President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

Владимир Путин

2014 Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly

2014 Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly

President Putin Stands in the Rain Honoring the Fallen of the Great Patriotic War

Ukraine: Obama, CIA, and NATO Demonize Putin to Hide Their Crimes

March 14, 2014

The actions of the US Government since the installation of George Bush as president have been criminal both domestically, where they have effectively cancelled the US Constitution and even more so internationally, where they have flipped international law on its head, made a mockery of the Geneva Conventions, turned the United Nations into just another US Government rubber stamp and committed multiple crimes against humanity. 

Since 9-11 that criminality has grown more and more egregious as it becoming clearer and clearer with each passing day that the plans of the neocons for world domination and eternal American hegemony are doomed to failure and the very country they were pretending to be rising up, is actually being destroyed.

It is understandable that the neocons who usurped the US Government were able to get away with demonizing, invading and/or killing the presidents of Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and completely destroying the Middle East because these countries were isolated, had languages very few people outside of them spoke, had media with little international reach, had governments and leaders which were not technically democracies and were “pre-invasion” either forced to disarm or where never able to properly defend themselves to begin with. Ukraine and Russia are different stories.

At first I hoped that Americans themselves would rise up and challenge their government but they were cowed and dumbed down into submission. Then I kept hoping that the UN or the ICC and the Hague would finally do something. No luck. Finally I kept whimsically wishing the countries in the world would join together and put an end to the age of American illegality and genocide. But this also has not happened. apparently all of the countries in the world are so terrorized of the American mass killing war machine that they have unleashed on the world and so subverted by low brow knuckle dragging club wielding American influence that the world has proven impotent. So literally what it comes down to is one country and one leader, the Russian Federation and President Vladimir Putin.

The fact that President Putin is the only leader who has stood up to them and perhaps the only one who can, is clear to the psychotic American neocons, of which Obama is one. These are lunatics who know nothing of wrong or right and live in their own sanitized little security bubbles seemingly unaware and completely uncaring as to the death, destruction and suffering their policies and actions have unleashed on the world and even on their own populace.

They have built up their machine, its gears grinding up the bones and bodies of their own people and spitting them out, to such an efficient level of interoperability, that there are no defining lines left between the neocons, those in the shadows playing them like marionettes in a theater of the insane in some Machiavellian comedy played out in the depths of one of Dante’s deepest infernos, the organs of power, the corporations and their media.

They have come to the point in their demonization of leaders and countries that they are delusional and at a point where it is no longer a case of the emperor having no clothes, but of the very same emperor insisting the rest of the obedient populace have no clothes and then executing them for being naked. This demonization of Russia and President Putin has taken on the quality of a cheap disgusting freak show played out to a captive audience chained to their chairs, eyes sewn open, forced to watch until blood pours from their orifices and their hearts stop.

The situation in Ukraine has shown that the western and US media are completely useless when it comes to the simple act of reporting the facts, no mention of a fair or balanced debate needed. That has long been a concept killed and buried by faux news and the original neocon usurpers.

Ukraine is the start of the big end game for the neocons, Russia has been their target from day one (and China) and Ukraine is the door they think they need to batter down to get in. Hence the totally over-the-top-lies and false reality that the US and their enslaved media have been pushing into the war weary overloaded minds of their audience.

The US Government, and their liar-in-chief Barrack Obama have been lying since day one (I would say they have made it an art if they were not so bad at it) but the lies surrounding Ukraine have been so many, so often repeated and so easy to disprove that it is difficult to keep up. Infowars dot com recently did a piece on the twisting of statements by President Putin with regard to Ukraine. I have also compiled several lists already which you can findHEREHERE, and HERE.

Quotes by President Putin

The first group are lies and misrepresentations regarding statements made by President Vladimir Putin and were compiled by John-Paul Leonard at infowars.com. Apparently the US State Department quotes President Putin and then spins their lies.

Putin: “The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.”

The Rada which was taken over in an armed coup, its elected leaders forced out at gunpoint, beaten and even killed is under the complete control of the thugs the CIA and the neocons hired to carry out their coup. Governors and the heads of all government bodies were chosen on a stage in Maidan Square in front of an audience exclusively made up of members of the junta. The government is illegitimate from top to bottom.

Lie: “The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine.”

Putin: “Kiev is trying to destabilize Crimea.”

There are reports of the “opposition” killing civilians trying to flee Ukraine for Crimea, burning buses filled with civilians, attempting to deliver trainloads and truckloads of weapons and even an attempted alliance with Muslim extremists who were supposed to assist in arming the Bandera nazis when they arrived in Crimea. Now there are also reports of terrorist attacks be called for by the Right Sector leader Dimitry Yarosh.

Lie: “Ukraine’s interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue.”

Putin: “There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.”

Lie: The US does not want to talk about that the same way they refuse to talk about attacks on Jews, Russians and ethnic minorities. Just like they refuse to talk about the endemic racism and the killing of their own minorities. Being as the neocons are so pro-Israel it would not be expedient for their audience to hear that the operatives in Ukraine are destroying Synagogues. Again Russia is having to defend Jews this time while they are being attacked by nazis hired by Zionist neocons elements in the US. The twisting of logic is intense.

Putin: “Russian bases are under threat.”

Lie: Russian military facilities were and remain secure.

Putin: “Ethnic Russians are under threat.”

The Right Sector and its leaders have openly called for hanging Russians, Jews, Poles and Blacks. Their first act was to outlaw the Russian language which is spoken by more than 89% of Ukrainians as language of daily usage. The Right Sector has also attempted to engage Chechen terrorists and Tatar separatists to wage a war of terror against Russians.

Lie: “Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat. The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset.”

Putin: “There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum. ”

The crisis has reached such a level that the Russian Government was forced to change immigration and naturalization policies to deal with the in-flow. It is a standard practice of the Right Sector to terrorize and invade homes forcing the owners to sign over deeds and titles to automobiles, humiliate and degrade people who they find disagreeable, including beating to death in public, pouring gasoline of entire busloads of passengers and setting them on fire, forcing people to sing the hymn of Ukraine and breaking limbs and killing people who cannot. Junta thugs regularly invade homes, hotels and stop people in the streets and destroy documents, falsely arrest and imprison and openly steal property. The campaign of terror on the populace is something right out of a nazis SS or SA handbook.

The nazi junta has now forbidden Russian and foreign journalists from entering Ukraine, has clamped down on the media and forbidden broadcasts in Russian and has made communications almost impossible.

Lie: “To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis.”

Putin: “Ukraine’s government is illegitimate. Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine.”

Under international law and the laws existing under the constitution of Ukraine, President Victor Yanukovich is still the President of Ukraine. He was not legally impeached or removed from office, his term did not expire and he did not pass away. Those are the legal means by which a president in Ukraine leaves office. Given the $5 billion dollars Victoria Nuland admitted the US has paid to overthrow the government there is no way that they can admit that it was an armed coup and that they are supporting and illegal nazi junta of puppets which is the reality.

Lie: “On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych “has no political future.”

Putin: “The opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.”

President Yanukovich had 48 hours to sign the agreement. The junta raided his offices and his home and stormed the parliament within 24 of the terms being outlined. These actions by the nazi junta were in direct violation of the terms of the agreement which called for an immediate cease to all violence. Amid calls for his death and massive violence he was forced to go into hiding. Had he attempted appeared he would have been lynched. The junta continued storming the houses of government and with their campaign of terror unrestrained.

Lie: “Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain.

Putin: “Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.”

Like the agreement allowing for the Black Sea Fleet and the stationing of up to 25,000 Russian troops in Crimea this agreement was obviously never read by Washington or the State Department or interpreted by the same criminals who interpreted that the Geneva Conventions to mean that torture, indefinite detention and aggressive war are all legal. All of Russia’s actions in Ukraine have been done in compliance with all international and intra-national agreements treaties and laws.

The State Department also ignores that the Russian troops that are in Crimea have been there for decades, there is no invasion and has never been one. There has though been a request by the legitimate authorities in Crimea and by the legally recognized President of Ukraine for Russian intervention to secure peace and guarantee the safety and the security of the civilian population.

Lie: “The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”

Putin: “Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is “citizens’ defense groups,” not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.”

Lie: “Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea.”

This bald-faced blatant lie is probably one of the most egregious on so many levels. First it raises the bogey man of the KGB. Next it completely turns the situation on its head by comparing the paramilitary neo nazi Blackwater supported junta forces of the Right Sector who have been training for 10 years with full CIA and US support with fearful civilians and ex Berkut members, police and soldiers who had to flee when the country they were loyal to was overtaken.

Thanks to infowars for that. Although they have published some pretty demonizing stuff about Russia and fantasy KGB plots before, at least they are on the side of truth on Ukraine.

Finally the monster lies.

The snipers on Maidan were hired by the junta and the Trident.

The EU Agreement Obama is trying fast track through his temporary puppet junta gives the entire Russian gas pipeline to Exxon Oil.

The entire coup was a CIA engineered regime change.

Finally, it is all part of a neocon plan for NATO expansion into Russian space.

Will keep you updated.

Russia will not interfere in Ukraine – President Putin

29 January, 07:40

The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has completed a summit meeting between the Russian Federation and the European Union which President Putin has summarized as being constructive and held in an open and business-like manner. Moscow has given the summit positive marks on many fronts. According to the Kremlin the meeting was held at the request of the EU. The following report and commentary is by the VOR’s John Robles.

The meeting was held in a narrower format than usual at the request of the EU thus the issues that were discussed were fewer than would normally be expected. The most important outcome of the summit was the signing of a joint Russia-EU statement on combating terrorism, however European-Eurasian integration was high on the agenda as well the current crisis in Ukraine and security at the Sochi Olympics was also touched upon by the president and EU heads.

Eurasian EU integration

During the joint press conference after the summit which was held by President Vladimir Putin, Council of Europe President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, President Putin stated that the most important subjects covered were issues related to the bilateral Russia – EU agenda. According to the Kremlin website President Putin stated that with regard to bilateral issues the creation of an integrated space from Lisbon to the Pacific Coast was one of the most important topics covered.

President Putin: “The most important thing is that we had a very frank discussion of issues on our bilateral agenda. We discussed strategic goals and tasks of our cooperation, including prospects for the creation of a common economic and humanitarian space stretching from Lisbon to the Pacific coast, which my colleagues have already mentioned.”

President Putin underlined the importance of Russia – EU cooperation on many fronts including on trade where record levels are being maintained and continue to grow, now surpassing $410 million. He underlined the strategically important energy trade with the EU where the EU receives 24% of its gas and 27% of its oil from the Russian Federation. Bilateral investment is also continuing to rise according to the president, with EU investment in Russia already at the $288 billion level and Russian investment in the EU now at approximately $80 billion.

Both sides agree that integration is important and but President Putin said there should be more contact between the EU and Russia regarding the Eastern Partnership.

President Putin: "As concerns an agreement on our consultations regarding the Eastern Partnership, our European partners and we have agreed that this would be extremely useful," Putin said at a press conference following an EU-Russia summit in Brussels on Tuesday.” He also stated: "We have invited the European Union leadership to analyze the possibility of forming a free trade area between the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union being set up by Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan."

Sochi Olympics

President Putin said that Russia was grateful for the cooperation of “certain” EU countries in the area of security for the Sochi Olympics leaving the question open as to which countries were not cooperating. Despite that omission Russia – EU cooperation on security and terrorism continues to grow and is a stable ongoing effort that appears not to be affected by political, economic or other concerns. This unified position is important for guaranteeing the overall stability and security of mutual space. The European part of Russia being the largest “country” in Europe makes this area of cooperation vital.

Ukraine

With regard to the fluid and heightening level of the crisis in Ukraine President Putin was particularly candid but maintained a diplomatic stance particularly in the area of US/EU interference in Ukraine, an area where he could have blasted the EU but instead quietly chided those interfering in the internal crisis.

President Putin: "Concerning advice for Ukraine on what to do and how. I think the Ukrainian people can sort this out themselves. At least Russia will never interfere in this."

"I can only imagine how our European partners would have reacted if amid a crisis, say, in Greece or in Cyprus, our foreign minister had appeared at an anti-European rally and started making calls. We believe this is not very good in general, and, taking into consideration certain specifics of relations between Russia and Ukraine, this is simply unacceptable and impossible for us."

In televised comments given during the press conference on Russia’s Rossiya 24 news channel President Putin stated that Russia would forgive a $2.7 billion gas debt that Ukraine has, and that the further forgiveness of reduced charges for gas deliveries would be considered but that this will be more difficult.

It is again important to note that President Putin reiterated that Russia will not interfere in the affairs of Ukraine. Although Ukraine is perhaps Russia’s closest and historically important ally and friend and “interference” in the form of peacekeeping operations, for example, might be something that “should” occur and is in fact in Russia’s interest, this statement follows Russia’s steadfast policy and calls on other states to avoid interference in internal matters in other countries.

President Putin’s staunch position on non-interference, even when detrimental to Moscow, is a testament to his principles and the following of accepted laws, norms and international standards which Russia has repeatedly called on other states to also abide by. Thus President Putin and Moscow could never be accused of hypocrisy or double standards, something certain western powers have no problem with when it comes to their foreign policies.

President Putin also stated that “… the more outside interference there is the more problems it creates”,and this is entirely true when it comes to Ukraine as it is western meddling and support of the worst elements in Ukraine that has led to the current crisis.

In a candid moment the president let out a piece of information that has not been covered anywhere in the press but which characterizes the conflict in Ukraine for what it really is. President Putin described instances where a religious leader (who he did not name) was calling for Ukrainians to go to Kiev to destroy the government. The calls were so nationalistic in nature that President Putin said they have no place in a civilized society. Underlining the uncivilized nature of the Ukrainian “opposition”.

Apparently a religious leader is attempting to rally people to attack the government by stating through the use of racial epithets that: Black people, Russians and Jews should never be allowed to rule Ukraine.

This goes to the heart of what has occurred in Ukraine, where fascist, neo-nazi, nationalist and racist forces, after having received training, support and financing from the West, have joined together in what can only be described as an insurrection and a coordinated attempt to topple the democratically elected and legitimate government for the sole reason that the government chose to maintain ties with its historical ally Russia.

Armed and armored insurrectionists who set police on fire, kill law enforcement officers, storm and take government building, create havoc and terrorize the populace have proven long ago that they are no longer a reasonable opposition which must be supported. Their actions are a threat to the continuity of the state itself and their tactics have crossed into the area of terrorism for which there can only be one cure, liquidation. However the West continues to tell the Ukrainian Government not to use force, even though the only option those using force have left the government is an equal and entirely justified symmetrical response. Perhaps Ukraine, like the proverbial Russian Bear will slowly wake up and deal with the threat as it should be dealt with before it is allowed to destroy the state further, that is my opinion. President Putin put it thus: Let calls for the non use of force also apply to the opposition.

Have no doubt while Victoria Nuland may have handed out cookies and doughnuts to those aimed at toppling the government in Ukraine, the US and the West would never in a thousand years allow any anti-government forces to seize government building and escalate unrest to the level it has promoted in Ukraine. If anything analogous occurred in the US those responsible would almost no doubt no longer be alive to continue their activities.

President Vladimir Putin: A Force for Peace in Asia and the World

By John Robles, 13 November, 2013 06:30  

After completing a trip to Hanoi, Vietnam where literally scores of agreements and bilateral documents were signed, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin arrived in the Republic of Korea after receiving an official invitation from the President of South Korea Park Geun-hye. Steps by the Russian Federation to further develop mutually beneficial ties between the Russian Federation, the Koreas and the entire region point to.

The importance of the talks in Korea and the agreements that are expected to be signed as well as the significance of the president’s extremely successful official visit to Vietnam, where dozens of strategically important agreements were signed in almost all spheres, cannot be understated with regard to the geopolitical implications and global ramifications.

On the agenda of the visits is further economic integration which follows in the spirit of the BRICS and heightened integration projects being carried out by Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus (the Customs Union) and Russian plans towards deeper cooperation in Eurasia with the creation of a Eurasian Economic Union.

This economic shift away from the weakening paper based petro dollar and the US whose real debt is now said to be in the neighborhood of $205 trillion dollars, effectively making it bankrupt, is also coupled with a military and geopolitical shift away from US/NATO and their policies of force and acquisition of resources by nefarious means and the over throwing of governments and endless war.

With the positive economic growth of the BRICS countries and their policies based on mutually beneficial economic models promoting sustainable and realistic growth, forward thinking Eurasian and now even European economic powers are beginning to look towards the BRICS as an attractive alternative to the failed policies of the West.

The world has seen that endless war and force are unsustainable and with the recent events in Syria, as well as scores of other failures by the United States including multiple countries filing Crimes Against Humanity charges against the US in the Hague, has begun to shift their geopolitical weight towards the Russian Federation and President Putin, a leader who has proven beyond any doubt through continuous efforts that he stands for rule of law, peace, mutual respect, respect for sovereignty and the betterment of mankind.

Vietnam

President Vladimir Putin concluded talks with the President of Vietnam Truong Tan Sang and other leaders in Hanoi on Tuesday as part of his whirlwind Asian tour and will be meeting with the President of South Korea Park Geun-hye on Wednesday.

Among the key agreements signed in Hanoi by President Putin and President Truong Tan Sang were a new military deal that will see Russia train Vietnamese navy and armed forces and increase the types of military equipment Russia will sell to Vietnam.

The meeting was extremely successful for both sides with new levels of cooperation between the two states now reaching new strategic levels in almost all spheres. Agreements, memoranda and deals were signed in dozens of fields including energy, oil exploration and modernization of Vietnam’s oil refinery, nuclear energy, ecology, healthcare and industry.

Among the other documents which were signed in the presence of Presidents Putin and Truong Tan Sang include agreements on: the transfer of sentenced persons, military cooperation, allowing Vietnamese citizens to attend institutions of higher learning in Russia, cooperation in technology and innovation and cooperation in the fields of geology and subsurface resource use.

Korea

After leaving Hanoi President Putin is scheduled to meet with South Korean President Park Geun-hye and gave an interview to South Korean media in an address to the Korean people on the eve of his visit.

One key area of great importance to the Korean people is the issue of Korean integration and President Putin called for this to be done peacefully and with the respect to the mutual wishes of all of the Korean people. With Russia’s good relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea President Putin may be one of the few leaders in the world who can truly assist the Koreas in finally uniting.

Interview with Korean media

Military Cooperation

In the interview granted to South Korean media President Putin outlined his vision for Korean/Russian cooperation and gave a positive assessment even in the area military technical cooperation: “The Republic of Korea has become one of our key partners in Asia, which is reflected not only in the growing trade and a solid diversification of our relations, but in the strong ties even in such sensitive areas, as military and technical cooperation.”

Six Party Talks

President Putin underlined the good relations that the Russian Federation has with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and underlined that this would help Russia in assisting in bringing about a resolution to the six-party talks on the DPRK’s nuclear program, a process which he said requires the good will of all sides.

President Putin: “… the composition of participants seems to be optimal, provided that there is good will on both sides, first of all, on the part of the DPRK, Republic of Korea and, as a matter of fact, of other participants in the process, and it is even more true as there are three nuclear powers among them (Russia, the USA and People’s Republic of China) - all this still gives me some optimism, and I very much hope that this mechanism will play a positive role in the future.”

Regarding the setting of preconditions with regard to the resumption of talks President Putin was quite candid in saying that all sides need to work together: “If we constantly set preconditions for the start of talks, they may never begin.”He also said: “… when we try to agree on some complex and sensitive issues and adopt an extremely tough attitude, give ultimatums, as a rule, this does not lead to the expected result.”

Russian Far East Korean Relations

When asked about prospects for the development of South Korean and Russian Far East relations President Putin stated that the prospects were good and were a priority for Russia: “I have already said that we have prospects for cooperation in various fields. These are engineering, space, transport machinery and transport infrastructure. The Russian Federation sets an objective to ensure accelerated and priority development of Siberian regions, especially the Eastern Siberia and the Far East.”

Regional Development

Regarding recent moves by the President of South Korea to develop the region and improve cooperation, in particular the "Eurasia Initiative" of President Park Geun-hye, President Putin stated that steps have already been taken: “… we have already taken certain practical steps aimed at its implementation – concerns linking the Trans-Korean and Trans-Siberian Railways in order to ensure quick, reliable, safe and rather low-cost transportation of goods between Asia and Europe. I believe this is a highly interesting joint project.”Regarding differences between the Koreas in this area: ”If South and North Koreas could agree to reconstruct the Trans-Korean Railway… this would be an important contribution to the realization of the program proposed by President Park Geun-hye.”

Economic Development

President Putin then brought up the planned creation of a Eurasian Economic Bloc and the integration of the Koreas into such an organization: “In this regard, I would also like to mention once again and to remind you of a major integration project which is being carried out by Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus – the Customs Union – and our plans to make the following step towards deeper cooperation and the creation of a Eurasian Economic Union. By now, several dozen countries have already shown interest in establishing cooperation with the Customs Union, including Vietnam.”

Oil Pipeline

The Korean reporter Kyusun Yeon then asked the President to clarify comments he had made at the recent OPEC Summit in Brunei regarding a pipeline to South Korea.As to how a pipeline could be built the President said that this was an area for the experts but added: “I believe this can be done in two ways: by building a pipeline system either buried on the ocean floor, or going through the territory of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and extending to South Korea, the Republic of Korea.”

Korean Unification

When asked about the unification of the two Koreas, a question that is very close to the hearts of all Koreans, President Putin stated that was vital for the people and that it had to be done through peaceful and mutually acceptable means: “We definitely support the aspiration of Koreans for national unification. It's a natural process. However, I take as point of departure that it should be exclusively peaceful and take into account the interests of the North, as well as of the South.”

“Nothing should be imposed on partners, otherwise the process will become destructive instead of having a positive outcome. And, on the contrary, if the partners' interests are respected with consideration for the obvious longing of the people – and I believe that every Korean in his or her heart thinks of a possible unification of the country irrespective of his or her political views – this process can be very fruitful, constructive and bring great and positive results for the international politics, ensuring security in the region, as well as for the economics of the rapidly developing region.”

President Putin added that such unification would be a positive for Russia: “Such process is positive for Russia. We welcome it taking into account those special considerations I've just told you about.”

When asked about being called the world’s most powerful person, President Putin was modest as usual: “ I prefer to pay less attention to such things. Again, if you pay too much attention to that it is going to influence the decision-making process. And this would be most regrettable.”

 Positive Force

President Putin continues to be a positive force for peace and for global development and his Asian trip surely is underlining Russia’s role in what has now, once again, become a healthy multi-polar world, something that could not have been brought about without the modest Russian leader.

Rule of law, morality and a return to multi-polarity - Putin at Valdai

22 September, 10:27  

President Vladimir Putin had a very busy and successful past week on the heels of a successfully hosted G-20 Summit . The President has been key to averting another act of aggressive war by a certain western power, and for those efforts alone is truly worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. President Putin took part in the yearly Valdai Discussion Club, an event where top experts and some of the sharpest minds from Russia and abroad meet in the context of a global dialogue about Russia.

At the 10th anniversary of the forum President Putin clearly showed he is a brilliant leader and statesman and why he was chosen by the Russian people as their president, his intelligent, forward thinking remarks covered everything from morality to the rule of international law to Syria as he laid out his views and his “roadmap” for the future of Russia and its interactions with a multi-polar world.

One of the biggest problems plaguing Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union is a unifying national idea or identity that applies to people of all walks of life and all political and ideological leanings. This problem has been one that has been difficult to address but at the same time pressing and urgent and the president and the forum did an excellent job in addressing this issue.

Another issue about which President Putin spoke was why patriotism is important for Russia. After years during which the country was being fragmented and the national pride of Russians was at an all time low after the collapse of the USSR, fortunately it is making a comeback.

In his opening comments president Putin touched upon many of the problems and challenges facing Russia today including that of mostly western ideology and “culture” which has eroded not only Russian society, but the world’s.

I have highlighted most of what was covered by President Putin and added some comments and invite you to read the entire transcript which we have published here and also to visit the site the president.

Erosion of Russian culture

In post Soviet Russia the nation is still searching for a tangible and unifying cultural and social idea and the amount of influence the ever changing world has had on Russia has made this particularly challenging.

President Putin said:“Today we need new strategies to preserve our identity in a rapidly changing world, a world that has become more open, transparent and interdependent. For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society. We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there will be no return. It is evident that it is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural and national self-determination.”

On foreign influences

In reference to the ways other countries compete with Russia and each other and in contrast to the US model where their society is decimated, subjugated and oppressed while the military and monied interested attempt to completely dominate society and the geopolitical landscape President Putin stated that some countries forget the rule of law and even decency, undoubtedly referring to a certain western power.

“And today we see a new round of such competitions. Today their main focuses are economic-technological and ideological-informational. Military-political problems and general conditions are worsening. The world is sometimes forgoes not merely international law, but also basic decency. Every country has to have military, technological and economic strength, but nevertheless the main thing that will determine success is the quality of citizens, the quality of society: their intellectual, spiritual and moral strength. After all, in the end economic growth, prosperity and geopolitical influence are all derived from societal conditions,” said President Putin.

In reference to a national idea and profiteers such as Berezovsky

One problem Russia had after the collapse of the USSR was the lack of a national idea and President Putin commented on how this served the interests of those who wanted to pillage Russia.

“In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasi-colonial element of the elite – those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money,” said President Putin.

On attempts to force a western model on Russia

The failure of the west in reshaping Russia in their own image was due to the Russian people and not the state. This rejection was something the West tried to change through overt and covert efforts, such as through the influence of USAID and supporting an opposition which had only one agenda, to remove President Putin and the government, but their efforts failed due to the Russian people themselves. Something the West has failed to understand.

“A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our national character. Incidentally, such approaches have often failed in other nations too. The time when ready-made lifestyle models could be installed in foreign states like computer programs has passed,” said President Putin.

On accepting others and their differences

President Putin said it was important to listen to people with opposing views, to reject blind nationalism and racist models and be united by patriotism. True precepts of democracy and again something those in certain western countries should also follow.

President Putin stated: “All of us – so-called Neo-Slavophiles and Neo-Westernisers, statists and so-called liberals – all of society must work together to create common development goals. We need to break the habit of only listening to like-minded people, angrily – and even with hatred – rejecting any other point of view from the outset. You can’t flip or even kick the country's future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything, or gloomy pessimism.”

“This means that liberals have to learn to talk with representatives of the left-wing and, conversely, that nationalists must remember that Russia was formed specifically as a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country from its very inception. Nationalists must remember that by calling into question our multi-ethnic character, and exploiting the issue of Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian or any other nationalism or separatism, means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code. In effect, we will begin to destroy ourselves.”

Red lines

The president brought up the subject of “red lines that must not be crossed” but unlike some leaders did not do so as a threat to another sovereign power but as a matter of self-defense.

President Putin was very clear when he said: “Russia’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are unconditional. These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic. Of course I mean patriotism in the purest sense of the word.”

Opposition to Russia itself

Opposition to Russia as an entity and not to the government was a topic few have ever spoken about but the president touched upon this matter briefly:

“Too often in our nation's history, instead of opposition to the government we have been faced with opponents of Russia itself. I have already mentioned this; Pushkin also talked about it. And we know how it ended, with the demolition of the (Russian) state as such.”

On historical revisionism

There was a period after the collapse of the USSR where Soviet history was not taught in schools and even though the USSR was the greatest power in history people were being pushed by western agents to be ashamed of the Soviet period.

“We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward.”

On the degradation of morality in the West

Speaking about the decay in morality and the role that Christian values play in a healthy society, President Putin warned about the decay of morality in the West and the attempts to force that decay onto Russia. The implication is that Western Civilization is in decline.

“We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual.”

“They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan. The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote pedophilia. … And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.”

“Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.”

On a unipolar world

The president’s comments on multi-polarity and why one country must not be allowed to subjugate and control the rest of humanity were refreshing.

“At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardized model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardized world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.”

On rule of law

President Putin and the Russian Federation have proven and the record has shown that the rule of law and mutual respect are the true basis for successful international relations and that above all the states of the world must abide by international law.

“Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional, but unique, original and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path.”

“This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia's role in global politics. Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international stage.”

On multiculturalism

President Putin spoke about multiculturalism and why it has failed in the West but has succeeded and is in fact an import part of Russia, Russian society and Russian heritage.

“There is one more fundamental aspect to which I want to draw your attention. In Europe and some other countries so-called multiculturalism is in many respects a transplanted, artificial model that is now being questioned, for understandable reasons. This is because it is based on paying for the colonial past. It is no accident that today European politicians and public figures are increasingly talking about the failures of multiculturalism, and that they are not able to integrate foreign languages or foreign cultural elements into their societies.”

“Over the past centuries in Russia, which some have tried to label as the "prison of nations", not even the smallest ethnic group has disappeared. And they have retained not only their internal autonomy and cultural identity, but also their historical space. You know, I was interested to learn (I did not even know this) that in Soviet times (the authorities) paid such careful attention to this that virtually every small ethnic group had its own print publication, support for its language, and for its national literature. We should bring back and take on board much of what has been done in this respect.”

“Along with this the different cultures in Russia have the unique experience of mutual influence, mutual enrichment and mutual respect. This multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity lives in our historical consciousness, in our spirit and in our historical makeup. Our state was built in the course of a millennium on this organic model.”

“Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of Russia’s identity, its historical heritage and the present-day lives of its citizens. The main task of the state, as enshrined in the Constitution, is to ensure equal rights for members of traditional religions and atheists, and the right to freedom of conscience for all citizens.”

“However, it is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through one’s ethnicity or religion in such a large nation with a multi-ethnic population. In order to maintain the nation’s unity, people must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law, and a sense of responsibility for their homeland’s fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.”

On the individual

Respect for the individual is one of the most noble goals of democracy and society and for me personally it was like a breath of fresh air to hear a world leader speak about this as it seems to have become a forgotten concept.

“Unfortunately, throughout our nation’s history, little value was given at times to individual human lives. Too often, people were seen simply as a means, rather than a goal and a mission for development. We no longer have that right and we cannot throw millions of human lives into the fire for the sake of development. We must treasure every individual. Russia’s main strength in this and future centuries will lie in its educated, creative, physically and spiritually healthy people, rather than natural resources.”

On education

While some countries are cutting and decimating their education systems to pay for more weapons and war President Putin made it clear that theis should not happen in Russia.

“The role of education is all the more important because in order to educate an individual, a patriot, we must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature. They must serve as the foundation for people’s personal identity, the source of their uniqueness and their basis for understanding the national idea.”

On Russian Federalism

Tackling one of the problems that is endemic to the largest country in the world, the president made it clear the development of the entire country is vital to keep it healthy and strong.

“Speaking of any kind of reforms, it is important to bear in mind that there is more to our nation than just Moscow and St Petersburg. In developing Russian federalism, we must rely on our own historical experience, using flexible and diverse models.”

“The Russian model of federalism has a great deal of potential built into it. It is imperative that we learn to use it competently, not forgetting its most important aspect: the development of the regions and their independence should create equal opportunities for all of our nation’s citizens, regardless of where they live, to eliminate inequalities in the economic and social development of Russia’s territory, thereby strengthening the nation’s unity.”

Importance of the Eurasian Union

As one of many growing economic, geopolitical, trade and regional unions that have begun to gain strength throughout the world, President Putin spoke about the Eurasian Union and why it is important for the development of the region. Another step toward multi-polarity in our diverse world.

“The future Eurasian Economic Union, which we have declared and which we have discussed extensively as of late, is not just a collection of mutually beneficial agreements. The Eurasian Union is a project for maintaining the identity of nations in the historical Eurasian space in a new century and in a new world. Eurasian integration is a chance for the entire post-Soviet space to become an independent centre for global development, rather than remaining on the outskirts of Europe and Asia.”

On Syrian chemical weapons attack

Having almost single-handedly stopped another act of aggressive war by a certain power which has revived the doctrine of preventive war, President Putin was very frank when speaking about the situation in Syria and what the proper steps should be to resolve the internal conflict in that country.

“ We have equal rights and equal responsibilities with all our colleagues involved in the discussion on Syria. This is not the first time I hear that I now carry a special responsibility. We all carry a special responsibility; we all carry it equally. …it became clear that chemical weapons had been used. But this was clear to us from the very beginning, and our experts agreed. The only thing that is unclear is who used it.”

“We have every reason to believe that this was a provocation. You know, it was clever and smart, but at the same time, the execution was primitive. They used an ancient, Soviet-made projectile, taken from the Syrian army’s armaments from a long time ago – it even had “Made in the USSR” printed on it. But this was not the first time chemical weapons were used in Syria. Why didn’t they investigate the previous instances?”

“This matter should be investigated as thoroughly as possible. If we finally get an answer, despite all obstacles, to the question of who did this, who committed this crime – and there is no question that it was a crime – then we will take the next step; we will then work with other UN Security Council colleagues to determine the culpability of those who committed this crime, together and in solidarity.”

“Second, on whether we will manage to convince Assad or not, I don’t know. So far it looks as though Syria has fully agreed to our proposal and is ready to act according to the plan that the international community is putting together, working through the UN. Russia and the USA, in the persons of Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov have already practically drafted the outlines of this plan. There is a special organization that will work together with the UN on this matter of eliminating chemical weapons. Syria has declared that it will join and that it indeed already considers itself to have joined the International Chemical Weapons Convention. These are practical steps that the Syrian government has already taken.”

“Let me just remind you about how these chemical weapons came about. Syria got itself chemical weapons as an alternative to Israel’s nuclear arsenal, as we know. What can be done about the various issues associated with proliferation and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a very relevant question today, perhaps the most important issue of our time. If this situation gets out of control, like it once happened with gunpowder, the consequences will be unimaginable. We therefore need to strive towards nuclear-free status in particular parts of the world, especially in such volatile regions as the Middle East.”

On NATO expansion

After the collapse of the USSR and the subsequent dissolving of the Warsaw Pact under the promise by NATO that they would not expand, the world has seen the opposite and now NATO exists on almost every continent on earth in one or another. The NATO lie is one of history’s most wide reaching.

“… we were promised at one point that NATO would not expand beyond the former Federal Republic of Germany’s eastern border. That was a promise directly made to Gorbachev. True, it was not actually set out and written down. But where is NATO today, where is the border? We got cheated, to put it quite simply. That’s the whole story.”

On McCain, the refusal by the US to receive a Russian delegation and freedom of the press

After President Putin’s eloquent, informed and well received “Plea for Caution” in the New York Times, octogenarian right-wing US Senator John McCain, who recently spent hearings on an invasion of Syria playing on-line poker, attempted to “fight back” and only showcased American ignorance. President Putin was asked about McCain and graciously invited him to visit Russia and improve his knowledge.

“He (McCain) is not well-informed about our country. Actually, I would have been happy to see him here at the Valdai Club say, taking part in the discussions. As far as I know, our big television channels, the national channels, proposed that he come and take part in an open and honest discussion. There you have it, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. He is welcome to share his point of view with the whole country. In this respect, I can only express my regret that our American colleagues did not react to our parliamentarians’ proposal and refused to receive them in Washington for a discussion on Syria. Why did they do this? “

Using force outside of international law

The using of military force outside of the framework of the United Nations is illegal, and in fact is a Crime Against Peace. President Putin made this clear.

“The threat of the use of force and actual use of force are far from being a cure-all for international problems. Look at what we are actually talking about after all. We are forgetting the heart of the matter. We are talking about using force outside the framework of current international law. We’ve just been saying how the US Congress and Senate are discussing whether to use force or not. But it is not there that this matter should be discussed. It should be discussed in the UN Security Council. That is the heart of the issue. That is my first point.”

American “Democracy”

There is no true democracy in America, their system has failed.

President Putin said this: “It has happened twice in US history that the President of the United States was chosen by a majority in the electoral colleges, but with a minority of the actual voters. This is an obvious flaw in the electoral procedure, that is to say, a flaw at the very heart of American democracy.”

“As for what kind of government Russia should have, this is something for our citizens to decide, and not for our colleagues from abroad. We held an election a year ago, not so long ago, and the majority of Russia’s citizens voted for me.”

'We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there will be no return' - Putin

21 September, 13:31  

Владимир Путин международный дискуссионный клуб Валдай валдайский клуб

The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club and spoke on some of the most important topics affecting Russia and the world today. One area that the president paid particular attention was the political and civil society landscape in the Russian Federation which is still undergoing changes and developing after the collapse of the USSR. The summit of the Valdai Club was especially important as it marked the 10 year anniversary of the forum. The session was attended by over 200 Russian and foreign experts, influential political and social leaders and leaders from many different fields of expertise. The 10th session was titled "Russia's Diversity for the Modern World".

The following are excerpts from the full transcript of the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club courtesy of the Kremlin Press Service.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, friends, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that the place for your discussions, for our meetings is well chosen and that the timing is good. We are in the centre of Russia – not a geographical centre, but a spiritual one. [Novgorod Region] is a cradle of Russian statehood. Our outstanding historians believe and have analysed how the elements of Russian statehood came together right here. This is in the light of the fact that two great rivers – the Volkhov and Neva – acted as natural means of communication, providing a natural linkage at the time. And it was here that Russian statehood gradually began to emerge.

As has already been pointed out, this year the [Valdai] club has brought together an unprecedented list of participants: more than 200 Russian and foreign politicians, public and spiritual leaders, philosophers and cultural figures, people with very different, original and sometimes opposing views.

You have already been conferring here for a few days now, and I'll try not to bore you unduly. But nevertheless, I will allow myself to state my views on subjects that you have touched on during these discussions in one way or another. I am not only thinking about analysing Russian historical, cultural, and governance experiences. First and foremost, I am thinking of general debates, conversations about the future, strategies, and values, about the values underpinning our country’s development, how global processes will affect our national identity, what kind of twenty-first-century world we want to see, and what Russia, our country, can contribute to this world together with its partners.

Today we need new strategies to preserve our identity in a rapidly changing world, a world that has become more open, transparent and interdependent. This fact confronts virtually all countries and all peoples in one form or another: Russian, European, Chinese and American – the societies of virtually all countries. And naturally, including here in Valdai, we strive to better understand how our partners are attempting to meet this challenge, because we are meeting here with experts on Russia. But we proceed from the fact that our guests will state their views on the interaction and relationship between Russia and the countries that you represent.

For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society. We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there will be no return. Proponents of fundamental conservatism who idealise pre-1917 Russia seem to be similarly far from reality, as are supporters of an extreme, western-style liberalism.

It is evident that it is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural and national self-determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor we will succeed in global competitions. And today we see a new round of such competitions. Today their main focuses are economic-technological and ideological-informational. Military-political problems and general conditions are worsening. The world is becoming more rigid, and sometimes forgoes not merely international law, but also basic decency.

[Every country] has to have military, technological and economic strength, but nevertheless the main thing that will determine success is the quality of citizens, the quality of society: their intellectual, spiritual and moral strength. After all, in the end economic growth, prosperity and geopolitical influence are all derived from societal conditions. They depend on whether the citizens of a given country consider themselves a nation, to what extent they identify with their own history, values and traditions, and whether they are united by common goals and responsibilities. In this sense, the question of finding and strengthening national identity really is fundamental for Russia.

Meanwhile, today Russia’s national identity is experiencing not only objective pressures stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of the twentieth century, when we experienced the collapse of our state two different times. The result was a devastating blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes; we were faced with the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility. These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face. After all, the question of responsibility for oneself, before society and the law, is something fundamental for both legal and everyday life.

After 1991 there was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology, would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes virtually rejected engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semi-official ideology was hard to swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasi-colonial element of the elite – those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money.

Practice has shown that a new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our national character. Incidentally, such approaches have often failed in other nations too. The time when ready-made lifestyle models could be installed in foreign states like computer programs has passed.

We also understand that identity and a national idea cannot be imposed from above, cannot be established on an ideological monopoly. Such a construction is very unstable and vulnerable; we know this from personal experience. It has no future in the modern world. We need historical creativity, a synthesis of the best national practices and ideas, an understanding of our cultural, spiritual and political traditions from different points of view, and to understand that [national identity] is not a rigid thing that will last forever, but rather a living organism. Only then will our identity be based on a solid foundation, be directed towards the future and not the past. This is the main argument demonstrating that a development ideology must be discussed by people who hold different views, and have different opinions about how and what to do to solve given problems.

All of us – so-called Neo-Slavophiles and Neo-Westernisers, statists and so-called liberals – all of society must work together to create common development goals. We need to break the habit of only listening to like-minded people, angrily – and even with hatred – rejecting any other point of view from the outset. You can’t flip or even kick the country's future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything, or gloomy pessimism.

This means that liberals have to learn to talk with representatives of the left-wing and, conversely, that nationalists must remember that Russia was formed specifically as a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country from its very inception. Nationalists must remember that by calling into question our multi-ethnic character, and exploiting the issue of Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian or any other nationalism or separatism, means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code. In effect, we will begin to destroy ourselves.

Russia’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are unconditional. These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic. Of course I mean patriotism in the purest sense of the word.

Too often in our nation's history, instead of opposition to the government we have been faced with opponents of Russia itself. I have already mentioned this; Pushkin also talked about it. And we know how it ended, with the demolition of the [Russian] state as such. There is virtually no Russian family that completely escaped the troubles of the past century. Questions about how to assess certain historical events still divide our country and society.

We need to heal these wounds, and repair the tissues of our historic fabric. We can no longer engage in self-deception, striking out unsightly or ideologically uncomfortable pages of our history, breaking links between generations, rushing to extremes, creating or debunking idols. It's time to stop only taking note of the bad in our history, and berating ourselves more than even our opponents would do. [Self-]criticism is necessary, but without a sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism becomes humiliating and counterproductive.

We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward.

Another serious challenge to Russia's identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardized model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardized world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.

Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional, but unique, original and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path.

This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia's role in global politics. Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international stage.

I want to remind you that the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the agreements made at Yalta in 1945, taken with Russia’s very active participation, secured a lasting peace. Russia’s strength, the strength of a winning nation at those critical junctures, manifested itself as generosity and justice. And let us remember [the Treaty of] Versailles, concluded without Russia’s participation. Many experts, and I absolutely agree with them, believe that Versailles laid the foundation for the Second World War because the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to the German people: it imposed restrictions with which they could not cope, and the course of the next century became clear.

There is one more fundamental aspect to which I want to draw your attention. In Europe and some other countries so-called multiculturalism is in many respects a transplanted, artificial model that is now being questioned, for understandable reasons. This is because it is based on paying for the colonial past. It is no accident that today European politicians and public figures are increasingly talking about the failures of multiculturalism, and that they are not able to integrate foreign languages or foreign cultural elements into their societies.

Over the past centuries in Russia, which some have tried to label as the "prison of nations", not even the smallest ethnic group has disappeared. And they have retained not only their internal autonomy and cultural identity, but also their historical space. You know, I was interested to learn (I did not even know this) that in Soviet times [authorities] paid such careful attention to this that virtually every small ethnic group had its own print publication, support for its language, and for its national literature. We should bring back and take on board much of what has been done in this respect.

Along with this the different cultures in Russia have the unique experience of mutual influence, mutual enrichment and mutual respect. This multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity lives in our historical consciousness, in our spirit and in our historical makeup. Our state was built in the course of a millennium on this organic model.

Russia – as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it – has always evolved in "blossoming complexity" as a state-civilization, reinforced by the Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely the state-civilization model that has shaped our state polity. It has always sought to flexibly accommodate the ethnic and religious specificity of particular territories, ensuring diversity in unity.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of Russia’s identity, its historical heritage and the present-day lives of its citizens. The main task of the state, as enshrined in the Constitution, is to ensure equal rights for members of traditional religions and atheists, and the right to freedom of conscience for all citizens.

However, it is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through one’s ethnicity or religion in such a large nation with a multi-ethnic population. In order to maintain the nation’s unity, people must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law, and a sense of responsibility for their homeland’s fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.

There are broad discussions on how the ideology of national development will be structured politically and conceptually – including with your participation, colleagues. But I deeply believe that individuals’ personal, moral, intellectual and physical development must remain at the heart of our philosophy. Back at the start of the 1990s, Solzhenitsyn stated that the nation’s main goal should be to preserve the population after a very difficult 20th century. Today, we must admit that we have not yet fully overcome the negative demographic trends, although we have veered away from a dangerous decline in the national potential.

Unfortunately, throughout our nation’s history, little value was given at times to individual human lives. Too often, people were seen simply as a means, rather than a goal and a mission for development. We no longer have that right and we cannot throw millions of human lives into the fire for the sake of development. We must treasure every individual. Russia’s main strength in this and future centuries will lie in its educated, creative, physically and spiritually healthy people, rather than natural resources.

The role of education is all the more important because in order to educate an individual, a patriot, we must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature. They must serve as the foundation for people’s personal identity, the source of their uniqueness and their basis for understanding the national idea. Here, a great deal depends on the teaching community, which has been and remains a highly important guardian of nationwide values, ideas and philosophies. This community speaks the same language – the language of science, knowledge and education, despite the fact that it is spread out over an enormous territory, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. In this way, the community of teachers, the educational community overall, in the broad sense of the word, binds the nation together. Supporting this community is one of the most important steps on the path toward a strong, flourishing Russia.

I want to stress again that without focusing our efforts on people’s education and health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs, freely cooperating with equals.

Local governments and self-regulated citizens’ organizations serve as the best school for civic consciousness. Of course, I’m referring to non-profits. Incidentally, one of the best Russian political traditions, the country council tradition, was also built on the principles of local government. A true civil society and a true, nationally-focused political elite, including the opposition with its own ideology, values and standards for good and evil – their own, rather than those dictated by the media or from abroad – can only grow through effective self-governing mechanisms. The government is prepared to trust self-regulating and self-governing associations, but we must know whom we are trusting. This is absolutely normal global practice, which is precisely why we have passed new legislation to increase the transparency of nongovernmental organizations.

Speaking of any kind of reforms, it is important to bear in mind that there is more to our nation than just Moscow and St Petersburg. In developing Russian federalism, we must rely on our own historical experience, using flexible and diverse models. The Russian model of federalism has a great deal of potential built into it. It is imperative that we learn to use it competently, not forgetting its most important aspect: the development of the regions and their independence should create equal opportunities for all of our nation’s citizens, regardless of where they live, to eliminate inequalities in the economic and social development of Russia’s territory, thereby strengthening the nation’s unity. Ultimately, this is a huge challenge because these territories’ development has been very unbalanced over the course of decades and even centuries.

I would like to touch on another topic. The 21st century promises to become the century of major changes, the era of the formation of major geopolitical zones, as well as financial and economic, cultural, civilisational, and military and political areas. That is why integrating with our neighbors is our absolute priority. The future Eurasian Economic Union, which we have declared and which we have discussed extensively as of late, is not just a collection of mutually beneficial agreements. The Eurasian Union is a project for maintaining the identity of nations in the historical Eurasian space in a new century and in a new world. Eurasian integration is a chance for the entire post-Soviet space to become an independent centre for global development, rather than remaining on the outskirts of Europe and Asia.

I want to stress that Eurasian integration will also be built on the principle of diversity. This is a union where everyone maintains their identity, their distinctive character and their political independence. Together with our partners, we will gradually implement this project, step by step. We expect that it will become our common input into maintaining diversity and stable global development.

Colleagues, the years after 1991 are often referred to as the post-Soviet era. We have lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through these trials and tribulations and is returning to itself, to its own history, just as it did at other points in its history. After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices of the East and the West, we must and will move forward.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Member of the Valdai Discussion Club advisory board Piotr Dutkiewicz: Mr. President, this is the tenth year that we are meeting with you here.

This is a unique platform and a unique format – there is nothing like it in the world. Thank you for these ten years of warm support for our club.

I have a two-part question concerning your article in The New York Times. It was an excellent idea and a brilliant article. Indeed, you are personally responsible for stopping the expansion and deepening of the Syrian conflict, which is an enormous achievement.

Question: who came up with this idea? Was it Lavrov, Shoigu, Peskov or someone else? And when did you discuss it for the first time with President Obama?

The second part of the question: it seems to me that you put yourself in a rather awkward position with this brilliant idea, this brilliant article, because you became a kind of hostage. You and Russia have taken on the burden of responsibility for the success of this agreement. You already have many detractors because they do not want to see major global policy to develop as a Putin and Obama duet. What happens if it doesn’t work?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for your kind words.

My colleagues and I have always been pleased that there are people in the world interested in Russia, its history and its culture. Ten years ago, when I was told that these people would like to come to Russia, talk with us, engage in debate, and want to learn about our point of view on key issues in the development of the nation itself and its place in the world, well, naturally, we supported it immediately; I supported it and my colleagues supported it. I am very happy that over the last ten years, this platform has become even more prestigious compared to the first steps taken a decade ago. The interest in our nation is not waning; on the contrary, it is increasing and growing.

I want to respond to your words of gratitude in kind. I would like to thank all the experts on Russia who remain faithful to their love of our nation and their interest in our nation.

Now, regarding the article. I had this idea completely by chance. I saw that President Obama took the discussion on the possibility of attacking Syria to the Congress and Senate. I followed the course of that discussion and I just wanted to convey our position, my own position, to the people who will be forming their opinions on this issue, and to clarify it. Because unfortunately, the media often present various problems very one-sidedly, or simply stay completely silent.

So this was my idea; I called one of my aides and said that I would like to publish an article in an American newspaper – it didn’t matter which one, but one of the leading ones – so that this information would reach the readers, and dictated what I wanted to see written. You may have noticed that it does not contain anything I have not stated earlier, in various places in public. I have already talked about all of it in one way or another. So I just dictated it, and then when my colleagues put it together, I took a look. I didn’t like everything, so I rewrote and added a few things, gave it back to them, they worked on it some more and brought it to me again. I made some more changes and felt it was ready for publishing. We arranged through our partners that it would be in The New York Times; we came to an agreement with this respected publication that the article would be published without any cuts. If they didn’t like it, we could give it to another newspaper.

But I must give credit to the New York Times editors: they completely abided by our agreements and published everything as I wrote it. They even waived their usual requirements on the number of characters and words in the article; it was a little bit over the limit. They were going to submit it, but then one of my aides said, “President Obama is going to address the nation tomorrow. What if he announces that there won’t be any strikes, that they changed their minds? It’s better to wait.” I said, “Very well.” We waited, and the next morning, I was getting ready for work and I was given President Obama’s speech. I began to read it and realized that nothing had changed fundamentally, so I laid it aside without finishing it. But then I thought, “No, I need to read it to the end.” And when I read all of it, it became clear that my article was incomplete. As you understand, the matter at hand was America’s exceptionalism. So I picked up the article, and right then and there, I hand-wrote the last paragraph. I gave it to my colleagues, they passed it on to The New York Times, and there it was.

Now, concerning responsibility. You know, you are all very experienced, smart and clever people. Here is what I will say about Russia’s special responsibility. We have equal rights and equal responsibilities with all our colleagues involved in the discussion on Syria. This is not the first time I hear that I now carry a special responsibility. We all carry a special responsibility; we all carry it equally. If the attempt to resolve the problem by peaceful means is unsuccessful, that will be a tragedy. But we must investigate before we do take any other steps. My good friend Francois Fillon – we have known each other for a long time and have become friends during our years of working together – talked about how after the report was released by UN experts, it became clear that chemical weapons had been used. But this was clear to us from the very beginning, and our experts agreed. The only thing that is unclear is who used it.

We are constantly talking about responsibility on the part of Assad’s government, whether he used chemical weapons or not. But what if they were used by the opposition? Nobody is saying what we would then do with the opposition – but this, too, is an important question. We have every reason to believe that this was a provocation. You know, it was clever and smart, but at the same time, the execution was primitive. They used an ancient, Soviet-made projectile, taken from the Syrian army’s armaments from a long time ago – it even had “Made in the USSR” printed on it. But this was not the first time chemical weapons were used in Syria. Why didn’t they investigate the previous instances?

This matter should be investigated as thoroughly as possible. If we finally get an answer, despite all obstacles, to the question of who did this, who committed this crime – and there is no question that it was a crime – then we will take the next step; we will then work with other UN Security Council colleagues to determine the culpability of those who committed this crime, together and in solidarity.

Thank you.

Moderator Svetlana Mironyuk: They say that Senator McCain followed your example and published an article of his own in Pravda newspaper. He probably remembers from the Soviet years that Pravda was a well-known publication and the most popular newspaper in the country. True, a lot of time has passed and things have changed a bit since then, so it’s no longer true. I don’t know if you heard about this or not, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: No, I didn’t know about it. I have met the senator before. He was in Munich when I made the speech there that went on to become so famous. Actually, there was nothing anti-American in that speech. I simply stated our position frankly and honestly, and there was nothing aggressive in what I said, if you only take a closer look. What I said then was that we were promised at one point that NATO would not expand beyond the former Federal Republic of Germany’s eastern border. That was a promise directly made to Gorbachev. True, it was not actually set out and written down. But where is NATO today, where is the border? We got cheated, to put it quite simply. That’s the whole story. But there’s nothing aggressive here. It’s more just a reluctance to admit to what I just said. But I didn’t say those words to offend anyone. I said them so that we would be able to lay everything before each other plain and clear and discuss the problems in an honest, open fashion. It’s easier to reach agreements this way. You shouldn’t keep things hidden.

The senator has his own views. I do think though that he is lacking information about our country. The fact that he chose to publish his article in Pravda – and he wanted after all to publish it in the most influential and widely read newspaper – suggests that he is lacking information. Pravda is a respected publication of the Communist Party, which is now in opposition, but it does not have very wide circulation around the country now. He wants to get his views across to as many people as possible, and so his choice simply suggests that he is not well-informed about our country.

Actually, I would have been happy to see him here at the Valdai Club say, taking part in the discussions. As far as I know, our big television channels, the national channels, proposed that he come and take part in an open and honest discussion. There you have it, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. He is welcome to share his point of view with the whole country and discuss things with his equals, with political analysts and politicians, members of the State Duma or the Federation Council.

In this respect, I can only express my regret that our American colleagues did not react to our parliamentarians’ proposal and refused to receive them in Washington for a discussion on Syria. Why did they do this? To be honest, I don’t see anything so bad about this proposal, which, on the contrary, seems to me of interest and the right thing to do. The more we actually discuss things directly with each other, the easier it will be to find solutions.

Svetlana Mironyuk: Thank you.

Are there more questions from the floor?

Let’s stick to the subjects if we can, so as not to jump from one topic to another.

Bridget Kendall, go ahead.

Diplomatic correspondent for the BBC Bridget Kendall: Thank you.

Again about Syria, Russia has been lauded for its achievement for bringing about a deal which looks as though it could lead to the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria, all the more an achievement given that the Syrian government didn't admit it had them until very recently. Would you have been able to persuade President Assad to do this if there hadn't been a threat of American military strikes? In other words, did the threat of US military strikes actually play a rather useful role?

Vladimir Putin: Am I right in understanding that you are asking about whether it is the threat of military strikes that plays a part in Syria’s agreeing to have its weapons placed under control?

First, I’d like to ask you all to address your questions to everyone taking part in today’s discussion, so as not to turn this into a boring dialogue. If you permit, I will redirect your question to my colleagues and ask them to share their points of view on this issue.

The threat of the use of force and actual use of force are far from being a cure-all for international problems. Look at what we are actually talking about after all. We are forgetting the heart of the matter. We are talking about using force outside the framework of current international law. We’ve just been saying how the US Congress and Senate are discussing whether to use force or not. But it is not there that this matter should be discussed. It should be discussed in the UN Security Council. That is the heart of the issue. That is my first point.

Second, on whether we will manage to convince Assad or not, I don’t know. So far it looks as though Syria has fully agreed to our proposal and is ready to act according to the plan that the international community is putting together, working through the UN. Russia and the USA, in the persons of Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov have already practically drafted the outlines of this plan. There is a special organization that will work together with the UN on this matter of eliminating chemical weapons. Syria has declared that it will join and that it indeed already considers itself to have joined the International Chemical Weapons Convention. These are practical steps that the Syrian government has already taken. Will we succeed in taking the process through to completion? I cannot give a 100% guarantee. But what we have seen just lately, over these last few days, gives us hope that this is possible and will be done.

Let me just remind you about how these chemical weapons came about. Syria got itself chemical weapons as an alternative to Israel’s nuclear arsenal, as we know. What can be done about the various issues associated with proliferation and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a very relevant question today, perhaps the most important issue of our time. If this situation gets out of control, like it once happened with gunpowder, the consequences will be unimaginable. We therefore need to strive towards nuclear-free status in particular parts of the world, especially in such volatile regions as the Middle East.

We need to be very careful in our action so as to give unconditional security guarantees for all participants in this process. After all, there are people in Israel itself who categorically oppose nuclear weapons. You remember the well-known case when a nuclear physicist was sent to prison, served his sentence and still continues to think that his position was right. Why? There is nothing anti-Israeli in his position. He is a Jew himself and a citizen of his country, but he simply believes that Israel’s technological superiority is such that the country does not need nuclear weapons. Israel is already technologically and militarily a long way ahead of the region’s other countries. But nuclear weapons only turn the country into a target and create foreign policy problems. In this respect, there is sense in the position of this nuclear physicist, who disclosed the existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons.

But to come back to your question about whether the plan will succeed or not, we hope that it will.

Svetlana Mironyuk: Mr. President, I suggest that since we have veered away from defense and security issues, we should give Mr. Rühe a chance to reply, ask a question, and express his opinion.

Mr. Rühe, you have the floor.

Former Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Volker Rühe: Well, I wanted to speak about the young generation in this country.

First, I would like to begin – because I’ve been here from the beginning – to also compliment our Russian friends on the format of Valdai, the architects – because it would not be enough to call them organizers. What we have seen here, I call the culture of inclusiveness and a love of pluralism. And I can tell you, Mr. President, we are quite fascinated by the pluralistic voices from Russia, including very powerful statements by people that are in opposition to your politics, and I think this shows the strength of the country, that it was organized in this way.

I’ve never looked at Russia with the somewhat narrow eyes of a defense minister, you know this. I was first here in 1971, and Sergei Karaganov is a friend of mine since the late 1970s. We don’t look it, but it’s a fact of life. We have lived through SS-20 and Pershing.

And what I would like to say is, I came here as Defense Minister in 1995 and I went to St Petersburg. And I said, I don’t want to see any tanks or artillery, or any generals. I want to see the Mayor, Sobchak. And I got to know you also, you were part of his team. Why? He was a lighthouse for me, as a young member of parliament in West Germany, still in the divided Germany, and I think what he was doing was much more important than tanks and artillery, and it has proved to be this way. So it’s a lifelong interest in a neighbor. And we all, I believe, on this continent, are interested in a successful, modern Russia.

Now, the young generation. What I’ve seen – and of course it was very interesting for me to listen to his daughter, who is a powerful voice for the young generation, two days ago.

So what I’ve seen here, what I’ve seen in Russia is you have really an asset to the country, your young generation. They are very intelligent. They want to have a good education. They want to be more internationally connected. And they want to have a bigger say in the politics of your country. They are knocking at the doors of the Kremlin.

The young generation in my country, they also want to build their private lives, they are very much internationally connected. The doors to our Kremlins, which is the parliament and the government, are very open, but they don’t knock at it. They leave it to politicians because they think things have been arranged very well. And we are very sad that some of the very best just want to have a successful private life, but don’t engage in public life.

So my message really is, Russia can be proud of a young generation, even if there are political opponents that want to engage in public life, which is not the case in many of the west European countries. And I’ve said earlier in Russia also, we should give up this visa regime in the West, because that would enable hundreds of thousands of young Russians to come and see our life and our political system. But I must say, it would also change Russia, because once they have studied in Rome or in London or in Washington, because they’ll be forces of change, the necessary change in this country. But I think it would make the country also more competitive.

Now what has that to do with security? I think this is the best way to ensure security and to develop common points of view. And I’m very glad that this culture of Valdai, I don’t think there’s anything – I have been to many conferences, and also to Munich, but Munich is very narrow security-wise, there’s no conference like this in the world.

And also when we listen for four hours to your people about ideas and politics – we very often just talk from Monday to Thursday about our politics. It was very fascinating to see that the Russian speakers are much more interested in fundamental questions of society than we are, which is very much on the surface, what we are debating. So I think this is something to start from, but the real message is, I think it would be a great project of your third term to integrate this young generation when they’re knocking at the door of the Kremlin, because don’t forget, we want more people to knock at the doors of political power in the West, and you can be proud of these people. That’s my message.

Svetlana Mironyuk: Thank you, Mr. Rühe.

Other questions, please.

President and founder of the Center on Global interests in Washington Nikolai Zlobin: Good afternoon.

Everyone seems to be expecting me to ask you about 2018 and whether you will run for a new term. But I’m not going to ask that question. Everyone else I have put this question to so far have all said no though, so you might have to run anyway in the end, or else there won’t be anyone at all.

But I want to come back to a question we have already discussed. Unlike you, I did read McCain’s article. It should be said that it is not exactly a reply to your article, because it is really quite a personal article and not related to Syria. I think it is not very politically correct really, but that is my personal view.

Actually, he says there that no criticism of Putin is allowed in Russia. I’m here as a living example of someone who is always criticizing you. Even here at Valdai I have often argued with you, but I’m still here as you can see, alive and well. To be honest, I do not entirely agree with the things you said today either. But McCain says that the government Russia has today does not adequately represent Russian society, and that Russia deserves a different government.

In this respect I have a question. I know that relations between the public and the authorities is indeed one of Russia’s big problems, an old, historical problem. Before last year’s election, I recall that you said that there is perhaps a need to change the Constitution, change the relations between government and society, change the mutual responsibility, develop local government and so on. There was the very good idea too of bringing more young people into government. Sometimes I hear voices among the opposition saying that this government should be swept aside and that a new government is needed. You are now serving your third term as President. How do you view today the relations between government and society in Russia? Are you happy with these relations? What should be changed? Is the Constitution really the issue, or is McCain perhaps right in a way? I do not think his argument is correct. But what is your vision now, in the twenty-first century, of the relations between Russia’s highest authorities and society?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Vladimir Putin: You recall the words of one of the world’s outstanding political leaders, a former British Prime Minister, who said of democracy that it “is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. Probably then – not probably, but for certain – Russia does deserve a better quality of government. Is there an ideal form of government in other countries, including the one that you and Mr. McCain represent? This is a big question, a very big question, if we are talking about democracy.

It has happened twice in US history that the President of the United States was chosen by a majority in the electoral colleges, but with a minority of the actual voters. This is an obvious flaw in the electoral procedure, that is to say, a flaw at the very heart of American democracy. In other words, everyone has their own problems.

We perhaps have no fewer problems than you, and maybe even more, though this would only be natural. Russia has gone through the experience of rule under the tsars, then communism, then the disintegration of the 1990s. This has been a period of very difficult and complicated rebuilding. But it is very clear that Russia is on the road to democracy and is looking for its own ways to strengthen these democratic foundations. There is this very fact that for ten years now we have been getting together, debating, openly discussing, even when we used to meet behind closed doors, it all became public anyway. And this is not to mention the other aspects of our life.

As for what kind of government Russia should have, this is something for our citizens to decide, and not for our colleagues from abroad. We held an election a year ago, not so long ago, and the majority of Russia’s citizens voted for me. I base myself on this decision. That does not mean we can now sit on our laurels. I have to work on myself, and our institutions need to improve too. This is just what we are all doing.

Note that we have returned to holding gubernatorial elections in the regions. This practice is not so widespread in the world. Such elections are the practice in the United States, but India say, has a completely different procedure. Many countries do things very much their own way. Germany has its system, France has its way of doing things, and in Russia we have decided to elect regional governors by direct secret ballot.

 We have liberalized political parties’ activity. As a specialist on Russia, you know just how many new political parties took part in the regional elections. In many cases they achieved victory, and as far as I know, the winners of elections from these new political parties are here at Valdai too. The improvement process is therefore going ahead. I think it will never stop, because government organization, the political organization of society, and democratic procedures need to keep up more or less with a society’s current needs and demands, and society is developing and changing. The political system will change and develop with it.

President Putin and Diplomacy: an Example for the West to Follow

9 July, 08:00 2013 

Despite the fact that Edward Snowden had no connection to Russia and arrived in the country on his own will and has been treated well, the West has still jumped on the occasion to demonize and start parroting their usual talking points against Russia and President Vladimir Putin. The media bias in the West has once again reared its ugly head warranting another media-bias counter piece. This time the attack is in the Canadian media with the help of a young British writer attempting to make money by demonizing Russia.

I am always hopeful when a new book comes out in the West about Russia or Russian President Vladimir Putin, or a new expert on Russia makes the headlines, that there will be a balanced unbiased approach by an independent mind who really knows the nuances and the history of Russia, its politics and its President Vladimir Putin.

Unfortunately I have had those hopes dashed every time and the latest book on the topic and its author are no exception, which although at first appearing more balanced than previous efforts at defaming the President is nothing more than another, albeit more thinly disguised, effort to deride and criticize a leader who few in the West understand let alone have any true knowledge about.

The spin in an article by cbc.ca is evident right from the beginning when the writer attempts to portray statements regarding Edward Snowden by President Putin as somehow being an attempt to assure the world rather than the message that it quite literally was for Edward Snowden and those who are interested in making a loud yet for the most part empty sensation of the whistleblower and his revelations.

I say loud sensation because that is what it is and empty because unfortunately for all of the good intentions that Mr. Snowden and his supporters might have, and I would count myself among them, there is little his revelations have done, or quite predictably will do, in the U.S. with regard to changing policy or bringing about accountability or adherence to the rule of law or respect for the U.S. Constitution. When the power structure from the president on down all support the NSA and the illegal spying there can be no hope for change.

Although trying to present a credible argument about President Putin’s comments on Snowden there was no mention of Russian law or the Russian Constitution, under which Mr. Snowden is being allowed to remain in Russia, albeit in the transit zone at Sheremetyevo. Nor is it mentioned that Russia and the U.S. have no extradition treaty, and although the law is something U.S. President Obama may scoff at and bypass at his convenience, especially when it comes to the laws of other countries or at the international level, and this was no clearer than in U.S. requests to extradite Mr. Snowden or in the forced landing of the official aircraft of the President of Bolivia in Austria, there are actually leaders who respect the law, both internationally and inside their own countries and who bide by the constitutions they are sworn to protect. That is just for starters.

Another point that is glaringly missed is that President Putin has handled the whole Snowden affair, not with “assurances” or somehow bowing to the will of Washington, but with diplomacy, true honorable old fashioned diplomacy, something the West has all but forgotten even existed with their gun-in-your-face-sanction-slapping-methods of forcing the world to comply and bow to their will. Things President Putin has never even come remotely close to doing and for which he must be endlessly applauded.

The writer then attempts to imply that the deterioration of U.S. – Russian relations is somehow the fault of the Russian side of the equation and that the “reset” was something that was solely launched by Obama and has been “scuttled” by a different “approach” to the conflict in Syria and of course the “crackdown” on the opposition.

The spin in the article is mostly attempted by omission and the stating of fallacies as fact, so I will add some of the facts that the CBC left out. With regards to Syria: the Russian Federation’s position has always been, since day one, for a peaceful internal resolution to their internal conflict which respects the sovereignty of Syria.

“Sovereignty” yet another concept forgotten by the West and their endless meddling in countries worldwide. In Syria this is manipulation from without is characterized by the funding and arming of terrorists, the importing of the most violent elements, including mercenaries and cannibals and the continual search for a “Casus Belli” that the world will actually believe.

The articles mentions a “crackdown on the opposition” which must mean the requirement for foreign funded NGOs to be transparent and the few arrests on the West’s agent provocateurs that have been made and continue to receive endless exaggerated media attention as tools to demonize Russia. Unfortunately for the CBC they do not live in a country that is being targeted by everything the CIA and the nefarious Washington geopolitical planners can throw at it on every front. If they did they might change their tune.

The article also makes no mention of NATO global expansion or the fact that the U.S. and NATO are attempting to neutralize Russia and surround it with missiles and their ABM shield. But of course when you are on the safe end of the barrel it is hard to comprehend what it is like to be on the business end.

Almost laughable is the way the writer attempts to convince his readers that the 25 year-old-author he is using to back up his straw man arguments is a real expert by saying that: “Though only 25, Judah knows what he's talking about. The son of British correspondent Tim Judah, Ben Judah spent part of his childhood living in the Balkans in the 1990s.” If that makes him an expert then what am I? I am almost 50 and have lived in Russia for almost 20 years and… Okay… Whatever, never mind.

I will not bore you with the rest of the article but it takes no issue with the U.S. invasion of Libya or the brutal murder of its leader Muammar Gaddafi, calling it an intervention, nor with the fact that the Russian “opposition” was funded and promoted and directed right out of the U.S. Embassy. Nor does it take issue with the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia and the cold blooded slaughter of Russians that Russia was forced to stop.

The author who is questioned says that President Putin is somehow “harsh’ and “cruel” because he does not believe the lies of the West or that the West somehow has good intentions. President Putin has not invaded a single country, ordered a single extra-judicial execution nor is he involved in multiple aggressive wars or invasions, and lastly he is not spying on the world and maintaining an illegal offshore prison where he is holding hundreds of innocent men. If those are not true cruel and harsh things then what are?

I do thank the authors for the chance to set the record straight, perhaps having NATO missiles aimed at my neighbors, and U.S. paid agents on every corner makes me a little sensitive to Western bias but then again I guess it all depends on what end of the gun you are on.

President Putin Signs Law Criminalizing nazi Revisionist Tactics

7 May, 09:40

On Monday May 5, 2014 the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin passed a Russian Federal Law "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" aimed at opposing attempts to infringe on historical memory in relation to events that took place during World War II(the Great Patriotic War), according to the Kremlin. This is a clear sign to fascists worldwide.

The passing of the law shortly before the May 9th Victory Day celebrations (a bittersweet day when Russians remember the tens of millions who fell fighting the scourge of nazi Germany and joyfully celebrate the victory of Russia, the Red Army and the USSR over the nazi fascists) and against the backdrop of the events in Ukraine (where the US installed and backed fascist junta has mobilized the army and is employing armed paramilitary nazi Right Sector extremists to engage in what can only be described as a nazi "war of extermination" against those who refuse to be ruled by the degenerate followers of nazi SS stooge Stephan Bandera and grant legitimacy to the junta which violently overthrew the democratically elected government in February) has received a lot of attention worldwide, in particular with nazi glorifiers, white supremacists and Jewish groups.

According to the Kremlin"The new Federal Law makes it a criminal offence to deny facts recognized by the international military tribunal that judged and punished the major war criminals of the European Axis countries, approving the crimes this tribunal judged, and deliberately spreading false information about the Soviet Union's activities during World War II."

The brief summary wording of the law (the full text of which was not accessible at time of writing) has been posted on the Kremlin website and recognizes the findings of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal and while not explicitly stating such as did a draft of the bill proposed in March of last year, would make Holocaust Denial a crime in the Russian Federation as this comes under "facts recognized by the international military tribunal".

Approving of the crimes the Nuremberg Tribunal judged and deliberately spreading false information about the USSR is not something that happens very often in Russia, but is more exemplified by the current junta in Ukraine including: Turchinov, Yatsenyuk, Tyganbok and the groups that brought them to power such as the Trident, the Right Sector and Svoboda.

These groups not only approve of the nazi crimes against the Jews but also glorify them and attempt to paint them as deeds of heroism. A madness we saw recently in Odessa when "Maidan Defense Forces" and their Right Sector brethren shot people who were trying to escape as they were burning them alive and screamed "Glory to Ukraine" every time someone jumped out of a window to escape the flames.

Events such as these make it clear that such laws are necessary, and although such nazi ideology and glorification are not common in Russia, the danger of extremism, xenophobia and racial hatred is always present in almost any culture.

Russia, which lost more people than any other country during the Great Patriotic War, officially the figure is said to be at approximately 28 million (but there are some studies and estimates that say as many as 40 million due to the chaotic state of record keeping at the time and the fact that many died of disease and related traumas away from the battlefield or were not recorded), is one of the last of the countries to pass such laws in Europe.

Countries in Europe with Holocaust denial laws (many of which participated in the Holocaust themselves) and similar nazi related laws include: Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Israel also has strict laws regarding Holocaust Denial.

Russia did not have such laws in the past for the reason that other laws covering extremism, the outlawing of nazi groups and the like also for the most part covered specific crimes such as public incitement to hatred and the Holocaust Denial and because racial hatred was not a serious problem in Russia. Although some say there has been a trend towards xenophobia in Russia.

The absence of such laws before now may have caused many white supremacists and neo-nazis (not at all bright people to begin with) falsely believe that Russia in some way supported their twisted ideology. A common statement by skin heads and other xenophobes and racists on the white supremacist website Stormfront is that somehow President Putin must be sympathetic to their cause because he is "the white leader of a white country". They obviously recognize that President Putin is a strong, brave and no-nonsense leader and would surely love to have someone so intelligent and powerful on their side, and judging by the number of posts and comments on their site, their hopes have been dashed.

President Putin's position on racism, anti-Semitism, extremism and those who would spread racial and interethnic hatred have been clear from the very beginning and those who mistake his patriotism for Russia, as somehow a nationalist/racist thinking, are sadly mistaken.

White supremacists, anti-Semites, neo-nazis and those who attempt to glorify the horrendous deeds of the Third Reich believe that if they can prove one fact to be wrong, for example about the Holocaust, then they can unravel some huge conspiracy. However these attempts always fail miserably as exemplified by the attempt by Yuri Sergeev, the nazi junta's representative at the UN, whose first move was to deny the validity of the Nuremberg Trials and evidence by the USSR presented against the Banderavites. His crimes of denial, attempted rehabilitation of war criminal Bandera, approval of the horrific acts of the nazis, misrepresentation of the facts and the attempting spreading of lies about the USSR's role in the defeat of the nazi fascists, through the media and using his position in power would make him a prime candidate for prosecution in almost any European country and now in Russia.

The Kremlin: "Criminal penalties are increased if the above-mentioned activities are carried out by individuals using their official position or mass media, or by fabricating proof of accusations."

Statements by Russian officials that those responsible for ordering military operations against civilians will surely have to answer for their crimes, especially to the Ukrainian people, is now backed up by President Putin who has sent a clear message to all extremists and in particular those of the nazi tilt, that they will not find refuge or sympathy in Russia.

The Kremlin: "The Federal Law also makes it a criminal offence to publicly spread information on military and memorial commemorative dates related to Russia's defense that are clearly disrespectful of society, and publicly desecrate symbols of Russia's military glory. The Federal Law sets administrative liability for legal entities that commit these offences."

The last paragraph should clearly be a cause of concern for fascist groups, officials and organizations that are planning to launch events or attempt to blacken the celebrations planned for Victory Day, May 9th .

In summary the recent law passed by the President is necessary to protect society and the honorable memories of all of those who died defeating fascism. It is sad that such a law is necessary but the specter of fascism and historical revisionism has risen its head in Europe and in particular in certain former Soviet Republics and unfortunately Russia has to defend itself again against those who would re-write history and those who would spread fascism. Yet Russia beat the nazis once, and apparently Russia will have to play a decisive role in beating them again.

Once the nazi Bandera coup in Ukraine implodes and collapses as any sick gangrenous cancerous disease is bound to do and the Ukrainian people rise up and begin prosecuting the criminals pretending to be the leaders of the country. They can rest assured that they will find no refuge in Russia. So where can they run?

Well, the answer to that is quite simple; the US. For one the United States is fully 100% supporting nazis in Ukraine, has no laws against Holocaust Denial or historical revisionism, neo-nazis, the KKK and other scum are allowed to stage parades and hold public functions openly and what normal countries would classify as hate speech, whitewashing nazism and approving the Holocaust is allowed in the US. Because when it comes to nazis (and 40,000 thousand found refuge in the US after WWII and many got good jobs in the CIA and new identities) freedom of speech applies. I wonder how Israel feels about all this?

If I do not get chance to talk to you all before Victory Day I would just like to say: Glory to those who beat the nazi scourge, glory to those who stand against fascism today, glory to Mother Russia and the memories of all her fallen children known and unknown who perished so that we would could live. Glory to Russia's great military victories! Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!

Happy Victory Day! Remember the fallen and don't forget what they died fighting against.

West Infers Putin Sunk Cyprus to Distract from Obama Sinking the World

4 April, 15:47  

With the world focused on the collapse of the Cyprus banking system and the seizing of depositor’s funds, an unprecedented move by western financial institutions, the demonization of Russia and President Putin by the West and its agents has once again taken off in full swing. This is necessary to hide the fact the West is in fact robbing Russian businessmen and Russian depositors of money that they in fact have no right to.

In an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times, the favorite avenue for demonizing Russia and a column I have taken to task in the past for their acidic fantasy-based hyperbolic Russophobic rhetoric and propagation of out-dated cold war stereotypes, an offshore writer bashes Russian business and demonizes President Putin blaming him and Russian oligarch’s for the Cyprus banking crisis. The piece is so provocative, lacking in balance and the majority of the points it makes are so far from reality it demands an answer.

The writer of this particular piece, Ben Judah, is apparently from Instanbul, Turkey, a fact that may point to the New York Times now farming out their vitriol to other countries. He begins his attack piece by deriding Russian Business, the demonization of which is clearly necessary amid the current scandal and as Russia is on the verge of becoming the new business hub of the modern world, a fact that has been assisted if not caused by the economic failure and the downfall of Europe and the West.

His piece starts: “The blue-glass skyscrapers of Moscow City (fragments of Russia’s boom-time dream) are visible from the Kremlin walls, within which there was once hope that those towers could supplant the West’s financial centers. When the sun sets behind them, you can see that many of the offices lie empty.”

First off and this is minor, the glass of the skyscrapers is not really blue and the offices are not visible as he states, unless one is hovering in a helicopter alongside them. Second calling them “fragments of Russia’s boom-time dream” and saying the many offices lie empty is completely disingenuous and detached from reality, for the simple reason that Moscow City is still under construction and the project is still in its inception phase. So strike one Mr. Judah.

I could contrast the former World Trade Center in New York and how those building had hundreds of offices which were empty, and how the building were condemned due to asbestos and then destroyed with people inside as a catalyst for the PNAC plan for global domination, and I would be basing such an assessment on facts, not fantasy, but I won’t go there.

His second paragraph begins his attack on Russia banking and financial practices, an attack which is nothing but conjecture and opinion parading as facts. Mr. Judah says: “In fact, the real hubs for Russian banking are in other countries. Moscow’s billionaires squirrel their fortunes abroad, and many businessmen register their companies as British, Dutch, Swiss or Cypriot — anything but Russian Whistle-blowers would have us believe that even President Vladimir V. Putin stashes his money offshore.”

Mr. Judah is obviously unaware of Russian legislation to stop the flight of capital from Russia, and ignores the fact western businessmen and billionaires, in particular Americans, are the world’s experts in hiding capital and escaping their share of the tax burden. We could talk about Swiss Banks and the thousands of “offshore tax havens” used by the West and how American companies outsource all of their work overseas because it is cheaper, as apparently the New York Times now does, but we won’t go there either will we?

As for Mr. Judah’s whistle blowers? First off too convenient, name one Mr. Judah, second off citing anonymous whistle blowers as a basis for accusations against the president of country is a cheap trick and third off where are the details and the facts?

In contrast I could write thousands of pages detailing the financial machinations of the United States, the manipulations of foreign markets, the undermining and taking over of foreign economies, the flight of capital from the United States, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the ongoing attempt to take over the world militarily which will lead to the eventual total demise of the U.S. and its allies as their military adventurism, more and more overstretches their ability to pay for it. We are seeing that today.

As for whistle blowers? Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Jeremy Hammond, are true individuals I could cite for starters, but we won’t go there right now, will we?

Mr. Judah says: “Russian money is frightened of Russia”, Russia has “crude capitalism”, “Mr. Putin never delivered secure property rights”, and “…Russian money is paranoid; since 2008 alone more than $350 billion in capital has fled the country.” I would like to know where he gets his figures. These statements are so obviously patently false when you look at projects like Moscow City, as Mr. Judah did, and Skolkovo, and hundreds of other massive ventures taking place all over Russia. And again there is Russian legislation banning the practice he mentions and Russia has in fact pursued criminals who have taken billions out of the country, criminals such as Boris Berezovsky, who are then given asylum and protected by the West. But we won’t go there either now will we? Nor will we mention the fact that even if the figure of $350 billion is correct, it pales to the trillions U.S. war profiteers have stolen from the American people since 9-11

He says; “These billions craved secrecy and security, and financial islands inside the European Union welcomed them”, ignoring the fact that by welcoming them these institutions to which he refers were taking part in illegal flight of capital from Russia and becoming fabulously rich.

He continues by claiming Cyprus was the most important offshore location for Russian money and by inference caused the collapse in the Cypriot banking sector. This is completely false, Russian money kept and is keeping much of the European economy viable, including that of Cyprus.

He says, “… its bloated banking sector was wrecked by a gigantic exposure to Greek bonds. To save Cyprus from bankruptcy, a decree from the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank (known as “the troika”) is now confronting depositors in Cypriot banks with the loss of as much as 60 percent of deposits greater than $100,000, alongside tough new capital controls.” This is closer to the truth but ignores the fact that taking 60% of deposits is in fact stealing the money of innocent depositors to pay for failed policies, something one might expect in a banana republic and not the EU.

The demonization by the New York Times and its writers of Russia, Russian businessmen, Russian oligarchs and President Putin in necessary for the West and for their financial manipulators in this case for one simple reason: as I said above, through the IMF, the EU and the ECB, they are literally “legally” robbing Russia and Russian businessmen of billions upon billions of dollars that they have no right to. That is the real story here.

The result of Western financial machinations in Cyprus will no doubt be felt well into the future. No doubt the “paranoid Russian money” will no longer be so readily at the disposal of the European and Western economies, already on the brink of total collapse, money which we have seen is keeping many major western financial entities afloat.

Another result may be the fleeing of monies from other countries as it becomes clear that western “safe havens” are not in fact safe, and that financial regulators can just come in and seize whatever monies they see fit when they need a short-sighted and quick “fix”.

Unlike the West, Russian businessmen and Russia will recover and the fiasco and the money grab in Cyprus are just more indicators that the West is faltering and on the brink of collapse. Perhaps now offshore monies will flow to other places, perhaps to Moscow City? Could be, you never know.

As for Obama, who I mentioned in my headline, the current global financial situation, one I would say is on the brink of collapse, is the responsibility of U.S. based and American controlled financial bodies, so in answer to Mr. Judah’s question, no President Putin did not sink Cyprus, the West did. I offer this question then for everyone to ponder in response: Did Obama Sink the World? Look around you, the answers to that question are everywhere.

The Economist's Rabid Hate of President Putin - By John Robles

1 February, 01:54

The Economist and their rabid hate of President Putin

As the Olympic games approach the American media just cannot seem to get enough of demonizing Russia and rolling out their tired old stereotypes and continue to do so on such a scale that it should be getting ridiculous even for the people that the US media is apparently writing for, namely the under informed and non too worldly. One thing is sure however when the demonizing of other countries starts, especially Russia, you can have no doubt that there are serious problems at home and a distraction is desperately needed. Normally, as history has shown, a new humanitarian resource war is begun on some far off poor little country as was planned in Syria, but alas launching the Hellfires was not to be. So they pull out all of the old tired Cold War clichés and xenophobic stereotypes and sling the falsehoods, half-truths and lies like only the American Murdoch owned media can.

Why does it seem that Americans are obsessed with our President Vladimir Putin? Could it be that he is a strong leader whose policies and actions match his words? Or perhaps Americans really are sore because President Putin stopped the invasion of Syria? Maybe it is not the American people who hate Putin so much but the government controlled media, regardless if they are playing to their base or attempting to manipulate public opinion the latest hit by the Economist is truly in poor taste and playing to the lowest common denominator (no link sorry).

Apparently the Economist has lost all journalistic ethics if it ever had them with a new cover featuring a poor Photoshop job of a falling skater and President Putin. The photo and the article both have one thing in common they are full of fake “data”. It si quite remarkable, and extremely telling that the article in question is unauthored. It is nothing more than a hit piece that would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that the American public might believe the false points it makes while being led into ignoring the catastrophe that is the Obama Administration and their own government.

The first sentence gives away the intention of the writer (anonymous) by saying Russia won a competition to “stage” the Olympics. Strange yet when the US does it they are “held” or “hosted”. The “writer” then improperly quotes President Putin and ridicules the fact that others “heed” Russia and that Mother Russia can “stand up for itself”. Could this be due to the end of US hegemony in much of the world? As for standing up for itself, sure the US only loves countries that are broken or weak and cannot defend themselves. If you doubt then why is it that the US always forces small countries to disarm and prove they have no weapons before moving in and destroying the country and killing the president? Kind of hard to do with Russia so of course they are indignant.

The “writer” then says the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has had a good year because the western organized and backed protests have somehow disappeared, failing to mention this was after NGOs were required to become transparent and show where their funds were coming from and USAID was expelled. Not to mentioned the failed color revolution plans of certain US functionaries that completely fell flat on their faces.

Yes the Russophobes and the lunatic fringe are angry, Russia is hosting what looks to be a very successful Olympics and the Russian economy is on the rise and Russia has made the world a multi-polar place again. They know the days of their empire are over and no matter how much they rattle their sabers and scream terrorism no one is really listening.

In the article the “writer” laments that the US missiles were not allowed to fly in Syria proving that he/she is obviously oblivious to the suffering that US missiles bring around the world and has obviously never seen the results of US “humanitarian” intervention as he/she derides and makes little of our president for preventing the US from destroying Syria.

The person (idiot) who wrote the thing thinks brokering peace and destroying chemical weapons is something bad and has the nerve to compare the US catastrophe and loss in Afghanistan with the assistance that was requested and then granted to that country by the USSR. He also obviously does not know that almost all Afghan infrastructure was built by the USSR and then destroyed by US/NATO. But that is okay fact don’t appear to be part of the debate in the American media.

The “writer” also has no idea what is really going on in Ukraine and does not have any idea that a country might make a sovereign decision and of its own will say no to America and the West. He/she derides the President of Russia on Ukraine because Europeans looked “flat-footed”, ignoring the fact that if they in fact did, they made themselves look that way themselves. As did Victoria Nuland handing out cookie to street hooligans. He/she obviously does not know the math either, Ukraine had a choice of $1 billion over 7 years by signing the EU deal or $100 billion over the same period by joining the Russian led Customs Union.

The “writer” derides President Putin for positive economic growth in Russia and even for raising standards of living and paid pensions. Simply shameless. He of course does not mention the desperate situation that his own president has brought about and the fact that Americans cannot even afford health care and the military industrial complex and big corporations want to steal Social Security from the old and Food Stamps from the poor and the lives of American have never been worse or more desperate with no outlook for the future.

The rest of the “article” is full of pseudo economic arguments that do not wash and are not even worth countering or repeating but the last one is rich and almost as good as the promotion of fracking described as how America will take over the world. The “writer” also ignores that recent American government shut down and that the paper that dollars are printed on are worth more than the figures on them and that the US is effectively bankrupt, well not effectively, literally, and has been for a long time, and not only economically but also morally.

As you see I have had the manners not to smear Obama. Every American already knows he is a complete failure and guilty of war crimes, why rub it in?

I will not publish my article anonymously and will even include my e-mail address:jar2@list.ru. Have a nice day. Really!

“They keep people in shackles and chains without trial or investigation, like in the Middle Ages” – Putin

17 December 2012, 22:34  

“They keep people in shackles and chains without trial or investigation, like in the Middle Ages” – Putin

With the passing of the Magnitsky Act the US has once again taken it upon itself to interfere in the internal sovereign workings and affairs of the Russian Federation and expanding their sanctimonious role as the world’s policeman, judge, jury and executioner. No matter what the US claims, and no matter what they say or how they attempt to gloss over and present the matter, the Magnitsky Act is at best a case of meddling into the affairs of a sovereign nation and at worst a hypocritical affront, provocation, attempt at stealing assets and at the same time a belittling of Russia, the Russian judiciary, and the Russian people.

Despite claims by some US officials that the Magnitsky Act is about human rights and that it is not anti-Russian, in reality the opposite is true, the act will not only arbitrarily affect Russian citizens and their "human rights" it also attempts to unilaterally punish the Russian Federation and impose sanctions on Russia and Russian nationals on the supposed pretext of a human rights violation in a case that is still under investigation and for which people have already been punished.

The US is indignant of course with Russia saying no to USAID and requiring NGOs to be transparent, there is little else they can do to demonize Russia other than passing internal laws like the Magnitsky Act, just another attempt at manipulating yet another country to bend to the US will.

Russian experts, Russia experts, politicians, pundits, organizations, diplomats, foreign relations experts, government officials, judicial bodies and organizations, commentators, analysts and even the president of the country all say one thing, the Magnitsky Act is anti-Russia and anti-Russian, so to say otherwise would require monumental arrogance and ignorance. 
The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin put it best when he stated that US domestic politics are involved, because that is all it is about, you and I know that, it is all about appeasing the backward thinking yet powerful Russo-phobic right-wing lunatic fringe back in America.

Last Thursday the president stated that the death of Mr. Magnitsky was a tragedy and that the investigation into the case is not even over, this is no matter to the US right-wing proponents of the Magnitsky Act, they need to jump on some demonizing band-wagon and Magnitsky’s sad and tragic death fits the bill. It is telling that they could not find anything more damning.

Now if we look at the other side of the equation, there are many more things that not only Russia but the international community could sanction the US for, some example as stated by the president: "So nobody dies in their prisons, right? Maybe there are more [deaths] in theirs than in ours.” Yes president Putin, at least 4,150 in 2010.

Vladimir Putin: “…they haven't shut Guantanamo for eight years now. They keep people in shackles and chains without trial or investigation, like in the Middle Ages.” Yes president Putin and possibly thousands have died or been killed in the whole terror and secret arrest program. 
"These are people who open secret prisons and legalized torture to conduct investigations, and these people are now lecturing us about some of our failings?"

People who have also been guilty of state run executions, an out of control for-profit prison system, institutionalized police brutality, inhumane and ill-treatment of foreign nationals, torture, Guantanamo Bay prison, extraordinary rendition, human experimentation, aggressive war, extra-judicial executions and much much more. 

Yes President Putin and dear reader these are the same people who can not find anything else wrong with Russia than the sad and tragic death of a poor lawyer in custody who died because medical attention did not arrive on time. 

New York University Professor Steven Cohen has compared the adoption of the “Magnitsky Act” by US lawmakers with the aggressive behavior of a drunken street gang. The political analyst told the Voice of America in an interview that now the Congressmen are going to look for bad guys and punish them. He expects numerous lobbying groups to crop up around the “Magnitsky Act”, since oligarchs will clearly use such groups to square accounts, set up their rivals and take away the property that the rivals have in the United States. 

Russia will repond: “Russian lawmakers are to take up an amended version of an all-parties bill to impose financial and travel restrictions on American officials who were involved in abusing the rights of Russian citizens.”

"The Russian parliament is preparing to denounce the adoption agreement with the US, Liberal MP Yelena Afanasyeva has said. Lower-house State Duma is currently working on an amendment, she said.”

“The Russian parliament responded to the US Magnitsky List by approving the ‘black list’ of American officials to be banned from entering Russia. Given that the Russian Magnitsky List has been endorsed by all parliamentary factions, the bill will undoubtedly be passed into law by January 1st . Under the Russian bill, all US officials involved in breaching the rights of Russian nationals will become personae non grata. President Putin said earlier this week that the Russian response to the Magnitsky Act would be ‘appropriate, not disproportionate.”

Earlier I had suggested a war on terror list, the US is lucky the Russian Government did not go that route. That list would have had thousands of names on it. 

As for human rights other than US backed NGOs, in reality there are not many people in Russia looking for the US to solve any “human rights” problems in Russia and you can take that to the bank.

President Putin Protects Russian Interests: West Displeased

6 December 2012, 22:32  

After 19 years being denied entry into the WTO the West thought Russia would be a pushover once allowed in the “club.” Unfortunately for the West while they have been slipping further and further into an economic abyss of their own making, Russia has been growing economically, independent of the WTO. The West did not take serious repeated Russian statements that Russia would protect its interests while following WTO rules, they should have listened because in reality, Russia needs the WTO less than they need Russia.

Sadly it was to be expected but the total lack of respect not only for Russia as a country but again towards the President of the Russian Federation is enough to cause rage.

Many in the West were expecting that the entry of the Russia Federation into the World Trade Organization would mean huge profits and trade that would be unilaterally beneficial and allow them to make billions while dumping goods into the country of questionable quality and origin.

Again, sadly, they were expecting a country that was pliant and easy to manipulate and due to Russia’s almost 19 year battle to join the organization believed Russia would be the new kid on the block and a pushover, of course ignoring the repeated statements by Russian Officials that Russia would follow WTO rules and laws but would protect the interests of Russian companies and Russian consumers. Well Russia has done just that, and many in the West are not pleased.

The biased Western Press has jumped all over disagreements between the Russian Federation and has portrayed Russia as somehow being unfair and unjust and of course the media bias towards Russia is clear.

One media outlet in the West, the Financial Times, has had a long history of publishing unbalanced anti-Russian articles and has gone from one extreme to the other depending on which way the wind blows as long as the wind is carrying dirt onto Russia’s image.

In January of this year the Financial Times published a provocative piece titled “Nationalist‘ ghost at feast’ in Russia” claiming the opposition was being led by neo-nazi extremists. Their apologetic attitude towards convicted neo-nazis and nationalists is a matter worth further research, but for now suffice it to say that at the time the nationalists were against the government and a leading force in the opposition, according to the Financial Times

Now 11 months later, the Financial Times, in another article titled “Russian Justice”  says that President Putin is somehow using nationalism himself and this time it is a bad thing. So when nationalism is used against President Putin it is good and when it is supposedly used by President Putin it is bad and once again used as another tool to take stabs at the president. You can’t have it both ways.

Let me get back to the issue of the WTO and on another article by the Financial Times on that matter, as well as the views of many in Europe on Russian-European WTO disagreements as reflected in the Western Press. An article titled “Europe cools on Russia’s WTO accession” published today by the above organization is biased in many ways although it does cite officials and gives a basically sound argument the article is lacking in that it does not present all of the facts and does not present a fair portrait of the Russian side of the equation. The article also attempts to demean Vladimir Putin in the disrespectful tone that it speaks about the elected President of the Russian Federation.

The Financial Times and publications such as the Wall Street Journal are many times right on the front lines of demonizing Russia and President Putin for the sole reason that they serve the interests of the West and in particular and most importantly the serve the interests of big western money and that is what it is all about, the bottom line if you will.

President Putin has been a target of the West almost since day one. Why? Well the exact reasons are many and varied but in a nutshell because he has almost single-handedly pulled Russia up by its bootstraps, right out of the very depths of the hellacious-hell-of-near-anarchy that existed when he took office. That is a fact almost anyone would agree with. That’s number one. Why did this upset the West? Well because after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the old saying goes, to the victor were supposed to go the spoils.

After the collapse the West had plans in place , ala Zbigniew Brzezinski, to divide and conquer, in particular the United States, a country founded on the genocide and stealing of the lands of the Indians, and these plans were completely and totally obliterated by Vladimir Putin. Much to the chagrin of the West President Putin has continued to protect and advance the interests of Russia and the Russian people, again, not good for the West.

Back to the article : taking no issue with the pompous grandstanding of the European Union trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht, and his threats against Russia that the clock is ticking and his almost open calls for a “Showdown at the O.K. Corral” against Vladimir Putin, the article is revealing in the attitude many in the West have as to their false perceptions of what Russia’s real posture should be when it comes to the WTO and what they really think about the Russian Federation.

The European optimism that the Financial Times claims has left Europe was only there for those who believed that a huge opportunity for exploitation had opened up. Sorry, not going to happen. People forget that Russia has shown positive economic growth on all fronts during the global economic crisis and has grown stronger economically as the world slides further and further into the economic abyss, and for all intents and purposes, Russia does not really need the WTO.

Issues that the WTO members have been upset about include dumping cheap genetically modified products onto the Russian market, sending Russian livestock that does not meet Russian standards, and lo-and-behold Russia has concerns about its ecology? Well imagine that.

The Financial Times claims Russia had “… entered the WTO without a clear idea of why it wants to belong to this club and it has no intention of participating in negotiations to free up trade, the prime purpose of the WTO.” Not true, Russia knew exactly why it wanted to enter the WTO and unfortunately those in the West were sadly mistaken when they believed the new kid on the block would be a pushover.

According to the Financial Times De Gucht also said “EU officials would demand answers when they stand ‘eyeball to eyeball’ with the Russian president during the summit” and that, “… he would be very interested to learn from Mr. Putin himself what he has on his mind.”

Perhaps Mr. De Gucht is going to learn the hard way that when push comes to shove, Russia just might shove right back, a wee tad harder than they could have possibly imagined.

President Putin Attacked by West on His Birthday

15 October 2012, 14:44  

This past week the western media just couldn’t seem to get enough of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. Rather than having the common decency and respect for an elected leader, the media jackals chose to use the occasion of the president’s birthday to deride and undermine.

The attacks on President Putin ranged from small one page articles to whole exposés featuring abundant photos and even video. There were many but I have had to choose only a few.

The most insidious article was written by Matt Blake and Leon Watson at the UK’s Daily Mail, the article was so long and attempted to cover so much ground that one is left with the feeling that the writers not only hate or are jealous of the Russian leader but have some deeply personal vendetta against him.

They start by implying that 60 years is old for a third term president, false. Do a Google search for “age of presidents” if you disagree. These are the same people who gave kudos to John McCain who at 72 would have been the oldest first-term president in history. The fact that President Putin is popular with young people is also portrayed as something “bad” although in the West this is always something viewed as being a positive. All of this was just in the lead.

Further, the article contains such statements as: “… grip on power appeared as tight as ever,” is this an inference to the fact that despite concerted attempts by the West to cause Russians to question his legitimacy he is still as popular as ever or are they implying the president of Russia should not be in control of the country? Does anyone say these things about Obama or the Queen?

Then they state: “…continues to paint himself as an adventure-loving sex-symbol that oozes machismo” as well as, “…the ultimate ladies’ man, waited on by a gaggle of long-legged women”, such statements attack the president for his excellent health, love of sports, and popularity with the ladies. What is wrong with that? Should he be popular with young men? Perhaps the writers, two young men themselves, are jealous? Maybe even overly so?

The article blasts President Putin for being: “…a tireless and no-nonsense leader contemptuous of domestic and international criticism”, I suppose he should follow Bush’s lead and go on vacation for most of his term or listen to everyone and then become a “flip-flopper” as the West labels those who change their policies every time they are criticized?

Then we have: “…he brushed aside concerns the two-year jail sentence for punk bank Pussy Riot was too severe”, he properly did so as the sentence was the decision of the court. Is Obama asked every time someone innocent “accidently” gets executed in the United States about his opinion?

The writers then deride the president for his position that if someone wants to criticize government policies or the way things work, let them offer a responsible alternative, rather than what the Western funded opposition do, which is attack and deride and offer no concrete option or basis for their attacks which are solely aimed at causing a riff in Russian society and bringing into question the legitimacy of the government (a key ingredient for a “color” revolution). They take issue with the fact that: “…he welcomes opposing views, but that they should come from people willing to take responsibility for running the country.”

Further it only gets worse, they repeat the above groundless claims, in an apparent attempt at: “if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes true” and they cite a “wave of satire” which has hurt his “macho image”, something no one in Russia has seen, perhaps they know Russia better than Russians do?

The way the writers use the term “KGB Spy” as something terrible, is so cliché and cold-war that it is laughable. First off many western presidents and leaders have had ties to the CIA and Mi-5/6, yet they are never derided for it, secondly President Putin was a KGB Officer, not a “spy”! A spy is someone who passes information or performs other functions obtained under a false cover. Either they don’t know what a spy is, or they failed to do their homework.

The Guardian took issue with President Putin supporting the decision of the court in the case of Pussy Riot and played on the assumption that he has influence over court decision undermining the legitimacy of the Russian judiciary. They claim his popularity is dropping by citing unnamed and unknown polls.

Forbes once again, as the West loves to do, paints a picture of convicted serial tax-evader Mikhail Khodorkovsky as a “prisoner of conscience” and takes issue with his 12 year sentence. First of all for similar crimes in the US someone would no doubt be locked up for multiple life terms, second of all how in the world can someone convicted of the crimes he was convicted for be called a “prisoner of conscience”? Does this mean that all of us citizens of the world can stop paying taxes and gain the protection of Amnesty International? Please Louise!

Forbes also attacks President Putin and claims Khodorkovsky would have to get on his knees for a pardon, although President Putin generously said if Khodorkovsky files a petition for an appeal it would be looked at amicably. Forbes claiming that filing a petition for an appeal is the equivalent to “Khodorkovsky getting on his knees” is ignoring the fact that a petition is required in any case before there can be any chance of an appeal being granted by the president.

I wonder what the reaction in the West would be if we started attacking their presidents?

Putin-Obama Meeting and G-20 Summit

21 June 2012, 04:25

It was President Putin’s first big international event since being reelected to the post of President of the Russian Federation and the results were positive, productive and constructive.

It was President Putin’s first big international event since being reelected to the post of President of the Russian Federation and the results were positive, productive and constructive.

In a statement following the summit the Russian president answered questions from the press stating that overall he thought that the G-20 leaders came a step closer to mutual understanding, adding that they had worked together smoothly, constructively, fruitfully, and reached compromises.

This was reflected in the bilateral talks on the sidelines and in the G-20 working sessions, said President Putin. The Russian leader also stated that substantial discussion were held on reviving and stimulating economic growth, focusing particularly on the problems of global imbalances and how to reduce developed countries’ debt levels.

President Putin also said that one of the main results of the summit was the decision to increase the International Monetary Fund’s resource base by $430 billion.

There were many issues discussed both in the working sessions and on the sidelines, with the G-20 Leaders Declaration containing 85 points and being over 40 pages long.

Here are some other important points made by Russia’s leader:

On food security

“The working session also examined food security issues. Limited resources, climate change, and volatile raw materials prices are among the negative factors in this area. It is possible to stabilize the situation, including by concentrating efforts on resolving agriculture sector priorities.”

On Russia’s G-20 presidency and continuity

“The issues discussed in Los Cabos will remain on the agenda and develop further during Russia’s upcoming presidency of the G-20. We will ensure the group’s continuity and focus on discussing the problems that the G-20 was established to address.”

On Syria

“We think that no one has the right to decide for other peoples who should come to power and who should be removed from power. Yes, we know that part of Syria’s people, those represented by the armed opposition, want to see President Assad leave. Firstly, they do not represent the entire Syrian people. Secondly, the most important thing is not simply changing the regime itself, but ensuring that if it does change – and this should be achieved through constitutional means only, the bloodshed will then stop and peace will return to the country.”

On the U.S. missile network

“I think the missile defense issue will not be resolved regardless of whether Obama wins the election or not. The United States has been working on its own missile defense system for many years now, and I do not see anything for now that could change the situation. I think that real change in the situation would be possible only if the United States agreed to our proposal that Russia, the USA, and Europe all be equal participants in this process…”

On Jackson-Vanik

"The Jackson-Vanik amendment negatively affects Russian-US trade and economic relations. What more can I say? Our bilateral trade with the USA comes to $32 billion. This is nothing really, zero."

On the Magnitsky list

"As for the law connected to the Magnitsky tragedy, well, if they pass it they pass it. We do not think that this case requires such attention from Congress, but if restrictions are imposed on particular Russian citizens’ right to enter the USA, we will respond with similar restrictions on 'however many' American citizens’ rights to enter the Russian Federation. I do not know who needs all this and why, but if this goes ahead, so be it. This is not our choice."

On the G-20

“I think that more attention could be paid to the key issues the G-20 was established to address. I mentioned this at the start. In other words, the G-20 should focus more on the architecture of international financial relations and the global economy.”

Some reactions from the West

The body language and the seriousness of the demeanor of the presidents was the subject of a lot of the commentary in the American press and media. However both leaders said the atmosphere was businesslike and productive.

According to MSNBC the encounter between the President Putin and the US leader was chilly and cold, like a cold Moscow winter.

In a piece for the AFP, Stephen Collinson characterized the meeting as; “Obama embarking on what may be a treacherous presidential relationship”, a bold and completely negative interpretation. The same writer went on to call President Putin “the former KGB man”, as if this is something bad. Could we say the same thing about Bush Senior being the “former CIA man” as if this is something discrediting. President Putin served his country well, not something to deride him for.

The same writer also made it a point to chide President Putin for as he put it, “jealously guarding Russia's "great power status" and making no secret of his suspicions of the United States, blaming Washington for organizing anti-government protests in Moscow last year”, as if interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations is something to applaud and completely normal and standing up for your country something bad. Typical.

NPR’s coverage was more balanced stating, “President Barack Obama met with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Mexico on Monday. Their meeting comes at a low point in U.S.-Russia relations. Neither country wants a civil war in Syria, but they haven't figured out a way to work out the issue.”

The Voice of America was also more on the balanced side reporting that “U.S. President Barack Obama said tensions with Russia could be worked out following talks with the Russian president spanning a range of topics, including Syria, Iran and trade.”

The VOA characterized the relationship between the leaders as “prickly of late”, citing the U.S. leader’s pointed delay in making a customary congratulatory call to his Russian counterpart after being elected to the post of president. They also mentioned President Putin’s decision to stay home rather than attend a Group of Eight meeting Mr. Obama hosted at his presidential retreat near Washington.

USA Today, in a piece by Richard Wolf, made a point of the lack of smiles between the leaders and used the piece on the meeting to push false unconfirmed and dangerous accusations that Russia may be providing weapons to the Syrian regime so they can quote, “kill their own people”.

His basis was a report from Interfax that Russia was sending marines to protect a Russian base and Russian citizens, something completely normal and understandable. He also cited a Pentagon spokesman who spoke regarding the supposed weapons deliveries, once again showing the US hypocrisy when they have admitted to arming the rebels.

Such accusations are the basis for an armed intervention according to many experts watching the developments surrounding Syria, and historically we have seen this many times before when it comes to the West and their “humanitarian” interventions.

Overall the meeting between President Putin and Obama was professional, cordial and productive, but there is a lot of work ahead.

The opinions and views expressed here are the writer’s own.

On the Innauguration of President Putin in 2012

7 May 2012, 16:12

As the Russian Federation prepares to celebrate Victory in the Great Patriotic War a new dawn has come to Russia as the country inaugurated its new democratically elected president, a president elected in one of the most closely watched and one of the most unprecedentedly transparent elections  ever held in modern history.

As the Russian Federation prepares to celebrate Victory in the Great Patriotic War a new dawn has come to Russia as the country inaugurated its new democratically elected president, a president elected in one of the most closely watched and one of the most unprecedentedly transparent elections  ever held in modern history.

President Elect Putin, having previously been elected to two four year terms, will be the first Russian president to hold office for a six year term, something now mandated by the Russian Constitution. 

The world is also watching the events unfold here in Russia, and for many countries and many people the world over, it is also a new dawn. Many look to Russia and in particular to Vladimir Putin as the last hope to counter the global expansion and what many see as the subjugation and enslavement of the world by the culturally insensitive and morally destitute west and its surrogates.

As a genius in global politics and the leader of the largest country in the world Vladimir Putin is perhaps the only leader in the world who has the potential and the chance to return the world to its once multi-polar state, something that people all over the world are dreaming of as they become more and more disillusioned with the US and its fast food culture and policy of pre-emptive aggressive war and its blatant global military expansion.

Today when the symbols of presidential power, the presidential badge, copy of the constitution and the presidential standard were passed from President Dmitry Anatolevich Medvedev to President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Russia celebrated its young and vibrant democracy, a democracy more and more based on Russian ideals and a Russian model than that propagated by the West.

Despite the overall festive and positive mood in the country inauguration day has not passed without conflict as, on the eve, Western backed forces attempted to stage acts of provocation. Inauguration day is a day which must be respected for it is a day which embodies what in fact is democracy, the choosing of a leader by the popular vote of the people, for that is what has taken place in a fair and orderly manner.

The immensely popular Vladimir Putin has been chosen by the people again. A moral, upstanding, humble, intelligent, capable, strong and tireless leader with an immaculate political record, long term vision for Russia and the Russian people and the courage to draw the line when it is necessary, is now to run the largest country in the world once again and to lead it into a bright future and must be supported by all of us.  

I wish President Putin all the best as he takes his rightful office.

Have a great day wherever you may be.

Below is a short biography of President Putin courtesy of the President’s site.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was born  on the 7th of October 1952 in Leningrad.

1960-68 studied at school #193, then school #281 and graduated in 1970. During his school years Putin proved himself to be a remarkable student especially when it came to studying languages. When he was 11 he entered a wrestling league, engaged in martial arts and judo. Putin became a master sportsman and a champion in Leningrad.

1970 entered juridical faculty of the Leningrad State University and graduated in 1975. He entered the Communist Party when he was a student and stayed its member till its prohibition in 1991.

1975-1990 worked in KGB in the First main directorate (foreign intelligence) and specialized in German-speaking countries.

Sometime around the end of ‘70s beginning of 1980s he graduated from the Moscow KGB Institute.

1981-87 worked in Germany (watched Russian students, controlled Socialistic Party of Germany, investigated anti-socialistic acts).

1987-90 worked as an assistant dean at LSU ( Leningrad State University) with international contacts (watched foreign students). Putin was a KGB resident at LSU.

1990 became a councilor of A. Sobchak, president of Lensovet (Leningrad Central Council).

1991 he was appointed as president of Exterior Contacts Committee (ECC) of the city hall. In the beginning of 1992 he was transferred into active reserve by the KGB.

1992 he became a vice-mayor of Saint-Petersburg still staying president of ECC.

1994, March. Putin was appointed as the first vice-president of the Saint-Petersburg government – president of the Exterior Contacts Committee.

1995, May. He was the chief of the organizational committee of the OHR’s (Our Home is Russia – political party) Saint-Petersburg section. In the summer of 1995 he managed OHR’s electoral campaign.

1996, He joined the Saint-Petersburg headquarters of the Russian movement of the social support of the President (RMSSP), which united organizations supporting the re-election of Boris Yeltsin.

In the spring of 1996 Putin worked with Sobchak’s electoral campaign. When Sobchak lost, Putin retired from all his positions. Soon he received an invitation from P. Borodin, one of the Yeltsin’s managers, to be his deputy. He accepted it and worked in this position from June of 1996 till March of 1997.

1997, March. Putin became vice-president of the President’s Administration. In June he retired from the OHR.

1998, July Putin was designated to the position of the director of FSB.

1998, March he became the secretary of the Security Council of Russia.

1998, August he became the chairman of the Government of the RF

1999, December – 2000, March he took over the duties of president of the Russian Federation from an ailing, and by then, completely ineffective Boris Yeltsin.

2000, March he became the President of Russia.

May 7, 2012 He became the president of the Russian Federation for a third term.

My Favorite Putin Memes

 

Last Update: 09/23/2017 10:33 +0300

 

Site 1JAR2 Blog Button

 

JAR2 Biz

 

 Link to JAR2 Twitter Account  Link to JAR2 YouTube Account  Link to JAR2 Blogger Account  Link to JAR2 Live Journal Account  Link to JAR2 Word Press Account    Link to JAR2 Sonation and Support Page

 

  Please help keep us going and make a donation Thanks to all supporters!

PayPal, Yandex, Qiwi, Сбербанк Sberbank Visa 4276 3800 4543 8756

Copyright JAR2 2003-2017 All Rights Reserved

Publishing Banned Truth Since June 06, 2003