The frank and generally constructive conversation that took place at the June 16, 2021 summit meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden in Geneva resulted in an agreement to launch a substantive dialogue on strategic stability, reaffirming the crucial premise that nuclear war is unacceptable. The two sides also reached an understanding on the advisability of engaging in consultations on cybersecurity, the operation of diplomatic missions, the fate of imprisoned Russian and US citizens and a number of regional conflicts.
The Russian leader made it clear, including in his public statements, that finding a mutually acceptable balance of interests strictly on a parity basis is the only way to deliver … The Russian leader made it clear, including in his public statements, that finding a mutually acceptable balance of interests strictly on a parity basis is the only way to deliver on any of these tracks. There were no objections during the talks. However, in their immediate aftermath, US officials, including those who participated in the Geneva meeting, started asserting what seemed to be foregone tenets, perorating that they had “made it clear” to Moscow, “warned it, and stated their demands.” Moreover, all these “warnings” went hand in hand with threats: if Moscow does not accept the “rules of the road” set forth in Geneva in a matter of several months, it would come under renewed pressure.
Of course, it has yet to be seen how the consultations to define specific ways for fulfilling the Geneva understandings as mentioned above will proceed. As Vladimir Putin said during his news conference following the talks, “we have a lot to work on.” That said, it is telling that Washington’s ineradicable position was voiced immediately following the talks, especially since European capitals immediately took heed of the Big Brother’s sentiment and picked up the tune with much gusto and relish. The gist of their statements is that they are ready to normalise their relations with Moscow, but only after it changes the way it behaves.
It is as if a choir has been pre-arranged to sing along with the lead vocalist. It seems that this was what the series of high-level Western events in the build-up to the Russia-US talks was all about: the Group of Seven Summit in Cornwall, UK, the NATO Summit in Brussels, as well as Joseph Biden’s meeting with President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen.
These meetings were carefully prepared in a way that leaves no doubt that the West wanted to send a clear message: it stands united like never before and will do what it believes to be right in international affairs, while forcing others, primarily Russia and China, to follow its lead. The documents adopted at the Cornwall and Brussels summits cemented the rules-based world order concept as a counterweight to the universal principles of international law with the UN Charter as its primary source.
In doing so, the West deliberately shies away from spelling out the rules it purports to follow, just as it refrains from explaining why they are needed. After all, there are already thousands of universal international legal instruments setting out clear national commitments and transparent verification mechanisms. The beauty of these Western “rules” lies precisely in the fact that they lack any specific content.When someone acts against the will of the West, it immediately responds with a groundless claim that “the rules have been broken” (without bothering to present any evidence) and declares its “right to hold the perpetrators accountable.” The less specific they get, the freer their hand to carry on with the arbitrary practice of employing dirty tactics as a way to pressure competitors. During the so-called “wild 1990s” in Russia, we used to refer to such practices as laying down the law.
To the participants in the G7, NATO and US-EU summits, this series of high-level events signalled the return by the United States into European affairs and the restored consolidation of the Old World under the wing of the new administration in Washington. Most NATO and EU members met this U-turn with enthusiastic comments rather than just a sigh of relief. The adherence to liberal values as the humanity’s guiding star provides an ideological underpinning for the reunification of the “Western family.” Without any false modesty, Washington and Brussels called themselves “an anchor for democracy, peace and security,” as opposed to “authoritarianism in all its forms.” In particular, they proclaimed their intent to use sanctions to “support democracy across the globe.” To this effect, they took on board the American idea of convening a Summit for Democracy. Make no mistake, the West will cherry pick the participants in this summit. It will also set an agenda that is unlikely to meet any opposition from the participants of its choosing. There has been talk of democracy-exporting countries undertaking “enhanced commitments” to ensure universal adherence to “democratic standards” and devising mechanisms for controlling these processes.
The revitalised Anglo-American Atlantic Charter approved by Joseph Biden and Boris Johnson on June 10, 2021 on the sidelines of the G7 Summit is also worth noting. It was cast as an updated version of the 1941 document signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill under the same title. At the time, it played an important role in shaping the contours of the post-war world order.
However, neither Washington, nor London mentioned an essential historical fact: eighty years ago, the USSR and a number of European governments in exile joined the 1941 charter, paving the way to making it one of the conceptual pillars of the Anti-Hitler Coalition and one of the legal blueprints of the UN Charter.
By the same token, the New Atlantic Charter has been designed as a starting point for building a new world order, but guided solely by Western “rules.” Its provisions are ideologically tainted. They seek to widen the gap between the so-called liberal democracies and all other nations, as well as legitimise the rules-based order. The new charter fails to mention the UN or the OSCE, while stating without any reservations the adherence by the Western nations to their commitments as NATO members, viewed de facto as the only legitimate decision-making centre (at least this is how former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen described NATO’s role). It is clear that the same philosophy will guide the preparations for the Summit for Democracy.
Labelled as “authoritarian powers,” Russia and China have been designated as the main obstacles to delivering on the agenda set out at the June summits. From a general perspective, they face two groups of grievances, loosely defined as external and internal. In terms of international affairs, Beijing is accused of being too assertive … Russia stands accused of adopting an “aggressive posture”in a number of regions. This is the way they treat Moscow’s policy aimed at countering ultra-radical and neo-Nazi aspirations in its immediate neighbourhood, where the rights of Russians, as well as other ethnic minorities, are being suppressed, and the Russian language, education and culture rooted out. They also dislike the fact than Moscow stands up for countries that became victims to Western gambles, were attacked by international terrorists and risked losing their statehood, as was the case with Syria.
Still, the West reserved its biggest words to the inner workings of the “non-democratic” countries and its commitment to reshape them to fit into the Western mould. This entails bringing society in compliance with the vision of democracy as preached by Washington and Brussels. This lies at the root of the demands that Moscow and Beijing, as well as all others, follow the Western prescriptions on human rights, civil society, opposition treatment, the media, governance and the interaction between the branches of power. While proclaiming the “right” to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries for the sake of promoting democracy as it understands it, the West instantly loses all interest when we raise the prospect of making international relations more democratic, including renouncing arrogant behaviour and committing to abide by the universally recognised tenets of international law instead of “rules.” By expanding sanctions and other illegitimate coercive measures against sovereign states, the West promotes totalitarian rule in global affairs, assuming an imperial, neo-colonial stance in its relations with third countries. They are asked to adopt the democratic rule under the model of the Western choosing, and forget about democracy in international affairs, since someone will be deciding everything for them. All that is asked of these third countries is to keep quiet, or face reprisals.
Clearheaded politicians in Europe and America realise that this uncompromising policy leads nowhere, and are beginning to think pragmatically, albeit out of public view, recognising that the world has more than just one civilisation. They are beginning to recognise that Russia, China and other major powers have a history that dates back a thousand years, and have their own traditions, values and way of life. Attempts to decide whose values are better, and whose are worse, seem pointless. Instead, the West must simply recognise that there are other ways to govern that may be different from the Western approaches, and accept and respect this as a given. No country is immune to human rights issues, so why all this high-browed hubris? Why do the Western countries assume that they can deal with these issues on their own, since they are democracies, while others have yet to reach this level, and are in need of assistance that the West will generously provide.
International relations are going through fundamental shifts that affect everyone without exception. Trying to predict where it will take us is impossible. Still, there is a question: messianic aspirations apart, what is the most effective form of government for coping with and removing threats that transcend borders and affect all people, no matter where they live? Political scientists are beginning to compare the available toolboxes used by the so-called liberal democracies and by “autocratic regimes.” In this context, it is telling that the term “autocratic democracy” has been suggested, even if timidly.
These are useful considerations, and serious-minded politicians who are currently in power, among others, must take heed. Thinking and scrutinising what is going on around us has never hurt anyone. The multipolar world is becoming reality. Attempts to ignore this reality by asserting oneself as the only legitimate decision-making centre will hardly bring about solutions to real, rather than farfetched challenges. Instead, what is needed is mutually respectful dialogue involving the leading powers and with due regard for the interests of all other members of the international community. This implies an unconditional commitment to abide by the universally accepted norms and principles of international law, including respecting the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic affairs, peaceful resolution of conflict, and the right to self-determination.
Taken as a whole, the historical West dominated the world for five hundred years. However, there is no doubt that it now sees that this era is coming to a close, while clinging to the status it used to enjoy, and putting artificial brakes on the objective process consisting in the emergence of a polycentric world. This brought about an attempt to provide a conceptual underpinning to the new vision of multilateralism. For example, France and Germany tried to promote “effective multilateralism,” rooted in the EU ideals and actions, and serving as a model to everyone else, rather than promoting UN’s inclusive multilateralism.
By imposing the concept of a rules-based order, the West seeks to shift the conversation on key issues to the platforms of its liking, where no dissident voices can be herd. This is how like-minded groups and various “appeals” emerge. This is about coordinating prescriptions and then making everyone else follow them. Examples include an “appeal for trust and security in cyberspace”, “the humanitarian appeal for action”, and a “global partnership to protect media freedom.” Each of these platforms brings together only several dozen countries, which is far from a majority, as far as the international community is concerned. The UN system offers inclusive negotiations platforms on all of the abovementioned subjects. Understandably, this gives rise to alternative points of view that have to be taken into consideration in search of a compromise, but all the West wants is to impose its own rules.
At the same time, the EU develops dedicated horizontal sanctions regimes for each of its “like-minded groups,” of course, without looking back at the UN Charter. This is how it works: those who join these “appeals” or “partnerships” decide among themselves who violates their requirements in a given sphere, and the European Union imposes sanctions on those at fault. What a convenient method. They can indict and punish all by themselves without ever needing to turn to the UN Security Council. They even came up with a rationale to this effect: since we have an alliance of the most effective multilateralists, we can teach others to master these best practices. To those who believe this to be undemocratic or at odds with a vision of genuine multilateralism, President of France Emmanuel Macron offered an explanation in his remarks on May 11, 2021: multilateralism does not mean necessity to strike unanimity, and the position of those “who do not wish to continue moving forward must not be able to stop … an ambitious avant-garde” of the world community.
Make no mistake: there is nothing wrong with the rules per se. On the contrary, the UN Charter is a set of rules, but these rules were approved by all countries of the world, rather than by a closed group at a cosy get-together.
An interesting detail: in Russian, the words “law” and “rule” share a single root. To us, a rule that is genuine and just is inseparable from the law. This is not the case for Western languages. For instance, in English, the words “law” and “rule” do not share any resemblance. See the difference? “Rule” is not so much about the law, in the sense of generally accepted laws, as it is about the decisions taken by the one who rules or governs. It is also worth noting that “rule” shares a single root with “ruler,” with the latter’s meanings including the commonplace device for measuring and drawing straight lines. It can be inferred that through its concept of “rules” the West seeks to align everyone around its vision or apply the same yardstick to everybody, so that everyone falls into a single file.
While reflecting on linguistics, worldview, sentiment, and the way they vary from one nation or culture to another, it is worth recollecting how the West has been justifying NATO’s unreserved eastward expansion towards the Russian border. When we point to the assurances provided to the Soviet Union that this would not happen, we hear that these were merely spoken promises, and there were no documents signed to this effect. There is a centuries-old tradition in Russia of making handshake deals without signing anything and holding one’s word as sacrosanct, but it seems unlikely to ever take hold in the West.
Efforts to replace international law by Western “rules” include an immanently dangerous policy of revising the history and outcomes of the Second World War and the Nuremberg trials verdicts as the foundation of today’s world order. The West refuses to support a Russia-sponsored UN resolution proclaiming that glorifying Nazism is unacceptable, and rejects our proposals to discuss the demolition of monuments to those who liberated Europe. They also want to condemn to oblivion momentous post-war developments, such as the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, initiated by our country. The former colonial powers seek to efface this memory by replacing it with hastily concocted rituals like taking a knee ahead of sports competitions, in order to divert attention from their historical responsibility for colonial-era crimes.
The rules-based order is the embodiment of double standards. The right to self-determination is recognised as an absolute “rule” whenever it can be used to an advantage. This applies to the Malvinas Islands, or the Falklands, some 12,000 kilometres from Great Britain, to the remote former colonial territories Paris and London retain despite multiple UN resolutions and rulings by the International Court of Justice, as well as Kosovo, which obtained its “independence” in violation of a UN Security Council resolution. However, if self-determination runs counter to the Western geopolitical interests, as it happened when the people of Crimea voted for reunification with Russia, this principle is cast aside, while condemning the free choice made by the people and punishing them with sanctions.
Apart from encroaching on international law, the “rules” concept also manifests itself in attempts to encroach on the very human nature. In a number of Western countries, students learn at school that Jesus Christ was bisexual. Attempts by reasonable politicians to shield the younger generation from aggressive LGBT propaganda are met with bellicose protests from the “enlightened Europe.” All world religions, the genetic code of the planet’s key civilisations, are under attack. The United States is at the forefront of state interference in church affairs, openly seeking to drive a wedge into the Orthodox world, whose values are viewed as a powerful spiritual obstacle for the liberal concept of boundless permissiveness.
The insistence and even stubbornness demonstrated by the West in imposing its “rules” are striking. Of course, domestic politics is a factor, with the need to show voters how tough your foreign policy can get when dealing with “autocratic foes” during every electoral cycle, which happen every two years in the United States.
Still, it was also the West that coined the “liberty, equality, fraternity” motto. I do not know whether the term “fraternity” is politically correct in today’s Europe from a “gender perspective,” but there were no attempts to encroach on equality so far. As mentioned above, while preaching equality and democracy in their countries and demanding that other follow its lead, the West refuses to discuss ways to ensure equality and democracy in international affairs.
This approach is clearly at odds with the ideals of freedom. The veil of its superiority conceals weakness and the fear of engaging in a frank conversation not only with yes-men and those eager to fall in line, but also with opponents with different beliefs and values, not neo-liberal or neo-conservative ones, but those learned at mother’s knee, inherited from many past generations, traditions and beliefs.
It is much harder to accept the diversity and competition of ideas in the development of the world than to invent prescriptions for all of humanity within a narrow circle of the like-minded, free from any disputes on matters of principle, which makes the emergence of truth all but impossible. However, universal platforms can produce agreements that are much more solid, sustainable, and can be subject to objective verification.
This immutable truth struggles to make it through to the Western elites, consumed as they are with the exceptionalism complex. As I mentioned earlier in this article, right after the talks between Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden, EU and NATO officials rushed to announce that nothing has changed in the way they treat Russia. Moreover, they are ready to see their relations with Moscow deteriorate further, they claimed.
Moreover, it is an aggressive Russophobic minority that increasingly sets the EU’s policy, as confirmed by the EU Summit in Brussels on June 24 and 25, 2021, where the future of relations with Russia was on the agenda. The idea voiced by Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron to hold a meeting with Vladimir Putin was killed before it saw the light of day. Observers noted that the Russia-US Summit in Geneva was tantamount to a go-ahead by the United States to have this meeting, but the Baltic states, siding with Poland, cut short this “uncoordinated” attempt by Berlin and Paris, while the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry summoned the German and French ambassadors to explain their governments’ actions. What came out of the debates at the Brussels summit was an instruction to the European Commission and the European Union External Action Service to devise new sanctions against Moscow without referring to any specific “sins,” just in case. No doubt they will come up with something, should the need arise.
Neither NATO, nor the EU intend to divert from their policy of subjugating other regions of the world, proclaiming a self-designated global messianic mission.The North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation is seeking to proactively contribute to America’s strategy for the Indo-Pacific Region, clearly targeted at containing China, and undermining ASEAN’s role in its decades-long efforts to build an inclusive cooperation architecture for Asia-Pacific. In turn, the European Union drafts programmes to “embrace” geopolitical spaces in its neighbourhood and beyond, without coordinating these initiatives even with the invited countries. This is what the Eastern Partnership, as well as a recent programme approved by Brussels for Central Asia, are all about. There is a fundamental difference between these approaches and the ones guiding integration processes with Russia’s involvement: the CIS, the CSTO, EurAsEC and the SCO, which seek to develop relations with external partners exclusively on the basis of parity and mutual agreement.
With its contemptuous attitude towards other members of the international community, the West finds itself on the wrong side of history.
Serious, self-respecting countries will never tolerate attempts to talk to them through ultimatums and will discuss any issues only on an equal footing.
As for Russia, it is high time that everyone understands that we have drawn a definitive line under any attempts to play a one-way game with us. All the mantras we hear from the Western capitals on their readiness to put their relations with Moscow back on track, as long as it repents and changes its tack, are meaningless. Still, many persist, as if by inertia, in presenting us with unilateral demands, which does little, if any, credit to how realistic they are.
The policy of having the Russian Federation develop on its own, independently and protecting national interests, while remaining open to reaching agreements with foreign partners on an equal basis, has long been at the core of all its position papers on foreign policy, national security and defence. However, judging by the practical steps taken over the recent years by the West, they probably thought that Russia did not really mean what it preached, as if it did not intend to follow through on these principles. This includes the hysterical response to Moscow’s efforts to stand up for the rights of Russians in the aftermath of the bloody 2014 government coup in Ukraine, supported by the United States, NATO and the EU. They thought that if they applied some more pressure on the elites and targeted their interests, while expanding personal, financial and other sectoral sanctions, Moscow would come to its senses and realise that it would face mounting challenges on its development path, as long as it did not “change its behaviour,” which implies obeying the West. Even when Russia made it clear that we view this policy by the United States and Europe as a new reality and will proceed on economic and other matters from the premise that we cannot depend on unreliable partners, the West persisted in believing that, at the end of the day, Moscow “will come to its senses” and will make the required concessions for the sake of financial reward. Let me emphasise what President Vladimir Putin has said on multiple occasions: there have been no unilateral concessions since the late 1990s and there never will be. If you want to work with us, recover lost profits and business reputations, let us sit down and agree on ways we can meet each other half way in order to find fair solutions and compromises.
It is essential that the West understands that this is a firmly ingrained worldview among the people of Russia, reflecting the attitude of the overwhelming majority here. The “irreconcilable” opponents of the Russian government who have placed their stakes on the West and believe that all Russia’s woes come from its anti-Western stance advocate unilateral concessions for the sake of seeing the sanctions lifted and receiving hypothetical financial gains. But they are totally marginal in Russian society. During his June 16, 2021 news conference in Geneva, Vladimir Putin made it abundantly clear what the West is after when it supports these marginal forces.
These are disruptive efforts as far as history is concerned, while Russians have always demonstrated maturity, a sense of self-respect, dignity and national pride, and the ability to think independently, especially during hard times, while remaining open to the rest of the world, but only on an equal, mutually beneficial footing. Once we put the confusion and mayhem of the 1990s behind us, these values became the bedrock of Russia’s foreign policy concept in the 21st century. The people of Russia can decide on how they view the actions by their government without getting any prompts from abroad.
As to the question on how to proceed on the international stage, there is no doubt that leaders will always play an important role, but they have to reaffirm their authority, offer new ideas and lead by conviction, not ultimatums. The Group of Twenty, among others, is a natural platform for working out mutually acceptable agreements. It brings together the leading economies, young and old, including the G7, as well as the BRICS and its like-minded countries. Russia’s initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership by coordinating the efforts of countries and organisations across the continent holds a powerful consolidating potential. Seeking toEfforts to bring more democracy to international relations and affirm a polycentric world order include reforming the UN Security Council by strengthening it with Asian, African and Latin American countries, and ending the anomaly with the excessive representation of the West in the UN’s main body.
facilitate an honest conversation on the key global stability matters, President Vladimir Putin suggested convening a summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council that have special responsibility for maintaining international peace and stability on the planet.
Regardless of any ambitions and threats, our country remains committed to a sovereign and independent foreign policy, while also ready to offer a unifying agenda in international affairs with due account for the cultural and civilisational diversity in today’s world. Confrontation is not our choice, no matter the rationale. On June 22, 2021, Vladimir Putin published an article “Being Open, Despite the Past,” in which he emphasised: “We simply cannot afford to carry the burden of past misunderstandings, hard feelings, conflicts, and mistakes.” He also discussed the need to ensure security without dividing lines, a common space for equitable cooperation and inclusive development. This approach hinges on Russia’s thousand-year history and is fully consistent with the current stage in its development. We will persist in promoting the emergence of an international relations culture based on the supreme values of justice and enabling all countries, large and small, to develop in peace and freedom. We will always remain open to honest dialogue with anyone who demonstrates a reciprocal readiness to find a balance of interests firmly rooted in international law. These are the rules we adhere to.
The Foreign Minister without peer:
What you demand, go pound sand. Russia never has nor ever will accept a secondary status in foreign relations.
Your rules are no good. Russia obeys laws not rules.
Being a vassal is not in Russian DNA. We respect sovereign nations not poodles and Euro lapdogs.
You can learn to talk with us, at the G20 for instance.
But our domestic affairs are not on the agenda.
As for NATO and now its interest in the Asia Pacific affairs, we have CSTO and SCO and our military, as does China, and we have our red lines, so you have no chance of imposing your rules in our neighborhood.
Your empire is over. You had 500 years. Now, true multilateralism is the agenda for international laws with justice, peace and freedom.
Russia is ready for dialogue on these terms, which are our rules.
Lavrov is the Master of Diplomacy.
Yes, agree. And beautiful prose too.
But… But what interests me is the purpose and the timing.
And it sounds like a statement on the precipice.
It sounds like a summation of position given in the face of ultimatum, which is to say in the face of an aggressor.
It’s my “take” that the meaning is that the time for diplomacy has/is about gone, at least that’s how, it seems, the fellas down at Lavrov’s shop have so concluded.
That was my take. He’s done with the shadow leadership of the Western powers. I wonder if the UK will foolishly try to send another warship through Russian waters.
Lavrov’s below sentence in his final paragraph proves categorically that all talks of any nature between Russia and Uncle $am remain both farcical and utterly pointless…
…”We will always remain open to honest dialogue with anyone who demonstrates a reciprocal readiness to find a balance of interests firmly rooted in international law.”
…meanwhile, we contemplate the massive tinderbox that is developing in the Black Sea…a truly terrifying prospect when we have ‘leaders’ of the appalling incompetence of the likes of Biden and Bojo and of course, just to top it all off, the brainless gibbering Stoltenberg thrown into the mix.
Talk about tearing your hair out!
“These are the rules we adhere to”, so you can stuff your rules where the sun don’t shine.
What a team. Putin, the ultimate outstanding statesman, no doubt to be called Vladimir the Great in the future, Sergey Lavrov, the most impressive and wisest diplomat of our times, Sergei Shogiu, Valery Gerasimov. I’m sure there are many others. These are clearly men of great moral character and conviction who put all of our western so called leaders to shame.
Head and shoulders above the ‘best money can buy’ treasonous criminal weasels running the west atm.
This should be pinned next to Putin’s Munich speech. It is the modern bookend to it.
In the first half, he brilliantly skewers the West and affirms Russia’s contrasting spiritual, religious and political values.
In the second half, there is a marked change of tone and it reads just like the the answer to an ultimatum…(!)
I don’t think he or anyone else really believe the EU cannot reconcile with Russia because of objections by Poland, Baltic states, Ukraine etc. These countries merely provide an alibi for the EU’s current anti Russian policy. The real power brokers are the deep-state Franco-German tandem. it seems to me Lavrov is speaking to them directly, giving them a last-ditch, face-saving excuse to reverse their current position… (ie “we know this is not you, this is not who you are”… etc)
There’s a dark tone in this article. Looks like Saker’s pessism regarding the outcome of the summit has been justified.
I agree… Poland and the Baltic states are problematic and should never have been admitted into the EU when they were. They did not even meet economic and fiscal requirements. All that was disregarded to appease U.S. expansionism in Europe. Now, I am sure, Germany and France regret their membership.
Germany and France have been engaged in constructive dialogs with Russia for decades. Much of this detente made a peaceful power transition in eastern Europe in 1989/90 possible. That detente also included the sale of Russian natural gas which started in the early 70’s, considering the US’ attitude towards North Stream 2. Today these little caveats are largely forgotten.
Russia knows from these constructive interactions that the only competent and serious partners in Europe are France and Germany. However, the political landscape in Germany has changed and the US is exercising a lot more manipulative interference, addressed especially at the Green Party, that one needs to be cautious. Lavrov, I am sure, is aware of that and I am sure he would love to have as German partner a Willy Brandt or Gerhard Schroeder.
Of course, quintessential Lavrov.
But here is something. From many years of posting all the most important speeches and happenings from the Kremlin or from the Russian Foreign Office, I’ve gotten used to a snail’s pace. Usually, long and serious happenings take a day or two for translation.
Never did I see the Russian Foreign Office work on these issues after working hours in Moscow.
You may take a look at the time stamp on this one. It is 13:01 am. My question is why is the Russian Foreign Office working through the night, on a Sunday night? I was quite taken aback to find a notification at their midnight.
Great observation Amarynth. Its obviously very urgent…perhaps it needed to go out before the start of the Navy exercises..?
Naturally, this is indication of urgency…putting position down in clear language is what polite people do when a fight is, in their view, about to take place.
Yes, Friend Col, the cauldron Black Sea. Also Hawaii and Taiwan and Kaliningrad and probably Langley and points west .
Brother McGovern’s website had symposium of delusions of children running imperial junta…those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad, and all that stuff. (I’ve been saying “delusional” for years…it was obvious.)
Sometime delusional people walk out windows and fall to death.
I dont know dear :p maybe Lavrov has a sense of humour like you wont believe…
1301 is 101
… meaning the basic
… like biology 101, or history 101, like the courses we take in university
… topic for beginners in any area
could it be that ‘code’? Ha HA :D noty russians :p
Stretching it further, it could also be a reference to Room 101, in Orwell’s 1984, where we all confront our deepest fears.
Or the Masonic 101, the two pillars flanking an orb, like how the World Trade Center towers flanked the globe sculpture.
When I finished the artickle I thought “The next step can only be a war.” Biden delivered ultimatum. Putin said no. Then Gerasimov and US generals talked the rules of conduct of coming war. Then Putin wrote (in Der Spiegel) to Europeans to try to avoid the war by peaceful cooperation. France and Germany responded by calling for dialoge with Russia. At the European summit the Anti-Russian forces (enforced by British provocation in the Black sea) won. There won’t be any talk. Europe will be the theater of the war. In other words Europe is forced to die for UK/US financial empire. India is prepared to do the same against China. We’ll see.
I think the fraudulent 2020 Presidential Election that installed Biden at the cost of nationwide outrage and reputational loss for the US is one factor to ponder. Why do that on such a scale when it is obvious that Trump would win the 2nd election hands down? What urgency or madness led to the most extensive voter fraud that Biden let out? The audits coming out of Arizona & Georgia, limely more audits to come after, exonerate Trump’s contention that the election was stolen from him, that he “won by a lot”. The invisible hands behind Biden’s team do not trust Trump to work against Russia and China. Remember Trump believes good relations is good business. All can co-exist and have a good share of the economic pie w/fair and peaceable means. No one needs to be world police, ie, hegemon. Someone is horrified w/that stand.
The other angle is the hybrid war ramped up by the US & UK soon after Biden took over the WH. From agitating in the South China Sea, Taiwan, Thailand, Myanmar, Venezuela, Cuba, the Baltic Sea, and eastern European countries’ unprovoked antagonistic actions against Russia, and Australia’s suicidal actions against China…seems to add to the urgency of what the West’s intentions are. So the intensity of the chaos is to distract and to confuse, if that is even likely, to fool Russia and China for an offguard moment and/or to determine where the chink in their armour is.
The West will keep up the pressure in other regions as well as is ongoing in the ME, Ctrl Asia, African continent, Philippines, Australia, and Latin America. But w/waning effect. It is desperate time…all things are possible and complacency can be fatal. There is a Chinese saying “浑水摸鱼” – create chaos/ confusion to snare the fish!
“W e will persist in promoting the emergence of an international relations culture based on the supreme values of justice and enabling all countries, large and small, to develop in peace and freedom. We will always remain open to honest dialogue with anyone who demonstrates a reciprocal readiness to find a balance of interests firmly rooted in international law.” – The language of Logic and Sincerity.
The United States of America’s red line is that Russia deliver Crimea back to its rightful owner Pentagon, who paid $5 billion bucks to get hold of the shithole.
If Russia dont do that, all tools are on the table with our Allies, and this is not an ultimatum. This is a friendly and peaceful proposal for Russia’s own health and its innocent Russian people who have done nothing wrong, but who have an aggressive brutal regime and a Government who dont know a shit about freedom.
I don’t know how this summit can be seen as positive. The US and its puppets did not change their approach which still is basically do what we want or else (which means more threats sanctions and so on). They are not ready to negociate and still want to give ultimatums like they always do.
At most this summit will stop the escalation for a few weeks or months.
With what happened in the black sea with the HMS Defender I am not even sure about that.
You have to study the situation in the right context. If the context is right, then things will be clear, or ‘clearer’, if that is a word. Escalations and provocation in themselves lead nowhere. That is the 1st thing. 2nd, If you set the context as a case of “giants who have fallen and tasted earth for the first time,” then that minimal and cordial interaction is called for at least until a special intellectual acclimatization to the new environment occurs and its basic laws are understood. This is natural and would take some time. The best policy in all cases, or contexts, is to say little and do much.
The EU and the US keep their sanction and provocation policy. Just look at the new sanctions on Belarus and the last provocation in the black sea.
Russophobia in the EU now is perhaps even stronger than it was a few years ago.
Say little and do much is a very good policy but I would say that hope for the best and prepare for the worst is an even better policy.
I’m tempted to revise my opinion of Lavrov. If he truly believes this , that there is a possibility of an equal, respectful dialog with the West, then he has lost his marbles and needs to retire. If there are really senior people in the Russian Government, and I include Putin, who waste their time – and worse, allow this illusion to colour their thinking, then they have lost the plot.
However….I don’t for one minute think either he or Putin believes this bollocks. But I would far rather them state it categorically, with a reminder that anyone messing about in Russia’s backyard will be destroyed.
I think this is just a Russian trait. There is a saying about Russians. They are all very long suffering and polite and accommodating and can endure a great deal of suffering without complaining… and then there’s a revolution. In this case what exactly do you expect them to do? Respond in kind? Of course they don’t expect the west to abide by any treaty, promise, or good will gesture. Everything the west does and says is a facade for their real intentions. Well, so is everything they do and say.
See, USA can be loud and unruly and uncouth, but if anyone does it, they’ll throw sand in your face and call you, “I said so, they’re so backward and crazy”. That’s the world we live in. Like it or not, he has to maintain impeccable table manners.
It is clear that the ‘West’ lost its marbles and sunk deeper into delusions of grandeur and hubris. It is on a suicidal course.
It is just documented moves. [email protected]. The narative moves on…
It is a cool headed antidote to the banchie show on the other side of the equation.
Sergey Lavrov continuing to be a voice of reason, juggling diplomacy with the psychopaths in Nato that have never once kept their word on not advancing East.
The stalking of Russia by the Military Industrial Congressional Complex continues unabated.
The financial and technocratic elite in the West are getting desperate because they see their plans for world domination slipping away with Russia and China not lining up behind what these elites want to do. There is only one option for them – war.
There will be war in the fall and lockdowns in the Western countries that will make this last year look like pure freedom. War will lead to hunger and famine as supply lines will be diverted to feed the war machine, and then death and pestilence will swiftly follow in the Western world.
It’s the same old M.O. I’m gonna out spend you and run you off the road. I hope VVP and SL have a plan to fund their program without breaking the bank or selling land.
you seem to buy into the all-powerful printing press can do… thus you must also subscribe to their definition of what they tell you is called ‘money’
It matters not how many debt ridden dollars the Yanks spend on military toys that do not work properly. What matters is who has the most effective weapons systems and the most committed people using them. VVP and SL have that equation in the bank, one they own, not some Jewish scoudrels.
Thanks Saker for publishing F.M. Lavrov’s article. This is a historic document that will remembered in the decades to come as having been a last ditch push of reason against Western psychopathy.
There could be no starker words to put the historicity, and the urgency, of the present moment in International relations than FM Lavrov’s following words :
“All world religions, the genetic code of the planet’s key civilizations, are under attack. The United States is at the forefront of state interference in church affairs, openly seeking to drive a wedge into the Orthodox world, whose values are viewed as a powerful spiritual obstacle for the liberal concept of boundless permissiveness.”
Yes “the genetic code of the planet’s key civilizations are under attack” …by Western totalitarianism !
Let these words sink in for a moment. Western totalitarianism now suddenly becomes the evidence but …it was its acting principle all along since Early Modernity. Yes that means since the crusades !
My new book is a comparative approach of “the genetic code of the planet’s key civilizations”. I compare the emergence of the Chinese and Western axioms of civilizations ( my personal terminology for F.M. Lavrov’s “genetic code”).
The axioms diverged from the onset between civilizations and the founding Western Axiom of dualism helped to unleash Modernity and “the reason that is at work within capital” over Western Europe first. Western Europeans immediately drove a totalitarian expansion of Modernity to the whole world. The present moment is the terminal and tragic outcome of this Western totalitarian adventure.
If interested you can go download “the Coninuum of the Cultural field”.
Yes, it is somehow puzzling that people haven’t noticed what I consider the real core of the ‘message’:
”Apart from encroaching on international law, the “rules” concept also manifests itself in attempts to encroach on the very human nature. In a number of Western countries, students learn at school that Jesus Christ was bisexual. Attempts by reasonable politicians to shield the younger generation from aggressive LGBT propaganda are met with bellicose protests from the “enlightened Europe.” All world religions, the genetic code of the planet’s key civilisations, are under attack. The United States is at the forefront of state interference in church affairs, openly seeking to drive a wedge into the Orthodox world, whose values are viewed as a powerful spiritual obstacle for the liberal concept of boundless permissiveness…
It is essential that the West understands that this is a firmly ingrained worldview among the people of Russia, reflecting the attitude of the overwhelming majority here”.
We recall the experiences Luther had in Rome . a vast whore-house is my impression of his view…and loot. This is a conservative German guy… and a bit of a boy scout – straight as arrow. His reaction was simply a question of Time and the whims of fate.
In one respect the conflict underway is a moral juxtaposition of two branches of religious traditions, two ways of “knowing and seeing” (as the boffins used to say).
And of course it minds one naturally of Sodom story…which is a lesson in hubris I think,
and we see vast perversions, lies, crimes or ever imaginable sort — now.
Which minds Mr P of Ray McGovern expressions at https://raymcgovern.com/2021/06/26/whom-the-gods-would-destroy-war-with-russia-and-china-is-worse-than-mad/
Interesting proposition is that “the West” is pretty much where they used to speak Latin…and I think Our Friend Minister Lavrov’s liberal “500 years” is about right….Jared Diamond might agree.
Best to all, and let us pray that the gods enlighten the mad, enough to save us all from a final solution…
But the writing is Mene Mene Tekel Uparsin…according to my tea leaves. (I have seen this classical expression spray painted on highway bridges.) The people pulling sleepyguy’s strings better wake up…
They’re “gunna hair-lip ev’r’body on Bear Creek otherwise…
https://youtu.be/QSbPqin3L6E “Stay on the bomb run Boys” / https://youtu.be/ExUh8ZhYevg
Having “partied” longtimeago with Russian and Serbian veterans “camping” in “loci X” I concur about their cultural or character feathers …best pals in world, but never exceed their tolerance….which is astonishing…when they nod at the door, a fellas better git. Otherwise a regrettable accidental event takes place. and they do not lose. Fella wants to fight, he’s smart to join ’em, but that’s one-way. No cowards.
An excellent speech by Mr. Lavrov. Clearly Team Biden is insane. The Saker’s term “Messianic narcissism” really defines American liberals. Fanatically sure they are Morally right on every issue, they charge ahead committing atrocities and war crimes on every side. It will take an effort to convince Biden and Europe that they can not conquer the World, indeed the rest of the world thinks Western “Civilization” is a putrid rotting corpse.
Although Mr. Lavrov has been more direct in his speeches lately, this struck me as especially candid (the mention of taking a knee for one). To amarynth’s point about the timing: in my corner of the world, PM Trudeau held private meetings today. Usually, Sunday is a personal day for him. Then late in the day, a readout was posted of his conversation with Israel’s new PM. Is this the issue, the possible ultimatum? Israel, Palestine…?
The address of Serge Lavrov’s discussion is of interest. He’s not talking to the West. He’s talking about the West. Who’s he talking to? I’d venture that he speaks to the (somewhat united) nations of this world who adhere to the ideas of sovereign independence and freedom from great power meddling. What is the subtext here? I think he’s saying: ‘you don’t have to put up with this North Atlantic nonsense anymore. There’s an alternative now. It’s actually the old alternative – to the fascist Axis powers of the 40s who provoked the formation of a United Nations in the first place. It was there, and it endured throughout the Cold War, but then receded. But now it’s back. This is so because Russia and China are back. It was Russia and China who did the heavy lifting way back when the Axis was being fought. But for particular reasons both subsided somewhat and at times did not play leading roles in the world of international relations. But that was then. Now the successor regime to the Third Reich is Nato. And just as Stalin, Churchill, FDR, and General Chiang led the war against Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, now Putin, Xi, and Khamenei lead the resistance in the name of the real values that were affirmed by the original United Nations.
These democracy boosters. They doth protest too much. They have to amp up the volume when they lie. Self consciousness is typically a mark of weakness. ‘We’re back!’ Is that so? America’s ‘back’ as they say. But is it? No, not really. And the only people who actually care are these European political class mediocrities whose careers are thoroughly mortgaged to Atlanticist money. The real news is that Russia’s back and now allied to a China that has truly stood up and more than ready to restore it’s fortunes in our world. Russia is back. China is back. That’s the truth; that’s real. They do not advertise the fact. Real confidence dispenses with self consciousness.
Lavrov is always a breath of fresh air. He’s a strait shooter and yet never violates the traditions of diplomacy. An able representative of a long and proud tradition. Otherwise the gist of his discussion of the recent summit vindicates the ‘nothingburger’ thesis.
Yes, the question of audience is quite correct. I just commented and linked to it for an international but English literate audience. And then I’ll provide a link at pepe Escobar’s VK page. But the overall meme I’m seeing that I also began using last week is one of reality versus delusion/illusion as the West tries to defend its place atop the mountain. After pondering the Audience question for awhile, I decided it was very much like his UNGA speeches as Russia and China are partners with over 130 nations, with both being founding members of the Friends of the UN Charter Group. One interesting gap in NATO/EU solidarity occurred yet again last week with the UNGA vote to condemn the illegal and inhumane embargo of Cuba by the Outlaw US Empire that shows quite well that the Outlaw US Empire in reality has no friends.
It is one hell of a statment. Lavrov is certainly a master of his craft, perhaps “the” master.
The difference between the end of ww2 agreement between Churchill, Stalin, FDR, and Chiang and the current situatiuon was that FDR and Churchill were following someone elses agenda. Douglas Reed wrote about the influence FDR and Churchill were under in considerable detail in his “The Controversy of Zion”. It has taken 80 years for that to wash through the system and now we see a more genuine positioning of the players. Those under orders from someone else, versus those acting in their own interests.
Perhaps the next step should be to openly talk about whose orders USUK leaders are following?
Well, people, get ready for a showdown! Both VVP and Sergei Lavrov have addressed directly the western powers recently in a final attempt to get someone there to actually hear them. To no avail. It fell on deaf ears, as one could have expected. Legendary Russian patience has now reached it’s limits. The Bear is ready to swipe anyone’s head off if they do as much as to take any threatening steps towards this, now very angry, Russian Bear. They have been warned..
yes Katerina… very unfrotunate! you stay safe there.
CONgratulations USSA! You’ve made it!
You finally piss off the last and only most gentle diplomat on earth and made him, angry!
Now you can talk to the fist of the hawks of their respective countires.
Awesome hey! Exceptional (stupid) and Indispensable (isolated)
… so much so you had to re-group the old boys to feel your self-subscribed ‘status’
Another explicit warning came on June 24, Russia warns Britain it will bomb ships next time
So far as things are imminent, or the situation has the world facing the abyss, until you see the children and families of Russian officials and the billionaires flying into Moscow en masse and with just a go bag of things, the danger is not urgent.
Stupidity is forever and delusion is prevalent. That’s the atmosphere right now.
Lavrov’s piece is a message to the world that Russia is calm, standing close to the phones and devices of messaging, and in the mood to listen to respectful talk from anyone that matters.
The Lavrov statement is of the highest importance because it is from the esteemed desk of Sergey Lavrov. It leaves no ambiguity. But it is an open door, an invitation, more an evening with wine or whiskey than an ice cold institutional office sit down for a miscreant.
Russia specializes historically in timeouts for talks in the midst of ballistic firefights and combat of all sorts. They prefer to save lives than to take them. It is this deep vein of humanity that endears us to the Russians. You may be splattered with their blood, but they still would like you to put down the sword or axe than immediately render you chopped meat for the wolves. If you choose the deadlier action, they will feed the forest animals with your remains. Your choice.
They understand the European psyche and the end of the Western Empire acutely well. Their neighbors have gone schizophrenic, don’t really comprehend Russia’s advantage, much less Russia’s mind set.
Putin has not been listened to. Now, Lavrov offers words for them to consider. We’ll see if they move their heads onto the guillotine and pull the release rope by challenging Shoigu and Gerasimov in the final game of “Dare”.
Stand by. And look to the European and US airports for Russians flying home. Then you’ll know we are at one minute to midnight.
Merkel even in defeat and ignomony today burbling on that EU Russia summit is finished cos of too much infighting talking but no action….she still proposes drawing up agendas subjects etc to format some kind of dialogue talks with Pres Putin . Maybe waste of time ….he maybe has more effective things to do that actually get somewhere.
Wonder when she actually goes.
>There is a centuries-old tradition in Russia of making handshake deals without signing anything and holding one’s word as sacrosanct, but it seems unlikely to ever take hold in the West.<
Well. My dear ole Dad bought land and businesses. And decades later, sold same. All with only a handshake.
But that was much more than half a century ago.
The loss of honesty and integrity and trust in the west that made such transactions possible is what has led to our current crisis.
I can validate your statement to an extent regarding the ‘handshake’. My father told me that his father was taken as a prisoner of war to Russia in 1945; he was an engineer who worked on the Messerschmitt planes. He was in Russia for 11 years. While he was away the Russians engaged a house keeper who helped in raising the children and assisted the wife. The Russians never went back on their word. When he was released he told my father years later that he didn’t want to go back. He stated that in Russia if you showed potential, kept your nose clean you went places and it didn’t matter about your background. The Russians will meet you half way but do not cross them and mistaken their good will for weakness.
I have had dealing with Russians on a professional level and respect them for their views and integrity and a ‘handshake’ is all it takes to firm a relationship.
Hi, White Whale. What about their signatures? Almost all their official state signings were flouted, the last 200 years.
>There is a centuries-old tradition in Russia of making handshake deals without signing anything and holding one’s word as sacrosanct, but it seems unlikely to ever take hold in the West.<"
Well, White Whale and any employee of the RF Foreign Ministry who might be reading here and maybe would pass this small note through to the honorable Mr. Lavrov:
I can assure you out of years of own experience, that e.g. on the countryside of France ('la campagne') this is still the traditional way of doing business. A handshake between two parties is binding, and the saying is 'Paris, c'est loin' (Paris is far away).
It doesn't have to take hold, on some places it never went away. A small beacon of hope.
The West is a gaggle of occupied governments; occupied by the financial elites within them which have now obtained control of most domestic institutions. These occupied governments have Satan’s own attitude towards all who oppose them. They are liars and the fathers of lies and liars so, as already noted, agreement incapable.
They are promulgators of propaganda which serves only one purpose–the achievement of world domination in the name of the good, the true, and the beautiful, but not in the practice thereof. As such diplomacy is a sword whose edge will be constantly blunted when used against the arguments of such as these. There is no truth in their propositions and no desire for any truth so a sword representing truth cannot bite.
Walk away, organize among yourselves, watch, listen, plan, prepare, but do not seriously attempt to engage. Engagement with such as these will only bring your downfall. It is not cooperation they seek but an opportunity to use engagement to work ruin upon their announced foes.
“Taken as a whole, the historical West dominated the world for five hundred years.”
That is not correct. The West only dominated the world for about 200 plus years starting from industrial revolution.
There was no Western domination of Africa, Asia and Pacific from 1500-1800.
The idea that West “dominated world for 500 years” is western propaganda and a eurocentric view of the world. There is no such thing.
“…The chief weakness of the volume appears in its chronological structure, expressed in the title as “from the eighteenth century.”
In the text this is divided into a twofold sequence (“Before 1815” and “After 1815”), which the author calls the “first” and “second” expansions of Europe, with a transition period, 1763-1830, in between.
This periodization of the subject is sufficiently inaccurate to influence the book adversely. The “first expansion of Europe,” of course, was that of 1100-1350, which culminated in men like Marco Polo; the second expansion of Europe was from about 1420 to about fellow 1650 and was followed by a long retraction of Europe, including the almost complete withdrawal of European pressure from Japan, China, tropical Africa, tropical South America, and the southern United States area.
This withdrawal of European pressure, which included the cessation of the Russian intrusion into China by the Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689), is of some some importance to Mr. Fieldhouse’s discussion, but he does not seem to see its significance. This is one of several reasons why the brief section on “The Russian Empire in Central Asia” (pp. 334-341) is the weakest part of the book…”
“…He treats the expansion of the West as a steady process from the Renaissance onward, when this expansion dearly hesitated and even retreated in the period 1600-1800, as marked by the exclusion of Europeans from Japan and China, the revival of India’s autonomy between the Portuguese and the British intrusions, the long delay in tropical African exploration between the sixteenth century and the nineteenth, and, above all, the slump in the internal developments of Europe between the “price revolution” of the sixteenth century and the agricultural revolution of the eighteenth century…”
Lavrov is right to point out the difference between a ‘rule’ and a ‘law’. A law is made by a process which is recognised by a society as having the right to make law. I’ve no doubt the word ‘rule’ in ‘rule based order’ was chosen by a committee to avoid this issue.
‘Rules’ are what outlaws call their codes of criminal gang operation.
Beyond the law (Irish Pale) used to have negative connotations — now it is just modus operandi in the degenerating domains.
Rules are what the WHO set forth and delivered to authoritarian inclined health officials around the globe are what set in motion the insanity felt in one form or another by most over the ensuing 17 months.
Only Russia´s brake-up could preserve the “printed” monies of the “elected”. And would extend, in addition, the expiry date of the bankers´ neo-liberalism. So, the Judeo-Trotskyites puppet masters of the West need a big conflagration as a matter of survival of their “absolute” power, their “to be or not to be” hour.
I don’t know…Putin’s article in Die Zeit and now this from Lavrov. They seem to me to be writing to the future. As if to say: “This is what we stood for”. I hope it is not pessimism that is the spur.
Sergey Lavrov’s speech is the culmination of a long process, probably since the fall of the USSR.
It is the affirmation that the time for doubts and procrastination is over.
Faced with the fall always comes moments of doubt and questioning, whether we are on the right side of history, if there are reasons to defend a culture and the values associated with it, especially in the face of a triumphant adversary.
The false premise of Western countries is that “there is no other alternative” determines all their actions. This false premise called “messianism” is totalitarianism in the sense that it offers no alternative, no choice, no free will, it says (without saying it) “we are the only ones to hold the truth” and, by a formidable accusatory reversal, considers the “remainder” as a kind of lies or the expression of a totalitarianism, yet it is precisely because this “remainder” offers an alternative that they make war on it because it goes against their belief to be the beacon that guides humanity, of their “exceptionality”.
In my opinion, this is what Russia in its long journey has understood and defends, the possibility of living and existing according to its culture, its values and beliefs while respecting that of others which is the very definition sovereignty and free will and self-determination.
I answer myself, to add, that they use human rights and democracy as a kind of Trojan horse to pierce and reach our consciousness of human beings and to distill doubt and conflict there through the question “we defend humanity and not you”, as if they were the only holders of a revealed truth.
Lavrov speaks as clearly as he can.
Unfortunately the ones who should be listening are not listening and will not listen.
Stormy days ahead.
Here’s a translation of Lavrov’s comments in plain speak for the Demoncratic West:
Take your Rules-Based Order and shove it up your non-binary gendered asses!
A couple issues need to be clarified.
1. The so-called “collective West” has about the same reality as the Tooth Fairy.
In general, the very idea of the “West” is like the “International Community” or “Coalition of the Willing/Killing.”
It is a Goebbelsian euphemism that America hides behind to promote the deception of international consensus.
The so-called “West” = the American Evil Empire and its vassals.
2. And so-called Western values like freedom, democracy, human rights, or the Rules-Based Order also have the same reality as the Tooth Fairy.
These values are Goebbelsian euphemisms (or lies) that America hides behind to disguise its predatory instincts and national character.
Freedom, Democracy, Human Rights & the Rules-Based Order = the Western Civilizing Mission, American Manifest Destiny, and the White Man’s Burden all rolled into one.
America’s true values are about expanding America’s world dictatorship (AKA the unipolar American world order) to crush all nations that resist it and thus make the world safe … for American capitalism and US Dollar Imperialism.
Like a vampire that must continually seek out new victims to suck the blood of, America must seek out new workers and markets around the world to exploit—so as to perpetuate the parasitic American Way of Life. Moreover, US vassals/allies are given, or promised, a cut of this plunder in exchange for their allegiance.
That is why America wages multiple wars of aggression around the world—Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.
America–the self-styled Leader of the Free World–is in actuality the Leader of the War Criminal World.
This will be true regardless of what American regime is power. Donald Trump or Joe Biden. Red State war criminal vs. Blue State war criminal. These American war criminals all deserve to be hung from the highest tree.
Most of threatening of all, America has a fanatical belief in US Manifest Destiny to colonize the entire world, just as it colonized and currently occupies the North American continent.
This messianic delusion is an inbred feature of the USA’s political and cultural DNA. At base, America is a Crusader empire.
As such, the (dis)United States of America is a civilizational threat and therefore must be shattered into a million pieces.
U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
28 JUN, 23:19 Merkel: Possible dialogue with Russia does not mean these will be friendly talks “Otherwise, President Putin won’t perceive us as seriously as this should be. I believe we have good reasons for criticizing Russia,” she said BERLIN, June 29. /TASS/. A possible dialogue between the European Union and Moscow does not mean that these will be friendly talks, they should address problems in bilateral relations, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Monday. “I think there is some misunderstanding. When I say that I want the EU to speak with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin like US President [Joe Biden] speaks with Putin, in my view, this is not about friendly talks or a sign that we have good relations,” Merkel said. “But this is the recognition that we as Europe will be stronger if we stick to a single position and say: “Look, here a cyber attack was carried out and here is a hybrid war and there Russia supports ultra-nationalist parties,” the Chancellor said. According to her, the EU should tell Moscow that good cooperation requires solving these problems. “I don’t think only the US president can do this, in my view, we are also strong,” Merkel stated. “But we [in the EU] have some mistrust in each other. We should overcome this mistrust to be able to effectively defend our values and interests,” she noted. “Otherwise, President Putin won’t perceive us as seriously as this should be. I believe we have good reasons for criticizing Russia,” Merkel said.
Russia supports ultranationalist parties? This lady is so delusional. Is that why Germany wont contribute to Minsk so supporting Ukraine?
Germany has ultraright groups exercising to seize power back when necessary.
Na Rosji ciąży odpowiedzialność za uratowanie ludzkości przed demoralizacją i zgnilizną moralną. Jest to poważne i ważne zadanie i każdy mądry człowiek je wspiera.
Polacy są zupełnie zdezorientowani, albo nawet brak nam rozumu by pojąć te ważne sprawy. Tak zwane nowinki z zachodu są dla Polaka ważniejsze niż święta tradycja, słowiańskie korzenie i więzy krwi z Braćmi Rosjanami. to ma swoje bolesne dla Polski skutki i kto wie, czym się to skończy.
Natomiast zamiarem “zachodu” od zawsze było podbicie i skolonizowanie Wschodu, czyli Rosji i krajów azjatyckich, a tam nikt normalny nie wyrazi przecież na to zgody.
Rosja nie tyle chce zajmować konsekwentne stanowisko, lecz musi. Gdyby tego nie robiła, już by nie istniała.
Zaraza z zachodu ma w swojej tradycji zniszczenie Japonii – albo się podporządkują albo ich zbombardują angielskie kanonierki, zniszczenie Chin – wojna opiumowa, zniszczenie Indii – gdy kilkadziesiąt tysięcy brytyjskich żołdaków zniewoliło wielomilionowy i ogromny kraj, no i zniszczenie Rosji carskiej – I. wojną światową, rewolucjami, wojną domową i II wojną światową, a potem rozwalenie państw Układu Warszawskiego przy pomocy osła trojańskiego, czyli Polski.
To są poważne sprawy i mają poważne konsekwencje.
Dobrze, że Rosjanie mają światłego Przywódcę, Prezydenta Putina.
Russia has a responsibility to save humanity from demoralization and moral decay. It is a serious and important task and every wise person supports it.
Poles are completely confused, or even we do not have the brains to understand these important matters. The so-called novelties from the west are more important for a Pole than the sacred tradition, Slavic roots and blood ties with the Russian Brothers. this has its painful consequences for Poland and who knows what it will end with.
On the other hand, the intention of the “West” has always been to conquer and colonize the East, that is Russia and Asian countries, and no one normal there will consent to it.
Russia does not so much want to take a consistent position, but must. If she didn’t, she wouldn’t exist anymore.
The plague from the west has in its tradition the destruction of Japan – either they will surrender or they will be bombed by English gunboats, the destruction of China – the Opium War, the destruction of India – when tens of thousands of British soldiers enslaved a multi-million and huge country, and the destruction of Tsarist Russia with World War I. revolutions, civil war and World War II, and then the destruction of the Warsaw Pact countries with the help of the Trojan donkey, i.e. Poland.
These are serious matters and have serious consequences.
It’s good that the Russians have an enlightened leader, President Putin.
A bit over-long but excellently written……it is embarrassing to compare with Western diplomats like Karen Pierce, Nikki Haley, Samantha Power.