When I first came across Jim Stone's website at www.jimstonefreelance.com, I found his straight talking no-frills reporting style to be a novelty among the alternative truther community. A former National Security Agency officer, he's clearly been a serious infectious thorn in the flesh of the establishment with the huge amount of protective measures and IT knowledge needed to avoid being tracked down and killed by the Powers that Should Not Be. What he says concerning the photographed man-made artifact on Mars is probably the smartest, ground-based reality thing said out there on the internet on where we stand as a species in relation to the Universe. Below is quoted straight from his website at www.jimstonefreelance.com:
"We Are Not That Important"
I
cannot believe that after the Fukushima report, the huge importance of a
few evil people destroying the future of this planet with tainted
vaccines, and a plethora of other evil things being done to this world
that the real key to it all is a stone head on Mars. We have been
lied to about everything, had information subverted at a level that is
incomprehensible and it is likely to go back tens of thousands of years.
We now have confirmation that our little planet is definitely,
positively, beyond all doubt not the only one out there. We have
confirmation that worlds do indeed die and the universe gets over it.
My guess is that our world has too big of a plague of evil in the ranks
of the power structure to be permitted into the greater existence
beyond this world, after all if we have nukes and we will use them, if a
few corrupted tribesmen [Zionists] will virus attack a nuclear facility in Japan
[Fukushima] and destroy it at great consequence to our own world, greater
civilizations would be idiotic to allow the threat of tribe mentality
visit their worlds with disaster. After all, as pathetic as
it may be to them, a nuke is still a nuke. The nuke is probably the
bench mark for quarantine.
If a civilization has that type of ability
for destruction it probably needs to know how to behave or it will be
sensibly crushed like a scorpion before it can sting another world.
No
wonder why our educational system has been destroyed.
This stone head on Mars says many other things, like how pathetic the Torah [Talmud?] is.
Consider this: We now have proof other worlds are inhabited, yet the
Torah only gives a rather pathetic account of a tiny tribe on one world
that wandered around on one continent predominantly in one little
desert. How big is that? How pathetic do we really look when that one
tribe takes such an account and uses it to enslave the rest of the
planet, feeling perfectly justified in doing so? How pathetic and
threatening does it look to outsiders when that same tribe would apply
the same logic off planet if given a chance?
We are screwed.
After seeing the behavior of the power structure put in place by that
tribe on this earth, where that tribe infiltrates everything and
corrupts it, lies about everything, flies airplanes into buildings,
nukes Syria, runs fake Al Quaida and [Daesh] psy ops, and has the Samson
option with nukes planted everywhere - a fact made reality by their
ability to be sneaky and lie, will we be let off-planet when we are
intelligent enough to harness the power of the atom yet are so easily
manipulated and fooled?
Will we be let off planet when we can be tricked
into doing horrendous evil all the while we think we are doing good?
How stupid would a greater civilization be to not infiltrate us
themselves and body slam us into oblivion before we could get off this
world and nuke them?
THANKS LUCIFERIAN MOLECH PYRAMID SCAMMING JEWISH
COMMUNITY AND ROTHCHILD FAMILY, YOU SCREWED US AND A STONE HEAD ON MARS
PROVES IT.
And don't even think about falling for the shillage saying it's
just pixels or erosion or some other bullshit, we have proof of how
screwed we are right here in front of us and nothing is going to change
that even if 99 percent of the people out there cannot turn their brains
on enough to see it is not fake or a stupid anomaly.
I do not think Mars died naturally. I think the tribe has a history
that has been hidden from even them, and Mars got wiped out because they
could not 'behave' themselves.
Earth just happened to be close by to
pick up the slack."
Reproduced here from Jim Stone's website in case that gets shut down. See the original webpage for full detail at [update: Link broken]: http://jimstonefreelance.com/mayanmars.html
"Trolls are going to have a tough time when anyone with Photoshop can take the original image, apply standard filters (no editing, only filters) and pull the detail out and see that it is real. All it takes to get the basics and confirm this really is a stone carving is levels or curves. This is going to screw the trollage.
This is a bona fide image from the Mars Rover. This came straight from JPL. It proves a civilization did exist on Mars, and Mars had to have been destroyed.
I had my doubts the rovers were real. I thought they were really somewhere in the desert Southwest [on account of man-made artifacts like coins and Earth animal bones being spotted in the Mars images]. But there are no Mayan heads to be found in the United States, and I doubt NASA would try to pull a fake rover stunt elsewhere.
Obviously NASA is silent on this, stupidly stating that it is a natural rock formation (don't you know that is a plagioclase feldspar mixed with calcite, quartz and bauxite, the miraculous combination that always spits out a carved head?), so you saw nothing there......RIGHT.
.....The rovers really are on Mars and they are driving around the surface of a recently destroyed planet that was very much like Earth not so long ago. There are coins showing up from whatever civilization was there showing up in the rover photos: bones, animal skulls and now this carved head.
No doubt about it, Mars was inhabited and the superb condition of the relics that have turned up proves Mars was destroyed only a very short time ago.
Original image "Mastcam Right 2013-02-11 00hr 30min 54s UTC"
"AirAsia Indonesia regrets to confirm that flight QZ8501 from Surabaya
to Singapore has lost contact with air traffic control at 07:24hrs this
morning.
...
The aircraft was an Airbus A320-200 with the registration number PK-AXC."
Update: This looks bad. QZ8501 last recorded near Pulau Belitung in the Java Sea. The usual news will be about searching for it. The plane should have landed at 8:30 am in Singapore this morning.
Bad weather would be hard to say as the plane was flying at over 33,000 feet / 10 km from sea level, way above most of where the weather occurs. A plane that follows maintenance schedules strictly and flown by experienced pilots doesn't just fall out of the sky. Will have to wait and see for more hard facts.
[ Land Destroyer: The "Shape-Shifting Sheik" and the "Sydney Siege": Suspect had multiple aliases, granted political asylum by Australian government, interviewed by Australian media, spent years as fake pro-Western 'Shia'a Cleric', condemning Iran and Syria before recently 'converting' to Sunni and supporting ISIS ]
See also top articles on the Sydney Siege at www.jimstonefreelance.com
Why this apparent 'IS' attack now?
Consider looking up this interview with Paul Sandhu and V the Guerrilla Economist at the 53rd minute:
'V' tells Paul Sandhu that based on one of his multitude of high level insider contacts who was at the recent Abu Dhabi F1 racing event (where the big movers of the world meet) that a false flag is being planned from January to February in the Middle East involving 'IS' that will be devastating enough that the World's mainstream masses will blindly demand justice.
'See we should have acted then when the Sydney Siege took place, now look what's happened,' will be the mantra of the times, or close enough. The US Army will be suckered into this. The outcome will not be good.
Any US army veterans/currently serving the armed forces reading this, please watch the above video and consider spreading this information to your friends and contacts. Your fellow troopers have been used as pawns in a big nasty game that is done by players that do not care for your fate for as far back as WW2 and 1950's Korea war, and especially obvious in Vietnam War's Gulf of Tonkin non-incident.
Consider this fact that troops are being moved back into Iraq and Afghanistan despite supposedly 'withdrawing'. (If you don't believe it , look it up on Infowars, Russia Today and other alternative news sources or just search Youtube).
The Sydney Siege is the mere priming of the psychological pump to get us to have this CIA sponsored terrorist group, aka Al-Qaeda 2.0 inside our heads so we will blindly stand up and demand re-invasion of the Middle East.
Same old shit. Its high time soldiers wise up to what's going on, stopped doing the bidding of their masters and winding up dead or maimed, and then abandoned and forgotten.
Because being given nuts in a paper bag is worth turning the Airplane back to the Airport Gate.
Hard Truths:
Good job to the Koreans and everyone else for calling out on this and raging over it. Singapore had its own brush with this brand of bullshit with Anton 'Porsche' Casey putting down the people who use public transport as well as some shitfaced cockmongler scholar from China saying 'there are more dogs than people in Singapore' when his scholarship was funded using Singaporean taxpayer money.
And there is the Singapore connection with this . She is on the Advisory Board of the Nanyang Business School of Singapore's Nanyang Technological University (NTU). Evidence of this faggotry: http://www.nbs.ntu.edu.sg/About_Us/Leadership/AdvisoryBoard/Pages/Heather_Cho.aspx
Their mission is "To educate global business leaders, and to advance knowledge in the theory and practice of management globally".
I guess her usual advice has been how to effectively throw a bitch fit over a fucking paper bag.
Supposedly she's already unpopular with South Koreans for this:
http://news.yahoo.com/nut-rage-spat-latest-stumble-korean-air-family-100334576--finance.html )
"In 2013, she gave birth to twin boys in Hawaii, entitling them to U.S.
citizenship. Korean Air had sent Cho to work in the U.S. two months
before her expected delivery date. But within South Korea there was
anger that U.S. citizenship meant her sons would be able to avoid South
Korea's two years of compulsory military service for able-bodied males."
Its high time that the institutions like NTU realize that position, money and social stature is bullshit.
The poisonous influence of the Religion of Money is creating a situation of class warfare and privileged self-serving personalities like Heather Cho.
The people already get it, as social media surrounding 'Nut Rage' has shown. It is essential that institutions like NTU act quickly to kick her out of the board or continue to go down with the fast sinking reputation of this loser.
I like to see the useful idiots from the Singapore Kindness Movement (who can't find a microphone fast enough to denounce Singaporeans as anti-foreigner and anti-harmony for justifiably raging over the blatant selling out of their country to outsiders under the big lie of Foreign Talent) condemn Cho as she did something exactly opposite to what they stand for and is in the advisory board of a major educational institution in Singapore.
We're all supposed to love and tolerate, even when given an ugly, offensive paper bag of nuts, amirite?
But I ain't holding my breath.
Arriving in Hyundai car to look ordinary and humble. Check.
Looking shocked like she just came out of hiding after an artillery barrage. Check
Wearing black to look like one came straight out of a funeral. Check.
Speaking extremely softly hoping that she can get away with not actually saying an apology. Check.
No worries Ma'am. We know you will get back to your mansion with porcelain floors while the rest of the world moves on to face yet another day to work their arse off for a rigged system that just raised prices of basic stuff like eggs and biscuits to further fleece people during the holiday season.
What V the Guerrilla Economist talks about at 53:00 :
Watch for the period of January to February 2015 for a possible event in the Middle East that will drag the United States Armed forces into a conflict that will become its ultimate graveyard for its reputation as a military superpower and hence its ability to back the Petrodollar hegemony as World Reserve currency.
'By the end of 2015 we will see an undermining of the Petrodollar.' - V quoting an insider.
Some common sense advice about 'movements' and 'causes'.
More information on GamerGate and why it was such a big deal at http://encyclopediadramatica.se (Not Safe For Work website)
Not that I care for all this shit anymore. The last game played on a regular basis was Borderlands 2.
Its been a long history of gaming from the 1980s when we had 5" floppy disks and Commodore 64 computers with 8-bit colors, through the days of Half Life and its derivatives at the turn of the millennium (still waiting for the idiots at Valve to get their fucking act together with concluding the series, their delays are so long its not even funny anymore) to the Call of Duty era.
Probably thanks to the way the video game industry has been corporatized by the likes of EA screwing over epic storylines such as Command and Conquer and Mass Effect, its probably safe to say that games have lost their luster and there is a high chance unless a decent game that appeals to me comes along, I might be done for good.
It seems the new wave of DIY gamers propelled by initiatives like Steam Greenlight that should have been an opportunity for gaming entrepreneurs to do what they felt big game studios like Valve, Interplay and of course Electronic Arts fell short of has instead allowed bullshit like gender-bender sex-change games to be uploaded by morons. Making it worse is that a new and disturbing phenomenon of Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) have been trying to take over this part of the video game industry.
The gaming industry in the United States will go under like everything else once the Collapse happens. No one will be thinking of getting video games when people are probably going to be selling their rear ends for a loaf of bread.
This decade might end badly for gamers and anime fans alike as Japan gets irradiated by Fukushima and the current inept leadership of that country makes the worst possible economic decisions.
Already one of the longest running manga series, Ah My Goddess has concluded in June 2014. Given the theme of the manga was about the existence of higher dimensional enlightened beings making contact with one particular human and hidden in plain sight in front of all his fellow humans passing themselves off as 'foreigners', its conclusion was of special significance in the spiritual sense.
We need to clean our own toilet of false dogmas and enslaving religions of money and government. Our juvenile phase as a species is over.
You either choose to take it in, or completely dismiss it.
Both paths of choice have consequences.
A comment in a thread talked about the need to clear up our problems, otherwise we will export our problems to other planets when we just jump into space. It was posted under a space themed artwork on a nuclear-powered rocket designed to travel to Mars in less than a month.
It was censored and deleted by the thread-owner/artist (it was within his right needless to say since it is his artwork and comment space) but his reason for deletion calling it politicking and pushing of political ideologies demonstrated at the very least his unwillingness to acknowledge the big picture and reality of the United States of America and his misplaced belief in his country's exceptionalism.
It is worth noting with grim satisfaction that the above-mentioned thread owner lives in the United States, a country burdened by $18 trillion in debt, quadrillions in derivatives, the key sponsor of terrorist activity against any nation that does not accept the Petrodollar, the world's biggest terrorist (Al-Qaeda and now the satanic child-beheading ISIL or Al-Qaeda 2.0 are products of Western intelligence agencies) and now with the incident in Ferguson, Missouri, has shown in clear as daylight terms the United States government will openly carry out summary executions on its own citizens.
Most telling with the Ferguson incident is the bold open criticism and exposure of hypocrisy of a country that lectures other countries on their human rights violations.
At this point in the Awakening For the Record is beyond caring
who is awake or who isn't. First hand experience of the most horrific
dimensions is necessary if it is needed to wake up people who in their
arrogance believe all that they need to know is what they already know
and there is no need for any more knowledge.
The said board-member is about to have a rude awakening and he will not have to wait long, if the team at Roguemoney.net and The Looking Glass predictive system of The Arclight Institute have got their predictions right about the amount of time left for the United States.
The United States at its current rate will not be sending up its own spacecraft for the next few decades with the absolute hate the World has for the D.C. criminals and their Petrodollar hegemony and the World's clear willingness to dump the Petrodollar if the sentiment at the recent economic forums in Australia and elsewhere are an indication.
At this point for Americans still refusing to look at videos of Building 7, still believe in American exceptionalism or does not have an exit strategy out of a country that will collapse within this decade, these people are beyond hope and beyond help.
As a final add-on of information: http://www.silverdoctors.com/rotting-decaying-and-bankrupt-if-you-want-to-see-the-future-of-america-just-look-at-detroit/
The later section on falling oil prices and how they resemble the days leading up to the 2008 crash is worth reading despite Michael Snyder's obsession with playing Dr Doom in every one of his articles.
For The Record with its limited knowledge of economics would guess that a fall in oil prices means that in simple demand-supply economics, demand has fallen against an oversupply, therefore causing prices to fall. Although price manipulation could have been carried out to reduce Russian profits.
This is worth reading by itself: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/if-everything-is-just-fine-why-are-so-many-really-smart-people-forecasting-economic-disaster
And one would have to wonder why despite years of incessant warnings nothing major to the point it can't be ignored by the presstitute corporate media has happened yet. Technically we are in a Great Depression. Perception of prosperity is what keeps a mass financial panic from happening.
The world is on the verge of something big that none of us are going to like. Prepare yourself.
Why Silver is an important asset to be acquired and the current price levels are a fraud:
http://dont-tread-on.me/?p=30028
Take this power away from people and then replace it with a little power based on how much money you have, what you own, over someone else and brings out that little sociopathic side by giving people power over someone of lower rank and socio-economic status.
This monetary system promotes sociopathic behavior.
Other areas covered as well. First recorded in 2013.
All attempts have been made to keep everything based on facts and not speculation, and All attempts have been made to ensure claims are backed up by evidence.
For the Record will not be held liable for any and all damages from information posted on For the Record, regardless how the law is interpreted or how many loopholes to be found, or how much money has been paid out to the best lawyers to ensure a desired verdict is reached, or how many 'people' eager to keep an old, broken, psychopathic system that has supported their lifestyle gets their panties in a bunch over such information posted.
New Update on Greg Morse site: www.saveourfamilyandhome.com
Click the big red button and sign the petition.
Money made from the Mortgage Crisis at the cost of Americans and their homes has been used to finance terrorist operations that in turn sent back American soldiers maimed or dead. UBS is likely behind the chicanery. See roguemoney.net for the latest podcast.
Go to Greg Morse's website www.saveourfamilyandhome.com and sign the petition. I am not American, but I am letting Americans know that 58 people signed up on the website when 3 million people listened to the latest broadcast is the kind of result expected from losers.
Those American soldiers who believed they were serving your country and got shafted instead believing in a massive lie. Its time you took up their rifle, their helmet and strap those boots and carry on their mission to the bitter end.
All those who listened and are of American citizenship, get your nutsacks in order and go down to Greg Morse's 'Whistleblower Defense Fund' site at www.saveourfamilyandhome.com and click the big red button, for this is the last chance you are ever going to get to get justice done.
Otherwise you deserve what comes to you when the United States ceases to exist.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
"90% of people in public plugged into a smartphone at inappropriate
times, like driving or crossing the road that require situational
awareness as well as family outings. The 'apps' like Angry Birds on a
device that is a spy device tracking your location comes before
everything else."
------------------------ 13th April 2014
"This has translated into people who don't even look at you while talking
to them. This has translated into people walking into oncoming traffic
with smartphones up to their faces. This has translated into whole
families looking down at their phones instead of talking to each other.
The entire thing smells of dehumanization and a tiptoe down to a
transhumanist agenda, started first by getting people to be disconnected
from each other emotionally, and accept artificial impersonal aspects."
--------------------
I say 'after everyone else' because if I am putting these articles out of my own fluoridated brain, chances are there are people out there who have seen and noticed this a lot earlier, and I mean those who are fighting the good fight and are ahead of me on the curve and not the zombies who follow mainstream garbage.
I recommend cutting edge website articles by Jim Stone at www.jimstonefreelance.com, lots of new stuff updated every 2 days minimum. Just shows how much of a dangerous controlled world we live in and there are 'people' who do not want the system that supports them to be disabled.
"Its even worse with Silver, they can't find the Silver they need to supply!" - Alex Jones
"You are exactly right and I am in the industry. I can tell you that." - Robert Kiyosaki
"Its not so much when you get out as when you get in. Your profits are made when you buy" - Robert Kiyosaki
The 1 percent are being pummeled because it’s politically
convenient to do so. The problem is that the world and this country
should not talk about envy of the 1 percent. It should talk about
emulating the 1 percent. The 1 percent work harder. The 1 percent are
much bigger factors in all forms of our society.
– Sam Zell yesterday on Bloomberg Television
Mr. Zell,
I’ve seen clips of you on television several times in the past. I can’t
say those appearances elicited strong reactions from me. I can recall
being offended at things you have said, and I can remember agreeing with
you on other occasions. However, yesterday I found your statements on
“class warfare,” “envy” and the “1%” delusional and dangerous. I will
address these two points separately.
Why Your Statements Are Delusional
Individuals,social classes, even cultures and
nation-states develop storylines and so-called “myths” about themselves
and how they fit into the bigger picture of current events and human
history. We all see ourselves and whatever group(s) with which we
identify within a particular social, political and economic context.
This is obvious, yet it is much more difficult to look at your owns
myths and question them. It is far easier to look at other groups’ myths
and heap criticism on them. That is basically all you do.
For the purpose of this letter, I will focus on socio-economic groups
that people are now using in these contemporary United States. Ever
since Occupy Wall Street popularized the terms, many people have divided
themselves into two overly-simplistic groups, the so-called 99% and the
1%. However, this isn’t the real struggle. I was always against the 1%
label, because the true cancer, the true problem comes from a much
smaller slice of the population. It comes from what I call the
“oligarchs,” the 0.01%, and the politicians that do their bidding.
This
is your class Mr. Zell, so let’s get that straight right off the bat.
That doesn’t mean everyone in the 0.01% should be vilified. I am certain
there are many well meaning, decent and honestly good people in that
bucket. Nevertheless, what the past five years have proven without a
shadow of a doubt is that this class collectively represents the most
destructive, delusional and counter-productive members of our society.
Your statements on Bloomberg yesterday prove my point exactly. Let’s
start with the most offensive and asinine statement. You said:
The problem is that the world and this country should not talk about envy of the 1 percent. It should talk about emulating the 1 percent. The 1 percent work harder.
First of all you talk of envy. Now without a doubt, there is a
significant portion of the so-called 99% that would want nothing more
than to have the riches and the power of the 1%, but certainly not all
of them, or even necessarily the majority. In my life I have had various
experiences and met a lot of people. I lived most of my life in
Manhattan and the last three years in Boulder, Colorado.
What defines
Manhattan [worshippers of the Religion of Money, the Anton-Casey-type expatriates as well as the trickle-down effect of the money-first culture of Singapore as 'For The Record' sees it] more than anything else is that it is a money-chasing place.
People who live there are generally obsessed with money as well as
materialism, and want as much as they can get in the shortest period of
time. People in Colorado are not this way.
When I lived in NYC, almost
every conversation I overheard would consist of how to make more money
or get a bigger bonus. In three years in Colorado, I cannot recall ever
hearing a similar conversation. Of course this is an
over-generalization, but there is certainly truth to it.
It’s fine to want to make money, and it’s also fine to just want to
be comfortable, content and fulfilled in what you do. I’m not making a
judgement call here. What I am saying is that people like you, who are
constantly surrounded by people that think just like you, people who
obsess 24/7 about how to make more money on money, you think that
everyone thinks just like you. Sorry to break it to you, they don’t.
So this is where your delusion begins. You think everyone that has
issues with you oligarchs and how the 0.01% is destroying our economy
and society is simply envious because you assume they think like you do.
Certainly, if you were poor you would be envious of the the rich.
You’ve made that clear. However, that is not the primary motivation of
the anger and resentment swelling up from the underclasses.
I will use myself as an example. I worked on Wall Street from the
moment I graduated Duke University. By the time I was in my mid-20s my
career was taking off. I was well into the “1%” by my late-20s and if I
had continued along that path, who knows maybe one day I could’ve been
an oligarch like you. If you were me, you would have continued to pound
the pavement of the world’s financial centers to one day become a
“master of the universe.”
But I don’t want to be you Sam Zell. I
voluntarily took myself off that career path, at the very top of my game
because I became so disillusioned by the monetary and financial system
after the crisis and the bailout of the crooks (your socio-economic
class) that caused it.
I’m not trying to portray myself as special or
some sort of a hero. I am just making the point that from your point of
view my choice was completely irrational, and probably one you could
never comprehend. Yet there are plenty of people like me out there and
you don’t seem to understand this because your entire worldview revolves
around wealth.
Your misdiagnosis of the root cause of the current dissent in America
is a result of your obliviousness to the actual concerns of the 99%. A
group about which you speak with such certainty, yet certainly know
almost nothing about.
In fact, my website is dedicated to highlighting
all of the destructive trends happening in this nation today. From
record high food stamp participation, to declining real wages and the
reality that young people need to take on so much debt they become
indentured serfs from the moment they enter the workforce.
From the over-prosecution of some of our bravest citizens such as Aaron Swartz, Barrett Brown and Private Manning to a fraudulent two-party sham political system entirely controlled by your socio-economic class.
While I agree that President Obama talks in simplistic, imbecilic
“class warfare” terms, what does he do in reality? He is the most
oligarch-coddling President this nation has ever seen. Talk is cheap
Zell. I only listed a few of the root problems causing dissent in the
country. They are very real, they are not going away and as long as
oligarchs like you pretend they don’t exist and this is all the result
of “envy” nothing will get better.
In fact, it will get much, much
worse. I see very little envy. I see a populace waking up to a gigantic
fucking fraud, full of below average cronies thieving and people getting
pissed about it. I see a 0.01% class of oligarchs to which the free
market and the rule of law do not apply. So I’m not sure what exactly
the 99% is supposed to be emulating. Your unaccountable criminality?
Of course I couldn’t end this section without calling you out on the most absurd thing you said: “The 1 percent work harder.”
Where to begin…First of all, I’d like some hard data to back up this
statement. You complain about class warfare and then hypocritically say
something like that? How is that not class warfare. You, a billionaire,
come on television and tell 320 million people that the reason they feel
disillusioned and agitated is because they are lazy. If that’s not
class warfare I don’t know what is.
But let’s take this a step further. Let’s assume that the average person in the 1% works harder than the average
person in the 99%. This reality still means that there are likely
millions, if not tens of millions of above average workers within the
99% that work considerably harder than the average 1% person.
Even if
you don’t accept my numbers, you can’t deny there would still be
hundreds of thousands that fall into that bucket. So what do you have to
say to them? Furthermore, where does your expertise on the work ethic
of the 99% come from? I highly doubt you spend much time hanging around
them.
Why Your Statements Are Destructive
There is genuine dissent in America and it would behoove you to
actually try to understand it, rather than assuming it is represented
by inane political rhetoric from Barrack Obama. In case you hadn’t
noticed, Obama isn’t popular. Neither are Democrats and Republicans.
In
fact, a recent Gallup Poll showed
that 42% of Americans identify as Independent, versus 31% as Democrats
and 25% as Republicans. This is the highest “Independent” identification
on record. People know something is very wrong, they know the system is
broken.
Generally speaking, the dissent from both the “progressive” side and
the “libertarian” side overlaps on many issues. Issues that you seem to
be oblivious to. These are:
1) Opposition to Wall Street bailouts, the concept of TBTF and the growth of crony capitalism generally.
2) The fact that the “rule of law” is not applied to oligarchs, politicians and government officials.
3) The destruction of civil liberties through the nation and the militarization of police.
4) Endless and pointless wars abroad, as well as the destructive war on drugs at home.
As you yourself admit: “the 1 percent are much bigger factors in all forms of our society.” This
is true, and since the 0.01% wields even greater power, you must
accept responsibility for these issues. Instead, you just come on
television and call everyone envious.
The fact that there is such tremendous overlap on such major issues
from activists on the so-called “left” and the “right” is
extraordinarily important. These are real grievances that are not going
away. Angst on these issues must be dealt with, and no amount of
superficial, ignorant statements will change that reality. The only
thing that the arrogant oligarch attitude will do is cause more people
to despise you. Is that what you want?
I don’t think you’re a bad guy with evil intent. I think you are a
money obsessed financier who hasn’t taken the time to actually
understand what is really going on within your own country because you
have your head so far up your own ass. It’s hard for anyone to actually
look at themselves in the mirror and be honest about themselves and the
myths they create.
However, history shows us that when decadent
plutocrats are unable to do so, we end up with disastrous situations.
Situations which are often times violent and result in despotism. A
situation I desperately hope to avoid, and I truly hope you and others
like you recognize your error before it is too late.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
[http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/02/06/an-open-letter-to-sam-zell-why-your-statements-are-delusional-and-dangerous/ ]
[If you have read this far, check this out from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com/american-red-cross-a-corporate-fleecing-operation-exploiting-natural-disasters/
Read and weep, all you schmucks who think that by donating blindly you somehow get ahead in life.
People who know the real agenda behind setting up the Red Cross understand its a giant scam operation and group pressure will get everyone to donate out of fear.
This is why I never gave money to the armies of school kids carrying tins with red cross stickers.]
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Colleagues,
ladies and gentlemen, friends, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the XI
meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers this
year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations, expert groups
and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the
discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also
global politics and the economy.
Then organisation and content will bolster the club’s influence as a
leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the
‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance
to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.
Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will
speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too
harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really
think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would
be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where
no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one
famous diplomat, you realise that diplomats have tongues so as not to
speak the truth.
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk
frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as
to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is
actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is
becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are
increasing everywhere around us.
Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game
without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the
historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face.
There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing
very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the
discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic
transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in
industry, information and social technologies.
Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what
some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s
practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed
discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with
other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.
As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons.
First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today
are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not
global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level
conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic
leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension,
including human rights.
The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in
asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly,
there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global
and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system
has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The
international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation
organisations are also going through difficult times.
Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were
created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the
period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the
solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance
of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that
this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try
to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.
The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its
various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the
world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the
intensity of the natural competition between countries.
It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks
and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such
effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building
anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments
other than brute force.
What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and
adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.
But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold
War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of
power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps
that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.
The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace
treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing
rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression
that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure
events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If
the existing system of international relations, international law and
the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this
system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate
demolition.
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when
they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of
world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth
wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed
many follies.
We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate
silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat
over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and
justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal
norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made
it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.
In a situation where you had domination by one country and its
allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often
turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This
group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies
they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire
international community. But this is not the case.
The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for
most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula:
the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the
greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.
We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to
answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you
questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out
during the upcoming discussion.
The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known
and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force,
economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and
appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify
illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient
regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright
blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not
for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on
keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under
surveillance.
Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are
we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it
become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward
questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way
they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all,
and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace,
prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just
relax and enjoy it all?
Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.
A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the
opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their
escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing
spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very
dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.
Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to
use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then
burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way
that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in
Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.
They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet
Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later
gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at
least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and
financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we
have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only
after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did
the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me
remind you that we were the first country to support the American people
back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible
tragedy of September 11.
During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always
spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a
global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat,
cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners
expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where
we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in
Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya
pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking
apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.
Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved
this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In
Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly
financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with
mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get
their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come
from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group,
essentially a real armed force?
As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from
drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage
points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been
present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are
getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory
controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it
and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a
profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing
terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow
destruction in their own countries.
Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was
toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in
ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people
out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget
(rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional
power, and what are you now turning them into?
What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and
former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today
have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the
Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it
is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia
warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions,
intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists
and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central
Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of
terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in
vain.
We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are
constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all
their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and
pay an ever-greater price.
Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly
demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global
processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable
construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as
regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism,
chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide
for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting
the strong bully and suppress the weak.
Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying
dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out
too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the
self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just
before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this
new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a
convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not
matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda,
the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a
country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s
biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.
Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new
dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but
directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was
the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this
leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way
during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this.
The United
States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe,
the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe,
and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice
your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs
for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all
of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world
to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so
as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political
and economic dividends.
But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in
contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably
create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to
the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts
meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to
the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions
and interests, including national business interests.
Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring
countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in
relations between states. But today, the global business community faces
unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business,
economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans
such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”,
and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That
is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.
Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the
WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They
are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets,
freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has
primarily benefited precisely the Western countries.
And now they risk
losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves,
why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests
in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars
and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of
disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many
countries.
The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated
sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster
economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional
groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of
outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are
looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting
up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies.
I
think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they
are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is
what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that
politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone,
but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.
We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the
pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked
up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a
self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic
environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and
technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure
from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only
consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our
main development goals.
Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us
through these sanctions, block our development and push us into
political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness
in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very
different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off
from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to
live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on
normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here
on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the
leading countries.
Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on
Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the
discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in
Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy
in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in
response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a
good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western
countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the
world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can
afford to overlook these developments.
Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to,
all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in
Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this
area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.
Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint
integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic
development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all
suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease.
This is something that European and American experts have been talking
and writing about too.
Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments
we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for
specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This
is entirely possible.
There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education,
science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global
competition. This also has a big impact on international relations,
including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great
extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on
sophisticated propaganda tricks.
At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I
would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself
does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the
opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a
fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules –
even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without
any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule
it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions
can already be made, taking into account current trends, and
unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear
system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the
mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of
global anarchy will inevitably grow.
Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole
set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by
the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just
traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability
in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the
intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the border
of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.
Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will
discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that
affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not
be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the
current system of arms control agreements.
And this dangerous process
was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally
withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set
about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global
missile defence system.
Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this.
Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance
of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual
destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In
absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming
the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and
however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security
Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately
declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.
Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty
but to obtain their own nuclear arsenals. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on
continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on
continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we
have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious,
concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious
discussions without any double standards.
What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are
already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their
capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons
or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in
creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military
advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to
bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive
strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but
intensify.
The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic,
religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only
as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and
chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and
criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking
flourish.
Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage
these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘colour revolutions’
to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like
the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do
with their genie; there is disarray in their ranks.
We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the
expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western
press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for
democracy, and then Islamic Radicals; first they write about revolutions and
then call them coups, riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further
expansion of global chaos.
Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing
on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this
is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face
common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to
speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations,
societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and
in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some
reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.
Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not
always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most
cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the
differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different
approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different
cultural and historical traditions.
But nevertheless, we have examples
when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria,
together we achieved real success.
Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in
Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as
well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive
results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local
and global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new
world order that would allow for stability and security, while
encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new
monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could
provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will
need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments,
global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.
However, it is obvious that success and real results are only
possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on
harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the
example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify
where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral
mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international
law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international
community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of
national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any
state.
Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external
interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they
provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of
maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and
strengthening global stability.
Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is
extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from
the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous
when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear
conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.
I will add that international relations must be based on
international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as
justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s
partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply
following it could radically change the global situation.
I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the
effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We
do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a
“greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War
II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to
manage the current situation.
This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is
irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years,
has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and
cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in
trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a
very positive role.
In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment,
the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new
global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals
or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic 19th century
diplomacy style, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we
need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On
the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions.
This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of
certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires
institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional
organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation
between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global
security, policy and economy.
But in order to establish such a
dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional
centers and integration projects forming around them need to have equal
rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody
can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such
destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states
themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even
total destruction.
I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told
our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for
example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious
risks to the economy.
We didn’t even say anything about politics; we
spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any
prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations,
including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide
discussion of the issues is necessary.
Incidentally, in this regard, I
will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to
the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain
consensus was reached.
Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s
association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and
services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to
this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics
related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions,
but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized manner,
indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and
arguments.
Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They
simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of
discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized
dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the
country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war
with enormous casualties.
Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer;
nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just
turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it
wouldn’t have worked.
After all (I already spoke about this), former
Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with
everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilised way
of solving problems?
Apparently, those who constantly throw together
new ‘color revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and
simply cannot stop.
I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the
cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent,
clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good
example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this
project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying
the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which
fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.
I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete
dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they
have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear
why – what is so scary about it?
And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to
engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement
from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to
create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation
stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further
improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated
internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends
in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and
patriotism.
We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are
working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other partners. This
agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not
dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get
involved in an exchange of blows.
The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish
some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours,
are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive
place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the
interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken
into account and for our position to be respected.
We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and
global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution,
the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold
War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now,
we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable
development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will
simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.
Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world
order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We
were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we
were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common
duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of
development.
VLADIMIR PUTIN (commenting on statements by former
Prime Minister of France Dominique de Villepin and former Federal
Chancellor of Austria Wolfgang Schuessel): I would like to begin by
saying that overall I agree with what both Wolfgang and Dominique have
said. I fully support everything they said. However, there are a few
things I would like to clarify.
I believe Dominique referred to the Ukrainian crisis as the reason
for the deterioration in international relations. Naturally, this crisis
is a cause, but this is not the principal cause. The crisis in Ukraine
is itself a result of a misbalance in international relations.
I have already said in my address why this is happening, and my
colleagues have already mentioned it. I can add to this, if necessary.
However, primarily this is the outcome of the misbalance in
international relations.
As for the issues mentioned by Wolfgang, we will get back to them: we
will talk about the elections, if necessary, and about the supply of
energy resources to Ukraine and Europe.
However, I would like to respond to the phrase “Wolfgang is an
optimist, while life is harder for pessimists.” I already mentioned the
old joke we have about a pessimist and an optimist, but I cannot help
telling it again. We have this very old joke about a pessimist and an
optimist: a pessimist drinks his cognac and says, “It smells of
bedbugs,” while an optimist catches a bedbug, crushes it, then sniffs it
and says, “A slight whiff of cognac.”
I would rather be the pessimist who drinks cognac than the optimist who sniffs bedbugs. (Laughter)
Though it does seem that optimists have a better time, our common
goal is to live a decent life (without overindulging in alcohol). For
this purpose, we need to avoid crises, together handle all challenges
and threats and build such relations on the global arena that would help
us reach these goals.
Later I will be ready to respond to some of the other things mentioned here. Thank you.
BRITISH JOURNALIST SEUMAS MILNE (retranslated from Russian): I would like to ask a two-in-one question.
First, Mr President, do you believe that the actions of Russia in
Ukraine and Crimea over the past months were a reaction to rules being
broken and are an example of state management without rules? And the
other question is: does Russia see these global violations of rules as a
signal for changing its position? It has been said here lately that
Russia cannot lead in the existing global situation; however, it is
demonstrating the qualities of a leader. How would you respond to this?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to ask you to reword the second part of
your question, please. What exactly is your second question?
SEUMAS MILNE (retranslated from Russian): It has been said here that
Russia cannot strive for leading positions in the world considering the
outcomes of the Soviet Union’s collapse, however it can influence who
the leader will be. Is it possible that Russia would alter its position,
change its focus, as you mentioned, regarding the Middle East and the
issues connected with Iran’s nuclear program me?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia has never altered its position. We are a
country with a traditional focus on cooperation and search for joint
solutions. This is first.
Second. We do not have any claims to world leadership. The idea that
Russia is seeking some sort of exclusivity is false; I said so in my
address. We are not demanding a place under the sun; we are simply
proceeding from the premise that all participants in international
relations should respect each other’s interests. We are ready to respect
the interests of our partners, but we expect the same respect for our
interests.
We did not change our attitude to the situation in the Middle East,
to the Iranian nuclear programme, to the North Korean conflict, to
fighting terrorism and crime in general, as well as drug trafficking. We
never changed any of our priorities even under the pressure of
unfriendly actions on the part of our western partners, who are lead,
very obviously in this case, by the United States. We did not even
change the terms of the sanctions.
However, here too everything has its limits. I proceed from the idea
that it might be possible that external circumstances can force us to
alter some of our positions, but so far there have not been any extreme
situations of this kind and we have no intention of changing anything.
That is the first point.
The second point has to do with our actions in Crimea. I have spoken
about this on numerous occasions, but if necessary, I can repeat it.
This is Part 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations’ Charter – the right
of nations to self-determination. It has all been written down, and not
simply as the right to self-determination, but as the goal of the united
nations. Read the article carefully.
I do not understand why people living in Crimea do not have this
right, just like the people living in, say, Kosovo. This was also
mentioned here. Why is it that in one case white is white, while in
another the same is called black? We will never agree with this
nonsense. That is one thing.
The other very important thing is something nobody mentions, so I
would like to draw attention to it. What happened in Crimea? First,
there was this anti-state overthrow in Kiev. Whatever anyone may say, I
find this obvious – there was an armed seizure of power.
In many parts of the world, people welcomed this, not realising what
this could lead to, while in some regions people were frightened that
power was seized by extremists, by nationalists and right-wingers
including neo-Nazis. People feared for their future and for their
families and reacted accordingly. In Crimea, people held a referendum.
I would like to draw your attention to this. It was not by chance
that we in Russia stated that there was a referendum. The decision to
hold the referendum was made by the legitimate authority of Crimea – its
Parliament, elected a few years ago under Ukrainian law prior to all
these grave events.
This legitimate body of authority declared a
referendum, and then based on its results, they adopted a declaration of
independence, just as Kosovo did, and turned to the Russian Federation
with a request to accept Crimea into the Russian state.
You know, whatever anyone may say and no matter how hard they try to
dig something up, this would be very difficult, considering the language
of the United Nations court ruling, which clearly states (as applied to
the Kosovo precedent) that the decision on self-determination does not
require the approval of the supreme authority of a country.
In this connection I always recall what the sages of the past said.
You may remember the wonderful saying: Whatever Jupiter is allowed, the
Ox is not.
We cannot agree with such an approach. The ox may not be allowed
something, but the bear will not even bother to ask permission. Here we
consider it the master of the taiga, and I know for sure that it does
not intend to move to any other climatic zones – it will not be
comfortable there. However, it will not let anyone have its taiga
either. I believe this is clear.
What are the problems of the present-day world order? Let us be frank
about it, we are all experts here. We talk and talk, we are like
diplomats. What happened in the world? There used to be a bipolar
system. The Soviet Union collapsed, the power called the Soviet Union
ceased to exist.
All the rules governing international relations after World War II were
designed for a bipolar world. True, the Soviet Union was referred to as
‘the Upper Volta with missiles’. Maybe so, and there were loads of
missiles. Besides, we had such brilliant politicians like Nikita
Khrushchev, who hammered the desk with his shoe at the UN. And the whole
world, primarily the United States, and NATO thought: this Nikita is
best left alone, he might just go and fire a missile, they have lots of
them, we should better show some respect for them.
Now that the Soviet Union is gone, what is the situation and what are
the temptations? There is no need to take into account Russia’s views,
it is very dependent, it has gone through transformation during the
collapse of the Soviet Union, and we can do whatever we like,
disregarding all rules and regulations.
This is exactly what is happening. Dominique here mentioned Iraq,
Libya, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia before that. Was this really all
handled within the framework of international law? Do not tell us those
fairy-tales.
This means that some can ignore everything, while we cannot protect
the interests of the Russian-speaking and Russian population of Crimea.
This will not happen.
I would like everyone to understand this. We need to get rid of this
temptation and attempts to arrange the world to one’s liking, and to
create a balanced system of interests and relations that has long been
prescribed in the world, we only have to show some respect.
As I have already said, we understand that the world has changed, and
we are ready to take heed of it and adjust this system accordingly, but
we will never allow anyone to completely ignore our interests.
Does Russia aim for any leading role? We don’t need to be a
superpower; this would only be an extra load for us. I have already
mentioned the taiga: it is immense, illimitable, and just to develop our
territories we need plenty of time, energy and resources.
We have no need of getting involved in things, of ordering others
around, but we want others to stay out of our affairs as well and to
stop pretending they rule the world. That is all. If there is an area
where Russia could be a leader – it is in asserting the norms of
international law.
QUESTION: The peaceful process between the Palestinians and Israelis
has completely collapsed. The United States never let the quartet work
properly. At the same time, the growth of illegal Israeli settlements on
the occupied territories renders impossible the creation of a
Palestinian state. We have recently witnessed a very severe attack on
the Gaza Strip. What is Russia’s attitude to this tense situation in the
Middle East? And what do you think of the developments in Syria?
One remark for Mr Villepin as well. You spoke of humiliation. What
can be more humiliating than the occupation that Palestine has been
experiencing all these years?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding Palestine and the Israeli conflict. It is
easy for me to speak about this because, first, I have to say and I
believe everyone can see that our relations with Israel have transformed
seriously in the past decade. I am referring to the fact that a large
number of people from the former Soviet Union live in Israel and we
cannot remain indifferent to their fate. At the same time, we have
traditional relations with the Arab world, specifically with Palestine.
Moreover, the Soviet Union, and Russia is its legal successor, has
recognised Palestinian statehood. We are not changing anything here.
Finally, regarding the settlements. We share the views of the main
participants in international relations. We consider this a mistake. I
have already said this to our Israeli partners. I believe this is an
obstacle to normal relations and I strongly expect that the practice
itself will be stopped and the entire process of a peaceful settlement
will return to its legal course based on agreement.
We proceed from the fact that that Middle East conflict is one of the
primary causes of destabilisation not only in the region, but also in
the world at large. Humiliation of any people living in the area, or
anywhere else in the world is clearly a source of destabilisation and
should be done away with.
Naturally, this should be done using such
means and measures that would be acceptable for all the participants in
the process and for all those living in the area.
This is a very complicated process, but Russia is ready to use every
means it has for this settlement, including its good relations with the
parties to this conflict.
DIRECTOR, KIEV CENTER FOR POLITICAL AND CONFLICT STUDIES MIKHAIL
POGREBINSKY: Mr President, I have come from Ukraine. For the first time
in 70 years, it is going through very hard times. My question has to do
with the possibility of a settlement. In this connection, I would like
to go back in history. You mentioned that there was a moment when a
trilateral format was under consideration: Russia-Ukraine-Europe. Back
then, Europe did not agree to it, after which a series of tragic events
took place, including the loss of Crimea, the death of thousands of
people and so forth.
Recently, Europe together with Ukraine and Russia agreed that this
format is possible after all; moreover, a corresponding resolution was
passed. At that moment, there was hope that Russia together with Europe
and Ukraine would manage to reach agreement and could become the
restorer of peace in Ukraine. What happened next? What happened between
Moscow and Brussels, Moscow and Berlin – because now the situation seems
completely insane? It is unclear what this might lead to. What do you
think happened to Europe?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, what happened can be described as nothing
happened. Agreements were reached, but neither side complied with them
in full. However, full compliance by both sides might be impossible.
For instance, Ukrainian army units were supposed to leave certain
locations where they were stationed prior to the Minsk agreements, while
the militia army was supposed to leave certain settlements they were
holding prior to these agreements. However, neither is the Ukrainian
army withdrawing from the locations they should leave, nor is the
militia army withdrawing from the settlements they have to move out of,
referring, and I will be frank now – to the fact that their families
remain there (I mean the militia) and they fear for their safety. Their
families, their wives and children live there. This is a serious
humanitarian factor.
We are ready to make every effort to ensure the implementation of the
Minsk agreements. I would like to take advantage of your question to
stress Russia’s position: we are in favour of complete compliance with
the Minsk agreements by both sides.
What is the problem? In my view, the key problem is that we do not
see the desire on the part of our
partners in Kiev, primarily the
authorities, to resolve the issue of relations with the country’s
southeast peacefully, through negotiations. We keep seeing the same
thing in various forms: suppression by force. It all began with Maidan,
when they decided to suppress Yanukovych by force. They succeeded and
raised this wave of nationalism and then it all transformed into some
nationalistic battalions.
When people in southeast Ukraine did not like it, they tried to elect
their own bodies of government and management and they were arrested
and taken to prison in Kiev at night. Then, when people saw this
happening and took to arms, instead of stopping and finally resorting to
peaceful dialogue, they sent troops there, with tanks and aircraft.
Incidentally, the global community keeps silent, as if it does not
see any of this, as if there is no such thing as ‘disproportionate use
of force’. They suddenly forgot all about it. I remember all the frenzy
around when we had a complicated situation in the Caucasus. I would hear
one and the same thing every day. No more such words today, no more
‘disproportionate use of force’. And that’s while cluster bombs and even
tactical weapons are being used.
You see, under the circumstances, it is very difficult for us in
Russia to arrange work with people in southeast Ukraine in a way that
would induce them to fully comply with all the agreements. They keep
saying that the authorities in Kiev do not fully comply with the
agreements either.
However, there is no other way. I would like to stress that we are for
the full implementation of the agreements by both parties, and the most
important thing I want to say – and I want everyone to hear that – if,
God forbid, anyone is again tempted to use force for the final
settlement of the situation in southeast Ukraine, this will bring the
situation to a complete deadlock.
In my view, there is still a chance to reach agreement. Yes, Wolfgang
spoke about this, I understood him. He spoke of the upcoming elections
in Ukraine and in the southeast of the country. We know it and we are
constantly discussing it. Just this morning I had another discussion
with the Chancellor of Germany about it. The Minsk agreements do
stipulate that elections in the southeast should be held in coordination
with Ukrainian legislation, not under Ukrainian law, but in
coordination with it.
This was done on purpose, because nobody in the southeast wants to
hold elections in line with Ukrainian law. Why? How can this be done,
when there is shooting every day, people get killed on both sides and
they have to hold elections under Ukrainian law? The war should finally
stop and the troops should be withdrawn. You see? Once this is achieved,
we can start considering any kind of rapprochement or cooperation.
Until this happens, it is hard to talk about anything else.
They spoke of the date of the elections in the southeast, but few
know that there has been an agreement that elections in southeast
Ukraine should be held by November 3. Later, the date was amended in the
corresponding law, without consulting anyone, without consulting with
the southeast. The elections were set for December 7, but nobody talked
to them. Therefore, the people in the southeast say, “See, they cheated
us again, and it will always be this way.”
You can argue over this any way you like. The most important thing is
to immediately stop the war and move the troops away. If Ukraine wants
to keep its territorial integrity, and this is something we want as
well, they need to understand that there is no sense in holding on to
some village or other – this is pointless. The idea is to stop the
bloodshed and to start normal dialogue, to build relations based on this
dialogue and restore at least some communication, primarily in the
economy, and gradually other things will follow. I believe this is what
should be achieved first and then we can move on.
PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR GOVERNANCE
AND PUBLIC POLICY AT CARLETON UNIVERSITY (OTTAWA) PIOTR DUTKIEWICZ: Mr
President, if I may I would like to go back to the issue of Crimea,
because it is of key importance for both the East and the West. I would
like to ask you to give us your picture of the events that lead to it,
specifically why you made this decision. Was it possible to do things
differently? How did you do it?
There are important details – how Russia
did it inside Crimea. Finally, how do you see the consequences of this
decision for Russia, for Ukraine, for Europe and for the normative world
order? I am asking this because I believe millions of people would like
to hear your personal reconstruction of those events and of the way you
made the decision.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not know how many times I spoke about this, but I will do it again.
On February 21, Viktor Yanukovych signed the well-known documents
with the opposition. Foreign ministers of three European countries
signed their names under this agreement as guarantors of its
implementation.
In the evening of February 21, President Obama called me and we
discussed these issues and how we would assist in the implementation of
these agreements. Russia undertook certain obligations. I heard that my
American colleague was also ready to undertake some obligations. This
was the evening of the 21st. On the same day, President Yanukovych
called me to say he signed the agreement, the situation had stabilized
and he was going to a conference in Kharkov. I will not conceal the fact
that I expressed my concern: how was it possible to leave the capital
in this situation. He replied that he found it possible because there
was the document signed with the opposition and guaranteed by foreign
ministers of European countries.
I will tell you more, I told him I was not sure everything would be
fine, but it was for him to decide. He was the president, he knew the
situation, and he knew better what to do. “In any case, I do not think
you should withdraw the law enforcement forces from Kiev,” I told him.
He said he understood. Then he left and gave orders to withdraw all the
law enforcement troops from Kiev. Nice move, of course.
We all know what happened in Kiev. On the following day, despite all
our telephone conversations, despite the signatures of the foreign
ministers, as soon as Yanukovych left Kiev his administration was taken
over by force along with the government building. On the same day, they
shot at the cortege of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, wounding one of his
security guards.
Yanukovych called me and said he would like us to meet to talk it
over. I agreed. Eventually we agreed to meet in Rostov because it was
closer and he did not want to go too far. I was ready to fly to Rostov.
However, it turned out he could not go even there. They were beginning
to use force against him already, holding him at gunpoint. They were not
quite sure where to go.
I will not conceal it; we helped him move to Crimea, where he stayed
for a few days. That was when Crimea was still part of Ukraine. However,
the situation in Kiev was developing very rapidly and violently, we
know what happened, though the broad public may not know – people were
killed, they were burned alive there. They came into the office of the
Party of Regions, seized the technical workers and killed them, burned
them alive in the basement. Under those circumstances, there was no way
he could return to Kiev. Everybody forgot about the agreements with the
opposition signed by foreign ministers and about our telephone
conversations. Yes, I will tell you frankly that he asked us to help him
get to Russia, which we did. That was all.
Seeing these developments, people in Crimea almost immediately took
to arms and asked us for help in arranging the events they intended to
hold. I will be frank; we used our Armed Forces to block Ukrainian units
stationed in Crimea, but not to force anyone to take part in the
elections. This is impossible, you are all grown people, and you
understand it. How could we do it? Lead people to polling stations at
gunpoint?
People went to vote as if it were a celebration, everybody knows
this, and they all voted, even the Crimean Tatars. There were fewer
Crimean Tatars, but the overall vote was high. While the turnout in
Crimea in general was about 96 or 94 percent, a smaller number of
Crimean Tatars showed up. However 97 percent of them voted ‘yes’. Why?
Because those who did not want it did not come to the polling stations,
and those who did voted ‘yes’.
I already spoke of the legal side of the matter. The Crimean
Parliament met and voted in favour of the referendum. Here again, how
could anyone say that several dozen people were dragged to parliament to
vote? This never happened and it was impossible: if anyone did not want
to vote they would get on a train or plane, or their car and be gone.
They all came and voted for the referendum, and then the people came
and voted in favour of joining Russia, that is all. How will this
influence international relations? We can see what is happening; however
if we refrain from using so-called double standards and accept that all
people have equal rights, it would have no influence at all. We have to
admit the right of those people to self-determination.
[Copypasta from Dr Paul Craig Robert's article at http://www.globalresearch.ca/vladimir-putin-is-the-leader-of-the-moral-world-confronts-washingtons-extra-legal-right-to-hegemony-over-the-world/5410035]
I
cannot believe that after the Fukushima report, the huge importance of a
few evil people destroying the future of this planet with tainted
vaccines, and a plethora of other evil things being done to this world
that the real key to it all is a stone head on Mars. 
