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.
What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.
The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.
Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘colour revolutions’ to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.
We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.
Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.
Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.
Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.
However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.
Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.
Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.
I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.
I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a “greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.
This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.
In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions.
This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centres would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centres and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.
I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.
Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilised manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilised dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.
Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘colour revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and simply cannot stop.
I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.
I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?
And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.
We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.
The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.
We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.
Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.
Thank you very much for your attention.
The speech was a breath of fresh air. I’m so thankful someone in a leadership possession is specking the truth. Calling out the corrupt US Government is nice to see on the world stage for a change. Refreshing indeed! Blessings!
no man in the world last 60 years has been able to hold public dialogue and question and answer for so long and so many times as putin has done.(or may be chavezx comes to nearest second).
but anglo pirates donto udnerstand reason they understand stick and big stick only.
annihilate the enemies-no talk which they donto understand.
I was watching something on youtube when I saw this in the right hand column on the youtube site. It asked for petition signers. Was appalled at the bullshit content re Putin.
Naturally, I didn’t sign.
Great speech, thank you for the translation.
However, where Putin says: “You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now.” must be an error in translation.
Politics and economy are joined together at the hip and always have been. He must know this.
Politics and the economy are not joined at the hip, and they shouldn’t be mixed, just like politics and business / trade.
Wow! Every single question was directed to Putin. Not one of the other members of the panel were addressed….
Two politicians I truly respect. Deng Xiao Ping, and Vladimir Putin. Hats off to you sir!
E-mailed a copy of the print version to the two WaPo reporters that presented a grossly distorted report of it in today’s paper. Not that it will do much good, of course. But maybe someday, somewhere, somehow, they’ll hear the nagging voice of conscience.
Well done !
What an awesome speech by Putin of clarity, direction, analysis and wit. Anyone who reacts negatively to this speech, no doubt, should be considered a zombie, dead to truth.
After seeing Matt Lee of the AP at that recent State Department briefing trying to get the Naval Press guy to recognize that NATO is the one who has been encroaching the past decade, I am amazed at the depth of idiocy and lying on the part of our entire elite cadre.
Thank you, Mr. Putin for holding steady with the Light of Truth and Heart.
Putin is certainly the most modern, moderate proponent of Reform Capitalism and diplomacy in todays world.
He did show his true attitude about democracy and a bit of hypocrisy when he displayed his full support for the illegal coup government in Egypt. Why is a Fascist coup acceptable in Egypt and not in Ukraine?
The Q&A session had some great gems like this:
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to ask you to reword the second part of your question, please. What exactly is your second question?
SEUMAS MILNE (retranslated from Russian): It has been said here that Russia cannot strive for leading positions in the world considering the outcomes of the Soviet Union’s collapse, however it can influence who the leader will be. Is it possible that Russia would alter its position, change its focus, as you mentioned, regarding the Middle East and the issues connected with Iran’s nuclear programme?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia has never altered its position. We are a country with a traditional focus on cooperation and search for joint solutions. This is first.
Second. We do not have any claims to world leadership. The idea that Russia is seeking some sort of exclusivity is false; I said so in my address. We are not demanding a place under the sun; we are simply proceeding from the premise that all participants in international relations should respect each other’s interests. We are ready to respect the interests of our partners, but we expect the same respect for our interests.
We did not change our attitude to the situation in the Middle East, to the Iranian nuclear programme, to the North Korean conflict, to fighting terrorism and crime in general, as well as drug trafficking. We never changed any of our priorities even under the pressure of unfriendly actions on the part of our western partners, who are lead, very obviously in this case, by the United States. We did not even change the terms of the sanctions.
However, here too everything has its limits. I proceed from the idea that it might be possible that external circumstances can force us to alter some of our positions, but so far there have not been any extreme situations of this kind and we have no intention of changing anything. That is the first point.
The second point has to do with our actions in Crimea. I have spoken about this on numerous occasions, but if necessary, I can repeat it. This is Part 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations’ Charter – the right of nations to self-determination. It has all been written down, and not simply as the right to self-determination, but as the goal of the united nations. Read the article carefully.
I do not understand why people living in Crimea do not have this right, just like the people living in, say, Kosovo. This was also mentioned here. Why is it that in one case white is white, while in another the same is called black? We will never agree with this nonsense. That is one thing.
The other very important thing is something nobody mentions, so I would like to draw attention to it. What happened in Crimea? First, there was this anti-state overthrow in Kiev. Whatever anyone may say, I find this obvious – there was an armed seizure of power.
In many parts of the world, people welcomed this, not realising what this could lead to, while in some regions people were frightened that power was seized by extremists, by nationalists and right-wingers including neo-Nazis. People feared for their future and for their families and reacted accordingly. In Crimea, people held a referendum.
I would like to draw your attention to this. It was not by chance that we in Russia stated that there was a referendum. The decision to hold the referendum was made by the legitimate authority of Crimea – its Parliament, elected a few years ago under Ukrainian law prior to all these grave events. This legitimate body of authority declared a referendum, and then based on its results, they adopted a declaration of independence, just as Kosovo did, and turned to the Russian Federation with a request to accept Crimea into the Russian state.
[Putin Q&A, continued]
You know, whatever anyone may say and no matter how hard they try to dig something up, this would be very difficult, considering the language of the United Nations court ruling, which clearly states (as applied to the Kosovo precedent) that the decision on self-determination does not require the approval of the supreme authority of a country.
In this connection I always recall what the sages of the past said. You may remember the wonderful saying: Whatever Jupiter is allowed, the Ox is not.
We cannot agree with such an approach. The ox may not be allowed something, but the bear will not even bother to ask permission. Here we consider it the master of the taiga, and I know for sure that it does not intend to move to any other climatic zones – it will not be comfortable there. However, it will not let anyone have its taiga either. I believe this is clear.
What are the problems of the present-day world order? Let us be frank about it, we are all experts here. We talk and talk, we are like diplomats. What happened in the world? There used to be a bipolar system. The Soviet Union collapsed, the power called the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
All the rules governing international relations after World War II were designed for a bipolar world. True, the Soviet Union was referred to as ‘the Upper Volta with missiles’. Maybe so, and there were loads of missiles. Besides, we had such brilliant politicians like Nikita Khrushchev, who hammered the desk with his shoe at the UN. And the whole world, primarily the United States, and NATO thought: this Nikita is best left alone, he might just go and fire a missile, they have lots of them, we should better show some respect for them.
Now that the Soviet Union is gone, what is the situation and what are the temptations? There is no need to take into account Russia’s views, it is very dependent, it has gone through transformation during the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we can do whatever we like, disregarding all rules and regulations.
This is exactly what is happening. Dominique here mentioned Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia before that. Was this really all handled within the framework of international law? Do not tell us those fairy-tales.
This means that some can ignore everything, while we cannot protect the interests of the Russian-speaking and Russian population of Crimea. This will not happen.
I would like everyone to understand this. We need to get rid of this temptation and attempts to arrange the world to one’s liking, and to create a balanced system of interests and relations that has long been prescribed in the world, we only have to show some respect.
As I have already said, we understand that the world has changed, and we are ready to take heed of it and adjust this system accordingly, but we will never allow anyone to completely ignore our interests.
Does Russia aim for any leading role? We don’t need to be a superpower; this would only be an extra load for us. I have already mentioned the taiga: it is immense, illimitable, and just to develop our territories we need plenty of time, energy and resources.
We have no need of getting involved in things, of ordering others around, but we want others to stay out of our affairs as well and to stop pretending they rule the world. That is all. If there is an area where Russia could be a leader – it is in asserting the norms of international law.
As usual, Putin is very clear and to the point. He is highly perceptive about world trends at the level of national goverments. But I don’t believe national governments are the key global actors today. I believe there is an underlying “post-Mafia” financial cartel that is calling the shots in world affairs. And they are accomplishing this by holding the major world leaders under threat, including the leaders of the US. I would put the Rothschilds at the top of the list of suspects.
Of course, I am speculating. Who can really know, except those so high in the power realms they deal with these bosses directly. But threat from higher covert powers seems the only explanation for the abject folly of the American government’s behavior, since US leadership is not acting even in its own best interests, as Putin points out. Of course, even if Putin knew this, he could not diplomatically say it, especially in a public speech. My real question is, why don’t people discuss this more openly? Why not let’t just get to the point?
Wonderful speech upholding the principles of international law, based on justice and truth. The grave sadness of all of this is that the presumption of good will can no longer be maintained on behalf of the United States and its partners. The moral deterioration on the American side is stark and relentless.
Latest new Uke gas financing deadline meeting OCT 29 WEDNESDAY.
Russia’s energy minister Alexandr Novak is therefore not only entitled, but is merely exercising a modicum of sanity, to insist that Kiev presents a definitive source of funds by the next trilateral meeting scheduled to take place on October 29.
Certainly the only world leader on this planet.
One thing i would still have liked him to mention is that the exceptionalism is only for the sake of control by the very few, and that these policies are utterly suicidal in all apects, notably the issue of climate engineering, which has caused and is causing earthquakes, floods, droughts, etc. Such as fukushima 2011, chile 2010, haiti 2011, krasnodar and moscow 2010 and 2011, bam in Iran, etc. And california, now
Certainly the only world leader on this planet.
One thing i would still have liked him to mention is that the exceptionalism is only for the sake of control by the very few, and that these policies are utterly suicidal in all apects, notably the issue of climate engineering, which has caused and is causing earthquakes, floods, droughts, etc. Such as fukushima 2011, chile 2010, haiti 2011, krasnodar and moscow 2010 and 2011, bam in Iran, etc. And california, now
There is a written transcript of the President’s opening remarks, which also includes his responses to questions from the audience and the press, here:
There was also an excellent speech by Dominique de Villepin – immediately following Putin. He’s a real statesman of the type sorely lacking in Western Europe today. In a whole different league from stooges like Sarkozy and Hollande. He should be the next French president.
See a video of all the speeches and the panel discussion here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9F9pQcqPdKo
Diplomatic doublespeak aside, a pity he does not reveal that Islamic terrorists along the Potomac accomplished 9/11. Guess he is waiting for the right time when the news cycle is ready for the information. The big money players have mere national leaders waltzing to the sound of children dying and to be a leader means hearing the beautiful melody of cannons as an enchanting air. All leaders serve those called by Cicero i pauci, the few.
is is stunning to watch although i do not speak Russian, an encounter between NAF and Ukrs.civilians and commanders. this is the second of the kind, invited by the Ukrs, which appear to be waking up from dormition
it surely is a precious document
there is something remarkable in the exchanges between Mozgovoi and the Ukrs through teleconferences, now the second just completed, in which it was revealed that alike in Maidan, both parties are certain that there is a third agency which works to stoke out war by staging provocations. Anyone?
What Putin is doing is establishing a basis for rational action in which multipolarity will not require Russia to be the only major agent. What better policy one could think of? The AZs are surely desperate, because if even they continue controlling the msm, the natural enfolding of the events, even if only initially committing governments, is that new rules will be established, despite all the efforts to establish anarchy.
As a political confrontation, the AZs have already lost in making evident for any national government around the globe, that for them, it is our rules or no rules at all. Within a certain window of stability, this might work, but as President Putin put it, this is far from being the case.
Indeed, the AZs have committed political suicide, and now it is a matter of time, God speed, for the logic of non-hegemonics to work out its case. This will naturally bring out the plethora of issues that humankind cannot longer avoid dealing with, in fairness.
To Anonymous at 18:26, who said,” these policies are utterly suicidal in all apects, notably the issue of climate engineering.”
I strongly agree with your viewpoint. It’s extremely disappointing Putin does not denounce geoengineering as a world menace, and expose this dangerous and illegal program perpretated by the US and NATO. For reasons I cannot imagine, even he is cowed by the taboo surrounding the subject. How can his silence possibly be explained?
Thanks for making the statement.
What strilkes me as strange is that Putin doesn’t seem to understand what this end-stage Vulture Capitalism under Oligarcy is all about. This cabal he wants to join and influence is about total control not shared hegemony between competing friends.
There can be only one winner with this system and all others will be losers or at best satraps feeding off the spilled crumbs.
The Power Brokers of the West, if they bother to read this speech, will laugh at Putin’s naivete.
I fear for Russia’s future with falling oil prices and another arms-race starting they face economic pressures similar to the time of the dismantling of the USSR.
I agree with you.
To be a forum for direct and frank discussion, I also missed any reference to the widespread corruption in high political and economic spheres, as this is the real cancer that degenerates into everything else.
If the trend is chaos, it is because people see the elites in a frantic race for capital accumulation at the expense of anything, including his own life and personal safety. In this environment, some miscreants leverage to organize for looting (read extremist groups) trying to win fiefdoms to impose its law. While ordinary and decent people, who prefer the quiet life and dedicated to the prosperity of their own ( like Russia ) perplexed at first before this maelstrom that sweepes away all its rights, is waking up and discovering that, as bear in the taiga, must also defend their territory, their life, that’s when it takes to the streets to protest, without intent to return home until they talk about theirs.
To maintain social peace is not enough to agree with “our partners” in high standing meetings. We, the peolple, must be taked into account, be respected our rights and be established monitoring committees with citizen participation, from where at the first hint of corruption, the person responsible for would be put out on the street.
People are very tired of thieves and that teased them a bunch of bums.
Once, friend Kat Kan asked that what was wrong with a little of socialism.
I would say that anything, even with a much of, moreover, I would say that the future will be socialist or will not be.
I think Putin has understood, although perhaps still not see the point of putting the issue on the forums of international discussion. China should understand. In the US and EU, have totally lost perspective, have entered the loop and can not stop.
Smack is going to be epic.
Russia wants to develop Russia’s resources for the benefit of its people. The United States (and Western Europe) wants to develop Russia’s resources for the benefit of its multinationals.
Like two dogs fighting for one bone…
“If there is an area where Russia could be a leader – it is in asserting the norms of international law.”
Cutting! However, I am sure the corrupt monsters at the top of the heap regard the law in the same way as they regard taxes – as in they only apply to small people.
Well, before my rant, I should have said that Vladímir Vladímirovich was very well in his speech and subsequent responses, as always. Sorry, I have not gone to the diplomatic school. No doubt he always is “sembrado”.
Maybe me and other people of the world expect too much from him, as we are always told by The Saker.
I too have been frustrated by a lack of discussion of who/what is in the geopolitical shadows manipulating some decisions by “the visible global players”.
The difficulties of discussing them/it begin very early in the mental process, starting with trying to clearly identify them/it when their/it’s existence can only be asserted by inference.
The Saker’s “AngloZionist” label gets the closest I’ve found towards this identification and yet still lacks substance.
Perhaps, again by inference, this is because the closer one gets to “naming names” the more personally threatening things get?
Wheather AngloZionist, Bilderberger, Transnational Plutocrat, Oligarch or a combination, they/it go to extreme lengths in masking their/it’s existence.
Pres. Putin’s policies and decisions ever since he turned the tables on The Russian Federation’s “AngloZionist, Bilderberger, Transnational Plutocrat, Oligarch”s, who by the bye put him in power!, opps!, are diametrically opposed to what they are aiming at: a weak and divided Russian Federation ripe for expoitation for the benefit of very few!
So the dimensions of “the global shadow State”, by inference, are tiny in personnel, immense in treasure, apocalyptic in action!
They/it are not going to stand on a podium and come out of the closet, we can but chip away at the enclosing obscuring firewall that’s erected around them/it in the hope that the attention will curtail the rapacious abuses their/it’s self interest perpetrates!
Vladimir Putin has outmaneuvered his opponents and humiliated Ukraine by continuing to back pro-Russian separatists and flouting a cease-fire, making it crucial that sanctions on Russia remain firm, France’s ambassador to the U.S. said.
The Russian president “has won because we were not ready to die for Ukraine, while apparently he was,” Ambassador Gerard Araud said yesterday at a Bloomberg Government breakfast in Washington… Echoing the view of other European envoys in Washington, Araud expressed concern that the Ukraine conflict has hit an impasse, leaving Putin the winner by default.
Poroshenko is “kneeling in front of Putin with the cord around his neck and saying, ‘You know, you have won,’” and Putin is still not backing down, Araud said.
While many observers have called Putin a geopolitical chess player, he said, the Russian leader is more a “poker player really, putting all the money on the table, saying, ‘Do the same,’ and of course we blink. We don’t do the same.”
The economic sanctions against Russia must stay in place to prevent Putin from going further, said Araud, who moved to Washington in September after serving as the French ambassador to the United Nations.
“Whatever we decide is a disaster for us,” Araud said, again expressing his personal view. On one side, he said, lies France’s credibility as an arms supplier who delivers on contracts, and on the other, the difficulty of delivering a weapons system to Putin, who might use it against Ukraine or a European ally.
Araud concludes – rather ominously – and far too honestly for a paid-up member of the European elite:
“The question is there on the table: When is Putin going to stop?” Araud said. “That’s the reason that we need to keep the sanctions” because, “let’s be frank, it’s more or less the only weapon that we have. We are not going to send our soldiers in Ukraine. It does not make sense to send weapons to the Ukrainians, because the Ukrainians would be defeated real easily, so it will only prolong the war” and lead to a “still bigger Russian victory.”
Putin was stabbed in the back at Sochi and was truly caught off guard emotionally.
He was persisting in the hopes for a respectful world order even at the D-Day commemoration. With this speech it is clear that he gets it now.
The New World Order is a satanic cult, and must be battled as such.
That the Master of Usury and hedge funds, Georg Soros does not approve of Putin and considers him an existential threat,
(well he said the West, but in fact he meant his and his colleagues banksters’ interests),
is enough for me to approve and support Putin as a guarantor for the delivery of Justice in the World.
I would go fight, but how can I do it if my girlfriend and cat cannot get by? It is a problem for me.
He should have said : disband NATO. All other bets are off! Get off my lawn!
Also he should build a lot of international law universities and institutions.
Lets duke it out in Chess (Russia wins)
Are we so sadly short of people telling the truth in this world that we have to ask President Putin to tackle everything?
The things that people here are wishing he would speak about – 9/11, zionism, etc – are not things that fall to his governmental role to address. And they would be wasted ammunition at this moment. Would you have him waste his ammunition and diminish his influence just to suit your own impatience for someone to come out and say these things?
Right now it suits his position better, for example, to call 9/11 and ISIS examples of blowback from the previous support of terrorism by the US. It’s not his goal to show that US secretly controls these things.
His speech here is to advance the view that the institutions and rules of the world have been broken and need to be fixed and replaced. Do you really think this is the place to talk about zionist conspiracies? One battle at a time, one issue at a time.
He’s speaking to potential allies as well as the nations that already agree with Russia, giving them all the strength and initiative to create new institutions if it proves impossible to reform the existing ones. He says what is necessary to say, to gain what is possible to gain, and from his good heart to lend us all strength. I call this sufficient.
Furthermore, it’s clear that Putin believes that nothing is black and white, and that there are always areas for discussion and negotiation. Even if the elites are plundering the resources of the world in a frenzy because of climate change – and I believe this is completely true – President Putin reminds us that there may still be vast opportunities for compromise and accommodation.
We don’t know how deeply the global bankers control Russia. We don’t know how well the institution of government can actually protect the interests of ordinary people against the depredations of the money interest. In the US it has failed. But Russia will try, I think that’s apparent. Russia will try to negotiate such a thing over the years.
Remember, as the US slowly diminishes and other nations arise, global bankers will seek to strengthen their control there also, and it may not be possible to use the tool of zionism as a parasite the way it was used against the US. Other methods may be needed. But negotiation will never stop being an instrument that can make a situation better than it otherwise would have been.
On the issue of why Putin does not denounce climate engineering, i cannot tell but what i read months ago that he actually propugnated it, if we are to believe (!) The Guardian (UK), http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/19/russia-un-climate-report-geoengineering
and then the most remarkable
which altogether seems to me a lot of pressure on Putin to concede to the program. Recall, Moscow’s forests were burning in 2010 and Krasnodar was washed away by a sudden storm at 4 am with people dying in their beds out of water rise.
Other sources in internet claim that there might be an agreement between Russia and the White ETs, and against the AZs and the Dracos, to stop it.
or perhaps, as with 911, he is waiting for another occassion to place all out to ample visualization.
There is something very strange which both Mozgovoi and the ukrs in their recent first teleconference had both mentioned: that there is a third party which is stoking war. both declined to identify it. So, the issue of EXOPOLITICS may be coming out to the fore
It was an awesome speech
You can view it here :
Putin is the best world leader out there…….the only person that can stop U.S hegemony once and for all.
I watched the entire conference…I was extremely impressed with Putin, that he did not shirk from any difficult questions including those from British and U.S journalists. He provided adequate answers to nearly all questions. When have you seen a U.S president provide sincere answers or not have pre-selected questions organized for them?
Wayoutwest, 25 October, 2014 17:06, said:”…Why is a Fascist coup acceptable in Egypt and not in Ukraine?” perhaps a search for the background of “Morsi” would enlighten the understanding.
Its a great speech but Putin should have made it at the UNGA last month not here. Its exactly the speech that was needed to mobilize world opinion behind Russia. Especially when compared to Obama’s speech and UNGA.
Too bad the forum was wrong!
Admiration and worries from Paul Craig Roberts: Putin is the leader of the moral world:
“As an American, try to image any known American politician, or for that matter any professor at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or Stanford capable of giving an address to an educated discussion group of the quality of Putin’s remarks. Try to find any American politician capable of responding precisely and directly to questions instead of employing evasion.
No one can read Putin’s remarks without concluding that Putin is the leader of the world.
In my opinion, Putin is such a towering figure that Washington has him marked for assassination. The CIA will use one of the Muslim terrorists that the CIA supports inside Russia. Unlike an American president, who dares not move among the people openly, Putin is not kept remote from the people. Putin is at ease with the Russian people and mingles among them. This makes him an easy target for the CIA to use a Chechnya terrorist, a Jihadist suicide bomber, or the traditional “lone nut” to assassinate Putin.
The immoral, wicked, and declining West is incapable of producing leadership of Putin’s quality. Having defamed Putin, assassinating him will cause little comment in the Western media.
@ wayoutwest 25 October, 2014 17:06
I have to disagree about the alleged Russian hypocrasy in Egypt vs Ukraine. I’m not a Sisi supporter. The key difference is that the US instigated the coup in Ukraine while Russia had nothing to do with the coup in Egypt. It attempted cordial relations with Morsi and when he was overthrown, pursued cordial relations with the new military government. As far as Russia was concerned, the coup was an internal Egyptian matter and they weren’t going to get in the middle of it.
If every country had that attitude it would be a more peaceful world.
P.S. I wouldn’t call the Egyptian government fascist. Militarist, yes. But Egypt does not have, or at least I have not noticed, any ethnic supremacists of the Prawy Sektor, Sloboda type.
This sounds odd [at least to my ears and mind], but having listened to many speeches of famous and illustrious people, Putin’s speeches [many others, not only this one] do come across the way JFK looked at this world. Where W & Obombi speak/spoke of war, fear and destruction, both JFK and Mr. Putin seem to be very rational and do trigger a spark of hope that, one day, we might very well inhabit a just world.
I just saw a headline [Has Putin Cancer?’ which tells me the MSM control freaks are becoming desperate.
There is a bit too much of theater in international politics four me to be comfortable with Putin good and Atlanticist NWO bad. For instance did the West win the Cold War? Did the KGB really lose? There are commentators who are unclear on to who won since it was a stage managed collapse that got out of hand with a bit of asset looting by the wrong people. I also ponder the China card in this game. Who benefits by building up China and keeping the criminally corrupt CCP in power? Soros and his gang like the CCP. I am an ordinary dude, no special training in this area, but it does seem to me that the USA is being used to help a certain type agenda that might be more obscure than White hat vs, Black hat. The silence on 9/11 or 7/7 is curious.
while I can but admire President Putin for what is fighting for and for the clarity of his vision, at the same time I cannot dismiss a feeling that he is too “idealist”, too “naïve” perhaps in dealing with Western criminal voltures. Or may be the President has “so many different faces”, and the one is wearing now is the “diplomat”,: I have not yet seen “brutal force”, and in this no one seems superior to the Anglo. Putin regrets the loss of lives, even enemies’ lives, while for US-UK-EU individual lives are only numbers.
Apparently Putin still does not know what really happened on 911 – and who did it (Zionist Israel). How can the world take this man seriously if he fails to understand that 911 is THE issue of our time?! I am grieved that he just pooh-poohed it!
response to ‘grieved’ at 23:29
your comments are absolutely the best and most appropriate about President Putin’s speech. I have been pessimistic about the future of life on the planet – until now. President Putin has given me reason for hope.
EXOPOLITICS (what I call the ALIEN AGENDA) is THE taboo topic which nobody (human) is allowed to mention in a Sochi-like setting of world leaders! The ALIENS (humanoid reptilians) are in TOTAL CONTROL and are continuing to DECEIVE the world population! Putin has a role to play in this “Theatre of the Absurd”.
The Egyptian color revolution which lead to the rise of the Islamic Brotherhood with the support of the Saudis, was an anticipation of what is occuring in the Middle East.
Actually, there was a rift between the zionists and the usaians, with the latter backing the IB as part of the reinstatement of the caliphate. The military were not happy with the whole process at all, and particularly with the civil war that the IB started. So bye bye to Mubarak, but they did grab strongly the control of their country which was falling to complete anarchy. If one wishes to think in terms of American labels such as “democracy” which do not work for real in the USA, neither one can understand other countries where they hardly matter at al. After all, “Zion is the only democracy on the Middle
East”, so one may ask the few Israeli thinkers outside the racial box what do they think of their “democracy” and they respond: FASCIST (see the recent book by Shlomo Sand, Why i stopped being Jewish). Perhaps the Americans reading this blog may call their “representatives” and ask them about geoengineering in California,New Orleans, the NAS spying them on their very beds, their nation once taken by many -out of lack of information- as a light for the nations that now has become an obvious global menace to life.
Wednesday gas talks do or die for Ukraine. Will Putin stand firm?
Dear Anonymous 23:41
Thank you for posting the articles about Putin’s alleged support for climate engineering. If true, this is deeply disappointing, as I thought Putin was more intelligent than this. Perhaps the articles were wrong. I certainly hope so.
Putin is a national treasure and savior for Russia. I hope the Russian people appreciate what they have with putin.
Simply extraordinary – the only real leader the world has had since JFK.
As PCR has highlighted, President Putin is now assassination target number 1.
Lysander, I don’t want to be too critical of Putin because I believe he saved Russia from complete desmemberment after the fall of the USSR.
I do think it is dangerous and ultimately counterproductive to see him as something he is not, a savior. He is a Capitalist Autocrat who wants to join the Capitalist World Class as an equal to fulfil his vision for Russia. His vision may be less extreme and controlling than that of the US but it will also lead to the destruction of the planet.
He didn’t have to emphasize his opinion about the Egyptian regime in this speech so this is not just about cordial relations. Putin made it clear that democratic processes are secondary concerns at least where Arabs are concerned.
Egypt has been under a Fascist Military regime since 1952 and while it doesn’t have the racial or ethnic component it meets my and Mussolini’s definition as to the combination of the State with the interests of the Capitalist Class, much as we have in the US.
Up to this moment significant part of antiglobalist movement did perceive Putin as yet another part of global ‘estabulls**tment’ as he has to deal with his corrupt oligarch, has to meet with other global figures and so on. Now I would say, that with such amount of hate from people like Obama or Soros with speeches like this one Putin might become very popular figure among antiglobalists of all sorts. He is the first leader of a big power who dares to publicly speak out what many people – antiglobalists in particular – were thinking for years if not decades.
@Robert Snefjella said,
26 October, 2014 01:12,
I agree that President Putin is risking too much given the situation. Clearly it is a target to beat and we’ve all seen falling towers as high or even much less high.
Clearly he likes to approach and share with people, but sometimes I get nervous watching how he is exposed.
The only place I have seen a consistent security was on his recent visit to Serbia. On his arrival at the airport and until he left it almost always surrounded front and back by those Serbs as high as towers.
It may be that President Putin prefers risk to have a more normal life. Actually, with the troubles that has a position such as his, especially taking into account the current position of Russia in the world, receiving warmth and recognition of people is one of the few things that outweigh the sacrifice.
This also applies to other professions also very sacrificed.
“Good Bye, Lenin ?: The concentration of economic power as the fundamental cause of the economic crisis and the current global violence”
On the causes of the crisis and the global chaos, recent analysis of Mikel Itulain. At the end, link to pdf document with a must read: “Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism” by V.I. Lenin.( I think essential to understand the actual world ).
My Valdai comments:
Remarkable how Putin is able to talk coherently for three hours, where Anglo’s remain the kings of the scripted oneliners and not much else.
Well I have seen the link to the Lenin’s book in the article of Mikel Itulaín I have linked above does not work.
See if that. It is an indispensable classic and since is available as free knowledge …. then seized. It does not take a Marxist / Leninist. I consider general knowledge.
Well the link above perhaps takes you to “JV Stalin Library”, so then choose at down “Lenin Collection”, and below choose “Capitalism Highest Stage of Capitalism”.
I can not link directly to PDF, but this way, stakeholders have a comprehensive library for understanding the history of Russia and the world.
With regards to those comments above that said Putin wasn’t clear on who has created and sponsored ISIS: Putin is actually very clear on this during the discussion, see full video as of 2:00:00
Concerning 911, Putin apparently believes it is wiser not to question it publicly at this time. Either for strategic reasons, or because he can’t prove it 100%, or because the US/Israel can blackmail him as well. As we all know, his own ascent to power is also somewhat shrouded in mystery, some even speak of a KGB/FSB coup.
Arunhot C Stegiel said…@ 26 October, 2014 01:54
“got out of hand with a bit of asset looting by the wrong people.”
Complete control cannot be exercised in any interactive lateral system.
In such systems there is no winning and no losing; which fortunately many don’t perceive.
The “looting” served various multi-purposes.
I agree that especially in realpolitik, the economy and politics are connected. In place of “economy” substitute “practicality.” It’s trouble making an impractical “political” or diplomatic decision.
This natural predicament holds the most of us in check. Someone opined above that he would join the actual fight, but for his “girlfriend and cat.”
But when the economic situation dominates politics, then you have a closer approximation of the situation. We’ve all been reduced by Soros types to a kind of inconsequentiality. But our financial rulers make a critical error in what I call the “show me state,” of comprehending the world. Unless many of us actually witness proof, we are incapable of the analytic, or reasoning ability to think it through.
Global warming, not in back yard (yet.). As long as our “show me” financial leaders fail to comprehend that the human species is not composed of populations that don’t matter, either in far off cultures, then in their native lands either by logical deduction, humanity from which they are or have become like many “capitulators” entirely disengaged, will come up and bite them in the goodness of time.
It’s a natural phenomenon I think. The fact that people are not actually cattle for slaughter, and supply and demand for individual fortunes, but thinking beings, whose lives are all connected and important in their own rights. Anyone who has separated himself from this comprehension, has created a moral fallacy.
I strongly agree with your comments.
Btw it would be nice if the new blog included a user appreciation counter (f. ex. 1-5 stars)
Putin does not intend to preside over the breakup of Russia nor the reduction of Russian influence in the world. This is clear. What is not clear and cannot be clear is to what extent the West is implementing a strategy on several tracks and which track is dominant. For instance, the West is making the Neo Liberal Putin into a white knight. Why? The West is implementing stupid strategic policies that weaken it’s global order, in theory for oil, yet the primary beneficiary is China. China gets oil from Iraq and rare Earths from Afghanistan. This is more like a GO game than chess. I also find it interesting that other commentators have described the EU as a kind of Soviet. Is it feasible that the West is more Red than modern Russia? What would that mean? Merkel is former Stasi for example and other EU leaders have curious pasts as well.
on theme of the sick rampaging braindead zombie video game culture (not mentioned by pootin, but a microcosm of the thinking & behavior of the country at large scale), check this out–it’s been going on for awhile, but it’s now being done for kicks & ratings.
In each case, SWAT teams dispatched to the scene found no violent criminals or wounded victims — only video game players sitting at their computers, the startled victims of a hoax known as “swatting.”
No one knows for sure what is the official Russian policy on climate change. The Russian Academy of Sciences is a blackbox, surely full of AZs elements, and as far as i know, this is the case, extending too to Lomonosov State Univ. Moscow.
They invite them to visit the West, massage their egos and so it goes on. Not rarely, scientists in most of the world are corrupt to the bone either by ignorance or by betrayal of the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of money, honors, etc
Pshaw. Putin can’t hold a candle to American leaders.
If this were Barack Obama (or any other American ruler) making this speech, it would go something like this:
“America is Exceptional. We are the indispensible nation!”
“You’re either with us or with the terrorists.”
“Freedom! Democracy! Human Rights! Pussy Riot!”
And of course…
“God Bless America! Support our Troops.”
Mindless regurgitation of patriotic propaganda and non-sequiter sloganeering is what passes for American democrazy.
“He is a Capitalist Autocrat who wants to join the Capitalist World Class as an equal to fulfil his vision for Russia. His vision may be less extreme and controlling than that of the US but it will also lead to the destruction of the planet.”
Putin is not well described as a capitalist and is not an autocrat.
The latter word refers to absolute power, while Putin is elected by the people of Russia, stepped down in conformity with the law, and is very concerned about honouring both legality and morality. Most heads of state have great power, both in fact and in effect. But that’s not necessarily autocracy.
The word capitalist covers much territory, beginning with, in simple terms, a capitalist is basically anyone who has money and invests it.
If you are saying that Putin’s ideology is that of say a George Soros, well then, that’s way, way out.
Putin has demonstrated realism, tactical and strategic acumen, patriotism, and spiritual concerns. Realism includes the understanding that capitalism writ large is presently an important part of the ‘conglomeration.’ Thus: gotta use it, deal with it, and try to keep it sane and beneficent.
I think it’s a bit unfair to jump on a particular statement that he makes – such as politics and the economy not mixing – and seeing that as a definitive statement. I would interpret that as a rather unfortunate shorthand way of stating that he is for a bias on behalf of liberty in the economy, as opposed to the central control of any variation of Statism, the oligarchic/governmental merger of fascism, or Stalinism, etc.
“there is something remarkable in the exchanges between Mozgovoi and the Ukrs through teleconferences, now the second just completed, in which it was revealed that alike in Maidan, both parties are certain that there is a third agency which works to stoke out war by staging provocations. Anyone?”
I can easily imagine 2 candidates:
1. The neonazis: if they could provoke the NAF to hit the Ukies hard enough that would (maybe) break Poroshenko.
2.Komoloisky: a maximum of casualties on both sides are certainly desirable for him.
Any other candidates or objectives?
i was recently interested in cfr, ltc,bilderberger, etc. having read some history. The above book is a recent list of 15000 names of members of these groups from all walks of life. TPTB, if you will. Everyone meets to coordinate what to say in the press or “vote” on in congress, etc. So it is just a fake democracycontrolled by a few rich guys, that started it. I guess Putin is no member but a couple Chinese were kin Denmark in May at Bilderberger conference. EU, Euro, etc. came from these guys. The idea of all these people getting together seems reasonable from rockefeller, rothschild perspective to avoid ww1,ww2 type chaos. It is like smoke filled rooms used to pick presidents earlier. Now they do that so primaries are a joke and press headlines propaganda. He who does not play along has little future in business, press,politics. In USSR you had to have a party card and tow the party line. It is that way in Europe and America.
I read udo ulfkotte’s book in german “gekaufte journalisten”. He lived through this scene for 17 years. I thought reading about merkel’s stasi past was a shock. Now i see that the entire political class is rotten to the core. The cia, cfr, all their clubs in each country wine and dine young influential people, give them favors, get dirt on them until they can’t get out. It is mafia like you read herbert hoover tactics but more subtle, comprehensive, global scope. They seem to take no chances. I bet they blackmail the pope.
The deep state marches on–NOTHING impedes it except when in the end, sometime, we get a total collapse.
a glaring example of this rarely mentioned is just answer for yourself if at any time during/after the collapse of first USSR ca 1989, then russia 1998, “Did the Antarctic bases Russia has there for generations get sold off, or repoed, or undergo any change?”.
Then “Did the space stations situation & the financing of ever shutdown, or change owner/occupants?”
BTW, to note is that pootin’s long speech was obviously 100% prepared/written by script writers, he hasn’t the time, so then why would his every action/inaction in his Dayplanner not be the same?
timely book out in a few weeks this seasoned old writer:
How do Wall Street, oil companies and the shadow government agencies like the CIA and NSA really shape the global political order?
That’s the question author Peter Dale Scott examines in his forthcoming book “The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil and the Attack on U.S. Democracy,” due out on Nov. 12. Scott, a professor emeritus of English at Berkeley and former Canadian diplomat, is considered the father of “deep politics”—the study of hidden permanent institutions and interests whose influence on the political realm transcends the elected.
Many critics of Putin tend to misunderstand what his obligations, objectives and constraints are.
His first duty and obligation is to Russia. Not to the American left, 911 debunkers, Novorussia, China, Syria, Iran or even the world. Its Russia.
This does not mean that all those others don’t matter. They do. But Putin must approach them from the perspective of Russia’s interests. At least for now (If the global order suffers a catastrophic collapse, it will be in Russia’s interests to ‘save’ the world.)
Putin is also constrained by Russia’s real i.e ‘hard’ power. Its military and economic might. This is minimal compared to his opponents. Furthermore Russian hard power is of a binary nature. Its either too little or too much. Which is to say, there’s not much Russia can do militarily against NATO without going nuclear. And there’s not much Russia can do economically against the West without cutting off the gas i.e the economic nuclear option.
This severely constrains Russia’s options for deployment of hard power against the west. This, by the way, is one of two reasons for no military intervention in USKraine and no major retaliatory sanctions.
Now, Russia’s apparent power exceeds its actual power. Putin can gain some room for maneuver by pushing Russia’s apparent or perceived power. As Stalin said, there is no difference between appearing to have power and having power. Which is true with one caveat. If you just have apparent power, you must not allow yourself to be in a situation where you must exercise real power.
In this situation the threat is more powerful than its execution. Thus the threat of direct Russian military intervention in Ukraine is a more powerful tool (for Russia’s interests) than actual intervention. Same goes for the threat of full scale Russian sanctions against Europe.
The space between Russia’s apparent power and Russia’s actual power is where Putin must maneuver, very carefully. Hence all the behind the scenes machinations and caution.
I just wish this was tinfoil conspiracy but it’s not.
USA supported Nazis in europe to crush Socialism communism. (Then they bombed them)
CIA had nazi specialists in counter insurgensy [counter revolutionary] brought to Brazil in South America post war
Operation Aerodynamic post war Nazis infiltration in Ukraine.
The infamous Dr Death, Mengele, lived in Paraguay and Brazil, as a CIA agent, and travelled to USA for several missions. The fuhrer died in Argentina in the 1970s, and the Mossad surely was aware of this.