Interview of President Vladimir Putin by journalist Charlie Rose — September 27, 2015

 

An important and interesting interview covering many topics despite Charlie Rose’s manner being patronizing and embarrassingly familiar at times. Not all of this was televised or translated correctly by CBS.

Posted on the Kremlin website http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50380

Interview to American TV channel CBS and PBS

Vladimir Putin gave an interview to American journalist Charlie Rose in the run-up to his address at the UN General Assembly’s 70th session.

September 29, 2015

CHARLIE ROSE: I want to thank you for inviting us to your home on what I would have described as a lovely Russian Sunday afternoon. You call it Old Wives’ summer.

We will do our interview, it will be broadcast on Sunday, and the next day you will speak to the United Nations in a much-anticipated address. It will be the first time you have been there in a number of years. What will you say to the UN, to America, to the world?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Since this interview will be aired prior to my speech, I do not think it reasonable to go into much detail about everything I am going to speak about, but, broadly, I will certainly mention some facts from the history of the United Nations. Now I can already tell you that the decision to establish the United Nations was taken in our country at the Yalta Conference. It was in the Soviet Union that this decision was made. The Soviet Union, and Russia as the successor state to the Soviet Union, is a founding member state of the United Nations and a permanent member of its Security Council.

Of course, I will have to say a few words about the present day, about the evolving international situation, about the fact that the United Nations remains the sole universal international organisation designed to maintain global peace. And in this sense it has no alternative today. It is also apparent that it should adapt to the ever-changing world, which we discuss all the time: how it should evolve and at what rate, which components should undergo qualitative changes. Of course, I will have to or rather should use this international platform to explain Russia’s vision of today’s international relations, as well as the future of this organisation and the global community.

CHARLIE ROSE: We are expecting you to speak about the threat of the Islamic State and your presence in Syria that is related to that. What is the purpose of your presence in Syria and how does that relate to the challenge of ISIS?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I believe, I am pretty certain that virtually everyone speaking from the United Nations platform is going to talk about the fight, about the need to fight terrorism, and I cannot avoid this issue, either. This is quite understandable because it is a serious common threat to all of us; it is a common challenge to all of us. Today, terrorism threatens a great number of states, a great number of people – hundreds of thousands, millions of people suffer from its criminal activity. And we all face the task of joining our efforts in the fight against this common evil.

Concerning our, as you put it, presence in Syria, as of today it has taken the form of weapons supplies to the Syrian government, personnel training and humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. We act based on the United Nations Charter, i.e. the fundamental principles of modern international law, according to which this or that type of aid, including military assistance, can and must be provided exclusively to legitimate government of one country or another, upon its consent or request, or upon the decision of the United Nations Security Council. In this particular case, we act based on the request from the Syrian government to provide military and technical assistance, which we deliver under entirely legal international contracts.

CHARLIE ROSE: The Secretary of State John Kerry said that the United States welcomed your assistance in the fight against the Islamic State. Others have taken note of the fact that these are combat planes and manpad systems that are being used against the conventional army, not extremists.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is only one regular army there. That is the army of Syrian President al-Assad. And he is confronted with what some of our international partners interpret as an opposition. In reality, al-Assad’s army is fighting against terrorist organisations. You should know better than me about the hearings that have just taken place in the United States Senate, where the military and Pentagon representatives, if I am not mistaken, reported to the senators about what the United States had done to train the combat part of the opposition forces. The initial aim was to train between 5,000 and 6,000 fighters, and then 12,000 more. It turns out that only 60 of these fighters have been properly trained, and as few as 4 or 5 people actually carry weapons, while the rest of them have deserted with the American weapons to join ISIS. That is the first point.

Secondly, in my opinion, provision of military support to illegal structures runs counter to the principles of modern international law and the United Nations Charter. We have been providing assistance to legitimate government entities only.

In this connection, we have proposed cooperation to the countries in the region, we are trying to establish some kind of coordination framework. I personally informed the President of Turkey, the King of Jordan, as well as the Saudi Arabia of that, we informed the United States too, and Mr Kerry, whom you have mentioned, had an in-depth conversation with our Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on this matter; besides, our military stay in touch and discuss this issue. We would welcome a common platform for collective action against the terrorists.

CHARLIE ROSE: Are you ready to join forces with the United States against ISIS and is it why you are in Syria? Others believe that it might be part of your goal, that you are trying to save President al-Assad’s administration because they have been losing ground and the war has not been going well for them, and you are there to rescue them.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: That’s right, that’s how it is. We provide, as I have said twice during our interview and can repeat again, we provide assistance to legitimate Syrian authorities. Moreover, I strongly believe that by acting otherwise, acting to destroy the legitimate bodies of power we would create a situation that we are witnessing today in other countries of the region or in other regions of the world, for instance, in Libya, where all state institutions have completely disintegrated.

Unfortunately, we are witnessing a similar situation in Iraq. There is no other way to settle the Syrian conflict other than by strengthening the existing legitimate government agencies, support them in their fight against terrorism and, of course, at the same time encourage them to start a positive dialogue with the “healthy” part of the opposition and launch political transformations.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, some coalition partners want al-Assad to go before they can support the government.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to advise or recommend them to forward this suggestion not to al-Assad himself, but rather to the Syrian people. It is only up to the Syrian people living in Syria to determine who, how and based on what principles should rule their country, and any external advice of such kind would be absolutely inappropriate, harmful and against international law.

CHARLIE ROSE: We have already discussed this earlier, but do you think that President al-Assad, who you support… Do you support what he is doing in Syria and what is happening to those Syrians, to those millions of refugees, to hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed and many – by his own force?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: And do you think that those who support the armed opposition and, mainly, terrorist organisations just in order to overthrow al-Assad without thinking of what awaits the country after the complete destruction of state institutions are doing the right thing? We have already witnessed that, I have already mentioned Libya. That was not so long ago. The United States actively contributed to the destruction of these state institutions. Whether they were good or bad is a different question. But they were destroyed, and the United States suffered grave losses after that including the death of its ambassador. Do you understand what this leads to? That is why we provide assistance to the legal government agencies precisely, but – and I would like to stress it again – we do it hoping that Syria will launch political transformations necessary for the Syrian people.

Time and again, with perseverance worthy of a better cause, you are talking about the Syrian army fighting against its people. But take a look at those who control 60 percent of Syrian territory. Where is that civilised opposition? 60 percent of Syria is controlled either by ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra or other terrorist organisations, organisations that have been recognised as terrorist by the United States, as well as other countries and the UN. It is them and not anyone else who have control over 60 percent of Syrian territory.

CHARLIE ROSE: You are worried about what might happen after al-Assad. You are worried about anarchy; you look at the threat of ISIS. Are they different? Are they unique as a terrorist organisation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It has become unique because it is going global. They have set a goal, which is to establish a caliphate on the territory stretching from Portugal to Pakistan. They already lay claims to the sacred Islamic sites like Mecca and Medina. Their actions and their activities reach far beyond the boundaries of the territories under their control.

As for the refugees, Syria is not their only country of origin. Who is fleeing Libya? Who is fleeing the countries of Central Africa where Islamists are in charge today? Who is fleeing Afghanistan and Iraq? Do the refugees come from Syria only? And why do you think that the Syrian refugees flee only as a result of President al-Assad’s actions to protect his country? Why don’t you think that the refugees flee from the atrocities of terrorists, from ISIS, who decapitate people, burn them alive, drown them alive and destroy cultural monuments? People flee from them too, they flee mainly from them. And from the war – this is clear. But there would be no war if these terrorist groups were not supplied with arms and money from the outside. It seems to me that somebody wants to use either certain units of ISIS or ISIS in general in order to overthrow al-Assad and only then think about how to get rid of ISIS. This task is difficult and, in my opinion, practically impossible.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you fear that they may come to Russia? Do you fear that if it does not stop now they may come to Russia from Europe or even to the United States and that is why you have to step in because no one else is doing what’s necessary to lead the charge against ISIS?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Indeed, few actors take serious steps to combat this threat. Few actors take serious effective measures. We learned about the effectiveness of the actions of our American partners during the Pentagon report in the US Senate. To tell the truth, their effectiveness is low. You know, I am not going to speak ironically here, or pick or point at anyone. We propose cooperation, we propose to join efforts.

Are we afraid or not? We have nothing to be afraid of. We are in our country and we are in control of the situation. But we have undergone a very difficult path of combating terrorism, international terrorism in the North Caucasus. That is point number one.

Point number two is that we know for certain that today there are at least 2,000 and may be even more than 2,000 militants in Syria who are from Russia or other former Soviet republics and, of course, there is the threat of their return to Russia. And this is why it is better to help al-Assad do away with them there than to wait until they come back here.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, but you say that you stepped in because you did not think that the job was being done well and you listen to what is going on in the American Senate, you heard the results and you said that Russia must act.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We are already acting and we have always acted this way. We have cooperated with many countries and we continue to cooperate, including with the United States. We constantly send to our colleagues through special services’ channels the information necessary for the American special forces in order to make our contribution to ensuring security and safety, including safety of American citizens both in the United States and beyond. But I think that this level of coordination is insufficient today; we need to work more closely with each other.

CHARLIE ROSE: In your opinion, what is the strategy that you are recommending, other than supporting the al-Assad regime?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have already said, we should help President al-Assad’s army. And there is no one else at all who is fighting ISIS on the ground, except for President al-Assad’s army. So, I want you, your audience to finally realise that no one except for al-Assad’s army is fighting against ISIS or other terrorist organisations in Syria, no one else is fighting them on Syrian territory. Minor airstrikes, including those by the United States aircraft, do not resolve the issue in essence; in fact, they do not resolve it at all. The work should be conducted on the spot after these strikes and it should all be strictly coordinated. We need to understand what strikes are needed, where we need to strike and who will advance on the ground after these strikes. In Syria, there is no other force except for al-Assad’s army.

CHARLIE ROSE: Would Russia deploy its combat troops in Syria if it is necessary to defeat ISIS?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia will not take part in any field operations on the territory of Syria or in other states; at least, we do not plan it for now. But we are thinking of how to intensify our work both with President al-Assad and our partners in other countries.

CHARLIE ROSE: What does it mean?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It means that our armed forces will not take part in hostilities directly and they will not fight. We will support al-Assad’s army…

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you mean airstrikes?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I mean war, combat operations on the territory, the infantry and motorised units.

CHARLIE ROSE: What else will be required? As we come back to the problem of many people considering that al-Assad is helping ISIS, that his terrible attitude towards the Syrian people and the use of barrel bombs and other actions are helping ISIS, and if he is removed, the transition period would be better at some point for the purposes of fighting ISIS.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: In secret services’ parlance, I can say that such an assessment is a blatant act by al-Assad’s enemies. It is anti-Syrian propaganda, there is nothing in common between al-Assad and ISIS, they fight against each other. And I repeat once again that President al-Assad and his army are the only force that actually fights ISIS.

CHARLIE ROSE: But there were reports earlier saying that you were getting ready to provide support to them, and that what you wanted to see was a negotiated political transition.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We think that the issues of political nature should be solved in any country, including in Syria, primarily by its people – in this case by the Syrian people themselves. But we are ready to provide assistance both to the Syrian authorities and the healthy opposition for them to find some points of contact and agree on the political future of their country. It is for this purpose that we have organised a series of meetings between the representatives of the opposition and al-Assad’s government in Moscow. We took part in the Geneva Conference on this issue. We are ready to further act in this direction, urging sides, the official authorities and the opposition leaders, to agree with each other exclusively through peaceful means.

CHARLIE ROSE: The Washington Post wrote today: ”Into the vacuum of American leadership has stepped Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has dispatched troops and equipment to Syria in an effort to force the world to accept his solution to the war, which is the creation of a new coalition to fight the Islamic State that includes the Assad government“. It is interesting that they say you have stepped into a certain vacuum of American leadership. This is what The Washington Post writes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We are not stepping into the vacuum of American leadership, we are trying to prevent the creation of a power vacuum in Syria in general because as soon as the government agencies in a state, in a country are destroyed, a power vacuum sets in, and that vacuum is quickly filled with terrorists. This was the case in Libya and Iraq; this was the case in some other countries. The same is underway in Somalia, the same happened in Afghanistan. And challenging American leadership is not at stake.

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, a vacuum is an issue. It seems that you are a little irritated by one point: you are talking about a strong centralised government being Russia’s DNA and you have a huge fear that there is no strong government in Syria and in other countries, that there is some sort of anarchy.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am not saying that there is no strong government there. I mean that if there was no government at all, there would be anarchy and a vacuum, and the vacuum and the anarchy would soon evolve into terrorism.

For instance, in Iraq, there was a famous person, Saddam Hussein, who was either good or bad. It was at a certain stage (you might have forgotten, haven’t you?) that the United States actively collaborated with Saddam when he was at war with Iran: weapons were supplied, diplomatic and political support was provided and so on. Then the US fell out with him for some reason and decided to do away with him. But when Saddam Hussein was eliminated, the Iraqi statehood and thousands of people from the former Baath party were also eliminated. Thousands of Iraqi servicemen, who were part of the state’s Sunni elite, found themselves thrown out into the street. No one gave a thought about them, and today they end up in the ISIS army. That is what we stand against.

We are not against a country exercising leadership of any kind anywhere, we are against thoughtless actions that lead to such negative situations that are difficult to rectify.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, Iran’s representative General Soleimani has recently visited Moscow. What role will he as well as the Kurdish forces play in Syria? And what needs to be done in this respect?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As I have already said, I think that all countries of the region should join their efforts in the fight against a common threat – terrorism in general and ISIS in particular. It concerns Iran as well, it concerns Saudi Arabia (although the two countries do not get along very well, ISIS threatens both of them), it concerns Jordan, it concerns Turkey (in spite of certain problems regarding the Kurdish issue), and, in my opinion, everybody is interested in resolving the situation. Our task is to join these efforts to fight against a common enemy.

CHARLIE ROSE: This wording is very broad, among other things, it can mean new efforts by Russia to take up the leadership role in the Middle East and it can mean that it represents your new strategy. Is it really a new strategy?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we have already mentioned why we increasingly support al-Assad’s government and think about the prospects of the situation in the region.

I have already said it, you asked about it yourself and I replied. There are more than 2,000 militants in Syria from the former Soviet Union. So instead of waiting for them to return back home we should help President al-Assad fight them there, in Syria. This is the main incentive that impels us to help President al-Assad.

In general, we, of course, do not want the situation in the region to somaliarize, we do not want any new Somalias there because this is all in close vicinity of our borders; we want to develop normal relationships with these countries. We have traditionally, and I want to stress it, traditionally been on very friendly terms with the Middle East. We expect it to stay this way in the future.

CHARLIE ROSE: You are proud of Russia and it means that you want Russia to play a more significant role in the world. This is just one of the examples.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is not an end in itself. I am proud of Russia and I am sure that the vast majority of Russian citizens have great love and respect for their Motherland. We have much to be proud of: Russian culture and Russian history. We have every reason to believe in the future of our country. But we have no obsession that Russia must be a super power in the international arena. The only thing we do is protecting our vital interests.

CHARLIE ROSE: But you are a major power because of the nuclear weapons you possess. You are a force to be reckoned with.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I hope so (laughing), otherwise what are these weapons for? We proceed from the assumption that nuclear weapons and other weapons are the means to protect our sovereignty and legitimate interests, not the means to behave aggressively or to fulfil some non-existent imperial ambitions.

CHARLIE ROSE: When in New York, will you request a meeting with President Obama?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Meetings of this kind are arranged in advance. I know that during such events every second, let alone minutes, of President Obama’s day are scheduled, there are many delegations from all over the world, so…

CHARLIE ROSE: You think he will not have a spare minute for the President of Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, it is up to him. We are always open for contacts of any kind: at the highest level, at the level of ministries and agencies, at the level of special services, if necessary. But I would be happy if President Obama finds a few minutes for a meeting and then, of course, I would appreciate such a meeting. If for some reason it would not be possible for him, never mind, we will have an opportunity to talk at the G20, or at other events.

CHARLIE ROSE: You know, if you’d like to see the President, you can say: ”I have a plan for Syria, let’s work together. Let’s see what we can do. Not only let’s work together on Syria, let’s see what we can do on other things.“

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, the thing is that these are difficult issues; they can be finalised only at the top level between the presidents, but before that preparations are needed with preliminary consultations between foreign ministers, defence ministries, and special services. This means a lot of work and if this work is ready to be completed, then it makes sense to meet and complete it. If our colleagues have not approached the final stage, President Obama and I can meet, shake hands and discuss current issues, we – and I am personally – are always ready for such contacts.

CHARLIE ROSE: But we are talking about leadership and if you are going there to make a big speech you want the President of the United States to fully be on board as much as he can. Once you pick up the phone and call him and say… Same as you did after our conversation in St Petersburg, you called the President. You said, ”Let’s make sure we meet and discuss some issues. The issues that are too critical and the two of us can do better than one of us.“

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, I have done so, I have called President Obama, and President Obama called me on various issues. This is part of our regular contacts, there is nothing unusual or extraordinary about it. Let me repeat once again: any personal meetings are usually prepared by our staff. I tell you for the third time that we are ready, but it is not just for us to decide. If Americans want to meet, we will meet.

CHARLIE ROSE: Your need to prepare is none because you deal with these issues every day. You need no preparation to see the President of the United States, nor does he. This is a diplomatic nicety you are suggesting. But I hear you; you are prepared to meet him.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: For how long have you been a journalist?

CHARLIE ROSE: For more years than I want to remember.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is difficult for me to advise you on what you are ready or not ready for. Why do you think that you can advise me on what I am ready or not ready for, as this is not my first term as President? But this is not the most important thing. What is most important is that Russia – the President of Russia, its Government and all my colleagues – we are ready for these contacts at the highest level, at the level of governments, ministries, agencies. We are ready to go as far as our American partners. Incidentally, the UN platform was created precisely for this, to seek compromise, to communicate with one another. So it will definitely be nice if we make use of this platform.

CHARLIE ROSE: What do you think of President Obama? What is your evaluation of him?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not think I am entitled to assess the President of the United States. This is up to the American people. We have good personal relationship with President Obama, our relations are quite frank and business-like. And this is quite enough to do our job.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you think his activities in foreign affairs reflect a weakness?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Why? I do not think so at all. The point is that in any country, including the United States, may be in the United States even more often than in any other country, foreign policy is used for internal political struggle. An election campaign will soon start in the United States. They always play either Russian card or any other, political opponents bring accusations against the current head of state, and here there are a lot of lines of attack, including accusations of incompetence, weakness, of anything else. I do not think so and I will not meddle in America’s internal political squabbles.

CHARLIE ROSE: Let me ask you this question: Do you think he listens to you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think that we all listen to each other when it does not contradict our own ideas of what we should and should not do. But, in any case, there is a dialogue and we hear each other.

CHARLIE ROSE: You said Russia is not a super power. Do you think he considers Russia an equal? Considers you an equal? Which is the way you want to be treated?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: (Laughing) Ask him, he is your President! How can I know what he thinks? I repeat we have peer-to-peer interpersonal relationships, we respect each other in any case and we have business contacts at quite a good working level. And what do the American President, the French President, the German Chancellor, the Japanese Prime Minister or the Chinese Premier of the State Council or the Chinese President think, how do I know? We judge not by what seems to us, but by what people do.

CHARLIE ROSE: Of course. You enjoy the work, you enjoy representing Russia, and I know you have been an intelligence officer. Intelligence officer knows how to read other people; that’s part of the job, right?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It used to be my job. Now I have a different job and for quite a while already.

CHARLIE ROSE: Someone in Russia told me, “There is no such thing as a former KGB man. Once a KGB man, always a KGB man.”

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know every stage of your life has an impact on you. Whatever we do, all the knowledge, the experience, they stay with us, we carry them on, use them in one way or another. In this sense, yes, you are right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Once, somebody from the CIA told me that the training you have is important, that you learn to be liked as well. Because you have to charm people, you have to seduce them.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, if the CIA told you so, then it must be true. They are experts on that. (Laughing)

CHARLIE ROSE: Think out loud for me though, because this is important. How can the United States and Russia cooperate in the interest of a better world? Think out loud.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We think about it all the time. One of our objectives today is very important for many people, for millions of people on our planet – it is joining efforts in the fight against terrorism and other similar challenges: countering drug trafficking and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, fighting famine, preserving environment and biodiversity, taking efforts to make the world more predictable, more stable. And, finally, Russia…

CHARLIE ROSE: Stable where?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Everywhere, in all parts of the world. You mentioned yourself that Russia and the United States are the biggest nuclear powers, this leaves us with an extra special responsibility. By the way, we manage to deal with it and work together in certain fields, particularly in resolving the issue of the Iranian nuclear programme. We worked together and we achieved positive results on the whole.

CHARLIE ROSE: How did it work? President Obama has often thanked you for the assistance that you gave in reaching the final accord. What did you do? What did you negotiators contribute, your Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The thing is, however strange it may seem, that the interests of the United States and of the Russian Federation do coincide sometimes. And in this case, I just told you that we have a special responsibility for non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, our interests certainly coincide. That is why together with the United States we worked hard and consistently on resolving this problem. Russia was guided not only by these reasons but also by the fact that Iran is our neighbour, our traditional partner, and we wanted to bring the situation back on track. We believed that this settlement will help to improve the security situation in the Middle East. In this respect, our assessments of what happened on Iran’s nuclear programme almost fully coincide with the assessments of our American colleagues.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, the Republicans are likely to win the elections. There is a big debate as for the Iran’s nuclear deal. What would you tell them?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have just said it. If you need me to repeat it, I can. I am confident that the agreement we have achieved meets the interests of international security, strengthens the situation in the region, puts serious obstacles to proliferation of nuclear weapons because this situation is under a full and all-round control of the IAEA, and improves the situation in the Middle East on the whole, because it allows to build normal business, commercial, partner and political relations with all countries in the region.

CHARLIE ROSE: The popularity rating you have in Russia, I believe, makes every politician in the world envious. Why are you so popular?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is something that unites me and other citizens of Russia. It is love for our Motherland.

CHARLIE ROSE: It was an emotional moment at the time of the [World War II Memory], because of the sacrifices Russia had made. And you were staying with a picture of your father with tears in your eyes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, my family and my relatives as a whole suffered heavy losses during the Second World War. That is true. In my father’s family there were five brothers and four of them were killed, I believe. On my mother’s side the situation is much the same. In general, Russia suffered heavily. No doubt, we cannot forget that and we must not forget, not to accuse anyone but to ensure that nothing of the kind ever happens again. As a matter of fact, we treat veterans with much respect and that includes the American veterans. They were at our Victory Parade on May 9, this year. We remember the sacrifices that suffered other allied nations, Great Britain, China. We do remember that. I believe that this is our common positive memory. Our joint struggle against Nazism will still be a good basis to cope with the challenges we are facing today.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is that what you would like to rekindle, the sense of partnership with America against common enemies?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Not against common enemies, but in each other’s interests.

CHARLIE ROSE: As far as we know, you are very popular, but, forgive me, there are many people who are very critical towards you in Russia. As you know, they say it is more autocratic than democratic. They say that political opponents and journalists had been killed and imprisoned in Russia. They say your power is unchallenged. And they say that power, an absolute power corrupts absolutely. What would you say to those people who worry about the climate, the atmosphere in Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There can be no democracy without observing the law and everyone must observe it – that is the most basic and important thing that we all should remember.

As for those tragic incidents as losses of lives, including those of the journalists, unfortunately, it happens in all countries around the world. But if it occurs in Russia, we take every step possible to ensure that the perpetrators are found, identified and punished. We will work on all issues in the same way. But the most important thing is that we will continue improving our political system so that people and every citizen will feel that they can influence the life of state and society, they can influence the authorities, and so that the authorities will be aware of their responsibility before those people who gave their confidence to the representatives of the authorities in the elections.

CHARLIE ROSE: If you as the leader of this country insist that the rule of law be observed, if you insist that justice be done, if you because of your power do that, then it could go a long way eliminating that perception.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: A lot can be done, but not everyone immediately succeeds in everything. How long has it taken the democratic process to develop in the United States? Since it was founded. So, do you think that as regards democracy everything is settled now in America? If this were so, there would be no Ferguson issue, right? There would be no other issues of similar kind, there would be no police abuse. Our goal is to see all these issues and respond to them timely and properly. The same applies to Russia. We also have a lot of problems.

CHARLIE ROSE: The people who killed Nemtsov will be prosecuted to the fullest?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I said it at once that this is a disgraceful chapter of our contemporary history and that the criminals must be found, identified and punished. And despite the fact that the investigation has been underway for a long time, it will eventually be concluded.

CHARLIE ROSE: You know that I admire Russia and the Russian culture very much, its literature, its music. It is a large country, a big country. Many people, including Stalin, have said Russia needs a strong, authoritative figure. They worship what Stalin said was that kind of figure. Was Stalin right?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No. I don’t remember him saying that so I cannot confirm these quotes. Russia, as well as any other country, does not need dictators, but it needs equitable principles of organizing the state and society: just, effective, flexibly responding to changes inside and outside the country – that is what Russia needs.

CHARLIE ROSE: But there is a tradition of strong leadership here.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Look, there is parliamentary democracy in most European countries, there is parliamentary democracy in Japan, there is parliamentary democracy in many countries, but in the United States, for some reason, the State is organized differently, there is quite a stringent presidential republic. Each country has its own particular features, its own traditions that find their reflection today and will find it in future. There are such traditions in Russia but it is not a question of a strong figure, although a strong figure is needed in power, it is a question of what is implied by this term. It is one thing if it is a person with dictatorial tendencies. But if it is a fair leader, who acts within the law and in the interests of a vast majority of society, who acts coherently and is guided by principles, it is a completely different matter.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, some have called you a tsar.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: So what? You know, they call me different things, you know what they say in Russia…

CHARLIE ROSE: Does this title fit you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, it doesn’t. You know what they say in Russia: ”Hard words break no bones“. It is not what your supporters, friends or your political adversaries call you that matters. What is important is what you think you must do in the interests of the country, which put you in such position, such post as the Head of the Russian State.

CHARLIE ROSE: Are there people in Russia who are fearful of you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not think so. I assume most people trust me, if they vote for me in elections. And it is the most important thing. It places great responsibility on me, immense responsibility. I am grateful to the people for that trust, but I surely feel great responsibility for what I do and for the result of my work.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, you are very much talked about in America.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Do they not have anything else to do? ( Laughs.)

CHARLIE ROSE: Or maybe they are curious people? Or maybe you are an interesting character, maybe that is what it is? They see you, first of all, as a strong leader who presents himself in a strong way. They know that you were the KGB agent, who retired and got into politics. In St. Petersburg you became deputy mayor, then moved to Moscow. And the interesting thing is that they see these images of you, bare-chested man on horseback, and they say there is a man who carefully cultivates his image of strength. I am asking is this image important to you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am sure that, after all, any man in my place should set a positive example for other people. In those areas where he can do so, he must do so. In the 1990s and early 2000s, there was a grave social situation in Russia; our social protection system was destroyed; numerous problems emerged which we have not been able to cope with effectively yet, to get rid of them, in health, sports development. I believe a healthy lifestyle is an extremely important thing which underpins solution to numerous important problems, including the health of the nation. It is impossible to solve health problems of millions of people with the help of pills. People need to put it into practice, have passion for it; healthy lifestyle, fitness and sports should become fashionable.

That is why I believe it is right when not only me, but also my colleagues – the prime minister, ministers, deputies of the State Duma – when they, like today, for example, participate in two marathons, when they visit football matches, when they themselves take part in sport competitions. That is how, inter alia, millions of people start feeling interest in and love for fitness and sports. I believe it is extremely important.

CHARLIE ROSE: I hear you and it is important. But may I suggest that you do like the image that you present bare-chested, on a horseback. The image of a strong leader. That’s who you want to be seen as, for your people and for the world?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I want everyone to know that Russia in general and the Russian leadership, it is something effective and properly functioning. That the country itself, its institutions, leaders are represented by healthy, capable people who are ready for cooperation with our partners in every single area: sports, politics, fight against modern threats. I have nothing but a positive feeling about it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, people believe that you are a strong leader, because you have a strong central government and you can suggest what will happen if you do not have that. Are you curious about America more than simply another nation that you have to deal with? Because they are curious about you as I suggested. Are you curious? Are you watching the republican political debates?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If you ask me whether I watch them on a daily basis – I would say no. But it is interesting for us to know what is happening in the US. It is a major world power, and today it is an economic and military leader – no doubt about it. That is why America has a strong influence on the situation in the world in general. Of course, it is interesting for us to know what is happening there. We closely follow the developments in the US, but if you wonder whether we follow the ups and downs of their political life on a daily basis – I would rather say no than yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, Donald Trump, you know who he is, said he would like to meet you, because, he said, you would get along.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Oh, yes, I have heard about it. We welcome any contacts with the future US president, whoever he or she will be. Any person who gains trust of the American people may rest assured of our cooperation.

CHARLIE ROSE: Marco Rubio is running for a Republican nomination and he says terrible things about you. This is a political debate, a political campaign, of course, I understand that. But he said you were a gangster, he was attacking you and he was attacking Russia.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: How can I be a gangster, if I worked for the KGB? It is absolutely ridiculous.

CHARLIE ROSE: What do you like most about America?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: America’s creative approach to solving the problems the country is faced with, its openness and open-mindedness which make it possible to unleash the potential of the people. I believe that largely due to these qualities America has made such tremendous strides in its development.

CHARLIE ROSE: Russia had Sputnik, your country got to space before the United States. Russia has extraordinary astrophysicists. Russia has extraordinary achievements in medicine, in science, and in physics. Do you hope that what you can do is restore Russia’s leadership and create the same kind of innovation, that you just admired America for? And will you do that?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We should not lose what has been created over the previous decades, and provide precisely those conditions that I have mentioned to unlock the potential, the full potential, of our citizens. Our people are very talented, we have a very good basis, as you have mentioned. You said you love Russian culture, which is also a great basis for the inner development.

You have just mentioned Russian scientific achievements. We need to maintain them and create opportunities for people to develop freely and fulfil their potential. I am sure, I am totally convinced, that it will ensure sustainable development of science, high technology, and the entire economy of the country.

CHARLIE ROSE: In America, as you know, the Supreme Court discussed the issue of homosexuality. In America the Supreme Court discussed a constitutional right for same sex marriage. Do you applaud America for that? Do you think it is a good idea to make it a constitutional right for same-sex marriage?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know that it is a diverse group of people. For example, some homosexuals oppose adoption of children by these couples, oppose themselves. Are they less democratic than other members of this community, gay-community? No, probably not. This is simply a point of view of some people. The problem of sexual minorities in Russia has been deliberately made controversial in Russia. There is no such problem in Russia.

CHARLES ROSE: Please, explain it to us.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let me explain. It is well known that homosexuality is a criminal offense in the United States, in four US states. If it is good or bad, we know the decision of the Constitutional Court, but this problem has not been dealt with yet, it is still being addressed by the legislation of the Unites States. It is not the case in Russia. In the post-Soviet Russia…

CHARLES ROSE: Do you condemn it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, I do. I think that a person cannot be criminally or otherwise prosecuted, his or her rights cannot be infringed upon the grounds of nationality, ethnicity or sexual orientation in the modern world. It is absolutely unacceptable. And it is not the case in Russia. If I am not mistaken there was Article 120 in the Penal Code of the former RSFSR that prosecuted homosexuality. We have abolished this provision; people aren’t prosecuted for it anymore. Homosexuals in Russia live in peace, work, are promoted, receive national awards for their achievements in science, art or any other sphere, medals are awarded to them, I have awarded them myself.

What was the question? The question concerned the ban on promoting homosexuality among minors. To my mind, there is nothing undemocratic about this legal act. Personally, I think that children should be left alone, they should be given an opportunity to grow up, to become aware of themselves and decide themselves who they are: men or women, if they want to have a traditional or homosexual marriage. I do not see here any infringement on gay rights. I think that some people intentionally speculate about this issue to represent Russia as an enemy. It is one of political instruments to attack Russia.

CHARLES ROSE: Who commits those attacks on Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Those who do this. You just look who does this.

CHARLES ROSE: There is as much recognition of gay rights and gay marriages as they have in the US? Is that your position?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We do not only recognise, but ensure their rights. In Russia all people enjoy the equal rights, including homosexuals.

CHARLES ROSE: Ukraine, we have already discussed it. Many people believe that as a result of what happened in Crimea the United States and the West imposed sanctions. And those sanctions have hurt Russia. And that you believe [that by re-emerging and] that by trying to be a positive force around the world and in Syria you might somehow lessen the focus on Ukraine.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You mean to divert attention from the Ukrainian issue? Our actions in Syria are aimed at diverting attention from Ukraine…

No, it is false. The Ukrainian issue is a separate huge issue for us, I will tell you why. Syria is another issue; I have already told you that we are against disintegration, the terrorists coming to the country, the return of people who are fighting there for terrorists to Russia. There is a whole range of problems there. As for Ukraine, it is a special issue. Ukraine is the closest country to us. We have always said that Ukraine is our sister country and it is true. It is not just a Slavic people, it is the closest people to Russia: we have similar languages, culture, common history, religion etc.

Here is what I believe is completely unacceptable for us. Addressing issues, including controversial ones, as well as domestic issues of the former Soviet Republics through the so-called coloured revolutions, through coups and unconstitutional means of toppling the current government. That is absolutely unacceptable. Our partners in the United States are not trying to hide the fact that they supported those opposed to President Yanukovych.
Some claimed to have spent nearly several billion dollars.

CHARLIE ROSE: You believe the United States had something to do with the ousting of Yanukovych, when he had to flee to Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN.: I know this for sure.

CHARLIE ROSE: How can you know for sure?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is very simple. We have thousands of contacts and thousands of connections with people who live in Ukraine. And we know who had meetings and worked with people who overthrew Viktor Yanukovych, as well as when and where they did it; we know the ways the assistance was provided, we know how much they paid them, we know which territories and countries hosted trainings and how it was done, we know who the instructors were. We know everything. Well, actually, our US partners are not keeping it a secret. They openly admit to providing assistance, training people and spending a specific amount of money on it. They are naming large sums of money: up to $5 billion; we are talking about billions of dollars here. This is why it is no longer a secret; no one is trying to argue about that.

CHARLIE ROSE: Doyou respect the sovereignty of Ukraine?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Certainly. However, we would like other countries to respect the sovereignty of other states, including Ukraine, too. Respecting the sovereignty means preventing coups, unconstitutional actions and illegitimate overthrowing of the legitimate government. All these things should be totally prevented.

CHARLIE ROSE: How does the renewal of the legitimate power take place in your judgment? How will that come about? And what role will Russia play?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: At no time in the past, now or in the future has or will Russia take any part in actions aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government. I’m talking about something else right now – when someone does this, the outcome is very negative. Libya’s state is disintegrated, Iraq’s territory is flooded with terrorists, it looks like the scenario will be the same for Syria, and you know what the situation is in Afghanistan. What happened in Ukraine? The coup d’état in Ukraine has led to a civil war, because, yes, let’s say, many Ukrainians no longer trusted President Yanukovych. However, they should have legitimately come to the polls and voted for another head of state instead of staging a coup d’état. And after the coup d’état took place, someone supported it, someone was satisfied with it, while others were not. And those who did not like it were treated from the position of force. And that led to a civil war.

CHARLIE ROSE: I repeat, what are you prepared to do regarding Ukraine?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let me tell you. If that is your question, then I think that both Russia and other international actors, including those who are more actively engaged in the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis (that is the Federal Republic of Germany and France, the so-called Normandy Quartet, certainly, with close involvement of the United States, and we have intensified our dialogue on this issue), we should all be committed to the full and unconditional implementation of the agreements that were achieved in Minsk. The Minsk Agreements have to be implemented.

CHARLIE ROSE: That is what John Kerry said yesterday after his meeting with the British Foreign Minister. He mentioned Ukraine after Syria. He said: ”We have to have a full implementation of the Minsk Agreements“. Does it mean that you and John Kerry agree on this issue: to implement the Minks Agreements?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, we fully agree. Would you now exercise your patience and listen to me for two minutes without interruptions? I ask you not to censor this information. Can you do that? Do you have enough authority for that?

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, I do.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The implementation of the Minsk Agreements involves several issues, but I will get to the core points. Nothing matters for a drastic change in Ukraine more than political transformations.

Firstly, the Constitution should be amended as stipulated in the Minsk Agreements. And the most important thing, Minsk Agreements say that it must be done in coordination with Donetsk and Lugansk. It is a matter of principle. Right now Ukraine is in the process of amending its Constitution, the first reading is over, yet no one had discussed a single point with Donetsk and Lugansk, and nobody intends to either. That is the first point.

Secondly, (and it is clearly stated in the Minsk Agreements) the law on the special order for local self-government in these regions, which has already been adopted in Ukraine, has to be implemented. The law has been adopted, but its implementation was postponed. It means that the Minsk Agreements have not been implemented.

Thirdly, an amnesty law needs to be adopted. Do you think that it is possible to have a dialogue with the representatives of Lugansk and Donetsk if they all are being prosecuted and subject to criminal proceedings? That is exactly why the Minsk Agreements establish to adopt an amnesty law. However, it has not been adopted.

There is a number of other points. I mean conducting local elections, for instance, the Agreements say clearly to adopt a law on local elections in coordination with Donetsk and Lugansk. The law on local elections was adopted in Ukraine, the representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk forwarded their proposals on this law three times, but no one ever responded, though the Minsk Agreements say clearly: ”by agreement with Donetsk and Lugansk.“ You know, I respect and even like John Kerry, he is an experienced diplomat, he told me once, that he opposed Star Wars at some point, and he was right. Perhaps, if it was he who had to decide on the ABM, now we might have had no conflict regarding ballistic missile defense. However, he slants as far as the situation in Ukraine is concerned. The one side, Kiev, says that it has done a lot and implemented the Minsk Agreements, but it is not the case, since these actions should be agreed upon with Donetsk and Lugansk. However, there is no coordination at all.

As to the implementation of the already adopted law on the special order for local self-government in these regions, the Minsk Agreements state that it should be done ”within 30 days“. Nothing has been done, the implementation has been postponed. That is exactly why we stand for the full and unconditional implementation of the Minsk Agreements by both sides, in strict accordance with the Agreements’ language, rather than its biased interpretations.

CHARLIE ROSE: I gave you four minutes and I did not interrupt, did I?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I could see that you tried hard not to interrupt. I am very grateful to you for that.

CHARLIE ROSE: You are right, I enjoyed your speech.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: In fact, I am telling you the truth.

CHARLIE ROSE: Americans are going to see you the way they have never seen you. You are more conversational and expressive. It is good, indeed.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you. In fact, everything that I have said is absolutely true. Do you understand it? The Minsk Agreements will not help to solve the issues if Kiev acts unilaterally all the time, though the Minsk Agreements state ”by agreement with Donbass“. [There is no coordination.] It is a matter of principle.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you really think so?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is not much to think about, everything is written, the only thing to do is to read it. It is stated ”by agreement with Donetsk and Lugansk“, just read the document. I am telling you, there is no coordination there, that’s it. It is stipulated: ”to introduce a law on the special status within 30 days“. But it has not been introduced. The question is: who does not implement the Minsk Agreements?

CHARLIE ROSE: You have mentioned the Secretary of State; he also said that it is important not only to implement the Minsk Agreements but also for separatists to give up the idea of independent elections. John Kerry said that yesterday.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am familiar with the position of our American friends, and this is what I have to say. I have just said that, but it seems that I have to repeat. This is what the Minsk Agreements say about local elections: ”To pass a law on local elections by agreement with Donetsk and Lugansk“. What happened instead? Kiev passed the law on its own without any kind of discussion with Donetsk and Lugansk whatsoever and completely disregarding the draft project they had sent three times. There was no dialogue at all; they just passed the law without consultations. Moreover, the law adopted by Kiev states that no elections are to be held in Donbass. Now, what kind of law is that? In fact, they have prompted the representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk to hold elections of their own. That’s it. We are ready to discuss these issues with Mr. Kerry, but, first of all, we have to ensure that both sides implement their written commitments, instead of trying to pass their own initiatives off as something good.

CHARLIE ROSE: I hear you, but I wanted to repeat this, because Secretary Kerry emphasized separatists’ elections. Yes, I really hear you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: In this case, the Secretary of State Kerry is dodging as a diplomat, but that is fine, this is his job. All diplomats dodge, and he is doing the same.

CHARLIE ROSE: You would never act like that, would you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would not do that. I am not a diplomat.

CHARLIE ROSE: Who are you? How do you see yourself?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am a human being, a citizen of the Russian Federation, a Russian.

CHARLIE ROSE: You also said that the worst thing that happened in the last century was the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Soviet empire. There are those who look at Ukraine and Georgia and think that you do not want to recreate the Soviet empire, but you do want to recreate a sphere of influence, which, you think, Russia deserves because of the relationship that has existed. Why are you smiling?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: (Laughing) Your questions make me happy [Kristina Rus on Fort Russ translates this: “You are making me smile (laugh).”]. Somebody is always suspecting Russia of having some ambitions, there are always those who are trying to misinterpret us or keep something back. I did say that I see the collapse of the Soviet Union as a great tragedy of the XX century. Do you know why? First of all, because 25 million of Russian people suddenly turned out to be outside the borders of the Russian Federation. They used to live in one state; the Soviet Union has traditionally been called Russia, the Soviet Russia, and it was the great Russia. Then the Soviet Union suddenly fell apart, in fact, overnight, and it turned out that in the former Soviet Union republics there were 25 million Russians. They used to live in one country and suddenly found themselves abroad. Can you imagine how many problems came out?

First, there were everyday issues, the separation of families, the economic and social problems. The list is endless. Do you think it is normal that 25 million people, Russian people, suddenly found themselves abroad? The Russians have turned out to be the largest divided nation in the world nowadays. Is that not a problem? It is not a problem for you as it is for me.

CHARLIE ROSE: How do you want to solve this problem?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We want to, at least, preserve the common humanitarian space within the modern civilized framework, we want to ensure that there are no national boundaries, so that people could freely communicate with each other, and we want the joint economy to develop using the advantages that we inherited from the Soviet Union. What are they? They include the common infrastructure, railway transport, road network, power system and finally, I dare say, the great Russian language, which unites all former republics of the Soviet Union and gives us clear competitive advantages in promoting various integration projects in the former Soviet Union area.

You have probably heard that we had established the Customs Union first and then transformed it into the Eurasian Economic Union. When people communicate freely, when labour force, goods, services and funds move freely as well, when there are no state dividing lines and when we have common legal regulation, for example, in the social sphere — all that is good enough, people should feel free.

CHARLIE ROSE: Did you have to use the military force to accomplish that objective?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Of course, no.

CHARLIE ROSE: Russia has military presence on the borders with Ukraine, and some argue that there have been Russian troops in Ukraine itself.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Do you have a military presence in Europe?

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The US tactical nuclear weapons are in Europe, let us not forget this. Does it mean that the US has occupied Germany or that the US never stopped the occupation after World War II and only transformed the occupation troops into the NATO forces? That is one way of seeing it, but we do not say that. And if we keep our troops on our territory on the border with some state, you see it is a crime?

CHARLIE ROSE: I did not say it was a crime.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: All the processes that I mentioned, the natural economic, humanitarian and social integration, do not require any armed forces. We have established the Customs Union and the Eurasian Economic Union not by force, but through a compromise. It was a challenging, complicated, multi-year process based on agreement, compromise and mutually acceptable conditions in the hope of creating for our economies and for our people better competitive advantages in the world markets and in the world as a whole.

CHARLIE ROSE: So, why are we talking about this? Tell me about the Baltic states and your intentions towards the Baltic states.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We would like to build friendly and partnership relations with them. Many Russians have been living there since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They are being discriminated there, their rights are being violated. Do you know that many Baltic states have invented something new in the international law? What citizenship-related notions did the international law have before? The answer is: a citizen, a foreigner, a stateless person and dual nationals, or people with dual citizenship. The Baltic republics have invented something totally new. Do you know what? They use the word ‘non-citizens’ for people who have been living for decades in the territory of Baltic states and have been deprived of a number of political rights. They cannot participate in the election campaigns; they have limited political and social rights. Everybody keeps quiet about it, as if this is the way it should be. Of course, this cannot but cause a certain reaction. I assume that our colleagues from both the United States and the European Union will proceed from current humanitarian law and ensure political freedoms and rights of all people, including those who are living in the territory of Baltic states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. As for economic relations, we have sustainable and highly developed contacts with these countries.

But, you know, there are some things that confuse me (to put it mildly).

CHARLIE ROSE: Confuse you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: They perplex me and disappoint me. We all say that we need to bring together our views, to pursue economic and political integration.

For example, the Baltic countries (I have already mentioned that since the Soviet times we have common power supply and power system) were, naturally, a part of the common energy grid of the Soviet Union. What are they doing now? Everyone seems to be talking about the convergence of Russia and the European Union. But what is really happening? Nowadays, there are plans to separate the Baltic states from the common power system of the former Soviet Union and to integrate them into the European system. What does it mean for us in practice? In practice, it means that a number of zones will emerge between several regions of the Russian Federation, where we will have no power transmission lines, since previously we used to have a loop transition through the Baltic countries. And it means that we will have to reform the system, spending billions of dollars, as well as our European partners who will also have to spend billions of dollars to integrate the Baltic countries into their power grid. What for? If we really seek some kind of joint work and integration, not just by words but also by deeds, what is the use of all this? And this is the case in many areas – they do the opposite of what they say.

In my opinion, these all are growth-related problems and I believe that common sense – in this or other area – will prevail in the end. We all are interested in an open development, without any prejudice; this refers particularly and, perhaps, primarily to the Baltic countries, for them it is more important than for Russia. Take, for example, Lithuania. Do you know, what was its population in the Soviet times? It was 3.4 mln people. It was a small country, a small republic. And what is it now? I have looked though the recent statistics, today the population of this country is 1.4 mln people. Where are the people? More than half of the citizens have left the country. Can you imagine a situation when more than half of the Americans left the territory of the United States? It would be a catastrophe! What does it mean? It means that the broken ties, first of all, in the economy, adversely affect all of us, including Russia. So, I am deeply convinced that we should abandon the phobias of the past, look forward into the future and, while acting on the basis of international law, establish good-neighbourly and equal relations.

CHARLIE ROSE: And, of course, we have to lift sanctions.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If somebody prefers to work by means of sanctions, he is welcome to do so. But sanctions are a temporary measure. Firstly, they contradict the international law. Secondly, tell me where this policy of sanctions proved to be effective. The answer is nowhere; and sanctions against such country as Russia are unlikely to be effective.

CHARLIE ROSE: Since the sanctions were imposed, even your friends are worried about the Russian economy, because of the sanctions first, but also because of declining oil prices. Is that a huge challenge for you? Is that a troubling global economic reality?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, the sanctions, as I said, are illegal actions, destroying the principles of the international global economy, the principles of the WTO and the UN. The sanctions may be imposed only by the decision of the UN Security Council. A unilateral imposition of sanctions is a violation of international law. Well, whatever, let’s put aside the legal aspect of the matter. Of course, they do damage, but they are not the main reason for the slowdown in the growth rates of the Russian economy or other problems related to inflation. For us, the main reason is, of course, the decrease in prices in the world markets of our traditional export goods, first, of oil and, consequently, of gas, and some other products. This is the core factor. Sanctions, of course, have a certain impact, but they are not of crucial and fundamental importance to our economy.

CHARLIE ROSE: Will you survive sanctions?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Naturally, beyond any doubts, it is even out of discussion. Sanctions even have a certain advantage. Do you know what is it? The advantage is that previously we used to buy many goods, especially in the area of high technology, with petrodollars. Today, amid the sanctions, we cannot buy or we are afraid that we will be denied access to hi-tech goods, and we had to deploy large-scale programs to develop our own high-tech economy, industry, manufacturing and science. In fact, we would have to do this anyway, but we found it difficult as our own domestic markets were filled with foreign products, and we found it very difficult to support our local manufacturers within the WTO regulations. Now, with the sanctions imposed and our partners having left our market voluntarily, we have an opportunity to develop.

CHARLIE ROSE: There are two more questions. You were President, Prime Minister and once again President. How long do you want to serve and what do you want to be your legacy? This is one question.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The period of my service will depend on two conditions. Firstly, of course, there are rules stipulated by the Constitution, and I surely will not infringe them. But I am not sure whether I should take full advantage of these constitutional rights. It will depend on the specific situation in the country, in the world and my own feelings about it.

CHARLIE ROSE: And what do you want your legacy to be?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia should be an effective and competitive state with a sustainable economy, developed social and political system flexible to changes domestically and globally.

CHARLIE ROSE: Should it play the main role in the world?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As I said, it should be competitive, be able to protect its own interests and influence the processes that are important to it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Many say that you are all-powerful and they believe you can have anything you want. What do you want? Tell America, tell the world what Vladimir Putin wants.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I want Russia to be the way I just described it. It is my greatest desire, I want the people here to be happy and I want our partners around the world to seek to develop relations with Russia.

CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you. Thank you, it was a pleasure.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you.

 

The complete degeneration of Ukraine’s system

September 29th, 2015

Lug-info – translated for Fort Russ by Paul Siebert

Political analyst Aleksei Blyuminov: “Complete degeneration of the Ukrainian management structure”

* Fort Russ translates for you an eye opening and compelling interview with Blyuminov on the actual and critical situation in Ukraine – highly recommended *

00000

Lug-Info – Aleksei, what is happening in the Ukrainian politics today?

– The country is steadily sinking into a systemic governmental and parliamentary crisis. Formally, the coalition in the parliament has not disintegrated yet, but everyone understands that there are forces that lead the parliament to early re-elections. Poroshenko is resisting in every way he can, eager to formally preserve the coalition. But the party of Lyashko has already abandoned it.  Now the faction of Timoshenko is next in line.

Lug-Info – In your opinion, who benefits from this?

– Oligarch Igor Kolomoisky is behind all this, if we consider domestic beneficiaries who want to grab their piece. Regarding foreign beneficiaries – this is more complicated, because Ukraine is under external control. If the parliament is dissolved, it means that this decision was agreed to in Washington. If Washington does not want early perturbations and it is satisfied with Poroshenko, then the dissolution of the parliament will not take place. It will be maintained half alive for some time: a month, two, three, four – for as long as it is needed.

Lug-Info – Can we assert that the leader of the far-right “Freedom” party Tyagnibok has been “sent packing”?

– It is difficult to say at the moment. We remember that after Mukachevo Poroshenko was shouting angrily threatening to punish those involved, but no one was arrested, everyone escaped in the woods. In the conflict near the Parliament in Kiev on August 31 it is the same story: the Pechersk court in Kiev will decide whether to arrest Shwaika (former Minister of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine, member of the “Freedom” party). In the coming days we will see how serious are the Prosecutor General, the police, etc. in relation to the “Freedom” party.

Lug-Info – In general, how do you assess the political situation in Ukraine?

– The political situation is absolutely unstable. There are no “fodder reserves” that could maintain stability. Roughly speaking, earlier, for example, under Yanukovych, this stability could be maintained by two things: the first – the legitimate state apparatus, and the second – the availability of some money. Now, both are missing. There are a lot of people who can toss grenades at the prosecutor’s office, and there is no money to cajole them.

Going back to the main problem – the regime is under external control, so all flames of instability are to be artificially extinguished. For example, there was a source of instability in the form Kolomoisky – he was removed after the mediation of the US Ambassador. There was a similar source of instability in the form of Nalyvaychenko: he was also removed. Therefore, external overseers are helping Poroshenko to keep the situation under control and consolidate his regime. Obviously, it cannot last forever, but as long as the Americans are interested in some kind of stability, they will not allow the spread of destabilizing tendencies.

Lug-Info – How important is the factor “of people returning from the front?”

– According to the association of owners of firearms (they are lobbying for legalization of the process), Ukraine is the largest supplier of illegal weapons to the EU. There have been some known attempts to smuggle multiple-launch rocket systems “Grad” across the country to Chernovtsi in order to sell them in Romania. We see that in all conflicts in Ukraine, including Mukachevo, heavy weapons are used. In Kiev, grenade explosions are heard and soon, in all probability, howitzers will be available. In spite of this, a more or less “glossy cover” of Ukraine is maintained yet.

Lug-Info – What about the situation in the Ukrainian economy?

– The economy is dead. According to the official data, the GDP has contracted by 12.5%. This demonstrates that the main branches of industry, which produced income: metallurgy, machine-building, chemistry, etc. – are in deep crisis. What more or less is still functioning to some degree is tied to the agricultural sector and exports through the port of Odessa. That is why, by the way, it is such a contested asset. Even lenders admit it.

Standard& Poor’s rating agency predicts that a default is inevitable. Not such a long time ago a technical default was admitted. But at the same time, due to political considerations, the same lenders say that they will continue to lend to Ukraine despite the fact that its economy is dead. Clearly, this is a purely political decision – to keep the bankrupt regime afloat. It cannot go on for a long time, but for some period they will be able to drag on.

Lug-Info – How will it look like?

– Without external credit borrowings Kiev is unable to form the budget for 2016. For this reason, Natalia Yaresko (Finance Minister) urges the Parliament to vote for all the conditions attached by the lenders as a package, blackmailing the deputies that otherwise default is inevitable. These conditions demand more severe cuts in all social programs, forcing the population to tighten their belts even more. Without this even the agreement about forgiving Ukraine 20% of its debt will not come into effect. But this debt write-off is not a victory. This means credit bondage, only delayed in time. Only the payment of the principal will be stretched for four years while the interest will be charged anyway. But this money will have to be returned by other people. Neither Yatsenyuk nor Yaresko will remain in their positions by then. However, it will be impossible to avoid a technical default. The government will have to impose a moratorium on debt payments in September and October. It is also necessary to return three billion dollars to Russia while Moscow made it clear that it is not going to forgive Ukraine’s debt.

Lug-Info – What is happening in the “social sphere”?

– In the social sphere there is a systematic reduction, squeezing, tightening of all social programs starting from the Chernobyl victims, pensioners, benefit recipients, and children of war. For example, in Kiev the categories of people who use public transportation for free have been significantly reduced. Only those people who have the so called “Kievite’s cards” have such a privilege. But this is a very small group. All other persons, including a huge number of migrants living in the capital of Ukraine illegally, do not have these preferential rights.

– And what about the prices?

– The prices are rising. On the one hand, the authorities caused the collapse of imports, on the other hand, exports crumbled as well. As a result, on paper the budget has reached equilibrium that is called deflation. In addition, without any sanctions and blockades, the assortment of goods in shops has been significantly reduced. For example, in the past there used to be 15 types of yogurt or mayonnaise, but now there are only three. What remains is the cheapest goods. There is no sense to sell expensive ones in mass retail stores.

Lug-Info – You mentioned the migrants. What is life like for refugees?

– Refugees from Donbas have no rights. There is a regime of internal segregation. Formally – you’re a citizen of Ukraine, you have a passport. But you need to be registered as a temporary migrant and receive a huge number of certificates. There are many problems when children go to a kindergarten or school. People also face domestic segregation when housing is not rented to people from Donetsk or Lugansk. I talk to many people, and I have a lot of examples. Plus, there are problems with employment records. In fact, people find themselves outside the legal environment. They periodically organize meetings in order to be legalized, to be given accommodation. If you have some financial reserves – you can rent an apartment, but if not …

– How do you assess the situation with the frozen conflict?

– With frozen conflicts there are no prospects to speak of, because the freezing does not provide a solution but postpones it indefinitely. In the hope that something will change under the influence of some external factors. We realize that the war may end only with a victory of one of the sides, it cannot end with a compromise. It is not possible. Compromise is a truce; it is not the end of the war. The simplest example: Some elements in Ukraine are enraged over the buying of coal from the enemy territory, from Donbas. In fact, these supplies should be legalized. Without this coal power plants will be stopped. The supplies of coal at the Ukrainian thermal power stations are left for only two weeks. That is, energetic collapse can occur at any moment. And the situation is becoming more precarious.

– Can you make any forecasts?

– Actually, it is difficult to make predictions. I personally see only one option – the end of the war. There are two examples of ending wars: the Vietnamese one, when a society is tired of the war and urges authorities to make peace and end the hostilities. And the second one is a military defeat of the enemy. Regardless of the scenario of solving the conflict, it will have different beneficiaries. It should be understood that the current regime in Kiev will never allow federalization of Ukraine. And there is no leverage to force it into it – Minsk agreements are brazenly flaunted by the Kiev regime.

– It seems that everything depends on the resources, including those resources received from the outside?

– From the perspective of an ordinary person who cannot rely on anything, yes. In Ukraine, the situation is worse than in Donbas. Donbas receives convoys with humanitarian aid, volunteers are collecting money. No one will deliver humanitarian aid to an ordinary poor Ukrainian. He has been left alone; there is nothing he can count upon.  He is lucky if he has relatives who can feed him or make money transfers. We also understand that in Donbas, for obvious reasons, in many cases utilities are not paid for, but no one has been evicted.

Lug-Info – Let’s go back to the refugees. Will they come back?

Those ones who are not able to settle somewhere, will look for possibilities to return. People, who are able to integrate in the Ukraine with some success, are unlikely to return. In general, the situation in the country is depressing. We are witnessing a complete degradation of the Ukrainian management structure.

In Ukraine, the Emergency Situations Ministry has been broken up. We have seen three waves of lustration. Thousands of people have been fired. They have been replaced by people from the street. And the results are obvious for anyone: peat bogs are burning, they cannot extinguish them. The system has been destroyed: lack of people, lack of professional skills, and lack of equipment. In normal times any environmental disaster would be overcome within two – three days. Now fires are raging in the Chernobyl forest. It is impossible to breathe with smoke billowing in the streets.

Another example. The police is being disbanded. Seasoned veterans are gone. They are replaced with 22-24 year old boys, with no experience at all, but with huge ambitions. At the same time we see an explosion of street crime: robberies, stabbings, hooliganism. Nobody is dealing with street crime. In front of a camera traffic violation fines are ostentatiously written to a high-ranking bishop or some politician. But this is a facade, and behind the facade …. Some foreigner comes to Ukraine, makes some photographs and goes back to write a book about the success of Ukraine’s reforms. He will not delve into crime statistics. He will make a selfie with a policeman dressed in the second hand American uniform – second hand from Texas Rangers, with American chevrons replaced by Ukrainian – that is all. The usual Saakashvili-style. Total window-dressing in everything …

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/09/ukraine-complete-degeneration-of-system.html

“Europa braucht Russland und Russland braucht Europa”; Erklärung des Willy-Brandt-Kreises für einen neuen europäischen Umgang mit der Ukraine-Krise

Sperrfrist: 21. Juli 2015, 12.00 Uhr!

Erklärung des Willy-Brandt-Kreises

Zum bedrohten Frieden –

für einen neuen europäischen Umgang mit der Ukraine-Krise

Europa durchlebt die schwerste Krise seit dem Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts. Nicht nur der Umgang mit Griechenland und den Flüchtlingsströmen hält den Kontinent in Atem, auch der mühsam ausgehandelte Waffenstillstand in der östlichen Ukraine ist brüchig. Solange der Konflikt um die Zukunft der Ukraine ungelöst ist, besteht die ständige Gefahr eines Abstur-zes.

Eine umfassende Friedensordnung für Europa, dieses Versprechen der Charta von Paris von 1990, ist unerfüllt geblieben. Doch Europa kann kein Interesse daran haben, die alte Rivalität der Supermächte USA und Sowjetunion fortzusetzen und Russland in die Knie zu zwingen. Das unterscheidet die europäische von der amerikanischen Interessenlage: Ohne Russland o-der gar gegen Russland kann kaum ein Problem gelöst werden, das Europa als Ganzes betrifft. Das zeigt die jüngste Geschichte: Russland und die Völker der Sowjetunion haben entschei-dend zur Befreiung Europas vom Faschismus beigetragen, aber auch zur deutschen Vereini-gung. Deutschland hat daher eine besondere Verantwortung, Russland als Partner in einer eu-ropäischen Friedensordnung zu gewinnen.

1990 schien diese Frage ein für alle Mal beantwortet: Russland als Mitarchitekt der europäi-schen Einigung, würde natürlich – wie auch die USA – ein Anker und ein gleichberechtigter Partner sein. Russland sah sich seither in seinen Erwartungen enttäuscht: Die Erweiterungspo-litik der EU und vor allem der NATO schloss eine Mitgliedschaft Russlands ausdrücklich aus: zu groß, zu komplex, hieß es damals – während einige Staaten im östlichen Europa das Ziel ihres Beitritts zur westlichen Allianz offen als Sicherheitsvorsorge vor Russland betrieben. Ohne eigene Beitrittsperspektive Russlands nährte die Erweiterung der westlichen Bünd-nisstrukturen alte russische Einkreisungsängste, welche nationalistische Reflexe und den all-mählichen Rückfall in das Denken in geopolitischen Kategorien und Einflusszonen begünstig-ten.

Die ukrainische Krise ist somit Ausdruck eines heraufziehenden russisch -euroatlantischen Großkonflikts, der in eine Katastrophe münden kann, wenn die sich bereits drehende Spirale des Wettrüstens, der militärischen Provokationen und konfrontativen Rhetorik nicht gestoppt wird. Wir wenden uns daher an alle verantwortlichen Politiker und friedensbewegten Bürger, aber vor allem ganz direkt an die SPD:

In dieser Situation ist eine mutige politische Initiative gefordert, vergleichbar jener, die nach Mauerbau und Kubakrise in der Hochzeit des Kalten Krieges den Ausbruch aus der Logik der Konfrontation mit der Sowjetunion wagte. Damals war es in Europa allen voran die deutsche Sozialdemokratie, die mit der neuen Ostpolitik Willy Brandts einer europäischen Entspan-nungspolitik den Weg ebnete. 2015 bedarf es ebensolchen Mutes und politischer Klugheit, um der drohenden Spirale neuerlicher Konfrontation und Spaltung Europas zu begegnen. Wir for-dern daher innezuhalten und einen Neustart der Beziehungen mit Russland zu wagen, bevor es für Alle und Alles zu spät ist!

(1) Die Ukraine-Krise lässt sich durch politische Sanktionen gegen Russland nicht lösen. Die tieferliegenden Ursachen der russisch-europäischen Entfremdung gehören auf die politische Tagesordnung europäisch-russischer Gipfelgespräche. Dauerhafter Interes-senausgleich gelingt nur durch Dialog und Verhandlungen. Die wirtschaftlichen Sank-tionen unterminieren die Entwicklung Europas als gemeinsamer Wirtschaftsraum. Zu-sammenarbeit ist ein Motor der Vertrauensbildung. Eine intakte Energieinfrastruktur, die durch die aktuellen Spannungen bereits in Mitleidenschaft gezogen wurde, liegt genauso im gemeinsamen Interesse wie wechselseitige Handelsbeziehungen.

(2) Die Europäische Union darf sich infolge ihrer Mitverantwortung für das Entstehen dieser Krise nicht der Mitwirkung an deren einvernehmlicher Lösung entziehen. Das Zusammenwirken von Deutschland, Frankreich und Polen mit der Ukraine und Russ-land beim Minsk II-Abkommen, ist ein innovativer Ansatz. Von dessen Umsetzung hängt es ab, gestörtes Vertrauen zurückzugewinnen. Aber eine breitere europäische Einbettung tut not. Deutschland muss hierfür im kommenden Jahr seine Verantwor-tung in der OSZE-Präsidentschaft in die Waagschale werfen und konzeptionell wie di-alogorientiert agieren.

(3) Weil auch die USA als wichtigster Partner der neuen ukrainischen Regierung eine hohe Verantwortung für die Lösung der Krise haben, sind alle Gremien wichtig, die Russland und die USA zusammenbringen. Gerade in Krisenzeiten bedarf es besonders engmaschiger Kommunikation. Daher sollten die G7 Russland sofort wieder einbezie-hen, der NATO-Russland Rat muss seine Arbeit schnellstmöglich wieder aufnehmen. Notwendige Krisenkommunikation darf nicht beschränkt oder gar verhindert, sondern muss ausgebaut werden.

(4) Die Einverleibung der Krim durch Russland ist ein Verstoß gegen internationale Ab-kommen und zugleich eine politische Realität, die nicht gegen den Mehrheitswillen der Bevölkerung der Krim rückgängig gemacht werden kann. Der Status Quo darf die Notwendigkeit der konstruktiven Zusammenarbeit mit den Beteiligten im gemeinsa-men europäischen Interesse nicht unterbinden.

(5) Die Ukraine-Krise ist auch das Ergebnis einer schwachen föderalen Struktur in einem noch jungen Staat. Nur eine starke föderale Ordnung kann das Land vor ethnischer Spaltung und drohender Sezession bewahren. Die Erfahrungen anderer europäischer Staaten mit föderalen Strukturen sollten von den Parteien in der Ukraine abgerufen werden können, wenn sie dies wünschen.

(6) Eine Mitgliedschaft der Ukraine in der NATO würde kein Mehr an Sicherheit bringen. Sie würde im Gegenteil russische Befürchtungen über die Ziele der NATO weiter be-feuern und die Risiken ungewollter militärischer Konfrontation noch erhöhen. Die Vertrauensbildung zwischen den politischen und militärischen Gremien aller europäi-schen Staaten, wie sie im Rahmen des „Wiener Dokuments” der OSZE, zuletzt 2011, vorgesehen ist, ist gerade in Krisenzeiten auszubauen.

(7) Die Ukraine-Krise gefährdet die europäische Rüstungskontrolle. Wettrüsten, die Ver-lagerung von militärischen Ausrüstungen und neue Truppenstationierungen beiderseits der russischen Grenze legen die Axt an das bestehende System von Verträgen. Die Be-teiligung deutscher Truppen bei der Aufstellung von „Eingreiftruppen” kann auf russi-scher Seite Erinnerungen an den deutschen Überfall auslösen und unnötig Öl ins Feuer gießen. Militärische Entflechtung, Nichtverbreitung und die Begrenzung von Waffen-arsenalen und Truppen sind Aufgaben, die keinen Aufschub dulden.

 

(8) Die im Zusammenhang mit der Ukraine-Krise erneut aufgebrochenen Drohungen mit dem Einsatz von Atom-Waffen sind alarmierend. Es droht eine Neuauflage der „Nach-rüstung” der 80er Jahre mit atomaren Mittelstreckenraketen in Europa. Atom-Waffen müssen endlich geächtet werden. In ihrer die ganze Welt erreichenden Vernichtungs-kraft müssen sie als prinzipiell nicht einsetzbar gelten.

(9) Die Friedensordnung Europas ist nicht nur eine Ordnung der Staaten. Sie beruht auf starken Zivilgesellschaften, grenzüberschreitender Zusammenarbeit in den Bereichen Kultur, Medien, Sport, Wissenschaft u.a.m. Auch durch die Neubelebung des europäi-schen Jugendaustauschs mit Russland und der Ukraine können stereotype Denkweisen überwunden und generationenübergreifend Impulse für ein besseres Verständnis von-einander – und ein gutes Verhältnis miteinander – gesetzt werden.

Europa braucht Russland und Russland braucht Europa. Wir stehen vor der Weichenstel-lung, in einen neuen, mehr oder weniger Kalten Krieg mit ungewisser Perspektive abzuglei-ten oder uns auf das Ziel einer gemeinsamen europäischen Friedensordnung zu besinnen.

Die Zeit zum Handeln ist jetzt!

Berlin, den 21. Juli 2015

Prof. Egon Bahr, Prof. Dr. Elmar Brähler, Prof. Dr. Peter Brandt, Volker Braun, Daniela Dahn, Dr. Friedrich Dieckmann, Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Gießmann, Prof. Dr. Lutz Götze, Prof. Dr. Ingomar Hauchler, Dr. Enrico Heitzer, Gunter Hofmann, Prof. Dr. Gustav Horn, Prof. Dr. Dieter Klein, Dr. Rainer Land, Dr. Hans Misselwitz, Dr. Irina Mohr, Prof. Dr. Götz Neuneck, Prof. Dr. Rolf Reissig, Dr. Edelbert Richter, Wolfgang Schmidt, Axel Schmidt-Gödelitz, Prof. Dr. Michael Schneider, Dr. Friedrich Schorlemmer, Ingo Schulze, Prof. Klaus Staeck, Prof. Dr. Walther Stützle, Antje Vollmer, Dr. Christoph Zöpel

Click to access 150721-zum-bedrohten-frieden-erklaerung-des-willy-brandt-kreises_juli2015.pdf

 

Rede von Sahra Wagenknecht in der Debatte des Bundestages: “Die Konfrontation mit Russland hat die Ukraine zerstört. Sie schadet ganz Europa”

English translation at https://freeukrainenow.org/2015/04/10/bundestag-speech-by-mp-sahra-wagenknecht-eu-policy-has-destroyed-ukraine-and-damaged-Europe/

From Sahra Wagenknecht.de
19.03.2015

“Holen Sie sich unser Geld bei den Banken und der griechischen Oberschicht zurück!”
Rede von Sahra Wagenknecht in der Debatte des Bundestages am 19.03.2015 zur Regierungserklärung zum Europäischen Rat am 19./20.03.2015

Zum Video der Rede

Dr. Sahra Wagenknecht (DIE LINKE):

Herr Präsident! Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Frau Bundeskanzlerin! Zu ihren besten Zeiten hatte die deutsche Außenpolitik zwei Prioritäten. Das waren die europäische Einigung und eine Politik der guten Nachbarschaft gegenüber Russland. Es sollte Ihnen schon zu denken geben, Frau Merkel – wenn Sie bitte zuhören könnten -,

(Volker Kauder (CDU/CSU): Das ist eine Frechheit!)

dass Nationalismus und Zwietracht in Europa, knapp zehn Jahre nachdem Sie das Kanzleramt übernommen haben, wieder gedeihen wie lange nicht mehr und im Verhältnis zu Russland die Entspannungspolitik einem neuen Kalten Krieg gewichen ist.

(Beifall bei Abgeordneten der LINKEN)

Die spezifischen US-Interessen in Europa hat vor kurzem der Chef des einflussreichen Thinktanks Stratfor in einer Pressekonferenz in eindrucksvoller Offenheit erläutert: Hauptinteresse der Vereinigten Staaten sei es, ein Bündnis zwischen Deutschland und Russland zu verhindern, denn – so wörtlich – „vereint sind sie die einzige Macht, die uns”, also die USA, „bedrohen kann”.

Diese vermeintliche Bedrohung von US-Interessen wurde auf absehbare Zeit erfolgreich erledigt. Das begann eben damit, dass die EU im Rahmen der Östlichen Partnerschaft versucht hat, die betreffenden Länder aus der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Kooperation mit Russland herauszubrechen.

(Claudia Roth (Augsburg) (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN): Das ist aberwitzig!)

Frau Merkel, natürlich war das gegen Russland gerichtet; aber es war eben auch nicht im Interesse der betreffenden Länder. Sie haben denen das Entweder-oder aufgezwungen, nicht Russland.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Im Ergebnis hat die Ukraine einen Großteil ihrer Industrie verloren. Heute ist dieses Land ein bankrotter Staat, in dem Menschen hungern und frieren und die Löhne niedriger sind als im afrikanischen Ghana.

Aber die Konfrontation mit Russland hat nicht nur die Ukraine zerstört. Sie schadet ganz Europa. Es ist doch ein offenes Geheimnis, dass die Vereinigten Staaten den Konflikt mit Russland auch aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen schüren. Wenn US-Regierungen von Menschenrechten reden, dann geht es in der Regel um Bohrrechte oder um Schürfrechte. Gerade in der Ukraine ist angesichts der großen Schiefergasvorkommen verdammt viel zu schürfen.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Wenn jetzt im Rahmen der Energieunion von neuen Pipelinerouten und einer zunehmenden Unabhängigkeit vom russischen Gas geredet wird, dann sollten Sie den Leuten ehrlicherweise sagen, was das bedeutet: wachsende Abhängigkeit vom wesentlich teureren und ökologisch verheerenden US-Frackinggas. Ich halte das nicht für eine verantwortungsvolle Perspektive.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Die Liste der ehemaligen deutschen Spitzenpolitiker, die Ihre Russlandpolitik kritisiert haben, Frau Merkel, ist lang. Da finden Sie die Namen Ihrer Vorgänger Gerhard Schröder, Helmut Kohl, Helmut Schmidt und ebenso Hans-Dietrich Genscher. Vielleicht hat das ja auch zu Ihrem Einlenken beigetragen. Auf jeden Fall war es richtig, dass Sie gemeinsam mit dem französischen Präsidenten Hollande die Initiative zu neuen Verhandlungen ergriffen haben. Minsk II hat immerhin dazu geführt, dass in der betreffenden Region seit Wochen deutlich weniger Menschen sterben als in den Wochen und Monaten davor und dass die Tür zu einer friedlichen Lösung geöffnet wurde.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Natürlich ist das ein wichtiges Ergebnis. Sie, Frau Bundeskanzlerin, und der französische Präsident verdienen dafür Anerkennung.

(Tino Sorge (CDU/CSU): Dann sagen Sie das doch auch mal!)

Wem aber an Frieden und Sicherheit in Europa liegt, der muss den Weg von Minsk II jetzt auch mit Konsequenz und Rückgrat weitergehen. Da ist es natürlich ein Problem, dass Konsequenz und Rückgrat nicht gerade zu Ihren hervorstechenden Eigenschaften gehören.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN – Widerspruch bei der CDU/CSU)

Laut OECD haben beide Seiten den Waffenstillstand wiederholt gebrochen. Sie, Frau Merkel, haben gerade wieder gefordert, dass die Sanktionen gegen Russland erst aufgehoben werden, wenn Minsk II umgesetzt ist.

(Beifall des Abg. Volker Kauder (CDU/CSU))

Natürlich ist es inakzeptabel, wenn aus den Reihen der Aufständischen immer noch geschossen wird.

(Tino Sorge (CDU/CSU): Inakzeptabel!)

Aber wenn ukrainische Truppen oder die auf ihrer Seite kämpfenden Nazi-Bataillone weiter schießen, dann ist das doch mindestens genauso inakzeptabel. Dazu hört man von Ihnen kein kritisches Wort.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Wieso melden Sie sich auch nicht mit Kritik zu Wort, wenn die ukrainische Regierung trotz drohenden Staatsbankrotts in diesem Jahr viermal so viel Geld für neue Waffen ausgeben möchte als im letzten Jahr?

(Dr. Diether Dehm (DIE LINKE): So ist es!)

Das spricht nicht gerade dafür, dass der Weg des Friedens in der ukrainischen Regierung besonders engagierte Unterstützer hat.

Ebenso können die Entsendung von Militärberatern und die Waffenlieferungen durch die Vereinigten Staaten und Großbritannien eher als Torpedierung denn als Unterstützung des Friedensprozesses gewertet werden. Aber wollen Sie jetzt auch gegen die USA und Großbritannien Sanktionen verhängen? Ich glaube, es wäre besser, einzusehen, dass diese ganze unsägliche Sanktionspolitik ein einziger großer Fehler war, mit dem sich Europa ins eigene Knie geschossen hat. Deswegen sollten die Sanktionen nicht verlängert werden.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Wir brauchen auch keine zusätzlichen Panzer. Wir brauchen auch keine 3 000 Mann starke NATO-Interventionstruppe in Osteuropa, die niemanden schützt, sondern den Frieden in ganz Europa nur noch mehr gefährdet.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Helmut Schmidt hatte doch recht, als er schon 2007 gewarnt hat, dass für den Frieden der Welt von Russland heute viel weniger Gefahr ausgeht als etwa von Amerika

(Lachen der Abg. Claudia Roth (Augsburg) (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN))

und dass die NATO nur noch ein Instrument US-amerikanischer Hegemoniebestrebungen sei. Wenn das stimmt, dann lässt das doch nur einen vernünftigen Schluss zu: dass Europa endlich eine eigenständige und von den USA unabhängige Politik machen muss.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Herr Juncker hat nun die These aufgestellt, wir bräuchten eine europäische Armee, um zu zeigen, dass es uns mit der Verteidigung europäischer Werte gegenüber Russland ernst ist. Ich glaube, dieser Vorschlag zeigt vor allem eins: wie weit sich Europa von dem entfernt hat, was einst die Gründerväter der europäischen Einigung wollten.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Damals ging es ‑ Frau Merkel, Sie haben es eben selber angesprochen ‑ um Frieden, um Demokratie und um Solidarität.

(Manuel Sarrazin (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN): Und den bösen Kapitalismus!)

Nie wieder sollten Nationalismus und Völkerhass die europäischen Länder entzweien. Aber um solche Werte zu verteidigen, dafür brauchen Sie wahrlich keine bewaffneten Bataillone.

 

Wenn Sie die Demokratie verteidigen wollen, Frau Merkel, dann setzen Sie sich doch dafür ein, dass die europäischen Länder endlich wieder von ihren gewählten Regierungen und nicht von Finanzmärkten, nicht von dem ehemaligen Investmentbanker Mario Draghi und, bitte schön, auch nicht von Ihnen, Frau Merkel, regiert werden.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN ‑ Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Distanzieren Sie sich einmal von der Gewalt gestern! Das wäre ein wichtiger Schritt!)

Wenn Sie Demokratie wollen, dann stoppen Sie die sogenannten Freihandelsabkommen, dann stoppen Sie TTIP, in dessen Folge demokratische Wahlen endgültig zur bloßen Farce verkommen.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Das wäre eine Verteidigung europäischer Werte! Das wäre eine Verteidigung von Demokratie, diese unsäglichen Verhandlungen über TTIP und ähnliche Abkommen endlich auszusetzen!

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Wenn Sie ein einiges Europa wollen, dann hören Sie auf, andere Länder zu demütigen und ihnen Programme zu diktieren, die ihrer jungen Generation jede Perspektive nehmen.

(Manuel Sarrazin (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN): Sie haben doch zugestimmt bei Griechenland!)

Hören Sie auf, Europa sogenannte Strukturreformen vorzuschreiben, die nur auf wachsende Ungleichheit und einen immer größeren Niedriglohnsektor hinauslaufen!

(Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Wer koaliert denn mit den Rechten in Griechenland? Das ist doch Ihre Schwesterpartei!)

In Deutschland sind infolge dieser Politik mittlerweile 3 Millionen Menschen trotz Arbeit so arm, dass sie nicht ordentlich heizen, sich nicht anständig ernähren und schon gar nicht in den Urlaub fahren können. Statt diese Politik zum Exportschlager zu erklären, wäre es an der Zeit ‑ und übrigens sehr im europäischen Interesse ‑, sie endlich hier in Deutschland zu korrigieren; denn es ist nicht zuletzt das deutsche Lohndumping, das anderen Ländern der Währungsunion die Luft zum Atmen nimmt.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Finanzminister Schäuble hat kürzlich versucht, die griechische Regierung mit der Bemerkung vorzuführen: Tja, regieren sei halt immer ein Rendezvous mit der Realität.

(Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Richtig! ‑ Max Straubinger (CDU/CSU): So ist es!)

Da kann man nur sagen: Schön wär’s! Schön wäre es, wenn die deutsche Regierung ihr Rendezvous mit der Realität endlich auch einmal erleben würde.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN ‑ Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Das schreiben Sie sich auch einmal auf, bevor Sie eine Rede halten!)

Denn Realität ist jedenfalls, dass es nicht die Syriza, sondern die griechischen Schwesterparteien von CDU/CSU und SPD waren, die über Jahrzehnte einen riesigen Schuldenberg aufgetürmt haben, um sich und der Oberschicht die Taschen vollzustopfen.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Realität ist auch, dass Griechenland bereits 2010 hoffnungslos überschuldet war und dass es eine verantwortungslose Veruntreuung von deutschem Steuergeld war, mit diesem Geld die Schulden der Griechen bei den Banken zu bezahlen. Wir haben deswegen damals nicht zugestimmt. Wir haben damals schon einen Schuldenschnitt gefordert.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

Wer einem Überschuldeten Kredit gibt, der wird sein Geld mutmaßlich nie wiedersehen. Aber die Verantwortung dafür liegt bei Ihnen, Frau Merkel und Herr Schäuble, und nicht bei der neuen griechischen Regierung, die noch nicht einmal zwei Monate im Amt ist.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN ‑ Widerspruch bei der CDU/CSU)

Realität ist auch, dass unter dem Protektorat der von Ihnen immer noch hochgeschätzten Troika, über deren kriminelle Machenschaften man sich in dem hervorragenden Dokumentarfilm von Harald Schumann informieren kann, die griechischen Schulden noch weiter gewachsen und die griechischen Milliardäre noch reicher geworden sind.

(Dr. Diether Dehm (DIE LINKE): So ist es!)

Und das wollen Sie fortsetzen? Da kann ich nur sagen: Gute Nacht!

Wenn Sie unser Geld zurückholen wollen, dann holen Sie es bei denen, die es bekommen haben,

(Beifall bei der LINKEN)

und das waren nicht griechische Rentner und griechische Krankenschwestern, sondern die internationalen Banken und die griechische Oberschicht. An dieser Stelle können Sie der griechischen Regierung helfen, das Geld wieder einzutreiben.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN – Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Sagen Sie das doch einmal Herrn Tsipras! Wer regiert denn in Griechenland?)

Zu der ganzen Debatte um mögliche Reparationszahlungen möchte ich nur sagen:

(Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Die ist zu Ende!)

Egal, wie man diese Forderungen juristisch bewertet, das Mindeste, was man von Vertretern des deutschen Staates erwarten kann, ist ein Mindestmaß an Sensibilität im Umgang mit diesem Thema.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN – Lachen bei Abgeordneten der CDU/CSU)

‑ Ich muss sagen, dass Sie jetzt auch noch lachen, ist wirklich traurig.

(Dr. Diether Dehm (DIE LINKE): Unsensibel!)

Angesichts dessen, wie die deutschen Besatzer in Griechenland gewütet haben, und der Tatsache, dass eine Million Griechinnen und Griechen in diesem finsteren Kapitel deutscher Geschichte ihr Leben verloren haben, finde ich die schnoddrigen Äußerungen von Ihnen, Herr Schäuble, und von Ihnen, Herr Kauder, einfach nur respektlos, und ich schäme mich dafür.

(Beifall bei der LINKEN sowie des Abg. Jürgen Trittin (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN) ‑ Zurufe von der CDU/CSU: Oh!)

Um daran zu erinnern, dass Umgang mit Geschichte auch anders geht, möchte ich zum Schluss aus der Rede Richard von Weizsäckers aus Anlass des 40. Jahrestages der Befreiung zitieren; ich komme gleich zum Schluss, Herr Präsident. Sie bezog sich damals vor allem auf Russland und Osteuropa, aber sie gilt natürlich auch für Griechenland:

(Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Was Sie alles wissen!)

“Wenn wir daran denken, was unsere östlichen Nachbarn im Kriege erleiden mussten, werden wir besser verstehen, dass der Ausgleich, die Entspannung und die friedliche Nachbarschaft mit diesen Ländern zentrale Aufgaben der deutschen Außenpolitik bleiben. Es gilt, dass beide Seiten sich erinnern und beide Seiten einander achten.”

Ja, nur wenn wir uns erinnern und nur wenn wir einander achten, nur dann finden wir zu einer Politik der guten Nachbarschaft zurück, sowohl innerhalb der EU als auch gegenüber Russland.

(Anhaltender Beifall bei der LINKEN)

http://www.sahra-wagenknecht.de/de/article/2090.holen-sie-sich-unser-geld-bei-den-banken-und-der-griechischen-oberschicht-zurueck.html

 

The war on Yugoslavia and the U.S. regime change model — the real face of American “diplomacy”

“The lethality of American ‘diplomacy’ and the uncountable costs that can be incurred from resisting Washington’s will.”

From Sputnik, March 25, 2014
By Andrew Korybko

The 16th anniversary of NATO’s War on Yugoslavia gives cause to reflect on what American ‘diplomacy’ is really all about.

The US has long trumpeted itself as the only paragon of virtue and ‘defender of freedom’ in the world, going into overdrive with this message in the years following the Cold War. Millions of people were duped during this time, but their illusions were quickly dispelled after the 1999 War on Yugoslavia.

This tragedy exposed the true face of American ‘diplomacy’ as a duplicitous front for pursuing predetermined geopolitical ends. The war wasn’t so much about a ‘humanitarian intervention’ (the reality surrounding which was grossly exaggerated by the Western media) as it was the establishment of a pro-Western proxy state in the heart of the Southern Balkans.

The War on Yugoslavia also marked a turning point where the US began ramping up its aggression all across Eurasia and perfecting the first actual version of Hybrid Warfare.

Uncle Sam’s Sins

The US did a lot of horrible things during its War on Yugoslavia, but here’s three of the most audacious:

Supporting Terrorism:

The so-called ‘Kosovo Liberation Army’ (KLA), the armed wing of Albanian nationalists fighting in the Serbian province of Kosovo, was deemed a terrorist organization by the Yugoslav authorities. UNSC Resolution 1160, which was supported by the US, even condemned the group for its terrorist activity and urged it to immediately halt such actions. Be that as it may, the KLA served an decisive role in destabilizing Serbia, and was thus not only supported by the US throughout the conflict, but its leader Hashim Thaci was even recognized by Washington as the province’s ‘Prime Minister’ afterwards.

Lying to the World:

The US tried to convince the world that the Albanians in Kosovo were experiencing genocide at the hands of the Serbs, but this was nowhere near the reality on the ground. Although some Albanians were certainly killed during their violent uprising against the federal government, Serbs were too, and neither demographic experienced the ‘tens of thousands’ of deaths that the State Department evoked as the US’ excuse for bombing Yugoslavia.

Tens of thousands of more people have died during Mexico’s drug war in recent years, for example, but America’s southern neighbor has yet to experience a ‘humanitarian intervention’.

Bombing Civilian Infrastructure:

The US-led NATO bombing campaign killed hundreds of civilians and destroyed apartment buildings, farms, schools, hospitals, churches, and bridges. The Pentagon’s explanation for such horrors (when it chose to address them) was that its ‘precision-targeted munitions’ malfunctioned, but the surviving victims refused to believe this.

BONUS: Bombing China And Getting Away With It:

The US hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade (officially recognized as the sovereign territory of the country, as is any state’s embassy abroad) on 7 May, 1999, killing 3 people and injuring about 20 others. One need only imagine the militant response from the Pentagon if the shoe was on the other foot.

The Foreign Policy Toolkit

The War on Yugoslavia represented the first testing ground for the application of the US’ integrated regime change strategy, however sloppily applied. It combined the following characteristics that would later be developed and perfected in forthcoming conflicts:

Unconventional War:

In order to stir up chaos and create a pretext for an ultimatum and eventual military intervention, the US supported the KLA during its terrorist war in the Serbian Province of Kosovo.

Ultimatum:

The US gave President Milosevic the ultimatum to pull all Yugoslavian police and army forces out of Kosovo Province or face the pulverizing consequences.

Conventional Intervention:

The destabilization came to a dramatic climax when NATO launched its ‘humanitarian intervention’ against Yugoslavia, which ultimately led to its fragmentation and destruction.

Color Revolution:

American intelligence services and Gene Sharp’s teachings organized and directed the Bulldozer Revolution of October 2000, which has since been acknowledged as the first Color Revolution.

Nowadays, the methods above have been perfected and patterned in the following order:

1. Ultimatum:

The US gives an explicit/public or implicit/behind-the-scenes ultimatum to a targeted country or leader. If they refuse and a ‘palace coup’ can’t be pulled off, then the next step is initiated.

2. Color Revolution:

This ‘street coup’ attempt seeks to oust the targeted country’s leadership through the carefully constructed façade of ‘people’s power’, whereby the international media is fed the misleading impression that the majority of a country’s citizens are revolting against their government. Other than the ultimatum or conventional coup, it’s the most cost-effective tool for regime change.

3. Unconventional War:

The third step can be evoked in the midst of the second one before turning into its own full-fledged destabilization when the Color Revolution fails. It capitalizes off of some of the social infrastructure built during the street coup attempt, and then arms the participants and encourages them to commit to terrorism and insurgency in overthrowing their government. Foreign mercenaries can also be involved.

4. Conventional Intervention:

While the previous two steps typically involve a deep level of covert commitment, the final step purposely brings the external destabilizer’s actions into the open by initiating an open war. This is the most expensive form of regime change, but is always clothed in grand ‘humanitarian’ or ‘democratic’ rhetoric to hide its true intent.

Where Are They Now?

Let’s take a look at the most notable example of each stage of the US’ regime change template and see how these countries have since coped with the Hybrid War waged against them:

Steps 1-2: Ukraine

The implicit ultimatum against President Yanukovych was that he had to sign the EU Association Agreement, and when he delayed doing so at the last minute, a Color Revolution was unleashed against him. In some ways, the urban terrorism of EuroMaidan even fulfills the requirements for Step 3.

Nowadays, the country lies in ruin and bankruptcy, and the oligarchs (Poroshenko and Kolomoiskyi) are poised to fight a fratricidal war amongst themselves at the expense of more Ukrainian lives.

Steps 1-3: Syria

President Assad refused to allow a gas pipeline from pro-American Qatar to transit Syrian territory en route to the Mediterranean, preferring instead to opt for the Friendship Pipeline with Iraq and Iran. As a punishment, Syria was thus dragged into the theater-wide ‘Arab Spring’ Color Revolutions spearheaded by the US, but when the people resolutely stood by their democratically elected leadership and secular authorities and refused to allow the street coup to succeed, an Unconventional War was unleashed on the country.

As it stands, the most notorious terrorists from every corner of the world have infested the country, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people and turning entire cities to rubble in their four-year-long rampage.

Steps 1-4: Libya

Muammar Gaddafi refused to fully integrate his country into the EU-led ‘Union For the Mediterranean’, instead choosing to remain an observer member. Despite having surrendered Libya’s weapons of mass destruction during an earlier ultimatum in 2007, Gaddafi’s reluctance to move forward with Euro-Mediterranean integration made him a marked man.

The US-organized ‘Arab Spring’ Color Revolutions subsequently targeted him in 2011, and events in the country quickly spiraled into Unconventional Warfare as terrorists surged into the main cities and started killing civilians and government representatives.

NATO decided to commence a bombing campaign against the country shortly thereafter under a false ‘humanitarian intervention’ pretext, which consequently destroyed the state’s social and physical infrastructure and turned it into the fearsome terrorist battleground that it is today.

Remember, these above-cited tragedies would not have been possible had it not been for the US’ War on Yugoslavia and the ‘perfection’ of the regime change techniques that were first applied there. It is for this reason that the memory of 24 March should serve as a somber reminder each year of the lethality of American ‘diplomacy’ and the uncountable costs that can be incurred from resisting Washington’s will.

http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20150324/1019950056.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-yugoslavia-the-real-face-of-american-diplomacy/5438961

IMF: Ukraine must now steal $1.5 Billion+ from Russia to buy weapons

Originally from Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten
March 24, 2015
Posted on Global Research

IMF: Ukraine will not pay back [part of] its debts to Russia

German Economic News  |  Published: 03/24/15 00:25 clock [Translation, and interspersed notes, by Eric Zuesse.]

In December, a multi-billion-dollar loan [variously stated as $3-$3.5 billion] to Ukraine comes due, which Ukraine had received from Russia. The IMF has provided a new debt plan, however, dictating that existing loans to Ukraine that have an expiration-date are to be subjected to a haircut. Thus, the resource gap of the country totaling $40 billion is to be reduced.

Since the crisis, Ukraine has received several loans from the IMF and the EU [and the U.S.]. These loans must be repaid in a few years from now. However, the financial situation of the country remains vulnerable. Over the next four years overdue loans totaling $15 billion need to be paid [they’re mostly loans from Russia]. Only three billion of them are an old loan Russia that has to be paid in December of this year. The IMF might prevent it [from being repaid in full, even though it has seniority over the new loans that are coming from the West].

The IMF has developed a program for Ukraine, under which the current financial hole is to be filled in the amount $40 billion. The due debts [the senior debt] are part of the plan, and will be restructured, according to the IMF. Exactly how it is to happen, the IMF does not explain. Experts say that the IMF believes that Russia should participate in a haircut. The Financial Times reports [“Bailout projections indicate Ukraine will not repay Russia debt” 5:21 PM, 22 March 2015] that the IMF requires that Russia’s $3.5 billion bond issue be included in the restructuring. Charles Blitzer, a former IMF employee, has informed the FT of this.

However, Blitzer is uncertain how large the haircut will be. ”It is up to the Ukrainian authorities to determine the extent and nature of the debt restructuring,” he said. [In other words: the IMF will grant Ukraine the right to determine how much of that $3-3.5B will be repaid to Russia. The Kyiv Post puts it this way: “Kyiv does not intend to fully repay a $3 billion bond owed to Russia this year according to official projections underpinning Ukraine’s new international bailout, say credit experts.”] Government sources close to the matter estimate that there will be a planned debt reduction of 50 percent. ”But creditors would rather try to agree on a term extension,” said Blitzer.

Whether all international creditors will accept a haircut, and if so, to what extent, is not yet clear. Last week, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanow said that Russia still expects that the $3.5B debt will be repaid this December in full. And Franklin Templeton [Funds], the largest bondholder of Ukraine, has brought in Blackstone legal help for debt negotiations.

Last week, the Ukrainian Finance Minister [the American] Natalija Jaresko told the WSJ that so far pledged loans to Ukraine [$40B] will not be enough to bring Ukraine back onto its feet. ”The package will stabilize the banking system, but it is not enough to seriously re-stimulate growth,” said Jaresko. ”I need more support.” She said that no nation currently pays more to protect the entire world from a nuclear power [Russia] than does Ukraine, and that, “if our partners, for whatever reason, are not able to assist us with defensive military means, then they should provide us more financial assistance [so that we can buy the weapons against Russia ourselves].”

This past Friday, the Ukrainian central bank had to explain why three of Ukraine’s banks were being declared insolvent. The VAB Bank, Astra Bank and the City Commerce Bank are now deprived of their licenses. At the same time, Ukraine is already planning an expansion of military resources. In sum, for the year of 2015, a total of $3.8 billion will be spent on armaments. [This by a country that cannot even pay its bondholders, when all of the new Ukrainian bonds are actually paying only for Ukraine’s war against the residents of its own former Donbass region.]

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/imf-ukraine-must-now-steal-1-5-billion-from-russia-to-buy-weapons/5438508

Ukraine : Les Etats-Unis veulent la guerre… sur le sol européen

English translation:

The US wants war — on European soil

Agora Vox, vendredi 6 mars
Boniface MUSAVULI

On ne devrait plus se bercer d’illusions sur les intentions des dirigeants américains : ils veulent la guerre. Une guerre qui doit se dérouler sur le Vieux Continent et qui doit entraîner le plus d’Européens possible dans une confrontation militaire avec la Russie. Les Ukrainiens, sauf un grand sursaut des masses populaires, devraient se résigner à voir leur pays servir durablement de champ de bataille à ce conflit des grandes puissances dont les enjeux leur échappent, depuis qu’ils ont perdu le contrôle des manifestations « Place Maïdan », un soir de février 2014.

De l’EuroMaïdan à l’escalade militaire

En tout cas, les derniers développements aux Etats-Unis ne sont guère rassurants. Un an après les manifestations de l’EuroMaïdan, odieusement dévoyées par « des atlantistes  », les États-Unis ont officialisé la décision d’envoyer en Ukraine quelques 600 parachutistes appartenant à la 173ème brigade aéroportée. L’annonce a été faite lundi dernier par le colonel Michael Foster, commandant de la brigade, et confirmée par Ben Hodges, haut commandant des forces américaines en Europe. Les premières unités combattantes de la brigade devraient se poser en Ukraine d’ici le 8 mars. Officiellement, pas pour combattre, mais pour former les troupes ukrainiennes (en débâcle dans le Donbass) au maniement des armes américaines en voie d’expédition[1].

Au sujet, justement, de l’expédition des armes américaines à Kiev, on sait qu’elle entraînerait réciproquement l’accroissement des moyens militaires des républiques autonomes de l’Est (Donetsk et Lougansk) par Moscou. Parce que, pour la Russie, il est hors de question que les forces des pays de l’OTAN se déploient jusque sur les frontières russo-ukrainiennes, et ils n’ont pas tort. Les Russes n’ont jamais digéré d’avoir été bernés par les Occidentaux en marge de la réunification allemande[2]. C’est pour essayer de contrer ce risque d’escalade militaire que la France et l’Allemagne ont décidé, début février dernier, d’entrer directement en contact avec Vladimir Poutine, sans consulter Washington. Il s’agissait de rassurer le chef du Kremlin sur le fait que Français et Allemands s’opposeront à l’envoi en Ukraine des armes américaines[3]. Le président russe s’est montré ouvert aux propositions franco-allemandes, et accepté les Accords de Minsk II[4] du 11 février 2015. Le hic avec Minsk II est qu’il y avait deux grands absents : les Britanniques et les Américains. N’étant pas liés par ces accords, ils vont continuer d’attiser le conflit.

Il faut vous entretuer pour l’Amérique

Dix jours seulement après la signature des Accords de Minsk, David Cameron annonçait l’envoi de soldats britanniques en Ukraine. Une semaine plus tard, John Sawers, l’ancien patron du MI16, (sorte de CIA britannique) affirmait que « la guerre contre la Russie ne fait que commencer »[5]. Avec l’envoi des unités de combat en Ukraine par les USA, les Britanniques sont ainsi rejoints par leurs cousins américains qui tiennent à ce que la situation continue de se dégrader et qu’elle finisse par dégénérer. Bien évidemment, les armées américaines et britanniques ne vont pas s’engager en première ligne contre l’armée russe. Ce déploiement atlantiste vise plutôt à entretenir durablement un climat de haine entre populations, un environnement de violence permanente et de désolation.

Une des stratégies utilisées par les fauteurs de troubles états-uniens contre les pays qu’ils ciblent consiste à frapper directement les populations soit par des violences aveugles, soit pas des embargos, soit pas des humiliations en mettant systématiquement ces drames collectifs sur le dos de l’« ennemi » qu’ils se sont choisi. Il ne faudrait pas s’étonner si les populations russes/russophones des pays frontaliers deviennent la cible des tueries aveugles et des famines provoquées volontairement, ce qui les amènera à demander de plus en plus l’aide de Moscou. Une aide que Poutine ne pourra pas durablement leur refuser, au risque de se mettre à dos les Russes de l’intérieur[6]. Sauf qu’en intervenant davantage en Ukraine ou, le moment venu, dans les pays baltes, le président russe deviendrait un « agresseur ». Exactement l’image que les médias occidentaux et les dirigeants d’outre-Atlantique s’emploient à lui coller à la peau. Dès lors, des forces européennes, plus ou moins officiellement, chemineraient vers les « pays agressés » par la Russie. Le début d’un engrenage meurtrier au cœur de l’Europe.

Face à ces agissements américains, on est tenté de dire : ils sont fous ces Américains ! Pas du tout. En réalité, les Etats-Unis, une puissance à bout de souffle, misent sur le conflit ukrainien pour entraîner le plus d’Européens possible dans une confrontation militaire avec la Russie[7]. Le pari est que, sauf usage d’armes stratégiques (scénario suicidaire), le sol américain devrait être préservé des ravages de cette guerre qui commence. Lorsque tout cela sera fini, Européens et Russes, quel que soit le camp qui l’aura emporté sur l’autre, seront ruinés économiquement, voire exsangues. Comme à l’issue de la Première et de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, il ne restera qu’une puissance d’ultime recours : les Etats-Unis d’Amérique.

Des milliards de dollars de contrats de reconstruction, une remise sous tutelle des nations européennes et la préservation, par l’Amérique, de son statut de « superpuissance planétaire ».


[2] Le 9 février 1990, James Baker, secrétaire d’Etat américain (de George Bush), avait assuré à Mikhaïl Gorbatchev que l’alliance occidentale n’étendrait “pas d’un pouce” son influence vers l’Est si Moscou acceptait que l’Allemagne réunifiée entre dans l’Otan. Le lendemain, 10 février, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, le ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères, refit cette promesse à Edouard Chevardnadze, son homologue russe : « l’Otan ne s’étendra pas à l’Est ». Mais depuis, la Pologne, la République Tchèque, la Hongrie, la Bulgarie, la Roumanie, la Slovaquie, la Lituanie, la Lettonie et l’Estonie ont adhéré à l’Otan. Avec les évènements de l’EuroMaïdan, l’enjeu était, entre autres, de faire également entrer l’Ukraine dans l’Otan. Cf. http://www.courrierinternational.co…

[3] C’est en tout cas ce qu’assure le journaliste italien Giulietto Chiesa : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w6…

[4] Parce qu’il y a eu Minsk I, Protocole signé le 11 septembre 2014, et qui ne fut pas respecté.

[7] Provoquer un conflit brutal entre Européens et Russes permet aux Américains de se prémunir contre une éventuelle alliance stratégique entre Européens et Russes, alliance qui entraînerait de fait la fin de l’hégémonie américaine. Dans Le Grand échiquier de Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997), où il est question, entre autres, de « briser la Russie » en trois entités (une Russie européenne, une république de Sibérie et une république extrême-orientale), il est également question de cultiver la docilité des « sujets protégés » et d’empêcher les rivaux potentiels de former des alliances offensives. Un rapprochement stratégique entre la Russie et les nations européennes (sujets protégés) est ainsi un scénario que les tenants de l’hégémonie états-unienne n’admettraient en aucune manière.

http://mobile.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/ukraine-les-etats-unis-veulent-la-164505

Nemtsov’s killer was hired by the commander of Dzhokhar Dudaev Battalion in Ukraine, Adam Osmaev

Posted on Fort Russ

Adam Osmaev

March 12, 2015
Anna Veligzhanina for Komsomolskaya Pravda
Translated by Kristina Rus

FSB source to “Komsomolskaya Pravda”: “the customer of Nemtsov’s murder was preparing an assassination of Vladimir Putin”

The main suspect in the organization of the high-profile crime – is a commander of the Ukrainian battalion in the name of Dzhokhar Dudayev, Adam Osmayev.

The correspondent of “Komsomolskaya Pravda” met with the FSB agent, who is part of the team investigating the murder of Boris Nemtsov. In an exclusive interview he spoke about the new details of the crime and named the most likely customer of the murder.

The pistol was found

Today the investigators have irrefutable proof that all persons detained on suspicion of murder of the politician are the perpetrators, – said our source in the FSB. First of all, billing (data about calls and movements of the subscriber. – Ed.) from their mobile phones showed that they conducted surveillance of Nemtsov before the murder, following him closely. The suspects were tracked with their phones at the location where Nemtsov was present with his phone. During the murder all the detainees “were in the area”: some under the bridge, some in a car, some nearby.

Zaur Dadaev pulled the trigger. He first made a confession, and then, on the advice of his lawyers, took it back. But it changes nothing, the investigation has already collected compelling evidence of his guilt. I will not give details of how this was done. The pistol was thrown into the river after the crime, it was later recovered by divers. That Zaur Dadaev immediately said to the TV cameras: “I love prophet Muhammad” – is just a cover. There was no religious motive for the killings. They cynically carried out an order. They are far from devout Muslims. In fact, just real gangsters.

And the most important thing. The executor of the murder was in close contact with Adam Osmaev, who recently became the commander of the Ukrainian battalion in the name of Dzhokhar Dudayev. They met, talked a lot on the phone. Zaur Dadaev and his cronies worked with Osmaev on Ukrainian affairs. And also with Chechens, who fought on the territory of Ukraine for the new regime. Zaur Dadaev was listed in the battalion “North” (“Sever”) of the Chechen Interior Ministry, but while serving in it, in fact, was engaged in activities against Russia. He was associated with Osmaev by a certain relationship and mutual obligations.

Непосредственно нажал на курок Заур Дадаев, который сначала дал признательные показания, а потом, по совету адвокатов, отказался от них
Zaur Dadaev

When the journalists from the Russian TV channel “Life News” were recovered from Ukraine, Zaur Dadaev was involved in this operation. Held direct communication with Osmaev. I don’t have the right to disclose the details. The evidence is still being gathered. But I can say that today the main suspected customer of Nemtsov’s murder is Adam Osmayev.

“The main purpose of the crime is to show Russia in a bad light”

– The perpetrators were told to execute the order in the place where it was committed, – continues our source. – Another words not just to kill him in the alley, but do it in the heart of Moscow across from the Kremlin – deliberately to cause outrage around the world. Before the crime they received the advance payment, it was agreed that the remainder of the money for the “job” will be transferred to their bank account.

– Why did they have to kill Nemtsov, who spoke out against Putin’s policies? It turns out, they had killed their ideological ally!

– [Ultra-] Nationalists and criminals will not stop at anything. To kill their ally for them is not a question of morality. Nemtsov became a bargaining chip. The goal was – to slander Russia, to show it in a bad light, to prevent peace in Donbass (especially after talks with Merkel and Hollande). To show the President of Russia in the eyes of the world community as the “ultimate evil” – to show: look, how he strangled the opposition. The world just began to warm up to Putin’s politics, which he is following in relation to Ukraine. And this cynical murder of Nemtsov has caused a wave of discontent, fueled by the world media. The American and European press immediately began to show this murder in their own light, placing the responsibility on the President of Russia.

Националисты и бандиты не брезгуют ничем. Убить своего союзника для них - не вопрос морали. Немцов стал разменной монетой

Preparing to blow up the President’s motorcade

Adam Osmayev was previously suspected in the attempt to organize the 2012 assassination of Vladimir Putin, at that time a Prime Minister and presidential candidate. Osmayev  planned to blow up Putin’s motorcade, which was confirmed by a video, found in his laptop, of Prime Minister’s motorcade travelling through Moscow. Then Osmaev cooperated with the investigation – admitted he came to Odessa from the United Arab Emirates with instructions from field commander Doku Umarov. But in court Osmayev refused to testify, claiming he gave his testimony after a beating. His lawyers wrote a complaint to the Prosecutor’s office and the European Court of Human Rights.

– Osmaev failed to get to Putin himself, but it seems that he did not calm down, – says our source in the FSB. – And later the most accessible target to attack the President was selected – Boris Nemtsov. Nemtsov lately was not seen as an active member of the opposition, was no competition to Putin, but his name was known. The choice of a sacrificial lamb was quite successful. The gangsters do not stop at anything. And gangsters involved in politics is a devilish blend.

Адам Осмаев ранее подозревался в попытке организации в 2012 году покушения на Владимира Путина
Adam Osmaev

– Will Osmaev be charged?

– Now everything is in the stage of investigation and evidence collection. Some of the evidence we already gathered, but I don’t want to tell everything in order not to hinder the investigation.

“KP” Files

What was Adam Osmayev “famous” for…

In 2007 in Moscow on the eve of Victory Day a terrorist attack was averted – explosives were found in a parked car. A native of Grozny, Adam Osmayev, a suspect in the case, was arrested in absentia by the Lefortovsky district court of Moscow and declared for international search. The investigation found that Osmayev with a group of Chechens and Ingush was also preparing an assassination on May 9 of the head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.

According to the press, after that Osmayev was hiding in the UK, where he was contacted by associates of Doku Umarov and was offered to organize a new terrorist attack. Adam agreed and went to Ukraine with a fake passport. In 2012, he was arrested after an explosion in a rented apartment – the terrorist was preparing homemade bombs. Osman and his “right hand”, a Kazakh citizen, Ilya Pyanzin, admitted: they were preparing an assassination of the head of the government of Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. The suspects also reported that they recruited fighters for future terrorist attacks in Russia. But later they took back their testimony.

Russia demanded to extradite Adam Osmayev, however, the European Court of Human Rights had blocked it, declaring: “In Russia the detainee may be subjected to torture”. Pyanzin eventually was extradited to Russia, and in September 2013 he was sentenced to ten years in a colony with a strict regime.

On November 18, 2014, the court of Odessa declared a sentence for Osmaev: 2 years and 9 months imprisonment. He was released in the courtroom “for lack of evidence of preparation of assassination” – he was credited the time he already spent in jail. The court room reacted to the sentence of Osmaev with applause, and he, in turn, encouraged them to “protect Ukraine”.

In February of this year Osmayev headed the Ukrainian battalion  in the name of Dzhokhar Dudayev, succeeding the general, deceased under Debaltsevo, Isa Munaev.

OFFICIAL COMMENT

Dmitry Peskov: In the coming days, the prosecutors will announce the motives for the murder

“We hope that in the coming days all legal formalities will be completed and prosecutors will announce their versions of the murder, will name those who are behind this,” said the President’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov to the journalists of “AP”, answering the question about the prospects of completing the investigation of the murder of Boris Nemtsov.

Readers Comments:

– You can’t make up a better plan to frame Kadyrov through Osmaev (Kadyrov’s worst enemy) and Dadaev  (a traitor), and most importantly to smear Russia

– This looks like the truth. The volunteer battalion is likely curated by the SBU. And SBU is a branch of American special agencies. Classic sacrificial lamb. Technologies of color revolutions are very cynical. The fifth column doesn’t realize that it is just disposable material for the puppet-masters.

– What a present to Kadyrov and Putin – Nemtsov’s murder! How could Kadyrov be so fooled!

– If you continue down the trail, it might lead to the UK or Americans

Kristina Rus: 

Another important point to make, is that although in Russia Nemtsov was virtually forgotten, except to the old-timers and his direct followers (he complained that he has not been on Russian TV in 8 years), Nemtsov was quite popular in Ukraine, and was frequently invited on Ukrainian TV as a Putin’s critic and a supporter of the current regime, creating a perception that he was a major opposition player in Russia. Although it is true that Nemtsov was in charge of organizing the anti-Putin rallies in Russia, he himself admitted in personal conversations in his wire taps that he had no future chances in politics, because of his disastrous track record in the 1990’s, when he was a Deputy Prime Minister at the time of the economic collapse in 1998. It is possible that to Ukrainian and foreign observers Nemtsov’s importance looked more exaggerated then it was in reality, making him a likely candidate for a sacrificial lamb.

No matter how little attention was paid to Nemtsov by the Russian media, there is no one that the Western mainstream media can not make a celebrity overnight (even after their death) – and it was achieved.

The investigation, of course, learned about the connection to Ukraine much earlier. We can wonder if Putin tried to withhold these revelations until two weeks after the murder and after the Western media had a chance to pour all the dirt that they had on Putin and Russia, ending with the European Parliament resolution to demand independent investigation. 

Now Putin can get his popcorn and watch the West change their tune after the trail lead to Ukraine. Perhaps they will try to quickly forget about it and ignore it, just like the Boeing. 

 

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/nemtsovs-killer-was-hired-by-commander.html

ISIL is not Muslim, says senior State Department official

State Department official Daniel Rubenstein spoke March 6 at a World Affairs Council luncheon in California[i].

When asked about ISIL and the radical Islam it espouses, Rubenstein told the audience, ISIL are “fakers…they’re not Muslim.” He said in that region, ISIL is “not considered to be the real thing.” He said they are actually “criminals”.

This startling admission by the State Department comes after months of controversy over the nature of ISIL/ISIS/Daish.

Rubenstein is Special Envoy for Syria, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, a Middle East expert. He served as Consul General in Jerusalem, with previous posts including Amman, Sinai, Tel Aviv, and Baghdad.

If ISIL is not radical Muslim, why is it destroying archaeological sites and treasures? If it is under no radicalized mandate to destroy human representations, what is the motivation?

Another audience member asked about reports from the Iraqi Parliament that the U.S and Great Britain are actually supplying ISIL

On February 23, the Iraqi military shot down two British military planes delivering weapons to ISIL. On February 26, a U.S. military helicopter delivering supplies to ISIL was shot down by Iraqi popular forces Al-Hashad Al-Shabi. The Iraqi Parliament stated it is receiving daily reports of U.S. military planes dropping supplies to ISIL. Head of the Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli says he has documents and photos showing that U.S. Apache helicopters airdrop foodstuff and weapons for ISIL.[ii] Coordinator of Iraqi popular forces Jafar al-Jaberi reported that U.S. planes carried additional Takfiri fighters to areas that had just been liberated from them.[iii]

Mr. Rubenstein declined to comment.

An investigation by Germany’s Deutsche Welle (DW) in November 2014 found hundreds of trucks going into Syria daily through an open Turkish border in NATO-controlled territory and directly into ISIL territory.[iv]

In December 2014, Veterans Today senior editor Gordon Duff traveled with a delegation of American intelligence experts to the International Conference on Combating Terrorism and Religious Extremism in Damascus. Duff made these points in a keynote address[v]:

  • What is happening in the Middle East are the effects of large scale international organized crime, not terrorism
  • ISIL and al Qaeda are criminal organizations within a worldwide criminal organization.
  • The motivation is mainly economic, to benefit a specific group of people.
  • Senator John McCain is the father of ISIL and of al Nusra[vi]
  • McCain will probably run US legislative and military foreign policy as a result of the last election.
  • American generals including General McInerny and General Paul Vallely, specialists in psychological warfare, helped organize ISIL.
  • “[McInerny and Vallely] have traveled in and out of Syria, over and over, as had Senator John McCain, meeting with al Qaeda”
  • Al Qaeda was “created by the American, Saudi and Israeli Defense Forces and Intelligence Services.”
  • Israel and organized crime control the United States.
  • The U.S. government serves the interests of a worldwide criminal organization.

Duff says this is built on “solid research on the ground, using human signals intelligence from our extensive capabilities.”

If ISIL’s sponsors are indeed the United States, Great Britain, Israel, and other coalition/NATO members, then ISIL are international mercenaries. The people flooding to join ISIL – 10,000 from Europe for 2015, estimates the French Prime Minister[vii] — are obviously not supporting the Arab Muslim countries of the Middle East.

That leads to the only possible rationale for the archaeological destruction — racism and domination. The goal: to destroy Arabic culture, history, memory, places of power, and people. This rationale has been applied to many other indigenous peoples, in fact, to any country and any people that provided an alternative, another narrative, an antidote, or a refuge from the current regime, whether that regime was Roman, Roman Catholic, Spanish, British, European colonial, Nazi, or American manifest destiny. There are connections and continuity between these regimes. Child and human trafficking and slavery, rape, drug trafficking, assassinations, death squads, weapon smuggling, and now organ trafficking[viii] are common features. Ukraine and the Maidan/Color Revolution movement are current aspects of the regime’s work. The use of “civil society” and NGOs shows this hydra’s reach.

Special Envoy Rubenstein said his present position facilitates aid to Syrian groups and outside NGOs and efforts to overthrow the Assad government. He said that the future transitional Syrian government will be between “external powers” and may not contain any Syrians.

This international alliance or syndicate intends to achieve its goals, whatever the cost. This is already seen in countries such as Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria. The cost will fall cataclysmically on the nations of the region that are decimated, subjugated, stripped.

Citizens of sponsoring nations will continue to financially bear the costs – the white phosphorus, cluster bombs, bullets, Agent Orange, after all, cost money, as do soldiers’ salaries, when a country’s military personnel are brought into the fight. All of this is paid with taxpayers’ dollars, taxpayers’ Euros, and taxpayers’ shekels. The military who fight in their conflicts, under the flag-waving and drum-beat of lies, also pay costs like PTSD, damaged bodies, destroyed futures, and death.

Is it too late to stop this? U.S. and NATO forces seem to be racing to get personnel, weapons, structures, contracts, and training in place. A growing number of laws and executive orders in the United States and other countries institute surveillance and control, and undermine civil rights and the freedoms we have left. Are they racing against us? Against the public’s growing understanding of the threat these madmen and women pose to all life? Against the public’s growing action to halt this madness?

The blood is on our hands if we live in these sponsoring nations, whether we will or not. Until we say no, until we stop this violence, until we refuse to support this fascist-globalist machine and get actively involved to stop it, we are, all of us, responsible. Our actions start in our home towns, our schools, in our states, and our nations’ capitals. Our nations are the birthplace of terrorism. The roots are everywhere. We must expose it, root it out, and destroy it.

[i] http://www.wacmb.org/WACMB/Hot_Topic_March_6.html

[ii] http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931209001345

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931204001534

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-airdrops-weapons-to-isis-as-iraqi-army-makes-gains/5422034

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/12/27/392011/us-drops-weapons-in-areas-held-by-isil/

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-airdrops-weapons-to-isis-as-iraqi-army-makes-gains/

[iii] http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931206000521

[iv] http://www.dw.de/is-supply-channels-through-turkey/av-18091048 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akbfplUcjLU

http://www.globalresearch.ca/islamic-state-isis-supply-lines-influx-of-fighters-and-weapons-protected-by-turkey-in-liaison-with-nato/5416899

[v] http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/13/historic-speech-in-damascus-sends-shockwaves-around-the-world/

[vi] Additional information: http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html

[vii] http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931217001412

[viii] http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931129000236

http://www.globalresearch.ca/organ-harvesting-in-ukraine-goes-unreported/5390599

http://www.plazapublica.com.gt/content/incredible-story-edmond-mulet-and-children-he-exported

The Remarkable Coincidences of John C. Tefft

From Fort Russ

3/5/2015

The Remarkable Coincidences of John C. Tefft

By J.Hawk

The graphic above is going viral on the Russian side of the internet, and it reads as follows:

“Since the current US ambassador arrived in Russia, they killed Nemtsov, while he was in Georgia they killed Zhvaniya, and in Ukraine—Gongadze. Coincidence?”

Each of the three was a prominent opposition figure, and in each case his death had led to political upheaval. To quote Ian Fleming, “once is a happenstance, twice–a coincidence, three times–enemy action.”