||Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix|
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN:
Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the XI meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.
I hope that these changes in organisation and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain - this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.
Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realise that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.
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 just traditional 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.
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.
The New Russian Diplomacy
In this frank and engaging book, foreign minister Igor S. Ivanov describes the evolution of Russian foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Drawing on Russia’s long diplomatic history, Ivanov analyzes the complex process through which a newly democratic Russia has redefined its foreign policy during a volatile transformation over the last decade.
The book includes the text of Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept, a Putin administration document that guides the day-to-day activities of the government.
Designed to provide the world community with a transparent outline of Russia’s foreign policy agenda, the Concept attempts to balance Russia’s important role in the new world order with internal pressures to focus on domestic stability.
The radical transformation of the past decade has required a complete overhaul of the process by which foreign policy is crafted, implemented, and communicated, according to Ivanov. The Concept delineates the role of parliament in making foreign policy decisions, the interrelationship of the legislative and executive branches, and the apportionment of authority among the president, government, and regional authorities. It also stresses the need to renovate Russia’s diplomatic service, whose tradition of professionally trained diplomats dates back to Peter the Great.
While acknowledging the impulse to recreate foreign policy from scratch during periods of revolutionary change and radical reform, Ivanov stresses the theoretical and practical importance of continuity. Although the modern political system of the Russian Federation has no analogue in Russian history, Ivanov draws compelling connections between the country’s contemporary challenges and the rich legacy of Russian and Soviet diplomacy—in the process invoking the political philosophies of historical Russian leaders from ancient Rus’ to Alexander Gorchakov.
The New Russian Diplomacy was originally published in Russia, where it received very favorable reviews. This volume is a special edition prepared for American readers with a new introduction and an expanded and updated discussion of the U.S.-Russian relationship.
Feb 11, 2021 | www.unz.com
Avery , says: February 10, 2021 at 9:38 pm GMT • 13.4 hours ago@War for Blair Mountain There are many other examples of GloboSorosistas desperately trying to get Russia to get into a bloody mess and drain itself so that the SorosaVultures can swoop in an steal her immense natural resources.
Russia cannot afford to get involved in a dawn out conventional fight with NATO's prostitutes.
That is exactly what US & UK want, both of which – safely away from continental Europe – want exactly that. They could not care less if all of Europe get smoked.
Russia wants an intact (Western) Europe, particularly Germany and France, for mutual future benefit. Expecting US & UK to become impotent sometime in the future., and leave Europe alone.
Feb 11, 2021 | www.unz.com
Exile , says: February 10, 2021 at 3:32 am GMT • 1.3 days agoCarlton Meyer , says: Website February 10, 2021 at 5:29 am GMT • 1.2 days ago
America/Israel and NATO are apparently not going to change their approach despite the shift in both hard & soft power between the neoliberal/NWO and the pro-sovereignty blocs in the last two decades. And Europe is going to suffer worst from this...cranc , says: February 10, 2021 at 5:34 am GMT • 1.2 days ago
Germany is key to Europe. The American empire ordered Germany to double its low military spending, they said no. Trump threatened to close American military bases in Germany, polls showed most Germans didn't care. They ordered Germany to cancel a new NatGas pipeline to Russia, they said no. Once they oust that Neocon puppet Merkel, the empire will be in trouble.@Jay RoachTom Welsh , says: February 10, 2021 at 9:03 am GMT • 1.1 days ago
What is the status of the relationship between Russia and Israel ?
If it as simple as you say – and Saker himself seems to refer consistently to the US-NATO-EU 'Anglozionist empire', then surely Russia would recognise Israel as the key ideological opponent to its vision of a multipolar world order ?
Yet this is not what I read. Russia has deep and cordial and increasingly close ties to Israel, even as Israeli jets illegally bomb Syria on a regular basis. This is never explained.Miro23 , says: February 10, 2021 at 9:44 am GMT • 1.1 days ago
'Svetlana Tikhanovskaia has appealed to the wife of Navalnyi, Iulia, to become the "she president of Russia"'.
As in the case of Juan Guaido, no need for anything as old-fashioned as an election. (For obvious reasons).Contraviews , says: February 10, 2021 at 10:32 am GMT • 1.0 days ago
For example, Lavrov bluntly said " We are proceeding from the assumption that the EU is not a reliable partner, at least at the current stage. I hope that in future strategic attention will be given to the EU's fundamental interest in its closest neighbours and that the talks we have held today will promote movement to a more constructive trajectory. We are ready for this".
Lavrov is following Putin's line (Davos speech), ergo that Russia is ready to interact with Europe as a mutually respectful equal partner – but not with Europe as puppet of the US NWO, NeoCon , ZioGlob/CIA crowd. Hopefully the Germans are listening and can reassess their true interests.
Also the Poles, who urgently need to wake up to the fact that that they have more in common with Putin's Russia than they do with ZioGlob NWO USA.MayRay , says: February 10, 2021 at 11:12 am GMT • 23.8 hours ago
Russia of late indeed is becoming more assertive, most likely because it is confidant their militairy capabilities have become superior to that of their adversaries. NATO and US know that very well, but will never let on. Their provocations are nothing more than grandstanding. However what would Russia do in Syria if confronted with increased American aggression in that country? That's what I like to know. Russia is deeply involved in Syria supporting that country in defeating ISIS. Russia has a strategically important navy base there too. Biden so it seems wants to rekindle the war in Syria supported by Israel and will find a pretext to do so.@cranc hat the media or the Israeli state (the same entity in actuality) claims.RadicalCenter , says: February 10, 2021 at 1:53 pm GMT • 21.1 hours ago
Most Israeli strikes are agreed before hand with Russia. The Israelis need to save face for their cowardly fascist habit of killing civilian Palestinians. These useless strikes against Syria are purely symbolic and are used to deceive the Israeli and US populations.
Besides, more than 60% of Israeli citizens are not Jews, let alone practicing Jews. Israeli is changing due to massive immigration of non-Jews from Russia, and in a generation will change from the rulers of the US to a Russian outpost and there is nothing the Zionists can do about it.@MayRay have a consistently higher fertility rate than other Jews in Israel and (2) Arabs have a slightly higher fertility rate than secular Jews, then we may expect that the under-18 population of Israel is less than 70% Jewish, though more of those Jewish kids will be Haredim. Looking for a source on this.Agent76 , says: February 10, 2021 at 6:37 pm GMT • 16.4 hours ago
If these fertility and immigration trends continue, we could see an Israel in 2050 that is severely polarized between a Haredim zealot contingent approaching 15% of the population, Arabs around 22% of the population, and "neither Jew nor Arab" growing to as much as 15%. Non-ultra Jews would start passing below 50%. But that is not certain and is likely a few decades off.Agent76 , says: February 10, 2021 at 6:41 pm GMT • 16.3 hours ago
Apr 4, 2019 NATO EXIT: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
NATO is a criminal entity, an instrument of the Pentagon. There is no "Alliance". There is military Occupation.
Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA
https://www.youtube.com/embed/L6hIlfHWaGU?feature=oembed@michael888 schooling years.
January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent *It's *Never* to Protect Us From Bad Guys*
No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.
Jan 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
somebody , Jan 22 2020 14:52 utc | 101Posted by: Hausmeister | Jan 22 2020 13:37 utc | 97
I used Google News and "OPCW UN" as search
Telepolis reports on it and German RT. And of course German Sputnik. In English media Max Blumenthal, the Grayzone reports.
Interesting enough, Carnegie Endowment for Peace analyzes Russian Foreign Policy in a kind of appreciating way.Russia's participation in the UN is governed by an interlocking series of concepts, starting with Russia's definition of international law, narrowly based on the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions, as opposed to a "rules-based order" that Russia defines as expansive and promoting the interests of Western powers. This division enables Russia to reject on principle commitments regarding human rights and democratic governance. A second concept, multipolarity, asserts that an oligarchic group of states must take collective action on the basis of equality and consensus. At the UN, this plays out among the permanent members of the UNSC as an alliance with China against Western interests.
The concept of a multipolar oligarchy leads to the Russian concept that true sovereignty is possessed by only a few great powers; the sovereignty of states it views as dependent on great powers is limited. The territory of true sovereigns and those states under Russian protection is sacrosanct and can be defended by force; for the others, it is impermissible to regain territory that is "in dispute" by force. As an example of the former, consider the lengths to which Russia has gone to protect Syria's use of armed force against its own population, whereas the sovereignty of former Soviet states such as Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine must be negotiated.
Russia's defense of Syria demonstrates another concept that flows from sovereignty: legitimacy. In Russian practice, the legitimacy of recognized governments is absolute regardless of their origins, governance, human rights record, or any other external norm. This concept echoes Russian domestic preoccupations in the era of color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and domestic unrest.
The rejection of all external norms has led to the breakdown of the modus vivendi at the UN since the days of the Korean War: deferring issues involving great power interests while engaging elsewhere in peacekeeping, mediation, and humanitarian relief. Neutral powers that share democratic values are best placed to defend against the legitimation of autocratic governance.
The record of the great powers of the West -- of colonialism in previous centuries and of neoconservative proselytization for spreading democracy by force more recently -- has seriously compromised their ability to debate Russia on these issues in the UN. It falls to other states that share the values of democratic governance and universal human rights to step up to the responsibility of promoting those values to member states that waver between traditionalist, militarist, and absolutist values on the one side and those of a humanist and democratic world on the other.
It sounds like they are taking the "external rule based order" off the table.
Jul 22, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
curious man , Jul 22 2019 15:50 utc | 161Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty published on July 17, 2019
Question: Can an improvement in the relations with the United States be expected in the near future?
Sergey Lavrov: An improvement will hardly materialise any time soon, since it is anything but easy to sort out the mess that our relations are in, which is not our fault. After all, bilateral relations require reciprocal efforts. We have to meet each other half way.
Russia is ready to move in this direction, as we have said on a number of occasions. We proceed from the premise that Russia and the United States bear special responsibility. We are the two largest nuclear powers, the founding members of the United Nations and permanent members of its Security Council. Cooperation between our two countries is key to ensuring stability and predictability in international affairs. However, not everything depends on us. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes.
The situation is quite complicated on the American side. On the one hand, President Donald Trump talks about seeking to be on good terms with Russia, but this attitude is far from prevalent in Washington. We see this in unfriendly steps, such as various groundless accusations Russia faces, imposing financial and economic sanctions, seizing diplomatic property, kidnapping Russian nationals in third countries, opposing Russia's foreign policy interests, as well as attempts to meddle in our domestic affairs. We are seeing system-wide efforts to reach out to almost all countries around the world and persuade them to scale back their relations with Russia.
Many US politicians are trying to outshine each other in ramping up anti-Russia phobias and they are using this factor in their domestic political struggles. We understand that they will only escalate in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election. Nevertheless, we will not give up in despair. We will continue to look for common ground with the US despite all the challenges that there are.
It is essential that the Russian and US presidents both understand that there is a need to end the deadlock in our relations. During their June meeting which took place in Osaka the two leaders spoke out in favour of stepping up economic cooperation, combining efforts to settle regional crises, resuming dialogue on strategic stability, and also said that they appreciated dialogue on combatting terrorism. Vladimir Putin invited Donald Trump to Moscow to take part in the events to mark the 75th anniversary of Victory in WWII.
All in all, it has to be recognised that Washington has been inconsistent and quite often unpredictable in its actions. For this reason, trying to predict anything in our relations with the US is a fruitless task. Let me reiterate that as far as Russia is concerned we are ready to patiently work on improving our relations. Of course, this will be possible only if Russia's interests are respected, and based on equality and mutual respect.
curious man , Jul 22 2019 15:53 utc | 162<...>james , Jul 22 2019 15:58 utc | 164
Question: Relations with Iran are essential for Russia's geopolitics. However, Iran has indulged in unacceptable aggressive rhetoric against the state of Israel on numerous occasions and went beyond words. How is Russia's position any different from that of European countries in the 1930s when they encouraged Hitler's anti-Soviet stance?
Sergey Lavrov: Russia sees intrinsic value in its relations with Iran, Israel and all other Middle East countries. Russia has a multipronged foreign policy that is free from the principle of "being friends against someone." In our contacts with the leaders of all regional countries we are consistent in calling on our partners to find peaceful solutions to the problems that may arise and renounce the use or threat of force.
The escalating tension in the region we are witnessing today is the direct result of Washington and some of its allies raising the stakes in their anti-Iranian policy. The US is flexing its muscles by seeking to discredit Tehran and blame all the sins on the Islamic Republic of Iran. This creates a dangerous situation: a single match can start a fire. The responsibility for the possible catastrophic consequences will rest with the United States.
As for the historical aspect of your question, it is not appropriate to project what happened in Europe in the 1930s on the current developments in the Middle East. As we all know, Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier sought to appease Hitler in order to direct the German military might against the USSR. We are not seeing anything of this kind today.
I ran regularly reaffirms to us its interest in regional stability through dialogue with all the interested countries, including the Gulf Arab states. In addition to this, Tehran has always stressed that it did not intend to undertake any aggressive action.
As far as Russia is concerned, we are taking steps to de-escalate tensions. We are proactive in promoting the concept of collective security in the Persian Gulf implying a stage-by-stage approach to resolving conflicts and devising confidence building and control mechanisms. We are working with our partners to preserve the multilateral agreements to promote a settlement on the Iranian nuclear programme.
<...>Sergey Lavrov - a brilliant diplomat... him and putin are like a 1-2 punch... i am knocked out every time...
speaking of kremlin trolls - i found this site some might find interesting..
Jul 19, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Jul 18 2019 18:35 utc | 11Yesterday, I linked to the TASS summary of Lavrov's interview with Argumenty i Fakty . Now here's the translated transcript that provides a link to Russian original. The first question:
"Can an improvement in the relations with the United States be expected in the near future?"
Lavrov's answer takes 6 paragraphs. The interview asks hard questions that many barflies also ask. Lavrov does provide a few gems in his answers. Here's one:
"We are not afraid of anything. But we will not act like bandits either, because we respect international law."
In stark contrast to the Outlaw US Empire's behavior.
And in answer (just partial as it's 5 paragraph's long) to the question most want asked, Russia's Iranian policy:
"Russia sees intrinsic value in its relations with Iran, Israel and all other Middle East countries. Russia has a multipronged foreign policy that is free from the principle of 'being friends against someone.' In our contacts with the leaders of all regional countries we are consistent in calling on our partners to find peaceful solutions to the problems that may arise and renounce the use or threat of force.
"The escalating tension in the region we are witnessing today is the direct result of Washington and some of its allies raising the stakes in their anti-Iranian policy. The US is flexing its muscles by seeking to discredit Tehran and blame all the sins on the Islamic Republic of Iran. This creates a dangerous situation: a single match can start a fire. The responsibility for the possible catastrophic consequences will rest with the United States."
And yes, there's much more!
karlof1 , Jul 18 2019 18:38 utc | 12In case you missed it since it's linked toward the previous thread's end, here's Pepe Escobar's latest focusing on the China-Outlaw US Empire tiff and why the latter holds a losing hand.
Jul 05, 2019 | nationalinterest.org
Despite the lack of concrete results from the Trump-Putin meeting, Moscow does not appear discouraged. Much of the Russian commentary after the meeting emphasized that meetings such as the one in Osaka will sooner or later yield tangible results.
Leonid Kalashnikov, chairman of the Russian State Duma's Committee for the Commonwealth of Independent States, stated during a discussion on Russian state television, "As a result of some summit, we'll somehow accomplish something one way or another. There's no escaping it."
He added, "[The Americans] roared and yelled after the 1917 revolution, but by 1930 almost all diplomatic ties were restored. They will probably deal with Crimea the same way."
Professor Dmitry Suslov from the Higher School of Economics expressed a similar perspective to the National Interest prior to the Trump-Putin meeting. He told me that Moscow is confident that if it stays on course, then Washington will at some point come around.
"I don't think Russia will considerably harden its position; it most certainly will not make any concessions," he said. "Russia will just wait until the United States will begin to change its policy [towards Russia] by its own initiative for domestic- and foreign-policy reasons."
Suslov called this approach "strategic patience."
Earlier this year, Russia's deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, described Moscow's policy to Washington as "strategic patience" in an interview with Russian foreign-policy monthly International Affairs .
He stated that it was the Americans themselves, "who at one time used the term 'strategic patience,' which seems appropriate to describe the line that, it seems, should be pursued in relations with Washington for the foreseeable future," by Russia.
The term "strategic patience" was commonly used to describe the Obama administration's approach towards North Korea. Under the policy, Washington would avoid escalating against Pyongyang, but also refrain from making any concessions unless North Korea made the first move.
According to Suslov, Russia's "strategic patience" approach is based on two assumptions. First, political polarization inside the United States will eventually subside. Once a new domestic consensus emerges in the United States, it will be easier for whoever is in the Oval Office to pursue a normalization of ties with Russia.
Second, the United States will realize over the next five to ten years that it cannot simultaneously confront both China and Russia. Beijing's growing economic and military power will incentivize the United States to make a play for better relations with Russia.
What does Russia plan on doing until such a shift in Washington's attitude towards Moscow occurs, assuming it happens at all? Suslov explained that Russia's primary objective for now is damage control.
"It is essential that we work with the United States to control the conflict and prevent a direct military confrontation," he said. "To do that, it is critical to meet to discuss questions of strategic stability and regional conflicts."
In the case of Europe, there are some signs that Moscow's "strategic patience" game plan is yielding some dividends. Last week, Parliamentary Association of the Council of Europe (PACE) voted to reinstate Russia's membership without any concessions on the Kremlin's part. Russia had been suspended from the European human-rights organization after its 2014 annexation of Crimea.
Should allies of newly inaugurated Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky triumph in the country's parliamentary elections on July 21, the former comedian who ran on the platform of restarting dialogue with Russia may feel emboldened to move in that direction.
As the 2020 election season heats up, Washington is quite unlikely to pursue any significant outreach towards Russia. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress view the Kremlin with suspicion, and the attitude of the general public is not much more favorable. Nevertheless, Moscow is betting that somewhere down the line, Washington will change its mind about Russia. All it has to do is keep the door open and wait.
Dimitri Alexander Simes is a contributor to the National Interest .
Aug 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Northern Star August 15, 2018 at 4:10 pmhttps://syria360.wordpress.com/2018/08/15/russian-foreign-ministry-spokesperson-maria-zakharova-calls-out-un-high-commissioner-for-white-helmets-propaganda/Patient Observer August 15, 2018 at 6:35 pm
UN 0The difference in intellect, poise and sincerity between Russian and US diplomatic personnel is breathtaking.
Aug 17, 2017 | www.youtube.com
Ali Haider , 1 year ago (edited)Phil Newmann , 1 year ago
Russians are really brilliant...salute you Russia Morbius1963 , 1 year ago
Tillerson. What a high HYPOCRISY. The US has murdered more than 10 million people in the last 13 years and you say Assad is a war criminal for defending his own country?Sangam Sangam , 9 months ago
Tillerson makes no mention of the democratic wishes of the Syrian people.tom parankewich , 1 year ago
Assad killed terrorist in Syria sent and trained by US.Ds Vic , 1 year ago
He forgot to say they want pipelines to go through Syria pure and simple .
Lavrov is a beauty! Making illmericans look dumb as usual.
Aug 17, 2018 | www.youtube.com
Published on Jun 3, 2016
A GLOBAL RENAISSANCE: RI Spring Crowdfunding Campaign: https://igg.me/at/Gp17O7r2ymo/x/11078070
Russian FM has hard time explaining why Russia lost Ukraine
Source Kosmolskaya pravda https://www.youtube.com/user/kpru
Daria Aslamova is a living legend of modern Russian journalism. A long-time correspondent for Russia's most popular daily newspaper, Komsomolskaya Pravda, she has reported from many hot spots on the territory of the ex-USSR (Chechnya, Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh, Tajikistan), but also from places as far away as the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Rwanda, etc.
Aslamova stars during this live online interview. Even such an experienced diplomat and savvy polemist as Lavrov has a hard time answering her questions on why Russia is so inept at exercising soft power, and why the Russian embassy in Kiev was hardly visible before and during the Maidan while Americans were everywhere.
Decide for yourselves whether the Russian press is a tool of official propaganda or the fourth branch of government it is supposed to be in a democracy.
Willie Ledbetter , 2 years agoVaska X Tumir , 2 years ago
FM Lavrov showed characteristic composure, tact and diplomatic correctness, on a topic that could have been designed to ensnare him and discredit him openly, at the hands of a seemingly impassioned patriot, yet with a clearly infantile attitude to diplomacy. I agree with him entirely.Loup Kibiloki , 2 years ago
As a diplomat, Lavrov is clearly unmatched by any figure in the West. Russian foreign policy, however, has been hobbled by a long-standing naivety about the political culture of both Europe and North America. Had Russians not wasted all of the 1990s and most of the 2010s in a fantasy about them as their Western "partners" and had they seen the US in particular as the utterly unscrupulous and unprincipled enemy bent on world domination it actually is, they might have acted differently in relation to Ukraine. But then, had they been realistic, they wouldn't have dissolved the Warsaw Pact and pulled out of Eastern Europe on the mere assumption that the West is really about democracy, human rights, and liberal freedoms -- all of which have been seriously eroded in both the US and the EU in the last 30 years. Just yesterday, the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU can suppress political criticism of its institutions AND of leading figures, a move that confirms the totalitarian tendency at the heart of Western neoliberalism.GuldeScott , 2 years ago
Strange title. Lavrov did well and I agree with him. I won't have to write my whole comment because I fully agree with this one by Jakob Steinbauer further down on this page : " .. concerning the main question about deploying the army to Ukraine, [Lavrov] is absolutely right. That was a trap and fortunately Putin and his advisors were so smart not to raid the country. Really, everyone disagreeing on that is absolutely dangerous and stupid too. "Jeremy Farrance , 2 years ago
The US Secretary of State would never allow an interview like this aired on TV. The reporters in the US would never ask such a provocative question, fearing they would lose their job. I applaud Lavrov and the reporter. Honesty is the best propaganda.Davie Crockett , 2 years ago
The reporter is wrong. The principled statesmanship and composure of Sergei Lavrov in contrast to the easily bought bleating of Washington's vassals in Kiev does not go unnoticed. Greetings from Australia.Freethinking Влади́мир , 2 years ago (edited)
Lavrov was totally correct. This woman doesn't seem to have any idea of the consequences of putting their forces into the Ukraine. The whole idea of the yanks and friends was to take over Ukraine and goad Russia into war. I think Russia did the right thing and postponed any direct conflict with the scumbags. They should be allowed to engage on their terms, not the invaders terms.Nickael7 , 2 years ago
Lavrov is a class act, but the reporter does have a point. Russia was entirely too passive. I think Russia didn't have all the cards as the reporter claimed, I think Russia was outsmarted - i.e. Russian intelligence didn't see it coming. I hate to say it, but I think this is the truth.AwesomePossum , 2 years ago
Lavrov is very intelligent !!!iena71 , 2 years ago
I think she does have some points, especially in terms of projecting soft power. Yanukovich leaving his position should never have happened, and Russia should have pressured him. The military (Ukrainian) could have taken control until the new elections, which were only a few months away. The use of media is also of critical importance, the US spending such a ridiculous amount should have been noted and countered. However, interfering after the fact would have been terrible, even though it would have been legitimate to do so in terms of international law.Jason Bourne , 2 years ago
This journalist is so silly and has a short view of things that is embarassing! Fortunately she is only a chicken journalist, and has not to lead a Nation like Russia. Excellent Lavrov, as always!adam_ andre , 2 years ago
I have been watching Sergei Lavrov's interviews and speeches for years and his conduct is absolutely gentlemen like and charismatic.It is extremely rare to see him upset, but in this case he is annoyed by the lack of facts on behalf of the female reporter. All the comments are positively in favor of Lavrov side, which says it all. Lavrov is a key pillar and paramount for Russia's diplomacy. He is an excellent foreign minister.Maximo Ventura , 2 years ago
in what way did Lavrov get grilled? He answerd her questions truthfully.meelis kail , 2 years ago
that woman has some balls.Raffaello Sacchetti , 2 years ago
I kind of like 👍 Lavrov clean and or clear speech 👍norm pattison , 2 years ago
Where was the grilling? The questions were just emotional but not deep.G Georg , 1 year ago
I want to see Western politicians grilled like this!......a very honest and informative exchange.Phil Newmann , 1 year ago
Mr. Lavrov's shock that Russian people could lead a war against Russian people, that is historical moment. His facial expression says horror. Non of EU politics of any level understand what are his people. Non of EU politics act in behalf of his nation. Politics of EU going to ignite civil war. Russia is future for white Christians refugees of current EU.Act1veSp1n , 2 years ago (edited)
Lavrov was not grilled. He answered questions with more knowledge than the reporter. Russia does not want to jump into an International Conflict. Russia is not taking the bait the Zionist Imperialist are placing before his eyes. The Russian Government perfectly knows that all these incidents and killings of the ambassadors and the downing of the planes has been nothing but a bait to provoke the Russian empire for WWIII.crmarquet , 2 years ago
what this woman doesnt understand is that Maidan wasnt just a street action that overturned the whole country. the country was overturned by the military and SBU - all of them were already under control of CIA for years now. In fact SBU people were getting certificates and awards from CIA a few years before the government overturn. So by the time Yanukovich was running away, they were willing to blow him out of the air and shot his cars multiple times. To the point that Putin had to fly him out on helicopters and then a submarine(from what I understand)Atalaclys , 2 years ago
I don't know who this woman is, but she seems to be out of touch with what really is going on. She's more--at least she gives that impression--of a emotional wreck who cannot think clearly. There's a clear distinction between strategical thinking and an emotional one, and we can see that distinction right here. Listen to her (and look at her) and listen to Mr. Lavrov. It's not a good idea for Russia to unleash a war in Ukraine--that's what the West wants--and the Russian leaders understand that. The title of this video is misleading.katy w , 11 months ago
Lavrov and Putin, and the russian elites in general, value above all the idea that one day they will become "partners" of the West. That is the main weakness of Russia, and it will be exploited at every turn by the US and the EU. Lavrov and Putin faield in Ukraine and today, for the same reasons, when the US is fooling them with imaginary ceasefires, they are failing in Syria again.avaavauser , 2 years ago
Wrong tittle. Lavrov was ponderate and showed his art in diplomacy. Going at war everytime and everywhere isn't a solution to solve a conflict. This journalist was too much childish, talking quickly and excited like a bee.HorstQueck , 2 years ago
Dear reporter, you don't see the whole picture!! This coup was planned by USA, Nato, MI5/6 UK . for a long time and it was to be a trap to have ukraine start a war with Russia. Fight Russians to the last ukrainian. Girl, please get more facts!!
I like them both but I'd trade her for Matt Lee. About the questions; if Russia had brought in military force in Ukraine would there be any disunity now in the EUSSR and NATO? Would there be anyone questioning the "rightness" of NATO or the West's lies about Russia? Her most interesting point was the question about "clinging to an idea of the sovereign state that disorients us." Certainly food for thought there. Another good interview is Lavelle interviewing Paul Craig Roberts which can be searched on The Duran.
Jul 21, 2017 | www.youtube.com
SOJO , 1 year agoPlus Pack , 1 year ago
Mr Lavrov killing them with rationality. This is not a good look for you, NBCNaseem Khan , 1 year ago
This guy makes me laugh. Russian's have a unique sense of humorKen Spock , 1 year ago
Ten US bases in Syria - for a moment there I thought I was hearing things but Mr. Lavrov repeated it. When did this happen and by whose permission and cooperation?Xendrius , 1 year ago
Thank God for the Russians.....Xendrius , 1 year ago
You will never see American liar politicians interviewed by Russian journalists, their lies and acting would be exposed.fenrisragnerok , 1 year ago
NBC is run by Illuminati which is behind 9/11 and the creation of ISIS. Deep state is mad Russia finished off ISIS, now they are trying to punish Russia wth false accusations. The timing is obvious.Johannes Sekgololo , 1 year ago
The most intelligent diplomat the international scene has seen for many years.... Silly NBC agenda is so transperant....Paul Barrett , 1 year ago
This is what a DIPLOMAT should sound like. What a relief the Obama days are over.Elielle , 1 year ago (edited)
LAVROV = LEGEND [ RESPECT FROM THE U.K ]William Croslow , 1 year ago
Lavrov clearly have difficulties to even understand these stupid questions. And not in terms of a language but in terms of substance. Embarrasing for NBC.Valley 56 , 1 year ago
Anyone still believing any 'Russia/Trump' conspiracy theories needs their head examined.LaidIsGentleMen , 1 year ago
How refreshing to see an intelligent adult talk about world affairs. This silly schoolboy who passes for a modern journalist can't trick him into saying something stupid because he is a grownnwo foe , 10 months ago
It is such a relief to listen to this man. Wise, calm and completely devoid of the hysteria and political correctness we find in most western politicians.little dards , 1 year ago
Lavrov is one world-class politician.caligirl , 1 year ago
Mr Journalist, you have a golden chance to ask some of the most important questions to the top Russian diplomat, and you're merely gossiping. What a joke. You are FAKE NEWS!Nikita Gusarov , 1 year ago
The interview is so stupid. Stupid questions like 'Did Trump and Putin meet in the men's room?". Embarrassing!
Cool guy, wish Western officials could be like that
Apr 16, 2018 | www.youtube.com
Maria Kuzali , 4 months agoOff Grid Nation , 4 months ago
First, US sanctions against Russia, then the Skripals mystery, and last the Attack at Syria....What the masters of the world trying do???shaughn fourie , 4 months ago
I'm an American. I'm disgusted with the mafia cartel bankrupt corporation that masquerades as the government. I don't like or trust any government but after listening to this guy, he certainly comes across as way more trustworthy than anyone puppet we have in the Trump regime. #IDONOTCONSENTshaughn fourie , 4 months ago
THANK YOU RUSSIA IN PARTICULAR PRESIDENT PUTIN AND LAVROV BOTH GOOD INTELLIGENT AND DECENT MENJames Australian , 4 months ago (edited)
MACRON TRUMP AND MAY ARE MURDERERS......THANK YOU ASSAD AND RUSSIA AND KURDISH PEOPLE FOR TRULY STANDING UP FOR CIVILISED VALUESzac anthony , 4 months ago
need to stop the tyrants to prevent the fall of Damascus.. Must not let them kill Mr Assad.Luboš Lier , 4 months ago
I believe in Russia more than our gov we are being ledhaithem ali , 4 months ago
Russia just needs to give Syria couple of tactical nukes. And the peace in Syria is assured...
Sometimes he continues talking without look at paper..... bcs he say true.... and USA, BRITAIN and France cant do that bcs they are lying and scared if they will say something wrong.
Mar 10, 2018 | www.youtube.com
lyrastar999 , 3 months ago (edited)PowerhouseG , 3 months ago (edited)
this interviewer is awful! omg, love watching Lavrov slay this ugly dragon! the interviewer (i won't call him a journalist) is so obvious, he insults Lavrov's intelligence at every turn.si lafuyang , 3 months ago
Im British but i support Russia on all this that Britain and America staged this whole thing and fake chemical attacks and i believe the Russians much more than my own British government , i believe Russia is trying to do the right thingAugust Reigns , 4 months ago
That interviewer is a repugnant dog.Garrett Nelson , 2 months ago
even Germany is telling the western world to stop demonizing RussiaAngie Wright , 3 months ago
That guy giving the interview needs to learn some manners. Even though he tried his best to piss the FM off it back fired in his face big time. He looked like an ass.Rok Pogorelčnik , 3 months ago
It's like Lavrov is trying to reason with a 2 year old. LOL
it clearly shows this "journalist" is only interested in discredit Lavrov.. he is not interested in what he has to say... that's disgraceful bbc
Mar 10, 2018 | www.youtube.com
Nicholas Petrov , 5 months agoVikram Nandakumaran , 4 months ago
Why did Megan Kelly cut out the part of the interview all the time what for?! Why did she interview him then?! nonsense. PS Russia Insider thank you for the full videoSails , 4 months ago (edited)
The best part starts at 5.00 min mark where putin explains the stupidity of megyn Kelly by saying your story is for housewives....Glory to putin...Annunaki Annunaki , 2 months ago
Wow, Putin tells the truth. She is an idiot. Bush was a CIA guy, lots of people in the white house are ex-military high ups. America is also run by the military.INFILTRATOR2008 , 5 months ago
let me ask you this; which country seems more stable? The country where; a civil war seems to jump off between whites vs. colored/Mexican Americans, kids on a regular mass murder classmates and teachers, people are so lost they don't know what their gender is, the president is a loose canon, incapable and a barbarian, the political system refuses to sign treaties all other nations did sign for the sake of the planet, the political system condemns and attacks countries for alleged reasons of democracy and freedom but refuses to condemn friends who occupy land, surprises and kill civilians and continue doing this for decades, shameless materialism is the norm and being greedy is promoted, secret societies are actually the ones in power....?
Tell me which country is more stable and more Christian based? Which country is more honest although freedom of press is not a trait of this state? which is the country that is always criticizing others (Chinese for no democracy, Russia for no press freedom) but is itself the biggest hypocrite? Where democratically presidents get killed if they indeed have good intensions towards the American people like JFK.
Where the CIA imports cocaine to flood the streets of the getho's..where you have to be prepared to suck dick to have a musical or movie screen carreer.. where soldiers who thought they served their country get no compensation after being paralyzed in battle but are being ignored, where presidents who abuse stagiars can still be president, where desperate teenagers kill one another with automatic weapons for decades for alleged territory but the government rather go restore order at the other end of the world,, where the presidents decide to start developing new nuclear weapons while the world thought we had finally ended this dangerous path, where the president talks about other countries in words like 'shithole countries', where they still have the guts to call themselves 'Gods own country!' ...how dare you......?Unixoid Machiavelli , 3 months ago
again, NBC cut out part of the interview !Arman , 4 months ago
America is a great nation. Why do they send such stupid reporters to interview president? If she is popular among Americans and they take her seriously then I have reason to think that most of USA people are lost... Are you with me?June Randeria , 4 months ago
It wasn't an interview. it was an examination.
Putin is so eloquent. If all people watched him they would see for themselves how sincere he actually is, and how he graciously answers with patience when questioned disdainfully
Google matched content
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology 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
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This 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|
Last modified: February 11, 2021