Vladimir Putin

Wikileaks: Nemtsov advises American Embassy, Russia needs a crisis to topple Putin

Posted by

0

Posted on Fort Russ

<iframe width=”459″ height=”344″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/R_5g1RrDJI0&#8243; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

March 4, 2015
Alexey Pushkov

Translated by Kristina Rus
Originally recorded in 2010-2011
“Komsomolskaya Pravda” has published Wikileaks cables regarding the meetings of Russian human rights defenders and representatives of the right opposition with the representatives of the American administration.
These meetings took place at the American Embassy in Moscow.
The cables give a lot of food for thought, and we would like to share some of it with you.
One of the cables talks about a meeting which took place on January 14, 2010 at the American Embassy in Moscow between Obama’s representative in Russia Michael McFaul and Russian human rights defenders.
This was not the first such meeting with the leadership of American administration.
Such meetings occurred earlier, for example, with Hillary Clinton where the human rights defenders expectedly complained about human rights abuses and characteristically insisted on the hardening of American policy towards Russian leadership.
In another cable as of January 19, 2010, under the code name “Moscow 000305”, the American ambassador, John Byerle [2008-2012],  informs the State Department about a meeting of the same McFaul with the leaders of the right opposition: Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Milov, Vladimir Ryzhkov and also a representative of the party “The Right Deed” Georgy Goft.
What was the topic of this discussion?
They discussed conditions which would ensure the departure of Vladimir Putin. 
The American ambassador wrote about the position of the Russian right:
“The Russian right opposition agreed that the goal of the opposition during the next two years, should be the work to prevent the return of Vladimir Putin to the post of the president. But according to their opinion only an emergency situation would bring about his demise.”
According to McFaul, there is no other way, because most of the civil society in Russia “is still asleep”, and most of citizens of the country are content with current situation.
Let’s make some conclusions.
The conclusion number one: the leaders of the radical right opposition  are discussing a change of Russian government with American representatives, which is scandalous in itself and causes a lot of questions. We could have guessed about it, but now it received a documentary evidence.
Conclusion number two: in order to achieve their goals, the radical right opposition needs an emergency situation in the country.
So while our country and our people have not yet recovered from a constant “emergency situation in 1990’s”, when the right and Boris Yeltsin were in power, as the opposition wants to plunge the country into another emergency situation.
At his time, Boris Nemtsov putting dressed in an orange tie supported Yushenko and Timoshenko in Kiev, and declared that he was envious of the Ukrainian people: “Thanks to the Orange Maidan they will have democracy and happiness all around. Only if we could have the same!” – dreamed Nemtsov, holding his breath.
The results of the Orange democracy are well known – almost five years of emergency situation in Ukraine, economic collapse, a sudden drop of standard of living.
Now Nemtsov wants the same for Russia in order to return to power.
In the face of McFaul, the Russian Right found a faithful listener.
“Deputinization must come from Russia itself” – told them Michael McFaul. [so now we know the purpose of his appointment for ambassador to Russia in 2012 – KR]
Although the American president does not openly support the civil society in Russia [he did support it, but not OPENLY], as the members of opposition would like to, he completely supports democratic reforms.
This looks like a direct coordination of the line of our opposition and American administration.
The representative of US president practically tells the right: you start first, and we will support you.
What can you say, this is the style of our right – to appeal to the US with the hope that the almighty America will either help them keep the power or bring them to power.
Lets remember who was the main outside support of the government of Boris Yeltsin and his “reformers” – of course, America. The same goes for other opposition members, such as Casparov and Kasyanov, who keep on shouting to the United States “Help, help!”
And of course the fact of such meetings and discussions at the American Embassy in Moscow speaks for itself.
“Komsomolskaya Pravda” rightfully notes:
“It is hard to imagine that the representatives of Democrats or Republicans would run to the Russian Embassy in Washington DC and tearfully beg; “Please be harder on our government” and without blinking formulate the task: “In order to come to power we need a collapse!”
American politicians don’t do that as they consider themselves first of all a part of their country. But our right as evident during the Yeltsyn times, when they were in power, constantly and enthusiastically relied on the outside forces in order to subject their country to foreign models and foreign interests.
The citizens of Russia have realized this quickly and refused to support them, because even without the Wikileaks they understand very well, that the radical right in Russia is not so much Russian as it is American.
And this speaks for itself.
Kristina Rus:
 
Although the Russian opposition has christened itself as “The Union of the Right Forces”, it is still commonly known as “the liberals” – this is characteristic of the Russian political spectrum.
 
It is easy to judge about a utility of any politician by the reaction to his death in the Western press and the State Department, from which it gets it’s daily instructions. 
 
If they declare him a great loss to his country, you can bet he is a great loss to the State Department. 
 
However, it is unclear if the State Department understood that Nemtsov was unelectable, as he had admitted in his wiretaps: “I am from the nineties – it’s like a sentence”, when Nemtsov was #3 in the Yelsyn governmnet as a Vice Prime Minister. It is quite possible that Nemtsov realized that he could make more money working for the US interests, then in Russian politics, and he has a 90 million ruble apartment near the Kremlin to show for it. 
 
Nemtsov’s unelectablility is another argument for the theory of a “sacrificial lamb”, as Nemtsov was the most likely figure for such sacrifice, as he had no chances to become a Russian president with his shady past from the nineties and a rating of 2-4%. 
 
Ironically he himself was the mastermind of the idea that “only an emergency situation” can shake up Russian politics, and his murder falls into that category. 
 
That he was active in the opposition for a decade without any political chances may also speak for the fact that it simply became a lucrative business. His friend Irina Khakamada, said that Nemtsov lived of the money of the sponsors, which was plentiful. He also admitted in his wiretaps, that money was not an issue. Offering to fly another activist for an urgent meeting in a helicopter was not unusual, as was his high roller lifestyle and patronage of elite escort services.
 
Nemtsov made an excellent agent of the State Departmet, as he was brilliant (becoming a governor of Nizhny Novgorod at 32 years old) and was not burdened with too many moral principles.
 
Nemtsov’s eloquence and charisma made it easy for him to persuade people, and only his actions (such as marching with  Ukrainian nationalists in Odessa after Odessa massacre and a complete disregard for the human rights of fellow Russians in Eastern Ukraine – he preferred to be obsessed about counting how many times Putin changed his watches) would revel his true intentions to the outside observer.  
 

Nemtsov murder; Putin warned about this type of “false flag” two years ago

Posted by

0

From the Saker, February 28, 2015

Already in February 2012 (two years ago!) Putin was warning Russians about exactly the kind of false flag which we just saw happening with the murder of Nemtsov.  See for yourself:

Note: the Russian word “provocatsiia” is often translated as “provocation” which is not incorrect as long as you are aware that in Russian “provocation” can mean “false flag”, as it does in this context.  Putin is clearly warning about a false flag “sacrifice”.

This video was emergency-translated by one of our “brother in arms”, Tatzhit, to whom I am most grateful for this ultra-rapid translation.

As for the “liberal” or “democratic” “non-system” opposition it has already announced that it will convert the planned protest into a memorial rally.

We will keep you posted.

The Saker

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/nemtsov-murder-putin-warned-about.html

Ukraine: How can this happen? Here is how.

Posted by

0

By Eric Zuesse
Posted on Global Research, February 17, 2015
—————————————————————–
How can this happen?

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/ukrainian-soldiers-break-into-house.html

Here is how:

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukraines-land-agency-give-land-to-soldiers-in-the-east-for-free-352100.html

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 6.48.31 PM

So: Ukraine’s troops are permitted to steal whatever they want from the residents in Donbass, the rebelling region. The particular victim here lives in an apartment, and so all that Ukraine’s troops can take from him are his belongings.

He’s lucky they didn’t shoot him (if they didn’t).

The cover story in the 4 August 2014 issue of TIME was: “In Russia, Crime Without Punishment: Vladimir Putin backs the rebels …”

Screen Shot 2015-02-15 at 6.56.26 PM

Would a more-honest news-report have been titled, “In America, Crime Without Punishment: Barack Obama institutes ethnic cleansing in southeast Ukraine”?

Or, perhaps: “Crime Without Punishment: TIME magazine lies about Russia and Ukraine”?

Either way: How can such things as this happen?

Well, both things did — the ethnic cleansing did and does, and the cover-up of it and of its source did and does.

And that’s the biggest uncovered news-story of our time: both the ongoing crime, and its ongoing cover-up.

The present news-report is being distributed to virtually all U.S. ‘news’ media for publication, so that readers of all which do publish it (which can be determined by a google-search of this news-report’s headline) can come to know, from all that do not (show there), which ‘news’ media (other than TIME) are co-conspirators with Obama, in deceiving the American public into hiding reality so as to encourage further movement toward a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia — a nuclear war in which America (and definitely not Russia) was the instigator. (Even the founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor acknowledges that the February 2014 overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovuch, which started this, was “the most blatant coup in history” — and it was run from the U.S. White House. It precipitated, as a purely defensive measure by Russia, Russia’s accepting Crimea’s bid to rejoin Russia: Crimea had been since 1783 the base for Russia’s crucial Black Sea fleet, which Obama wanted to kick out of there.)

Any news-media that issue this news-report are honest, because the news-report itself is (and none of them is being charged anything to publish it; so, expense is not involved here). Any that don’t issue it, each reader can judge — and nobody has to wait for a nuclear war in order to do so; the ‘news’ media can be judged right now, because this coup occurred a year ago, and yet still it has not been reported in the U.S. as having been a coup (this overthrow was supposedly instead a result of ‘the democratic Maidan demonstrations’ that were actually used merely as a cover for it).

Furthermore, the present reporter offers to all other journalists the full text of the only thorough investigation that was ever done regarding the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, a rigorous scientific analysis of all of the existing evidence. It concludes exactly as did the European Union’s investigator when he first reported on 26 February 2014 that it had been a coup, which had been perpetrated by “someone” allied with the EU (presumably by the U.S. White House); it shocked Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign-affairs chief, when she learned it from him. This lengthy subsequent independent investigation into the matter is by far the most thorough examination that exists of the event, and it is titled, “The ‘Snipers’ Massacre’ on the Maidan in Ukraine.” Its author is University of Ottawa political scientist, Dr. Ivan Katchanovski. Any ‘news’ medium that decides not to publish the present news report about this American international atrocity, and that also does not at least request from me (or from Dr. Katchanovski) that full investigative report by Katchanovski about how this ethnic cleansing started, is clearly not interested in reporting the truth, regarding what is actually the most important international-affairs news-story of the past year, since the February 2014 coup, at least — the only matter that could very possibly end up producing World War III. (Obama wanted a proxy war against Russia to soften them up for the real thing; and the result is all of this bloodshed in Ukraine during and since that coup a year ago.) So: nobody can say that the reason it’s not being reported is that it’s not important news (now become history) to report. It was, and (unfortunately) still is.

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.

Former EU Parliament member speaks out about Washington’s offensive against Russia, and the nazification and possible death of Europe

Posted by

0

Translation of interview of Giulietto Chiesa
From ZAVTRA.ru, February 12, 2015

Famous Italian politician – the dangers of the modern world

ZAFTRA Mr. Chiesa, the relationship between Russia and the West in general, including with leading European countries are becoming increasingly strained. Sanctions, unacceptably demanding tone, rudeness on the part of the PACE … And “who benefits?”

Giulietto Chiesa. Who benefits from the situation? Beneficial to those who created it. Absolutely clear to me is that the performance against Russia was organized in advance. And the artificial creation of the Ukrainian crisis has been carefully prepared by the American authorities. I do not know how Mr. Obama worked and participated personally in this area. But it is clear that in America today is not run by Mr. Obama. The neocons control, the Republican Party controls, the Pentagon controls, the secret services of the United States control…

The governing elite in the US believe that the time has come when it is necessary to engage in a decisive battle with Russia. For the time being, this fight – economic, diplomatic, sanctions. Not yet a nuclear war. But the American elite go to smash Russia.

They consider that Putin – the man who will not exacerbate the conflict. Mr. Putin protects and does not attack.

And it is clear that since he protects, then it is not he who created this situation. He still has even posed in extremely difficult conditions, acts very carefully and very reasonable. But there is a limit of him and his patience. This limit is clearly visible in the situation with the Donbas. Putin cannot allow that the Russian minority in Ukraine will be destroyed. This is not possible! It is impossible for Russia, its people, it is impossible for the internal psychological state of Putin himself. This is unacceptable because it breaks all the rules of international life. And when Putin says that we are in a situation of total chaos, and the rules are inactive, he is saying things that are obvious.

But it is not he who broke all the rules of conduct, he did not break them. He is called aggressor, though he never attacked, he at no one waged the offensive, he did not attack anybody. His behavior is called expansionist, even though around Russia accumulates NATO weapons, created by a chain of facilities, the borders of NATO expanding. Everything is planned and carried out by the West. In a literal sense intended by the United States and carried out under their supervision.

That is why the present situation cannot be corrected, the tragic situation cannot be remedied if this fix will not take namely the American authorities. It depends on them.

The biggest question – why the organizers of all this accelerated the process and the situation is developing at such a rate? That is the question that stands open. I think that in the West and especially in Europe there are still many do not understand, do not realize what is happening in what they willingly or unwillingly involved. And do not behave the way they should behave as reasonable political leaders, and are like spoiled boys who would like to teach all and very quickly break the enemy triumph over him. How come? Because they are dissatisfied with the current course of the world, the course of its development.

The world goes its own way. But they want the 21 century to be the American century. This very phrase that they repeat says everything. But the present age cannot to be an American one! After the action toward Syria the world has changed radically. And these capricious obstinate boys claim to further rule the world. Although these claims of theirs clearly are not feasible.

And here is the question: either they change their policies, or suffer defeat. I think that the danger of war (risk of a major war) lies in the fact that the world’s elite are playing for broke to get at once, immediately to them the desired result – smashing, the defeat of Russia. And they are confident that afterwards this problem will be solved, because they will become the most powerful, will retain the power for themselves …

But I think that even if Russia does not survive the blow and would have to retreat before them, to hand over their positions, they will not stop. After Russia, China is the object of aggression. But China will definitely be an insurmountable obstacle. And without war there can no longer be avoided. So the situation is extremely dangerous.

ZAFTRA Some time ago, the Estonian authorities have expelled you from the country.[i] That is expelled from the European Union a EU citizen. Maybe the Estonian authorities do not realize what is the principle of the European Union and do not know the rules? Or is it a provocation?

Giulietto Chiesa. I arrived in Tallinn to make a very topical lecture on “Should Europe be afraid of Russia?” I wanted to explain that Europe has nothing to fear Russia, it poses no threat. But the Estonian authorities do not even want to hear about it! They did not give even to hold a discussion on this topic!

With respect to me, they acted, breaking EU rules, which states that a European citizen may choose to travel around Europe if it does not threaten anyone’s security. I did not represent a danger to anyone and no one is threatened. This is obvious. I just wanted to express your opinion and share your point of view, about what has openly declared. But I was not given that opportunity.

So, firstly, I have not broken any European rules. And secondly, I was insulted. The charges which later against me were formulated and presented, far-fetched. Attributes to me statements that I never said. I allegedly encouraged the genocide of the Estonian people. When did I say that? Never. At the time I did an interview with Arnold Meri, and the Estonian authorities claim this, that I encouraged genocide of the Estonian people. It is offensive to me approval.

I demanded that the Estonian authorities, that they bring me an apology. They did not apologize. But if they did not apologize to me, I will file with the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights with the demand to Europe to give a clear and unambiguous assessment of the actions of the Estonian authorities. I shall demand an official statement by Europe.

It is not a question of my own personal situation. It is a question of Europe. Because if Europe issues a verdict that these actions of the Estonian authorities were competent and lawful means, Europe is dead. Meaning the Schengen [Convention] is dead, the fundamental European principles do not exist anymore – they died.

In this regard, I intend to, and am simply obliged to go to the end, and if an apology is not forthcoming, I will take it to the end. It is necessary, at last, to answer the question: can Europe influence the undemocratic behavior of one of its members and in general to manage? Can Europe urge Estonia, and add – Latvia, Lithuania – to order that they act in accordance with European laws and European rules subordinate? Or not?

And those who really are not turning a blind eye, look at the situation on these issues, understand that it is no accident these republics plus Poland operate the way they behave during the crisis in Ukraine. The behavior of of Estonia, which we are now discussing, explains why there is such a relationship with the current government of Estonia in Ukraine. All this is understandable. And if we close our eyes to what is happening and do not stop this madness, we obtain the Nazi Party in the European Parliament. We obtain the Nazi party, which will open to advance on the European institutions.

In addition, in all probability, NATO enters a country that has the same idea as the current Kiev. Occurs literally Nazification of Europe. And this is – a complete denial of the fundamental principles and traditions of Europe. It is not just the expansion of NATO or the inclusion of other states. This change is in the nature and state of political and ideological positions of Europe and NATO. And that means a sharp turn in the history of the continent.

Whence comes the offensive to our principles and foundations? Europe bears a great responsibility for the fact that she did not respond properly, did not prevent the development of a dangerous situation. On the contrary, she was enabling the movement and even associate themselves with this movement. The offensive begins in America. And Europe is responsible for the fact that Western Europe has done nothing to stop this madness.

ZAFTRA How do you assess Merkel and Hollande visit to Moscow and talks with Putin?

Giulietto Chiesa. I do not have any additional information to what took place in the media. But I drew attention to this fact: Mrs Merkel and Mr Hollande decided to fly to Moscow after visiting to Kiev, where their meeting with Poroshenko lasted five hours. So, they diligently tried to convince some ways Poroshenko. This is the first one.

Second. As can be seen in all the information media, the meeting was not agreed with the Americans. And the first step, when the Europeans moved in a different direction. Why do I say “in a different direction?” Because very carefully read the interview of Mrs. Mogerini in the newspaper «La Republica», where she clearly said that to now give the weapons to Ukraine – means to make a decisive step into war. This sentence I highlighted throughout the text, because Mrs. Mogerini cannot make such statements without prior agreement with Germany, and France. It is obvious that this phrase – a key and says that some European leaders are beginning to realize now that America wants to supply weapons Kiev (incidentally, fatal), and are very afraid of this development.

I consider all of this a change in the previous position of the European leaders. They, of course, stay tuned hostile to Russia, but it is clear that they began to speak their mind. That’s the only positive thing that I noticed in this meeting. Can the Europeans get rid of blackmail of the United States? I do not know. But now it seems clear that some of them – which was not until recently – are already beginning to realize the danger of the situation.

ZAFTRA What do you think: will be the effect of the election of the new President of Italy – Sergio Mattarello – on the relations between Russia and Italy?

Giulietto Chiesa. No, on the relationship between our two countries electing a new president will not affect Italy. The new president will continue the same course. His influence on the nature of relations between Russia and Italy is traditionally low.

 

Interviewed by Catherine Glushik

http://zavtra.ru/content/view/ssha-shantazhiruet-evropu/

[i] http://rt.com/news/215339-chiesa-arrest-estonia-italy/

Also posted on

http://rusvesna.su/recent_opinions/1424105010
US blackmails Europe! | Russian Spring

“The US should keep out of the Ukraine conflict”– EU Parliament President Martin Schulz in heated talk show roundtable

Posted by

0

Participants on Günther Jauch talk show, February 8, 2015:

Martin Schulz — EU Parliament President
Gabriele Krone-Schmaltz — ARD (Ukrainian TV) Moscow correspondent
John Kornblum — former U.S. ambassador to Germany
Harald Kujat — formerly NATO/Bundeswehr General

Posted on Fort Russ
 2/11/2015

Germans are fed up with the US ‘”over-protectiveness” and are not willing to fight for Poroshenko

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Ukrainian special services ought to immediately put out an arrest warrant on the European Parliament deputy Martin Schulz. This “Colorado beetle” and “quilted jacket” [both are derogatory terms used to describe the Ukrainian proponents of good relations with Russia] dared, on the state ARD TV channel, to call what’s happening in Ukraine a civil war, while the current Kiev government really hates that term. You are liable to get arrested for that, like the journalist Kotsaba.

Schultz made that statement on Gunther Jauch’s talk show, which is the equivalent of Savik Schuster’s show in Ukraine.

The next show aired on February 8. The topic: “Fateful Days for Europe—Whom is Putin Listening to?” Needless to say, the topic was Ukraine.

The discussion as to whom Putin listens to included the European Parliament President Martin Schulz, the ARD Moscow correspondent Gabriele Krone-Schmaltz, the former US ambassador to Germany John Kornblum, and the former NATO [actually, Bundeswehr] general Harald Kujat.

The discussion was heated and shows that being under the “over-protectiveness” of the US Big Brother has long gotten under the Germans’ skin, and any reference to that fact caused applause among the studio audience.

It would be difficult to call Schultz a Russophile and a Ukrainophobe. Nevertheless even he could not force himself to lie in front of the cameras and call the conflict on the Donbass one between the Forces of Light against Colorado beetle terrorists.

The Donbass conflict is a civil war. It must be resolved by diplomatic means, and not through the use of the Ukrainian army. “If Minsk-1 had failed, maybe Minsk-2 will fail too, but even then we need to continue the negotiations even if it means Minsk-70,” is how Schultz sees the problem’s resolution.

One left with an impression of tension in the German-US relations. Judging by how Angela Merkel spent the entire 2014 agreeing with Obama, the anti-US sentiment in Germany had grown, to the point that Kornblum was reduced to complaining to his German audience that “these days I’m seeing a tendency to blame everything on the US.”

His statement that “it’s Russia that’s waging war”, Krone-Schmaltz met with a rather sharp reply. “I want to emphasize, I am underscoring that if Russia were included during the preparations for the association agreement with Ukraine (and this is normal diplomatic work), none of this would be happening. I also believe that if the Eastern regions of Ukraine, where there is fighting right now, were given some autonomy, none of this would be happening. One can’t judge everything by today’s events and blame Moscow as soon as something goes wrong. One needs to engage in a little self-criticism.” Judging by the studio applause, she hit the nail on the head.

“Mr. Kornblum, what do you think about what McCain said to Merkel, namely that she ‘doesn’t care that people in eastern Ukraine are being killed like cattle’? Such rhetoric in Germany, to put it mildly, is considered unfriendly,” said Jauch to Kornblum. “Well, McCain is known for his sharp tongue. There are heated discussions, people are getting hot-headed. If you knew how many times I was told that America is responsible for that war. But we are not dealing with a ‘civil war’ but with a Russian aggression,” continued Kornblum.

General Kujat could not remain indifferent to that statement. “There is no military solution. Let me clarify: the West does not have a military solution. If we do something idiotic and intervene, we will not win but lose, and there will be a huge catastrophe. The situation looks different for Russia. Russia could adopt a military solution and we need to keep that in mind. But if Russia had really wanted it, that war, that conflict in Eastern Ukraine, would have been over in 48 hours. We keep hearing from various sources that regular Russian forces are participating in the fighting. Ukraine’s president also repeated that claim. However, I have no trustworthy information that would confirm that. Even the Ukrainian GenStaff Chief recently said: we are not fighting against regular Russian forces. If there were regular Russian forces there, the conflict would be over in 48 hours. What we are hearing is propaganda.”

To Schulz’s words that “Putin obviously has influence over the separatists,” Krone-Schmaltz reacted as follows: “it would be an oversimplification that Moscow controls the separatists, and Kiev controls its forces. It’s obvious there are forces that nobody controls. Kiev likewise does not control several of its military formations. For example, there was an ceasefire agreement after the Boeing MH17 catastrophe, in order to collect the victims. And who violated that ceasefire? Not the separatists but the Ukrainian army, whoever might be representing it! It’s been like this until today. I remind you that the Right Sector still insists it has a right to carry weapons. Therefore the EU ought to exert pressure also on Kiev so that the situation does not spin out of control.”

Schulz also pointed out that there are too many Americans involved. “This conflict is occurring on the border with the EU, therefore the US ought to pull back. I think it would be best if the Europeans were to solve this problem themselves,” he said to thunderous applause. Continue reading →

Putin’s ultimatum to Russian oligarchs

Posted by

0

Posted on Fort Russ, January 26, 2015
Crimson Alter – Politrussia.com
Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus

2015: The Apocalypse or the Renaissance of the Russian economy? 

Reading endless stories of schizo-patriots and liberals that the Russian economy will soon experience a complete collapse, would be very amusing if these stories, shaped exactly by the manuals of Rand Corporation, did not get on the nerves of real Russians. We all have a difficult year ahead, and to live with an eye on a “total collapse, looming on the horizon,” described by the gloom-and-doom prophets of all colors, – is a dubious pleasure. To live in constant fear that “the oligarchs will  overthrow Putin, knock him out with a snuff-box, and the time will come to go out to the Patriotic Maidan to save Moscow”, is simply impossible. It is impossible not to notice that this psychosis is created skillfully and the main card of the manipulators is based on the hope that the audience will not notice those facts that clearly indicate that the situation is moving in a completely different direction.

Briefly, this scenario can be formulated as follows: subjugation of the oligarchy plus full state capitalism. About this, as a terrible disaster for the Russian economy, talks German Gref. Actually, this is not a disaster, but a renaissance.

In the working plan of the structure of the Russian economy, the Kremlin decided to take into account the positive and negative experience of the crisis of 2008 with amendments to current geopolitical realities. By all indications, at the famous meeting with Russian business leaders, Putin gave the oligarchs a choice: work for the country (dedollarization, participation in support of the ruble, the transfer of control over enterprises into the Russian jurisdiction, and so on) or the state will ‘deal’ with them and take the property.

Putin’s strategy is easy to reconstruct based on leaked to the press elements of the preparation for the meeting of the President and the leaders of Russian business. This is how these “gentleman talks” were described by government and business sources of Gazeta.ru:

“…Representatives of ministries and agencies contacted major exporters, shareholders and owners, and had a heart-to-heart conversation with them. The conversation went something like this: “Have you heard about our situation with the ruble? – “Yes” – “Could you possibly now not aggravate the problem – sell part of foreign currency earnings to support the ruble and to calm the citizens?”

Then there was a fork in the conversation. Some agreed with the recommendation, and some – not. The naysayers said: “I have a debt in foreign currency, and the ruble is floating free. So I am saving. You don’t have the right to force me”. They were replied: “Well, do as you wish. We have no right to force someone. But if tomorrow you will come to the government to ask for support, state guarantees, loans and in general… then don’t expect anything”.

The oligarchs had time to think, but the first results appeared immediately. The decision of Alisher Usmanov to transfer control of his companies (Megafon, Metalloinvest) to Russia – is an indication that the smartest oligarchs have already made their bets. One can only envy the foresight of Usmanov – his financiers began to break into the Chinese (Hong Kong) capital markets already back in the summer and the process of transferring control of the offshore assets to Russia was started long before Putin’s “December ultimatum”. The ability to feel the essence of time is the key to survival in the current geopolitical conditions.

A very unexpected example of the correct orientation in the political space is the owner of AFK Sistema, Yevtushenkov. It would seem, in the context of Western court decisions in the Yukos case, the incredible pressure of the West on Putin and the nationalization of Bashneft, Yevtushenkov had all the reasons to become Khodorkovsky 2.0 – the icon of the opposition, the hope of the State Department and the applicant for the post of Moscow’s curator after an oligarchic Maidan. In fact, many had expected this course of events. Instead, Yevtushenkov has “converted” in a few months, for which 10 years in prison was not enough for Khodorkovsky. Many argue that it is Yevtushenkov who sold those 3 billion dollars, mentioned by Putin. Moreover, Yevtushenkov had himself issued a black mark in the eyes of the West in his recent interview. Note two significant quotes: Continue reading →

Vladimir Putin: NATO’s “Foreign Legions” operating in East Ukraine

Posted by

0

Posted on  Global Research, January 26, 2015
Vladimir Putin
Source: The Kremlin
http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/23526

Meeting with Students at the Mining University

Excerpts from transcript of meeting with students at the Mining University

Highlights regarding Ukraine:

Regrettably, the government in Kiev has refused to take the road of a peaceful settlement and does not want to resolve the problem through political means. First they used the law enforcement agencies, then the security services, and then the army. Later, when they ran up against resistance, they suspended military operations, but sadly, they only used the temporary peace to regroup and then start their operations again. They are pursuing these operations again now. Thousands of people have already been killed. This is certainly a real tragedy.

We often speak of the ‘Ukrainian army’, but who is doing the fighting there in reality? Yes, in part it is official armed forces units, but a substantial part of those doing the fighting come from the so-called volunteer nationalist battalions. Essentially, this is not an army but is a foreign legion, in this particular case, a NATO foreign legion, which is not pursuing Ukraine’s national interests of course. They have completely different goals, related to achieving their geopolitical aim of containing Russia, and this is absolutely not in the Ukrainian people’s national interests.

Unfortunately though, we have the situation we see before us now. We need to help the people there. Incidentally, many people are trying to get out of being called up for duty. Some are trying to come here to Russia and wait things out a while here, and they are right to do this because there, they are simply being sent as cannon fodder to face the bullets. The problem is though, that under the new law, Ukrainian citizens cannot spend more than 30 days at a time in Russia. So they go back home and get caught and sent off again to face the bullets. We will therefore probably make some changes. Within the law’s provisions, we could increase the amount of time certain categories of people, above all people of conscript age, can stay in Russia.

Full transcript:

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, congratulations on yesterday’s holiday, the day we traditionally celebrate as Students Day.

It was a pleasure to be shown around your university. You have plenty to be proud of here of course. I think that you all see and understand this for yourselves. The level of your professors and teachers, the university’s equipment, and the whole way the teaching process is organised are all things you can be proud of.

It is good to see that we have universities of this level in the engineering field. This is particularly important for Russia. It is important in any country of course, but especially for Russia with its immense territory and mineral resources. This is excellent to see and I congratulate you on this.

RESPONSE: Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I thought today was an ordinary day, but you are still celebrating the holiday.

FIRST VICE-RECTOR OF THE MINING UNIVERSITY NATALIA PASHKEVICH: The latest round of exams has just ended and the break has begun. The postgraduates have come back from their internships. The students have just finished their exams and so they have reasons to celebrate.

Today, the board of trustees and the FosAgro Company handed over a new student dormitory building to us.

RECTOR OF THE MINING UNIVERSITY VLADIMIR LITVINENKO: What’s more, a programme totalling nearly 800 million rubles provided by companies taking an active part in its implementation has been approved for this year.

Last year, we took possession of 50,000 square metres, the construction of which was funded by extra-budgetary sources, by companies. For every ruble spent, we earn 1.2 rubles for the budget.

Many postgraduates have returned from internships and presented their reports today.

NATALIA PASHKEVICH: They were in Germany, France and Poland.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You have a big programme of work.

NATALIA PASHKEVICH: Yes, we do. We are working with the Finns on a double-diploma programme, and with the French, the Germans, and the Austrians.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The rector spoke about this. You are working in the interests of Russian companies, and in foreign companies’ interests too?

NATALIA PASHKEVICH: In foreign companies’ interest too. The Austrians, French and Canadians have all taken on our graduates.

VLADIMIR LITVINENKO: But they do come back to Russia, Mr President. For example, we have graduates who are going to Norway and returning home again.

NATALIA PASHKEVICH: Many of our graduates are working in companies’ representative offices here in Russia.

VLADIMIR LITVINENKO: These ones were in Houston, for example.

RESPONSE: We were happy to come back.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Where were you, at what institution?

RESPONSE: At Houston College of Technology. We did a general internship there, attended lectures and visited companies so as to pass on the knowledge to our own students, improve our training and maybe bring back some innovations and latest developments.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This should continue because our education system needs to be an organic part of the global education system. This is the only way to maintain our level, get a sense of what our partners are doing, develop the main areas ourselves and exchange information. This is all very important and should continue. We will do this of course.

<…>

QUESTION: Mr President, Donetsk National Technical University has been the Mining University’s partner for many years now. We have friends there, students who are taking part in our annual international forum and competition, Problems of Mineral Resource Use. Sadly, because of the events in Ukraine, they have hardly been able to study of late.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Classes have stopped there?

RESPONSE: When there is bombing, the classes get cancelled, then they start again, but there is not really any proper teaching process going on there at the moment. The students in Donetsk place their hopes on your personal help and we and the Donetsk students all want to thank you for the great attention you have been giving these matters. Would you be able to help the students in Donetsk? Perhaps it’s possible to do something.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is a very painful issue you have brought up here, one that concerns the serious and tragic events in Ukraine. Essentially, a civil war is underway there. I think that many in Ukraine understand this very well now.

Regrettably, the government in Kiev has refused to take the road of a peaceful settlement and does not want to resolve the problem through political means. First they used the law enforcement agencies, then the security services, and then the army. Later, when they ran up against resistance, they suspended military operations, but sadly, they only used the temporary peace to regroup and then start their operations again. They are pursuing these operations again now. Thousands of people have already been killed. This is certainly a real tragedy.

We often speak of the ‘Ukrainian army’, but who is doing the fighting there in reality? Yes, in part it is official armed forces units, but a substantial part of those doing the fighting come from the so-called volunteer nationalist battalions. Essentially, this is not an army but is a foreign legion, in this particular case, a NATO foreign legion, which is not pursuing Ukraine’s national interests of course. They have completely different goals, related to achieving their geopolitical aim of containing Russia, and this is absolutely not in the Ukrainian people’s national interests.

Unfortunately though, we have the situation we see before us now. We need to help the people there. Incidentally, many people are trying to get out of being called up for duty. Some are trying to come here to Russia and wait things out a while here, and they are right to do this because there, they are simply being sent as cannon fodder to face the bullets. The problem is though, that under the new law, Ukrainian citizens cannot spend more than 30 days at a time in Russia. So they go back home and get caught and sent off again to face the bullets. We will therefore probably make some changes. Within the law’s provisions, we could increase the amount of time certain categories of people, above all people of conscript age, can stay in Russia.

Regarding your question, of course we need to help the students. We would have to ask the rector about the possibilities, but you could make use of distance learning technology, invite them here for internships, and simply come up with a support system for them.

VLADIMIR LITVINENKO: We would be able to take up to 1,000 students here for six months or a year at least, but there would be issues to sort out with the Ministry and the Government, so close coordination would be needed.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will definitely talk to them.

VLADIMIR LITVINENKO: I know that the South Russian State Polytechnic University in Novocherkassk could take students and has the needed dormitory facilities and so forth. We could take them at least temporarily.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Last year, we allocated… (Addressing Presidential Aide Andrei Fursenko) How many places in our universities did we allocate to students from Ukraine last year? We allocated additional budget-subsidised places in 18 Russian universities. Your partners from the Donetsk institute could of course get support from your university, one of our country’s top universities. Let’s think about how to go about it. We do need to help the students.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-foreign-legions-operating-in-east-ukraine/5427436

German TV interview with President Vladimir Putin on the crisis in East Ukraine, the sanctions regime, Russian-German relations (VIDEO)

Posted by

0

Vladimir Putin answered questions from Hubert Seipel of the German TV channel ARD. The interview was recorded on November 13 in Vladivostok.

HUBERT SEIPEL (retranslated from Russian): Good afternoon, Mr President.

You are the only Russian President who has ever given a speech at the Bundestag. This happened in 2001. Your speech was a success. You spoke about relations between Russia and Germany, building Europe in cooperation with Russia, but you also gave a warning. You said that the Cold War ideas had to be eradicated. You also noted that we share the same values, yet we do not trust each other. Why were you being a little pessimistic back then?

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/BdlXqyZHB9k” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

VLADIMIR PUTIN: First of all, I gave no warnings or admonitions and I was not being pessimistic. I was just trying to analyse the preceding period in the development of the situation in the world and in Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I also took the liberty of predicting the situation based on different development scenarios.

Naturally, it reflected the situation as we see it, through the prism, as diplomats would put it, from Russia’s point of view, but still, I think it was a rather objective analysis.

I reiterate: there was no pessimism whatsoever. None. On the contrary, I was trying to make my speech sound optimistic. I assumed that having acknowledged all the problems of the past, we must move towards a much more comfortable and mutually advantageous relationship-building process in the future.

HUBERT SEIPEL: Last week marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, which would not have been possible without the Soviet Union’s consent. That was back then. In the meantime, NATO is conducting exercises in the Black Sea, near the Russian borders, while Russian bombers conduct exercises in Europe’s international airspace. The Defence Minister said, if I’m not mistaken, that they fly as far as the Gulf of Mexico. All of this points to a new Cold War.

And, of course, partners exchange harsh statements. Some time ago, President Obama named Russia as a threat on a par with Ebola and the extremists, the Islamic extremists. You once called America a nouveau riche, who thinks of himself as a winner of the Cold war, and now America is trying to shape the world according to its own ideas about life. All of this is very reminiscent of a Cold War.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: See, you mentioned 2001 and I said that my perspective was rather optimistic.

We have witnessed two waves of NATO expansion since 2001. If I remember correctly, seven countries – Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and three Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – joined NATO in 2004. Two more countries joined in 2009. Those were significant geopolitical game changers.

Furthermore, the number of military bases is growing. Does Russia have military bases around the world? NATO and the United States have military bases scattered all over the globe, including in areas close to our borders, and their number is growing.

Moreover, just recently it was decided to deploy Special Operations Forces, again in close proximity to our borders.

You have mentioned various exercises, flights, ship movements, and so on. Is all of this going on? Yes, it is indeed.

However, first of all, you said – or perhaps it was an inaccurate translation – that they have been conducted in the international European airspace. Well, it is either international (neutral) or European airspace. So, please note that our exercises have been conducted exclusively in international waters and international airspace.

In 1992, we suspended the flights of our strategic aircraft and they remained at their air bases for many years. During this time, our US partners continued the flights of their nuclear aircraft to the same areas as before, including areas close to our borders. Therefore, several years ago, seeing no positive developments, no one is ready to meet us halfway, we resumed the flights of our strategic aviation to remote areas. That’s all.

HUBERT SEIPEL: So, you believe that your security interests have not been accommodated.

Let me return to the current crisis and to its trigger. The current crisis was triggered by the agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The title of this agreement is relatively harmless. It is called the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The key point of this agreement is to open the Ukrainian market to the EU and vice versa. Why is it a threat for Russia? Why did you oppose this agreement?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: In reality the economy follows almost the same path as security. We preach the opposite of what we practice. We say that a single space should be built and build new dividing lines instead.

Let us look at what the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement stipulates. I have said this many times, but it appears I have to repeat it once again: it eliminates the import duties for the European goods entering Ukrainian territory, brings them down to zero. Yet as Ukraine is a member of a free trade zone within CIS, zero customs tariffs have been introduced between Russia and Ukraine. What does that mean? It means that all European goods will flow through Ukrainian territory directly to the customs territory of the Russian Federation.

There are many other things that may not be clear for people who are not informed regarding these matters, but they do exist. For example, there are technical regulations that are different in Russia and in the EU, we have different standards. Those are standards of technical control, phytosanitary standards and the principle of determining the origin of goods. By way of an example I would cite the component assembly of cars in Ukrainian territory. According to the Association Agreement, the goods manufactured in the territory of Ukraine are intended for our market within the framework of the Russian-Ukrainian free trade zone. Your companies that invested billions of euros in factories in Russia (Volkswagen, BMW, Peugeot, Citroen, the US Ford, and others) entered our market on completely different terms, on condition of deep localisation of production. How could we accept that? So we said from the outset, “We agree, but let us proceed step by step and take into consideration the real problems that can emerge between Russia and Ukraine.” What were we told in response? “It is none of your business, so get your nose out of these affairs.”

HUBERT SEIPEL: I would like to turn to the past. When the EU‑Ukraine Association Agreement was discussed, the negotiations took quite a while. This caused rallies on Maidan in Kiev. I refer to the protests during which people demanded a better life within the European Union. But they were also protesting against the Ukrainian system. In the end all that resulted in a wave of violence.

After the then president failed to sign the Agreement, it provoked an outbreak of violence, and people were killed on Maidan. Then the German Minister of Foreign Affairs arrived and tried to find a compromise between the protesters and the government, and managed to do that. An agreement was made providing for a government of national unity. It remained in force for about 24 hours and then it disappeared.

You followed closely the developments of September 21 and you remember how you talked with Mr Obama and Ms Merkel.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes. Indeed, on February 21, not only the German Minister of Foreign Affairs but also his counterparts from Poland and France arrived in Kiev to act as guarantors of the agreement achieved between the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. The agreement stipulated that the only path the process would take was the peaceful one. As guarantors, they signed that agreement between the official authorities and the opposition. And the former assumed that it would be observed. It is true that I spoke by telephone with the President of the United States that same day, and this was the context for our conversation. However, the following day, despite all the guarantees provided by our partners from the West, a coup happened and both the Presidential Administration and the Government headquarters were occupied.

I would like to say the following in this regard: either the Foreign Ministers of Germany, Poland and France should not have signed the agreement between the authorities and the opposition as its guarantors, or, since they did sign it after all, they should have insisted on its implementation instead of dissociating themselves from this agreement. What is more, they prefer now not to mention it at all, as though the agreement never existed. In my view, this is absolutely wrong and counterproductive.

HUBERT SEIPEL: You acted promptly. You, so to say, annexed Crimea and justified it at the time based on the fact that 60 percent of Crimea’s population were Russians, that Crimea has a long history of being part of Russia and, lastly, that its fleet is stationed there. The West saw that as a violation of international law.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: What is your question exactly?

HUBERT SEIPEL: Did you underestimate the reaction of the West and the possible sanctions, which were later imposed on Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We believe that this sort of reaction was totally disproportionate to what had happened.

Whenever I hear complaints about Russia violating international law I am simply amazed. What is international law? It is first of all the United Nations Charter, international practice and its interpretation by relevant international institutions.

Moreover, we have a clear recent precedent – Kosovo.

HUBERT SEIPEL: You mean the International Court of Justice ruling on Kosovo? The one in which it stated that Kosovo had the right to self‑determination and that the Kosovars could hold a vote to determine the future of their state?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: (In German.) Exactly. (Continues in Russian.) But not only that. Its main point was that when making a decision concerning their self-determination, the people living in a certain territory need not ask the opinion of the central authorities of the state where they presently live. They do not need the approval by the central authorities, by the government, to take the necessary measures for self-determination. That is the central point.

And what was done in Crimea was not in any way different from what had been done in Kosovo.

I am deeply convinced that Russia did not commit any violations of international law. Yes, I make no secret of it, it is a fact and we never concealed that our Armed Forces, let us be clear, blocked Ukrainian armed forces stationed in Crimea, not to force anybody to vote, which is impossible, but to avoid bloodshed, to give the people an opportunity to express their own opinion about how they want to shape their future and the future of their children.

Kosovo, which you mentioned, declared its independence by parliamentary decision alone. In Crimea, people did not just make a parliamentary decision, they held a referendum, and its results were simply stunning.

What is democracy? Both you and me know the answer well. What is demos? Demos is people, and democracy is people’s right. In this particular case, it is the right to self-determination.

HUBERT SEIPEL: It shows immediately that you are a lawyer.

But you know the arguments of the West as well. The West says that the elections were held under the control of Russian military. This is the reasoning of the West.

Let me touch upon the next issue. Today, Ukraine is more or less divided. Four thousand people have died, hundreds of thousands have become refugees and fled, among other places, to Russia. In the east of the country, Russian-speaking separatists are demanding broad autonomy, some want to join Russia. In accordance with the Minsk agreement, ceasefire was declared, but people are dying every day. The country is bankrupt. Basically everybody lost in the conflict. Ukraine seems to have lost the most, but Europe and Russia did as well. How do you see Ukraine’s future?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Ukraine is a complex country, and not only due to its ethnic composition, but also from the point of view of its formation as it stands today.

Is there a future and what will it be like? I think there certainly is. It is a large country, a large nation with the population of 43–44 million people. It is a large European country with a European culture..

You know, there is only one thing that is missing. I believe, what is missing is the understanding that in order to be successful, stable and prosperous, the people who live on this territory, regardless of the language they speak (Hungarian, Russian, Ukrainian or Polish), must feel that this territory is their homeland. To achieve that they must feel that they can realise their potential here as well as in any other territories and possibly even better to some extent. That is why I do not understand the unwillingness of some political forces in Ukraine to even hear about the possibility of federalisation.

We’ve been hearing lately that the question at issue should be not federalisation but decentralisation. It is all really a play on words. It is important to understand what these notions mean: decentralisation, federalisation, regionalisation. You can coin a dozen other terms. The people living in these territories must realise that they have rights to something, that they can decide something for themselves in their lives.

HUBERT SEIPEL: The central question in the West as follows: will Ukraine remain an independent state? It is the central question now on the agenda. The second question is whether Russia can do more? Maybe Russia has more opportunities to expedite this process in Ukraine, in particular with regard to the Minsk agreements?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, when someone tells us that we have some special opportunities to solve this or that crisis it always troubles and alarms me. We have heard many times that Russia has a key to the solution of the Syrian problem, that we have some special opportunities to solve some other problem or the Ukrainian crisis. I always begin to suspect that there is an intention to pass on the responsibility to us and to make us pay for something. We do not want that. Ukraine is an independent, free and sovereign state. Frankly speaking, we are very concerned about any possible ethnic cleansings and Ukraine ending up as a neo-Nazi state. What are we supposed to think if people are bearing swastikas on their sleeves? Or what about the SS emblems that we see on the helmets of some military units now fighting in eastern Ukraine? If it is a civilised state, where are the authorities looking? At least they could get rid of this uniform, they could make the nationalists remove these emblems. That is why we have fears that it may all end up this way. If it happens it would be a catastrophe for Ukraine and Ukrainian people.

The Minsk agreements arose only because Russia became actively involved in this effort; we worked with the Donbass militias, that is the fighters from southeast Ukraine, and we convinced them that they should settle for certain agreements. If we had not done that, it would simply not have happened. There are some problems with the implementation of these agreements, it is true.

What are those problems? Indeed, self-defence fighters, for example, were supposed to leave some of the towns they had surrounded, are yet they haven’t left. Do you know why not? I will tell you plainly, this is no secret: because the people fighting against the Ukrainian army say, “These are our villages, we come from there. Our families and our loved ones live there. If we leave, nationalist battalions will come and kill everyone. We will not leave, you can kill us yourselves.” You know, it is a difficult problem. Of course, we try to convince them, we talk, but when they say things like that, you know, there is not much that can be said in response.

And the Ukrainian army also has not left some of the towns it was supposed to leave. The militias – they are the people who are fighting for their rights, for their interests. But if the central Ukrainian authorities choose not just to determine the demarcation line, which is very important today in order to stop the shelling and killing, but if they want to preserve the territorial integrity of their country, each particular village or town are not significant; what is important is to immediately stop the bloodshed and shelling and to create conditions for starting a political dialogue. That is what is important. If it this is not done, there will be no political dialogue.

I apologise for such a long monologue, but you make me go back to the essence of the problem.

What is the essence? The coup took place in Kiev. A considerable part of the country supported it, and they were happy partly because they believed that after the signing of, say, the Association Agreement there will be open borders, job opportunities, the right to work in the European Union, including in Germany. They thought that it will be like that. In fact, they have nothing of the sort. The other part of the country, the southeast, did not support it and said, “We do not recognise you.” And instead of starting a dialogue, instead of explaining to people that the central authorities in Kiev are not going to do anything bad, and on the contrary, they will propose various forms of coexistence and development of a common state, they are ready to grant them their rights, instead of that they begin making arrests at night. Once the night arrests began, people in the southeast took up arms. Once they took up arms, instead of stopping (the authorities should have the wisdom to do that) and starting this dialogue they sent the army, the air force, tanks and multiple rocket launchers. Is this a way to solve problems? And ultimately everything came to a deadlock. Is it possible to get out of it? I am sure that it is possible.

HUBERT SEIPEL: The question or, more properly, the claim made by Kiev today is that Russia supplies weapons to the separatists and sends its servicemen there.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Where did they get the armoured vehicles and the artillery systems? Nowadays people who wage a fight and consider it righteous will always get weapons. This is the first point.

But I would like to stress that this is not the issue. The issue itself is entirely different. The issue is that we can’t have a one-sided view of the problem.

Today there is fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian central authorities have sent the armed forces there and they even use ballistic missiles. Does anybody speak about it? Not a single word. And what does it mean? What does it tell us? This points to the fact, that you want the Ukrainian central authorities to annihilate everyone there, all of their political foes and opponents. Is that what you want? We certainly don’t. And we won’t let it happen.

HUBERT SEIPEL: After the Crimea joined Russia, the West expelled Russia from the Group of Eight, this exclusive club of industrial states. At the same time the USA and Great Britain imposed sanctions against Russia. Now you are heading to a G20 summit of the most important industrial states on the planet. The focus there will be on economic growth and employment. They say, there is no more growth and unemployment is set to increase; the sanctions are starting to have an effect; both the ruble and the oil price have set anti‑records. The forecast of attaining 2 percent growth in Russia is unfeasible. Other countries are in the same situation. This crisis has a counter‑productive character, including for the upcoming summit, wouldn’t you say?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You mean the Ukrainian crisis?

HUBERT SEIPEL: Yes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Of course, who could benefit from it? You wanted to know how the situation is evolving and what our expectations are. Of course we expect the situation to change for the better. Of course we expect the Ukrainian crisis to end. Of course we want to have normal relations with our partners, including in the United States and Europe. Of course, the situation with the so-called sanctions is damaging for the global economy (it is damaging for us and it is damaging for global economy as well) and it is damaging for the Russian‑EU relations most of all.

However, there are some advantages as well: the restrictions imposed on some Russian companies on purchasing certain  goods from Western countries, from Europe and the United States, have induced us to produce these goods ourselves. The comfortable life, when all we had to do was produce more oil and gas, and to buy everything else, is a thing of the past.

With regard to growth, we should note that this year growth was modest but it was present nevertheless at about 0.5–0.6 percent. Next year we are planning to achieve 1.2 percent growth, the year after that 2.3 percent and 3 percent in three years. Generally, these are not the figures we would like to have but nevertheless it is growth and we are confident that we will achieve these figures.

HUBERT SEIPEL: Another theme to be discussed in Brisbane will be financial stability. The situation in Russia may also be complicated because Russian banks can no longer obtain refinancing on world markets. Moreover, there are plans to close for Russia the international payments system.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russian banks have currently extended a $25 billion loan to the Ukrainian economy. If our European and American partners want to help Ukraine, how can they undermine the financial base limiting our financial institutions’ access to world capital markets? Do they want to bankrupt our banks? In that case they will bankrupt Ukraine. Have they thought about what they are doing at all or not? Or has politics blinded them? As we know eyes constitute a peripheral part of brain. Was something switched off in their brains?

The bank that I mentioned is Gazprombank, which only this year, this calendar year, has extended a loan of $1.4 plus $1.8 billion to the Ukrainian energy sector. How much is that in total? $3.2 billion. This is the sum it has allocated. In one case, it issued a loan to Ukrainian Naftogaz, which is a public company; in the other case, it allocated $1.4 billion to a private company in order to support Ukraine’s chemical industry. In both cases, today this bank has the right to demand early repayment because the Ukrainian partners have violated their loan agreement.

HUBERT SEIPEL: The question is if they are paying or not?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: (In German.) They are paying at the moment. (Continues in Russian.) They are servicing the loan. Naftogaz is servicing one of the loans. However, there are some conditions that are being violated. Therefore, the bank has the formal right to demand early repayment.

But if we do it, the whole Ukrainian financial system will collapse. And if we don’t do it, our bank may collapse. What should we do?

Moreover, when we extended a $3 billion loan a year ago, there was a condition that if Ukraine’s total debt exceeded 60 percent of GDP, we, the Russian Ministry of Finance, would be entitled to demand an early repayment. Again, if we do it, the whole financial system will collapse. We have already decided that we will not do it. We do not want to aggravate the situation. We want Ukraine to get on its feet at last.

HUBERT SEIPEL: Do you intend to propose ways to resolve the crisis in Ukraine?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Madam Chancellor is very much aware of all the nuances of this conflict. As for the energy problem, she has done a great deal for its solution.

As for the security issues, I would say that in this area our viewpoints and approaches do not always coincide. What is clear is that Russia and the Federal Republic of Germany want the situation in this region to be settled. We are interested in this and we will work for the observation of the Minsk agreements. There is just one thing that I always pay attention to. We are told again and again: pro-Russian separatists must do this and this, you must influence them in this way, you must act in that way. I have always asked them: “What have you done to influence your clients in Kiev? What have you done? Or do you only support Russophobic sentiments?” This is very dangerous, by the way. A catastrophe will happen if somebody surreptitiously supports Russophobia in Ukraine. It will be a real catastrophe! Or shall we seek a joint solution? If so, let’s bring the positions of the parties closer together. I am going to say something that some people in this country may not like. Let’s try to achieve a single political space in those territories. We are ready to move in this direction, but only together.

HUBERT SEIPEL: It is very difficult to correct the mistakes made by others. Sometimes it is only possible to correct one’s own mistakes.

I would like to ask you: have you made mistakes?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: People always make mistakes. Every person makes mistakes in business, in private life. Does it really matter? The question is that we should give a rapid, timely and effective response to the consequences of such mistakes. We should analyse them and realise that they are mistakes. We should understand, correct them and move on towards the solution of problems rather than an impasse.

It seemed to me that this is the way we acted in our relations with Europe as a whole and the Federal Republic of Germany in particular over the past decade. Look at the friendship that has been established between Russia and Germany in the past 10–15 years. I don’t know if we had ever enjoyed such relations before. I don’t think so. I see it as a very good base, a good foundation for the development of relations not only between our two states, but also between Russia and Europe as a whole, for the harmonisation of relations in the world. It will be a pity if we let it go to waste.

HUBERT SEIPEL: Mr President, thank you for the interview.

Source:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-president-vladimir-putin-the-crisis-in-east-ukraine-the-sanctions-regime-russian-german-relations/5416638

Video: http://youtu.be/BdlXqyZHB9k

Vladimir Putin speaks to the Russian Security Council

Posted by

0

SOTT Exclusive: Putin on fighting extremism, color revolutions
By Harrison Koehli
November 20, 2014

Putin at meeting of Security Council, 20 November

Putin at meeting of Security Council, 20 November

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently spoke about countering extremism in the next decade at an expanded Security Council meting in the Kremlin. As usual, he had some interesting things to say. Here are some highlights, with commentary.

On the inhumanity of extremism

“I do not believe there is any need to prove how dangerous the very nature of extremism is and how destructive its ideology is – the ideology of intolerance, hatred and animosity. In all its manifestations, extremism is aggressive in nature, seditious and often violent and linked to terrorism.

It infringes on the rights and freedoms of citizens, often even endangering their very lives; it is a threat to national security, capable of cardinally unbalancing the political, economic and social systems. Such types of extremism as nationalism, religious intolerance and political extremism are especially dangerous for society and for the state. Every crime of this type (usually resonant and heinous in itself) can provoke mass violations of public order.”

The western puppet masters also know how dangerous and destructive extremism is, which is why they foment it in regions they wish to control. They also know that ordinary people also know how dangerous and destructive it is. But unlike their leaders, they see this as a bad thing, which is why their governments make a big show about ‘fighting terrorism’.

What none of them seem to know, or what none of them wish to reveal, is that extremism has a very real cause, not to be found in its specific ideology per se. There is nothing inherently ponerizing about an extremist ideology. The reason they work is because 1) they are created by individuals with certain psychopathologies with tendencies to see the world in anti-social, anti-human, doctrinaire, black-and-white, us-and-them ways, and 2) similar people gravitate towards those ideologies, either because they share the same emotional deficits or because they are simply ignorant of what’s really going on and get riled up by the revolutionary aspects. Andrew Lobaczewski laid it all out in Political Ponerology. If only the world would listen. [“Ponerology” is the study of evil.]

On color revolutions

“I would like to add that in the modern world extremism is often used as a geopolitical instrument to rearrange spheres of influence. We see the tragic consequences of the wave of so-called ‘colour revolutions’, the turmoil in the countries that have undergone the irresponsible experiments of covert and sometimes blatant interference in their lives. We take this as a lesson and a warning, and we must do everything necessary to ensure this never happens in Russia.”

Yep.

What to do

“This should not be piecemeal involvement, but a unified front, so to speak, which should act to prevent extremism, jointly educate people, including via the Internet, and create conditions for stronger peace and accord in society.

Once we achieve such coordination in every region, in each municipality, then we will have overall results in countering extremism. People would know that on their territory, there are authorities and there is a proactive and concerned society and together they can effectively resist any manifestations of extremism and maintain calm and stability.

In such conditions of trust and support, it is much easier to create an atmosphere of renouncing extremist propaganda. At the same time, the recognition by the citizens of the danger posed by extremism guarantees the efficiency of the measures taken by the authorities.

… I would like to reiterate that one of our key priorities is to breed public rejection of and civic immunity to the dissemination of extremist and radical ideas. For this purpose, we must unite the efforts of the authorities, society and all state and social agencies.”

Education is certainly important. As is a centralized effort to combat the ponerogenic process in such groups. The people need a central authority, otherwise foreign agents would be free to create and rile up existing extremist groups (ponerogenic unions). But that authority needs to be informed as to the exact causes and dynamics behind the process.

The weak spots

“I would like to single out some priority areas of our work. We should pay special attention to interethnic and inter-religious relations and fully support the culture, traditions and identity of the peoples living in a given area, town or city. This is a very delicate job, but you know what can happen if it is left undone.

The second area is work with the younger generation. It is among them that the leaders of extremist organisations are trying to find followers and conduct their propaganda, primarily using the internet. Extremist ideology is gaining momentum in the virtual world, spilling out into the real one.”

Putin is correct in that ponerogenic unions propagandize to youths (often those who are disenfranchised, who don’t feel they have any purpose, who feel powerless in the face of a national or global system that doesn’t give a shit about them) and exploit ethnic and religious differences. Most, if not all, religions have some degree of ponerogenic material, ripe for exploitation. The only solution is education, and a big part of that education is instilling real values into youths.

Illegal immigration

“The third important area is the improvement of the migration policy. We still have quite a few problems here that have to do with illegal, uncontrolled migration. We know that this breeds crime, interethnic tensions and extremism. We need greater control over compliance with regulations covering migrants’ stay in Russia and we have to take practical measures to promote their social and cultural adaptation and protect their labour and other rights.”

Whereas the U.S. seems to be against illegal immigration simply because it is a totally xenophobic and racist society, it can be a real problem. The Central Asian region of Russia’s border is largely uncontrolled, making easy entry for foreign mercenaries, drug traffickers, human traffickers, and smugglers. The U.S. has been exploiting this fact for years.

Conclusion

“…countering extremism has nothing to do with intolerance towards dissenters. Russia is a free democratic country and its citizens have the right to their opinion, the right to voice it and to be in opposition to the authorities. Moreover, no national leadership could ever be effective without society playing this role. … It is important that they exercise their rights, express their political preferences, positions and views in a civilised and legal manner.

As we assert our freedom of choice, the right to hold meetings, marches and rallies, we should not forget that we are responsible for our words and deeds. We must know and bear in mind that breeding conflict between people of different ethnicity and religion, propaganda of nationalist ideology, mass violations of public order on these grounds and particularly calls for a violent overthrow of the existing regime are direct manifestations of anti-national thinking and extremism. … Leaders of public movements should remember this; they should know that such actions are punishable by law.”

Those who cry “censorship!” should remember that freedom is not the same as free license. There are lines that should not be crossed, lines crossed by groups like ISIS, Ukraine’s neo-Nazi battalions, the U.S. government, NATO, etc.

On Jerusalem

“I have mentioned developments in the world. Life keeps teaching us new lessons. Sometimes this happens far from our borders; however, we should still be aware of them. The latest atrocity in Jerusalem, where praying people were attacked with an axe – this is beyond comprehension. Knowing this, realising the danger of such manifestations and having analysed their causes, we must make timely decisions that would save our country from such things.”

Putin is no doubt aware of the extent of Mossad operations in Israel. But he plays by the rules. In this case, if Mossad had a hand in the recent attack (it almost always does), it has given Putin the opportunity to use it as support for his own policies that run directly counter to the actions of countries like Israel, who foment extremism in countries they don’t like.

Harrison Koehli
Harrison Koehli hails from Edmonton, Alberta. A graduate of studies in music performance, Harrison is also an editor for Red Pill Press and has been interviewed on several North American radio shows in recognition of his contributions to advancing the study of ponerology. In addition to music and books, Harrison enjoys tobacco and bacon (often at the same time) and dislikes cell phones, vegetables, and fascists.

Source:
http://www.sott.net/article/289263-SOTT-EXCLUSIVE-Putin-on-fighting-extremism-color-revolutions

 

Alexander Mercouris: Putin just made the most important speech of his career. The West should listen more closely

Posted by

0

For President Putin’s speech at the Valdai Club, October 24, 2014:
https://freeukrainenow.org/2014/10/27/russian-president-vladimir-putins-speech-at-the-valdai-club-october-24-2014/

From Russia Insider, October 29, 2014
By Alexander Mercouris

What he really wants are stability, rules, and a global balance of power – traditional conservative ideas. He thinks the rest of the world needs to rein-in out-of-control US global activism.

Last Friday, Vladimir Putin delivered the single most important speech on foreign policy since he became President in 2000.  Mikhail Gorbachev said he thought it was the best, and most significant speech Putin has ever made.

In it he charted a clear course for Russia, defining its place in international affairs and setting out the principles and objectives of its foreign policy.

The response of the western political and media elite has been pitifully inadequate.  The speech has attracted surprisingly little attention.  The emphasis has been not on what Putin said about Russia or international relations in general but on what he specifically said about the US.

Western commentary wrongly but overwhelmingly treats the speech as simply a critique of US foreign policy (a “diatribe”) with Putin hypocritically condemning a US foreign policy he feels is targeted against him.  Behind this is the assumption that the speech is Putin’s defiant response to the US sanctions policy imposed on Russia since the start of the Ukrainian crisis even though the actual speech barely touches on this question.

Putin did have a lot to say about US foreign policy and what he said was very critical.  However to focus purely on that part of the speech is to fail to do it justice and to ignore its very coherent intellectual framework.

Putin came across a very different person from the aggressive expansionist and nationalist demagogue and gambler of western commentary.  It is also different from the Putin some other people want him to be.  Anyone looking to Putin to lead some great crusade against the US is on the evidence of this speech going to be disappointed.  As some have noticed, what he actually wants from the US is not conflict but cooperation.

Putin’s vision of the international system is a profoundly conservative one – a fact he actually admitted himself after the speech in answer to a question.  Running like a thread throughout the speech is a typical conservative’s yearning for stability and mistrust of change, a wish for a predictable rule based system in which the sovereign rights of nations are respected and in which change when it happens is contained and managed and never encouraged.

Since Putin’s concern is for stability, an aspect of his vision, which would be instantly familiar to an old style European conservative but which is totally alien to a modern western liberal, is that it is totally value neutral.  Where westerners today habitually divide nations into democracies and dictatorships and decide their attitudes to them on that basis, Putin treats them all the same, considering their domestic arrangements to be something for them to worry about.

Underpinning everything is a belief in the need for an orderly system preserved by a balance of power.  For Putin, the USSR’s greatest contribution was precisely in that by providing a counter weight to the US it secured international stability.  Much of the speech is a lament for the loss of the counterweight provided by the USSR.

The part of the speech that criticises US foreign policy draws on these assumptions: the US became intoxicated by the unexpected position it achieved as a result of the USSR’s collapse and rather than acting to preserve the stability of the international system went instead on a rampage through a sequence of violent unilateral actions designed to reshape the world according to its image and interests and in order to perpetuate its dominance.

In the process order and stability have been thrown away and the result is violence and chaos.  Putin recites the list: Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan (where he traces the story back to US support for jihadism against the Soviet army in the 1980s), Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, pointing out that none of these places is better off than it was before the US began to take an interest in them.

In a striking phrase that may cause offence in the US Putin compares the US to a nouveaux riche fecklessly squandering away the windfall.

The speech also shows where Putin wants to position Russia.  In another striking phrase Putin says that he wants Russia to assume leadership of nothing save possibly the defence of international law.

Running like a thread through the speech is a deep commitment to international law interpreted in the most conservative way on the basis of legal documents, treaty texts and Court decisions.  The creative efforts of (as Putin would put it) self-interested western reinterpretation of international law (such as R2P) are spurned as rationalisations for violating it.

By contrast Putin’s response to Western criticism of his Crimean policy is to defend it in the most traditional way by citing the UN Charter and the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Kosovo.

Putin’s training as a lawyer is an aspect of his background that few in the west are aware of.  Judging from his words, it is at least as formative as was his service in the KGB.

This is a vision of Russia as the sheet anchor of the international system, acting together with its allies China and the other BRICS states to restrain the US where possible, rescuing the US from its follies whilst upholding international law, world order and stability.

It is a vision European statesmen of the nineteenth century would have instantly recognised but which political leaders in the US and Europe today barely understand, which is one reason why his speech is little understood.

It is a vision that is very popular in Russia, a country with a history of turmoil where order and stability are highly prized.  It is also arguably a vision that corresponds with Russia’s interests.  As an emerging economy Russia needs a stable and orderly international environment to allow space for its economy to develop.

Importantly throughout the speech Putin made it repeatedly clear that economic development remains for Russia an overriding priority and that the government would take no retaliatory action that might get in the way.

It is also a vision that is likely to be very popular around the world outside the Western camp, where governments and people have become increasingly wary of western interference in their affairs.

In the west, and in the US especially, it will inevitably be seen as a challenge.
 

Alexander Mercouris is a writer on international affairs with a special interest in Russia and law.  He has written extensively on the legal aspects of NSA spying and events in Ukraine in terms of human rights, constitutionality and international law.  He worked for 12 years in the Royal Courts of Justice in London as a lawyer, specializing in human rights and constitutional law.

His family has been prominent in Greek politics for several generations.  He is a frequent commentator on television and speaker at conferences.  He resides in London.

Source:
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics_ukraine_opinion/2014/11/04/02-02-43pm/putin_just_made_most_important_speech_his_career_west