What if Putin is Telling the Truth?

[coffin_dodger]

September 28, 2015

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr. President, (addressing the UN in New York)

Mr. Secretary General,

Distinguished heads of state and government,

Ladies and gentlemen,

The 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future. In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay a solid foundation for the postwar world order. Let me remind you that key decisions on the principles defining interaction between states, as well as the decision to establish the UN, were made in our country, at the Yalta Conference of the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition.

The Yalta system was truly born in travail. It was born at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars that swept through the planet in the 20th century. Let’s be fair: it helped humankind pass through turbulent, and at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

The United Nations is unique in terms of legitimacy, representation and universality. True, the UN has been criticized lately for being inefficient or for the fact that decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, especially among Security Council members.

However, I’d like to point out that there have always been differences in the UN throughout the 70 years of its history, and that the veto right has been regularly used by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union, and later Russia. It is only natural for such a diverse and representative organization. When the UN was first established, nobody expected that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. The decisions debated within the UN are either taken in the form of resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or they don’t. Any action taken by circumventing this procedure is illegitimate and constitutes a violation of the UN Charter and contemporary international law.

We all know that after the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done and thus they don’t need to reckon with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions they need, often stands in their way.

That’s why they say that the UN has run its course and is now obsolete and outdated. Of course, the world changes, and the UN should also undergo natural transformation. Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules left except for the rule of force. The world will be dominated by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate rather than equality and liberty, and instead of truly independent states we will have protectorates controlled from outside.

What is the meaning of state sovereignty, the term which has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It basically means freedom, every person and every state being free to choose their future.

By the way, this brings us to the issue of the so-called legitimacy of state authorities. You shouldn’t play with words and manipulate them. In international law, international affairs, every term has to be clearly defined, transparent and interpreted the same way by one and all.

We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one.

We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.

It seems, however, that instead of learning from other people’s mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are “democratic” revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker. Of course, political and social problems have been piling up for a long time in this region, and people there wanted change. But what was the actual outcome? Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.

I’m urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you’ve done? But I’m afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity.

Power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. And now radical groups are joined by members of the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition backed by the West. They get weapons and training, and then they defect and join the so-called Islamic State.

In fact, the Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions. It seeks dominance in the Muslim world and beyond. Their plans go further.

The situation is extremely dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade.

It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you’ll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them.

I’d like to tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it’s a big question: who’s playing who here? The recent incident where the most “moderate” opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that.

We consider that any attempts to flirt with terrorists, let alone arm them, are short-sighted and extremely dangerous. This may make the global terrorist threat much worse, spreading it to new regions around the globe, especially since there are fighters from many different countries, including European ones, gaining combat experience with Islamic State. Unfortunately, Russia is no exception.

Now that those thugs have tasted blood, we can’t allow them to return home and continue with their criminal activities. Nobody wants that, right?

Russia has consistently opposed terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military-technical assistance to Iraq, Syria and other regional countries fighting terrorist groups. We think it’s a big mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities and government forces who valiantly fight terrorists on the ground.

We should finally admit that President Assad’s government forces and the Kurdish militia are the only forces really fighting terrorists in Syria. Yes, we are aware of all the problems and conflicts in the region, but we definitely have to consider the actual situation on the ground.

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach on Russia's part has been recently used as a pretext for accusing it of its growing ambitions — as if those who say that have no ambitions at all. However, it is not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.

What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than by ambitions. Relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And of course, Muslim nations should play a key role in such a coalition, since Islamic State not only poses a direct threat to them, but also tarnishes one of the greatest world religions with its atrocities. The ideologues of these extremists make a mockery of Islam and subvert its true humanist values.

I would also like to address Muslim spiritual leaders: Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now. It is essential to prevent people targeted for recruitment by extremists from making hasty decisions, and those who have already been deceived and, due to various circumstances, found themselves among terrorists, must be assisted in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms and putting an end to fratricide.

In the days to come, Russia, as the current President of the UN Security Council, will convene a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose exploring opportunities for adopting a resolution that would serve to coordinate the efforts of all parties that oppose Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Once again, such coordination should be based upon the principles of the UN Charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery in the Middle East. Then, dear friends, there would be no need for setting up more refugee camps. Today, the flow of people forced to leave their native land has literally engulfed, first, the neighbouring countries, and then Europe. There are hundreds of thousands of them now, and before long, there might be millions. It is, essentially, a new, tragic Migration Period, and a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to stress that refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the only way to solve this problem for good is to restore statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen government institutions where they still exist, or are being re-established, to provide comprehensive military, economic and material assistance to countries in a difficult situation, and certainly to people who, despite all their ordeals, did not abandon their homes. Of course, any assistance to sovereign nations can, and should, be offered rather than imposed, in strict compliance with the UN Charter. In other words, our Organisation should support any measures that have been, or will be, taken in this regard in accordance with international law, and reject any actions that are in breach of the UN Charter. Above all, I believe it is of utmost importance to help restore government institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global and regional stability remains a key task for the international community guided by the United Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone. Indeed, it is a challenging, complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no alternative.

Sadly, some of our counterparts are still dominated by their Cold War-era bloc mentality and the ambition to conquer new geopolitical areas. First, they continued their policy of expanding NATO – one should wonder why, considering that the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist and the Soviet Union had disintegrated.

Nevertheless, NATO has kept on expanding, together with its military infrastructure. Next, the post-Soviet states were forced to face a false choice between joining the West and carrying on with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a major geopolitical crisis. And that is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the people's widespread frustration with the government was used for instigating a coup d’état from abroad. This has triggered a civil war. We are convinced that the only way out of this dead end lies through comprehensive and diligent implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015. Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be secured through the use of threats or military force, but it must be secured. The people of Donbas should have their rights and interests genuinely considered, and their choice respected; they should be engaged in devising the key elements of the country's political system, in line with the provisions of the Minsk agreements. Such steps would guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state, and a vital link in creating a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have deliberately mentioned a common space for economic cooperation. Until quite recently, it seemed that we would learn to do without dividing lines in the area of the economy with its objective market laws, and act based on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, which embrace free trade and investment and fair competition. However, unilaterally imposed sanctions circumventing the UN Charter have all but become commonplace today. They not only serve political objectives, but are also used for eliminating market competition.

I would like to note one more sign of rising economic selfishness. A number of nations have chosen to create exclusive economic associations, with their establishment being negotiated behind closed doors, secretly from those very nations' own public and business communities, as well as from the rest of the world. Other states, whose interests may be affected, have not been informed of anything, either. It seems that someone would like to impose upon us some new game rules, deliberately tailored to accommodate the interests of a privileged few, with the WTO having no say in it. This is fraught with utterly unbalancing global trade and splitting up the global economic space.

These issues affect the interests of all nations and influence the future of the entire global economy. That is why we propose discussing those issues within the framework of the United Nations, the WTO and the G20. Contrary to the policy of exclusion, Russia advocates harmonizing regional economic projects. I am referring to the so-called ”integration of integrations“ based on the universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian Economic Union with China's initiative for creating a Silk Road economic belt. We continue to see great promise in harmonizing the integration vehicles between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030.

However, I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue. Admittedly, we may be able to defuse it for a while by introducing emission quotas and using other tactical measures, but we certainly will not solve it for good that way. What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.

It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. On January 10th, 1946, the UN General Assembly convened for its first meeting in London. Chairman of the Preparatory Commission Dr. Zuleta Angel, a Colombian diplomat, opened the session by offering what I see as a very concise definition of the principles that the United Nations should be based upon, which are good will, disdain for scheming and trickery, and a spirit of cooperation. Today, his words sound like guidance for all of us.

Russia is confident of the United Nations' enormous potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations, we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples.

[Iamwhomiam]

Thank you for posting Putin's speech, coffin_dodger. I heard our President's broadcast on NPR. I don't know if they broadcast Putin's, but they should have.

[conniption]

Russian Colonel: ISIS is a division of the CIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCS7zz0l8_M
Inessa S

Published on Oct 5, 2015

Alexander Zhilin, Colonel in the army and military expert of the Russian Federation, explains in layman's terms Russia's national interests in supporting Assad.

A number of Russians, and Westerners as well, have some misunderstandings about Russia's involvement.

Zhilin explains why this is not an optional fight for Russia. In the event that Syria fell, it would free up ISIS fighters for a renewed campaign in Chechnya, Dagestan and east of the Caspian as well, pushing north from Afghanistan into former Soviet central Asia.

Recall that ISIS is a re-branding and broadening of the same Saudi (et al) backed network of 'foreign legionary' soldiers which previously was called Al Qaeda and the Maktab al-Khidamat network which preceded it.

Inessa Sinchougova & Joaquin Flores
http://fortruss.blogspot.rs/2015/10/v...

&

propaganda alert:

Drutten says:
October 7, 2015 at 2:22 am

Fascinating.

From out of nowhere, all kinds of media outlets today decided to “resurface” a story from 2014 about people in Moldova trying to sell various radioactive materials that could potentially be used for dirty bombs. Now they put the story out there with some additional details that I’m sure they’ve been holding onto for quite a while waiting for the right moment, for instance that some of these criminals tried to pitch these radioactive materials as being a fabulous thing for ISIS. I saw this old story suddenly popping up in various large Swedish outlets today, and sure enough it’s all over the web now.

One of the key figures in this, a certain “Alexander Agheenco” (Romanian/Moldovan version of the Ukrainian surname Ageyenko, I take it) is said to have both Ukrainian and Russian citizenship, goes by the nickname “the colonel” and used to be working in the local KGB branch in Moldova/Transdnestr back during the days of the Moldovan SSR.

Boom, there you have it – “Russian FSB colonel sells uranium to ISIS” – I’m not even joking.

No mention of the fact that having been in the KGB of some former Soviet state at some point doesn’t mean that you’re automatically in the Russian FSB now. No mention of the fact that Russian police assisted the Moldovan investigators in identifying and arresting the suspects (that was in the original story from last year, but curiously omitted now), no mention of the fact that they’re first and foremost Ukrainians and that other Ukrainians have been arrested trying to smuggle radioactive materials out of Ukraine in that very area for the very same reasons (selling to the highest bidder). See these for instance:

Two Ukrainian citizens try to smuggle radioactive materials into Romania – PGO
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/282349.html

Ukraine Embassy Worker Arrested for Radioactive Smuggling
http://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-embassy-wo ... /a-3467700

The information war that Zakharova spoke about is definitely on. Things are being carefully spun to insinuate the worst conceivable things about Russia all the time. link

[82_28]

So why the fuck did NASA shut it's shuttle shop and then roll with the Russians to get shit back and forth from the ISS?

[Sounder]

Putin said...

What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than by ambitions.

Ambitions which are about goals and ends will always subvert values in order to accomplish the deeds. It is a sick way to live as it undercuts the value of learning and consciousness.

Do ends ever justify the means?

[conniption]

informationclearinghouse

Putin Slams US On Syria, Says Partners Have 'Mush For Brains'

By AFP

October 13, 2015

President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday slammed Washington for refusing to share intelligence with Russia on Syria, accusing it of muddled thinking.

"I believe some of our partners simply have mush for brains," Putin said, expressing some of his strongest criticism yet of Washington's handling of the Syrian crisis.

Late last month Moscow launched a bombing campaign in Syria, saying it needed to target Islamic State jihadists before they cross into Russia, which has a large Muslim population.

But Washington and its allies slammed Russia's intervention in the conflict, saying Moscow was also targeting Western-backed moderate rebels and sought to prop up the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

"Now, we often hear that our pilots are striking the wrong targets, not IS," Putin said at an investment forum in Moscow explaining that Russia had asked Washington to provide a list of targets.

But Washington declined.

"'No, we are not ready for this' was the answer," Putin quoted them as saying.

"Then we thought again and asked another question: then tell us where we should not strike. No answer too," he said, adding: "That is not a joke. I did not make this up."

"How is it possible to work together?" he asked.

"I think some of our partners simply have mush for brains, they do not have a clear understanding of what really happens in the country and what goals they are seeking to achieve."

He also took issue with a decision by a US-led coalition to parachute in ammunition to rebels in Syria, saying the weapons could end up in the wrong hands.

In televised comments at the weekend, Putin acknowledged that Russia wanted to buttress the Syrian regime, saying Moscow's task was to "stabilise the legitimate authorities and create conditions for the search of political compromise."

"We are not striving for some sort of leadership on Syria," he said at Tuesday's forum.

[conniption]

Putin annual Q&A session 2016 (FULL VIDEO)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iYmnDDvPdo
RT

Streamed live 11 hours ago

Russian President Vladimir Putin is holding his annual question-and-answer conference in Moscow.
READ MORE; http://on.rt.com/79zc

[Nordic]

This seems frighteningly accurate. Obama seems determined to start a hot war with Russia before his term ends. Ukraine, Syria (twice) and now the Baltic.

https://www.sott.net/article/318360-Rus ... global-war

Russia holding the line to prevent total global war

Finian Cunningham
Sputnik News
Sun, 15 May 2016 19:12

© AFP 2016/Daniel Mihailescu

The deployment this week of a US missile system in Eastern Europe is another step towards all-out global war. Despite Western propaganda demonizing Russia, the truth is that it is Russian military might that is actually holding the line to prevent such a cataclysm.

The United States and its NATO allies are already at war with Russia. This is not hyperbole. It is fact. The US and its allies are amassing weapons and troops on Russia's borders, and engaging in simulated attacks from various directions.

Orwellian language of "war games" in Western media serves to diminish the disturbing fact that NATO forces are preparing offensive strikes on Russia.

War machinery on both sides are locked on. The encounter last month of the US warship with Russian fighter jets in the Baltic Sea is but one of many such close encounters occurring almost every week. Granted, weapons have not actually been fired yet. Nevertheless, the weapon machinery is engaged.

Again, Western media serve to normalize what is a balefully abnormal situation. At the behest of Washington, the Western countries are trying to blockade Russia with economic sanctions. This is just another provocative act of war.

Moreover, diplomatic channels between Washington and Moscow seem attenuated to levels as low as at any time during the former Cold War. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has apparently maintained a cordial working relationship with his American counterpart John Kerry, but apart from that individual rapport the bilateral position between the two powers has sunken to an all-time low.

Another manifestation of war is the US proxy conflict with Russia in Syria and Ukraine. On the surface there may be talk about ceasefires and political solutions, but make no mistake the jihadist mercenaries and the neo-Nazi Kiev regime are nonetheless American military assets ever-poised to attack Russia's geo-strategic interests.

The move this week by Washington to activate its long-anticipated missile system in Eastern Europe is another act of aggression in a whole panoply of offensive actions. US and NATO officials deny that the Aegis system is targeting Russia, and make the ludicrous claim that it is to defend Europe against Iranian ballistic rockets or some other "rogue state". Such transparent, deceitful nonsense.

Russia rightly dismisses Washington and NATO's cynical assurances. The Kremlin this week said that the installation of the US missile system is a direct threat to Russia's security. Moscow said it would take counter-measures to restore the strategic balance of nuclear deterrence. It was no coincidence that official Russian reports disclosed details of a new hypersonic Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile that could penetrate any American missile shield to deliver a warhead capable of destroying an area the size of Texas or France.

This is not irresponsible Russian bravado. It is vital that Russia lets aggressive Washington know that any future war moves will be met with equal or greater force. Of course, the outcome would be an all-out nuclear war which could destroy the planet as we know it. But the only way of saving the peace and the planet is for Russia to show that it has the military might to face down any American belligerence.

The upgrade of Russian military power under President Vladimir Putin is perhaps the only thing that is holding back the push for all-out war by the US.

And let's face it. It is the US that is the source of belligerence. As American political analyst Randy Martin points out, the so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine is the touchstone of Washington's foreign policy. The neocon doctrine of former Department of Defense official Paul Wolfowitz, who served in the George W Bush administrations, is embedded in US military strategic thinking.

Says Martin: "Wolfowitz's worldview of seeing the US as the world's only superpower and not tolerating any other rival to the point of going to war, is taught in all American military academies. It is mainstream US military thinking."

This is what motivates Washington's bellicose policies towards Russia and China, adds Martin. "The US is programed to go to war with any perceived rival global power in order to maintain its unwarranted ambitions of hegemony."

The analyst says that if it were not for Russian, and Chinese, military power the US state planners would have gone further by now in prosecuting their war actions, with catastrophic consequences for the world. It is a sobering thought that, despite all the Western media disparagement of Russia, it is actually Russia that is saving the world from such a catastrophic conflict - a conflict that the US alone is pushing.

Indeed, it is averred that Russia's intervention in Syria may have been partly based on this bigger, far more serious calculation. Not only was Russia salvaging the Middle East country from Western-backed war for regime change. Moscow's deployment of latest weaponry, including its sea-launched cruise missiles and the S-400 anti-ballistic defense, could have been aimed at demonstrating to Washington that it better think twice about pursuing a wider war agenda.

Little do we know it because of so much Western mind-numbing misinformation, but our world is facing the abyss of nuclear war. Russia's military power is holding the line from this abyss.

How can we transcend this abysmal situation before stumbling over the edge?

Russia must remain vigilant and strong, with a determination to not capitulate. The anniversary last week of the defeat of Nazi Germany is a timely reminder of Russia's epic importance in thwarting international aggression. The same fascist aggression is virulent again in the form of American hegemonic ambitions, and just as with the Third Reich it is Russian fortitude that is preserving the world from Total War.

Political analyst Randy Martin does not see the American public has having a decisive role in practice. In theory, yes, US citizens need to call their warmongering leaders to account and to elect a democratic government - for a change. However, says Martin, the American public are so disenfranchised, brainwashed, beaten down, and oppressed with poverty and consumerist psychosis, he does not see how a mass movement in the US can be mobilized at this point in history in order to abolish the warmongering ruling elite in Washington.

Perhaps, it is up to the people of Europe to take decisive action. Growing popular discontent with European leaders who toe the American line of aggression and sanctions on Russia may have the potential of decisively breaking the US-EU-NATO war front.

What people need to urgently wake up to is that Washington and its European vassals in government are already at war on Russia. There is absolutely no objective justification for this destructive dynamic, other than the US trying to unilaterally assert its hegemony. That is not the policy of a law-abiding democracy; it is a fascist power in the same vein as Nazi Germany.

The war on Russia is being waged on entirely spurious grounds of alleged Russian annexations, invasions and expansionism. This is utter propaganda - again a la Nazi Germany.

The crucial question is this: can Russia hold the line long enough against US-led aggression until the people of the world mobilize the political action to overthrow the criminal regime that operates out of Washington and through European capitals?

[Sounder]

Putin said...

We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one.

We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.

Putin, the leadership and the Russian people have had their Damascus moment. Now they are coming together to defend their newfound wisdom.

What is the nature of that wisdom? Do you really want to go through what the Soviets went through, times ten, to find out?

Learn by proxy people, or be slaves, your choice.

[Morty]

Spoilt for choice when trying to decide where to post the following. Best read at link, I imagine.

Published on January 18, 2018

Is Putin profoundly corrupt or “incorruptible?”


Sharon Tennison recounts her personal experience of and observations about Vladimir Putin

first published in 2014 and first appearing on this site in April 2017, we are re-airing this alternative analysis in the year of the Russian presidential election as being of continuing relevance in the struggle to separate truth from #fakenews. Tennison presents a view of VVP as essentially “incorruptible”. To those who get their information from the mainstream media, and even from many alternative news sites this will seem a slightly incredible idea. Yet Tennison’s opinion is not unsourced or unconsidered. And the numerous claims of Putin’s massive personal wealth and “gangster” mentality remain entirely uncorroborated. Where does the truth lie?

As the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin. Journalists and pundits must scour the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe both. Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, “What about Putin?” It’s time to share my thoughts which follow:

Putin obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man.

He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him since he became Russia’s second president.

I’ve stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000s –– I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly than this article.

Like others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I’ve tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin apologist”. If one is even neutral about him, they are considered “soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

I don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington’s officials.

I’ve been in country long enough to ponder on Russian history and culture deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which so complicate our political relations with their leaders.

As with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and attempting to meet Russia halfway.

In addition to my personal experience with Putin, I’ve had discussions with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had years of experience working with him––I believe it is safe to say that none would describe him as “brutal” or “thuggish”, or the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.

I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since all of the slander started, I’ve become nearly obsessed with understanding his character. I think I’ve read every major speech he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long telephone “talk-ins” with Russian citizens).

I’ve been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight character cast into a role he never anticipated––and is using sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under extremely difficult circumstances.

If the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks for his performance over the past 14 years. It’s not by accident that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one personal experience with Putin.

The year was 1992

It was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was St.Petersburg.

For years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made.

My friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit.

He inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question.

I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans’ requests. CCI stood on the principle that we would never, never give bribes.

This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply and kindly showed us to the door.

Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “Volodya, this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!”

I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight––it read Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

1994

U.S. Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in the next three days. He needed immediate help.

I scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador.

I was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear the”good news” about CCI’s programs that were showing fine results. In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up “home” meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs’ small apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State Department people were aghast, since it had never been done before––but Jack overruled).

Only later in 2000, did I learn of Jack’s former three-year experience with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.

December 31, 1999

With no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin.

On hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered––he could never lead Russia. The next day a NYT article included a photo.

Yes, it was the same Putin I’d met years ago! I was shocked and dismayed, telling friends, “This is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he is too introverted and too intelligent––he will never be able to relate to Russia’s masses.”

Further, I lamented: “For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions”.

It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.

February 2000

Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge. In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer:

"What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop."

This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West’s capitalists nervous.

After all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen––good capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their profits in offshore banks.

Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal:

They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics. [note by OffG – more accurately the oligarchs were required to remain within the law rather than explicitly stay out of politics]

This was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

The latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).

March 2000

I arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, “Lena what do you think about your new president?” She laughed and retorted, “Volodya! I went to school with him!”

She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education).

He went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at this, because Lena said:

"Sharon in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career."

My next question was:

What do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?

Putting on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied:

"If left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is watching. If they don’t respond, he will address them personally, then if the behaviors don’t change–– some will be in prison in a couple of years."

I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.

Throughout the 2000s

St.Petersburg’s many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most believed that the program had been enormously important, even life changing. Last, each was asked:

So what do you think of your new president?

None responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia’s bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, “Putin registered my business a few years ago”.

Next question:

So, how much did it cost you?

To a person they replied, “Putin didn’t charge anything”. One said:


"We went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at the Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.’ "

Late 2000

Into Putin’s first year as Russia’s president, US officials seemed to me to be suspect that he would be antithetical to America’s interests––his every move was called into question in American media. I couldn’t understand why and was chronicling these happenings in my computer and newsletters.

Year 2001

Jack Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous and helpful.

When Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous offer, but ended saying that he couldn’t accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital.

She did––although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.

A senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media.

Matter of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn’t be acceptable if others were listening.

Another former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery, pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.

I had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin:

At the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get answered:

When did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why??

Without hesitating the answer came back:

The knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the next president.”

I questioned WHY? The answer:

I could never find out why––maybe because he was KGB.”

I offered that Bush #I, was head of the CIA. The reply was

That would have made no difference, he was our guy.

The second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting, I remarked, “You might be interested to know that I’ve collected experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes”. He firmly replied:

No one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin.”

From 2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin …. even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler.

No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food.

Alcohol challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking industry was becoming dependable. Russia was beginning to look like a decent country –– certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for the first time in their memories.

My 2013/14 Trips to Russia:

In addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We traveled between cities via autos and rail––the fields and forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction. Today’s Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from China).

Old concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place––and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow.

We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets. Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations looks like those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have appeared.

It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.

So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???

Like Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?

Psychologists tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don’t want to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow”when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.

Could this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?

Could it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?

Could it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the corruption within our corporate world doesn’t exist?

Could it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact that we haven’t solved our own?

Could it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR”––because of what we do to remain the world’s “hegemon”?

Could it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that is what we have become and we don’t want to face it?

Could it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done over the past several administrations?

Some of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your opinions, pro and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It’s important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and get the record straight. I’m quite sure that 99% of those who excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication, or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters. This is how our nation gets its “news”, such as it is.

There is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned?

It seems to me that if our nation’s leaders would commit to using these four principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.

Sharon Tennison ran a successful NGO funded by philanthropists, American foundations, USAID and Department of State, designing new programs and refining old ones, and evaluating Russian delegates’ U.S. experiences for over 20 years. Tennison adapted the Marshall Plan Tours from the 40s/50s, and created the Production Enhancement Program (PEP) for Russian entrepreneurs, the largest ever business training program between the U.S. and Russia. Running several large programs concurrently during the 90s and 2000s, funding disappeared shortly after the 2008 financial crisis set in. Tennison still runs an orphanage program in Russia, is President and Founder, Center for Citizen Initiatives, a member of Rotary Club of Palo Alto, California, and author of The Power of Impossible Ideas: Ordinary Citizens’ Extraordinary Efforts to Avert International Crises. The author can be contacted at sharon@ccisf.org

[Jerky]

Anybody who actually read the entirety of the above absolutely ridiculous pile of pro-Putin doggerel really needs to do themselves a favor and familiarize themselves with the hilarious historical coda contained at the following link:

Defender of Putin, Detained in Russia: American Activist Deemed U.S. 'Agent'


https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-sharon-t ... 58544.html

[Sounder]

Thanks Morty

So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???

Because Putin had the nerve to demand that the oligarchs support the state, instead of the state only supporting them.

This author is far more trustworthy than is the army of one hysterical anti-Putin voice. Did Putin's wife recover in Russia rather than to go abroad? It is a matter of public record, that and many other interactions, including multi- hour public Q and A sessions attest to the idea that Putin puts larger interests above personal interests. This cannot be said of any western politician, can it?
And the following is what is going on, thank you Jung.

Like Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?

Psychologists tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don’t want to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow”when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.

Could this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?

Could it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?

Could it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the corruption within our corporate world doesn’t exist?

Could it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact that we haven’t solved our own?

Could it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR”––because of what we do to remain the world’s “hegemon”?

Could it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that is what we have become and we don’t want to face it?

Could it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done over the past several administrations?

[DrEvil]

^^It's actually possible to have two thoughts in your head at the same time.

Example: Russia sucks and the US sucks.

Disliking one doesn't mean you have to like the other. That way lies binary thinking of the worst sort. You can be perfectly aware of the faults in your own camp and still be critical of the faults in the other.

Here's some more pop psychology: Could it be that we dislike our own side so much that we uncritically applaud any opposing side, even if they're just as bad?

[Jerky]

Sounder, what's your take on the Moscow apartment building bombings that took place shortly after Putin ascended to power, providing a pretext for a war on Chechnya that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians there? Here we have an instance where the rough equivalent of 9/11 being pretty much proven to be an inside job false flag by the FSB (over which Putin had uncontested control), and yet... it's as though half the participants on this board are so head over heels in love with Putin that they keep forgetting this incredibly revealing chapter in recent history. And that's just one exhibit in the massive case for Putin's essential monstrosity.

J

[Sounder]

Roasting this old chestnut yet again is illustrative of the dearth of dirt that warmongers have on Putin.

Truth is that Monsanto and the drug makers must impose their system worldwide, otherwise those left less crippled would soon rule the world.

And well, we must have cripples rule the world.

Like Putin said...

We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one.

We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.

Sounder wrote...

Putin, the leadership and the Russian people have had their Damascus moment. Now they are coming together to defend their newfound wisdom.

What is the nature of that wisdom? Do you really want to go through what the Soviets went through, times ten, to find out?

Learn by proxy people, or be slaves, your choice.