about imposing sanctions, not war. Why the comparisons?
It remains to be seen whether these sanctions will actually work and hurt Russia economically.
These bullying tactics and harassment on the part of Russia must stop.
onthebus -> Raj Bhojraz, 29 July 2014 11:10pm
change Russia for America and you are closer to the truth
Sarah7591Wilson -> Raj Bhojraz, 29 July 2014 11:43pm
Sanctions are a tool of war. Every single politician and historian knows that.
And, shamefully, we're the bullies in this one. We're the ones who are backing the Nazi-riddled
regime in Kiev (and no, Nazi is not a hyperbole -- we're talking about people who are self-identified
followers of Hitler and his doctrines).
twiglette, 29 July 2014 10:26pm
Supposedly these sanctions come cost free to the West. But they are seismic! Nothing will be
the same now. War with Russia is the only outcome. A negotiated settlement over Eastern Ukraine
has been spurned for massive confrontation. Who gains? Nobody. Damned foolish!
inderwood -> twiglette, 29 July 2014 10:42pm
Agenda 21 & The New World order gains. It was the plan all along.
Dont take your eye off the ball & if your in the forces,tell your commanders to fuck off. Let
Charlie & William go in the front line.
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in
Baltimore.
The U.S. State Department has released images showing a satellite image that it purports to show
self-propelled artillery only found in Russian military units on the Russian side of the border,
oriented in the direction of a Ukrainian military unit within Ukraine. The United States says the
images back up its claims that rockets have been fired from Russia into Eastern Ukraine. Officials
said the heavy weapons fired between July 21 and July 26, which happened after the downing of Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17.
Now joining us to discuss all of this is our guest, Derek Monroe. He's an independent journalist
who writes for the Institute for Policy Studies' Foreign Policy in Focus.
Thanks for joining us, Derek.
DEREK MONROE, REPORTER, FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS: It's good to be here.
DESVARIEUX: So, Derek, Moscow has already come out saying--they've angrily denied allegations
of Russian involvement in Eastern Ukraine. But what do you make of these new developments, these
new images?
MONROE: Well, it's really in the eye of the beholder. First of all you have to understand that
some of the elemental pieces which are actually being presented to the public as justification of
Russia's involvement are also found in different militaries. Older pieces are also part of the Ukrainian
military, where there are different reports of different units defecting to the rebels, bringing
the equipment with them, and not only artillery, but tanks and other pieces of heavy equipment. So
there's a possibility here that what's being presented is truthful, but, however, also there is possibility
where we are being fed misinformation here.
One thing you have to also understand: that Ukrainian military has been considered, even by its
own government, to be very ineffectual and well-corrupted, with a variety of different pieces of
weaponry being sold worldwide on the black market. It even got to the point where there was a film
(I don't know if you remember) ten years back about the great Russian weapons smuggler that was arrested
in Johannesburg, who was played by Nicholas Cage, where a situation was that he would basically go
into the bases, Ukrainian military bases, just after the fall of the Soviet Union and buy the old
military equipment wholesale to be sold to different countries. So right now, at this point, it's
very difficult to say whether the images being presented here are, first of all, coming from Russia
themselves, as far as territory is concerned, also coming from the Ukrainian side. So it's really--.
DESVARIEUX: Okay. So it's basically fog of war--a lot of uncertainty, it sounds like.
MONROE: Unfortunately, it is. And I think at best the arguments which are being brought in by
photos actually are at the best very speculative.
DESVARIEUX: Alright. What about the media? How do you think they've been portraying this? Because
the Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, there's an investigation ongoing right now, but there have been
lots of talks, on the U.S. side, at least, pointing the finger at Russia right now.
MONROE: Well, I think there's also very--it seems that U.S. media in general has really reached
a pre-gone conclusion as to who is at fault here. But there's--quite possible that the military book
system, which the antiaircraft missiles which actually were perpetrated to bring down the airliner,
were brought in from Russian military or from Russian sources into the rebels' hands.
However, what is also not being discussed about, which I think is extremely disingenuous on the
part of the major news media, is simply--there are two questions. Why was the flight originating
from Amsterdam, going [into column (?)] for Malaysia, going over the hot military zone? This is really
something which is unspeakable as far as the normal routine of overflights of passenger flights.
And a second question which can be asked which is not answered also: why would the Ukrainian civilian
authorities basically approve flying--flight like this? And, also, why would they allow the Malaysian
airliner to enter its airspace over the, quote-unquote, military hot zone? Those are two questions
which are truly not being asked or answered, and I think this is--if you really look a little bit
deeper in those issues, you would probably get a lot of answers from it [inaud.]
DESVARIEUX: Alright. Let's talk more about what I mentioned at the beginning, Moscow, and how
they've come out angrily denying any sort of allegations and connections to the separatists. But
why don't they? If they are, why don't they just openly support them?
MONROE: Well, first of all, you have to also look at the issue from very much a Russian political
domestic scene. As much as the popularity of Putin is concerned, which is basically at this point
the highest of any other elected leader in the Western world, not to mention probably the whole world
wide, which probably hovers around eighty-some percent, they have very strong ties, economic and
trade ties, with Western Europe, as well as the other Western companies. So, fundamentally, putting
the issues up on sort of a nice edge where there's a conflict between Russian interests and international
interests, in this case Western interests, is not very productive for furthering development of the
trade and commercial trade situation, as well as the, basically, balance of payments, which actually
have being outgoing from Russia, and by the record tempo, since the whole conflict in Ukraine began.
So one thing has to really be also--not appreciated enough, I think, in U.S. media is simply the
degree where a variety of different points which have been brought forward by a variety of different
news media outlets or international media outlets is simply putting things in a much--black and white
perspective. It's quite possible that the Kremlin is using its economic and its political power in
order to support, at least morally, if not, say, logistically, the developments in Ukraine is far
as the rebel side is concerned, but it's also very dangerous to see from the Russian perspective
further escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, because this destabilization of the country itself
on its eastern border is really not productive to Russian interests. It's also not very productive
for the Western interests.
So it's quite possible where the military hardware of the military's coming from, it can be debatable.
As I said before, there were different reports of military units from Ukrainian army being defected
to the rebel side, mostly Russian speaking side, and basically using their equipment with them. They
include tanks, include rockets. I'm not sure at this point of their antiaircraft rockets systems,
which are rather complex. And, also, one thing just cannot be emphasized strong enough: at the beginning
of the conflict, a variety of different military and weapons depots were really raided by rebel side,
and a lot of military equipment has been carted away. So at this point it's really hard to tell where
the equipment is really coming from. If there's any [effectual (?)] and practical support as far
as training, as far as arming, at this point it's very speculative. So I would say I would reserve
my judgment till there are some real facts that really come to the light.
DESVARIEUX: Derek, you mentioned how this would not be productive for the Russian side and the
Western side to be continuing this conflict. Can you just speak to specific examples? What do you
mean by that?
MONROE: Well, I think, first of all, you have to look at a situation from a humanitarian perspective.
You're talking about a nation of 45 million people which is basically going to be put in a similar
situation like in Iraq, where there is occurring a civil war. So you have a huge degree of outflow
of population from East, and eventually as the conflict would spread to the West. So this [has] even
gotten to a situation where in the Western part of the European Union, in Poland, for example, there
have been widely reported movements and over the Polish [authorities (?)] to incorporate hospitals,
incorporate schools into the makeshift refugee centers for people coming from their east. So that's
one thing.
Economically, also, there has been a huge degree of hoopla, which actually started this whole
situation in Ukraine, as far as the association agreement with the European Union of creating the
new economic reality in Ukraine, where it would basically become more of a transparent market economy
with help of IMF, specifically to the tune of $15 billion or $20 billion, which they were supposed
to receive as far as a revamp of their economy's concerned. Nothing really has changed at this point.
And politically and economically, as of right now, despite of successful elections in Ukraine,
although some people would basically deride its success because of the variety of different problems
in the East, and also the fact that the Eastern part did not participate in the last election, the
problem is simply that the government is facing a sort of annulment situation. The further this situation
will escalate militarily, the lesser there is a chance of a political resolution of the issue. And
what really can happen at the end would be a de facto partition of the country between the Eastern
side and the Western side, which I think is pretty much detrimental for anyone who's an honest broker
in this case, because I think every country, just an honest person would like to have Ukraine stay
as one economic and political unit, because ultimately it should be for Ukrainian people to decide
on a peaceful basis, not in--wearing arms. But this is something that I think that just unfortunately
escalated to the point of no return in many cases.
DESVARIEUX: Alright. Derek Monroe, thank you so much for joining us.
MONROE: You're welcome.
DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Much finger pointing has occurred on the downing of Malaysia flight MH-17 over separatist-held
territory in Ukraine. The American media – still reflexively anti-Russian even though the Cold War
has been over for almost a quarter century and heaping blame on Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin,
since even before his annexation of Crimea – has gone hog wild with recrimination after the downing
of the aircraft.
And Russia and Putin are easy targets. In America, our story line goes much like this: after the
Cold War ended, the United States benevolently showered Russia with assistance, acceptance into the
G-8 talkshop of industrial democracies, and "experts" on creating a democracy (I was on one of those
trips), but the Russian people let the dour Vladimir Putin ruin our efforts to export democracy there
by re-instituting autocratic rule. Americans feel rejected, because the Russians just didn't want
to be like us. And with our usual assumed benevolence, we just don't understand why Russia is behaving
in a "20th century manner," by annexing Crimea and funneling training and weapons to Russian
separatists in eastern Ukraine, when the rest of the world, including America, has moved on to a
new era in the next millennium. Americans – always very ahistorical, and even more so with the
advent of 24-7-365 cable "news" – have amnesia about any role the United States might have had in
bringing U.S.-Russian relations to their current sad state of affairs.
After the Cold War ended, the then-democratizing Russia, still inducing suspicions in the West,
was excluded from the expanding NATO and European Union. After the Berlin wall fell, in a verbal
promise to then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to coax him to agree to the reunification of Germany,
then-President George H. W. Bush pledged to Gorbachev that NATO, a military alliance hostile to the
Soviet Union during the Cold War, would not expand into the territory of the now defunct Soviet-led
Warsaw Pact (that is, Eastern Europe). In violation of that promise, the outdated NATO alliance,
instead of going the way of the Cold War, repeatedly expanded and is now on Russia's borders. In
fact, during the latest crisis over Ukraine, the United States has reinforced forces near Russia
and increased their "training" activity. In addition, since the end of the Cold War, the United States
has been trying to win increased influence in the oil and gas-rich former Soviet Central Asian states
on Russia's borders. The Cold War ended but the U.S. containment noose around Russia just moved eastward
and northward toward a weaker Russia.
This US tack was very unwise. After the Napoleonic Wars, at the Congress of Vienna, European nations
welcomed France back into the community of European nations; a century with no European-wide war
ensued. Yet the triumphalist behavior of the United States and NATO after the Cold War more resembled
what the allies did to a defeated Germany after World War I; Germany was unfairly blamed for starting
the war and required to pay reparations, thus leading to the rise of Adolf Hitler and World War II.
The United States keeping post-Cold War Russia out of Europe and humiliating it, instead of being
more inclusive, has made Putin's nationalism resonate in Russia.
So Russia has experienced a shrinking protective buffer in surrounding areas. But isn't such a
protective buffer so last century? To the Russians, who know history all too well, not in the least.
In the past, for example, Russia has been invaded by Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany, and it lost
a staggering 25 million people in World War II – with total dead a quantum leap above that of any
other country. The Russians see their critical buffer zone eroding and are trying to salvage what
they can of it. For Russia, Ukraine has always been the crown jewel of Eastern Europe and is very
important economically for Russia. Prior to a coup induced by street protests (not the way a democracy
is supposed to work), a Russian-friendly government existed in Ukraine. Now that that is gone, Russia's
unacceptable annexation of Crimea and military aid to the Russian separatists in the eastern part
of the country should at least be put in perspective. Furthermore, US hypocrisy in criticizing Russia
for such assistance to shore up its withering buffer zone is nothing short of amazing.
I believe that Latin American countries would say that the United States' Monroe Doctrine is still
alive in a US sphere of influence that consists of the entire Western Hemisphere. And fairly recently,
the United States decided to help the Kosovo Liberation Army rip off a province of Kosovo from Serbia,
a traditional ally of a weakened Russia. Also, Russia felt double crossed by the Americans when the
West overthrew Muammar Gaddafi of Libya after getting the Russians to vote for a United Nations Security
Council Resolution that only allowed military actions for humanitarian reasons to save the lives
of Libyan civilians. Finally, the CIA has attempted to aid many rebellions around the world, far
from the US sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere – even perhaps in Ukraine's street protests
against the former pro-Russian government, which is not out of the realm of possibility.
In Ukraine, one other parallel exists with World War I. One of the events that led to the unnecessary
US entry into World War I was the German torpedoing of the British passenger ship Lusitania, killing
almost 1,200 people, including 128 Americans. Yet the German embassy in the United States had put
an ad in newspaper warning Americans not to sail on the Lusitania and the ship was carrying munitions
through a declared war zone.
The Malaysian aircraft shot down was civilian, but like the Lusitania, it was unbelievably traversing
a war zone (regardless of who you want to win the war in eastern Ukraine). Unless it can be proven
that the Ukrainian separatists or the Russians shot down the plane intentionally (which is doubtful,
given that it would be in neither party's interest to do so, Ukrainian-released communications among
the separatists indicating surprise that the aircraft was civilian, and the Russian experience of
heavy international fallout from the downing of a Korean airliner during the Cold War in the 1980s),
there is not much substance to the cries of "war crime" in the West. It is the Ukrainian government's
fault for an incredible failure to completely close its airspace to civilian airline traffic (some
other airlines had wisely rerouted their planes anyway). The separatists or Russians may have been
incompetent in shooting down a civilian plane, but incompetence can happen in the chaos of war.
And the hypocrisy of US foreign policy – famous in the world for criticizing other countries for
the same things it has done – is again on display. Do Americans remember the Iranian civilian airliner
that the world's most sophisticated US Aegis air defense system blew out of the sky, without an apology,
in the Persian Gulf during US meddling in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s on behalf of Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. Of course not, because the sad fact is that most Americans don't care about history.
The European Union on Tuesday approved a package of expanded sanctions against Russia over the
conflict in eastern Ukraine, where Moscow has been widely accused of supporting separatist rebels.
The new sanctions target Russia's state-owned banks, and will restrict sales to Russia of arms,
some kinds of technology and some equipment used by the oil industry. European diplomats also drew
up a list of people who will face individual sanctions, including at least three close associates
of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
The sanctions could take effect as soon as Aug. 1, after remaining legal formalities are completed.
They include an embargo on all new weapons sales to Russia, though existing deals, including a French
contract to supply warships, would not be affected, according to diplomats who spoke on the condition
of anonymity Tuesday because the agreement had not yet been formally announced.
The sanctions also would affect sales of what are known as dual-use goods, those with both military
and civilian applications - but the restrictions would apply only to military buyers, the diplomats
said.
Fighting intensified around the wreckage site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, as
Ukrainian forces advanced into some rebel-held areas. Ukrainian defense officials said
that government troops had retaken 10 cities last week, but none were large population
centers. The military has been trying to cut Donetsk off from the east, in order to
isolate it from the flow of weapons and fighters coming from Russia.
The president of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite,
welcomed
the decision "on a wide range of sanctions on Russia" using her Twitter account. But she expressed
unease that France would be able to maintain its naval deal with Moscow. "Unfortunately, nothing
to stop the deal of Mistral yet," she wrote, referring to the class of assault ships involved. Lithuania
is one of five European Union states that directly border on Russian territory.
On the financial side, the sanctions would bar individuals or companies in Europe from buying
or selling bonds and other securities issued by Russian state-owned and development banks. Those
measures could be felt significantly in London, where those securities are extensively traded.
Sales of technology for oil production and exploration in deep water, in shale deposits and in
the Arctic would be restricted, but not technology for natural gas. Several European nations depend
heavily on gas supplies from Russia.
European governments were moving
in lock step with the United States on the new round of sanctions, despite concerns that they
would pay an economic price for confronting the Kremlin more aggressively. Obama administration officials
said on Tuesday that they expected to announce their own package of new sanctions later in the day
or on Wednesday.
Secretary of State John Kerry said at a news conference in Washington that the West would continue
to impose sanctions "if that is what we must do," though he called once again for the separatists
in Ukraine to agree to a cease-fire "now, not in the future" and reach a peace agreement that would
make sanctions unnecessary. "If Russia continues to go down this path, however, Russia will leave
the international community with no choice," Mr. Kerry said.
A diplomat in Brussels said that four individuals were singled out for sanctions
by the European Union: three Russian "oligarchs" who are close to Mr. Putin and one
figure from Donetsk, a provincial capital in eastern Ukraine that has been a center
of rebel activity. Their names were not immediately known.
The new sanctions seemed likely to escalate a diplomatic confrontation with Russia that is seen
as the most serious of the post-Cold War era, and posed a test of the European Union's ability to
act decisively in a foreign policy crisis, especially when its own economic interests are at risk.
Though Europe's commerce with Russia will probably slump because of the sanctions, they are expected
to hit Russia more severely, especially the restrictions on Russian banks' ability to raise money
in Europe and the United States. "These sanctions can have quite a substantial chilling effect on
the Russian economy," said Adam Slater, a senior economist at Oxford Economics in London. "That is
probably a quite effective way to put pressure on Russia."
Still, it could take time for the effects to be felt by ordinary Russians, and some analysts expected
the Kremlin to shrug them off, at least publicly. "Although the latest sanctions increase the costs
for Russia, Russia's perceived national security interest calculus should not change meaningfully
as a result," analysts at Citigroup said in a note to clients on Tuesday. "If anything, official
Russian government statements have emphasized Russia's capacity for self-reliance."
Leaders of the European Union's four largest economies - Germany, Britain, France and Italy -
agreed during a video conference on Monday with President Obama that additional action was necessary
after Russia built up its forces along the border with Ukraine.
Mr. Kerry reiterated on Tuesday that there was "clear evidence" of artillery and rocket fire into
Ukraine from Russia and that Russia and its "so-called volunteers" were continuing to supply the
rebels in Ukraine with fighters and munitions. By contrast, he said, there was "not a shred of evidence"
that Russia was making any serious effort to rein in the rebels and resolve the conflict.
Ukrainian military forces have been pushing the pro-Russian separatists back in recent
days, amid intensified fighting. The battles have further complicated efforts by a group
of international experts and police officials to reach and secure the wreckage of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which was shot down over an area near the border that
is now a battlefield. The group was prevented again on Tuesday from traveling to the
crash site from Donetsk.
The combination of new sanctions, the Ukrainian military offensive and an accusation on Monday
by the United States that Russia had
violated a landmark arms control treaty has put Mr. Putin under additional international pressure
and has threatened to further isolate Moscow from Western Europe, the United States and their allies.
In addition, an international court on Monday
ordered Russia to pay investors more than $50 billion for the seizure of the now-defunct Yukos
oil company a decade ago.
But Mr. Putin, backed by public opinion at home, has shown no signs of backing down. Offering
a possible foretaste of potential reprisals against Europe, Moscow reacted tartly on Tuesday to a
Japanese announcement of sanctions on individuals deemed to be contributing to instability in eastern
Ukraine, calling the measures "unfriendly" and threatening countermeasures, Reuters reported.
"The imposition by Tokyo of new sanctions on Russia inevitably threaten a whole range of bilateral
relations, and set them back," the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said in a statement.
Though the Western allies appeared united over the necessity of confronting Mr. Putin more directly,
there were immediate signs of concern that new sanctions could boomerang on Europe, whose economies
rely partly on Russian energy supplies and have closer ties to Russia than the United States does,
especially in banking and finance, industrial trade and technology and the arms industry.
In London, the oil giant BP, which owns 19.75 percent of the Russian state oil company Rosneft,
warned investors bluntly before the announcement on Tuesday that "any future erosion of our relationship
with Rosneft, or the impact of further economic sanctions, could adversely impact our business and
strategic objectives in Russia, the level of our income, production and reserves, our investment
in Rosneft and our reputation." BP is the largest foreign investor in Russia.
European companies have been warning for some time that their earnings could suffer because of
the conflict in Ukraine, sanctions against Russia and the sputtering of the Russian economy. Deutsche
Bank, based in Frankfurt, said that "emerging geopolitical events in Ukraine and the Middle East
may impact financial markets and our clients."
The European sanctions are also bound to affect a wide range of European companies, including
banks in Vienna, industrial equipment makers in Germany and automakers and parts suppliers across
the continent. The German Engineering Federation, which represents makers of machine tools and other
equipment, said on Tuesday that sales to Russia were down 20 percent in the first five months of
2014, compared with the same period in 2013.
"Merely the threat of sanctions has led to German machinery makers missing out on contracts,"
the organization said in a statement that spoke of "longtime supplier relationships and mutual
trust" being destroyed.
Officials in Brussels said that the new sanctions walked a fine line, aiming to make a strong
impact on Russia with only a moderate effect on Europe. "My assessment is that this package
strikes the right balance," Herman Van Rompuy, the head of the European Council, told reporters before
the ambassadors adopted the package on Tuesday.
Alan Cowell reported from London and James Kanter from Brussels. Jack Ewing contributed reporting
from Frankfurt, and Peter Baker and Brian Knowlton from Washington.
Selected Comments
Maqroll, North Florida 1 hour ago
The largest foreign investor in Russia, BP warns that further ratcheting up of sanctions may
jeopardize its massive investment in that country. So what? BP invested in Russia because of the
opportunity to fill a niche in a country whose political climate had long deterred foreign investors.
The niche existed due to the risk that political uncertainty posed to foreign investments. Presumably,
BP has reaped rewards in proportion to the risks that it took.
Now, these risks loom much larger. It is not unthinkable that Putin might seize BP's plants
and equipment, as well as its Russian holdings. But western govts cannot build their foreign policy
around such contingencies.
If Russia seizes BP's assets, for a time, no one will invest in the country. Then, a corporation
looking for improved returns will take the plunge for a return calculated to reflect, again, the
risk of nationalization or seizure.
And so it goes in Mother Russia. Hope BP priced the risk right, but if it didn't, it's of no
concern to the rest of us.
jamil simaan, beirut 1 hour ago
Sanctions must have moral weight, so all of these American efforts are doomed. Russia won't
own up to all the less than savory things that go down under its watch, but the United States
is not a beacon of morality when it comes to foreign entanglements. Since the fall of the Soviet
Union, as bad as Russia has been within borders, America has been just as bad outside of them.
Ukraine is in many ways the epitome of internal corruption as seen in Russia, and its corrupt
politicians and decrepit military are not good allies for the US-EU alliance. Ukraine has refused
to even negotiate with the East since the time when they were just protesting in the street, let
alone shooting mortars, and in the process the government's killed hundreds of civilians.
The Ukrainian establishment is irresponsible, unorganized, and fickle, and they are unlikely to
be a steady ally on any front (look at how quickly they turned on Russia).
The US would be better served shoring up military strength in places like Poland, Romania and
the Baltic states and pursuing energy alliances with Turkey instead of fomenting unrest in Ukraine
and antagonizing Russia, which, by all objective accounts, is only interested in Ukraine's internal
politics because of the two border countries have such close historical and economic dependencies.
Sharkie, Boston 54 minutes ago
Now with Crimea in Russian hands, the Black Sea oil fields are out of our reach. That was the
whole reason for a struggle over Ukraine, to reduce European reliance on Russian oil and gas.
Russia is far too important to antagonize over a struggle between ethnic groups in a Russian
border region. The matter is obviously not so important to Russia since it is more worried about
the fall out from military action than absorbing the Don Basin. Russia, France, Britain and Germany
have far more common interests than differences and Russia is not an actual military threat to
the North Atlantic alliance, even the Baltic states.
Sanctions are a terrible mistake. We need Russia's help on many issues like terrorism and an
aggressive China but we are driving it in the wrong direction, the recently announced plans for
a pipeline to China being but one example. The danger comes not from a strong Russia but a weak
one. As we have seen from the collapse of Mexico's PRI, a weak state leads to fierce narcotics
trafficking and out-of-control migration. Nothing would endanger Europe more than a disintegration
of Russia along the same lines that Mr. Putin has said in his many writings that he will pay any
price to stop. We only need to stay out of the Donetsk struggle. It is the Russian sphere of influence.
Russia keeps order in Eurasia and that keeps us safe.
Sui Generis, Berlin 22 minutes ago
From the information presented in this article it seems that these sanctions will have the
opposite effect of what is desired. Putin clearly has strong support from his domestic base, and
any threat of sanctions just solidifies it. Russia, a proud country, does not take kindly
to receiving orders from the West and generally goes against what is being asked.
Furthermore, sanctions against Russia will force it to become more independent of Western trade
and refocus itself on other possible partners such as Iran and China. Altogether the Europeans
going along with these sanctions seems like a bad idea.
Is it really worth the cost to stabilize the failing government in Kiev and its nationalist
bakers from the Eastern part of the country?
The award is a landmark not just for its size – 20 times the previous record for an
arbitration ruling. The tribunal also found definitively that Russia's pursuit of Yukos
and its independently-minded main shareholder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a decade ago was politically
motivated.
...
Though Russia cannot appeal against the award, Moscow said it would pursue all legal
avenues for trying to get it "set aside".
Even if the ruling stands, shareholders face a tortuous battle trying to enforce it.
If Moscow refuses to pay, they must pursue Russian sovereign commercial assets in the 150 countries
that are party to the so-called 1958 New York Convention on enforcing arbitration awards.
But perhaps this explains why Putin is not coming out swinging, as The FT concludes,
One person close to Mr Putin said the Yukos ruling was insignificant in light of the
bigger geopolitical stand-off over Ukraine.
"There is a war coming in Europe," he said. "Do you really think this matters?"
Sergei Lavrov has been representing Russia as foreign minister in two dissimilar epochs, one marked
by a fairly convincing growth of the world's economy, the other - by a deep global crisis which will
likely continue into the foreseeable future. While those of the watchers who attempt to sound optimistic
maintain that no causes for a lasting slide are inherent in the objective economic reality, it is
an open secret to what extent subjectivity factors into modern history. As a result, the apprehension
is running high that irrationality and chaos may easily prevail in today's world which, by the way,
has never quite turned the page on its previous historical crisis triggered by the collapse of the
bipolar system.
Paradoxically, the world shaped by untamed subjectivity must also depend increasingly on the balancing
input from ahead-of-the-curve persons who generate unanticipated ideas and bold solutions. Credit
must be given to S. Lavrov for offering a wealth of such ideas and solutions in his Between the
Past and the Future, a collection of essays which, bearing a distinct imprint of Lavrov's unique
personality, blends fluid policy analysis and much more fundamental philosophical regards.
S. Lavrov is known to show no signs of aloofness in interpersonal communication, his openness
having nothing in common with the perfunctory democratism routinely shown off by the political top
brass. Sincerity being a part of his wider creed, he often cites Russia's diplomacy genius A. Gorchakov
who used to say that the best way to preserve accord with any government is to stay open about one's
own views. Measuring today's politics against the standard, Lavrov remarks that international affairs
have become similar to what life used to be in Russia in the Soviet era, when serious themes could
only be discussed in strict privacy, with precautions being taken to prevent those who were criticized
from becoming aware of the invectives. Lavrov thoroughly explains to what extent the unhealthy climate
currently harms the international community. By the way, Lavrov's statement that at the moment Russia
is reliving a phase of inner concentration similarly carries a reference to Gorchakov's legacy.
It should be noted that, in addition to Gorchakov, Lavrov draws abundantly from P.A. Stolypin,
the architect of a sweeping reform the Russian Empire implemented in its sunset days: "We suggest
to the world exactly what we seek for ourselves: an evolutionary development with no bumps down the
road. The development must be completely organic and free of the kind of hyperactivity which is meant
to impress but does not grow out of sustainable national interests in international policy or lacks
existing internal potentials to back it". Lavrov, similarly to Stolypin, believes in a large middle
class as the guarantor of the stability of society and statehood, and, like Gorchakov and Stolypin,
deems that not letting the international relations degenerate into confrontation is in all cases
an optimal strategy.
Lavrov clearly means to cool confrontational expectations when he asserts that - even in the energy
sphere - the present-day Russia harbors no hyper-power ambitions: "We are absolutely content with
what we have at the moment, which is the status of one of the world's leading countries. We have
no intention to dictate to our peers, we simply want to be heard and our views – to be taken into
account". Lavrov makes it clear, though, that the above does not mean Russia's giving up the right
to criticize the US. Coining a formula which provides a stark criterion for differentiating leadership
from hegemonism, he stresses that a global leadership bid is acceptable only if it generates "added
value" in the form of seizable benefits for all.
At the same time, Lavrov warns against anti-Americanism as a narrow-minded and risk-bearing approach
which, if adopted, can lure Russia into serious confrontations. Those, as noted above, should be
carefully avoided, and a period of neocons' grip on Washington's foreign policy is no reason to redefine
the basics of Russia's vision of the US. Rather, "all of America's friends – and we surely count
ourselves among them – should help the US land softly back in the multipolar reality".
The theme of Western organizations' and alliances' eastbound expansion features prominently throughout
Between the Past and the Future. NATO and the EU being phenomena of different nature, Lavrov,
nevertheless, interprets the expansion of both as tightly interwoven political processes. "The EU
and NATO are visibly losing flexibility and efficiency in pursuing their fundamental goals, which
may sound like good news to those who hope that their eastward expansion will come as a prologue
to NATO's self-destruction and a collapse of Europe's integration project. The truth is that neither
of the developments would be in the interests of Russia as a country with a sober worldview ready
to help cultivate pan-European cooperation on the existing basis", writes Lavrov. He, moreover, holds
that "any ordered state of things is better than chaos", a thesis likely to ignite controversy considering
many of the episodes of the XX century history but understandable when put into the overall context
of Lavrov's concept implying that genuine order should stem from inter-state or even global solidarity.
Russia's diplomacy chief does have to say that Russia, with its commitment to non-confrontational
policy, permanently faces attempts to limit its options to either cooperating with the West on unilaterally-offered
terms or to being locked in a conflict with the West. Lavrov, in response to the situation, cites
former British ambassador to Moscow Roderic Lyne who called for fully recognizing Russia's right
to defend its interests and to steer an independent course in international politics provided that
the international law and the sovereignty of other countries are observed.
The search for a new set of values fit to serve as universal regulations and to help avert a crisis
of global governance is an overarching theme in Lavrov's essays. According to Lavrov, the expectations
that the democratic values would take the role have proved unrealistic as in the present-day world
rivalries play out between entire civilizations with divergent axiological systems and irreconcilable
and diffent of perceptions democracy.
For Lavrov, "critics of Russia's current development model have difficulty accepting that, with
due regard for the universal democratic values, Russia would navigate its own way through the modern
world rather than agree to any externally imposed trajectory, and would under no circumstances abdicate
from its own historical traditions". Moscow, furthermore, need not tolerate geopolitical games in
the post-Soviet space aimed at implementing "ostensibly democratic agendas setting readiness to follow
the West's lead as the key gauge of compliance with democratic standards".
Repelling the criticism leveled at Russia over its combining parallel civilizational dimensions,
Lavrov freely admits that such multidimensionality is Russia's traditional mode of existence and
argues that the country can, as it has done throughout its history, act as a bridge between distinct
cultures and civilizations. "The world's cultural and civilizational diversity will not disappear
and needs to be respected", opines Lavrov.
Upholding the world's diversity as the norm, Lavrov is at the same time immune to the fashion
for relativism in handling value system issues. His strongly held view is that contemporary societies
should be built on solid moral foundations which alone can cement relationships between nations,
peoples and ethnic groups. Lavrov is open about his aversion to Pontius Pilatus-style indifference
expressed in his famous reply "What is truth?". Rather, he sees the crisis of the European society
whose value system were eroded by what Z. Brzezinski described as "a civil war within the West" as
the root cause of most of the XIX and XX century tragedies. Europe's dialog with other civilizations,
writes Lavrov, will run into major roadblocks if it loses touch with its Christian roots, with the
essentials of its original identity. Those who are oblivious to their own religious and moral basics
cannot be expected to treat with respect the core religions of other civilizations. Lavrov quotes
Francis Fukuyama who expressed the view that Friedrich Nietzsche's "Gott ist tot" (God is dead)
was a thesis undermining the values of compassion, equality, and human dignity and predicts that
it will take Western philosophy serious efforts to map a way out of the nihilistic quagmire.
Between the Past and the Future abounds with aphorisms, one example being that "In politics,
perceptions of reality occasionally outweigh reality". The collection's crisp style makes one think
of the authors "beauty of the mind", a profound Byzantine concept which fell into disuse in the epoch
dominated by B. Russell's arid brand of rationality.
Lavrov's essays are built around a set of key unifying themes and combine seamlessly under
a single cover. Hunger for a comprehensive political doctrine being a hallmark of our days, it is
fair to say that Lavrov's Between the Past and the Future, along with President D. Medvedev's definitive
"Forward, Russia!" and V. Surkov's reflections on sovereign democracy, reads as a quintessential
expression of the de facto ideology of the modern Russian statehood.
Rumor had it that, when J. Stalin appointed A. Gromyko instead of M. Litvinov as the Soviet
Ambassador to the US, Roosevelt sent a message to Stalin asking why a real ambassador had to be replaced
with a "mailbox". Time showed that Roosevelt's first-glance impression of the quietly professional
Gromyko was completely false – he later rose to the posts of the USSR foreign minister and Politburo
full member, and counted among the Soviet Union's key foreign-policy decision-makers on a par with
heavyweights like D. Ustinov and Yu. Andropov.
In Russia, it is a presidential prerogative to chart the country's foreign-policy course, with
Putin and Medvedev both extremely serious about this part of their mission. Staying unquestionably
loyal to the incumbent, Lavrov never ended up serving as a "mailbox", not to mention the fact that
as a professional he has proved many times to be superior to diplomacy ministers across the table.
No doubt, Russia has every reason to be proud of its foreign minister.
The decision by the International Arbitration Court in the Netherlands is a political one and there
is no mechanism that I am aware of for enforcing Russia to make the $50bn payment, energy asset manager
Eric Kraus told RT.
RT: The International Arbitration Court in the Netherlands has ended a decade long case
against Russia brought by shareholders in the defunct Yukos oil company. Why after so many years
[did it crop up]
today?
Eric Kraus: I think the timing is extremely suspicious. The entire judgment is rotten.
Mr. Khodorkovsky was found guilty not only in Russian courts, but that guilty sentence for tax evasion
and fraud was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. It is an outrage that anyone should imagine
that Russia is going to pay 50 billion dollars to these criminals.
RT: How will the situation develop? Will Russia pay this sum?
EK: How it is going to develop? Basically this is a judgment which is going to have no
real consequences. The Russian state will never pay. The Russian Duma never ratified the treaty under
which this judgment has been made. It is not a legally binding judgment. To get settlement from the
Russian state is impossible. I would invite you to look at the attempts that have been made to enforce
judgments against Argentina, which have failed.
But this judgment is significant as it marks a true divorce between Russia and the West. I personally
have been working for 17 years to build economic relations between Russia and the West and we have
failed. Russia must now turn away from Western powers and look to the rising world, to the rising
countries of the East.
RT: Is there somebody behind such a sudden arbitration decision? Or the International
Arbitration Court in the Netherlands has just finally examined the case to pronounce judgment?
EK: Personally I would put the responsibility with Washington, not with Europe. Europe
is the tail, Washington is the dog. Europe has not been able to articulate a reasonable foreign policy
response, and there are people in Washington who make very good careers out of creating trouble with
Russia, out of portraying Russia as the enemy. Russia is not the enemy, but Russia is an independent
state with its own needs, its own foreign policy and this obviously does not please Washington.
RT: Is it a fair decision meaning how much fraud was conducted by the ex-Yukos and Menotep
officials?
EK: It strikes me as a very political decision. The West manages to create this illusion
of fair play, of rule of law, of fairness in the judicial process, and this is a bad joke. Russia
will appeal it but even if they lose an appeal, there is essentially no way to enforce the judgment
unless the Russian state decides to pay it, and I do not see the Russian state paying money to a
group of murderers and fraudsters. The people who ran Menotep were the worst old-type oligarchs,
and Russia is simply not going to pay. There is no mechanism that I am aware of for enforcing payment.
Berlin did not do anything to caution Brussels and neighbouring capitals in Warsaw, Riga and
Tallinn on the risks associated with such a policy-though for years, Moscow had made clear its
opposition to the eastward expansion of both NATO and the EU. (Indeed, the Kremlin has always viewed
NATO's foreswearing eastward expansion as the quid pro quo for its consenting to Germany's
reunification.)
If anyone ought to have known how the Kremlin would react as the EU courted Ukraine,
it was Berlin: no European country has as great an economic interest or political influence in Russia
as Germany.
Like the rest of Europe, however, Germany protested in surprise when, at the Vilnius Summit last
November, Yanukovych rejected the EU's trade deal. But it took little to see that the political and
economic reforms the deal imposed would undo the source of Yanukovych's power and wealth. From Berlin's
point of view, that was, after all, the point.
As many in fact warned, Yanukovych, was playing Brussels off of Moscow for the best deal-and it
seems he found it in the
$15 billion Russian loan that tilted his hand.
Curiously, however, while there's been no lack of critics of Washington, both for pushing NATO
into former Soviet territory in the early 2000s and for "dancing on Yanukovych's (political) grave"
in Kiev last year, criticism of Berlin's diplomacy in Ukraine has been rare.
Yet it was Berlin that tied the EU's Eastern Neighbourhood Policy to a trade deal that was conditional
on a known dictator's releasing a despised rival, a policy that suggests the staff at Germany's
embassy in Kiev doesn't get out much. Moreover, its insouciance about Russia's possible reaction
paints an image of Germany's Moscow embassy as staffed by people with the historical memories of
goldfish-and the geopolitical nous of Heidi.
A few questions spring to mind. As Berlin prepared to push democracy in Kiev, who in Moscow were
German diplomats talking to? And what did they tell their political masters in Berlin about Russia's
likely reaction to Germany's digging around in Russia's backyard? How highly did German policy makers
rate the risk of conflict and what measures did they put in place to prepare for it? In view of the
paltry prize on offer, did anybody ever ask whether all this was worth it?
In short, Germany failed to consider the strategic risk its Ukraine policy presented for itself
and its neighbors and allies.
Instead, it pursued a democracy-promoting trade deal in Ukraine, which domestic factors made unlikely
to succeed, even as it antagonized Russia, one of its closest trading partners. Apart from occasioning
the Russian annexation of Crimea, this then left Germany's panicked neighbors from the Baltic to
the Black Sea facing the not-implausible prospect of a Russian invasion and entangled its American
ally, the world's only superpower, in Europe's most dangerous great-power confrontation since the
war scare of 1983.
The world has seen this before. In 1991, Germany acted alone in encouraging Slovenian and Croatian
independence, incautious of the risk of interethnic warfare or the burden it would place on NATO
shoulders if Yugoslavia's unraveling turned bloody, as it in fact did.
Dissecting Berlin's role in Ukraine,
Stefan Meister,
Senior Researcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin, has written that the Vilnius
fiasco "did not serve the EU well": Germany's "misreading of Russian and eastern neighbourhood priorities
caused it to make missteps that have had an impact on EU initiatives."
"Germany is not the only EU member that
assessed the situation incorrectly," he goes on, "but it played a leading role in pursuing the
association and trade agreements that set off the crisis in Ukraine."
Clearly, that is to let Berlin off the hook far too easily.
Moreover, far from bringing out the best in Germany's
much-envied consensus-driven politics, the crisis has laid bare the weaknesses of its Grand Coalition-the
CDU/SDP alliance that has run the country since last year.
Merkel, leader of the CDU, has vented her irritation with what she clearly sees as "anachronistic"
Russian meddling in its neighbors' affairs. Despite Germany's powerful business lobby, she's mainly
stood with American president Barack Obama in keeping up at least the threat of further sanctions-even
if she's been reluctant to impose them.
As the summer has worn on, however, the so-called
Russlandversteher have seemed increasingly in charge of Germany's Ukraine policy.
Led by Foreign Minister Steinmeier, the traditionally more Russia-friendly SDP, inheritors of
Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik, favors cooperation rather than confrontation with the Kremlin.
This is my humble opinion (IMHO) about the events of the last week. I warn at once that the opinion
is based on intuition and the ability to read between the lines, therefore, can be misleading, because
intuition, even very strong, is still intuition not facts.
So, it seems to me that after it became clear that the Boeing was hit by Ukies, a covert struggle
and behind-the-scenes maneuvering started. Russia proposed the West to preserve at least some credibility
to stop slandering Russia, to recognize that Ukies army shot down the plane "by mistake" (in General,
everything is exactly as in anecdote: "If militias hit Boeing that's terrorism; if Russia that's
a terrible crime; if Ukraine that's unfortunate misunderstanding, and if the USA, then this is Boeing's
own fault") and pull the story on the brakes: that is, to slow down gradually coverage, move messages
about the catastrophe of the first page to the last and mention it less and less. Apparently, some
more sensible Western clans were ready to agree with this plan. They agree little to defuse the situation
and made some initial moves in this direction:
The red cross seems to have recognized the Ukrainian events is not some kind of "anti-terrorist
operation", bu a civil war.
International human rights defenders (excuse the expression) said that Ukies army is firing
from Gradov into residential areas of peaceful city.
Russian human rights defenders (again sorry for the expression) type of Dr. Lisa, Madame the
Panfilov and others like them called Ukies to evacuate from the conflict zone all children.
Interpol finally announced Yarosh to be on the "wanted" list.
Bastrykin said that the Investigative Committee, sooner or later, will get all Ukies war criminals.
Yats rabbit disappeared. By the way, it will make a small difference so it does not make much
sense to rejoice his early retirement, and I do not think that Kyiv spiders will stop until they
eat each other. It's simply means that the rats start jumping the ship. Pig Peter wants elections
to the Parliament. Therefore, the coalition has to be dissolved, in a month Rada will be dissolved,
and after two months, i.e. at the end of October, will be the regular election. In fact, it premature
to enjoy early retirement of Yats, but the fact that mess in ne Ruanda capital increases, is still
good.
Militias have made a small tactical successes, in particular, hit a couple of SU-25. This
is important, because immediately after the disaster militias, apparently, were afraid to shoot
down planes and two days Ukies aircraft created in the Donetsk and Lugansk what he wanted.
The rhetoric of the Russian Foreign Ministry toughed and they openly called the USA version
of Malasian Boeing tragedy a lie...
... and generally there was a really physically feeling the the tension has somewhat decreased.
And then... and then it looks like Russia's offer was rejected by the USA elite. And immediately
followed by a statement from the official representative of the White house that the accident with
Boeing was caused by Russia and Putin personally.
Hence the conclusion: THEY will not stop. THEY headed for the continuation of the war with Russia
and painting Russia into sponsor of "terrorists", as well as treating Putin as Slobodan Saddmovich
Gaddafi.
So, we need to discard the peaceful mood and mental ambiguity toward the USA. Our cause is right,
the enemy will be defeated, victory will be ours.
It has become a race to the bottom on projections of just how stagnate the Russian economy is and
on how much money it is losing. As the state of anarchy and blame game over Ukraine continues, Russia
continues to hemorrhage capital and investments. Sanctions have had a dramatic impact on investment
in the country along with its growth projections as businesses, and countries, continue to be unnerved
by the continuing fighting and uncertainty of further sanctions.
Yet they have not been
forceful enough to stop Putin, and the full story of just how badly the Russian economy is doing
has yet to be fully told as projections and outflows continue to change weekly. The IMF has just
released new projections for
Russian growth that are less than enthusiastic: GDP growth rates have been revised to 0.2 percent
from 1.3 percent this year and to 1 percent from 2.3 percent next year. This-combined with the massive
capital outflow that Russia has experienced since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis (which by some
accounts, could be larger than reported.
Even possibly
$220 billion according to ECB head Mario Draghi) and the potential for Russia to be locked out
of EU capital markets, among
other measures
under discussion by the EU-has understandably unnerved many investors and affected the economic outlook
for Russia.
Yet, despite all the sanctions, Russia's $2 trillion dollar economy still needs to be considered
in a wider context. It still retains
massive reserves (around
$470 billion), along with having an enviable debt to
GDP ratio
(13.41 percent). Additionally, its own Asia pivot has seen some positive gains in recent months,
including the signing of a massive thirty-year,
$400 billion natural-gas deal.
That is why many commentators deride sanctions and their ability to impact the Kremlin's decision-making
process. Sanctions by themselves are very unlikely to forcefully change Putin's calculus in Ukraine.
However, they are not meant to have the same force as NATO's tanks.
Sanctions are designed to create a climate of instability and to increase the costs for continued
courses of actions so that the decision makers and elites force Putin to change course themselves.
It is a longer-term strategy that goes beyond short-term damage assessments.
And while Russia's economy continues to muddle through in a mire of uncertainty, a far more damaging
and long-lasting trend has emerged. It is not just capital and investment that is fleeing the country,
but some of Russia's best and brightest minds.
Reuters has reported on the latest emigration figures from Russia; official figures
show emigration from Russia rising to 186,382 in 2013 from 122,751 in 2012, 36,774 in 2011 and
33,578 in 2010.
... ... ...
Unfortunately for Russia, this emigration is far more damaging and will have much longer-lasting
repercussions than the capital flows that will always find a willing banker or lawyer to turn the
tap back on.
Andrew S. Bowen is a columnist for The Interpreter, a Russian-language translation and analysis
journal. He is also a Ph.D student in Political Science at Boston College and a researcher for the
geopolitical consultancy Wikistrat. You can follow him on Twitter: @Andrew_S_Bowen.
czarg
How about US economy? Consuming a lot more than producing? The highest trade deficit the world
has ever seen? And high debt? The only reason we can afford anything is because of dollar reserve
status..If not you will have Inflation at 10% per year here.. Compare that with low Russian debt
and Trade Surpluses..
Lets see the complete picture before we throw stones on others.
"Freedom" does not mean high growth..Just watch old economies of France and UK and the PIGS(portugal,italy,Greece,
spain) nations..
smoothieX12
I wonder if author of this article ever saw a real high tech? Not this IT baloney which passes
as the "hi-tech" among Liberal Arts and Political Science graduates? Have author ever saw the
operations with composites, complex CNCs, creation of complex radio-electronics, how space ships
are made or how complex alloys are produced?
In general--things which define the technological and industrial competence of the nation.
Did he ever visit any production floor of serious corporation, be it in Russia or US? I guess
not.
While I understand the author's message and effort to concentrate of Russia's "brain drain",
which, I admit, is an issue, albeit not as large as author tries to present it, but please let's
talk about REAL brains, not this garden variety "entrepreneurs" who are good only in making money
by writing several pages of code. I may or may not agree with the political position of many Russian
emigres' but please do not try to use Moscow School Of Economics populated by the detached from
reality (as it is the case elsewhere in the West) "economists" who have NO real expertise with
real hi-tech, industry, manufacturing, as some kind of authority.
As I stated not for once--the field of Russian Studies in US, with some notable and rare
exceptions, have been thoroughly mowed down and was reduced to merely a conduit for the opinions
of thin veneer of Moscow urban quasi-intellectuals, which is being presented as the opinion of
such vast nation as Russia. In related news--Nigeria recently increased her GDP two fold
in less than 24 hours, while Great Britain wants to account for prostitutes' "services" in her
GDP. That is what modern "economism" is--a creative bookeeping or, better yet, cooking of
books.
Instead of looking into at least some real causes of brain-drain--it does exist--and giving
the spread of by industries, and analyzing conditions, the readers are treated yet again to the
good ole' narrative about Khodorkovsky and all other people who ARE marginal in every political,
ideological and social sense in Russia.
bwickes
The one thing that is certain is that Sergei Guriev was not Rector of the Moscow School of
Economics. Alexander Nekipelov was and still is the Rector of that school. Guriev was rector of
the New Economic School, and the distance between the Moscow School of Economics and the New Economic
School is as large as Russia itself.
At least the most basic facts can be checked before publishing.
Piter Gavrinev
Correspondents not know what else to say about this evil Russian. Example with Pavel Durov
perfect nonsense, he left the country in connection with the semi-criminal personal situation
and not to the political situation.
Unfortunately propaganda against Russia now - the trend. One thing is certain, nothing will
stop Russia. No sanctions are not a threat from the West, and it is clear, Ukraine is too important
part of Russia's national security, while the West does not understand this situation will only
get worse. America thinks that Putin will blink first ... but they are wrong.
The downing of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17 was a great tragedy, and the world
wants to make sure that such an event never happens again. People all over the globe, not least Australians
and the Dutch who have lost more than 230 civilians, have been understandably angry about the failure
of the Russian-backed rebels in Eastern Ukraine to respond satisfactorily to this calamity.
But it is imperative that we think clearly and, if necessary, coldly, about the underlying cause
of the Russia-Ukraine standoff, which sparked the military blunder. If we fail to do so, we'll have
little hope of trying to solve it. Alas, there is a real danger that the West's response-more sanctions
against Russia, diplomatic isolation of Vladimir Putin, increased military support to Ukraine-could
exacerbate tensions.
The conventional wisdom in the West blames the turmoil on Putin's goal to recreate the former
Soviet Empire. The Bear is on the prowl again, we're told, and it must be put back in its cage.
But the United States and the European Union are hardly blameless. As John Mearsheimer, one of
America's leading experts on international relations, points out in a forthcoming issue of Foreign
Affairs, it was the West's efforts to pull Ukraine away from Russia's strategic orbit that was guaranteed
to cause big trouble.
By expanding NATO up to Russia's borders in the Clinton and George W. Bush eras, and by helping
bring down a democratically elected, pro-Moscow-albeit corrupt and thuggish-government in Kiev last
February, the West has poked at the Bear and failed to see how those decisions look from its perspective.
It has repudiated the implicit agreement between president George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev
in 1990-91 that the Atlantic alliance would not extend into Eastern Europe and the Baltics, a region
that Russia has viewed as a necessary zone of protection long before Stalin appeared on the scene.
In so doing, the West has taken no account at all for Russian susceptibilities and interests.
For Moscow, unlike Washington and Brussels, Ukraine is a matter of intense strategic importance:
it covers a huge terrain that the French and Germans crossed to attack Russia in the 19th and 20th
centuries. As Professor Mearsheimer asks: why would any Russian leader tolerate a cold-war military
pact to move into his nation's backyard? And why would he acquiesce in a Western-backed coup to replace
an ally with an anti-Russian regime in Kiev?
Since the collapse of Soviet communism, Western liberals and neo-conservatives have declared the
demise of power politics and triumph of self-determination. But Putin's calculations are based on
an old truth of geopolitics: great powers fight tooth and nail when vital strategic interests
are at stake and doggedly guard what they deem as their spheres of influence.
This is unfortunate, but it is the way the world works, and always has. Imagine how Washington
would respond if Russia had signed up Panama in a military pact, put rockets and missiles in Cuba,
or helped bring down a democratically elected, pro-U.S. government in Mexico.
It was inevitable that Moscow would push back somewhere. But if Putin were the reincarnation of
Hitler, as Hillary Clinton and Zbigniew Brzezinski suggest, why hasn't he annexed the rebel strongholds
of Luhansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine? (Putin even discouraged the insurgents from holding their
referendum on independence in May.)
Where were the signs of the Kremlin's intentions to invade Crimea before the downfall of the pro-Russian
Yanukovych government in February? It was this episode, remember, that sparked Putin's military incursion
in the Ukrainian peninsula, the traditional home of Russia's Black Sea Fleet. Which suggests that
he is acting defensively.
For the West to further isolate Moscow and at the same time escalate military support to Ukraine
is fraught with danger. Russia is a declining power, but it maintains a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons.
If made desperate and humiliated further, it could be dangerous, like a cornered, wounded animal.
Strident talk about banning Putin from the G20 in Brisbane will only backfire against the West's
interests. The point of such institutions is not that they are a reward for obliging behavior, but
rather that they provide a means to deal with common challenges. Moscow's help is needed in Afghanistan,
Syria, and Iran.
At a time when Americans are tired of the world, moreover, it would not seem prudent to pick a
fight over a region where no U.S. army has even fought before. Although American views of Russia
are less positive today than at any time since the end of the Cold War, few consider Putin a critical
threat to the U.S. According to recent Chicago Council survey, only 30 percent of Americans support
military intervention in Ukraine if Russia invades the rest of the country.
Rather than extend economic sanctions against Russia and boost military support to Ukraine, our
leaders should tone down our bombast and understand the motives for Putin's conduct. He wants Ukraine
to be a neutral buffer state (which is neither a NATO nor EU member) and its government to respect
minority rights of ethnic Russians in this bitterly divided country. If Moscow and the Western-backed
Kiev regime can't reach a settlement, and if the latter continues to bomb cities in eastern Ukraine,
more disasters like the downing of a passenger jet can't be ruled out.
Let me be clear: my aim here is not to defend anything Putin has done, but simply to explain his
response to what he deems a genuine threat to Russia's vital interests. If we understand Putin's
motivations, his conduct is easy to understand, which is not to say we have to like it. We need to
understand what caused this crisis to have any hope of trying to solve it.
Tom Switzer is editor of the American Review, published by the University of Sydney's United
States Studies Centre.
The International Arbitration Court in the Netherlands has ended a decade long case brought by shareholders
in the defunct Yukos oil company, and ordered Russia to pay about $50 billion in damages.
The
official ruling published
on Monday said Russia violated the EU Energy Charter when it redistributed the company's assets and
"took steps equivalent to expropriation of the claimants' investment in Yukos."
The Hague's Permanent Court of Arbitration ordered Russia to compensate the plaintiffs with $50
billion – less than half the initial $114 billion demanded by the former shareholders. Russia has
also been ordered to pay about $65 million in legal costs.
"This is the biggest arbitration award in history," as ITAR-TASS quotes Emmanuel Gilyard,
a lawyer at the Shearman Sterling bureau, who underlined that the case became a 'mega-arbitration'.
As part of the case, three separate lawsuits by former Yukos shareholders were filed by Hulley
Enterprises Limited (Cyprus), Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) and Veteran Petroleum Limited
(Cyprus).
The court ruled that $39.97 billion of the compensation should go to Hulley Enterprises, $1.85
billion to Yukos Universal and $8.2 billion for Veteran Petroleum Limited. The Veteran Petroleum
fund acts in the interest of former Yukos employees and should receive another $8.2 billion.
The claim was lodged by Gibraltar-based Group Menatep Limited (GML) - the company used by Russia's
once richest man Mikhail Khodorkovsky to manage Yukos.
Russia has until January 2015 to pay the compensation; otherwise it will start being charged interest.
The country's Finance Ministry said it would appeal the decision in the Netherlands.
"I am delighted to confirm that those final awards, which were unanimous, are very favorable
to the claimants," Tim Osborne, director of the GML group of shareholders which brought the
action, told Reuters.
Former Yukos shareholders said on Monday they had not ruled out the possibility of a lawsuit against
Rosneft and its shareholders, including BP, for their role in the redistribution of Yukos' assets.
Osborne had previously said that if the Russian state refuses to pay the compensation, then the shareholders
could file a lawsuit against BP as a Rosneft shareholder.
"There is no reason to think Russia will not fulfill its international obligations. But if
this were to happen, the New York Convention, which obligates 150 signature states to work together
to ensure the arbitration ruling is upheld – would come in effect," said Osborne
Rosneft released a statement on Monday following the ruling, saying that it does not consider
itself liable in the Yukos case as it acted in accordance with Russian law in its acquisition of
the company's assets.
"Rosneft does not bear any responsibility in the published ruling," said the statement.
"Rosneft believes that its acquisition of Yukos' assets was conducted in accordance with the
applicable laws."
Churchill used to say "I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he
excites among his opponents." It's easy to explain why Putin is demonized. He stands against neocon/neolib
agenda so it is naturally that from the USA view he needs to be demonized, and, if possible, eliminated...
Can someone please explain what appears to be a sudden(ish) coordinated political and media
campaign to demonise Russia, especially Putin? I don't have a dog in the fight but something is
afoot.
In 1933, the Holodomor was playing out in Ukraine.
After the "kulaks," the independent farmers, had been liquidated in the forced collectivization
of Soviet agriculture, a genocidal famine was imposed on Ukraine through seizure of her food production.
Estimates of the dead range from two to nine million souls.
Walter Duranty of the New York Times, who called reports of the famine "malignant propaganda,"
won a Pulitzer for his mendacity.
In November 1933, during the Holodomor, the greatest liberal of them all, FDR, invited Foreign
Minister Maxim Litvinov to receive official U.S. recognition of his master Stalin's murderous regime.
On August 1, 1991, just four months before Ukraine declared its independence of Russia, George
H. W. Bush warned Kiev's legislature:
"Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny
with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon
ethnic hatred."
In short, Ukraine's independence was never part of America's agenda. From 1933 to 1991, it was
never a U.S. vital interest. Bush I was against it.
When then did this issue of whose flag flies over Donetsk or Crimea become so crucial that we
would arm Ukrainians to fight Russian-backed rebels and consider giving a NATO war guarantee to Kiev,
potentially bringing us to war with a nuclear-armed Russia?
From FDR on, U.S. presidents have felt that America could not remain isolated from the rulers
of the world's largest nation.
Ike invited Khrushchev to tour the USA after he had drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood.
After Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba, JFK was soon calling for a new detente at American University.
Within weeks of Warsaw Pact armies crushing the Prague Spring in August 1968, LBJ was seeking
a summit with Premier Alexei Kosygin.
After excoriating Moscow for the downing of KAL 007 in 1983, that old Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan
was fishing for a summit meeting.
The point: Every president from FDR through George H. W. Bush, even after collisions with Moscow
far more serious than this clash over Ukraine, sought to re-engage the men in the Kremlin.
Whatever we thought of the Soviet dictators who blockaded Berlin, enslaved Eastern Europe, put
rockets in Cuba and armed Arabs to attack Israel, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and
Bush 1 all sought to engage Russia's rulers.
Avoidance of a catastrophic war demanded engagement.
How then can we explain the clamor of today's U.S. foreign policy elite to confront, isolate,
and cripple Russia, and make of Putin a moral and political leper with whom honorable statesmen can
never deal?
What has Putin done to rival the forced famine in Ukraine that starved to death millions, the
slaughter of the Hungarian rebels or the Warsaw Pact's crushing of Czechoslovakia?
In Ukraine, Putin responded to a U.S.-backed coup, which ousted a democratically elected political
ally of Russia, with a bloodless seizure of the pro-Russian Crimea where Moscow has berthed its Black
Sea fleet since the 18th century. This is routine Big Power geopolitics.
And though Putin put an army on Ukraine's border, he did not order it to invade or occupy Luhansk
or Donetsk. Does this really look like a drive to reassemble either the Russian Empire of the Romanovs
or the Soviet Empire of Stalin that reached to the Elbe?
As for the downing of the Malaysian airliner, Putin did not order that. Sen. John Cornyn says
U.S. intelligence has not yet provided any "smoking gun" that ties the missile-firing to Russia.
Intel intercepts seem to indicate that Ukrainian rebels thought they had hit an Antonov military
transport plane.
Yet, today, the leading foreign policy voice of the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain, calls
Obama's White House "cowardly" for not arming the Ukrainians to fight the Russian-backed separatists.
But suppose Putin responded to the arrival of U.S. weapons in Kiev by occupying Eastern Ukraine.
What would we do then?
John Bolton has the answer: Bring Ukraine into NATO.
Translation: The U.S. and NATO should go to war with Russia, if necessary, over Luhansk, Donetsk
and Crimea, though no U.S. president has ever thought Ukraine itself was worth a war with Russia.
What motivates Putin seems simple and understandable. He wants the respect due a world power.
He sees himself as protector of the Russians left behind in his "near abroad." He relishes playing
Big Power politics. History is full of such men.
He allows U.S. overflights to Afghanistan, cooperates in the P5+1 on Iran, helped us rid Syria
of chemical weapons, launches our astronauts into orbit, collaborates in the war on terror and disagrees
on Crimea and Syria.
But what motivates those on our side who seek every opportunity to restart the Cold War?
Is it not a desperate desire to appear once again Churchillian, once again heroic, once again
relevant, as they saw themselves in the Cold War that ended so long ago?
Combined sanctions by the US, Europe, Japan and the OECD bloc pit a $35 trillion
economies vs an economy with a $2 trillion budget. The US has the power to bring Russia to its knees
through control over the world's banking system.
July 23, 2014 | csmonitor.com
Many leading foreign policy advisers to Putin say that Ukraine is merely an excuse for US-led
sanctions, and that Washington is bent on 'regime change' in Russia.
One school,
tactically embraced by President Vladimir Putin himself yesterday, is that conciliatory rhetoric,
signals of non-aggression toward
Ukraine, and massaging
the divergent economic interests between European countries and the US, may succeed in blunting further
sanctions, if not rolling back the ones already imposed.
But another point of view, held by many leading foreign policy advisers, is far more pessimistic,
and even fatalistic. This perspective argues that Russia's schism with the US will keep on widening
no matter what happens in Ukraine.
The US, they say, is pursuing a "containment 2.0" strategy that, like the successful
US cold war policy
that toppled the former Soviet Union, is aimed at weakening and ultimately defeating Russia as a
geopolitical foe.
'The ultimate goal is regime change'
Several waves of sanctions have hit banks and individuals considered close to President Putin
or heavily involved in Russia's Ukraine policy-making. Last week the US imposed
the toughest measures yet, curbing the access of leading Russian banks and oil companies to Western
capital markets. The European Union followed up with somewhat milder sanctions, which they have
threatened to bolster again in the wake of the MH17 disaster.
But while Moscow's March
annexation of Crimea may have been the trigger that unleashed
successive waves of sanctions from the US and
Europe, the "containment
2.0" theory's adherents say that it was merely the spark that set off a conflict that had been brewing
for a long time.
"It's an illusion to believe that there are some specific steps we could take in connection with
Ukraine to mollify the US, and they would lift this blockade and return to normal," says Sergei Markov,
a Kremlin-connected political analyst. "No, just watch, they will keep moving the goal posts."
The real reasons that
US-Russia acrimony has been inexorably building, they say, is that Russia is at the leading edge
of emerging countries that are challenging the US-run global financial and political order.
The US plan, Mr. Markov says, "is to continue tightening the screws over the long term, aiming
to increase discontent among Russia's middle class, and to turn people against Putin. The ultimate
goal is regime change, and we would be fools not to see that."
Although the Kremlin has claimed that sanctions against Russia will "boomerang"
against Western economic interests, few analysts believe Russia can win against the overwhelming
financial and economic firepower of the US and its allies in any extended showdown. As such, some
argue that Russia has no choice but to accept a measure of isolation as its lot.
Embracing isolation
But there are ways Russia can turn the situation to its advantage, they say.
First, they argue, the Kremlin could adopt policies that might compensate for the loss of foreign
investment by encouraging domestic capital to mobilize.
Indeed, they say, something just like that appears to have happened by accident. After the first
wave of US sanctions caused an exodus of foreign investors in March, a remarkable
Russian stock market rebound occurred in the weeks after, as Russians came rushing in to snap
up the bargains.
Similarly, they argue, the Russian government can use its nearly half-a-trillion dollars in foreign
currency reserves to bolster the ruble and back investments in domestic industries. That could make
up for the coming loss of virtually
all Ukrainian imports and redirect Russia's economy from raw materials exports to modern manufacturing
and services.
"There is a lot of domestic capital and energy that could be unlocked, but our elites need to
embrace reforms," says Sergei Karaganov, honorary chair of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policies,
a leading Moscow think tank. "The sanctions so far imposed are doing very little harm, but our economy
was stagnating even before," due to over reliance on raw materials exports and an unwelcoming environment
for small and medium-sized businesses in Russia.
"The sanctions can be an impetus, a wake-up call," he says, "but only if we make the right policy
choices."
A wall of BRICS?
The other major thing Russia can do, say those who see a US campaign against it, is grow its ties
with like-thinking countries who are also at odds with the US-dominated world order.
Unlike the former Soviet Union, whose string of client states were a crippling economic drain,
Russia's
potential allies are some of the world's fastest-growing economies. Two months ago Putin
closed a huge gas deal with China, signalling that Moscow has alternatives if its main customer,
the EU, decides to stop buying Russian energy. Last week, at a summit of the BRICS [Brazil, Russia,
India, China, South Africa] countries, the emerging five-nation group
resoundingly condemned US-led sanctions against Russia. They also
established a development bank which could eventually rival US-dominated institutions such as
the World Bank.
The evolution of the BRICS over the past 14 years from an idea
suggested by a Goldman Sachs analyst to an actual bloc of countries that holds summits, coordinates
foreign policies, and designs its own supra-national institutions obviously has deeply-rooted causes.
But Russian experts say the current sanctions campaign against Russia by the US is probably doing
more than anything else to spur the determination of BRICS states to develop their own parallel institutions
– and, incidentally, give refuge to Russia.
"A couple of years ago the idea of a BRICS development bank seemed completely fanciful," says
Georgi Toloraya, director of the Russian National Committee for BRICS Research, a semi-official think
tank in Moscow. "But now we have this confrontation between Russia and the West. Tensions are growing
between China and the US in the political-military sphere. This is changing minds rapidly. Now the
idea of creating a separate institution doesn't seem so exotic at all."
Today we will consider the fundamental issues of maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of this country. We all understand how many political, ethnic, legal, social, economic and other
aspects this topic encompasses.
Sovereignty and territorial integrity are fundamental values, as I have already said. We are referring
to the maintenance of the independence and unity of our state, to the reliable protection of our
territory, our constitutional system and to the timely neutralisation of internal and external threats,
of which there are quite a few in the world today. I should make it clear from the start that, obviously,
there is no direct military threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of this country.
Primarily, the strategic balance of forces in the world guarantees this.
We, on our part, strictly comply with the norms of international law and with our commitments
to our partners, and we expect other countries, unions of states and military-political alliances
to do the same, while Russia is fortunately not a member of any alliance. This is also a guarantee
of our sovereignty.
Any nation that is part of an alliance gives up part of its sovereignty. This does not always
meet the national interests of a given country, but this is their sovereign decision. We expect our
national legal interests to be respected, while any controversies that always exist, to be resolved
only through diplomatic efforts, by means of negotiations. Nobody should interfere in our internal
affairs.
However, ever more frequently today we hear of ultimatums and sanctions. The very notion of state
sovereignty is being washed out. Undesirable regimes, countries that conduct an independent policy
or that simply stand in the way of somebody's interests get destabilised. Tools used for this purpose
are the so-called colour revolutions, or, in simple terms – takeovers instigated and financed from
the outside.
The focus is of course on internal problems. Any country always has plenty of problems, especially
the more unstable states, or states with a complicated ethnic composition. Problems do exist, still
it is not clear why they should be used to destabilise and break down a country – something we see
rather frequently in various parts of the world.
Frequently the forces used here are radical, nationalist, often even neo-fascist, fundamental
forces, as was the case, unfortunately, in many post-Soviet states, and as is the case with Ukraine
now. What we see is practically the same thing.
People came to power through the use of armed force and by unconstitutional means. True, they
held elections after the takeover, however, for some strange reason, power ended up again in the
hands of those who either funded or carried out this takeover. Meanwhile, without any attempt at
negotiations, they are trying to supress by force that part of the population that does not agree
with such a turn of events.
At the same time, they present Russia with an ultimatum: either you let us destroy the part of
the population that is ethnically, culturally and historically close to Russia, or we introduce sanctions
against you. This is a strange logic, and absolutely unacceptable, of course.
As for the terrible tragedy that occurred in the sky above Donetsk – we would like once again
to express our condolences to the families of the victims; it is a terrible tragedy. Russia will
do everything within its power to ensure a proper comprehensive and transparent investigation. We
are asked to influence the militia in the southeast. As I have said, we will do everything in our
power, but this is absolutely insufficient.
Yesterday when the militia forces were handing over the so-called black boxes, the armed forces
of Ukraine launched a tank attack at the city of Donetsk. The tanks battled through to the railway
station and opened fire at it. International experts who came to investigate the disaster site could
not stick their heads out. It was clearly not the militia forces shooting at themselves.
We should finally call on the Kiev authorities to comply with elementary norms of human decency
and introduce a cease-fire for at least some short period of time to make the investigation possible.
We will of course do everything in our power to make sure the investigation is thorough.
This is exactly why Russia supported the [UN] Security Council Resolution proposed by Australia.
We will continue working together with all our partners to ensure a complete and comprehensive investigation.
However, if we get back to such scenarios in general, as I have said, they are absolutely unacceptable
and counterproductive. They destabilize the existing world order.
Undoubtedly, such methods will not work with Russia. The recipes used regarding weaker states
fraught with internal conflict will not work with us. Our people, the citizens of Russia will not
let this happen and will never accept this.
However, attempts are clearly being made to destabilize the social and economic situation, to
weaken Russia in one way or another or to strike at our weaker spots, and they will continue primarily
to make us more agreeable in resolving international issues.
So-called international competition mechanisms are being used as well (this applies to both politics
and the economy); for this purpose the special services' capabilities are used, along with modern
information and communication technologies and dependent, puppet non-governmental organizations –
so-called soft force mechanisms. This, obviously, is how some countries understand democracy.
We have to give an adequate response to such challenges, and, most importantly, to continue working
in a systematic way to resolve the issues that carry a potential risk for the unity of our country
and our society.
In the past few years, we have strengthened our state and public institutions, the basics of Russian
federalism, and we have made progress in regional development, in resolving economic and social tasks.
Our law enforcement agencies and special services have become more efficient in combatting terrorism
and extremism; we are forming a modern basis of our ethnic policy, adjusting approaches to education;
we are constantly combatting corruption – all this guarantees our security and sovereignty.
At the same time, we should keep these issues in mind. If necessary, we have to quickly develop
and implement additional measures. We need to have a long-term plan of action in these areas, strategic
documents and resolutions.
In this regard, I would like to draw attention to several priority challenges.
The first is working consistently to strengthen interethnic harmony, ensure a competent migration
policy, and react rigidly to inactions by officials and crimes that may be triggered by interethnic
conflicts.
These are challenges for all levels of government, from the federal to the municipal. And, of
course, it is extremely important for our civil society to take an active position and react to infringements
on human rights and freedoms, helping to prevent radicalism and extremism.
We are particularly relying on civil society for effective help in improving the system of state
governance with regard to ethnic policy and educating young people about the spirit of patriotism
and responsibility for the fate of their Fatherland, which is particularly important. We discussed
this in great detail recently at a meeting of the Council for Interethnic Relations.
By the way, I want to clearly state that - with the help of the civil society – we will never
entertain the thought ofimproving our work in these areas solely by cracking down, so to
speak. We will not do that under any circumstances; we will rely on civil society, first and foremost.
Our second important challenge is protecting constitutional order. Constitutional supremacy and
economic and legal unity must be ensured throughout all of Russia. Federal standards as defined by
the Constitution are inviolable and nobody has the right to break the law and infringe on citizens'
rights.
It is important for all Russians, regardless of where they live, to have equal rights and equal
opportunities. This is the foundation for a democratic system. We must rigorously observe these Constitutional
principles, and to do this, we must build a clear system of state authority, striving to ensure that
all its components function as a united whole, precisely and systemically; this should include increasing
local authorities' role as part of Russia's overall government mechanism. And naturally, reinforcing
the efficacy of the work of the judicial system, the prosecutors, and the regulatory and supervisory
authorities should strengthen Russia's statehood.
The third key challenge is sustainable and balanced economic and social development. At the same
time, it is fundamentally important to take into account territorial and regional factors. I mean
that we must ensure priority development for strategically important regions, including in the Far
East and other areas; we must simultaneously reduce drastic gaps between regions in terms of the
economic situation and people's living standards. All this needs to be taken into account when developing
federal and sectorial programmes, improving inter-budgetary relations and building plans to develop
infrastructure, selecting locations for new plants and creating modern jobs.
I also feel that we must think about additional steps to decrease the dependence of the national
economy and financial system on negative external factors. I am not just referring to instability
in global markets, but possible political risks as well.
Fourth, our Armed Forces remain the most important guarantorof our sovereignty and Russia's
territorial integrity. We will react appropriately and proportionatelyto the approach of
NATO's military infrastructure toward our borders, and we will not fail to notice the expansion of
global missile defence systems and increases in the reserves of strategic non-nuclear precision weaponry.
We are often told that the ABM system is a defence system. But that's not the case. This is an
offensive system; it is part of the offensive defence system of the United States on the periphery.
Regardless of what our foreign colleagues say, we can clearly see what is actually happening: groups
of NATO troops are clearly being reinforced in Eastern European states, including in the Black and
Baltic seas. And the scale and intensity of operational and combat training is growing. In this regard,
it is imperative to implement all planned measures to strength our nation's defence capacity fully
and on schedule, including, of course, in Crimea and Sevastopol, where essentially we need to fully
recreate the military infrastructure.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: In response to the terrible tragedy that took place over Donetsk, I want
to reiterate Russia's position with regard to the current situation in Ukraine.
We have called repeatedly on all parties to the conflict to stop the bloodshed immediately and
begin negotiations. I believe that if military operations had not resumed in eastern Ukraine on June
28, this tragedy probably could have been avoided.
At the same time, no one should and no one has the right to use this tragedy to pursue their own
political goals. Rather than dividing us, tragedies of this sort should bring people together. All
those who are responsible for the situation in the region must take greater responsibility before
their own peoples and before the peoples of the countries whose citizens were killed in this disaster.
Everything possible must be done to ensure that international experts can work in safety at the
crash site. Representatives from the Donbass region, Donetsk, Ukraine's Emergency Situations Ministry,
and Malaysian experts are already working at the site, but this is not enough.
It is essential that a full-fledged group of experts under ICAO aegis, an appropriate international
commission set up for the task, be able to work at the crash site. We must do everything possible
to ensure their complete and guaranteed safety and provide them with the humanitarian corridors they
need for their work.
For its part, Russia will do everything within its power to move the conflict in eastern Ukraine
from the military phase we see today to the negotiating phase, with the parties using peaceful and
diplomatic means alone.
Lithuania, small as it is, supplies more prostitutes to the world that does Russia. However, the
country of origin (Germany is also one of the highest-ratio prostitutes-to-population countries
in the world) has less to do with it than many other factors since the great majority of foreign
prostitutes are tricked into it, so that it has nothing to do with morality. Also, countries with
a falling standard of living are ripe for a growing prostitution problem. Ukraine certainly fits
the bill there, although out of desperation rather than loose morals, while Russia does not.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has outlined his foreign policy priorities to ambassadors
and envoys. The experts noted he was confident, revealing and sent quite a clear message to the West.
He certainly has not attacked any Western leader, despite numerous personal attacks against himself.
Robert Oulds, Director of the Bruges Group, an independent all-party think tank, told Radio VR
that President Putin spoke about how he wanted to be engaging with the rest of the world, but pointed
out that the US, supported by the European Union, is still following the containment policy, as he
described it, that existed during the Cold War. And in this, America has not moved on from the Cold
War era and is still trying to take actions against Russia. But Vladimir Putin was clearly drawing
line in this end and said it has been pushed far enough and he would take further actions if, indeed,
Russia's interests were continued to be threatened by the EU and the US.
VR's political analyst Dmitry Babich also compared the current Western rhetoric with that of the
Cold War, but said it is even worse and certainly much more belligerent.
"For example, Obama talks about complete diplomatic isolation of Russia," he said. "I do not remember
Carter or Reagan saying that. And no one could even remotely imagine a civil war on the territory
of Ukraine, which is, I would say, a Slavic heartland."
Dmitry Babich also pointed out that despite numerous personal attacks against him, like Merkel
saying that he lost touch with reality, there was not a single personal attack from President Putin
during this speech or in the previous days. He said a few words about Poroshenko, but basically what
he said was that the so-called anti-terrorist operation was started by other people, but now that
Poroshenko ordered the truce ended and the military activity re-started, he will bear the full responsibility.
It was not a personal attack, but rather an affirmation of the fact which is on the ground.
Robert Oulds also mentioned the full responsibility of the Ukrainian authorities and the current
regime. They took power in what was an illegal coup, largely sponsored by America and the European
Union, and certainly encouraged politically, and they have been taking military actions against civilians,
innocent people are being killed as a result of these military actions.
But this is hardly being reported in the Western media. The Western media is thoroughly misrepresenting
the situation and trying to pretend that these events have been started by President Putin in Russia
and the whole narrative is about Russian expansionism, when actually this is the European Union and
NATO and the US involvement in Ukraine which has undermined this country and pushed it to the situation
where people in the east of the country have taken up their right to self-determination, expressed
it in the referendum. The EU has blood on its hands for what it has been doing in Ukraine but it
failed to be reported properly in the Western media.
With regards to the Western foreign policy, Dmitry Babich noted that President Putin sees all
the moves of the West, even the most irrational ones and he tries to count these moves in a cold-blooded
way, without conspiracy theories and personal attacks. He just says that Russia should defend its
own interests.
...где Путин поливается грязью. Но. Не следует забывать, что Путин уже несколько месяцев, как мог
втянуть Россию в войну с Украиной - и бились бы русские с хохлами на потеху буржуям, чего они собсно
и добиваются всё это время. А так без падающих на голову бомб можно в спокойной обстановке всё обмозговать,
кто виноват и что делать.
Да, обидно, что наших убивают на Донбассе. Да, обидно, что снаряду уже
начали взрываться на нашей территории, но пока ещё остаётся маленький луч надежды. что конфликт погаснет
и Россия останется невредима. Стремительно истекающие месяцы мирного времени дают всем нам шанс разобраться
в том, кто стоит за разжиганием конфликта на украине и втягиванию в него России.
В какой-то книге мне встречалась мысль о том, что с помощью крестовых походов воротилам финансового
капитала удалось погасить гнев голодных масс и растворить его. Сейчас ситуация мне представляется
схожей. Перед лицом кризиса финансовый капитал идёт на всё, чтобы отвести от себя этот удар - гнев
голодной толпы. Ничего личного - просто бизнес, скажут они глядя на фото жертв войны.
Интересно, почему российские СМИ не задаются этим вопросом. Говорят о чём угодно, но только не
об этом. О Ляшко, Порошенко и тд, и тп, но не о том, почему они это делают, почему они так яростно
отстаивают единую украину и при этом всё больше и больше топя её в крови собственного народа? Боюсь
даже представить, что они сделают, дай им волю, с крымчанами, если дончан они уже сейчас расстреливают
и сгоняют в концлагеря. Подозреваю, что здесь одной идеи о превосходстве нации недостаточно,
есть ещё чьи-то скрытые интересы, побуждающие хохлов к таким зверствам. Об этих скрытых интересах
можно только гадать, ясно лишь одно - все происходящее есть результат, продукт системы общественных
отношений, системы, которая завела современный мир в тупик.
Скажите мне, как можно говорить с серьёзным выражением лица о том, что "разбили в 45-м, разобъём
и сейчас". Тогда, в 45-м была великая победа одной системы над другой, но видимо, как-то не до конца
победили, раз они к нам в новом обличье вернулись. А сейчас и Россия, и Великая Хохляндия являются
всего лишь частями одной системы, поэтому шансов победить укрофашистов у нас мало. Чем отличается
одна олигархическая система управления страной от другой? Фамилиями или размерами яхт?
Одно я знаю точно - если Путин сдаст бандеровцам Стрелкова, то народ ему этого не простит, даже несмотря
на Крым.
The Cold War made a lot of money for the military/security complex for four decades dating from
Churchill's March 5, 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri declaring a Soviet "Iron Curtain" until Reagan
and Gorbachev ended the Cold War in the late 1980s. During the Cold War Americans heard endlessly
about "the Captive Nations." The Captive Nations were the Baltics and the Soviet bloc, usually summarized
as "Eastern Europe."
These nations were captive because their foreign policies were dictated by Moscow, just as these
same Captive Nations, plus the UK, Western Europe, Canada, Mexico, Columbia, Japan, Australia, New
Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Georgia, and Ukraine, have their foreign policies
dictated today by Washington. Washington intends to expand the Captive Nations to include Azerbaijan,
former constituent parts of Soviet Central Asia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia.
During the Cold War Americans thought of Western Europe and Great Britain as independent sovereign
countries. Whether they were or not, they most certainly are not today. We are now almost seven decades
after WWII, and US troops still occupy Germany. No European government dares to take a stance different
from that of the US Department of State.
Not long ago there was talk both in the UK and Germany about departing the European Union, and
Washington told both countries that talk of that kind must stop as it was not in Washington's interest
for any country to exit the EU. The talk stopped. Great Britain and Germany are such complete vassals
of Washington that neither country can publicly discuss its own future.
When Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge with prosecuting authority, attempted to indict members
of the George W. Bush regime for violating international law by torturing detainees, he was slapped
down.
In Modern Britain, Stephane Aderca writes that the UK is so proud of being Washington's "junior
partner" that the British government agreed to a one-sided extradition treaty under which Washington
merely has to declare "reasonable suspicion" in order to obtain extradition from the UK, but the
UK must prove "probable cause." Being Washington's "junior partner," Aderca reports, is an ego-boost
for British elites, giving them a feeling of self-importance.
Under the rule of the Soviet Union, a larger entity than present day Russia, the captive nations
had poor economic performance. Under Washington's rule, these same captives have poor economic performance
due to their looting by Wall Street and the IMF.
As Giuseppe di Lampedusa said, "Things have to change in order to remain the same."
The looting of Europe by Wall Street has gone beyond Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and
Ukraine, and is now focused on France and Great Britain. The American authorities are demanding $10
billion from France's largest bank on a trumped-up charge of financing trade with Iran, as if it
is any business whatsoever of Washington's who French banks choose to finance. And despite Great
Britain's total subservience to Washington, Barclays bank has a civil fraud suit filed against it
by the NY State Attorney General.
The charges against Barclays PLC are likely correct. But as no US banks were charged, most of
which are similarly guilty, the US charge against Barclays means that big pension funds and mutual
funds must flee Barclays as customers, because the pension funds and mutual funds would be subject
to lawsuits for negligence if they stayed with a bank under charges.
The result, of course, of the US charges against foreign banks is that US banks like Morgan Stanley
and Citigroup are given a competitive advantage and gain market share in their own dark pools.
So, what are we witnessing? Clearly and unequivocally, we are witnessing the use of US law to
create financial hegemony for US financial institutions. The US Department of Justice (sic) has had
evidence for five years of Citigroup's participation in the fixing of the LIBOR interest rate, but
no indictment has been forthcoming.
The bought and paid for governments of Washington's European puppet states are so corrupt that
the leaders permit Washington control over their countries in order to advance American financial,
political, and economic hegemony.
Washington is organizing the world against Russia and China for Washington's benefit. On June
27 Washington's puppet states that comprise the EU issued an ultimatum to Russia.The absurdity of
this ultimatum is obvious. Militarily, Washington's EU puppets are harmless. Russia could wipe out
Europe in a few minutes. Here we have the weak issuing an ultimatum to the strong.
The EU, ordered by Washington, told Russia to suppress the opposition in southern and eastern
Ukraine to Washington's stooge government in Kiev. But, as every educated person knows, including
the White House, 10 Downing Street, Merkel, and Holland, Russia is not responsible for the separatist
unrest in eastern and southern Ukraine. These territories are former constituent parts of Russia
that were added to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet Communist Party leaders when Ukraine and
Russia were two parts of the same country.
These Russians want to return to Russia because they are threatened by the stooge government in
Kiev that Washington has installed. Washington, determined to force Putin into military action that
can be used to justify more sanctions, is intent on forcing the issue, not on resolving the issue.
What is Putin to do? He has been given 72 hours to submit to an ultimatum from a collection of
puppet states that he can wipe out at a moment's notice or seriously inconvenience by turning off
the flow of Russian natural gas to Europe.
Historically, such a stupid challenge to power would result in consequences. But Putin is a humanist
who favors peace. He will not willingly give up his strategy of demonstrating to Europe that the
provocations are coming from Washington, not from Russia. Putin's hope, and Russia's, is that Europe
will eventually realize that Europe is being badly used by Washington.
Washington has hundreds of Washington-financed NGOs in Russia hiding behind various guises such
as "human rights," and Washington can unleash these NGOs on Putin at will, as Washington did with
the protests against Putin's election. Washington's fifth columns claimed that Putin stole the election
even though polls showed that Putin was the clear and undisputed winner.
In 1991 Russians were, for the most part, delighted to be released from communism and looked to
the West as an ally in the construction of a civil society based on good will. This was Russia's
mistake. As the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines make clear, Russia is the enemy whose rise to
influence must be prevented at all cost.
Putin's dilemma is that he is caught between his heart-felt desire to reach an accommodation
with Europe and Washington's desire to demonize and isolate Russia.
The risk for Putin is that his desire for accommodation is being exploited by Washington and explained
to the EU as Putin's weakness and lack of courage. Washington is telling its European vassals that
Putin's retreat under Europe's pressure will undermine his status in Russia, and at the right time
Washington will unleash its many hundreds of NGOs to bring Putin to ruin.
This was the Ukraine scenario. With Putin replaced with a compliant Russian,
richly rewarded by Washington, only China would remain as an obstacle to American world hegemony.
Pushkov Russia and the USA have enetred confrontational phase of their relations.
The official policy of the White house towards Russia makes it clear that normalization of relations
between Moscow and Washington in the foreseeable future will not happen, said the head of the international
Affairs Committee of the state Duma Alexei Pushkov.
"This is a return to the rhetoric, to the logic of cold war policy to isolate Russia - and it
is the official policy of Obama. Which shows that any normalization of relations with the USA in
the foreseeable future is not possible", - said Pushkov to RIA "Novosti".
According to Puchkov "the Obama administration has already made their choice". "Let's make
no mistake... This choice against normalization of relations with Russia. So they chop off all contacts,
all communications, cease all negotiations... So we actually observe that the US moved in a confrontational
phase," said Pushkov.
On Monday, White house spokesman Josh Ernest said that Russia may "have to face additional
steps that could further isolate it from the international community and affect its economy."
U.S. President Barack Obama earlier said that the U.S. has affected world opinion and helped immediately
isolate" Russia after the accession of the Crimea.
In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the isolation of Russia can have only
" just ephemeral character. It's impossible".
Note that about the failure of US can testify not only Russia's relations with China, but also
constant disputes within the EU and the USA regarding the development of contacts with Russia.
Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014 - Directs the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to submit to
Congress a strategic framework for U.S. security assistance and cooperation in Europe and Eurasia.
Directs the President to: (1) halt for 180-days all current and planned redeployments of combat
forces from Europe other than certain redeployments, and (2) develop a plan to correct any deficiencies
in the Armed Forces' ability to respond to contingencies in Europe and Eurasia.
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) represents
the most successful collective security agreement of the modern era, and (2) a strong NATO is critical
to maintaining peace in Europe and Eurasia and ensuring that the Russian Federation plays an appropriate
role in the region.
Directs the President to: (1) implement a plan for increasing U.S. and NATO support for the armed
forces of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and other NATO member-states; and (2) direct the
U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO to seek consideration for permanently basing NATO forces in
such countries.
Directs the President to submit a plan to Congress for accelerating NATO and European missile
defense efforts.
Directs the President to establish a United States-German Global and European Security Working
Group to focus on areas of mutual concern, including the situation in Ukraine, and increasing political,
economic, and military cooperation between the two states.
Directs the President to impose asset blocking and U.S. exclusion sanctions, if Russian
armed forces have not withdrawn from Crimea within seven days after enactment of this Act, against:
(1) any government official, and any close associate or family member of that official, who
is responsible for or otherwise directing violations of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty,
or who is responsible for acts of significant corruption in the Russian Federation;
(2) any individual who sponsored or provided financial, material, or technological support
for, or goods or services in support of such acts;
(3) any individual or entity with respect to which sanctions were previously imposed relating
to violations of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty;
(4) any entity owned or controlled by a sanctioned entity that is owned or controlled by a
citizen of the Russian Federation; and
(5) any senior executive of a sanctioned entity who is a citizen of the Russian Federation.
Directs the President to impose asset blocking and U.S. exclusion sanctions, if Russian armed
forces have not withdrawn from the eastern border of Ukraine within seven days after enactment of
this Act, or if agents of the Russian Federation do not cease actions to destabilize the control
of the government of Ukraine over eastern Ukraine, against: (1) Sberbank, (2) VTB Bank, (3) Vnesheconombank,
(4) Gazprombank, (5) Gazprom, (6) Novatek, (7) Rosneft, (8) Rosoboronexport, (9) any entity owned
or controlled by such an entity that is owned or controlled by a citizen of the Russian Federation;
and (10) any senior executive of such an entity who is a citizen of the Russian Federation.
Imposes asset blocking, U.S. exclusion, and foreign financial entity sanctions, if Russian armed
forces expand further into, or the government of the Russian Federation annexes, sovereign territory
of Ukraine or any other country in Europe or Eurasia, against: (1) any senior Russian official, (2)
any entity owned or controlled by a senior Russian official, and (3) any close associate of a senior
Russian official who provides significant support or resources to such senior Russian official.
Imposes asset blocking and U.S. exclusion sanctions also, in such circumstances, against: (1)
any entity organized under the laws of the Russian Federation that is owned or controlled by the
government of the Russian Federation, or owned or controlled by a person sanctioned for violations
of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty; (2) any entity that operates in the arms, defense,
energy, financial services, metals, or mining sectors of the Russian Federation; and (3) any senior
executive of such an entity who is a citizen of the Russian Federation.
Sets forth related penalty requirements.
States that U.S. exclusion sanctions shall not apply if necessary to permit the United States
to comply with the Agreement regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations or other applicable
international obligations.
Authorizes the President to waive sanctions if in the U.S. national security interests, and with
prior congressional notification.
Directs the Secretary of Commerce to limit the transfer or export by any U.S. person of oil and
gas advanced technology to any person in, or any citizen of, the Russian Federation if: (1) the Russian
Federation has not substantially withdrawn its armed forces from the eastern border of Ukraine within
30 days, or (2) agents of the Russian Federation do not end destabilizing measures in eastern Ukraine.
Directs the Secretary of State to work with U.S. allies to limit: (1) sales of defense articles
and services to the government of the Russian Federation, and (2) cooperation with the government
of the Russian Federation on matters related to the production of defense articles and services by
Russian entities.
Prohibits the President from: (1) entering into any agreement with the government of the Russian
Federation regarding the reduction of nuclear forces except with the advice and consent of the Senate;
(2) reducing the number of deployed or non-deployed launchers under the Treaty between the United
States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation
of Strategic Offensive Arms while Russian armed forces are threatening the territorial integrity
or sovereignty of Ukraine or another European or Eurasian state; (3) sharing sensitive U.S. missile
defense information with the government of the Russian Federation; and (4) authorizing any Open Skies
Treaty overflights of U.S. territory or government facilities by Russian airplanes that employ any
surveillance devices beyond those employed before January 1, 2014.
Prohibits amounts from being obligated or expended to integrate into any U.S. or NATO common-funded
missile defense system any stand-alone radar or missile defense system manufactured, sold, or exported
by: (1) a Russian entity, or (2) any person or entity currently sanctioned or designated under U.S.
law for missile technology proliferation.
Directs the Secretary of State to provide access to appropriate consular resources, including
prioritized access for refugee and other immigration or travel status to the United States, for journalists,
political and civil society activists, and dissidents in the Russian Federation.
Directs the Secretary of State to increase efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and political
and civil society organizations in the Russian Federation.
Directs DOD to assess the capabilities and needs of the Ukrainian armed forces. Authorizes the
President, upon completion of such assessment, to provide specified military assistance to Ukraine.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the President should: (1) provide Ukraine with information
about Russian military and intelligence capabilities on Ukraine's eastern border and within Ukraine's
territorial borders, including Crimea; and (2) ensure that such intelligence information is protected
from further disclosure.
Provides major non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova (during the period in which
each of such countries meets specified criteria) for purposes of the transfer or possible transfer
of defense articles or defense services.
Directs the President to increase: (1) U.S. Armed Forces interactions with the armed forces of
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and
Serbia; and (2) U.S and NATO security assistance to such states.
Amends the Natural Gas Act to apply the expedited application and approval process for natural
gas exports to World Trade Organization members.
Urges the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Trade and Development Agency,
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the World Bank Group, and the European Bank for
Reconstruction to promote assistance to Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova in order to exploit natural
gas and oil reserves and to develop alternative energy sources.
Prohibits any federal department or agency from taking any action that recognizes Russian Federation
sovereignty over Crimea or otherwise endorses the Russian Federation's illegal annexation of Crimea.
Directs the Secretary of State to: (1) strengthen democratic institutions, the independent media,
and political and civil society organizations in countries of the former Soviet Union; and (2) increase
educational and cultural exchanges with countries of the former Soviet Union.
Directs the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Voice of America (VOA) to provide Congress
with a plan for increasing and maintaining through FY2017 the quantity of U.S.-funded Russian-language
broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union, with priority for broadcasting into Ukraine,
Georgia, and Moldova.
The likelihood is that the US wants Russia to fight a long drawn-out war that over the long term
drains the country's economy. A decade of fighting mujahideen aided by the CIA and Osama bin Laden's
fighters and money in Afghanistan was what sapped the Soviet Union's economic resources among
other things.
I do not agree. The USSR lost only 15,000 men in Afghanistan when the USA lost over 50,000 in
Vietnam. Nobody talks about Vietnam sapping the US economy. So similar talk about the Soviet Union
is a crock. It is the same ploy as claiming that Ronald Raygun spent the USSR Into bankruptcy
with his military budget. Basically, total rubbish. Nuclear missiles and warheads are the cheapest
and highest bang per buck weapons out there. Much more is spent on useless tanks and ships. The
very idea of bankrupting a command economy is silly. The war production in the USSR was not constrained
by budgets and was never in the red.
What brought down the USSR is a lack of focus on consumers
and corruption of the elites. They were badly deprived of McDonalds and other beads and trinkets
that afflict the minds of humans. The west out-dazzled the USSR for hearts and minds. In addition,
the bureaucratic nature of a command economy implied long term stagnation. This started in the
mid 1970s and is what undermined the system and not Raygun with his spending. A little appreciated
fact is that the lifestyle of the nomenklatura was not all that posh in spite of their dachas
and special stores. They wanted more, much more and there were lots of intrigues in the halls
of power during the 1980s to facilitate the demise of the system.
I agree that the USSR was not defeated by Star Wars or any other Western pressure. Nor was it
from the people as most seemed content with their lives and had optimism for the future, What
did in the USSR was a top-down takeover aided and perhaps spearheaded by Gorbachev. For what its
worth, I had a bad feeling with Margaret Thatcher said Gorby was someone she could work with.
I think the major factor were corrupt party elites who saw a chance to join the western club of
the hyper-privileged. Certainly the high position of many Jews who's loyalty was, lets say, suspect
took an opportunity to blow up the system to grab power and money with the West providing support
at every turn.
So, it would seem that the USSR was destroyed by the same poison that the West thrives on;
greed, deception and the love of power. What made the USSR susceptible to the tawdry lure of the
West was its commitment to an ideology that denied the core strength of Russia's culture, religion
and history and relied on an intellectual construct with little connection to the way people live.
@ Kirill: What I said is not contradicted by your comment. The CIA and the bin Ladens kept the
mujahideen well supplied with arms but ultimately with or without the CIA's help the warlords
and their armies would have won because they knew their people and their physical territory better
and could conduct hit-and-run guerrilla attacks based on that knowledge. Precisely because it
had a command economy, the USSR locked itself into throwing soldiers and resources into fighting
a war it couldn't win and this would have diverted resources from the civilian sector – resources
that could have been used to modernise and create a new civilian society rivalling US-style mass
consumerism but not wholly dependent on consumerism and constant and ever-growing money flows
for its survival.
Dear Kirill and Jen:
If I may chime in, like King Solomon, I think you are BOTH right.
President Raygun and his pet mujahideen did NOT, and could not, bring down the Soviet Union.
However, the American elites BELIEVE that that is what happened.
They believe that they brought down Soviet Union by (1) outspending them, (2) unleashing jihadists,
and (3) speaking harsh words to them (="Bring down this wall!")
Remember: These people operate based on magical thinking.
Current American elite (=Clintons, Bidens, etc., using Obama as their ventriloquist dummy)
believe that if this mojo magic worked against Soviet Union in the past, then the very same mojo
magic can work against Russia. Except using Nazis instead of jihadists. (One must adapt to local
conditions.)
f the situation in the world, to set current and long-term foreign policy objectives and on that
basis to more effectively coordinate the work of our missions abroad.
I would like to begin by
saying that the Foreign Ministry and our embassies are under a lot of pressure; we see this, we are
aware of this, but this pressure will not be reduced. It will only increase, just as the requirement
to show efficiency, precision and flexibility in our actions to ensure Russia's national interests.
You know how dynamic and unpredictable international developments may sometimes be. They seem
to be pressed together and unfortunately are not all of a positive nature. The potential for conflict
is growing in the world, old contradictions are growing ever more acute and new ones are being provoked.
We come across such developments, often unexpectedly, and we observe with regret that international
law is not working, the most basic norms of decency are not complied with and the principle of all-permissiveness
is gaining the upper hand.
We are observing this in Ukraine as well. We need to understand clearly that the events provoked
in Ukraine are the concentrated outcome of the notorious deterrence policy. As you may know,
its roots go deep into history and it is clear that unfortunately, this policy did not end with the
end of the Cold War.
In Ukraine, as you may have seen, at threat were our compatriots, Russian people and people of
other nationalities, their language, history, culture and legal rights, guaranteed, by the way, by
European conventions. When I speak of Russians and Russian-speaking citizens I am referring to those
people who consider themselves part of the broad Russian community, they may not necessarily be ethnic
Russians, but they consider themselves Russian people.
What did our partners expect from us as the developments in Ukraine unfolded? We clearly had no
right to abandon the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol to the mercy of nationalist and radical militants;
we could not allow our access to the Black Sea to be significantly limited; we could not allow NATO
forces to eventually come to the land of Crimea and Sevastopol, the land of Russian military glory,
and cardinally change the balance of forces in the Black Sea area. This would mean giving up practically
everything that Russia had fought for since the times of Peter the Great, or maybe even earlier –
historians should know.
I would like to make it clear to all: this country will continue to actively defend the rights
of Russians, our compatriots abroad, using the entire range of available means – from political and
economic to operations under international humanitarian law and the right of self-defense.
I would like to stress that what happened in Ukraine was the climax of the negative tendencies
in international affairs that had been building up for years. We have long been warning about this,
and unfortunately, our predictions came true.
You know about the latest efforts to restore, to maintain peace in Ukraine. Foreign Ministry staff
and the Minister himself took an active part in this. You know about the numerous telephone conversations
we had on this subject.
Unfortunately, President Poroshenko has resolved to resume military action, and we failed – when
I say 'we', I mean my colleagues in Europe and myself – we failed to convince him that the road to
a secure, stable and inviolable peace cannot lie through war.
So far Mr Poroshenko was not directly linked to the orders to begin military action, and only
now did he take full responsibility, and not only military, but political as well, which is much
more important.
We also failed to agree to make public the statement approved by the foreign ministers of Germany,
France, Russia and Ukraine on the need to maintain peace and search for mutually acceptable solutions.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that after the ceasefire was declared, no substantive,
as you say, negotiations on the settlement of the situation ever began. Virtually, a disarmament
ultimatum was given. However, even the ceasefire was not bad overall, though not enough to settle
the situation on a long-term basis in a way that would be acceptable to all the people living in
the country, including those in its southeast.
A constitution was made public, but it was never discussed. Even within Ukrainian society there
is a discussion of whether it is good or bad, but nobody definitely ever discussed it with the east.
Of course, everything that is going on in Ukraine is the internal affair of the Ukrainian state.
It pains us to see people dying, especially civilians. As you may know, the number of refugees in
the Russian Federation is growing. We will of course provide assistance to all those who need it.
However, killing journalists is unacceptable. I reminded the Ukrainian President of this yesterday
yet again.
In my view, we are observing a focused effort to liquidate all media representatives. This applies
to both Russian and foreign journalists. Who could be afraid of fair reporting? Probably those, who
are committing crimes. We strongly hope that the Ukrainian authorities act on their promises to carefully
investigate the crimes.
More new hotspots are appearing on the world map. There is a deficit of security in Europe, in
the Middle East, South-East Asia, in the Asia-Pacific region and in Africa. The global economic,
financial and trade systems are becoming unbalanced, and moral and spiritual values are being washed
out.
There is hardly any doubt that the unipolar world order did not come to be. Peoples and countries
are raising their voices in favour of self-determination and civilizational and cultural identity,
which conflicts with the attempts by certain countries to maintain their domination in the military
sphere, in politics, finance, the economy and in ideology.
I know this has no direct bearing on us, however what is being done to the French banks can cause
nothing but indignation in Europe in general and here as well. We are aware of the pressure our
American partners are putting on France to force it not to supply Mistrals to Russia. We even
know that they hinted that if France does not deliver the Mistrals, the sanctions will be quietly
lifted from their banks, or at least they will be significantly minimized.
What is this if not blackmail? Is this the right way to act on the international arena? Besides,
when we speak of sanctions, we always assume that sanctions are applied pursuant to Article 7 of
the UN Charter. Otherwise, these are not sanctions in the true legal sense of the word, but something
different, some other unilateral policy instrument.
In the past 20 years, our partners have been trying to convince Russia of their good intentions,
their readiness to jointly develop strategic cooperation. However, at the same time they kept expanding
NATO, extending the area under their military and political control ever closer to our borders. And
when we rightfully asked: "Don't you find it possible and necessary to discuss this with us?" they
: "No, this is none of your business." Those who continue insisting on their exclusivity strongly
dislike Russia's independent policy. The events in Ukraine prove this. They also prove that a model
of relations full of double standards does not work with Russia.
Nevertheless, I hope pragmatism will eventually prevail. We need to get rid of ambitions, of attempts
to establish a 'world barracks' and arrange everybody by rank, or to impose single rules of behaviour
and life, and to finally begin building relations based on equality, mutual respect and concern for
mutual interests. It is time we admit each other's right to be different, the right of every country
to live its own life rather than to be told what to do by someone else.
Colleagues, in its foreign policy Russia has been consistently proceeding from the notion that
solutions to global and regional conflicts should be sought not through confrontation, but through
cooperation and compromise. We advocate the supremacy of international law while supporting the UN's
leading role.
International law should be mandatory for all and should not be applied selectively to serve the
interests of individual select countries or groups of states, and most importantly, it should be
interpreted consistently. It is impossible to interpret it in one way today, and in a different way
tomorrow to match the political goals of the day.
World development cannot be unified. However, we can look for common issues, see each other as
partners rather than competitors, and establish cooperation between states, their associations and
integration structures.
These are the principles we were guided by in the past, and they continue to guide us now as we
promote integration within the CIS. Strengthening close friendly ties and developing mutually advantageous
economic cooperation with our neighbors is the key strategic priority of Russia's long-term foreign
policy.
The driving force behind Eurasian integration is the trio of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The
Agreement on the Eurasian Economic Union, signed in Astana on May 29, symbolizes a qualitatively
new step in our relations. A powerful centre of economic development that attracts business and investors,
a common market is being formed in Eurasia. That is why our CIS partners show a strong interest in
this union. I hope that very soon, Armenia will become a full-fledged member of this union. Negotiations
with Kyrgyzstan are at an advanced stage. We are open to other Commonwealth states as well.
As we promote the Eurasian integration project, we are in no way trying to separate ourselves
from the rest of the world; we are ready to consider prospects for creating free trade zones both
with individual states and with regional associations and unions, primarily the European Union, of
course.
Europe is our natural and most significant trade and economic partner. We strive to find new opportunities
to expand our business cooperation, to open up new prospects for mutual investment and to lift trade
barriers. This requires an upgrade of the legal contractual base of our cooperation and the stability
and predictability of ties, primarily in such strategically important areas as energy. Stability
on the entire territory of Eurasia and sustainable development of the EU economies and Russia depend
on well-coordinated cooperation based on consideration for mutual interests.
We have always held high our reputation of a reliable supplier of energy resources and invested
in the development of gas infrastructure. Together with European companies, as you may know, we have
built a new gas transportation system called Nord Stream under the Baltic Sea. Despite certain difficulties,
we will promote the South Stream project, especially since ever more European politicians and businessmen
are coming to understand that someone simply wants to use Europe in their own interests, that it
is becoming a hostage of someone's near-sighted ideologised approaches.
If we return to Ukraine, the violation by Ukraine of its commitments regarding the purchase of
our natural gas has become a common problem. Kiev refuses to pay on its debt. This is absolutely
unacceptable. They have not paid for November-December of last year, though there were no arguments
whatsoever then.
Our partners are using blatant blackmail – this is what it is. They demand an ungrounded reduction
of prices on our goods, though the agreement was signed in 2009, and the parties complied with it
in good faith. Now, as you may know, the court in Kiev has lifted all accusations against Ukraine's
former Prime Minister Tymoshenko, who signed the contract. Thus, the Kiev court authorities admit
that they have done everything right not only by international law, but by Ukrainian law as well.
But they do not wish to comply, or to pay for the product already received.
As of June 16, as you may know, we have transferred Ukraine to a pre-payment system, so they will
get exactly the amount of gas they pay for. Today they do not pay; therefore, they are not getting
anything – only in the so-called reverse mode. We know all about this reverse mode: it is a fake;
there is no reverse mode. How can you supply gas two ways along the same pipeline? One does not have
to be a gas transportation expert to understand that this is impossible. They are playing tricks
with some of their partners: in fact, they are getting our gas and paying some western partners in
Europe who are not receiving their volume. We are quire aware of this.
We are not taking any action at this point only because we do not want the situation to deteriorate.
However, everyone should draw the proper conclusions from the situation. The main thing is that honest
gas consumers and suppliers should not suffer from the actions of Ukrainian politicians and bureaucrats.
Generally, all of us – Ukraine, our European partners, and we – should seriously consider how
to reduce the probability of any type of political or economic risks or force majeure situations
on the continent.
In this connection, I would like to remind you that in August 2015 we will be marking 40 years
of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. This anniversary is a good
reason not only to turn to the basic principles of cooperation on the continent that were laid back
in 1975, but also to jointly make them work, to help them take root in practical European politics.
Recall that about a month ago we reported that shortly after France was stunned to see its largest
bank slammed by its bestest buddy, the US, with a record $9 billion fine, "France
responded to the fine by announcing it will train hundreds of Russian seamen to operate the French-Made
Warship", the Mistral. In other words, for all the angry rhetoric of sanctions against Russia,
France was merely the latest country to admit that it too can't exist without Russian business (not
to mention natural gas) even if, or especially if, it means incurring US wrath which is
taken out on its banking institutions. After all, if the US is engaging in scorched earth tactics
France needs a stable trade partner, especially if it is one who turns on the gas, so to speak.
As a reminder, this is what all the commotion is about:
However, it turns out that was only a small part of the story.
Earlier today, when speaking to Russian diplomats in Moscow, Vladimir Putin accused the
U.S. of blackmailing France to scrap a contract to sell Russia Mistral warships by offering to cut
a record $8.97 billion fine against BNP Paribas.
From Bloomberg:
France's largest bank agreed to plead guilty in court documents yesterday to processing almost
$9 billion in banned transactions involving Sudan, Iran and Cuba from 2004 to 2012. The company
will be temporarily barred from handling some U.S. dollar transactions.
French President Francois Hollande has refused to cancel a contract to sell two Mistral-class
helicopter carriers to Russia in the face of criticism from the U.S.
"We know about the pressure which our U.S. partners are applying on France not to supply the
Mistrals to Russia," Putin told Russian diplomats in Moscow today. "And we even know that they
hinted that if the French don't deliver the Mistrals, they would quietly get rid of the sanctions
against the bank, or at least minimize them," he said without naming BNP Paribas.
"What is that if not blackmail?" Putin said.
Well it is blackmail, but what's worse it shows to what depths the US
will fall when it fails to get its way in the international arena even with its so-called allies,
which under Obama, is essentially always.
But one wonders: since the biggest opponent of Russian sanctions in Europe is, by and far, Germany
- despite what Merkel spouts any given day - and since Russia is sure to antagonize the US in the
coming months, one wonders: just what legal and criminal action will the US reveal against Deutsche
Bank in the coming months as first blackmail, then "punishment" for daring to engage America's suddenly
most hated superpower adversary?
And perhaps a better question: with US foreign policy set to continue its disastrous ways, does
this mean that the best way to profit from the incompetence of John Kerry et al is merely to short
a basket of European banks? After all, if it happened with BNP it is sure to happen elsewhere in
Europe - a continent which, for better or worse, is now wrapped around Putin's gas finger.
It was the Red Army's summer offensive in Belorussia in 1944 – a D-day the West forgets – that
helped end the war and redrew the map of Europe
There were two D-days in June 1944. The landings in Normandy on 6 June, Operation Overlord, recalled
so movingly a fortnight ago, are part of British national memory. The other D-day remains virtually
unknown both here and in America. Yet it was equally important in ending the second world war. And
it also marked the dawn of cold war Europe.
On the night of 21-22 June 1944 the Red Army launched its summer offensive in Belorussia, three
years to the day after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. In 1941 the Germans had achieved total surprise,
encircling millions of Russian troops and thrusting right up to Moscow and Leningrad. In 1944, however,
the tables were turned. Operation Bagration, named for a Tsarist marshal who had fought Napoleon,
hit the Wehrmacht with no warning. In five weeks, the Red Army advanced 450 miles, driving through
Minsk to the outskirts of Warsaw and tearing the guts out of Hitler's Army Group Centre. Nearly 20
German divisions were totally destroyed and another 50 severely mauled – an even worse disaster than
Stalingrad.
This stunning Soviet success occurred while Overlord was still stuck in the hedges and lanes of
Normandy. Not until the end of July, as Bagration finally ran out of steam, did Eisenhower's armies
break out and race across France to liberate Paris on 25 August and Brussels on 3 September. Overlord
and Bagration together delivered the double whammy that knocked out the Thousand-Year Reich. At last,
Nazi Germany was fighting a two-front war in northern Europe – the dread scenario Hitler had managed
to avoid since 1939 – and the German people could now see the writing on the wall. It is no accident
that on 20 July dissident officers tried to assassinate the Führer in a brave but quixotic bid to
make peace before Germany was ruined.
Bagration helped to end the war, but it was also a sign of things to come. As the Red Army neared
Warsaw, the Polish Home Army rose up against brutal Nazi occupation. Soviet forces were exhausted
and in no position to fight their way into a major city, but Stalin's refusal to provide even token
support for the Poles, or to let British and American supply planes use Soviet-controlled airfields,
sent a chilling message to his western allies.
Much of Poland had been subsumed in the old Tsarist empire. In 1920 the Bolsheviks and the Poles
fought a brutal war over the borders of newly independent Poland, which saw Polish troops briefly
capture Kiev before being driven back to Warsaw. Two decades later, Stalin was determined to settle
the question. In 1940 he secretly massacred much of Poland's officer corps at Katyn; four years later
he happily watched the Germans crush the Warsaw rising – describing its anti-Soviet leaders as a
"handful of power-seeking criminals" – before overrunning the country at his leisure.
In early September 1944, with Eisenhower's troops surging into the Low Countries, it seemed that
the second world war might be over by Christmas. But then the Allies failed to cross the Rhine and
the western front got bogged down. In British memory, the autumn of 1944 centres on that notorious
"bridge too far" at Arnhem, but meanwhile, on the eastern front, Stalin made yet more dramatic breakthroughs
as the Red Army smashed through Romania and Bulgaria into Yugoslavia and Hungary. The leader who,
little more than a year before, had controlled only two-thirds of his own country now dominated much
of eastern Europe.
During the cold war, the Yalta conference of February 1945 was often stigmatised in the west as
the moment when Roosevelt and Churchill "handed over" half of Europe to Stalin. In reality, there
was no handover in 1945 but a land grab in 1944, a byproduct of German defeat. By the time of Yalta,
the Soviets controlled Poland and much of the Balkans: as Roosevelt admitted privately, all he and
Churchill could hope to do was "ameliorate" that situation.
As important as Yalta was Churchill's meeting with Stalin four months earlier. Although an ardent
foe of what he once called "the foul baboonery of Bolshevism", Churchill entertained a paradoxical
faith in the essential decency of Stalin, born of two intense, boozy summit meetings in 1942 and
1943. The Soviet leader, though tough-talking, came over as unpretentious and businesslike, with
a dry sense of humor. "If only I could dine with Stalin once a week," Churchill told a British journalist,
"there would be no trouble at all. We get on like a house on fire."
In that spirit Churchill flew to Moscow in October 1944, seeking to agree on the shape of the
postwar Balkans before the Red Army closed its grip. The result was the now notorious "percentages"
deal concluded with Stalin late one night in the Kremlin. Churchill's aim was to preserve British
influence in Greece and hopefully Yugoslavia. He did secure the former, often saying in later life
that Stalin "never broke his word to me about Greece". But that was gained by effectively acquiescing
in Soviet predominance across most of the Balkans.
By the time of the percentages deal, let alone Yalta, diplomacy could in fact make little difference.
The new map of Europe had been decided not at the conference table but on the battlefield. And in
that bloody story the other D-day of June 1944 should not be forgotten.
"This war is not as in the past," Stalin told one Yugoslav communist: "whoever occupies a
territory also imposes on it his own social system … as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise."
Soviet paranoia about security was understandable after the loss of 28 million citizens. But their
obsession with a buffer zone in eastern Europe would define the cold war, at huge human cost. And
the loss of that security blanket still haunts Putin's Russia.
Nice to read an article which at least goes some way to balancing the over riding western image
of the wars.In the UK it would appear that there were only western fronts in both 1st & 2nd world
wars. So little learned about Eastern fronts (Mr Gove!)
It's impossible to imagine the scale of civlian suffering in the east & the achievement of
Russian forces. Maybe if we could imagine civilian slaughter on that scale, mass displacement
of populations, being under a brutal occupying force, starvation & national border changes we
may be able to understand the modern Russian view a little better.(& indeed the need for the EU)
So we should just ignore the millions of Russians who gave their lives to help defeat the
Nazis, just because their leader was a tyrant. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
The Russian fight against Germany was a sacrifice on an astonishing scale, not by dictators
and murderers, but by ordinary people. They should be remembered with the utmost respect, and
not have their reputations tarred by the monster they were unfortunate enough to be ruled by.
You are making a very valid and potent point.
I agree with you, the fact that Stalin was not, ultimately, that different from Hitler in his
murderous intent does not diminish the great effort made by ordinary Russians to defeat the Nazis
albeit onlyat a later stage.
It has to be said though, it was not very 'communist-like' to engage in such aggressive grab-landing,
along with the killings of hundreds of thousands of Poles (excluding the millions lost through
Stalin's policies inside Russia), and then to be saying, "Workers of the world unite".
I suppose, it was said and meant:"Workers of the world unite...under me".
paul mullins -> paulos, 21 June 2014 6:53pm
Don't forget Prussian inspired militarism, rampant nationalism with a heavy dose of anti-Semitism.
I would also add the rise of left wing politics scaring the elite, who then supported fascist
ideologies in a attempt at self preservation.
moules -> leonore, 21 June 2014 8:15pm
There is nothing in what I wrote that suggests in any way that I "seem to think there was or
is no history biase in the East. Of course thee is. One of the most profound truths is that
"History is written by the victors."
The use of troops across mine fields sounds dreadful but the simple maths was that you would
have more dead soldiers mown down by macine gun if you didn't risk them on mine fields.There is
little point in trying to find which side occupied the moral high ground most often. You could
bat it backwards & forwards forever. If the considered judgement of the leaders at the time was
that in order to win, certain "in humane" tactics had to be used then so be it. We felt the need
to incinerate thousands of civilians by bombing cities so........
I disagree. In the first place, your perception that the West hardly ever mentions the Eastern
Front is mistaken. Go on to the history channel and you will see many, many programmers about
WW2 looking at the Eastern Front just as much as the Western Front. And if you look at the A level
history syllabus, about one quarter is devoted to 20th century Russian history
Second, of COURSE
each nation focuses primarily on its own contribution - that is entirely right and proper. If
you went to Russia you'd read and hear very little of the Battle of Britain and very little of
the Battle of the Atlantic.
A further point - I doubt very much that Russia's losses would have been as great had Stalin
:
a) not purged the Red Army not long before
b) permitted the Red Army to mobilize properly in the face of German mobilization
c) permitted tactical retreats
Russian losses would have been greater still had the Allies not delivered some crucial
supplies by the Arctic convoys.
Another reason was that a lot of the best Russian troops at the beginning of Barbarossa were still
deployed in the east due to military tensions between Russia & Japan in 1938 & 1939.
The book
Unternehmen Barbarossa by Paul Carell, who was Joachim von Ribbentrops chief press officer during
WWII (so he really knew what he was talking about!) & narrowly escaped the war trials by being
a prosecution witness is a very good read about the whole eastern front conflict. It's in German
but I'm pretty sure there's an English translation, although translated literature can often be
hard to read.
Ah. I googled it. It's called Hitler Moves East in English.
It's a fascinating & gripping read.
Indeed a memorable date. Probably Day Zero in the 45-year occupation of a whole swathe of Europe,
with the attendant killing, brutalisation, economic insanity, wholesale theft and corruption,
persecution of minorities, no semblance of gender equality etc. etc. etc.
At least we got the
whole Animal Farm experiment out of our system.
I think Stunning is being a little hard on the Soviets in some respects. For example, "no semblance
of gender equality" where does that come from? The communist ethos considered men and women to
be equal and women were going out to work in Russia whilst women in the UK were expected to be
happy in the home. Soviet Women also fought in WW2.
As for "economic insanity" a large proportion of Russian people will tell you that they were
happy under the communist economic system whilst it was functioning well. After things went wrong
in the 80s many Russian people have the view that communism is no good and capitalism is no good,
since things are not that good now either.
Its not that I want the communist economic system, clearly (up to a point) using the market
to set prices is a sensible thing to do. However, just as it has been said that people are not
good enough for the communist system to work, I'm not sure that people are good enough for the
capitalist system to work either (e.g. 2008 economic crash). In particular, as money flows around
an economy people aught to make available more things of value for the society whether these things
are new houses, good works of literature or new scientific discoveries. This makes the society
more wealthy.
However, today in the UK the idea is not about adding more things of value, instead its more
about skimming some money of, as the money goes round, for your self which yields nothing of value
(e.g. Pay day loans, online gambling, miss selling of payment protection insurance, Libor rate
fixing, high frequency trading, subprime mortgages, mass marketing to sell things people don't
need or want etc.).
And Stunning says that it was the communist economic system that is insane.
The problem with communism is that I've never seen a country use it, which doesn't then end up
in a massively corrupt mess. The actual purpose of it is to eventually desolve the state entirely,
but in virtually every single instance of it being used by a country it has resulted in the state
consolidating all power and then unsurprisingly not giving it up. The Democratic system is preferable
because you have an independent Judicial system, society (business, press, people etc) and Government
that should work in such a manner to limit one anothers power.
For Democracy to work well you need long established traditions of good governance (which is
why the idea of overthrowing Saddam in Iraq and expecting Democracy to suddenly emerge was so
farcical). This is also why countries like Poland, which while making very good progress, is still
stymied by the levels of corruption throughout its society. It will get better there, but the
fact it takes so long means people will inevitably feel frustrated by the lack of perceived progress.
In Russia however the problem now is they have a system with a Government that is self serving,
essentially ensuring the lions share of infrastructure and resources remain in the hands of a
powerful clique. Their problem therefore is that they've never really reached the point where
they've got a good democratic, capitalist system. Russia is a country with tonnes of resources,
history and potential, it's just a shame for it's people that they've yet to find themselves a
better way of managing their Government.
An example of how traditional "history" is full of half-truths, complete omissions and total lies.
WW2 deaths
UK 400,000
usa 400,000
USSR 30,000,000
USSR confronted 200 nazi divisions while UK-usa confronted 10 divisions.
The world owes the Russian people a huge debt of gratitude for their sacrifice in defeating
hitler.
monkie HARPhilby, 21 June 2014 2:19pm
WW2 deaths
UK 400,000
usa 400,000
USSR 30,000,000
USSR confronted 200 nazi divisions while UK-usa confronted 10 divisions.
The world owes the Russian people a huge debt of gratitude for their sacrifice in defeating
hitler.
and apparently we have lurched so far to the right that even in the comment section of a nominally
left of centre liberal publication the majority of posters are so busy with their historical revisionism
they cant spare the time to simply acknowledge the great sacrifice made by ordinary russian citizens,
many of whom were at the time happy to be communist, something that is not a crime.
MalcStPbRussia, 21 June 2014 2:54pm
A good balanced article. It is about time that the UK and Europe (and the Americans) in fact
the whole world, fully recognise that we are free to live and speak how we want thanks to the
Russians noble sacrifice.
Their huge losses in The Great Patriotic War (= WW II) made certain that Hilter would be defeated.
Without the Russians, I am sure that you and I would be living in a German speaking UK. The government
would be hideous and truly evil and we would be subject to a never ending nightmare.
Of course, those us of born in the early 50s would be "brainwashed" by Nazi rhetoric and propaganda,
so we would know nothing of this nightmare and would accept it as normal and a reality.
But, why don't our politicians acknowledge the Russian supreme sacrifice and teach all school
children and adults the significance of the Operation in Belarussia?
But, then I am biased aren't I (?!) as I am married to a Russian and I have actually met (and
spoken to) Russians when I live there. The way the "Western Press" maligns Russian actions (present
day ones) and conveniently forgets (past ones) is a mystery to me and most Russians too. They
still have a strong sense of duty, respect for their country and honour their politicians and
war generals so, - Да здравствует русская Родина (= Long Live the Russian Motherland).
If people in the UK and Europe even began to understand what this means, then they too, would
understand why we must publicise and celebrate the Russian contribution to winning WWII. And yes,
of course, it did need not only the Russians but also the UK, Commonwealth countries, Australia
etc and the US to defeat Hitler.
Raskolnikow, 21 June 2014 8:00pm
The defeat started in 1943 at Stalingrad. That's where the Germans lost the war.
Although we cannot downplay the tremendous commitment of Britain, US, Poland and others.
Kaitain Raskolnikow, 21 June 2014 8:06pm
You can also make a good case for the failure to capture Moscow being the point at which the
Wehrmacht's momentum halted and their strategy started to look uncertain.
Also, most of the Battle of Stalingrad took place in 1942, although its end game was in Jan/Feb
of 1943. Operation Uranus (the sudden, unexpected encirclement of the German 6th Army) was launched
in November 1942, and that was the single most decisive move of the battle.
tellurgicjim, 21 June 2014 8:20pm
Without the Soviet effort and courage our contribution would not have been enough,Stalin was
demanding a Western front for a long time before D-Day. Gove is not an historian and should not
interfere in the curriculum, he obviously wasn't taught WW 2 history very well.
blablu, 21 June 2014 11:47pm
indeed Bagration was the most remarkable feat of the war, not only the fact it amounted the
destruction of the wehrmacht's most potent formation, the legendary Army Group Centre, but in
the operation's execution, the Red army demonstrated they had advanced far beyond anything the
allies could do.
We often see in hollywood that the Red Army used simplistic "meat grinder" tactics, this is
a myth. During Bagration, the Red Army had mastered the 'deep battle', striking the German strategic
depths.
By comparison when the Allies tried to advance a few miles inland in Lorraine and Utrecht they
came to a grinding halt, in Normandy allied tactics amounted to nothing better than those used
in WW1, simply advancing into machine gun fire, tanks and infantry attacking completed unsupportive
of each other. The Allies were incredibly far behind the skill and doctrine attained by the Red
Army by 1944
Николай Николаевич Юденич, 23 June 2014 12:38am
I'm sorry for my english "Based on these data, military historians have concluded that the
number of German dead on the Eastern front crosses over 4 million" - continues Tatiana Bushueva.
"But these results are not valid because it does not take into account many aspects, such as the
inability to trust the official propaganda of both Soviet and German. Many people know the stories
of residents that after fighting a huge number of Germans were buried in common pits. What kind
of account is possible to talk of graves, when the local population, tired of the atrocities of
the Nazis, to show his contempt for the corpses of the occupiers, "- said the expert.
In addition, together with the Germans fought and divisions from other countries, and the most
numerous - from Hungary and Romania. Together with them, based on official data, the Axis powers
on the Eastern Front had lost more than 5 million people killed. However, for example, Gen. Hist.
Gareyev gives a figure of 7 million Calculus It is fairly simple, but effective way. Through the
ranks of the German armed forces during the war have been 21.2 million people. If you take the
known number of dead on the Eastern Front (over 4 million), add to them fallen on other fronts
(1.4 million), transferred to industry (2 million), dismissed by injury, illness, prisoners and
deserters, etc. (2.5 million) and captive (about 3 million), as well as remaining in the Wehrmacht
at the time of surrender (4.8 million), we obtain a figure involved in the war the Germans 18
million people. Uncounted times as there will be 3 million people, and most likely these people
were killed in battles with the Red Army on the territory of the USSR, Poland and other countries.
Thus more or less plausible demographic losses of the German army is more than 7 million people
and about 8 million together with its allies. But this is only indirect figures.
"For comparison, the Red Army suffered killed or died in hospitals 6.1 million, plus 2.5 million
prisoners were harassed by the Nazis in the concentration camps. Total 8.6 million soldiers "-
RBC daily rasskazl leading researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of
Sciences Vladimir Nevezhin. The remaining losses of the USSR, is 18 million people, fall on the
civilian population of the occupied territories, affected by the massive Nazi genocide. That is
all we lost in the war, about 27 million people.
In a number of my articles I have explained that the Soviet Union served as a constraint on US
power. The Soviet collapse unleashed the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony. Russia under
Putin, China, and Iran are the only constraints on the neoconservative agenda.
Russia's nuclear missiles and military technology make Russia the strongest military obstacle
to US hegemony. To neutralize Russia, Washington broke the Reagan-Gorbachev agreements and expanded
NATO into former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire and now intends to bring former constituent
parts of Russia herself–Georgia and Ukraine–into NATO. Washington withdrew from the treaty that banned
anti-ballistic missiles and has established anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia's frontier. Washington
changed its nuclear war doctrine to permit nuclear first strike.
All of this is aimed at degrading Russia's deterrent, thereby reducing the ability of Russia to
resist Washington's will.
The Russian government (and also the government of Ukraine) foolishly permitted large numbers
of US funded NGOs to operate as Washington's agents under cover of "human rights organizations,"
"building democracy," etc. The "pussy riot" event was an operation designed to put Putin and Russia
in a bad light. (The women were useful dupes.) The Western media attacks on the Sochi Olympics are
part of the ridiculing and demonizing of Putin and Russia. Washington is determined that Putin and
Russia will not be permitted any appearance of success in any area, whether diplomacy, sports, or
human rights.
The American media is a Ministry of Propaganda for the government and the corporations and helps
Washington paint Russia in bad colors. Stephen F. Cohen accurately describes US media coverage of
Russia as a "tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37635.htm
As a holdover from the Cold War, the US media retains the image of a free press that can be trusted.
In truth, there is no free press in America (except for Internet sites). See for example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/us-press-freedom-index-2014_n_4773101.html During the
later years of the Clinton regime, the US government permitted 5 large conglomerates to concentrate
the varied, dispersed and somewhat independent media.The value of these large mega-companies depends
on their federal broadcast licenses.Therefore, the media dares not go against the government on any
important issue. In addition, the media conglomerates are no longer run by journalists but by corporate
advertising executives and former government officials, with an eye not on facts but on advertising
revenues and access to government "sources."
Washington is using the media to prepare the American people for confrontation with Russia and
to influence Russians and other peoples in the world against Putin. Washington would love to see
a weaker or more pliable Russian leader than Putin.
Many Russians are gullible. Having experienced communist rule and the chaos from collapse, they
naively believe that America is the best place, the example for the world, the "white hat" that can
be trusted and believed. This idiotic belief, which we see manifested in western Ukraine as the US
destabilizes the country in preparation for taking it over, is an important weapon that the US uses
to destabilize Russia.
Some Russians make apologies for Washington by explaining the anti-Russian rhetoric as simply
a carryover from old stereotypes from the Cold War. "Old stereotypes" is a red herring, a misleading
distraction. Washington is gunning for Russia. Russia is under attack, and if Russians do not realize
this, they are history.
Many Russians are asleep at the switch, but the Izborsk Club is trying to wake them up. In an
article (February 12) in the Russian weekly Zavtra, strategic and military experts warned
that the Western use of protests to overturn the decision of the Ukraine government not to join the
European Union had produced a situation in which a coup by fascist elements was a possibly. Such
a coup would result in a fratricidal war in Ukraine and would constitute a serious "strategic threat
to the Russian Federation."
The experts concluded that should such a coup succeed, the consequences for Russia would be:
- Loss of Sevastopol as the base of the Russian Federation's Black Sea Fleet;
- Purges of Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine, producing a flood of refugees;
- Loss of manufacturing capacities in Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov where
contract work is done for the Russian military;
- Suppression of the Russian speaking population by forcible Ukrainianization;
- The establishment of US and NATO military bases in Ukraine, including in Crimea
and the establishment of training centers for terrorists who would be set upon the
Caucasus, the Volga Basin, and perhaps Siberia.
- Spread of the orchestrated Kiev protests into non-Russian ethnicities in cities of
the Russian Federation.
The Russian strategists conclude that they "consider the situation taking shape in Ukraine to
be catastrophic for the future of Russia."
What is to be done? Here the strategic experts, who have correctly analyzed the situation, fall
down. They call for a national media campaign to expose the nature of the takeover that is underway
and for the government of the Russian Federation to invoke the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in order
to convene a conference of representatives of the governments of Russia, Ukraine, the USA, and Great
Britain to deal with the threats to the Ukraine. In the event that the Budapest Memorandum governing
the sovereignty of Ukraine is set aside by one or more of the parties, the experts propose that the
Russian government, using the precedent of the Kennedy-Khrushchev negotiations that settled the 1962
Cuban Missile Crisis, negotiate directly with Washington a settlement of the developing crisis in
Ukraine.
This is a pipe dream. The experts are indulging in self-deception. Washington is the perpetrator
of the crisis in Ukraine and intends to take over Ukraine for the precise reasons that the experts
list. It is a perfect plan for destabilizing Russia and for negating Putin's successful diplomacy
in preventing US military attack on Syria and Iran.
Essentially, if Washington succeeds in Ukraine, Russia would be eliminated as a constraint on
US world hegemony, Only China would remain.
I suspected that Ukraine would come to a boiling point when Putin and Russia were preoccupied
with the Sochi Olympics, leaving Russia unprepared. There is little doubt that Russia is faced with
a major strategic threat. What are Russia's real options? Certainly the options do not include any
good will from Washington.
Possibly, Russia could operate from the American script. If Russia has drones, Russia could use
drones like Washington does and use them to assassinate the leaders of the Washington-sponsored protests.
Or Russia could send in Special Forces teams to eliminate the agents who are operating against Russia.
If the EU continues to support the destabilization of Ukraine, Russia could cut off oil and gas supplies
to Washington's European puppet states.
Alternatively, the Russian Army could occupy western Ukraine while arrangements are made to partition
Ukraine, which until recently was part of Russia for 200 years. It is certain that the majority of
residents in eastern Ukraine prefer Russia to the EU. It is even possible that the brainwashed elements
in the western half might stop foaming at the mouth long enough to comprehend that being in US/EU
hands means being looted as per Latvia and Greece.
I am outlining the least dangerous outcomes of the crisis that Washington and its stupid European
puppet states have created, not making recommendations to Russia. The worst outcome is a dangerous
war. If the Russians sit on their hands, the situation will become unbearable for them. As Ukraine
moves toward NATO membership and suppression of the Russian population, the Russian government will
have to attack Ukraine and overthrow the foreign regime or surrender to the Americans. The likely
outcome of the audacious strategic threat with which Washington is confronting Russia would be nuclear
war.
The neoconservative Victoria Nuland sits in her State Department office happily choosing the members
of the next Ukrainian government. Is this US official oblivious to the risk that Washington's meddling
in the internal affairs of Ukraine and Russia could be triggering nuclear war? Are President Obama
and Congress aware that there is an Assistant Secretary of State who is provoking armageddon?
Insouciant Americans are paying no attention and have no idea that a handful of neoconservative
ideologues are pushing the world toward destruction.
NOTE: I have received an email from Moldova, a country bordered by Romania and Ukraine with cities
on the Moldova-Ukraine border, that Moldovans are paid 30 euros
per day to pose as Ukrainian protesters. I would like to hear from readers who can confirm this report
and/or provide a media source in support of this claim.
"Merkel's comments reflect an effort by EU powers to gain leverage over Putin by using Poroshenko's
cease-fire as a trigger for expanded sanctions if Putin doesn't cooperate."
Russia dismissed Ukraine's declaration of a week-long cease-fire as an "ultimatum" and the U.S.
imposed sanctions on people linked to the insurgency, accusing the government in Moscow of aiding
separatists.
Ukraine called on all fighters to lay down arms, halting the offensive against rebels from 10
p.m. yesterday until 10 a.m. on June 27, President Petro Poroshenko said on his website.
'Impose Costs'
U.S. President Barack Obama yesterday spoke by phone with French President Francois Hollande and
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, agreeing in separate conversations that the U.S. and European Union
would "impose costs" on Russia if doesn't work to deescalate the situation, the White House said
in an e-mailed statement.
'Decisive' Days
"The days ahead will be very decisive for what we can decide" at the summit, Merkel told reporters
in Berlin. "We expect Russia to respond in a positive and constructive way." While Germany wants
to see a cease-fire, "there is planning" for other outcomes as well, she said.
Merkel's comments reflect an effort by EU powers to gain leverage over Putin by using Poroshenko's
cease-fire as a trigger for expanded sanctions if Putin doesn't cooperate. Ukraine plans to
sign and association agreement with the EU on June 27 in Brussels.
The U.S. and the EU have imposed sanctions on people and companies close to Putin, while threatening
the government in Moscow with unspecified economic penalties as pro-Russian separatists clash with
Ukrainian forces.
U.S. companies are prohibited from doing business with individuals and entities on the sanctions
list, and all assets of those designated that are within U.S. jurisdiction must be frozen, according
to the Treasury.
... ... ...
Poroshenko met political and business leaders from conflict-wracked regions two days ago to muster
support for his peace efforts. His 15-point peace includes early parliamentary and local elections,
job creation in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and freeing all seized buildings and abducted people,
according to the statement.
Before the cease-fire can be implemented, Ukraine must reassert control over its border with Russia,
across which fighters have crossed, according to Poroshenko. Defense Minister Mykhaylo Koval told
lawmakers yesterday that the border is secured.
Russia is increasing security because it's concerned about the situation on the border, though
it's not building up troop levels, Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign-policy aide, said yesterday.
The separatists are willing to consider the plan, according to Andrei Purgin, a deputy premier
of the self-declared Donetsk People's Republic.
"If we see a true cease-fire, we may stop our actions as well," he said by phone. "But I think
there will be no cease-fire. In practice these statements are only political."
Stalin thought so. So, apparently, did the CIA, according to a new account of how the U.S. secretly
distributed Doctor Zhivago in the Soviet Union.
Soviet leader Joseph Stalin once described writers as "the engineers of the human soul."
"The production of souls is more important than the production of tanks," he claimed. Stalin clearly
believed that literature was a powerful political tool-and he was willing to execute writers whose
works were deemed traitorous to the Soviet Union.
Stalin's sentiments regarding literature may seem like the deranged delusions of a dictator. But
consider a similar Cold War-era comment by the CIA's then-chief of covert action: "Books differ from
all other propaganda media primarily because one single book can significantly change the reader's
attitude and action to an extent unmatched by the impact of any other single medium." He also used
a military metaphor for culture, calling books "the most important weapon of strategic propaganda."
Despite the shared rhetoric, the CIA did not use Soviet tactics to neutralize writers deemed threats.
But the American government, and the CIA in particular, has long been keenly interested in using
literature to promote American ideologies and undermine communism abroad.
Probably the best case study of the CIA's foray into literary culture is the story of Boris Pasternak's
novel Doctor Zhivago. Some of the relevant CIA documents
were recently declassified and received
a good deal of media attention last month, but the subject is more comprehensively treated in
Peter Finn and Petra Couvée's fascinating new book The Zhivago Affair: The Kremlin, the CIA,
and the Battle Over a Forbidden Book. Told in its entirety, the story of how Doctor Zhivago
helped disrupt the Soviet Union holds some intriguing implications for the present and future
of cultural conflict.
***
Boris Pasternak began writing Doctor Zhivago around 1945 on blank paper he inherited
from a dead friend, a Georgian poet who had been tortured and executed by the Soviet regime. The
poet's widow sent the paper to Pasternak, and he honored his friend's literary defiance by writing
a novel that ignored the official demands for literature to glorify the "Soviet man" and the revolution.
The finished product was hardly a celebration of capitalism or a "Western way of life," but some
passages openly doubted that the bloodshed of the revolution was justified, and large stretches were
fairly indifferent to politics. A failure to praise the regime was as dangerous as a willingness
to question it, and the Communist Party officials charged with overseeing cultural affairs were anxious
to prevent the publication of Doctor Zhivago.
This was easily done within the Soviet Union, but Pasternak managed to pass a copy of the manuscript
to a visiting Italian with publishing contacts. In The Zhivago Affair, Couvée and Finn recount
the tangled tale of the book's journey to publication. An Italian publishing house secured the rights
to the novel, and Pasternak also gave copies to friends visiting from France and England. The Soviet
authorities forged his signature and sent letters to the Italian publisher demanding the return of
the manuscript, but Pasternak whispered his actual intentions to visiting Italians and sent special
notes in French, telling his publisher to disregard communication in any other language. He wanted
the book published, whatever the repercussions.
Not long after the novel's initial 1957 publication, the CIA became involved. When the agency
was created in 1947, Congress granted it the power to carry out "other functions and duties related
to intelligence affecting the national security." This rather vague mandate allowed the agency to
expand into cultural domains.
Couvée and Finn paint an intriguing picture of the literary culture at the CIA in the 1950s; one
staff member, for example, left to become the fiction editor at Playboy only to hear that
his former boss at the agency might submit a story under a pseudonym. Through a number of front organizations,
including Bedford Publishing Company in New York City, the agency successfully purchased, printed,
distributed, and even commissioned a number of books with the goal of promoting a "spiritual understanding
of Western values." This included novels by authors as diverse as George Orwell, Albert Camus, Vladimir
Nabokov, and James Joyce; and as Couvée and Finn reveal, one book Bedford commissioned was a false
memoir of a Soviet-U.S. double agent. By smuggling books to the Soviet Union in everything from food
cans to Tampax boxes, Bedford got as many as one million books to Soviet readers over the course
of 15 years. The CIA's program for the dissemination of literature continued until the fall of the
USSR.
Given its literary culture, some CIA staff probably realized
the irony of a powerful and well-funded government agency using clandestine methods to distribute
novels by George Orwell. The American government was trying to manipulate the culture of the
Soviet Union to help Soviet citizens recognize the dangers of a powerful government manipulating
their culture. (Unsurprisingly, they didn't want anyone to know they were involved.)
Nonetheless, the CIA saw "great propaganda value" in Doctor Zhivago. Partnered with Dutch
intelligence agents, they arranged for an illegal printing of a Russian-language version of the novel
that was distributed at the Brussels World's Fair in 1958. The agency also used its own press in
Washington to print miniature pocket-sized copies; the diminutive edition was easier to smuggle.
The operation had precisely the desired impact-for better and for worse. The reported price of
the Russian edition on the black market in Moscow was close to a week's wages. When Pasternak won
the 1958 Nobel Prize for literature, Soviet officials viciously attacked him as a traitor fawning
over Western idols. Writers around the world, however, rallied to his defense, and the notoriety
of the book only fueled more sales.
***
American efforts at cultural engineering were generally subtler than Soviet ones; the CIA sought
to promote rather than prevent the publication and dissemination of books, and the agency didn't
threaten or coerce authors into supporting a particular ideology.
That said, there are some intriguing continuities between the cultural interventions of the two
Cold War superpowers.
Couvée and Finn describe a meeting with a party bureaucrat at which Pasternak lost
his temper and fumed: "You have your human side, I can see, but why do you come out
with these stock phrases? 'The people! The people!'-As though it were something you
could just produce from your own trouser pockets." He was railing against the arrogance
of official dogma, a belief in some infinitely pliable public that could be shaped to
pre-formulated ends. Yet this, judging from the CIA's operation to print and disseminate
a pocket-sized version of Doctor Zhivago, was precisely what the agency wanted:
something that could emerge from one's trouser pockets to shape the opinions of ordinary
people.
Pasternak did not think of his novel as a weapon for intellectual warfare. He referred to it as
"my final happiness and madness," hardly the phrase of someone who sees a book as a cultural grenade.
He thought the work was much more than a vehicle to deliver a particular message, and he was frustrated
by the way the international media always quoted the same passages to show that he was critical of
the regime. He wanted his book treated as a novel, not a pamphlet.
The CIA, on the other hand, was delighted by the media spotlight on the anti-Communist passages.
The CIA also recognized that the symbolism of the situation made the Soviet Union look at least as
bad as the novel itself did. After accepting the Nobel Prize, Pasternak then voluntarily refused
it after party officials put unbearable pressure on him and his loved ones. The image of the noble
but persecuted writer, a courageous critic of a corrupt regime, created great copy for journalists
and terrible publicity for the Soviet Union.
***
The entire episode, as chronicled in The Zhivago Affair, suggests an important lesson
about the limited power of spy agency attempts at cultural warfare. None of the works the CIA commissioned
are widely read today, and Soviet writers who celebrated official ideology are equally forgotten.
Doctor Zhivago, however, remains a household name. Government intervention that precedes
the creation of literature tends to fail; the CIA became entangled with Doctor Zhivago only
after the novel was composed. Had they found and bribed a Russian author to write a book with anti-Soviet
themes, it likely would never have become an international literary and media sensation. Authentic
literary productions are far more powerful than the best government efforts at cultural engineering.
It seems, then, that spotting and supporting those cultural artifacts that promote national
interests is a more effective strategy (and one worth considering) at a time when intelligence agencies
seem obsessed with data collection, gadgets, surveillance, and drones. Distributing a novel might
seem like a quaint caper for a spy agency, but it reflects a deeply different strategy: relying on
art and ideas rather than force to advance security objectives. And in order for art of any kind
to deserve the name, it must be more than a vehicle for politics.
Pasternak himself put it best: "It's not true that people only value the novel because of politics.
That's a lie. They read it because they love it."
I wish I had only good news to bring to readers, or even one item of good news. Alas, goodness
has ceased to be a feature of US policy and simply cannot be found in any words or deeds emanating
from Washington or the capitals of its European vassal states. The Western World has succumbed to
evil.
US war doctrine has been changed. US nuclear weapons are no longer restricted to a retaliatory
force, but have been elevated to the role of preemptive nuclear attack. Washington pulled out of
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia and is developing and deploying an ABM shield. Washington
is demonizing Russia and Russia's President with shameless lies and propaganda, thus preparing the
populations of the US and its client states for war with Russia.
Washington has been convinced by neoconservatives that Russian strategic nuclear forces are in
run down and unprepared condition and are sitting ducks for attack. This false belief is based on
out-of-date information, a decade old, such as the argument presented in "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear
Primacy" by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press in the April 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs,
a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization of American elites.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61508/keir-a-lieber-and-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-us-nuclear-primacy
Regardless of the condition of Russian nuclear forces, the success of Washington's first strike
and degree of protection provided by Washington's ABM shield against retaliation, the article I posted
by Steven Starr, "The Lethality of Nuclear Weapons," makes clear that nuclear war has no winners.
Everyone dies.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/30/lethality-nuclear-weapons/
In an article published in the December 2008 issue of Physics Today, three atmospheric
scientists point out that even the substantial reduction in nuclear arsenals that the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty hoped to achieve, from 70,000 warheads in 1986 to 1700-2200 warheads by the end
of 2012, did not reduce the threat that nuclear war presents to life on earth. The authors conclude
that in addition to the direct blast effects of hundreds of millions of human fatalities, "the indirect
effects would likely eliminate the majority of the human population." The stratospheric smoke from
firestorms would cause nuclear winter and agricultural collapse. Those who did not perish from blast
and radiation would starve to death.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ToonRobockTurcoPhysicsToday.pdf
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev understood this. Unfortunately, no successor US government has.
As far as Washington is concerned, death is what happens to others, not to "the exceptional people."
(The SORT agreement apparently failed. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,
the nine nuclear-armed states still possess a total of 16,300 nuclear weapons.
http://rt.com/news/166132-nuclear-weapons-report-obama/
)
It is a fact that Washington has policymakers who think, incorrectly, that nuclear war is winnable
and who regard nuclear war as a means of preventing the rise of Russia and China as checks on Washington's
hegemony over the world. The US government, regardless of party in office, is a massive threat to
life on earth. European governments, which think of themselves as civilized, are not, because they
enable Washington's pursuit of hegemony. It is this pursuit that threatens life with extinction.
The ideology that grants "exceptional, indispensable America" supremacy is an enormous threat to
the world.
The destruction of seven countries in whole or in part by the West in the 21st century, with the
support of "Western civilization" and the Western media, comprises powerful evidence that the leadership
of the Western world is devoid of moral conscience and human compassion. Now that Washington is armed
with its false doctrine of "nuclear primacy," the outlook for humanity is very bleak.
Washington has begun the run up to the Third World War, and Europeans seem to be on board. As
recently as November 2012 NATO Secretary General Rasmussen said that NATO does not regard Russia
as an enemy. Now that the White House Fool and his European vassals have convinced Russia that the
West is an enemy, Rasmussen declared that "we must adapt to the fact that Russia now considers us
its adversary" by beefing up Ukraine's military along with those of Eastern and Central Europe.
Last month Alexander Vershbow, former US ambassador to Russia, currently NATO Deputy Secretary
General, declared Russia to be the enemy and said that the American and European taxpayers need to
fork over for the military modernization "not just of Ukraine, but also Moldova, Georgia, Armenia,
Azerbaijan."
It is possible to see these calls for more military spending as just the normal functioning of
agents for the US military/security complex. Having lost "the war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Washington needs a replacement and has set about resurrecting the Cold War.
This is probably how the armaments industry, its shills, and part of Washington sees it. But the
neoconservatives are more ambitious. They are not pursuing merely more profits for the military/security
complex. Their goal is Washington's hegemony over the world, which means reckless actions such as
the strategic threat that the Obama regime, with the complicity of its European vassals, has brought
to Russia in Ukraine.
Since last autumn the US government has been lying through its teeth about Ukraine, blaming Russia
for the consequences of Washington's actions, and demonizing Putin exactly as Washington demonized
Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Assad, the Taliban, and Iran. The presstitute media and the European capitals
have seconded the lies and propaganda and repeat them endlessly. Consequently, the US public's attitude
toward Russia moved sharply negative.
How do you think Russia and China see this? Russia has witnessed NATO brought to its borders,
a violation of the Reagan-Gorbachev understandings. Russia has witnessed the US pull out of the ABM
treaty and develop a "star wars" shield. (Whether or not the shield would work is immaterial. The
purpose of the shield is to convince the politicians and the public that Americans are safe.) Russia
has witnessed Washington change the role of nuclear weapons in its war doctrine from deterrent to
preemptive first strike. And now Russia listens to a daily stream of lies from the West and witnesses
the slaughter by Washington's vassal in Kiev of civilians in Russian Ukraine, branded "terrorists"
by Washington, by such weapons as white phosphorus with not a peep of protest from the West.
Massive attacks by artillery and air strikes on homes and apartments in Russian Ukraine were conducted
on the 25th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, while Washington and its puppets condemned China for
an event that did not happen. As we now know, there was no massacre in Tiananmen Square. It was just
another Washington lie like Tonkin Gulf, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, Assad's use
of chemical weapons, Iranian nukes, etc. It is an amazing fact that the world lives in a false reality
created by Washington's lies.
The movie, The Matrix, is a true depiction of life in the West. The population lives in a false
reality created for them by their rulers. A handful of humans have escaped the false existence and
are committed to bringing humans back to reality. They rescue Neo, "The One," who they believe correctly
to have the power to free humans from the false reality in which they live. Morpheus, the leader
of the rebels, explains to Neo:
"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around,
what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are
trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them
our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of
them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
I experience this every time I write a column. Protests from those determined not to be unplugged
arrive in emails and on those websites that expose their writers to slander by government trolls
in comment sections. Don't believe real reality, they insist, believe the false reality.
The Matrix even encompasses part of the Russian and Chinese population, especially those educated
in the West and those susceptible to Western propaganda, but on the whole those populations know
the difference between lies and truth. The problem for Washington is that the propaganda that prevails
over the Western peoples does not prevail over the Russian and Chinese governments.
How do you think China reacts when Washington declares the South China Sea to be an area of US
national interests, allocates 60 percent of its vast fleet to the Pacific, and constructs new US
air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam?
Suppose all Washington intends is to keep taxpayer funding alive for the military/security complex
which launders some of the taxpayers' money and returns it as political campaign contributions. Can
Russia and China take the risk of viewing Washington's words and deeds in this limited way?
So far the Russians, and only the Russians (and Chinese), have remained sensible. Lavrov, the
Foreign Minister : "At this stage, we want to give our partners a chance to calm down. We'll see
what happens next. If absolutely baseless accusations against Russia continue, it there are attempts
to pressure us with economic leverage, then we may reevaluate the situation."
If the White House Fool, Washington's media whores and European vassals convince Russia that war
is in the cards, war will be in the cards. As there is no prospect whatsoever of NATO being able
to mount a conventional offensive threat against Russia anywhere near the size and power of the German
invasion force in 1941 that met with destruction, the war will be nuclear, which will mean the end
of all of us.
Keep that firmly in mind as Washington and its media whores continue to beat the drums for war.
Keep in mind also that a long history proves beyond all doubt that everything Washington and the
presstitute media tells you is a lie serving an undeclared agenda. You cannot rectify the situation
by voting Democrat instead of Republican or by voting Republican instead of Democrat.
Thomas Jefferson told us his solution: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure."
There are few patriots in Washington but many tyrants.
Consequently, for example, a
recent CNN Poll has found that Americans' fear of Russia has soared within just the past two
years. Our news media present a type of news "reporting" that places Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin,
into a very bad light,
even when it's unjustified by the facts.
The situation now is thus rather similar to that right before
World War I, when the aristocracy
in America decided that a pretext had to be created for our going to war against Germany. That War
had already started in Europe on 28 July 1914, and President Wilson wanted to keep the U.S. out of
it, but we ultimately joined it on the side of J.P. Morgan and Company. This was documented in detail
in an important 1985 book, Britain, America and the Sinews of War, 1914-1918, which was well
summarized in
Business History Review, by noting that: "J.P. Morgan & Co. served as Britain's financial and
purchasing agent, and the author makes especially good use of the Morgan Grenfell & Co. papers in
London to probe that relationship. Expanding British demand for U.S. dollars to pay for North American
imports made the politics of foreign exchange absolutely central to Anglo-American relations. How
to manage those politics became the chief preoccupation of Her Majesty's representatives in the United
States," and most especially of Britain's financial and purchasing agent in the U.S.
In 1917, after almost two years of heavy anti-German propaganda in the U.S. press that built an
overwhelming public support for our joining that war against Germany,
Congress found that, in March 1915,
"J.P.
Morgan interests had bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in
order to control the media" so that we'd join the war on England's side. Whereas back then, it
was Germany's leader who was being goaded into providing a pretext for us to declare war against
his country, this time it's Russia's leader (Putin) who is being demonized and goaded into providing
such a pretext, though Putin (unlike Germany's Kaiser) has thus far refrained from providing the
pretext that Obama constantly warns us that he will (a Russian invasion of Ukraine). Consequently,
Obama's people are
stepping up the pressure upon Putin by
bombing the areas of neighboring Ukraine
where Russian speakers live, who have family across the border inside Russia itself. Just a few
more weeks of this, and Putin's public support inside Russia could palpably erode if Putin simply
lets the slaughter proceed without his sending troops in to defend them and to fight back against
Kiev's (Washington's
->
surrogate's) bombing-campaign. This would provide the pretext that Obama has been warning about.
I also have reported on
"Why Ukraine's Civil War Is of Global Historical Importance." The article argued that "This civil
war is of massive historical importance, because it re-starts the global Cold War, this time no longer
under the fig-leaf rationalization of an ideological battle between 'capitalism' versus 'communism,'
but instead more raw, as a struggle between, on the one hand, the U.S. and West European aristocracies;
and, on the other hand, the newly emerging aristocracies of Russia and of China." The conflict's
origin, as recounted there, was told in its highest detail in an
article
in the scholarly journal Diplomatic History, about how U.S. President George H.W. Bush in
1990 fooled the Soviet Union's leader Mikhail Gorbachev into Gorbachev's allowing the Cold War to
be ended without any assurance being given to the remaining rump country, his own Russia, that NATO
and its missiles and bombers won't expand right up to Russia's doorstep and surround Russia with
a first-strike ability to destroy Russia before Russia will even have a chance to get its own nuclear
weapons into the air in order to destroy the U.S. right back in retaliation.
This is mainly pressure (or stabbing in the back) of Mr. Poprashenko as it now limits what he can
do as he has no control over Right Sector. Some more photos of the Ukrainians attacking the embassy
Protesters turn
over Russian diplomats' cars, drag down flag at embassy in Kiev (PHOTOS) - RT News and two live
streams from the Russian embassy in Kiev. It seems like the Right Sektor plans to attack it tonight.
No police visible anywhere:
The situation became even more tense as dozens of masked and camouflaged radicals of the Maidan
self-defense troops, the Right Sector, and the nationalist Svoboda party joined the protest in the
evening. Rocks, smoke grenades, and some explosives were thrown at the embassy from over the
fence.
Posted by: fairleft | Jun 14, 2014
10:39:55 AM |
6
Stephen Cohen talks good sense but knows no one is listening in official Washington. This
indictment of a fear-based conformist American culture is well deserved:
"There is no debate of public opposition in this country about this, unlike the situation 20-25
years ago, when we had real debates and public fights," he said. "I don't know if they [the
mainstream media – RT] know the truth and therefore are not telling the truth, or that they
are just caught up in the myths that had been attached to Russia since the end of the Soviet
Union."
"An orthodoxy about Russia has formed in this country over 20 years," he added. "And
it's not only wrong, it's reckless. It led us to this crisis in Ukraine… The only way
you can break orthodoxy is with heresy. Some of the things I say are regarded as heretical,
treasonous, unpatriotic. But heresy is a good thing, when it's needed."
This situation is a sharp contrast to what happens in some other democracies, which don't
hush a public debate on foreign policy issues and don't try to push opinions not liked by the
political establishment into the 'fringe press'.
"Germany, a relatively new democracy with a past as bad as Russia's, could develop a democracy,
where people can speak openly and feely without fear of failing to get a promotion or getting
on an op-ed page. Two of three former German chancellors have blamed Europe for the crisis
in Ukraine – not Russia."
"Where are our former presidents? We know why President Clinton wouldn't speak out, because
he began that policy. But where is President Carter? Where are the former secretaries of state
who pursued other policies? Why the silence? We've developed, I fear, a political culture within
the establishment that is conformist.
It's not just the establishment, it's also all the establishment wannabes, and everyone else
who fears the all-seeing state's Panopticon.
US smuggled banned book to readers in Soviet Union after British spy managed to photograph Pasternak's
original text
Newly declassified
CIA documents suggest that in 1957 an unnamed British intelligence officer managed to photograph
Pasternak's original text. Pasternak had entrusted his novel to a handful of foreign contacts the
previous summer after it became increasingly clear the Soviet authorities would refuse to publish
it. They included his Italian publisher, Giangiacomo Feltrinelli. Pasternak also gave the manuscript
to two visiting dons from Oxford, Isaiah Berlin and George Katkov, who saw Pasternak separately at
his rustic home in Peredelkino, near Moscow.
... ... ...
The CIA's role in disseminating the novel inside the Soviet Union is revealed in The Zhivago Affair:
The Kremlin, the CIA, and the Battle over a Forbidden Book, written by Washington Post journalist
Peter Finn and academic Petra Couvée, and published in the US next week, in the UK in July and later
in other European territories.
After receiving the manuscript from MI6, the agency secretly arranged for a Russian-language edition
of Doctor Zhivago to be printed in Holland. Dutch intelligence helped publication. The edition was
distributed in September 1958 at the World's Fair in Brussels, with hardback copies furtively dished
out to Soviet visitors from inside the Vatican's pavilion. In 1959 the CIA printed its own paperback
version of the novel at its Washington HQ. The edition was passed off as the work of a Russian émigré
group in Europe.
The Zhivago project had its own secret CIA codename, AEDINOSAUR. It was one of many CIA-sponsored
covert publishing programmes that flourished during the cold war. The agency distributed banned books,
periodicals and pamphlets and other materials to intellectuals in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.
The soft power goal was to subtly undermine the Soviet system by – as the CIA put it – "reinforcing
predispositions towards cultural and intellectual freedom, and dissatisfaction with its absence".
... ... ...
The CIA declassified 99 secret documents from its Pasternak archive in April. They demonstrate
the agency's hidden role in bringing the novel to a global audience. There had been rumours the CIA
had organised a covert Russian language edition in order to win Pasternak a Nobel prize. The archive,
however, shows that no copies were sent to the Nobel committee in Stockholm; instead, the CIA's aim
was to spread the text among ordinary Soviet citizens. Independently, the Nobel committee gave Pasternak
the 1958 Nobel prize for Literature; the writer was famously forced to decline it following a huge
campaign against him, initiated by the state and embraced by many of Pasternak's fellow-writers.
He died in 1960.
SurvivalMachine, 11 June 2014 9:17am
What is really surprising about this book (and author) is that it is very famous, yet it is
not that good (compared to other russian or soviet books/writers).
Maybe, as the article suggests, it was made into a film and given the Nobel for propaganda
purposes.
The american film is actually very good. And I heard the soviet film was excellent too.
Soon after Zhivago came Solzhenitsyn, who also got the Nobel. He, in my opinion, fully deserved
his Nobel prize.
I read Chukovsky's diary recently, and it is interesting how he (and others) got so passionate
about Solzhenitsyn. Here was the new Tolstoy, (or a new Gogol as the editor of Novi Mir said after
a sleepless night reading a day in the life of Ivan Denissovich).
This moral giant, when he came to the US and discovered the american/western/consumerist way
of life, started to describe what he saw (in ways similar to Schumacher (the Bristish economist
author of Small is Beautiful). The West, not happy to be criticised, turned its back on him.
zahoushek, 11 June 2014 9:24am
Good book, average film. Well shot though.
3KOSTURA zahoushek, 11 June 2014 3:45pm
Average book. Horrible film. Great MI6 plot.
Alexander Demidov, 11 June 2014 11:52am
I actually first read Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita and Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago in
the early '80s in Moscow in their English translations. They were not readily available in Russian,
but could be found easily enough in second-hand foreign-language bookshops. This article certainly
took me on a trip down the memory lane. Many thanks, Mr Harding.
ErnestfromClapham, 11 June 2014 1:11pm
I always wonder whether Stalin had good taste in literature, as he seemed to take a personal interest
in some of the writers who later became the most celabrated of his era - Bulgakov, Zamyatin, and
according to this article Pasternak? Or was his ability to predict the success of these writers
due to the fact that he had all the others killed?
ID4524057, 11 June 2014 6:20pm
"In a secret memo John Maury, the CIA division chief, wrote: "Pasternak's humanistic message
– that every person is entitled to a private life and deserves respect as a human being, irrespective
of the extent of political loyalty or contribution to the state..." "
A Modest Proposal: Perhaps this should be chiseled into the walls at Fort Meade...right next
to:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"In a secret memo John Maury, the CIA division chief, wrote: "Pasternak's humanistic message
– that every person is entitled to a private life and deserves respect as a human being, irrespective
of the extent of political loyalty or contribution to the state..." "
he was such a sensitive man, a great humanist and democrat was john maury, here is what he had
to say about democracy and the 1967 military coup in greece:
the U.S. ambassador in Athens, disapproved of the coup, complaining that it represented
"a rape of democracy", to which Jack Maury, the CIA station chief in Athens, answered, "
How can you rape a whore?"
ID4524057 monkie 13 June 2014 12:45am
crikey! Thanks for the reminder...was recently rereading a piece on Yanis Ritsos being arrested...and
there was a note about that comment and I filed it away and then forgot about it;-(
...and of
course all of those fascists the US supported are spewing their political DNA in Golden Dawn...
Maury - the sole of CIA poetics...
KingOllie, 12 June 2014 9:47am
I had a teacher tell me that when she visited the Soviet Union in the early
1970s she heard "Lara's Theme" as Muzak. She coyly asked the tour guide
where the song came from and was told, "that's just an old Russian song."
freedomoftheseas, 13 June 2014 2:10pm
Dr. Zhivago is a book for all time as only a few are, a work that says it all as Moby Dick
or Manzoni's "The Promised." It might well have been the 20th Century's greatest novel, although
that will always be a matter of opinion.
Aside from its literary qualities--very high and not to be confused with the entertaining,
true to script, but slightly treacly David Lean film--there was the political statement. But it
wasn't an anti-communist or Cold War polemic, not at all. And that is where its power lay: it
put man against the state in such an ordinary way--an honest kind man, an apolitical man, a man
not against changes in his society--that the contrast with the violence growing around him, the
violence of the state, the inhumanity of man to man, is stark, and the cry for man's humanity
both sad and glorious. Pasternak may not even have set out to write anything political; instead
he wrote of life as it was in Russia--then the Soviet state--and that was sufficient; it damned
itself.
Every high school student in the world should read Dr. Zhivago, and then reread it as an adult.
Its cry is as poignant and powerful today--and as necessary--as it was in the mid-20th Century.
Maybe it will prove one of history's ironies that Edward Snowden found himself in Russia
at a point in his life ... the 21st Century's Dr. Zhivago?
Here is an eyewitness report of the violence that the Washington-backed government in Kiev is
inflicting on those protesting against the anti-Russian regime that Washington has installed in Kiev.
This is not information you will hear from the presstitute media or from "your" government.
You can ask, "Who is this reporter? How do we know we can believe him," or you can say, "We know
that we cannot believe "our" government and its presstitute media, so let's give the reporter the
benefit of the doubt."
The reporter uses the German word Untermenschen, which means "under men" or lesser beings. The
Nazis applied this term to most of humanity, while referring to Germans as Ubermenchen which means,
in effect, overlords or superior men.
The US neoconservative ideology parallels the Nazi ideology. Americans are the Exceptional
People, the Indispensable People. Everyone else is unexceptional and dispensable. Apparently the
American people are convinced of their worthiness over others. Perhaps this is why there is no remorse
over the millions of Untermenschen that Washington has murdered, maimed, and displaced in seven countries
so far in the 21st century.
Untermenschen. That is what we are in the eyes of The West. Untermenschen. Subhumans.
I have watched the unfolding coup d'etat in Ukraine from it's very beginning in late November
2013 in Kiev. I have watched a steady stream of western dignitaries and politicians parade through
Maidan Square in Kiev, each and every one of them publicly and vocally expressing their open support
of the coup d'etat. I find it appalling that the sitting ambassador of the United States of America
to the Sovereign Country of Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, actively and publicly supported a violent
coup d'etat against the sitting and legally elected government of Ukraine and to this day actively
and publicly expresses open support for the illegal coup d'etat installed government in Kiev.
On 01 December 2013 my wife and I watched the Right Sector and Svoboda Party operatives attempt
to take the Presidential Administration Building on Bankhova Street in Kiev under the active and
visible command of Vitaly Klitchko and Petro Poroshenko, two sitting deputats of the Ukraine Rada
(parliament). After that 3 hour riot ended with Bankhova Street being finally cleared by Berkut riot
police who were under orders to not go beyond the end of Bankhova Street, I told my wife President
Yanukovich would lose against the coup d'etat. She told me I was crazy. 2 1/2 months later we were
shoveling sand in to bags in the middle of the night at the new block post just above Belbek Aerodrome
as our Self Defense Forces in Sevastopol and Krimea built and manned block posts at the Krim/Ukraine
border and the 5 roads in to Sevastopol. The victors of the Maidan coup d'etat, Oleg Tyagnibok (a
sitting deputat of Ukraine Rada) and Dmitro Yarush, leaders of Svoboda Party and Right Sector Party
respectively, had stated, during a live interview on Channel 5 TV in Kiev on 27 February 2014, that
they were going to lead their combined 5500 fighters from Miadan down to Krim and Sevastopol and
'kill every Russian there' combined with 'we will put every Russian in Krim to the knife'. We took
them seriously and we knew they were heavily armed with AK 47′s and RPGs, clearly seen in videos
of the end and aftermath of the coup in Maidan. Those first two days and nights on the barricades
we had only clubs for most of us.
Long story short, we seized our two governments from the Kiev appointed administrators, formed
new governments for Sevastopol and the Autonomous Republic of Krimea and shortly thereafter activated
a treaty signed with Russia in 1993 wherein Russia guaranteed the safety of the Autonomous Republic
of Krimea and the City of Sevastopol. Russia honored that treaty and 3 days later the Russian Army
arrived to protect us from the coup government in Kiev. The screams from The West were heard all
the way to Mars. The screams were heard in the Andromeda Galaxy when we voted to join the Russian
Federation and were excepted in to the RF.
Shortly after the coup d'etat in Kiev several eastern and southern oblasti (districts) in Ukraine
expressed dissatisfaction with the 'new' illegal government installed in Kiev. Right Sector operatives
immediately began to infiltrate in to those oblasti. Demonstrations turned sometimes violent and
people died.
On 02 May there was a football match in Odessa on the south coast of Ukraine. We all know what
happened in Odessa with the massacre of the anti Kiev demonstrators, unarmed demonstrators, in and
around the Labor Union Building in Odessa as they were beaten, shot and burned to death. What you
don't know is the true number of dead that day and evening. 297 anti Kiev demonstrators AND innocents
died that day. Over 50 were in hospital. Some of those who jumped from the entrance hall stairway
at the fourth and fifth floor levels were beaten to death as they lay on the ground. Others were
made to crawl away, severely injured, and were kicked and beaten as they crawled to the pile of wounded.
To this day not a single western government that I am aware of has expressed the slightest sympathy
or condolences for any of the wounded or dead in Odessa. The overriding comments from what little
was said about Odessa in The West was the fact that the 'anti kiev activists and agents' accidently
set the building on fire as they were throwing molotov cocktails at the football fans around the
building. Why should they care? After all, the men, women, and yes, two children, who died in the
massacre are Untermenschen. WE are Untermenschen.
In the weeks before and after the massacre in Odessa the situation came to a head in Donetsk Oblast
and Lugansk Oblast. Both declared their indendence from Ukraine and set up their own governments.
The West screamed bloody murder as they are wont to do with their double standard and blamed everything
on Russia and Mr. Putin including the drought in Mexico and the outbreak of teenaged acne in Australia.
The two oblasti set up self defense units as Kiev mobilized their army and formed a large 'national
guard' unit from Right Sector fighters from Maidan and western and central Ukraine. On 9 May there
was a massacre in the city of Mariupol in Donetsk Oblast, now the Donbas Peoples Republic. Over 100
unarmed citizens and Militsiya (police) were shot down, often right on live camera. Yes, many of
the citizens were screaming great obscenities at the Right Sector unit that entered the city. The
police where slaughtered in their headquarters for being 'disloyal' to Kiev Government. Some were
burned alive, handcuffed, in the police headquarters as it was burned by the Right Sector unit.
To this day not a single western government that I am aware of has expressed the slightest sympathy
or expressed condolences for the murdered men and women in Mariupol. After all, the dead citizens
are Untermenschen. WE are Untermenschen.
In the following days and weeks the Ukraine Army began to bombard villages, towns and cities starting
with Slavyansk in Donbas. The first 'bombardment' was one single 82mm mortar round. With no reaction
from either The West or Russia, the next day a heavy bombardment ocurred. In the days after the first
heavy bombardments the toll of wounded, dead, maimed civilians mounted as the artillery was fired
at patently civilian areas, we call them 'living areas'. Over 100 civilians have died in the last
two weeks. A like number were wounded.
To this day not a single western government that I am aware of has expressed the slightest sympathy
or expressed condolences for the murdered men and women and children in Donbas nor has a single western
government asked Kiev to cease the bombardments. After all, the dead citizens are Untermenschen.
WE are Untermenschen.
Yesterday, 03 June 2014, shortly after noon local time there was an attack on the Lugansk City
Administration Building in the center of Lugansk by a single Ukrainian Air Force Sukhoi 25 ground
attack airplane. He fired a single volley of missiles at the front of the building. Yes, the building
is the titular headquarters of Donbas Republic but 95% of the offices and workers in that building
are city administration workers, civilians doing their work for the citizens of Lugansk and most
of whom have worked there for years. Ukraine well knew that fact and attacked. The impact of the
rockets are well documented in many videos extant on the internet as is the aftermath as the area
is being policed up and the fire in the one burning office on the fourth floor is extinguished.
The first two attached videos are of the area immediately after the attack. They are graphic to
an extreme and are not for those with a weak stomach. The woman in the red blouse with her dying
breaths asks "Excuse me please, give me a telephone." Those words are an exact translation, she did
say 'Excuse me please' before she requested the phone. The young man in the park whom they start
CPR on died. The old man lying face down in the street is dead. The man face up with his head on
a tyre died. The four women at the base of the entrance steps, three died instantly and the fourth,
the lady with the red blouse, died in moments after her request. The man screaming as he takes the
video of the carnage is screaming 'sookhie'. 'Sookha', singular, and 'sookhie', plural, is the Russian
word for a female dog. Like in English, in Russian it also has the second meaning, as in bitch. Here
it's fighting words.
The west media did mention this senseless slaughter after a fashion. They said in their very few
'articles' yesterday refering to this slaughter that the 'terrorists and rebels of the Donbas Army
fired a Manpad that accidently hit the building'. This in spite of dozens of videos showing the missiles
impacting in the park in front of the building and walking right up to the base and front facade
of the building and the death and destruction in the park and in front of the building. Even the
much vaunted BBC told the Manpad story.
The third video is of the artillery bombardment of Slavyansk at dawn and shortly after today,
03 June 2014. I do not know of the extent of the civilian casualties this morning in Slavyansk but
I do know one 9 story flats building was hit square on the roof and was burning as of 06:00 local
time as are other structures in Slavyansk.
To this moment not a single western government or government official that I know of has expressed
either sympathy or condolences for these dead civilians nor have any of them asked Kiev to cease
these terror attacks. After all, the dead citizens are Untermenschen. WE are Untermenschen.
I urge you all, each and every one of you, to flood your embassies, your ambassadors, your politicians,
your presidents, your prime ministers, every government functionary you can find, with these videos.
Perhaps their army of minions will not be able to stop all from getting through to them. Use email,
use facebook, use twitter, use whatever you can. Show them WHAT THEY DID. Not that they will care.
After all, we are Untermenschen.
But one thing they should understand. We, the Untermenschen, will fight them. Ukraine died in
Odessa on 02 May 2014. Any chance of negotiations about Donbas died on 09 May 2014 in Mariupol. After
Lugansk yesterday it will be a fight to the death. We will win. We Untermenschen will defeat you.
We have no choice. We will fight you to our last breath and die fighting before we kneel in subservience
to a single one of you.
For you politicians behind the coup d'etat in Kiev and the war against the citizens of Ukraine,
you disgust me. I have only this to say to Merkel, Torchinov, Poroshenko, Holland, Cameron. Swift
Boat John, Nuland and Obama, whoever the 'president' of poland is, each and every one of you, your
minions and hangers on, the west politicians, ALL of you.
Damn your eyes, damn your souls, damn you to Hell, back to where you came from. You are beneath
contempt.
No sleep from 05:00 02.06. Please excuse spelling mistakes.
During a protest near Lviv in west Ukraine by women demanding the return of their conscripted sons
and husbands the women were beaten by Tyagnibok's Svoboda Party operatives. Two women are in hospital.
Artillery fire commenced against the town of Severodonetsk 04:20 local time.
Slavyansk and Kramatorsk heavy fighting resumed dawn today. 3 enemy BTR's destroyed before dawn 03
June 2014 Kramatorsk area. Casualties unknown.
Lugansk fighting and artillery bombardments started dawn in outskirts. One flats building hit by
artillery and on fire. Casualties unknown.
27 children including some milk babies were successfully evacuated from Kromatorsk after dark 01
June. Destination unknown.
Intense fighting around Kramotorsk Aerodrome from dawn today. The distinctive sound of a German MG3
was clearly heard. This weapon is known to be in Nats armories in small numbers and some rechambered
for Russian 7.62 x 54 round from NATO 7.62 x 51 round. High cyclic rate of fire.
Ukraine Army is blocking all traffic in and out of Donetsk City and Slavyansk. No medical supplies
are allowed in to either area. The prohibition of evacuating children from both cities is still in
effect by Junta. Sick and severely wounded evacuation is prohibited.
Reports of very heavy fighting suburbs of Slavyansk 08:10 local time. Reports of tank cannon fire
in the area of fighting are unconfirmed. Tank cannon have a distinctive sound different from artillery
of the same caliber.
09:29 local time column of tanks and BTR's have fought their way in to Slavyansk with right sector
infantry. Very intense fighting extant in actual city.
About Dr. Paul Craig RobertsPaul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week,
Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His
internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are
The
Не хочется становиться евро или америко - фобом, но вот с кого нужно брать пример Нуланд, Псаки
и Эштон! Сама элегантность, тонкая, сдержанная красота, женственность и при этом ум и свет в глазах,
разум в речи + опыт, образование и любовь к Родине в каждом аргументе. Это все при отсутствии
фобий относительно запада, только анализ его действий сейчас и в срезе истории. И еще спокойствие
- подкупает и внушает уважение
Olga325551
Так значит запад хотел использовать Россию в том же качестве, как в 1999 году в Югославии -
тогда они с нашей помощью уговорили Милошевича прекратить сопротивление и пустить в Косово международный
контингент, признавая при этом резолюцией 1244 совбеза ООН Косово частью Сербии.
Затем последовала цветная революция в Белграде, выдача Милошевича гаагскому трибуналу и его
смерть там, установление прозападного правительства в Сербии и провозглашение независимости Косово,
Наивные люди, они думали, что что-то подобное этому они смогут провернуть на Украине.
Но Путин вам не Ельцин. красная линия проведена. И они сами это сделали.
"Our meeting began the way a meeting usually begins - we sat down and began to talk about some of
the acutest problems, both some international and bilateral problems. But the main subject was the problem
of settling the situation in Ukraine," Putin told reporters.
"I cannot but welcome Mr. Poroshenko's position as to the need to immediately stop bloodshed in
eastern Ukraine,"Putin told journalists in Deauville when asked to comment on outcomes of this conversation
with Poroshenko on Friday.
"He has his plan on this account, but it's better to ask him, not me, what plan this is. He said
in a nutshell about this, but it's one thing to say about this here, in France, and another to say
it in his own country," President Putin said.
The Reality About Ukraine
Just in case you have not been informed about what is really happened in Ukraine or if you actually
believe the lies that the western media is attempting to paint as reality please allow me to give
you a quick rundown of what has transpired.
After stopping a US/NATO invasion of Syria, once again initiated by the US based on fabricated
evidence, and holding what were assessed to be the best Winter Olympics in history, the US/NATO/EU
activated a long planned operation to take over Ukraine.
Operation Ukraine (as I have labelled it) was decades in the planning and was carried out by the
CIA and its front USAID with taxpayer funding and additional funds provided by billionaires George
Soros and Pierre Omidyar as well as Exxon and Mobil Oil. Through the use of NGOs and endemic fascist
neo nazi groups, in particular the Right Sector and followers of brutal nazi collaborator Stepan
Bandera, the United States of America was able to activate already existing Color Revolution infrastructure
and bring about an armed coup d'état and the ouster of the democratically elected president and government
of Ukraine.
US/NATO plans for the installation of first strike military infrastructure directed against Russia
in Ukraine were at risk when the elected President of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych was given an ultimatum
by the US/NATO/EU to sign an association agreement and effectively cease relations with Russia and
he refused.
The evidence shows that US State Department officials at the highest levels with the approval
of US President Obama activated Operation Ukraine and chose the lineup of the post-coup government.
The coming to power of radical armed nazi and fascist grouping and armed military formations was
not something that the majority of the Ukrainian people supported and the nazi junta's refusal to
listen to the people and their ensuing punitive military operations and pogroms led to the autonomous
region of Crimea declaring independence and rejoining Russia as the population refused to live under
a fascist junta. The punitive campaign by the junta against all of those opposed to them continued
with hundreds being burned alive in Odessa, and dozens of pogroms and countless acts of violence
against those opposed to the junta. This led the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions holding referendums
on independence with at least 8 other regions being suppressed from doing the same.
Under these conditions the junta held a presidential election in which another oligarch was chosen
as President of Ukraine, leaving the Ukrainian people in a worse condition than before the coup.
The elected oligarch Petr Poroshenko, after an election campaign where opponents of the coup were
beaten, had their families attacked and threatened, and in the case of outspoken anti-junta candidate
Oleg Tsaryov even had their homes burned down and were forced to pull out of the race, before even
being inaugurated is guilty of war crimes and violating the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statutes
in his continuing punitive military operations against civilians opposed to the junta in Kiev.
Despite the fact that there have been multiple official requests for a Russian peacekeeping operation
to stop the bloodshed and the loss of civilians lives Russia has not intervened militarily in Ukraine
but has attempted to facilitate a diplomatic and humanitarian resolution to the crisis.
Russia has now been forced to attempt to deal with the "president elect" as if he was the actual
choice of the Ukrainian people, despite the fact that more than half of Ukraine did not even vote
in the recent elections.
The Western Version
The West has used what is called DARVO in blaming the entire situation in Ukraine on Russia.
(DARVO refers to a reaction that perpetrators of wrong doing, particularly sexual offenders,
may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. The perpetrator or offender
may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim
and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim into an
alleged offender.)
According to the West Russia is an aggressor in Ukraine, there is no humanitarian catastrophe
currently taking place as perhaps as many as tens of thousands of refugees flee Ukraine and the punitive
military operations directed against entire regions, there is not an illegal military operation being
waged against the civilians in the east of Ukraine and the president and the junta are legitimate
holders of power.
The West also claims the people of Crimea do not have the right to self- determination because
they decided to rejoin Russia. Had they decided to join the EU there is no doubt the legitimacy would
be hailed around the world.
A Thousand Words
Having studied photographs and footage of the events at Normandy, because as they say a picture
speaks a thousand words, several facts stood out which I feel might be worth mentioning. More than
anything and this might fuel conspiracy theories and add fire to those who claim the New World Order
is run by London Bankers as well as be an issue for those who claim to be American patriots, was
the deference all of those gathered paid to the Queen of England (the person who owns more land than
anyone else in the world).
Sure the Queen is a wonderful person and the UK did lose half a million people in WWII, but her
central role at the event seemed odd to say the least. Of course no one is allowed to say anything
about this but I thought it worth mentioning.
Yes France and the UK and the US all lost approximately 500 thousand men each and these heroes
must be remembered but Russia lost what could be more than 28 million and in all fairness it was
the Russian leader who should have been the guest of honor. But of course Russia's "contribution"
is always minimized in the West, a fact I have taken issue with many times in the past, and the West
has its version of events that must be respected as well, I suppose.
The most stunning photograph for me was one of Poroshenko all but bowing in front of the Queen
as he shakes her hand, appearing to have been led to the Queen by Obama, as Obama and all of the
heads of state around the Queen looked down or pretended not to notice.
No matter that Poroshenko is engaged in military operations against his own civilians, no matter
that he has not even been inaugurated as president, it is clear he is the West's man in Kiev, and
he can do no wrong.
In television footage Poroshenko for his part looked rather uncomfortable during a performance
in honor of those who fought and died against nazism, perhaps he was wondering how his Banderavite
supporters and Right Sector militias might react back home?
Prince Charles looked overly pleased to see Obama and after his Hitler comments with regard to
Russia was completely unapologetic towards President Putin. Prince Charles continuously shot President
Putin hard glances as he and his assembled "friends" attempted to stay separate from the Russian
leader. I suppose making Hitler references while knowing that the nazis in Ukraine were let loose
by your own "friends" might be cause to stay away from the target of your operation.
President Putin behaved in a completely statesman-like manner despite knowing that those amassed
around him are bent on surrounding Russia with their missiles and have caused the single largest
threat to Russia's national security in this century.
A President for Peace
We will never know what the leaders actually said to each other but we can be certain that the
language was hard and if President Putin is pleased, then we will probably soon see an end to the
civil war raging in Ukraine.
While all of the leaders of countries waging war around the world, destabilizing governments and
bent on the global expansion of their NATO infrastructure celebrated D-Day President Putin's quiet
dignity and record for fighting for peace and rule of law clearly are what made him stand out.
No amount of demonization or blame will change the fact that Operation Ukraine was a western project
and Russia's security is under attack, as NATO reneges on all deals and continues to expand to the
east.
Despite everything President Putin continues to seek a diplomatic solution and continues to attempt
to assist the Ukrainian people who are being attacked by their own military. I am certain that without
a shot being fired, President Putin will find a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, even though it
is not one Russia had any part in bringing about but which Russia is being forced to deal with.
The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at
[email protected].
Russia said Wednesday that it was open for cooperation with major Western powers, but ruled out
a return to the Group of Eight (G8), made up of the seven most industrialized nations, known as G7,
and Russia.
"Such a format does not exist for now," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told a Russian radio
station.
Russia would, however, continue to participate in the Group of 20, which includes the most developed
and major developing countries of the world, Peskov said.
Leaders of G7 declared in March that they would boycott the G8 summit in Sochi, where they were
scheduled to have met with Russia this week. Instead, they gathered in Brussels for a two-day G7
summit.
I live in America. ... but Russia is MEGA POWER. .... I PRAY we never would have to fight against
each other. .... because it would be a disaster. May God Bless Russia. May God Bless America
skobichevskii
US will just wait you out. Your technology will become obsolete in 10 years. Nobody in your
country can move technology because you have no science. You will become old and senile and provide
noone to replace you. You have no chance. Russia has no chance with you in power. You will fail.
Nick Gn
If you know anything abour radars and missile systems... You said total nonsence.... Russian
missile systems are the best in the world (even US knows it), because Krushev switched all defence
science tech to missiles while US has/had better
artiyom
Let me just remind you that during war in Yugoslavia, American "stealth" aircraft was shot
down by a Russian weapon named "S-125", that has been produced in 1961! BTW, Russians just released
"S-400" which can shoot down, literally, anything. So next time think twice, when you say anything
like that and don't allow your hate make you blind and stupid ignorant.
Victor Tarakanov
Russian Sukhoi Su-24 with the newest jamming complex paralyzed in the Black Sea the most modern
American combat management system "Aegis" installed on the destroyer "USS Donald Cook".US destroyer
"Donald Cook" with cruise missiles "Tomahawk" entered the neutral waters of the Black Sea on April
10. The purpose was a demonstration of force and intimidation in connection with the position
of Russia in Ukraine and Crimea.
The appearance of American warships in these waters is in contradiction of the Montreux Convention
about the nature and duration of stay in the Black Sea by the military ships of countries not
washed by this sea.In response, Russia sent an unarmed bomber Su-24 to fly around the U.S. destroyer.
However, experts say that this plane was equipped with the latest Russian electronic warfare
complex. According to this version, "Aegis" spotted from afar the approaching aircraft, and sounded
alarm. Everything went normally, American radars calculated the speed of the approaching target.
And suddenly all the screens went blank. "Aegis" was not working any more, and the rockets could
not get target information. Meanwhile, Su-24 flew over the deck of the destroyer, did battle turn
and simulated missile attack on the target. Then it turned and repeated the maneuver. And did
so 12 times.
Apparently, all efforts to revive the "Aegis" and provide target information for the defence
failed. After the incident, the foreign media reported that "Donald Cook" was rushed into a port
in Romania. There all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation. It seems that
all 27 people have written that they are not going to risk their lives.
Russophobia" is a popular word at the moment in Moscow, one invoked to explain the motivation
for both the uprising in Kyiv and the Western response to it. In fact, the term has received official
backing from President Vladimir Putin himself, who declared in a March 18 speech: "Nationalists,
neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine
to this day."
The Russophobic "threat" was clearly an urgent one in Moscow; a draft law banning "the propaganda
of Russophobia" had been submitted to the State Duma just three days before Putin's address. All
of which raises the question: What exactly is Russophobia, how you know if you suffer from it and
are you at risk if you do?
It's a word with a long pedigree. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the philosopher
John Stuart Mill appears to have invented it in 1836 to describe British ministers' alarm that Russia
could advance through Asia and challenge the Brits' hold over India. Although it quickly became clear
such an invasion was all but impossible, the word lived on as a slightly satirical term for those
who distrusted or feared a Russian state they considered brutal and expansionist. "The age of Russophobia
is over, and it is impossible to rouse Englishmen to anger or jealousy," bemoaned the Times of London
in 1866.
While this fear of Russian expansion was not entirely rational, it was certainly hypocritical.
"Given Britain's own record of imperial aggression and suppression of national revolt (in Ireland,
let alone in India or Africa), the argument from the British side was a notable example of the kettle
calling the pot black," Anatol Lieven, now a professor at King's College, wrote in 2000. In fact,
the Russians, irritated by this double-standard, lobbed the word back at the Brits: The official
newspaper Golos, for instance, referred in 1880 to the British government's "incurable Russophobia."
For the next several decades, the word continued to refer to a fear of Russian foreign policy,
rather than Russians themselves. Lieven argues that the West's 19th-century fear of Russian expansion
persisted into the Cold War, spreading from Britain into the United States, the Soviet Union's arch-foe.
Ronald Reagan's famous 1983 speech didn't use the word "Russophobia," but calling the USSR an "evil
empire" certainly captured the same sentiment of those British statesman 150 years earlier.
Today, the term lives on less in the West than among Russian officials who think Westerners-especially
Americans-judge Moscow by harsher standards than those by which they judge themselves. "Under pressure
from Russophobic members of the U.S. Congress, a powerful blow has been dealt to bilateral relations
and mutual trust," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement said last April, after Congress
passed visa bans on Russian officials linked to the death in custody of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky.
Since Russia's entry into Crimea and annexation of the peninsula, Western officials have been
more critical of Russia than usual, and their Russian counterparts have been more resentful than
usual. (Barack Obama: "Russia's violation of international law, its assault on Ukraine's sovereignty
and territorial integrity, must be met with condemnation"; Putin: "This is not even double standards;
this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism.") Putin is furious that Western countries removed Kosovo
from Serbia and invaded Iraq, both without U.N. backing, yet are now trying to stop him from doing
the same in Ukraine. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that some commentators have seen the West's
response to Putin's seizure of Crimea as classically Russophobic.
Still, that was not what Putin had in mind when he bracketed Russophobes with anti-Semites and
neo-Nazis; he did not picture hawkish Western diplomats marauding through central Kyiv. So to whom
was he referring?
Putin was using Russophobia in a totally different sense from John Stuart Mill-a meaning popularized
by the dissident Soviet mathematician Igor Shafarevich in the late 1970s. Shafarevich hated the Soviet
Union but considered himself a Russian patriot, and so sought a way to justify criticizing the government
without feeling like a traitor. In his book Rusofobiya (the Russian for "Russophobia"), Shafarevich
concluded that communism was alien to Russia-and that Jews had imposed it on the country-essentially
portraying the Soviet government as foreign occupies. He declared Soviet Jews Russophobic, describing
their "haughtily arrogant and mocking approach to everything Russian, even Russian names. The conception
is that this country has always been the same, and can never get better, that Russia is a 'country
of fools.'"
... ... ...
Oliver Bullough is the London-based author of The Last Man in Russia.
Kevin_OKeeffe • 2 months ago
"...and last year pro-Kremlin commentator Sergei Markov had only one explanation for Putin's
failure to win the Nobel Peace Prize: 'Russophobia, unfortunately, did not permit the Nobel Committee
to give the prize to Vladimir Putin, which he fully deserved,' he said."
Seeing as how Vladimir Putin more-or-less singlehandedly prevented a wider U.S. war in Syria
(doing the USA an enormous favor in the process, even if we're often too stupid to realize it),
I think the above-quoted remarks represent an entirely reasonable view. Ironically, its the, ahem,
Russophobia innate to the milieu in which Politico publishes, that prevents it from acknowledging
something that pretty much any person without a truth-blinding agenda would recognize instantly
as being rather obviously correct.
Okpulot Taha • 2 months ago
Our western world English language tends to prompt label making and bumper sticker slogans.
"Homophobe" and "Russophobe" are labels which are neutral in feeling until contextually wrapped.
"Hope and Change" is currently the best known bumper sticker slogan but is charged with emotion
these days.
"Benghazi" was once just an unknown place, today this name fiercely invokes controversy surrounding
Hillary Clinton, a potential presidential candidate.
Labels and slogans are critical components of political propaganda. Westerners at large tend
to be literacy challenged. Most people will not read more than a handful of sentences but will
read short single sentence slogans.
Putin and his Russian peoples are very much a western peoples who like Americans and Europeans,
they are no real threat to us. However, decades of political propaganda, "commie", "pinko", "Russkie
" and such have so tainted both history and thinking with a negative context about Russians, westerners
inherently and quickly think "evil". Those good peoples are not evil, not at all.
Labels, slogans, political propaganda, those are the makings of war and genocide, almost always
without justification.
I-still-like-Ike • 2 months ago
I know who are NOT Russophobes-the GOP and every conservative to the right of the GOP.
The right wing in the USA love Putin-"President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire 'the
focus of evil in the modern world.' President Putin is implying that Barack Obama's America may
deserve the title in the 21st century," so says Pat Buchanan who is the one implying that the
USA under a Democratic Administration is now 'the focus of evil in the modern world.'
Pat Buchanan and all of his right wing bedfellows are Russo/Putin lovers and haters of America.
"Putin's Paleoconservative Moment"
By Patrick J. Buchanan • December 17, 2013
"Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative? In the culture war for mankind's future, is he one
of us? While such a question may be blasphemous in Western circles, consider the content of the
Russian president's state of the nation address.
"With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, 'In many countries today, moral and ethical norms
are being reconsidered."
"'They're now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political
views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil.'
"Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights,
to equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil.
"No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.
"President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire "the focus of evil in the modern world."
President Putin is implying that Barack Obama's America may deserve the title in the 21st century."
Shifting Ukraine as a whole from being pro-Russian to anti-Russian is a devastating strategic
defeat for Russia that it was never going to accept without reaction. A hostile Ukraine would permanently
reduce Russia's status as a great power and push back its influence to the far east of Europe. Of
course, if Ukraine mattered so much to Russia it was unwise for its leaders to rely on President
Viktor Yanukovych and his gang of racketeers whose power was to evaporate so swiftly. But it was
also self-deceptive and irresponsible for EU and US officials either not to see or not to care about
the explosive consequences of backing the takeover of an unelected pro-Western government in Kiev,
propelled into office by groups including extreme ultra-nationalists, and then to treat it as if
it has total legitimacy.
But it is not Western diplomats and politicians alone who make mistakes. The foreign media has
presented an over-simplified picture of what is happening in Ukraine much as it did in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya and Syria. The old regime in all cases was demonised and its opponents glorified, so
the picture of events presented to the public was often close to fantasy.
Much the same is happening in Ukraine. Media focus is all on the credibility or lack of it of
the separatists in east Ukraine and very little on the new government in Kiev. In fact, what is most
striking about both sides is their almost comic ineffectiveness: Three months ago, Yanukovych acted
as if he had the political and military strength to steamroller the opposition only to find himself
forced to flee almost alone across the Russian border. Last week Kiev was confidently sending troops
to crush "terrorists" and re-establish its authority in the east only to see its troops tamely surrender
their vehicles and defect. When government security forces did kill protesters at Mariupol it turned
out they belonged to recently formed National Guard units recruited from ultra-nationalist protesters.
A result of this lack of organized support, however deep and real the popular divisions, is that
power vacuums develop which are filled by shadowy militias. This is very much the pattern of recent
wars in the Middle East. For instance, in Afghanistan what is striking is not the strength of the
Taliban, but the weakness and unpopularity of the government. In Iraq the government has 900,000-strong
security forces and oil revenues of $100bn (£60bn) a year but for the last three months the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant, an organization criticized by al-Qa'ida for its excessive violence,
has ruled Fallujah 40 miles west of Baghdad.
Catastrophe in Ukraine can still be avoided by compromise and restraint but the same was true
of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. A reason why these countries have been torn apart by wars was a false
belief by outside powers that they could win cheap victories, and a failure to appreciate that their
chosen partner locally was a self-interested faction with many enemies. In Syria for instance, the
US and its allies have been claiming for three years that the real representatives of the Syrian
people are discredited but well-financed exiles who dare not visit either government or rebel-held
areas.
What makes Ukraine so dangerous is that all sides exaggerate their support, underestimate that
of their opponents, and then overplay their hands. By accepting as legitimate a government in Kiev
installed by direct action, the US and EU irresponsibly destabilised a tract of Europe, something
that should have been obvious at the time. To quote Paul Claudel again: "It is fortunate that diplomats
have long noses since they usually cannot see beyond them."
For centuries, Russia has sought to ensure its physical security through its control over
neighboring territory. In Russia, the notion of "empire" was not based upon acquiring control over
distant unconnected territories on faraway continents, as the British and the French did. Rather,
for Russia, an empire was built through acquisition of contiguous territories.
This approach to security has left Russia, even after losing its Soviet empire, the largest country
in the world geographically. Furthermore, Russia has always made the near abroad-as the
territory surrounding Russia's borders is called-a priority. And while Mr. Putin acknowledged the
impossibility of restoring the Soviet Union, he also found unacceptable any further unraveling of
Russia's territorial integrity, for example through the loss of secessionist regions in the Caucasus.
His first actions as Prime Minister and acting President were to
prevent Chechen independence, even if this required tremendous brutality and violence against
Russian citizens in Chechnya.
The geopolitical order in the post–Cold War era, in which not only the countries of Eastern Europe
but even the former Soviet republics in the Baltic region, had become members in NATO and the European
Union, must have troubled Mr. Putin greatly. Having these bodies expand any further, including right
up to Russia's doorstep with the potential incorporation of Ukraine, was positively unthinkable.
Having Ukraine sign the Association Agreement with the European Union, opening the door for future
membership, had to be stopped in its tracks, through material incentives if possible, or by military
means if necessary. As recent events make clear, for Mr. Putin the line in the sand was Ukraine.
... ... ....
While it looks more and more likely that eastern or southern Ukraine could go the way of Crimea,
especially after the recent tragic violence in Odessa and the referenda in Donetsk and Luhansk, an
invasion may not be necessary to satisfy Russia's security objective. A less costly way could be
for Ukraine to become a federation. The proposal of a Ukrainian federation may have some odd conditions
attached, like the center's inability to borrow money without the approval of two-thirds of Ukraine's
regions. However, the alternatives to a federation, which include civil war, seem much worse. Until
now, Kyiv has strongly resisted a solution that involves a federation with strong powers residing
in the regions. And from the Russian perspective, some further convincing seems required. Mr. Putin
understands he will be much more persuasive if the threat of invasion remains highly credible. Therefore,
Western leaders should not count on Russia to work toward stabilizing eastern Ukraine before Kyiv
at the very least demonstrates its commitment to new political institutions, since, along with the
tens of thousands of well-equipped Russian troops on Ukraine's border, widespread instability and
the endangerment of pro-Russian Ukrainians make the threat of invasion highly credible and Russia's
bargaining position stronger.
Hilary Appel is the Podlich Family Professor of Government and George R. Roberts
Fellow at Claremont McKenna College.
The Russians are reputed to be masters at chess, but their initial responses to the revolution
in Kiev were inept. They were in a position where they could play for time, considering certain basic
factors:
The package likely to be offered by the EU and IMF will include painful austerity measures.
The boost given to Ukrainian nationalism could also strain relations with the EU; many of
Ukraine's nationalists do not like Brussels any better than other far-right European parties.
The expected loss of gas subsidies as a condition of EU (and IMF) restructuring would also
be unpopular. Yats himself described his interim administration as a kamikaze government, destined
to blow up on arrival.
With estimates of a needed package at around $25 billion, the $1 billion in loan guarantees
the United States put on the table was risibly below expectations.
The Germans did not appear especially keen to step up to the plate; on the contrary, German
leaders were reportedly angry that the leaders of Maidan had held out hope of ultimate EU membership.
Chancellor Angela Merkel was not likely to be willing to do for Ukraine what she had proved unwilling
to do for Greece.
The voices coming from Ukraine, indeed, indicate a whole slew of very optimistic expectations
of what they are likely to get from the West in the form of tangible aid, both economic and military.
Nicely fitting the bill for disappointed expectations and bitter recriminations, in short, was the
disjunction between the popular expectations generated by Ukraine's revolution and the West's reluctance
to take on grave new financial burdens. The Russians might have waited until these disappointed expectations
induced rancor in the opposing coalition; instead, they managed to convert the crisis into one centered
on their own misbehavior.
Whether you have noticed that or not, but Russia in recent months waked on the razor's edge.
"Project Ukraine", so suddenly and dramatically escalated six months ago, had two goals in mind,
two possible lines of events.
Russia is limited to angry memorandums, protests, attempts to do something in the UN security
Council, while Ukraine passed under the power of Donetsk clan and far right, with all the resistance
crushed, Crimea is pacified, the Russian fleet from Sevastopol kicked out. The consequence is
a sharp drop of confidence in the goverment of Russia, replenishment of liberasts and ultra-nationalists
forces in Russia (Ukrainian scenario), the pressure on the "Russian" oligarchs, with the same
requirement for Putin -- to resign. Next - dismantling Russia and absorption of individual parts
by thankful to the USA participants of the process (led by the United States, of course).
Russia sending troops and occupies Ukraine. Histric non-stop howling of Western media, mass
condemnation of Russia, harse sanctions bordering on isolation (using full Iran template), the
people's discontent with the authorities, feeding liberalisasi and ultra-nationalist forces...
and then - as in option 1. Of course, this path entails increased the risk of a full-scale war
in Europe, but the U.S. was willing to take the risk.
Have you noticed how hard we tried to push for a second path? How they provoked? Including by
killing people in Odessa - meanly, under the camera, close to the Victory Day, mashing all the emotions
and feelings that are in the Russian people?
Have you noticed how yell junta presstitutes, those despicable "raskals of the pen" and provocateurs?
How hard punched the keyboard, "daughters of officers"? How they wished that Russia could not resist.
This China / Russia deal would have been signed even if the Ukraine issue hadn't surfaced, it's
been negotiated extensively over the last few years.
Its significance though, has now changed dramatically. While it appears that Russia would have
preferred a working relationship with China and a close one with the West, recent events will force
her to reverse course. Russia will soon be forced to choose China as an ally and the West will simply
become her distant business partner and a potential adversary.
This was not a decision taken in Moscow, but in Washington and London. These two nations, the
US and UK, have been the driving force behind the "Push Moscow away" team. Perhaps the leaders of
these two nations know something, we, the citizens, don't.
As far as I'm aware, both the US and UK are lumbering under monumental levels of debt, their industrial
base is crumbling and their natural energy resources are limited. One would have thought that, under
these circumstances, an alliance with Russia would have come in handy to counterbalance the Chinese
juggernaut.
But no, apparently we're run by an establishment which relishes "taking them all on" at the same
time. The parallels between Rome in rapid decline and the US today are striking: An excess of hubris,
a shrinking tax base, excessive debt, an effete and treacherous elite, pointless, expensive military
adventures with undefined objectives and a citizenry whose loyalty is unlikely to stretch much further
as their living standards continue to be eroded.
Under these circumstances, what in heavens name is the UK doing, following the US down a cul de
sac?
With the stroke of a pen, Russia significantly shifted its economic relations with its neighbors,
creating a major new export market to the east and reducing its reliance on European customers at
a time when its relations with the West are at their lowest point since the Cold War.
... ... ...
U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew appealed to China in a visit last week to avoid actions that
might limit the impact of recent Western sanctions against Russia. But a U.S. official, who was not
authorized to speak by name, said the United States would distinguish between deals that have long
been in the works - such as this one - and new agreements that seek to fill space left by U.S. and
European Union sanctions.
... ... ...
Russian officials on Wednesday also hinted at a possible "prepayment" totaling $25 billion.
Mr. Putin told reporters after the signing ceremony that the price of the gas for China was based
on the market price of oil, just as it was for European countries.
"The gas price formula as in our other contracts is pegged to the market price of oil and oil
products," Itar-Tass quoted Mr. Putin as saying.
The deal is the largest ever for the Russian natural gas industry, he said.
Russia will invest $55 billion in infrastructure for transporting the gas to China, said Alexei
B. Miller, the chief executive officer of Gazprom.
AK, US
This gas deal shows that the US attempts to isolate Russia economically are destined to fail.
These attempts are getting little traction even in Europe. Nobody wants to take economic pain
to help people in the State Department advance their agenda. And countries like China and India
will absolutely refuse to treat Russia like a pariah state. These countries have their own economic
and geopolitical interests. Working with Russia helps them further their interests. The relative
economic power of these countries will continue to grow.
The US-centered world order established after the fall of the Soviet Union was never going
to last. Instead of trying to maintain it, US policymakers should think about how to act in a
multipolar world. Considering other countries' interests – now, that would be a change!
Nick Wright, Halifax, Nova Scotia 4 hours ago
The geostrategic and environmental implications of this deal are huge.
The West, in a hamfisted continuation of the Cold War, has been trying to isolate and contain
a resurgent Russia. However, it found itself strategically and tactically outplayed by Vladimir
Putin as it blundered around in his neighbourhood--Ukraine, Syria and Iran--and its Cold War bluster
and saber-rattling over military interference in sovereign nations just look hypocritical to educated
people worldwide.
On the environmental front, China looks good for succeeding in lowering its reliance on energy
from coal, while Europe--especially Germany--is building more coal-fired generating capacity,
and Canada is offending the world with its determination to develop its massive, polluting oil
sands. Western claims of superiority on the environmental front sound hollow by comparison.
Socially--from Ukraine, to Europe, to Canada, to the U.S.A.--the world is watching the rise
of aggressive, intolerant, divisive parties of the extreme right in the West, raising the legitimate
question of which of the world's regions are improving and which are in decline. Throw in Western
levels of indebtedness, and the question becomes even more pointed.
And finally, Western chauvinism is pushing Asian countries into closer economic alliances--and
who knows, perhaps eventually military ones as well. But it didn't have to turn out this way;
we can change direction before things get worse; it's just a matter of political will.
Stephen Miller, Oakland
This deal is just the tip of the iceberg. Russia has astonishingly huge reserves of gas, and
all those oil and coal burning plants are going to need to switch over in the coming years to
reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Russia will become the undisputed energy superpower
and likely overtake the US eventually.
As the easy oil disappears and energy demands continue to rise globally, prices will rise very
dramatically. More gas and oil from fracking and tar sands and shale will slow the rise, but
eventually the prices will go up.
The US and Europe can whine about Russian gas all they want, but in the end, everybody pays.
Quandry, is a trusted commenter LI,NY
Although this is very important to the US's and the world's survival from an environmental
perspective, this is another faux pas upon Obama's and the EU's statecraft.
The big winners in all of this are Russia who now can thumb its nose at the US, and even more
China which who will pay less than the EU for its gas. Unfortunately, China has continued to prevail
in its economic policy over the US from Iraq to Africa, while the US has paid in lives and unrequited
financial aid. Our statecraft can use some changes and improvement.
Judyw, cumberland,
Congratulaton to our State Department who have made this deal possible. Oh yes our Congress
helped out too. By our reckless of expansion of NATO we have driven the Russian into the army
of China. I hope we are proud of ourselves for doing that.
I have never seen the US government make such a mess of Foreign Policy as this government has
made. And I don;t mean to leave out the government from Bill Clinton forward - they have contributed
to this mess with the the whole Kosovo creation.
It is important that we now recognize that we are driving countries away from the US who are
sick of our efforts of trying to "run the world", be "the indispenable power" and all that malarky.
Our pivot to Asia seems more like it was Russia's pivot to Asia while we sat and watched. Perhaps
it would be better if we did more watching and less acting. It seems that whenever we interfere,
we create more hatred of the US and increase our separation from the world.
I hope this lesson on "the pivot to Asia" has taught us a lesson. We thought we could punish
and sanctions Russia to behave as we dictated. We just found out we can't bully Russia. In the
world today Sanctions have little meaning as they are easily broken by countries who have no interest
in "toeing the US line".
We had wanted Russia as friend, but our actions have driven into the arms of China. Congratulations
USA -- you just had another foreign policy failure.
Efren, Texas 6 hours ago
All of this is the result of not understanding that the world is headed to a multipolar world,
and that the US must learn to deal with it (see conference of Bill Clinton in Davos). Why does
US insist on destabilization of governments claiming democracy interests? Don't you remember all
dictatorial regimes supported by the US in Latin America? Now, US is so engaged in bringing back
the cold war. It's not only Russia-China being together now, most of main Latin American countries
have leftist governments. Don't be surprised if they start achieving important deals with Russia
and China.
Let's take it easy. No empire last forever. It would be better for US to respect others and
try to build a leadership based on ethical and real reasons, not on bullying everybody else who
thinks differently.
Smartlegov Oleg, Moscow 7 hours ago
This is an epic deal and just on time. Putin compromised the price, but showed how quickly
he can respond in a big wave to US/EU symbolic sanctions.
Cato, California 5 hours ago
Another positive step by Russia and China in brokering a deal that doesn't involve the West.
Please note that the almighty USD wasn't invited to this party. The deal, coupled with massive
historic accumulations of gold by both countries, spells doom for the world's reserve currency.
This will be over the next 10 years the nightmare of all nightmares for Americans when we lose
world currency status. A word to America: Hope is not a strategy.
Edwin, NY 4 hours ago
China is learning how to do its things. I'm actually glad for them and for Russia also. I'm
a citizen of the United States but I'm tired of foreign policies. Its time to realize that we
are not the only kid in the block. Let them join in and play the game of capitalism. Focus our
money and our strength our Nation in serving our people, in educating them, and helping them become
more competitive in this global marketplace instead of throwing money and effort to keep others
down while we stand at the top. Those days are over. Lets work together, accept our differences,
and be the best we can be. Invest in healthcare, social programs, education, research, technology
and we will remain at the top no matter what without the need to isolate or bomb everyone that
stands on our way
Babeouf, Ireland 7 hours ago
The US desperately needs joined up thinking in it foreign policy. The US 'Pivot to Asia' to
contain China may make sense. The US funding of the coup in Ukraine may make sense. Doing both
at the same time doesn't make sense. It is US foreign policy which has provided the incentive
for Russia and China to draw closer together. Of course for imperial powers foreign policy appears
just another part of domestic policy.
With the result that, due to political competition in the US, a rational US foreign policy
seems out of reach.
PuppetMaster11 -> FighTheBrainwashing
Even better. NYT, yesterday, already ran with the story of the failure of the gas deal.
China and Russia Fail to Reach Agreement on Gas Plan
I'd like to see them eat their hats.
PuppetMaster11, 21 May 2014 6:14pm
The US attempt to sever the economic tie between Europe and Russia forced Russian into an alliance
with China.
Now, a lot depends on whether this rearrangement will congeal into a permanent line of confrontation,
or the new Russia-China alliance will work as a leverage to entice Europe away from the confrontational
US.
raindancer68, 21 May 2014 6:15pm
Energy makes the world go around, not money. The Russians are in a strong position, as the
western world tries to make up for the falling energy dynamic in their economies by scrabbling
around for fracked oil and gas.
The price that Russia was formerly selling gas to Ukraine at was $268.50 per thousand cubic
metres. Now, thanks to the so-called international community's destabilisation, Russia is selling
its gas to China instead, and getting a 30 per cent higher price.
So, as less Russian gas is available to Europe, the Ukrainians and people in the rest of Europe
can look forward to paying more. Well done, our leaders! But no doubt their masters in Saudi Arabia
and Qatar will be able to provide supplies, at rather higher prices.
MyDown titipap, 21 May 2014 6:32pm
Not that simple. Urengoy from which gas goes to Europe is 5 thousand kms away from Yakutiya
and 6 thousands kms away from Sakhalin from which gas will go to China.
Mr1Cynical, 21 May 2014 6:23pm
This has gone under the radar but Rouhani is also in China perhaps its to do with this ?
U.S. Issues Threats Over Pending Russia-Iran Oil Deal
FTMDaily.com – Russia and Iran are forging ahead with a controversial oil-for-goods deal that
is being criticized by Washington as a violation of Iran's interim nuclear agreement. .
Under an interim agreement reached with world powers last year, Iran is permitted to continue
exporting no more than 1 million barrels a day of oil to six countries: China, India, Japan, South
Korea, Taiwan and Turkey.
Now, Russia is offering to buy 500,000 barrels of Iranian oil per day, which Washington says
will violate the terms of the interim agreement.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has already begun threatening more 'sanctions.
Iran's response: The country refuses to 'wait for America's permission' to increase its oil exports.
On the surface, Washington is pointing to Iran's "violation" of the interim agreement. But, when
you follow the money, you find something much different. Not only will a Russian-Iranian oil deal
inject a massive amount of fresh revenue into Tehran while emboldening Russia, but the proposed
oil deal will completely sidestep the U.S. dollar. rest of article
Will May 20th Go Down In History As the Day the U.S. "Petrodollar" Monopoly Was Finally Shattered?
May 21, 2014
…The struggle over Ukraine has caused Russia to completely re-evaluate the financial relationship
that it has russia-dollarwith the United States. If it starts trading a lot of oil and natural
gas for currencies other than the U.S. dollar, that will be a massive blow for the petrodollar,
and it could end up dramatically – and negatively – impacting the average American's current standard
of living. Let me explain.rest of article
…The struggle over Ukraine has caused Russia to completely re-evaluate the financial relationship
that it has russia-dollarwith the United States.
Nonsense! The West's reaction regarding Ukraine has been entirely immaterial. Putin has been
committed to the geopolitical policy of Eurasianism for a decade, as have those in positions of
power and influence around him.
Mr1Cynical ID5677229
Yes but i think you'll find Iran and Syria are a part of that plan Iran the wildcard I think
they wanted the west to lift sanctions but realize now that the G5+ 1 are demanding that Iran
gives up their ICBMS as part of the Nuclear deal it won't happen so Iran has joined the triparte
and will now ignore sanctions. Iv'e heard they now have the S300 So Israel becomes less of a threat
I think the US fck fest in the Ukraine has forced Russia China Iran to man up, and put the crazies
from the shite house back in their boxes
John Mack, 21 May 2014 6:28pm
Truly ironic. Mich of the US long term strategy has been to prevent China from becoming dependent
on Russia for energy. That was the point of the Iraqi war. The US feared a Russian-French plan
to assassinate Saddam Hussein and replace him immediately with a stable military government that
would agree to respect certain human rights an Shiite rights and Kurdish rights. That would have
made Russia in control of the largest store of energy resources. The US feared that would mean
that Russia gained a position where it vastly increase the costs of energy to China, Japan, and
India, or even starve them at least partially of their energy needs, this crippling their economies
or making them ally with Russia. So here we are, over Ukraine ...
elti97
Europe's long-term energy policy seems clear: reduce energy dependence on Russia. Fortunately
there are good alternatives: oil and gas imports from the Middle East, Africa and North America,
fracking, nuclear, renewables and increased efficiency.
With a little smart planning, in 5-10 years time, Russian threats to cut off the gas will be
a mild annoyance. More importantly, a variety of competing suppliers will give European countries
greater bargaining power.
AlexRussia elti97
If you decline dependence from Russia then you increase dependence from someone and it is not
fact that the second is good for you
elti97 AlexRussia
Wrong. If you increase the number of potential suppliers, you gain bargaining power.
For example, if Estonia has the option to buy gas from Russia, Norway or the US, it is obviously
in a better position than if it could only buy from Russia. That is exactly why a massive gas
terminal is currently in construction in Estonia.
Estonia will probably still buy some gas from Russia, but at a better price.
Robert Sandlin elti97
Dream on.Estonia is one country Russia wouldn't mind seeing fall off into the Baltic Sea.
Robert Sandlin elti97, 21 May 2014 7:41pm
On yes,who would ever doubt that gas from North Africa and the Middle East wasn't a reliable
source,cough,cough,Libya,Al Queda,cough. And were you talking about the DOA Nabucco pipeline.
But seriously, I have no doubt giving up Russian gas could be done. But the question is WHY
in the first place give up a cheap easy supply. To pay out the a$$ for uncertain other supplies
of gas.
kenlinuk, 21 May 2014 6:39pm
Russia tells the EU to go frack itself. China and Russia stand united against the
US-EU sponsored fascist coup in Ukraine! UKIP landslide is a certainty. Good times for democratic
freedom. Fuck the EU!
Kingston Elenwo kenlinuk, 21 May 2014 8:05pm
It's Frack the EU... If ur gonna say it, say it right :)
ID7776906, 21 May 2014 6:40pm
West always treated Russia like a dog anyways. They`re better off going East.
burnageblue11 ID7776906, 21 May 2014 7:09pm
I find it all very sad. I would much rather closer ties with Russia and see a declining US
influence in Europe.
What we have done, is push an economic neighbor East. We are now fully dependent on US gas
imports(with transit costs).We are now more dependent on the United States than ever.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Huge hike in Gas bills this winter.
indietinker
21 May 2014 6:41pm
this is all in the US plan for Russia and China am afraid to say.
"Instead of containment, the US should block Russia's ambitions in Europe while encouraging
them in Asia".
Last month, The New York Times reported that in the wake of the Ukraine Crisis, U.S. President
Barack Obama had decided to abandon the reset with Russia in favor of a policy of containment
2.0. According to the report
Given Russia's intransigence, it's completely understandable that Obama would be tempted to
pursue this approach. It's also a mistake. Instead of containing Russia completely, the U.S. should
block its ambitions in Europe while encouraging it to turn eastward towards Asia.
Despite the hopes of many in the post-Cold War era, the U.S. and Russia are not going to have
compatible interests in Eastern Europe anytime soon. Russia will always see this as its natural
domain, which is a status that the U.S. is unwilling to grant Moscow, especially since NATO's
expansion over the past two decades. On the other hand, as John Allen Gay recently noted, American
and Russian interests are almost perfectly compatible throughout Asia. It is in this region that
the strategic rationale of the reset was always on the firmest ground.
The challenge is forcing Russia to turn eastward. Europe's dynamism throughout the modern era
has forced the Russian state to adopt a westward orientation. This is reflected in the country's
geography - with most of the major cities being located in western Russia - and deeply ingrained
in Moscow's strategic culture.
Over the long-term, it's nearly inevitable that the Asian Century will force Russia to reorient
itself towards the east. Indeed, as I have noted before, this is already taking place to a growing
degree. Still, the question for U.S. policymakers is what actions can be taken to accelerate this
natural progression?
The first step is blocking Russia's ability to expand westward. This doesn't mean that the
U.S. and its NATO allies have to deploy troops to Ukraine. All that is required is to introduce
greater uncertainty into Putin's calculus about Russia's ability to successfully expand westward.
Most importantly, the U.S. must disabuse Putin of the notion that Russia could easily take and
hold territory in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
The more Putin fears that an invasion would expose the weaknesses of the Russian armed forces,
and either fail completely or turn into a prolonged debacle in the mold of Afghanistan during
the 1980s, the less likely he is to order Russian troops across the border. The good news is that
Putin appears to already have these fears, as evidenced by his restraint in an overt invasion
of eastern Ukraine.
In addition, the U.S. should continue underscoring its commitment to the security of all NATO
member states, and intentionally create ambiguity as to how it might react to Russian expansion
in non-NATO countries in Eastern Europe. This will increase Putin's apprehension about becoming
too adventurous in Europe. After all, he has already squandered Russia's influence in most of
Ukraine and can hardly endure another embarrassing international setback.
At the same time, the U.S. should encourage Russia to expand its influence in Asia, and thus
give Putin an outlet in which to act upon his grand ambitions for Russia. The most immediate area
of focus should be in Central Asia, where the U.S. is currently withdrawing from Afghanistan.
Given Russia's largely congruent interests with the U.S. in Central Asia, Moscow should be encouraged
to play a leading role in helping to fill the vacuum the U.S. withdrawal is bound to create, as
it is already starting to do with India in the region. Moscow and Delhi can help ensure a modicum
of stability in Central Asia even as they cooperate in opposing radical Islamist terrorist groups.
This would be entirely to America's benefit.
Furthermore, as Russia has been focused elsewhere in recent years, China has quickly filled
the role Moscow historically has played in Central Asia. Already, many analysts see China as the
most important external actor in Central Asia, a position that Russia has held since the 19th
Century. Beijing is in the process of trying to further entrench its new position further through
organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and its new Silk Road Economic
Belt.
As Russia reengages in Central Asia, it will increasingly find itself clashing with China for
influence in the region. This would inevitably create tensions in the increasingly close relationship
between Beijing and Moscow. These tensions would force Russia to concentrate more on the long-term
threat a rising China poses to its national security. In grappling with this challenge, Russia
will naturally seek to assert itself more forcefully in Eastern Asia to hedge against China.
Mr1Cynical -> indietinker
To try and spin this as an American plan is wishful thinking I think you'll find the NYT is
hailing defeat as victory. The Dollar as the worlds reserve currency has been in decline for many
years this deal between Russia and China will hasten it The EU won't save the US, it will only
ever be it's prostitute with little economic clout outside of Germany.
loveminuso -> indietinker, 21 May 2014 6:56pm
Yeah right...The only problem here is this shit might work in Africa and the ME, with one big
difference...Russia and China have Nukes with the capability of strategic delivery...
"We have powerful enemies but we don't have powerful friends, that's why we need the
support of such a giant as China," said Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for the
Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow.
Even the threat of use by this new alliance will set the American working class against it's
'leadership'; and the Americans know how to deal with criminals - even those in leadership positions...I
think Obama, and those NeoCons who own him have huge problems right at Home suddenly. The Revolution
is coming...
docrhw -> Mr1Cynical, 21 May 2014 7:01pm
I agree about the reserve currency thing. One day we Americans will wake up and discover
that the dollar is now part of a basket of currencies needed to buy raw materials. It will
happen gradually, but I think is inevitable. The sad thing is that Congress, the Fed, and of course
the American public are completely oblivious to this issue. (At least the first two don't talk
about it.) When that day comes it will be mighty ugly here.
Robert Sandlin indietinker, 21 May 2014 7:17pm
So basically what your saying is that since Russia is to feel nothing for Europe. Then in a
crisis they'll have no remorse about destroying it in a nuclear holocaust. OK,maybe they'll get
the point.Now me, if I was a European leader, I'd want to have Russia as friendly and connected
to me as possible.
Because countries friendly and interconnected don't want to destroy each other. And with thousands
of nukes, and a rightful paranoia about being attacked by the west, I'd want as much friendship
as I could get with Russia.
But maybe I'm wrong, maybe the right thing is to slap Russia around like the EU is doing now.
Spit in their face and all. After all just how mad would a country once ruled by Stalin get anyway.
But then maybe dusting off the old bomb shelters might be prudent. Just encase following the US's
advise isn't the best idea. It was Britain that followed the US into Iraq right. I forget,how
did that work out anyway.
Mr1Cynical docrhw, 21 May 2014 7:20pm
A lot of American Patriots want the Dollar to collapse, to get rid of the Fed. introduce a
new Currency, kick the thieves and jackals out ,rebuild the constitution,.and start afresh, these
people who've run the US into the ground are neocon globalists inhuman completely without reason,barking
mad Narcissists For all our sakes i hope you get rid of them.
ID075732, 21 May 2014 6:45pm
So the EU$A have blundered into the Ukrainian kitchen.
Vicky Nuland's half-baked attempt with the cookies was a failed recipe. Even Chaz
has now brought his flaky biscuit to the table. The only question now remaining is who could believe
any of them could make anything?
So it's not surprising Putin's gone to the Chinese!
kenlinuk, 21 May 2014 6:46pm
US loan repayments to China are going to end up in Russia. Sweet justice!
tfernando, 21 May 2014 6:54pm
I ask all Americans to read this article without burying head in sand.
The US really shot itself on the foot. This self-inflicted wound of interfering to destabilize
other countries for its own interest, the US will only accelerate its decline that should/could
have been avoided with sensible thinking.
I live in the US and, as it is, times are far from being good compared to what it was just
ten years ago. And despite the fact there is not much indications the country's economy is
improving, the US wants to act as if no economic or financial crisis took place and wants to live
on just 'confidence'.
Well, I think it is very sandy ending for the people of this nation who, to begin with, has
a tough me making ends meet.
lesnouveauxpauvre tfernando
There still is enough people with good jobs to keep the illusion afloat. I live in San Francisco
and it's a bubble here in Silicon Valley. There are a lot of young people like myself and younger
with good jobs making really good money. They have no concern about what you are talking about;
and you could never convince them their bubble they are living in is not real.
They think this country is wonderful and so do all people here who still support Obama; including
gays who don't care Obama has a 'kill list', and can imprison any American without cause; as long
as he supports gay marriage they and a lot of people will support war crimes!?
It seems unbelievable but it is true. I have gotten into arguments with people about this;
and I am gay.
burnageblue11, 21 May 2014 6:58pm
The USA can now fill that big void that is left in the gas market. It can supply Gas at vastly
inflated prices knowing the EU,UK are now fully dependent on all they gas they can get
EU leaders want sacking for this.They are not looking after Europeans interests only those
off the corporate USA.We will pay the price.
evolution2now burnageblue11, 21 May 2014 7:07pm
Europe getting American Natural Gas is fantasy. This is a fact for at least the next 10 years.
richiep40 burnageblue11, 21 May 2014 7:25pm
Despite the US pretends to be into free trade it is a lie, even though it basically runs WTO.
LNG exports from the US are not in a free market, they are restricted to only about 20
countries which the US classifies as FTA agreement countries. These FTA trade deals are almost
as catastrophic for the client nations as the proposed TTIP deal with the EU.
I am a member of 38 degrees, I was surveyed yesterday by them about my views on TTIP. Although
38 degrees have many priorities, my vote was to put TTIP close to the top of their priority list
( I am only a member, nothing to do with those that run 38 degrees, so don't blame 38 degrees
for my opinions).
JVC120, 21 May 2014 7:00pm
America should reevaluate the direction of ots foreign policies. It is antagonizing a few important
countries and the remaking are sitting on the fences or are looking from the sidelines.
Can US afford the vives of militaristic arrogant and unreasonable messages it is sending to the
Asian ,African,and Latin American?
Its foreignolicy has been hijacked by the warmongers who have never seen a war from frontline
and have never wavered on supporting a war from close distance.
Blenheim, 21 May 2014 7:02pm
"Russia's new pipeline to China will increase competition for natural gas from 2018 and
will most likely increase the cost we pay for natural gas here in the European Union. It will
certainly increase the pressure on European countries to find alternative gas supplies," he
said.
Yup, you just have to love the way the west handled the Ukraine situation. Brilliant!
Reducing China's massive dependence on coal based energy is a great win for the world. This
deal does more for the environment than any western climate regulations could possibly do.
Let's not forget India, which also relies heavily on coal. I would guess they are next to make
a deal with Russia.
Babeouf, 21 May 2014 7:05pm
Yes this is the first mega deal which breaks the ice it won't be the last though will it. The
US regime will still continue attacking both Russian and China. It will still bore the world rigid
with its ' Pivot to Asia' and its 'Isolation of Russia' . The really really funny part is the
sudden suggestion that the EU's Russia policy is actually going to raise gas prices for European
customers. Must be part of the EU's new competition strategy built on raising production costs
for the various European based industries that consume large amounts of energy. Still you must
admit that the EU's Russian policy has worked a treat for the Chinese government. So among the
nations of Europe there is at least one ' Manchurian Candidate'. The servile spirit of Europe's
political leaders is only matched by the bone headed stupidity of their imperial US masters.
Peabody94
Nice deal, take a loss for a few years, smacks of desperation by Russia. It's nowhere near
being a deal big enough to bother European supplies, Europe takes about 170 bn cubic meters a
year, this is only for 38bn and from an undeveloped field. Desperate dealing at a low price.
So as Europe weans itself off Russian gas Gazprom takes a mighty big hit over time. That's
what happens when you have a one trick pony economy and you need western technology to extract
the minerals, one trick pony technology as well, decades behind the west.
AlexRussia Peabody94
Generally less and in Europe are important only a few countries - everything else is not so
important
Great job that EU is doing with antagonising Putin with the Ukrahinian saga. Now we have to
bail out a broke country and pay more for the gas. Great news.
vr13vr Shiku101, 21 May 2014 7:28pm
This deal will definitely make it more difficult for Ukraine to claim any discount. Ukraine
will have to eat at least this price and guess who will have to pay it? That's right, the "Western
partners," a.k.a EU.
ID5677229, 21 May 2014 7:15pm
The contract [is for Russia ]to provide 38bn cubic metres of gas each year [to China at] ....
about $350 (£207) per thousand cubic metres.
This deal has some symbolic value I suppose but otherwise it is a rather desperate and only
partially successful move on Russia's part to shore up its export market for gas.
Reacting to Russia's aggression in Ukraine, a month ago the EU announced plans to effect a
25% cut in its gas imports from Russia by 2020. Since the EU has been importing 180bn cubic metres
of gas a year Russia's deal with China barely makes up the shortfall. In fact, from Russia's viewpoint
the situation is even worse: China will pay $30 per thousand cubic metres less than the EU has
been paying; moreover, Ukraine's imports of Russian gas are going to be greatly reduced too.
vr13vr ID5677229
This deal is bigger than the current European deal, and it is muuuuuuch bigger than whatever
reduction EU will be able to make in the future. China got some 9% of volume discount compared
to EU prices, but that's reasonable given the volume. At the end of the day both countries will
end up with newly developed infrustructure. And both will be better diversified to deal with "pressure"
from the West. Not a bad deal at all.
mustspeak, 21 May 2014 7:17pm
@article:
"But one British energy expert warned last night that the move could drive up prices for European
gas consumers who are becoming increasingly dependent on Russia and now face a competition for
supplies"
Serves Britain and EU right, only pity and concern is that I happen to be British, so also
EU citizen. The West's gerrymandering around the world is going to spectacularly bite their asses
harder and harder as time goes by.
daylight101 mustspeak, 21 May 2014 7:22pm
It's unlikely. Russia already sells gas to Europe at premium price and setting it higher now
might be self defeating in longer terms. I am sure that Russia will attempt to undermine the US
gas proposal to EU by offering more competitive bargains.
SteveK9, 21 May 2014 7:21pm
The comment about 'finding financing' betrays the faulty economic thinking that pervades the
West right now. If Russia does not import anything to build the pipeline, then 'financing' is
irrelevant. The Russian state cannot run out of Rubles. The only question is whether this is a
worthwhile investment of workers and materials. Since this is becoming a strategic question for
Russia ... you can bet your ... they will 'find the financing'.
I don't know how much help China will be providing to this project but if there is one thing
that China seems to be very capable of these days it is large construction projects.
Just incredible: infrastructure investment from both sides will be more than $70
billion and will be the world's largest construction project, with Russia providing $55 billion
up front and China $22 billion. Fuck my boots...
All this is fallout over the Crimea because off US hegemonic foreign policy. It was a Russian
base to start with, its not like they were invading. We had to make a big song and dance over
it, because the United States really wanted it as a warm water base for the US 6th fleet in Sevastopol.
It was never going to happen, we knew it, they knew it.
Sanctions, provocative rhetoric, more sanctions.
End result. New Cold war. Redirected gas supplies to China that Europe badly needed. The irony
is, the United States will be totally unaffected. Europe will become dependent on US gas imports.
How could European leaders allow this to happen. How could they pursue a US foreign policy that
will have a detrimental affect on Europe European industry, and consumers.
Our leaders are nothing more than traitors.
It wont be the citizens off the United States freezing this winter. They wont be paying though
the nose for gas, it will be us in the EU,UK.
Not sure how traitorous EU leaders who have screwed their own people, economies over will survive
long term. Germany will be the biggest loser. Merkel pursuing US hegemonic foreign policy despite
the fact German industry is very dependent on Russian imported supplies. German Business leaders
were totally against Merkel position to start with.
Russia has said it will turn off supplies to Ukraine on June 3rd if their debt is not paid
in full. And unless they pay in advance.
European supplies come through the Ukraine. This could get much worse.
I hope this winter is not a cold one.
mikebraksa Fednad
Europe will fall apart into three parts soon - that's all
Already has. Eastern EU states. Western EU states. And France.
Slo27, 21 May 2014 8:04pm
So, they are getting $350 from China and $380 from Europe and what will they do? Sell more
to Russia and less to Europe .... Eeeh, not exactly.
BrissieSteve Slo27, 21 May 2014 9:19pm
The gas comes from totally different gas fields thousands of km apart and with different extraction
costs. Geography wasn't one of your school subjects was it?
GAHenty, 21 May 2014 8:06pm
The significance is in the continued rise of China. Putin may believe himself clever but in
any Chinese-Russia alliance Russia will quickly become the junior member. The provider of raw
materials for the Chinese machine.
Russia and China have to guard against America's sanctions-happy foreign policy, so the more
business they can do together, it will be the more 'sanction-proof' their economies become.
We already see America gunning for China, in her attempt to delay China's ascendancy to top-dog
status.
Eaglesson, 21 May 2014 8:27pm
What the article forget to mention is both countries with this deal are bypassing the (petro)dollar,
so it will be in their domestic currencies.
Another bold move from both sides..After a similar bold move between Russians and Iranians
short time ago
Russia and China took a small step toward undercutting the domination of the U.S. dollar
as the international reserve currency on Tuesday when Russia's second biggest financial institution,
VTB, signed a deal with the Bank of China to bypass the dollar and pay each other in domestic
currencies.
Japan got the news and is running fast to get a piece of the deal, quoting that is paying a
hefty price for US LNG...why should't they? And Russians have thought about that, the plan of
a gas pipeline through North Korea are targeted for markets of South Korea and Japan.
In a period of one year neocons have done so much damage to US and Europe that it cannot be revoked
any more. The biggest loosers are EU in this deal and right away after the deal Barroso send a
pledge letter to Putin, pleading him to keep his gas running for Europe and (they were prepared
to pay the price dictated by russians for Ukraine's gas supply)
wimberlin AlexRussia
In spite of all the space that the 'Prince's' stupid comments are receiving from the Guardian
- in fact the US today is much more similar to Nazi Germany than any other country. Ask Edward
Snowden, he has all the dirty details that the US does not want you do know. He is presently in
Russia, so therefore all the anti-Russia hysteria.
Oh but not by Luke Harding - he is really good and never lies about Russia - no I certainly
do not include him!
Ciarán Here
When you compare this deal to the "DEAL" Russia had with Ukraine since 1991- Russia lost -
subsidised Ukraine to the tune of up to 300 billion it now seems that Russia has Ukraine and EU
over a barrel. Russia won't be subsidising Ukraine a saving of 300 billion over the next 30 years
and a gain of over 400 billion from China . I guess Russia with not be to concerned about others
taking on the burden of Ukraine.....
daylight101 Ciarán Here
There will be some attempts to rebuild Ukraine but it will be not subsidising, I am sure.
finnja, 21 May 2014 8:42pm
Notably, also
the plans for South Stream, which does not go through Ukraine, are on track
, at least when it comes to the directly involved EU countries (like Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria)
and Russia.
The question now is: will the EU force its Southeastern member states (the ones that depend
on Russian gas) to fall on their swords in order to make a point and to prop up fracking and TTIP?
GAHenty natalifoley, 21 May 2014 9:26pm
Oh look. Articles from a Russian news corporation. No bias there then.
windies GAHenty, 21 May 2014 9:56pm
ABC, NBC or CNN, they do objectivity, they do equal points of view, don't they!!
American news is as bias as Russian news..
What is your point.
Mark Chaloner, 21 May 2014 8:47pm
Sounds like a good deal but it won't make the Russian economy grow. Russia needed this just
to stand still. In the long term Russia can't do without the EU. Russia needs the EU as much as
the EU needs Russia.
daylight101 Mark Chaloner
My understanding is that Russia can actually substitute many of its high-tech EU imports
by chinese ones.
ploughmanlunch Mark Chaloner, 21 May 2014 9:04pm
Standing still might be more desirable than back tracking, as this still fragile Euro economy
may yet do.
It's true that the EU and Russia would mutually benefit from unimpeded trade and commerce, but
the EU, following the lead of the US appears to be willing to sacrifice it's own prosperity at
the behest of US geo-political interests.
daylight101 Mark Chaloner, 21 May 2014 9:19pm
Russians will not quit EU market, I am sure. They will keep selling gas to EU and, probably,
will even offer bargain to undermine the US gas proposal. They will compete, not leave.
bulldoggy, 21 May 2014 9:11pm
Reporter needs to get the story straight. One paragraph describes a deal, "ten years in the
making". Another paragraph quotes a Russian spokesman who attributes the deal to western hostility.
What it really looks like is Russia and China not letting a PR opportunity slip by without exploitation.
A deal ten years in the making wasn't spawned on western hostility. It was spawned by economic
reality. An eastern Siberian gas field is conveniently close to China and half a planet away from
Europe. I'd guess the low price China wrung out of Russia had a lot to do with Chinese perception
that Russia has no other buyers for this gas.
knuckles66, 21 May 2014 9:18pm
Businessweek and Bloomberg both think the deal is more fumes....that the Chinese and Russians
agreed on the volume to be shipped, but still have not agreed on the price. The Chinese will kick
in 25 billion in pre-payment to fund the cost of building the pipeline, but the final pice will
still be in negotiations.
Since the pipeline will take several years to build, they have plenty of time to fight over
the price.
windies knuckles66, 21 May 2014 9:31pm
They will make it work, the "west" pisses them off..
American financial reporting are so boned faced one-sided, objective reporting is beyond
them. Course they want it to fail.
The US/EU point of view is now redundant in their eyes.
richiep40 windies
The 'markets' and the western press have been predicting the collapse of the Chinese economy
for more than a decade. It will not happen.
MyDown, 21 May 2014 9:22pm
Almost 700 comments, yet there is none about the agreement is somehow affecting gay rights.
Strange, but it shows that Guardian readers are confused. )))
zchabj5, 21 May 2014 9:27pm
Much more important than the deal itself is the agreement to open up Russia to Chinese investment
for infrastructure.
The UK has agreed to become a clearing house for the renminbi. Osborne is not stupid, we can
see which way the wind is blowing, and it is blowing east. Israel has also made significant moves
to encourage trade with China, to mitigate the fallout of US decline.
For last 20 centuries, China has had the largest GDP for 15 to 18 of them. The two centuries
right after the industrial revolution saw European hegemony, brief lived, but the world will return
to it's Asia dominated status quo.
MyDown, 21 May 2014 9:46pm
Economical and infrastructural aspects are significant, but political one is just huge. Talking
to my Chinese friends - they are as excited on green light the deal brought as Russians are. The
whole story is kind of step up in friendly relations between Russia and China and money is not
the main issue.
followthemonkey PoiticalWatchDog, 21 May 2014 9:59pm
Saddam Hussein paid a high price but Russia and China are not defenceless like Iraq or Afghanistan.
They're completely capable of defending their countries interest.
geoprobe, 21 May 2014 9:49pm
I think we need to thank the neo-cons in the Obama administration to apply the pressure to
make this deal happen. Without them, the Russians might have held firm on their price and the
Chinese might have held out for a lower price.
Due to the Americans' imperial might it brought these players to the table. It might be a bad
move for American might, but it just might save the planet, as it will provide the Chinese a more
climate friendly fuel than their current coal.
"We have powerful enemies but we don't have powerful friends, that's why we need the support
of such a giant as China," said Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for the Analysis of Strategies
and Technologies in Moscow.
Telling statement.
Robert Sandlin Wagram, 21 May 2014 10:53pm
And it works both ways.Only a fool couldn't see that if Russia was destroyed,China would face
the West alone.A strong Russia in support is China's greatest aid.So in many ways the Russo-Chinese
relationship is a marriage made in Heaven.And they can both thank the US for being the Matchmaker.The
US trying to humble Russia,and threatening China,did the trick
Our dependence on their gas is their dependence on our money. Both sides are well advised to
diversify. However, i would be careful if i had to decide for Russia: China and Russia have animosities
and while the Europeans are a bunch of hysteric merchants, the Chinese will know how to get what
they want once Russia is dependent on THEIR money.
followthemonkey -> Bismarx, 21 May 2014 8:59pm
the Chinese will know how to get what they want
I'd rather be a Chinese than an American.
"Americans more afraid of being tortured by their government than Chinese are of theirs"
Putin said that gas price of the agreement is linked to petrol price, so it will not effect
USD.
FrankPoster -> MyDown, 21 May 2014 7:44pm
FFS you know nothing. The price might have a formula that involved the USD somewhere, but the
transactions will be in Rubles and Yuan, thereby fully bypassing the petrodollar. There are huge
implication to the US for this, and therefore you will see them ramp up efforts in Ukraine and
elsewhere to engage Russia in a proxy war with a view to eventually destabilize Russia in 5-10
years time to grab their oil and gas and process it in dollars to support their massively bankrupt
financial system...but this time they will fails since china will side with the Russians and will
drop their US treasury bills if necessary.
HongKongBlue
preemptive move to invade Ukraine?
Gudwin -> HongKongBlue
Nobody gives a rat's ass about Ukraine anymore.
whyohwhy1 Gudwin
Nobody gives a rat's ass about Ukraine anymore.
At the moment Ukrainian soldiers are killing civilians in the eastern part of that country,
that is why the Western media seem to have lost all interest after 24/7 coverage for a couple
of months.
AndyOC, 21 May 2014 5:39pm
You can't blame them for forging ever closer ties, uncertain as both countries must be with
regards both recent Ukraine and industrial espionage problems.
Is it worth being worried about? Probably.
PaulThtanley AndyOC, 21 May 2014 7:49pm
No it isn't.
Russia and China don't trust each other at all, despite this grandstanding. Both countries
look to the West and define themselves relative to it. Their oligarchs send their kids to school
here and maintain holiday homes. Many retire (or flee) here. Let the Chinese bubble accumulate
more investment debt and let the Russians have a go at extracting gas that is harder to reach
than the gas they currently extract and sell it for less than they are currently selling their
gas that has existing infrastructure. Who knows? It may even work out.
griffinalabama, 21 May 2014 5:39pm
Nice to see Russia outsmarting the nefarious yanks especially after all the bullshit the US
has instigated in Ukraine. A good article in Counterpunch goes into the media coverup of the Odessa
massacre and US involvement. The truth is coming out. Link here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/08/false-flag-in-odessa/
ahbowledhim
Geo-political realignment is evident. A Sino-Russian alliance is huge and puts Washington on
the back foot.
Can Washington play off the back foot like the incomparable Viv Richards could is the question?
IgAIgEIgG ahbowledhim, 21 May 2014 5:45pm
Geo-political realignment is evident. A Sino-Russian alliance is huge and puts Washington on
the back foot.
Dude! What are the contingencies?!
Carl Jones IgAIgEIgG
Only one...world war 3. The fact is, Amerika and Britain are bankrupt. So they need some very
big wars.
iamnotwise vr13vr, 21 May 2014 7:49pm
But this will become a new Cold War only if the US decides to stir trouble.
Continue to stir trouble, I think you mean. This whole Ukrainian situation is another US instigated
clusterfuck. Once again the failing empire (with the UK clinging to it like a tumour) tries to
drag everyone else down with it.
steavey, 21 May 2014 5:42pm
Russia maybe unpopular with the west, but their assets are always popular everywhere. It's
nice to come home in winter time heated by gas central heating, and does not matter where the
gas comes from, Alex Salmond's Scotland or Putin's Russia.
OneWorldGovernment, 21 May 2014 5:50pm
Love the 15 minute context. The negotiations for this deal was a decade in the making and the
Chinese strong armed the Russians into taking a lower price. It shows how desperate the Russians
have become and their weak bargaining power.
Carl Jones
I like that US dollar sign in front of the 400 billion?lol This deal is a massive nail in the
coffin of the US dollar!!lol Funny, but true, Western sanctions are actually hastening the end
of US dollar hegemony. You should watch a Dr Paul Craig Roberts youtube vid called "Fed launders
treasury bonds in Belgium"...then you`ll know just how precarious the US economy is.lol
PaperEater Carl Jones
Lol. The level of discourse is amazing. Lol
Pazuzu Carl Jones, 21 May 2014 9:07pm
Nothing like a bunch of LOLs and references to to the Youtube School of Economics to lend that
much needed dose of credibility to an argument. Well played!
Let me put things in perspective for you, if you'll allow me to interrupt your scholarly lulz
for a moment: $400 billion is about the amount Uncle Sam uses to wipe his bum every day.
Still, I admire the resolve of the Putinbots, like obedient toy poodles still firmly clamping
their little jaws on the heels of a giant, convinced they're winning the fight.
Mr1Cynical, 21 May 2014 5:56pm
This is only a terrible deal for the US and it's prostitute EU Milov i wouldn't take to seriously,
as usual the Guardian always go for the lowest denomination when it comes to experts they mean
someone who has an axe to grind.
This comes as CNN are calling Russia a pariah nation, they really mean o shi# this is great
as the Bog roll called the petro dollar struggles along getting closer to the cliff O-Bama helping
it along the way
What next Sanctions on everybody outside of Utah, still cheer up you Barry o supporters, you've
still got your killer drones to play with
whyohwhy1
Russia didn't "fall out with the West": it was threatened with sanctions by the US and their
puppets in Europe after they supported a coup against the elected government of Ukraine.
Maybe Kerry's hot air can provide enough energy for Poland and Germany next winter.
semyorka, 21 May 2014 5:59pm
The Kovykta field is considered to supply natural gas to China and Korea. According to these
agreements signed by Rusia Petroleum with China National Petroleum Corporation and Kogas on
2 November 2000, the annual export of gas to China and Korea will be 20 billion cubic meters
(bcm) and 10 bcm, respectively.[7]
The Kovykta field will contribute also to the gasification of Irkutsk Oblast, implemented
by the OAO East Siberia Gas Company, a joint venture of Gazprom (originally TNK-BP) and the
Irkutsk Oblast Administration.
You tell people Putin had stomach cramps and CiF would be crawling with people announcing this
latest move had the west in knots by the master strategist.
TransAtlanticist, 21 May 2014 6:00pm
Iraq, Afghanistan .. now Russia. I will say the Chinese are remarkably good at knowing when
to capitalize on others' bad situations.
vr13vr TransAtlanticist, 21 May 2014 6:30pm
It says the US is remarkably good at creating bad situations that only hurt the US.
AlexRussia, 21 May 2014 6:01pm
Putin: gas contract with China signed today has become the largest in the history of the USSR
and Russia
Signed today contract to supply China natural gas from Russia is the biggest gas deal in the
history of the USSR and Russia , said Russian President Vladimir Putin According to him, laying
a gas pipeline " Power of Siberia " will come be the largest construction project in the world
for the next 4 years. Meanwhile, Russia will invest in the construction of the pipeline and development
Kovyktinsky and Chayandin deposits and about $ 55 billion while China is going to to create the
necessary infrastructure for at least $ 20 billion. "This is the largest contract for Gazprom"
- said SEO Gazprom Miller.
Ludwitt, 21 May 2014 6:04pm
The reporter writes
"Gazprom and CNPC (China National Petroleum Corporation) have signed a 30-year, $400bn (£237bn)
deal to deliver Russian gas to China"
a factual statement and adds an editorial comment
"a deal that underscores Russia's shift towards Asia amid strained relations with the west."
It's fine for the reporter and/or editor to have an opinion: it's just that the above statement
does not follow at all from the previous statement about the signing of the deal. Indeed further
down the article that this deal was 10 years in the making. Indeed it is prudent to diversify
one's portfolio for a variety of reasons and especially have China, a voracious consumer and a
key if not THE engine of global growth as one of your primary customers.
In fact the US and the West do roaring business with China itself. So why not Russia? And why
not some analysis as to whether this deal would eventually be good or bad for the Russian economy
and its growth? Or the development of the Russian Far East which has long been declared as a National
Priority within Russia's domestic policy?
In a Western government centric world, any major deals that don't have the West in the picture
are seen to be a threat, to be amplified as such by the Western corporate media.
An interesting gas story thread to chew on meanwhile is Hunter Biden - the US VP's son - being
appointed to the board of Ukraine's largest gas company.
And so it goes.
FighTheBrainwashing
To be honest, right now I can't but feel quite a bit of shadenfreude picturing the "ecstatic"
faces of the newsmakers from the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal,
etc., etc. that spent the last 24 hours leading to the announcement of this ground-breaking deal
gloating over Putin's "failure to reach a landmark agreement with China".
As they say, he laughs best who laughs last, so, suckers, deal with it! It's our turn to laugh
now!
:)
PS: And I'm absolutely positive it's only the beginning of good news for those who dare defy
the criminally hypocritical, cynical, double faced, devious, mendacous and war-mongering United
States of Lies, Propaganda and Double Standards around the world!
Ukraine remains the topic of most discussions on global economy, and Russian president Vladimir
Putin is an inevitable part of that subject. Although he is almost universally demonized by western
leaders and media, more impartial observers increasingly concede that his administration's conduct
seems more rational and more constructive than that of his western counterparts. But even then, most
people pad their comments with a kind of disclaimer:
I don't like Putin, but…
Putin s a thug, but…
Whatever you may think of Putin, …
Recently I came across
an article about him written by Sharon Tennison – an American who has worked
in Russia (and USSR) for 30 years as a developer of programs to open up relations between Russia
and the USA. Tennison has had personal experiences with Putin and has over the years known a "numerous
American officials and US businessmen who have had years of experience working with him…" "None,"
she writes, "would describe him as 'brual,' or 'thuggish,' or other slanderous adjectives and nouns
that are repeatedly used in western media." Here are a few excerpts from her article [1]:
I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us
working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. … For years I had been creating programs to open up
relations between the two countries … A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected
it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made. My friend
Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building.
We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown
suit. He inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided he began
asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question.
I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always
seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange
for the Americans' requests… This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor.
After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried
hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not.
A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply and kindly showed us
to the door. Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, "Volodya, this is the first
time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn't ask us for a trip to the US or something
valuable!" I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight––it read Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin
I must confess, Tennison's article surprised me a bit: Putin stood up to schoolyard bullies; Putin
went to the KGB for similar reasons why many young Americans joined the US Army after September 11
attacks; Putin takes no bribes; Putin was curteous and helpful as a public official; Putin turned
down privileged treatment for his wife after her car accident… If this came from Russian sources,
I would probably dismiss it as political PR.
But Tennison is an American and a relatively anonymous American at that. Her article wasn't circulated
widely or cited by Voice of Russia or RT, so it seems genuine. That begs the question: what if Putin
is actually a decent man who simply wants to run Russia for the benefit of the Russian people as
best as he can? I sincerely wish that Tennison's version reflects the true Putin – such a man would
be less likely to invade Europe and escalate the present conflict over Ukraine to a new World War.
At any rate, making him into a brutal thug in the eyes of the western public wouldn't be the
first bill of goods we'd been sold by the leaders of the free world. As Lord Nordcliffe put
it in the run-up to World War I, "To create an atmosphere for war, you have to introduce in the populace
the hatred of 'the other'." If such hatred must be based on lies, we would do well to reject it.
NATO leaders are currently acting out a deliberate charade in Europe, designed to reconstruct
an Iron Curtain between Russia and the West.
With astonishing unanimity, NATO leaders feign surprise at events they planned months in advance.
Events that they deliberately triggered are being misrepresented as sudden, astonishing, unjustified
"Russian aggression". The United States and the European Union undertook an aggressive provocation
in Ukraine that they knew would force Russia to react defensively, one way or another.
They could not be sure exactly how Russian president Vladimir Putin would react when he saw that
the United States was manipulating political conflict in Ukraine to install a pro-Western government
intent on joining NATO. This was not a mere matter of a "sphere of influence" in Russia's "near abroad",
but a matter of life and death to the Russian Navy, as well as a grave national security threat on
Russia's border.
A trap was thereby set for Putin. He was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. He could underreact,
and betray Russia's basic national interests, allowing NATO to advance its hostile forces to an ideal
attack position.
Or he could overreact, by sending Russian forces to invade Ukraine. The West was ready for this,
prepared to scream that Putin was "the new Hitler", poised to overrun poor, helpless Europe, which
could only be saved (again) by the generous Americans.
In reality, the Russian defensive move was a very reasonable middle course. Thanks to the fact
that the overwhelming majority of Crimeans felt Russian, having been Russian citizens until Khrushchev
frivolously bestowed the territory on Ukraine in 1954, a peaceful democratic solution was found.
Crimeans voted for their return to Russia in a referendum which was perfectly legal according to
international law, although in violation of the Ukrainian constitution, which was by then in tatters
having just been violated by the overthrow of the country's duly elected president, Victor Yanukovych,
facilitated by violent militias. The change of status of Crimea was achieved without bloodshed, by
the ballot box.
Nevertheless, the cries of indignation from the West were every bit as hysterically hostile as
if Putin had overreacted and subjected Ukraine to a U.S.-style bombing campaign, or invaded the country
outright – which they may have expected him to do.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry led the chorus of self-righteous indignation, accusing Russia
of the sort of thing his own government is in the habit of doing. "You just don't invade another
country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests. This is an act of aggression that is
completely trumped up in terms of its pretext", Kerry pontificated. "It's really 19th century behavior
in the 21st century". Instead of laughing at this hypocrisy, U.S. media, politicians and punditry
zealously took up the theme of Putin's unacceptable expansionist aggression. The Europeans followed
with a weak, obedient echo.
It Was All Planned at Yalta
In September 2013, one of Ukraine's richest oligarchs, Viktor Pinchuk, paid for an elite strategic
conference on Ukraine's future that was held in the same Palace in Yalta, Crimea, where Roosevelt,
Stalin and Churchill met to decide the future of Europe in 1945. The Economist, one of the elite
media reporting on what it called a "display of fierce diplomacy", stated that: "The future of Ukraine,
a country of 48m people, and of Europe was being decided in real time." The participants included
Bill and Hillary Clinton, former CIA head General David Petraeus, former U.S. Treasury secretary
Lawrence Summers, former World Bank head Robert Zoellick, Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, Shimon
Peres, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Mario Monti, Lithuanian president Dalia
Grybauskaite, and Poland's influential foreign minister Radek Sikorski. Both President Viktor
Yanukovych, deposed five months later, and his recently elected successor Petro Poroshenko were present.
Former U.S. energy secretary Bill Richardson was there to talk about the shale-gas revolution which
the United States hopes to use to weaken Russia by substituting fracking for Russia's natural gas
reserves. The center of discussion was the "Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement" (DCFTA)
between Ukraine and the European Union, and the prospect of Ukraine's integration with the West.
The general tone was euphoria over the prospect of breaking Ukraine's ties with Russia in favor of
the West.
Conspiracy against Russia? Not at all. Unlike Bilderberg, the proceedings were not secret. Facing
a dozen or so American VIPs and a large sampling of the European political elite was a Putin adviser
named Sergei Glazyev, who made Russia's position perfectly clear.
Glazyev injected a note of political and economic realism into the conference.
Forbes reported at the time on the "stark difference" between the Russian and Western views "not
over the advisability of Ukraine's integration with the EU but over its likely impact." In
contrast to Western euphoria, the Russian view was based on "very specific and pointed economic criticisms"
about the Trade Agreement's impact on Ukraine's economy, noting that Ukraine was running an enormous
foreign accounts deficit, funded with foreign borrowing, and that the resulting substantial increase
in Western imports could only swell the deficit. Ukraine "will either default on its debts or
require a sizable bailout".
The Forbes reporter concluded that "the Russian position is far closer to the truth than the happy
talk coming from Brussels and Kiev."
As for the political impact, Glazyev pointed out that the Russian-speaking minority in Eastern
Ukraine might move to split the country in protest against cutting ties with Russia, and that Russia
would be legally entitled to support them, according to The Times of London.
In short, while planning to incorporate Ukraine into the Western sphere, Western leaders were
perfectly aware that this move would entail serious problems with Russian-speaking Ukrainians, and
with Russia itself. Rather than seeking to work out a compromise, Western leaders decided to forge
ahead and to blame Russia for whatever would go wrong. What went wrong first was that Yanukovych
got cold feet faced with the economic collapse implied by the Trade Agreement with the European Union.
He postponed signing, hoping for a better deal. Since none of this was explained clearly to the Ukrainian
public, outraged protests ensued, which were rapidly exploited by the United States… against Russia.
Ukraine as Bridge…Or Achilles Heel
Ukraine, a term meaning borderland, is a country without clearly fixed historical borders that
has been stretched too far to the East and too far to the West. The Soviet Union was responsible
for this, but the Soviet Union no longer exists, and the result is a country without a unified identity
and which emerges as a problem for itself and for its neighbors.
It was extended too far East, incorporating territory that might as well have been Russian, as
part of a general policy to distinguish the USSR from the Tsarist empire, enlarging Ukraine at the
expense of its Russian component and demonstrating that the Soviet Union was really a union among
equal socialist republics. So long as the whole Soviet Union was run by the Communist leadership,
these borders didn't matter too much.
It was extended too far West at the end of World War II. The victorious Soviet Union extended
Ukraine's border to include Western regions, dominated by the city variously named Lviv, Lwow, Lemberg
or Lvov, depending on whether it belonged to Lithuania, Poland, the Habsburg Empire or the USSR,
a region which was a hotbed of anti-Russian sentiments. This was no doubt conceived as a defensive
move, to neutralize hostile elements, but it created the fundamentally divided nation that today
constitutes the perfect troubled waters for hostile fishing.
The Forbes report cited above pointed out that: "For most of the past five years, Ukraine
was basically playing a double game, telling the EU that it was interested in signing the DCFTA while
telling the Russians that it was interested in joining the customs union." Either Yanukovych could
not make up his mind, or was trying to squeeze the best deal out of both sides, or was seeking the
highest bidder. In any case, he was never "Moscow's man", and his downfall owes a lot no doubt to
his own role in playing both ends against the middle. His was a dangerous game of pitting greater
powers against each other.
It is safe to say that what was needed was something that so far seems totally lacking in Ukraine:
a leadership that recognizes the divided nature of the country and works diplomatically to find a
solution that satisfies both the local populations and their historic ties with the Catholic West
and with Russia. In short, Ukraine could be a bridge between East and West – and this, incidentally,
has been precisely the Russian position. The Russian position has not been to split Ukraine, much
less to conquer it, but to facilitate the country's role as bridge. This would involve a degree of
federalism, of local government, which so far is entirely lacking in the country, with local governors
selected not by election but by the central government in Kiev. A federal Ukraine could both develop
relations with the EU and maintain its vital (and profitable) economic relations with Russia.
But this arrangement calls for Western readiness to cooperate with Russia. The United States has
plainly vetoed this possibility, preferring to exploit the crisis to brand Russia "the enemy".
Plan A and Plan B
U.S. policy, already evident at the September 2013 Yalta meeting, was carried out on the ground
by Victoria Nuland, former advisor to Dick Cheney, deputy ambassador to NATO, spokeswoman for Hillary
Clinton, wife of neocon theorist Robert Kagan. Her leading role in the Ukraine events proves that
the neo-con influence in the State Department, established under Bush II, was retained by Obama,
whose only visible contribution to foreign policy change has been the presence of a man of African
descent in the presidency, calculated to impress the world with U.S. multicultural virtue. Like most
other recent presidents, Obama is there as a temporary salesman for policies made and executed by
others.
As Victoria Nuland boasted in Washington, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the
United States has spent five billion dollars to gain political influence in Ukraine (this is called
"promoting democracy"). This investment is not "for oil", or for any immediate economic advantage.
The primary motives are geopolitical, because Ukraine is Russia's Achilles' heel, the territory with
the greatest potential for causing trouble to Russia.
What called public attention to Victoria Nuland's role in the Ukrainian crisis was her use of
a naughty word, when she told the U.S. ambassador, "Fuck the EU". But the fuss over her bad language
veiled her bad intentions. The issue was who should take power away from the elected president Viktor
Yanukovych. German Chancellor Angela Merkel's party been promoting former boxer Vitaly Klitschko
as its candidate. Nuland's rude rebuff signified that the United States, not Germany or the EU, was
to choose the next leader, and that was not Klitschko but "Yats". And indeed it was Yats, Arseniy
Yatsenyuk , a second-string US-sponsored technocrat known for his enthusiasm for IMF austerity policies
and NATO membership, who got the job. This put a U.S. sponsored government, enforced in the streets
by fascist militia with little electoral clout but plenty of armed meanness, in a position to manage
the May 25 elections, from which the Russophone East was largely excluded.
Plan A for the Victoria Nuland putsch was probably to install, rapidly, a government in Kiev that
would join NATO, thus formally setting the stage for the United States to take possession of Russia's
indispensable Black Sea naval base at Sebastopol in Crimea. Reincorporating Crimea into Russia was
Putin's necessary defensive move to prevent this.
But the Nuland gambit was in fact a win-win ploy. If Russia failed to defend itself, it risked
losing its entire southern fleet – a total national disaster. On the other hand, if Russia reacted,
as was most likely, the US thereby won a political victory that was perhaps its main objective. Putin's
totally defensive move is portrayed by the Western mainstream media, echoing political leaders, as
unprovoked "Russian expansionism", which the propaganda machine compares to Hitler grabbing Czechoslovakia
and Poland.
Thus a blatant Western provocation, using Ukrainian political confusion against a fundamentally
defensive Russia, has astonishingly succeeded in producing a total change in the artificial Zeitgeist
produced by Western mass media. Suddenly, we are told that the "freedom-loving West" is faced with
the threat of "aggressive Russian expansionism". Some forty years ago, Soviet leaders gave away the
store under the illusion that peaceful renunciation on their part could lead to a friendly partnership
with the West, and especially with the United States. But those in the United States who never wanted
to end the Cold War are having their revenge. Never mind "communism"; if, instead of advocating the
dictatorship of the proletariat, Russia's current leader is simply old-fashioned in certain ways,
Western media can fabricate a monster out of that. The United States needs an enemy to save the world
from.
The Protection Racket Returns
But first of all, the United States needs Russia as an enemy in order to "save Europe", which
is another way to say, in order to continue to dominate Europe. Washington policy-makers seemed to
be worried that Obama's swing to Asia and neglect of Europe might weaken U.S. control of its NATO
allies. The May 25 European Parliament elections revealed a large measure of disaffection with the
European Union. This disaffection, notably in France, is linked to a growing realization that the
EU, far from being a potential alternative to the United States, is in reality a mechanism that locks
European countries into U.S.-defined globalization, economic decline and U.S. foreign policy, wars
and all.
Ukraine is not the only entity that has been overextended. So has the EU. With 28 members of diverse
language, culture, history and mentality, the EU is unable to agree on any foreign policy other than
the one Washington imposes. The extension of the EU to former Eastern European satellites has totally
broken whatever deep consensus might have been possible among the countries of the original Economic
Community: France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux states. Poland and the Baltic States see EU membership
as useful, but their hearts are in America – where many of their most influential leaders have been
educated and trained. Washington is able to exploit the anti-communist, anti-Russian and even pro-Nazi
nostalgia of northeastern Europe to raise the false cry of "the Russians are coming!" in order to
obstruct the growing economic partnership between the old EU, notably Germany, and Russia.
Russia is no threat. But to vociferous Russophobes in the Baltic States, Western Ukraine and Poland,
the very existence of Russia is a threat. Encouraged by the United States and NATO, this endemic
hostility is the political basis for the new "iron curtain" meant to achieve the aim spelled out
in 1997 by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard: keeping the Eurasian continent divided
in order to perpetuate U.S. world hegemony. The old Cold War served that purpose, cementing U.S.
military presence and political influence in Western Europe. A new Cold War can prevent U.S. influence
from being diluted by good relations between Western Europe and Russia.
Obama has come to Europe ostentatiously promising to "protect" Europe by basing more troops in
regions as close as possible to Russia, while at the same time ordering Russia to withdraw its own
troops, on its own territory, still farther away from troubled Ukraine. This appears designed to
humiliate Putin and deprive him of political support at home, at a time when protests are rising
in Eastern Ukraine against the Russian leader for abandoning them to killers sent from Kiev.
To tighten the U.S. grip on Europe, the United States is using the artificial crisis to demand
that its indebted allies spend more on "defense", notably by purchasing U.S. weapons systems. Although
the U.S. is still far from being able to meet Europe's energy needs from the new U.S. fracking boom,
this prospect is being hailed as a substitute for Russia's natural gas sales – stigmatized as a "way
of exercising political pressure", something of which hypothetic U.S. energy sales are presumed to
be innocent. Pressure is being brought against Bulgaria and even Serbia to block construction of
the South Stream pipeline that would bring Russian gas into the Balkans and southern Europe.
From D-Day to Dooms Day
Today, June 6, the seventieth anniversary of the D-Day landing is being played in Normandy as
a gigantic celebration of American domination, with Obama heading an all-star cast of European leaders.
The last of the aged surviving soldiers and aviators present are like the ghosts of a more innocent
age when the United States was only at the start of its new career as world master. They were real,
but the rest is a charade. French television is awash with the tears of young villagers in Normandy
who have been taught that the United States is some sort of Guardian Angel, which sent its boys to
die on the shores of Normandy out of pure love for France. This idealized image of the past is implicitly
projected on the future. In seventy years, the Cold War, a dominant propaganda narrative and above
all Hollywood have convinced the French, and most of the West, that D-Day was the turning point that
won World War II and saved Europe from Nazi Germany.
Vladimir Putin came to the celebration, and has been elaborately shunned by Obama, self-appointed
arbiter of Virtue. The Russians are paying tribute to the D-Day operation which liberated France
from Nazi occupation, but they – and historians – know what most of the West has forgotten: that
the Wehrmacht was decisively defeated not by the Normandy landing, but by the Red Army. If the vast
bulk of German forces had not been pinned down fighting a losing war on the Eastern front, nobody
would celebrate D-Day as it is being celebrated today.
Putin is widely credited as being "the best chess player", who won the first round of the Ukrainian
crisis. He has no doubt done the best he could, faced with the crisis foisted on him. But the
U.S. has whole ranks of pawns which Putin does not have. And this is not only a chess game, but chess
combined with poker combined with Russian roulette. The United States is ready to take risks that
the more prudent Russian leaders prefer to avoid… as long as possible.
Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the current charade is the servility of the "old" Europeans.
Apparently abandoning all Europe's accumulated wisdom, drawn from its wars and tragedies, and even
oblivious to their own best interests, today's European leaders seem ready to follow their American
protectors to another D-Day … D for Doom.
Can the presence of a peace-seeking Russian leader in Normandy make a difference? All it would
take would be for mass media to tell the truth, and for Europe to produce reasonably wise and courageous
leaders, for the whole fake war machine to lose its luster, and for truth to begin to dawn. A peaceful
Europe is still possible, but for how long?
While it is given much emphasis in the "western" view of the second world war
Operation Overlord,
the invasion on D-Day and the following month of fighting at the Western front, were strategically
less important than the Soviet operations on the Eastern front. Without the parallel Soviet
Operation Bagration
the invasion of fortress Europe in the west would likely have failed. Looking at the numbers of forces
involved and German forces destroyed one might even argue that Overlord was just a diversion to keep
a few German divisions busy while the Soviet attack in the East destroyed whole German armies.
At the Tehran conference
in winter of 1943 Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin aligned their strategies:
The declaration issued by the three leaders on conclusion of the conference on 1 December 1943,
recorded the following military conclusions:
...
The cross-channel invasion of France (Operation Overlord) would be launched during May 1944, in
conjunction with an operation against southern France. The latter operation would be undertaken
in as great a strength as availability of landing-craft permitted. The Conference further took
note of Joseph Stalin's statement that the Soviet forces would launch an offensive at
about the same time with the object of preventing the German forces from transferring from the
Eastern to the Western Front;
The partisan brigades, including many Jewish fighters and concentration-camp escapees, planted
40,000 demolition charges. They devastated the vital rail lines linking German Army Group Centre
to its bases in Poland and Eastern Prussia.
Three days later, on June 22 1944, the third anniversary of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet
Union, Marshal Zhukov gave the order for the main assault on German front lines. Twenty-six thousand
heavy guns pulverised German forward positions. The screams of the Katyusha rockets were followed
by the roar of 4,000 tanks and the battle cries (in more than 40 languages) of 1.6 million Soviet
soldiers. Thus began Operation Bagration, an assault over a 500-mile-long front.
...
[T]he Soviet summer offensive was several times larger than Operation Overlord (the invasion of
Normandy), both in the scale of forces engaged and the direct cost to the Germans.
By the end of summer, the Red army had reached the gates of Warsaw as well as the Carpathian
passes commanding the entrance to central Europe. Soviet tanks had caught Army Group Centre in
steel pincers and destroyed it. The Germans would lose more than 300,000 men in Belorussia alone.
Another huge German army had been encircled and would be annihilated along the Baltic coast. The
road to Berlin had been opened.
In total some 70-80% of German losses occurred in the East. In 1944 there
were
228 German divisions in the East compared to a total of 58 divisions in the West (and South). In
June, July and August 1944 alone the Soviets completely destroyed some 28 German divisions. A bigger
German force than the 15 divisions that existed on the Western front in France on D-Day and the weeks
thereafter.
It is embarrassing to see how many propaganda lines are spend on D-Day compared to the few acknowledgments
of the
much huger Soviet efforts and casualties on the Eastern front.
ToivoS
Thanks b for reminded us of operation Bagration. The losses the Germans experienced in that
operation pale in comparison to what happened in France in the spring of 1944. Those loses were
huge. Not to mention the German losses in front of Moscow during the winter of 1941-42, the destruction
of the 6th army in Stalingrad (Oct 1942-to Feb 1943) or the losses of the German Army in the Battle
of Kursk in July 1943. The West continues to ignore that the Russians destroyed the German Armies
in those engagements. Of the 4.5 million German troops killed during WWII, 85% were lost fighting
the Russians.
The US lost about 100,000 soldiers fighting the Germans during WWII. If all of those German
forces lost in Russia were available against the west the US would have lost over a million soldiers
trying to defeat them. And to this day, the US is unwilling to acknowledge the role the Soviet
Union played in destroying the Nazi war machine.
This is something that the people of Russia know and it must really be painful for them to
see that the West denies this sacrifice. Especially today, while the US supports the Banderist
(NAZI collaborators) remnants in Ukraine as supporters of "Western Democracy".
guest77
harry got that right, the US played both sides. one part of history that needs more exploration
is the role of the US left -CPUSA especially- in helping push the USA into support for the Soviet
Union and opening a second front.
Though one gets the impression that by that point the invasion had more to do with the eagerness
of US leaders to establish their position in the post-War order than anything. Many Germans were
certainly pleased to have the Americans to surrender to instead of the Russians whom they had
inflicted unimaginable cruelties on. An the US was happy to have them - including war criminals
like the Nazi intelligence commander on the Eastern front, Reinhard Ghelen. Not to mention the
dreams of fascists like Gen. Patron, who dreamed of turning on his allies on the very eve of victory
and marching to Moscow (luckily, the results of that tragedy are left to writers of historical
fiction).
Mike Maloney
A tremendous, concise mass-market paperback that really drives home the fact that the Red Army
won World War II is Georges Blond's The Death of Hitler's Germany. (Cheap copies can be found
online.)
After reading it some twenty years ago, I figured that Blondes, a Frenchman, must have been
a member of the Communist Party. Turns out he was a staunch conservative who was tolerated by
the Vichy government. So his briskly written assessment of the military demise of Nazi Germany
wasn't merely a work of partisan propaganda.
Diane Johnstone has a good piece on Ukraine today at Counterpunch
Comments on D Day don't really appeal to me. The basic problem is that history, which is useful,
has been overwhelmed by competing schemes of propaganda.
To try and straighten the record, the British contribution to D Day was of overwhelming importance.
This is obvious enough if only on geographical grounds. I have great sympathy with opponents of the
Empire but facts are facts. And, if you examine them, they often turn out to be anti-imperial.
Of the five beaches in Normandy only two were for US troops. Of the remaining three, British,
Canadian, Polish and other exiled troops constituted the invading forces. I mention this because
the great tragedy of post war politics was that the enormous importance of the non-American contribution
was blotted out in order to justify the submission of their ruling classes to US imperialism. And
the subsequent partnerships they made, which have now matured in the new fascism of "democracies"
without sovereignty.
This submission was by no means necessary, any more than was US "Aid" in the post war period.
A very influential minority in the Labour Party, including GDH Cole, RH Tawney and Harold Laski,
warned of the importance of Britain maintaining its independence from the US. On the other side were
"deep state" elements in the British establishment who preferred submission to the US to socialist
rule.
It is important, when throwing around words like British and American, to bear in mind how little
they mean: for example it was US secret service people who supplied and sponsored anti-Franco guerrilla
forces in Catalonia in 1946, it was MI6 which betrayed them to the Spanish who wiped them out.
Similarly in the winter of 1944 it was the British Supreme Commander in Italy, the aristocratic
Alexander, who informed the world, including the Wehrmacht, that the Italian partisans in northern
Italy, who were holding down 14 German divisions, would not be supplied further during the winter.
By the spring, that Resistance Army had been systematically decimated by the fascist forces. As a
result the left, in the post war period, was deprived of many of its best leaders.
Alexander, who as a Lt Colonel had commanded the Latvian Landswehr in its resistance to the Bolsheviks,
was as anti-Communist as any Texan. So, was Churchill who, by the way, was far from being the popular
figure in Britain that mythology suggests: check out the 1945 election results to see what the electorate
thought of the man.
Britain (and thanks to De Valera's austerity programmes Ireland) was the most mobilised of any
countries during the war: very few, men or women, were not conscripted into the war effort, taxation
was steeply progressive, 'confiscatory' as the rich called it.
The ruling class hated the war. Every other ruling class in Europe had made its arrangement with
the fascists, intending to profit from doing so and preserving its wealth. Only in Britain were the
anti-fascist forces, in the context of a barrier of angry ocean, sufficient to prevent the Tories
from compromising with Hitler and engaging in a partnership, guaranteeing the preservation of the
Empire, much more equal than that the US later offered.
Far from being marginal Britain was critical in the war. Had it surrendered in 1940 does anyone
imagine that the US would have joined in except to annex Canada, scoop up the Caribbean islands,
and acquire slices of Siberia?
As to the Soviet Union, there was enormous popular support for and understanding of its contribution
among the masses not only in Europe but in North America too. It took a propaganda campaign of unprecedented
complexity to erase popular pro-Russian opinion in Britain and even the United States. And nowhere
was pro-Russian opinion stronger than among the ranks of the Army and war veterans: nobody understood
better than Tommy Atkins the debt owed to Ivan Ivanovich.
The real significance of D Day is that it represented the culmination of the mobilised energies
of a population that was predominantly proletarian. The same might be said of the Eastern Front where
the Red Army represented not just the energies of the Soviet people but their hopes and dreams of
social justice too.
If it is a lie that the US won the war, another lie is that the impulse behind the mobilisation
of the Soviet Union was simple "patriotism" or even "orthodoxy." There, as in Britain or the US,
promises of reform, social justice, economic equality-after the war- were made. For a variety of
reasons they were not kept. And one consequence of that breaking of faith can be seen in the Ukraine
where ordinary people are very reluctant to become involved again in a war in which only the bosses,
the oligarchs and the bankers can win
Posted by: bevin | Jun 6, 2014 4:57:21 PM | 43
Right about WWII, but that's not the point.
The Western aggression in Ukraine will not stop, and there will be no talks,
until the RU sympathizers lay down their arms and swear allegiance to Kiev.
'They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue!
It's the Tel Aviv way."
you have to admit that bagration was something else, really something else & i wouldn't be surprised
if lin piao & giap did not study it well
it is at once very simple, to break the back of army group centre but it is don with such complexity
& on so many spheres including the most concrete application of the partisan war & all my favorite
generals are there, rossokovski, the brains that general vatitin had synthesised, the young & only
jewish general who was to lose his life in prussia - it is war at an entirely different level than
the drawing room
as bevin notes the colonised people did most of the fighting for the french & british & yes i
will giove a nod to the poles but what they were involved in really wer skirmished, they were not
battles in any classic sense of that word, only the chinese & the soviet union fought battles
i have read on this in three languages now for many decades & i still learn something & it is
not a question of whose dick is bigger, bevin gives allussion that in real terms it was the expression
oh historical forces at play
tho i must mention what the brilliant scholar, from - of all places sandhurst - chris bellamy
wrote in his 'absolute war' was stalin made the most important decision of the entire european war,
in 10 minutes, when he decided to move everything to the ural, stalin knew how to prioritize & he
left those people entrusted with that, alone
& it is clear hole in his head is such a nazi he would not know shit from shine
I'm trying to come to grips with the propaganda implications of our situation in the "West" that
Ukraine has revealed. It seems increasingly clear to me that this is where the real war has been
fought, and long since won, and where the current and future insurrections lie. Everything else,
I don't know yet.
Thanks for your history, Bevin - as a former European I found it to ring deeply true on many fronts.
This D-Day post has been a great read from the post through all the comments.
And the nudge on Diane Johnstone was very valuable, she's written a wonderful essay on Ukraine.
It deserves a link:
Washington's Iron Curtain in Ukraine
I keep a short list of masterly views on the Ukraine situation in case one day a friend here in
the west may want to know what really happened there. This will be one of the links.
Ukrainian fascism is more durable and vital than most. It was forged in the most adverse
conditions imaginable, in the furnace of Stalinism, under the reign of Hitler, and amid
Poland's effort to destroy Ukrainian nationality. …
Ukrainian nationalists, therefore, were unable to ride communism or bourgeois democracy
into power. Communism was a tool of Soviet expansionism, not class empowerment, and Polish
democracy offered no protection for Ukrainian minority rights or political expression, let
alone a Ukrainian state.
Ukrainian nationalists turned largely toward fascism, specifically toward a concept of
"integral nationalism" that, in the absence of an acceptable national government, manifested
itself in a national will residing in the spirit of its adherents, not expressed by the
state or restrained by its laws, but embodied by a charismatic leader and exercised through
his organization, whose legitimacy supersedes that of the state and whose commitment to
violence makes it a law unto itself. …
Like Hitler, Bandera was keen to purify the "homeland" of impure elements. Unlike Hitler,
Bandera only had the chance to turn his fury on his enemies-primarily the Poles of Galicia–for
a few months.
5000 Ukrainian police defected with their weapons to join Bandera's faction as Nazi rule
crumbled in Ukraine, and provided the muscle for the most notorious Bandera action of the
Second World War: the massacre of Poles in what is now western Ukraine.
So it's wrong to call the Ukranian fascists "neo-nazis". This fascism is continuous with
Bandera's fascism.
As for whether Putin will take a military action, I think he will wait until Poroshenko
gets inaugurated and it becomes clear whether he will stop the terrorist operations or not.
The ruling class hated the war. Every other ruling class in Europe had made its arrangement
with the fascists, intending to profit from doing so and preserving its wealth. Only in
Britain were the anti-fascist forces, in the context of a barrier of angry ocean, sufficient
to prevent the Tories from compromising with Hitler and engaging in a partnership, guaranteeing
the preservation of the Empire, much more equal than that the US later offered.
Posted by: bevin | Jun 6, 2014 4:57:21 PM | 43
I was very interested in an account of a book - Donny Gluckstein (2012) A People's History
of the Second World War. Resistance Versus Empire. Pluto Press, London. - Given by Giles
Ungpakorn in the course of his ongoing discussion of the ongoing coup of 2006-14 in Thailand
...
According to Gluckstein there were two parallel wars against the Axis Powers. One was an
Imperialist War, waged by the ruling classes of Britain, the United States and Russia for
their own interests, while the other war was a People's War against Fascism, waged by ordinary
working people, many of them socialists. The two wars often overlapped in the minds of millions,
but their aims were very different.
... Ungpakorn saw/sees the same in Thailand with the 'red shirts' fighting fascism while their
'leaders' contest for a variation on the status quo.
I couldn't find Gluckstein's book over the wire, but I did find a (very good, I think) video
of him expounding his views, which I tacked on in a footnote to the re-post of Giles Ungpakorn's
post above.
Ungpakorn is now living in England, driven from his home in Thailand by the lese majeste
Inquisition. The Royal Thai Army has now
'summoned' him and others
it's driven out of Thailand to return for persecution under its present dictatorial incarnation.
Obviously the exiles won't return of their own free will - the question now is will the Royal
Thai Army attempt to abduct or assassinate them abroad.
Western propaganda about events in Ukraine has two main purposes. One is to cover up, or to distract
from, Washington's role in overthrowing the elected democratic government of Ukraine. The other is
to demonize Russia.
The truth is known, but truth is not a part of the Western TV and print media. The intercepted
telephone call between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine
Geoffrey Pyatt reveals the two coup plotters discussing which of Washington's stooges will be installed
as Washington's person in the new puppet government. The intercepted telephone call between Estonian
Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and EU foreign policy official Catherine Ashton revealed suspicions,
later confirmed by independent reports, that the sniper fire that killed people on both sides of
the Kiev protests came from the Washington-backed side of the conflict.
To summarize, when Washington orchestrated in 2004 the "Orange Revolution" and the revolution
failed to deliver Ukraine into Western hands, Washington, according to Victoria Nuland, poured $5
billion into Ukraine over the next ten years. The money went to politicians, whom Washington groomed,
and to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate as educational, pro-democracy, and human
rights groups, but in fact are Washington's fifth columns.
When President Yanukovych, after considering the costs and benefits, rejected the invitation for
Ukraine to join the European Union, Washington sent its well-funded NGOs into action. Protests broke
out in Kiev demanding that Yanukovych change his decision and join the EU.
These protests were peaceful, but soon ultra-nationalists and neo-nazis appeared and introduced
violence into the protests. The protest demands changed from "join the EU" to "overthrow Yanukovych
and his government."
Political chaos ensued. Washington installed a puppet government, which Washington represented
as a democratic force against corruption. However, the ultra-nationalists and neo-nazis, such as
the Right Sector, began intimidating members of Washington's stooge government. Perhaps in response,
Washington's stooges began issuing threats against the Russian speaking population in Ukraine.
Areas of southern and eastern Ukraine are former Russian territories added to Ukraine by Soviet
leaders. Lenin added Russian areas to Ukraine in early years of the Soviet Union, and Khrushchev
added Crimea in 1954. The people in these Russian areas, alarmed by the destruction of Soviet war
memorials commemorating the Red Army's liberation of Ukraine from Hitler, by the banning of Russian
as an official language, and by physical assaults on Russian-speaking people in Ukraine broke out
in protests. Crimea voted its independence and requested reunification with Russia, and so have the
Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Washington, its EU puppets, and the Western media have denied that the votes in Crimea, Donetsk,
and Luhansk are sincere and spontaneous. Instead, Washington alleges that the protests leading to
the votes and the votes themselves were orchestrated by the Russian government with the use of bribes,
threats, and coercion. Crimea was said to be a case of Russian invasion and annexation.
These are blatant lies, and the foreign observers of the elections know it, but they have no voice
in the Western media, which is a Ministry of Propaganda for Washington. Even the once proud BBC lies
for Washington.
Washington has succeeded in controlling the explanation of the "Ukrainian crisis." The unified
peoples in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk have been branded "terrorists." In contrast, the Ukrainian
neo-nazis have been elevated to membership in the "democratic coalition." Even more amazing, the
neo-nazis are being described in the Western media as "liberators" of the protest regions from "terrorists."
Most likely, the Russophobic neo-nazi militias are becoming Washington's stooge government's army,
because so many units of the Ukrainian military have been unwilling to fire on peaceful protestors.
The question before us is how will Russia's leader, President Putin, play this game. His hesitancy
or reluctance to accept Donetsk and Luhansk again as part of Russia is used by the Western media
to make him look weak and intimidated. Within Russia this will be used against Putin by Washington-funded
GGOs and by Russian nationalists.
Putin understands this, but Putin also understands that Washington wants him to confirm their
demonized portrait of him. If Putin accepts requests from Donetsk and Luhansk to return to Russia,
Washington will repeat its allegation that Russia invaded and annexed. Most likely, Putin is not
weak and intimidated, but for good reasons Putin does not want to give Washington more propaganda
to employ in Europe.
Washington's press for sanctions against Russia has an obstacle in Germany. The German Chancellor,
Merkel, is Washington's vassal, but Germany's foreign Minister, Frank Walter Steinmeier and German
industry are no friends of sanctions. In addition to Germany's dependence on natural gas from Russia,
thousands of German companies are doing business in Russia, and the employment of several hundred
thousands of Germans is dependent on economic relations with Russia. Former German Chancellors, Helmut
Schmidt and Gerhard Schroeder, have slammed Merkel for her subservience to Washington. Merkel's position
is weak, because she has stupidly put herself in the position of sacrificing the interests of Germany
to Washington's interests.
Putin, who has demonstrated that he is not the typical dumb Western politician, sees in the conflict
between Washington's pressure on Germany and Germany's real interests a chance to break up NATO and
the EU. If Germany decides, as Yanukovych did, that Germany's interests lie in its economic relations
with Russia, not in being a puppet state of Washington, can Washington overthrow the government of
Germany and install a more reliable puppet?
Perhaps Germany has had enough of Washington. Still occupied by Washington's troops 69 years after
the end of World War II, Germany has had its educational practices, its history, its foreign policy,
and its membership in the EU and euro mechanism coerced by Washington. If Germans have any national
pride, and as a very recently unified peoples, they might still have some national pride, these impositions
by Washington are too much to accept.
The last thing Germany wants is a confrontation, economic or military, with Russia. Germany's
vice chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, said that it "was certainly not smart to create the impression in
Ukraine that it had to decide between Russia and the EU."
If the Russian government decides that Washington's control of Ukraine, or whatever part remains
after secession, is an unacceptable strategic threat to Russia, the Russian military will seize Ukraine,
historically part of Russia. If Russia occupies Ukraine, there is nothing Washington can do but resort
to nuclear war. NATO countries, with their own existence at stake, will not agree to this option.
Putin can take the Ukraine back whenever he wants and turn his back on the West, a declining corrupt
entity mired in depression and looting by the capitalist class. The 21st century belongs to the East,
to China and India. The enormous expanse of Russia sits above both of these most populous of all
countries.
Russia can rise to power with the East. There is no reason for Russia to beg the West for acceptance.
The basis for US foreign policy are the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines, which state that Washington
must prevent the rise of Russia. Washington has no good will toward Russia and will hamper Russia
at every opportunity. As long as Washington controls Europe, Russia has no prospects of being a part
of the West, unless Russia becomes Washington's puppet state, like Germany, Britain, and France.
In the run-up to his visit to France, Vladimir Putin gave an interview to Radio Europe 1 news
programme author and frontman Jean-Pierre Elkabbach and anchor of the evening news on TF1 TV channel
Gilles Bouleau. The interview was recorded on June 3 in Sochi.
QUESTION (via interpreter): Do you want to defend the Russian nation or to become
the symbol of Russian nationalism and the Russian Empire? We remember what you said about the Soviet
Union's dissolution. You said that it was the worst geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. You
also said that those who do not regret the collapse of the Soviet Union have no heart, and those
who want to restore it have no brains. You have brains. What do you propose: Russian nationalism,
or the restoration of the Russian Empire to its previous borders?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: We will
not promote Russian nationalism, and we do not intend to revive the Russian Empire. What did I mean
when I said that the Soviet Union's collapse was one of the largest humanitarian – above all humanitarian
– disasters of the 20th century? I meant that all the citizens of the Soviet Union lived in a union
state irrespective of their ethnicity, and after its collapse 25 million Russians suddenly became
foreign citizens. It was a huge humanitarian disaster. Not a political or ideological disaster, but
a purely humanitarian upheaval. Families were divided; people lost their jobs and means of subsistence,
and had no means to communicate with each other normally. This was the problem.
QUESTION (via interpreter): And what about the future?
Do you want to restore the empire within the former borders or do you want to continue developing
your country within your own borders?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: We want to develop our country within our own borders, of course. But –
and this is very important – like other countries in other parts of the world, we want to use modern
policies to improve our competitive advantage, including economic integration. This is what we are
doing in the post-Soviet space within the Customs Union and now also within the Eurasian Union.
... ... ...
QUESTION: Is there any risk of a war? Now, as we see tanks on their way from Kiev, many people
in France are asking this question. Were you tempted to send troops to eastern Ukraine?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is an interview, which implies short questions and short answers. But if
you have patience and give me a minute, I will tell you how we see it. Here's our position. What
actually happened there? There was a conflict and that conflict arose because the former Ukrainian
president refused to sign an association agreement with the EU. Russia had a certain stance on this
issue. We believed it was indeed unreasonable to sign that agreement because it would have a grave
impact on the economy, including the Russian economy. We have 390 economic agreements with Ukraine
and Ukraine is a member of the free trade zone within the CIS. And we wouldn't be able to continue
this economic relationship with Ukraine as a member of the free trade zone. We discussed this with
our European partners. Instead of continuing the debates by legitimate and diplomatic means, our
European friends and our friends from the United States supported the anti-constitutional armed coup.
This is what happened. We did not cause this crisis to happen. We were against this course of events
but after the anti-constitutional coup – let's face it, after all…
... ... ...
QUESTION: But, Mr President, the United States and the White House claim they have evidence
that Russia intervened in the conflict, sent its troops and supplied weapons. They claim they have
proof. Do you believe that?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Proof? Why don't they show it? The entire world
remembers the US Secretary of State demonstrating the evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,
waving around some test tube with washing powder in the UN Security Council. Eventually, the US troops
invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was hanged and later it turned out there had never been any weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq. You know, it's one thing to say things and another to actually have
evidence. I will tell you again: no Russian troops…
QUESTION(via interpreter): Are you saying the US is lying?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, it is. There are no armed forces, no Russian 'instructors' in southeastern
Ukraine. And there never were
... ... ...
QUESTION (via interpreter): And this is where the war is going on. When he mentioned the war,
he said it is not far off.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is a punitive operation launched by Kiev's government against the country's
own citizens. It is not a war between states, it is something entirely different. As for...
QUESTION (via interpreter): Do you think it should be stopped immediately?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think Mr Poroshenko, who has no blood on his hands so far, has a unique chance
to halt this punitive operation now and start a dialogue with people in southeastern Ukraine.
... ... ...
QUESTION(via interpreter): Women must be respected, of course, and I'm sure you respect
them. Do you think she went too far? There is a lot of mockery and cartoons in the media – including
those showing you. What was your first reaction? Were you angry? Did you want to get back at her
or laugh? We have never seen you laugh.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Someday I will indulge myself and
we will laugh together at some good joke. But when I hear such extreme statements, to me it only
means that they don't have any valid arguments. Speaking of US policy, it's clear that the United
States is pursuing the most aggressive and toughest policy to defend their own interests – at least,
this is how the American leaders see it – and they do it persistently.
There are basically no Russian troops abroad while US troops are everywhere. There are US military
bases everywhere around the world and they are always involved in the fates of other countries even
though they are thousands of kilometres away from US borders. So it is ironic that our US partners
accuse us of breaching some of these rules.
... ... ...
QUESTION(via interpreter): And the last question, Mr President. In 2013, Forbes rated
you as the most powerful person in the world. Were you flattered by this title?
VLADIMIR PUTIN:
You know, I'm an adult and I know what power means in the modern world. In the modern world, power
is mainly defined by such factors as the economy, defence and cultural influence. I believe that
in terms of defence, Russia is without any doubt one of the leaders because we are a nuclear power
and our nuclear weapons are perhaps the best in the world.
With regard to cultural influence, we are proud of the Russian culture – literature, the arts
and so on.
As for the economy, we are aware that we still have a lot to do before we reach the top. Although
lately, we have made major strides forward and are now the fifth largest economy in the world. It
is a success but we can do more.
QUESTION(via interpreter): We don't know yet how Vladimir Putin's era will go down
in history. What would you like to be remembered for? And would you like to be seen as a democrat
or an authoritarian leader?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to be remembered as a person who did his best for the happiness
and prosperity of his country and his people.
QUESTION(via interpreter): Thank you very much. Have a good trip to France, Mr
President. Good-bye.
The latest tensions between the EU and Russia over Greenpeace's stunt in the Arctic only confirmed
a fact which nobody really bothers denying anymore: Western political and financial elites absolutely
hate Vladimir Putin and they are appalled at Russia's behavior, both inside Russia and on the international
scene. This tension was quite visible on the faces of Obama and Putin at the
G8 summit in Lough Erne where both leaders looked absolutely disgusted with each other. Things
got even worse when Putin did something quite unheard of in the Russian diplomatic history: he publicly
said that Kerry was dishonest and even
called
him a liar.
While tensions have reached some sort of climax over the Syrian issue, problems
between Russia and the USA are really nothing new. A quick look at the recent past will show that
the western corporate media has been engaged in a sustained strategic campaign to identify and exploit
any possible weaknesses in the Russian "political armor" and to paint Russia like a very nasty, undemocratic
and authoritarian country, in other words a threat to the West. Let me mention a few episodes of
this Russia-bashing campaign (in no particular order):
Berezovsky as a "persecuted" businessman
Politkovskaya "murdered by KGB goons"
Khodorkovsky jailed for his love of "liberty"
Russia's "aggression" against Georgia
The Russian "genocidal" wars against the Chechen people
"Pussy Riot" as "prisoners of conscience"
Litvinenko "murdered by Putin"
Russian homosexuals "persecuted" and "mistreated" by the state
Magnitsky and the subsequent "Magnitsky law"
Snowden as a "traitor hiding in Russia"
The "stolen elections" to the Duma and the Presidency
The "White Revoluton" on the Bolotnaya square
The "new Sakharov" - Alexei Navalnyi
Russia's "support for Assad", the (Chemical) "Butcher of Damascus"
The Russian constant "intervention" in Ukrainian affairs
The "complete control" of the Kremlin over the Russian media
This list is far from complete, but its sufficient for our purposes. Let me also immediately add
here that it is not my purpose today to debunk these allegations one by one. I have done so in this
blog many times the past, so anybody interested can look this up. I will just state here one very
important thing which I cannot prove, but of which I am absolutely certain: 90% or more of the Russian
public believe that all these issues are absolute nonsense, completely overblown non-issues. Furthermore,
most Russians believe that the so-called "democratic forces" which the Western elites support in
Russia (Iabloko, Parnas, Golos, etc.) are basically agents of influence for the West paid for by
the CIA, MI6, Soros and exiled Jewish oligarchs. What is certain is that besides these small liberal/democratic
groups, nobody in Russia takes these accusations seriously. Most people see them exactly for what
they are: a smear campaign.
In many ways, this is rather reminiscent of how things stood during
the Cold War where the West used its immense propaganda resources to demonize the Soviet Union and
to support anti-Soviet forces worldwide, including inside the USSR itself. I would argue that these
efforts were, by and large, very successful and that by 1990s the vast majority of Soviets, including
Russians, were rather disgusted with their leaders. So why the big difference today?
To answer that question, we need to look back at the processes which took place in Russia in the
last 20 years or so because only a look at what happened during these two decades will allows us
to get to the root of the current problem(s) between the USA and Russia.
... ... ...
In the meantime - the US gets Neoconned
Unlike the Soviet Union which basically disappeared from the map of our planet, the USA "won"
the Cold War (this is not factually quite true, but this is how many Americans see it) and having
become the last and only real super-power the US immediately embarked on a series of external wars
to establish its "full spectrum dominance" over the planet, especially after the events of 9/11 which
deeply transformed the nature of the US society itself.
Sill, the post 9/11 society has its roots in a far more distant past: the Reagan years.
During the Presidency of Ronald Reagan a group which later become known as the "Necons" made a
strategic decision to take over the Republican Party, its affiliated institutions and think tanks.
While in the past ex-Trotskyites had been more inclined to support the putatively more Left-leaning
Democratic Party, the "new and improved GOP" under Reagan offered the Neocons some extremely attractive
features:
1) Money: Reagan was an unconditional supporter of big business and the corporate world.
His mantra "government is the problem" fitted perfectly with the historical closeness of the Neocons
with the Robber Barons, Mafia bosses and big bankers. For them, de-regulation meant freedom of action,
something which was bound to make speculators and Wall Street wise guys immensely rich.
2) Violence: Reagan also firmly stood behind the US Military-Industrial complex and a policy
of intervention in any country on the planet. That fascination with brute force and, let be honest
here, terrorism also fitted the Trotskyite-Neocon mindset perfectly.
3) Illegality: Reagan did not care at all about the law, be it international law or domestic
law. Sure, as long as the law happens to be advantageous to US or GOP interests, it was upheld with
great ceremony. But if it didn't, the Reaganites would break it with no compunction whatsoever.
4) Arrogance: under Reagan, patriotism and feel-good imperial hubris reached a new height.
More than ever before, the US saw itself as not only the "Leader of the Free World" protecting the
planet against the "Evil Empire", but also as unique and superior to the rest of mankind (like in
the Ford commercial of the 1980s: "we're number one, second to none!")
5) Systematic deception: under Reagan lying turned from an occasional if regular tactics
used in politics to the key form of public communication: Reagan, and his administration, could say
one thing and then deny it in the same breath. They could make promises which were clearly impossible
to keep (Star Wars anybody?). They could solemnly take an oath and than break it (Iran-Contra). And,
if confronted by proof of these lies, all Reagan had to do is to say: "well, no, I don't remember".
6) Messianism: not only did Reagan get a huge support basis amongst the various crazy religious
denominations in the USA (including all of the Bible Belt), Reagan also promoted a weird can of secular
Messianism featuring a toxic mix of xenophobia bordering on racism with a narcissistic fascination
with anything patriotic, no matter how stupid, bordering on self-worship.
Does that not all look very, very familiar? Is that not a perfect description of Zionism and Israel?
No wonder the Neocons flocked in greater and greater number to this new GOP! Reagan's GOP was
the perfect Petri dish for the Zionist bacteria to grow, and grow it really did. A lot.
I think that it would be reasonable to say that the USA underwent a two-decades long process of
"Zionisation" which culminated in the grand 9/11 false flag operation in which the
PNAC-types basically used their
access to the centers of power in the USA, Israel and the KSA to conjure up a new enemy - "Islamo-Fascist
Terror" - which would not only justify a planetary war against "terrorism" (the GWOT) but also an
unconditional support for Israel.
There were also losers in this evolution, primarily what I call the "old
Anglo camp" which basically lost control of most of its domestic political power and all of its
foreign policy power: for the first time
a new course in foreign policy gradually began to take shape under the leadership of a group
of people which would in time be identified as "Israel Firsters". For a short time the old Anglos
seemed to have retaken the reigns of power - under George Bush Senior - only to immediately loose
it again with the election of Bill Clinton. But the apogee of Ziocon power was only reached under
the Presidency of George W. Bush who basically presided over a massive purge of Anglos from key positions
in government (especially the Pentagon and the CIA). Predictably, having the folks which Bush Senior
called "the crazies
in the basement" actually in power rapidly brought the USA to the edge of a global collapse:
externally the massive worldwide sympathy for the USA after 911 turned into a tsunami of loathing
and resentment, while internally the country was faced with a massive banking crisis which
almost resulted the imposition of martial
law over the USA.
In comes Barak Obama - "change we can believe in!"
The election of Barak Obama to the White House truly was a momentous historical event. Not only
because a majority White population had elected a Black man to the highest office in the country
(this was really mainly an expression of despair and of a deep yearning for change), but because
after one of the most effective PR campaigns in history, the vast majority of Americans and many,
if not most, people abroad, really, truly believed that Obama would make some deep, meaningful changes.
The disillusion with Obama was as great as the hopes millions had in him. I personally feel that
history will remember Obama not only as one of the worst Presidents in history, but also, and that
is more important, as the last chance for the "system" to reform itself. That chance was missed.
And while some, in utter disgust, described Obama as "Bush light", I think that his Presidency can
be better described as "more of the same, only worse".
Having said that, there is something which, to my absolute amazement, Obama's election did achieve:
the removal of (most, but not all) Neocons from (most, but not all) key positions of power and a
re-orientation of (most, but not all) of US foreign policy in a more traditional "USA first" line,
usually supported by the "old Anglo" interests. Sure, the Neocons are still firmly in control of
Congress and the US corporate media, but the Executive Branch is, at least for the time being, back
under Anglo control (this is, of course, a generalization: Dick Cheney was neither Jewish nor Zionist,
while the Henry Kissinger can hardly be described as an "Anglo"). And even though Bibi Netanyahu
got more standing ovations in Congress (29) than any US President, the attack on Iran he wanted so
badly did not happen. Instead, Hillary and Petraeus got kicked out, and Chuck Hagel and John Kerry
got in. That is hardly "change we can believe in", but at least this shows that the Likud is
not controlling the White House any more.
Of course, this is far from over. If anything the current game of chicken played between the White
House and Congress over the budget with its inherent risk of a US default shows that this conflict
is far from settled.
The current real power matrix in the USA and Russia
We have shown that there two unofficial parties in Russia which are locked in a deadly conflict
for power, the "Eurasian Sovereignists" and "Atlantic Integrationists". There are also
two unofficial parties in the USA who are also locked in a deadly conflict for power: the Neocons
and the "old Anglos imperialists". I would argue that, at least for the time being, the "Eurasian
Sovereignists" and the "old Anglos" have prevailed over their internal competitor but that the Russian
"Eurasian Sovereignists" are in a far stronger position that the American "old Anglos". There are
two main reasons for that:
Russia has already had its economic collapse and default and
a majority of Russians fully support President Putin and his "Eurasian Sovereignist"
policies.
In contrast, the USA is on the brink of an economic collapse and the 1% clique which is running
the USA is absolutely hated and despised by most Americans.
After the immense and, really, heart-breaking disillusionment with Obama, more and more Americans
are becoming convinced that changing the puppet in the White House is meaningless and that what the
US really needs is regime change.
The USSR and the USA - back to the future?
It is quite amazing for those who remember the Soviet Union of the late 1980 how much the US under
Obama has become similar to the USSR under Brezhnev: internally it is characterized by a general
sense of disgust and alienation of the people triggered by the undeniable stagnation of a system
rotten to its very core. A bloated military and police state with uniforms everywhere, while more
and more people live in abject poverty. A public propaganda machine which, like in Orwell's 1984,
constantly boasts of successes everywhere while everybody knows that these are all lies. Externally,
the US is hopelessly overstretched and either hated and mocked abroad. Just as in the Soviet days,
the US leaders are clearly afraid of their own people so they protect themselves by a immense and
costly global network of spies and propagandists who are terrified of dissent and who see the main
enemy in their own people.
Add to that a political system which far from co-opting the best of its citizens deeply alienates
them while promoting the most immoral and corrupt ones into the positions of power. A booming prison-industrial
complex and a military-industrial complex which the country simply cannot afford maintaining. A crumbling
public infrastructure combined with a totally dysfunctional health care system in which only the
wealthy and well-connected can get good treatment. And above it all, a terminally sclerotic public
discourse, full of ideological clichés an completely disconnected from reality.
I will never forget the words of a Pakistani Ambassador to the UN Conference on Disarmament in
Geneva in 1992 who, addressing an assembly of smug western diplomats, said the following words: "you
seem to believe that you won the Cold War, but did you ever consider the possibility that what has
really happened is that the internal contradictions of communism caught up with communism before
the internal contradictions of capitalism could catch up with capitalism?!". Needless to say,
these prophetic words were greeted by a stunned silence and soon forgotten. But the man was, I believe,
absolutely right: capitalism has now reached a crisis as deep as the one affecting the Soviet
Union in the late 1980s and there is zero chance to reform or otherwise change it. Regime change
is the only possible outcome.
The historical roots of the russophobia of the American elites
Having said all of the above, its actually pretty simple to understand why Russia in general,
and Putin in particular, elicits such a deep hatred from the Western plutocracy: having convinced
themselves that they won the Cold War they are now facing the double disappointment of a rapidly
recovering Russia and a Western economic and political decline turning into what seems to be a slow
and painful agony.
In their bitterness and spite, Western leaders overlook the fact that Russia has nothing to do
with the West's current problems. Quite to the contrary, in fact: the main impact the collapse
of the Soviet Union on the US-run international economic system was to prolong its existence by creating
a new demand for US dollars in Eastern Europe and Russia (some economists - such as Nikolai
Starikov - estimate that the collapse of the USSR gave an extra 10+ years of life to the US dollar).
In the past, Russia has been the historical arch-enemy of the British Empire. As for Jews - they
have always harbored many grievances towards pre-revolutionary Tsarist Russia. The Revolution of
1917 brought a great deal of hope for many East-European Jews, but it was short lived as Stalin defeated
Trotsky and the Communist Party was purged from many of its Jewish members. Over and over again Russia
has played a tragic role in the history of the Ashkenazi Jews and this, of course, has left a deep
mark on the worldview of the Neocons who are all deeply russophobic, even today. Somebody might object
that many Jews are deeply grateful for the Soviet Army's liberation of Jews from the Nazi concentration
camps or for the fact that the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel. But in both
cases, the country which is credited with these actions is the Soviet Union and not Russia
which most Ashkenazi Jews still typically associate anti-Jewish policies and values.
It is thus not surprising that both the Anglo and the Jewish elites in the US would harbor
an almost instinctive dislike for, and fear of, Russia, especially one perceived as resurgent or
anti-American. And the fact is that they are not wrong in this perception: Russia is most definitely
resurgent, and the vast majority of the Russian public opinion is vehemently anti-American, at least
if by "America" we refer to the civilizational model or economic system.
Anti-American sentiment in Russia
Feelings about the USA underwent a dramatic change since the fall of the Soviet Union. In the
1980 the USA was not only rather popular, it was also deeply in fashion: Russian youth created many
rock groups (some of them became immensely popular and still are popular today, such as
the group DDT from Saint
Petersburg), American fashion and fast foods were the dream of every Russian teenager, while most
intellectuals sincerely saw the US as "leader of the free world". Of course, the state propaganda
of the USSR always wanted to present the USA as an aggressive imperialistic country, but that effort
failed: most of the people were actually quite fond of the US. One of the most popular pop group
of the 1990s (Nautilus
Pompilius) had a song with the following lyrics:
Good bye America, oh Where I have never ever been Farewell forever! Take your banjo And play for my departure la-la-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la-la-la Your worn out blue jeans Became too tight for me We've been taught for too long To be in love with your forbidden fruits.
While there were exceptions to this rule, I would say that by the beginning of the 1990 most
of the Russian people, especially the youth, had swallowed the US propaganda line hook and sinker
- Russia was hopelessly pro-American.
The catastrophic collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the West's total and unconditional backing
for Eltsin and his oligarchs changed that. Instead of trying to help Russia, the USA and the
West used every single opportunity to weaken Russia externally (by taking all of Eastern Europe
into NATO even though they had promised never to do so). Internally, they West supported the Jewish
oligarchs who were literally sucking out wealth out of Russia live vampires suck blood, while supporting
every imaginable form of separatism. By the end of the 1990s the words "democrat" and "liberal" became
offensive curse words. This joke of the late 1990s is a good example of these feelings (Notice the
association between liberalism and Jews):
A new teacher comes into the class: - My name is Abram Davidovich, I'm a liberal. And now all stand up and introduce yourself like
I did ... - My name is Masha I liberal ... - My name is Petia, I'm a liberal ... - My Little Johnny, I'm a Stalinist. - Little Johnny, why are you a Stalinist? -- - My mom is a Stalinist, my dad is a Stalinist, my friends are Stalinists and I too am a Stalinist. - Little Johnny, and if your mother was a whore, your father - a drug addict, your friends
- homos, what would you be then in that case? -- - Then I would be a liberal.
Notice the association between being a liberal and Jews (Abram Davidovich is a typical Jewish name).
Notice also the inclusion of the category "homosexual" in between a whore and drug addicts and remember
that when evaluating the typical Russian reaction to the anti-Russian campaign waged by western homosexual
organizations.
The political effect of these feelings is rather obvious: in the last elections
not a single pro-Western political party has even managed to get enough votes to make it into the
Parliament. And no - this is not because Putin has outlawed them (as some propagandists in the
West like to imagine). There are currently 57 political parties in Russia, and quite a few of them
are pro-Western. And yet it is an undeniable fact that the percentage of Russians which are favorably
inclined towards the USA and NATO/EU is roughly in the 5% range. I can also put it this way: every
single political party represented in the Duma is deeply anti-American, even the very moderate "Just
Russia".
Anti-Russian feelings in the USA?
Considering the never ending barrage of anti-Russian propaganda in the western corporate media
one could wonder how strong anti-Russian feelings are in the West. This is really hard to measure
objectively, but as somebody born in Western Europe and who has lived a total of 15 years in the
USA I would say that anti-Russian sentiment in the West is very rare, almost non-existent. In the
USA there have always been strong anti-Communist feelings - there still are today - but somehow most
Americans do make the difference between a political ideology that they don't really understand,
but that they dislike anyway, and the people which in the past used to be associated with it.
US *politicians*, of course, mostly hate Russia, but most Americans seem to harbor very little
bad feelings or apprehension about Russia or the Russian people. I explain that by a combination
of factors.
First, since more and more people in the West realize that they are not living in a democracy,
but in a plutocracy of the 1%, they tend to take the official propaganda line with more than a grain
of salt (which, by the way, is exactly what was happening to most Soviet people in the 1980s). Furthermore,
more and more people in the West who oppose the plutocratic imperial order which impoverishes and
disenfranchises them into corporate serfs are quite sympathetic to Russia and Putin for "standing
up to the bastards in Washington". But even more fundamentally, there is the fact that in a bizarre
twist of history Russia today stands for the values of the West of yesterday: international law,
pluralism, freedom of speech, social rights, anti-imperialism, opposition to intervention inside
sovereign states, rejection of wars as a means to settle disputes, etc.
In the case of the war in Syria, Russia's absolutely consistent stance in defense of international
law has impressed many people in the USA and Europe and one can hear more and more praise for Putin
from people who in the past has deep suspicions about him.
Russia, of course, is hardly a utopia or some kind of perfect society, far from it, but it has
taken the fundamental decision to become a *normal* country, as opposed to being a global empire,
and any normal country will agree to uphold the principles of the "West of yesterday", not
only Russia. In fact, Russia is very un-exceptional in its pragmatic realization that to uphold these
principles is not a matter of naive idealism, but a sound realistic policy goal. People in the West
are told by their rulers and the corporate media that Putin in an evil ex-KGB dictator who is a danger
for the US and its allies, but as soon as these people actually read or listen to what Putin actually
says they find themselves in a great deal of agreement with him.
In another funny twist of history, while the Soviet population used to turn to the BBC, Voice
of America or Radio Liberty for news and information, more and more people in the West are turning
to Russia Today, Press TV, or Telesur to get their information. Hence the panicked reaction of Walter
Isaacson, Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the US outfit overseeing US media directed
at foreign audiences, who declared that "we can't allow ourselves to be out-communicated by our
enemies. You've got Russia Today, Iran's Press TV, Venezuela's TeleSUR, and of course, China is launching
an international broadcasting 24-hour news channel with correspondents around the world". Folks
like Isaacson know that they are slowly but surely loosing the informational battle for the control
of the minds of the general public.
And now, with the entire Snowden affair, Russia is becoming the safe harbor for those political
activists who are fleeing Uncle Sam's wrath. A quick search on the Internet will show you that more
and more people are referring to Putin as the "leader of the Free World" while other are collecting
signatures to have Obama give his Nobel Prize to Putin. Truly, for those like myself who have actually
fought against the Soviet system it is absolutely amazing to see the 180 degree turn the world has
taken since the 1980s.
Western elites - still stuck in the Cold War
If the world has radically changed in the last 20 years, the Western elites did not. Faced with
a very frustrating reality they are desperately trying to re-fight the Cold War with the hope of
re-winning it again. Hence the never ending cycle of Russia-bashing campaigns I mentioned at the
beginning of this post. They try to re-brand Russia as the new Soviet Union, with oppressed minorities,
jailed or murdered dissidents, little or no freedom of speech, a monolithic state controlled media
and an all seeing security apparatus overseeing it all. The problem, of course, is that they are
20 years late and that these accusations don't stick very well with the western public opinion and
get exactly *zero* traction inside Russia. In fact, every attempt at interfering inside Russian political
affairs has been so inept and clumsy that it backfired every single time. From the absolutely futile
attempts of the West to organize a color-coded revolution in the streets of Moscow to the totally
counter-productive attempts to create some kind of crisis around homosexual human rights in Russia
- every step taken by the western propaganda machine has only strengthened Vladimir Putin and his
the "Eurasian Sovereignists" at the expense of the "Atlantic Integrationist" faction inside the Kremlin.
There was a deep and poignant symbolism in the latest meeting of the 21
APEC countries
in Bali. Obama had to cancel his trip because of the US budget crisis while Putin was treated to
a musically horrible but politically deeply significant rendition of "Happy birthday to you!" by
a spontaneous choir composed of the leaders of the Pacific Rim countries. I can just imagine
the rage of the White House when they saw "their" Pacific allies serenading Putin for his birthday!
Conclusion: "we are everywhere"
In one of his most beautiful songs, David Rovics sings the following words which I want to quite
in full, as each line fully applies to the current situation:
When I say the hungry should have food
I speak for many
When I say no one should have seven homes
While some don't have any
Though I may find myself stranded in some strange place
With naught but a vapid stare
I remember the world and I know
We are everywhere
When I say the time for the rich, it will come
Let me count the ways
Victories or hints of the future
Havana, Caracas, Chiapas, Buenos Aires
How many people are wanting and waiting
And fighting for their share
They hide in their ivory towers
But we are everywhere
Religions and prisons and races
Borders and nations
FBI agents and congressmen
And corporate radio stations
They try to keep us apart, but we find each other
And the rulers are always aware
That they're a tiny minority
And we are everywhere
With every bomb that they drop, every home they destroy
Every land they invade
Comes a new generation from under the rubble
Saying "we are not afraid"
They will pretend we are few
But with each child that a billion mothers bear
Comes the next demonstration
That we are everywhere.
These words are a beautiful expression for the hope which should inspire all those who are
now opposing the US-Zionist Empire: we are everywhere, literally. On one side we have the 1%,
the Anglo imperialists and the Ziocons, while on the other we have the rest of the planet, including
potentially 99% of the American people.
If it is true that at this moment in time Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists are the most powerful
and best organized faction of the worldwide resistance to the Empire, they are far from being central,
or even less so, crucial, to it. Yes, Russia can, and will, play its role, but only as a normal
country amongst many other normal countries, some small and economically weak like Ecuador, other
huge and powerful like China. But even small Ecuador was "big enough" to grand refuge to Julian Assange
while China seems to have asked Snowden to please leave. So Ecuador is not that small after all?
It would be naive to hope that this "de-imperialization" process of the USA could happen without
violence. The French and British Empires collapsed against the bloody backdrop of WWII, while
did the Nazi and Japanese Empires were crushed under a carpet of bombs. The Soviet Empire collapsed
with comparatively less victims, and most of the violence which did take place during that process
happened on the Soviet periphery. In Russia itself, the number of death of the mini civil war of
1993 was counted in the thousands and not in the millions. And by God's great mercy, not a single
nuclear weapon was detonated anywhere.
So what will likely happen when the US-Ziocon Empire finally collapses under its own weight? Nobody
can tell for sure, but we can at least hope that just as no major force appeared to rescue the Soviet
Empire in 1991-1993, no major force will attempt to save the US Empire either. As David Rovic's puts
it so well, the big weakness of the 1% which rule the US-Ziocon Empire is that "they are a tiny
minority and we are everywhere".
In the past 20 years the US and Russia have followed diametrically opposed courses and their roles
appears to have been reversed. That "pas de deux" is coming to some kind of end now. Objective circumstances
have now again placed these two countries in opposition to each other, but this is solely due to
the nature of the regime in Washington DC. Russian leaders could repeat the words of the English
rapper Lowkey and declare "I'm not anti-America, America is anti-me!" and they could potentially
be joined by 99% of Americans who, whether they already realize it or not, are also the victims of
the US-Ziocon Empire.
In the meantime, the barrage of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns will continue unabated simply
because this seems to have become a form of psychotherapy for a panicked and clueless western plutocracy.
And just as in all the previous cases, this propaganda campaign will have no effect at all.
It is my hope that next time we hear about whatever comes next after the current "Greenpeace"
campaign you will keep all this in mind.
The Saker
Anonymous :
Did you compose this before,during or after your diving?
Speaking of diving, how was it?
Began a list of edits for you, but almost all are tiny, such as "Is is quite amazing" instead
of "It is"
or, under the bolded words:
In the meantime - the US gets Neoconned
'series' - not 'serious'
As they were mostly tiny I deleted the list, besides, why sweat the small stuff? And...didn't
even know if you would appreciate it.
The article was a lot of material to take in for 6 am on a Sunday morning and much to comment
on. I will pick one.
"This is really hard to measure objectively, but as somebody born in Western Europe and who
has lived a total of 15 years in the USA I would say that anti-Russian sentiment in the West is
very rare, almost non-existent."
Anti-Russian sentiment certainly isn't what it used to be here in the USofA, but look how easy
it was for the American people to swallow that Russia was the aggressor in the 2008 South Ossetia
War.
Believe it will be quite some time before the American people can be
objective about Russia.
This is a wide ranging and brilliant piece. There is much food here both for
discussion and thought. I should say that overall I agree with it strongly.
There is much more I could say but as it happens I am for the moment rather pressed for time.
I hope to come back later with some more detailed comments. However there is one point of historical
data I do want to share with you, which concerns the reasons for Putin's rise to power.
I come from an old Greek political family and I have connections with the Greek diplomatic
service. In 1999 there was more than usual discussion between Greeks and (some) Russians at official
levels because of shared anger at the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia.
Basically, what I was told by a diplomatic source in Moscow (whose identity I cannot disclose)
is that in the spring of 1999 a power struggle was underway between Yeltsin and Primakov with
Yeltsin looking for reasons to stand for an unconstitutional third term for the Presidency and
antagonistic to Primakov who had been forced on him by the Duma and who had connections with both
the KPRF and Lyzhkov.
What precipitated the final crisis of Yeltsin's regime was Yeltsin's dismissal of Primakov
and his decision to give implicit support to the NATO attack on Yugoslavia. Yeltsin did this because
he needed western support if he was to carry out the constitutional coup necessary to stand again
for the Presidency. These steps provoked a furious reaction from within the security services
and the army's General Staff who following a series of complex manoeuvres involving people like
Stepashin eventually forced Yeltsin to appoint their chosen candidate Putin as Prime Minister
and as his effective successor in return for an agreement that he would be given a pardon once
he stepped down. The famous advance by the military on Pristina was intended as a warning to Yeltsin,
who was not informed of it. Putin had previously positioned himself as a potential successor and
had indicated where his allegiance lay by prominently celebrating the birthday of the former Soviet
leader and KGB chief Yuri Andropov.
In other words there was essentially a coup by the security agencies, which was however carried
out in a strictly constitutional way. Berezovsky was not involved.
I heard all this of course at second and third hand so I cannot absolutely vouch for its truth.
However it seems to me in accordance with the known facts. It is also by the way consistent with
your own analysis.
@Alexander:What precipitated the final crisis of Yeltsin's regime was Yeltsin's dismissal
of Primakov and his decision to give implicit support to the NATO attack on Yugoslavia. Yeltsin
did this because he needed western support if he was to carry out the constitutional coup necessary
to stand again for the Presidency. These steps provoked a furious reaction from within the security
services and the army's General Staff who following a series of complex manoeuvres involving people
like Stepashin eventually forced Yeltsin to appoint their chosen candidate Putin as Prime Minister
and as his effective successor in return for an agreement that he would be given a pardon once
he stepped down. The famous advance by the military on Pristina was intended as a warning to Yeltsin,
who was not informed of it. Putin had previously positioned himself as a potential successor and
had indicated where his allegiance lay by prominently celebrating the birthday of the former Soviet
leader and KGB chief Yuri Andropov. In other words there was essentially a coup by the security
agencies, which was however carried out in a strictly constitutional way. Berezovsky was not involved.
VERY interesting. Let's compare notes. As far as I know:
Primakov was always very close to the PGU which he formally headed from 1991-1996. He was also
categorically opposed to the NATO attack on Yugoslavia.
As far as I know, the decision to move the Russian paratroopers to Pristina was made by a small
informal group of high ranking military officers from different parts of the military. My understanding
is that they wanted to force the Kremlin to send reinforcements by air to these Paratroopers and
thereby prevent a NATO occupation of Kosovo. Frankly, this move was heroic, for sure, but also
naive, misguided and rather risky (if the Russians could easily punch through an air corridor
over Eastern Europe, what would they do to pass through air space controlled by NATO?). As far
as I know the security services were not involved in this decision.
Andropov was always very popular in the ranks of the KGB and even more so, in the ranks of
the PGU who always appreciated him for his refined intelligence and sophistication.
Berezovsky was the key man who really ran the Kremlin in the last years of the Eltsin Presidency.
He would be the prime target of any coup, constitutional or not.
So all my info jives nicely with yours, with the possible exception of the exact reasons for
the Russian move to Pristina.
What I totally agree with is your characterization of the succession of Eltin by Putin as a
"coup carried out in a strictly constitutional way". This is typical of the PGU way of doing business
(in contrast to the somewhat more, shall way say, "romantic" or "impulsive" way the move to Prisina
was made by some very sincere but not too cautious elements of the military).
There's another few further points I want to make. Again apologies if I do so
in a hasty way:
1. The US political class and their fellow travellers in Europe as you correctly say fundamentally
misunderstand what happened in Russia/USSR between 1985-1999. The events they see as their "victory
over Communism" were simply part of Russia's natural historical evolution of which the Soviet
period was just a part. In my opinion the Cold War far from causing the USSR's collapse actually
delayed the course of Russia's historic evolution and prolonged the existence of the Soviet system
beyond its natural span by making the transition to a fully democratic society in Russia far more
difficult and problematic in ideological terms than it would have otherwise been.
This view is of course controversial. However the usurpation by western elites (and their east
European fellow travellers) of credit for democratic changes in the USSR/Russia which were entirely
the result of actions by the Russian people themselves and which were in no sense "forced" on
them by outsiders in the west should not be.
2. This mistaken belief in a western "victory" that never happened has had an utterly debilitating
effect on political thinking and policy in the US and in the west. It has encouraged the US to
treat Russia as a "defeated country" (which it is not) whilst at the same time making all but
impossible objective discussion and analysis in the US and the west of its own problems. Again
I am going to be controversial and say that the fanatical adherence to liberal and free market
solutions even as their inapplicability to many problems becomes ever more obvious looks every
bit as ideologically dogmatic as was true in the USSR - in fact even more so since the ideological
premises on which they are constructed are not even admitted to be such. The inability to come
up with a critical analysis or answer to the 2008 financial crisis is an illustration of this
as is (in the absence of debate on substantive questions) the obsessive over emphasis given to
such lifestyle questions as gender issues, gay rights etc.
3. That the problems of US society today are actually far more intractable than those of society
in the USSR. In spite of the problems caused by the Cold War the USSR was on a clear democratising
trajectory from at least 1953. The accumulated resentments that built up in Soviet society from
the 1960s were in part because of the slower than natural pace of this. Political and social evolution
within the US is by contrast unthinkable and has ground to a complete stop. Certainly reforming
the US Constitution and the capitalist system (which together have come to give the US its entire
definition) is inconceivable. Historically societies that cannot find new answers to new problems
are societies in profound crisis and we are coming very close to that situation in the west.
4. Lastly, you are absolutely right in putting your finger on the centrality of the 1993 crisis
in understanding Russia today. One of the reasons why the liberals in Russia today are such an
utterly marginal and discredited force is precisely because they forfeited in 1993 their credibility
as "democrats". Until they face up to this fact and accept responsibility for what happened to
Russia in the 1990s when they were in charge and explain what in future they will do different
the Russian people will not trust them again if they ever do.
Washington has no intention of allowing the crisis in Ukraine to be resolved. Having failed to
seize the country and evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base, Washington sees new opportunities
in the crisis.
One is to restart the Cold War by forcing the Russian government to occupy the
Russian-speaking areas of present day Ukraine where protesters are objecting to the stooge anti-Russian
government installed in Kiev by the American coup. These areas of Ukraine are former constituent
parts of Russia herself. They were attached to Ukraine by Soviet leaders in the 20th century when
both Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country, the USSR.
Essentially, the protesters have established independent governments in the cities. The police
and military units sent to suppress the protesters, called "terrorists" in the American fashion,
for the most part have until now defected to the protesters.
With Obama's incompetent White House and State Department having botched Washington's
takeover of Ukraine, Washington has been at work shifting the blame to Russia. According
to Washington and its presstitute media, the protests are orchestrated by the Russian government
and have no sincere basis. If Russia sends in military units to protect the Russian citizens in the
former Russian territories, the act will be used by Washington to confirm Washington's propaganda
of a Russian invasion (as in the case of Georgia), and Russia will be further demonized.
The Russian government is in a predicament. Moscow does not want financial responsibility for
these territories but cannot stand aside and permit Russians to be put down by force. The Russian
government has attempted to keep Ukraine intact, relying on the forthcoming elections in Ukraine
to bring to office more realistic leaders than the stooges installed by Washington.
However, Washington does not want an election that might replace its stooges and return
to cooperating with Russia to resolve the situation. There is a good chance that Washington
will tell its stooges in Kiev to declare that the crisis brought to Ukraine by Russia prevents an
election. Washington's NATO puppet states would back up this claim.
It is almost certain that despite the Russian government's hopes, the Russian government is faced
with the continuation of both the crisis and Washington puppet government in Ukraine.
On May 1 Washington's former ambassador to Russia, now NATO's "second-in-command" but the person
who, being American, calls the shots, has declared Russia to no longer be a partner but an
enemy. The American, Alexander Vershbow, told journalists that NATO has given up on "drawing
Moscow closer" and soon will deploy a large number of combat forces in Eastern Europe. Vershbow called
this aggressive policy deployment of "defensive assets to the region."
In other words, here we have again the lie that the Russian government is going to forget all
about its difficulties in Ukraine and launch attacks on Poland, the Baltic States, Romania., Moldova,
and on the central Asian states of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The dissembler Vershbow wants
to modernize the militaries of these American puppet states and "seize the opportunity to create
the reality on the ground by accepting membership of aspirant countries into NATO."
What Vershbow has told the Russian government is that you just keep on relying on Western
good will and reasonableness while we set up sufficient military forces to prevent Russia from coming
to the aid of its oppressed citizens in Ukraine. Our demonization of Russia is working.
It has made you hesitant to act during the short period when you could preempt us and seize your
former territories. By waiting you give us time to mass forces on your borders from the Baltic Sea
to Central Asia. That will distract you and keep you from the Ukraine. The oppression we will inflict
on your Russians in Ukraine will discredit you, and the NGOs we finance in the Russian Federation
will appeal to nationalist sentiments and overthrow your government for failing to come to the aid
of Russians and failing to protect Russia's strategic interests.
Washington is licking its chops, seeing an opportunity to gain Russia as a puppet state.
Will Putin sit there with his hopes awaiting the West's good will to work out a solution while
Washington attempts to engineer his fall?
The time is approaching when Russia will either have to act to terminate the crisis
or accept an ongoing crisis and distraction in its backyard. Kiev has launched military
airstrikes on protesters in Slavyansk. On May 2 Russian government spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that
Kiev's resort to violence had destroyed the hope for the Geneva agreement on de-escalating the crisis.
Yet, the Russian government spokesman again expressed the hope of the Russian government that European
governments and Washington will put a stop to the military strikes and pressure the Kiev government
to accommodate the protesters in a way that keeps Ukraine together and restores friendly relations
with Russia.
This is a false hope. It assumes that the Wolfowitz doctrine is just words, but
it is not. The Wolfowitz doctrine is the basis of US policy toward Russia (and China). The doctrine
regards any power sufficiently strong to remain independent of Washington's influence to be "hostile."
The doctrine states:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory
of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly
by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy
and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources
would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."
The Wolfowitz doctrine justifies Washington's dominance of all regions. It is consistent with
the neoconservative ideology of the US as the "indispensable" and "exceptional" country entitled
to world hegemony.
Russia and China are in the way of US world hegemony. Unless the Wolfowitz doctrine
is abandoned, nuclear war is the likely outcome.
The US gains nothing from the EU-Russia partnership, which is why Washington wants to block Moscow's
access to critical markets. This form of commercial sabotage is an act of war.
"Washington wants to weaken Moscow economically by slashing its gas revenues and, thus, eroding
its ability to defend itself or its interests. The US does not want an economically-integrated
Europe and Asia. The de facto EU-Russian alliance is a direct threat to US global hegemony."
US provocations in Ukraine cannot be understood apart from Washington's "Pivot to Asia", which
is the broader strategic plan to shift attention from the Middle East to Asia. The so called "re-balancing"
is actually a blueprint for controlling China's growth in a way that is compatible with US hegemonic
ambitions. There are different schools of thought about how this can be achieved, but loosely speaking
they fall into two categories, "dragon slayers" and "panda huggers". Dragon slayers favor a strategy
of containment while panda huggers favor engagement. As yet, the final shape of the policy has not
been decided, but it's clear from hostilities in the South China Sea and the Senkaku Islands, that
the plan will depend heavily on military force.
So what does controlling China have to do with the dust up in Ukraine?
Everything. Washington sees Russia as a growing threat to its plans for regional dominance. The
problem is, Moscow has only gotten stronger as it has expanded its network of oil and gas pipelines
across Central Asia into Europe. That's why Washington has decided to use Ukraine is a staging ground
for an attack on Russia, because a strong Russia that's economically integrated with Europe is a
threat to US hegemony. Washington wants a weak Russia that won't challenge US presence in Central
Asia or its plan to control vital energy resources.
Currently, Russia provides about 30 percent of Western and Central Europe's natural gas, 60 percent
of which transits Ukraine. People and businesses in Europe depend on Russian gas to heat their homes
and run their machinery. The trading relationship between the EU and Russia is mutually-beneficial
strengthening both buyer and seller alike. The US gains nothing from the EU-Russia partnership,
which is why Washington wants to block Moscow's access to critical markets. This form of commercial
sabotage is an act of war.
At one time, the representatives of big oil, thought they could compete with Moscow by building
alternate (pipeline) systems that would meet the EU's prodigious demand for natural gas. But the
plan failed, so Washington has moved on to Plan B; cutting off the flow of gas from Russia to the
EU. By interposing itself between the two trading partners, the US hopes to oversee the future distribution
of energy supplies and control economic growth on two continents.
The problem Obama and Co. are going to have, is trying to convince people in the EU that their
interests are actually being served by paying twice as much to heat their homes in 2015 as they did
in 2014, which is the way things are going to shake out if the US plan succeeds. In order to accomplish
that feat, the US is making every effort to lure Putin into a confrontation so the media can denounce
him as a vicious aggressor and a threat to European security. Demonizing Putin will provide the necessary
justification for stopping the flow of gas from Russia to the EU, which will further weaken the Russian
economy while providing new opportunities for NATO to establish forward-operating bases on Russia's
Western perimeter.
McFaul is plain vanilla propagandist, masking as a "professor" and former ambassador (which tha
latter role he was a disaster for the USA). A Perosn who actually lacks talent even in this area. His
article is just a set of neocon cliche. Reader comments are much more interesting then the article.
See below. Here is one quote: "Instead of the confrontational relation to Russia and China (and
everyone else we did a regime change job on) McFaul and his fellows could have treated Russia as a competitor
with different cultural and political viewpoints rather than an enemy that has not bowed to American
imperialism."
The decision by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to annex Crimea ended the post-Cold War
era in Europe. Since the late Gorbachev-Reagan years, the era was defined by zigzags of cooperation
and disputes between Russia and the West, but always with an underlying sense that Russia was gradually
joining the international order. No more.
Our new era is one defined by ideological clashes, nationalistic resurgence and territorial occupation
- an era in some ways similar to the tragic periods of confrontation in 20th-century Europe. And
yet there are important differences, and understanding the distinction will be critical to a successful
American foreign policy in the coming decades.
We did not seek this confrontation. This new era crept up on us, because we did not fully win
the Cold War. Communism faded, the Soviet Union disappeared and Russian power diminished. But the
collapse of the Soviet order did not lead smoothly to a transition to democracy and markets inside
Russia, or Russia's integration into the West.
Some Russians pushed forward on this enormous agenda of revolutionary change. And they produced
results: the relatively peaceful (so far) collapse of the Soviet empire, a Russian society richer
than ever before, greater protection of individual rights and episodically functioning democratic
institutions.
But the simultaneity of democracy's introduction, economic depression and imperial loss generated
a counterrevolutionary backlash - a yearning for the old order and a resentment of the terms of the
Cold War's end.
Proponents of this perspective were not always in the majority. And the coming to power of an
advocate of this ideology - Mr. Putin - was not inevitable. Even Mr. Putin's own thinking changed
over time, waffling between nostalgia for the old rule and realistic acceptance of Russia's need
to move forward.
And when he selected the liberal, Western-leaning Dmitri A. Medvedev as his successor in 2008,
Russia's internal transformation picked up the pace. Though Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008
isolated Russia for a time, its integration into the existing international order eventually regained
momentum.
In my first years in government, I witnessed President Medvedev cooperating with President Obama
on issues of mutual benefit - a new Start treaty, new sanctions against Iran, new supply routes through
Russia to our soldiers in Afghanistan and Russian membership in the World Trade Organization.
These results of the "reset" advanced several American vital national interests. The American
post-Cold War policy of engagement and integration, practiced by Democratic and Republican administrations
alike, appeared to be working again.
When Mr. Putin became president again in 2012, this momentum slowed, and then stopped. He returned
at a time when tens of thousands of Russians were protesting against falsified elections and more
generally against unaccountable government. If most Russians praised Mr. Putin in his first two terms,
from 2000 to 2008, for restoring the state and growing the economy, some (not all) wanted more from
him in his third term, and he did not have a clear response.
Mr. Putin was especially angry at the young, educated and wealthy protesters in Moscow who did
not appreciate that he (in his view) had made them rich. So he pivoted backward, instituting restrictions
on independent behavior reminiscent of Soviet days. He attacked independent media, arrested demonstrators
and demanded that the wealthy bring their riches home.
In addition to more autocracy, Mr. Putin needed an enemy - the United States - to strengthen his
legitimacy. His propagandists rolled out clips on American imperialism, immoral practices and alleged
plans to overthrow the Putin government. As the ambassador in Moscow, I was often featured in the
leading role in these works of fiction.
The shrill anti-Americanism uttered by Russian leaders and echoed on state-controlled television
has reached a fanatical pitch with Mr. Putin's annexation of Crimea. He has made clear that he embraces
confrontation with the West, no longer feels constrained by international laws and norms, and is
unafraid to wield Russian power to revise the international order.
Mr. Putin has made a strategic pivot. Guided by the right lessons from our past conflict with
Moscow, the United States must, too, through a policy of selective containment and engagement.
The parallels with the ideologically rooted conflicts of the last century are striking. A revisionist
autocratic leader instigated this new confrontation. We did not. Nor did "Russia" start this new
era. Mr. Putin did. It is no coincidence that he vastly weakened Russia's democratic institutions
over the last two years before invading Crimea, and has subsequently moved to close down independent
media outlets during his Ukrainian land grab.
... ... ...
I met these silent skeptics - in government, business and society - every day in my last job.
Citizens rally round the flag during crises, and propaganda works. But Mr. Putin's nationalism is
fueled primarily by a crude, neo-Soviet anti-Americanism. To continue to spook Russians about American
encirclement and internal meddling will be hard to sustain. They are too smart.
Second, Mr. Putin's Russia has no real allies. We must keep it that way. Nurturing Chinese
distance from a revisionist Russia is especially important, as is fostering the independence of states
in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
Another difference is that Russian military power is a shadow of Soviet might. A new global conflict
is unlikely. But Russia's military can still threaten Russian border states, so Europeans must bolster
their defenses, and Western governments and companies must stop assisting Russia's military modernization.
One obvious difference is that the Internet did not exist during the last standoff. Recent Kremlin
moves to cut off citizens from independent information are disturbing, but the communications revolution
ensures that Russians today will not be as isolated as their grandparents.
Greater exposure to the world gives Russians a comparative analysis to judge their situation at
home. This is a powerful tool, which needs to be nurtured through educational exchanges, peer-to-peer
dialogues and increased connectivity between the real Russian private sector and its international
partners.
But there are two important differences that weaken our hand. First, the United States does
not have the same moral authority as it did in the last century. As ambassador, I found it difficult
to defend our commitment to sovereignty and international law when asked by Russians, "What about
Iraq?" Some current practices of American democracy also do not inspire observers abroad. To win
this new conflict, we must restore the United States as a model.
Second, we are enduring a drift of disengagement in world affairs. After two wars, this was inevitable,
but we cannot swing too far. As we pull back, Russia is pushing forward. Leaders in Congress and
the White House must work together to signal that we are ready to lead the free world in this new
struggle.
... ... ...
Michael A. McFaul, a Hoover fellow at Stanford, served for five years in the Obama administration,
as a special assistant to the president at the National Security Council and as ambassador to the
Russian Federation.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on March 24, 2014, on page A21 of the New York edition
with the headline: Confronting Putin's Russia. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe
Tim Kane
is a trusted commenter Mesa, Az 24 March 2014
We didn't close the victory.
In the 1940s with ruined economies in Europe, we gave them the Marshall plan, including the
East Block. Marshall plan wasn't a lot of money but gave Europe the credit it needed to buy supplies
for its underutilized capacities. The East refused it of course and hobbled along without it.
In the 80s, all the Nobel prizes were going to 'all freedom/no fairness' neo-liberal economist.
Progressives pointed out that the only known real world model that resembled neo-liberal theory
was the dystopia of Somalia: "Freedom for the pike means death for the minnows." Without
regulation, fairness and mechanisms for leveling the playing field, society & the economy becomes
a cruel hopeless mess.
After the fall of the Soviet Union we should have provided a new Marshall Plan to those recovering
economies (1990's $330 billion = $16 billion in 1947) sent them East Asian bureaucrats to help
guide their planning, West European bureaucrats to help build their institutions, and a plan for
integration with the modern European community.
We did nothing.
Yeltsin an old communist, knew little about western Economics, relied upon credentials of the
neo-liberals. The subsequent neo-liberalization quickly turned Russia into a Somalian-like nightmare.
By the end of the 1990s, Democracy and liberalism were thoroughly discredited in Russia.
Enter Putin. Enter Bush. Enter Oil at over $100 a barrel.
The greatest generation knew how to win a war. Their children? Not so much.
Uziel
Florianopolis 24 March 2014
A well thought essay by Michael A. McFaul an academic turned policy maker as former ambassador
in Moscow. However, his main trust " we did not seek this confrontation" is misleading and
disingenuous at least. Moving NATO forces closer to Russia's border in not exactly a peace and
love declaration.
McFaul call to arms to face a new Red Menace goes well with the industrial-military-intelligence
establishment always searching for new or old threats.
The question today is whether Western European allies, led by a new assertive Germany,
will play ball with Washington. At this juncture, Berlin is more worried about solving the euro
zone debt crisis than Putin reclaiming Crimea.
Besides, the last thing Berlin wants to talk about is Ukraine nation building in the wake of
Greece almost destroying the common currency project. Germany paying the economic costs associated
with Washington imposed financial sanctions against Russia won't help, either.
David Powelstock
Belmont, MA 24 March 2014
While I agree with a fair amount of Ambassador McFaul's analysis, it leaves out an important factor
in the historical processes that have gotten us to where we are: the needlessly aggressive
expansion of NATO into the post-Soviet space, a policy that was pursued at the expense of creating
a sustainable shared security regime in Europe that included Russia. For this reason, not
only do I disagree with many of McFaul's policy recommendations, I find some of them alarming
blind to history's lessons.
For example, I cannot imagine any scenario in which attempting to push our influence even more
deeply into the Caucasus and Central Asia Caucasus would be productive. ...
Mary Ann & Ken Bergman
Ashland, OR 24 March 2014
Putin may have morphed into an old-fashioned autocrat, but when it comes to international adventurism,
the U.S. takes the prize. We should do what we can to help Ukraine, but only as part of an
international effort. And we'll have to stand by and let Russia settle its own internal affairs.
We need to accept Putin for what he is and deal with him peaceably, not though confrontation
or "brinksmanship."
donald surr, Pennsylvania 24 March 2014
Our era like all eras before it is ruled by military and ethnic reality. In 2014 the Russians
have the dominating military force in Eastern Europe as does China in the Far East. Let us be
grateful that we are still militarily dominant in North America and limit our ambitions to that
area where we do have the advantage. It only pays to act tough where you have both the military
advantage and strong cultural ties to the populace. Elsewhere you lose!
Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq should have taught us that much. Even momentary military superiority
(as in those sad lands) means nothing if you are seen as an alien presence.
As soon as the heavy hand of the military is removed things go back to exactly what they
were before, leaving behind nothing but hate and resentment.
George, Canada 24 March 2014
McFaul's essay proves that he was a terrible choice for an ambassdor to the Russian Federation
and right at home in the Hoover Institute, founded to oppose the ideas of Karl Marx (all of them).
Clearly McFaul wants the cold war restarted and fought to a unconditional Russian surrender--"democracy
and market," but if democracy leads to another economic system (or a mixed system), then that's
not a real democracy and it should be over thrown as in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras,
Grenada, Haiti, Indonesia long ago and the bodies still uncounted (3 million?).
For two very sensible papers on the current crisis, I recommend John Mearsheimer's "Getting
Ukraine Wrong" (NYT, 13 March) and Mark MacKinnon's "How the West lost Putin" (the Globe and Mail
[Toronto, Canada].
MacKinnon includes McFaul in his story: the ambassador, on arriving in Moscow, soon met with
leaders of the anti-Putin faction and convinced Putin that the west intended to meddle in Russian
politics. And of course, the US plan to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO posed a military threat.
The US had conniptions when the Soviets stationed missiles in Cuba, "just 90 miles away." How
about NATO missiles one mile away? But the US is exceptional, of course.
Iggy
Natich 24 March 2014
Your are hopeless Michael. No so long ago you were posing as friend of Russian people and now
you are zealously advocating for new Cold War.
The reason behind Putin's actions is simple - US/NATO sponsored anti-Russian coup in Ukraine.
Russians still remember how US and UK sponsored Hitler, what came out of it and they won't tolerate
Nazis in Ukraine. Sorry, Russia doesn't need a country with anti-Russian ideology, 45 mil population,
rocket and nuclear technology, strong military complex inherited from Soviet Union and support
from NATO on it's borders.
Unless the West agrees to remove radicals from power in Ukraine and stop it's integration in
NATO this struggle won't end with Crimea.
Alfred di Genis
Germany 24 March 2014
When Mr McFaul amazingly says "we did not seek this confrontation" he must think we were all asleep
or not yet born when the succession of US politicians and State Department officials streamed
into Kiev to exhort the mobs in Maiden to overthrow the elected Ukrainian government, when Senator
John McCain stood on a platform with extremists to rally the rioters and give them American support,
when Victoria Nuland handed out cookies and treats to the Maiden occupiers and when she planned
the composition of the post-riot government on an intercepted phone call.
The truth is that we both sought and started this confrontation that has blown up in our face
and only the very gullible will be taken in by Mr McFaul's transparent revisionism.
Rohit
New York 24 March 2014
Headline from the WaPo: "European markets underperform amid Crimea fears"
Gee! I thought it was Russia and not Europe we were punishing?
The truth is that we are all interconnected and all this huffing and puffing by the US and
the EU, MAY harm Russia, but will probably also harm the world, in particular harm Europe.
Why not admit that the West crossed a red line when they tried to recruit Ukraine into NATO?
True, Ukraine in NATO is not just in the offing, but given that both Poland and Lithuania are
now members of NATO, the Russians can read between the lines. They reacted when they were provoked
and you pretend to be surprised.
makhanko
Vancouver 24 March 2014
Mr. McFaul is a former US Ambassador to Russia and expecting any critical thinking from him is
like expecting an objective opinion from a war general about peace process. Just like one would
not expect an unbiased opinion from a Russian career diplomat about US foreign policy.
Despite his biases Mr. McFaul has always been very engaged with Russian audience, so I was
curious to read his analysis. The article has a lot of ideological rhetoric that paints a bleak
picture of Russia and points at Putin as the evil force behind it all. Unfortunately it falls
short of trying to find historic and economic reasons for the situation in Russia. In my opinion
the main reason why it failed to do so is that Mr. McFaul indiscriminately projects American textbook
expectations of what a democracy should look like in every country around the world.
It's even more amazing that this dogmatic approach has been the US policy towards Russia since
the fall of the Soviet Union without any significant adjustments to reality. And the reality was
that Yeltsin's years of liberalization that US might consider an "ideal path" toward democracy
ended up in Russian financial default of 1998 and subsequent collapse with heavy economic and
social consequences. And the fact that US continued pushing the same approach makes me wonder
about sincerity of US proclamations that these changes are in the best interest of Russian society.
Russia today is not the evil empire and not even an adversary to the US.
Someone
Elsewhere 24 March 2014
It's reassuring to see an American diplomat acknowledge America's loss of international credibility,
albeit at the bottom rather than the top of this op-ed. Until this problem is fixed, U.S. diplomats
will be ignored, or worse, laughed at (see John Kerry).
That's especially true when diplomats persist with tired, old lies rather than explaining the
global reaction to the U.S. response on Crimea - as yet another iteration of U.S. international
aggression.
Nato expansion explains this conflict. To claim that "A revisionist autocratic leader instigated
this new confrontation. We did not." is disingenuous. And Nato expansion is viewed with some skepticism,
given the geographic realities. Nato influence past the Baltic is a stretch. The central Caucasus??
Furthermore, G20 is the group that matters now, not the G8 - and Putin's not the one who's "isolated"
in the G20.
Which brings us back to credibility. Without a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing, the
United States should remain silent on events like Crimea. If it wishes to be heard, an acknowledgement
followed by reparations is the way to go. Dispatching of the U.S. war criminals to the Hague would
certainly convince most people that the United States was back on the right track.
There's really no way around it. Until you stop lying, nobody will believe a word you say.
Instead, fix your own problems, for all our sake's. Putin knew he could get away with Crimea,
because he saw what you got away with in Iraq. Face it.
John Martin
Beijing, China 24 March 2014
Michael McFaul is a Hoover Fellow at Stanford, a member of the ultra right-wing political group
there and thus his comments need to be considered in this regard. Putin is just Putin. He is temporary
and Russia s on-going. We must not punish Russia for Putin. Rather we need to engage with those
Riussians who will succeed him and his mentality. I lived and worked in the former Soviet Union
duirng its last few years and again a few years ago. The difference was like night and day, or
rather day (hope) and night (despair). Putin is a direct result of the failure of the United States
to engage Russia fully and positively after the end of the Communist era. The Russians have come
to realize, as so many other countries have, that America is not their friend. My advice to anyone
who knows Russians is to try to build on your positive relations if there is to be any hope for
a better Russia and world,
Steve Wapner
Washington DC 24 March 2014
We did not seek this confrontation?
Legitimizing and lending support to a violent insurrection to take out an elected leader in
Ukraine all because he signed a trade deal with Russia is not confrontational?
Our aggressive neo-con foreign policy is the problem, and Putin is perfectly right in opposing
it.
Bill M
California 24 March 2014
Mr. McFaul is nothing if not self-righteous in his analysis of relationships with Russia and Mr.
Putin. He disposes of our strategy of surrounding Russia with NATO puppets as if it were only
an imaginary fear of the Russian government instead of the obvious reality we are attempting to
sew together with Ukraine as part of it.
Apparently in Mr. McFaul's mind, Russia suffers from not collapsing to fit his conception of
its proper role as a carbon copy of our neo-con determined existence. No doubt Russia and Mr.
Putin have their plusses and minuses but a workable solution to good relations with Russia does
not seem to lie in the negative direction Mr. McFaul's views would take us.
Pierre Anonymot
Paris 24 March 2014
It should be clear. McFaul is another neocon appointed by Obama. That's why he was at
the Hoover Institution and Stanford.
In all likelihood, he resigned because he knew it would come to a crisis point after Sochi!
In the unimaginable case that he did not/does not know that the neocon directed departments
of this administration set up the Ukrainian regime change then he's not qualified to use his position
to take a public stand on the matter. But he was surely involved in setting it up.
Instead of the confrontational relation to Russia and China (and everyone else we did a
regime change job on) McFaul and his fellows could have treated Russia as a competitor with different
cultural and political viewpoints rather than an enemy that has not bowed to American imperialism.
Jerry Brown
Huntington, NY 24 March 2014
Remember that the neoconservative movement began in the Democratic Party. McFaul seems to be carrying
on in the footsteps of people like Henry "Scoop" Jackson, one of its chief advocates during the
original cold war. See this article for a realistic point of view.
New York 24 March 2014
"We did not seek this confrontation. This new era crept up on us, because we did not fully win
the Cold War... the collapse of the Soviet order did not lead smoothly to... Russia's integration
into the West."
Pretty brazen! You declare the US objective is to "integrate" Russia into "the West" (trans.:
the bloc of powers led by the US and serving its interests) and then whine that "they started
it!" In lesser-gangster circles this is called "making them an offer they can't refuse," and getting
more hostile when they do.
The underlying premise that this mindset never questions, that the US is "the good guys," serving
freedom, human rights, etc. is plainly ridiculous. Consider Iraq - a million dead, a nation destroyed,
in a war for US power interests half-way around the world, justified with bald lies. Consider
drone strikes, a clear violation of international law. Considering the massive torture and eavesdropping
of which the US is guilty. Consider THE US ITSELF - the whole of the southwest conquered/annexed
from Mexico, the West stolen in
Observer
Canada 24 March 2014
"What about Iraq?" Setting aside the usual American moral high-horse issue, try a cost-accountant's
view. Various 2013 cost estimates of the U.S. wars in Iraq to taxpayers is in the multiple trillions.
Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 can easily reach a million Iraqis, with sectarian
violence unabated. American military death and wounded from Iraq invasion is getting close to
40,000 - with more veterans committing suicide everyday.
American gain from the Iraq invasion is a big zero. No oil, no military base. By comparison,
Russia annexed Crimea and took over some Ukraine warships and assets for almost nothing. No serious
casualty on the ground. So who is the better Commander-In-Chief? Bush-Obama or Putin?
Meanwhile most Crimean are cheering their newly minted Russian citizenship, and Iraqis will
hate Americans for many decades to come. Does not take a Harvard MBA to write up this case study.
Peter C
Ottawa, Canada 24 March 2014 " Nationalistic resurgence and territorial occupation" more accurately describe the US in
the middle east in the 21st century than they describe Russia. As for the concept of not
joining the "international order'. To my mind joining the international order means respecting
the decisions made by the UN, and other nations, like them or not. Remember also, that not everyone
unquestionably desires the US version of democracy, which seems to have stifled any form of internal
government due to political positioning.
Peter Stone
Nashville, TN 24 March 2014 George Bush's murderous and disastrous invasion of Iraq predicated on outright lies and deception
further shredded the already questionable US moral authority and credibility in international
affairs hobbling the Obama and who knows how many administrations into the foreseeable future.
RLS
is a trusted commenter Virginia 24 March 2014
Jack Matlock, ambassador to the USSR from 1987-1991, points out that the US has been poking
its finger in Russia's eye since the end of the Cold War. His assessment of the Ukrainian-Crimean-Russian
situation is spot on. He writes:
"President Clinton supported NATO's bombing of Serbia without UN Security Council approval
and the expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact countries. Those moves seemed to violate
the understanding that the US would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat from Eastern Europe.
"When terrorists attacked the US on Sept. 11, 2001, Vladimir Putin was the first foreign leader
to call and offer support. He cooperated with the US when it invaded Afghanistan, and he voluntarily
removed Russian bases from Cuba and Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam.
"What did he get in return? Some meaningless praise from President GW Bush, who then delivered
the diplomatic equivalent of swift kicks to the groin: further expansion of NATO in the Baltics
and the Balkans, and plans for American bases there; withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty; invasion of Iraq without UN approval; overt participation in the 'color revolutions' in
Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; and then, probing some of the firmest red lines any Russian leader
would draw, talk of taking Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Americans, heritors of the Monroe Doctrine,
should have understood that Russia would be hypersensitive to foreign-dominated military alliances
approaching or touching its borders."
Observer
Canada 24 March 2014
"What about Iraq?" Setting aside the usual American moral high-horse issue, try a cost-accountant's
view. Various 2013 cost estimates of the U.S. wars in Iraq to taxpayers is in the multiple trillions.
Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 can easily reach a million Iraqis, with sectarian
violence unabated. American military death and wounded from Iraq invasion is getting close to
40,000 - with more veterans committing suicide everyday. American gain from the Iraq invasion
is a big zero. No oil, no military base. By comparison, Russia annexed Crimea and took over some
Ukraine warships and assets for almost nothing. No serious casualty on the ground. So who is the
better Commander-In-Chief? Bush-Obama or Putin? Meanwhile most Crimean are cheering their newly
minted Russian citizenship, and Iraqis will hate Americans for many decades to come. Does not
take a Harvard MBA to write up this case study.
"Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. …Policies
are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith
in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation."
We are witnessing, I believe, a turning point in geopolitical history, one future historians
may analyze as we have the Roman Empire's fall. Vladimir Putin is making a move -- and
it's not just against Ukraine. It may not be merely a move against Eastern Europe.
It's not even, perhaps, just a move against US world dominance.
There was
a time when the USSR was the "evil empire," a godless Golgotha. But that was then. Now,
in 2013-14, Putin has seen fit to
say, in his December State of the Nation speech,
"Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian
values. …Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family
and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path
to degradation."
This roughly coincided with Russia's enactment of laws prohibiting homosexual propaganda
and was a salvo against both the West's Great Sexual Heresy and what enables it: moral
relativism.
In another shot at relativism, Putin averred,
"Society is now required…to accept without question the equality of good and evil,
strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite in meaning."
The Russian president then took aim at multiculturalism: "Today, many nations are
revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences
between peoples and cultures."
And now we're seeing the release of Russian Culture War 2.0. In a document called
"Foundations of the State Cultural Policy," the Kremlin is doubling down and
writes, "Russia must be viewed as a unique and original civilization that cannot
be reduced to 'East' or 'West.' …A concise way of formulating this stand would be, 'Russia
is not Europe.'" The document goes on to state that Russia rejects "such principles as
multiculturalism and tolerance" and "projects imposing alien values on society."
... ... ...
And the West is a gift that keeps on giving insofar as this goes. Our cultural Marxists
are on the march, smell blood and will not stop. They will continue spending us into
oblivion, perverting us into prone position, relativizing us into risibility and "immigrationizing"
us into irrelevance. Even now, not satisfied with placing another great nail in marriage's
coffin, our militant secularists are making moves to
legitimize pedophilia and
bestiality. It's onward Luciferian soldiers.
And for Putin, it's onward Christian soldier. As our degradation advances, Russia's
star can rise commensurately. Putin knows the West is in decline. He sees the demographic
trends, that the US is transforming into a Third World/Hispanic nation and Western Europe
into a Third World/Muslim continent. He knows that if there is another superpower in
the near future, it will be Russia or China. And he knows what card he has to play to
win this game.
Of course, while we could argue about whether the Christian-soldier solution is tactic
and strategy or just tactic, it is so obviously prudent that it's inconceivable Putin
wouldn't have pursued it. Just consider the benefits, starting with justification of
Russian expansionism. If you're a typical Russian, might not the idea that "the West
is decadent, debauched, exhausted and effete" justify, in your mind, a Russian manifest
destiny? Might it not be natural and wholly in accordance with man's nature to believe
that your moral superiority gives you the right to dominate? Note that this is the theory
that justified the colonial powers' imperialism: they were bringing civilization to a
world of darkness. And it's what we do to this day, applying secular values as standard.
How often have we heard intervention in the Islamic "stan" du jour justified by pointing
out that its rulers oppress women and are intolerant? The judgments are different, but
the desire to claim the moral high ground is the same.
Time will tell if Vladimir Putin's recent statements have any basis in reality or
if they are simply propaganda and disinformation, but one thing seems abundantly
clear - his criticisms of the west have merit and more than a little truth. America
was once great because she was good; today, she is falling from greatness because
her people have turned their backs on goodness and virtue.
Alej > VonMisesJr
The Russian fertility rate is largely due to the housing shortage... people
don't marry because they have no place to live, and married couples abort with abandon
because there's no room for a big family.
Young married couples have for years moved in to already crowded apartments with
the bride's parents... what a powder keg in which to start a marriage. Mothers-in-law
are main targets for dark Russian humor...
"How many teeth should a good mother-in-law have ?"
"Two. One to open beer bottles with, and the other to ache!"
VonMisesJr > Alej
I thought Uncle Joe had built ample apartment houses in Agenda21 planned communities
for all the good little commies? Perhaps the human ant colony was not accurately forecasted
in the 5 year plans?
Emperor Justinian > Alej
Actually, the low fertility rate has little to do with housing. It simply mirrors
the rates all over Western and Eastern Europe (comprising many countries with ample
housing). In fact, birth rates are low in all white countries (at least among the
whites).
For a clearer picture, watch the documentary "Demographic Winter."
ThePeeledEye
It is interesting to see both the Left and Conservatives in the American press
and elsewhere describe Vladimir Putin through the same Cold War prism. For them, Putin
is still the "enemy". Putin is obviously in competition with America but, as Mr. Duke
has pointed out, Putin is also rejecting the decadence of the West and its submission
to fanatical islamists. We have the right to criticize Putin for making deals with
Iran, but note that Obama has done nothing to hinder Iran. Rather, he has emboldened
Iran.
Putin said that the CIA and others were surreptitiously working in the Ukraine
to foment change, in order to ally Ukraine with the West and not with Russia. Putin's
claim was roundly dismissed by the American press who parroted the Obama administration
and, yet, there may be validity to Putin's claim. As we have seen in N. Africa,
the Obama administration worked surreptitiously and through social media (Soros?)
to bring down the sovereign states in N. Africa. The result has been chaos, death,
and the rise of al-Qaeda in that part of the world. From all I have read, I believe
that it is more likely that
al-Qaeda groups used chemical weapons in Syria, but the American press parrots
the claims of this administration that it is Assad who is continuously using these
weapons.
I believe that we had a chance to work with Russia more closely against a common
and declared enemy: violent Islamic fanaticism. There seemed, too, to be an opportunity
to gain concessions for Israel from Assad and Putin by not taking sides with Syrian
"rebels". Instead, we have a president who has chosen the side of a fanatical islamic
faction and declared enemy of the West, the Muslim Brotherhood. They are now fighting
alongside al-Qaeda in Syria, and Obama supports them. The Muslim Brotherhood and their
vicious allies, in my view, are far more dangerous than Assad of Syria. Obama has
also essentially ignored the recurrent attacks against Christians in muslim countries,
even taking the side of their murderers in Syria.
America has been transformed (the hope is only temporarily) under Barack Obama,
and it is clear that Putin knows what is happening here. Putin is also likely aware
that America and the West have a global plan, and in many ways it emboldens islam
and decadence, at the same time.
It seems that only a relatively few Democrat voters realize that America is being
turned on its head. This is no longer a nation interested in providing a safety net
for the less fortunate. We have a Radical Left True Believer in the White House with
an enormous chip on his shoulder, and a Democrat Party helping him to achieve his
"transformation". Barack Obama is against the United States, its history, its values,
its wealth, its accomplishments, its strength, and most of its people. Obama, a lifelong
very radical person is deliberately creating great instability in our country, such
that everything our country has ever stood for is being discarded. Immorality and
degenerate laws are being further pushed on this nation. Our Laws and our country's
Sovereign borders are being ignored. With his attorney general, Barack Obama is, like
a criminal behind the scenes, breaking every law that he can. Of course, we are a
nation in decline. The Lawless are being rewarded and Lawful, Taxpaying Americans
are being marginalized and called "racist", and we are quickly losing our freedoms.
Veterans who fought in many wars, from WWII to Afghanistan, are being stripped of
their rights and benefits by the Obama administration, and are on Watch Lists. And
Vladimir Putin is witnessing all of this. He probably has a better gauge of the Criminal
who sits in our White House than do most Americans.
In my view, Barack Hussein Obama is a far worse threat to America, to the West,
and to world peace than is Vladimir Putin. Instead of standing up to Putin as an equal,
Barack Obama has behaved like a sophomoric ideologue bent on reducing America's standing
in the world. In his efforts to weaken America, Obama has proven to be a feckless
and foolish ideologue who is endangering the entire world.
ThePeeledEye
It is interesting to see both the Left and Conservatives in the American press
and elsewhere describe Vladimir Putin through the same Cold War prism.
For them, Putin is still the "enemy". Putin is obviously in competition with America
but, as Mr. Duke has pointed out, Putin is also rejecting the decadence of the West
and its submission to fanatical islamists. We have the right to criticize Putin for
making deals with Iran, but note that Obama has done nothing to hinder Iran. Rather,
he has emboldened Iran.
Putin said that the CIA and others were surreptitiously working in the Ukraine
to foment change, in order to ally Ukraine with the West and not with Russia. Putin's
claim was roundly dismissed by the American press who parroted the Obama administration
and, yet, there may be validity to Putin's claim. As we have seen in N. Africa, the
Obama administration worked surreptitiously and through social media (Soros?) to bring
down the sovereign states in N. Africa. The result has been chaos, death, and the
rise of al-Qaeda in that part of the world. From all I have read, I believe that it
is more likely that al-Qaeda groups used chemical weapons in Syria, but the American
press parrots the claims of this administration that it is Assad who is continuously
using these weapons.
I believe that we had a chance to work with Russia more closely against a common
and declared enemy: violent Islamic fanaticism. There seemed, too, to be an opportunity
to gain concessions for Israel from Assad and Putin by not taking sides with Syrian
"rebels". Instead, we have a president who has chosen the side of a fanatical islamic
faction and declared enemy of the West, the Muslim Brotherhood. They are now fighting
alongside al-Qaeda in Syria, and Obama supports them. The Muslim Brotherhood and their
vicious allies, in my view, are far more dangerous than Assad of Syria. Obama has
also essentially ignored the recurrent attacks against Christians in muslim countries,
even taking the side of their murderers in Syria.
America has been transformed (the hope is only temporarily) under Barack Obama,
and it is clear that Putin knows what is happening here. Putin is also likely aware
that America and the West have a global plan, and in many ways it emboldens islam
and decadence, at the same time.
It seems that only a relatively few Democrat voters realize that America is being
turned on its head. This is no longer a nation interested in providing a safety net
for the less fortunate. We have a Radical Left True Believer in the White House with
an enormous chip on his shoulder, and a Democrat Party helping him to achieve his
"transformation". Barack Obama is against the United States, its history, its values,
its wealth, its accomplishments, its strength, and most of its people. Obama, a lifelong
very radical person is deliberately creating great instability in our country, such
that everything our country has ever stood for is being discarded. Immorality and
degenerate laws are being further pushed on this nation. Our Laws and our country's
Sovereign borders are being ignored. With his attorney general, Barack Obama is, like
a criminal behind the scenes, breaking every law that he can. Of course, we are a
nation in decline. The Lawless are being rewarded and Lawful, Taxpaying Americans
are being marginalized and called "racist", and we are quickly losing our freedoms.
Veterans who fought in many wars, from WWII to Afghanistan, are being stripped of
their rights and benefits by the Obama administration, and are on Watch Lists. And
Vladimir Putin is witnessing all of this. He probably has a better gauge of the Criminal
who sits in our White House than do most Americans.
In my view, Barack Hussein Obama is a far worse threat to America, to the West,
and to world peace than is Vladimir Putin. Instead of standing up to Putin as an equal,
Barack Obama has behaved like a sophomoric ideologue bent on reducing America's standing
in the world. In his efforts to weaken America, Obama has proven to be a feckless
and foolish ideologue who is endangering the entire world.
Kirschwasser > ThePeeledEye
"They are now fighting alongside al-Qaeda in Syria, and Obama supports them.
The Muslim Brotherhood and their vicious allies, in my view, are far more dangerous
than Assad of Syria."
The situation is far more complex than that....
Syria sits at the intersection of three continents (Europe, Africa, Asia):
Still, Cheney said, "it is important that Assad go down" and supporting the
opposition sooner might have been a more successful strategy.
Bloomberg News (June 16, 2013): "Cheney Says Obama Decision to Arm Syrian
Rebels May Be Too Late "
ThePeeledEye > Kirschwasser
Kirschwasser:
I believe that the West was involved with the Free Syrian Army and other groups
opposing Assad much earlier than June, 2013.
Not all of these persons were (are) trustworthy. In time, al Qaeda affiliates increased
among the ranks of the "Syrian rebels". They have come from all over the muslim world.
After Morsi was ousted, members of the Muslim Brotherhood were fighting in Syria alongside
al Qaeda groups.
The claims by the Obama administration that chemicals were being used by Assad
against Syrian civilians were vague and never fully substantiated. The MSM just repeated
Obama's claims.. (I read up on this a fair bit, and I believe these weapons were used
by "rebels". In one case, a reporter was present when what appeared to be small group
of ignorant "rebels" fired a rocket with chemicals, and then shouted "Alahu Akbar".
) After Libya was attacked and destabilized by Obama, a massive amount of weapons,
including rockets, were taken from Qaddafi's weapons cache by al Qaeda in N. Africa.
Older chemical weapons were held by Qaddafi, including un-militarized uranium. (By
the way, Pres GW Bush had made a deal with Qaddafi, and many of his weapons were eliminated.)
The mortality rate in Syria has been based on reports from an anti-Assad person
who lives in England, according to a NYTimes report. Those numbers, too, from what
I can gather, had not been substantiated.
It is generally accepted that, In 2005, Assad helped to assassinate the PM of Lebanon,
Rafic Hariri, resulting in havoc there. I am not praising Assad. But I do believe
that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood with their goal of creating a Caliphate in Egypt---which
is to say, across N. Africa, the Middle East and, with Erdogan's help in Turkey, is
a far worse scenario than a more secular Assad remaining in Syria. For one thing,
the ancient Christians in Syria would not survive under Morsi and the MB. When Morsi
was overthrown in Egypt, the head of al-Qaeda, Zawahiri, called for al-Qaeda members
to attempt to help get Morsi back in power in Egypt. Barack Obama is still aiding
the Muslim Brotherhood, and I believe that he has withdrawn all aid from the present
government in Egypt.
There are Republicans, and Democrats, who have called for the fall of Assad. McCain
is one. Mr. Cheney, and probably Gov. Romney, believed that Obama should have backed
more moderate Syrian rebels earlier on. That sounds to me like the good intentions
we had when we backed some persons in Iraq and Afghanistan. I still believe that the
MB are a very serious threat to world peace, and Obama is with them. Both Obama and
Hillary Clinton support their presence in high places in our government!
ThePeeledEye > Kirschwasser
Kirschwasser:
As far as the more recent attempts to topple Assad by "Syrian rebels", I cannot
help but wonder if the Obama administration actually did provide aid to some of these
"rebels" early on--but clandestinely.
This is pure speculation on my part. But I do recall someone connected to the military,
some time ago, stating that Obama and John Brennan were engaged in a clandestine activity
in that part of the world, but he did not say where.
Georgiaboy61 > ThePeeledEye
It is more than conjecture; the whole Benghazi affair has, in essence, been
a massive cover-up of the fact that the now-overrun "embassy" in Benghazi, Libya,
was not an embassy at all, but a front for a CIA weapons trafficking operation designed
to funnel arms to the anti-Assad/Sunni Muslim fighters in Syria (including members
of al-Qaeda).
Georgiaboy61 > Kirschwasser
The book "A Mosque in Munich," by Ian Johnson, details the saga of how the
CIA was instrumental in importing the Muslim Brotherhood into the west during the
Cold War - as it was believed by the agency that the Ikhwan were useful anti-Communist
fighters. Classic instance (yet again) of blowback on the part of Langley.
The Balkans were and are a focal point of relations between the old Judeo-Christian
west, Russia and the Islamic world of the old Ottoman Empire of SW Asia and the Middle
East. It is still a very sore spot with the Russians that the U.S. and NATO sided
with the Muslims during the 1990s Balkans civil war, and not with mostly-Christian
Serbia.
It also bears repeating that once a certain territory has been conquered by Islam
and has been taken into Dar al-Islam (The House of Islam, literally), even if it changes
hands again, it is thereafter considered by devout Muslims as Islamic territory. That
is true not only of the Balkans, but of al-Andalus (Spain).
More than once in the pre-Soviet era - i.e., during the long reign of the Czars
- the Russians fought to protect their southwestern frontier from encroachment by
the Ottoman Turks.
ThePeeledEye > Georgiaboy61
Georgiaboy61:
Obama and Hillary Clinton have shown more loyalty to islamists in Benghazi than
they did to Americans serving there---and we still do not have answers from these
two..
Georgiaboy61 > ThePeeledEye
Agree with you completely. That we don't have answers from either of these so-called
leaders speaks volumes about the real state of the rule of law in this country. The
ruling class is subject to no law save that which they elect, at their discretion,
to enforce upon themselves. In other words, they obey the law if they feel like, or
if it polls well - but otherwise, forget it. That isn't the rule of law, but the rule
of men - otherwise known as tyranny.
Kirschwasser > Georgiaboy61
"It is still a very sore spot with the Russians that the U.S. and NATO sided with
the Muslims during the 1990s Balkans civil war"...
During the classic 'Great Game' period, Russia was able to exercise a disproportional
amount of influence over the Balkans:
"The Dogs of War" - a Punch cartoon from June 17, 1876 showing Russia holding back
the Balkan countries from attacking Turkey.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it opened up a rare opportunity for
the British Empire to purge all Russian influence from the Balkans once and for all.
AR1476
I'm old enough to remember Dinah Shore opening her show by singing,
"See the USA in your Chevrolet
America is asking you to call
Drive your Chevrolet through the USA
America's the greatest land of all.
Even though it was a commercial, Dinah expressed in that song my feelings for America.
"America's the greatest land of all." It still would be if we were allowed to return
to the freedoms we enjoyed at that time. Nowadays you can't do anything without a
government bureaucrat telling you how to live your life. Our politicians have given
the bureaucrats the power to make our lives miserable.
They have made this a second rate nation. We need to take it back.
TsT > AR1476
or a law against it --
Stoneyjack
When Big Vlad Putin makes a stand against atheism, depravity, & US imperialist
aggression, he becomes a hero to billions of people.
Mike6 > Stoneyjack
Putin is protecting his young people from the Obama pederasts, perverts, and pedophiles,
and that is OK with me.
NanNJ
The verdict is still out, of course, on how Putin will been seen in history, but
one thing I know for sure, Obama will be known as the president who put the final
nail in the coffin of America. Everything that once was right, is now wrong, everything
that was once good is now evil. I am so confused I find myself respecting the President
of Russia more than the politicians here. Great article.
TsT > NanNJ
I don't trust him but , i do respect him . Oh so much more than Barry the Grifter
!!
Niccolo1512
Good article. There is one problem with the theory of Russia expanding to fill
the void in Europe. Its population is declining, as are all European populations.
It is unlike the situation of the Roman empire being overwhelmed by the prolific goths.
But perhaps Putin can change that as well.
As to whether Putin is a Christian Soldier, he is infinitely more likely to be
one than Obama is.
The possibilities of Putin being a Julius Caesar are nil. Julius arose to power
by replacing a republic with a dictatorship. There really is no Russian Republic to
overthrow, no Rubicon to cross. It is BO who desires to overthrow a republic but lacks
the character of the Roman general.
Benton H Marder > Niccolo1512
The sad aspect is that there is no Charles Martel, no Jan Sobieski, no Prince Eugene
of Savoy, to turn back the Muslim Influx into Europe. Jean Raspail,in writing his
novel, "Camp of the Saints' was very prophetic about the leadership of Europe. It
seems that he might well have described our own leadership and its connivance and
abetting of the Reconquista and our own Muslim Influx. Fifth Column in high places
is our worst enemy.
Ranger+Joe > Niccolo1512
Putin is a descendant of the Rus....the Viking tribe that founded Moscow. Russia
means land of the Rus. The Rus have a cultural tradition of war and conquest. They
are ruthless, merciless fighters. In February, Putin flew over the Black Sea carrying
the sacred icon of the Black Madonna of Kazan. Over the centuries the 'Black Virgin'
has been taken to battlefields to bless Russian armies. Stalin sent it to Stalingrad
in 1943. This guy means business. He's preparing to unleash Holy Hell on the West
for our transgressions. He is theologically allied with the Islamofascists who share
his hatred.
Mike6 > Ranger+Joe
Putin is still angry that Bill Clinton and NATO bombed Belgrade and that they killed
innocent Christian Serbs. It was a violation of international law.
They bombed Serbia to protect muslim terrorists in Kosovo or Bosnia, or because
fat Hillary was demanding that Bill get Monica off the front page.
Benton H Marder > Ranger+Joe
I remember seeing an old photo of the Tsar showing the ikon to his troops during
the Great War. The photo shows the soldirs kneeling in prayer, their eyes fixed upon
the ikon. This was somewhere at the front against Germany. Yes, Tsar Nikolai went
in harms way. The Tsarina and her daughters served as nurses to the wounded during
that war. They knew what war was about.
Mike6 > Benton H Marder
The Russian Royal Family knew that they were going to be murdered by the CHEKA
( not Christians) and they refused to renounce their Russian Orthodoxy. At the end,
as the Bolsheviks aimed their savage mausers at them, the Czar Nicholas II Prayed.
They died to God, Russia, their people, and for Christians everywhere.
Ranger+Joe > Mike6
Mass murder is a tragic way to start a nation. It's why I hate all Commies. The
princesses were stunningly beautiful girls and the prince was a sickly child. What
savages...
Mike6 > Ranger+Joe
Yes, the Red were savages. Now, we have these same savages running the White
House and transforming America into a second Soviet Union.
RMthoughts •
Thank you for an excellent article. You said what the media will not say. The liberal
establishment, both left and right, hate Putin and Russia just as the Revolutionaries
of the 19th century and early 20th century hated Russia. Russia was the reactionary
nation of Europe refusing to accept the French Revolution and its aftermath. Today
Russia is like the prodigal son who has returned home from spiritual desolation of
communism and it has once again has become the Reactionary on the block of nations,
that needs to be brought down and humbled for its insolence for its willing to to
call the West apostate.
Just like his Czar predecessor, who strove to show that Russia had nothing in common
with the liberal ideas that came out of the French Revolution, Putin's speaks of rejection
of everything of decadent post-Christian Western culture as alien to Russia and Russian
life and as such Russia directly challenges our claim to moral superiority.
And now, secure at home, he has thrown a gauntlet down, challenging the West to
a new clash of civilizations and turning its back on the ethos of Western liberalism
that has brought us to the Abyss.
Mike6 > RMthoughts
You are correct sir. You are my friend and brother In Christ.
Quote: "I mean, they don't want to be involved in a trade war. So, I don't see why most Asian nations
would cut off Ukraine or Russia, or anybody else. This is the fight Mr. Obama has picked and, perhaps,
to some extent Mr. Putin. But I don't know why China would stop trading with Ukraine, I don't see that
at all.
There is no reason for Russia to worry about the western sanctions it is facing now over the Ukrainian
issue since Moscow has too many other trade partners to work with, Jim Rogers, financial analyst
and co-founder of the Quantum Fund, said in an interview with the VoR.
Could China's decision to purchase superjet planes be viewed as a gesture of support following
a series of sanctions imposed by the West against Moscow over the Ukrainian issue?
Of course it is. I'm an American, so I hate to say this, but America is shooting itself in a foot
getting the most of our world to pushing China and Russia closer together. And you are going to see
more and more trade between the two. And that makes the sanctions against Russia almost impossible,
because there are other people who will not play.
And are there chances for the Russia Sukhoi Superjet planes to compete with other major plane-makers?
I don't think that the Russians have enough to compete with Boeing planes yet. But you are certainly
getting better. I mean, as far as cargo planes, you are probably better than anybody else. And if
people are forcing you or forcing other people to buy from you, then, of course, your costs will
go down, your quality will get better and it will only benefit Russia, but not benefit Europe or
America.
I think that's one reason Europe and America are a little hesitant to do too much about the sanctions,
because they know that they may lose more than they will gain.
And there are some articles on the Internet right now where different experts say that the sanctions
imposed by the EU and the US could be bad only for them. What do you think about this sanctions strategy
that the US and the EU are using with respect to Russia?
I don't see any sanctions strategy that they can use that will hurt Russia worse than it will
hurt the people imposing those sanctions. You have many people who will trade with you – China, Iran,
many of your neighbours. America cannot patrol all of those borders. You can get just about any products
you need. Plus, some of the products that you sell, other people need them very-very badly, such
as natural gas and some of the metals.
I think Mr. Obama is making the fool of himself yet again. After all, Mr. Obama is the one who
instigated the coup in Ukraine where there was an elected Government. Mr. Obama, his diplomats are
recorded and we have recordings of them saying – we've got to do something about this Government.
And then, when it went against him, he got angry. And I'm afraid he is going to shoot himself in
the foot yet again.
And if we come back to this Sukhoi Superjet deal, does it mean that Moscow is switching to the
eastern market and what are the other Asian countries that Moscow could cooperate with in the nearest
future, apart from China?
Of course, Russia is being forced to look east and not necessarily because they want to, but because
they have to. If people are going to impose the sanctions and if you look to the east, you'd see
who is out there, who may or may not trade with you. Not just North Korea, not just China, some other
countries –Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam certainly will, Indonesia certainly will. So, many people that
don't have problems with Russia these days, they will be happy to trade with Russia.
So, this decision to purchase these superjet planes is a gesture of support followed by the sanctions.
And what about China's trade with Ukraine in this regard? Will they stop any economic relations with
Ukraine?
I doubt it. I don't know why they would. I mean, they don't want to be involved in a trade war.
So, I don't see why most Asian nations would cut off Ukraine or Russia, or anybody else.
This is the fight Mr. Obama has picked and, perhaps, to some extent Mr. Putin. But I don't
know why China would stop trading with Ukraine, I don't see that at all.
Sprechen wir von Doppelstandarten? Die Ursache wurzelt im antirussischen Rassismus: Offener Brief
an Frau Bundeskanzler Angela Merkel / Roman Gasenko
18 апреля 2014 22:24
Уважаемая госпожа Меркель,
мы в России, относящие себя ко внукам Второй Мировой войны, с горечью наблюдаем, как германские
СМИ и политики де факто поддерживают неонацизм на постсоветском пространстве.
Sehr geehrte Frau Merkel,
wir in Russland, die uns als Enkelkinder des 2.Weltkrieges wahrnehmen, müssen erbittert mitverfolgen,
wie deutsche Medien und Politiker sich de facto dem Neonezismus im postsowjetischen Raum bekennen.
Определимся в терминологии. Вы согласны, что нацизм - это форма государственного расизма, то есть
ненависти к иным, кроме коренного, народа? Вы согласны, что идеализация гитлеризма в любом виде является
преступлением по нормам международного и внутреннего права? Отлично. Немцы предпочитают логику. Представьте
себе - русские - тоже. Рассуждая логически - поддержка нацизма должна квалифицироваться как соучастие
в тяжком преступлении, не так ли?
Wollen wir uns zunächst die Terminologie unter einen Nenner bringen. Sind Sie damit einverstanden,
dass der Nazismus eine zugespitzte Form des staatlich unterstützten Rasismus ist, lediglich des
Hasses zu "anderen" Völkern gegenüber der Stammnation? Sind Sie damit einverstanden, dass die
Idealisierung des Hitlerismus in jeglicher Form ein vorsätzliches Verbrechen sei, laut Normen
des internationalen sowie des internen Rechtes? Ausgezeichnet! Deutsche sind auf Logik angewiesen.
Stellen sie sich vor, bei uns Russen ist dies auch der Fall. Logisch gesehen, muss folglich die
Unterstützung des Nazismus als schweres Delikt beurteilt werden, nicht wahr?
Немцы, причем только на Западе Германии - единственный народ, который после Второй Мировой войны
прошел через процедуру национального покаяния. Япония, Италия, другие страны, в том числе, и члены
Евросоюза - союзники Гитлера и соагрессоры вермахта - избежали этой участи. В итоге несколько поколений
немцев, даже после военных контрибуций Германии, были вынуждены в одиночку платить за общее преступление.
Считаете ли Вы справедливым, что сейчас во многих этих странах открыто в качестве политического инструмента
используется нацистская символика, военные преступники объявляются национальными героями, школьные
учебники и детские книги героизируют гитлеризм, а немцы под Вашим руководством вынуждены с этим мириться
и продолжать платить?
Das deutsche Volk, dies bezieht sich ausschliesslich auf Westdeutschland, ist das einzige,
welches nach dem Ende des 2.Weltkrieges seine nationale Schuld eingesehen hat. Japan, Italien,
andere Staaten, darunter EU-Mitglieder – ehemalige Alliierte Hitlerdeutschlands und Mitagressoren
der Wehrmacht durften dieser Reuhe ausweichen. Als Folge mussten mehrere deutsche Generationen,
neben Kriegskontributionen, diese Schuld allein auslöffeln. Halten Sie es für gerecht, dass heutzutage
in vielen Ländern offenbare Nazi-Symbolik als politisches Instrument gebraucht wird, Kriegsverbrecher
als Nationalhelden geachtet warden, Lehr- und Kinderbücher Hitlerismus heldenhaft darlegen, wobei
Deutsche dies in Kauf nehmen und weiterhin zahlen müssen?
Выскажу не очень популярную у меня на Родине мысль. Наши народы в равной степени пострадали от
нацизма. Мы принесли в жертву около тридцати миллионов жизней. Несколько моих родственников покоятся
в военных могилах. И Вы вряд ли найдете в России и в странах бывшего СССР семью, которая бы в этом
отношении отличалась от моей. Но и западные немцы участвовали в искоренении нацизма. После всех жертв
на полях сражений, перекошенной экономики и нищеты они имеют право с гордостью заявить, что после
войны уничтожили гитлеризм у себя дома. Может быть, поэтому, а еще и в силу непонятной в мире черты
русского характера - дружески относиться к поверженным врагам - бывший ваффенэсесовец Гельмут Шмидт
и советский генерал-лейтенант Леонид Брежнев пожали друг другу руки. Чтобы в 1975-м году, в Хельсинки,
положить конец Второй Мировой войне на бумаге.
Ich darf hier eine hierzulande nicht allzu breit besprochene Idee zum Ausdruck bringen. Unsere
Völker haben gleich schwer den Nazismus erlitten. Wir haben beinahe 30 Millionen Menschenleben
aufgeopfert. Mehrere meine Verwandten sind in Kriegsgräbern bestattet. Und Sie würden kaum eine
Familie in Russland und in ehemligen Sowjetrepublicken finden, welche sich von meiner in dieser
Hinsicht unterscheidet. Doch auch Deutsche haben den Nazismus mitausgerottet. Nach all ihren Opfern
auf Kriegfeldern, quergestellter Wirtschaft und Armut dürfen sie jetzt stolz sein, Hitrerismus
in ihrem Zuhause ausgerottet zu haben. Vielleicht deswegen, aber auch dank einem kaum in der Welt
bekannten russischen Charakterzug – geschlagene Todesfeinde als Freunde zu empfinden, haben der
ehemalige Waffen-SS-Mann Helmut Schmidt und der Sowjetische Generalleutnant Leonid Breshnev einander
über die Mauer Hände gereicht. Um 1975 in Helsinki den 2.Weltkrieg auf dem Papier zu beenden.
Наше поколение хорошо помнит, что оба эти архитектора европейской безопасности заложили экономический
хребет Хельсинского процесса - знаменитый проект "Газ - трубы". Неужели ваши соотечественники забыли,
что это планировалось как кровеносная артерия мирной и безопасной Европы, а не повод для сиюминутных
антироссийских интересов, дестабилизации и противостояния вокруг фрагментов этого газопровода на
разрушаемой не без Вашего участия Украине? Зачем Вы лишаете немцев права гордиться их глобальной
послевоенной миротворческой ролью? Неужели свести к нулю этот повод для законной национальной гордости
стоит Вашего заигрывания с Виталием Кличко - с целью сделать его лидером Украины? Хочется надеяться,
что Вы руководствовались иными мотивами, нежели его явные мозговые посттравматические проблемы, ярая
русофобия и приверженность гитлеризму. Возможно, Вы упустили из виду, что этот американский налогоплательщик
выступил с отрицанием Великой Отечественной войны и поддержал отмену закона о запрете нацистской
пропаганды. Тогда хочется понять Вашу логику. Возможно, русские и немцы не знают чего-то важного,
что перевешивает эти "мелкие" недостатки.
Unsere Generation ist sich darüber im Klaren, dass die beiden Architekten der europäischen
Sicherheit deutsch-sowjetisches "Gas – Röhren – Geschäft" als Wirtschaftsgrundlage des Helsinki-Prozesses
ins Rollen gebracht haben. Haben ihre Mitbürger vergessen, das dies eine Schlagader für ein sicheres
und friedliches Europa vorausgesetzt hatte, sondern nicht eine Vorwand, momentane antirussische
Interessen auszuspielen, sowie Destabilisierung und Scherereien um die Überreste dieser Rohrleitung
in der mit Ihrer Beteiligung zerlegenden Ukraine? Wieso entziehen sie den Deutschen ihr Recht,
auf ihre globale Friedensrolle nach dem Krieg stolz zu sein? Ob es sich lohnt, diesen ehrvollen
Erbfaktor abzunullen wegen politischer Koketterie mit Vitali Klitschko? Ob es sich lohnte ihn
auf den Posten des ukrainischen Leiters durchzuboxen? Ich vermute, es seien da noch andere Motive
neben seinen offesichtlichen posttraumatischen Gehirnsproblemen, markanter Russofobie und Bekenntnis
dem Hitlerismus. Es ist durchaus möglich, Sie haben die Erklärung dieses amerikanischen Steuerzahlers
vermisst, der Grosse Vaterländische Krieg sei kein historisches Subjekt sowie seinen Einsatz dafür,
dass das Nazistopgesetz nach dem Staatsumsturz in der Ukraine rückgängig gemacht wurde. Dann bin
ich gespannt, Ihre Logik mitverfolgen zu können. Mag sein, Russen und Deutsche vermissen etwas
Wichtiges, was diese "Kleinigkeiten" überwiegt.
Уважаемая госпожа Меркель!
Возможно, Вы просто не полностью понимаете Западных немцев. Ведь Вы происходите из бывшей ГДР
- государства, которое, подобно остальным членам Варшавского блока -Венгрии, Чехословакии, Румынии,
Болгарии, бывших республик Эстонии, Литвы и Латвии -было "освобождено" от нацизма и не понесло заслуженной
ответственности за соучастие в гитлеровской агрессии. Не случайно, после разрушения СССР там в основу
новой государственной политики был положен вопрос о советской оккупации. Кстати, об этом. Мы прекрасно
понимаем, что, несмотря на мощную экономику, Германия остается оккупированной страной. Военная бессмыслица
этого статуса стала очевидна, когда без единого выстрела произошло воссоединение Германии. Тогда
Рональд Рейган пообещал Горбачеву, что в ответ на роспуск Варшавского Договора он распустит НАТО.
Не случилось. Вероломство, за неимением военного, имело очевидный политический смысл: продолжать
расчленение постсоветского пространства, переложив при этом расходы на европейских партнеров по Североатлантическому
Альянсу. Но Германия в этом процессе опять вытащила короткий жребий. Войдя в процессе разрядки в
клуб ведущих мировых игроков, сейчас она, по сути унижена до статуса лишенной права самостоятельного
голоса банановой колонии. Являясь донором Евросоюза, она вынуждена финансировать экономики государств,
по городам которых шествуют неонацисты и соучаствовать в военных преступлениях НАТО. Вам не нравится
бескровное воссоединение Крыма на основании референдума? Давайте вспомним обстрелы мирного Белграда
урановыми боеприпасами, расстрел солдатами Бундесвера мирной демонстрации сербов и самопровозглашение
Косова.
Sehr geehte Frau Merkel,
Ich wage anzunehmen, Sie verstehen Westdeusche nicht gut genug. Denn Sie stammen aus der damaligen
DDR, einem Staat, welches, wie auch andere Warschauer Vertragsstaaten – Ungarn, Tschechoslowakei,
Rumänien, Bulgarien sowie ehemalige Sowjetrepublicken Estland, Litauen und Lettland – "vom Nazismus
befreit" wurde und keine Verantwortung für die Beteiligung an der Hitler-Agression mitgetragen
hatte. Kein Zufall also, dass dort nach der Zerstörung der UdSSR das Thema der sowjetischen Besatzung
Kernfrage der neuen Staatspolitik geprägt hatte. A propos – Besatzung. Wir sind uns darüber im
Klaren, dass, trotz starker Wirtschaft, Deutschland ein besetztes Land bleibt. Die militärische
Sinnlosigkeit der Tatsache ist zum Ausdruck gekommen, als schusslos die Wiedervereinigung Deuschlands
erfolgt hat. Damamls hat Ronald Reagan Gorbatschow versprochen, nach Abbildung des Warschauer
Vertrages NATO aufzulösen. Keine Spur. Der Wortbruch hatte ohne Verteidigungspragmatik einen puren
politischen Sinn: den postsowjetischen Raum weiterhin zu zergriedern. Dabei mussten Nordatlantische
Allianzpartner dafür aufkommen. Deutschland hat hier wieder den Kürzeren gezogen. Einst im Entspannungsvorgang
zum Mitglied des Pools der führenden Weltspieler geworden, ist Deutschland, aus dem russischen
Blickwinkel gesehen, heutzutage bis zum Status einer fergesteuerten Bananenkolonie runtergerissen.
Als Blutspender der EU muss die Bundesrepublik Gehälter derjenigen Staaten subventionieren, deren
Alltag marschierende Nazis prägen, sowie NATO-Militärverbrechen mittun. Ist Ihnen die blutlose
wiedervereinigung Russlands und der Krim zuwider? Denken Sie an Armuran-Sprengköpfen über zivilen
Wohnvierteln von Belgrad, erschossene serbische Friedensdemonstranten durch Bundeswehr-Soldaten
und und referendumlose Selbsterklärung von Kossovo.
Двойные стандарты? Давайте будем честны. Причина коренится в антирусском расизме. Все оценки происходящего,
которые даются членами Вашего кабинета, свидетельствуют об отношении к русским как к недочеловекам.
Вот это объясняет мне, почему Вы не видите украинского неонацизма и осуждаете Путина, благодаря которому
в Крыму - впервые за двадцать лет - гитлеровские наследники получили по морде. И не ошибусь, если
большинство немцев именно за это Путина уважает.
Sprechen wir von Doppelstandarten? Wollen wir doch ehrlich sein. Die Ursache wurzelt im antirussischen
Rassismus. Erklärungen der Mitglieder Ihres Kabinetts zum Thema "Ukraine" weisen ihr Verhalten
gegenüber uns Russen als Untermenschen auf. Dies macht mir deutig, warum Sie den ukrainischen
Nazismus überschauen und Putin verurteilen, dank wem erstmals in zwei Dutzend Jahren Hitler-Nachkommen
auf die Fresse gekriegt haben. Und ich bin sicher, dass die Mehrheit der deutschen Bevölkerung
ausgerechnet dafür ihn respektiert.
Мы понимаем, что, как руководитель оккупированной страны, вы вынуждены послушно исполнять волю
метрополии. В том числе и во всех антироссийских доктринах. Но я предлагаю - нет, не Вам, а Вашим
согражданам: может, чтобы оправдать все жертвы и вернуть Германии мировое уважение, используя весь
богатый опыт, вместе с Россией приступить к денацификации Украины? И вспомнить, что каждый налогоплательщик
однажды становится избирателем. У кого есть выбор - тот наделен ответственностью.
Wir verstehen, dass Sie als Leuter eines besetzten Landes auf die Beschlussfassung der Metropolie
angewiesen sind. Auch in antirussischen Doktrinen. Doch ich schlage vor – nein, nicht Ihnen, sondern
Ihren Mitbürgern: alles Aufgeopferte nicht vergeblich zu machen, all ihre Erfahrung aufzubringen
und gemeinsam mit Russland Denazifizierung der Ukraine zu beginnen. Und bitte bedenken, dass jeder
Steuerzahler einmal ein Wähler ist. Und wer die Wahl hat, hat die Verantwortung.
С надеждой на понимание Роман Газенко, российский документалист
Hoffnungsvoll auf Verständnis Roman Gasenko, Dokumentarfilmregisseuer/Russland
Нашли ошибку? Выделите текст, содержащий ошибку, и нажмите Ctrl+Enter.
"Russia … is now recognized as the center of the global 'mutiny' against global dictatorship
of the US and EU. Its generally peaceful .. approach is in direct contrast to brutal and destabilizing
methods used by the US and EU…. The world is waking up to reality that there actually is, suddenly,
some strong and determined resistance to Western imperialism. After decades of darkness, hope
is emerging." – Andre Vltchek,
Ukraine:
Lies and Realities, CounterPunch
Russia is not responsible for the crisis in Ukraine. The US State Department engineered the fascist-backed
coup that toppled Ukraine's democratically-elected president Viktor Yanukovych and replaced him with
the American puppet Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a former banker. Hacked phone calls reveal the critical role
that Washington played in orchestrating the putsch and selecting the coup's leaders. Moscow was not
involved in any of these activities. Vladimir Putin, whatever one may think of him, has not done
anything to fuel the violence and chaos that has spread across the country.
Putin's main interest in Ukraine is commercial. 66 percent of the natural gas that Russia exports
to the EU transits Ukraine. The money that Russia makes from gas sales helps to strengthen the Russian
economy and raise standards of living. It also helps to make Russian oligarchs richer, the same as
it does in the West. The people in Europe like the arrangement because they are able to heat their
homes and businesses market-based prices. In other words, it is a good deal for both parties, buyer
and seller. This is how the free market is supposed to work. The reason it doesn't work that way
presently is because the United States threw a spanner in the gears when it deposed Yanukovych. Now
no one knows when things will return to normal.
Check out
this chart at Business Insider and you'll see why Ukraine matters to Russia.
The overriding goal of US policy in Ukraine is to stop the further economic integration of
Asia and Europe. That's what the fracas is really all about. The United States wants to control
the flow of energy from East to West, it wants to establish a de facto tollbooth between the continents,
it wants to ensure that those deals are transacted in US dollars and recycled into US Treasuries,
and it wants to situate itself between the two most prosperous markets of the next century. Anyone
who has even the sketchiest knowledge of US foreign policy– particularly as it relates to Washington's
"pivot to Asia"– knows this is so. The US is determined to play a dominant role in Eurasia in the
years ahead. Wreaking havoc in Ukraine is a central part of that plan.
Retired German Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jochen Scholz summed up US policy in an open letter
which appeared on the Neue Rheinilche Zeitung news-site last week. Scholz said the Washington's objective
was "to deny Ukraine a role as a bridge between Eurasian Union and European Union….They want to bring
Ukraine under the NATO control" and sabotage the prospects for "a common economic zone from Lisbon
to Vladivostok."
Bingo. That's US policy in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with democracy, sovereignty, or human
rights. It's about money and power. Who are the big players going to be in the world's biggest growth
center, that's all that matters. Unfortunately for Obama and Co., the US has fallen behind Russia
in acquiring the essential resources and pipeline infrastructure to succeed in such a competition.
They've been beaten by Putin and Gazprom at every turn. While Putin has strengthened diplomatic and
economic relations, expanded vital pipeline corridors and transit lines, and hurtled the many obstacles
laid out for him by American-stooges in the EC; the US has dragged itself from one quagmire to the
next laying entire countries to waste while achieving none of its economic objectives.
So now the US has jettisoned its business strategy altogether and moved on to Plan B, regime change.
Washington couldn't beat Putin in a fair fight, so now they've taken off the gloves. Isn't that what's
really going on? Isn't that why the US NGOs, and the Intel agencies, and the State Dept were
deployed to launch their sloppily-engineered Nazi-coup that's left the country in chaos?
Once again, Putin played no part in any of this. All he did was honor the will of the people in
Crimea who voted overwhelmingly (97%) to reunite with the Russian Federation. From a purely pragmatic
point of view, what other choice did they have? After all, who in their right mind would want to
align themselves with the most economically mismanaged confederation of all time (The EU) while facing
the real possibility that their nation could be reduced to Iraq-type rubble and destitution in a
matter of years? Who wouldn't opt-out of such an arrangement?
As we noted earlier, Putin's main objective is to make money. In contrast, the US wants to dominate
the Eurasian landmass, break Russia up into smaller, non-threatening units, and control China's growth.
That's the basic gameplan. Also, the US does not want any competitors, which we can see from this
statement by Paul Wolfowitz which evolved into the US National Defense Strategy:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory
of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly
by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy
and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources
would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."
This is the prevailing doctrine that Washington lives by. No rivals. No competition. We're the
boss. What we say, goes. The US is Numero Uno, le grande fromage. Who doesn't know this already?
Here's more from Wolfowitz:
"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds
the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or
pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas,
we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage
them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic
order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role."
In other words, "don't even think about getting more powerful or we'll swat you like a fly." That's
the message, isn't it? The reason we draw attention to these quotes is not to pick on Wolfowitz,
but to show how things haven't changed under Obama, in fact, they've gotten worse. The so called
Bush Doctrine is more in effect today than ever which is why we need to be reminded of its central
tenets. The US military is the de facto enforcer of neoliberal capitalism or what Wolfowitz calls
"the established political and economic order". Right. The statement provides a blanket justification
for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine. The US can do whatever it deems
necessary to protect the interests of its constituents, the multi-national corporations and big finance.
The US owns the world and everyone else is just a visitor. So shut the hell up, and do what you're
told. That's the message. Here's Wolfowitz one more time:
"We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly
comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not
dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate
into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others."
Wolfowitz figured the moment would come when the US would have to square off with Moscow in order
to pursue it's imperial strategy in Asia. Putin doesn't seem to grasp that yet. He still clings to
the misguided notion that rational people will find rational solutions to end the crisis. But he's
mistaken. Washington does not want a peaceful solution. Washington wants a confrontation. Washington
wants to draw Moscow into a long-term conflict in Ukraine that will recreate Afghanistan in the 1990s.
That's the goal, to lure Putin into a military quagmire that will discredit him in the eyes of the
world, isolate Russia from its allies, put strains on new alliances, undermine the Russian economy,
pit Russian troops against US-backed armed mercenaries and Special Ops, destroy Russian relations
with business partners in the EU, and create a justification for NATO intervention followed by the
deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. That's the gameplan. Why doesn't Putin see
that?
In his Kremlin defense of Russia's annexation of Crimea, Vladimir Putin, even before he began
listing the battles where Russian blood had been shed on Crimean soil, spoke of an older deeper bond.
Crimea, said Putin, "is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptized.
His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilization
and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus."
Russia is a Christian country, Putin was saying. This speech recalls last December's address where
the former KGB chief spoke of Russia as standing against a decadent West:
Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values.
Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership,
a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.
Heard any Western leader, say, Barack Obama, talk like that lately?
Indicting the "Bolsheviks" who gave away Crimea to Ukraine, Putin declared, "May God judge them."
What is going on here? With Marxism-Leninism a dead faith, Putin is saying the new ideological struggle
is between a debauched West led by the United States and a traditionalist world Russia would be proud
to lead. In the new war of beliefs, Putin is saying, it is Russia that is on God's side. The West
is Gomorrah.
Western leaders who compare Putin's annexation of Crimea to Hitler's Anschluss with Austria, who
dismiss him as a "KGB thug," who call him "the alleged thief, liar and murderer who rules Russia,"
as Wall Street Journal's Holman Jenkins did, believe Putin's claim to stand on higher moral
ground is beyond blasphemous.
But Vladimir Putin knows exactly what he is doing, and his new claim has a venerable lineage.
The ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers who exposed Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, was, at the time of his
death in 1964, writing a book on "The Third Rome." The first Rome was the Holy City and seat of Christianity
that fell to Odoacer and his barbarians in 476 A.D. The second Rome was Constantinople, Byzantium,
(today's Istanbul), which fell to the Turks in 1453. The successor city to Byzantium, the Third Rome,
the last Rome to the old believers, was-Moscow.
Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation
against the new paganism. Putin is plugging into some of the modern world's most powerful currents.
Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America's arrogant drive for global hegemony.
Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated. He is
also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular
and social revolution coming out of the West.
In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia's flag firmly on the side
of traditional Christianity. His recent speeches carry echoes of John Paul II whose Evangelium
Vitae in 1995 excoriated the West for its embrace of a "culture of death."
What did Pope John Paul mean by moral crimes? The West's capitulation to a sexual revolution of
easy divorce, rampant promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, abortion, same-sex marriage,
euthanasia, assisted suicide-the displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values.
Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum writes that she was stunned when in Tbilisi
to hear a Georgian lawyer declare of the former pro-Western regime of Mikhail Saakashvili, "They
were LGBT."
"It was an eye-opening moment," wrote Applebaum. Fear and loathing of the same-sex-marriage pandemic
has gone global. In Paris, a million-man Moral Majority marched in angry protest. Author Masha Gessen,
who has written a book on Putin, says of his last two years, "Russia is remaking itself as the leader
of the anti-Western world."
But the war to be waged with the West is not with rockets. It is a cultural, social, moral war
where Russia's role, in Putin's words, is to "prevent movement backward and downward, into chaotic
darkness and a return to a primitive state."
Would that be the "chaotic darkness" and "primitive state" of mankind, before the Light came into
the world? This writer was startled to read in the Jan-Feb. newsletter from the social conservative
World Council of Families in Rockford, Ill., that, of the "ten best trends" in the world in 2013,
number one was "Russia Emerges as Pro-Family Leader." In 2013, the Kremlin imposed a ban on homosexual
propaganda, a ban on abortion advertising, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks and a ban on sacrilegious
insults to religious believers.
"While the other super-powers march to a pagan world-view," writes WCF's Allan Carlson,
"Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values. During the Soviet era, Western communists
flocked to Moscow. This year, World Congress of Families VII will be held in Moscow, Sept. 10-12."
Will Vladimir Putin give the keynote? In the new ideological Cold War, whose side is God on now?
What kind of country is Vladimir Putin's Russia? The third year of his third presidential term
has offered plenty of clues: the Crimea invasion, the shuttering of uncensored media outlets, prison
terms for protesters. Now, Putin is planning to put the intellectual and ideological foundations
of the new regime into words.
A document called "Foundations of the State Cultural Policy" has been under development since
2012. A special working group under Putin's chief of staff Sergei Ivanov will soon roll it out for
a month of "public debate" before Putin gets to sign it.
Quotes from the
culture ministry's draft, presumably the basis for the final one, have leaked out.
"Russia must be viewed as a unique and original civilization that cannot be reduced to 'East'
or 'West,'" reads the document, signed by Deputy Culture Minister Vladimir Aristarkhov. "A concise
way of formulating this stand would be, 'Russia is not Europe,' and that is confirmed by the entire
history of the country and the people."
Russia's non-European path should be marked by "the rejection of such principles as multiculturalism
and tolerance," according to the draft. "No references to 'creative freedom' and 'national originality'
can justify behavior considered unacceptable from the point of view of Russia's traditional value
system." That, the document stresses, is not an infringement on basic freedoms but merely the withdrawal
of government support from "projects imposing alien values on society."
The draft goes on to explain that certain forms of modern art and liberal Western values in general
are unacceptable and harmful to society's moral health.
Although Putin has mentioned Russia's "civilizational differences" with the West in his speeches,
Russia has never asserted, in so many words, that its ideology is based on the rejection of the European
path and of universal values such as democratic development and tolerance toward different cultures.
If "Foundations of the State Cultural Policy" is adopted in the form proposed by the culture ministry,
isolationism and, yes, intolerance of anything "alien" will be enshrined on an official level.
I read an interesting explanation
of the anti-Western backlash in a column by pro-Kremlin political commentator Dmitri Yuriev. For
a quarter of a century, he wrote, Russia sought rapprochement with the West and strove to be a member
of the club. "A policy of entering the world community, joining the 'normal world' was approved by
default," Yuriev recalled. "That 'normal world' was friendly, peaceful, democratic. It awaited Russia
with gratitude for getting rid of the threat of Communist expansion and a world war." In fact, however,
Russia "came up against increasingly vicious, cynical and uncompromising contempt for the interests
of Russia."
Yuriev's description of Russia's seduction and rejection by the West, which it sought to befriend
after the Soviet Union fell apart, lies at the core of what Putin, and his culture ministry, bill
as a return to traditional values. In the view of official ideologues, the West held up the bright
wrappers of its hypocritical values to coax Russia into submission, and it very nearly succeeded.
Having gained nothing on that path, Russia must cleanse itself of the remnants of its romance with
liberalism and tolerance.
I would argue that real patriotism is defending this country and making sure that our freedoms are
not undermined here. Unfortunately, while so many are focused on freedoms in Crimea and Ukraine, the
US Congress is set to pass an NSA "reform" bill that will force private companies to retain our personal
data and make it even easier for the NSA to spy on the rest of us. We need to refocus our priorities
toward promoting liberty in the United States!
Last week Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill approving a billion dollars in aid to Ukraine
and more sanctions on Russia. The bill will likely receive the president's signature within days.
If you think this is the last time US citizens will have their money sent to Ukraine, you should
think again. This is only the beginning.
This $1 billion for Ukraine is a rip-off for the America taxpayer, but it is also a bad deal for
Ukrainians. Not a single needy Ukrainian will see a penny of this money, as it will be used to bail
out international banks who hold Ukrainian government debt. According to the terms of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF)-designed plan for Ukraine, life is about to get much more difficult for average
Ukrainians. The government will freeze some wage increases, significantly raise taxes, and increase
energy prices by a considerable margin.
But the bankers will get paid and the IMF will get control over the Ukrainian economy.
The bill also authorizes more US taxpayer money for government-funded "democracy promotion" NGOs,
and more money to broadcast US government propaganda into Ukraine via Radio Free Europe and Voice
of America. It also includes some saber-rattling, directing the US Secretary of State to "provide
enhanced security cooperation with Central and Eastern European NATO member states."
The US has been "promoting democracy" in Ukraine for more than ten years now, but it doesn't seem
to have done much good. Recently a democratically-elected government was overthrown by violent protesters.
That is the opposite of democracy, where governments are changed by free and fair elections. What
is shocking is that the US government and its NGOs were on the side of the protesters! If we really
cared about democracy we would not have taken either side, as it is none of our business.
Washington does not want to talk about its own actions that led to the coup, instead focusing
on attacking the Russian reaction to US-instigated unrest next door to them. So the new bill passed
by Congress will expand sanctions against Russia for its role in backing a referendum in Crimea,
where most of the population voted to join Russia. The US, which has participated in the forced change
of borders in Serbia and elsewhere, suddenly declares that international borders cannot be challenged
in Ukraine.
Those of us who are less than gung-ho about sanctions, manipulating elections, and sending our
troops overseas are criticized as somehow being unpatriotic. It happened before when so many of us
were opposed to the Iraq war, the US attack on Libya, and elsewhere. And it is happening again to
those of us not eager to get in another cold – or hot – war with Russia over a small peninsula that
means absolutely nothing to the US or its security.
I would argue that real patriotism is defending this country and making sure that our freedoms
are not undermined here. Unfortunately, while so many are focused on freedoms in Crimea and Ukraine,
the US Congress is set to pass an NSA "reform" bill that will force private companies to retain our
personal data and make it even easier for the NSA to spy on the rest of us. We need to refocus our
priorities toward promoting liberty in the United States!
There is no reason for Russia to worry about the western sanctions it is facing now over the Ukrainian
issue since "Moscow has too many other trade partners to work with,"
Jim Rogers explains in this interview, adding that "America is shooting itself in a foot
getting the most of our world to pushing China and Russia closer together." Simply put, he warns,
"I don't see any sanctions strategy that they can use that will hurt Russia worse than
it will hurt the people imposing those sanctions."
Via Voice Of Russia,
Could China's decision to purchase superjet planes be viewed as a gesture of support following
a series of sanctions imposed by the West against Moscow over the Ukrainian issue?
Of course it is. I'm an American, so I hate to say this, but America is shooting itself
in a foot getting the most of our world to pushing China and Russia closer together.
And you are going to see more and more trade between the two. And that makes the sanctions against
Russia almost impossible, because there are other people who will not play.
And are there chances for the Russia Sukhoi Superjet planes to compete with other major plane-makers?
I don't think that the Russians have enough to compete with Boeing planes yet. But you are
certainly getting better. I mean, as far as cargo planes, you are probably better than anybody
else. And if people are forcing you or forcing other people to buy from you, then, of course,
your costs will go down, your quality will get better and it will only benefit Russia, but not
benefit Europe or America.
I think that's one reason Europe and America are a little hesitant to do too much about
the sanctions, because they know that they may lose more than they will gain.
And there are some articles on the Internet right now where different experts say that the sanctions
imposed by the EU and the US could be bad only for them. What do you think about this sanctions strategy
that the US and the EU are using with respect to Russia?
I don't see any sanctions strategy that they can use that will hurt Russia worse than it
will hurt the people imposing those sanctions.You have many people
who will trade with you – China, Iran, many of your neighbors. America cannot patrol all of those
borders. You can get just about any products you need. Plus, some of the products that you sell,
other people need them very-very badly, such as natural gas and some of the metals.
I think Mr. Obama is making the fool of himself yet again. After all,
Mr. Obama is the one who instigated the coup in Ukraine where there was an elected Government.
Mr. Obama, his diplomats are recorded and we have recordings of them saying – we've got to do
something about this Government. And then, when it went against him, he got angry. And I'm afraid
he is going to shoot himself in the foot yet again.
And if we come back to this Sukhoi Superjet deal, does it mean that Moscow is switching to the
eastern market and what are the other Asian countries that Moscow could cooperate with in the nearest
future, apart from China?
Of course, Russia is being forced to look east and not necessarily because they want
to, but because they have to. If people are going to impose the sanctions and if you look to the
east, you'd see who is out there, who may or may not trade with you. Not just North Korea,
not just China, some other countries –Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam certainly will, Indonesia certainly
will. So, many people that don't have problems with Russia these days, they will be happy to trade
with Russia.
So, this decision to purchase these superjet planes is a gesture of support followed by the sanctions.
And what about China's trade with Ukraine in this regard? Will they stop any economic relations with
Ukraine?
I doubt it. I don't know why they would. I mean, they don't want to be involved in
a trade war. So, I don't see why most Asian nations would cut off Ukraine or Russia,
or anybody else. This is the fight Mr. Obama has picked and, perhaps, to some extent Mr.
Putin. But I don't know why China would stop trading with Ukraine, I don't see that at
all.
n. But I don't know why China would stop trading with Ukraine, I don't see
that at all.
Does Obama realize that he is leading the US and its puppet states to war with Russia and China,
or is Obama being manipulated into this disaster by his neoconservative speech writers and government
officials? World War 1 (and World War 2) was the result of the ambitions and mistakes of
a very small number of people. Only one head of state was actually involved–the President
of France.
In The genesis Of The World War, Harry Elmer Barnes shows that World War 1 was the product
of 4 or 5 people. Three stand out: Raymond Poincare`, President of France, Sergei Sazonov,
Russian Foreign Minister, and Alexander Izvolski, Russian Ambassador to France. Poincare` wanted
Alsace-Lorraine from Germany, and the Russians wanted Istanbul and the Bosphorus Strait, which connects
the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. They realized that their ambitions required a general
European war and worked to produce the desired war.
A Franco-Russian Alliance was formed. This alliance became the vehicle for orchestrating the war.
The British government, thanks to the incompetence, stupidity, or whatever of its Foreign Minister,
Sir Edward Grey, was pulled into the Franco-Russian Alliance. The war was started by Russia's mobilization.
The German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was blamed for the war despite the fact that he did everything possible
to avoid it.
Barnes' book was published in 1926. His reward for confronting the corrupt court historians
with the truth was to be accused of being paid by Germany to write his history. Eighty-six
years later historian Christopher Clark in his book, The Sleepwalkers, comes to essentially the same
conclusion as Barnes.
In the history I was taught the war was blamed on Germany for challenging British naval supremacy
by building too many battleships. The court historians who gave us this tale helped to set up World
War 2.
We are again on the road to World War. One hundred years ago the creation of a world war by a
few had to be done under the cover of deception. Germany had to be caught off guard. The British
had to be manipulated and, of course, people in all the countries involved had to be propagandized
and brainwashed.
Today the drive to war is blatantly obvious. The lies are obvious, and the entire West
is participating, both media and governments.
The script that Washington handed to its Canadian puppet has been handed to all of Washington's
puppets, and everywhere in the West the message is the same. "Putin invaded and annexed Crimea, Putin
is determined to rebuild the Soviet Empire, Putin must be stopped."
I hear from many Canadians who are outraged that their elected government represents Washington
and not Canadians, but as bad as Harper is, Obama and Fox "News" are worse.
On March 26 I managed to catch a bit of Fox "news." Murdoch's propaganda organ was reporting that
Putin was restoring the Soviet era practice of exercise. Fox "news" made this report into a threatening
and dangerous gesture toward the West. Fox produced an "expert," whose name I caught as Eric Steckelbeck
or something like that. The "expert" declared that Putin was creating "the Hitler youth," with a
view toward rebuilding the Soviet empire.
The extraordinary transparent lie that Russia sent an army into Ukraine and annexed Crimea
is now accepted as fact everywhere in the West, even among critics of US policy toward Russia.
Obama, whose government overthrew the democratically elected government in Ukraine and appointed
a stooge government that has threatened the Russian provinces of Ukraine, falsely accuses Putin of
"invading and annexing" Crimea.
Obama, or his handlers and programers, are relying on the total historical ignorance
of Western peoples. The ignorance and gullibility of Western peoples allows the American neoconservatives
to fashion "news" that controls their minds.
Obama recently declared that Washington's destruction of Iraq–up to one million killed, four million
displaced, infrastructure in ruins, sectarian violence exploding, a country in total ruins–is nowhere
near as bad as Russia's acceptance of Crimean self-determination. US Secretary of State John Kerry
actually ordered Putin to prevent the referendum and stop Crimeans from exercising self-determination.
Obama's speech on March 26 at the Palace of Fine Arts in Brussels is surreal.
It is beyond hypocrisy. Obama says that Western ideals are challenged by self-determination in Crimea.
Russia, Obama says, must be punished by the West for permitting Crimeans to exercise self-determination.
The return of a Russian province on its own volition to its mother country where it existed for 200
years is presented by Obama as a dictatorial, anti-democratic act of tyranny.
http://on.rt.com/sbzj4o
Here was Obama, whose government has just overthrown the elected, democratic government
of Ukraine and substituted stooges chosen by Washington in the place of the elected government, speaking
of the hallowed ideal that "people in nations can make their own decisions about their future."
That is exactly what Crimea did, and that is exactly what the US coup in Kiev contravened. In the
twisted mind of Obama, self-determination consists of governments imposed by Washington.
Here was Obama, who has shredded the US Constitution, speaking of "individual rights and
rule of law." Where is this rule of law? It is certainly not in Kiev where an elected government
was overthrown with force. It is certainly not in the United States where the executive branch has
spent the entirety of the new 21st century establishing government above the law. Habeas corpus,
due process, the right to open trials and determination of guilt by independent jurors prior to imprisonment
and execution, the right to privacy have all been overturned by the Bush/Obama regimes. Torture is
against US and international law; yet Washington set up torture prisons all over the globe.
How is it possible that the representative of the war criminal US government can stand
before an European audience and speak of "rule of law," "individual rights," "human dignity," "self-determination,"
"freedom," without the audience breaking out in laughter?
Washington is the government that invaded and destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of lies.
Washington is the government that financed and organized the overthrow of the Libyan and Honduran
governments and that is currently attempting to do the same thing to Syria and Venezuela. Washington
is the government that attacks with drones and bombs populations in the sovereign countries of Pakistan
and Yemen. Washington is the government that has troops all over Africa. Washington is the government
that has surrounded Russia, China, and Iran with military bases. It is this warmongering collection
of Washington war criminals that now asserts that it is standing up for international ideals against
Russia.
No one applauded Obama's nonsensical speech. But for Europe to accept
such blatant lies from a liar without protest empowers the momentum toward war that Washington is
pushing.
Obama demands more NATO troops to be stationed in Eastern Europe to "contain Russia."
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/03/26/obama-wants-more-nato-troops-in-eastern-europe/ Obama said
that a buildup of military forces on Russia's borders would reassure Poland and the Baltic states
that, as NATO members, they will be protected from Russian aggression. This nonsense is voiced by
Obama despite the fact that no one expects Russia to invade Poland or the Baltic countries.
Obama doesn't say what effect the US/NATO military buildup and numerous war games on Russia's
border will have on Russia. Will the Russian government conclude that Russia is about to be attacked
and strike first? The reckless carelessness of Obama is the way wars start.
The position of the government in Washington and its puppet states (Eastern and Western Europe,
Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Georgia, Japan) and other allies purchased
with bagfuls of money is that Washington's violation of international law by torturing people,
by invading sovereign countries on totally false pretenses, by routinely overthrowing democratically
elected governments that do not toe the Washington line is nothing but the "indispensable and exceptional
country" bringing "freedom and democracy to the world." But Russia's acceptance of the self-determination
of Crimean people to return to their home country is "a violation of international law."
Just what international law has Washington and its puppets not violated?
Obama, whose government in the past few years has bullied Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Pakistan,
Yemen, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Honduras, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela and is now trying to bully
Russia, actually declared that "bigger nations can not simply bully smaller ones." What does Obama
and his speech writers think Washington has been doing for the entirety of the 21st century?
Who can possibly believe that Obama, whose government is responsible for the deaths of
people every day in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Syria, cares a whit about democracy
in Ukraine. Obama overthrew the Ukrainian government in order to be able to stuff the country
into NATO, throw Russia out of its Black Sea naval base, and put US missile bases in Ukraine on Russia's
border. Obama is angry that his plan didn't pan out as intended, and he is taking his anger and frustration
out on Russia.
As the delusion takes hold in Washington that the US represents idealism standing firmly against
Russian aggression, delusion enabled by the presstitute media, the UN General Assembly vote, and
Washington's string of puppet states, self-righteousness rises in Washington's breast.
With rising self-righteousness will come more demands for punishing Russia, more demonization
of Russia and Putin, more lies echoed by the presstitutes and puppets. Ukrainian violence
against Russian residents is likely to intensify with the anti-Russian propaganda. Putin could be
forced to send in Russian troops to defend Russians.
Why are people so blind that they do not see Obama driving the world to its final war?
Just as Obama dresses up his aggression toward Russia as idealism resisting selfish territorial
ambitions, the English, French, and Americans presented their World War 1 "victory" as the triumph
of idealism over German and Austrian imperialism and territorial ambitions. But at the Versailles
Conference the Bolsheviks (the Tsar's government failed to gain the Straits and instead lost the
country to Lenin) "revealed the existence of the notorious Secret Treaties embodying as sordid a
program of territorial pilfering as can be found in the history of diplomacy. It appears that the
chief actual motives of the Entente in the World War were the seizure of Constantinople and the Straits
for Russia; not only the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France, but the securing of the west bank of
the Rhine, which would have involved the seizure of territory historically far longer connected with
Germany than Alsace-Lorraine had ever been with France; the rewarding of Italian entry into the War
by extensive territory grabbed away from Austria and the Jugo-Slavs; and the sequestering of the
German imperial possessions, the acquisition of the German merchant marine and the destruction of
the German navy in the interest of increasing the strength of the British Empire" (Barnes, pp. 691-692).
The American share of the loot was seized German and Austrian investments in the US.
The secret British, Russian, and French aims of the war were hidden from the public,
which was whipped up with fabricated propaganda to support a war whose outcomes were far different
from the intentions of those who caused the war. People seem unable to learn from history. We are
now witnessing the world again being led down the garden path by lies and propaganda, this time in
behalf of American world hegemony.
Over the past month, there has been a lot of "Hilsenrathing", or the biased media urgently "explaining"
to the Western world, just what Russia's actions mean both tactically in response to Ukraine developments,
and strategically as part of Putin's global perspective. So instead of relying on the broken media
narrative which serves merely to perpetuate US corporate interests and rally the public behind this
or that company's geopolitical interests, here, straight from the horse's mouth, in this case Russian
foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, how Russia sees itself in a world in which it is allegedly "isolated",
and "threatening Ukraine" with further invasion but more importantly, how the Russians view the rapidly
changing global balance of power, in which post-USSR Russia has emerged from the backwood of slighted
nations and stormed to the stage of nations who dare defy the former global hegemon, the US.
Some notable highlights by Lavrov from the interview conducted with Rossiya 24:
"Isolation" is a term invented by our Western partners who act with nostalgic neo-imperial
ambitions in mind. The instant something isn't to their liking they draw out this sanctions stick.
The times when such strategy could be employed are long gone.... I'm surprised at how obsessively
they're trying to – create rather than find – proof of Russia's isolation.
China is a very close partner of Russia. In our joint documents our relations are defined
as comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation. All of China's actions reaffirm its commitment
to the principles we agreed on. If, as you say, the Americans did try to convince China to review
its economic agreements with Russia on the highest level, it's an off-the-scale naïve or brazen
attitude. I would even say that not understanding the essence of Chinese politics and mentality
is just inexcusable for the officials in charge of such negotiations.
At the very beginning China said that it takes into consideration the combination of historical
and political factors. China strongly opposed using non-diplomatic measures and threats of sanctions
to resolve this problem. Our contacts with our Chinese partners show that they not only understand
Russia's rightful interests in this case, but are also hand-in-hand with us in the understanding
of the initial causes of the current crisis in Ukraine. There is no doubt about it.
Over a month ago I raised the issue of the Right Sector and the necessity to dissociate from
the radical forces with our Western partners. I asked them a very simple question: "If you agree
that we need to defuse the situation, why won't you publicly say what the Right Sector really
is?" Same to a degree goes for the Svoboda party, whose platform references The Declaration of
June 30, 1941, which expressed support of Nazi Germany and its efforts to establish a new world
order. According to the party's charter, it's still committed to this principle. US Secretary
of State John Kerry told me that after close scrutiny they concluded that the Right Sector was
trying to become a political movement. The subtext was that it's a good thing, and Svoboda is
moving towards [the] mainstream. That's a quote.
The punchline:
It is wrong for NATO members to be protected with indivisible security and for everybody
else to be treated as second-rate nations, so NATO can act as a magnet to attract new members
and keep pushing the dividing line further to the east.
We were promised that NATO would not bring its military infrastructure closer to our
borders – and we were cheated. We were promised there would be no military installations
on the territory of the new NATO members. At first, we just listened to those promises and believed
them. Then we started putting them on paper as political obligations, and serious people, Western
leaders, signed those documents. But when we asked them how come those political obligations were
ignored and whether we can make them legally binding, they told us, "No, political obligations
are enough, and anyway, don't worry, whatever we do is not against you."
Eastern Partnership – as well as NATO expansion – was simply an instrument used to quickly
take control over geopolitical territory. The EU was ready to push this project through at
any cost. It completely ignored legitimate economic interests of both Ukraine's neighbors, like
Russia and other countries, and even the nations that were part of this program. There have been
many studies on this issue. No wonder even Yatsenyuk says that Ukraine needs to take a closer
look at the economic section of this agreement.
And the next steps in terms of what Russia sees an ongoing response to NATO incursion:
The same will happen with Moldova. They are doing their best to sign a similar
agreement with Moldova this summer, before the upcoming election. And this agreement they intend
to sign with Moldova – it completely ignores the issue of Transnistria. It ignores the 1997 agreement
between Chisinau and Tiraspol which entitled Transnistria to international trade. It ignores what
is happening with Transnistria today: Chisinau and the new Ukrainian authorities have basically
blockaded the territory. But our European partners keep mum about that. In fact, the European
Union and, I think, the United States approve of this policy.
We want to talk to them very seriously about that, because they are escalating tensions
over Transnistria, almost claiming that it will be next. This is outrageous, provocative rhetoric.
Actually, they want to create unbearable conditions for Tiraspol in violation, I repeat,
of the agreements which entitled Transnistrians to certain travel, transit and trade rights.
This is outrageous. They never learn. Once again, they seek to create a sore point in our
relations.
The below is an abridged version of an article by George Friedman of the
Stratfor geopolitical weekly. The author, a Cold Warrior, advises
the U.S. on how to continue its policy of encircling Russia, in light of the Crimean crisis. -Editor.
As a result of the events in Ukraine, the United States is now engaged in a
confrontation with Russia. A failure to engage would cause countries around Russia's periphery, from
Estonia to Azerbaijan, to conclude that with the U.S. withdrawn and Europe fragmented, they must
reach an accommodation with Russia.
If the U.S. chooses to confront Russia with a military component, it must be
on a stable perimeter and on as broad a front as possible to extend Russian resources and decrease
the probability of Russian attack at any one point out of fear of retaliation elsewhere. The ideal
mechanism for such a strategy would be NATO, which contains almost all of the critical countries
save Azerbaijan and Georgia.
Since the rest of Europe is not in jeopardy, and European countries are not
prepared to commit financial and military efforts to a problem they believe can be managed with little
risk to them. Therefore, any American strategy must bypass NATO or at the very least create new structures
to organize the region.
Estonia, Poland, Romania, and Azerbaijan share the common danger that events
in Ukraine could affect their national security interests, including internal stability. Because
of this, and also because of their intrinsic importance, they must be the posts around which America
should build a new military alliance.
At the far end of the alliance structure envisioned is Azerbaijan, bordering
Russia and Iran. Should Dagestan and Chechnya destabilize, Azerbaijan -- with majority Shiite but
secular -- would become critical for limiting the regional spread of jihadists. Azerbaijan also would
support the alliance's position in the Black Sea by supporting Georgia and would serve as a bridge
for relations (and energy) should Western relations with Iran continue to improve. To the southwest,
the very pro-Russian Armenia--which has a Russian troop presence and a long-term treaty with Moscow--could
escalate tensions with Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh. Previously, this was not a pressing issue
for the U.S. Now it is.
The security of Georgia and its ports on the Black Sea requires Azerbaijan's
inclusion in the alliance. Azerbaijan serves a more strategic purpose. Most of the countries in the
alliance are heavy importers of Russian energy. There is no short-term solution to this problem,
but Russia needs the revenue from these exports as much as these countries need the energy. Developing
European shale and importing U.S. energy is a long-term solution. A medium-term solution, depending
on pipeline developments that Russia has tended to block in the past, is sending natural gas from
Azerbaijan to Europe. Until now, this has been a commercial issue, but it has become a strategically
critical issue. The Caspian region, of which Azerbaijan is the lynchpin, is the only major alternative
to Russia for energy. Therefore, rapid expansion of pipelines to the heart of Europe is as essential
as providing Azerbaijan with the military capability to defend itself (a capability it is prepared
to pay for and, unlike other allied countries, does not need to be underwritten).
The key to the pipeline will be Turkey's willingness to permit transit. I have
not included Turkey as a member of this alliance. Its internal politics, complex relations and heavy
energy dependence on Russia make such participation difficult.
This is not an offensive force but a force designed to deter Russian expansion.
All of these countries need modern military equipment, particularly air defense, anti-tank and mobile
infantry. The U.S. should supply these weapons, for cash or credit. An alliance with Azerbaijan would
be criticized, but if energy doesn't come from Azerbaijan it will come from Russia.
Russian power is limited and has flourished while the U.S. was distracted by
its wars in the Middle East and while Europe struggled with its economic crisis. That does not mean
Russia is not dangerous. It has short-term advantages, and its insecurity means that it will take
risks. The United States has an interest in acting early because early action is cheaper than acting
in the last extremity. This is a case of anti-air missiles, attack helicopters, communications systems
and training, among other things. It is not a case of deploying divisions, of which it has few. The
Poles, Romanians, Azerbaijanis and certainly the Turks can defend themselves. They need weapons and
training, and that will keep Russia contained within its cauldron as it plays out a last hand as
a great power.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please
click here if you are interested in contributing.
"This is not Rocky IV," said US Secretary of State John Kerry with respect to the Russian response
to the ongoing putsch in Ukraine. Some may find it strange that an American secretary of state would
invoke the name of an anti-Russian Hollywood movie to implore a Russian leader to heed his warnings.
But in fact, Kerry's statement is not unusual at all; rather, it represents the wider lack of self-awareness
which is the driving force behind American foreign policy culture. This lack of self-awareness manifests
itself perfectly in Rocky IV. The movie was not only a masterpiece of political propaganda, but it
has unintentionally served as a window into the absurdities of American exceptionalism and the concept's
role in US foreign affairs.
The artificial villain
The first issue of note in Rocky IV is the artificial, contrived nature of the driving conflict.
This conflict is strictly born out of the emergence of our villain - Russian Olympic champion Ivan
Drago, who is introduced to us through a Sports Illustrated cover. The cover reads: "Russians invade
US sports." As we all know, this is in reference to Drago's foray into professional boxing.
In the Hollywood universe, this is sufficient reason to make one a villain (so long as he's Russian,
anyhow). However, objectively speaking, how can anyone consider such an act to be an "invasion?"
Drago going pro is only an act of aggression within the context of American exceptionalism and its
inherent paranoia. Compare this to actual current events: American officials and media personalities
are crying imperialism over the potential "annexation" of Crimea by Russia, despite the fact that
Crimea's government requested Russian military presence, and the option to join the Russian Federation
will be put up to vote in Crimea. A democratic imperialism, indeed.
Glorification of a non-glorious struggle
Apollo Creed, boxer Rocky Balboa's former rival and current friend, plays a big role in propping
up the non-conflict: "I don't want this chump to come over here with all that hype, you know … trying
to make us look bad. They've tried every other way. With Rocky's help, we can get great media coverage.
We can make them look bad for a change." And minutes later: "You and me, we don't even have a choice.
… We have to be right in the middle of the action because we're the warriors. And without some challenge
- without some damn war to fight, then the warrior may as well be dead, Stallion."
Apollo equates Drago entering professional boxing to a Soviet violation of American sovereignty,
and likens the boxing ring to a field of battle. To any sensible viewer, this type of disproportionate
response and over-politicization of a non-issue should be taken as an indication of Apollo's delusion
and paranoia. But that is not how this speech is framed in the movie. The filmmakers clearly want
us to take this as the rousing speech of a brave warrior, much like how Mr Kerry and the like expect
us to take their stances on Russia as having any semblance of moral value.
Right and wrong sides of the tracks
So, what is it about Drago that makes him a villain? Why should we, the audience, be pulling for
Apollo or Rocky? In the press conference before the Drago and Creed's Las Vegas exhibition bout,
Apollo makes an ass of himself, taking repeated verbal jabs at Drago's expense while Drago remains
completely silent. Apollo's patriotic offensive continues into fight night, when he participates
in a ringside concert along with James Brown, performing "Living in America." Until this point in
the movie, there is really nothing that would objectively suggest Apollo being the character we should
sympathize with. So why is it a foregone conclusion that Drago is the baddie? Simply put: because
Apollo is American. Drago is Russian. That's all that matters. Apollo has the right to make an ass
of himself; Drago's mere existence in professional boxing is an act of aggression against him and
his country.
This extends to other characters in the movie, as well. Take note of how Ludmila (Drago's wife)
is depicted for doing more or less the same things as Rocky's wife Adrian. When Adrian supports Rocky
in his training, it is portrayed as an act of love by a devoted wife. But Ludmila's support of her
husband - including her concern for threats against his life - is essentially used as a point in
favor of her being evil.
Another case of this double standard can be seen as the commentators discuss the Moscow crowd's
booing of Rocky. "Listen to this crowd! - We knew he wouldn't be popular, but this borders on pure
hatred." Note: there was no reference to "pure hatred" when Drago faced similar levels of booing
in his Las Vegas. Such double standards only make moral sense within the context of American exceptionalism.
But these very double standards are often the backbone of American stances. We can see this in American
dealings with Iran, for example - where the United States government has afforded itself the right
to embargo the country and threaten it with military action, for enriching uranium within the limitations
of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
During the press conference announcing the Drago-Rocky bout, it is revealed that the Russian side
has two demands: they want the fight to take place in Russia, on Christmas day. The latter is to
be interpreted as a depiction of the atheistic communists' disregard for the most important holiday
for Christians. But there are two very important flaws with this: firstly, Christmas for Orthodox
Christians (Russians being among them) is on January 7, by which time most American families have
already disposed of their tree. So why should such a date have even been objectionable for Americans?
Secondly, it makes no sense for a country where "The NBA on Christmas day" has become a tradition,
to express opposition toward the idea of a sporting event being held on Christmas.
As for the location of the fight, the moment Rocky tells the press that the fight will be in Russia,
there is an uproar. But why? Why is the idea of the fight being held in Russia so objectionable?
Wanting to hold the fight in Russia is not political at all, unless you find it offensive that any
sporting event be held outside of your own country.
Politicization of sport
These Russian demands, among other things, are used by the filmmakers to depict how the Russians
are politicizing the sport. When Ludmila says "We are not politic," we are meant to take it as a
bald-faced lie. But there truly is nothing political about their demands. The uproar is based upon
a foundation of hypocrisy and self-styled exceptionalism.
Furthermore, how can the movie condemn the supposed politicization of sports, when Rocky IV's
narrative is itself a politicization of sports (and not in such a subtle way, either)? The politicization
of sports is nothing new to the United States, and Russia has been a prime target of this politicization.
The Winter Olympics in Sochi were politicized to a very high degree amongst American athletes and
media personalities alike, with Bob Costas' anti-Putin political monologue, Pussy Riot appearing
at the Amnesty concert in New York to coincide with the Sochi games, and numerous American athletes
before the games protesting Russia's supposed oppression of homosexuals.
Self-redemption through submission
In the lead-up to the fight, Rocky trains in almost total isolation. In fact, his plane to Russia
lands in what seems like a remote village. (But then again, perhaps this was the filmmakers' understanding
of what Moscow looked like). Rocky did not interact with very many Russians until fight night, where
he was booed violently. At the start of the fight, the Russian people are one with Drago. Their emotions
and animosity are surrogates; they act on behalf of the stoic Drago, whose character does not allow
for such expressions of emotions. The Russian people are the villain.
However, the transformation of the crowd from enemy to friend is the single most important dynamic
of the movie. What happened during the course of the fight that, following its end, led Rocky to
become the object of adoration of the people of Moscow? What happened was, Rocky won. The first cheer
for Rocky was heard after Rocky started not getting completely throttled by Drago. And this momentum
would build until, toward the end of the fight, it seemed that almost everyone (including the General-Secretary
of the CPSU) was on Rocky's side. Rocky achieved all of this simply by punching the Russian people's
national hero into submission.
The Russian people redeem themselves and reclaim their humanity only by disowning Drago and embracing
Rocky. In other words, had the Russians not began to cheer on the man in red, white and blue trunks
as he beat their greatest sportsman, they would have languished in their moral inferiority. Submission
to America's will is the requisite for moral acceptability. Thus, immoral world actors like Israel,
Saudi Arabia and the like, can become moral simply through their allegiance to the American imperial
project.
It is clear that the makers of this film had a Kanye West-level of self-awareness with respect
to their country. But considering the recent statements by Kerry, and other American behavior on
the world stage, this is not very surprising. Rocky IV may be recognized by most Americans viewers
as being ridiculously absurd, but these same viewers should not neglect to notice that the movie
tells us more about the sad reality of American foreign policy than first glance would seem to reveal.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say.
Please click here if you are interested in contributing. Articles submitted for this section allow
our readers to express their opinions and do not necessarily meet the same editorial standards of
Asia Times Online's regular contributors.
Issa Ardakani is a Detroit-based historian and political analyst who writes mostly about Iranian
issues. He has a twitter account (@TheHalalButcher).
Today RT America anchor Liz Wahl resigned on air, claiming she disagrees with the channel's editorial
stance. And here's what I have to say about it.
These days it takes a lot of courage to work for RT. Never before have I seen RT and its journalists
bullied like this. See for yourselves what they did to poor Abby. First, she openly voiced disagreement
with Russia's stance on air – and was virtually made an American hero. But then Abby reminded everyone
how much she disagrees with America's stance as well, adding she takes pride in working at RT, where
she is free to express her views. Less than an hour passed before Abby had her name dragged through
something I have difficulty finding a decent name for this late at night. The US mainstream media
even went as far as claiming we had orchestrated the whole thing as a publicity move. They labeled
Abby a conspiracy theorist, bringing to light her past as an activist. In less than 24 hours, they
first sang her praises and then excoriated her. All of this in front of her colleagues, including
Liz Wahl. How do you think they felt watching that?
Yesterday I spent quite some time explaining to a New York Times correspondent why I consider
Russia's position to be right. I'm Russian. I support my country and I will fight for the truth for
as long as it takes. Neither Abby, nor Liz, nor many other employees are Russian nationals, but foreign.
And now their country is likening my country to Nazi Germany. For many years they have worked for
RT in good faith, proving every day that a voice that stands out from the mainstream media can be
beautiful and strong, attract an audience that grows daily. These are the people who were the first
to tell their country about the Occupy movement, who were detained at protest rallies, handcuffed
for hours and then tried in court for doing their job. These are the people who were outraged by
US hypocrisy in Syria, Libya – you can finish the list yourself – and reminded the world who used
chemical weapons most often, even resorting to nuclear bombs. These are the people who did things
the Western mainstream media would have never done. But those were peaceful times. And now we've
got a genuine war going on – no, thank God, it's not in Crimea. It's a media war. Every single day,
every single hour the guys who work for us are told, "You are liars, you are no journalists, you
are the Kremlin propaganda mouthpiece, you've sold yourselves to the Russians, it's time you quit
your job, and everybody is laughing at you, so change your mind before it's too late."
The storm of articles posted about RT over the last couple of days – literally tons of printed
copy - looks as if it were written to dictation. Hardly any respectable media outlet refrained from
lambasting and lynching RT journalists in articles or reports. Our employees listen to their colleagues,
their fellow citizens, and their potential employers, as career prospects are obviously important
to every journalist. How many could withstand this pressure? Well, some will and some won't. Some
sincerely disagree, as they believe their own country more than mine. Others are simply thinking
about their future. And it's hard for me to judge them.
This is all typical of a media war. We're not the first and we will not be the last to go through
this. During the Arab Spring, Al Jazeera staff in Lebanon made headlines by resigning en masse. Their
Egyptian colleagues followed suit. Over twenty journalists resigned citing disagreement with the
channel's editorial line. That this happened without any pressure from the world mass media was due
to the fact that, throughout the Arab Spring, Al Jazeera was completely in tune with the global mainstream.
So no one sought to criticize the channel, on the contrary, everyone praised its coverage.
A couple of minutes after Liz made her statement, we found all the major news media in the world
- as our exhausted spokeswoman put it, "CNN, NYT, pretty much everyone" – glowing with schadenfreude,
as they lined up for official feedback from RT. This included those who had ignored the news
of the Ashton-Paet phone leak revelation, as if it didn't happen. A rival media anchor's resignation
is certainly much more newsworthy and more relevant to the Ukraine crisis than two European leaders
saying opposition henchmen may have been killing people.
Russia will not go to war with the people of Ukraine, but will use its troops to protect citizens,
if radicals with clout in Kiev now try to use violence against Ukrainian civilians, particularly
ethnic Russians, Putin told the
Putin, who was given a mandate by the Russian senate to use military force to protect civilians
in Ukraine, said there is no need for such an action yet.
Putin cited the actions of radical activists in Ukraine, including the chaining of a governor
to a stage as public humiliation and the killing of a technician during an opposition siege of the
Party of Regions HQ, as justification for Russia to be concerned for the lives and well-being of
people in eastern and southern Ukraine.
Incidents like those are why Russia reserves the option of troop deployment on the table.
"If we see this lawlessness starting in eastern regions, if the people ask us for help – in
addition to a plea from a legitimate president, which we already have – then we reserve the right
to use all the means we possess to protect those citizens. And we consider it quite legitimate,"
he said.
Russia is not planning to go to war with the Ukrainian people, Putin stressed, when a journalist
asked if he was afraid of war. But Russian troops would prevent any attempts to target Ukrainian
civilians, should they be deployed.
"We are not going to a war against the Ukrainian people," he said. "I want you to
understand it unambiguously. If we do take a decision, it would only be to protect Ukrainian citizens.
Let anybody in the military dare, and they'd be shooting their own people, who would stand up in
front of us. Shoot at women and children. I'd like to see anyone try and order such a thing in Ukraine."
Putin dismissed the notion that the uniformed armed people without insignia who are currently
present in Crimea are Russian soldiers. He said they are members of the Crimean self-defense forces
and that they are no better equipped and trained than some radical fighters who took part in the
ousting of Yanukovich.
He assured that the surprise military drills in Russia's west which ended on Tuesday had nothing
to do with the Ukrainian situation.
Sanction threats are counterproductive
Asked about criticism of Russia over its stance on Ukraine, Putin dismissed the accusations that
Russia is acting illegitimately. He stated that even if Russia does use force in Ukraine, it would
not violate international law.
At the same time he accused the United States and its allies of having no regard to legitimacy
when they use military force in pursuit of their own national interests.
"When I ask them 'Do you believe you do everything legitimately,' they say 'Yes.' And I have
to remind them about the US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, where they acted either without
any UN Security Council mandate or through perverting a mandate, as was the case in Libya,"
Putin said.
"Our partners, especially in the United States, always clearly formulate for themselves their
geopolitical and national interests, pursue them relentlessly and then drag the rest of the world
in, using the principle 'You are either with us or against us.' And harass those who refuse to be
dragged in," he added.
As for the sanctions Russia faces over Ukraine, Putin said those threatening them should think
of the consequences to themselves if they follow that path. In an interconnected world a country
may hurt another country if it wishes, but it would be damaged too.
Threats are counterproductive in this situation, Putin warned. He added that if G8 members choose
not to go to Sochi for a planned G8 summit, that would be up to them.
Putin sympathies with Maidan protesters, rejects coup
Putin stressed that the Ukrainian people had a legitimate reason to protest against Yanukovich's
power, considering the overwhelming corruption and other faults of his presidency.
But he objected to the illegitimate way his ouster took place, because it undermined the political
stability in the country.
"I strictly object to this form [of transition of power] in Ukraine, and anywhere in the post-Soviet
space. This does not help nurturing a culture of law. If someone is allowed to act this way, then
everyone is allowed to. And this means chaos. That's the worst thing that can happen to a country
with an unstable economy and an unestablished political system," Putin explained.
He said that while he personally was not fond of months-long streets protests as a means to pressure
the government, he sympathized with the Maidan demonstration members, who were genuinely outraged
with the situation in Ukraine.
But at the same time he warned that what happens in Ukraine now may be a replacement of one group
of crooks with another, citing the appointments of certain wealthy businessmen with questionable
reputations.
Asked about the presence of snipers during the violent confrontation in Kiev last month, Putin
said he was not aware of any order from the Yanukovich government to use firearms against the protesters.
He alleged that the shooters could have been provocateurs from one of the opposition forces. He added
that what he was sure of is the fact that police officers were shot at with lethal arms during the
confrontation.
Yanukovich is certainly powerless in Ukraine, but legally speaking he is the legitimate president
of the country, Putin said. The way the new authorities in Kiev replaced him did not enhance their
credibility.
Asked if he felt for Yanukovich, Putin said "Oh, no. I have absolutely different feelings."
But he declined to publicly explain what those were. He also refrained from commenting on what mistakes
he saw in Yanukovich's actions, explaining that it would not be proper for him to do so.
At the same time Putin does not see any political future for Yanukovich, which he told the ousted
Ukrainian president himself. He added that Russia allowed him to come to its territory for humanitarian
reasons, because if he remained in Ukraine he could have been summarily executed.
Equal participation in Ukraine's future for all Ukrainians
The Russian government is currently engaging with the self-proclaimed govern of Ukraine with the
goal of preserving economic ties between the two countries. However, any normal relations would only
be possible after Ukraine has fully legitimate branches of government, Putin said. He considers that
he has no counterpart in Kiev now, so he personally has no partner to communicate with.
The Russian president stressed that Russia wants to see equal participation of all citizens of
Ukraine in defining the future of the country. The resistance to the authorities in Kiev, which is
evident currently in the eastern and southern Ukraine, shows clearly that currently Kiev does not
have a nationwide mandate to govern the country.
"Frankly, they should adopt a new constitution through a referendum so that all citizens of
Ukraine feel engagement in that process, have an input on the formation of the new principles of
how their nation should function," Putin suggested. "That's certainly not for us, but for
the Ukrainians and the Ukrainian authorities to decide this way or another. I believe after legitimate
government is formed, after a new president elected, after a new parliament is elected, they should
return to this."
Russia will be watching the planned presidential election in Ukraine, Putin said. If it is conducted
in an atmosphere of terror, Russia will consider it unfair and will not recognize its results, he
warned.
Putin commented on the issue of Ukraine's territorial integrity, which Russia committed to preserve.
He said that Western powers reject Russia's assessment of the events in Ukraine as a coup and insist
on calling it a revolution.
Some Russian experts, Putin warned that if Ukraine had undergone a revolution, then the nation
that came out of it is not the same that it was before, similarly to how Russia transformed after
the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
If this is the case, Moscow may consider itself no longer bound by any treaties it has with Ukraine,
Putin warned.
Today, Ukraine needs a modern-day equivalent of the Marshall Plan, by which the United States helped
to reconstruct Europe after World War II. Germany ought to play the same role today as the US did then.
By George Soros
Following a crescendo of terrifying violence, the Ukrainian uprising has had a surprisingly positive
outcome. Contrary to all rational expectations, a group of citizens armed with not much more than
sticks and shields made of cardboard boxes and metal garbage-can lids overwhelmed a police force
firing live ammunition. There were many casualties, but the citizens prevailed. This was one of those
historic moments that leave a lasting imprint on a society's collective memory.
How could such a thing happen? Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics
offers a fitting metaphor. According to Heisenberg, subatomic phenomena can manifest themselves as
particles or waves; similarly, human beings may alternate between behaving as individual particles
or as components of a larger wave. In other words, the unpredictability of historical events like
those in Ukraine has to do with an element of uncertainty in human identity.
People's identity is made up of individual elements and elements of larger units to which they
belong, and peoples' impact on reality depends on which elements dominate their behavior. When civilians
launched a suicidal attack on an armed force in Kyiv on February 20, their sense of representing
"the nation" far outweighed their concern with their individual mortality. The result was to swing
a deeply divided society from the verge of civil war to an unprecedented sense of unity.
Whether that unity endures will depend on how Europe responds. Ukrainians have demonstrated their
allegiance to a European Union that is itself hopelessly divided, with the euro crisis pitting creditor
and debtor countries against one another. That is why the EU was hopelessly outmaneuvered by Russia
in the negotiations with Ukraine over an Association Agreement.
True to form, the EU under German leadership offered far too little and demanded far too much
from Ukraine. Now, after the Ukrainian people's commitment to closer ties with Europe fueled a successful
popular insurrection, the EU, along with the International Monetary Fund, is putting together a multibillion-dollar
rescue package to save the country from financial collapse. But that will not be sufficient to sustain
the national unity that Ukraine will need in the coming years.
I established the Renaissance Foundation in Ukraine in 1990 – before the country achieved independence.
The foundation did not participate in the recent uprising, but it did serve as a defender of those
targeted by official repression. The foundation is now ready to support Ukrainians' strongly felt
desire to establish resilient democratic institutions (above all, an independent and professional
judiciary). But Ukraine will need outside assistance that only the EU can provide: management expertise
and access to markets.
In the remarkable transformation of Central Europe's economies in the 1990's, management expertise
and market access resulted from massive investments by German and other EU-based companies, which
integrated local producers into their global value chains. Ukraine, with its high-quality human capital
and diversified economy, is a potentially attractive investment destination. But realizing this potential
requires improving the business climate across the economy as a whole and within individual sectors
– particularly by addressing the endemic corruption and weak rule of law that are deterring foreign
and domestic investors alike.
In addition to encouraging foreign direct investment, the EU could provide support to train local
companies' managers and help them develop their business strategies, with service providers remunerated
by equity stakes or profit-sharing. An effective way to roll out such support to a large number of
companies would be to combine it with credit lines provided by commercial banks. To encourage participation,
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) could invest in companies alongside foreign
and local investors, as it did in Central Europe.
Ukraine would thus open its domestic market to goods manufactured or assembled by European companies'
wholly- or partly-owned subsidiaries, while the EU would increase market access for Ukrainian companies
and help them integrate into global markets.
I hope and trust that Europe under German leadership will rise to the occasion. I have been arguing
for several years that Germany should accept the responsibilities and liabilities of its dominant
position in Europe. Today, Ukraine needs a modern-day equivalent of the Marshall Plan, by which the
United States helped to reconstruct Europe after World War II. Germany ought to play the same role
today as the US did then.
I must, however, end with a word of caution. The Marshall Plan did not include the Soviet bloc,
thereby reinforcing the Cold War division of Europe. A replay of the Cold War would cause immense
damage to both Russia and Europe, and most of all to Ukraine, which is situated between them. Ukraine
depends on Russian gas, and it needs access to European markets for its products; it must have good
relations with both sides.
Here, too, Germany should take the lead. Chancellor Angela Merkel must reach out to President
Vladimir Putin to ensure that Russia is a partner, not an opponent, in the Ukrainian renaissance.
Сотрудница киевского офиса – о том, как изменились отношения в коллективе после Майдана, чем
отличаются западные украинцы от восточных, и где заложена бомба взаимного непонимания.
Я
работаю в компании, один офис которой находится в Крыму, второй - в Киеве. Часть времени провожу
в одном, часть в другом. Я - билингва и этническая украинка. То есть аллергии на Украину, украинский
язык и прочее, у меня нет. Но Майдан выпустил наружу всех "тараканов", которые роились в головах
жителей запада и востока Украины. И их оказалось столько, что порой трудно работать.
Открываю письмо от партнера, который всегда общался со мной на русском, будучи уверенным, что
мовы я, крымчанка, не знаю. "Тепер я буду з вами розмовляти тільки українською!". Отвечаю на украинском
же: " Немає проблем, я розмовляю українською". И узнаю, что он, оказывается, "западенец", просто
давно живет в Киеве и выучил русский. А теперь вспомнил о корнях и решил оттоптаться на тех, кто
не так сильно напрягался в свое время, как он думает. Вспомнилось: "Хто не скаче - той москаль".
В нашем киевском, главном офисе, руководитель - русскоязычный киевлянин, однако его ближайшее
окружение - из Западной Украины. Причем набор на вновь открывшиеся вакансии шел таким образом,
что, если претендовал "западенец", то брали его. Коллеги-киевляне бурчали на предмет того, зачем
ему "западенцы", если своим работы не хватает. Обычная проблема большого города, не правда ли?
Бурчали из разряда "начальство хорошим не бывает, нужно же найти недостатки", но мирно пили чай
и даже дружили.
Однако со временем стали видеть, что мы - разные. В чем это выражается? Ну, например. Если
к "восточному" украинцу подойти и попросить что-то сделать, первыми его вопросами будут: "А это
срочно?". У западного украинца: "А почему я должен это делать?".
Если для нас остаться и что-то доделать - нормально, да и по работе нам позвонить в выходной
можно, то дергать наших западенцев - табу. Они отдыхают. Это невежливо.
Они старались говорить на русском, хотя чаще мы переходили на украинский, но в целом жили мирно.
Сейчас нас разделяет пропасть.
Офис разделился на тех, кто был на Майдане (в основном - Западная Украина), и тех, кто не был.
Еще во время мирного Майдана первые косились на вторых и презирали. Всей душой. Было время, когда
не здоровались. Мы пыхтели и молча, с пониманием тянули работу за двоих-троих, за тех, кто ходил
на Майдан. Мы понимали, что, раз так сложилась ситуация, важно не завалить работу - после Майдана
тоже нужно будет кушать. Некоторые сидели ночами, так как работы накопилось много, и ее нужно
было разгребать и систематизировать. Ведь конец года никто не отменял, так же, как и сдачу документов,
планирование, бюджетирование.
Западенцы уговаривали начальство не принимать никаких финансовых решений и планов. Говорили:
"Зачем? Майдан же, а после Майдана непонятно что будет. Может, нас вообще закроют".
Мы стискивали зубы и добивали отчеты, вели текущую работу, планировали координацию на следующий
год.
Была часть сотрудников, которая, как и мы, сидела в офисе, но, вместо работы, с упоением обсуждала
все события на Майдане. Эти считались майдановскими и рукопожатыми.
На дни рождения стали пить за Степана Бендеру и Тягныбока. Мы морщились, но, чтобы не быть
нелояльными и неполиткорректными, молча пили за свое.
Теперь мы должны ходить с мрачным видом, потому что наша будничная жизнь и мелкие радости оскорбляют
чувства тех, кто на Майдане был. Да, нам искренне жаль тех, кто погиб. Но нужно двигаться дальше
и продолжать жить.
Соцсети и наши высказывания в них относительно Майдана и всего, что с этим связано, наши западноукраинские
коллеги мониторят и оценивают похлеще спецслужб. К некоторым - тем, кто не ходил на Майдан и против
того, что происходит в стране - высказываться запретили. Понятно, что официального приказа по
организации нет, но вызвали и строго предупредили, что терпеть подобное не будут.
Что же такого говорят "немайдановские" коллеги? А примерно следующее: "Не была я на Майдане
и не пошла бы туда второй раз. Угробить сто человек, чтобы перенести выборы на 6-7 месяцев - ради
этого не стоило воевать. И я не понимаю, почему должна ненавидеть за их гибель Россию".
Россия - это еще один большой "таракан". Всю дорогу СМИ трубили, что в Борисполе высадился
русский десант, что на Украине действует российский спецназ. Русский след до сих пор ищут. То
нашли российские военные знаки отличия в какой-то гостинице. То кто-то сказал, что их били люди
с московским акцентом. Доказательств ноль, но осадок оставался и накапливался. Теперь, так или
иначе, это отражается на положении русскоязычных и на позициях русского языка.
Россияне, которые помогали Майдану, сейчас удивляются, за что их здесь не любят и называют
в соцсетях "рабами", русский язык – "оккупационным", тех, кто не говорит в обиходе на украинском
– "олигофренами". Логика простая: если ты не говоришь, значит, не можешь. А раз не можешь – дебил
и олигофрен. А если я могу, но просто хочу говорить на родном русском? Да, это пока не мейнстрим,
это, скорее, крайности, но таких ситуаций становится больше.
"Где ты был во время Майдана?". Они планируют спросить об этом каждого. Нас втянули в войну,
которой мы не хотели. Мы три месяца жили на пороховой бочке. Мы не пошли на Майдан, потому не
считали это нашей войной. И мы виноваты теперь в том, что они вышли, а мы нет. Но мы их об этой
войне не просили.
Мы переходим к толерантности по-европейски. Когда те, кто считал себя ущемленным, садится на
голову и свешивает ноги. Неужели те киевляне, крымчане, одесситы, днепродзержинцы, которые поддерживали
Майдан, хотели этого?
И еще. Сейчас, когда в Крыму начались нешуточные волнения, среди сторонников Майдана проходят
красивые акции "против спекуляций нечистоплотных политиков на языковой теме". Сначала львовское
издательство, отроду не печатавшее книг на русском, решило изменить себе и одну все же напечатать.
Потом киевский телеведущий, с детских лет принципиально не говоривший по-русски, заговорил. Затем
Львов всем городом объявил день общения на русском. Все эти одноразовые акции конечно не могут
не радовать, но доверия, уж простите не вызывают. В свете вышесказанного.
Last week Ukraine saw its worst violence since the breakup of the Soviet Union over 20 years ago.
Protesters occupying the main square in the capitol city, Kiev, clashed with police leaving many
protesters and police dead and many more wounded. It is an ongoing tragedy and it looks like there
is no end in sight.
The current conflict stems from a divide between western Ukraine, which seeks a closer association
with the European Union; and the eastern part of the country, which has closer historic ties to Russia.
The usual interventionists in the US have long meddled in the internal affairs of Ukraine. In
2004 it was US government money that helped finance the Orange Revolution, as US-funded NGOs favoring
one political group over the other were able to change the regime. These same people have not given
up on Ukraine. They keep pushing their own agenda for Ukraine behind the scenes, even as they ridicule
anyone who claims US involvement.
A recent leaked telephone conversation between two senior government officials made it clear that
not only was the US involved in the Ukrainian unrest, the US was actually seeking to determine who
should make up the next Ukrainian government!
Senator John McCain, who has made several trips to Ukraine recently to meet with the opposition,
wrote
last week that the US must stand up to support the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea.
Why are US government officials so eager to tell the Ukrainians what they should do? Has anyone
bothered to ask the Ukrainians? What if might help alleviate the ongoing violence and bloodshed if
the Ukrainians decide to remake the country as a looser confederation of regions rather than one
tightly controlled by a central government? Perhaps Ukraine engaged in peaceful trade with countries
both to the west and east would benefit all sides. But outside powers seem to be fighting a proxy
war, with Ukraine suffering the most because of it.
If you asked most Americans how they feel, my bet is that you would discover they are sick and
tired of the US government getting involved in every crisis that arises. Certainly the American people
want none of of this intervention in Ukraine. They understand, as recent polls have shown, that our
interventionist foreign policy is only creating more enemies overseas. And they also understand that
we are out of money. We could not afford to be the policemen of world even if we wanted to be.
And I bet if we asked the Ukrainians, a vast majority of them would prefer that the US – and Russia
and the European Union – stay out their affairs and respect their sovereignty. Is it so difficult
to understand why people resent being lectured and bribed by foreign governments? All we need to
do is put ourselves in the place of the Ukrainians and ask ourselves how we would feel if we were
in the middle of a tug-of-war between a very strong Canada on one side and a very strong Mexico on
the other. We would resent it as well. So let's keep our hands off of Ukraine and let them solve
their own problems!
A monstrous crime is being committed in Ukraine right before the eyes of the world and the western
media is helping to cover it up and distract the attention of the entire world from the core fact
that the events in Ukraine are not a popular uprising but a carefully orchestrated synthetic coup
d'état brought about by long entrenched western color revolution infrastructure that was installed
by US/NATO/EU to bring about the illegal act of regime change on the sovereign country of Ukraine.
The unprecedented violent actions by the armed insurgents, who openly use deadly force on law
enforcement and have set Kiev in flames, attempting to overthrow the government by force, are in
fact treasonous crimes against the Ukraine and the people of Ukraine as they are being controlled
from the outside and violate all internationally accepted democratic principles as well as all of
the internal laws and constitutionally dictated standards of conduct enshrined in the Constitution
of Ukraine.
It is illegal under international law for any country to carry out measures to bring about the
illegal change of the government in any other sovereign state, this includes support of any kind
for insurgent forces, the implementation of economic and other measures to pressure the government
to step down or dissolve and all other instruments and measures both covert and overt that may be
used to bring about what is now popularly called "regime change" by the West and the US Government.
International Law
Overthrowing governments and removing presidents by force is illegal and covered in laws and ruling
by bodies such as the World Court and even the International Criminal Court, which has become a mere
instrument of the West, however the United Nations Charter is the most important document and widely
respected of all of these instruments and one which all countries that attempt to abide by international
law attempt to follow.
Under the UN Charter all attempts by the US/NATO/EU to influence the events in Ukraine so as to
bring about a resolution that conforms to their own interests are illegal.
The debate over US/NATO/EU meddling in Ukraine and the use of US/NATO/EU military force, economic
measures, political pressure and all of the other "tools" they use, including aggressive military
attack and occupation, to effect
in countries such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Serbia, Venezuela,
Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Sudan and the other targeted countries, has conveniently been absent of one
key fact: coercive, forced and outside regime change violates
.
UN Charter
According to
developing peaceful international relations based on the "principle of equal
rights and self-determination of peoples" is one of the founding principles of the United Nations,
and by default the UN Security Council. Therefore any attempt by any country to subjugate or pressure
another into implementing measures or carrying out an agenda not instigated from within and not in
keeping with the will of the people is illegal. The "will of the people" can only be known through
referendums and democratic political processes and debates, not through fabricated pogroms in the
streets, which the US is expert at organizing. As for pressure on the government, even the implementation
of sanctions is therefore illegal as this is done to pressure a government from the outside.
It is prohibited under international law to threaten to use force and Article 2 (4) of the UN
Charter states this clearly and requires all UN member states to respect the sovereignty, territorial
integrity and political independence of other states. US/NATO/EU have not threatened military force
against Ukraine, as they already have their ground force installed as they did in Syria, Libya, etc.
but this applies to other countries they have invaded recently.
Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter states clearly that the United Nations and its members have no
authority to intervene in matters which are within the domestic jurisdiction of any state (sovereign
country). However the US/NATO/EU have gotten around this by implementing and using what they call
the Responsibility to Protect. Uprisings and violent demonstrations such as what is happening in
Ukraine fall within the definition of domestic jurisdiction, therefore any outside attempt to interfere
is illegal.
Armed Insurgents
What is alarming in Ukraine is the violent and militarized nature of what the West is endlessly
painting as a legitimate opposition. This portrayal runs contrary to what the most of the world is
seeing right in front of their eyes on their TV screens. Even multiple statements by US officials
themselves and a recently released telephone conversation between US official Victoria Nuland and
the US Ambassador to Ukraine, show that these are not members of a legitimate internal opposition,
but rather radicalized, militarized, trained, planted, funded and supported members of western "color
revolution" infrastructure.
The US/NATO/EU continue to egregiously blame the government and are criminally silent when the
opposition they support, and in fact planted, murder members of the security forces and policemen.
The outright murder, kidnapping and extreme violence against police and security forces should be
something that would cause an outcry among police officers worldwide, especially in the US, where
their police are given almost god-like reverence, yet the so called "international community" and
members of the world's law enforcement bodies are silent.
Nothing that the insurgents have done would be supported in any US/NATO/EU country or city, yet
they continue to call on, threaten and pressure the authorities in Ukraine to not interfere or take
required measures. The violent insurgents have made a mockery of law and order and have literally
set the capital of a civilized, democratic European country on fire.
Storming, seizing and burning down the buildings which house the instruments and bodies of the
state; openly shooting, murdering, kidnapping and falsely detaining members of law enforcement; destroying
and setting alight the property of the state and the people; organizing the pogrom we are seeing
in Ukraine; violating the law and acting against their own constitution; blackmailing and threatening
officials to step down or be complaint and finally promoting policies that are not in keeping with
the desires of the Ukrainian people, are all factual aspects of the Ukrainian "opposition". So why
is US/NATO/EU openly supporting them?
Business As Usual for US/NATO/EU
In my journalistic work I have attempted to robustly detail for years what US/NATO have been doing
in their redesigning of world's geopolitical landscape and I cannot repeat this enough, what we are
seeing in Ukraine is just another regime change for the West. The tactics they use are always the
same, we have seen them and documented them time and again and they continue to be illegal and egregious.
Yet they continue with impunity.
All of the regime change actions and provocations that US/NATO/EU have used in Ukraine have been
documented and exposed before the fact, yet the US president, EU leaders and their compliant media
continue to egregiously stick to their own artificial pre-planned narrative.
The goal was regime change because US/NATO/EU understood that the Ukrainian Government and more
importantly the Ukrainian people would not allow their country to be subverted and become yet another
US/NATO/EU client state. More importantly this turn to Russia seriously interferes with US/NATO/EU
military plans to base US/NATO missiles in Ukraine, evict the Russian Black Sea Fleet and achieve
their prime military objective of neutralizing Russia and eliminating Russia's response to a first
strike nuclear attack, which at the end of the day is the goal. The people of Ukraine and the organs
of government are just inconveniences for US/NATO/EU and even if the country is completely destroyed
and divided, their goal will be carried out. The destruction of the state of Ukraine will in fact
benefit the US/NATO/EU and this fact we have seen repeatedly in the last 15 years.
Obama Connects Syria and Ukraine
In comments related to a soon to be released Voice of Russia interview Professor Francis Boyle
a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law told me the following:
"Obama said that the people of the Ukraine should be able to determine their own future just like
the people of Syria should be able to determine their own future. So Obama himself linked the two.
The strategy is the same: regime change, civil war, destruction of the State. So this elevates the
call by the State Department for a transition to a government of technocrats to the presidential
level. The cat is out of the bag. Regime Change of the democratically elected government of Ukraine
is openly admitted to be USG policy. Even worse than Syria, whose government was arguably not really
democratic. Nevertheless as I point out in my book, the demand for regime change by one government
against another government is illegal and violates the World Court's ruling against the United States
in the Nicaragua decision (1996)."
Media Failure
The western mass media continues to promote and spread a phony slanted narrative of the events
in Ukraine and their attempts have been formidable and almost impossible to counter. This concerns
mostly the nature and portrayal of the police murdering opposition which, like the cop killers in
the Caucuses, the West portrays as heroes and some sort of freedom fighters.
Again the hypocrisy of the West in Ukraine is resounding and completely obvious, yet they continue
with impunity. US illegality and their complete and total disregard for international law continue
to stare the world in the face in Guantanamo and worldwide, yet the compliant media has failed as
US illegality has now spread like a cancer to include all NATO/EU countries.
It is another black day for the world as we see that the mass media has completely failed and
been corrupted in the West. All of the facts surrounding the murderous insurgents in Ukraine and
their bloody uprising and the collusion of the Central Intelligence Agency, US/NATO/EU and the West
are being conveniently ignored as the subservient media chooses to attempt to go so far as to blame
Russia which has from day one made it a point not to interfere.
Nowhere do we see debates going on regarding: the over $50 billion the US has spent buying out
Ukraine; the admission by Victoria Nuland of US meddling in her telephone conversation, during which
she implicated the head of the UN in US/NATO/EU plans; the training and equipping of the insurgents
by US/NATO/EU; the fact that all outside pressure and meddling is illegal nor the fact that if anything
similar happened in the West it would in no way be allowed.
Wake Up Call
They have won and Ukraine has fallen. The President of Ukraine has stated he will step down, which
was the first call by the US/NATO/EU, when the first encampments appeared on Maidan Square. This
was their clear goal and even though we documented it they have won. However what they have in fact
done is committed another crime on an international scale.
Will anyone answer for the crime of subversion and for violating the sovereignty of Ukraine? Not
likely. Therefore this should be a serious wake up call to all countries of the world, but will it?
Also not likely.
What is striking in Ukraine was that it was a democratically elected government, that all of the
US/NATO/EU plans were know from the start and that it was still allowed to proceed.
Once again, as we saw in Iraq, Libya and all other countries where the governments have been recently
overthrown and the leader executed or otherwise removed (with North Korea being the perfect example)
the only protection that any country has from the imposition of US/NATO/EU regime change is quite
simply nuclear weapons.
US/NATO Obama/Neo-Con Plans and Impunity
After 9-11 Neo-Con Paul Wolfowitz, the then US Deputy Secretary of Defense stated that the US
Government is now in the business of destroying countries, executing presidents and changing governments
at will.
General Wesley Clark who was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, took issue with the Neo-Con
architects from the Project for a New American Century (LINK 5) and gave testimony that the US planned
to overthrow seven countries after 9/11: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
and said it was plotted by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and "a half dozen other
collaborators from the Project for the New American Century". In a report Glen Greenwald cites a
US Secretary of Defense Memo which gave even more detail and put a timeframe on the plan: "I just
got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the
governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to
move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
Greenwald reported that General Clark was shocked and wrote about the following exchange: "And
we've got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before
the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz's desires
because, as Clark put it: "the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It's
not to deter conflicts?"." Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz's desires because, as Clark put
it: "the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It's not to deter conflicts?"
A New Regime Would Be Illegal
Any regime installed in any way other than trough democratic elections in Ukraine and under the
current crisis will be illegal. President Yanukovich despite being weak and some might argue incompetent
in maintaining stability in his country, was democratically elected in elections that were recognized
by the entire world. This is important to underline.
Even though he was placed in a Catch 22 situation by the West where if he cracked down he would
be demonized and if he did not he would be overthrown, his handling of the internal crisis leaves
a lot of questions to be answered.
Timing of Ukrainian Coup
It is also important to note the similarities between the timing of the events in Ukraine and
the invasion by Georgia of South OssetiaBoth taking place during Olympics and again the words of
Neo-Con Paul Wolfowitz: "… we've got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes before
the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
Ukraine is the crowning jewel and it looks like they will obtain it.
The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at [email protected].
Ms Matviyenko, a member of president Vladimir Putin's ruling United Russia party and the country's
third-highest elected leader, carefully balanced her remarks with criticism of the Ukrainian opposition.
And yet, the Ukraine-born politician's words stand out sharply in a country which almost unanimously
describes the Kiev crisis
as a coup attempt of radicals egged on by a west scheming to expand its sphere of influence.
Since the very beginning of the street protests in Kiev, Russia's tame media in general, and its
state-controlled television in particular, have been showing the Russian public images of chaos and
violence while remaining largely silent about protesters' peaceful demands and the complex political
landscape in Ukraine.
Footage of the clashes in Kiev features violence on both sides, but Russian state television continues
to focus on victims among the security forces, confirming most Russians' dismissive attitude towards
the protests.
The chaos in Ukraine has awakened a latent contempt for a country that many Russians struggle
to recognise as a fully independent nation.
While a minority of intellectuals and democracy activists have shown envy or drawn inspiration
from Ukraine's protest movement – and blasted the Russian state media for distorting the story –
this is far from the majority view.
In particular, for those who experienced the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the stormy 1990s
– a period marked by political infighting, food shortages and rampant inflation – a quiet, safe life
is more important than anything else.
These are the people who, although more critical of corruption and economic stagnation, keep electing
Mr Putin because they cherish stability. Ukraine reminds them of what could have been.
Russian translation is available from
InoSMI. From comments:
"This professor ccurrently teaches American foreign policy at Yale University. In 2003 Mead supported
the war in Iraq. He adhere to the principle of American exceptionalism, belittles the role of the UN.
Level of knowledge of Russia is superficial."
But time isn't on Mr. Putin's side. Russia's failure since 1989 to build an effective economy
keeps his reach short. U.S. diplomacy may be wobbly, but U.S. development of shale oil and gas attacks
the core of Russia's strength. With the U.S. out of the gas-importing business, a lot more natural
gas is on world markets, and Gazprom's
OGZPY +2.02% customers are demanding better
terms. Fracking hurts Mr. Putin in the wallet, and Russia has never had much cash to spare.
Worse, no matter what Russia does, China keeps rising in the East, and Germany is becoming more
active in the West. Russia's population is changing, with Muslim minorities growing rapidly and Christian
Slavs fading away. Across Russia's south, militant Islamists quietly slip into the mosques and madrassas.
As Russian power dissolves, Mr. Putin is left to vamp in the spotlights and do what he can to reverse,
postpone or hide the decline.
Considered purely on form, Mr. Putin is easily the world's most accomplished diplomatic tap dancer.
(The clumsy Chinese can't make a move without inflaming neighbors worried about their growing power,
and the top diplomats of the EU and the U.S.- Catherine Ashton and
John Kerry -are often
all left feet.) But how long can Putin figure skate while the ice beneath him melts?
Still, Americans should not get too smug. Sometimes smart underdogs win. For Mr. Putin's razzle-dazzle
diplomacy to succeed, he needs one thing above all: for his opponents to make mistakes. So far, the
U.S. and the EU have given him all the opportunities he could want. If the West doesn't get its act
together soon, Mr. Putin just might end up with a brace of gold medals.
-Mr. Mead is a professor at Bard College and the author of "Special Providence: American Foreign
Policy and How It Changed the World."
An unfortunate legacy of the Cold War is the negative attitude some American conservatives yet
harbor toward Russia. Conditioned for decades to see Russia and the Soviet Union as synonymous, they
still view post-communist Russia as a threat. They forget that Tsarist Russia was the most conservative
great power, a bastion of Christian monarchy loathed by revolutionaries, Jacobins, and democrats.
Joseph de Maistre was not alone among 19th-century conservatives in finding refuge and hope in Russia.
Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is emerging once more as the leading conservative power. As
we witnessed in Russia's rescue of President Obama from the corner into which he had painted himself
on Syria, the Kremlin is today, as the New York Times reports, "Establishing Russia's role
in world affairs not based on the dated Cold War paradigm but rather on its different outlook, which
favors state sovereignty and status quo stability over the spread of Western-style democracy."
In his own Times op-ed on Syria, Putin wrote, "It is alarming that military intervention
in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in
America's long-term interest? I doubt it." Sen. Robert A. Taft and Russell Kirk also doubted it.
Moscow appears to understand better than Washington that the driving foreign-policy requirement of
the 21st century is the preservation of the state in the face of Fourth Generation war waged by non-state
entities, such as those fighting on the rebels' side in Syria. Russia has rightly upbraided Washington
for destroying states, including Iraq and Libya.
US spent 2 trillion dollars in the last 12 years on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. UK a a few
hundred billion. What was that? A "state funded" entertainment for bloody media? Or a bribe to
rich arms manufacturers?
Sochi spent officially $15 billion on the Olympics. If you include absolutely everything (railroads,
new freeways, new infrastructure, airports,...), $50 billion. What was a better investment? Dropping
bombs or building a new subtropical resort region of southern Russia?
Or would you prefer that Russians spend their money on buying real estate and football clubs
in UK? That is not "corruption"?
Bob_Helpful -> Beckow
Your funny little rant would work better if I had said that it was a worse investment than
spending money on wars. The fact that America spends so much on warfare whilst simultaneously
claiming it can't afford to provide basic free medical care to its citizens is bizarre.
What was a better investment? Dropping bombs or building a new subtropical resort region
of southern Russia?
An even better investment would be investing in Russian schools and hospitals in my humble
opinion. I would rather Russia spent money on helping the plight of the millions of poor people
in its country rather than spending so extravagantly on a skiing festival.
Rialbynot -> Bob_Helpful
I suggest you look at a map of Russia.
It is has a very short Black Sea coastline, and it doesn't have many mountains (am thinking
of the European part of Russia here).
Lots of Russians want to spend their holidays by the sea and/or ski in the winter.
Where should a country with a short coastline and few mountains with millions of would-be summer
and winter tourists build hotels?
Tell me please!
(Admittedly, all of this is not such good news for the tourism business in Cyprus, Greece and
Bulgaria, where all the Russian summer tourists used to go, because there was no capacity in Sochi.)
Beckow -> Bob_Helpful
Well, context matters. I provided a context on what countries usually spend their money on.
Is your view that until all educational and health needs are satisfied there should be no Olympics,
no World Cups, no sport extravaganzas of any kind? Or are you just focused on Russia? If it is
just Russia, than what your wrote was just a "rant".
When US built its interstate freeway system there was a lot of complaining about "roads to
nowhere". Nowhere sometimes becomes "somewhere". Russia is taking a chance, we will not know for
years whether those infrastructure investments in the Sochi region will pay off.
In any case, it seems on its face a better way to use society's resources than bombs or giving
it to already wealthy bankers. When you citisise others, you need to be accurate and have some
context.
Beckow
The Western coverage missed the point because it really, really, wanted to miss the point.
As with so many things in the West petty geo-politics and social obsessions control what Westerners
are allowed to see. And I use the word 'allowed' consciously - it is unfortunately a very scripted
life that Western masses are fed over and over again.
Was there any mention of slavery or colonial genocides at London, Salt Lake, or Vancouver?
No, I didn't think so. Did Bush show as the shock-and-awe as part of the opening ceremonies? There
is a place for introspection and there is a place for ceremony, so this harping - and the Mary
Dejevsky couldn't stay away from it - is absurd on its face.
What the coverage showed about today's Russia is that West is stuck in an immature, bad mannered
tine warp. Traveling around the world looking for that one broken toilet, or the few unfinished
rooms, or an angry lesbian, is that what the culture has descended to?
Apart from everything else is has backfired spectacularly: the Russia-haters have come out
of it diminished and exposed as frauds. They will continue hating, they will continue their campaigns,
but unless the mainstream media dumps them, they will be simply diminished with them.
Hatred and schadenfreude are not interesting. They are poisonous. The consequences are paid
for by all. Including the struggling British businessmen who will simply lose out....Cameron knows
that, that's why he has been so quiet.
Waterkanter
£30billion for all that infra structure looks rather good value for money when you compare
it to the £52billion of HS2. All we'll get is a train set and some rail tracks.
Ameliascottage
One of the best Guardian articles I've seen in years. As an American I love hearing the inside
story of a land so far away, one that I hope to visit but may never get to. Oymoyakon looks especially
harsh but beautiful.
The Olympic coverage could have been very shallow, but instead it gave me a valuable glimpse
and information I never would have had otherwise, presented in an incredibly artful manner.
Anyone who doesn't appreciate it should switch back to their Fox News and let the rest of us
enjoy the show.
AnnaKim
Now let's spin the story and imagine what it would be for Britain if other countries were treating
you as badly as you treat Russia.
So 2012.
Opening ceremony in London. The shambolic kitschy music circus that was unfolding on stage
left the world baffled as 99% percent of the global population didn't get a single cultural reference.
Athletes are moaning about the unacceptable quality of food. Journalists discover that London
is teeming with feral foxes which are attacking little kids and spreading infectious diseases.
Tourists are puzzled by the eerily silent streets in West End unaware of the fact that most Londoners
were advised to avoid the Olympics like the plague.
And how dare those treacherous imperialists so grossly distort their own history omitting some
of its major highlights - which would most certainly include unleashing deadly opium wars in China,
Peterloo massacre, gassing the Kurds in 1920, systematic executions in India, torturing Kenyan
rebels in 1950s, hunger strikes in Ireland and many other glorious achievements, not to mention
the ongoing victorious war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And last but not least, it's dazzling how the record-breaking financial crisis didn't get any
credits in the opening ceremony given that City - the world's biggest virtual money refinery -
is just a few miles away from the Olympic park. Perhaps they'd better spend all those billions
to cut budget deficit instead of slashing public spending on health and education? Well done guys.
В интернете уже довольно давно блуждают тексты,
по поводу нормальности гомосексуализма в древнем мире. Говорят, что чуть ли не каждый древний
грек занимался извращениями и это было нормально.
Невежественные люди верят во всё это.
Вот вчера, например, один еврейчик попал в топ за жетончики с подобными письменами. И что меня
покоробило, что мои "друзья" за 20 жетончиков эту муть репостнули, это были: leghe, dro63, borman_b,
slavka999, slavikap(за 100 жетончиков).
Ну не пидарасы они после этого? Нет, в друзьях пидарасы мне не нужны.
Про античность не все так однозначно:
"В Афинах классического периода гомосексуалисты обязаны были заявлять о своем пороке в
экклисию, после чего лишались всех гражданских прав (в том числе и право быть свидетелем в суде).
Если же они скрывали свой порок - их подвергали остракизму или казнили.
В Спарте было ещё суровее - никаких заявлений - кто попадался - казнили! Названия гомосексуалист
- не существовало, а существовало слово - кинэдос ( что в приблизительном переводе означало -
подверженный проклятию).
Как человек, живущий в Греции и имеющий возможность знакомиться с литературой древнего периода
и знаю это. А литературу современных гомиков, пытающихся под личиной профессоров или журналистов
замутить людям мозги - не читаю - оставляю это для тех, кто еще не понял, что и кем и для чего
пишется.....
Что касается истории Древней Греции, то я не копаюсь в русскоязычном Интернете, поскольку, находясь
в Греции, считаю более серьезным изучение литературы НА ГРЕЧЕСКОМ языке. Тем более, что те несколько
переводов на русский, что я встретил, дали мне ясно понять, что они и близко не могут сравниться
с оригиналами. Единственное, что они могут - так это ввести в заблуждение! Мне жаль, что русскоговорящие
- не имеют возможности знать правды!
Начну с того, что перевод с древнегреческого языка – на
какой-либо современный язык таит в себе огромные трудности. И они касаются - перевода смыслового,
а не только дословного. Для того чтобы понять смысл написанного, совершенно недостаточно знать
дословный перевод слов – необходимо иметь представление о законах и обычаях тех лет, о том мире,
в котором создавалась книга!
Итак, Платон - Законы. Читаю в переводе: " …Наслаждение от соединения мужской природы с женской,
влекущего за собой рождение, уделено нам от природы, соединение же мужчины с мужчиной и женщины
с женщиной - противоестественно и возникло как дерзкая попытка людей, разнузданных в удовольствиях…"
Сравниваю с переводом греческого автора Адониса Георгиадиса - на современный греческий (посматривая
и на данный рядом древнегреческий текст): "Понятно, таким образом, что природа побуждает женский
пол быть в связи - с мужским полом, от рождения. И ясно, что удовольствие в этом дано СОГЛАСНО
ПРИРОДЕ, в то же время (связь) мужского пола - с мужским и женского пола – с женским – ПРОТИВ
ПРИРОДЫ…"
Что ж, для начала хоть смысл не украден!
Однако, читая дальше русский перевод – не нахожу, к большому сожалению, ещё одной важной фразы,
гласящей: "Тот, кто слушаясь природу, предлагает восстановление закона таким, каким он был до
Лайо (мифического первооткрывателя гомосексуализма, который за это был осужден судьбой - на смерть
от руки своего сына) и проповедует, что неправильно вступать в связь с мужчинами и юношами, как
с женщинами, приводя в доказательство этого природу животных и подчеркивая, что (между собой)
существо мужского пола не дотрагивается до другого существа мужского пола с сексуальной целью,
ввиду того, что это – неестественно, находится, считаю, на очень сильной позиции…"
Читаю далее: "… Граждане наши, не должны быть хуже птиц и других видов животных, что рождаются
в стаях и живут без совокупления до возраста деторождения, непорочные и несвязанные браком, но
когда достигнут того возраста, образовывают пары мужское с женским и женское – с мужским, согласно
своим желаниям и оставшуюся жизнь живут в благочестии и почитании законов, оставаясь верными тем
соглашениям, которые были основой их связи. Они (граждане) должны быть ещё лучше чем животные…"
И далее: "… Никто не должен сметь вступать в связь с благородными и свободными, кроме их собственной
жены, и даже не позволяется распространять внебрачное семя среди наложниц или вступать в связь
с мужчинами, что есть противоестественно, и лучше связь между мужчинами запретим совершенно…"
Это говорит Платон, обвиненный некоторыми нечистоплотными историками - в прославлении гомосексуализма…..
Хочу спросить, как сейчас назовут человека, высказывающего такие пожелания? При условии, что
когда в Афинской демократии употребляли слово запретить – это означало смерть для нарушившего?
Сейчас только за пожелание запрета парада гомосексуалистов вас нарекут фашистом!
Теперь немного науки – лексилогии! Возьмем словарь древнегреческого Лиддел-Скотта, как одного
из точнейших: "эрамэ" - очень сильно желаю, чувствую влюблённость, нахожусь в состоянии любви,
люблю безудержно; "эрастис" - тот, кто имеет "эраме" по отношению к любимым людям; "эроменос"
(с ударением на первое "о") в связи с "эрао" - имею влюбленность, люблю. Когда в речи употребляется
слово "люблю" – это не значит обязательно – "хочу в сексуальном плане". Также как и в русском
языке, выражение "люблю своего отца или мать, сестру, товарища, учителя, Родину …" совершенно
не имеет никакой связи с сексом, и слово "люблю" часто означает привязанность и жертвенность по
отношению к предмету любви, также и в древнегреческом языке слово "эраме" употреблялось в аналогичном
смысле. В современном же греческом языке, сильно обедневшем и выродившемся, слова с корнями "эр"
относятся чаще уже к более узкому кругу желаний – сексуальному.
Поэтому, в отличие от древнегреческого, слово "эроменос" переводится как любимый (в сексуальном
плане), а "эрастис" – как любовник. Что в корне не соответствует смыслу, имеющему место в древнегреческом.
Перейдем, теперь, к другому слову древнегреческого языка – "педерастия" -"детолюбие". В Древней
Греции жизнь текла не по современным законам, а вернее – не по современному беззаконию! Каждый
юноша с 12 лет выбирал себе образ для подражания – какого-либо из граждан, либо нескольких граждан.
Главная роль в наблюдении за правильностью этих отношений лежала на Димосе (гражданах) Афин. Здесь
дело не ограничивалось простым желанием походить на кого-либо, но основывалось на прочных отношениях,
зачастую более крепких и основательных чем семейные. Это были отношения ученика и наставника,
где роль наставника была неизмеримо выше отцовской. Будущему гражданину предоставлялась, таким
образом, возможность избежать плохого влияния родителей и самому выбрать того, на кого он хочет
походить!
Поскольку такая связь предполагала большую открытость для контроля со стороны Димоса, чем семейная,
она была внушительной гарантией правильного развития граждан – таких, которые были выгодны Афинскому
Димосу.
Отношения между учеником и наставником, многими гражданами, считались более высокого уровня -
по сравнению с семейными. Любовь наставника к ученику, зачастую, ставилась выше любви отца - к
сыну. То же относилось и к любви ученика – к наставнику. Наставник назывался всегда – "эрастис"
(любящий) а ученик – "эроменос" (любимый), подчеркивая главенствующую роль первого и подчиненную
роль второго.
Позже, когда ученик достигал совершеннолетия, и если он сохранял почтительную дружескую связь
со своим наставником, эти названия - "эрастис" и "эроменос" могли оставаться за ними до самой
смерти, подчеркивая характер дружбы между ними, так же, как за сыном навсегда закрепляется название
– "сын", а за отцом, независимо от возраста – название "отец"! Какого бы возраста они не были,
эрастисом называли всегда старшего, а младшему отводилась роль эроменоса. Прошу заметить это,
поскольку защитники теории гомосексуализма и педерастии в Древней Греции ссылаются на дословный
ПЕРЕВОД СОВРЕМЕННЫХ слов "эрастис" (активная, производящая сторона в отношениях) и "эроменос"
(пассивная, принимающая сторона) и говорят о гомосексуальных отношениях.
Но все знают, что отношения между гомосексуалистами не строятся на возрастном принципе: и тот,
кто старше – не обязательно всегда является активным гомосексуалистом, а тот, кто моложе – всегда
пассивным.… В древнегреческой же литературе "эрастис" всегда старший по возрасту, "эроменос" -
всегда младший, что уже само - по себе заставляет заподозрить даже самых тупоголовых, что речь
здесь идет не о гомосексуальных отношениях…
Так же как и во многих традиционных обществах, отношения между учеником и его идеалом не были
простыми мечтаниями и любованием! Эрастис – наставник прямым образом "лепил-ваял" будущего гражданина-эроменоса.
Быть образцом для подражания было почетно, но сопряжено и с обязанностями – не уронить себя в
глазах ребенка или юноши, который тебя обожает и старается выполнить любое твое желание, но ещё
хуже – быть обвиненным Димосом в неправильном воспитании ученика. Если же речь шла о возможном
развращении эроменоса со стороны его эрастиса (включая и сексуальное развращение) – то в этом
случае наказанием была смерть! В древних Афинах (о Спарте даже и не говорю), для исключения любой
возможности совращения малолетних существовали довольно суровые по нашим меркам законы!
"Речи Эсхина. Против Тимарха" гл.12. (Эсхину логи: ката Тимарху): "…Учителя не должны открывать
школы раньше рассвета и закрывать – раньше захода. Не разрешается тому, кто старше 13, лет входить
в школу в момент, когда там находятся дети, за исключением, если он является сын, брат или зять
учителя. Нарушитель карается СМЕРТЬЮ. Гимнасты-наставники, во время праздников Гермеса, обязаны
не допускать никого из совершеннолетних - никоим образом сидеть рядом с детьми. Гимнаст-наставник,
позволяющий нечто подобное и не выгоняющий из гимназии нарушителя – является виновным по закону
о развращении свободных детей. Снабженцы, которых назначает Димос (народ), должны обязательно
иметь возраст более сорока лет".
Там же в гл.16: "… если какой-либо афинянин "ивриси" (обесчестит, развратит, осквернит …) свободного
юношу, тогда "кириос" (здесь – взрослый опекун, родитель) юноши должен направить письменное заявление
прокурорам и требовать его (виновного) наказания. Если суд его осудит, то он должен быть предан
одиннадцати палачам и казнен в тот же день. Если же будет осужден к денежному штрафу, то заплатит
в течение одиннадцати дней с момента приговора. Если же не имеет возможности выплатить в тот же
момент, до момента выплаты должен быть под заключением в тюрьме. Виновные за те же преступления
считаются и те, которые делают то же самое по отношению - к рабам"….
В другом законе, обозначенном в речи Демосфена против Мидия, и принадлежащем Солону: " Тот
кто подталкивает к разврату детей, женщину или мужчину, свободного или раба, или совершает противозаконные
действия в ущерб кого-либо из них – пусть будет обвинен любым афинянином перед законодателями.
Законодатели же, в течение тридцати дней с момента заявления, учинят над ним суд, если позволяют
условия. Если же будет рассмотрен судом и если будет признан виновным – осуждается к смерти или
штрафу"…
Весьма суровые на наш взгляд законы.
А теперь о гомосексуалистах!
К гомосексуалистам, (не говоря уже о развратниках детей, которых обычно казнили), отношение
было презрительное, как к чему-то скверному, нечистому и … опасному! "Речи Эсхина. Против Тимарха.
21гл.": "Если какой-либо афинянин "этериси" (будет любовником у мужчины), ему запрещается: 1)
быть одним из девяти архонтов, 2) быть священником, 3) быть защитником (адвокатом) на суде, 4)
занимать какую-либо должность внутри и вне Афинского Димоса (государства), как по жребию, так
и по выбору, 5) исполнять обязанности глашатая или избирать глашатая, 6) входить в священные общественные
места, участвовать в религиозных литургиях с венком на голове и находиться в той части агоры (древнее
место городского схода и рынок), которая освящена окроплением. Нарушитель вышеназванных указаний,
в случае если будет признан виновным (в вышеназванном) – наказывается смертью"….
Демосфен в своей речи "Против Андротиона", в параграфе 30, упоминает, что Солон утвердил закон
в отношении гомосексуалистов: "Мите легин Мите графин эксине тис итерискосин" - "даже право говорить,
даже право делать обвинения не имеют (в суде) те, которые "этериси".
Там же "Речи Эсхина. Против Тимарха." гл.185: " … таковы, господа судьи, взгляды наших предков
на честных и бесчестных женщин. И вы теперь объявите невиновным Тимарха, который виновен в более
противном грехопадении. Он же, будучи рожден мужчиной с мужским телом, опустился до того грехопадения,
которое подобает женщинам. Кто из вас после этого сможет обвинить женщину в грехопадении. Кто
из вас посмеет выказать такие неуместные идеи, чтобы с одной стороны казаться суровым по отношению
к какой-либо женщине, которая в конечном итоге ГРЕШИТ СОГЛАСНО СВОЕЙ ПРИРОДЕ, а с другой стороны
возьмет к себе советчиком того, кто втаптывает в грязь самого себя, нарушая, в том числе и законы
природы". Здесь Тимарх был обвинен в мужской проституции.
Итак, как вы видите, что-то непонятное для непосвященного раскрывается перед взором. С одной
стороны многочисленные заявления о поощрении гомосексуализма и детского разврата в классической
Греции со стороны ряда так называемых "исследователей", а с другой – упоминания о суровых законах
против тех же самых гомосексуалистов и развратников в древней литературе. Так в чем же дело? Что-то
здесь не так! Не может быть двух противоположных правд….
Наша слабость, позволяющая манипулировать нашим представлением об истории – наше незнание законов
и обычаев Старого Мира и наше незнание древних языков.
Ложь о Древней Греции, к примеру, приобрела поистине гигантские размеры. Историей Древней Греции
часто занимаются люди, не обладающие элементарным логическим мышлением, не умеющие или не желающие
производить анализ того, что они переводят или описывают. Правда замалчивается или искажается
- до состояния лжи. Непосвященные, читающие переводы и не знающие античной истории и древнегреческого,
не догадываются, что их вводят в заблуждения не только неправильные переводы слов, но и слова,
имеющие в наше распутное время совершенно ИНОЙ СМЫСЛ!!! Создается извращенный образ прошлого!
Таким образом, искажая историю, наше больное общество защищается от любых попыток правдивого
анализа, боясь, что в прошлом есть нечто такое, что может поставить под сомнение верность навязываемого
нам образа жизни. Еще большей ненавистью пышет к древнегреческому образу жизни и мысли – христианский
ДОГМАТИЗМ.
В своем желании безраздельно овладеть умами людей, он пытается доказать всему миру, что христианство
спасло мир от чего-то ужасного и скверного, и что оно – единственный возможный выбор современного
человека… Особую роль в искажении истории занимают современные защитники гомосексуализма, которые
"коверкая" историю, пытаются доказать, что гомосексуализм – есть нечто физиологичное и естественное,
приводя "примеры" из истории Древней Греции. Что уже само по себе – высшая степень наглости….
Итак, Robert Flaceliere "Эротас в Древней Греции": "Как все мы знаем, греческий эрос (эротас)
есть любовь юношей и точнее – педерастия. Но это слово - "педерастия" во Французском означает
почти всегда – извращение, в то время как в греческих текстах – непорочную и бескорыстную любовь,
а не гомосексуальные связи".
В современных языках, как русском, так и греческом, не существует слов, которые могли бы охарактеризовать
древнегреческое выражение - "эрастис" и "эроменос". Как я уже написал ранее, ближе всего стоит
выражение – "наставник" и "ученик" или "подопечный", хотя и эти слова очень далеки от истинного
смысла. Чем же характеризовались отношения между "эрастисом" и "эроменосом"? Это была мужская
дружба, где главенствовал старший, а младший пытался всячески походить на своего наставника и
всячески доказывать свою преданность ему. Быть "эрастисом" умного, красивого, смелого юноши считалось
показателем качества гражданина. Знаменитые, выдающиеся граждане являлись "эрастисами" для многих
молодых людей. Естественно, некоторые граждане (как это всегда бывает с людьми), не имея необходимых
достоинств, пытались подкупить молодых людей, чтобы те заявляли во всеуслышание о том, что они
являются их наставниками – "эрастисами". Такие факты высмеивались как в комедиях того времени,
так и в карикатурах. Осуждения заслуживали и те из "эрастисов", которые выдвигали непомерные требования
к своим подопечным или заставляли их выполнять непосильные задания…
Чем же была "педерастия" в Древней Греции? Эта великая связь мужчин - граждан и юношей – их
поклонников, стремящихся походить на свои идеалы, теперь не существует. Современный человек не
может себе представить, что юноша, готовясь стать гражданином, может по настоящему любить и восторгаться
своим идеалом. И что этот идеал – старается быть на высоте своего предназначения. В пошлом уме
современного человечка, выросшего без четких понятий о плохом и хорошем, о достойном и низком
- всегда крутится пошлая идейка, что любовь двух мужчин, настоящая мужская любовь – это желание
низкой гомосексуальной связи – а не любовь двух товарищей – старшего и младшего. И что это может
иметь место под солнцем. Даже слово – любовь – стараются избегать (ещё припишут чего-то там …
извращенного). Предвижу, что с развитием современного общества, скоро на вопрос "А любите ли вы
детей?", ответ будет следовать громкий и незамедлительный – "Ну что вы? Как вы себе такое позволяете?
За такие вопросы – морду бить надо!" "А любите ли вы маму?" - "Вы что, издеваетесь? Как можно
любить маму? Она же мать! Как вам не стыдно!". А я считаю, что слово любовь – неплохое слово!"
OK, so maybe that doesn't count as a creative title but at least it's DIFFERENT than the last
three.
It's been an incredible 24 hours. Time is flying. By the time I finished blogging yesterday I
had about 10 minutes to get dressed for opening ceremonies. It was a little frantic. Luckily the
time we were requested to be ready had a built in cushion before we actually needed to leave. They
must know that promptness is a struggle for some of us. The extra time gave us a chance to take some
group pictures. Kris Freeman, Torin Koos, Liz Stephen, Holly Brooks, Sadie Bjornsen and Kikkan Randall
all decided they couldn't afford the time and energy to go to the ceremonies. I respect their decision,
but I'm so glad I chose to go. Liz, Holly, Kikkan and Sadie got dressed in their outfits to take
pictures with us before we headed down. Here is our entire team less Kris, Torin and Simi Hamilton
(who was down visiting his family before the ceremonies). (Top row left to right: Bryan Gregg, Andy
Newell, Erik Bjornsen and myself; bottom row left to right: Holly, Sadie, Kikkan, Liz, Sophie Caldwell,
Jessie Diggins and Ida Sargent.)
КИЕВ. 10 февраля. УНН. Амнистия по определению не может быть применена к задержанным, которые
не виновны и не должна применяться к милиционерам, которые совершили тяжкие преступления. Об этом
во время пресс-конференции журналистам сказал комиссар Совета Европы по правам человека Нилс Муйжниекс,
передает корреспондент УНН.
"Амнистия может применяться только к лицам, чья вина была признана, а не просто к любым задержанным,
даже если это были прохожие. По международному праву амнистия не может быть применена при совершении
тяжких преступлений, а именно такими были действия некоторых украинских работников милиции", - пояснил
комиссар СЕ свою позицию относительно закона об амнистии, согласно которому от наказания освобождаются
как задержанные протестующие, так и правоохранители, которые били митингующих.
Во время встречи с министром внутренних дел В.Захарченко он призвал его привлечь к ответственности
тех работников милиции, которые применяли чрезмерную силу - поливали из водометов на морозе, били
дубинками по голове, целились в работников прессы.
"Безнаказанности для людей не должно быть", - подчеркнул Н.Муйжниекс.
Any illusions some naïve soul may have had about the objectivity of the US media has been dispelled
by their embarrassing performance at the Sochi Olympics: the chorus of
whining complaints
might as well have been written for them by the US State Department – which, come to think of it,
is entirely within the realm of the possible given the imperious tone. The
water, the toilets, the hotels – nothing pleases our pampered media divas, whose hatred
of all things Russian oozes from between the lines of their "reporting" like pus from an old wound.
All the antipathy we saw aimed at Russia during the cold war years is now being revomited up by
the political class, albeit in a new flavor: instead of genuine martyrs like
Andrei Sakharov and
Alexandr
Solzhenitsyn being lionized, we see the professional provocateurs of "Pussy Riot" elevated by
Western media to the status of "dissident" stars. Why do these heavily made-up
show biz types merit our attention? Well, didn't they
desecrate a Russian
Orthodox cathedral by stripping off their clothes, screaming obscenities, and insulting parishioners?
Clearly this is the type of "dissident" the American media can get behind. (Try that in
New York City, ladies, and see what happens.)
Our shameless media is always eager to place itself at the disposal of the State. If it isn't
David Gregory
calling for the arrest of Glenn Greenwald, it's the ubiquitous
Richard Engel of NBC "News" – tireless
cheerleader of US-sponsored "revolutions"
abroad – deliberately
downloading a
virus onto his computer and then pontificating about how the minute you enter Russia you are
bound to be "hacked."
In the midst of this orgy of Russophobia, the foul-mouthed
Victoria Nuland's
leaked conversation
went viral over the Internet, exposing the real extent of Washington's stake in the latest anti-Russian
campaign, Ukraine being the battleground this time. Not that it wasn't fairly obvious before, what
with US diplomats
demanding an end to government "repression" against rioting violent "protesters," but the Nuland
intercept made the strings tying the Ukrainian opposition to Washington
starkly visible.
Ooops!
But wait – didn't the cold war end with the downing of
the Berlin
Wall and the implosion of the old USSR? So how did it get reignited – and who lit the fuse?
It started, as so many of these overseas vendettas do, when the Russkies earned the ire of
the neocons by 1) Overthrowing
communism, thus depriving several leading neocons of their jobs as professional anti-communists,
2)
throwing out the hated oligarchs, who had looted what was left of Russia after the commies got
through with it, and 3)
refusing to go along with the Iraq war, and
blocking US intervention
in Syria. Granting Edward Snowden refuge was the absolute
last straw – a tactic that
inverted
the familiar cold war narrative by casting the Russians as the patrons of dissidence and the Americans
as their relentless pursuers.
Yes, this is my ultimate proof that we have indeed entered the
Bizarro Era,
where up is down and history stood on its head: even the terms of the Russo-American propaganda war
have been reversed. It used to be that Russian propaganda was
the worst of the worst:
wooden, unconvincing, ideological gibberish expressed in the crudest possible terms. The Americans,
on the other hand, were relatively sophisticated about it, covertly spreading Washington's party
line through a multitude of mostly center-left "fronts,"
like the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter magazine, which weren't exposed until
well after they had served their purpose.
Now, however, those roles are reversed, and it is the Americans who are stumbling over themselves
trying to make Sochi (and Putin) look bad, and only revealing their utter incompetence – while
the Russians broadcast Nuland's vulgar king-making to the world.
Ukraine has been a battleground in the new cold war since the early days of the new millennium,
back when the "Orange
Revolution" was all the rage in the Western media and the martyrdom of Viktor Yushechenko was
the driving narrative that toppled the pro-Russian government of the "Party of Regions," the Eastern-oriented
pro-Russian party then in power.
The official story, as pushed relentlessly in the Western media until it became the Conventional
Wisdom, was that Yushchenko, the pro-Western ex-central banker and presidential candidate, had been
poisoned
by the KGB for daring to defy Putin and his Ukrainian sock-puppets.
This story began to unravel, however, when several medical authorities – including the former
chief diagnostician of the facility that treated Yushchenko,
Dr. Lothar Wicke – called it into question. Yushchenko didn't help matters when he refused to
cooperate with the Ukrainian investigation into the matter, and suspicion turned to certainty when
his old campaign manager, David Zhvania
confessed
that the whole thing had been a
fraud from the beginning. A reporter who dared interview Zhvania was hauled into police headquarters
and
interrogated for seven hours. Perhaps Yushchenko's decline into his present status of political
irrelevance can be traced to his response to Zhvania's confession – he accused Zhvania, the godfather
of one of his children and once his closest confidante, of being the culprit!
So much for the Putin-did-it narrative.
What's happening today in Ukraine is a replay of an old struggle that cannot be resolved except
by the partition of the country, which is not a real nation but merely an administrative unit of
the old Soviet Union.
This article explains the cultural divide well: the truth is that Russian is the language of
choice in Ukraine, and as far as the Internet is concerned, Ukrainian language sites come in third
behind Russian and English.
Yet the historical antipathy to Russia still lives in the Western part of the country, where the
opposition is strongest, and where – not coincidentally – support for the Germans during World War
II was greatest. I may be in danger of violating Godwin's Law, but the undeniable legacy of wartime
pro-German sentiment is felt in the growing influence of ultra-rightist groups such as
Svoboda and outright
neo-Nazi organizations within the opposition. They are the shock troops of what they call a "national
revolution," providing the organizational muscle for violent takeovers by the opposition of city
halls around the country. The
brazen anti-Semitism of the anti-government protesters has been studiously ignored in most of
the Western media – but this is just a function of their requisite Russophobia, which frames every
news story from the region in cold war terms.
Nuland's cursing out of the EU is just a dispute among thieves about who gets the loot;
the Germans have a different candidate in mind to preside over the EU takeover of the country,
while the Americans have their own plans – with a different cast of beneficiaries. What's revealing
about her little exchange with an underling is the casualness with which the Americans move Ukrainian
politicians around on the chessboard, just like the Kremlin used to. One doubts Putin exercises half
as much influence over Yanukovich.
Confirming
George Orwell's
theory that sport, international games, and militant nationalism are all inextricably intertwined,
Sochi is the stage on which the new cold war is being fought. The battlefield is in the column inches
given over in the Western media to the alleged shortcomings of Putin's "Potemkin Village," as the
critics are
calling it. However, the nature of their complaints – the lack of luxuries to which they feel
entitled, and which much of the rest of the world goes largely without – just underscores the utter
cluelessness of Western propagandists posing as "reporters." They fail to understand why this makes
them look bad to everyone outside of Brooklyn's hipster precincts and Washington's tonier neighborhoods.
The post-cold war strategy of the Americans has been to
encircle the Russians, building an iron wall of alliances and military bases from the Baltic
Sea to the steppes of Central Asia. The Clinton administration set up a
special department
devoted to development of Caspian Sea energy resources, and made a determined outreach to the post-Soviet
potentates of the various 'stans – ruthless dictators like the President-for-Life of Kazakhstan and
the former despot in charge of Turkmenistan, who has been called the
Kim Jong Il of Central Asia. The series of "color
revolutions" in the former Soviet republics, from Georgia to Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan, were all
generously funded and directed from afar by US government agencies, with the Western media playing
a familiar role as their echo chamber.
The same scam is being played out in the media today, with the viciously
anti-Semitic and violent "opposition" portrayed as heroes of "democracy," and the pro-Russian
factions (a majority of the country) cast as villains. And looming over this trumped up scenario
is the threat of Western intervention, as in the case of Kosovo and Bosnia. The media's war against
the Russians is the kind of virtual onslaught that can ultimately result in a military offensive
– we saw this in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, as well as the Balkan wars, and we are seeing
it again in the propaganda campaign waged against the Iranians in the past few years.
On February 6, the XXII Olympic Winter Games began. A geopolitically tense atmosphere
prevails.
Security is extremely tight. It's prioritized for good reason. Terrorist attacks are
possible. Don't discount potential Washington shenanigans.
Perhaps raining on Putin's parade is planned. Obama may want him embarrassed. False
flags are a longstanding US tradition. Will Sochi be Washington's next target? The fullness
of time will tell.
It's a virtual armed camp. Measures in place are unprecedented. Around $2 billion
was spent on security.
Ahead of February 6, around 23,000 personnel assured proper measures were in place
as planned.
Tens of thousands of police officers are deployed. They're backed by helicopters,
drones, gunboats, submarines, and 70,000 Russian troops.
Hundreds of Cossacks are involved. They'll check IDs. They'll detain suspects. Sochi's
proximity to the North Caucasus raised concerns.
Islamist jihadists named it a target. They're US assets. They're used strategically.
Washington used likeminded ones against Soviet Russia in Afghanistan.
Libya was targeted this way. They comprise America's anti-Syrian proxy death squads.
Russia raised concerns after December Volgograd bombings killed 34 people. Were Washington's
dirty hands involved?
Is something similar planned for Sochi? Hegemons operate this way. America is by far
the worst. Anything ahead is possible.
According to Sochi Organizing Committee chairman Dmitry Chernyshenko:
"Terrorism is a global threat, and for terrorism there is no boundaries, no territories,
but here in Sochi from the very beginning of the construction phase the state authorities
did their utmost to prepare special measures, starting from the screening of raw materials,
checking all the venues and preparing far-reaching security measures to provide the safest
ever environment here."
A controlled zone was established. It covers 60 kilometers. It runs along the coast.
It extends 25 kilometers inland.
It includes all venues. They're heavily guarded. The entire area is for authorized
visitors only.
Western anti-Russian sentiment persists. Cold War politics continues. Putin bashing
is featured. He's not about to roll over for Washington.
He wants rule of law principles respected. He opposes Western imperialism. He's against
meddling in the internal affairs of Russia, Syria, Ukraine and other nations.
He stresses Moscow's "independent foreign policy." He affirms the "inalienable right
to security for all states, the inadmissibility of excessive force, and unconditional
observance of international law."
He and Obama disagree on fundamental geopolitical issues. Key is national sovereignty.
So are war and peace. America claims a divine right to fight. Putin prioritizes diplomatic
conflict resolution.
Disagreements between both countries play out in dueling agendas. Washington notoriously
plays hardball. Putin protects Russia's national interests. They're too important to
sacrifice.
US media scoundrels target him. They vilify him. They mischaracterize him. They call
him a Russian strongman. They make all kinds of baseless accusations.
Lies, damns lies and misinformation substitute for truth and full disclosure. They
want him embarrassed. They're raining on his Sochi parade.
On February 6, the Financial Times headlined "Putin gambles all on creation myth behind
Sochi."
"I am particularly pleased to see what is happening here because I chose this place
myself," he said.
"It must have been in 2001 or 2002," he added. "(W)e were driving around and arrived
at this brook, and I : 'Let's start from here.' That's how it all began."
Putin staked much on the games, said the FT. George Washington University's Sufian
Zhemukhov said "(i)f all goes well, (he'll) be seen as the leader who resurrected Russia."
Failure perhaps won't be forgiven, he added. His forthrightness for peace "made him
a force on the world stage," said the FT.
A January Levada Center poll showed he'd be elected today by a wide margin. At the
same time, his overall support dropped.
Excluding undecided respondents, its "higher than ever."
He's taking no chances. He's going all out to make Sochi successful. FT comments were
tame compared to America's media.
The Wall Street Journal headlined "The Putin Games." He wants them to "showcase...modern
Russia."
"(H)e succeeded (but) not as he intended...What could go wrong?" Sochi is the most
expensive Olympics in history.
Around $50 billion was spent. It's five times the original estimate. It's double what
Britain's 2012 summer games cost. It's a fourth more than China spent in 2008.
Much of Sochi's cost related to building vital infrastructure. It had to be done from
scratch. Doing so added enormously to costs.
Major projects are expensive. According to Journal editors, "(t)he games are proving
to be a case study in the Putin political and economic method."
They claim billions of dollars "lost to corruption." They provide no evidence proving
it. They said "Russians call this Olympiad the Korimpiad."
More Putin bashing followed. It's standard scoundrel media practice. Journal editors
feature it.
They claim he "made it impossible to hold his regime accountable through free elections
or media."
Fact check:
Russian elections shame America's sham ones. They're democratic. They not rigged.
Monied interests don't control them.
Outcomes aren't predetermined. Russian voters decide. US ones have no say.
Don't expect Journal editors to explain. Or how Voice of Russia and RT (formerly Russia
Today) shame America's corporate media.
They feature news, information and opinion viewers most need to know. They do it forthrightly.
They're polar opposite America's managed news misinformation.
Truth is systematically suppressed. Demagoguery, propaganda, scandal, sleaze, junk
food news, and warmongering substitute.
Journal editors ignore truth and full disclosure. Bias permeates their opinions. They
betray readers. They shame themselves doing so.
They claimed billions spent on Sochi left it unprepared. They cite "unfinished hotel
rooms, incomplete road work and now the famous photographs of two toilets in a single
stall."
RT.com responded. On February 6, it headlined "Spread fear, toilet humor? MSM guide
to 'Worst. Olympics. EVAR!" (Repeat: EVAR!)
Even before the opening ceremony, MSM scoundrels drew conclusions "Sports? Not really,"
said RT. At issue is malicious Putin bashing. It's longstanding practice.
It's MSM's "own Sochi 2014 moan-athon." Imagine claiming something yet to occur the
"worst Olympics ever." They beat up on Beijing the same way.
They "never believed in Sochi," said RT. They called its climate unfit for winter
games. They cite corruption with no substantiating evidence.
They claim lax security despite unprecedented measures in place. They discuss possible
terrorist threats. They leave unexplained what most worrisome - a possible disruptive
US false flag attack.
It bears repeating. Perhaps Washington plans raining on Putin's parade.
On August 7, 2008, hours before Beijing's summer Olympics' opening ceremony, Georgia's
Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia. He did so at Washington's behest. Attacking
was strategically timed.
After Soviet Russia's 1991 dissolution, South Assetia broke away from Georgia. It
declared independence. It's home to many Russian nationals.
Moscow responded responsibly. Conflict continued for days. Then President Medvedev
was on vacation. Then Prime Minister Putin was in Beijing.
In half a day before Russia intervened, 1,700 people were killed. Included were 12
Russian peacekeepers.
Moscow was blamed for Georgian aggression. Does Washington plan something similar
this time? Will a false flag attack occur?
Will Obama usurp a freer hand in Ukraine? Will he take advantage in Syria? Does he
plan other mischief? Is disrupting Sochi planned?
Hegemons operate this way. Washington's disturbing history gives Russia good reason
for concern.
Preparations in Sochi aren't perfect, said RT. "(F)laws and problems" exist. "But
what makes the Sochi Olympics 'the worst' so far is...accommodation for the global media
elite."
"See it, slam it," said RT. "Intrepid Olympic reporters, we thought, would get behind
the scenes, unravel the PR."
"Nope. Not this time. Of global importance were rooms (if they were available), toilets,
floors, and shower curtains."
"Oh - and a request to not flush toilet paper (it's rarely done in public toilets)
had the press pack throwing up."
Washington Post reporter Kathy Lally was upset about "a tiny, tiny (hotel room) sink."
It "sits atop an exposed white plastic pipe, stuck to the wall and surrounded by an
unruly gob of caulk," she said.
"The single room has two lamps - which don't have light bulbs, but that's okay because
they aren't near any unused outlets."
Other journalists reported missing shower curtains, lamps, chairs, inadequate heat
and hot water, and whatever else they wanted to cite to bash Putin.
Fox News called conditions "laughably bad." It warned about event coverage being just
as dreadful.
MSM scoundrels feature daily "hotel horror stories." They regurgitate similar tweets
to each other. They find new reasons to complain.
BBC journalist Steve Rosenberg tweeted about two sit-down toilets shown side-by-side
with no partition. It went viral.
RT calls it a "must have" for every Sochi story. Imagine toilet humor substituting
for real journalism. It gets worse.
Whatever is happening in Russia multiple time zones away gets reported. A Moscow school
shooting creates Sochi shudders.
So does a derailed gas-laden freight train exploding. It happened 500 miles northeast
of Moscow. It made Sochi headlines.
CNN connected Sochi to the September 2004 Beslan school siege. Its February 5 report
:
"Amid the shrill noise of militant threats ahead of the Sochi Olympic Winter Games,
the gym in Beslan is now steeped in silence, a monument to the dead, untouched almost."
Trashing Sochi bashes Putin. MSM scoundrels are deplorable. They disgrace themselves
before dwindling audiences.
CNN and other US cable news networks report increasing to fewer viewers. Maybe one
day they'll all tune out.
RT called Sochi the "biggest construction site in the world over the past seven years."
"Everything there - most of the hotels, sport venues, high-speed rail links, highways,
50 bridges, even the Olympic village itself - was built from scratch."
It's an extraordinary achievement in a short time. It's almost like building an entirely
new city in record time. Sochi deserves praise, not criticism.
Toronto Star reporter Rosie Dimanno wrote:
"Mounds of debris, parts of roads unpaved, mesh hoarding to hide the eyesore bits,
lots of trash, unreliable power - nothing upsets journalists more than an internet that
goes up and down - these have all featured in Olympics over the past three decades, as
the Games have grown too big, too gaudy and too complicated."
"The Olympics are no (place) for old sissies," she added. "So I'll take my own advice:
Just chill."
Most MSM scoundrels report as expected. They mock legitimate journalism. It's verboten
in America. It's lacking in Canada. It's largely absent in Western Europe. Managed news
misinformation substitutes.
WSJ editors called Sochi "a shrine to authoritarianism." They bashed Putin relentlessly.
One bald-faced lie followed others.
"(T)he underbelly of Mr. Putin's regime (was) exposed," they claimed.
New York Times editors were just as bad. They headlined "A Spotlight on Mr. Putin's
Russia," saying:
"(T)he reality of (his) Russia...conflicts starkly with Olympic ideals and fundamental
human rights."
"There is no way to ignore the dark side - the soul-crushing repression, the cruel
new anti-gay and blasphemy laws, and the corrupt legal system in which political dissidents
are sentenced to lengthy terms on false charges."
Fact check
NYT editors have a longstanding disturbing history. They one-sidedly support wealth,
power and privilege. Whenever Washington wages imperial wars or plans them, they march
in lockstep.
They long ago lost credibility. They feature mind-numbing misinformation. They violate
their own journalistic code doing so.
They invented anti-gay law controversy. Russian gay propaganda law has nothing to
do with persecuting people for their sexual orientation.
Everyone's rights are respected. Russia wants its children protected from malicious
anti-gay propaganda, illicit drugs, alcohol abuse and whatever else harms them.
Responsible governance demands it. America leaves millions of children unprotected.
Cutting food stamps alone denies them vital nutrition.
Don't expect Times editors to explain. Or about thousands of political prisoners languishing
in America's gulag.
About torture being official US policy. About rigged US elections. About impoverishing
neoliberal harshness.
About destroying social America. About eliminating America's middle class. About waging
war on freedom.
About unprecedented levels of public and private corruption. About kleptocracy masquerading
as democracy.
About out-of-control corporate empowerment. About Washington being corporate occupied
territory. About crushing organized labor.
About commodifying public education. About ignoring international, constitutional
and US statute laws.
About violating fundamental human and civil rights. About Obama's war on humanity.
Picking your way through Sochi's Olympic Park at night is like weaving through a giant car park
in which a series of jaw-dropping spaceships have landed at random.
The brightly lit ice palaces themselves are stunning, inside and out, and the sporting facilities
have been rightly praised by almost all the athletes. But, beyond them, there is little but concrete
expanses, hastily planted grass verges and an incongruous funfair.
To bring the Winter Games to his favourite holiday resort at a cost of $51bn, Vladimir Putin has
had to build not only a series of world-class sporting venues but an entire city. The scale of the
construction is at once impressive and dizzily disconcerting.
Endless utilitarian apartment blocks and gigantic hotels sprawl seemingly at random in the so-called
"coastal cluster". In the mountains, ersatz approximations of a Swiss ski resort have sprouted. Even
if you accept the argument that the Games can be used as a catalyst for development, it is impossible
not to wonder how they will be filled afterwards.
Lessons have been learned from previous Games, not least London 2012, in how to best frame the
sporting action for maximum impact – not only for those watching on television but those attending
in person.
At Saturday's snowboarding, staged in a stunning setting under brilliant sunshine to a booming
dance music soundtrack and cheering crowds, it was even possible to feel the tingle of excitement
in the cool mountain air.
Buried somewhere beneath the barrage of criticism of the huge cost of building the infrastructure
to host these Games, the protests about Putin's anti-gay laws and security concerns, is a sporting
event struggling to get out. It might even be fun.
Not all of the criticism has been fair and there is a lingering undercurrent of bitterness from
the Russian organisers, who believe they are being unfairly targeted.
The Cold War may have been studiously avoided in an intelligent opening ceremony, but the simmering
tension between the US and Russia is at the heart of a tug of war over how these Games are presented
to the world. American networks in particular have dwelled on tales of unfinished media hotels and
ramped-up security concerns.
By the same token, the Russian organisers have been needlessly defensive and slow to acknowledge
genuine, and often comical, problems with accommodation and, more seriously, prickly when it comes
to criticism of their human rights record and anti-gay laws. Putin's hopes for a flawless Games that
would showcase his vision of Russian might to the world is already fraying at the edges.
Rightly or wrongly, it is also the Americans who have been most vocal in their criticism of some
of the sparkling new sporting facilities.
Shaun White pulled out of theslopestyle snowboarding over concerns about the safetyof the course
and US downhill skier Bode Miller on Saturday warned that the Rosa Khuta piste "could kill you" after
watching team-mate Marco Sullivan narrowly escape a serious crash.
Shoddy hotel rooms and malfunctioning giant snowflakes aside, everything else appears to be working
as it should. Inside the so-called "ring of steel", security is surprisingly unobtrusive. Policemen
are dressed down in purple tracksuits and volunteers are friendly and helpful.
What is not yet clear is where the soul of these Games will lie. Russian organisers insist ticket
sales have been strong and venues have appeared fairly full so far. The extent to which ordinary
Russians get behind an Olympics that, to date, have sometimes appeared the obsession of just one
man will be a key factor in determining how they are remembered.
The party that is the Winter Olympics officially began on Friday night inside a new stadium on
the shores of the Black Sea.
The Russians brought out their best entertainment: top ballet dancers, dramatic re-enactments
of Russian history, an opera singer whose voice was so strong it seemed to shake the Olympic stadium.
It was so entrancing, and ran so smoothly, that it was tempting to forget what was behind the pageantry
and sparkle.
Thomas Bach, president of the International Olympic Committee, was hoping for that to happen.
He said earlier Friday that he was "longing" for the Games to begin. And it's no wonder.
This week Sochi was like a party host whose guests had shown up way too early: just out of the
shower, hair in curlers, no makeup, dirty dishes in the sink.
Finishing touches, including some important ones, like bathrooms, were still being applied. Some
housing was not ready. Some of it was less funny. One colleague witnessed city workers enticing stray
dogs - which are all over this city, though in rapidly decreasing numbers over the past week - with
meat, a meal that could very well have been their last.
But all that should not overshadow the bigger issues of these Games, including Russia's oppressive
antigay law and its suffocating restrictions on freedom of speech. Those two issues cannot be lost
amid the chaos surrounding these Games, and even the competitions about to begin.
It is a certainty that at the same time athletes are celebrated for winning medals, some Russian
citizens will be treated far less well - cruelly in fact - for speaking their mind or for being gay.
Dmitry Chernyshenko, the head of the Sochi organizing committee, even tried to stifle athletes from
speaking their minds about politics in official interview areas in the Olympic Park. But Bach, at
his first Olympics as president of the I.O.C., quickly overruled him.
That was not the first time Bach, who is from Germany, took a stand at these Games. He took a
bold one on Friday, with the world watching.
At the opening ceremony, during which he sat next to Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, Bach
gave a strong speech to kick off the Olympics. He made points that sounded like sharp digs at Putin
and the law he signed that banned the distribution of so-called gay propaganda to children in Russia.
In the most refreshing speech by an I.O.C. president in decades, Bach did not kowtow to the host
country. He said the Olympics should set an example for "human diversity and great unity."
"To the athletes, you have come here with your Olympic dream," he said. "You are welcome, no matter
where you come from or your background. Yes, it's possible even as competitors to live together and
to live in harmony with tolerance and without any form of discrimination for whatever reason."
Launch media viewer
Russian athletes entering Fisht Olympic Stadium to thunderous applause. Chang W. Lee/The New York
Times
He did not have to come out and say it, but many people who heard him knew exactly what he meant.
Recent Comments
Alexander Shumkin
20 hours ago
Thank you. For everybody who had some good words for Russia and can understand the special historic
way of our country
Notafan
Yesterday
I watched 10 minutes and turned it off, looking as it did like an overblown 1960s TV variety show.
It was a mask, masking despotism, the one...
mihir1310
Yesterday
As an Indian living in the US for a 6 years, I find this constant negative coverage pathetic and
disappointing. There is a saying in my part...
See All Comments
Most of the spectators were from Russia, some in parkas with their country's name on the back
in Cyrillic letters, others wrapped in the white, blue and red of their nation's flag.
As those people and others filed into the Olympic Park, I could not find a single person wearing
Team USA gear. That was not a surprise, since the State Department had issued a travel warning for
Americans coming to Sochi because of fears of terrorism. But I did track down four British men in
Team GB coats, all of whom had been involved in the London Games two years ago.
"When I came into the airport, the woman who checked me in was miserable, and people don't seem
very happy here," said Robin Money, a consultant and former director of sports marketing for Adidas
in Britain and Ireland.
"But the opening ceremony is an important trigger. We learned that in London. After this, maybe
they'll actually smile."
He was partly right. By the end of the night, some Russians were beaming.
Outside the stadium, as athletes from all nations marched into the opening ceremony, volunteers
formed a cordon on either side of them. As each country's delegation passed by, the volunteers cheered.
Swe-den! Swe-den! Or Jap-an! Jap-an! And, yes, even U-S-A! U-S-A!
Of course, they cheered loudest for Russia's athletes. As they applauded, a stray dog was sprawled
out behind them, chewing on a Sochi 2014 glove someone had dropped.
From political point of view neoliberalism vision is close to Communists vision. The only difference
is that now the capital of the world is the USA and it is the USA government that controls the rest
of the world. Other states are just vassals who implement directions from benevolent "Washington Obcom"
and install leaders recommended, or (YouTube)...
Funny that it was communists who actually put a major effort in implementing this vision via the dissolution
of the USSR.
Feb 07, 2014 | Reuters/Yahoo
... ... ...
Modern Ukraine is divided between eastern provinces that were districts of Russia for centuries
and where most people speak Russian, and Western sections that were annexed by the Soviets from Poland
and the former Austrian empire, where most people speak Ukrainian and many resent Russian domination.
Although many Ukrainians say they dream of integration with the West, the Soviet economic legacy
gives Moscow extraordinary leverage: Ukraine's heavy industry depends on imports of energy, above
all Russian natural gas.
Moscow portrays the anti-Yanukovich demonstrators as paid Western agents and seems to be pushing
for Yanukovich to order a crackdown to clear the streets.
In some of the sharpest language yet, the Kremlin's point man on Ukraine, Sergei Glazyev, urged
the Ukrainian leader to stop negotiating with "putschists". He accused Washington of arming, funding
and training the opposition to take power.
Nuland called the remarks "pure fantasy".
"He could be a science fiction writer," she said.
Re-Ran:
When any empire ends under the guise of "renewal" organizations tend to show up, like a parasite
they eat the legacy of the empire alive often from within. There are remarkable similarities to
most if not all A.D. Empires, From the beginning first pioneers of them up to the final conspicuous
consumer populations that eventually become a burden on the state of the empire. They all have
6 stages and in total last around 200-250 years before collapsing. The age of pioneers, the age
of conquest, the age of commerce, the age of affluence, the age of intellect, ending with the
bread and circus' campaigns of the age of decadence. The age of decadence is amazingly similar
throughout most empires. This involves an undisciplined, over extended military, a continuous
conspicuous display of wealth, a massive and ever growing disparity between rich and poor, desire
to live off a bloated state, and a cultural obsession with sex. More importantly the most similar
trend throughout empires in the age of decadence is the aggressive debasement of that empires
currency. Once the backing resource of an empires currency is abandoned, the denominations go
through a continuous corruption, until even the officials who once backed the people, become more
fixated on the accumulation of as much wealth as possible. With this corruption comes distractions.
Like Rome and their Gladiatorial events used to keep the public eye off of state affairs and
economy, this is a classic trait of declining empires. Today in the U.S. there is an ever prevalent
emphasis on all kinds of television shows, sports, and celebrities. Just like today's celebrities
and sports stars earn vast sums of wealth, so did the Roman charioteers, one in the second century
gained so much wealth, it would equate to several billions today. And ironically like Rome before
it's collapse we even make celebrities out of our chef's. We have been lulled into a lethargy
and have completely accepted it. through un fettered consumerism, continuous economic bubbles,
and the desire for everlasting youth, the "baby boomer" generation squandered their inheritance
from the prior. "and our posterity" became "just for us" and part took in the largest misallocation
of capitol in our time, and future generations will pay the price.
richard d
The inmates are not only running the asylum, they own it. Obama and his administration need
to be Baker Acted. Welcome to the modern day 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'.
Пора, мой друг, пора! покоя сердце просит –
Летят за днями дни, и каждый день уносит
Частичку бытия, а мы с тобой вдвоём
Предпологаем жить, и глядь - как раз умрём.
На свете счастья нет, но есть покой и воля.
Давно завидная мечтается мне доля –
Давно, усталый раб, замыслил я побег
В обитель дальную трудов и чистых нег.
(Pushkin, of course)
kirill
After all his chumming and photo-ops with seditionists and terrorist wannabes in Russia he
probably lost usefulness. Any kind of interaction with him was likely of the most token variety.
But I don't expect the next US ambassador to be any different.
I think his masters must be more than a little disappointed in his complete lack of results.
I mean, he went to Russia as a known democracy fetishist, but he was seasoned enough as a diplomat
that he probably expected to not only thoroughly liberalize the Russkies, but to make them like
it.
I grew to dislike him less during his tenure rather than more, because he actually seemed like
a nice guy and he did relatively unconventional things like appear on Russian talk shows where
he had to think on his feet in a foreign language, which he actually spoke fairly well.
But I won't be too sorry to see him go home, and relations are so poor between Russia and the
USA now that they could just leave the post vacant for all the difference it would make. I'm sure
they won't, and I'm sure the new appointee will be a bright-eyed democratizing regime-changer,
too, because the USA doesn't quit. I nominate Kimmie Zigfeld.
Nah! There's only one man in the USA that has the political nous to deal with Russia in the
capacity of US Ambassador.
Ladies and Gentlemen, let's hear it for Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski!!!
Note Brzezinski's taken out of context "the disintegration of the Soviet Union was greatest
calamity of the 20th century" meme so beloved in the West, whereas
this is what Putin actually :
"Прежде всего следует признать, что крушение Советского Союза было крупнейшей геополитической
катастрофой века. Для российского же народа оно стало настоящей драмой. Десятки миллионов наших
сограждан и соотечественников оказались за пределами российской территории. Эпидемия распада к
тому же перекинулась на саму Россию.
"Накопления граждан были обесценены, старые идеалы разрушены, многие учреждения распущены или
реформировались на скорую руку. Целостность страны оказалась нарушена террористической интервенцией
и последовавшей хасавюртовской капитуляцией. Олигархические группировки, обладая неограниченным
контролем над информационными потоками, обслуживали исключительно собственные корпоративные интересы.
Массовая бедность стала восприниматься как норма. И все это происходило на фоне тяжелейшего экономического
спада, нестабильных финансов, паралича социальной сферы.
"Многие тогда думали, многим тогда казалось, что наша молодая демократия является не продолжением
российской государственности, а ее окончательным крахом, является затянувшейся агонией советской
системы.
"Те, кто так думал – ошиблись. Именно в этот период в России происходили крайне значимые события.
В нашем обществе вырабатывалась не только энергия самосохранения, но и воля к новой свободной
жизни. В те непростые годы народу России предстояло одновременно отстоять государственный суверенитет
и безошибочно выбрать новый вектор в развитии своей тысячелетней истории. Надо было решить труднейшую
задачу: как сохранить собственные ценности, не растерять безусловных достижений и подтвердить
жизнеспособность российской демократии. Мы должны были найти собственную дорогу к строительству
демократического, свободного и справедливого общества и государства".
"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major
geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens
of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover,
the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.
"Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded
or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged
the country's integrity. Oligarchic groups – possessing absolute control over information channels
– served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm.
And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances,
and the paralysis of the social sphere.
"Many thought or seemed to think at the time that our young democracy was not a continuation
of Russian statehood, but its ultimate collapse, the prolonged agony of the Soviet system.
"But they were mistaken.
"That was precisely the period when the significant developments took place in Russia. Our
society was generating not only the energy of self-preservation, but also the will for a new and
free life. In those difficult years, the people of Russia had to both uphold their state sovereignty
and make an unerring choice in selecting a new vector of development in the thousand years of
their history. They had to accomplish the most difficult task: how to safeguard their own values,
not to squander undeniable achievements, and confirm the viability of Russian democracy. We had
to find our own path in order to build a democratic, free and just society and state".
The above is the official Kremlin translation of what Putin said at his Annual Address to the
Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on April 25, 2005.
I have added my stress on the indefinite article before "major geopolitical disaster of
the century", whereas Brzezinski chooses in his adress to use the definite article "the",
notwithstanding that neither definite nor indefinite articles exist in Rudssian – nor do they
in Polish for that matter!
Brzezinski then goes on to mention other great calamities of that century – the two World Wars
etc. – implying that Putin considers these events as less calamitous than the "disintegration
of the Soviet Union" because of the definite article "the", whereas Putin only categorized the
collapse of the USSR as "a major geopolitical disaster of the century".
Apparently, Brzezinski still lives in the 20th century: around 1960 or thereabouts, I should
imagine.
The last time the Olympic Games were confronted with a serious, capable, and active terrorist
movement was at the 1992 Barcelona Games, when the Euskadi ta Akatasuna (ETA) threatened to stage
attacks to highlight its demands for an independent Basque homeland. Currently, the Russian Olympic
sponsors of the Sochi Games, which open on February 7th, are confronted by what is quite
possibly an even greater threat.
... ... ...
I was the CIA's principal officer in Barcelona for the 1992 Games and also worked with the Chinese
National Police in the lead-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Based on those experiences, I would
note that the addition of 40,000 soldiers and cops at this point, just two weeks before the Opening
Ceremonies, is more cosmetic than effective. They will not know what to do and will be, in a
sense, little more than additional targets. Even the estimated total of as many as 100,000 security
personnel being in place do not guarantee good results. Olympic security planning, alas, should begin
soon after the bid is accepted by the International Olympic Committee and there is no quick fix for
it. I spent three years in place in Barcelona doing little beyond working with my Spanish counterparts
to plan and eventually implement security arrangements that included physical barriers, intelligence
gathering, crowd control, and training of personnel. The Spanish devoted considerable resources to
the effort and one of the first permanent facilities set up to support the Games was a fusion center
where intelligence could be shared and decisions could be made in real time in response to any perceived
threat.
The security for a large scale public event like the Olympic Games is particularly difficult as
there must be relatively free access to events combined with protection for visitors and participants.
It generally is structured in concentric rings, incrementally increasing the level of scrutiny as
one proceeds. The outermost level is static and consists of heavy police and military presence at
the fringes of the target area to serve as a deterrent and tripwire for any terrorist attempt.
Sochi benefits from being geographically isolated, but it now appears that Putin will also extend
the security perimeter outward to include checks on all roads and rail lines entering the region
from the mountains behind the city and along the shoreline of the Black Sea. The approaches from
the water and the port will be under the control of the Russian Navy and Coast Guard.
Sochi International Airport is modern and has excellent security, with connecting flights from
most major Russian cities. One can expect anyone transiting any Russian airport on the way to Sochi
to encounter intense scrutiny, so it might be advisable to fly with Austrian Airlines or Turkish
Airlines, both of which connect to Sochi. The Russians will also
require visas from nearly all foreign visitors, which will be used as a security tool. The screening
of arrivals from abroad will be intense, requiring evidence of jobs, income, and other relevant documents.
Once inside the perimeter, there will be two basic levels of security. Sports venues and the Olympic
village will have physical and procedural measures in place, including fences, CCTV, and metal detectors
as well as security badges linked to access controls. Other public spaces such as hotels, city parks,
and squares will have highly visible security in place, but it will be less proactive. One should
assume that anyone who appears to be central Asian in origin and any woman wearing Islamic garb will
likely be stopped repeatedly, as the Russians are unlikely to be concerned with issues like "profiling."
The United States government has offered to work with the Russians on Sochi but has been politely
turned down because the Russians believe, correctly, that they understand their own security environment
very well. One can assume that they have been doing NSA-type intensive monitoring of electronic
transmissions and phone calls for at least the past year. And the Federal Security Service (FSB)
no doubt has a host of informants on tap to provide information on groups operating in or potentially
threatening Sochi. In spite of the Russian desire to go it alone, it is nevertheless my understanding
that there will be both Russian-speaking CIA and FBI personnel in the Sochi fusion center to
provide assistance upon request, together with representatives from a number of European countries.
The U.S. Navy will also have ships in international waters in the Black Sea to provide support,
or even an evacuation, if called upon.
The principal challenge for Sochi is the relatively new threat posed by the suicide bomber. Since
the date for the Games has been known for years, it should be assumed that parts for bombs might
have been smuggled into Sochi weeks or even months ago, so the threat might materialize both
inside and outside the security perimeter. Suicide bombers who are able to approach a security
checkpoint pose a unique threat in that they can create a major incident just by virtue of detonating
their explosives even if they only kill themselves, accomplishing their goal of creating uncertainty
over the Russian handling of the security of the Games.
... ... ...
Ultimately, fear of terrorism should impel us to behave cautiously, but it is a manageable
risk and should not become a reason to avoid doing the things one wants to do.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
Thomas O. Meehan , January 28, 2014
What gets lost in some narratives, but not this one, is that THESE ARE THE OLYMPICS! For those
of us who revere our western heritage, they are part of our patrimony. Beyond this, the whole
civilized world recognizes the high-minded significance of these games. Free men and women
should travel to the Olympics wherever they are held, showing solidarity with the spirit of athletic
excellence pursued in peace and mutual respect.
Let the barbarians plot.
Fran Macadam, January 28, 2014
It's too bad that cooperation between American and Russian expertise has been undermined
by a resurgence of anti-Russian enmity that our own propaganda had us convinced was anti-Soviet
and genuinely ideological. In addition, it's credible for the Russians to believe that the
voracious American penchant for surveillance would mean that cooperation would be a subterfuge
of only secondary interest, with the real interest being intelligence penetration efforts. Overreach
is counterproductive, distracting and ultimately wasteful as well.
Hooly says:
If the Chinese can pull off a safe Olympics, then I'm sure the Russians can as well.
Philip Giraldi
John – The State Department says pretty much the same thing in its travel warning for Sochi
– suicide bombers will want to inflict maximum casualties so they will go for buses, trains, etc
and large groups of people. If you want to be safe, avoid buses & trains and use taxis or walk.
RadicalCenter2016 says:
Philip: Really enjoy your writing and rely on your expertise. But I don't see how someone attending
the Olympics can possibly avoid large crowds!
Beijing Expat
> If the Chinese can pull off a safe Olympics, then I'm sure the Russians can as well.
I was living in Beijing already in 2008. And the Olympics were a paranoid, lifeless affair
to many locals. I mean: On top of the usual annoyances. "No fun" sums it up best and there was
not much of a "welcome" spirit going around. I skipped the whole thing.
> If you want to be safe, avoid buses & trains and use taxis or walk. If you see a crowd gathering
go the other way. When entering a venue, wait until there is no or a short line to enter so you
are constantly moving. By public spaces I mean avoid areas in squares or parks where people are
congregating in groups.
Yep. Sounds like a lot of fun again. Add in graft & greed and my question is:
Why would I bother please?
Andrew:
@Philip Giraldi
Saudis are in any position to instigate any attack using the Chechens.
Saudis do finance "wahabization" of Russia's Muslim minorities. It is documented fact. Hattab
was definitely a big shot in Chechnya until he was sent to 72 virgins. The problem here is more
in the loss of "agility" by FSB. Today they are "fat cats" of Putin and many themselves are a
security risk.
VikingLS says:
Philip any comment on the threat Prince Bandahar is said to have made to Putin re the Olympics?
The full speech is here: http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6575
. Future historians will be shaking their heads over Western hysteria and hypocrisy one day. As
one commenter put it: "Brussels is trying to undermine the Ukraine, aided and abetted by Big Banks,
Big Business, Big Pharma, and Big Bureaucrats. The EUSSR wants 'lebensraum' to join in with its Utopianist
expansive plans of a new Holy Roman Empire off Semi-autonomous States within the EU." Reminds me the
the situation before WWI. Looks like it took 70 years for Western European leaders to forget the lessons
of previous war. Europe uber alles is in fashion again. Now correspondents of major Western MSM are
used by their bosses as sort of a dead skunk that a feuding neighbor throws into your yard.
"The more intermediaries there are, the more problems there are," Putin said. "I am not sure Ukraine
needs intermediaries." He pointedly noted that European leaders would complain if Russia sent envoys
to mediate in the Greek crisis of the past four years.
... ... ...
Azarov, who has described protesters as "terrorists", had offered his resignation. He said he
hoped the move would help achieve a peaceful resolution to the crisis that has gripped the country
for more than two months.
"The conflict situation which has come about in the country is threatening the economic and social
development of Ukraine, creating a threat to the whole of Ukrainian society and to each citizen,"
he said.
IGrumble
Absolutely - Brussels is trying to undermine the Ukraine, aided and abetted by Big Banks, Big
Business, Big Pharma, and Big Bureaucrats. The EUSSR wants 'lebensraum' to join in with its
Utopianist expansive plans of a new Holy Roman Empire off Semi-autonomous States within the EU.
It will all fail in the coming years, just like the Eurozone will.
Klasco
Pretty surprised by the amount of pro-Russia comments in the Guardian. Would thought
u guys would all over at RT jerking off to its coverage of 'the terrible rotting West'. EU may
have its problems but Russia as an alternative? ..right.
Yes EU and RU are going to meddle in things, Putin saying EU should stay out is like a politician
telling his opposite that they should stop playing politics, of course they are both playing politics
cos they are both politicians.
The protest going isn't just about the EU and RU anymore its about the dumb way the Ukraine
gov played its cards as well.
pillau -> Klasco
Klasco, Russians will stay with Russia. Two thirds of Ukraine are Russians. Therefore, making
them part of Europe and asking them to fight the rest of Russia is exceedingly stupid thing to
do. By swallowing Ukraine EU will develop severe indigestion that eventually will kill it.
The whole propaganda campaign of the past 20 years, subsidized by EU, was to make Russian
Ukranians speak the language of Ukrainian Taliban from the mountains. They do not want to, and
elected Yanukovich.
Current 'protests' are a very well organised campaign to intimidate the majority who voted
for the government which decided to choose the only path that can save Ukraine from immediate
collapse , and that is to take a loan from Russia.
The only path to avert a civil war is to split the country in 2.
EU will not allow this, and thus will assure near permanent instability and misery for Ukraine.
Continent
@sepiae
With £9bn promised to the Ukrainian government and thus having it by the leash Putin has quite
some balls spouting such remarks.
With £9bn Putin made just the better offer. In December 2013 the Ukraine was on the brink of
bankruptcy and had asked the EU for €20 billion in aid to offset the cost of signing the EU deal
The most Brussels has so far offered is €610 million in macro-economic assistance.
""We will abide by our commitments," he said. "The loan and reduction in gas prices are not
based on a particular government but desire to help people, in contrast to IMF."
The Russian leader agreed with calls on the Ukraine government not to use force against protesters
but also demanded that the EU condemn Ukrainian nationalists taking part in the protests.
"In the west of Ukraine a priest is urging the crowd to go to Kiev and to start storming
the government, the Russians and the Jews," he said.
"This is an extreme expression of nationalism it is completely unacceptable in the civilised
world."
Why has the Guardian cut this bit out? It sounds a reasonable comment to me.
Jeremn
The actual quote is this;
"For example, a priest in Western Ukraine was calling on the crowd to go to Kiev and topple
the Government so as to – using his own words – "prevent negroes, russkies and yids from telling
us what to do in our own home". First of all, it is astounding to hear this from a religious figure.
Second, this is radical nationalism of a kind that is totally unacceptable in the civilised world.
We should call on the Ukrainian Government and President Yanukovych to use civilised methods,
but at the same time, we should look at what his political opponents are doing too and call on
them to also use civilised methods to fight their political battles."
Putin is very worried obviously, an EU Ukraine is a massive threat to the national security
of Russia, if the EU is successful then the US will almost have its missile defense shield over
Russia.
Miriam Bergholz
The rise of neo-nazi movements?
I think that it is a good idea to stay away especially after reading an article in "Spiegel"
that enlightens a little bit the mess, and make me wonder why the EU is visiting the protesters:
Prepared to Die': The Right Wing's Role in Ukrainian Protests
"With 10 percent support, Svoboda is the fourth-strongest group in parliament. Klitschko and
the Tymoshenko party need its backing. Plus, the party is a key player in the protests. But Klitschko
plays down Svoboda's right-wing stance. "We have different ideologies, but two things connect
us," Klitschko says. "We are fighting against those in power today and we want European values
for our country."
Flirting with the Right Wing
The Svoboda party also has excellent ties to Europe, but they are different from the ones that
Klischko might prefer. It is allied with France's right-wing Front National and with the Italian
neo-fascist group Fiamma Tricolore. But when it comes to the oppression of homosexuality, representative
Myroshnychenko is very close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, even if he does all he can to
counter Moscow's influence in his country.
Scipio1 -> AnaGram2
Naïve or what! Ukraine is in an awkward geopolitical position insofar as it lies between the
American Empire (sorry I mean the US vassal states of the EU) and Russia. As such these outside
powers use their local proxies as the local political stalking horses in the drama. Ukraine can
either join Oceania (the US/EU) or Eurasia (Russia), it cannot be independent and it will not
be allowed to be independent. As is the case in the middle east.
Russia regards the Ukraine as its legitimate sphere of influence, America does not recognise
any spheres of influence, other than its own of course, which includes the whole globe. So the
Ukraine is up for grabs. Sorry you nationalists, but this is the new global order. Get used to
it, the days of independent nation states is over. Rule from Washington/Brussels or Moscow. That
is the choice. You are just pawns in the game of global geo-politics.
muskoka
Bravo Putin, you're an international statesman of the highest order.
You saved us from an asinine military confict over Syria.
You've tamed the Iranians and gotten them to listen.
You've exposed the Americans for their moral hypocrisy on the world stage, (and in the New
York Times op-ed page too).
And you know what the self-important, unelected, meddlesome bureaucrats in Brussels are in
denial about: the European Union is a sinking ship.
Rialbynot -> ubiktd Jon
Geopoliticists in Berlin have always had an obsession about conquering Ukraine, but I never
thought they would stoop to so flagrantly exploiting the naivety of an elderly Portuguese ex-Maoist,
a Bliarite English plaything, and a has-been Little Russian boxer in order to achieve their Endziel.
HauptmannGurski -> Rialbynot
This ex-Berliner can tell you that Berlin is not about conquering - any more. There are some
people who are capable of learning. Admittedly it was made easy by the results, the ruins amongst
which I grew up. Photos of the time are still prominently displayed and update the learning process
to current generations.
And besides, nobody can say that in public but knowing my former countrymen and women they'd
say behind closed doors "Who'd want these people in the tent? Every time they don't like something
they throw a tantrum? And then they come to us for money to build it up again? No thanks." There's
a German term 'wes Geistes Kind' which doesn't translate terribly well, but means they're displaying
a mentality and attitude that leaves a lot to be desired.
ChukTatum
Putin's clearly getting very nervous with the Sochi olympics, the protests in Kiev, and all
the fuss generated about gay and other human rights in Russia. This is the moment for the EU and
the US to forget their differences about the spying and join in to stick it to Putin and his thug
regime. This could become his
Ceaucescu moment, spreading
out from Kiev, where the Ukraine puppet regime is wobbling and in the process of capitualting,
onto Moscow and St Petersburg. As McCain said, your time is up Vlad!
The upcoming
NATO security conference in Munich would be the perfect opportunity to put on a very ostentatious
and public display of western democratic unity and harmony and for the old democratic allies EU+US
to bury the hatchet and their differences and declare moral war on Putin's fascist gangster
state.
HelloLenin -> ChukTatum
Oh the smell of Russophobia in the morning!
HelloLenin -> ChukTatum
I'm well aware that the RF is capitalist.
But Russia is anti-imperialist, I will stand with them and multipolarity against the west.
200gnomes -> ChukTatum
There are no differences on the NSA spying only full cooperation from our european leaders. Putin
is democratically elected, and the USA hmm, fascism being the merger between corporate interest and
state check, gangster check and what moral highground exactly? Guantanomo bay or illegal warfare,
highjacking the world with a war on drugs, 1% of its citizens incarcerated, higher income difference
than Brazil. On what moral ground do you mean exactly, my little angel?
maureenincork
Catherine Ashton? Never stood for election in her life but, nevertheless, she's on the
top EU echelon now. It's who you know, not what you know in this European Project, you serfs and
villeins. This woman is titled, don't you know, and should be addressed as Baroness Upminster although
Putin might not care for this high-falutin' stuff.
putinhero -> maureenincork
Her husband runs Yougov. Think of that next time you read some opinion polls.
richardofbirmingham
Most of us probably hope for harmonious and close relations with the Ukraine ( and Russia ), and,
in the Ukraine's case even at some future point an association with the eu once the British have
managed to get it to reform so as to row back from the super state fixation.
However who authorised the eu's Brussels representative to meddle; did the UK. How does it correspond
with our interests.
This has some similarities with how the First World War started. Its also worth remembering that
expansion ' to the east ' was a principal driver for the Second World War in which this part of the
world was a major element.
AnaGram2 -> richardofbirmingham
Excuse me, but are you asking the right questions here? Just who has authorised PUTIN to meddle?
Putin is the one who's brought us to this juncture. He just had to go and meddle, and in a really
big way, in Ukrainian affairs at the time Ukraine was negotiating with the EU. Quite understandably,
people were enraged. Whether Russian or Ukrainian by nationality, most people in Ukraine prefer a
closer association with the far less corrupt European Union than with corrupt Russia and its horrid
little dictator (and whoever wants to argue about that should go and check their facts first). Now,
by "warning" off a European mediator, Putin is trying to act like he has some kind of authority over
Ukraine.
TheRussianGirl -> AnaGram2
You think only from one perspective. Try look at this from a different angle. Of course Putin
is not saint and any person can get enraged by his action. But why shouldn't he think about Russia
in this case. Sorry to tell you but most production in Ukraine won't sant european standards and
all their goods will be sold where? To its nearest neighbors? To us? I mean Russia. Not everything
but a big part of it will go to our country. Do we need it? Well, not really, because we have our
own production and our own economy. Was it a blackmail? You can think whatever you want. He probably
should not have said that just to see how Ukrainian economy would collapse. But he said a lot of
thing because he is all those things you like to name him. Your rage won't do him any harm.
putinhero
Putin is completely anti-gay.
First of all he has stopped Western interference in Syria. That was totally anti-gay.
Then he has restored the Orthodox Church in Russia, after 80 years of Churches being forcefully
destroyed by Communists. That was totally anti-gay.
Then Putin has worked for peace with other nations. Totally anti-gay.
But Putin defends Russian interests. Totally anti-gay.
Also now we have British, French, Americans all attacking Ukraine and causing riots. They hope
to make a civil war that will then affect Russia. That will only cause a repeat of the Russian revolution
in Russia today. That is all the worst traits of Bolshevism brought back to today. Totally gay.
detroitobama
These are the actual quotes from Putin:
The more intermediaries there are, the more problems there are. I am not sure Ukraine needs
intermediaries. I can only imagine what the reaction would be if in the heat of the crisis in
Greece or Cyprus, our foreign minister came to an anti-European rally and began urging people
to do something. This would not be good. I'm sure the Ukrainian people will sort this out and
Russia is not going to interfere.
The headline makes it sound like Putin is going to start a war with EU over this issue. But his
quotes reflect common sense and refute the idea that the headline is trying to convey.
OneTop
The delusional and very dangerous EU should stay in Brussels. Are they not satisfied with destroying
the EMU member nations or do they really want to do in the Ukraine as well?
AuntieSmurf
Hang on a minute. Wasn't some Euro apparatchik on here only yesterday telling us all how the EU
had kept the peace for 60 years? And now they're trying to start a war with Russia!
HelloLenin
When it's Egypt, the leadership is a "military government." When it's Ukraine or Syria, it's a
"regime."
It's not rocket science.
For the western imps, the integration of Ukraine into their orbit means:
* expansion of Western business opportunities
* growing isolation of Russia, one of the few countries strong enough to challenge amerikkkan hegemony.
* influence over transit of Russian gas exports to Europe
* military strategic advantage.
putinhero -> HelloLenin
Not only that. It is the end of nation states in the world. There is no conspiracy. The world
is changing to a world without borders. No more nation states. It will be a brutal hell on earth.
sitarlun
Europe is making a huge mistake by inciting revolt in Ukraine. the Russian's under Putin's leadership
will not tolerate such intrusion into to their neighborhood. The western alliance tried it before
in Georgia and the Russians crushed that country.
Also most of those involved in this revolt are from Galicia and during the ww2 these ultra right
wingers collaborated with the Nazis by fighting a guerilla warfare against the red army.
detroitobama -> whitehawk66
The west would definitely like to see Putin go. They would prefer Russia being ruled by a traitor
like Gorbachev or Yeltsin. Putin is a strong leader who wouldn't bend over for the western elites
who want to control Russia in their quest for global domination. When the west says Russia should
be more democratic what it means is that the country should allow the west to loot them more (by
sending economic hitmen for example).
The fact is Russia has improved a lot since Putin became their leader. The nation is at it's best
since the nightmare of communism and Yeltsin's rule ended.
Lifesaparty
The president of the European council, Herman Van Rompuy, insisted Lady Ashton would seek to reconcile
the two sides in Kiev on the basis of "democratic rules" and aim to prevent an escalation of violence.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
catveryverybigone2 -> Lifesaparty
What could possibly go wrong with that?
=======
wrong is that she is a side in the conflict....a mediator should be unbiased - for example some
Philipino diplomat or Brazilian diplomat etc - a side of a conflict can't be a mediator of this conflict...
MartynInEurope
I would guess that quite a few people would not be happy about the Russian Federation meddling
in the relationship between the UK and Ireland, never mind between England and Scotland.
On this issue, Putin is bang on the money.
Lifesaparty -> MartynInEurope
And he makes Ashton and v Rompuy to look like the idle meddling busy bodies that they are.
MartynInEurope -> Lifesaparty
That too, although we've know it for quite a while now, especially in Pants case.
RedMangos
Victoria Nuland has been seen handing out cakes to 'protesters' in Keiv
Imagine that senior figure form a foreign country acting this way.
Think about it, what would London say if Hu Jintao turned up in Berwick-upon-Tweed agitating for
Scottish secessionism.
It will be unacceptable and rightly so.
London will be rightly furious.
Nuland needs to go back to her own country and make sure Americans have getting enough to eat
and an education.
Babeouf
Putin isn't getting nervous he's staying consistent. His message over Libya was that Western interference
would prove a disaster for the Libyans. His message about Ukraine is the same. Already people in
the Crimea are forming self defense youth groups led by ex army officers. These are to provide support
for its succession should the 'Western Coup' prove successful. The triumph of the opposition will
mark the end of Ukraine's integrity. As happened in Georgia part of Ukraine will unite with Russia.
And certainly Putin has plans for just this outcome Why would he be nervous unless the German army
is to march East.
Vaska Tumir
Putin expressly and publicly tell the EU that he sees no conflict between Ukraine's economic co-operation
with both EU and the Euro-Asian trading bloc Russia's building up -- and both the Western press and
the Russophobes who post here claim that Russia is trying to force Ukraine into something.
Future historians will be shaking their heads over Western hysteria and hypocrisy one day.
zelazny
This comes down to whether western financial capitalists will control the Ukraine or the Russians.
The Russians will win in the long run. Financial capitalism hasn't long to live in this world.
Rich Ukrainians want to ally themselves with Europe and screw the poor in their country.
Things don't change. It works like that in every capitalist country, where the rich have the most,
followed by their middle class supporters, and the rest or the majority have little or nothing.
itsmerob
Vlad knows that the Ukrainian issue is a geopolitical issue. This is about isolating Russia, with
the unelected EU bureaucrats and US playing a dangerous game of provoking Russia in ways that they
themselves would find unacceptable if the roles were reversed. Russia was investing in the Ukraine,
its infrastructure and for the benefit of the Ukrainian people, albeit for their own benefit, which
includes stopping NATO's drive to the east. The EU/US do what they always do, give money to the country's
elites to get there way. It's the Neoliberal way, a rich corrupt elite and a disenfranchised population.
The Ukraine inside the EU would be disastrous for them. Do they really want to be another Greece,
Ireland, Portugal? Asset stripped and tied into debt slavery. The Ukraine would also be expected
to host US missiles aimed at Moscow, thus making themselves a target for the Russians. Say what you
like about Putin, but hes not stupid and isn't easily pushed around.
VoiceFromNowhere
I wonder why the authors of this article have written these words:
Yanukovych's biggest concession to the opposition, … a promise to repeal draconian laws criminalising
protest and freedom of speech.
It's common knowledge these Ukrainian laws are much more lenient than the corresponding European
ones. So my question is "Is it an indirect and somewhat veiled way to criticizing the relevant European
laws, for example the French ones?"
Kaikoura
The real mystery is why the EU is remotely interested in having Ukraine as a club member.
Aretoussa -> Kaikoura
Cheap labour for VW's next factory abroad surely. Export market for Mercedes' cars. Opportunity
for Siemens to build more power plants. It is all about benefitting Germany's economy. But Russia
is too big a fish, even for Ms Merkel. Besides, Germany heavily relies on gas imports from Russia,
and Russia is an important export market for German goods. So after Brussels makes a bit of fuss,
they will back off.
Aretoussa
Is Europe/Brussels the good knight on a white horse?! I don t think so. Germany's big companies
surely want access to the Ukraine as the next big market for their cars and machines.
And Putin has a very valid point! When Russia offered to co operate with Brussels, to help finance
the rescue of the Greek and Cypriot economy, Germany said no, because Ms Merkel and Mr Schaeuble
don t want Russia in their back garden. Well then, stay out of Russia's back garden now.
VoiceFromNowhere
Azarov, who has described protesters as "terrorists", …
I've always said the former Prime Minister, Azarov, was the only adequate and gutsy man among
them. He's not afraid of calling a spade a spade and terrorists terrorists.
There's also that bold woman, Elena Lukash, the Minister of Justice. If I were Ukrainian and she
ran for President I'd probably vote for her. She would immediately send spetsnaz to beat all the
opposition shit out of them...
steavey
The weakness of the EU's position with Ukraine is having unelected leaders in Van Rompuy, president
of the European council and the EU commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso and Baroness Catherine
Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief discussing Ukraine with elected presidents of both Ukraine and
Russia.
That puts both presidents of Ukraine and Russia in a much stronger position because they have
a legitimate mandate because they were elected. And nit was not too long ago, democratically elected
western leaders were always preaching to the Russian dominated USSR with the Ukraine as a former
member about the need to be democratically elected - how times have changed.
ReachFreedom
Yeah, Putin, this is your reward for stopping airstrikes in Syria...now we'll get to work in your
own back yard. Which tool should we use today? Well, let's use the EU.
jb10001 -> ReachFreedom
And we'll bad-talk the Olympics and scare everyone away....make sure it's a flop; the price to
pay for harboring Snowden!!!
AndyAjna
Why do people assume the EU and EC are the angels here? They have destroyed the sovereignty of
nations and wealth of their own citizens using unelected insiders. Ireland booted them out and is
now growing. Ditto Iceland. The long-term game plan has always been to take control away from citizens
and give their money to the banks. Russia, along with China, Brazil, India, has been standing up
to this western neocon elite. While his anti-gay stance is a huge worry, I don't assume the EU isn't
a snake in the grass either. Classic financial war going on. With western gold holdings nearly zero
now, BRICS are leading the way to stabilize the global currencies with assets via gold-backed SDRs.
Western bankers are trying to retain control. This is the back story.
HauptmannGurski
This is really tragic because the Ukrainians do not seem to understand that they'll lose a lot
of their hard won sovereignty in the EU, first to Brussels and then to the trans-Atlantic trade pact
which enables companies to take governments to court if they do not produce compliant legislation.
Rather than pay billions in compensation for 'wrong' legislation, they'd enact what the companies
want. They might as well forget about the idea of a parliament when the investment protection court
in Washington tells them what laws they can have and which not. (See Swedish firm Vattenfall against
the German government, challenging valid legislation).
Surely Ukrainians cannot be so ignorant as not to know what trap the EU is? The secret trans-Atlantic
trade pact negotiations are only set aside for three months, not cancelled. And to top it all off,
this is set up as a one way street. If any country would want to exit that trade pact if it doesn't
deliver, each and every EU country would have to agree; so in practice nobody can leave.
Ciarán Here
This article is extremely pointed and does not reflect what was said in a balanced way. Other
news media across the globe gives a more balanced view of what putin actually said. The headline
on this article is farcical even if putin believed what this bias article highlights the man putin
is not dumb and would not say it as it written in this article. Jealousy, envy and English patristic
sentiment are on show in this article. Putin envy
worldtraveler01
Guardian is reporting a false statement (completely opposite to what Putin said at the press conference).
At the press conference and Putin said "we will maintain 15 billion agreement with Ukraine regardless
of the political party hat will come to power"
Guardian: "We would most likely fail to maintain the preferential agreements with Ukraine if it
signs the [EU] association agreement," he said.
SingDave -> worldtraveler01
That's two different points;
1: He will maintain the funds regardless of which Party takes power.
2: He will withdraw funds if that Party signs an EU association agreement.
The Guardian were correct in their reporting.
worldtraveler01 -> SingDave
While these points appear to be different, they are closely related. Reporting only half of truth
and ignoring the inconvenient half is not good journalism practice.
Socialist4ever
When are the US and its followers in Europe going to finally stay out of other people's business?
Russia has no recent history of invading other countries- maybe those that have should mind their
own business.
AuntieSmurf -> Socialist4ever
Nice attempt to switch the blame to every Guardianistas favourite bogeyman. But this isn't about
the US, it's about that flabby wannabee superpower, the EU.
slorter
Would America tolerate this type of interference if it was happening in Mexico?
vFUZZYv same
You see the classic propaganda offered by Brussels. Their public relations is brilliant. They
create a problem and then they come in with flying colours with an answer only helpful for their
selfish desires. Who is to blame Putin for protecting a country once part of the Soviet Union?
The political elite feed off minor nations and Britain America along with several European Union
countries plot only for their selfish desires.
khoechsmann
What lies was I fed in school? Was Kiev ever the capital of Russia? Did Muscovites not found a
new centre up north, less vulnerable to Mongol invaders, and take the name of "Russia" with them,
leaving behind their home territory as a "march"?
If this were true, it would be no wonder that Moscow keeps meddling in the affairs of Kiev. But
did not the deal cut by Messrs. Molotov and Ribbentrop bloat that march by a fair chunk of fiercely
Roman Catholic Poland? If that were also true, who can be surprised at ethnic, linguistic, and religious
tensions?
marco00018
I spoke with my friends from Ukraine last night,everyone knows that the EU and US are making trouble.
One of my friends is a University student, he told me that he and his friends were offered money
to go to demonstrations. Where is this money coming from?
There is nothing that president Yanukovych can do to stop the demonstrations unless he agrees
to the EU.
It is interesting that the EU and US are trying to overthrow a president that was elected freely,
so much for democracy.
InfoOps -> marco00018
Thats it your right.
There is nothing that president Yanukovych can do to stop the demonstrations unless he agrees
to the EU.
Once poor Yanukovych signs the EU agreement Those fools that are the protestors will go home wherever
they came from and i doubt these protestors are Ukrainians to begin with.
The only thing that Yanukovych can do is to cut off all the US based NGOs in Ukraine and watch
McCain go nuts.
mygirl
Here we go again. Ukraine has at least three groups within its populace
Those who look east to mother Russia
Those who look west to Europe
And the ultra nationalist xenophobes and anti Semites
... ... ...
Luuukke
I'm not European but one thing I know for sure this man Van Rompuy is a dangerous man and I hear
that he's not even elected yet wants to mediate in a democratic process in Ukraine....Can't you people
in the EU see what's wrong with this picture ?? Do not be sheeple....It began the same way in the
1930's and the rest is history.....Live and learn...
grumpyben
Interesting notion, for those who trumpet that the EU has kept us from a war that was never going
to happen; German/Russian rivalry re asserting itself again.
Forth come the shades of SS Division Nordland, Wiking, Charlemagne...
VladimirM
I think that those in Europe who support this "rioting for the sake of democracy" should be more
conscious. Because its a clear sign given to all radicals and anarchists in their countries that
it works.
ASLEFshrugged
I can only imagine what the reaction would be if in the heat of the crisis in Greece or Cyprus,
our foreign minister came to an anti-European rally and began urging people to do something
The question in Ukraine is whether to join the EU so it's understandable that the EU should send
someone along. In Vlad's example the question in Greece would be whether to leave the EU not whether
they become part of Russia so why would Russian envoys be relevant?
Also Ashton is going in an attempt to mediate between the two sides, not speak at an anti-Russian/pro-EU
rally.
Ukraine might have a long, long wait before it gets full EU membership, just look how long its
taken Turkey, 1987 and still not part of the club......
edwardrice -> ASLEFshrugged
The question in Ukraine is whether to join the EU. Ukraine isn't joining the EU. Membership isn't
being offered. There is a EU/Ukraine trade agreement attached to economic 'reforms' on the table.
ASLEFshrugged -> edwardrice
Thank you for the correction, amend my previous comment to "the question is whether to enter into
a trade agreement with the EU". Gosh, really, all this fuss over a trade agreement?
terziev
Not only civilians were killed!!! Why there is no mention of the dead policemen and the scores
that are seriously injured? Guardian, please do not join the wicked chorus. Remember why you're respected
news source
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.comment
BBC provocateurs in Sochi. I think the guy has a right last name ;-)
As Papasha Muller
quipped about other sob : "Креатиииивный класс, бл... Уникальный журналистский коллектиф."
It's when you try to hear stories at first hand that the gloss comes off the Olympic varnish.
We rolled up to a checkpoint in the middle of the village of Akhshtyr, which is east of Sochi. It's
a nowhere kind of place, not special, but it didn't used to be quite as ugly as it is now. High up
is a massive quarry, where rock for the Olympics has been hewed, and now the big hole in the ground
is to be a landfill dump. Lorries thundered through the checkpoint all day, engines roaring as they
inched past our car, but we couldn't move.
The soldiers were FSB and the lead grunt barked at me in Russian that we could not pass. But to
do our job, we had to. An Olympic road and rail link joining the opening venue on the coast with
the brand new mountain resort cost £5bn, causing critics to say it would have been cheaper to have
paved it with Louis Vuitton handbags. The villagers say the link has cut off the village from Sochi.
A promised access road has not been built, so that everyone, including schoolchildren, has to drive
an extra hour down a muddy track.
I looked the FSB grunt in the eye and : "President Putin promised the IOC that journalists would
be welcome in Sochi." My colleague Nick Sturdee translated and a look of unease clouded the FSB grunt's
face: he was young, blond and had a big gun. But nor did he want to fall out with some stranger who
quoted the President.
He took our passports and questioned our status: "How we do know you are journalists?" We didn't
have Russian press passes because, although we had sent in applications three weeks before, the Foreign
Ministry in Moscow was unable to print our photographs, or communicate that difficulty to us.
I phoned the IOC to complain that the FSB had taken our passports. An official phoned back to
scold us for going to Akhshtyr without Russian press passes.
The FSB kept our passports but allowed us to walk on foot through their checkpoint to film the
villagers. They complained about the quarry, owned by Russian Railways, the boss of which, Vladimir
Yakunin, is reportedly a friend of Mr Putin. Later, the mayor said that the village's problems would
be addressed after the Olympics.
Moscow Exile says:
From a story in today's Independent on the upcoming Sochi Olympics that there really, really
are homosexuals in Sochi, despite that city's mayor denying their presence there. (Clearly, the
mayor does not read Die Zeit): Winter Olympics 2014: Welcome to Sochi – a city where 'there are
no gay people'
The report is written by one of the BBC's Panorama team, who promptly set out trying to remove
"the gloss" from the "Olympic varnish" and unearth evidence about the Evil Regime's dastardly
deeds in the Olympic city and its environs.
In doing this, the doughty BBC journalists blunder into an FSB manned security check point:
"The soldiers were FSB and the lead grunt barked at me in Russian that we could not pass. But
to do our job, we had to."
Oh noble, noble BBC journalists!
Note the term "barked". As it turns out in the story, the BBC smart-arse reporter can't speak
Russian: for all he knew, the FSB man might have said to hi e!"
"An Olympic road and rail link joining the opening venue on the coast with the brand new mountain
resort cost £5bn, causing critics to say it would have been cheaper to have paved it with Louis
Vuitton handbags."
It's favourite meme time again! Slightly modified, though,I must admit. I only heard the "paved
with black caviar" line before.
"The villagers say the link has cut off the village from Sochi. A promised access road has
not been built, so that everyone, including schoolchildren, has to drive an extra hour down a
muddy track."
Those evil swine in Moscow!
Have no fear, though. Our doughty man in Sochi faces up to what Hugh Laurie would, no doubt,
describe as a "slab-faced goon":
"I looked the FSB grunt in the eye and : 'President Putin promised the IOC that journalists
would be welcome in Sochi'. My colleague Nick Sturdee translated and a look of unease clouded
the FSB grunt's face: he was young, blond and had a big gun. But nor did he want to fall out with
some stranger who quoted the President."
Get the message? Mere mention of the poison dwarf's name makes the "grunt" quake with fear.
That's how it is in the Evil Empire.
The BBC hero then reports that the grunt asks: "How do we know you are journalists?" which
question turns out to be surprisingly logical, considering that the "grunt" is clearly a brain-dead
mutant, because on our hero's own admission: "We didn't have Russian press passes…"
Well blow me down! No press passes! So in an area where terrorism is a very real threat, this
beast from the FSB queries their identities. How very obstructive of him!
Of course, their not having press passes, says the BBC man, is all the fault of the Russians.
However, press passes or no, our stalwart heroes must seek and find a story, and so with much
derring-do, they fearlessly head into the Land of the Orcs.
I recall Tin-Tin doing the same in a North Caucasus war zone a few years back. He got quite
irate, it seems, when they fucked him off because he had no suitable documents and in his Grauniad
story about the incident he described how he angrily asked his tormentors if they knew he was
a British journalist and whether they realized the trouble that would ensue if he was not allowed
to follow his noble call of reporting the facts and nothing but.
They still told him to take a hike back to Moscow, though.
Brutes!
marknesop says:
"Slightly modified, though, I must admit. I only heard the "paved with black caviar" line
before."
Nope, the Louis Vuitton thing was Ioffe, too. In fact, caviar is the one that was not in her
original story, although it came up in discussion later; I think it might have been Anatoly who
originally referred to it (sarcastically) as "Caviar Road".
[Jan 29, 2014] Just an observation about Western MSM
Correspondents of major Western MSM accredited in Russia are now used by their bosses as
sort of a dead skunk that a feuding neighbor throws into your yard.
In this
wide-ranging interview, John Batchelor speaks with NYU Professor of Russian History Stephen F.
Cohen about the violent turn of Kiev's street protests and terrorist threats at the Sochi Olympics.
According to Cohen, US officials maintain an overly simplified view of the Ukraine protests, failing
to differentiate between the pro-EU and ultranationalist factions, and their interference is exacerbating
tensions between Russia and the United States.
Cohen said, "As this Western/Russian standoff grows into a full-scale confrontation, it spills
over and spoils the opportunities for cooperation in Syria, on Iran and at the Sochi Olympics."
For more on the unfolding situation in Kiev, listen to
Cohen's interview on KPFA 94.1's
Letters and Politics.
-Allegra Kirkland
theshadowknows
Stephen, have you noticed the similarities between what is happening today in the Ukraine and
what happened in the run up to the war against Qaddafi in Libya and the ongoing war against Assad
in Syria? One of the common links is the willingness of the U.S. government under Obama to recognize
so-called "opposition forces" as the legitimate governments of those countries prior to their
assuming power with the help of the U.S.
This is being repeated in the Ukraine, where the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) and its allied operatives of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the George
Soros Open Society Institute are backing the themed, astro-turf protests of the pro-EU Blue Buckets
organized by the CIA and Britain's MI6
Transcript of the interview of Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, to Channel
One, Rossiya-1, ABC News, BBC, CCTV television channels and Around the Rings agency.
Vladimir Putin: I believe that you know everything about the coming Olympics
and I am wondering what else I can tell you. Or, maybe, you do believe that you know everything so
I could hardly make you change your mind. But a chance still exists and I am taking this opportunity
to talk to you with great pleasure.
Ed Hula:I have been traveling to this city for eight years and I am witnessing
sweeping changes here – a whole new cluster has been constructed in the mountains with sports arenas,
stadiums, various trails, including a biathlon range. A great deal of money has been put
into Sochi to host the Olympic Games; according to the estimate, 50 billion dollars. But we have
not had a chance to know the exact amount yet and to understand how much the Olympics cost. Well,
how much are they? And are they worth that money? What benefits will these Games bring?
Vladimir Putin: The overall cost of the Olympics has been announced; it is 214
billion rubles. You can calculate the dollar amount dividing this figure by 33 which is a current
exchange rate.
But that is not what I want to tell you here. I want to begin with what we scheduled to do before
the Olympics in 2006/07 when we adopted the Sochi Development Master Plan. Looking at the map of
the Russian Federation, one can see a country covering mostly northern areas; today more than 70
percent of our territory is or can be referred to as northern, if not the Far North. We have a rather
small warm Black sea strip in the South and – to tell the truth – quite a few regions with a hospitable
warm climate. And so far we have had no contemporary resorts the Russian people could enjoy throughout
that huge area. Today we are at the top of the list of those traveling on holiday abroad. As far
as I know, Russians are the first among tourists going to Turkey; last year three million Russians
visited that country, although its climate zone is almost the same as the one of the Black sea region.
Therefore, we have had an important task to develop an infrastructure in this region of the Russian
Federation. And again, to this end we have adopted a special program. But as usual there is not enough
money to deal with what seems to be of the first importance; however, it is true both for Russia
and any other country in the world. And when it comes to the resort development activity which is
never seen as a priority, there is never enough money. Therefore, in fact our goal was to address
a few tasks at one time.
An aerial view from a helicopter shows hotels and residential houses recently constructed for
the 2014 Winter Olympics in the Adler district of the Black Sea resort city of Sochi, December 23,
2013. (Reuters / Maxim Shemetov)
The first and the most important one was to develop the South of the country, and primarily its
infrastructure. And – to my mind – we have made real progress here since a completely new transport,
energy and environment infrastructure has been set up. In terms of current emissions into atmosphere
and those of 2007, today when the project is nearly over the amount of air pollutants is half its
2007 amount. We have achieved that result due to the use of a more eco-friendly fuel in electric
power sector, two new gas pipelines and eight or nine electrical substations, as well as a cleanup
of two constantly fuming dumps in the area of greater Sochi and a new transport infrastructure. All
those measures helped to ease the environmental burden. Let's admit that it is crucial for a resort.
The second task we were focused on was to re-establish training bases for high-ranking athletes.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia lost nearly all its training facilities in middle-altitude
mountains. All of them are not ours anymore; they are either Georgian or Armenian, or Kazakhstani,
I mean the Medeu skating rink. It is shameful and embarrassing but our ice skating professionals
had to hold the Russian national championship in Berlin due to the lack of appropriate skating rinks.
Then, we also lost all facilities related to ski jumping. Today we have built a few centers, some
of them beyond Sochi. But two new Sochi ski jumps are totally unique in a technical sense; for the
purposes of Olympic training we have also constructed the most sophisticated ski jumps in some other
regions.
Finally, the third task was to create a new mountain cluster in order to transform this part of
the Russian Federation into a resort which can be used in any season, in winter and in summer. I
think that we have accomplished this task as well. Therefore, if we consider only the preparations
for the Olympics, they cost 214 billion, as just 15 sport facilities have been built, while most
of the money was spent on infrastructure. If we take into account some expenses associated with the
development of relevant infrastructure, the sum may be larger, but those expenses are not directly
related to the Olympic Games.
Sergey Brilev:Vladimir Vladimirovich, you have just called the ski jump
a unique facility. But it is unique not only from the sports and technical point of view. The foreigners
are very unlikely to know about the question: Where is Mr. Bilalov? Your visit to the jumping facility
and request to get explanation of how various parts of the mechanism function. Mr. Bilalov was severely
punished in front of the entire nation. Did it frighten the others so as to push them to fulfill
their promises? And in general how do you feel about it?
Vladimir Putin: First, let me finish the answer to Ed's question. Public investments
make up 100 out of 214 billion, the rest is provided by private companies. This money is primarily
put in hotel infrastructure. By the way, we have built more than 40,000 (between 41,000-43,000, as
far as I know) brand new hotel rooms, which is a crucial component of resort development. That is
where private investments of our companies have been allocated.
As for the missed deadlines, well, we both understand that over the past several years the Sochi
Olympic project has been the largest construction site in the world. Without exaggeration, the biggest
building site on the planet. And it is only natural that some problems would come up given the scale
of the project and, frankly, lack of experience of such large-scale construction projects in our
country, in modern Russia. Certainly, we had to enter into unpleasant discussions on prices, deadlines
and quality of work. It could not be otherwise. Absolutely impossible! Constant praise would have
brought us nowhere. My job is not only to give medals, you know, which certainly is part of my function.
First and foremost, though, my job is about ensuring success of the work in various spheres. It is
a kind of day-to-day spadework. In which part of the world have you ever seen builders who meet all
the deadlines and provide high-quality work at the lowest price? Just give me at least one country.
Not a single country in the entire world. We see the attempts to overvalue facility prices everywhere
– in Europe, North America, Asia. Same story everywhere.
However, this struggle between the customer (in this case, it is either the state or the private
sector that has build hotels here) and the executing agency, the contractor, is quite common. Contractors
always pursue large profit, the customer – a high-quality end product in due time and at a lower
cost. This struggle never ends, but this is natural. Obviously, there is the limit beyond which the
struggle is criminalized, but it is under the mandate of the law enforcement bodies to control that,
and they have shown tough and good work here. We have tried to prevent anyone from crossing this
limit. All in all, I think we have managed it.
As for this specific case, yes, the Russian Sberbank has taken up this project and accomplished
it providing excellent quality and modern solutions. There are no other jumping facilities like that
in the world.
George Stephanopoulos:It was said that the issue of corruption is really
serious: 18 billion dollars were plundered, the Swiss said, is it true or not?
Vladimir Putin: First, the Swiss did not say that. Of course, we are not uninterested
in what our partners say in the world, especially, in the Olympic movement. I have seen the verbatim
report of his meeting with some journalists, your colleagues tried to drag him to this topic, and
I understand journalists, it is their work – always drag out "hot" topics. But the Swiss specialist,
the President, as I understand, of the International Ski Federation, he did not say that, as it seemed
to me in the report, this is the first.
Second, if anyone has concrete data on instances of corruption related to the implementation of
the Sochi Olympics Project, we ask to furnish us with objective data. We will be glad and grateful
and we will use this information to put things right in this sphere.
What are instances of corruption? In this case they mean theft of public funds with the help of
state officials, in whose hands these funds fall. If anyone has such information, give these findings
to us, please. I repeat once again, we will be grateful. But besides talk, no one furnishes us with
anything. We understand and know and are even used to it, there are always some forces which are
always against everything, even the Olympics project. I do not know why, but, probably, it is their
job, probably they are inclined to it, somebody offended them in their life. But if there is objective
data, give it to us, please, as soon as possible. For the moment we do not have it, nobody gives
it. Our law-enforcement bodies work on this issue. There were cases, I have already talked about
it, some years ago local officials tried to trade land designated for Olympics venues. An investigation
was conducted; people were convicted by the Russian court and are serving the sentence. We have not
seen any big, large-scale instances of corruption in the framework of the Sochi Project implementation.
There are things I have already talked about, there are attempts of executives, contractors to drive
up the price. But this, I repeat, is going on in all countries of the world, and our task is to decrease
it and achieve good quality of the project and compliance with the deadlines of construction. Combat
always goes on, you understand, we always speak about it in public, and always in this regard even
fuel rumors about corruption. What should we do? Either always keep silent about it, or not to be
afraid of such reaction and work openly. We chose the second way. If we see that there are some problems
anywhere, we speak about it in public.
Well, that is my comment on this issue. I do not see serious corruption for the moment, but the
question related to the overstatement of the construction volume exists. You know, I can give another
comment on that. What are the reasons of construction overstatement?During tenders and competitions
bidders for this or that project often lower the cost of the project on purpose, in order to win
the project. As soon as they win, they understand that they cannot manage with these prices and start
to increase them. It happens almost everywhere as well. Our case is not unique. In this regard we
can speak about the level of holding tenders, probably. But this price increase, it is sometimes
connected with deliberate acts of contractors, and sometimes with the lack of efficient professional
estimates of necessary investments, especially in mountain conditions, in conditions of a mountain
cluster.
The Caucasus Mountains are young mountains, and there are a lot of problems related to seismic
activity, a lot of problems with landslides, etc. All these things sometimes have not been estimated
expertly and promptly at the initial project price evaluation. There are such moments, but this is
not corruption.
Andrew Marr:Mr. President, now the British people are thinking of going
to France or Switzerland to ski, and you want to persuade them to go to Russia to ski. If they go,
how difficult it would be to get visa? Unilaterally, can you without any agreement with the European
Union, without negotiations with the EU, undertake steps to relax the visa regime, simplify visa
receiving and entry?
Vladimir Putin: As far as the Sochi Olympiad guests are concerned we took a unique
decision and its unique character is in the situation that the Olympiad guests, the tourists coming
to the Olympiad can come to the Sochi Olympic games without visas, just on the basis of accreditation.
And they can get this accreditation at special windows open in all our diplomatic missions. But they
don't need any visa first.
Secondly, we consider that in recent years we have built a unique site from the point of view
of its ski piste mileage (150 kilometres) and as I mentioned more than 40 thousand hotel vacancies.
Look, may be it is necessary to upgrade more the service quality, but in general the material base
created here is very good for a big tourist centre of world class. I think that it will be very interesting
to see - even for those who will not be able to come to the Olympiad - what is Sochi where the Olympiad
took place. People over the world always show this interest in the Olympic games sites and we will
be glad to see the winter sports fans coming to Sochi to look what Russia did here, how it put into
practice this project. And if anyone likes it, this place may become a favourite resort for our friends
from the United States or Europe, or Asian countries, including China, why not? We should not forget
that people who love winter sports like to see different places, they go with pleasure to Canada,
the United States, Switzerland, Italy or France and I hope will come to Sochi.
Now, let me say two words about visas. We offer exclusions for some tourist routes. For example,
tourists coming by water transport may enter Saint-Petersburg without visa. We offer other exclusions
as well. But we are talking about exclusions anyway while the general regime is as follows: all visa
and visa-free access matters are regulated in the world on the basis of reciprocity. And we would
like very much to reach an agreement on this visa-free access regime with our colleagues from the
European Union. On many occasions I have already mentioned that the European Union has a visa-free
access regime with a number of Latin America countries where the criminal situation is not better
- and in many cases is worse - than in the Russian Federation. And where is Latin America, and where
is Europe? If we look at Russia and Europe, they are too close from my point of view. Are not they?
That is why it seems to me that we should agree on a visa-free access regime in general. And as
far as some exclusions are concerned, we may talk about some separate events.
Irada Zeynalova:Vladimir Vladimirovich, at the beginning of December you
paid a three-days visit to Sochi with an inspection of Olympic sites. And you mentioned then that
we should speak now not about the work done, but about the work that should be done, about the unfinished
work, you stressed that it needed polish. Can we say that now everything is ready, what do they report
to you? Where the difficulties were the most serious and what still has to be done if there is still
such a case?
Vladimir Putin: Everything is already done and now we have to put it in order.
We have to get hotels functioning well, we have to evacuate the construction equipment, we have to
remove the construction waste that is to get ready to receive guests as any landlords and landladies
do before receiving visitors. We have to get ready to receive guests in such a way that everything
becomes beautiful and reflects the spirit of the event itself, that all sites become ready. As you
know, they have already accepted many test competitions: some stages of the World Cup and other big
international events. Competitors, our guests, specialists in general were satisfied and stressed
the high degree of readiness a year ago - now all sites are finished.
Junyi Shui:Mr. President, before I put my question I would like to say this
is the fifth interview in 14 years, sometimes I did it face to face, sometimes together with my colleagues.
You are very popular in China. Before my coming here I said to our Internet users at Central TV that
I was going to Russia to interview you. And as soon as I published this message two million users
put an "I like it" mark next to it and sent many questions.
You have just mentioned that you invite tourists from different countries to come to Sochi.
And what do you think about the Chinese investors coming after the Olympic Games to build hotels?
What opportunities are there for Chinese investors in this situation?
Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to convey my best wishes to all my
friends in China both through social networks and through other media. I know that I have many friends
in China. It is not surprising, because we have a special relationship with China. And I have special
feelings for China. China is a great country with a great culture, with very interesting, hard-working
and talented people.
Give them a big thanks for such an attitude. This is a mutual feeling.
As far as investors are concerned, we will welcome investors from all countries, including from
China. China has great investment potential. China is a country with the largest gold reserves. There
are very good tools for investment in China, including a whole network of major funds. The Russian
investment fund, the RDIF, works with some of these funds, with the largest Chinese investment funds.
They already have joint projects.
Generally, it is quite difficult for foreign investors to find the most effective ways of investing
their capital, which are efficient and well-protected at the same time. They often do it together
with the relevant national bodies. Such a body, I have just talked about it, the RDIF, works with
our Chinese partners, it can work in any region of the Russian Federation and in all areas.
If the Chinese partners will be interested in the tourism cluster in the south of the country
or, say, the agriculture cluster, we have it here, near the Krasnodar and Stavropol regions: these
are the neighbouring regions, for example, the Rostov region – this is our breadbasket, as we call
it, these are the regions where agricultural production is particularly well developed, the climate
here is very good. But in some regions, for example, in the Rostov region, which borders the Krasnodar
region, the machine-building industry is also well-developed, the aviation cluster is developing,
and in many of these areas we have promising, very interesting joint plans with our Chinese friends.
That is why we invite them not only to Sochi and the Krasnodar region, but also to the southern part
of the Russian Federation as a whole.
Irada Zeynalova:Mr. Putin, at all times and in all countries the Olympic
Games have attracted extremists wishing to make a global name for themselves. Unfortunately, in the
context of the recent terrorist attacks and threats in the south of Russia, we have to discuss that
in relation to Sochi. Several agencies are working to ensure security of the Games, and European
and American experts have offered their assistance. What reports do you receive regarding the scope
of the threats, regarding what we are already confronting and what we will have to confront?
Vladimir Putin: You are right, extremists are always trying to make a name for
themselves, especially in the run-up to some major event, and not only sports events, but also political
ones. You know very well what security measures were taken during the meetings of the Heads of State
within the framework of the Group of Twenty, the G8 or other forums, for example, APEC in the Asia-
Pacific region. The same applies to major sports events. I have already spoken about this, and I
want to repeat that extremists are usually narrow-minded people who do not realize that even if they,
as they think, set themselves noble goals, by committing terrorist acts they are drifting further
and further away from achieving those seemingly noble goals to the extent that these goals stop being
relevant. The whole world considers them criminals, criminals in the worst sense of this word, bloodthirsty
people who not only disregard human rights and freedoms, but also set a person's life at naught.
No matter what motives they have for committing such acts, there will never be excuses for them,
and in the eyes of all sensible people in the world they will always remain criminals. Therefore,
they immediately cast a criminal shadow on the goals they set for themselves. But the world is what
it is, we remember well the tragic events during the Olympic Games in Munich, when the Israeli sports
delegation was killed almost in its entirety. And of course, since that time all countries in the
world without exception make special, extraordinary security efforts.
We do everything with the understanding, with a clear understanding of the operational situation
developing around Sochi and in the region as a whole, we have a perfect understanding of what it
is, what is that threat, how to stop it, how to combat it. I hope that our law enforcement agencies
will deal with it with honor and dignity, just as it was during other major sports and political
events.
Irada Zeynalova:I worked as a correspondent at several Olympic Games, including
the London ones, the last Olympic Games. And when we got there, we found out that Patriot missile
launchers had been deployed on the roofs of houses in the North and East London. At first it certainly
came as a shock like military ships anchored in the bay near Greenwich. But the British government
explained: "The threat is massive, we will resist it, and it is a necessity." So that is exactly
what happened – Patriot missile launchers were in place. Are we going to see something like that
in Sochi?
Vladimir Putin: I hope you will not see anything, but we will do our best. As
for London, we remember that one of the G8 summits there saw a number of terrorist attacks, including
in the tube. I remember the painful reaction of the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair to the
attacks, and I remember how we all provided him moral and, if necessary, special support. As an aside,
now I also want to thank all our partners from North America, the United States, Europe, and Asia
which engage in very active cooperation with their Russian counterparts in the law enforcement bodies
and special services. Such joint work is ongoing.
Junyi Shui:Mr. President, Volgograd saw two terrorist attacks a month before
the opening of the Sochi Olympics, and many people have some concerns about the sport event. We are
convinced that Russia will be able to take even more serious security measures. But might they affect
athletes and other participants?
Vladimir Putin: I would not want these acts of terrorism – crimes of the kind
aimed at undermining international cooperation in the political, as well as, so to say, in the humanitarian
area, including sports – to affect the upcoming activities. For if we allow ourselves to show weakness
or fear, then we will assist terrorists in achieving their goals. I believe that the international
community working in all areas – humanitarian, political, as well as economic – should unite to fight
such inhuman phenomena as terror attacks and the murder of totally innocent people. We are the organizers,
so our task, of course, is to ensure the safety of participants in the Olympic Games and its guests,
and we will do our best.
Ed Hula:Mr. President, how do you plan to ensure an adequate level of security
at the Olympics, and yet make it a happy and joyous occasion?
Vladimir Putin: Answering your colleagues' question I have already said that
we will try to make sure that security measures do not seem an imposition, are not too conspicuous
and do not put pressure on the athletes taking part in the Olympic Games and the guests and journalists
present there. But at the same time we will do our best to make these measures effective.
Security is to be ensured by some 40 thousand law enforcement and special services officers. Of
course, we will draw on the experience acquired during similar events in other regions of the world
and in other countries. It means that we will protect our air and sea space, as well as the mountain
cluster. I hope that it will be arranged so that it will not be evident and, as I have already said,
will not, so to say, depress the participants in the Olympic Games.
I would also like to note that a special regime for movement of people and goods was introduced
in the Greater Sochi area on 7 January 2014. We have round-the-clock headquarters to ensure security
– I want to emphasize that it is round-the-clock – which coordinates the work of our law enforcement
agencies and special bodies and maintains contacts with its counterparts abroad.
George Stephanopoulos:Mr. President, let me change the subject. I apologize.
Some Americans going to Sochi have even developed their own plans for evacuation in case something
happens. Are not you concerned that if something similar happens in other parts of Russia, these
plans will be implemented?
Vladimir Putin: Russia is a big country, and, like in any other country, different
things happen. We are working towards ensuring security in Sochi, using a lot of forces and means,
but mostly those not employed in guaranteeing security in other regions of the Russian Federation.
We have enough of such means provided by the Federal Security Service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
and army units, which will be used in ensuring security too, as I have already said, in the maritime
area and airspace. If anybody feels it is necessary for them to design separate plans for guaranteeing
their own security, it is okay as well, but, of course, it needs to be done keeping in touch with
the Olympic Games organizers and our intelligence agencies. As I have already said, we have permanent
round-the-clock headquarters maintaining contact with colleagues from the foreign countries' corresponding
services and army units. By the way, these colleagues are represented in the headquarters, there
is, I repeat, a direct professional interaction. If necessary, all these mechanisms can be used.
I hope that it won't come to that. I have also already mentioned the way we performed quite well,
say, holding important political events, including both G20 and G8 summits, and hosting major international
competitions, like, for example, the recent World Championships in Athletics in Moscow. Understanding
the full scope of our security sphere problems, we still have great experience in staging events
of the kind, and we use it.
Andrew Marr:A lot of British politicians and celebrities, including Elton
John, express concerns over the attitude towards homosexuals in Russia. I would like to ask you,
do you think there are fundamental differences between the attitude towards homosexuals in the West
and in Russia? Do you think homosexuals are born or made? And what does the concept of propaganda
imply, is it philosophical?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I am not in a position to answer the part of your question
concerning homosexuals being born or made. This is beyond my professional interest, and I just can't
give you a qualified reply. And as I can't give you a qualified reply, I would just prefer to leave
it at that. And as for the attitude towards individuals of non-traditional sexual orientation, yes,
I can give you quite a detailed reply. I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that in Russia,
as opposed to one third of the world's countries, there is no criminal liability for homosexuality.
70 countries in the world have criminal liability for homosexuality, and seven countries out of these
70 enforce the death penalty for homosexuality. And what does that mean? Does it mean that we should
cancel all major sport events in those countries? I guess not.
The Soviet Union had criminal liability for homosexuality, today's Russia doesn't have such criminal
liability. In our country, all people are absolutely equal regardless of their religion, sex, ethnicity,
or sexual orientation. Everybody is equal. We have recently only passed a law prohibiting propaganda,
and not of homosexuality only, but of homosexuality and child abuse, child sexual abuse. But this
has nothing in common with persecuting individuals for their sexual orientation. And there is a world
of difference between these things. So there is no danger for individuals of non-traditional sexual
orientation who are planning to come to the Games as guests or participants.
Andrew Marr:And as for the Orthodox Church, it calls for returning criminal
liability for homosexuality. What is your opinion about that?
Vladimir Putin: According to the law, the church is separate from the state and
has the right to have its own point of view. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact
that almost all traditional world religions are in full solidarity on this topic. And is the position
of the Holy See different from that of the Russian Orthodox Church? And does Islam treat individuals
with non-traditional sexual orientation in a different manner? It seems so, but this other position
consists in a much tougher approach. Those 70 countries I have mentioned mostly belong to the Islamic
world, and the ones enforcing death penalty all have Islam as state religion. Thus, there is nothing
strange in the Russian Orthodox Church's opinion as compared to that of other traditional world religions,
there is nothing strange in that, but I repeat once again: the opinion of the church is one thing,
and the opinion of the state is another thing. The church is separate from the state.
Sergey Brilev:Vladimir Vladimirovich, perhaps, to add to the issue. You
know, once I was lucky to meet the smartest and the most beautiful girl, and I have been married
to her for a long time, well, generally speaking, my sexual orientation removes me a bit from being
able to discuss this issue, but the thing is as follows.
All Russians of non-traditional sexual orientation, who I know, ok - not all, but the vast
majority are people with excellent careers, who have never in their life-time faced any job restrictions
and so on, though against the background of our bill to ban gay propaganda among minors, our country
is getting the reputation of being just about the most anti-gay country on the planet, however, to
a certain degree quite the opposite.
Vladimir Putin: It is not getting the reputation, there are attempts to create
it.
Sergey Brilev:Yes, I agree. I wonder whether we should review this bill
causing all the fuss that has, actually, little to do with its name or content, and to adjust it
a bit? Probably with a view to offering not less sex education needed for children, but less sex,
in general, available to minors, no matter if it is homosexual or heterosexual, what would be demanded
by many people who are quite heterosexual. Or, probably, to really examine this notion. Frankly speaking,
I have never come across gay propaganda among minors. Basically, I agree that I do not understand
what it is in practice.
Vladimir Putin: Why so? Could you read the bill thoroughly, and pay your attention
to its name. The bill's name is "Ban on propaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality". The bill banning
pedophilia, propaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality. There are countries, including European,
where public discussions – I have just talked about this at the meeting with volunteers – for instance,
on the possibility to legalize pedophilia currently take place. Public discussions in parliaments.
They may do whatever they want, but peoples of the Russian Federation, the Russian people have their
own cultural code, own tradition. It's not our business and we do not poke our nose into their affairs,
and we ask for the same respect for our traditions and for our culture. My personal view is that
the society should look after its children at least to be able to reproduce and not only thanks to
migrants, but on its own base. We achieved what we had not experienced for a long time. In 2002,
2003, 2004 it seemed that we would never redress that absolutely terrible situation we had with the
demographic crisis. It appeared that it was a demographic pit that would prove to have no bottom
and we would continue investing in it endlessly.
And at that time we developed and adopted a program aimed at supporting demography, to increase
birth rates in the Russian Federation. Frankly speaking, I was much worried myself: we allocated
a big volume of resources, and many experts used to tell me: "Don't do this, anyway, there is such
a trend, which is experienced by many European countries. And we won't avoid it as well". This year
in Russia, the number of newborns has exceeded the number of deceased for the first time. We achieved
a specific positive result. If anybody would like to focus on, so to say, developing the cemetery,
they are welcome. But we have different goals: we want the Russian people and other peoples of the
Russian Federation to develop and to have historical prospects. And we should clean up everything
that impedes us here. But we should do this in a timely and humane manner without offending anybody
and without including anybody in a group of secondary people.
It seems to me that the bill we adopted does not hurt anybody. Moreover, people of non-traditional
sexual orientation cannot feel like inferior people here, because there is no professional, career
or social discrimination against them, by the way. And when they achieve great results, such as,
for instance Elton John achieves, who is an extraordinary person, a distinguished musician, and millions
of our people sincerely love him with no regard to his sexual orientation, and his sexual orientation
does not affect attitudes to him, especially as to a distinguished musician. I think that this quite
democratic approach to people of non-traditional sexual orientation alongside with measures aimed
to protect children and future demographic development is optimum.
Junyi Shui:I also would like to proceed on discussing this issue of homosexuality.
Irada Zeynalova:And I would like to ask why we are discussing this issue
in the context of Sochi when we gathered to speak about Sochi?
Junyi Shui: But I would like to continue.There were talks that the snow of 2014
in Sochi would be lonely because many Western countries spoke about homosexuality, about oppression
of homosexuals in Russia, and those messages reached China. By the way, in 1980 there were also attempts
to boycott the Soviet Olympic Games in Moscow for different reasons, and it was the same case at
the Beijing Olympic Games. Why do such voices appear when a country is developing, for instance,
China is developing, Russia is developing? What do you think, may be these are manifestations of
the "cold war"?
Vladimir Putin: I don't think that these are manifestations of the "cold war",
but it is a demonstration of competition. When such a powerful country, potentially powerful country
as China starts showing rapid pace of growth, it becomes a real competitor in global politics and
in the global markets, and, of course, tools to restrain such growth are switched on. Probably, you
know that once Napoleon said that China was sleeping, and let it sleep as long as possible. This
is a traditional attitude of Western Civilization towards the East, and towards China, in particular.
But China has awakened. And I think that the right option to develop relations with such a big, potentially
powerful and great country as China is to search for shared interests, but not to restrain. I believe
that some old approaches towards Russia still exist from the perspective that there is a need to
restrain something.
And as for the issue that we cannot leave, I would like to say the following. I explained that
homosexuality is a criminal offence in 70 countries. The same is in the USA. It is still a criminal
offence in some states of the United States, for instance in Texas, and may be in another three states.
But what the heck, we shouldn't hold any international competitions, should we? Why does nobody speak
about this and why do they speak about us, though we do not have criminal liability for this. What
is this, if not an attempt to restrain? This is a remnant of the previous, old way of thinking and
this is bad.
It is even worse when it comes to major sports events, especially Olympic Games. I know what many
top US politicians that I respect and that are respected across the world think. They believe that
the boycott of the Moscow Olympics, for all the serious grounds it had - I mean the introduction
of Soviet troops in Afghanistan - was a great mistake even in those circumstances. Indeed, any major
international competition, and Olympic Games first and foremost, are intended to depoliticize the
most pressing international issues and open additional ways to build bridges. It is unwise to miss
such opportunities, and it is far more unwise to burn such bridges.
Ed Hula:President Obama has appointed Billie Jean King and other members
of the delegation who would represent the United States in Sochi. There are homosexual athletes.
Do you believe it to be a political component of the Olympic Games? What political background does
it create for the Olympic, if there are homosexuals there? Will you meet Billie Jean King as the
head of the US Delegation in Sochi?
Vladimir Putin: People have different sexual orientation. We would welcome all
athletes and all guests at the Olympics. At some point President Obama asked me to help make arrangements
for a large US delegation to come. His request was related to a limited membership of relevant national
teams, including both athletes and members of various administrative bodies. The International Olympic
Committee has its rules, but we did the best we could. We found solutions to that, bearing in mind
that the US has traditionally had a larger delegation at the Olympic Games than other countries,
they have a large team and many representatives. We complied with their request. So, I certainly
will be glad to see the representatives of any countries, including the United States, there can
be no doubts as to that. If they would like to meet me and discuss anything, they are welcome, I
see no problems about it.
George Stephanopoulos:President Obama said he was offended by the act on
gay propaganda. He has also recently said that if there are no gay sportsmen and sportswomen in Russia,
its team will be weaker. However, if they start protesting, meaning gays and lesbians, will they
be prosecuted under this anti-propaganda act if they decide to hold protest actions?
Vladimir Putin: … protest actions and propaganda are after all two slightly different
things. They are similar but if we look at this from the legal point of view, a protest against a
law is not propaganda of homosexuality itself or child sexual abuse. That is first point.
Second point, I would like to ask our colleagues – my colleagues and friends – before trying to
criticize, to solve the problem in their own home first. But I have already said that it is well
known. In some US states, homosexuality is criminally punishable. And how can they criticize us for
a far gentler and more liberal approach to these issues compared to the one they have at home? However,
I understand that it is difficult to do since there are a lot of people in the US itself that share
the view that the laws of their state or of their country are just, reasonable and correspond with
the sentiments of the larger part of its citizens. But we need to discuss this in some more appropriate
international forums, to elaborate some common approaches. Anyway, we have got the message. And I
am telling you that none of our guests will have any problems.
We remember how some African-American citizens of the US protested during the Olympic Games –
a large-scale international competition – against segregation. I saw that myself on the TV screen.
But that is all in all a general practice aimed at stating one's rights.
Sergey Brilev:Vladimir Vladimirovich, if you would allow me to return to
sport-related issues - you know, I remember that when London was getting ready for the Olympic Games,
the British press made it seem as if something terrible was happening in the United Kingdom. And
then a wonderful celebration of sport happened. Later on, however, when Mitt Romney, candidate for
the US presidency, arrived in London and repeated the exact same things the London newspapers were
writing, the latter rebuked him saying "do not dare, we will manage on our own, and we have a celebration
of sport ahead of us". And that is the kind of celebration that we now have ahead of us. The last
time this country hosted the Olympic Games I was eight and I am sure that millions of people are
expecting this large event.
You ski and play hockey; what competitions are you planning to attend? What are you planning
to see, just for yourself? What results are you expecting from the Russian national team?
Vladimir Putin: I have already been asked this question. I can say that I will
be able to attend competitions only on those days when I am free from the current work and this is
not going to totally coincide with my sport preferences. But if I could go and see the competitions
I am interested in, that would of course be hockey and alpine skiing. I would also watch with great
pleasure biathlon and figure skating.
George Stephanopoulos:I was just wondering whether you and Barack Obama
made a bet what country would get more medals: the U.S. or Russia?
Vladimir Putin: No, we never make such bets. Barack himself loves sports very
much, I can see it, he pays due attention and not only to going in for sports, but also to the development
of sport. Practically all American presidents as we can see pay great attention and act effectively,
that is why the team of the United States traditionally achieves very good and impressive results.
We wish success to our American friends, the American athletes. I know that a lot of people in our
country, millions of people admire American athletes and truly sincerely love them. As I have already
said I would like very much the sports not to be soiled by the politics. And I think that we all
will benefit from this.
But, of course, first of all we will support our athletes. We traditionally have good results
in winter sports. In previous years, because of the change of generations, and frankly, and I also
have already spoken about it,because of the loss of training bases we had a certain failure, decline,
including a not very bright performance in Vancouver, although in general there we performed in a
proper manner. We expect that the situation will improve and that the scores, including the number
of medals will grow. Although it is important, it is still much more important for us, for Russia,
to create a favorable environment for the Games and to conduct them in a proper manner. And it is
very important that our athletes have shown their worth, showed their character and skill.
And as far as the medals are concerned, it is also an essential element of any sports competition,
including the Olympic one. But for me it is even more important to see that we have a viable, efficient
team that holds promise.
Andrew Marr:Mr. President, before this sports festival starts there have
been a lot of amnesties in Russia, in particular concerning the Greenpeace. Some critics say that
you just "are making a forced smile".
Are these real liberal efforts in the framework of Russian policy or just such a step for
popularity?
Vladimir Putin: What kind of answer do you want to hear from me?
Andrew Marr:I would like you to say, "I am a real liberal and hold liberal-views".
Vladimir Putin: It's true. And one more thing, we adopted the Amnesty Law not
in connection with the Olympics, but in honor of the 20th Anniversary of the Russian Constitution.
That is first.
Journalist Kieron Bryan (R), who was detained in Russia with greenpeace activists, embraces his
brother Russell at St Pancras International train station in London on December 27, 2013 after arriving
back in Britain following an amnesty. (AFP Photo / Justin Tallis)
In the second place, in accordance with our law the decision on the amnesty was not made by the
President. It is an exclusive prerogative of the Parliament. It is not me who made the decision on
the amnesty, but the Parliament. So I "cannot make a forced smile". It is not my merit, but the merit
of the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation. But I certainly support this initiative
and believe that it is correct. And in this connection I would like to note that we are probably
record-holders for the number of amnesties concerned. Here we also should strike a certain balance
between those who committed the crimes and the victims of these crimes. We talk a lot about the situation
of the sentenced prisoners or persons under investigation. And that is correct, we should never forget
about it, especially as the situation in the places of detention in our country, as well as abroad,
by the way, in many countries, is not the best. But we should never push to the sidelines the people
who became victims of the crimes. Here the position of the State towards these problems should be
balanced.
Irada Zeynalova:Vladimir Vladimirovich, while we have been talking the storm
has already become so strong that the mountains cannot be seen, it snows more and more. It turns
out that the Winter Games, as well as the Summer ones, generally speaking, have one more organizer
that is the weather. The weather forecast has reminded a guess lately. Unfortunately, the models
do not work. Let's say, will we modify the weather during the Sochi Olympics or will we hope for
a good luck? For example, in Turin a few days of competition were canceled just because of fog and
because of snow. Will we do something with the weather so that the Games are on the schedule?
Vladimir Putin: No, we will do nothing. Unfortunately, we are and will always
be dependent on nature. As you know, Australia, which is now hosting a major tennis tournament,
is facing an extreme heat wave with temperature over 40°Cresulting in
some competitors fainting from the heat. It started to snow rather unexpectedly here and if weather
conditions do not meet the standards of the competition, the representatives of the International
Olympic Committee will decide what to do about it. However, I do hope that the conditions will be
favourable, as the weather data for many years show thatfrom the first half of February
to the end of March, this region generally has very favourable weather for winter sports. I hope
that despite all the fluctuations it will not be an exception this time.
Irada Zeynalova:So, we will not need the thousands of tons of snow that
we have stored somewhere in the glaciers, will we?
Vladimir Putin: Well, it is obvious that there is no need for them now, but we
have stored them just in case. We have seen major international winter competitions, say, skiing
races, with just a narrow snow path for the skiers and green grass on both sides of it. Thank God,
it is not the case here and I hope that it will not be.
Junyi Shui:Mr President, as I have already said there have been many questions
from Chinese people before my arrival. I have printed only a small part of them relating to the Games
and you personally. China is not very strong in terms of winter sports. What results do you expect
from the Chinese team at the Sochi Olympics? In addition, some wonder in what sport you perform worst
yourself. In general, is there anything in the world that you do not know how to do? It seems that
you have mastered everything.
Vladimir Putin: There is a famous saying: "The more I know, the more I realise
that I know nothing." I think that it applies to all people, including me.
As for sports, I really love them, both winter and summer sports. The expectations as to China's
results, whether at Summer, or Winter Olympics, are usually high. China has developed an extremely
efficient way of preparing and motivating its athletes. Note, it is very important that preparation
go hand in hand with motivation.
I watched with great attention the way China grows a young generation of athletes, the way it
selects them, the way they are trained and the way their psychological attitudes are shaped. There
are plenty of lessons to learn there. With strong internal motivation like this people achieve maximum
results.
Members of China's speed skating team (Reuters / Andy Clark)
Certainly, China has traditionally developed summer sports rather than winter ones. Yet this is
just a matter of adjusting the pattern. If China has made this adjustment or makes it in the near
future, I believe that it will turn into a major competitor for those countries who have traditionally
been developing winter sports. We expect that Chinese athletes will demonstrate spectacular performance.
We look forward that they both please and surprise the winter sports lovers from around the world.
They can do it.
Ed Hula:Is it important for the success of the Winter Olympics and for your
satisfaction with the Games that Russian team wins a medal in ice hockey? How important is this to
you?
Vladimir Putin: I should be honest, it does matter. Not for me personally, not
to satisfy any ambition. Rather, it is important for the millions of our ice hockey fans. Ice hockey
has traditionally been very popular in this country, and although it has been viewed as a Canadian
sport, I believe it to be equally a Russian one. We are very grateful to Canadians for having invented
this game, as well as to those who brought it to this country. It would be no exaggeration to say
that ice hockey is loved by millions of people, with hundreds of thousands of people playing it and
millions of people watching the matches. Certainly, ice hockey matches are always spectacular and
memorable. I would like to stress that in ice hockey, just like in any other sport, we expect success
and victory, yet what is most important is that excellence and character are demonstrated. It would
be the main result that our sports and particularly ice hockey fans see that our athletes have made
the best of their character, excellence and talent. Then nobody will reproach them for a failure
to achieve a desired result. If they do achieve it, we will be very grateful to our athletes. Yet,
let me repeat, there is no point in making any forecasts or prior assessments. We are very well aware
of the fact that ice hockey has been developing all over the world and, which is of great pleasure
to us, it has been developing in Europe. Finnish and Swedish teams have traditionally remained strong,
with Switzerland and Germany making great advances, not to mention the United States and Canada.
We would be very glad that these outstanding athletes come and show their talents here, in Russia.
We are very grateful to all of our partners and to all of these prominent athletes. We would be very
glad to see and to welcome them here and look forward to enjoying their game.
Junyi Shui:Mr President, let me change the subject of our conversation to
the role of the Olympics for Russia. I have heard you calling the Olympics your baby, your project.
I have also heard people saying that your contribution was a key factor why Russia has the chance
to host them. You also mentioned that you could make Russia a strong and powerful country within
20 years. Is there a connection between Sochi Olympics and your vision of a strong Russia? Some media
even say it is somehow linked to your future political career. Can you comment on that?
Vladimir Putin: As you know, there is a strong connection between the Olympic
Games, the progress in sport and the successful development of a country in general, because great
sport achievements are mostly a result of effective economic and social policies. Russia wanted to
host the Olympic Games in 1994 and in early 2000s, but I believe it was obvious to both Russia and
the International Olympic Committee that it was very hard for the country due to pure economic reasons.
Russia's GDP and household incomes have almost doubled and even though our gold and foreign currency
reserves of over USD 500bn cannot match those of China, we still rank third in the world on this
indicator. The Russian Government has two reserve funds. Over the recent years, we have nearly always
had a surplus budget. Last year, we had just a meagre deficit of -0.5% per cent, which is insignificant.
We have paid off all our external debts.The trade balance surplus is about USD 196bn, although I
may be mistaken with exact figures. This means that our economic development and economic growth
empower us to carry out such projects. We have become the fifth world economy not in terms of income
per capita, but in terms of GDP and purchasing power parity. It is quite an achievement. Just like
any other country, we have our difficulties, but the results achieved allow us to reach social goals,
including those in the demographic sphere that we have already mentioned today. I would like to recall
the fact that now the number of births in Russia is higher than the number of deaths for the first
time in 20 years. It enables us to raise salaries in the social services sector, including health
care and education. All these factors create a solid basis for sport achievements that, in turn,
will positively influence the demographics. We may even seek progress in sport, including or even
mostly, a means to create favourable demographic conditions and improve the health of the nation.
Such major events as world championships, European championships and Olympic Games encourage people,
especially young ones, to do sports, help to facilitate mass sport participation, which certainly
has a positive impact on the health of the nation, and make sport popular, interesting, and fashionable.
I believe all of this to be of extreme importance, it is not just my ambitions and it is the interests
of the state and its people in their purest form. No doubt, it gives me great pleasure to see us
do that, but again, not because of my ambitions.
Torchbearer posing for a photo with children in Ufa, the regional capital of the Volga River region
of Bashkortostan, about 1200 kilometers (750 miles) east of Moscow. (AFP Photo)
There is also a certain moral aspect here and there is no need to be ashamed of it. After the
collapse of the Soviet Union, after the dark and, let us be honest, bloody events in the Caucasus,
the society had a negative and pessimistic attitude. We have to pull ourselves together and realise
that we can deliver large-scale projects on time and with high standards of quality, and by projects
I mean not only stronger defence potential, but also developments in the humanitarian sphere, including
in sport. I believe that all this is a step in the right direction, as it strengthens the morale
of the nation, as well as its social and health care sectors and creates conditions for future development.
Junyi Shui:In your opinion, what image of Russia will the Sochi Olympic
Games convey to the world, what history can they tell?
Vladimir Putin: I would like the participants, guests, journalists and all those
who watch the Games on TV and learn about them from the mass media to see a new Russia, see its personality
and its possibilities, take a fresh and unbiased look at the country. And I am sure that this will
happen, it has to bring about good and positive results and it will help Russia to establish relations
with its partners around the world.
Andrew Marr:You sound very convincing. You have been named third most influential
person in the world, ahead of the Pope. Do you think it is possible for you to stand for election
once again? Do you consider such a possibility? Or maybe someone has got bored?
Vladimir Putin: I believe one should not pay attention to such ratings. Besides,
no person can get the better of the Pope. Such a comparison is irrelevant. The Pope is in charge
of the biggest state in the world. The state which has no formal characteristics. How to say it in
the modern language to put it correctly, this is a kind of a network state. You see? But it is real
and not virtual, as there are quite a number of Catholics in the world, a billion people already.
Besides, here we talk about spiritual influence which is more important than political one.
We have orthodox religious leaders as well. First of all, this is Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and
All Russia. I have enormous respect for this person. He contributes a lot to the spiritual strengthening
of our people, and not only the Orthodox, because he cooperates with other representatives of traditional
Russian religions in order to promote interreligious and interethnic peace. So Russian Orthodox Church
carries out great work in this respect which has positive results.
As for ratings, I reiterate that I do not think them important. The situation changes every day.
One can never be guided by them. The most important thing in any sphere of activity is to feel that
you are a professional and to constantly increase your level of expertise and the quality of your
work.
Concerning ambitions, it is too early to speak about this. We are in 2014 now; elections are to
be held in 2018. It is necessary to work now, and then we will see. The worst and the most dangerous
thing that can happen to a politician is holding on to power by all means and focusing only on this.
In such a situation the failure is inevitable as you are always afraid of making a wrong step. This
is not what you should think of; you should focus on the results of your work. Time will tell.
Sergey Brilev:Mr. Putin, let me speak about the future and the past at the
same time. I was lucky to be in Guatemala when Sochi was chosen to host the Olympics. It was at that
moment that our paralympians showed their worth so clearly.
Vladimir Putin: Yes.
Sergey Brilev:The future after the Olympics includes Paralympic Games.
Vladimir Putin: Right.
Sergey Brilev:I do not know if this was planned or not, but now the city
of Sochi, and not only those exemplary parts of it that are intended for the Olympics, but also those
that have fewer foreigners and more Russian people, as well as other Russian cities are becoming
more friendly toward not only paralympians but disabled persons as well. This is quite visible. Much
has to be done as the disabled still face many bitter things, but progress has started. Was this
your intention when you brought in paralympians then?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, it was. Moreover, we have a federal programme on the so-called
barrier free environment. Unfortunately, I have to admit that in creating such a barrier free environment
we fall greatly behind many other countries of the world. I really regret it, but it developed like
this since the Soviet times. And I am greatly pleased that we are leaving this negative tradition
behind. We adopted the programme on a barrier free environment. It is being implemented differently
in different regions, and this obviously requires additional financing. But I would really like Sochi
to serve as an example of how the problem of a barrier free environment can be solved, this was my
initial plan. Here this was done from scratch drawing upon the highest modern standards. And I reiterate
that from the very beginning I wanted the programme on a barrier free environment in Sochi to become
a good example for other Russian regions.
As for our paralympians, they are all outstanding athletes.I cannot but feel gratitude when I
mention them, because they win more medals than our Olympic team. This is first, and it is very important.
Secondly, it is actually quite obvious that they serve as an example for people with and without
disabilities, example of how one can and should become strong morally to keep moving forward and
enjoy life fully. Regretfully, our state is still far from meeting all the needs of the disabled
people in the contemporary world. When our paralympians achieve outstanding results, by doing so
they push the state to address those issues. I feel very grateful to them and, of course, I count
on their brilliant performance during these Paralympic Games. By the way, many media do not pay enough
attention to them… some more than others though. There is a small channel called RBC, I think, that
provides a regular commentary on the paralympians. I do not see that on federal TV channels though.
SERGEY BRYLEV:I heard you, Vladimir Vladimirovich.
George Stephanopoulos:Since 2007 you invested so much in the Olympic Games.
How would you measure success in Sochi? Will it influence your reputation and is it a question of
honor for you?
Vladimir Putin: I want it to be a success of the country. As I said, we are hosts,
and the goal number one for us… not in sports but for the state… is to create good conditions for
athletes, guests, journalists, tourists so that people come to an international celebration of sports,
a number one winter sports event this year, and be in the center of this celebration, so that millions
of sports fans throughout the world feel it even if they are hundreds or thousands miles away from
Sochi. This is our main task. Of course, people in Russia should also see that our country can hold
such events and be a part of this celebration. This is first.
Another very important thing is that it should influence the development of mass sports in the
country, it is one of the key goals. Of course, we expect good results from our athletes. This is
not an exhaustive list, I mention only obvious things, but if all these elements are there, it will
be a success. In a way, it would be my success as well as of the Russian Government, of the regional
authorities, of all those who prepared and conducted this work, from builders, designers and engineers
to common workers. Certainly, it will be their success, and I will be happy if all that is done properly.
I am sure they will be happy as well. So, it is not going to be my personal success but of a whole
country. I hope it will happen.
Irada Zeynalova:When you won the presidential elections, you came out to
a square, and we all could see how emotional you were. Preparation of the Olympic Games is a much
more complex and time-consuming task than any electoral campaign. Have you ever thought about March
18th, about how this supercomplex task would be fulfilled?
Vladimir Putin: No. I was thinking about the schedule to prepare this event.
After that, I was thinking how to deal with the first, second, third stage of preparation, how well
one thing is done and how we can address the other. I would say it was a general and a stage-by-stage
approach towards dealing with the issues. I never thought much about how someone may look at it.
Irada Zeynalova:On March 18 everybody is leaving, you see off the guests
and you finally get the time for a late celebration of New Year, like all people who were busy with
Sochi Games. Did you think how to celebrate the New Year?
Vladimir Putin: No, I think there will be other things to be taken care of.
George Stephanopoulos:You said that it is necessary to promote fitness,
sports. We know that you practice judo and play hockey. How do you stay in shape, is it important
for you?
Vladimir Putin: How to control one's weight? Don't overeat. How to stay in shape?
Practice sports. No magic pills here. I do something everyday. Yesterday I skied here till 1.30 am,
today morning I exercised in a gym, I swim about 1000 meters almost every day. Nothing special, but
on a regular basis. You know the saying, chicken pecks grain after grain.
Junyi Shui:I also have a personal question which was also asked by Chinese
Internet users. Have you thought about what you are going to do when you retire? Chinese users believe
that you are very handsome and masculine. Maybe you will play tough guys in cinema?
Vladimir Putin: That's unlikely. Maybe I will play hockey. We have recently created
our own NHL. It is not called National Hockey League but Night Hockey League where non-professional
40+ people can play. I was very glad to see that this initiative is followed throughout the Russian
Federation. Teams are now created in every region, they hold competitions, and the final is held
in Moscow or in Sochi, like it was last year. More than a hundred teams arrived from all Russia's
regions. Two and a half years ago I was not able to stand on skates at all. You may have seen that
now I am already trying to do something. That's what I like. If and when I retire, I will try to
do things that I like.
Junyi Shui:Thank you.
Comments
Enrique 20.01.2014 01:13
The present Russian Federation doesn´t have enemies, I mean nations which are taken by Russia
as an enemy. All nations in the World are Russian partners, one way or another: trade, R&D, tourism,
space exploration...
Different can be the case of certain political groups in some countries, which want to create
a false impression about Russia as a threat instead of as a partner.
Fortunatel y, the last group has failed even if they still continue with their propaganda.
Games are a gift to the whole World, not just for Russia, and if athletes and TV viewers from
the World enjoy, that is better for everybody. Enjoy.
Sorry but again, we need to touch the theme of Olympics in Sochi...
Well, what we can do if new reasons to discuss it was provided by our foreign "partners" , many
of which just can't sleep because this most important international sporting event is held in Russia
One imagining that in Russia on every corner people with a long beard in hard boots and ugly "fufayka"
, tied with hemp instead of morning coffee drink the blood of gays and transvestites and lesbians,
sharing it with tame bears. Other are preoccupied with the vision of Vladimir Putin personally shooting
from "Maxim" machine gun right on the Red Square Russian sportsmen who lost their events on Olympics.
Yet another can't sleep because of cost overruns that the sad fact that gold and tresures which were
are safely hold in the distant mines since the time of Ivan the Terrible were waisted on Sochi Olympics;
by modest estimated no less that a kvadragintillion dollars ...
Интереснейший отчет дорогой varjag_2007 о Торжественном Собрании Собора Славянских
народов Беларуси, России, Украины, посвященном 360-летней годовщины Переяславской Рады, - здесь, а лучше
всех, на мой взгляд, - хотя умных и достойных людей собралось немало, - прокомментировал событие
Патриарх Московский и Всея Руси Кирилл: действительно, "На том собрании была выражена воля наших
предков, осознавших важность сохранения духовной свободы, православной веры и единства в ней народов,
родственных по мироощущению, происхождению и историческому выбору. Сегодня мы призваны творчески
осмыслить уроки прошлого, в том числе связанные с преодолением разделений, помнить об ответственности
за судьбы сограждан и единоверцев, дабы семена разобщенности не давали своих пагубных всходов в сердцах
людей"
EuroMaidan for power that be is the "fifth column ", which seeks to shed blood in the streets
.
journalist Svyatoslav Tseholko wrote this in his Facebook page says , referring to the arguments
which operate in the Party of Regions (PR).
"During an interview with the leader of the Party of Regions faction Oleksandr Yefremov had showen
the set of assumption which PR uses for the event. Fron which one can logically deduct that EuroMaidan
means for ruling party a fifth column, which seeks to shed blood in the streets . This fifth column"
try to stick on the government labels "dictatorship" and discredit law enforcement bodies
They view announcement of persons as persona non grata, sanctions of Western institutions, the
work of NGOs, speeches of prominent foreign officials within Ukraine, as well as criticism of the
MSM and social networking sites as a preplanned operation against legitimate government. With the
explicit purpose of a " liquidation of the ruling power," which considered desirable outcome of the
actions.
Also, the PR leaflet describes the role of the West as " curator of the revolution ." They remind
about analogies with Arab Spring in North Africa and the Middle East, "color " revolutions in Georgia
, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Belarus, Moldova and Russia in 2011, Lebanon, Tunisia, Libya.
PR leaflet also states that "the current situation in Ukraine points to the typical scenario
of use of technology of color revolutions."
"The emergence EuroMaidan is due to a interaction of subjective and objective internal factor
with external factors including the geopolitical interests of foreign powers" - the PR materials
state.
"Based on reading of the leaflet it is clear that the Party of Regions is concerned about "weakening
of positions of Russia" on the territory of Ukraine due to by funding of various Ukrainian NGOs by
American organizations such as USAID, IRI, NDI"
In greeting the Assembly of the Slavic peoples of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus Prime Minister Mykola
Azarov said that Pereyaslavskaya Rada held exactly 360 years ago, has become a historical even for
the people of Ukraine and Russia that to a large extent shaped their fate.
Participants of the cathedral - the State Duma and the Verkhovna Rada , prominent public figures
, prominent scholars - discussed historical and contemporary importance of the decisions Pereyaslavska
Cossack Rada in 1654 , which signified the unification of Russia and Ukraine.
" Pereyaslavskaya Parliament thereby became a great event , which for centuries has determined
the spiritual, cultural , civilizational development of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus " , - Azarov
.
Assessing the significance of the Assembly of Slavic nations, the Prime Minister noted that it
" such movement is especially relevant today ," since it is based on " the broadest support in the
community and has a strong potential for development ." " Mutual attraction is undoubtedly stronger
persistent attempts to engender mutual mistrust and hostility between the two brotherly nations,"
- said Azarov .
I can't judge the quality and importance of new laws. Yanukovich demonstrated absolute
legal nihilism by passing the law which provides amnesty to participants of Maidan. Also none of current
laws are in force and if so, what is the importance of new laws? Looks like Yanukovich is more worried
about his clan capitals then the country. But this interview by Oleg Tsaryov is something different
from a typical comprador position of Party of Regions (which almost all voted for amnesty). Hard pressure
and inconvenient sharp questions for more then an hour from pretty professional fifth column agents,
who are outrages by the possibility of losing their plush salaries. My God, this was a pressure of the
level at which Bill O'Reilly look like a petty and somewhat shy school bully in comparison with those
wolfs of media business. Looks like "grant eaters" who feel threat to their hard currency income flows
instantly turn into very dangerous and very hungry wolfs. List listen to the interview... No matter
how you judge the new laws, this guy really fought like a lion against pack of wolfs exited by the possibility
of losing their hard currency flows.
Jan 17, 2014
Очень длинная беседа.
Не всякому хватит времени выдержать столько, да еще и на двух мовах.
Я выдержал, так ведь я в материале и ловлю контексты.
Так, - на всякий случай, - дублирую аннотацию из Ютуба.
К ней, как говорится, ни убавить, ни прибавить.
"Сотрудники американского "Громадского" ТВ, журналистами их не назовёшь, для очередной травли,
пригласили в студию депутата Олега Царёва. 2,5 часа прямого эфира, получая указания по
ноутбукам, ведущие выполняли заказ своих американских хозяев - морально уничтожали народного депутата...
Схема простая - увести человека от привычной формы общения, наброситься всей стаей на одного
и не связными вопросами, подборкой выборочных фактов, мешая ему отвечать на вопросы, превратить диалог
фактически в судебный процесс, на котором приглашённый гость должен быть выставлен, как подсудимый,
виновный в совершённом преступлении.
Тема беседы при этой схеме не имеет значения.
Так ведущие "Громадского" поступают со всеми кого им заказывают их владельцы.
Для этих целей и был создан данный информационный канал. О журналистской этики, морали, чести
и человеческом достоинстве сотрудников этого канала и речи не идёт.
Хотя и не удивительно, предателями всегда становились "моральные уроды" из разных слоёв общества..."
От себя: все, что за истекшие два месяца я узнал о ранее почти неизвестном мне депутате Царёве,
говорило о том, что Олег Анатольевич честный, умный и сильный человек.
Но даже не представить не мог, насколько умный и настолько сильным. Сто пятьдесят две минуты
с секундами выстоять один на один против стаи бойцовых псов на их территории и, более того, победить
- это дорогого стоит.
Игорь Караулов: "Гайдаровский форум" в России - столь же уместное название, что и "Менгелевские чтения" в Германии.
Был такой Менгеле, знаете ли. Врач. И теперь другие врачи в память о нём прочтут вам свои доклады
о том, как жить долго и счастливо".
Андрей Илларионов:
"Обсуждать экономику на форуме имени Гайдара – это всё равно что обсуждать историю на форуме имени
Фоменко".
В УК возвращена статья о клевете, предполагающая до двух лет колонии. Такие же наказания введены
за "групповое нарушение общественного порядка" и за сбор информации о судье. За сбор информации о
сотрудниках силовых структур предусмотрено до трех лет колонии, так же как и за распространение экстремистских
материалов. В кодекс введена также новая статья о блокировании доступа к жилью. Санкция по ней составит
до шести лет колонии. До семи лет грозит за угрозу сотруднику силовой структуры. Наконец, за массовые
беспорядки вводится наказание до 15 До двух лет колонии грозит за "публичное отрицание или оправдание
преступлений фашизма. Намного более суровое наказание - до 12 лет - введено за разрушение памятников
советским солдатам.
При этом постановление по административному или приговор по уголовному делу теперь может быть
вынесен привлекаемому заочно.
Кроме того, Рада поддержала изменения в регламент парламента, которые упрощают порядок предоставления
согласия по привлечению к уголовной ответственности, задержанию или аресту народных депутатов. Резко
сокращен срок рассмотрения запроса правоохранительных органов.
Наряду с этим были освобождены от ответственности сотрудники милиции, избивавшие участников
Евромайдана. Этот законопроект депутатам удалось принять только после повторного голосования.
Также Радой принят закон об НКО - "иностранных агентах", в целом аналогичный российскому. Общественное
объединение признается участвующим в политической деятельности, если оно участвует в организации
и проведении политических акций, "которые имеют целью воздействие на принятие решений государственными
органами, изменение определенной ими государственной политики, а также для формирования мнения общества
в указанных целях". "Иностранные агенты" будут облагаться налогом иначе, чем некоммерческие организации,
и вынуждены будут в названии указывать свой "агентский" статус.
Кроме того, введена норма о запрете некоммерческим организациям и церквям вести "экстремистскую
деятельность".
When a regular "Anglo-American operative" spread disinformation that looks less offensive then a
relative of Soviet dictator does the same.
Putin the Perónist
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been compared to many strongmen of the past – Joseph Stalin,
Leonid Brezhnev, and Chile's Augusto Pinochet, to name a few. But, after nearly 14 years in power,
perhaps the best comparison now may be a transgender cross between the former Argentine leader Juan
Perón and his legendary wife, Eva ("Evita").
In the early 1940's, Colonel Perón, as Minister of Labor and Secretary of War, was a "gray cardinal"
to Argentina's rulers. Before communism collapsed in 1989, Colonel Putin, also memorably gray, was
a devoted KGB operative, entrusted with spreading disinformation and recruiting Soviet and foreign
agents in East Germany. [ that's a dangerous simplification --NNB]
At the labor ministry, Perón initiated social reforms, including welfare benefits for the poor.
Although his motivation, at least in part, may have been a desire for social justice, Perón was,
in effect, bribing the beneficiaries to support his own rise to power and wealth. With his beautiful
and outspoken wife – a "woman of the people" – at his side, Perón was able to persuade voters in
1946 that, as President, he would fundamentally change the country.
He was as good as his word. Perón's government nationalized banks and railroads, increased the
minimum wage and improved living standards, reduced the national debt (for a while at least), and
revived the economy. Argentina became less reliant on foreign trade, though the move toward autarky
eventually undermined growth, causing the country to lose its position among the world's richest.
During this period, Perón also undermined freedom of speech, fair elections, and other essential
aspects of democracy. He and his emotional wife spoke publicly against bourgeois injustices and luxury,
while secretly amassing a private fortune. Finally, Perón was ousted in 1955, three years after the
death of Evita, his greatest propagandist.
Like Perón a half-century before, Putin promised in 2000 to tame the unbridled capitalism that
had run wild under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. He pledged to restore a sense of dignity to a
country that had just lost its empire and suffered a severe economic contraction during the early
years of the post-communist transition.
Putin renationalized, or rather brought under Kremlin control, the oil, gas, and other industries
that had been privatized in the 1990's. Buoyed by high world energy prices, he was able to pay the
back wages and pensions that Yeltsin's cash-strapped government still owed to miners, railroad workers,
and teachers. As with Perón, citizens were bribed into backing the regime.
But, with oil and gas revenues flowing into state coffers, Putin started to fill his own pockets.
His personal wealth – including palaces, yachts, watches, and cars – has been estimated at $40-70
billion. [ at this point we should stop reading; BTW she is still a professor at NY University
]
Annual report on
the meeting, "Mercury Club " by Yevgeny Primakov was devoted to harsh criticism of neoliberalism
in Russia - mostly of its economic policy . "Especially acute is the problem of combatting the neoliberal
policies in Russia", - said Primakov actually accusing neoliberals with sabotaging the Putin reforms.
Academician enumerated the main efforts of the Kremlin during the last year directed on prevention
of another round of neoliberal reforms in Russian economy -- the new privatization binge was postponed,
the attempts of weakening and watering down of policy of social protection which was declared in
May's presidential decrees were stopped.
...In fact, Primakov stated fundamental differences between the Kremlin and the White House -
and as these differences are ideological, it is impossible to get rid of them by just agreeing on
some of the median line, the general course. That is why Primakov's diagnosis can be regarded as
an indictment of liberal course - the course that Medvedev's the government persistently persue...
He :
" Can I assume that in modern Russian market mechanisms by themselves without state participation
are able to provide growth and balanced development of economics, and that a low level of competition
is sufficient to achieve the technical and technological progress? Definitely not . Of course,
this does not mean state domination of the economy should last forever. But it is necessary in
certain historical periods, and I believe that today we are in that period. In addition, our neoliberals
do not take into account the lessons of the crisis of 2008-2009. It is known that in the U.S.
and in the EU during the crisis government's influence on the economy greatly increased. This
trend continues . "
Putin's return to the Kremlin was not in the plans of the neoliberals - that's why Russian White
revolution was undertaken before the lections. Unable to stop Putin's liberal part of the elite was
forced to obey and to pretend that it will hold a new "illiberal" course Putin stated in his election
papers. But in fact for more than one and a half years, the government is sabotaging Putin's reforms,
in words agreeing with statist Putin's policy, but in reality trying to continue all the same liberal
policy and even trying to "deepen and expand " on it.
Primakov said that
"Pushing for dramatic and immediate reduction of the state's role in the economy, our neoliberals
attempted to launch a new large-scale privatization of state property; they, insist on the maximum
inclusion into the privatization of major state-owned enterprises for the country," and recalled
that in order to prevent privatization plans, in June last year it was necessary a special law
" containing adjustments to government policy", essentially cutting privatization appetites short.
This decision was not initiated from within the government. "
In other words the Kremlin forced the government to change its policy to prevent "the sale of
the motherland." But it was a just a single, albeit a very important skirmish, while the whole ideology
of the Medvedev's entourage about role of the government in the economy did not actually change
...
"Neo-liberals tend to emphasize the monopoly inherent in natural monopolies, but do not pay
attention to the" "oligarchic" monopolies of private business, which, for example, through supermarkets
push to higher prices for food and other goods. That's what one of the direct causes of inflation
in Russia. Growth of municipal tariffs that exceed growth of inflation has also become a significant
factor pushing inflation up, rising costs and leading to the loss of competitiveness of our producers
...
High and ever-increasing tariffs, not only hit population pockets, particularly pensioners
and low-paid workers, but also are a major constraint on economic growth. Meanwhile, the neoliberal
position was that the state refused to fix municipal tariffs, offloading this function the market
mechanism. Opposition to this is the president's decision to bind tariff increase to the level
of inflation. "
Primakov recalled and that Mededev's government tried to limit investment activities of state
companies, despite the fact that "due to currect economic situation large, usually public companies,
have more investment opportunities to play a major role in economic growth. Here we are speaking
primarily about the implementation of mega-projects, which can and should spur economic growth. "
Indeed, all the major infrastructure projects that have been proposed in the last year came from
the president, and not from Medvedev's government. It was Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum
last summer announced plans to channel funds from the Russian stability fund for the reconstruction
of BAM and Trans-Siberian Railway, construction of a new Ring Road in Moscow and other major investment
projects, and in December, said the priority development of Siberia and the Far East. Large scale
industrialization is possible only on public funds - the West will not invest in our industry, and
a large part of the domestic private sector will neither as they prefer to move capital offshore,
despite the threats of Vladimir Putin. Indeed, why go back to their homeland, when their families
and they themselves have long lived abroad? It is absurd to expect that the West will be invested
in our roads and MIC (even forgetting about current Great Recession in the West) -- why they would
strengthen a competitor?
... ... ...
Refusal of re-industrialization domestic neoliberals sometimes try to sell as a boon - it supposedly
should allow Russia to enter directly into the post-industrial stage . Hence the "Skolkovo" as a
replacement for their own aircraft industry . " Neoliberals , in fact, ignore the need to restore
the destroyed in the 90s Russia industries , primarily manufacturing, - Primakov said . - Post-industrial
society - it's not just high-tech and service industries. In the same post-industrial United States
today there is a clear tendency to try to recover domestic manufacturing, previously off shored to
developing countries . "
The definition of economic neoliberalism which has been presented focuses heavily on economic
policies and has little to say about non-economic policy (other than that they should not be allowed
to interfere with the running of the free market). A more extreme form of economic neoliberalism
advocates the use of free market techniques outside of commerce and business, by the creation of
new markets in health, education, energy and so on.[89]
This point of view takes the belief, that the only important freedoms are market freedoms, to
its logical conclusion. In doing so, however, this took neoliberalism into a more philosophical direction
where it came to resemble more of a religion or culture than an economic theory. As Paul
Treanor explains:
As you would expect from a complete philosophy, neoliberalism has answers to stereotypical
philosophical questions such as "Why are we here" and "What should I do?". We are here for the
market, and you should compete. Neo-liberals tend to believe that humans exist for the market,
and not the other way around: certainly in the sense that it is good to participate in the market,
and that those who do not participate have failed in some way. In personal ethics, the general
neoliberal vision is that every human being is an entrepreneur managing their [sic]
own life, and should act as such. Moral philosophers call this is a virtue ethic, where human
beings compare their actions to the way an ideal type would act – in this case the ideal entrepreneur.
Individuals who choose their friends, hobbies, sports, and partners, to maximise their status
with future employers, are ethically neoliberal. This attitude – not unusual among ambitious students
– is unknown in any pre-existing moral philosophy, and is absent from early liberalism. Such social
actions are not necessarily monetarised, but they represent an extension of the market principle
into non-economic area of life – again typical for neoliberalism[89]
Corrupted neoliberalism
The rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s as a practical system of government saw it implemented
in various forms across the world. In some cases, the result was not anything that could be identified
as neoliberalism, often with catastrophic results for the poor. This has resulted in many on the
left claiming that this is a deliberate goal of neoliberalism,[95]
while those on the right defend the original goals of neoliberalism and insist otherwise, an argument
that rages to this day, rendering this section highly controversial. This section attempts to provide
an unbiased overview of this discussion, focusing on all the forms of neoliberalism that are not
in any way neoliberal, but which have come to be associated with it, as well as the reasons for why
this has happened.
One of the best and least controversial examples of "neoliberal" reform is in
Russia, whose reforms in 1989
were justified under neoliberal economic policy but which lacked any of the basic features of a neoliberal
state (e.g. the rule of law, free press) which could have justified the reforms.
General liberal failure
The least controversial aspect of neoliberalism has often been presented by modern economists
critical of neoliberalism's role in the world economic system. Among these economists, the chief
voices of dissent are Joseph
Stiglitz[96]
and Paul Krugman.
Both use arguments about
market failure to justify
their views on neoliberalism. They argue that when markets are
imperfect (which is to
say all markets everywhere to some degree), then they can fail and may not work as neoliberals predict,
resulting in some form of
crony capitalism. The
two chief modes of failure are usually due to imperfect
property rights and due
to imperfect information
and correspond directly to Friedrich Hayek's assertion that classical liberalism will not work without
protection of the private sphere and the prevention of fraud and deception.
The failure of property rights means that individuals can't protect ownership of their resources
and control what happens to them, or prevent others from taking them away. This usually stifles free
enterprise and results in preferential treatment for those who can.
Crony capitalism
The most blatant form of
crony capitalism is
the creation of a liberal economic system in which only some people ("cronies") are permitted property
rights by the government in return for support for the regime, allowing supporters of the regime
to expropriate any capital held by opponents. This is a useful method of control which is usually
seen in its purest form in countries with
dictatorships, where the
regime can create a liberal system of markets and government without ceding any control of either.
Such reforms can also be used to add a sprinkling of liberal legitimacy for the regime and open the
country to external capital.
This form is useful to explain neoliberal reforms in countries where either the will or ability
to enforce property rights is lacking, such as the problems of post Soviet Russia, in which reformist
politicians colluded with politically connected business people. In return for backing democratic
free market reforms, these business figures could expropriate resources in a country where ownership
was not clear and sporadically enforced, leading to the rise of the
Russian oligarchs.
Corporatocracy
Some claim that neoliberalism is a form of
corporatocracy, the rule
of a country by and for the benefit of large corporations. Since large
corporations tend to fulfil
all the conditions of a wealthy entity, they accrue many of the same benefits over smaller businesses.
In addition, multinational
corporations enjoy the benefits of neoimperialism on the international stage and can also move
their base of operations from a country if that country pursues policies that it deems to be unfriendly
to business, a threat which they provoke governments to enact upon.
Although classical neoliberalism rests on the free flow of information, the neoliberal era has
been marked by an unprecedented expansion of intellectual property and copyright, an expansion of
libel laws to silence criticism (e.g.
libel tourism) and expanding
corporate secrecy (e.g. in the UK corporations used contract law to forbid discussion of salaries,
thereby controlling labour costs), all of which came to be seen as a normal part of neoliberalism,
but are wholly against its spirit.
Finally, the fact that many media outlets are themselves part of large corporations leads to a
conflict of interest between those corporations and the public good.
Class project
Not all members of a society may have equal access to the law or to information, even when everyone
is theoretically equal under the law, as in a liberal democracy. This is because access to the
law and information is not free as liberals (such as Hayek) assume, but have associated costs. Therefore,
in this context, it is sound to say that the wealthy have greater rights than the poor.
In some cases, the poor may have practically no rights at all if their income falls below the
levels necessary to access the law and unbiased sources of information, while the very wealthy may
have the ability to choose which rights and responsibilities they bear if they can move themselves
and their property internationally, resulting in
social stratification,
also known as class. This tendency to create and strengthen class has resulted in some (most famously
[64])
claiming that neoliberalism is a class project, designed to impose class on society through liberalism.
Globalization
In practise, less developing nations have less developed rights and institutions, resulting in
greater risk for international lenders and businesses. This means that developing countries usually
have less privileged access to international markets than developed countries. Because of this effect,
international lenders are also more likely to invest in foreign companies (i.e.
multinational
corporations) inside a country, rather than in local businesses,[97]
giving international firms an unfair competitive advantage.[98]
Also, speculative flows of capital may enter the country during a boom and leave during a recession,
deepening economic crises and destabilizing the economy.
Both of these problems imply that developing countries should have greater protections against
international markets than developed ones and greater barriers to trade. Despite such problems, IMF
policy in response to crises, which is supposed to be guided by neoliberal ideas such as the
Washington Consensus,
is to increase liberalization of the economy and decrease barriers, allowing bigger capital flight
and the chance for foreign firms to shore up their
monopolies. Additionally, the
IMF acts to increase moral hazard,
since international involvement will usually result in an international bailout with foreign creditors
being treated preferentially, leading international firms to discount the risks of doing business
in less developed countries[99]
and forcing the government to pay for them instead.
The view of some that international involvement and the imposition of "neoliberal" policies usually
serves to make things worse and acts against the interests of the country being "saved", has led
some to argue that the policies have nothing to do with any form of liberalism, but hide some other
purpose. The most common assertion given by opponents is that they are a form of
neocolonialism, where
the more developed countries can exploit the less developed countries. However, even opponents
do not agree. For example, Stiglitz assumes that there is no neoimperial plot, but that the system
is driven by a mixture of ideology and special interests, in which neoliberal fundamentalists, who
do not believe that neoliberalism can fail, work with financial and other
multinational corporations,
who have the most to benefit from opening up foreign markets. David Harvey, on the other hand, argues
that local elites exploit neoliberal reforms in order to impose reforms that benefit them at the
cost of the poor, while transferring the blame onto the "evil imperialist" developed countries,[64]
citing the example of Argentina in 2001.
Policy implications
Neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from public to the private sector,[100]
under the belief that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic health
of the nation.[101]
The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be
[102]
The Washington Consensus is a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval
among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the
International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and World
Bank).[103]
Williamson's list included ten points:
Fiscal policy Governments
should not run large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens, and such deficits
can have only a short term effect on the level of employment in the economy. Constant deficits
will lead to higher inflation and lower productivity, and should be avoided. Deficits should only
be used for occasional stabilization purposes.
Redirection of public
spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call "indiscriminate subsidies") and
other spending neoliberals deem wasteful toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor
services like primary education, primary health care and
infrastructure investment
Tax reform – broadening
the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates to encourage innovation and efficiency;
Interest rates that
are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Trade liberalization
– liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions
(licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform
tariffs; thus encouraging competition
and long term growth
Liberalization
of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity
to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country
Privatization of
state enterprises;
Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government cannot provide as effectively
or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers promotes choice
and competition.
Deregulation – abolition
of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on
safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of
financial institutions;
Nice example of complete detachment from reality in the name of political correctness... Radicalization
of Svoboda and alliance of West with this neofascist party is conveniently ignored... And if "millions
of Ukrainians have family, social or business ties with Russia, and follow Russian-language media."
opposite is also true and that means that Russia has huge stake in Ukraine political affiliations.
Coup d'état of "Galician nationalists" is definitely not in Russian interests...
In the three weeks since Ukraine formally suspended talks aimed at signing an Association Agreement
with the European Union, two important facts have become clear.
First, it is now apparent that Ukraine's president, Viktor Yanukovich, had no effective strategy
to resist intense pressure against the EU deal from Moscow. The Kremlin promised big cash loans,
a gas discount and debt forgiveness, while explicitly threatening to block Ukraine's access to
the Russian market and implicitly threatening to stoke separatism in regions of the country.
Second, as street demonstrations gain momentum in Kiev and other cities, it has become clear
that a strong, diverse and increasingly vocal plurality of Ukrainians will not accept their country's
continued isolation from the West. The authorities have confronted street protestors with shocking
violence, and have offered no significant political concessions. Yet the prospect of real reform
driven by the EU association has now become a key symbol for Ukraine's national identity.
Though these two basic dynamics may appear to confirm the cliché of Ukraine "caught between East
and West," Ukrainians themselves do not see it this way.
Yanukovich, despite the intensity of Russian pressure, did not walk away from the EU table just
to please Moscow. On the contrary, his relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin are devoid
of any foundation of trust or even mutual respect, Yanukovich can be all but certain that the
Kremlin will throw considerable resources behind a challenger in the 2015 Ukrainian presidential
elections, if not sooner.
Moreover, Ukraine is not on track to join Russia's alternative to the EU, the Eurasian Economic
Union. That would at best fuel a brief spurt of economic growth at the cost of longer term stagnation.
Meanwhile, the pro-European demonstrations have spread beyond Kiev - including to majority Russian-speaking
cities in the industrial East, such as Kharkiv, Chernihev and Dniepropetrovsk. Very few protestors,
save a few ultra-nationalists, would define their aspirations as being anti-Russian - for the simple
reason that tens of millions of Ukrainians have family, social or business ties with Russia,
and follow Russian-language media.
It's interesting how authors contradict themselves. And "corruption meme" as a neoliberal way to
open countries to foreign capital after 2008 sounds almost like bad joke. Researchers, my %^&.
Some compliments first
The fact that Russia has managed to introduce a viable civil law system in just 20 years represents
a significant accomplishment that would land at the top of any list of positive Russian legal
reforms, if not for recent events. Like in other civil law countries, Russia's judicial branch
consists of several specialized courts: a constitutional court, the courts of general jurisdiction
for criminal and civil actions and a commercial (arbitrazh) court that deals with business-related
controversies and disputes between enterprises and the state.
In many ways, the commercial courts have represented the very best of the post-Soviet legal
system. Highly qualified judges preside over complex commercial disputes that regularly involve
foreign litigants. The commercial court system possesses its own distinct rules of procedure,
expeditiously handles major cases, publishes all decisions on its website and otherwise has introduced
levels of transparency that are unmatched by any other part of the Russian judiciary. The commercial
courts also have proved to be much less compliant than the courts of general jurisdiction, regularly
ruling against the Russian state in tax and other matters.
And now it's time to stress the party line ;-)
For the United States, frustration with Russia's failure to prosecute corrupt officials and
protect foreign investors, whistleblowers and minorities drove the passage in 2012 of the Justice
for Sergei Magnitsky Act, which imposes financial and travel sanctions on security officials accused
of human rights abuses.
Although Russia is grouped with some of the worst offenders in the assessments of international
rights watchdogs-Freedom House
puts it
in the same "not free" category as North Korea, Iran and Cuba -a far bigger problem for the
Kremlin is the perception that Russia is moving in the wrong direction relative to the rest of
Europe and even many former Soviet states. In almost any argument about whether Putin has been
a success or a failure, his defenders point to the objective improvements in quality of life,
economic freedom, freedom to travel and security that Russians have enjoyed since Putin took office.
For most of the past decade, these arguments were persuasive not only to a majority of Russians,
but to the population of neighboring countries in Russia's "near abroad" and to the wider developing
world. As Russia's economic growth slows to a near halt thanks largely to corruption, and as stories
about the narrowing of public space and civil liberties in Russia proliferate, the Kremlin's ability
to secure desirable outcomes abroad will decline precipitously.
Second, show humility and be conscious of difficult history. This can be very difficult to do,
especially for politicians who are used to focusing only on the problem of this moment and what to
do in the next day or week. Not only gestures but deep feelings of respect and humility toward the
other side, particularly toward those who feel they have been wronged, are essential to create the
conditions for reconciliation. The US-Russia relationship is still badly in need of such sentiments,
not only because of the Cold War but because of the 1990's and 2000's, when many Russians have felt
ignored, manipulated, or demonized by the West, the United States first and foremost.
Finally, invest in institutions and individuals. The costs of Western outreach to the former communist
states of Eastern Europe, including the former Soviet states, can be counted in the billions of today's
dollars. But the rewards have been incalculably more valuable. Today, the most troubling trend is
the disappearance of American interest in and commitment to engagement with the region. The U.S.,
even in a time of fiscal tightening, must put real resources into institutions and channels that
connect people and keep the doors open between East and West.
...I understand very well why many people perceive the political and economic systems that were
developed largely by the United States and other Western powers after World War II to be in crisis.
It is true that the United States' political system has become structurally and practically incapable
of delivering resolutions to the most pressing national problems we face today: health and welfare
for people, real national security with preservation of our civic freedoms, a positive role and image
for America in the world, and a stable long-term solution to our debt addiction, to name just a few
of these problems. Europe has a different but still urgent set of problems, that are both structural
and issue-specific. And the old age and relative inflexibility of the basic institutions of global
economic and political governance forged in the 1940's are certainly a big part of the problem too.
When President Vladimir Putin recently banned "homosexual propaganda" in Russia, he joined sides
in a new global culture war: a struggle to stop the march of gay rights abroad even as advocates
wave rainbow flags in America. Now, as the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics approach, both sides are bracing
for unrest - and an American pastor is taking credit for the law that started it all.
Scott Lively is a hero to some, a demon to others and a joke to still more. From his home in Springfield,
Mass., he runs Abiding Truth Ministries, a church dedicated to combating "the homosexual agenda,"
and Holy Grounds Coffee Shop, where the faithful gather for java and Jesus. Lively also sermonizes
overseas, promoting his books - most notably The Pink Swastika, which traces the Nazi Party to a
gay bar - and portraying gay love as a "dark force" in human history responsible for the Inquisition,
American slavery and the Holocaust.
...Last week, Lively suggested Russian officials foil gay activists planning to rainbow-bomb the
Olympics by flying a rainbow banner over the games so "the global homosexual movement" would be reminded
that "the rainbow belongs to God!"
Brilliant observation by WND's David Kupelian – The 'gay rights' movement is a trojan
horse for totalitarianism. He explores this in the October issue of Whistleblower available
here. A "Trojan Horse"
is "any trick or stratagem that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion
or space." (Wiki)
David Kupelian says, "this particular issue – this revolutionary sexual anarchy movement,
which more than any other ideology, including Marxism, Islam or atheism, has the potential of permanently
corrupting our nation's core 'operating system' called the family – is the one issue that almost
everybody is afraid to confront."
Breitbart told me, "There is no 'gay agenda'. There is a Marxist agenda and they are using the
"victimization of gays" movement to achieve their ends. Gays aren't victims."
I think everyone has an agenda. Homosexuals want their lifestyle validated. Marxists want to replace
America's free enterprise system with a totalitarian utopia. Globalists want a one world government
ruled by an elite few. Islam wants the world controlled by Sharia Law. Christians are commanded to
spread the gospel throughout the world, "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Secular Humanists
are looking out for number one.
Kupelian writes, "When it (The Sexual Revolution) started, who could possibly have known it would
turn out like this?
After all, it emerged right after the historic '60s Civil Rights movement, which nobly outlawed
racial segregation in America. And in the warm glow of the Martin Luther King era, many people came
to believe "gays" were simply the next group needing protection from discrimination.
Of course, being an overwhelmingly Christian nation meant millions of Americans strongly objected
to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds. But Americans are also the most pluralistic, tolerant
and open-minded people on earth, and were increasingly inclined to give "gay rights" activists the
benefit of the doubt.
Eventually warming up to a growing "gay-friendly" culture (promoted at every turn by the
news and entertainment media), Americans abandoned their previous caution, flung their doors
wide open and heartily welcomed the "gay rights" agenda with open arms.
However, it was a Trojan Horse. And most people had no idea what lay in waiting."
Kupelian lists current evidence of 'gay-rights-caused' totalitarianism:
legislation that flat out prohibits counseling help for minors who want to overcome unwanted
same-sex attractions
the prosecution and criminalization of ever-larger numbers of Christian businesspeople
for simply declining to promote homosexuality on moral and religious grounds
the new California law decreeing that boys must be allowed to use girls' restrooms and
locker rooms if they identify with the opposite sex, and vice versa
forced integration of open homosexuals into the military
the imposition on the nation of homosexual marriage.
But, Kupelian warns "those are just the issues that have made it into the news cycle. The bigger
story – what's going on behind the scenes, and what's coming down the tracks – is even more troubling."
Highlights of Whistleblower's October issue titled "THE NEW SEXUAL REVOLUTION" include:
"Where sexual anarchy is leading us" by Joseph Farah, identifying the totalitarian movement
whose name no one dares utter
"Transgender madness" by David Kupelian, who tells the astonishing story of how psychiatrists
are being bullied into "normalizing" sexual derangement
"Transgender teen to become latest Hollywood hero" – maybe you haven't heard, a new TV show
will portray a transgender youth as the sanest person in his family
"'Gay' power vs. religious liberty" by Peter LaBarbera, documenting how "homosexual rights"
are destroying freedom of conscience in America
"The Bradley Manning syndrome" by Linda Harvey, on understanding the intersection of sexual
deviance and treachery
"The new ideologies of sex" by Stephen Baskerville, on how today's most destructive movement
has become the least examined
"Librarians oppose banning books – except for this one topic"
"The war on fathers, masculinity and manhood" by David Kupelian, on how the ongoing, progressive
feminization of America is destroying it
"America's fall: The modern-day Roman Empire" by Matt Barber, on how St. Paul described today's
self-destructing nation to a "T"
"The rainbow belongs to God" by Dr. Scott Lively, who says a trap is being laid by the homosexual
lobby for February's Russian Olympics."
That's what neoliberal globalization is doing so effectively, the corruption of local elites: "Wise
hegemons took care to ensure that they educated the elites of subordinate states in their substantive
beliefs. In doing so, these elites would learn to accept the ideas that animate the hegemonic power.
"
IN 1990, G. John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan published a research article on hegemonic power
in International Organization that originally garnered little notice but proved to be much
beloved by scholars. In "Socialization and Hegemonic Power," Ikenberry and Kupchan argued that hegemons
maintained their status through more than brute force or the manipulation of carrots and sticks.
Wise hegemons took care to ensure that they educated the elites of subordinate states in their
substantive beliefs. In doing so, these elites would learn to accept the ideas that animate the hegemonic
power.
CORRUPTION, MORE often than not, seems to resemble a plague. Afghanistan, where the CIA and British
intelligence (in competition with the Iranians) have quite literally been handing over duffel bags
stuffed full with taxpayer money to President Hamid Karzai and his associates, is perhaps the most
prominent example of its invasiveness and hardiness. Nothing seems to be able to eradicate it. Immunization
efforts fail. Mutations occur. The only course seems to be to attempt to adapt to it. For despite
the efforts expended by several American presidents on behalf of Karzai's administration, the United
States has no surer way of ensuring influence and access to Karzai and his advisers than through
direct cash payments into a slush fund designed to purchase the loyalty of important and powerful
personages within the Afghan government.
The bankruptcy of the Western strategy in Afghanistan could hardly be expressed in more vivid
terms. Such failures in Afghanistan, not to mention Iraq, have occurred while the broader (and noncoercive)
dimensions of "state building" or more generally "development" have also paid less-than-stellar returns.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the project of implanting "good" institutions in
non-Western societies, whether through conquest (as in Iraq and Afghanistan) or through consensual,
noncoercive means (as in Cambodia), has turned out to be a thankless task.
A second point. With widespread support for gay rights having arisen in America only in the last
few years, it would be strange for us to claim moral authority over other states. Our own president,
after all, opposed gay marriage until 2012, and his multiyear "evolution" on the issue reeked of
political opportunism. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with strong bipartisan
support in 1996; our executive branch defended its lawfulness until 2011; and it was only put out
of action-by a 5-4 split decision in the Supreme Court, not by a vote in Congress-in June of this
year. And this law had real and severe effects on gay Americans-for example, on the binational couple
in this video. One of the
panelists, former Human Rights Campaign head Elizabeth Birch, even said that "we had a law...that
was as horrible as any law you can ever imagine short of having to kill gay people for being gay...it
said you people, because of who you are, will get no federal benefits.... Technically Russia, up
until we got rid of DOMA, was better than us on the books. So I don't think we should have a tremendous
amount of arrogance about how we treat our gay people."
...Should it also ask other countries to adopt our culture-indeed, a feature of our culture that
very large numbers of Americans (myself not included) still oppose?
...Kirchick and Simonyi suggest that the Russian elite longs to be seen as Western, as civilized,
and that they can accordingly be pushed toward the West's new position on gay rights. Yet opposition
to gay rights permeates Russian society-even if the elite moves, much work will remain. And the United
States cannot push Russia in a vacuum, with no consequences. There will inevitably be backlash if
a country widely perceived as a rival attempts to tell Russia that its values are wrong. Some of
the backlash will be legal. Russia responded to the Magnitsky Law by banning adoptions of Russian
children by U.S. citizens. European countries that have considered Magnitsky-like measures have been
threatened with a similar ban
...But it is the alleged geostrategic element of gay rights where Kirchick and Simonyi's proposal
threatens the most severe backlash. As Kirchick pointed out, pro-Russian forces in places like the
Ukraine have
publicly promoted the notion that associating with Europe will lead to gay marriage. Kirchick
suggests that this is a deliberate move by Putin and Russia, and that because Putin has made gay
rights a geostrategic issue, we must as well. Yet this would mean fighting Putin on ground where
he clearly thinks he has the advantage. And it would confirm nationalist narratives that the decadent
West wishes to impose its values on the Slavic world. To paraphrase Lenin, we would be heightening
the contradictions between East and West. Those who favor friendly relations with the West but who
hold traditional attitudes about sexuality might be driven away. It's hard to see how all this is
good for America's interests-or for Russia's gays.
The reality is that the US and west never stopped waging the Cold War.
We broke the understanding with Russia and pushed NATO eastward, even incorporating parts of the
former USSR into NATO.
Then we tore up the ABM treaty and put anti-missile bases in Eastern Europe claiming we were
doing that because of Iran. The Russians didn't find that laughable claim one bit funny and understood
that the west was seeking to negate their nuclear deterrence.
NATO has been used offensively both inside and outside of Europe and shows that it has nothing
to do with "defense".
We portrayed a rag-tag group of Muslim fundamentalists as some sort of existential threat to
the US and west, but now the US gov't has made a "pivot" and is portraying China as militarily
aggressive because they are squabbling over some worthless islets with their neighbors. It's clear
that China is the focus of a new Cold War.
It's clear the US is in search of a "new enemy" because that's what keeps Americans distracted
from how much we waste on our military and our continuing economic decline.
"Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American
military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some
other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American
economy."
-- Ambassador to the USSR and US State Dept. strategist George F. Kennan.
intnsred
Re:Reality interferes... (1)
However it is also true that every nation which entered NATO practically begged for it.
I think it's important to remember some of the skulduggery that we did in Europe -- for
decades. Remember, we essentially bought elections in France and Italy in the late 40s to
prevent communists from being elected into power; we beamed divisive ethnic propaganda into Yugoslavia
for decades. Hell, even as late as the 1980s we had our CIA work with European rightists to conduct
flat-out terrorist actions against our own NATO allies in a
strategy of tension
designed to push western European gov'ts to the political right.
Given the fact that many of the new leaders of the former Warsaw Pact we funded and backed
for years and years, and in such an atmosphere of such skulduggery, it's not surprising that they'd
want to snuggle up to the west if only to increase the odds that they would not continue to remain
a target.
After all, it's not like the vast majority of the common people of those countries had a lot
of say in the economic shock therapy that was inflicted on their nations, nor in whether they
should become a member of NATO or not.
Level of comments in WP is much lower that in any British newspaper, even such as FP and Times :-(.
Comments that reflect the reality are pretty rare...
"But," Lukyanov said, "there's no way to have a long-term, interest-based relationship. Americans
are too self-centric."
Victor Moscow
Despite all the declaration about the reset of the Russian-American relations it will be only
wording and empty issues because the USA considers Russia as a permanent foe. Gorbachev who is
so highly appreciated in the West is considered here to be a traitor who allowed Reagan and Kohl
deceive him. They both promised not to expand NATO to the East, and our chatterbox believed them
or did it intentionally without any formalization of this topic.
There is no Warsaw Pact countries, NATO is next to the Russian border, all former Soviet vassals
are barkin on Russia - these are the achievements of Gorbi and his counterpart - Yeltsin. This
Soviet Man of the Year in the Time magazine should be sued for his sins in the face of Russia.
xzuma
Wow, another bs coming out of Washington narrative. As if there is no Syria cooperation (Russian
warships guarding delivery of chemical weapons to norwegian ship, carrying american equipment),
returning back to Geneva talks on Syria, a breakthrough on Iran. Russia giving the US people a
big favor by providing a safe place for Snowden. Or wait, of course the USG would like to have
another war in Syria and Iran, and keep spying on US people, so yeah, "Putin does not fulfill
the expectations".
wanderer3764
"Events in Russia finally took control of the agenda. In December 2011, a rigged election brought
out tens of thousands of demonstrators and prompted a scolding from Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton."
Its an odd form of election-rigging that has the winner winning by *less* than
the percentage indicated by the pre-election polling. But then, flagrant lies like this are central
to the Anglosphere media approach to its Russia coverage, so what can one expect.
"U.S. officials were interviewed for this article on the condition of anonymity in order to
speak frankly about the meager gains of the administration's approach to Russia. "
And as usual in DC, they lie. Recall when Pakistan closed its territory to the transit of US
personnel and supplies to Afghanistan in 2011-2012? Russian railroads and airspace filled the
gap. Our whole war effort in Afghanistan would have collapsed if the Russian government hadn't
helped.
Now, can you point to anything of remotely equal magnitude that Russia gained from the 'Reset'?
No you can't. As usual, the US demands things of the Russian government, and reciprocates nothing.
And this is why the 'Reset' failed. Putin just isn't in the business of givinc concessions without
reciprocity. No wonder the Anglosphere Foreign Policy Elite & Punditocracy hate him so!
magnifco1000
Putin knows US Foreign Policy is loaded with hypocrisy and insincerity. Take China, US corporations
flock to her to use the cheap, no rights, slave and child labor. Plus the US owes her a trillion
dollars. So, most all US criticism of China is muted and held in check.
But, the US is ready and willing to rip Russia. Don't kid yourself, US foreign policy is first
motivated by money, ahead of everything else.
kabscorner
Always more than one side to every issue. Neither Russia, China, or the US is always right. And,
each nation has to do what is best for their interest. Given our huge debt and the fact that the
American public is sick and tired of perpetual war, our leaders must learn how to get along with
others. It's a big world and there is plenty of room for two or more superpowers. In fact, it
may be a good thing to have more than one superpower throwing its weight around the world.
Reflecting on the recent bombings in Volgograd, inquisitive observers note that it is a strange
terror . Alleged terrorists should make demands, should produce manifestos, to put on the Internet
the last words of suicide bombers, etc. If there are no demands to existing power, why to call the
blast a terror act ?
And really the whole idea is that the terrorist backers should use this horrible " Minute of Fame
" to express their crazy ideas ? While he was alive, Osama bin Laden regularly produced speeches
and messages, sometime in sync sometimes not with his the actual deeds and plans his followers. Recent
bandits from "Al-Shabab " in Nairobi accompanied their mall hostage taking with appeals in Twitter.
A blond neo-Nazi Breivik wrote a voluminous treatise in general , before he even started to act.
None of this was observed during the Russian terrorist attacks in recent years. Explosion, shock
, mourning - and further silence. Not half a word about what is actually want these people - or rather
, unpeople.
What is the reason ?
May it makes sense to listen to those who explains this oddity in conspiratorial spirit, saying
that intelligence agencies plot something dark or "government hides" the information?
But it seems to me that it's easier to admit the obvious: terrorism in Russia has changed. Terror
of times of Basayev is different from the recent explosions. In the latter case is not clear who
did it - whether "women of Caucasian nationality" , or "men of Slavic appearance " which is two very
different things .
Yes, in Basayev's time there were concrete demands such as the withdrawal of troops, and independence
of Ichkeria. But all hopes were shattered in Beslan. Bitter price was paid for a clear message from
power that be: blackmail will not work, the principle of territorial integrity is invaluable . And
since that there was a sudden the cut : no hostage-taking, but from time to time ruthless anonymous
explosions.
After Beslan there was no any sane political goals for the Wahhabi terrorists. they has nothing
to fight for. There was only revenge for the lost war , only hatred. But hatred is abundant both
within the Caucasus , and outside Islam. Someone hates the country , someone hates the government,
someone hates the world and people in general. Historically, in the Caucasus these are more plentiful,
and radical Islam is proven organizational and ideological machine to organize them. People infected
with hatred, know where to go . This is how " Russian Wahhabi " emerged and their role in the underground
seems to be constantly growing. Terror is gradually separated from their tribal bases, acquires a
universal meaning.
In the absence of large-scale goals the terror machine sooner or later had to switch to commercial
orders . Caucasian underground has a proven know-how as for preparing suicide bombers, " black widows
", and is a product that some are willing to pay for. Both within the country and in the outside
world. Different suicide bombers for each specific order. And orders might come plentiful or not
at all: feast or famine.
Volgograd events leave no doubt: there was a serious and well financed order to disrupt the Olympics.
OK, if not to disrupt, then at least to poison the events. Christmas explosions are like the overture.
So do not expect any demands. they are intend to extort anything from Russia. They want a revenge,
and revenge is not for Russia Caucasian policy and is not in related to Islam. They try to avenge
quite a different Russia deeds. To avenge the fact that Russia very badly behaved from their point
of view the last year. That it is at least three times cross the plans of the sole world superpower
and its assorted allies. They want to avenge that Russia deflected military threat from Syria. Russia
has not extradited and instead sheltered Snowden . That Russia does not want to comply with plans
of EU to absorb Ukraine. Therefore, the current aggravation of terror is not a revenge of "black
widows " and Wahhabi leaders, hiding in the mountains. Our homegrown "Jamaat " play here no more
than a secondary role .
Actually enemies of the Sochi Olympics have found themselves in a very embarrassing situation.
Especially foreign leaders who wanted to punish Russia with their refusal to come to Sochi (as if
games are organized not for athletes, but for those pot-bellied Uncles ). The same with domestic
Liberasts, who advocated a boycott of the Olympics, signed various petitions, rejoiced every road
washed out, each of awkwardness with the Olympic torch. They can't be called even an accomplices.
They are worse: the terrorists last reserves, an ambush regiment of terrorists squads.
It seems that these people can't understand in what company they got. For example, Alfred Koch
rather playfully responded to Volgograd events: "The Olympics is sweeping the country. And really
this is a fire and those people are also torchbearers." Oh, I do not know what should be done to
force such junk to put aside their specific sense of humor.
I do not believe that for a true patriot Russia there should be no issues with this Olympics and
as for the costs of the event. True, the preparations for it began in a much better economic conditions
and therefore become far more onerous for the budget than expected.
But the campaign against the Olympics now, when everything is ready for it - means openly invite
into the country people willing to pay for the horror (so translated from the Latin word terror).
You can argue about whether to help in the fight against the underground new laws, or should we learn
from Israel or other countries under attack, but it seems indisputable that the unity of the society
on important issues could help to deflect from out territory at least some of the sponsors of the
international terrorism.
The second question is whether the Volgograd attacks will impact Russian foreign policy. In the
wake of the bombings, many people recalled the reported leaked comments of Saudi intelligence chief
Prince Bandar to Putin during his summer 2013 visit to Moscow, that if Russia accommodated Saudi
preferences on Syria by abandoning its support of the Bashar al-Assad government, the Saudis would
use their influence with Chechen and other jihadi groups to guarantee the security of the Sochi Games.
Whether this was an accurate description of the actual conversation or not,
there remains a widespread
belief in the Russian foreign policy community that Saudi Arabia actively supports Salafist groups
who target Russian interests. Nevertheless, Russia and Saudi Arabia have continued their conversations
about the future of the Middle East, talks fueled, in part, by Saudi concerns about the unreliability
of the Obama administration's guarantees and public statements. Even when profoundly disagreeing
with Russian policy, the Saudis have recognized that Moscow consistently acts in accordance with
its statements. Putin and Bandar held a follow-on meeting in early December to discuss both the Syrian
civil war and the Iranian nuclear program. According to reports, the Saudi and Russian sides narrowed
some of their differences on these issues (for instance, both apparently accept that there can only
be a political solution to the crisis in Syria that comes about through a negotiated process) but
significant gaps remain between Riyadh's position and Moscow's. Nevertheless,
Saudi Arabia, in seeking to diversify its strategic relationships, seems open to working more constructively
with Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been compared to many strongmen of the past – Joseph Stalin,
Leonid Brezhnev, and Chile's Augusto Pinochet, to name a few. But, after nearly 14 years in power,
perhaps the best comparison now may be a transgender cross between the former Argentine leader Juan
Perón and his legendary wife, Eva ("Evita").
In the early 1940's, Colonel Perón, as Minister of Labor and Secretary of War, was a "gray cardinal"
to Argentina's rulers. Before communism collapsed in 1989, Colonel Putin, also memorably gray, was
a devoted KGB operative, entrusted with spreading disinformation and recruiting Soviet and foreign
agents in East Germany. [ that's a dangerous simplification --NNB]
At the labor ministry, Perón initiated social reforms, including welfare benefits for the poor.
Although his motivation, at least in part, may have been a desire for social justice, Perón was,
in effect, bribing the beneficiaries to support his own rise to power and wealth. With his beautiful
and outspoken wife – a "woman of the people" – at his side, Perón was able to persuade voters in
1946 that, as President, he would fundamentally change the country.
He was as good as his word. Perón's government nationalized banks and railroads, increased the
minimum wage and improved living standards, reduced the national debt (for a while at least), and
revived the economy. Argentina became less reliant on foreign trade, though the move toward autarky
eventually undermined growth, causing the country to lose its position among the world's richest.
During this period, Perón also undermined freedom of speech, fair elections, and other essential
aspects of democracy. He and his emotional wife spoke publicly against bourgeois injustices and luxury,
while secretly amassing a private fortune. Finally, Perón was ousted in 1955, three years after the
death of Evita, his greatest propagandist.
Like Perón a half-century before, Putin promised in 2000 to tame the unbridled capitalism that
had run wild under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. He pledged to restore a sense of dignity to a
country that had just lost its empire and suffered a severe economic contraction during the early
years of the post-communist transition.
Putin renationalized, or rather brought under Kremlin control, the oil, gas, and other industries
that had been privatized in the 1990's. Buoyed by high world energy prices, he was able to pay the
back wages and pensions that Yeltsin's cash-strapped government still owed to miners, railroad workers,
and teachers. As with Perón, citizens were bribed into backing the regime.
But, with oil and gas revenues flowing into state coffers, Putin started to fill his own pockets.
His personal wealth – including palaces, yachts, watches, and cars – has been estimated at $40-70
billion. [ at this point we should stop reading; BTW she is still a professor at NY University
]
A light-weight article with some good points. The missing part is that the USA is an empire which
has its own logic that dictates certain foreign policy. And no US administration can change this logic.
The geopolitical gamesmanship following the "color revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine that culminated
in the NATO Bucharest Summit Declaration is probably the most significant case in point. That document,
a product of direct negotiations among heads of state, declared unequivocally that Ukraine and Georgia
"will become" NATO members. It's easy to see how Moscow read that as reflecting NATO's intent to
impose membership on Russia's neighbors, regardless of their preparedness for membership or their
populations' support for it.
... ... ...
Although his relationship with President George W. Bush, especially after 9/11, demonstrates that
he is not ideologically opposed to U.S.-Russian cooperation, Putin is clearly fed up with certain
aspects of U.S. foreign policy, such as what he perceives as meddling in Russian domestic politics
and a U.S. habit of toppling sitting governments that disagree with it. And he has signaled
his frustration to Washington in no uncertain terms, through recent actions such as the ban on U.S.
adoptions of Russian children in retaliation for the Magnitsky legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress
late last year. He further worsened the atmosphere in bilateral relations by imposing additional
restrictions on Americans working in Russian NGOs ...
... ... ...
DESPITE THE recent downturn, bilateral ties are still a far cry from their near-hostile state
in 2008, following the August conflict in Georgia. According to accounts that first appeared in Ronald
Asmus's 2010 book A Little War That Shook the World: Georgia, Russia, and the Future of the West,
the U.S. National Security Council's "principals committee"-which includes the president, vice president
and other senior national-security officials-considered the use of military force to prevent Russia
from continuing its assault on Georgia. Officials discussed (but ultimately rejected) the option
of bombing the tunnel used by Russia to move troops into South Ossetia, as well as other "surgical
strikes." The fact that officials at the highest levels of decision making in the U.S. government
even discussed military action against the world's only other nuclear superpower is profoundly disturbing.
.... .... ...
But one should be wary of any list of shared interests in an analysis of U.S.-Russian relations.
Even when both governments openly declare commonality of goals on an issue, results can be elusive.
The most vivid case in point is the U.S.-Russian Strategic Framework Declaration, also known as the
Sochi Declaration, signed by Presidents Putin and Bush in April 2008. That document described a long
agenda of issues on which the two countries' interests converge. It also declared in striking language
that both countries had definitively recognized that bilateral disagreements were far outweighed
by common interests. The first paragraph declared:
We reject the zero-sum thinking of the Cold War when "what was good for Russia was bad for
America" and vice versa. Rather, we are dedicated to working together and with other nations to
address the global challenges of the 21st century, moving the U.S.-Russia relationship from one
of strategic competition to strategic partnership. We intend to cooperate as partners to promote
security, and to jointly counter the threats to peace we face, including international terrorism
and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to build a lasting peace,
both on a bilateral basis and in international fora, recognizing our shared responsibility to
the people of our countries and the global community of nations to remain steadfast and united
in pursuit of international security, and a peaceful, free world. Where we have differences, we
will work to resolve them in a spirit of mutual respect.
Some critics of the Obama administration have pointed to that document to make the case that the
reset was nothing new. But that argument turns the real lesson of the Sochi Declaration on its head.
The fact that only four months after it was signed the United States contemplated an attack on Russian
forces in Georgia demonstrates that the document amounted to mere words on paper.
Volgograd is close to the troubled Caucasus region, where Chechen rebel leader Doku Umarov has
vowed to use "maximum force" to prevent Russia from staging the Winter Olympics, which he called
"satanic games held on the bones of our ancestors."
Security appears to be a major concern of the Olympic organizers.
Arnold Lockshin
"It becomes clear that there are political and geopolitical interests behind the scenes that
are actively working to destabilize Russia, with violence as their most potent weapon. The attacks
are not simply isolated terrorist actions, but rather, cynically orchestrated events carried out
by well-connected criminal networks whose goal is to foment conflict and carry out the agenda
of the US intelligence establishment in its subversion of Russia...
"It is the association of these individuals and organizations with the US State Department and
US intelligence that makes them particularly insidious. One such entity that bears scrutiny is
the American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus (ACPC), previously known as the American Committee
for Peace in Chechnya... This intimate relationship between the ACPC and the US State Department
indicates not merely a confluence of interests, but rather a direct relationship wherein the former
is an organ of the latter...
"As every covert attempt at subversion through the use of "soft power" has failed, the Western
imperialists now activate their terror networks in the Caucasus to do by force what their intelligence
networks failed to do by stealth: destabilize Russia." (Eric Draitser, "Barbarians at the Gate:
Terrorism, the US, and the Subversion of Russia." StopImperialism.com August 22, 2012).
A pretty typical exercise in hypocrisy from one of the "pocket" journalists. I especially like his
touching concerns about Salafist islam, which is close to Wahhabism, its militant arm and id "exported"
version of Islam for the Russian territory. See
Defeating Salafism and Wahhabism the Right way
Slate
To the American ear, this may sound like the kind of bigotry that would force a politician to
resign, or at least apologize for "misspeaking." But American ears are tuned to a different wavelength,
one where the word tolerance (tolerantnost) does not make people cringe the way it does
in Russia. Russia never had a civil rights movement. It had 200 years of sporadic warfare with the
Muslims of the North Caucasus, a strip of highlands it conquered in the 19th century and
still fights wars to control, most recently in Chechnya in the 1990s. These wars play out today through
a full-scale insurgency in the North Caucasus as well as terrorist attacks across Russia; the most
recent one in Moscow-a
suicide bombing at Domodedovo Airport in 2011-killed at least 37 people and was traced back to
Dagestan. Combine that with cultural irritants like the rams of Kurban Bayram and it should not be
surprising that distrust, if not outright hatred, of Muslims tends to be the default position among
Muscovites. (Russians sometimes call this bytovoy racism, meaning racism that is "commonplace"
or "household," a qualifier that makes it seem almost quaint.)
So the mayor's public position on mosques is as much a product of populism as it is small-mindedness.
The mayor has an election coming up in September, and his closest rival, the opposition leader Alexei
Navalny, has also made strident remarks about the need to stem Moscow's Islamization. Both of them
realize that the Moscow electorate does not want any more mosques in their city; many of them do
not even want to live in the same city as practicing Muslims. My Russian friends often argue with
me about this, and I have found that all of them-even feminists, yuppies, political activists, leftie
journalists-tend to sound like Bible Belt conservatives when the topic turns to Islam. (One common
complaint concerns the dancing of lezginka, the traditional dance of the Caucasus, on Red Square.
Muslim kids like to do this sometimes, not just for fun but to express the fact that their culture
is also part of this multiethnic city and its heritage. It drives the Russians absolutely mad.)
The problem, of course, is that Moscow's Muslims have no safe enclave, nowhere to retreat. And
as long as they have to come to their nation's capital to find work or to study, Muslims-and especially
Salafis-will be forced to practice their religion at underground mosques. These are usually called
"prayer rooms," and although no official count is possible there are estimated to be hundreds of
them around the city. More radical interpretations of Islam are common there, and a lot of them
lean toward Salafism, which is effectively banned in Russia. Down in the North Caucasus, a few
Salafi mosques have been allowed, mostly to ease the surveillance efforts of the Russian security
services, who find it convenient to have Salafis congregate in places where they can be easily watched.
(Not that this surveillance always prevents terrorism: The biggest Salafi mosque in Russia is on
Kotrova Street in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan. That is where Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the suspected
bomber of the Boston Marathon, went for services last year, when he spent six months in Dagestan
visiting family and meeting with local Islamists.)
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
