Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)

🔒
❌ À propos de FreshRSS
Il y a de nouveaux articles disponibles, cliquez pour rafraîchir la page.
À partir d’avant-hierVos flux RSS

Geoengineering – Weapon of Mass Destruction

Par : AHH

Solving the ‘Climate Crisis’ is Bad for Business and Worse for Politics

For GlobalSouth.co by Peter Koenig
25 March 202

The article Harvard Shuts Geoengineering Project by Cauf Skiviers, explains Bill Gates, funder of the project, stopping Harvard from carrying out the study to Preserve the Climate Narrative.

How is this relevant?

That Bill Gates calls the shots on what should and should not go forward, is nothing new. Surprising is that he was willing to finance such a study in the first place. – Why?

The honest results of the research would have shown the outright “climate change” fraud humanity has been exposed to for more than three decades.

The study’s outcome would have gone in the complete opposite direction of the current western globalist plan, the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Great Reset and the UN Agenda 2030, One World Order, One World Government. Their success being largely based on the ”climate” lie.

Geoengineering serves two purposes, falsely demonstrating the Green Agenda’s fake CO2 emissions-based climate change, and – of equal importance – making weather and climate into Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

The outcome of the study would have been against those who want to destroy the world’s economy and social structure as we know it – to rebuild it afresh, according to the elites’ desire. See Club of Rome’s “First Global Revolution” (1991); and this.

The revelation of the now canceled Harvard research, would have allowed just about anyone marginally aware of what is happening to Mother Earth’s climate, to see through the scam. It would have been difficult to avoid leaking the study’s outcome of such a hyped-up topic, like “climate change”, to the public.

Imagine! – Harvard research would destroy a political agenda, as well as Big Business. It would reveal that the climate narrative of the “Green Agenda”, is a lie, and that the weather almost everywhere on the globe is manipulated – or to use the scientific term “geoengineered”.

More than three decades of intense “fake science” and media manipulation about humans’ CO2, methane, and similar greenhouse gas emissions, is the culprit for “climate change”, have left most people, even non-active, often “bought”, so-called scientists, under the impression that doomsday is just around the corner, if we keep using hydrocarbons (oil and gas) to fuel our economy and keep using agriculture to feed humanity.

These alarm bells are constant calls to decarbonize civilization. Yet, the use of hydrocarbons (mostly oil and gas) to run the world’s economies has hardly changed in the last three decades. In the early 1990s about 87% of all energy used worldwide came from oil and gas. The figure is almost the same today.

It is a big lie. The climate is NOT changing, at least not more than it has always changed over the past 4 billion years – normally by small increments, so that life on earth can adapt and adjust.

According to Spain’s State Meteorological Agency (Spanish Acronym – AEMET), there are currently more than 50 countries which have at least some technologies to change the weather and climate. See this.

Those with the most sophisticated knowledge are the United States, Russia, and China.

It is fair to assume that the 50-plus nations are “modifying” the weather or climate according to what benefits them most. It is also fair to assume that today there is worldwide almost no weather completely natural, but influenced either directly, or indirectly, through modified weather patterns elsewhere in the world, the collateral effect of geoengineering.

In olden times, it was called “the butterfly effect” – meaning the butterfly flaps its wings and will have an effect somewhere in the world. You do not know where and what. With geoengineering that can be very dangerous.

Obviously, weather modifications, so far, serve primarily the fake climate change agenda. When a super hurricane hits the Caribbean, or a prolonged Monsoon floods and destroys two thirds of Pakistan, including her economy, it exponentially exceeds the “normal”. Blame it on “climate change”.

But most often there is an economic and / or political agenda behind it. Take Hurricane Katrina that hit New Orleans on 29 August 2005. Some 1,800 people died. With 230 km / hour, Katrina made landfall in Southeast Louisiana and destroyed New Orleans.

While the State of Louisiana evacuated about 1.5 million people before the hurricane hit, 150,000 to 200,000 stayed behind, mostly black people in “old” New Orleans, often run-down, but potential prime real estate for developers; was to be razed for luxury-style rebuilding.

The original owners were later force-evacuated to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) provided “emergency” camps (shacks), all over the country. So, the force-refugees could not organize. The properties were taken over by the state and city. – This served both, an economic and political agenda.


In June through August and into September 2022, Pakistan received about three times as much rain as normal. The deadly disaster was blamed on “climate change”. See this.

In reality, the catastrophe is suspected of having been geoengineered, and had a political agenda. On 10 April 2022, the popular, democratically and by a landslide elected President, Imram Khan, was ousted through a parliamentary non-confidence vote, instigated and “influenced” by the US, because Mr. Khan refused to follow orders from Washington, but instead intended to be President for an independent Pakistan and for the People of Pakistan.

For weeks people took to the streets by the millions, creating national unrest, wanting their President Imram Khan back. Creating or geoengineering the destructive Monsoon floods was a means to stop the social upheaval, so that the country could follow the western / Washington imposed political agenda, which meant foremost no political or business relations with China.

This is weaponized geoengineering.

When geoengineering serves as a weapon for Super-Powers, the dangers may be equivalent or worse than from nuclear weapons. Because most people have no clue that these weather “disturbances” and climate disasters are manmade and targeted for specific purposes at an “enemy”.

To get this right, geoengineering is NOT manmade in terms of what the Green Agenda interprets manmade “climate change”, as in CO2 emissions, greenhouse gases and more of the like. Geoengineering is dangerous. The Green Agenda climate change claims are sheer bullsh*t.


Geoengineering has been developed since the early 1940s. It started out with simple cloud-seeding, to prompt rainfall, mostly for agricultural purposes. It then moved to more sophisticated weather and climate manipulations, using the infamous chemtrails, white “vapor” stripes emanating from airplanes, crisscrossing the blue skies, disseminating poisonous chemicals and microscopic heavy metal particles, to influence the climate – but also, and possibly more important, to affect people’s health in very negative ways.

There are hundreds if not thousands of patents out there for these chemicals and heavy metals coming down from the planes into the ground, into the water, into plants and vegetables and finally into our bodies, killing our Pineal Gland and gradually weakening our bodies.

Geoengineering also includes the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) and similarly sophisticated technologies. HAARP, created by the Pentagon-linked thinktank, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), is controlled by the US Airforce. HAARP is possibly the world’s most capable high-power, high-frequency electromagnetic waves transmitter, acting on the ionosphere.

HAARP technologies often applied from satellites, can emit electromagnetic waves piercing deep into the earth, creating earthquakes. It is suspected that HAARP technologies were used to cause the 6 February 2023 Turkey – Syria earthquake of 7.8 Richter scale strength, killing more than 60,000 people.

The seism happened shortly before Recep Tayyip Erdogan was reelected in May 2023 as President of Turkey. The earthquake’s epicenter was in Turkey’s Kahramanmaras province, with seismic movement taking place along the Conjugated Tectonic Faults. Strangely and remarkably, however, the tremors defied the natural patterns and do not fit into the usual mainshock–aftershocks sequence.

This was also the time when President Erdogan refused to approve Sweden and Finland into NATO, despite the tremendous pressure of all 29 other NATO countries – to put NATO even closer to Russia, the western-made non-conform enemy that needed to be “subdued.”

This would be weaponized political geoengineering, with an economic side effect.


The 12 January 2010 Haiti earthquake of 7.0 magnitude, left the capital city, Port-au-Prince, devastated and killed about 220,000 people. Sizable off-shore oil and gas deposits are all over the Caribbean, and also off-shore of Port-au-Prince.

These petrol reserves, are so deep that it is uneconomical to exploit them at current depths. A seismic event will break the tectonic plates, so that the earth’s core pressure pushes the oil to higher levels, where exploitation is easier and more economical.

Haiti has been in chaos ever since. The Clinton Foundation set up allegedly to help rebuild Haiti, has been a disaster, causing more harm than good, and making the Clintons richer. Destabilizing the country is a good reason for the US to maintain steady control.

Haiti is the world’s first and only country inhabited by black slaves that fought for and obtained independence 220 years ago (January 1, 1804). Washington pretends, Haiti could become a national security threat – like Cuba! – and must be controlled. See this.

The giant Haiti tremor also served two interests: Economics, as in oil; and politics, as in control.

Geoengineering is a convenient and highly effective weapon to dominate or coerce countries into submission. The geo-weapon’s potential could explode exponentially during the coming years, decades, if people remain ignorant about its menace for humanity.

A Harvard study divulging what geoengineering does and can do would not only derail the entire fake “climate change” narrative, but might also risk taking steam out of the growing geo-weapons industry.

Therefore, “Solving the ‘Climate Crisis’ is indeed Bad for Business- and bad for Politics”, and even worse for strategic warfare planning. So, Bill Gates was right in stopping the Harvard Geoengineering Project. Geoengineering may, therefore, prosper, bringing rain, shine and – war.

—-

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Double Crossing of the Red Line

Par : AHH

Moscow’s Terror Explosion – Macron’s NATO Troops to Ukraine

Peter Koenig
23 March 2024

Automatic gun-shooting by 5 men in black took place Friday evening 22 March in the Crocus City Concert Hall, attached to a shopping mall, at the outskirts of Moscow. The terror attack preceded a concert. The hall was therefore crowded with people, panicking for leaving it. The assault was followed by a massive explosion.

The official fatality as of 23 March stands at 133. Dozens of people were injured.

The Islamic State (IS) – a CIA creation – claimed credit for the attack.

However, the political end of this attack is more complex.
On March 7, 2024, the US Embassy in Russia warned Moscow that a terror attack may take place in Moscow within the next few weeks. No further details.

Is it one of the now fashionable “predictive planning” stunts?

On the same day, the same US Embassy in Moscow warned US citizens in Moscow not to visit shopping malls. How much did the US know?

Speculations abound. Was this an empty warning to destabilize Russia and Russian elections? Or was it one more provocation to pull Russia into a larger conflict?

On the day of the attack, John Kirby, spokesman for National Security at the White House said in a Press Conference that there were no indications that Ukraine had anything to do with the attack. In early March Washington just had some indications that a terror assault may hit Moscow.

“Some indications”? – Why then the warning on the same 7 March to US citizens in Moscow not to visit any shopping malls?

It could not be more obvious that a hidden agenda is being played by Washington – and, may be added, by NATO and Europe?

Whether the Islamic State, Al Qaeda or another CIA / MI6 terror creation – or even Kiev directly, was involved in this mass-killing is irrelevant, because whoever acted, did so on behalf of US / NATO and the collective West.

Admiral John Kirby, spokesman for National Security at the White House

It is no coincidence that French President Macron practically simultaneously sends officially 2,000 French NATO troops to Ukraine. “Officially”, because western / NATO military advisers, trainers and coaches for Kiev’s Nazi-military have been in Kiev for quite a while.

Polish Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski has called it an open secret that Western soldiers are in Ukraine. German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz said, “there are already some troops from big countries in Ukraine.” (See this)


This is clearly the crossing of President Putin’s Red Line. Mr. Macron knows it, those who mandate the crossing of the Red Line, like the WEF and those dark Deep State Cult forces behind the WEF, know it – and Moscow knows that they know it.

Is it a provocation to pull Moscow into a hot war?
And the Moscow Concert Hall assault being a doubling-up of the Red-Line crossing?

This happening in the Ides of March, and just after the confirmed landslide re-election of President Putin on 17 March 2024.

Ides of March, is the day in the ancient Roman calendar that falls approximately on Mid-March and is associated with misfortune and doom. The date is also known as the date on which Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. Most US wars were initiated in March. Is it a symbolic cult ritual of the west?

It would perfectly fit into the Death Cult of the Great Reset (WEF) and the UN Agenda 2030, which are currently plaguing humanity – worldwide.

There are other non-coincidences. The 24 March 2024 is the 25th anniversary of the 1999 US-NATO assault on Yugoslavia (Ides of March) – currently being commemorated by a three-day Conference 22-24 March 2024, in Belgrade.

The destruction and dismembering of Yugoslavia were also planned by a long hand. After Josip Tito’s death in May 1980 (he served in several leadership positions of Yugoslavia from 1943 – 1980) – there were some lesser communist successors, who were vulnerable to western / NATO “pressures”, and let what was a solid Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) deteriorate, western-style.

In 1990 Slobodan Milošević, President of Serbia became de facto President of the SFR Yugoslavia attempting to hold the federation together – which in the ten years after President Tito’s departure was financially destabilized by the west. In the 1990s the SFR Yugoslavia was one of the first “cases” where the World Bank, IMF Washington Consensus was applied full-scale – indebting to destabilize, create internal unrest – and divide.

Mr. Milošević was captured, detained at the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prison in The Hague. He was poisoned on March 11, 2006 in his prison cell – shortly before his scheduled appearance at the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia (ICTY).

Once divided with constant civil unrest, there was “justification” for western rescue, i.e., bombing Yugoslavia literally into bits and pieces – leaving what we have today, numerous so-called independent former Yugoslavian Federal States – being economically and with “sanctions” controlled by the west.

This is the strategy Washington wants to apply to the Russian Federation – destabilizing it, fracturing it, Regime Change, and then taking it over.

Imagine! – The world’s biggest riches in the world’s largest country, absorbed or subdued by the (still) wannabe US Empire – and its European vassals.

It looks like the west wants a hot war with Russia, come hell or high water. Yes, it would be hell for Europe – for the third time in just over 100 years, and three-times for the same purpose – taking control of Russia, WWI, WWII and now WWIII?

A war – possibly nuclear – of which nobody can predict the outcome. As President Putin repeatedly said – there will be no winners, just absolute destruction.

Under no circumstances will Russia allow a take-over by an arrogant, criminal west. With Russian military’s far-superiority over US and NATO forces, this will not happen.

In the current Middle-East scenario, western leaders are supporting and funding the Israeli-Zionists, literally destroying and mass-killing – wiping out – Palestine, depicting an arrogance blinded by the zest for unlimited might, possibly driving humanity into a bottomless abyss.

A cleansing of this genocidal western “superiority” may bring birth of a new civilization – an evolution to a more spiritual and less material humanity.

—-

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Fallout from Moscow’s Crocus City Hall

Par : AHH

Was the US behind the Moscow terror attack? The US and Ukraine will pay a high price. And that, I have been reliably informed, will extend to our Arab world.

By Abdel Bari Atwan at Rai Al Youm.

The Ukraine war could be poised to take a dramatic new turn

The terrorist operation in Moscow’s Crocus City Hall centre, which killed 143 people and injured hundreds of others, mostly concertgoers, was clearly carried out by a group that had been given serious military training. It could mark a paradigm shift in the Ukraine war presaging a strategic escalation and NATO’s official entry into the war.

Two weeks earlier, the US embassy in Moscow had warned its citizens that extremists were planning imminent attacks on large gatherings, including concerts, in the Russian capital, and warned them to stay away. That foreknowledge of the planning and execution of the operation raised suspicions about a degree of complicity. Washington’s denunciation of the atrocity, and swift disavowal of involvement, cannot be taken at face value.

When the initial warning was made, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova remarked that if the US had information about terrorist actions of such enormity, it should have shared it with Russia. That was the first official hint from Moscow of suspected American complicity.

Two years into the Ukraine war, the US has begun to sense defeat. Russia has made a succession of gains, taking control of the Donbas region and annexing it after holding referendums.

Large-scale US and NATO intervention — on the material, military, and intelligence fronts — failed to achieve any major success. Russia did not collapse under the weight of draconian sanctions. Its economy remains strong. The predicted colour revolution never happened, nor the anticipated military coup to depose Putin.

The opposite occurred, with the Russian president getting re-elected with an 87% majority on a 74% turnout.

The resort to terrorist attacks in Moscow could be a mark of the US’ frustration and a response aimed at expanding the scope of the war. But that would not only be a losing bet. It could bring the prospect of a catastrophic nuclear war closer.

Putin announced on Saturday night that the eleven people involved in the attack, including four direct participants, had been apprehended.
Meanwhile, the editor-in-chief of the Russia Today broadcast network, Margarita Simonyan, published video excerpts of the interrogation of one of the suspects. He identified himself as Feredoun Shamsedin, born in 1988, who arrived in Russia from Turkey on 4 March. He said he had been recruited via Telegram after following an extremist preacher, by someone who offered him 5 million roubles ($5,000) to conduct a mass killing in Moscow. Half of the money was transferred to him in advance.

I met Ms. Simonyan when I visited Moscow recently. She was constantly accompanied by a security detail because she had been subjected to death threats. She said she believed the Crocus atrocity was masterminded by the Ukrainian regime, rather than by ISIS as the US media were claiming. Putin’s subsequent assertion that the perpetrators were arrested while heading towards the Ukrainian border reinforced that accusation.

Russia’s fingers of blame pointed at Ukraine were a portent of fierce retaliation. It seems to have already begun. Former president and current deputy national security chief Dmitri Medvedev warned immediately after the massacre that Russia would hunt down any Ukrainian leaders proven to have been involved.

Reading between the lines, that may imply that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky could be top of the target list.

Two days before the Crocus attack, Putin threatened Ukraine with ”war’—abandoning the term special military operation’ — in response to French President Emanual Macron’s hint that NATO could send 90,000 fully equipped troops to Ukraine. Under Russian military doctrine, a declaration of war authorises the use of all available means, including nuclear weapons.

The US administration, disoriented and defeated in Ukraine and (so far) the Middle East, is fueling this escalation against Russia. It is the primary beneficiary of the Crocus attack. Not just to destabilise Russia by stoking ethnic tensions, but also to divert international attention away from its collusion in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and the failure of its cynical attempt at the UN Security Council to sustain it under the guise of favouring (but not actually calling for) a cease-fire.

Putin won’t forgive this assault on his capital while it was celebrating the renewal of his presidential term. He is likely to make the US and Ukraine pay a high price. And that, I have been reliably informed, will extend to our Arab world.

VVP’s Announced Telephone Conversations in Last Two Days

Par : AHH

Per Newton’s third law, Hell cometh to the demented Anglo-Zionist satanists in Greater Syria….


🇷🇺🇧🇾📞 Russia’s President Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko.

The President of the Republic of Belarus expressed his heartfelt condolences on the monstrous terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall, conveyed words of sympathy and support to the victims’ families and wishes for a speedy recovery to the injured, emphasising that the people of Belarus stand together with the people of Russia in this time of sorrow.

Alexander Lukashenko offered any assistance that may be needed, and expressed his confidence that the organisers and perpetrators of this heinous crime will face inevitable punishment.

For his part, Vladimir Putin informed his counterpart about the detention of the terrorists directly involved in the attack, as well as about the ongoing investigation.

🤝 Both leaders expressed mutual readiness to continue close cooperation in the fight against terrorism.


🇷🇺🇰🇿📞 Russia’s President Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev.

During his telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev expressed his deep condolences over numerous victims of the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall, stressing that he resolutely condemns this barbaric crime, and asked to convey words of sympathy and support to the victims’ families and wishes for a speedy recovery to the injured.

Both Leaders reaffirmed their intention to step up anti-terror cooperation.


🇷🇺🇺🇿📞 Russia’s President Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev

Shavkat Mirziyoyev strongly condemned the heinous terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall, expressed his sincere condolences in connection with the tragedy, and asked to convey words of support to the victims’ families and wishes for a speedy recovery to the injured.

Both Sides reaffirmed their intention to continue close cooperation to counter terrorism.


🇷🇺🇹🇷📞 On March 23, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan held a telephone conversation.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan offered his deep and heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the heinous terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall. He noted that the Republic of Türkiye stands with the people of Russia in this dark hour.

Vladimir Putin emphasised that Russia appreciates the support of the Turkish people and informed his Turkish counterpart on the status of the investigation into the terrorist attack.

During the conversation, the Turkish Leader stressed the urgent need for closer bilateral cooperation in the fight against the terrorist threat.

President Putin expressed gratitude for the condolences and supported the idea of stepping up cooperation in countering terrorism.


🇷🇺🇸🇾📞 On March 23, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad held a telephone conversation.

The President of Syria strongly condemned the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall, stressing that Syrian citizens share the pain and grief of the Russian people. He wished fortitude to the victims’ families and friends and a speedy recovery to the injured.

Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad discussed the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and the current situation in Syria, which is directly facing the terrorist threat.

🤝 The Leaders agreed to intensify contacts both in addressing counterterrorism and in all other areas of bilateral cooperation.

ADDENDUM:


🇹🇯 🇷🇺 President of the Republic of Tajikistan Emomali Rahmon telephoned Vladimir Putin to express deep condolences and solidarity with the Russian people over the death of innocent civilians in the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall. The President of Tajikistan emphasised that there was no nor could not be any justification for that crime.

During the conversation, Vladimir Putin and Emomali Rahmon noted that the security services of Russia and Tajikistan were working closely together to counter terrorism and that they would build up their cooperation.

Tajikistan’s President Rahmon during phone conversation with Russia’s Putin condemns terrorist attack in Russia, says terrorists have neither nationality nor religion

During the conversation, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev strongly condemned the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall, which claimed the lives of over 100 innocent civilians, expressed deep condolences to their families and friends, and wished a speedy recovery to the injured.

Ilham Aliyev stressed that the people of Azerbaijan stand together with the Russian people on this day of national mourning and expressed confidence that the severe punishment of the criminals and those who masterminded that crime was unavoidable.

Vladimir Putin thanked the President of Azerbaijan for his words of support and expressed readiness to further strengthen practical interaction in the spirit of strategic partnership and alliance between Russia and Azerbaijan.

Turkey takes its Seat in Rules-based Terrorism Inc.

Par : AHH

Turkey starts to drift into view, as NATO becomes officially activated in Europe.. Turkish elites, in spite of antipathy of its working peoples for post-modern western values, remain at the heart of NATO.

To woo Washington, Erdogan will sell out Palestine

After Ankara and Washington successfully swapped Sweden’s NATO accession for an F-16 fighter jet deal, Turkiye is focused on accelerating that rapprochement and is willing to sweep divisive issues – like genocide in Gaza – under the rug.

By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan at The Cradle.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan

On 7–8 March, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Intelligence Chief Ibrahim Kalin visited Washington. The trip garnered attention as it marked Turkiye’s first official visit to the US following the conclusion of the ‘Sweden for F-16’ deal, whereby Ankara accepted Stockholm’s accession to NATO in exchange for US Congressional approval of the sale of 40 F-16s to Turkiye.

During the visit, the two Turkish officials met with their US counterparts Antony Blinken and William Burns, along with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and their respective foreign ministers chaired the seventh meeting of the US–Turkiye Strategic Mechanism.

“Naval Battle of Çesme at Night,” July 1770, Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774), by Ivan Constantinovich Aivazovsky (1848)

US–Turkish rapprochement

The thaw in US–Turkish relations has been palpable, as noted by Jeff Flake, the US Ambassador to Ankara, during a televised interview: “Especially in recent months, the two countries have developed shared areas. We observe improvements in defense, trade, and interpersonal relations.”

A closer examination of the joint statement released following the meeting illustrates the transition of Turkish–American relations into a more favorable and cooperative phase.

Established in 2021 and inaugurated on 4 April 2021 amidst escalating discord between Turkiye and the US, the strategic mechanism was conceived to address and improve the strained bilateral relations.

The joint statement issued by the Strategic Mechanism this month included several crucial points, each carrying significant implications:

Both parties addressed the ongoing war in Ukraine, condemning Russia’s actions as ‘unacceptable’ while emphasizing the importance of upholding Ukraine’s unity and sovereignty. However, it is worth noting that Ankara’s endorsement of the statement’s rhetoric aligns more closely with Kiev’s perspective, a deviation from Turkiye’s previous neutral stance. This marked shift will undermine President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s aspirations to mediate the conflict impartially.

“Destruction of the Turkish Fleet in the Bay of Chesme,” July 1770, Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774), by Jacob Philipp Hackert, commissioned by Catherine II in 1772

Playing to the audience

On Israel’s brutal military assault in Gaza, the statement merely referred to an “ongoing crisis” and “underlined the importance of finding a path towards ending the conflict and addressing the humanitarian crisis immediately.” This is a war that Erdogan has, on the record, framed as a “genocide” and called its aggressors in Tel Aviv “war criminals.”

While both parties expressed support for the “two-state solution” as an end goal to the war, the statement’s release coincided with a fiery speech by Erdogan in Istanbul in which he attacked Israel, calling it “the Nazis of our time.” The contrast between the two statements is a real-time reflection of how Turkiye addresses its different target audiences.

On the issue of combating terrorism, the statement endorses joint US–Turkish efforts against organizations like the PKK, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda across regions spanning from Africa to Central Asia. They also recommitted to counterterrorism consultations and discussions on the Syria file, including the adherence to UN Resolution 2254 and supporting a “Syrian-led, Syrian-owned political process.”

The two parties addressed a multitude of regional issues in West Asia and Africa in alignment with the broader US strategy outlined by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, which focuses on partnership-building, deterrence, diplomacy, regional integration, and “democracy promotion” in these geographies.

This includes cooperation in military industry, energy, and trade development, reflecting the existing $30 billion trade volume between Washington and Ankara.

Significantly, the parties discussed leveraging financing opportunities under the Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership – a western initiative intended to rival China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This partnership includes the controversial India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), aimed at enhancing regional connectivity and economic development very much to the benefit of Israel.

New Turkish military action in Syria and Iraq?

As the municipal elections in Turkiye draw near – with Erdogan seeking to reclaim his Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) control of Istanbul and Ankara after notable previous losses – there’s a tangible resurgence in Turkish rhetoric advocating for military action in northern Syria and Iraq.

According to reports from the Turkish news agency T24, the Turkish armed forces are gearing up for an operation against the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) inside its neighboring states following local elections on 31 March.

After a 4 March cabinet meeting, Erdogan spoke of Turkiye’s readiness for a comprehensive operation against the Kurdish separatist groups and reiterated Ankara’s objective of establishing a security corridor spanning 30 to 40 kilometers along the Turkish–Syrian border.

Although the military rhetoric is undoubtedly influenced by Erdogan’s bid to attract nationalist voters in the upcoming elections, it is also connected to the recent Turkish–Iraqi diplomatic breakthrough following a high-level Turkish delegation’s visit to Baghdad.

The meeting in the Iraqi capital led to a security deal in which both countries committed to take action against the PKK. A joint statement read:

Both sides stressed that the PKK organization represents a security threat to both Turkiye and Iraq, and it is certain that the presence of the organization on Iraqi territory represents a violation of the Iraqi constitution … Turkiye welcomed the decision taken by the Iraqi National Security Council to list the PKK as a banned organization in Iraq. The two sides consulted on the measures that must be taken against the organization and its banned extensions [PKK’s alleged offshoots] that target Turkiye from within Iraq’s territory.

Fidan’s senior adviser, Nuh Yilmaz, praised the move, saying, “Turkiye and Iraq decided for the first time to fight jointly against PKK terrorism.” In a post on platform X, he added: “A decision that will mark a turning point! We will see results gradually!”


Strategic interests come first 

According to a well-informed Turkish source:

Turkey’s main purpose is very clear. The presence of the PKK in Metina and Gara [in northern Iraq] has the potential to seriously threaten the Iraq Development Road Project … We both would like to remove PKK from these two areas as well as secure the area for the construction of the project, reaching both objectives in one step.

Ankara and Baghdad seek to counter any threat to this development road project, a land corridor linking the port of Faw in Basra to the Turkish border and from there to Europe.

In this context, Erdogan is expected to visit Baghdad for the first time since 2012, where, some speculate, he will try to conclude a border control security agreement with the Iraqi government and seek to convince Baghdad to support future Turkish military operations against the PKK.

Despite Turkiye and Erdogan’s vocal criticism of Israeli atrocities in Gaza, recent interactions between Ankara and Washington indicate a pragmatic approach in their dealings, through which Turkiye hopes to be reinstated as an important US strategic partner.

While the Turkish president is stepping up anti-Zionist rhetoric on his domestic front, his administration maintains substantial economic ties with Israel, exporting various vital goods and services to the occupation state.

Although a Washington–Ankara rapprochement is still in its nascent stage, recent developments reveal the old allies are on a positive trajectory to repair bilateral relations after a period of strained diplomatic ties.

Erdogan’s foreign policy approach – as exemplified by his rhetorical Gaza stance and material support for Israel – makes clear Turkiye’s shift toward prioritizing strategic interests over ideological ones.

≈≈≈

“Chesma battle of 1770,” Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774), by Vladimir Kosov (2021)

Nuclear Threat, World War III and Turkey: Balance Policy or a Game?

Is Turkey’s rhetorical stance of “balancing” a genuine attempt at strategic equilibrium, or merely an endeavor to occupy multiple positions simultaneously?

By Erkin Öncan at Strategic Culture Foundation.

Alexander Stubb, the newly elected president of Finland, has made several noteworthy statements regarding the current geopolitical climate. He emphasized the escalating tensions amidst discussions of a World War III. Stubb, representing the center-right National Coalition Party, expressed openness to the possibility of allowing the transportation and storage of U.S. nuclear weapons in Finnish territory, branding them as a “guarantee of peace.” This stance remained consistent throughout his election campaign and was reiterated upon assuming office. Stubb underscored the necessity for Finland to possess a tangible nuclear deterrent force, citing NATO membership as pivotal in providing multiple layers of deterrence, including military, munitions, and nuclear deterrence from the USA. He further asserted that Finland’s alignment with NATO signifies a definitive step towards embracing Western values, a sentiment echoed by the inclusion of Turkey as an enthusiastic participant in the anticipated third major conflict.

However, Finland’s enthusiasm for NATO membership has not gone unnoticed by Russia, which shares a significant border with the country. In response to Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO, Russian President Putin announced plans to bolster military presence along the Western borders to counteract perceived threats stemming from NATO’s eastward expansion. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov conveyed Moscow’s acknowledgment of the democratic choice made by the Finnish people but indicated pessimism regarding potential improvements in Russo-Finnish relations.

The most explicit reaction to Stubb’s nuclear policy came from Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mariya Zakharova. Addressing the issue during a weekly press conference at the World Youth Festival in Sochi, Zakharova outlined Russia’s stance on the placement of U.S. nuclear weapons in Northern Europe. She asserted that such deployments would be considered a direct threat and would consequently be designated as legitimate targets in the event of a direct military conflict between Russia and NATO. Zakharova underscored Russia’s awareness of the desires of the United States and its allies in this regard.

Izmir, Turkey: permanent headquarters of NATO Land Forces, known as Allied Land Command (LANDCOM).

The primary source of concern regarding nuclear capabilities is now widely recognized to stem from the potential for World War III to be nuclear in nature. When discussing nuclear power, the focus often turns to Russia, acknowledged as the “world’s largest nuclear power”.

Western media consistently highlights the perceived “nuclear threat emanating from the authoritarian Kremlin”. However, to truly address the concept of a “nuclear danger”, it is essential to consider the United States, which has transformed Europe into a depot for nuclear weapons, rather than Russia, which does not maintain nuclear forces beyond its borders, apart from the neighboring Belarus.

The United States and its NATO allies do not disclose precise figures regarding the stockpiles deployed in Europe. Nevertheless, estimates from the U.S.-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in 2021 suggest that around 100 U.S. nuclear weapons are stored across six bases in five NATO member countries.

These weapons are kept in inactive states within underground vaults at national air bases. Notably, the “permissive action link” (PAL) codes required to activate these weapons are under American control. In the event of their use, the weapons would be loaded onto warplanes designated by NATO.

This situation is intricately tied to the “modernization” efforts undertaken by nations operating F-35A, F-18 Super Hornet, or Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft.

U.S. nuclear weapons have been stationed in Europe since the mid-1950s, authorized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower for storage at NATO bases on the continent as a deterrent against the Soviet Union.

Stored in warehouses across Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and other countries, these weapons are maintained for potential deployment when required. Additionally, countries such as Czechia, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland, and Romania participate in SNOWCAT operations, facilitating NATO partner involvement in nuclear missions.

Meanwhile, Finland, under the leadership of Stubb, is positioning itself as a significant player in the ongoing ’nuclear preparedness’ measures originally aimed at countering the USSR and persisting in response to Russia.

This dynamic persists alongside ongoing military actions initiated by NATO against Russia. Notably, the commencement of Steadfast Defender-24, hailed as NATO’s largest military exercise since the Cold War, marks a significant development. This exercise aims to test the transfer of military forces to Eastern Europe and beyond, encompassing regions where Russia’s influence is perceived as encroaching.

This exercise constitutes a series of 15 maneuvers rather than a singular major military operation.

Steadfast Defender encompasses various other exercises conducted at national or regional levels, including Joint Warrior, Solid Approach, Arctic Dolphin, Northern Response, Immediate Response, Brilliant Jump, Movable Defender, Slovak Shield, Saber Strike, Trojan Trail-24, and Spring Storm.

İzmir: rebranded ancient Smyrna from pre-historic through the Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Ottoman, and Turk Periods.

Turkey actively participates in these exercises, with the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) playing a pivotal role in Brilliant Jump, Nordic Response, Saber Strike, and Immediate Response exercises.

Turkey’s involvement extends beyond military participation; it also hosts one of NATO’s most crucial commands. The permanent headquarters of NATO Land Forces, known as Allied Land Command (LANDCOM), is situated in Izmir.

Decisions regarding NATO’s land maneuvers are made at the command post within the General Vecihi Akın Barracks in Buca, Izmir. Given its historical significance, Izmir, where the first shot was fired against invaders a century ago, could potentially be remembered as the site where the decision to initiate the first shot of a world-engulfing war was made if a new global conflict were to erupt on Russia’s borders.

This prompts consideration of Turkey’s rhetorical stance of “balancing”. Is it a genuine attempt at strategic equilibrium, or merely an endeavor to occupy multiple positions simultaneously?

It’s War: The Real Meat Grinder Starts Now

Par : AHH

“Rules-based Terrorism” Returns to Moskau. No more shadow play. It’s now in the open. No holds barred.

By Pepe Escobar at Strategic Culture Foundation.


Exhibit 1:
 Friday, March 22, 2024. It’s War. The Kremlin, via Peskov, finally admits it, on the record.

The money quote:

“Russia cannot allow the existence on its borders of a state that has a documented intention to use any methods to take Crimea away from it, not to mention the territory of new regions.”

Translation: the Hegemon-constructed Kiev mongrel is doomed, one way or another. The Kremlin signal: “We haven’t even started” starts now.

Exhibit 2: Friday afternoon, a few hours after Peskov. Confirmed by a serious European – not Russian – source. The first counter-signal.

Regular troops from France, Germany and Poland have arrived, by rail and air, to Cherkassy, south of Kiev. A substantial force. No numbers leaked. They are being housed in schools. For all practical purposes, this is a NATO force.

That signals, “Let the games begin”. From a Russian point of view, Mr. Khinzal’s business cards are set to be in great demand.

Exhibit 3: Friday evening. Terror attack on Crocus City, a music venue northwest of Moscow. A heavily trained commando shoots people on sight, point blank, in cold blood, then sets a concert hall on fire. The definitive counter-signal: with the battlefield collapsing, all that’s left is terrorism in Moscow.

And just as terror was striking Moscow, the US and the UK, in southwest Asia, was bombing Sana’a, the Yemeni capital, with at least five strikes.

Some nifty coordination. Yemen has just clinched a strategic deal in Oman with Russia-China for no-hassle navigation in the Red Sea, and is among the top candidates for BRICS+ expansion at the summit in Kazan next October.

Not only the Houthis are spectacularly defeating thalassocracy, they have the Russia-China strategic partnership on their side. Assuring China and Russia that their ships can sail through the Bab-al-Mandeb, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden with no problems is exchanged with total political support from Beijing and Moscow.


The sponsors remain the same

Deep in the night in Moscow, before dawn on Saturday 23. Virtually no one is sleeping. Rumors dance like dervishes on countless screens. Of course nothing has been confirmed – yet. Only the FSB will have answers. A massive investigation is in progress.

The timing of the Crocus massacre is quite intriguing. On a Friday during Ramadan. Real Muslims would not even think about perpetrating a mass murder of unarmed civilians under such a holy occasion. Compare it with the ISIS card being frantically branded by the usual suspects.

Let’s go pop. To quote Talking Heads: “This ain’t no party/ this ain’t no disco/ this ain’t no fooling around”. Oh no; it’s more like an all-American psy op. ISIS are cartoonish mercenaries/goons. Not real Muslims. And everyone knows who finances and weaponizes them.

That leads to the most possible scenario, before the FSB weighs in: ISIS goons imported from the Syria battleground – as it stands, probably Tajiks – trained by CIA and MI6, working on behalf of the Ukrainian SBU. Several witnesses at Crocus referred to “Wahhabis” – as in the commando killers did not look like Slavs.

It was up to Serbia’s Aleksandar Vucic to cut to the chase. He directly connected the “warnings” in early March from American and British embassies directed at their citizens not to visit public places in Moscow with CIA/MI6 intel having inside info about possible terrorism, and not disclosing it to Moscow.

The plot thickens when it is established that Crocus is owned by the Agalarovs: an Azeri-Russian billionaire family, very close friends of…

… Donald Trump.

Talk about a Deep State-pinpointed target.

ISIS spin-off or banderistas – the sponsors remain the same. The clownish secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Oleksiy Danilov, was dumb enough to virtually, indirectly confirm they did it, saying on Ukrainian TV, “we will give them [Russians] this kind of fun more often.”

But it was up to Sergei Goncharov, a veteran of the elite Russia Alpha anti-terrorism unit, to get closer to unwrapping the enigma: he told Sputnik the most feasible mastermind is Kyrylo Budanov – the chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence at the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense.

The “spy chief” who happens to be the top CIA asset in Kiev.

Stoking the unholy USUK meatgrinder

It’s got to go till the last Ukrainian

The three exhibits above complement what the head of NATO’s military committee, Rob Bauer, previously told a security forum in Kiev: “You need more than just grenades – you need people to replace the dead and wounded. And this means mobilization.”

Translation: NATO spelling out this is a war until the last Ukrainian.

And the “leadership” in Kiev still does not get it. Former Minister of Infrastructure Omelyan: “If we win, we will pay back with Russian oil, gas, diamonds and fur. If we lose, there will be no talk of money – the West will think about how to survive.”

In parallel, puny “garden-and jungle” Borrell admitted that it would be “difficult” for the EU to find an extra 50 billion euros for Kiev if Washington pulls the plug. The cocaine-fueled sweaty sweatshirt leadership actually believes that Washington is not “helping” in the form of loans, but in the form of free gifts. And the same applies for the EU.

The Theater of the Absurd is unmatchable. The German Liver Sausage Chancellor actually believes that proceeds from stolen Russian assets “do not belong to anyone”, so they can be used to finance extra Kiev weaponizing.

Everyone with a brain knows that using interest from “frozen”, actually stolen Russian assets to weaponize Ukraine is a dead end – unless they steal all of Russia’s assets, roughly $200 billion, mostly parked in Belgium and Switzerland: that would tank the Euro for good, and the whole EU economy for that matter.

Eurocrats better listen to Russian Central Bank major “disrupter” (American terminology) Elvira Nabiullina: The Bank of Russia will take “appropriate measures” if the EU does anything on the “frozen”/stolen Russian assets.

It goes without saying that the three exhibits above completely nullify the “La Cage aux Folles” circus promoted by the puny Petit Roi, now known across his French domains as Macronapoleon.

Virtually the whole planet, including the English-speaking Global North, had already been mocking the “exploits” of his Can Can Moulin Rouge Army.

So French, German and Polish soldiers, as part of NATO, are already in the south of Kiev. The most possible scenario is that they will stay far, far away from the frontlines – although traceable by Mr. Khinzal’s business activities.

Even before this new NATO batch arriving in the south of Kiev, Poland – which happens to serve as prime transit corridor for Kiev’s troops – had confirmed that Western troops are already on the ground.

So this is not about mercenaries anymore. France, by the way, is only 7th in terms of mercenaries on the ground, largely trailing Poland, the US and Georgia, for instance. The Russian Ministry of Defense has all the precise records.

In a nutshell: now war has morphed from Donetsk, Avdeyevka and Belgorod to Moscow. Further on down the road, it may not just stop in Kiev. It may only stop in Lviv. Mr. 87%, enjoying massive national near-unanimity,  now has the mandate to go all the way. Especially after Crocus.

There’s every possibility the terror tactics by Kiev goons will finally drive Russia to return Ukraine to its original 17th century landlocked borders: Black Sea-deprived, and with Poland, Romania, and Hungary reclaiming their former territories.

Remaining Ukrainians will start to ask serious questions about what led them to fight – literally to their death – on behalf of the US Deep State, the military complex and BlackRock.

As it stands, the Highway to Hell meat grinder is bound to reach maximum velocity.

Humiliating the US President

Par : AHH

Netanyahu’s slap to Biden. The humiliated US president will continue arming Israel despite his show of dissent

By Abdel Bari Atwan at Rai Al Youm.

Tuesday’s early morning Israeli airstrikes on Rafah — which killed 14 people, including three women and three children — were Benjamin Netanyahu’s reply to Joe Biden’s request, in a phone conversation the previous evening, not to invade the city or foil the talks aimed at reaching a truce agreement.

Netanyahu deliberately set out to humiliate the US president, and not just with the airstrikes. In an address to Israeli legislators, he declared that Hamas could only be destroyed by an all-out invasion of Rafah and that he had informed the US president of his determination to proceed with that operation. His stance was echoed by other members of his government.

Biden, leader of the world’s greatest superpower, has clearly lost his verbal standoff with his servant/master Netanyahu. The latter showed that it is he who calls the shots in Washington. He trashed the undertaking he supposedly made in that phone call, and went ahead with preparations for invading Rafah by ordering the airstrikes and storming Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.

An early result of Netanyahu’s slap to Biden’s face will be to scupper the negotiations in Doha between the intelligence chiefs of the US, Egypt, and Israel and the prime minister of Qatar. Biden and his administration had been counting on them to produce a three-stage truce agreement that would include prisoner exchanges and end Israel’s war on Gaza.

Netanyahu clearly demonstrated that he does not want any such deal. He first restricted the mandate of the Mossad chief who was taking part in the talks, and then recalled him.

Biden is unlikely to respond to these slaps. He is terrified and intimidated by Netanyahu. His only reaction will be to support the assault under the table by sending more military and financial aid to Israel and maintaining the flow of arms that has sustained its war on Gaza. Since it started the US has delivered it around 300 planeloads, 50 shiploads, and 35,000 tons of ammunition and equipment.

A ground assault on Rafah will not succeed in destroying the infrastructure of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip. It will cause major losses for the Israeli army. The resistance will not stand idly by. It has prepared well for such an offensive and set many traps and ambushes for the invading forces.

The statements Netanyahu made at the start of the war about destroying the resistance and freeing the hostages are identical to those he is making now in response to the US’ show of dissent and to justify an assault on Rafah — the supposed’safe haven’ where he had forced the residents of northern Gaza to relocate.

The Resistance brigades, which have stood fast for more than five months against the biggest Israeli war of genocide and ethnic cleansing in the history of the conflict and the region, will certainly survive an assault on Rafah — the city that brought Ariel Sharon to his knees and became a graveyard for his soldiers after the 1967 occupation.

The Israeli army did not manage to impose its control on Jabaliya or the north, and similarly failed in Deir al-Balah, Mughazi, Nusseirat, Khan Younis, and Abasan, where the resistance remains active. Why would it succeed in Rafah? And what will it do with its 1.5 million inhabitants and displaced people? Send them to Mars, or exterminate them all?

Biden takes a nap.

An invasion would not only be a defiance of the US and the hypocritical West that revolves in its orbit, but also of Egypt and its president Abdelfattah as-Sisi.

It would mean taking over the Salaheddin (Philadelphi) border corridor, decoupling Egypt from Palestine geographically, and closing the Rafah crossing for good. It would pose a direct threat to Egypt’s national security, wreck the country’s standing in the Arab world and internationally, and infuriate one hundred million Egyptians who are already enraged at the genocidal war being waged on their Palestinian brothers and sisters.

I said from the start of the ground operation that Israel would be defeated and the resistance would emerge victorious, the more so the longer the war lasts. I repeat that assertion with the start of the Rafah assault. Who had expected back then that the Yemeni navy would close the Red Sea and make its approaches unsafe for the US navy and its aircraft carriers; or that the Lebanese front would ignite and send 150,000 Israeli settlers packing; or that the Islamic resistance in Iraq would strike Israeli infrastructure and bases?

Netanyahu will end up digging the grave of the Zionist enterprise and deepening it, and hasten the onset of the one-state solution: the state of Greater Palestine.

Why the West cannot stomach Russians

Par : AHH

In the west, they don’t like those who defend themselves, who fight against them, and especially those who win.

By Andre Vltchek via The Greanville Post.

When it comes to Russia or the Soviet Union, reports and historical accounts do get blurry; in the West they do, and consequently in all of its ‘client states’. Fairytales get intermingled with reality, while fabrications are masterfully injected into the sub consciousness of billions of people worldwide. Russia is an enormous country, in fact the largest country on Earth in terms of territory. It is scarcely inhabited. It is deep, and as a classic writer once wrote: “It is impossible to understand Russia with one’s brain. One could only believe in it.”

The Western mind generally doesn’t like things unknown, spiritual and complex. Since the ‘old days’, especially since the crusades and monstrous colonialist expeditions to all corners of the world, the Westerners were told fables about their own “noble deeds” performed in the plundered lands. Everything had to be clear and simple: “Virtuous Europeans were civilizing savages and spreading Christianity, therefore, in fact, saving those dark poor primitive souls.”

Of course, tens of millions were dying in the process, while further tens of millions were shackled and brought to the “New Worlds” as slaves. Gold, silver, and other loot, as well as slave labor had been (and still are) paying for all those European palaces, railroads, universities and theatres, but that did not matter, as the bloodshed was most of the time something abstract and far away from those over-sensitive eyes of the Western public.

Westerners like simplicity, particularly when it comes to moral definitions of “good and evil”. It matters nothing if the truth gets systematically ‘massaged’, or even if the reality is fully fabricated. What matters is that there is no deep guilt and no soul-searching. Western rulers and their opinion makers know their people – their ‘subjects’ – perfectly well, and most of the time, they give them what they are asking for. The rulers and the reigned are generally living in symbiosis. They keep bitching about each other, but mostly they have similar goals: to live well, to live extremely well, as long as the others are forced to pay for it; with their riches, with their labor and often with their blood.

Culturally, most of the citizens of Europe and North America hate to pay the bill for their high life; they even detest to admit that their life is extremely ‘high’. They like to feel like victims. They like to feel that they are ‘used’. They like to imagine that they are sacrificing themselves for the rest of the world.

And above all, they hate real victims: those they have been murdering, raping, plundering and insulting, for decades and centuries.

Recent ‘refugee crises’ showed the spite Europeans feel for their prey. People who made them rich and who lost everything in the process are humiliated, despised and insulted. Be they Afghans or Africans, the Middle Easterners or South Asians. Or Russians, although Russians fall into their own, unique category.

Prince Alexander Nevsky’s legendary defeat of the Teutonic Knights on a frozen lake in the 13th century has always captivated and inspired the Russian people in their struggles against foreign invaders, especially from the West.

Many Russians look white. Most of them eat with knife and fork, they drink alcohol, excel at Western classical music, poetry, literature, science and philosophy.

To Western eyes they look ‘normal’, but actually, they are not.

Russians always want ‘something else’; they refuse to play by Western rules.

They are stubbornly demanding to remain different, and to be left alone.

When confronted, when attacked, they fight.

They rarely strike first, almost never invade.

But when threatened, when assaulted, they fight with tremendous determination and force, and they never lose. Villages and cities get converted into invader’s graves. Millions die while defending their Motherland, but the country survives. And it happens again and again and again, as the Western hordes have been, for centuries, assaulting and burning Russian lands, never learning the lesson and never giving up on their sinister dream of conquering and controlling that proud and determined colossus.

In the West, they don’t like those who defend themselves, who fight against them, and especially those who win.

Russo-Korean symphony

It gets much worse than that.
Russia has this terrible habit… not only it defends itself and its people, but it also fights for others, protecting colonized and pillaged nations, as well as those that are unjustly assaulted.

It saved the world from Nazism. It did it at a horrific price of 27 million men, women and children, but it did it; courageously, proudly and altruistically. The West never forgave the Soviet Union for this epic victory either, because all that is unselfish and self-sacrificing, is always in direct conflict with its own principles, and therefore ‘extremely dangerous’.

The Russian people had risen; had fought and won in the 1917 Revolution; an event which terrified the West more than anything else in history, as it had attempted to create a fully egalitarian, classless and racially color-blind society. It also gave birth to Internationalism, an occurrence that I recently described in my book The Great October Socialist Revolution: Impact on the World and the Birth of Internationalism.

Soviet Internationalism, right after the victory in WWII, helped greatly, directly and indirectly, dozens of countries on all continents, to stand up and to confront the European colonialism and the North American imperialism. The West and especially Europe never forgave the Soviet people in general and Russians in particular, for helping to liberate its slaves.

That is when the greatest wave of propaganda in human history really began to roll. From London to New York, from Paris to Toronto, an elaborate web of anti-Soviet and covertly anti-Russian hysteria was unleashed with monstrously destructive force. Tens of thousands of ‘journalists’, intelligence officers, psychologists, historians, as well as academics, were employed. Nothing Soviet, nothing Russian (except those glorified and often ‘manufactured’ Russian dissidents) was spared.

The excesses or contextual errors of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the pre-WWII era were systematically fabricated, exaggerated, and then engraved into the Western history textbooks and mass media narrative. In those tales, there was nothing about the vicious invasions and attacks coming from the West, aimed at destroying the young Bolshevik state. Naturally, there was no space for mentioning the British, French, U.S., Czech, Polish, Japanese, German and other’s monstrous cruelties.

Soviet and Russian views were hardly ever allowed to penetrate the monolithic and one-sided Western propaganda narrative.

Like obedient sheep, the Western public accepted the disinformation it was fed. Eventually, many people living in the Western colonies and ‘client states’, did the same. A great number of colonized people were taught how to blame themselves for their misery.

The most absurd but somehow logical occurrence then took place: many men, women and even children living in the USSR, succumbed to Western propaganda. Instead of trying to reform their imperfect but still greatly progressive country, they gave up, became cynical, aggressively ‘disillusioned’, corrupt and naively but staunchly pro-Western.

Gorbachev: supremely, unaccountably, criminally foolish when dealing with the most ruthless mafia the world has ever seen.

It was the first and most likely the last time in the history, Russia got defeated by the West. It happened through deceit, through shameless lies, through Western propaganda.

What followed could be easily described as genocide.

The Soviet Union was first lulled into Afghanistan, then it was mortally injured by the war there, by an arms race with the United States, and by the final stage of propaganda that was literally flowing like lava from various hostile Western state-sponsored radio stations. Of course, local ‘dissidents’ also played an important role.

Under Gorbachev, a ‘useful idiot’ of the West, things got extremely bizarre. I don’t believe that he was paid to ruin his own country, but he did almost everything to run it into the ground; precisely what Washington wanted him to do. Then, in front of the entire world, a mighty and proud Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics suddenly shook in agony, then uttered a loud cry, and collapsed; died painfully but swiftly.

A new turbo-capitalist, bandit, pro-oligarch and confusedly pro-Western Russia was born. Russia which was governed by an alcoholic Boris Yeltsin; a man loved and supported by Washington, London and other Western centers of power.

It was a totally unnatural, sick Russia – cynical and compassionless, built with someone else’s ideas – Russia of Radio Liberty and Voice of America, of the BBC, of black marketers, of oligarchs and multi-national corporations.

Is the West now daring to say that Russians are ‘interfering’ in something in Washington? Are they out of their minds?

Washington and other Western capitals did not only ‘interfere’, they openly broke the Soviet Union into pieces and then they began kicking Russia which was at that point half-alive. Is it all forgotten, or is Western public again fully ‘unaware’ of what took place during those dark days?

The West kept spitting at the impoverished and injured country, refused to honor international agreements and treaties. It offered no help. Multi-nationals were unleashed, and began ‘privatizing’ Russian state companies, basically stealing what was built by the sweat and blood of Soviet workers, during long decades.

Interference? Let me repeat: it was direct intervention, invasion, a grab of resources, shameless theft! I want to read and write about it, but we don’t hear much about it, anymore, do we?

Now we are told that Russia is paranoid, that its President is paranoid! With straight face, the West is lying; pretending that it has not been trying to murder Russia.

Those years… Those pro-Western years when Russia became a semi-client state of the West, or call it a semi-colony! There was no mercy, no compassion coming from abroad. Many of those idiots – kitchen intellectuals from Moscow and provinces – suddenly woke up but it was too late. Many of them had suddenly nothing to eat. They got what they were told to ask for: their Western ‘freedom and democracy’, and Western-style capitalism or in summary: total collapse.

I remember well how it was ‘then’. I began returning to Russia, horrified, working in Moscow, Tomsk, Novosibirsk, Leningrad. Academics from Akadem Gorodok outside Novosibirsk were selling their libraries in the bitter cold, in dark metro underpasses of Novosibirsk… Runs on the banks… Old retired people dying from hunger and cold behind massive doors of concrete blocks… unpaid salaries and starving miners, teachers…

Russia under the deadly embrace of the West, for the first and hopefully last time! Russia whose life expectancy suddenly dropped to African Sub-Saharan levels. Russia humiliated, wild, in terrible pain.

Patriarch Kirill consecrates Alexander Nevsky monument dedicated to 800th anniversary of Alexander Nevsky — village of Samolva, Gdovsky district, Pskov, 11.09.2021

But that nightmare did not last long.

And what happened – those short but horrible years under both Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but above all under the Western diktat – will never be forgotten, not forgiven.

Russians know perfectly well what they do not want, anymore!

Russia stood up again. Huge, indignant and determined to live its own life, its own way. From an impoverished, humiliated and robbed nation, subservient to the West, the country evolved and within a few years, the free and independent Russia once again joined the ranks of the most developed and powerful countries on Earth.

And as before Gorbachev, Russia is once again able to help those nations which are under unjust and vicious attacks by the Western empire.

A man who is leading this renaissance, President Vladimir Putin, is tough, but Russia is under great threat and so is the world – this is no time for weaklings.

President Putin is not perfect (who is, really?), but he is a true patriot, and I dare say, an internationalist.

Now the West, once again, hates both Russia and its leader. No wonder; undefeated, strong and free Russia is the worst imaginable foe of Washington and its lieutenants.

That’s how the West feels, not Russia. Despite all that was done to it, despite tens of millions of lost and ruined lives, Russia has always been ready to compromise, even to forgive, if not forget.

Russia stood up again.

There is something deeply pathological in the psyche of the west. It cannot accept anything less than full and unconditional submission. It has to control, to be in charge, and on top of everything; it has to feel exceptional. Even when it murders and ruins the entire Planet, it insists on feeling superior to the rest of the world.

This faith in exceptionalism is the true Western religion, much more than even Christianity, which for decades has not really played any important role there. Exceptionalism is fanatical, it is fundamentalist and unquestionable.

It also insists that its narrative is the only one available anywhere in the World. That the West is seen as a moral leader, as a beacon of progress, as the only competent judge and guru.

Lies are piling on top of lies. As in all religions, the more absurd the pseudo-reality is, the more brutal and extreme are the methods used to uphold it. The more laughable the fabrications are, the more powerful the techniques used to suppress the truth are.

Today, hundreds of thousands of ‘academics’, teachers, journalists, artists, psychologists and other highly paid professionals, in all parts of the world, are employed by the Empire, for two goals only – to glorify the Western narrative and to discredit all that is standing in its way; daring to challenge it.

Russia is the most hated adversary of the West, with China, Russia’s close ally being near second.

The propaganda war unleashed by the West is so insane, so intense, that even some of the European and North American citizens are beginning to question tales coming from Washington, London and elsewhere.

Wherever one turns, there is a tremendous medley of lies, of semi-lies, half-truths; a complex and unnavigable swamp of conspiracy theories. Russia is being attacked for interfering in U.S. domestic affairs, for defending Syria, for standing by defenseless and intimidated nations, for having its own powerful media, for doping its athletes, for still being Communist, for not being socialist anymore; in brief: for everything imaginable and unimaginable.

Criticism of the country is so thorough and ludicrous, that one begins to ask very legitimate questions: “what about the past? What about the Western narrative regarding the Soviet past, particularly the post-Revolutionary period, and the period between two world wars?”

The more I analyze this present-day Western anti-Russian and anti-Chinese propaganda, the more determined I am to study and write about the Western narrative regarding Soviet history. I’m definitely planning to investigate these matters in the future, together with my friends – Russian and Ukrainian historians.

… when only Victory could save the world, Russian fists are hard, and the same is true about Russian armor.

In the eyes of the West, Russians are ‘traitors’.

Instead of joining the looters, they have been standing by the ‘wretched of the world’, in the past, as well as now. They refused to sell their Motherland, and to enslave their own people. Their government is doing all it can to make Russia self-sufficient, fully independent, prosperous, proud and free.

Remember that ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and many other terms, mean totally different things in distinctive parts of the world. What is happening in the West could never be described as ‘freedom’ in Russia or in China, and vice versa.

Frustrated, collapsing, atomized and egotistic societies of Europe and North America do not inspire even their own people, anymore. They are escaping by millions annually, to Asia, Latin America, and even to Africa. Escaping from emptiness, meaninglessness and emotional cold. But it is not Russia’s or China’s business to tell them how to live or not to live!

In the meantime, great cultures like Russia and China do not need, and do not want to be told by the Westerners, what freedom is, and what democracy is.

They do not attack the West, and expect the same in return.

It is truly embarrassing that the countries responsible for hundreds of genocides, for hundreds of millions of murdered people on all continents, still dare to lecture others.

Many victims are too scared to speak.

Russia is not.

It is composed, gracious, but fully determined to defend itself if necessary; itself as well as many other human beings living on this beautiful but deeply scarred Planet.

Russian culture is enormous: from poetry and literature, to music, ballet, philosophy… Russian hearts are soft, they easily melt when approached with love and kindness. But when millions of lives of innocent people are threatened, both the hearts and muscles of Russians quickly turn to stone and steel. During such moments, when only victory could save the world, Russian fists are hard, and the same is true about Russian armor.

There is no match to Russian courage in the sadistic but cowardly West.

Irreversibly, both hope and future are moving towards the east.

And that is why Russia is desperately hated by the West.

Back in the EU, site of the 21st century’s biggest political disaster

Par : AHH

Why is the biggest political story of our era so underreported?

with thanks to Ramin Mazaheri via Ramin’s Substack.

I have returned to Paris and can report that things are as politically bleak as ever, continuing a trend which began with the rubber bullet-smashing of the Yellow Vest movement in 2019. The European Union has become truly American (which was often alleged to be the ultimate goal): it’s politically apathetic.

There are no domestic political movements to report on – the French MSM just reports on Ukraine, Israel and (as usual) ecology.

This is not as it used to be.

Prior to the six months of bloody Saturdays over 2018-19 France had seen a full decade of incredible political activism. Leftist planning agendas were full of protests, gatherings and strikes concerning: Sarkozy’s bailouts in late 2008, Hollande’s hopeful Socialist Party election, his subsequent U-turn on austerity, the forceful imposition of austerity by Brussels, the fabrication of Macron, his immediate detestation, the spectacularly unprecedented support for – and then the spectacularly unprecedented repression of – les gilets jaunes – this was a 10-year period of intense, intense activism.

Were it not for Israel’s latest and most brutal invasion of Gaza, and combined with Macron’s incredible 7-years-running refusal to interact with the press (the exact opposite of Sarkozy), I’m not sure I’d have much work to do here?

There is a story to cover, and it’s the most important one, but it’s almost impossible to cover via PressTV news reports: the obvious failure of the pan-European project.

This is the biggest political story of the 21st century, and yet it’s going undiscussed year after year. Brexit put it on the front pages, and then so did the Yellow Vests, but Euroscepticism has been suppressed for four years now.

But what’s a bigger story in the 21st century than the economic, political and confidence collapse of the biggest economic bloc in the world?

The war on the Muslim world since 9/11? That’s something, indeed, but this is the re-sundering of a region which was already suppressed by two centuries of colonialism and then neo-colonialism.

The rise of China? That was something inevitable and unstoppable, due to the superior planning and cohesion of socialist-inspired governments. Of course, China’s sudden rise was aided by the Great Financial Crisis which devastated the West, who then exacerbated it with their predictably awful, inequality-generating policies of bailouts, austerity, QE and ZIRP.

Fifteen years ago who did not expect that a united Europe, and one working in what is now clearly lockstep with the United States, would become an unstoppable project?

That’s the big story: that Europe has not just stopped in its tracks but stagnated, regressed, devolved, disappointed, etc. and etc.

It’s truly historical. What the demise of the pan-European project means is the end of the “social democratic” model: if any region had implemented a “third way” between liberalism and socialism it was Europe. The alleged solution of “social democracy” goes way back to the 1890s – what we have witnessed hasn’t been the “death of communism” but the “death of social democracy” instead.

What a story, no? It was as the proponents of socialist democracy always predicted: social democracy inevitably reverts back to mere liberal democracy. It’s truly historical.

Back in the US someone recently asked me why I kept referring to the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, saying it was old history, and it made me pause. They never talk about it in the US anymore, that’s true. However, as soon as I returned to France I was confronted with multiple references to it in journalism and art. But they only get the dates right – roughly.

Yes, Europe took a more far-right economic approach (austerity) than the US (Europe had more social democracy to roll back, of course), but the problem is not the 2007-8 Great Financial Crisis nor austerity – the problem is the pan-European project itself, and this is precisely what is suppressed.

It is easy to suppress, or just be confused, because the timelines are so similar: the pan-European project didn’t truly begin until the undemocratic passage of the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, which was forced through thanks to the chaos surrounding the Great Financial Crisis and subsequent European Debt Crisis (starting 2009).

Why has nobody kept referring to the Lisbon Treaty of 2009? I am definitely one of the very few journalists who do. Now that the UK is out the Anglophone world doesn’t care, I suppose.

The 15-year summation of the pan-European can only be judged to be atrocious, but who is talking about these things: the decrease in economic power; the sustained collapse in the euro’s value; the constant, continent-wide protests against the decisions of Brussels; the decrease in democratic credibility; the increase in militaristic domestic repression; the decrease in social economic protections for the average person; the rise of neo-fascist parties – what on earth does this reporter who has covered the EU since birth have to do get some real talk about United Europe anymore?

The Fall of Phaeton, 1605, Peter Paul Rubens

Ukraine will make or break the pan-European project

The European Union succeeds at nothing and nor do they stand for anything, so they’re desperate for any rallying cry for “Europe!”, and they’ve found one in Ukraine.

Of course, Europe has already failed Ukraine: their weaponry is being defeated, their production capabilities aren’t up to the job, everybody knows they’re just setting Ukraine up for the same debt traps they laid for country like Greece, and they have failed (purposely) to find a diplomatic solution. Their only success is in their spectacularly prejudiced prioritising of Ukrainian refugees: this was, of course, to keep flooding the labor market with desperate, low-wage accepting workers amid record-high inflation – anything to keep wage demands down.

The reality is that Ukraine is going to either be the EU’s final undoing, or it will somehow lead to the “more Europe” that is the only way this misguided economic-but-not-political federalist project could ever possibly succeed.

Europe’s leaders know Ukraine is their best – given the far-right victories looming in European Parliament elections this spring – chances, which are diminishing, to rally Europe behind the pan-European project and away from Euroscepticism.

Remember that in two years Macron has gone from “we must not embarrass Russia” to calling other European countries “cowardly” for not buying Ukraine even more weapons, and even threatening to land NATO troops. Why the huge shift?

Of course war is good for business – France has soared to become the #2 arms merchant in the world. But in a bloc which has a pre-Covid history which no one in the 1% wants anyone to remember, it’s only via war with Russia that European public opinion could possibly be united in favor of “Europe!”.

European imperialists have run out of racism and now can only rely on nationalist prejudice – this is what the EU has revealed itself to be. Furthermore, during the 2010s we were constantly told in France that the pan-European project was the only reason war didn’t break out in Europe – recall how the EU won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012, amid mass anti-austerity repression? This is justification is now out the window.

No peace, no public opinion in public policy, no prosperity – no success for the EU, and when will success ever arrive?

Now isn’t the time, Europeans are being told, to argue about the lack of results in the pan-European project – Putin is at the doorstep. Marine Le Pen fairly accused Macron of creating a situation – surrounding this week’s French Parliamentary approval of a 10-year military pact with Ukraine – where, “You’re either with Macron or you’re with Putin”. That’s not just Russophobia or scapegoating – that is the summation of Macron’s whole political policy now.

Nobody – no popular democratic majority – has ever been or will ever be with Macron, but the fabrication of false unity is what Ukraine is being manipulated for here in Europe.

But it’s going to be even bigger than that in the coming months and maybe even years, namely: “Either you’re with the pan-European project or you’re with Putin”.

After all, how else can support for the pan-European project possibly be created in 2024? They cannot stand on their results, and they cannot stand on hopes that the project will suddenly become workable, profitable, democratic, morally responsible, inspire confidence, etc.

The failure of Europe – that’s the biggest story of the 21st century.

<—>

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His latest book is France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values. He is also the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese. Any reposting or republication of any of these articles is approved and appreciated. He tweets at @RaminMazaheri2 and writes at substack.com/@raminmazaheri

The UN System in the Dock

Par : AHH

How much longer will the world’s people allow the zionists and their imperialist backers to carry out their horrific crimes with impunity?

Lalkar writers at The Communists.

UN system in the dock: international law or rules-based order?

Two days after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in favour of South Africa’s prima facia case of genocide against it, Israel, and its primary sponsor the United States, along with the usual cohort of vassal states including Britain, all withdrew funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Unrwa), which provides food and aid to Gaza.

The very same people being deprived of food, water, medical supplies and all other life-supporting mechanisms whilst being bombed into oblivion by Israel using US and British weapons, have had what meagre support they had withdrawn.

Whilst the withdrawal of Unrwa funding could be considered a war crime in itself, the action is in flagrant defiance of the ICJ’s ruling, which found the charges of genocide brought by South Africa to be plausible.

The ICJ ordered Israel to abide by six provisional measures to prevent genocide and alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe, one of which was for Israel to secure immediate and effective steps to provide humanitarian assistance and essential services in Gaza. The defunding of Unrwa by the imperialists was a retaliatory message to the ICJ that, by deciding that Israel was non-compliant with the present orders thus warranting further orders, Israel will not recognise the ICJ’s authority.

Israel feels free to ignore ICJ ruling

What does this say about the authority and influence of the highest international court in our world? What does it say about Israel’s acknowledgement of the court’s legitimacy when, following its ruling, the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu responds by declaring: “Israel’s commitment to international law is unwavering. Equally unwavering is our sacred commitment to defend our country.”

Mr Netanyahu went on to assert that South Africa’s allegation that Israel was committing genocide was “not only false, it’s outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it”.

Well, decent people the world over have made it clear what they think, and they reject Israel and the reject the western support of the zionists’ ongoing genocidal campaign. Whilst many may have no historical knowledge of the region and no understanding of the geopolitical implications or of US imperialist ambitions, they do know the difference between right and wrong.

They know genocide when they see it on their social media feeds, despite western media’s intense campaign of lying propaganda and protestations to the contrary.

Narratives unravelling fast

What we are witnessing is the rapid unravelling of two carefully constructed narratives that have run in parallel since 1945. One is the right of Israel to exist on any basis, and the other is the pretence that we are all governed according to some democratic principles enshrined in international law.

Since 1945, international law has been centred on the United Nations and its charter. One hundred and ninety-three countries have acceded to the UN charter as member states, declaring their wish to be part of the community of nations.

As part of the deal, they are obliged to follow the fundamental principles and provisions that extend from that charter, including its highest court, the ICJ.

Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjöld once stated that the goal of the UN was not to “take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”. But neither the UN’s courts nor its plethora of resolutions have done much for humanity in Palestine!

Israel and its sponsors, the USA and Britain, flagrantly disregard international law and the demands of millions of pro-Palestinian demonstrators worldwide, and they must be brought to account. It is time to delineate the words and actions of our leaders and to make them accountable for what they do.

Words matter. Words are how we communicate, interpret and understand one another and our world. They are also how we are manipulated into accepting wars and injustices that, if clearly articulated, we would fervently fight.Remember ‘weapons of mass destruction’? Our leaders and mass media constantly play with words to mould our thinking. Have you noticed how Israelis are ‘killed’ but Palestinians ‘die’?

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees (Unrwa) was established in 1949. Since 1950 it has been providing nutritional, health and educational services to the 750,000 Palestinians displaced as a result of ethnic cleansing by the zionist colonisers, those displaced in later waves of war and occupation, and their descendants. Today, owing to a lack of international support, the agency struggles to provide services to over five million Palestinian refugees. Since the Palestinian refugees’ plight is officially recognised as ’temporary’, Unrwa is also supposed to be a temporary organisation, with its mandate reviewed and renewed every three years by the general assembly.

No limits to US-granted immunity for Israel

A change in phraseology coming out of the USA in recent years quietly replaced ‘international law’ with ‘the rules-based order’. Over time, the ‘rules-based order’ became the dominant phraseology in western media and political discourse, despite not having anything like the same meaning.

The ‘rules-based order’ flaunted by American and British politicians is less about international law and more about international law as interpreted by the United States. It allows the USA to flout the rules that govern other nations, and in particular to justify its exceptionalist approach toward Israel. This was clearly articulated in the joint declaration made during President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel in July 2022.

The statement reaffirmed “the unbreakable bonds between our two countries and the enduring commitment of the United States to Israel’s security”, along with the determination of the two states “to combat all efforts to boycott or delegitimise Israel, to deny its right to self-defence, or to single it out in any forum, including at the United Nations or the International Criminal Court”.

This commitment underpins the consistent refusal of the United States to hold Israel to account for its repeated violations of humanitarian law or to condemn its policy of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The USA and its allies have always been partial in their application of the moral imperative, particularly when applied to international law. Israel remains the most immune and, regardless of sin, its brutal ethnic cleansing continues to have the full financial and military support of the USA and Britain.

Israel is America’s military base in the middle east. It has ensured US domination of the region and its oil since WW2, and that is why Israel is supported by the USA regardless of its actions or world opinion.

Imperialism v humanity: the struggle of our times

Whilst from the perspective of the western imperialists, such actions are presented as being consistent with their ‘rules-based order’, for the rest of the world they clearly violate the most basic rules of international law – and of humanity itself.

The ICJ ruling in support of South Africa’s submission that Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinian people is a positive step, but if the court has no teeth, and if the genocide continues, what is the point of the court? What, in fact, is the point of the United Nations itself?

And if there is no legal mechanism for stopping what we all see and know is a genocide, and our own governments are complicit, who is going to see that justice is done?

Israel and the UN system are both in the dock. If nothing is done to hold Israel accountable, it will be because the USA has a veto over the only body with any executive power – the UN security council.

The USA has used that position to protect Israel and green light its genocidal and apartheid activities with impunity for 75 years, despite international outrage.

The question is: how much longer will the world’s people allow that situation to continue?

Karl’s Twist of the Fabric

Par : AHH

Dr. Karl extends the thoughts of Crooke and Todd using American history. Well done. The rejection of the Global Majority of the West’s post-Christian ideas is manifest. There will be a change of elites.

with thanks to Karl at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium.

Growing out of Alastair Crooke’s talk at the Night Falls Conference: Night Falls in the Evening Lands: The Assange Epic on 9 March, is this essay posted to Al-Mayadeen on the 12th. Currently, there’s no video available of Crooke’s talk given via video at the conference, although one hopes it will be produced soon so we can learn more about Alastair’s thoughts on the matter than what’s revealed in his essay. For those who have yet to read the Emmanual Todd interview with Le Figaro on 12 January 2024, it’s a key component to Crooke’s essay and is linked from there and here too to its translation. Other blogs have run articles based on the interview and Todd’s controversial book and perhaps that should be done here. For me, the interview and translated excerpts I’ve read have me hooked on buying it once it gets translated as there’s not enough context in the excerpts to properly assess its merit, which IMO for this work is very important. It will also help if the reader’s familiar with Jungian philosophy and his thesis of the collective unconscious. Readers will note that Todd relies on the evolution of political-economy for his work as does Crooke, and those familiar with Hudson’s work will have a better understanding of both. This is more than enough of a preamble for this important essay:

The celebrated French philosopher, Henri Corbin, who taught at Tehran University, once drew the attention of a Western friend to an ancient cupboard in a Tehran café, in which they were sitting. The old piece had several shelves — each enclosed by thin panelling — cut around the outline of different vases and urns, into which they would be slotted on the shelves.

Only, as Corbin noted, the vases and urns were absent: they had long since vanished; broken or lost.

The point Corbin was making was that nonetheless the space which once they physically occupied still persisted in clear outline. And so it is with ideas, with things said or written. They are not entirely gone. The space persists and somehow relentlessly reminds us of them.

Corbin here was pointing at something important about Shi’a understanding of time and memory. He was hinting that memory resides not just in ourselves, but beyond the confine of individual brains; and that memories can and do surge up into consciousness, triggering a recall of something past.

Corbin was a close friend of Carl Jung (they together attended the annual Eranos conferences), and Corbin’s insights drawn from long study of Shi’a philosophy were, as Jung acknowledged, to influence his own work on the collective (transpersonal) unconsciousness.

It is a significant point: Ideas, conceptualisations and history may be shut down and cancelled by the command of the ‘masters of dogma’, but the space these intellectual vessels once occupied is still ethereally there — to rise again in challenge to dogma.

The massive polarization occurring today in the world is not simply geopolitical. It is not simply a competition over resources, or even simply a rivalry based on trade relationships. The conflict between Western élites and the rest of humanity, as Emmanuel Todd has suggested in La Défaite, is the result of the West “falling into nihilism and the deification of nothing”. Todd defined this nihilism as “the desire for destruction, but also of the negation of reality. There are no longer any traces of religion, but the human being is still there.”

We are in for an extended period of revolution and of civil war. Ukraine and Gaza already have brought about the West’s ideological self-isolation in the world. The world is not in the least invested in the notion that Ukraine and Washington somehow represent ‘freedom and progress’, and Moscow ‘stands for tyranny’.

The Washington-led West simply has no clue as to how much of the world rejects the value system of contemporary globalist neo-liberalism.

The Ruling Strata, however, views giving up power as the height of irresponsibility. As betrayal, even! A mindset reflecting a breath-taking dogmatism; a kind of ideological solipsism, preventing these technocratic élites from seeing the world as it actually is.

Holding onto power trumps upholding the old Order that brought them to power (or maintaining a Constitution, or respecting the Law).

The masses — absent essential élite guidance — our rulers believe, risk being captured by the dark forces of ‘Populism’ and authoritarianism.

The disorder of their [the masses] slide towards ‘otherness’ threatens to disorder the new world of values – and makes them enemy to the new diversity of identity, now sacralised to the point of being non-negotiable.

Diversity paradoxically inverts not at all to legitimize wider horizons, but rather, towards a new dogmatism: Rival minorities are ‘gated’ behind an array of dogma and impervious to rational discussion. 

The physical segregation of the population to self-enclosed, heterogenous identity enclaves has its counterpart in the balkanization of opinion. Each compartment is barricaded behind its own dogmas, emoting and shouting at each other; yet unable to settle any dispute.

Therefore, all tools — Money, Institutions and Media — must be put to the enforcement of the New Order.

The Ancient understanding of society and history — of the world — was that of an integrated totality. It offered a more holistic perspective — one which can account for, rather than annul or strike out, the contradictions within the fabric of reality.

Contradictions and oppositions within history and understanding today are regarded as dangerous and signs of a threat to democratic order. [The order of course being fascist, not democratic.]

The underlying reality, however, is that individual life stories of members of a community become enmeshed and intertwined. And the entanglement of our stories surges out to form the everyday weft and weave of communal life.

The latter can and should never become funneled into a single ‘way of thinking’ — generated abstractly and imposed by Central Command.

Defending historical holism, however, implies ultimately, the defence of unique existence, in spite of any superficial contradictions within.

To defend the existence of your people, their unique culture and way of life as an organic, integral, and holistic culmination of the people’s historical existence, in itself is History viewed as a living organic thing.

The tool of ‘free money’ facilitated enforcement of many things, but particularly has achieved a hold over the media.

The rush ‘free money’ at zero interest, called Quantitative Monetary Easing or QE  – was launched in Japan in 2001. The total credit created by central banks through quantitative easing, or QE, is now more than $30 trillion.

QE quietly became the defining idea of our time. And as QE drove inequality, it polarised politics.

For the past 15 years, every major development in the Western economy and the cultural superstructure has rested upon it: the explosive growth of social media and Big Tech, the property boom, the gig economy, Elon Musk, cryptocurrencies, fake news and woke capitalism.

Trillions flooded into the financial system.  It was magic to the financialised world, but it had another effect too —

The rush of ‘free money’ gave Big Tech the power to buy up platforms that previously had relied on selling the news. They were replaced by entities beholden to advertisers that only cared about grabbing people’s attention and selling it to the highest bidder.

A new economy of attention arose — a machine for turning distraction and polarisation into investor returns.

The Power Structures ‘got it’: Words no longer need to have objective meanings in this market. Everything is about ‘attention’, however achieved. True or false. That’s what the advertisers wanted. Words could mean what those in power say they mean. The ‘truth’ behind the narrative became irrelevant. 

What mattered was the force of a narrative, now divorced from meaning, to compel a singularity of messaging, and to demand that belief in the new order be reflected, not just in compliance, but in assimilation of the messaging into personal conduct in life. Critical thinking was disallowed as denoting an enemy; a threat to be crushed.

This revolution and civil war are likely to be extended over time. Enforcement will predominate initially, but ultimately the Ruling Strata will overreach itself. Emmanuel Todd has defined the West as a “post-imperial” entity; just a shell of military machinery deprived of an intelligence-driven culture, leading to “accentuated military expansion in a phase of massive contraction of its industrial base”.  As Todd stresses, “modern war without industry is an oxymoron”.

Each time that society just says ‘No’, enforcement by the Ruling Strata will become more problematic, more stupidly heavy-handed. And the Élites will duly undercut themselves.

Julian Assange is a soldier seized by enemy forces — an undeserving victim in this ‘war’. I mourn also Daryia Dugina who was burnt to death in a fireball, as her father watched on, helplessly — another battlefront to this war. I salute them both. Let us continue saying, ‘No’; ‘Just go’.

This article is based on a talk given by Alastair Crooke on 9 March 2024 as part of the conference Night Falls in the Evening Lands: The Assange Epic, organised by the Julian Assange Campaign. [My Emphasis is bolded italics. All other emphasis is original.]

Crooke tells us which side of our Civilization War he’s on for those who didn’t know by now. That Assange is a casualty is clear as he tried to—and did—inject reality into the discourse. And perhaps that’s how the new political divisions ought to be determined: Pro-Reality and Pro-Human versus Pro-False Narrative and Anti-Human—essentially free-thinkers versus dogmatists and those the latter’s captured. This short sentence speaks volumes:

Holding onto power trumps upholding the old Order that brought them to power.

It indicates that elites can no longer be considered conservatives of any sort, neo or otherwise and as George HW Bush declared the job was now to destroy the past and create a New World Order, an Authoritarian Order he clearly omitted since the US Constitution and the UN Charter had suffered continual subversion since the latter’s inception in 1945. The New Unipolar World Order would build on its Fascist roots that were planted in the 1880s in the Elites’s counter-revolution against Progressive-Classical Political-Economy that had come very close to eradicating the vestiges of Feudalism and its Authoritarianism. In the USA, there was a similar movement against what was deemed the Money Power by the self-described Populist Party that also came very close to gaining control but was co-opted by the Protestant Racism Todd describes—and that Racism provided the basis for American style Fascism.

So, when we use the powers of Holistic History, we can see the past trail that’s led us to this point provided we have the courage and strength to look. Such context is critical to the generation of the types of thinking that can overturn the Elite Narrative and replace it with reality and the fact that we can refuse to comply. Russia and China lead a Global Majority that are refusing to comply. There’s a mistake Todd makes that’s unveiled in the interview that many of the Majority now see and that’s the falsity of what Obama’s selection was touted as, which Todd attributes to the disappearance of Protestant Racism—Obama was and remains a creation of the Elite and a Class Tool to continue their rule—essentially GHW Bush with black skin.

IMO, the Global Elites know their hold on power is tenuous and weakening, meaning their penchant to do something radical to reinstall their power is growing. But here reality suddenly stares them in the face and they realize they have few tools to work with, and their ability to command is at an ebb. Everyday, more people for a spat of reasons within the Outlaw US Empire’s Neoliberal Colonies join the Resistance of the Global Majority, although initially they may think themselves to be alone—they have their Winston Smith moment and wonder why their friends and family can’t see what they can—they remain transfixed by the fabric weavers whose mask blinds them. Plato’s Cave indeed, which tells us this really isn’t new, and that fact can become an excellent ally.

The Perfect Tripwire for War Against China

Par : AHH

US Troops as close as 2.5 miles from China Mainland and key city Xiamen.

By Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com

Taiwan Confirms Presence Of US Green Berets On Islands Very Close To China’s Coast

Taiwanese Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng confirmed on Thursday the presence of US Army Special Forces soldiers in Kinmen, a group of islands that are controlled by Taiwan but located just off the coast of mainland China.

Some parts of the Kinmen islands are just 2.5 miles away from the mainland Chinese city of Xiamen. The presence of US troops on the islands was first reported by Taiwanese media last month.

Chiu confirmed the highly provocative deployment when asked about a new report from the US outlet SOFREP that said US Green Berets have taken up “permanent positions” as military advisors in Kinmen. The US soldiers are also deployed in Penghu, a Taiwanese-controlled archipelago about 30 miles west of the main island of Taiwan and 70 miles east of mainland China.

The SOFREP report said the US Green Berets were stationed at the Taiwanese Army’s amphibious command centers. The deployment was carried out under provisions in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, which called for the US to create a comprehensive training program for the Taiwanese military.

The new collaboration includes the US troops training Taiwanese forces on the Black Hornet Nano, a compact military drone. Chiu said the presence of the US Green Berets was a “learning opportunity” for Taiwan’s military.

The US has significantly increased its military and diplomatic support for Taiwan in recent years, ratcheting up tensions with China. Last year, the US deployed around 200 troops to Taiwan, marking the largest known US military presence on the island since the US pulled its troops out after Washington severed diplomatic relations with Taipei in 1979.

The US also recently began providing Taiwan with unprecedented military aid. Since 1979, the US has always sold weapons to Taiwan but never financed the purchases or provided arms free of charge until last year.

The German-American Strategic Stooges Clown Show

Par : AHH

The saga of Bundeswehr officers plotting to blow up the Kerch bridge with Taurus missiles and getting away with it is a gift that keeps on giving.

By Pepe Escobar at Strategic Culture.

The Four Stooges saga of Bundeswehr officers plotting to blow up the Kerch bridge in Crimea with Taurus missiles and getting away with it is a gift that keeps on giving.

President Putin, in his comprehensive interview to Dmitry Kiselev for Russia 1/RIA Novosti, did not fail to address it:

“They are fantasizing, encouraging themselves, first of all. Secondly, they are trying to intimidate us. As for the Federal Republic of Germany, there are constitutional problems there. They correctly say: if these Taurus hit that part of the Crimean Bridge, which, of course, even according to their concepts, is Russian territory, this is a violation of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.”

Yet it gets curioser and curioser.

When the transcript of the Taurus leak  was published by RT, everyone was able to hear Brigadier General Frank Gräfe – head of operations of the German Air Force – speaking with Lieutenant Colonel Fenske from the German Space Command Air Operations on the plan to deploy Taurus systems in Ukraine.

A key point is that during the plotting, these two mention that plans were already discussed “four months ago” with “Schneider”, the successor of “Wilsbach”.

Well, these are German names, of course. Thus it did not dawn on anyone that (Kevin) Schneider and (Kenneth) Wilsbach could instead be… Americans.

Yet that did raise the eyebrows of German investigative journalist Dirk Pohlmann – who I had the pleasure to meet in Berlin years ago – and his fellow researcher Tobias Augenbraun.

They found out that the German-sounding names did identify Americans. Not only that: none less than the former and the current Commanders of the U.S. Pacific Air Forces.

The Four (actually Six) Stooges element gets an extra boost when it is established that Liver Sausage Chancellor Scholz and his Totalenkrieg Minister Pistorius learned about the Taurus plan no less than four months later.

So here apparently we have a clear cut case of top German military officers taking direct orders regarding an attack on Crimea – part of the Russian Federation – directly from American officers in the Pacific Air Forces.

That in itself opens the dossier to a large spectrum ranging from national treason (against Germany) to casus belli (from the point of view of Russia).

Of course none of that is being discussed on German mainstream media.

After all, the only thing that seems to disturb Brigadier General Gräfe is that German media may start seriously prying on the Bundeswehr’s Multiple Stooges methods.

The only ones who actually did proper investigation were Pohlmann and Augenbaun.

It would be too much to expect from German media of the “Bild” type to analyze what would be the Russian response to the Multiple Stooge shenanigans against Crimea: a devastating retaliation against Berlin assets.


It’s so cold in Alaska

During the jolly Bundeswehr conversation yet another “plan” is mentioned:

“Nee, nee. Ich mein wegen der anderen Sache.” (“No, no. I mean the other matter.”) Then: “Ähm … meinst du Alaska jetzt?” (“Ahm, you mean Alaska now?”)

It all gets juicier when it is known that German Space Command Air Operations Centre officer Florstedt will meet none other than Schneider next Tuesday, March 19, in Alaska.

And Gräfe will also “have to go back to Alaska” to explain everything all over again to Schneider as he is “new” in the post.

So the question is: Why Alaska?

Enter American shadowplay on a lot of “activities” in Alaska – which happen to concern none other than China.

And there’s more: during the conversation still another “plan” (“Auftrag”, meaning “mission”) also surfaces, bearing a not clearly understandable code name sounding like “Kumalatra”.

What all of that tells us is that the Crash Test Dummy administration in the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon seem to betting, in desperation, on Total War in the black soil of Novorossiya.

And now they are sayin’ it out loud, with no shadow play, and coming directly from the head of the CIA, William Burns, who obviously sucks at secrecy.

This is what Burns told the members of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this week:

“I think without supplemental assistance in 2024, you’re going to see more Avdeevkas, and that – it seems to me – would be a massive and historic mistake for the United States.”

That spells out how much the Avdeevka trauma is impressed on the psyche of the U.S. intel apparatus.

Yet there’s more: “With supplemental assistance, Ukraine can hold its own on the front lines through 2024 and into early 2025. Ukraine can continue to exact costs against Russia, not only with deep penetration strikes in Crimea, but also against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.”

Here we go: Crimea all over again.

Burns actually believes that the humongous $60 billion new “aid” package which must be approved by the U.S. Congress will enable Kiev to launch an “offensive” by the end of 2024.

The only thing he gets right is that if there’s no new package, there will be “significant territorial losses for Ukraine this year.”

Burns may not be the brightest bulb in the – intel – room. A long time ago he was a diplomat/CIA asset in Moscow, and seems to have learned nothing.

Apart from letting cats and kitties galore out of the bag. It’s not only about attacking Crimea. This one is being read with surpreme delight in Beijing:

“The U.S. is providing assistance to Ukraine in part because such activities help curb China.”

Burns nailed his Cat Out of the Bag Oscar win when he said “if we’re seen to be walking away from support for Ukraine, not only is that going to feed doubts amongst our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific; it’s going to stoke the ambitions of the Chinese leadership in contingencies ranging from Taiwan to the South China Sea”.

The inestimable Andrei Martyanov perfectly summed up the astonishing incompetence, peppered with tawdry exceptionalism, that permeates this performance by Burns.

There are things “they cannot grasp due to low level of education and culture. This is a new paradigm for them – all of them are ‘graduates’ of the school of ‘beating the crap from defenseless nations’ strategic ‘studies’, and with the level of economic ‘science’ in the West they cannot grasp how this all unfolds.”

So what is left is panic, as expressed by Burns in the Senate, mixed with the impotence in understanding a “different warrior culture” such as Russia’s: “They simply have no reference points.”

And still they choose war, as masterfully analyzed by Rostislav Ishchenko.

Even as the acronym fest of the CIA and 17 other U.S. intel agencies have concluded, in a report shown to Congress earlier this week, that Russia is “almost certainly” seeking to avoid a direct military conflict with NATO and will calibrate its policies to steer clear of a global war.

After all the Empire of Chaos is all about Forever Wars. And we are all in the middle of a do or die affair. The Empire simply cannot afford the cosmic humiliation of NATO in Novorossiya.

Still every “plan” – Taurus on Crimea-style – is a bluff. Russia is aware of bluff after bluff. The Western cards are now all on the table. The only question is when, and how fast will Russia call the bluff.

The Angst in the French Mind

Par : AHH

The endless ennui and envy of those incapable of abandoning phantom pains. Most useful putty in the hands of Empire

By Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar at the Indian Punchline.

Ever since its ignominious defeat in the Napoleonic wars, France is entrapped in the predicament of countries that get sandwiched between great powers. Following World War II, France addressed this predicament by forging an axis with Germany in Europe.

Caught up in a similar predicament, Britain adapted itself to a subaltern role tapping into the American power globally but France never gave up its quest to regain glory as a global power. And it continues to be a work in progress.

The angst in the French mind is understandable as the five centuries of western dominance of the world order is drawing to a close. This predicament condemns France to a diplomacy that is constantly in a state of suspended animation interspersed with sudden bouts of activism.

But, for activism to be result-oriented, there are prerequisites needed such as the profiling of like-minded activist groups, leadership and associates and supporters and sympathisers — and, most important, sustainment and logistics. Or else, activism comes to resemble epileptic fits, an incurable affliction of the nervous system.

The French President Emmanuel Macron’s halcyon days in international diplomacy ended with the recent  dissolution of the Franco-German axis in Europe, which dated back to the Treaties of Rome in 1957. As Berlin sharply swerved to trans-atlanticism as its foreign-policy dogma, France’s clout diminished in European affairs. 

The stakes are high in the reconciliation meeting on Friday as Macron travels to Berlin to meet Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who not only snubbed him by ruling out the use of ground troops from European countries in the Ukraine war, but also digging in on Taurus missile issue arguing that it would entail assigning German staff in support to Ukraine, which, he announced on Wednesday in the Bundestag, is simply “out of the question” while he remained the chancellor. 

Of course, this is not to decry Macron’s formidable intellect — such as when he declared in a blunt interview in late 2019 with the Economist magazine that Europe stood on “the edge of a precipice” and needed to start thinking of itself strategically as a geopolitical power lest it will “no longer be in control of our destiny.” Macron’s prescient remark preceded the war in Ukraine by 3 years.

According to the newspaper Marianne, which interviewed several French soldiers, the military reportedly estimates that the Ukraine war is irretrievably lost already. Marianne quoted a senior French officer saying derisively, “We must make no mistake facing the Russians; we are an army of cheerleaders” and sending French troops to the Ukrainian front would simply be “not reasonable” . At the Élysée, an unnamed advisor argued that Macron “wanted to send a strong signal… (in) milli-metered and calibrated words”.

Marianne’s editor Natacha Polony wrote: “It is no longer about Emmanuel Macron or his postures as a virile little leader. It is no longer even about France or its weakening by blind and irresponsible elites. It is a question of whether we will collectively agree to sleepwalk into war. A war that no one can claim will be controlled or contained. It’s a question of whether we agree to send our children to die because the United States insisted on setting up bases on Russia’s borders.”

The big question is why Macron is doing this nonetheless — going to the extent of cobbling together a ‘coalition of the willing’ in Europe. A range of explanations is possible starting with Macron posturing and trying to earn political points at minimal cost, motivated by personal ambitions and intra-European friction with Berlin.

But then, until fairly recently, Macron was a supporter of dialogue with Moscow. The perception in most European capitals, including Moscow, is that Macron is making an attempt to bring the Ukrainian crisis to a new level by announcing western combat deployment against Russia  publicly as an obvious political manipulation.

The geopolitical salience is that Macron who once not too long ago called for dialogue with Moscow and offered his mediation in it, who made the famous declaration of a “Greater Europe” in 2019 and maintained contacts with Russian President Vladimir Putin thereof; who as of February last year, while speaking about Russia’s “certain defeat” in Ukraine, called for avoiding Moscow’s “humiliation”; who repeatedly underscored his commitment to the matrix of diplomacy attributed to Charles de Gaulle, which assigned France the role of a “bridge between East and West” — has now swung to the other extreme of harsh Euro-Atlantic rhetoric.

This appalling inconsistency can only be seen as stemming out of the unfavourable development of events in the scenario of the Ukrainian crisis with the prospect of a Russian defeat in the war no longer in the cards even remotely and replaced by the growing possibility that peace will ultimately be attainable only on Russia’s terms. Put differently, the power dynamic in Europe is shifting dramatically, which, of course, impacts Macron’s own ambitions to “lead Europe.”

Meanwhile, Russian-French relations have also been undergoing a stage of fierce competition and rivalry — even confrontation — in a number of areas. For a start,  French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejournet said in an interview with Le Parisien in January that Russia’s victory in Ukraine would lead to 30% of world wheat exports being controlled by Moscow. For Paris, this is a question of the sustainability of one of the key sectors of French national economy.

French agriculture is marked by its history that had its beginning with the Gaulois in 2000 BC. It needs to be understood that In modern history, French Revolution of 1789, which altered every part of the French social order and led to the abolition of privileges for upper classes, was also an Agricultural Revolution, which allowed a broad land redistribution. Suffice to say, the bond of French people to their agriculture is very strong.

As it is, African states are changing the structure of grain imports due to the technical regulations introduced by the European Union as part of its green agenda and French farmers consequently face rising costs, and over and above that, there is now also the looming loss of regional market share to Russia.

This is on top of the inroads Russia is making in arms exports to the African continent lately. In politico-military terms too, France has lost ground to Russia in the resource-rich Sahel region, its ex-colonies and playpen traditionally. The fact of the matter is that the birds are coming to roost over France’s neo-colonial strategies in Africa, but Paris prefers to put the blame on Russia’s Wagner group which has moved in to fill the security vacuum in Sahel region, as anti-French forces have come to power in several countries at once — Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, CAR.

In the best traditions of geopolitics, France has begun retaliating in regions sensitive to Russian interests — Armenia, Moldova and Ukraine where Russian military presence is in French crosshairs. Unsurprisingly, Ukraine is the most strategic turf where Macron hopes to achieve a bigger French presence.

Through that, Macron hopes to advance his leadership ambitions in Europe as the navigator of the EU’s foreign policy strategy in a wide arc from the African continent across the Mediterranean to Transcaucasia — and potentially all the way to Afghanistan.

All this is unfolding against the historic backdrop of an inevitable US retrenchment in Europe as Indo-Pacific hots up and the simmering rivalry with China becomes an all-consuming passion for Washington. Indeed, alongside, the towering presence of Russia across Europe is beginning to be felt intensely as it surges as the number one military and economic power in the strategic space between Vancouver and Vladivostok.

Today, the paradox is, then Russian president Dmitry Medvedev had proposed way back in 2008 a legally binding pan-European security treaty, which would develop a new security architecture in Europe, involving the reshaping of existing, and creating new institutions and norms regulating security relations in Europe in a wider geopolitical space stretching east “from Vancouver to Vladivostok.” But, alas, the US encouraged the Europeans to see the so-called ‘Medvedev Initiative’ as a trap to enfeeble NATO, the OSCE, the EU and other European bodies,  and reject that wonderful idea which would have anchored the post-cold war era firmly on a binding security architecture.

Nuland’s Policy Has Collapsed

Par : AHH

The Drang continues after Nuland. Biden fully implements ziocon projects. A mere change in tack: “This is not over yet. This debate is not finished…” (9:20)

Nuland’s Policy Has Collapsed as Ukraine Lost it – Netanyahu Will Lose | Chas Freeman

Yemen consolidates around Ansar Allah (Houthis)

Par : AHH

In Yemen, The Squabbling Tribes — ancient vehicle used by Empires to divide and rule  — have been harnessed by Ansar Allah into the unbreakable internal front; the rock upon which shatters the thalassocratic West.

By Saqr Abo Hasan at The Cradle.

In Yemen, tribes hold the keys to power

Yemen’s many tribes are key powerbrokers in the country’s wars and conflicts. Today, it is Ansarallah, and not foreign powers, that has emerged as the predominant force harnessing tribal influence and strategically managing these disparate groups.

Throughout the considerable history of internal conflicts in Yemen, the influential role of tribes has been critical in shaping the outcomes of external wars and internal power struggles.

These ancient tribal structures, deeply embedded in Yemen’s social fabric and military dynamics, have played kingmaker roles in times of conflict – even during periods when the state, with its superior military and security apparatuses, was involved, as seen in the Six Sadaa Wars.

Spanning from 2004 to 2010, those wars pitted government forces against Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement. But each side could only come to the fight with their own set of tribal allies.

Over the years, and especially today, Yemeni tribes in the northern regions – where the Houthi clan is based – have evolved into an “inexhaustible reservoir of fighters,” embodying a formidable force that can be mobilized under the right political and social conditions.

As Yemeni writer Ali Abdullah al-Dhayani points out, these particular Yemeni tribes are “natural warriors, as their men – and even women in some areas – carry weapons as part of daily life.”

The Hashid and Bakil tribes

Two prominent tribal confederations, Hashid (led by the Al-Ahmar family) and Bakil (led by the Abu Lahoum family), stand out as the most potent forces in Yemen’s military, civil, and executive spheres. The Hashid tribe’s clout has helped it secure four seats in the Yemeni House of Representatives for the sons of its late leader, Abdullah al-Ahmar.

Meanwhile, Saba Abu Lahoum, the scion of the Abu Lahoum family, now leads the Bakil tribe, inheriting the mantle from his father, Sinan Abu Lahoum, who passed away in 2021.

For decades, the Al-Ahmar and Abu Lahoum families have vied for the prestigious position of “Sheikh of the Sheikhs of Yemen,” a title that has oscillated between them depending on prevailing political winds.

The loose alliance forged between the Hashid and Bakil encompasses the majority of tribes across northern and eastern Yemen, wielding significant influence. It is worth noting that Ansarallah belongs to the Bakil confederation, while late former president Ali Abdullah Saleh’s Sanhan clan belongs to Hashid.

According to a study by Iraqi researcher Nizar al-Abadi, published on the Al-Mutamar.net website, which is affiliated with the Saleh-affiliated General People’s Congress Party (GPC) in Yemen, “The number of Yemeni tribes is estimated at 200–168 of them are in the north and the rest in the south, with the majority of them living in mountainous areas.”

Tribalism in politics

Successive governments in Yemen have historically sought to exert control over the tribes, employing various strategies to secure their allegiance. One notable example is Saleh’s establishment of the “Tribal Affairs Authority” in the early 1980s, through which monthly salaries and bonuses were distributed to numerous tribal leaders across the country to ensure the alignment of their interests with Saleh’s ruling GPC.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a leader of one of the tribes informs The Cradle that this government approach encouraged materialism and corruption within tribal leadership, effectively buying their loyalty for the Saleh government:

Joining the Tribal Affairs Authority was based on loyalty to the regime. It included hundreds of sheikhs who had no influence, while opponents of the ruling party were punished by being deprived of salaries. Sometimes, marginal figures were pushed to assume the leadership of the tribe.

After Saleh stepped down in early 2012, there were calls to abolish the Tribal Affairs Authority and invest its annual budget of around 13 billion Yemeni riyals into national infrastructure. But the successor government to Mohammed Salem Basindwa decided against this. It resumed Saleh’s tried-and-tested financial approach “to win over the tribal leaders,” according to a tribal source.

During Yemen’s 2011 ‘Arab Spring,’ Saleh established a new entity – the “Yemen Tribal Council” – to contain the growing tribal preference for the opposition, especially after several of these leaders, including Hashid Chief Sadiq al-Ahmar, publicly supported the popular uprising against his government.

According to political activist Shaalan al-Abrat, the tribes’ involvement provided significant momentum to the so-called February 11 revolution in some Yemeni cities, such as Dhamar (100 km south of Sanaa).

In late 2012, the city of Saada in northern Yemen, an Ansarallah stronghold, witnessed the emergence of the “Tribal Popular Cohesion Council,” which included tribal leaders supportive of the resistance movement. The council quickly expanded to include all tribes in and outside areas controlled by the current Ansarallah-led government based in the capital, Sanaa.

As Dr Abdo al-Bahsh, head of the political department at the Yemeni Studies and Research Center, describes the development:

[This council] was imposed by the Yemeni political reality and attempts to subject Yemen to American control … [It] expresses the aspirations of the Yemeni people and their national will, far from sectarian, ethnic, regional, and narrow partisanship.

The council is headed by Dhaif Allah Rassam, a tribal leader from Saada Governorate. It has branches and representatives in all Yemeni governorates currently under Sanaa’s control. Importantly, its influence extends to tribes outside their area of control, such as in the Shabwa, Ma’rib, and Al-Dhalea areas of Yemen.

Bolstering the argument that the tribes play a key role in dispute resolution, the council’s Dhamar branch head, Abbas al-Amdi, says that throughout the years of aggression against Yemen, the council was instrumental in strengthening internal unity, ending tribal revenge wars, and supplying the fighting fronts with tribal fighters.

Ansarallah’s political ascendency

Yemen’s political factions have long leveraged tribal affiliations to enhance popular support. The Saudi-backed Islah Party, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, strategically aligned itself with tribal leaders upon its establishment in 1990, with Abdullah bin Hussein al-Ahmar, chief of the Hashid tribe, assuming its presidency.

The assertion of tribal authority over state influence was exemplified by Hamid al-Ahmar – brother of Hashid’s leader – when asked in an interview on Al-Jazeera whether he was afraid of returning to Sanaa after voicing support for Saleh’s opposition: “Whoever has Sadiq [al-Ahmar] as his chief, and Hashid as his tribe, would not be afraid.”

Tribal influence was strikingly evident during Saleh’s ousting through the 2012 Gulf Initiative, in which a coalition of Yemeni tribal and political factions orchestrated that delicate transition of power. Around this time, Ansarallah capitalized on its tribal networks to expand its movement’s influence, particularly in the country’s northern regions. It gradually extended its reach across Yemen in an alliance with Saleh’s GPC and the armed forces.

Ansarallah’s adept handling of tribal structures facilitated their rise, merging ideology with tribalism to galvanize support. This symbiotic relationship contributed to their military and popular ascendancy, as noted by Yemeni political analyst Abdul Salam al-Nahari:

[Before 2012], finding someone who believed in Ansarallah was difficult due to years of misinformation. However, after 2015, society began to become aware of Ansarallah, especially among tribes exhausted by wars and internal conflicts … After the war in Yemen, the tribe has now become more cohesive after playing a major role in community steadfastness and in supplying the fighting fronts with weapons, money, and men.

Tribe-centric strategies

Nahari points out that the Saudi-led aggression against Yemen put the country at a crossroads: either remaining under American guardianship or breaking away from it at any cost. “The people of Yemen chose independence,” he declares.

The foreign aggression united Yemenis during a time when Ansarallah was encouraging the advancement of many tribal leaders to the front ranks and giving them the opportunity to lead.

Examples abound. In the Al-Bayda region of central Yemen, tribal leader Saleh bin Saleh al-Wahbi founded the “Wahbi Brigades” in 2016. After his death in 2021, his son Bakil succeeded him.

In the Al-Razzamat region, north of Saada Governorate near the southern border of Saudi Arabia, tribal leader and member of the House of Representatives Abdullah Aydah al-Razami threw his weight behind Ansarallah Founder Hussein Badr al-Din al-Houthi, and his tribe fought a fierce war against government forces after the latter’s killing.

During the foreign aggression against Yemen, his son Yahya al-Razami was appointed commander of the Hamidan axis forces and assumed command of the “Death Brigades,” the elite forces affiliated with Ansarallah.

The son played a vital role in the Victory from God operation in 2019 when his forces captured thousands of soldiers loyal to the Yemeni government in Riyadh and seized a vast amount of weapons and military equipment.

Al-Nahari asserts that “fighting in any area where there is no popular incubator is like fighting on open ground.” Ansarallah has actively sought to create supportive environments in strategic areas. By neutralizing certain tribes through treaties and agreements, such as in Marib, Ansarallah has effectively extended its influence with minimal combat cost, illustrating its strategic understanding of Yemen’s tribal politics.

Vladimir Putin on Russia’s Path Ahead

Par : AHH

On the Cusp of Reelection and SMO Victory, Putin’s Interview with Rossiya Segodnya’s General Director Dmitry Kiselev

with thanks to Karl at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium.

With snippets all over Russian media as well as the 1:45 long video, the job fell to Dmitry Kiselev, the director general of Rossiya Segodnya, Sputnik’s parent media group. We get to read the translated transcript where all emphasis is mine:

Dmitry Kiselyov: Mr Putin, in your Address to the [Federal Assembly], you have, figuratively speaking, taken trillion after trillion out of your sleeve. Thus, we have proposed an absolutely amazing plan for the country’s development – absolutely amazing. This is a different Russia, with a different infrastructure, a different social system – just a dream country.

I just want to ask you, ask your favorite question from Vysotsky: “Where is the money, Zin?”

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

What’s more, first of all, it’s all made up as a result of the painstaking work of the expert community, government specialists, and the Administration. Everything fully fits into the budget rules and, in fact, is quite conservative in nature, because some experts believe that there should be and will be more revenues. This means that it would be necessary to plan for more spending, because this should directly affect the prospects for economic development.

In general, it is correct, but we also planned to spend an additional $ 8 trillion on the development of the economy and social sphere in 2018, and then we increased these expenditures. I think that it is quite likely that if everything turns out as the optimists from this expert community, which I mentioned, say, then we can – and should, and will be able-to increase these costs in various areas.

Dmitry Kiselyov: So we are talking about a six-year period?

Vladimir Putin: Exactly so. We are talking about a six-year period. We are currently drawing up a budget for the “three-year” – a three-year, as we say, planning period. But, of course, when we were preparing for the Message – I say, “we were preparing for the Message”, because the whole team is working-we assumed that we would calculate our income and expenses in those areas that we consider key, priority areas for six years.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But still, there are literally stunning projects. For example, the Sochi-Dzhubga highway: 130 kilometers, of which 90 kilometers are tunnels, and the rest is probably bridges, judging by the landscape. One and a half billion in the first three years only, and the track should ideally be ready in 2030. How necessary is this and will it be enough to win?

Vladimir Putin: People need this route. After all, families with children can’t get to Sochi by car. Everyone stops somewhere in the area of Gelendzhik, Novorossiysk, because the track is very heavy – serpentine.

There are several construction options available. We will be discussing this in the next few days: either do it to Dzhubga, or first do it from Dzhubga to Sochi. Some members of the Government suggest doing this in stages. Others believe that you need to do everything at once, because otherwise there will be a narrow neck from Dzhubga to Sochi.

The first part, if you look from Novorossiysk, is more or less decent, and the coverage is not bad, but very narrow. If we do it before Sochi, as the first part, then there may be traffic jams in this small space, which is still enough there.

In general, we will determine this with our specialists – how, in what stages, but you need to do it. It is necessary to determine, of course, the final cost of the project, to ensure that everyone remains within the framework of financial plans.

First of all-the interests of people, but also the economy. The development of territories in the south of the country is very important.

Dmitry Kiselyov: If we can afford such large-scale investments, it means that the country is rapidly getting richer, especially in the conditions of free trade, in the conditions of almost 15 thousand sanctions-absolutely wild. Moreover, we also set ourselves the task of reducing poverty, including in large families. Isn’t that a little cheeky?

Vladimir Putin: No. See if you go back to this road. When I discussed it with members of the Government, as you know, the Finance Ministry is always such a miser, in a good way, and it is always very conservative about spending, even the Finance Minister [Anton Siluanov] he told me-almost verbatim: “The construction of this road is opposed by those who have never driven on it today.”

Dmitry Kiselyov: In other words, the entire Government should be moved.

Vladimir Putin: And he is right, because this is especially important for families with children.

As for whether we get rich or not. The economy is growing – this is a fact, and a fact that is recorded not by us, but by international economic and financial organizations. We have indeed overtaken the Federal Republic of Germany in terms of purchasing power parity, taking its place – the fifth place – among the world’s largest economies.

The German economy contracted, in my opinion, by 0.3 percent last year, while we grew by 3.6 percent. Japan grew by a small percentage. But if everything develops at the same pace as today, then we have every chance to take the place of Japan and become the fourth economy in the world, and in the near future.

But? – here we must be honest and objective – there is a difference between the quality of our economies. In terms of purchasing power parity, that is, in terms of volume, we are indeed now fifth, and there is every chance to take the place of Japan. But the structure of these countries ‘ economies, of course, differs favorably from ours.

We still have a lot to do to ensure that we have a decent position not only in terms of purchasing power parity, but also [in terms of GDP] per capita – the first. And the second thing is to change the structure itself, to make it much more efficient, more modern, and more innovative. That’s what we’ll be working on.

As for income, purchasing power parity is a very important indicator. This is the volume, the size of the economy. This means that the state receives funds for solving strategic tasks through the tax system at all levels. This gives us the opportunity to develop in the way we consider necessary for our country.

Dmitry Kiselyov:By the way, you are talking about the structure and the need for structural changes in our economy. After all, this is exactly what your Message said, and this is how the task is set: to ensure that innovative industries grow faster than the average economy.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

I have already said this: the structure is what we need to work on. The future of our economy, the future of our workforce, efficiency and productivity depend on this.

One of the main tasks today is to increase labor productivity. Because in the face of a shortage of workers and labor resources, we have only one way to develop effectively – to increase labor productivity. This, in turn, means that we must increase the innovative start of the economy, for example, increase the density of robotization. Today we have ten robots, in my opinion, for 10 thousand working people, but we need at least a thousand robots for 10 thousand working people. This is the case in Japan, in my opinion.

And in order for people to work on such new equipment – not only to use robotics, but also other modern means of production-they need to be trained. Another problem arises – training of personnel.

For this purpose, we have designated entire areas, including engineering training. You probably noticed that we have already launched 30 modern engineering schools across the country. This year we are launching 20 more-there will be 50. And we plan to add 50 more in the coming years.

Therefore, these areas are the future of our country. We will move forward and develop in these areas.

Dmitry Kiselyov: In order to “finish” the sanctions. Many people express the idea of creating a special body that would deal with sanctions, their reflection, in general, defense against sanctions. Is something like this supposed to happen, or does it make no sense?

Vladimir Putin: There is no need simply. We analyze-the Government, the Central Bank, the Security Council-everything that our enemies do. A lot of things are being done not even for political or military reasons, although they are argued for this, but simply for reasons of competition…

Dmitry Kiselyov: Unscrupulous and unfair competition.

Vladimir Putin: Unfair competition – under the guise of some political or military considerations. This was the case in the aircraft industry, and it is happening in so many other industries.

Well, we live in the world that exists, and we have adapted to it. We understand who we are dealing with. And so far, as can be seen from the results of our work, we are acting quite effectively.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But the West’s treachery is not limited to sanctions. Here is a quote from your address [to the Federal Assembly]: “The West is trying to drag us into a new arms race in order to exhaust and repeat the trick that they managed in the 80s with the USSR.” How big is our safety margin here in the face of an arms race, in fact?

Vladimir Putin: We need to get the maximum return on every ruble invested in the defense industry. Indeed, during the Soviet era, no one considered these costs, and no one, unfortunately, chased after efficiency in our country. Defense spending accounted for about 13 percent of the country’s GDP – the Soviet Union.

I will not refer to our statistics – we will refer to the Stockholm Institute: last year our defense spending was four percent, and this year-6.8, that is, we have grown by 2.8 percent. In principle, this is a noticeable increase, but absolutely uncritical. In the Soviet Union, it was 13 percent, and now we have 6.8 percent.

I must say that defense spending accelerates the economy, it makes it more energetic. But, of course, there are some limitations here, and we understand that. The age-old question: which is more profitable – guns or oil? We have this in mind.

Although, I repeat, the modern defense industry in our country is good because it not only indirectly affects civilian industries, but also uses the innovations needed for defense and uses these innovations to produce civilian products. This is an extremely important thing.

Our expenses, of course, are not comparable. How many in the United States are they? 800…

Dmitry Kiselyov: Under 900 already.

Vladimir Putin: Under 900 – 860 or 870 billion [dollars]. They are absolutely not comparable to our expenses.

Dmitry Kiselyov: It seems to me that they are sawing there, because they have no hypersound, nothing… What’s it?

Vladimir Putin: I’ll explain what’s going on. The fact is that they spend a lot of money on maintenance – and not only on salaries, but also on maintaining bases around the world. And there, as in a black hole, everything goes away – nothing can be counted. This is where the main cut is made. Although in the production of weapons of destruction, weapons in general are also spent such money that it is difficult to estimate.

If you calculate how much they cost, say, a missile defense system, and one of the main components of overcoming missile defense on our part-the Avangard, an intercontinental missile, and an intercontinental-range planning unit-then these are simply incomparable values. And we, in fact, nullified everything that they did, everything that they invested in this missile defense system. This is how you need to act.

And of course, without any doubt, the very economy of our Armed Forces must meet today’s requirements.

Dmitry Kiselyov: The word “justice” [справедливость] is a magic word for the Russian language. You use it very carefully, but still, one day you uttered this word in your Message – and it sounded like lightning. You said that the distribution of the tax burden should become more equitable in Russia, and suggested that the Government think about it. In what direction do you think?

Vladimir Putin: You know, indeed, the distribution of the tax burden should be fair in the sense that corporations, legal entities and individuals who earn more, in simple terms, should allocate more to the general treasury for solving national problems, primarily for solving problems related to combating poverty.

Dmitry Kiselyov: A progressive tax?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, in fact, a progressive tax.

I don’t want to go into details right now, but we need to work on it. And in this way, we need to build this system so that it really gives a great return on solving, first of all, social issues and tasks facing the state in this area.

We plan to reduce the tax burden, for example, for large families, and take a number of other steps in this direction. It seems to me that society will accept this absolutely normally. First.

Second. What does business itself ask of us? It asks us to decide on the tax system, but not to touch it again, so that it is stable. This is the most important request and requirement on the part of the business.

The Government should address this issue in the very near future and submit proposals together with the deputies of the State Duma.

Dmitry Kiselyov: A progressive tax – we won’t scare anyone off? We used to be always afraid of scaring someone off with this progressive tax.

Vladimir Putin: No, I don’t think so. In principle, we have established this system. Even those who were ardent supporters of the flat scale, the authors of the flat scale, now believe that in general we are ripe for acting much more selectively.

Dmitry Kiselyov: In the course of your address, you thanked your “colleagues from the Government” – this was the wording. Does this mean that Mishustin’s government – in the event of your victory-will be preserved?

Vladimir Putin: We still need to talk about this after the elections, after the votes are counted. It seems to me that this is simply incorrect right now. But in general, the Government is working – as we can see, the results are obvious, these are objective data-and it is working quite satisfactorily.

Dmitry Kiselyov: You mentioned reducing the tax burden for large families. Children and demographics – these topics were very extensive in your message. Indeed, the issue is quite painful, because demographically Russia is melting. Last year was an anti-record birth rate.

Vladimir Putin: I think the birth rate is 1.31 or 1.39…

Dmitry Kiselyov: 1.39 children per woman capable of giving birth.

Vladimir Putin: Childbearing age.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Ideally, we would probably need to double it to three. Because it is literally a disaster for society.

You have proposed a fairly large-scale program of maternity support and demographic incentives. Are you confident that these measures will reverse the downward-to-upward trajectory?

Vladimir Putin: In general, if we take into account all the measures to support families with children, we plan to spend up to 14 trillion rubles through various channels over the next six years. That’s a lot of money.

There are a lot of areas of support for families with children: starting from general social ones – construction or renovation of kindergartens, construction of new schools, repair of old schools, putting them in order in accordance with the requirements of today-to support women from pregnancy to the age of 18. After all, we have almost 400 thousand women now receiving benefits. This is almost every third woman who is expecting a child. And more than ten million children receive benefits. This is a serious thing.

We have continued the system of providing maternity capital. We have continued payments – these decisions are currently being made – in the amount of 450 thousand rubles per family, if there is a third child, to pay off the mortgage loan. We have retained mortgage benefits for families with children. In general, a whole set in very different areas in order to support families.

Of course, as you have already mentioned, this is also the fight against poverty, because, of course, it is much more difficult for families with children than for those with no children. This is understandable, the costs are high. Nevertheless, we have managed to do a lot in this area.

Look, 20 years ago we had, in my opinion, 29 percent of the population below the poverty line – that’s 42 million people. Now 9.3 percent, according to the latest data, but this is also 13 and a half million people. Of course, a lot. Of course, we need to do everything possible to reduce it to at least seven percent. And for large families-there is a more modest figure, but it should also be increased.

What do we assume when we talk about problems with the birth rate? I have already said it many times, and experts say it, these are objective things, namely: we had two very large declines in the birth rate. During the Great Patriotic War-1943-1944. A comparable decline occurred immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Just one to one, the same decline in the birth rate.

It is clear why: the social support system has collapsed. No matter how weak it was in the USSR, if you can talk about it, but still it was, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it disappeared almost completely, and poverty began to be complete. There’s no need to say anything right now. In any case, the family planning horizon declined during these years, and the birth rate fell before the war years. Then we had a climb. And now we have quite a large number of children, young people who will enter adulthood and childbearing age in a few years, and we assume that our indicators will also increase.

What you said is a global trend. There are only a few countries with developed economies that show positive demographic dynamics, while in all other countries everything goes into negative territory. This is a complex problem related to the economy and women’s life priorities. Now it is better not to go there, but let the demographers try, tell us and suggest a solution.

But do you know what sets you up for a positive mood? The mood in society. In our country, 70% of men and 72% of women want to have two or more children, and the state should support them. This is a whole large set of support measures that we are planning – We will definitely implement them, and we will do it.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But we are still not sure that these measures will turn the tide.

In the late 90’s-this is a well-known story, you told us about it yourself-you saved your children from a fire: you entered a burning house, on the second floor. And then they remembered that there was still money somewhere. Money in the fire and burned. This indicates your priorities: first-children, then-money.

Maybe now it’s the same across the country? Not 14 [trillions], but directly on everything, and create such a program to guarantee a reversal of this situation?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you need to watch this in the course of events, as they say. In the early 2000s, we took a number of steps in the field of demography, including the introduction of maternity capital and a number of other measures that gave an obvious positive result. This means that we can achieve the goals we need.

Dmitry Kiselyov: So there is such an experience?

Vladimir Putin: There is experience, of course, there is experience. And, using this experience and other modern developments, we should still count on achieving the goals that we set for ourselves. And as events unfold, we will adjust those measures or add something else to the measures that we will apply.

For example, we have just announced the Year of the Family. We have a new national project – “Family”. There are some elements that we have never used before. For example, 75 billion [rubles] will be allocated to those regions where the birth rate is lower than the national average. These are mainly the central regions of Russia and the North-West. 75 billion is a decent amount of money. You just need to use them correctly.

There is also such a component as caring for the elderly. There are other support measures. We need to raise the birth rate and increase life expectancy – then we will stabilize the country’s population. This is the most important integral indicator of our success or, perhaps, work that requires additional attention from all administrative levels and authorities.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Yes, but everywhere in the world there is also a third tool for solving demographic problems – immigration. What figures can we talk about in this six-year period, and what does consistency mean in this work?

Vladimir Putin: If we talk about migrant workers, we don’t have so many immigrants compared to other countries – they make up 3.7 percent of the total number of employees. But they are concentrated in those regions where economic life is most active, and there, of course, they are much more numerous. These are the Moscow region, Moscow, the North-Western region and some regions of the North where the level of wages is decent. But, without any doubt, this is an issue that requires special attention from the authorities-both local, regional, and federal.

What would you like to say here? A very important thing. After all, when they attract labor migrants, they always talk about the need to do this due to a shortage of workers. Our entrepreneurs should understand that the situation for them in terms of the availability of workers will not change for the better in the coming years – they will face a shortage of labor.

This means that in order to solve this problem radically – and now I will return to what we have already said – we need to increase labor productivity and reduce the number of employees in those areas where it is possible to do this, achieving even better results by introducing modern equipment. To do this, we need to invest in this area and train personnel – we have also already discussed this. This is the most important thing we need to think about.

In general, of course, migration policy is an important tool in the economy. Here it is not a sin to look at the experience of other countries. First of all, of course, we need to talk about the repatriation of our compatriots. What is repatriation and what is compatriots-we have already reflected in the regulatory framework, there is no need to repeat here.

We need to talk about attracting people who may not be going to move to the Russian Federation, but because of their qualifications, because of their talents in various fields, they can make a significant contribution to the development of our state, to the development of Russia. We will also be happy to attract such people.

As for traditional labor migrants, we also need to think about how to prepare them for coming to Russia, including with our partners in the countries where they live. This is the study of the Russian language, our traditions, culture, and so on. We need them to be taken care of and treated like a human being. So that they integrate naturally into our society. All this together should give a corresponding, I hope, positive effect.

Yes, and, of course, everyone should observe our traditions and the laws of the Russian Federation. And of course, compliance with sanitary standards and so on is very much in demand. Ensuring the safety of citizens of the Russian Federation should be the first priority.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Russians are probably the biggest divided nation in the world. You had a conversation with the “Leaders of Russia”, and one of your interlocutors said that in the Zaporozhye region we found that they are as Russian as we are. And for them-there was such an impression – it sounded like a revelation. In general, this is true, and we are now growing with new regions, and Odessa is a Russian city. Probably, there is great hope here, in this direction, too?

Vladimir Putin: Of course. The population density in these regions has always been quite high, and the climate is wonderful.

As for the Donbass, it is an industrially developed region-back in the days of the Soviet Union. How much the Soviet Union has invested in this region, in its coal mining industry, in the metallurgical industry! Yes, of course, investments are required to ensure that all production is modern, and that people’s living and working conditions are completely different from what they were a couple of decades ago.

As for Novorossiya, it is a region with a pronounced developed agriculture. Here we will do everything possible to support both traditional areas of activity and new ones that fit seamlessly into these regions and people’s desire to develop them. And there, you know, people are very talented.

Moreover, as I have already said, even taxes go to the federal budget from there. Yes, they need to be helped, supported, and brought to the national and federal Russian level at this stage. They will work, and very quickly.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Historically, it is quite obvious that the Nazi regimes themselves do not dissolve, but disappear as a result of military defeat. So it was in Germany, in Italy, in Japan. The same thing will obviously happen with Bandera’s Nazi regime. We are now moving along the entire front line, according to reports from both the Ministry of Defense and our war correspondents.

Still, did we manage to find a way to fight when our losses are less in the offensive than in the defense? This task is quite non-trivial for the art of war, but it always holds back the offensive. This is a frugality that is absolutely justified in relation to our hero warriors. But this question arises: how to move forward with minimal losses?

Vladimir Putin: The question is clear and fair. But the answer is also simple: we need to increase the means of destruction – the number and power of means of destruction, and increase the effectiveness of the forces and means used. Aviation – both tactical, and army, and the same strategic. I mean, of course, in those components that are acceptable for armed conflicts of this kind. These are ground-based weapons, including high-precision weapons. These are artillery and armored vehicles. We are developing, without any exaggeration, by leaps and bounds.

Dmitry Kiselyov: In this direction?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it does. This is the answer to your question: the more powerful and more weapons-the less losses.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But the question still arises, what price are we willing to pay – perhaps the word “project” is not appropriate – for all this challenge that we have been forced to face historically?

Vladimir Putin: Look, every human life is priceless. And the loss of a loved one for a family, for any family, is a huge grief.

But the question is what? The question is to determine the very fact of what we are doing. What are we doing? We met today, and you have just noticed that one of the participants in the conversation said: we were surprised to find that there were Russians just like us. We came to the aid of these people. This is basically the answer to your question.

If we abandon these people today, then tomorrow our losses may increase many times, and our children will have no future, because we will feel insecure, we will be a third-or fourth-class country, no one will take us into account if we cannot protect ourselves. And the consequences can be disastrous for Russian statehood. That’s the answer.

Dmitry Kiselyov: The Americans seem to be talking about negotiations and strategic stability, but at the same time they are saying that it is necessary to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. Our position sounds like: “We are open to negotiations, but the time for good gestures has passed, they are over.” So, there will be no negotiations?

Vladimir Putin: We have never refused to negotiate.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But how does it mean that without good gestures, there is no compromise? How then?

Vladimir Putin: I’ll try to explain. When we were negotiating in Turkey, in Istanbul (I have already said this many times, I must repeat it again, I will do it again), with the negotiators from that side, we came up with a thick folio, a document, in fact, a contract, a draft contract. An excerpt from this agreement is available, it was initialed by the head of the negotiation group from Ukraine, Mr. Arakhamiya. He did it, there is his signature (we have it in the Administration). But then, as you know, Mr. Arakhamia himself told the world publicly, also at a meeting, in my opinion, with journalists, with foreign partners: the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Johnson, came and dissuaded them from finally signing and, accordingly, fulfilling this agreement. And the topic that you have just mentioned is that Russia needs to be defeated on the battlefield.

Are we ready to negotiate? Yes, we are ready. But only we are ready for negotiations that are not based on some “wishlist” after the use of psychotropic drugs, but based on the realities that have developed, as they say in such cases, on earth. This is the first one.

Second. After all, we have already been promised many things many times. They promised not to expand NATO to the East, and then we see them at our borders. They promised, if we don’t go deep into history, that the internal conflict in Ukraine will be resolved by peaceful means, by political means. As we recall, three foreign ministers arrived in Kiev, Poland, Germany and France, promised that they would be the guarantors of these agreements, and a day later a coup d’etat took place. They promised to fulfill the Minsk agreements, and then publicly stated that they were not going to fulfill these promises, but only took a pause to arm the Bandera regime in Ukraine. We were promised a lot of things, so promises alone are not enough here.

Right now, to negotiate just because they are running out of ammunition is somehow ridiculous on our part. Nevertheless, we are ready for a serious conversation, and we want to resolve all conflicts, and especially this conflict, by peaceful means. But we must clearly understand for ourselves that this is not a pause that the enemy wants to take for rearmament, but a serious conversation with the security guarantees of the Russian Federation.

We know the various options in question, we know the “carrots” that are going to be shown to us in order to convince us that the moment has come. We want, I repeat once again, to resolve all disputes and this dispute, this conflict, by peaceful means. And we are ready for it, we want it. But this should be a serious conversation with ensuring security for the opposing side, and in this case we are primarily interested in the security of the Russian Federation. We will proceed from this.

Dmitry Kiselyov:Mr President, I think we look a little too noble. Can’t we conclude something with them, and they will once again deceive us, and we will console ourselves with the fact that we are honest, and they deceived us? Is it our fate, after all, to remain a fool all the time?

Americans minted their own medals in the 1990s for winning the Cold War, and since then, all those decades have been decades of big lies. How can we even hope that they will go and finally conclude a fair contract with us, which they will fulfill, and even with guarantees for us? I do not know what to do with them at all? Do you really believe this is possible?

Vladimir Putin: ****I hate to say this, but I don’t believe anyone.****

Dmitry Kiselyov: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: But we need guarantees. Guarantees must be written down, they must be such that we would be satisfied, in which we will believe. That’s what we’re talking about.

Now, it is probably premature to publicly talk about what it could have been. But we certainly won’t buy into any empty promises.

Dmitry Kiselyov: I am afraid that you will be quoted in an extended way. Do you not trust anyone at all, or do you mean your Western partners in this case when you say that you don’t trust anyone?

Vladimir Putin: I prefer to be guided by facts, rather than good wishes and talk about trusting everyone. After all, you know, when decisions are made at this level, the degree of responsibility for the consequences of the decisions made is very high. Therefore, we will not do anything that does not meet the interests of our country.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Mr President, what happened to Macron? Has he lost his mind at all? He is going to send the French troops to fight with our army, he looks like a Gallic fighting rooster, thereby scaring all the Europeans. Still, how to respond to this?

Vladimir Putin: The fact is that the military of Western countries has been present in Ukraine for a long time, even before the coup, they were present, and after the coup, their number increased many times. Now they are also present directly in the form of advisers, they are present in the form of foreign mercenaries and suffer losses. But if we are talking about official military contingents of foreign countries, I am sure that this will not change the situation on the battlefield – this is the most important thing, just as the supply of weapons does not change anything.

Second, it can lead to serious geopolitical consequences. Because if, say, Polish troops enter the territory of Ukraine, as it sounds, to cover the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, for example, or in some other places, to free up Ukrainian military contingents to participate in combat operations on the contact line, then I think that Polish troops will never leave there again. I think so. They sleep and see, they want to return those lands that they consider historically their own and that were taken from them by the “father of nations” Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin and transferred to Ukraine. They want them back, of course. And if official Polish units enter there, they are unlikely to leave.

But then their example can be followed by other countries that lost part of their territories as a result of the Second World War. I think that the geopolitical consequences for Ukraine, even from the point of view of preserving its statehood in its modern form, will certainly stand up in all its glory and in full growth.

Dmitry Kiselyov: If we return to Macron, maybe he decided to take revenge on Russia in this way because we “stepped on his tail” in Africa, and we had to “stand there, be afraid”? He probably didn’t expect us to be so active there.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I think there is some resentment, but when we maintained direct contacts, we spoke quite frankly about this topic.

We didn’t go into Africa and squeeze France out. The problem is different. The well-known Wagner group first carried out a number of economic projects in Syria, then moved to other African countries. The Ministry of Defense provides support, but only on the basis of the fact that this is a Russian group, nothing more. We didn’t squeeze anyone out. It’s just that the African leaders of some countries agreed with Russian economic operators, wanted to work with them, and did not want to work with the French in any way. It wasn’t even our initiative, it was an initiative on the part of our African friends.

If an independent state wants to develop relations with its partners from other countries, including Russia, and wants to develop relations with Russia, it is not clear why it should take offense at us in this regard. We didn’t touch them, the former French colonialists, in these countries. I even say this without irony, because in many countries where France has historically been a metropolis, they don’t really want to deal with them. We have nothing to do with it. It’s probably more convenient to take offense at someone without seeing your own problems. Perhaps such a sharp, rather emotional reaction on the part of the French President is also related to what is happening in some African states.

Although I know other countries in Africa, where they are calm about the French stay and say that ” yes, we are satisfied, we are ready to work with them.” But in some countries they don’t want to. We have nothing to do with it. We don’t incite anyone there, we don’t incite anyone against France.

We do not set ourselves such tasks. To be honest, we do not have such nationwide tasks at the level of the Russian state. We’re just friends with them, that’s all. They want to develop relations with us – for God’s sake, and we meet them halfway. There’s nothing to be offended about.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But now they are saying in France that there are no “red lines” left in relation to Russia, and nothing is impossible, and everything is possible. In general, they want to somehow talk to us on the basis of a balance of power. What we just do not hear from France, from the West, and from Lithuania. In general, some such choir is not harmonious, but hostile.

Maybe we should also make unconventional decisions and at some point turn to the two-million-strong North Korean army for help? For example, in exchange for our “nuclear umbrella” over half of the Korean Peninsula? Why not then?

Vladimir Putin: First, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has its own “nuclear umbrella”. They didn’t ask us for anything. This is the first one.

Second. In principle, as we can see today from the results of what is happening on the battlefield, we are coping with the tasks that we set for ourselves.

As for those states that say that they have no “red lines” in relation to Russia, they should understand that there will be no “red lines”in relation to these states in Russia either.

As for the small states of Europe, first of all, we treat everyone with respect, no matter what. Secondly, when they, these small states, call for a tougher policy towards Russia and take some extreme measures, including, for example, to send troops and so on, these are still those states, and they understand this, that will not feel the consequences of their provocative statements. And those who can feel it, they behave much more restrained. And correctly.

Dmitry Kiselyov: And all those German dances with Taurus? Scholz says “we do not supply”, but there are forces that insist on delivering Taurus to Ukraine, the British take their own initiative: let’s, they say, transit through England, we are ready to send. The target is the Crimean Bridge, German generals are already planning operations, as we have heard, not only the Crimean Bridge, but also military bases, as they say, in the depths of Russian territory. Some are already saying that these missiles can hit the Kremlin. Don’t they really bury themselves in their dreams?

Vladimir Putin: They fantasize, encourage themselves, first of all. Secondly, they are trying to intimidate us.

As for Germany, there are also constitutional problems there. They are right to say that if the Taurus gets into that part of the Crimean Bridge, which, of course, even according to their concepts is Russian territory, this is a violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The fact is that the opposition in Germany is behaving even more aggressively. Let’s see what they agree on. We are following this closely. They use the same British, American missiles. It doesn’t change the situation on the battlefield. Yes, they are causing us, of course, damage, this is obvious. But, in fact, this does not change the course of hostilities and the consequences that inevitably come for the opposite side.

We now hear that in the same Germany, both your channels, and foreign channels, German channels show how much they have, how much is in a faulty state, how much needs to be improved, upgraded, and so on. Let them work. As you correctly said, there are some things they need to think about. Who is smarter, he thinks.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But the new members of NATO – Finland and Sweden, in general, what did they exchange for? Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom suddenly told the Turks that Sweden is against having NATO bases on Swedish territory. What, they didn’t understand where they were going at all? What happened to them?

Vladimir Putin: You should ask them, I do not know. We have had quite good relations, stable relations with these countries, and I think that they have benefited more from the fact that they are neutral, because this gives certain advantages, at least as a negotiating platform to reduce tensions in Europe.

In general, we had perfect relations with Finland, just perfect. We did not have a single claim to each other, especially territorial, not to mention other areas. We didn’t even have any troops, we removed all the troops from there, from the Russian-Finnish border. Why did they do this? Based, in my opinion, on purely political considerations. I probably really wanted to be members of a Western club, under some kind of “umbrella”. Frankly, I don’t understand why they need it. This is an absolutely senseless step from the point of view of ensuring our own national interests. Nevertheless, it is up to them to decide, they have decided so.

We didn’t have any troops there, now we will. There were no defense systems there, now they will appear. What for? Our economic relations were very good. They used our market, and we bought a lot from them. What’s wrong with that? But now the situation will change. With their many products in other markets, they are not really needed, and ours do not receive enough. I don’t understand.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Meanwhile, in the United States, the war is raging.…

Vladimir Putin: You know, this is a household item, but nevertheless. In recent years, both Helsinki and the border regions of Finland have accepted Russian rubles. Including in Helsinki, in large supermarkets, you could buy whatever goods you wanted for rubles. There are all the ads around in Russian.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Now the border region is simply going bankrupt.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. What am I talking about? On the other hand, from the point of view of the economy, it is very good – real estate prices were kept at a fairly good level. From the point of view of the economy, it is good, but there were, apparently, forces that were completely right-wing conservative, nationalist, who did not really like it – such a rapprochement with Russia. Some even considered it redundant: “What are Russian houses and apartments being bought for? Everything here is in Russian…”

I don’t even think so, I know that such Russophobia has started to grow up at the everyday level. Maybe some political forces inside the country decided to take advantage of this domestic roll, maybe. The whole combination of these factors led to this decision. I think so, but I can’t be 100 percent sure. In any case, this certainly does not improve the security situation in any way – both in bilateral relations and in Europe as a whole.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But in the meantime, the United States is actively running for president. It can’t do without you. You invisibly participate in it, because you are mentioned by each of the candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties in their speeches and arguments. In general, it seems that you do not leave the pages of newspapers and TV news headlines there and are an argument in the election campaign of everyone. And you’re adding fuel to the fire.

Vladimir Putin: How is that?

Dmitry Kiselyov: Saying that one of the candidates is preferable for us. But if a foreign president generally says that one of the candidates in another country is preferable, then this is a classic interference in the election. In general, to what extent do you interfere in the American elections in this way, saying that Biden is preferable to us? And in general, how much is it so? Is this trolling or even what is it?

Vladimir Putin: No, you know, I will tell you one thing that will show you that nothing changes in my preferences here. First.

Second. We do not interfere in any elections and, as I have said many times, we will work with any leader who has the confidence of the American people, the American electorate.

But here’s what’s interesting. Even in the last year of his term as President, Mr. Trump, today’s presidential candidate, reproached me just because I sympathize with Biden. That was more than four years ago. He told me so in one of the conversations. Excuse me, I’ll say it like him, it’s just a direct speech: “You want sleeping Joe to win.

He told me so when he was still President. And then, to my surprise, he was harassed for allegedly supporting him as a candidate. Well, some complete nonsense.

As for the current pre-election situation, it is becoming increasingly uncivilized. I don’t want to make any comments on that.

But I think it is obvious to everyone that the American political system cannot claim to be democratic in every sense of the word.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Actually, to be honest, your preference for Biden sounds rather strange to me personally. After all, Biden came to Moscow in 2011 and tried to persuade you not to run for president.

Do you remember this story? Then he told about it, meeting with the Russian opposition in Spaso House. And Garry Kasparov wrote about this, that Biden told this story, that he came to the Russian White House to Prime Minister Putin and tried in every possible way to dissuade him from running for President and began to build an “Arab spring” in our country. So Biden didn’t seem to like you very much back then. You have such a historic duel with him. Or did it just go away?

Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I didn’t pay much attention to this.

Dmitry Kiselyov: It’s over, isn’t it? You didn’t even pay much attention to it.

Vladimir Putin: Some kind of duel…

Dmitry Kiselyov: So it was serious for him, but not for you.

Vladimir Putin: This is just a sign of interference…

Dmitry Kiselyov: Yes, this is a 100 percent outright intervention.

Vladimir Putin: … in our domestic political processes. We have already spoken many times, and I have spoken many times: “We will not allow anyone to do this.”

Dmitry Kiselyov: All right.

If we avoid interference, pre-election battles, in fact, the escalation continues. It seems that both superpowers-Russia and the United States – are playing what in America is called the chicken game: this is when chickens jump on each other, and there it is a game when guys in cars fly into each other’s heads, and who will turn first. It seems that no one is going to turn off first. So, a collision is inevitable?

Vladimir Putin: Why not? Here in the United States, they announced that they are not going to send troops. We know what American troops are like on Russian territory. These are the interventionists. We will treat it this way, even if they appear on the territory of Ukraine, they understand this. I said that Biden is a representative of the traditional political school, and this is confirmed. But in addition to Biden and others, there are enough specialists in the field of Russian-American relations and in the field of strategic deterrence.

So I don’t think it’s all so head-on here. But we are ready for this. I have said many times that this is a matter of life and death for us, but for them it is a matter of improving their tactical position in general in the situation in the world, but also in Europe in particular, preserving their status among their allies. This is also important, but not as important as it is for us.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Interestingly, you said that we are ready for this. The philosopher Alexander Dugin, a specialist in geopolitics, calls directly and practically to prepare for a nuclear war. “And the better we are prepared for it, the less likely such a war is,” says Alexander Dugin. How can you even be prepared for this? Are we really ready for nuclear war?

Vladimir Putin: From a military-technical point of view, we are certainly ready. They [the troops] are constantly in a state of combat readiness. This is the first one.

Second. This is also a generally accepted thing – our nuclear triad is more modern than any other triad, and only we and the Americans really have such a triad.

We have made much more progress here. We have it more modern, all the nuclear component. In general, we have approximate parity in terms of carriers and charges, but we have a more modern one.

Everyone knows this, all the experts know it. But this does not mean that we should measure the number of carriers and warheads, but we need to know about this. And I repeat, those who need it – experts, specialists, and the military-are well aware of this.

They are now setting a task to increase this modernity, novelty, and they have corresponding plans. We know that too. They develop all their components, and so do we. But this does not mean that, in my opinion, they are ready to unleash this nuclear war tomorrow. If they want to, what should I do? We are ready.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Perhaps we should conduct nuclear tests at some point to be more convincing. After all, we have no international restrictions for this.

Vladimir Putin: There is a treaty banning such tests, but unfortunately the United States has not ratified it. Therefore, in order to maintain parity, we have withdrawn this ratification. Since the treaty has not been ratified by the United States, and it has not entered into final force, because it has not received the necessary number of ratifications, nevertheless, we adhere to these agreements.

We know that the United States is considering conducting such tests. This is due to the fact that when new warheads appear, as some experts believe, it is not enough to test them only on a computer, which means that they need to be tested in their natural form. Such ideas are floating around in certain circles in the United States, they have a place to be, we know about it.

And we’re watching, too. If they conduct such tests, I don’t rule it out, not necessarily, we need it or not, we still need to think about it, but it is possible that we can do the same.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But are we technically ready for this?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we are always ready. I want to make it clear that these are not ordinary types of weapons, this is the type, branch of the armed forces that is in constant combat readiness.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Mr President, did you ever think about tactical nuclear weapons during the difficult times of last year, I do not know, at the front in connection with Kharkiv or Kherson?

Vladimir Putin: And why? It was also at the suggestion of the then command of the group that we decided to withdraw our troops from Kherson. But this did not mean that the front was falling apart there. Nothing like this has ever happened before. It was simply done in order not to incur unnecessary losses among the personnel. That’s all. This was the most important motive, because in the conditions of combat operations, when it was impossible to fully supply the group located on the right bank, we would simply suffer unjustified losses of personnel. Because of this, it was decided to relocate to the left bank.

The correctness of this choice was confirmed by what the Ukrainian command tried to do in certain areas of the left bank, in the same village of Krynki: just like in a meat grinder, they threw their people there, and that’s all. They’ve been running around barefoot lately, in the truest sense of the word. They tried to throw ammunition to them there by high-speed boats and drones. What is it? Just to be slaughtered, sent to be slaughtered.

I once asked the Chief of the General Staff, there is nothing secret here, I said: “Listen, who do you think makes such decisions from the other side? After all, the one who makes the decision understands that he sends people to their deaths?” He says, ” They understand.” I say, ” Who makes the decision, why do they do it? It’s pointless.” “Meaningless from a military point of view.” I say, ” Which one?” “I don’t know,” he says, ” probably the top political leadership, based on political considerations, that they have some chance to break through our defenses, there is some chance to get additional money, referring to the fact that they have some kind of foothold on the left bank, there is some kind of base, this is a chance to present your position beautifully at international meetings.” The command has passed, all lower-level bosses automatically issue further instructions.

But, by the way, the prisoners who were captured there surrendered, they show that they did not even know what situation they were in. Let’s say that new units are being deployed there and they say: “There is a stable defense there, come on, continue, help.” They couldn’t even get to the left bank anymore.

Dmitry Kiselyov: A tragedy.

Vladimir Putin: It’s natural. From a human point of view, absolutely.

So why do we need to use weapons of mass destruction? There has never been such a need.

Dmitry Kiselyov: So this idea never occurred to you?

Vladimir Putin: No. And why? Weapons exist to be used. We have our own principles, what are they talking about? That we are ready to use weapons, including any weapon, including the one you mentioned, if we are talking about the existence of the Russian state, about harming our sovereignty and independence. We have everything spelled out in our Strategy. We didn’t change it.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Mr Putin, when outgoing President Yeltsin suggested that you run for president, your first reaction was: “I’m not ready.”

Vladimir Putin: That’s right, it’s a direct speech.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Of course, you have evolved a lot since then. If you had to write a telegram to yourself at that time, what text would it contain?

Vladimir Putin: You know, it’s like “Yankees at King Arthur’s Court” or something like that. It is impossible to answer this question, because the question was asked at that time, in the context of the historical and economic situation in which the country was located, in the internal political situation from the point of view of internal security. And all of this together led me to the answer I gave: “I’m not ready for this.” Not because I was afraid of something, but because the scale of the tasks was huge, and the number of problems increased every day like a snowball. So I said it sincerely and not because, I repeat, I was afraid of something, but because I thought that I was not ready to solve all these problems, God forbid, I would do something even worse. That’s what it was all about. So I said it absolutely sincerely, and if I came back, I would repeat the same thing.

Dmitry Kiselyov: What was the decisive factor then? You went after all.

Vladimir Putin: I think I’ve had some conversations with Boris Nikolayevich.

Most importantly, in the end, what did he say to me back then: “Okay, okay, I understand, we’ll get to that later.” And we’ve come back to this several times.

In the end, he said that I was an experienced person, I knew what I was doing, what I was offering, and he said some other things to me. Probably, it is inconvenient to praise yourself, but I said such positive words. Later, he confirmed this again, this time in a completely positive way, I will not talk about it now.

And when the work started, everything was completely different there. You know, when you work, you think: this, this, this is what you need right now, this is now, this is tomorrow – and it went, and it went. When you get involved in a job, it’s a completely different story.

Dmitry Kiselyov: There is no time to be afraid already.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it’s not about fears, but about understanding, about being able to solve these problems. Remember for yourself what the year 1999 is like in the economy, security, finance, and everything else.

Dmitry Kiselyov: You once said that preparing for admission to Leningrad University was a turning point for you. It was a situation where you had to go all-in, knowing: either I will do it now and I will manage, and then I will carry out the plans that I want (and you were already going to work in the KGB), or I lost, and then everything is different and there are no chances. Is Russia now also in a position where it is necessary to play all-in?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I didn’t have such a position then. Yes, I wanted to work in the state security agencies.

Dmitry Kiselyov: It was the admission, it was such a turning point, it’s a feeling, isn’t it? Either this or that?

Vladimir Putin: Not quite. I just came to the waiting room and said: “I would like to work. What is needed for this?”

The alternative was simple: I was told that I either need to get a higher education, and preferably a law degree, or serve in the army, or have at least three years of work experience, but it is better to serve in the army. If I hadn’t gone to university, I would have joined the army.

Yes, it might have been a longer way to reach the goal that I set for myself, but it was still there. There is always an alternative.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But you did it with tension.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course, because I was still studying at a school with a chemical and mathematical bias, and here I had to take humanities subjects. I had to leave one thing and do another.

Yes, of course, there was tension. It was necessary to learn a foreign language independently, German in this case, it was necessary to study history, literature, and so on.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Russia is also at a crossroads right now: either it turns out, or…

Vladimir Putin: ***Russia is not at a crossroads. It is on the strategic path of its development and will not deviate from its path.***

Dmitry Kiselyov: To what extent do you feel the support of the Russian society in this new capacity? After all, a new quality of Russian society has emerged.

Vladimir Putin: It was there, it just showed up. And it is very good that we have given this deep Russian society an opportunity to express itself. I have a feeling that people have been waiting for this for a long time, that an ordinary person will be in demand by the country and the state, and the fate of the country depends on him. It is this sense of inner connection with the Motherland, with the Fatherland, its importance in solving key tasks, in this case in the field of security, that has brought to the surface the strength of the Russian and other peoples of Russia.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Do you feed off of it?

Vladimir Putin: Always. The point is not even that someone feeds, the point is that I see the requests of society. This is the most important thing – to meet the needs of society.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But it is time to recognize that you play a key role not only in Russia, but also in the world, because billions of people associate you with the hope for international justice, for the protection of human dignity, and for the protection of traditional values. How does it feel to feel so much responsibility?

Vladimir Putin: To tell you the truth, I don’t feel it at all. I just work in the interests of Russia, in the interests of our people. Yes, I understand what you are talking about now, and I am ready to comment on it. But so that I feel like some kind of arbiter of the world’s destinies, there is no such thing. Believe me, not even close. I’m just doing my duty to Russia and to our people, who consider Russia their homeland.

As for other countries of the world, this is very closely related to how we are treated around the world. That’s interesting. It’s a phenomenon, that’s for sure.

What I would like to draw your attention to. Here you are absolutely right, many people in the world look at us, at what is happening in our country and in our struggle for our interests.

That, in my opinion, is what is important. And why is this happening? Not because we are formally members of BRICS or have any traditional relations with Africa. This is also important, but the point, in my opinion, is completely different. It lies in the fact that this so-called golden billion for centuries, 500 years, practically parasitized other peoples. They tore apart the unfortunate peoples of Africa, they exploited Latin America, they exploited the countries of Asia, and of course no one has forgotten it. I have a feeling that it is not even a matter of the leadership of these countries, although this is very important, and ordinary citizens of these countries feel in their hearts what is happening.

They associate our struggle for our independence and true sovereignty with their aspirations for their own sovereignty and independent development. But this is compounded by the fact that there is a very strong desire among Western elites to freeze the existing unfair state of affairs in international affairs. They have been used to stuffing their bellies with human flesh and their pockets with money for centuries. But they must understand that the vampire ball is ending.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Are you alluding to their, as you put it in your address, colonial ways? You’re talking about it.

Vladimir Putin: That’s what happens.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But now you have drawn a completely fair picture when people see some hope in Russia. How did it happen that Western propaganda, with all its power, its enormous resources and tools, could not pupate Russia, isolate it and create a false image of it, even though it was trying in the minds of billions of people? How did this happen?

Vladimir Putin: Because what I just said is more important to people. People all over the world feel this in their hearts. They don’t even need any pragmatic explanations for what is happening.

Dmitry Kiselyov: That is, despite the amount of dirt?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. In their own countries, they also fool people, and this has an effect. They – in many countries-believe that this is in their interests, because they do not want to have such a huge country as Russia on their borders. The largest in the world in terms of territory, the largest in Europe in terms of population – not such a large population in the global dimension, not comparable to either China or India, but the largest in Europe – and now the fifth largest economy in the world. Why do we need such a competitor? They think: no, it is better, as some American experts suggested, to divide it into three, four, or five parts – this will be better for everyone. They proceed from this.

And some, at least, of the Western elites, blinded by their Russophobia, were happy when they brought us to the line after which our attempts to end the war unleashed by the West in Ukraine in 2014 by force began, when we moved to conduct a special military operation. They were even happy, I think. Because they thought that now they would finish us off, and now under this barrage of sanctions, practically a sanctions war declared on us, with the help of Western weapons and a war by the hands of Ukrainian nationalists, they would finish Russia off. Hence the slogan: “Inflict a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield.”

But later came the realization that this was unlikely, and even later that it was impossible. And the realization came that instead of strategic defeat, they were facing impotence, and impotence, despite the fact that they relied on the power of the all-powerful United States. They are faced with impotence before the unity of the Russian people, before the fundamental foundations of the Russian financial and economic system, its stability, and before the growing capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

And that’s when they started thinking – those who are smarter, began to think – that it would be necessary to change some kind of strategy in relation to the Russian Federation. Then there was the idea of resuming the negotiation process, finding some ways to end this conflict, and finding out where Russia’s real interests are here. These are dangerous people, by the way, because it is easier to fight people who are guided by such base principles.

Do you remember what they used to say in Russia? What was the happiness of some people at the household level? Full, drunk, and snuffed out. Yes? Here with such people it is easier when you are full, drunk, that is, full, drunk. Nose in tobacco, because snuff was used. Now the nose is covered in cocaine. It doesn’t matter if it’s easier with such people, but it’s more difficult with smart ones – they are more dangerous, because they affect the consciousness of society, including ours, and they will throw out all sorts of their “wishlist” under the guise of “carrots” for us.

You already noticed this when you asked about the possibility of a negotiation process. But still. Hence the contradictions within the Western community. This is an obvious thing, we can see it.

We are not going to engage in splits there – they will do it brilliantly themselves. But we will certainly seek to protect our interests.

Dmitry Kiselyov: I can’t help but ask. These attacks on the Belgorod and Kursk regions are military actions that are taking place in our regions. They behave more brazenly – do they feel something? What causes this?

Vladimir Putin: The explanation is very simple. All this is happening against the backdrop of failures on the contact line, on the front line. They didn’t achieve any of the goals they set for themselves last year. Moreover, the initiative has now completely passed to our Armed Forces. Everyone knows this, everyone recognizes it. I don’t think I’ll say anything new here. Against the background of those failures, they need at least something to show, and, mainly, attention should be focused on the information side of the matter.

On the state border line, the enemy tried to attack primarily with sabotage groups. The latest report of the General Staff: somewhere up to 300 people, including with the participation of foreign mercenaries. The enemy’s losses amounted to more than 200 people – about 230. Of the eight tanks used, the enemy lost seven, of the nine armored vehicles-nine, of which seven were American-made, Bradley. Other armored vehicles were also used, but mainly for transporting personnel: they pick you up, drop you off, and leave right away. This is on the Belgorod section of the border. A little further south, in my opinion, in one place-there are much smaller forces. Nevertheless, the main goal, I have no doubt, is to prevent, if not disrupt the presidential elections in Russia, then at least somehow interfere with the normal process of expressing the will of citizens. First.

Second. This is an informational effect, which I have already mentioned.

The third. If at least something happens, get some chance, some argument, some trump card in the possible future negotiation process: we’ll give it back to you, and you’ll give it back to us.

But as I said, with people who are guided by principles: well-fed, drunk, and interested in well-known material-it’s easier to talk to them, because you can calculate what they’re going to do. They will also try in some other areas, but we can see that.

Dmitry Kiselyov: We mentioned the episode when you saved your children from a fire, but you already have grandchildren. What country would you like to leave to your grandchildren?

Vladimir Putin: You know, at the first stage, we need to fulfill everything that was stated in the Message to the Federal Assembly a few days ago. We have big plans. They are quite specific in the sphere of economic development, social sphere, support for motherhood, childhood, families with children, support for pensioners. We haven’t talked much about this lately, or haven’t talked much about it, but we also have the appropriate resources laid down here. This applies to the indexation of pensions, various benefits, and long-term care for people who need it.

I would like to say that the people of the older generation are the ones who make us have a fairly strong and stable statehood and economy today. Because, despite all the twists and turns and the most difficult tests for the economy in the 90s, it survived thanks to their heroic work after the Great Patriotic War and during the economic recovery. Therefore, we should never forget about this-about the merits of the older generation. We should always keep this in mind, ensuring their proper well-being. The future belongs to children, so I have already talked about programs in the field of motherhood and childhood.

All this is done only on the basis of the economy. I hope that it will be more technologically advanced, more modern, and based on modern achievements in science and technology, information technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, genetics, and so on. How our agriculture is developing! And modern technologies are also needed there. They are actively used and will continue to be used.

Of course, the country will be self-sufficient in ensuring its security and defense. All this together we will have to multiply many times – and the future will be assured.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Thank you, Mr President. Your confidence is contagious. I wish you success in your noble deeds.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Thank you.

Several segments were super-emphasized: First regarding the trustworthiness of those from the Empire of Lies—”I hate to say this, but I don’t believe anyone.” And second and most importantly regarding its development, “Russia is not at a crossroads. It is on the strategic path of its development and will not deviate from its path.” Readers may have more than those, and there’re passages I’ve emphasized when they were first produced during previous events that I chose to leave alone. Putin reminds me of numerous US Presidents from the first 80 years of the 19th Century who deemed it unbecoming for them to promote themselves during their Presidential campaigns. Putin was also gracious and correct to note that Russia’s development plans and their implementation is a team effort spanning Russia. Putin’s observation that today’s Russian society isn’t new, that it’s always been there and is experiencing a resurrection, was very important as it connects past efforts and great deeds with the present. Putin’s pause to talk about pensions and pensioners—points that haven’t got much illumination recently—was also important as it emphasized that healthier demographics includes lengthening lifespan and reassuring his peers that their security will also continue and improve. The approach to the migrant workers issue was also well thought as was his directness about the lack of labor lasting a decade or more. I expect robots to appear in Russia’s retail sector very soon and in the transport sector freeing people to advance well beyond being a clerk or driver.

In the opening, there was the discussion about the construction of a very difficult Sochi-Dzhubga highway traversing geography very similar to that of the Northern California Coastline that Highway 1 snakes through but has no real shoreline since it’s the leading edge of the North American Plate and thus nothing to develop. The map that’s below is the best I could find depicting the region, although there are many that do a very good job of showing the immediate Sochi region;

The terrain along the coast continues another 40 K to the North—a significant engineering challenge. That challenge can serve as a metaphor for the trials Russia will face in its development over the next 6 years. There’s plenty of work to be done, and then as Putin continually says, there’ll be more work to be done.

West in 404: Nuke or Kneel

Par : AHH

And both options lead to same defeat.. Brian Berletic breaks down the Ukraine’s Manpower Crisis: No Amount of Money or Aid Can Solve It

He uses the US Army’s own [admittedly inadequate] doctrine to explain why the Ukraine is finished in terms of manpower, even if further financing and weapons resupply were possible. They lack the time, especially seasoning top cadre, in order to be combat effective. And the ideal environment in which to train within the Ukraine, already involved and enveloped in the hellscape of war. No place on the Ukraine is safe from Russian stand-off weaponry.

The options confronting the sinking West are bitter indeed: double down into nuclear war, as NATO itself lacks the tools and manpower to halt much less defeat the Russian Armed Forces. Or accept defeat and the end of their centuries-old Hegemony.

More detail from The New Atlas:
🔹Ukraine is suffering from a growing military manpower crisis in addition to a lack of arms and ammunition;
🔹Trained military manpower takes up to half a year to produce, new brigade-sized units can take up to 30 months to stand up;
🔹Ukraine and its Western sponsors simply cannot produce trained military manpower faster than Russia is removing it from the battlefield;
🔹This leaves the collective West with the choice of either accepting it has lost its proxy war with Russia, or attempting to intervene more directly;

References:
🔹NEO – Ukraine’s Manpower Crisis: No Amount of Money or Aid Can Solve It (March 5, 2024):
🔹The Kyiv Independent – Ukraine struggles to ramp up mobilization as Russia’s war enters 3rd year (March 3, 2024):
🔹The Washington Post – Front-line Ukrainian infantry units report acute shortage of soldiers (February 8, 2024):
🔹US Department of Defense – The National Defense Industrial Strategy (NDIS) (2023-2024):
🔹NEO – Fatal Flaws Undermine America’s Defense Industrial Base (February 15, 2024):
🔹US Department of Defense – Press Release: Evaluation of Sustainment Strategies for the Patriot Air Defense Systems Transferred to the Ukrainian Armed Forces (DODIG-2024-056) and Evaluation of the DoD’s Sustainment Plan for Bradley, Stryker, and Abrams Armored Weapon Systems (February 20, 2024):
🔹Reuters – Ukraine considers proposal by army to mobilise another 500,000 for war (December 2023):
🔹Reuters – Who are the forces involved in Ukraine’s counteroffensive? (June 2023):
🔹US DoD – Defense Officials Hold Media Brief on the Training of Ukrainian Military (March 2022):
🔹The US Army War College Quarterly – Expanding Brigade Combat Teams: IS the Training Base Adequate? (2017):

Where to Find My Work:
🔹Website: https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/
🔹Telegram: https://t.me/brianlovethailand
🔹Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrianJBerletic

Biden: ‘No Red Line’ as Israel to Invade Rafah

Par : AHH

The U.S. President is doubling down on his support for Israel, claiming that “there’s no red line,” as Netanyahu has made it clear that no form of international pressure is going to convince him to pull back from plans to invade Rafah.

Veteran Journalist Elijah J. Magnier noted that as Israel prepares for a ground invasion that is putting around 1.5 Million Palestinians—the majority of whom have already been forced to flee their homes—at risk, the U.S. is fully in support, knowing that the goal is to fulfilling Israel’s ultimate plan of forcing the Palestinian population out of the Gaza Strip for good.

🔹Elijah J. Magnier on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ejmalrai
🔹Rachel Blevins on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RachBlevins

Danny & Pepe: NATO’s march to WWIII

Par : AHH

🚨 China 🇨🇳 and Geopolitics is LIVE with journalist and geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar TODAY March 8th at 10am eastern, 6pm Moscow!

We discuss a series of events hosted in Russia 🇷🇺 and attended by our guest on multipolarity, and how they contrast with NATO’s march to WWIII which has intensified in recent weeks.

What is the U.S. and its NATO vassals offering via Biden’s SOTU speech and Macron’s threats, and how does it compare to the Russia and China-led alternative?

The Agony of Bear Meat

Par : AHH

Who will win the Russian lottery?? That remains the outstanding issue…

France’s La Grande Pink Armée readies for war on (and inside) the black soil of Novorossiya

Zionism pushes Western Liberalism into Decay

Par : AHH

The satanic Israeli total Annihilation of the Palestinian civilians is fully and unconditionally supported by the entire combined West as Israel primarily provides an aircraft carrier in the heart of the Muslim world, permitting divide and rule games in order to direct the maintenance of the Petrodollar, and influence flows of energy around the world.

medieval Syrian crusader castle





The concept of Israel is age-old. A garrison colony-state on permanent guard on behalf of the sponsoring homebase. A splinter in the mind of the invaded and violated region. The names, raison, and weaponry change over the countless millennia, but the concept and purpose holds. And it relies for survival in the face of superior numbers and distant logistics on the deterrence of superior weaponry, sheer terror, and the power to inflict unimaginable savagery on the sea of surrounding hostile natives and their soft targets.

The educator Capasso importantly describes the second purpose of Permanent Wars in the region: to prevent at all costs the development and return of Islamic civilization as a pole of multipolarity. The intellectual and moral and cultural heart of muslims are those most savagely impoverished and decimated by Permanent Wars, not the nomadic, illiterate, shallow and impressionable desert bedouins who mainly “benefit” from the oil right now, spending it on escorts in Paris or the game tables of Vegas. And they stash their wealth in western banks and havens, reinforcing levers of control.

What propelled Islam in past were sovereign-minded Yemenis, Iranians, Iraqis, and Greater Syria, as well as various tribes subjugated today within the GCC. This is the territory at heart of the Resistance now fighting to break the chains of the western Beast, at any cost, as does the Russian MIR.

And without successful emancipation, marked by eradication of “israel,” there can never be renewal and rebirth of classical Islamic civilization, nor Russian, nor any other sovereign pole of the traditional civilizations..

This desperate dependency of the combined West on Israel, to sustain the Way of Plunder and free lunches off others, is currently being turned on its head. The tail has gone beyond wagging the dog, to leveraging it and eating it outright! The betrayal in motion by Zionism on the Anglo-America-led western Old Order is astonishing to witness, even greater than the civilizational suicide of Europe at Russian hands.

Can China arrest the drive to Armageddon?

Par : AHH

China resumes shuttle diplomacy as Ukraine war drums get louder… in this foreboding backdrop, what is it that Li Hui can hope to achieve?

By Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar at the Indian Punchline.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry announcement on Wednesday that Beijing’s Special Representative on Eurasian Affairs Li Hui will set out from home on March 2 on a “second round of shuttle diplomacy on seeking a political settlement of the Ukraine crisis” may seem a mismatch.

Just two days earlier, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke up that he wouldn’t rule out the possibility of putting Western boots on the ground in Ukraine in order to prevent a Russian victory. Li Hui is expected to visit Russia, the EU headquarters in Brussels, Poland, Ukraine, Germany and France.

The Chinese spokesperson Mao Ning kept the expectations low by  adding that “Behind this, there is only one goal that China hopes to achieve, that is, to build consensus for ending the conflict and pave the way for peace talks. China will continue to play its role, carry out shuttle diplomacy, pool consensus and contribute China’s wisdom for the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis.”

Macron spoke up after a summit of European leaders in Paris on Monday. But in diplomacy, there is always something more than what meets the eye. Macron later insisted that he had spoken quite deliberately: “These are rather serious topics. My every word on this issue is weighted, thought through and calculated.” Nonetheless, representatives of most of the 20 participating countries at the Paris conclave, especially Germany, later took a public position that they had no intention to send troops to Ukraine and were strongly opposed to participation in military operations against Russia.

The French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne since explained that the presence of Western military in Ukraine might be necessary to provide some types of assistance, including de-mining operations and instruction of Ukrainian soldiers, but that did not imply their participation in the conflict.

The White House reaction has been a reaffirmation that the US would not send troops to Ukraine. The National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said in a statement that Biden “has been clear that the US will not send troops to fight in Ukraine.” The NSC spokesman John Kirby also denied that US troops could be sent for de-mining, arms production or cyber operations. However, Kirby underscored that it would be a “sovereign decision” for France or any other NATO country whether to send troops to Ukraine.

Interestingly, though, two days after the White House reacted, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin added a caveat during a hearing at the House Armed Services Committee that if Ukraine falls, Russia and NATO could come into a direct military conflict, as the Russian leadership “won’t stop there” if Ukraine is defeated. “Quite frankly, if Ukraine falls, I really believe that NATO will be in a fight with Russia,” Austin said.

What emerges out of this cacophony is that quite possibly, the ground is being prepared for a soft landing for the idea of western military deployment in Ukraine in some form going forward. Within hours of Austin’s testimony on Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote on the Telegram channel, “Is this an overt threat to Russia or an attempt to cook up an excuse for Zelensky? Both are insane. However, everyone can see who the aggressor is — it is Washington.” 

The NATO has been steadily climbing the escalation ladder while the Russian reaction has been by and large to rev up the “meat grinder” in the war of attrition. But then, it is the Ukrainian carcass being ground and that doesn’t seem to matter to the Brits or Americans.

There was a time when attack on Crimea was deemed to have been a “red line.” Then came the October 2022 Crimean Bridge explosion — on the day after the 70th birthday of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Well, Russia successfully repaired the bridge and reopened it to traffic. An emboldened West thereupon began a string of attacks against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.

Russia repeatedly alleged that the British, along with the US, acted as spotters, supplying the Kiev regime with coordinates of targets and that the attacks against the Black Sea Fleet were actually literally conducted under the direction of British special services. The Russian MFA spokesperson Maria Zakharova said yesterday, “In general, the question that should be asked is not about Britain’s involvement in separate episodes of the conflict in Ukraine, but about the unleashing and participation of London in the anti-Russian hybrid war.” Indeed, recent reports mentioned that none other than the UK’s Chief of the Defense Staff Admiral Tony Radakin played a significant role in developing Ukraine’s military strategy in the Black Sea.

In retrospect, a NATO roadmap exists to bring the war home to Russia, the latest phase being a new air strike campaign against the Russian oil and gas industry. The escalation on such scale and sophistication is possible only with the direct or indirect participation of NATO personnel and real-time intelligence provided by the US satellites or ground stations. Equally, there is no more any taboo about what Ukraine can do with the weapons the NATO countries have provided.

Lately, the CIA began to brazenly speak about all that, too. The New York Times featured an exclusive news article Monday that a CIA—supported network of spy bases constructed in the past eight years going back to the coup in Kiev in 2014, that includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border.

Suffice to say, while on the diplomatic track, Russia’s repeated attempts to halt the fighting have been ignored by the West — the Istanbul negotiations in late March 2022; Putin’s proposal for a freeze on frontline movements and a ceasefire as early as autumn 2022, and then again in September 2023 — the CIA and Pentagon have been working hard to achieve victory at all costs.

Even after September 2023, Putin signalled willingness to freeze the current frontline and move to a ceasefire and even communicated this through a number of channels, including through foreign governments that have good relations with both Russia and the US. But the faction that wants to crush Russia militarily at all costs has prevailed. Austin’s remark on Friday suggests that this passion seems to be impervious to facts on the ground.

Make no mistake, on February 24, Canada and Italy joined the UK, Germany, France and Denmark to sign 10-year security agreements with Kiev. These agreements underscore a collective commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and its aspirations to join the NATO military alliance, implying that their aim is a long-term confrontation with Russia. And Europe is now discussing the deployment of boots on the ground in Ukraine.

In this foreboding backdrop, what is it that Li Hui can hope to achieve as he meets up with the deputy head of the department Mikhail Galuzin, a middle ranking Russian diplomat in the foreign ministry, on March 3? Succinctly put, while China’s interest in resolving the Ukrainian crisis is not in doubt, Li Hui’s “shuttle diplomacy” can only be seen as an effort to understand the current positions of the parties, as the situation has changed since May 2023 when he last touched base — and the fact remains that there are active discussions about further steps regarding the conflict in the West after the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.

Conceivably, this upgrade of the opinions of the parties will enable Beijing to make decisions about its actions. A potential Europe trip by President Xi Jinping is also being talked about that may include France.

China is painstakingly rebuilding trust with the European powers and both sides eye pragmatic cooperation despite geopolitical frictions. China remains intrigued by Macron’s advocacy of Europe’s “strategic autonomy.” Meanwhile, the spectre of Donald Trump haunts both Europe and China, which, hopefully, may boost the latter’s chances at winning Europe’s trust.

Haiti – A Paradise for State Crime

Par : AHH

Haiti: shaping the terrain for massive exploitation and extraction of huge hydrocarbon reserves

For GlobalSouth.co by Peter Koenig
Economist, Geopolitical Analyst
26 February 2024

In his recent article “The Destabilization of Haiti: Anatomy of a Military Coup d’Etat“, Professor Michel Chossudovsky memorializes 29 February 2024 as the 20th anniversary of the coup d’État against Haiti’s elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

He also describes the military motives for controlling Haiti, namely to destabilize the country and to plunge it into constant chaos. This is precisely what has happened. Haiti is in a constant state of near absolute poverty – by far the poorest country in all Latin America – according to official UN / World Bank indices.

Is there a reason?

As we will see, Haiti is also one of the world’s richest countries, per capita, judged by available natural resources – oil and gas. Discovered before the 2010 earthquake and confirmed by the tremendous 7.0 Richter seism.

Haiti’s Potential Hydrocarbon Deposits

The Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA), issued in May 1980 a report under the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC), describing the likelihood of large oil deposits in the Caribbean, including off-shore of Port-au-Prince, Haiti. (See this) Haiti is also said to have trillions of dollars-worth of off-shore natural gas. (See this)

These discoveries were likely made in the 1970s and 1980s, perhaps earlier, by US satellite imaging. US satellites have mapped the world for hydrocarbon resources already at least 50 years ago. Such information used to be available on internet – no longer.


Brief Haitian History and Background

François Duvalier, also known as Papa Doc, served as the president of Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. He was succeeded by his 19-year-old son, Jean-Claude Duvalier, nicknamed “Baby Doc”.

The Duvalier dynasty was an autocratic hereditary dictatorship, indiscriminately killing people who dared interfere with their government style. The dynasty empire lasted almost 29 years, from 1957 until 1986, spanning the rule of the father-and-son duo, François and Jean-Claude Duvalier. Both served the United States’ political and economic interests.

The sociopolitical situation in Haiti deteriorated seriously under the regime of Baby Doc and his powerful wife. In 1986, President Reagon asked Jean-Claude to leave Haiti, so that the US could “help install” a more stable and serious government. In February 1986 Baby Doc fled to France in a US Airforce jet.

The end of the Duvalier dynasty brought hope for “freedom” and democracy to the Haitian people. There was a succession of short-lived Presidents until 1991, when Jean-Bertrand Aristide was first elected in February 1991. His Presidency lasted 234 days, when a brief military government took over.

In the ten years following Mr. Aristide’s first election, the US-supported political turmoil in Haiti, with a succession of Heads of State, during which Mr. Aristide was four times elected President.

His last Presidency started in February 2001 and ended 3 years later, when Mr. Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically elected President, was quietly deposed by a US-guided coup on 29 February 2004 and deported to South Africa, where he presumably still lives in exile. He was discouraged by the US State Department from returning to Haiti.

This coup was planned well in advance, by such unlikely allies, as progressive “socialist” President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – Lula, for short – and George W. Bush, both then Presidents of their respective countries – Brazil and United States.

By now we know that Lula has nothing of progressive, and even less of “socialist” in him. He is and has been totally sold to the usurping west, to Wall Street and the IMF – and that already during his first two terms as President of Brazil, 2003 – 2011.

Both, Lula and Bush are traitors of their countries – but Lula, a make-believe socialist — has deeply betrayed his country during his first two terms, and now, since 1 January 2023, in his third term, but also the people of Haiti.

After associating with Wall Street and the IMF during his first two terms, Lula is again allying with the money brokers – the debt machines, as one may call them.

Toussaint l’Ouverture (1743–1803) Haitian statesman and general

Humiliation of the French and Exceptionalism

Remember – during the French Revolution (1789-99), French black slaves in Haiti launched the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804), led by Toussaint l’Ouverture, a former slave and black general of the French Army. After 12 years of struggle and conflict, Napoleon Bonaparte’s forces were defeated, and on 1 January 1804 Haiti declared her sovereign independence.

Haiti, thus, became the first independent nation of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the first country in the Americas to eliminate slavery. Haiti is the only state in history established by a successful slave revolt. See Wikipedia for more details.

In the 1980s, with close to 200 years of independence (on January 1, 2024 Haiti celebrated 220 years of independence), a black, sovereign, autonomous island in the Caribbean was perceived as a “danger” for the Unted States’ “National Security”. There was already a “Communist Cuba” to deal with just 90 miles (150 km) from the southern Florida border. A black independent, uncontrolled, Haiti was beyond limits for a still racist white US supremacy.

Plus, at that time, Haiti’s riches in petrol and gas were already known to Washington, though, most likely not to Haiti.

Thus, the US, French and Canada ganged up against Haiti’s government to control the island and her riches. Chaos was the modus operandi – and US-induced chaos and crime reign up to this day over Haiti.


What is important to know – that there are no coincidences.

In the 1970’s / 1980s and perhaps up to early 1990s, huge petrol resources were satellite-discovered deep under the sea floor off-shore from Port-au-Prince, Haiti. To get to these resources is expensive. Unless they are brought up closer to the surface – for example by an earthquake, that cracks the tectonic plates, letting pressure bring the oil closer into shallower areas.

The 2010 earthquake was planned for precisely that purpose.

On 12 January 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti, leaving its capital Port-au-Prince devastated. About 220,000 people were reportedly killed.

Among other aid, the Clinton Foundation was supposed to bring order and development back to Haiti, after the seismic devastation. In fact, the contrary is true. More than ten years later, chaos and crime continue dominating the Haitian part of the island of Hispaniola.

Is there a purpose behind it, other than that the Clinton Foundation enriched itself by the multi-million-dollar donations it received to help restore social and economic order in Haiti?

According to the World Atlas (January 2019), recent findings have confirmed Haiti’s enormous oil and gas reserves. Discoveries show that the nation of Haiti might have some of the largest oil reserves in the world. They are estimated to be potentially larger than those of Venezuela. See this for more details.

This amply explains why the United States will not leave Haiti to her independence. The monetary stakes, the riches are too high.

———

Today, the same Lula, who helped instigate the 2004 coup against President Aristide, is “volunteering” in setting up a UN occupation / security force in Haiti, consisting mainly of Brazilian troops. This military occupation is supposed to bring back order and promote economic development.

They will also prepare the ground – or waters – for massive exploitation and extraction of the huge hydrocarbon reserves. This is the military’s hidden agenda. Of course, not part of the official terms of reference.

May Haiti remember her status of the first independent state in Latin America – and rise again.
These hydrocarbon riches belong to the people of Haiti.

——-


Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Hamas’s Foreign Policy

Par : AHH

The unity of the Resistance from the river to the sea is not only inspiring from afar, but has yielded practical results for the Palestinians.

By Ganna Eid of Al Mayadeen

Daud Abdullah wrote an erudite and comprehensive analysis of Hamas’s foreign policy which was released by the Afro-Middle East Center (AMEC) in 2020. The majority of the writing was done in 2019, and thus there are a few lacunae based on the last 5 years of world affairs.

On the world scale, the Covid-19 pandemic rocked production, distribution, and public health sectors; the Russian special military operation in Ukraine gave us the first of a series of likely wars in the decline of Atlanticist hegemony. In Palestine, the “Unity Intifada” — also known as Seif Al-Quds battle–highlighted the connectivity of the various Resistance factions within Palestine.

Now, today, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and its aftermath have changed the regional geometry, with even more unity among all factions of the Axis of Resistance across the region.

I will first analyze some of Abdullah’s policy prescriptions for Hamas based on the world situation in 2020, and then see to what extent these policy prescriptions have been undertaken by the Islamic movement or to what extent they still require action. In this article, three elements of Hamas’s foreign policy stick out to me: their relations with Russia and China, the shifts and reconfigurations of the Axis of Resistance, and finally, Hamas’s ability to politically and diplomatically maneuver after October 7th.

Russian FM Lavrov meets with Hamas politburo members Khaled Meshal and Osama Hamdan, Moscow, circa 2015

The first topic to discuss revolves around Hamas’s relations with Russia and China.

Abdullah’s analysis of Hamas’s relations with Russia and China is one of the most honest, sober, and important analyses I have read in some time. With reference to Russia, Abdullah points out that early on in Hamas’s existence, Russia was willing to break with the iron grip of the Quartet and defend Hamas from the ‘terrorist’ label. Hamas officials and delegates have gone to Moscow on a number of occasions, the latest being in early 2024. At these meetings, Hamas has been treated as a regular political party and a representative of the Palestinians, which has afforded the movement and its leaders meetings with high-ranking officials in Russia, such as Sergey Lavrov.

Yet, the two-headed eagle of Russia stands at a crossroads still. While Ukraine has fallen out of the news cycle, the war is slowing down and there have been some signals of a peace treaty in the near future. Putin–and Russia–understand that the Ukrainian regime are puppets of the imperialists tasked with bringing down the Eurasian superpower, yet this analysis is not extended to “Israel”. Why is this? Is it that a great many “Israeli” citizens are of Russian origin? Is it because Putin, like the double-headed eagle of Russia’s standard, is balancing his role as the post-Soviet liberal statesman and his role as the Eurasianist Hercules whose sword hovers over the Gordian Knot of NATO imperialism? This delicate balancing act will have to come to an end, especially with the carnage wrought by “Israel” and the USA in Gaza today.

Armed Fatah militants reading copies of ‘Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung,’ Jordan, 1970

With reference to China, Abdullah does not spare the People’s Republic from criticism of their position vis-a-vis Palestine and Hamas. While China–like Russia–has from the start shielded Hamas from the ‘terrorist’ label, and has treated Hamas as a legitimate governing party, they are involved in their own balancing act.

China has extensive trade relations with the Zionist colony, and uses this along with their recognition of Hamas as a means to try and enter the region as a ‘fair and honest peace broker’. While their brokering of rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia is laudable, China is yet to use their global clout to help isolate and sanction the Zionists. It still clings to the dead and buried ‘two-state’ solution as their official position.

Yet as Abdullah points out, the relationship between the more radical Chinese intelligentsia and the Chinese state is a close one, and one which Hamas should exploit:

As things stand, China’s intelligentsia are increasingly questioning whether the ‘keep a low profile’ policy is fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. In this context, Hamas has nothing to lose and everything to gain by positioning itself to benefit from changes that seem imminent in China’s foreign policy.

The above quote from Abdullah is one with which I agree; Chinese intellectuals, such as Zhang Weiwei and Minqi Li, are theorizing multipolarity and the ongoing fall of US hegemony. The Chinese intelligentsia are also involved in President Xi’s ideological campaigns in the PLA, which aim to politicize the army and involve them further in socialist construction. The growing rift in Sino-US relations is an opportunity for Hamas and the Palestinian national movement.

Hamas’s reconciliation with the Assad government in Damascus is an important development after the two parties had differing stances on the civil war and eventual proxy war in Syria in 2012. This subsequently improved relations between Iran and Hamas, which had suffered after 2012 as well. The ability of Hezbollah, and indeed Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah himself, to orchestrate this reconciliation shows the seriousness and importance of the Arab strategic depth.

A driving force of this reconciliation was the 2021 ‘Unity Intifada’ and the shifts on the ground in the region which have strengthened the Resistance. The 2021 ‘Unity Intifada’ is important for a number of reasons, primarily that the Resistance in Gaza–the liberated land base from which the national liberation struggle is being launched–and the Resistance in the occupied territories went hand-in-hand into battle for the first time since the Hamas-Fatah split in 2007.

The unity of the Resistance from the river to the sea is not only inspiring from afar, but has yielded practical results for the Palestinians. The internal crises of the Zionist colony highlight the contradictory trend: while the Palestinians are uniting after years of division, the Zionists are at each other’s throats. The unity of the Resistance and the disintegration of social relations in the colony continue today, in the midst of Operation Al Aqsa Flood.

Since October 7, Hamas and other Resistance factions inside Palestine (notably PIJ, PFLP, and DFLP) have relentlessly unleashed a guerilla war on the Zionist colony. This has not led to military victories alone; Hamas has the potential to come out of this in a better position diplomatically. As with all things, this depends on the balance of forces. Hamas has insisted that the only end which they see fit in any ‘ceasefire’ is an all-for-all prisoner swap. The magnitude of Palestinian prisoners compared to “Israeli” ones is already a numeric victory if this is to happen, and it seems that the Zionists may have to concede to this because their American masters are attempting to tighten the leash. Yet, why should Hamas stop there? The Ansar Allah forces in Sanaa have shown their willingness to disrupt global trade in support of Palestine.

Hezbollah is showing signs of escalating battles on the northern front, which is not an irrational fear for the Zionists given what happened in 2000 and 2006. So how could Hamas secure a larger victory? If the Resistance is able to enfeeble the Zionists and settle a temporary truce at the 1967 borders, that then increases the size of the land base and improves the logistics for launching a war of total liberation because there will be some territorial contiguity. This would also shift internal developments in Palestine, such as the potential formation of a unity government which gets rid of the comprador elements of Fatah. Indeed, PCPSR polling shows that the corrupt PA is as unpopular as ever.

The potential creation of a unity government then opens diplomatic space for powerful countries like Russia and China to support one democratic state, which they currently do not. As the battle for Palestine rages on, we will indeed see how Hamas’s foreign policy space waxes and wanes. As always, the patient and calculated tenor of the Axis of Resistance will provide us with a beacon toward total liberation.

≈≈

This is a timely article reviewing internal political maneuvering and realigments amongst the Palestinians. In two days, on February 29th, all Palestinian factions are hosted in Moscow in the attempt to create a unity government presenting a common political front.

Clearing the Fog of Black-Palestinian Solidarity

Par : AHH

As oppressors worldwide are in solidarity, a Palestinian calls for solidarity among the oppressed.

By Ganna Eid of Al Mayadeen

In the past decade, whenever there is an uptick in Palestinian revolutionary activity or Zionist aggression, calls come from the USA, Canada, and Western Europe to activate or otherwise recognize historical Black-Palestinian solidarity.

While there are certainly bases for this solidarity, often they are defined in the negative. The argument follows that our common oppressors–the imperialist USA and the Zionist genocidaires–collaborate in repressing our movements through joint police training exercises, weapons trade, colonialism, and criminalization of revolutionaries. This negative solidarity is based on the fact that our oppressors are in solidarity with one another, therefore we must do the same. Undoubtedly true, this argument does not get to the root of the issue.

Which Black people and Black movements are in solidarity with which Palestinian people and movements historically and in the contemporary juncture? The question must be asked again in light of Kenyan President Ruto’s statement in support of “Israel”, other African states’ relations with the colony, and the existence of groups like IBSI, which promote “Black-Israeli” solidarity. The question must be asked again, also, in order to clear the air and answer the fundamental question of politics and war posed by Mao Zedong: “who are our enemies? Who are our friends?”

In this article, I hope to look at concrete examples of Black-Palestinian solidarity, with an eye toward class and nation, which are often erased in the general call for Black solidarity with Palestine. This is done in order to define exactly what Black-Palestinian solidarity has been, is, and what it can be.

In 1964, Malcolm X (Al Hajj Malek El Shabazz) wrote a piece in the Egyptian Gazette, where he detailed the relationship between Zionism and imperialism.

“The Israeli Zionists are convinced they have successfully camouflaged their new kind of colonialism. Their colonialism appears to be more “benevolent” more “philanthropic” a system with which they rule simply by getting their potential victims to accept their friendly offers of economic “aid,” and other tempting gifts, that they dangle in front of the newly independent African nations, whose economies are experiencing great difficulties.”

The Honorable Malcolm X understood the international element of imperialism and its counterpart in the internationalist movements of the day. This statement is particularly true today as the Zionist regime is trying to dangle economic aid in the face of the Malawian government in exchange for migrant farm labor.

Martyr Malcolm continues:

“The number one weapon of 20th-century imperialism is Zionist Dollarism, and one of the main bases for this weapon is Zionist Israel. The ever-scheming European imperialists wisely placed Israel where it could geographically divide the Arab world, infiltrate and sow the seed of dissension among African leaders and also divide the Africans against the Asians.”


The imperialist strategy of “divide and conquer” is present in much of the early Zionist writing, which saw Palestine as the “gate to Africa and bridge to Asia.” The division of Arabs and Africans along racial lines and the conflation of pre-modern slavery in the Islamic world with American chattel slavery is part and parcel of this imperialist strategy.

Although Malcolm X did not live to see the 1967 war and its aftermath, the Black Panther Party took up this mantle of Black anti-Zionism after his martyrdom.

After the 1967 war against the Zionists, the plight of the Palestinians was injected into the consciousness of many anti-colonial groups worldwide. The Black Panther Party (BPP) in the USA made its first statement in support of Palestine in 1970, according to Dr. Greg Thomas.

The statement reads:

“We support the Palestinian’s just struggle for liberation one hundred percent. We will go on doing this, and we would like for all of the progressive people of the world to join in our ranks in order to make a world in which all people can live.”

The BPP was a Marxist-Leninist formation, inspired by the ideas of Juche in the DPRK, as well as other Marxist tendencies of the day. Their ideas of inter-communalism came in part from this revolutionary Marxist understanding, paired with their own revolutionary understanding of being members of the Black nation in the USA. Thomas continues, showing that the BPP was in “daily communication” with the PLO through their office of international affairs in revolutionary Algiers.

The Panthers’ second statement in 1974 not only called for a Zionist retreat to pre-67 borders but also called for a form of revolutionary inter-communalism and a “people’s republic of the Middle East.” Indeed, many Palestinian and Arab revolutionaries share this vision of a region liberated from Zionism, colonialism, and imperialism.

While revolutionary Black organizations after the Panthers continued to support Palestine vocally, the realities of COINTELPRO and mass incarceration have had a profound impact on the organization and scale of Black resistance inside this country. From his cell in “Ramon” prison, PFLP Secretary-General Ahmad Sa’adat highlights the prison as a tool of the oppressors and a site of struggle for the oppressed:

“From Ansar to Attica to Lannemezan, the prison is not only a physical space of confinement but a site of struggle of the oppressed confronting the oppressor. Whether the name is Mumia Abu-Jamal, Walid Daqqa or Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, political prisoners behind bars can and must be a priority for our movements.”

This statement by Sa’adat is written as part of the introduction to a new printing of Huey Newton’s book Revolutionary Suicide. Sa’adat continues in his introduction, stating that the message and necessity of the Black Panthers is still alive today with mass incarceration and police violence coloring the relationship between the police and the Black masses in America. While movements such as Cooperation Jackson exist today – headed by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement and some former leaders of the Black Liberation Army – we cannot help but call for a rejuvenation and reuniting of revolutionary Black forces in this country after years of repression.

We must renew the calls for a Republic of New Afrika in the Black Belt as one possible solution to the political necessities of ending the settler colonial entity of the United States. Max Ajl comments in his response to Patrick Wolfe’s work on settler colonialism that “Palestinians from Hamas to the PFLP to Islamic Jihad are using land from which they forced settlers, as the physical land-base for an armed nationalist struggle.”

So while we Palestinians can and must learn from and collaborate with revolutionary Black movements worldwide, we must also shine as a beacon of light on the other side of the revolutionary field of action. Our liberation is incomplete without the liberation of Africa and the Black masses of the Americas.

Yemen’s fearless escalation

Par : AHH

Yemen’s fearless escalation

Ansarullah challenge Egypt’s compliance with Israeli Gaza aid curbs

By Abdel Bari Atwan at Rai Al Youm

While many Arab governments that possess hundreds of tanks and warplanes have been passively watching Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, the Yemeni government in Sanaa — though exhausted by eight years of war and suffocating blockade — has taken the lead in acting to oppose it.

Yemeni naval forces responded to Israel’s criminal escalation in the Gaza Strip with a parallel escalation first targeting Israeli-linked commercial shipping, and then the US and UK warships deployed to protect it. The two countries’ threats and their repeated airstrikes on Yemen, including the capital, failed to intimidate the Yemeni leadership or people. They had the opposite effect, prompting an intensification of attacks on ships that do not comply with instructions in the Red and Arabian seas, and then missile strikes on the Israeli-held port of Umm al-Rashrash (Eilat) last Thursday.

On Friday, Abdelmalek al-Houthi, spiritual leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah movement, gave a fiery speech to millions of marchers who have been taking to the streets of Yemeni cities every week in solidarity with the Palestinian people and resistance groups in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. He affirmed that Yemeni naval and land forces would step up their actions in the Red Sea and also introduce their submarine force into the conflict. He hinted that plans were in place for future actions and surprise moves which he could not disclose.

On Thursday, Yemeni military spokesman Yahya Sarie had announced three further operations: a missile strike on a British-owned cargo ship in the Gulf of Aden which set it on fire; the targeting of a US destroyer; and a missile and drone barrage against Eilat that sent thousands of Israeli settlers scurrying into shelters.

History will record with awe this Yemeni courage at a time of Arab silence and collusion, and how the Yemenis dared cross the reddest of red lines by taking action against the warships of the two mightiest empires in modern times: Britain, whose sun has set but remains a powerful force, and the US superpower that wields an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons.

The Yemeni armed forces’ next step could be to ‘punish’ the Western powers that have been ‘punishing’ various regional actors for supporting the Palestinian. That may entail moving the battle from the Red and Arabian seas to the coastal waters of occupied Palestine.

That was hinted at by leading Ansarullah figure Ali al-Houthi in his response to Egyptian spokesman Dia Rashwan’s attempt to justify Egypt’s failure to force open the Rafah border crossing to allow in thousands of aid trucks to provide relief to Gaza’s starving children. Rashwan had explained that Israel would bombard any trucks that tried to enter the Gaza Strip without its permission.

Ali al-Houthi’s riposte was, verbatim: “We are willing to send people to escort the trucks and transporters taking food, humanitarian, and medical aid into the Gaza Strip. We have much proven experience in this regard gained during the eight-year war when aid was delivered under bombardment.”

The Egyptian authorities are unlikely to take up this proposal, which is hugely embarrassing for them and exposes their collusion in Israel’s policy of starving the Gaza Strip’s more than two million inhabitants. But it has at least served to call them out and publicly challenge their lame excuses for inaction.

The fearlessness of the Yemenis is legendary. Having defied the US and UK’s armadas, and humiliated Israel by closing the Bab al-Mandeb straight to its shipping without it daring to retaliate, I wouldn’t be surprised if they send their own aid shipments towards Gaza and challenge the Egyptian authorities to let them in via Rafah.

The Yemenis are masters of the impressive surprise. They act as they say, and do as they threaten. I fully expect they will match the Afghans and Vietnamese in giving the US a taste of defeat, one that may be the beginning of the end of its military presence in the region.

The flourishing Iran-Russia alliance

The US is paying the price for its strategic short-sightedness

By Abdel Bari Atwan at Rai Al Youm

Russia is making military and economic advances in the Middle East, while the US is in rapid retreat in most of the region’s countries.

This is not only due to the cleverness of its foes, especially the Russians, but to its own stupidity: its arrogance and short-sightedness, and placing all its strategic eggs in the basket of the Israeli occupation state. This is now entangling it in wars – especially in Yemen and Iraq — that could result in the foreseeable future in its military bases being dismantled and its forces and fleets ignominiously exiting the region.

The US’ biggest failure lies in the way the blockades and sanctions it zealously imposes on several states in the region — especially Iran but also to a lesser extent Syria and Yemen — are backfiring.

Iran has succeeded in breaking the embargo imposed on it by developing its domestic military and civilian industries and scientific and technological expertise, including a nuclear programme that enables it to build nuclear weapons in a matter of weeks should its self-imposed prohibition of such a step be lifted.

On Thursday, Reuters news agency, citing six separate sources, reported that Iran was supplying Russia with guided ballistic missiles from the Fateh-110 family, such as the road-mobile Zolfaghar which can hit targets from a distance of 300 to 700 kilometres. Its sources said around 400 missiles had already been sent to Russia by air or by ship via the Caspian Sea, and more would be delivered in the coming few weeks.

This cooperation between two countries subject to draconian US sanctions naturally worries the Biden administration and its Western allies, especially at a time when Russia is making major gains in the Ukraine war that enable it to consolidate its control over the four annexed eastern provinces and Crimea.

Because of the US embargo and sanctions, Iran made its mind up from day one of the Ukraine war and chose to side with Russia — not just verbally, but in practice. It sold the Russian army drones that are considered among the most sophisticated in the world, and is now coming to its ally’s aid by supplying it with smart missiles to replenish its stocks.

Meanwhile, Iran’s paramilitary allies are doing Russia a great service by engaging the US in costly military and economic wars of attrition. Yemeni naval forces now hit out at US warships in the Red Sea and Arabia Sea on an almost daily basis, while Iraq’s Hashd ash-Shaabi assumes the task of striking US bases in Iraq and Syria — and maybe Jordan next.

This growing military cooperation between Iran and Russia is unlikely to be a one-way street. In exchange for its arms supplies, Iran will almost certainly be provided with top-of-the-line Russian military and civilian, possibly including nuclear, technology.

The Iranian-Russian alliance has borne fruit in the form of successes in the Ukraine war, while the US-Israeli alliance has only reaped a succession of failures and defeats: in the Gaza Strip, and — coming soon — in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq. Just wait and see.

Pagan American Rome and Christian Russian Rome

Par : AHH

” … These two Romes are fulfilling the legacies they inherited: American Rome, like its pagan predecessor, has become an oppressive conqueror, seeking to impose its culture on all its victims. Russian Rome, like Orthodox Constantinople, seeks friendly relations with anyone on the basis of shared spiritual values … And just as the old Roman West once envied New Rome Constantinople and sought to rob her … so now pagan American Rome eyes Russian Rome with the same envious look (mainly her natural resources).”

by Walt Garlington at Katehon.

When most folks look at a map, they will see only a single Rome, the one in Italy. But there are actually two more, neither of them in Italy: one is identified with Washington, D.C., in the United States and the other with Moscow in Russia, each quite different from the other as they represent two different stages of Roman history. In the American Rome one will see a continuation of pagan, pre-Christian Rome, while in the Russian Rome one will see a continuation of Orthodox Constantinople/New Rome.

Let us look first at American Rome. From her earliest days, the leaders of the US identified closely with the pre-Christian Roman Republic:

‘Throughout the course of history, the ancient civilization of Rome has been widely discussed, praised, and emulated by writers, statesmen, and philosophers alike. Rome has no shortage of admirers, and arguably some of its most enthusiastic supporters were the American Founding Fathers who were enamoured of the Roman past largely because of Rome’s unique form of government, which had supposedly preserved liberty for hundreds of years. The Founders lavished praise upon the Roman republican heroes who defended their government from tyranny in the turbulent final days of the Republic.

‘ . . . The American Revolution further intensified interest in the Roman world. By anchoring those arguments for freedom to ancient precedent, Revolutionary American authors aimed to demonstrate that their arguments were timeless and firmly embedded in history. Historians such as Plutarch, Livy, and Tacitus successfully encapsulated in writing the eternal and unavoidable struggle between liberty and power.[4] Parallels between Rome and America were made frequently by Revolutionary writers and orators. Josiah Quincy compared the tyrant Caesar to King George, asking “is not Britain to America what Caesar was to Rome?”[5] One of the most dramatic and obvious examples of reference to Rome was Joseph Warren’s oration on the Boston Massacre in 1775, during which he wore a Roman toga.[6] It would be difficult to find any public figure of the Revolutionary period who did not quote a classical author in their pamphlets, orations or letters.[7]

‘ . . . The founding generation admired Cicero as a steadfast defender of liberty and a deeply philosophical thinker on the ways in which government can best preserve our naturally endowed rights and freedoms. He was referred to as a constant source of wisdom on the topic of political philosophy as well as a guide to civic virtue and was described by Josiah Quincy as “the best of men and the first of patriots.”[15] Cicero’s oratorical prowess was emulated by many early American lawyers and statesmen who wished to be as eloquent and impassioned as the man who defied tyrants.[16]

‘ . . . Historical figures such as Cicero and Cato were considered fitting role models not only due to their character, but because of the similarity between their predicament and that of the Founders. Cicero and Cato, faced a power far greater than themselves, but were steeled by the cause of liberty. Regardless of how history played out, the Founders viewed Cicero and Cato as heroes of freedom and enemies of tyranny.’

The preoccupation in US thinking vis-à-vis Rome, as with nearly everything else, is the idea of a religiously agnostic individual liberty. This will contrast with Russia, as we shall see. But to begin with, we must see what it is that Russia, the Third Rome, inherited from the second Rome, Constantinople:

‘As the historical, lawful descendants of ancient Rome, which was destroyed by barbarians in the fifth century, the inhabitants of Byzantium called themselves Romans. In a vast empire divided into many nationalities there was one faith—Orthodox Christianity. The Byzantines literally fulfilled the Christian teaching of a new humanity living in a Divine spirit, where “there is neither Greek, nor Jew, nor Scythe,” as the Apostle Paul wrote. This hope preserved the country from the destructive storm of ethnic conflict. It was enough for any pagan or foreigner to accept the Orthodox Faith, and confirm it in deed, in order to become a full member of society. On the Byzantine throne, for example, were almost as many Armenians as there were Greeks; there were also citizens of Syrian, Arabian, Slavic, and Germanic origin. Amongst the higher ranks of government were representatives of all peoples in the Empire—the main requirements were their competence and dedication to the Orthodox Faith. This provided Byzantine civilization with incomparable cultural wealth.

‘The only foreign elements for the Byzantines were people who were strange to Orthodox morals and to the ancient Byzantine culture and perception of the world. For example, coarse, ignorant, money-grubbing Western Europeans of the time were considered barbarian by the Romans. . . .

‘We must admit that our own Slavic forebears were no more well-mannered, and also succumbed to the barbaric temptation to get rich quick at the expense of Constantinople’s seemingly inexhaustible wealth. However, to their credit, and fortunately for us, their lust for the spoils of war did not eclipse the most important thing: Russians comprehended Byzantium’s greatest treasure! This was neither gold, nor expensive textiles, nor even art and sciences. The greatest treasure of Byzantium was God.

‘Having traveled the world over in search of the truth and God, Prince Vladimir’s ambassadors experienced only in Byzantium that a true relationship between God and man exists; that it is possible for us to have living contact with another world. “We did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth,” said the ancestors of present-day Russians, astounded by their experience of Divine Liturgy in the Empire’s most important cathedral, the Hagia Sophia. They understood just what kind of treasure can be obtained in Byzantium. It was upon this treasure that our great forebears founded not banks, nor capital, nor even museums and pawn shops. They founded Rus’, Russia, the spiritual successor of Byzantium.’

The Russian Rome would go on to develop characteristics unique to herself:

‘When Orthodoxy spread throughout the Russian plains, the Russian soul in its collectiveness [sobornost] sought its own gift of God, which it found by turning to the Mother of God. The Russian people particularly venerate the Mother of God, which distinguishes our country and our traditions of the Orthodox faith. Of course, other peoples also venerate the Mother of God, but the Russian people chose the Mother of God for special veneration and reverence, as the door to the Heavenly Kingdom. The Mother of God was our special Protectress: there was not a single corner of the whole expanse of the former Russian Empire into which some miraculous icon of the Mother of God had not appeared that was venerated either locally or throughout the nation. The entire Russian land was sanctified by these holy icons; the Russian people believed that the Mother of God herself was invisibly present, as it were, at each icon.

‘This is our particularity. We will enter the Heavenly Kingdom through the Mother of God. The Mother of God is always depicted with the infant Christ the Savior. This particularity of icon-painting hearkens back to an ancient tradition that tells of some freethinking and insolent people who, looking at the Mother of God during his lifetime, said: “How can she be the Mother of God? How could she have given birth to God? How is this possible?” Then the Mother of God raised her most pure hands to heaven, seeking the protection of God, just as she is depicted on the Kursk-Root Icon. Then the Lord showed Himself to these disputers of this world in her most pure womb, just as He is depicted on her icon. These cowards, seeing such an incredible miracle, were cast into the fear of God; and the insolent people, who were infected with incurable pride, fled in terror, having seen the Savior’s face as Judge in anticipation of His Second Coming.

‘This is our icon. With the raised hands of the Mother of God it addresses all non-believers and believers alike, that they might learn to fear disbelief. This best witnesses to our entire people that the Mother of God is truly the Theotokos, that she truly bore our God and Savior.

‘The particular Russian piety for venerating the Mother of God is a response to the Russian soul’s age-old yearning to perceive God’s grace, which cannot be reduced to an abstract concept, distinctly and actually. The Mother of God also showed her protection to such great saints as our St. Sergius of Radonezh, to whom she appeared more than once, and in more recent times to St. Seraphim of Sarov. Recall how St. Seraphim, sitting on a log in the dense forest, revealed God’s grace to Motovilov distinctly and actually. St. Seraphim embraced him and suddenly the grace of the Holy Spirit moved from the saint to Motovilov who, perceiving God’s grace in fear and trembling, felt as though he were not on earth but in heaven.

‘This is what the Russian people seek: it desires to perceive God’s grace actually and completely. This is the ideal of the Russian soul.’

Thus, in contrast with the American Rome, the preoccupation of Russian Rome is not with worldly ideologies about individual liberty but with acquiring and experiencing the Grace of God.

These two Romes are fulfilling the legacies they inherited: American Rome, like its pagan predecessor, has become an oppressive conqueror, seeking to impose its culture on all its victims. Russian Rome, like Orthodox Constantinople, seeks friendly relations with anyone on the basis of shared spiritual values.

The two ends find expression in the symbols of each Rome. American Rome, like pagan Rome, has a single-headed eagle for its symbol, representing its monoculture that it forces all others to accept. Russian Rome, like the Christian Second Rome, has the double-headed eagle for her symbol, representing a harmonious unity-in-diversity of peoples and their cultures.

And just as the old Roman West once envied New Rome Constantinople and sought to rob her –

‘The capital city’s incalculable wealth, its beauty and elegance, amazed all the European peoples, who were still barbarians at the time when the Byzantine Empire was in its apogee. One can only imagine—indeed, history records it as such—how crude, ignorant Scandinavians, Germans, Franks, and Anglo-Saxons, whose chief occupation at the time was primitive sacking and pillage, after arriving from some town like Paris or London (which had populations of some tens of thousands) to this megalopolis of millions, a city of enlightened citizens, scholars, and elegantly dressed youths crowding imperial universities, dreamt of only one thing: invading and robbing, robbing and invading. In fact, when this was actually accomplished in 1204 by an army of Europeans calling themselves Crusaders, who, instead of freeing the Holy Land treacherously sacked the most beautiful city in the world, , Byzantine treasures were carried away in an uninterrupted flow over the course of fifty years.’

– so now pagan American Rome eyes Russian Rome with the same envious look (mainly her natural resources).

May the Mother of God, dear to Russians, through her Softener of Evil Hearts icon, turn the peoples of the States to repentance, to friendship with Russia, and to acceptance of the same Apostolic Faith of the Orthodox Church:

‘“Softener of evil hearts”… What a great deal of hope there is in the name of this icon: hope that someday justice will triumph on earth, that people will become kind and charitable, will begin to love one another. How difficult that is in our embittered world, and sometimes the mere sight of someone else’s suffering is enough to soften our own evil hearts…

‘This Icon is also called the “Simon’s Prophecy” icon. . . . It was after he had blessed St. Joseph and the Most-immaculate Mother of the Savior, that he addressed Mary with that same prophecy: “Behold, this child is set for the falling and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sin which shall be spoken against. Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” Just as Christ would be pierced with nails and a spear, so the soul of the Most-pure One would be pierced by a certain weapon of sorrow and pain in the heart, when she saw her Son’s suffering. After that, the heretofore hidden thoughts of the people regarding the Messiah would be revealed, and they would face a choice: to be with Christ, or against Him. Such an interpretation of Symeon’s prophecy became the subject of a number of icons of the Theotokos. All those who turn to them in prayer sense that with the softening of evil hearts comes an easing of spiritual and physical suffering. People come to recognize that when they pray for their enemies before such icons, their feelings of enmity are softened, and that internecine strife and hatreds abate, giving way to kindness.’

≈≈

Sakerites will remember our author Walt Garlington, mellifluous voice of the American South. I lived almost a decade of my life in Virginia, among most pleasant folks in USA like the Pacific NW, endearing me to southerners. He is a landscape artist like Batiushka, whom we also miss

Julian Assange’s Final Appeal

Par : AHH

If the WikiLeaks editor is extradited to face trumped-up ‘treason’ charges in the USA, it is the death of investigations into the inner workings of power by the press.

Reproduced from the Chris Hedges Report, with thanks.

If Julian Assange is denied permission to appeal his extradition to the United States before a panel of two judges at the high court in London this week, he will have no recourse left within the British legal system. His lawyers can ask the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for a stay of execution under Rule 39, which is given in “exceptional circumstances” and “only where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm”. But it is far from certain that the British court will agree. It may order Julian’s immediate extradition prior to a Rule 39 instruction or may decide to ignore a request from the ECtHR to allow Julian to have his case heard by the court.

The nearly 15-year-long persecution of Julian, which has taken a heavy toll on his physical and psychological health, is done in the name of extradition to the USA, where he would stand trial for allegedly violating 17 counts of the 1917 Espionage Act, with a potential sentence of 170 years.

Julian’s ‘crime’ is that he published classified documents, internal messages, reports and videos from the US government and US military in 2010, which were provided by US army whistleblower Chelsea Manning. This vast trove of material revealed massacres of civilians, tortureassassinations, the list of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and the conditions they were subjected to, as well as the Rules of Engagement in Iraq. Those who perpetrated these crimes – including the US helicopter pilots who gunned down two Reuters journalists and ten other civilians and severely injured two children, all captured in the Collateral Murder video – have never been prosecuted.

Julian exposed what the US empire seeks to airbrush out of history.

Julian’s persecution is an ominous message to the rest of us. Defy the US imperium, expose its crimes, and no matter who you are, no matter what country you come from, no matter where you live, you will be hunted down and brought to the USA to spend the rest of your life in one of the harshest prison systems on earth. If Julian is found guilty it will mean the death of investigative journalism into the inner workings of state power. To possess, much less publish, classified material – as I did when I was a reporter for the New York Times – will be criminalised.

And that is the point, one understood by the New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El País and the Guardian, who issued a joint letter calling on the USA to drop the charges against him.

Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese and other federal lawmakers voted on Thursday for the United States and Britain to end Julian’s incarceration, noting that it stemmed from him “doing his job as a journalist” to reveal “evidence of misconduct by the USA”.

Case has no basis in law

The legal case against Julian, which I have covered from the beginning and will cover again in London this week, has a bizarre Alice-in-Wonderland quality, where judges and lawyers speak in solemn tones about law and justice while making a mockery of the most basic tenets of civil liberties and jurisprudence.

How can hearings go forward when the Spanish security firm at the Ecuadorian Embassy, UC Global, where Julian sought refuge for seven years, provided videotaped surveillance of meetings between Julian and his lawyers to the CIA, eviscerating attorney-client privilege? This alone should have seen the case thrown out of court.

How can the Ecuadorian government led by Lenin Moreno violate international law by rescinding Julian’s asylum status and permit London Metropolitan police into the Ecuadorian embassy – sovereign territory of Ecuador – to carry Julian to a waiting police van?

Why did the courts accept the prosecution’s charge that Julian is not a legitimate journalist?

Why did the United States and Britain ignore Article 4 of their extradition treaty, which prohibits extradition for political offences?

How is the case against Julian allowed to go ahead after the key witness for the United States, Sigurdur Thordarson – a convicted fraudster and paedophile – admitted to fabricating the accusations he made against Julian?

How can Julian, an Australian citizen, be charged under the US Espionage Act when he did not engage in espionage and wasn’t based in the US when he received the leaked documents?

Why are the British courts permitting Julian to be extradited to the USA when the CIA – in addition to putting Julian under 24-hour video and digital surveillance while in the Ecuadorian embassy – considered kidnapping and assassinating him, plans that included a potential shoot-out on the streets of London with involvement by the Metropolitan police?

How can Julian be condemned as a publisher when he did not, as Daniel Ellsberg did, obtain and leak the classified documents he published?

Why is the US government not charging the publishers of the New York Times or the Guardian with espionage for publishing the same leaked material in partnership with WikiLeaks?

Why is Julian being held in isolation in a high-security prison without trial for nearly five years when his only technical violation of the law is breaching bail conditions when he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy? Normally this would entail a fine.

Why was he denied bail after he was sent to HM Prison Belmarsh?

Tearing up all rights and precedents

If Julian is extradited, his judicial lynching will get worse. His defence will be stymied by US anti-terrorism laws, including the Espionage Act and Special Administrative Measures (SAMs). He will continue being blocked from speaking to the public – except on a rare occasion – and being released on bail. He will be tried in the US district court for the Eastern district of Virginia, where most espionage cases have been won by the US government. That the jury pool is largely drawn from those who work for or have friends and relatives who work for the CIA, and other national security agencies that are headquartered not far from the court, no doubt contributes to this string of court decisions.

The British courts, from the inception, have made the case notoriously difficult to cover, severely limiting seats in the courtroom, providing video links that have been faulty, and in the case of the hearing this week, prohibiting anyone outside of England and Wales, including journalists who had previously covered the hearings, from accessing a link to what are supposed to be public proceedings.

As usual, we are not informed about schedules or timetables. Will the court render a decision at the end of the two-day hearing on 20 and 21 February? Or will it wait weeks, even months, to render a ruling as it has previously? Will it permit the ECtHR to hear the case or immediately railroad Julian to the USA?

I have my doubts about the high court passing the case to the ECtHR, given that the parliamentary arm of the Council of Europe, which created the ECtHR, along with the EU’s commissioner for human rights, oppose Julian’s “detention, extradition and prosecution” because it represents “a dangerous precedent for journalists”.

Will the court honour Julian’s request to be present in the hearing, or will he be forced to remain in the high-security HM Prison Belmarsh in Thamesmead, southeast London, as has also happened before? No one is able to tell us.

Julian was saved from extradition in January 2021 when District Judge Vanessa Baraitser at Westminster magistrates’ court refused to authorise the extradition request. In her 132-page ruling, she found that there was a “substantial risk” Julian would commit suicide due to the severity of the conditions he would endure in the US prison system.

But this was a slim thread. The judge accepted all the charges levelled by the USA against Julian as being filed in good faith. She rejected the arguments that his case was politically motivated, that he would not get a fair trial in the USA, and that his prosecution is an assault on the freedom of the press.

Baraitser’s decision was overturned after the US government appealed to the high court in London. Although the high court accepted Baraitser’s conclusions about Julian’s “substantial risk” of suicide if he was subjected to certain conditions within a US prison, it also accepted four assurances in US Diplomatic Note no 74, given to the court in February 2021, which promised Julian would be treated well.

The US government claimed in the diplomatic note that its assurances “entirely answer the concerns which caused the judge [in the lower court] to discharge Mr Assange”. The ‘assurances’ state that Julian will not be subject to SAMs. They promise that Julian, an Australian citizen, can serve his sentence in Australia if the Australian government requests his extradition. They promise he will receive adequate clinical and psychological care. They promise that, pre-trial and post-trial, Julian will not be held in the administrative maximum facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado.

It sounds reassuring. But it is part of the cynical judicial pantomime that characterises Julian’s persecution.

No one is held pre-trial in ADX Florence. ADX Florence is also not the only supermax prison in the USA where Julian could be imprisoned. He could be placed in one of our other Guantanamo-like facilities in a communications management unit (CMU). CMUs are highly restrictive units that replicate the near total isolation imposed by SAMs. The ‘assurances’ are not legally binding. All come with escape clauses.

Should Julian do “something subsequent to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX” he will, the court conceded, be subject to these harsher forms of control. If Australia does not request a transfer it “cannot be a cause for criticism of the USA, or a reason for regarding the assurances as inadequate to meet the judge’s concerns”, the ruling reads. And even if that were not the case, it would take Julian ten to 15 years to appeal his sentence up to the US supreme court, which would be more than enough time to destroy him psychologically and physically. Amnesty International said the “assurances are not worth the paper they are written on”.

Julian’s lawyers will attempt to convince two high court judges to grant him permission to appeal a number of the arguments against extradition that Judge Baraitser dismissed in January 2021. His lawyers, if the appeal is granted, will argue that prosecuting Julian for his journalistic activity represents a “grave violation” of his right to free speech; that Julian is being prosecuted for his political opinions, something which the UK-US extradition treaty does not allow; that Julian is charged with “pure political offences” and the UK-US extradition treaty prohibits extradition under such circumstances; that Julian should not be extradited to face prosecution where the Espionage Act “is being extended in an unprecedented and unforeseeable way”; that the charges could be amended resulting in Julian facing the death penalty; and that Julian will not receive a fair trial in the USA. They are also asking for the right to introduce new evidence about CIA plans to kidnap and assassinate Julian.

If the high court grants Julian permission to appeal, a further hearing will be scheduled, during which time he will argue his appeal grounds. If the high court refuses to grant Julian permission to appeal, the only option left is to appeal to the ECtHR. If he is unable to take his case to the ECtHR, he will be extradited to the USA.


Persecution for political not legal reasons

The decision to seek Julian’s extradition, contemplated by Barack Obama’s administration, was pursued by Donald Trump’s administration following WikiLeaks’ publication of the documents known as Vault 7, which exposed the CIA’s cyberwarfare programmes, including those designed to monitor and take control of cars, smart TVs, web browsers and the operating systems of most smartphones.

The Democratic party leadership became as bloodthirsty as the Republicans following WikiLeaks’ publishing of tens of thousands of emails belonging to the Democratic national committee (DNC) and senior Democratic officials, including those of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman during the 2016 presidential election.

The Podesta emails exposed that Clinton and other members of Obama’s administration knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar – which had both donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation – were major funders of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They revealed transcripts of three private talks Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs – for which she was paid $675,000 – a sum so large it can only be considered a bribe.

Clinton was seen in the emails telling the financial elites that she wanted “open trade and open borders” and believed Wall Street executives were best positioned to manage the economy, a statement that contradicted her campaign promises of financial reform. They exposed the Clinton campaign’s self-described “Pied Piper” strategy, which used their press contacts to influence Republican primaries by “elevating” what they called “more extreme candidates”, to ensure Trump or Ted Cruz won their party’s nomination. They exposed Clinton’s advance knowledge of questions in a primary debate.

The emails also exposed Clinton as one of the architects of the war and destruction of Libya, a war she believed would burnish her credentials as a presidential candidate.

Journalists can argue that this information, like the war logs, should have remained secret. But if they do, they can’t call themselves journalists.

The Democratic leadership, which attempted to blame Russia for its election loss to Trump – in what became known as Russiagate – charged that the Podesta emails and the DNC leaks were obtained by Russian government hackers, although an investigation headed by Robert Mueller, the former FBI director, “did not develop sufficient admissible evidence that WikiLeaks knew of – or even was wilfully blind to” any alleged hacking by the Russian state.

Acts of real journalism, instead of mindless stenography

Julian is persecuted because he provided the public with the most important information about US government crimes and mendacity since the release of the Pentagon papers. Like all great journalists, he was nonpartisan. His target was power.

He made public the killing of nearly 700 civilians who had approached too closely to US convoys and checkpoints, including pregnant women, the blind and deaf, and at least 30 children.

He made public the more than 15,000 unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians and the torture and abuse of some 800 men and boys, aged between 14 to 89, at Guantánamo Bay detention camp.

He showed us that Hillary Clinton in 2009 ordered US diplomats to spy on UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and other UN representatives from China, France, Russia, and Britain, spying that included obtaining DNA, iris scans, fingerprints and personal passwords.

He exposed that Obama, Hillary Clinton and the CIA backed the June 2009 military coup in Honduras that overthrew the democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya, replacing him with a murderous and corrupt military regime.

He revealed that the United States secretly launched missile, bomb and drone attacks on Yemen, killing scores of civilians.

No other contemporary journalist has come close to matching his revelations.

Julian is the first. We are next.

2024: Slaying the Green Dragon

Par : AHH

“The Rules of the ‘Rules-based Order’ are the Will of the Green Dragon … The World stands on the Brink of Global War.”

by Alexander Dugin

The main issue in 2024 remains the same fundamental problem as before: the confrontation between two waves — the waning wave of a unipolar world order with US hegemony and the collective West, and the rising wave of a multipolar world, embodied in BRICS-10.

This problem did not arise now, but as the West, having gained at one historical moment the appearance of sole planetary domination (after the collapse of the USSR), proved incapable of implementing its leadership in practice, new sovereign poles began to assert themselves — Russia and China. Other poles are on the approach — India, the Islamic civilisation, Africa, and Latin America. In total, seven power centres, including the West. Six of them have united in BRICS, beginning to build a multipolar order.


The West continues to cling to its hegemony and attacks the most dangerous opponents to its domination — Russia, China, and the Islamic world. This did not start today but at the very beginning of the 2000s. But the current contrast of the political world map was finally acquired in recent years — especially after the beginning of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine. The operation became the first hot war of the multipolar world against the unipolar one. Until then — especially during President Trump’s first term and due to the rise of populism in Europe — it seemed that a direct clash could be avoided, that the West would peacefully accept multipolarity, trying to fight for a worthy place in the post-globalist world order. This is what Trump meant by calling to drain the globalist swamp in the US itself. But so far, the swamp managed to drain Trump himself and, during the most swampy administration under President Biden, to unleash a bloody conflict in Ukraine, throwing all the forces of the collective West against Russia, the most important pole of the multipolar world.

The main result of 2023 was Russia’s disruption of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which for the globalists was a decisive moment in the conflict. They supplied Ukraine with comprehensive assistance, including extensive weaponry, significant financial aid, and substantial political, informational, and diplomatic resources. However, when Russia successfully resisted these efforts and started preparing for its own offensive, it became apparent that the extensive support given to the Kiev regime was ultimately futile. However, as long as globalists are in power in the US, they intend to continue the war. And, apparently, not just to the last Ukrainian but to the last globalist.

At the end of 2023, however, a second front opened in the war between the unipolar and multipolar worlds. This time, the West’s vanguard in the Middle East, the State of Israel, in response to the invasion by Hamas, began a systematic genocide of the Gaza population, completely disregarding anything. The USA and the collective West fully supported Tel Aviv’s actions, thus drawing a new line of fracture — the West against the Islamic civilization.

American neoconservatives had already entered this cycle in the early 2000s, resulting in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and then supporting radical Islamists in Libya, Syria, and so on. Now, the West has again confronted the Islamic world, led by the Palestinians, Yemeni Houthis, Lebanese Hezbollah, and also Iran.

Furthermore, in West Africa, another platform for the anti-colonial struggle against unipolarity and for multipolarity, an alliance of the most resolute countries has emerged — Mali, Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Gabon, and Niger, where a series of anti-globalist coups took place. So here, too, a new front has emerged.

Ultimately, Venezuela, led by Nicolas Maduro — whom the USA attempted to replace with their puppet, Guaido, in a move that ended in complete failure — became embroiled in a territorial dispute over the contested Guyana-Essequibo region with British Guyana, which is perceived as a pro-Atlantic puppet state. And the President of Argentina, Javier Milei, although he refused to integrate into BRICS, called on England to reconsider the issue of the Malvinas (Falklands). Thus, another front of struggle is emerging in Latin America.

So we approached the new year, 2024. And here all the trends continued at an accelerated pace. Tension for the USA in the Middle East is growing by the day. The war in Ukraine will undoubtedly continue, and now the initiative is on Russia’s side.

Also, one should expect an exacerbation of the conflict around Taiwan, where the US has pushed through the anti-Chinese candidate Lai Qingde in the elections, further escalation in the Middle East, continuation of anti-colonial revolutions in Africa, and escalation into a hot phase of contradictions in Latin America.

In the West itself, the crisis is intensifying at an accelerated pace. In the USA, there are elections this year, in which the globalists will face a powerful wave of Republicans.

The European Union is in decline, and there again rises an anti-elite, anti-liberal wave of populists — from the left and the right. There are leftists, like Sahra Wagenknecht and her new party. ‘Red Sahra’ is becoming a symbol of anti-liberal left-wing Europe.

Such leftists are primarily enemies of global capital — unlike pseudo-leftists, bought outright by Soros, who primarily advocate LGBT, Ukrainian Nazism, the genocide in Gaza, and uncontrolled migration, and also desperately fight against Russian influence, Putin, and Russia as a whole.

There is also a right-wing component — significantly battered, but in many European countries it represents the second most important political force. For example, Marine Le Pen in France. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) is gaining strength. In Italy, despite the liberal weakness of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the right half of society has not disappeared. The entire right-wing populism remains as it was.


But there is the globalist West, which tries to present itself as the entire ‘West’, and there are right and left anti-globalists, as well as a huge layer of Western commoners, who make up the ‘silent majority’. This is most important: the European commoner generally does not understand anything about politics. Ordinary Europeans and Americans simply cannot keep up with the demands to change gender, forcibly castrate their little sons, marry goats, bring in and feed even more migrants, eat cockroaches, read prayers to Greta Thunberg at night, and curse the Russians. The Western commoner, the petit bourgeois, is the main support of the multipolar world. He is the core of the real West, not the sinister parody into which it has been transformed by the globalist liberal elites.

It is very possible that in 2024, all these lines of fracture — wars and revolutions, conflicts and uprisings, waves of terrorist attacks, and new territories of genocide — will escalate into something massive. The declining wave of the unipolar world is already giving way to the rising multipolar one. And this is inevitable.

The dragon of globalism is mortally wounded. But it is known how dangerous the agony of a wounded dragon is. The global elite of the West is insane. There are many reasons to believe that in 2024 there will be something terrible. We are at arm’s length from a global world war. On all fronts. If it cannot be avoided, then there is nothing left but to win it.

We must slay the dragon to free humanity from its villainous enchantments, and even the West itself, which is its first victim.

Russia and Hamas

Par : AHH

Hamas has asked Moscow to act as guarantor to a Gaza ceasefire. Growing Russian ties with West Asia’s resistance actors should be no surprise; within the context of the global power standoff, they share common enemies.

by Mohamad Hasan Sweidan at The Cradle.

In the past few years, Russia’s expanding ties with the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas have contributed to the growing list of issues that muddy relations between Moscow and Tel Aviv. After Hamas’ 27 October visit to Moscow following the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared the trip “sends a message of legitimizing terrorism against the Israelis.” Yet Hamas officials have continued to flock to the Russian capital, most recently in late January. 

The Russian position on the war in Gaza

Since the onset of Israel’s brutal military assault on Gaza, Russia’s official stance has been closer to the Palestinian position, evident by Moscow’s various UN Security Council activities: calling for a ceasefire, statements by Russian officials criticizing Israeli criminality, repeat meetings with Hamas in Moscow, and the country’s official media’s focus on human rights violation in the Gaza Strip.  

Despite the long-term collaborative nature of Russo-Israeli relations, the Ukraine war has rejigged Moscow’s geopolitical calculations significantly. Today, Russia views the Gaza war and its regional implications from the perspective of its competition with the US and, therefore, considers Israel a critical tool of American influence in West Asia. The Russian leadership considers the current conflict to be as much Washington’s battle as Tel Aviv’s – a weakened Israel would mean the further disintegration of US power projection from the Levant to the Persian Gulf, a strategic Russian objective.

Although Tel Aviv and Moscow still retain common interests of value to both, it is the US–Russian strategic competition that currently holds the most sway over the Kremlin’s decision-making. 

This can be seen in a flurry of harshly worded Russian statements criticizing Washington’s role in prolonging and exacerbating the Gaza war. Russian President Vladimir Putin voiced the sentiments of most West Asians when he declared: “Many people would agree that this is a vivid example of the failure of US policy in the Middle East.” His Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov went the extra mile: 

The United States bears primary responsibility for this dramatic and dangerous crisis, since it has sought for many years to monopolize the settlement process and ignore relevant Security Council resolutions, and has now obstructed efforts to reach an appropriate solution.

There is no doubt that the events of the past two years in Ukraine played a major role in calibrating the Russian response to Gaza. During his recent interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson, Putin spent an inordinate amount of time unraveling the historical context behind Ukraine’s existence as a state, before boldly declaring: “Ukraine is an artificial state created at Stalin’s will and did not exist before 1922.”

Of course, the Russian president understands that his invocation of Ukraine’s weak historical justification for statehood allows him to adopt the same context-rich approach when discussing protracted conflicts in other regions. His history-based formula for tackling the root of conflict applies equally to the establishment of the Israeli state against the objections of Palestinians and their neighboring nations, which likely will play a role in Putin’s position on how to move forward with the Palestine–Israel problem. 

In addition, as an extension of the Western axis, Israel has adopted official stances that are consistent with the interests of the US and NATO alliance in Ukraine. Since the 2022 onset of that war, Tel Aviv has issued statements that belied its professed attempts at neutrality. As then-Israel foreign minister Yair Lapid made clear: “The Russian attack on Ukraine is a serious violation of the international order, and Israel condemns the attack and is ready to provide humanitarian aid to the citizens of Ukraine.”

Within West Asia, it was mainly Iran that voiced support for the Russian dilemma over Ukraine and its decision to launch a Special Military Operation. During Putin’s July 2022 visit to Tehran, Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei railed against western duplicity in international affairs, and charged Moscow’s foes with opposing the existence of an “independent and strong” Russia. Khamenei further added if Russia had not sent forces to Ukraine, it would have faced a NATO attack later.

Russian relations with Hamas

Regarding events in Gaza today, it can be argued that the Kremlin finds itself edging closer to the positions of those states and actors who supported its Ukraine stance. When US officials attacked Iran for its support of Gaza, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stepped into the fray: 

We note attempts to blame everything on Iran and consider them completely provocative. I believe that the Iranian leadership takes a fairly responsible and balanced position and calls for preventing this conflict from spreading to the entire region and neighboring countries.

While Washington worked overtime to bolster the many false Israeli narratives of the 7 October events – even likening the Palestinian resistance to the terror group ISIS – Russia was instead busy receiving a stream of Hamas delegations to Moscow. 

Last week, when Hamas delivered its studied response to truce negotiators, it tellingly requested that Russia be included as one of the guarantors of a final agreement to stop the Gaza war – a clear reflection that Palestinians believe Moscow can play a positive role in the resolution of this conflict.

It should be noted that Hamas’ visits to Russia and meetings with various Russian officials are nothing new. The Palestinian movement’s relations with Russian leaders go back to 2006, when a Hamas political delegation arrived in Moscow weeks after its victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. The current visits, however, differ considerably in that they come at a time when Washington and Tel Aviv have announced a common objective to destroy Hamas. It is notable that Russia is today avidly engaging Palestinian resistance groups who shattered the image of Israel’s military invincibility on 7 October.

Since that eventful day, Putin’s West Asia Envoy Mikhail Bogdanov has twice received the Hamas delegation headed by Musa Abu Marzouk, a member of the movement’s political bureau – on 26 October and 19 January. Israeli officials were outraged, calling the Russian invitation “a reprehensible step that provides support for terrorism and legitimacy for the horrific actions carried out by Hamas terrorists.” The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs also called on Moscow to expel Hamas officials immediately.

The harsh messaging from Tel Aviv is unlikely to make a difference. 


Russia’s West Asian thrust

Most recently, Moscow invited the Palestinian factions to attend a Palestinian national meeting at the end of February.

Deputy Secretary-General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Jamil Mezher, told Sputnik on 13 February that the group received an invitation from Moscow to attend a Palestinian national meeting that includes all factions at the end of the month. 

The Kremlin has already made its calculations and decided, for strategic reasons, to insert itself into the contentious Palestinian–Israeli arena. And the region’s Axis of Resistance offers that opportunity: 

First, Russia knows that it will not be able to impose itself onto an international resolution of the conflict other than through its relations with Hamas. Tel Aviv will not accept Moscow as a mediating party between it and Hamas – at least for now. 

Second, Russia’s reception of Hamas delegations carries a message aimed at Washington. In short, the Kremlin is prepared to edge closer to those who stand against US interests. Part of the division over the Gaza war is a reflection of the international division between the great powers. 

Third, a key part of Russia’s relationship with Hamas is the result of Moscow’s growing conviction that non-state actors in Gaza have a significant influence on the political reality in the region. From here, it can be said that Russia has a growing interest in forging and expanding relations with the forces of the regional Axis of Resistance, led by Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and the Ansarallah movement in Yemen. The Russians were, after all, a decisive factor in securing a Syrian victory in the NATO–GCC war against its ally, and were instrumental in catapulting Iran into its seats at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the newly expanded BRICS.

It must be noted here that all five regional parties share Russia’s global approach aimed at competing with US influence around the world.

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the timing of Israel’s war on Gaza is the “international clock.” Tel Aviv’s assault on the besieged Strip came more than a year-and-a-half after the onset of the Ukraine war, when Kiev was foundering, and at a moment of transformation in the international system. This factor may be fundamental to understanding the Kremlin’s stepped-up approach to events in West Asia. While Moscow knows that its current positions may adversely affect its relations with Tel Aviv, within the context of great power competition, the Russians are content to sacrifice part of their interests to achieve much larger strategic objectives. 

And so long as this Russian thinking holds, Hamas and other West Asian resistance movements see an opportunity to take advantage of global transformations to attract a superpower to their sides.

≈≈


Mohamed Sweidan
is a strategic studies researcher, a writer for different media platforms, and the author of several studies in the field of international relations. Mohamed’s main focus is on Russian affairs, Turkish politics, and the relationship between energy security and geopolitics.
🔹Twitter (X): @mhmdsweidan
🔹The Cradle: https://thecradle.co/columns/mohamad-hasan-sweidan

Judea Declares War on Anglo-Saxons

Par : AHH

In Jerusalem, the “Conference for the Victory of Israel” threatens London and Washington

by Thierry Meyssan at Voltaire Network

The “Israel Victory Conference – settlements bring security: Returning to the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria” was no mere meeting of Jewish supremacists. A rabbi, sentenced to life imprisonment for his crimes, spoke on behalf of the successors of the Stern group that assassinated British leaders in Mandate Palestine. It was a declaration of war against the Anglo-Saxons. By participating in this event, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was threatening Washington and London. President Joe Biden immediately banned all fundraising and money transfers to these extremists. This is the first time that the United States has imposed sanctions against Israelis.


Rabbi Uzi Sharbaf, sentenced to life imprisonment in 1984, addresses thousands of Jewish supremacists

Israel Victory Conference

Two weeks ago, a star-studded celebratory event was held at Jerusalem’s International Convention Center. It was entitled “Conference for Israel’s Victory – settlements bring security: returning to the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria”. 12 ministers, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, took part.

However, not a single political figure, not even the Minister of Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, was entitled to the frenzied ovations that greeted Rabbi Uzi Sharbaf, now a central figure in the Israeli debate, albeit unknown abroad. His presence rekindled in the participants hope of redeeming what they consider to be the “sin” of the withdrawal of Jewish settlements from Gaza in 2005.

In the hours that followed, Yaakov Margi (Shas), Minister of Welfare and Social Affairs, declared that his colleagues should have “thought” before going to this circus.

The leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid, lamented that Benjamin Netanyahu, “who was once at the centre of the national camp being dragged aimlessly by extremists”, has “hit rock bottom.”

Gen. Benny Gantz, declared that the conference was “an insult to Israeli society in wartime. It undermines our legitimacy in the world and the efforts to create a framework for the return of our hostages.” Commenting on the Prime Minister’s participation, he continued: “He who dances and divides, does not decide, and he who is silent and allows himself to be dragged along, is not a leader”.


A banner read: “Only a transfer [of Palestinians out of Gaza] can bring peace”. While a map shows the next Israeli cities in Gaza

The next day, President Joe Biden, as if frightened by the return of an old demon, signed a decree banning some extremist settlers from coming to the United States, and, above all, banning all fund-raising and money transfers to Rabbi Uzi Sharbaf’s men. These sanctions apply not only in the United States, but also in all foreign banks with interests in the United States, i.e., ultimately in the whole of the West [1].

What’s more, the Biden Administration, which until now has discreetly supported the massacre in Gaza by supplying shells and other munitions, is suddenly looking for a way out of the crisis. Secretary of State Antony Blinken set off on a new tour of the region’s capitals, this time with proposals.

Why then, did Rabbi Uzi Sharbaf’s outburst provoke such reactions? To understand why, we need to look back to 1922. Within the revisionist Zionist movement, there is in fact an even more fanatical group that did not hesitate to attack the Anglo-Saxons.

The “Stern Gang”

The “Revisionist Zionists” are the followers of Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a Ukrainian fascist who in 1922 formed an alliance with the Ukrainian “integral nationalists” of Symon Petlioura and Dmitro Dontsov against the Soviets. During this alliance, the “nationalists” massacred not only Ukrainian anarchists and Ukrainian Communists, but also tens of thousands of Ukrainian Jews. Refusing to explain his actions, Jabotinsky resigned from his position as director of the World Zionist Organization and founded the Alliance of Revisionist Zionists. He founded a paramilitary fascist formation in Italy, with the help of duce Benito Mussolini, the Betar.

At the end of Second World War, the “Revisionist Zionists” pursued their fascist dream, now without the help of their Italian counterparts. They disassociated themselves from the Jewish communal militia in Palestine, the Hagana, and created their own militia, the Irgun [2].

In a letter to the New York Times, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt and other Jewish personalities compared the Irgun to fascist and Nazi formations [3].

The Irgun itself gave rise to Lehi, known as the “Stern Group” according to the “Stern Gang” [4]. This group was directly linked to the Polish fascist government (Avraham Stern participated in the first version of the “Madagascar Plan”). Stern was arrested by the British along with the leaders of his group at the start of World War 2, but released when the Polish government reconstituted itself in exile in London. Lehi resumed contact with the Italian Fascists and proposed to the Nazis to help them expel European Jews to Palestine. After some hesitation, the Nazis refused. Lehi multiplied attacks on the British and left-wing Jews in the first two years of the war. Avraham Stern was shot and killed by a British CID officer in February 1942. Yitzhak Shamir, who assassinated his rivals, then reorganized Lehi.


In 1944 Lehi resumed its attacks on the British. It narrowly missed eliminating High Commissioner to Palestine, Harold MacMichael, but succeeded in assassinating the Colonial Minister, Lord Moyne.


The Stern Gang assassinated British political and military authorities in the attack on their headquarters at the King David Hotel

David Ben Gourion, who remained loyal to the British, launched a Haganah campaign to stop the actions of the Irgun and Lehi. Many of their members were arrested. However, in 1945, Ben-Gurion secretly organized a reconciliation with the revisionist Zionists, the “Hebrew Revolt”. This brief alliance did not last. Lehi organized the attack on the secretariat of the British government of Mandate Palestine and its military command, both located in the King David Hotel. It left 91 dead and 46 wounded. Lehi did not cease its terrorist activities with the arrest of Yitzhak Shamir. On the contrary, it extended its activities to London until the British withdrew from Palestine. After that, it targeted the Arabs, thus perpetrating the Deir Yassin massacre.

The Irgun and Lehi were eventually incorporated into the Israel Defense Forces with the unilateral proclamation of statehood. However, the United Nations sent the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte to determine the borders of the two Jewish and Arab states. Yitzhak Shamir then organized his assassination [5]. Yehoshua Cohen executed him. At the same time, André Sérot, a French colonel in the Blue Helmets, was assassinated. Pierre Gaïsset (grandfather of the author of this article) replaced him. The “revisionist Zionists” then changed their label and formed a new party, Hérout, with Menachem Begin as its chairman.

In 1952, Yehoshua Cohen founded the Sde Boker kibbutz. When, the following year, Prime Minister David ben Gurion joined this kibbutz, Yehoshua Cohen became his bodyguard.


The “Jewish Underground”

There is no trace of the Stern Group thereafter. However, after the “Six-Day War” the Bloc of the Faithful (Gush Emunim) developed the idea that Yahweh had given all Palestine to the Jews. They not only had the right to occupy it, but a duty to do so, so that the continuation of prophecy be fulfilled. This movement developed around Rabbi Zvi Yehouda Kook. He taught that, while the first secular Israelis had begun the work, only the religious knew the direction and could finalize it.

It was in this context that Yehuda Etzion, son of a gang member, recreated the Stern group. He used the same logo: a fist with two fingers raised. Its new name: the “Jewish Underground”. After the Camp David Accords, signed in 1978 by ex-Muslim Brother Anwar Sadat and Zionist revisionist Menachem Begin, it formally organized itself. It opposed Israel’s retrocession of Sinai to Egypt. It formed two cells. The first, led by Yehuda Etzion himself, was to destroy the Dome of the Rock in the center of the Al-Aqsa mosque, in order to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. The second was to spread terror among anti-colonial Arabs.

Rabbi Uzi Sharbaf was the leader of the “Jewish Underground”. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1984 for his involvement in a series of murderous attacks on Palestinians. He was discreetly released in 1991 by two revisionist Zionists, President Chaim Herzog and Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

His presence and the thunderous welcome given to him by thousands of activists portends the return of Zionist terrorism against the Anglo-Saxons. Washington’s reaction shows that, in its eyes, what it tolerates when Arabs are its victims must be condemned when it is threatened.

≈≈


Yes, can we say the old Anglo-Saxon Order is in panic, understanding the betrayals in motion? Will the coming Zionist terrorism be limited to the Holy Land? See how the British barking seal of the ICC (who never saw a Gaza Genocide worth mentioning in the last 4+ months) suddenly speaks with such stern conviction. Perhaps the reticence of the Russians in avenging themselves of Perfide Albion is now understandable. At this point, Zionism is a well-known self-destructive entity. Ungrateful hands always fated to be raised against their closest benefactors in the fullness of time!

Putin, 2022 “Satanism Speech”

Par : AHH

This Speech is best bracketed with his Munich Security Council Speech of 10.02.2007 (here). It tracks the evolution of President Putin’s thought, and the final turning of the Russian Mir from the Old Order built by the combined West. 

≈≈

A ceremony for signing the treaties on the accession of the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Lugansk People’s Republic, the Zaporozhye Region and the Kherson Region to the Russian Federation took place in of the Grand Kremlin Palace’s St George Hall. [source]

  • 01:46 Article 1 of the UN Charter
  • 02:35 The neo-Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014
  • 04:16 Common destiny and thousand-year history of Russia and Ukraine
  • 04:54 Termination of Soviet Union
  • 06:04 Determination of millions of people to return to historical homeland
  • 06:30 Genocide in Donbass
  • 07:02 Appeal to Kiev authorities and their true handlers in the West to end the war and return to the negotiating table
  • 07:52 The choice of the people will not be discussed at the negotiating table
  • 08:24 Russia will restore the affected facilities and social systems
  • 09:19 Appeal to the military and their families
  • 10:17 Dictate of the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union
  • 10:49 West continued looking for another chance to break up Russia
  • 11:19 The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial system
  • 12:11 Coercion to surrender sovereignty in favor of the United States
  • 12:52 Real causes of the hybrid war that the collective West is waging against Russia
  • 14:16 Broken Promises of the West
  • 14:44 False «rules-based order» against international law
  • 15:56 Totalitarianism, despotism and apartheid of the West behind the screen of democracy
  • 16:17 Western racism and false labels
  • 17:23 Historical crimes of the West that contrary to the very human nature, truth, freedom and justice
  • 18:22 Russia’s pride for the leading role in the anti-colonial movement of the 20th century
  • 18:37 Russia’s success is based on creating a strong centralised state and traditional values
  • 19:31 Memory of the plunder of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union
  • 19:53 Thanks to the new regions
  • 20:13 Centuries-old lies of the West about freedom and democracy
  • 20:40 Demonstrative unnecessary cruelty of the US in military conflicts (nuclear weapons, cities annihilation, carpet bombings, use of napalm and chemical weapons)
  • 21:28 Occupation of Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea and other countries in our time
  • 22:22 Migration Crisis
  • 22:37 Grain from Ukraine
  • 23:15 Europe deindustrialisation by forcing to impose anti-Russian sanctions
  • 23:44 Betrayal of their peoples by European elites
  • 24:00 Sabotage on the Nord Stream – the destruction of the entire energy infrastructure of Europe
  • 24:25 The law of the fist
  • 25:18 The deterrence of Russia, China and Iran and other countries
  • 25:57 US sanctions against their allies
  • 26:22 Unexpectedly failed sanctions blitzkrieg against Russia
  • 27:11 «Information hunger» in the West – ocean of myths, illusions and fakes, aggressive Goebbels like propaganda
  • 27:40 Economic, financial, energy crises – Western elite crisis
  • 28:59 Solving the problems of the West through wars and plunder
  • 30:26 Russia’s responsibility to the international community
  • 30:34 The current neocolonial model is ultimately doomed
  • 31:02 Radical denial of moral, religious, and family values
  • 32:09 Dictatorship of the Western elites targets all societies, including the citizens of Western countries themselves
  • 32:17 «Religion in reverse» – pure Satanism – «By their fruits ye shall know them»
  • 32:49 New centres of power, anti-colonial movement against unipolar hegemony
  • 34:23 The ongoing collapse of Western hegemony is irreversible
  • 34:34 The battle for the great historical Russia
  • 35:40 The words of a true patriot of Russia Ivan Ilyin
  • 36:53 The truth is with us, and behind us is Russia


During the ceremony for signing the treaties on the accession of the DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions to Russia. From left to right: Head of the Kherson Region Vladimir Saldo, Head of the Zaporozhye Region Yevgeny Balitsky, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Head of the Donetsk People’s Republic Denis Pushylin, Head of the Lugansk People’s Republic Leonid Pasechnik. Photos: Grigoriy Sisoev, RIA Novosti

≈≈

Transcript

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, residents of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, deputies of the State Duma, senators of the Russian Federation,

As you know, referendums have been held in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. The ballots have been counted and the results have been announced. The people have made their unequivocal choice.

Today we will sign treaties on the accession of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye Region and Kherson Region to the Russian Federation. I have no doubt that the Federal Assembly will support the constitutional laws on the accession to Russia and the establishment of four new regions, our new constituent entities of the Russian Federation, because this is the will of millions of people. (Applause.)

It is undoubtedly their right, an inherent right sealed in Article 1 of the UN Charter, which directly states the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

I repeat, it is an inherent right of the people. It is based on our historical affinity, and it is that right that led generations of our predecessors, those who built and defended Russia for centuries since the period of Ancient Rus, to victory.

Here in Novorossiya, [Pyotr] Rumyantsev, [Alexander] Suvorov and [Fyodor] Ushakov fought their battles, and Catherine the Great and [Grigory] Potyomkin founded new cities. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought here to the bitter end during the Great Patriotic War.

We will always remember the heroes of the Russian Spring, those who refused to accept the neo-Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014, all those who died for the right to speak their native language, to preserve their culture, traditions and religion, and for the very right to live. We remember the soldiers of Donbass, the martyrs of the “Odessa Khatyn,” the victims of inhuman terrorist attacks carried out by the Kiev regime. We commemorate volunteers and militiamen, civilians, children, women, senior citizens, Russians, Ukrainians, people of various nationalities; popular leader of Donetsk Alexander Zakharchenko; military commanders Arsen Pavlov and Vladimir Zhoga, Olga Kachura and Alexei Mozgovoy; prosecutor of the Lugansk Republic Sergei Gorenko; paratrooper Nurmagomed Gadzhimagomedov and all our soldiers and officers who died a hero’s death during the special military operation. They are heroes. (Applause.) Heroes of great Russia. Please join me in a minute of silence to honour their memory.

(Minute of silence.)

Thank you.

Behind the choice of millions of residents in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, is our common destiny and thousand-year history. People have passed this spiritual connection on to their children and grandchildren. Despite all the trials they endured, they carried the love for Russia through the years. This is something no one can destroy. That is why both older generations and young people – those who were born after the tragic collapse of the Soviet Union – have voted for our unity, for our common future.

In 1991 in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, representatives of the party elite of that time made a decision to terminate the Soviet Union, without asking ordinary citizens what they wanted, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their homeland. This tore apart and dismembered our national community and triggered a national catastrophe. Just like the government quietly demarcated the borders of Soviet republics, acting behind the scenes after the 1917 revolution, the last leaders of the Soviet Union, contrary to the direct expression of the will of the majority of people in the referendum of 1991, destroyed our great country, and simply made the people in the former republics face this as an accomplished fact.

I can admit that they didn’t even know what they were doing and what consequences their actions would have in the end. But it doesn’t matter now. There is no Soviet Union anymore; we cannot return to the past. Actually, Russia no longer needs it today; this isn’t our ambition. But there is nothing stronger than the determination of millions of people who, by their culture, religion, traditions, and language, consider themselves part of Russia, whose ancestors lived in a single country for centuries. There is nothing stronger than their determination to return to their true historical homeland.

For eight long years, people in Donbass were subjected to genocide, shelling and blockades; in Kherson and Zaporozhye, a criminal policy was pursued to cultivate hatred for Russia, for everything Russian. Now too, during the referendums, the Kiev regime threatened schoolteachers, women who worked in election commissions with reprisals and death. Kiev threatened millions of people who came to express their will with repression. But the people of Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson weren’t broken, and they had their say.

I want the Kiev authorities and their true handlers in the West to hear me now, and I want everyone to remember this: the people living in Lugansk and Donetsk, in Kherson and Zaporozhye have become our citizens, forever. (Applause.)

We call on the Kiev regime to immediately cease fire and all hostilities; to end the war it unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table. We are ready for this, as we have said more than once. But the choice of the people in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson will not be discussed. The decision has been made, and Russia will not betray it. (Applause.) Kiev’s current authorities should respect this free expression of the people’s will; there is no other way. This is the only way to peace.

We will defend our land with all the forces and resources we have, and we will do everything we can to ensure the safety of our people. This is the great liberating mission of our nation.

We will definitely rebuild the destroyed cities and towns, the residential buildings, schools, hospitals, theatres and museums. We will restore and develop industrial enterprises, factories, infrastructure, as well as the social security, pension, healthcare and education systems.

We will certainly work to improve the level of security. Together we will make sure that citizens in the new regions can feel the support of all the people of Russia, of the entire nation, all the republics, territories and regions of our vast Motherland. (Applause.)

Friends, colleagues,

Today I would like to address our soldiers and officers who are taking part in the special military operation, the fighters of Donbass and Novorossiya, those who went to military recruitment offices after receiving a call-up paper under the executive order on partial mobilisation, and those who did this voluntarily, answering the call of their hearts. I would like to address their parents, wives and children, to tell them what our people are fighting for, what kind of enemy we are up against, and who is pushing the world into new wars and crises and deriving blood-stained benefits from this tragedy.

Our compatriots, our brothers and sisters in Ukraine who are part of our united people have seen with their own eyes what the ruling class of the so-called West have prepared for humanity as a whole. They have dropped their masks and shown what they are really made of.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the West decided that the world and all of us would permanently accede to its dictates. In 1991, the West thought that Russia would never rise after such shocks and would fall to pieces on its own. This almost happened. We remember the horrible 1990s, hungry, cold and hopeless. But Russia remained standing, came alive, grew stronger and occupied its rightful place in the world.

Meanwhile, the West continued and continues looking for another chance to strike a blow at us, to weaken and break up Russia, which they have always dreamed about, to divide our state and set our peoples against each other, and to condemn them to poverty and extinction. They cannot rest easy knowing that there is such a great country with this huge territory in the world, with its natural wealth, resources and people who cannot and will not do someone else’s bidding.

The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial system which allows it to live off the world, to plunder it thanks to the domination of the dollar and technology, to collect an actual tribute from humanity, to extract its primary source of unearned prosperity, the rent paid to the hegemon. The preservation of this annuity is their main, real and absolutely self-serving motivation. This is why total de-sovereignisation is in their interest. This explains their aggression towards independent states, traditional values and authentic cultures, their attempts to undermine international and integration processes, new global currencies and technological development centres they cannot control. It is critically important for them to force all countries to surrender their sovereignty to the United States.

In certain countries, the ruling elites voluntarily agree to do this, voluntarily agree to become vassals; others are bribed or intimidated. And if this does not work, they destroy entire states, leaving behind humanitarian disasters, devastation, ruins, millions of wrecked and mangled human lives, terrorist enclaves, social disaster zones, protectorates, colonies and semi-colonies. They don’t care. All they care about is their own benefit.

I want to underscore again that their insatiability and determination to preserve their unfettered dominance are the real causes of the hybrid war that the collective West is waging against Russia. They do not want us to be free; they want us to be a colony. They do not want equal cooperation; they want to loot. They do not want to see us a free society, but a mass of soulless slaves.

They see our thought and our philosophy as a direct threat. That is why they target our philosophers for assassination. Our culture and art present a danger to them, so they are trying to ban them. Our development and prosperity are also a threat to them because competition is growing. They do not want or need Russia, but we do. (Applause.)

I would like to remind you that in the past, ambitions of world domination have repeatedly shattered against the courage and resilience of our people. Russia will always be Russia. We will continue to defend our values and our Motherland.

The West is counting on impunity, on being able to get away with anything. As a matter of fact, this was actually the case until recently. Strategic security agreements have been trashed; agreements reached at the highest political level have been declared tall tales; firm promises not to expand NATO to the east gave way to dirty deception as soon as our former leaders bought into them; missile defence, intermediate-range and shorter-range missile treaties have been unilaterally dismantled under far-fetched pretexts.

And all we hear is, the West is insisting on a rules-based order. Where did that come from anyway? Who has ever seen these rules? Who agreed or approved them? Listen, this is just a lot of nonsense, utter deceit, double standards, or even triple standards! They must think we’re stupid.

Russia is a great thousand-year-old power, a whole civilisation, and it is not going to live by such makeshift, false rules. (Applause.)

It was the so-called West that trampled on the principle of the inviolability of borders, and now it is deciding, at its own discretion, who has the right to self-determination and who does not, who is unworthy of it. It is unclear what their decisions are based on or who gave them the right to decide in the first place. They just assumed it.

That is why the choice of the people in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson makes them so furiously angry. The West does not have any moral right to weigh in, or even utter a word about freedom of democracy. It does not and it never did.

Western elites not only deny national sovereignty and international law. Their hegemony has pronounced features of totalitarianism, despotism and apartheid. They brazenly divide the world into their vassals – the so-called civilised countries – and all the rest, who, according to the designs of today’s Western racists, should be added to the list of barbarians and savages. False labels like “rogue country” or “authoritarian regime” are already available, and are used to stigmatise entire nations and states, which is nothing new. There is nothing new in this: deep down, the Western elites have remained the same colonisers. They discriminate and divide peoples into the top tier and the rest.

We have never agreed to and will never agree to such political nationalism and racism. What else, if not racism, is the Russophobia being spread around the world? What, if not racism, is the West’s dogmatic conviction that its civilisation and neoliberal culture is an indisputable model for the entire world to follow? “You’re either with us or against us.” It even sounds strange.

Western elites are even shifting repentance for their own historical crimes on everyone else, demanding that the citizens of their countries and other peoples confess to things they have nothing to do with at all, for example, the period of colonial conquests.

It is worth reminding the West that it began its colonial policy back in the Middle Ages, followed by the worldwide slave trade, the genocide of Indian tribes in America, the plunder of India and Africa, the wars of England and France against China, as a result of which it was forced to open its ports to the opium trade. What they did was get entire nations hooked on drugs and purposefully exterminated entire ethnic groups for the sake of grabbing land and resources, hunting people like animals. This is contrary to human nature, truth, freedom and justice.

While we – we are proud that in the 20th century our country led the anti-colonial movement, which opened up opportunities for many peoples around the world to make progress, reduce poverty and inequality, and defeat hunger and disease.

To emphasise, one of the reasons for the centuries-old Russophobia, the Western elites’ unconcealed animosity toward Russia is precisely the fact that we did not allow them to rob us during the period of colonial conquests and forced the Europeans to trade with us on mutually beneficial terms. This was achieved by creating a strong centralised state in Russia, which grew and got stronger based on the great moral values​​of Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism, as well as Russian culture and the Russian word that were open to all.

There were numerous plans to invade Russia. Such attempts were made during the Time of Troubles in the 17th century and in the period of ordeals after the 1917 revolution. All of them failed. The West managed to grab hold of Russia’s wealth only in the late 20th century, when the state had been destroyed. They called us friends and partners, but they treated us like a colony, using various schemes to pump trillions of dollars out of the country. We remember. We have not forgotten anything.

A few days ago, people in Donetsk and Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye declared their support for restoring our historical unity. Thank you! (Applause.)

Western countries have been saying for centuries that they bring freedom and democracy to other nations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of bringing democracy they suppressed and exploited, and instead of giving freedom they enslaved and oppressed. The unipolar world is inherently anti-democratic and unfree; it is false and hypocritical through and through.

The United States is the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons twice, destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. And they created a precedent.

Recall that during WWII the United States and Britain reduced Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and many other German cities to rubble, without the least military necessity. It was done ostentatiously and, to repeat, without any military necessity. They had only one goal, as with the nuclear bombing of Japanese cities: to intimidate our country and the rest of the world.

The United States left a deep scar in the memory of the people of Korea and Vietnam with their carpet bombings and use of napalm and chemical weapons.

It actually continues to occupy Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and other countries, which they cynically refer to as equals and allies. Look now, what kind of alliance is that? The whole world knows that the top officials in these countries are being spied on and that their offices and homes are bugged. It is a disgrace, a disgrace for those who do this and for those who, like slaves, silently and meekly swallow this arrogant behaviour.

They call the orders and threats they make to their vassals Euro-Atlantic solidarity, and the creation of biological weapons and the use of human test subjects, including in Ukraine, noble medical research.

It is their destructive policies, wars and plunder that have unleashed today’s massive wave of migrants. Millions of people endure hardships and humiliation or die by the thousands trying to reach Europe.

They are exporting grain from Ukraine now. Where are they taking it under the guise of ensuring the food security of the poorest countries? Where is it going? They are taking it to the self-same European countries. Only five percent has been delivered to the poorest countries. More cheating and naked deception again.

In effect, the American elite is using the tragedy of these people to weaken its rivals, to destroy nation states. This goes for Europe and for the identities of France, Italy, Spain and other countries with centuries-long histories.

Washington demands more and more sanctions against Russia and the majority of European politicians obediently go along with it. They clearly understand that by pressuring the EU to completely give up Russian energy and other resources, the United States is practically pushing Europe toward deindustrialisation in a bid to get its hands on the entire European market. These European elites understand everything – they do, but they prefer to serve the interests of others. This is no longer servility but direct betrayal of their own peoples. God bless, it is up to them.

But the Anglo-Saxons believe sanctions are no longer enough and now they have turned to subversion. It seems incredible but it is a fact – by causing explosions on Nord Stream’s international gas pipelines passing along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, they have actually embarked on the destruction of Europe’s entire energy infrastructure. It is clear to everyone who stands to gain. Those who benefit are responsible, of course.

The dictates of the US are backed up by crude force, on the law of the fist. Sometimes it is beautifully wrapped sometimes there is no wrapping at all but the gist is the same – the law of the fist. Hence, the deployment and maintenance of hundreds of military bases in all corners of the world, NATO expansion, and attempts to cobble together new military alliances, such as AUKUS and the like. Much is being done to create a Washington-Seoul-Tokyo military-political chain. All states that possess or aspire to genuine strategic sovereignty and are capable of challenging Western hegemony, are automatically declared enemies.

These are the principles that underlie US and NATO military doctrines that require total domination. Western elites are presenting their neocolonialist plans with the same hypocrisy, claiming peaceful intentions, talking about some kind of deterrence. This evasive word migrates from one strategy to another but really only means one thing – undermining any and all sovereign centres of power.

We have already heard about the deterrence of Russia, China and Iran. I believe next in line are other countries of Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, as well as current US partners and allies. After all, we know that when they are displeased, they introduce sanctions against their allies as well – against this or that bank or company. This is their practice and they will expand it. They have everything in their sights, including our next-door neighbours – the CIS countries.

At the same time, the West has clearly been engaged in wishful thinking for a long time. In launching the sanctions blitzkrieg against Russia, for example, they thought that they could once again line up the whole world at their command. As it turns out, however, such a bright prospect does not excite everyone – other than complete political masochists and admirers of other unconventional forms of international relations. Most states refuse to ”snap a salute“ and instead choose the sensible path of cooperation with Russia.

The West clearly did not expect such insubordination. They simply got used to acting according to a template, to grab whatever they please, by blackmail, bribery, intimidation, and convinced themselves that these methods would work forever, as if they had fossilised in the past.

Such self-confidence is a direct product not only of the notorious concept of exceptionalism – although it never ceases to amaze – but also of the real ”information hunger“ in the West. The truth has been drowned in an ocean of myths, illusions and fakes, using extremely aggressive propaganda, lying like Goebbels. The more unbelievable the lie, the quicker people will believe it – that is how they operate, according to this principle.

But people cannot be fed with printed dollars and euros. You can’t feed them with those pieces of paper, and the virtual, inflated capitalisation of western social media companies can’t heat their homes. Everything I am saying is important. And what I just said is no less so: you can’t feed anyone with paper – you need food; and you can’t heat anyone’s home with these inflated capitalisations – you need energy.

That is why politicians in Europe have to convince their fellow citizens to eat less, take a shower less often and dress warmer at home. And those who start asking fair questions like “Why is that, in fact?” are immediately declared enemies, extremists and radicals. They point back at Russia and say: that is the source of all your troubles. More lies.

I want to make special note of the fact that there is every reason to believe that the Western elites are not going to look for constructive ways out of the global food and energy crisis that they and they alone are to blame for, as a result of their long-term policy, dating back long before our special military operation in Ukraine, in Donbass. They have no intention of solving the problems of injustice and inequality. I am afraid they would rather use other formulas they are more comfortable with.

And here it is important to recall that the West bailed itself out of its early 20th century challenges with World War I. Profits from World War II helped the United States finally overcome the Great Depression and become the largest economy in the world, and to impose on the planet the power of the dollar as a global reserve currency. And the 1980s crisis – things came to a head in the 1980s again – the West emerged from it unscathed largely by appropriating the inheritance and resources of the collapsed and defunct Soviet Union. That’s a fact.

Now, in order to free itself from the latest web of challenges, they need to dismantle Russia as well as other states that choose a sovereign path of development, at all costs, to be able to further plunder other nations’ wealth and use it to patch their own holes. If this does not happen, I cannot rule out that they will try to trigger a collapse of the entire system, and blame everything on that, or, God forbid, decide to use the old formula of economic growth through war.

Russia is aware of its responsibility to the international community and will make every effort to ensure that cooler heads prevail.

The current neocolonial model is ultimately doomed; this much is obvious. But I repeat that its real masters will cling to it to the end. They simply have nothing to offer the world except to maintain the same system of plundering and racketeering.

They do not give a damn about the natural right of billions of people, the majority of humanity, to freedom and justice, the right to determine their own future. They have already moved on to the radical denial of moral, religious, and family values.

Let’s answer some very simple questions for ourselves. Now I would like to return to what I said and want to address also all citizens of the country – not just the colleagues that are in the hall – but all citizens of Russia: do we want to have here, in our country, in Russia, “parent number one, parent number two and parent number three” (they have completely lost it!) instead of mother and father? Do we want our schools to impose on our children, from their earliest days in school, perversions that lead to degradation and extinction? Do we want to drum into their heads the ideas that certain other genders exist along with women and men and to offer them gender reassignment surgery? Is that what we want for our country and our children? This is all unacceptable to us. We have a different future of our own.

Let me repeat that the dictatorship of the Western elites targets all societies, including the citizens of Western countries themselves. This is a challenge to all. This complete renunciation of what it means to be human, the overthrow of faith and traditional values, and the suppression of freedom are coming to resemble a “religion in reverse” – pure Satanism. Exposing false messiahs, Jesus Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” These poisonous fruits are already obvious to people, and not only in our country but also in all countries, including many people in the West itself.

The world has entered a period of a fundamental, revolutionary transformation. New centres of power are emerging. They represent the majority – the majority! – of the international community. They are ready not only to declare their interests but also to protect them. They see in multipolarity an opportunity to strengthen their sovereignty, which means gaining genuine freedom, historical prospects, and the right to their own independent, creative and distinctive forms of development, to a harmonious process.

As I have already said, we have many like-minded people in Europe and the United States, and we feel and see their support. An essentially emancipatory, anti-colonial movement against unipolar hegemony is taking shape in the most diverse countries and societies. Its power will only grow with time. It is this force that will determine our future geopolitical reality.

Friends,

Today, we are fighting for a just and free path, first of all for ourselves, for Russia, in order to leave dictate and despotism in the past. I am convinced that countries and peoples understand that a policy based on the exceptionalism of whoever it may be and the suppression of other cultures and peoples is inherently criminal, and that we must close this shameful chapter. The ongoing collapse of Western hegemony is irreversible. And I repeat: things will never be the same.

The battlefield to which destiny and history have called us is a battlefield for our people, for the great historical Russia. (Applause.) For the great historical Russia, for future generations, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We must protect them against enslavement and monstrous experiments that are designed to cripple their minds and souls.

Today, we are fighting so that it would never occur to anyone that Russia, our people, our language, or our culture can be erased from history. Today, we need a consolidated society, and this consolidation can only be based on sovereignty, freedom, creation, and justice. Our values ​​are humanity, mercy and compassion.

And I want to close with the words of a true patriot Ivan Ilyin: “If I consider Russia my Motherland, that means that I love as a Russian, contemplate and think, sing and speak as a Russian; that I believe in the spiritual strength of the Russian people. Its spirit is my spirit; its destiny is my destiny; its suffering is my grief; and its prosperity is my joy.”

Behind these words stands a glorious spiritual choice, which, for more than a thousand years of Russian statehood, was followed by many generations of our ancestors. Today, we are making this choice; the citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the residents of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions have made this choice. They made the choice to be with their people, to be with their Motherland, to share in its destiny, and to be victorious together with it.

The truth is with us, and behind us is Russia!

(Applause.)

 

Pakistan in End Times Eschatology

Par : AHH

A solid spiritual analysis by a sensitive and aware native. He rises above the labyrinthine politics and minutiae of Pakistan to focus on the two big picture points: (1) the persistent vassalage of elite Pakistani military corps to the British Empire mission against mankind (more recently the Anglo-Zionist), and (2) the interesting role Pakistan plays in Islamic eschatology. Once the terrible half-century fire of war was put out in Afghanistan with the fleeing of USUK in 2021, a new darkness settled onto Pakistan. “AfPak” was always intertwined for centuries in the Pashtun heartlands, but the deep concern at the moment is inside Pakistan proper, namely their Punjab heartland, perhaps driven mad with pleonexia.


There is much prospective speculation with which I disagree, being based on one man’s interpretation of Scripture, but the current reality of Pakistan’s near-total geopolitical isolation is manifest. It is at a sharp crossroads. Its tribulations are just ahead, as with most nations under the thumb of the Anglo-Zionists. They are all slated for such terrible political division and internal trials. The farmers revolt in Europe is merely the beginning everywhere…

Rockefeller’s four scenarios began with the planetary COVID Op. Total loss of confidence in political authorities was built-in. They got the compradore elites in most nations to commit the greatest crimes — against their own values and peoples! — then exposed it in most painful public terms, as happening now to those who carried out COVID. This implodes most societies, with “elites” being delegitimized. It facilitates the desired subsequent chaos, civil wars, and disintegration, after which they can “build back better” using the same old rebranded satanic paradigms at the hands of supranationalist zionist technocrats. The target is really the modern understanding of Westphalian nationhood… So they plan and hope.

Undoubtedly calm and mature oases of civilizational resilience will remain after the imperial planetary hybrid war. These will serve as surviving magnetic poles gathering allies to fight back the universal onslaught, such as through BRICS, SCO, EAEU, BRI, ASEAN, etc…

Pakistan serves as an instructive test-case, being an amalgamation of dissimilar tribes cobbled together by the departing British; whether studied from geopolitical dead-end or spiritual dead-end, the fall of Pakistan may be our universal conundrum right now. Most imperially created borders of the past are under question for the New Order — whether the Ukraine/European (Yalta-Potsdam), African (1885 Berlin Conference), the greater Middle East (WW1 Sykes-Picot), Balkan (post-Yugoslav NATO), Latin American (pre-WW1 Monroe), even lands stolen from Mexico or the Russian Empire.. The Interregnum labors mightily.

Putin, 2007 Munich Security Conference

Par : AHH

🗓 17 years ago, on February 10, 2007, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference, addressing points that continue to hold relevance today.

Let us recall the key highlights from the President’s historic speech:

💬 I believe that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. <…> What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed.

What is happening in today’s world is an attempt to introduce exactly this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.

• Certain legal norms are becoming increasingly similar to one state’s legal system. One state, and, of course, first and foremost the US, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is evident in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations.

☝ I believe that we’ve reached a point where we need to carefully consider the entire architecture of global security.

• The role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is undisputed.

• The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we shouldn’t forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all members of the big European family.

Today, they’re trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us. These lines may be virtual but they’re still dividing and cutting through our continent. Is it possible that we’ll once again need many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dismantle these new walls?

🇷🇺 Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always exercised the privilege of conducting an independent foreign policy. We’re not going to change this tradition today.  (emphasis on TG channel of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) 

Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy

01:38
Munich

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen!

I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 nations.

This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there.

Therefore. It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.

This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference – global crises, global responsibility – exemplifies this.

Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.

This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.

The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?

However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.

And with which results?

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.

And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.

And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.

Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.

There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.

In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.

However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people – hundreds and thousands of civilians!

But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact, this was also at the centre of the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor. If I correctly understood your question (addressing Mr Lieberman), then of course it is a serious one! Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not.

But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?

I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.

And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and a laborious decision-making process.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

The potential danger of the destabilisation of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue.

Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.

It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons.

Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700–2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfil the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.

Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones.

In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.

Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.

It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.

At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons. Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space. Star wars is no longer a fantasy – it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite.

In Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space.

Today I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space. And in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together.

Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.

Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.

And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.

NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.

But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?

The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.

And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.

This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centres not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under strict IAEA supervision.

The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends.

In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states’ interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities.

In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation in more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly – she mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.

We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia – and please think about this figure – up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such examples.

I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.

Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.

For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision.

Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.

And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest — and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.

And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.

It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And that they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop.

Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well-known, this organisation was created to examine all – I shall emphasise this – all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian and, especially, the relations between these spheres.

What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries. And this task is also being accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way. Decision-making procedures and the involvement of so-called non-governmental organisations are tailored for this task. These organisations are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control.

According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.

It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable.

We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks and build relations with sovereign states based on respect, trust and transparency.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.

In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.

We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.

Thank you for your attention.

Horst Teltschik: Thank you very much for your important speech. We heard new themes, including the issue of global security architecture – one was not in the foreground over the last few years – disarmament, arms control, the issue of the NATO-Russian relations, and cooperation in the field of technology.

There are still a whole number of questions and Mr President is ready to answer.

Question: Dear Mr President, thank you for your speech. I would like to emphasise that the German Bundestag is convinced of Russia’s importance as Europe’s partner and of the importance of the role you play. The Federal Chancellor said this in her speech.

Proceeding from experience, I would like to mention two issues in your speech. First of all, on your opinion of NATO and NATO expansion, a phenomenon that you consider dangerous for Russia. Would you acknowledge that this phenomenon is, in practice, not expansion but rather the self-determination of democratic states who want this? And that NATO finds it difficult to accept states that do not declare this readiness? You could admit that thanks to NATO expansion eastern borders have become more reliable, more secure. Why are you afraid of democracy? I am convinced that only democratic states can become members of NATO. This stabilises neighbours.

About what is happening inside your country. The murder of Anna Politkovskaya was a symbol. One can say that this affects many journalists, makes everybody afraid, and the law on non-governmental organisations also causes alarm.

Question: I well understand your comments about non-proliferation. Especially at the end of the Cold War we saw a reduction of the deployment of nuclear weapons, but we also saw increased terrorism. Nuclear materials must be kept away from terrorists.

Question: Coming back to the question that was also asked to the Federal Chancellor. What does the future hold for Kosovo and Serbia? What is your opinion of Mr Ahtisaari? How will Russia influence resolving this problem?

Question: Can you comment on the experiences of Russian servicemen in Chechnya? And about your comments on energy: you briefly mentioned the market role energy plays in politics. The EU is interested in reaching a partnership agreement that contains fixed policy principles. Are you ready to guarantee reliable energy deliveries, including in the agreement?

Question: Mr President, your speech was both sincere and frank. I hope that you understand my frank and direct question. In the 1990s Russian experts actively helped Iran develop missile technologies. Iran now has advanced medium- and long-range missiles that would enable it to strike Russia and part of Europe. They are also working towards placing nuclear warheads on these missiles. Your country has made efforts to negotiate with Iran on this issue and supported the UN Security Council resolution to prevent Iran from carrying out such a policy.

My question is as follows: what efforts will Russia make – through the UN or otherwise – to stop these very serious events in Iran?

Question: I am confident that the historians of the future will not describe our conference as one in which the Second Cold War was declared. But they could. You said that it is necessary to put pressure on Iran and to provide positive incentives. But is it not true that Russia is interfering with the process of applying strong pressure through sanctions? Secondly, with regards to deliveries of weapons, Russia is encouraging Iran, especially since these weapons appeared in Lebanon and in Gaza. What are your comments on this?

Question: I understand your sincerity and I hope that you will accept our sincerity. First of all, about arms control. Who needs a new arms race? I want to point out that the USA has not developed a new strategic weapon in more than two decades and that you recently tested the Topol-M missile, and that it is already deployed in silos and on mobile installations. You criticised the USA for unilateral actions and said twice that military actions can only be legitimate if they receive UN approval. The USA is carrying out military actions in Iraq and in Afghanistan according to UN decisions and today in Kosovo the majority of troops are supporting peace-making operations in this country.

My question is the following: are you saying that independently of how Russia perceives a threat to its international interests, it will not undertake military operations without UN approval?

Question: You talked about the danger of a unipolar world in which one sovereign makes a decision without consulting anyone else. In many people’s opinion, in Russia we are seeing an increasingly unipolar government where competing centres of influence are forced to tow the party line, whether it be in the State Duma, the regional leadership, the media, business communities or non-governmental organisations. Would a unipolar government be such a reliable partner when the issue of energy security is at stake?

President Vladimir Putin: First of all I would like to thank you for your questions. Very interesting. It is a shame that we have little time left because I would be pleased to have a separate discussion with all of you. I very much enjoy this, I like it.

I will begin with the last question about the unipolar nature of the Russian government. Today the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the United Russia Party, the Liberal Democratic Party and other political forces as well sit in the Russian parliament. And their basic positions differ significantly. If you aren’t aware of this then just have a talk with the leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and then with the leader of our liberal democrats, Mr Zhirinovsky. You will see the difference at once. If you cannot see it now, then have a talk with them. There is no problem here, simply go to Moscow and talk to them.

About our future plans. We would like to have a mature political system, a multi-party system with responsible politicians who can anticipate the country’s development and not only work responsibly before elections and immediately after, but in a long-term future as well. That is what we aspire to. And this system will certainly be a multi-party one. All our actions within Russia, including changing the State Duma election regime, the election regime in the Russian parliament, are designed to strengthen a multi-party system in Russia.

And now about whether our government cabinet is able to operate responsibly in resolving issues linked to energy deliveries and ensuring energy security. Of course it can! Moreover, all that we have done and are doing is designed to achieve only one goal, namely to transfer our relations with consumers and countries that transport our energy to market-based, transparent principles and long-term contracts.

I will remind you and my colleague, the President of Ukraine, who is sitting opposite from me, also knows this. For fifteen years prior to 2006, as long as we did not make the corresponding decisions during our difficult talks, deliveries of Russian energy and, first and foremost, of gas to Europe depended on the conditions and prices for the deliveries of Russian gas to Ukraine itself. And this was something that Ukraine and Russia agreed among themselves. And if we reached no agreement, then all European consumers would sit there with no gas. Would you like to see this happen? I don’t think so. And despite all the scandals, the protection of interests, and differences of opinion we were able to agree with President Yushchenko. I consider that he made a responsible, absolutely correct and market-oriented decision. We signed separate contracts for the delivery of our gas to Ukraine and for delivering Russian gas to Europe for the next five years. You should thank us, both Russia and Ukraine, for this decision. And thank you also for your question.

It would have been better if I answered your questions at once.

Regarding our perception of NATO’s eastern expansion, I already mentioned the guarantees that were made and that are not being observed today. Do you happen to think that this is normal practice in international affairs? But all right, forget it. Forget these guarantees. With respect to democracy and NATO expansion. NATO is not a universal organisation, as opposed to the UN. It is first and foremost a military and political alliance, military and political! Well, ensuring one’s own security is the right of any sovereign state. We are not arguing against this. Of course we are not objecting to this. But why is it necessary to put military infrastructure on our borders during this expansion? Can someone answer this question? Unless the expansion of military infrastructure is connected with fighting against today’s global threats? Let’s put it this way, what is the most important of these threats for us today – the most important for Russia, for the USA and for Europe – it is terrorism and the fight against it.

Does one need Russia to fight against terrorism? Of course! Does one need India to fight against terrorism! Of course! But we are not members of NATO and other countries aren’t either. But we can only work on this issue effectively by joining our forces. As such, expanding infrastructure, especially military infrastructure, to our borders is not connected in any way with the democratic choices of individual states. And I would ask that we not mix these two concepts.

You know, I wrote so illegibly here that even I cannot read my own writing. I will therefore answer what I can read and if I do not answer something, please remind me of the question.

What will happen with Kosovo and with Serbia? Only Kosovars and Serbs can know. And let’s not tell them how they should live their lives. There is no need to play God and resolve all of these peoples’ problems. Together we can only create certain necessary conditions and help people resolve their own problems. Create the necessary conditions and act as the guarantors of certain agreements. But we should not impose these agreements. Otherwise, we shall simply put the situation into a dead end. And if one of the participants in this difficult process feels offended or humiliated, then the problem will last for centuries. We will only create a dead end.

What does our position consist in? Our position consists in adhering precisely to this principle. And if we see that one party is clearly dissatisfied with the proposals to resolve the situation then we are not going to support this option.

I did not exactly understand what you meant when you asked about our servicemen’s experience in Chechnya. Their experience is not pleasant, but it is extensive. And if you are interested in the general situation in Chechnya, then I can tell you that a parliament and a president have been elected, and that the government is functioning. All the bodies of authority and administration have been formed. Practically all the political forces in Chechnya have been involved in work in the Republic. As an example, the former Defence Minister of Aslan Maskhadov’s government is now a member of parliament in Chechnya. And we made a whole series of decisions that would allow former insurgents to return not only to normal life, but also to the Republic’s political activities. As such, today we prefer to act by using economic and political means and, in practice, we have transferred the responsibility for ensuring security almost 100 percent to the Chechen people. Because the agencies of law and order that were formed in Chechnya are almost 100 percent composed of local citizens, from those living in Chechnya on a permanent basis – from Chechens.

As to Lebanon, I also did not quite understand what you meant. But, yes, the fact that we sent military construction workers to Lebanon to restore bridges and infrastructure that was destroyed in the conflict with Israel is a confirmation of a well-known situation, the one I described just now. And military units protecting these builders were made up of servicemen from Chechnya and with Chechen origins. We recognised that if our servicemen must operate in regions inhabited by Muslims, sending a contingent of Muslim servicemen would be no bad thing. And we were not mistaken. The local population really gave a warm welcome to our military builders.

Now about the energy agreement with the European Union, since this is how I understood the question. We have said many times that we are not against agreeing on the principles underlying our energy relations with the EU. Moreover, the principles contained in the Charter are generally comprehensible. But the Charter itself is not so acceptable to us. Because not only Russia but also our European partners do not adhere to its principles. It is enough to remember that the market for nuclear materials remains closed for us. Nobody has opened this market to us.

There are also other moments which I simply do not want to draw attention to now. But as to the principles themselves, we are already using these principles in our work with German companies. I shall remind you of the transaction that took place between Gazprom and BASF. As a matter of fact, this was an asset swap. We are ready to continue to work this way. We are ready. But in each concrete instance we must understand what we give, what our partners give, calculate, have an independent international expert evaluation, and then make a decision. We are ready to engage in this work. We have actually just recently done something similar with our Italian partners, with the company ENI. And we did more than simply sign an agreement about deliveries until 2035 – I think – we also talked about swapping assets. And we are studying this same type of cooperation with our Ukrainian friends. This is going ahead.

And is it necessary to fix these principles in a possible future fundamental text between Russia and the EU? It is possible to have different opinions on this issue. I consider that it is not necessary because, in addition to energy, we have other spheres in which we cooperate with the EU, including agriculture, high-tech and transportation. And all of this is very important and very interesting. And we cannot put all of this in one fundamental act that should act as a framework document. Or would you want us to put only what you need in the document and leave what we need outside of the framework? Let’s discuss things honestly with one another and take mutually acceptable decisions.

“In the 1990s Russia helped Iran develop missile technologies”. I think that you asked me this question. “Today Iran wants to put nuclear warheads on these missiles that could reach Europe. What is Russia going to do about the Iranian nuclear programme?” Is that so?

Well first of all, I do not have data that in the 1990s Russia helped Iran create its own missile technologies. It was other countries that worked very actively towards this. And technology was transferred through different channels. And we have proof of this. At the time I gave these proofs directly to the President of the United States. And technology also came from Europe and from Asian countries.

So Russia is hardly at fault here. I assure you. Russia is the country least involved here. Least of all. If it is involved at all. At the time I was still working in St Petersburg, but we were not involved with this. I can assure you of this. But you know that at the business level something could have happened. We trained experts in institutes and so on. And at the request and according to the information of our American partners we reacted harshly to this. Immediately and harshly. We did not observe such a reaction from our other partners, including European partners. Moreover, I do not know whether you are aware of this or not but you should know that military technology and special equipment is still coming from the United States. Until now. Until now spare parts for F-14 planes come from the armed forces and the Pentagon. As far as I know, there is even an investigation taking place in the United States on this account. And despite the fact that this investigation is proceeding and that these spare parts were seized at the border and then sent back, after a certain amount of time, according to the data I have – and if they are not correct then check them – those same cargos were again seized at the border. Even bearing a tag ‘material evidence’.

You know, this stream is really hard to stop. We need to work together to do so.

About whether or not Iran has missiles that threaten Europe. You are mistaken. Today Iran has – Mr Gates is here today and certainly knows this data better than I do, and the Russian Defence Minister is also here – missiles with a range of 2000 kilometres.

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov: 1600–1700 kilometres.

Vladimir Putin: 1600–1700 kilometres. Only. Well, count how many kilometres there are between Munich and the Iranian border. Iran has no such missiles. They plan to develop some with a range of 2400 kilometres. It is not known whether they have the technology to do so. And with respect to 4000, 5000 or 6000 kilometres, then I think that this would simply require a different economy. So, it is improbable in general. And Iran is not threatening Europe. With regard to the idea that they are preparing to use nuclear warheads then we do not have such data. We do not have this data about nuclear warheads.

North Korea has tested a nuclear device. Iranians are constantly saying that their nuclear programme has a peaceful character. But I agree with you that the international community has concerns about the character and quality of Iran’s nuclear programmes. And Mr ElBaradai recently stated these concerns in what I think were six or seven points. I agree with you about this. And I do not understand why the Iranian party has still not reacted in a positive and constructive way to the concerns that Mr ElBaradai stated and therefore assuaged these concerns. I do not understand this just as you do not understand it.

What are we going to do? I think that together we need to work patiently and carefully. And, that’s right, to create incentives and show the Iranian leadership that cooperation with the international community is much better than confrontation.

Yes, and again about the deliveries of weapons to Iran. You know that there has been more talk than deliveries. Our military and technical cooperation with Iran is minimal. Simply minimal. I am not sure what minimal figures it is estimated at. In general we deliver much less arms to the Middle East than other countries, including the United States. No comparison is possible there. We recently delivered an anti-aircraft weapon system to Iran – that is true – with a medium range, approximately 30 to 50 kilometres. That is true. Why did we do this? I can explain why. We did this so that Iran did not feel it had been driven into a corner. So that it didn’t feel that it was in some kind of hostile environment. Rather that Iran could understand that it had channels of communication and friends that it could trust. We very much expect that the Iranian party will understand and hear our signals.

As to our weapons in Lebanon and in the Gaza strip. I am not aware of our weapons in the Gaza strip. I have not heard of such examples. Well, Kalashnikovs are in general the most widely used small arms in the world. They are probably everywhere. And probably there are still automatic Kalashnikovs in Germany or, in any case, some that have still not been destroyed. That is one hundred percent certain.

In Lebanon it is true. Elements of our anti-tank systems really have been seen there. That is true. Our Israeli partners told me about this at once. We carried out a thorough investigation into what happened. And we determined that these systems had remained in Lebanese territory after the Syrian army left. We carried out the corresponding work with our Syrian partners. We determined that our future military and technical cooperation with Syria would exclude the possibility that weapons could fall into any hands other than the ones they were destined for. We developed such a system. Among other things, we agreed on a system of possible warehouse inspections, at any time that is convenient for Russian experts. Inspections in warehouses after deliveries of Russian weapons systems to Syria.

“The USA are not developing strategic weapons but Russia is. Will Russia use force in the future if it is not sanctioned by the UN? Russia is developing a system of strategic weapons”.

Fine question, excellent! I am very grateful to you for this question. It will give me the opportunity to talk about the essence of what is happening. What are we indebted to in the past decades if there was a stand-off between two superpowers and two systems but nevertheless a big war did not take place? We are indebted to the balance of powers between these two superpowers. There was an equilibrium and a fear of mutual destruction. And in those days one party was afraid to make an extra step without consulting the other. And this was certainly a fragile peace and a frightening one. But as we see today, it was reliable enough. Today, it seems that the peace is not so reliable.

Yes, the United States is ostensibly not developing an offensive weapon. In any case, the public does not know about this. Even though they are certainly developing them. But we aren’t even going to ask about this now. We know that these developments are proceeding. But we pretend that we don’t know, so we say that they aren’t developing new weapons. But what do we know? That the United States is actively developing and already strengthening an anti-missile defence system. Today this system is ineffective but we do not know exactly whether it will one day be effective. But in theory it is being created for that purpose. So hypothetically we recognise that when this moment arrives, the possible threat from our nuclear forces will be completely neutralised. Russia’s present nuclear capabilities, that is. The balance of powers will be absolutely destroyed and one of the parties will benefit from the feeling of complete security. This means that its hands will be free not only in local but eventually also in global conflicts.

We are discussing this with you now. I would not want anyone to suspect any aggressive intentions on our part. But the system of international relations is just like mathematics. There are no personal dimensions. And of course we should react to this. How? Either the same as you and therefore by building a multi-billion dollar anti-missile system or, in view of our present economic and financial possibilities, by developing an asymmetrical answer. So that everybody can understand that the anti-missile defence system is useless against Russia because we have certain weapons that easily overcome it. And we are proceeding in this direction. It is cheaper for us. And this is in no way directed against the United States themselves.

I completely agree if you say that the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is not directed against us, just as our new weapons are not directed against you. And I fully agree with my colleague and my friend about another thing. Do you know – and I will not be afraid of the word – that in spite of all our disagreements I consider the President of the United States my friend. He is a decent person and I know that today the wolves can blame the United States for everything that is being done on the international arena and internally. But I know that he is a decent person and it is possible to talk and reach agreements with him. And when I talked to him he said: “I proceed from the fact that Russia and the USA will never be opponents and enemies again”. I agree with him. But I repeat once again that there are symmetries and asymmetries here, there is nothing personal. It is simply a calculation.

And now about whether Russia will use military force without the sanction of the UN. We will always operate strictly within the international legal framework. My basic education is in law and I will allow myself to remind both myself and my colleagues that according to the UN Charter peace-keeping operations require the sanction of both the UN and the UN Security Council. This is in the case of peace-keeping operations. But in the UN Charter there is also an article about self-defence. And no sanctions are required in this case.

So, what have I forgotten?

Question: My question was about multipolarity in Russia itself and about the attitude of the international community towards Russia if Russia does not observe these principles, in reference to the murder of journalists, fears, anxieties, the absence of freedom and non-governmental organisations.

Vladimir Putin: I will say a couple of words. I already answered part of the question when I talked about the structure of the Russian parliament. Look at who is represented there, the political views of the people who have leadership positions in parliament, the legitimate parties. Now, as to non-governmental organisations, they are working actively in Russia. Yes, we introduced a new system for registering these organisations. But it is not that different from registration systems in other countries. And we have not yet seen any complaints from non-governmental organisations themselves. We have not refused registration to almost any organisations. There were two or three cases that were refused on simply formal grounds and these organisations are working on correcting certain provisions in their charters and so on. Nobody has been refused registration based on substantial, fundamental issues. All are continuing to work in the most active possible way and will continue to do so in the future.

What bothers us? I can say and I think that it is clear for all, that when these non-governmental organisations are financed by foreign governments, we see them as an instrument that foreign states use to carry out their Russian policies. That is the first thing. The second. In every country there are certain rules for financing, shall we say, election campaigns. Financing from foreign governments, including within governmental campaigns, proceeds through non-governmental organisations. And who is happy about this? Is this normal democracy? It is secret financing. Hidden from society. Where is the democracy here? Can you tell me? No! You can’t tell me and you never will be able to. Because there is no democracy here, there is simply one state exerting influence on another.

But we are interested in developing civil society in Russia, so that it scolds and criticises the authorities, helps them determine their own mistakes, and correct their policies in Russian citizens’ interests. We are certainly interested in this and we will support civil society and non-governmental organisations.

As to fears and so on, are you aware that today Russians have fewer fears than citizens in many other countries? Because in the last few years we made cardinal changes to improve the economic well-being of our citizens. We still have a great many problems. And we still have a great many unresolved problems. Including problems linked with poverty. And I can tell you that fears basically come from this source.

As to journalists then yes, this represents an important and difficult problem. And, incidentally, journalists are not only killed in Russia, but in other countries as well. Where are most journalists killed? You are an expert and probably know in which country the most journalists died in, say, the last year and a half? The largest number of journalists were killed in Iraq.

As to tragedies within Russia, we will certainly struggle with these phenomena in the most thorough way possible and sternly punish all criminals who try to undermine trust in Russia and damage our political system.

Thank you for your attention.

Huge Geopolitical Changes

Par : AHH

An old American of the disintegrated Old Order reviews the remains of the day.. How did preeminent retiree diplomats of the British Empire see the glass after the evacuation at Dunkirk? Time has been freed, irrevocably loosed

Chas Freeman chairs Projects International, Inc.

  • For more than four decades, Projects International has helped its partner enterprises and clients to create business ventures across borders. It facilitates their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation, capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries. The firm operates on five continents.
  • Ambassador Freeman is a career diplomat (retired) who was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs from 1993-94, earning the highest public service awards of the Department of Defense for his roles in designing a NATO-centered post-Cold War European security system and in reestablishing defense and military relations with China.
  • He served as U. S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm).
  • He was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the historic U.S. mediation of Namibian independence from South Africa and Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola.
  • Ambassador Freeman worked as Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d’Affaires in the American embassies at both Bangkok (1984-1986) and Beijing (1981-1984).
  • He was Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981.
  • He was the principal American interpreter during the late President Nixon’s path-breaking visit to China in 1972.
  • In addition to his Middle Eastern, African, East Asian and European diplomatic experience, he had a tour of duty in India.

The Order of Skull and Bones and US Society

Par : AHH

“The Order has so wrecked education that reading comprehension is difficult for many – that’s part of the brainwashing program.” – Antony C. Sutton

Professor Dr. Syed Mujahid Kamran at Daily Pakistan

The Order of Skull and Bones is a highly important secret society that was established in 1833. It has, over the years, provided leaders in U.S. society, including presidents, judges of the Supreme Court, ambassadors, intelligence operators, business leaders, academic administrators, etc. It has persistently and relentlessly moulded the life and thought of the United States of America silently and profoundly. The Order has ceremonial rites such as lying in a coffin, its members are sworn to secrecy, and always deny membership of the society. It is headquartered in a windowless building known as “The Tomb”, where meetings of its members are held in secrecy. The “Tomb” was constructed in 1856. It is one of the four secret societies that exist in Yale University, the other three being Scroll and Key, Wolf’s Head and Elihu. However, it happens to be, by far, the most powerful and most controversial of these four.

“Tapping” the Controllers of the imported Prussian Totalitarian Paradigm for Totalen Krieg

In order to understand the purpose of the Order and its enormous influence, one has to delve into its origins, various interconnections at the very start, and the sources from where its drew its inspiration. In the words of author Kris Millegan, Yale is the place “[W]here three threads of American social history – espionage, drug smuggling and secret societies – intertwine into one.” One of the founders of the Order of Skull and Bones was William Huntington Russell. He was a cousin of Samuel Russell who, in 1823, founded Russell and Company for smuggling opium. Opium, acquired from Turkey, was smuggled by Russell and Company into China. Millegan notes that in 1830 Russell and Company merged with a Boston syndicate known as Perkins, becoming the primary opium smuggler of the U.S. Russell partners included Warren Delano Jr., the grandfather of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Cleve Green who funded Princeton, Abiel Low who financed construction of Columbia, and others. Important partners, who influenced life in the U.S. included Joseph Coolidge, whose son organized the United Fruit Company whose role in South American politics has always been crucial, and whose grandson Archibald C. Coolidge was one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations.

William Huntington went to Germany and spent a year studying there (1831-1832). At the time the German society was fermenting with new ideas and a new educational system, based on what was called the “scientific” method, was being developed. It was Johan Wolfgang Fitche who, in an address to the German nation, had declared that children would be taken over by the state and the state would determine what the children should think and how should they think. Fitche was a Freemason, and most likely Illuminati – he had support of the famous Illuminati Johan Wolfgang Goethe. Fitche was succeeded by the famous Hegel, who remained a professor at Berlin University until his death in 1831. It was Hegel who bequeathed the dialectical idea to the world. In the words of Kris Millegan: “To Hegel, our world is a world of reason. The state is Absolute Reason and the citizen can only become free by worship and obedience to the state. Hegel called the state the ‘march of God in the world’ and the ‘final end’. This final end, Hegel said, ‘has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of a state.” William Huntington Russell imbibed these ideas and was destined to import Hegelianism into American society.


Alphonso Taft, founder of the Taft political dynasty … Attorney General and Secretary of War under President Ulysses S. Grant

Upon returning to Yale in 1832 William Huntington Russell formed a secret society with Alphonso Taft. The secret society was initially named Scull and Bones. Subsequently the title was revised to Skull and Bones (abbreviated as S&B). Sometimes it is called the Brotherhood of Death. It is known as the Order by its members. Its insignia is the same as that on the flag of a pirate’s ship, with the number 322 printed beneath. The year of founding of this secret society is 1833, the year from which hails the first batch of this secret society. Russell went on to become a general and also became a legislator in Connecticut. Alphonso Taft became Attorney General of the U.S., and subsequently became Minister of War. Taft also was the U.S. ambassador to Austria as well as Russia. His son William Taft, was also a member Skull and Bones and became the Chief Justice as well as President of the United States, the only man in history to occupy these two positions. This indicates the enormous power and influence of this secret society formed by Alphonso Taft and William H. Russell at Yale even in its early phase.

Every year, since 1833, 15 students are selected and offered membership (they are “tapped” as the phrase goes). Membership was all male and white until 1992 when women were admitted, followed by colored members as well as LGBT community members. To date, in over 190 years of existence, the total number of members of S&B is close to 3,000. At any given time, the number of members alive is estimated to be between 500 and 600. The establishment of this society was not something done in isolation in an American institution. At one point Yale students broke into the headquarters of this society and recovered secret documents. One of the documents states: “Bones is a chapter of a corps in a German University . . . General Russell, its founder, was in Germany before his Senior Year and formed a warm friendship with a leading member of a German society. He brought back with him in college, authority to found a chapter here.” While this fascinating document reveals Skull and Bones as a chapter of a German secret society, it still does not reveal the name of the individual with whom Russell formed a friendship, nor does it identify the name of the German society. It even does not specify the name of the university where the parent society of Skull and Bones existed. Since Russell had gone to Berlin University, it is likely that the parent secret society existed in that university. Skull and Bones is chapter 322 of some German secret society. In fact, a list of S&B members supplied anonymously to Antony Sutton shows that in the S&B batch of 1833 the name at number 11 is not mentioned – instead two blank lines appear indicating that this could be the name of the anonymous German connection. Eustace Mullins has remarked that Skull and Bones is a branch of German Illuminati.

The Primary Task: Mold the Minds of Children

The Order of Skull and Bones has worked for promoting a Hegelian set up in the United States, where the state is supreme and individual liberties and rights are subservient to the demands of the state. Further the Hegelian dialectic, thesis versus anti-thesis, generates activity through clash of opposites and their resolution, followed by the generation of new opposites and so on. Members of S&B manage the conflict by being on both sides. John Kerry of the Democratic Party contested presidential elections against the Republican George Bush, when in fact both belonged to S&B! The Order has focused on education with particular fervor as a means of “dumbing down” the American mind. In this regard Kris Millegan writes: “Daniel Coit Gilman (1852) along with two other ‘Bonesmen’, formed a troika which still influences American life today. Soon after their initiation in Skull and Bones, Daniel Gilman, Timothy Dwight (1849) and Andrew Dickinson White (1853) went to study philosophy in Europe at the University of Berlin. Gilman returned from Europe and incorporated Skull and Bones as the Russell Trust in 1856 with himself as Treasurer and William H. Russell as President. He spent the next 14 years in New Haven consolidating the order’s power.”

The focus of the order on education, particularly higher education, can be noticed from the following facts about this troika. Daniel Coit Gilman became the first President of the University of California. He also became the founder President of John Hopkins. Timothy Dwight became President of Yale in 1886, whereas Andrew D. White became the first President of Cornell University. Yale, John Hopkins, Cornell, and University of California are first rate institutions and it is highly significant that these were headed in their initial phases by three members of the Order of Skull and Bones who had gone to Berlin University for studying philosophy. It is likely that many subsequent presidents of these institutions have also been members of the Order of S&B. In fact, Yale is almost always headed by a Bonesman.

In addition to heading academic institutions this troika founded and/or headed other highly important organizations that have had, and continue to have, a profound influence on American society. Gilman was the first president of the Carnegie Institution and founded the Peabody, Slater, and Russell Sage Foundations. White became the first president of the American Historical Association, an organization established for the supremely important purpose of writing sanitized history and incorporating this sanitized history in the syllabi of the history courses throughout the United States. This troika also founded the American Economic Association, American Psychological Association and the American Chemical Society. Millegan states: “Through their influences on John Dewey and Horace Mann, this trio continues to have enormous impact on American education today.” Thus control of higher education has enabled them to control education of the United States at all levels. The number 322 in the emblem of the Order is thought by some to represent 322 B.C. when Greek orator Demosthenes died. This year marked the transition of Athens from a democracy to a plutocracy and is thought to represent the belief of S&B members that the U.S. should also become a plutocracy.

From the list of members provided to Sutton an interesting picture emerges. Initially the most important S&B members belonged to certain family lines. Initially the so-called Old Line families that had settled in Massachusetts in the first half of 17th century and had acquired wealth dominated the Order of S&B. These were the Gilman, the Taft, the Whitney, the Lord, the Stimson, the Perkins, the Bundy and the Phleps families. All these families settled in Massachusetts between 1630-1638, except for the Taft family which came in 1679. To these Old Line families were added families which came later and had acquired wealth in the 19th century. These included the Rockefeller, the Payne, the Harriman, the Davison, the Pillsbury, the Sloane and the Weyerhaueser families. Afterwards came families such as the Bush family which joined S&B during the 20th century.

Antony Sutton writes in his groundbreaking book on the Order: “The Order has either set up or penetrated just about every significant research, policy, and opinion making organization in the United States, in addition to the Church, business, law, government and politics. Not all at the same time, but persistently and consistently enough to dominate the direction of American society. The evolution of American society is not, and has not been for a century a voluntary development reflecting individual opinions, ideas and decisions at grass roots. On the contrary the road direction has been created artificially and stimulated by the Order. Not all organizations know they have been penetrated or used for another purpose.”

Not only have members of the Order the very first heads of several key higher education institutions as mentioned, they have also been key players in various Foundations whose wealth is used for the purposes pursued by the Order. Some Foundations set up and/or headed by members of the Order have already been mentioned. In addition, the Ford Foundation was headed by S&B member McGeorge Bundy from 1966-1979 even though the Ford family had views opposed to the secret societies. The American Society for Settlement of International Disputes was set in 1910 by Theodore Marburg who was its President. But the first Chairman of this society was William Howard Taft of S&B. This society was the precursor of the League to Enforce Peace, which evolved into the League of Nations idea and eventually became the United Nations. The brain behind UNESCO was another S&B member named Archiblad McLeash. These organizations reveal how the influence of the Order has acquired a global dimension, touching each and every nation on the planet! In the U.S., the Institute of Policy Studies evolved, in 1963, out of the 1960 Peace Research Institute established by an S&B member named James Jeremiah Wadsworth.

Members of the Order acquired ownership of highly important media organizations from the very start. Henry Luce of S&B owned the Time Life magazines and their allied publications. John Chipman Farrar (S&B 1918) owned the Farrar Strauss publishing enterprise. Alfred Cowles (S&B 1913) became President of Cowles Communications which owned the Des Moines Register and Minneapolis Starr. Similarly the Atlantic Monthly was owned by an S&B member, etc. The first Director of the Nieman Fund, which awards the prestigious Nieman Fellowship in journalism at Harvard, was an S&B member named Archibakld McLeash. Several hundred Nieman Fellowships have been awarded to date.

Members of the Order of Skull and Bones are found on both sides of a conflict. They supported Hitler as well as Stalin! S&B member Averell Harrimann spent a good deal of time by Stalin’s side during WWII. According to Kris Millegan: “Funding and political maneuvering on the part of ‘Bonesmen’ and their allies helped the Bolsheviks prevail in Russia. In defiance of federal laws, the cabal financed industries, established banks, and developed oil and mineral deposits in the fledgling U.S.S.R.” Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin write: “Following his services to Germany’s Nazi Party, Averell Harrimann spent several years mediating between the British, American and Soviet governments in the war to stop the Nazis. He was ambassador to Moscow from 1943-1946. President Harry Truman, whom Harrimann and his friends held in amused contempt, appointed Harrimann U.S. ambassador to Britain in 1946.” Millegan writes that according to some Harrimann also “oversaw the transfer of nuclear secrets, plutonium and dollar printing plates to the U.S.S.R.”

From the list of members supplied secretly and confidentially to Antony Sutton an interesting picture emerges. Sutton had lists that covered approximately the first 150 years of the existence of the Order. He found that 77% i.e. more than three quarters of the members were concentrated in five areas. These areas are Law (18%), Education (16%), Business (16%), Finance (15%) and Industry (12%). As Sutton observes, these five areas are “the key fields for the control of society.” Although Government and politics account for only 3% of the members this is misleading because, on account of the “revolving door” phenomenon, people in these five fields can temporarily occupy important governmental positions. Sutton further notes; “Notably the areas of society least represented are those with the least ability to influence the structural direction of society.” Thus Sutton could find only five engineers in the list of members in 150 years! Further “Art, architecture and music are underrepresented. We can identify only 16 members in these three occupations in 150 years. Again these occupations are not influential in determining the structure of society. Farmers are under represented, only 16 in 150 years, but we suspect that some took up farming to get away from the Order.”


Around 1985, Vice President George HW Bush came to visit his mother Dorothy Bush on Jupiter Island

Jupiter Island

George H.W. Bush spent his early childhood with his mother on Jupiter Island in Florida, but this is generally not mentioned. The reason for this has to do with the fact that Jupiter Island had been made “a staging ground for the 1940s takeover of the U.S. national security apparatus” by Averell Harrimann. On account of this the island had become “possibly the most secretive place in America”. It was owned by Permelia Pryor Reed, daughter of Samuel Pryor, chairman executive committee of Remington Arms, and a partner of S&B dominated Brown Brother Harrimann, and her husband, Yale graduate Joseph V. Reed. They bought the entire island, which is about half a mile wide and nine miles long, in 1931. The couple sold the land only to people that would fit in with them.

When George H.W. Bush became President he used to visit Jupiter Island frequently. Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin write: “But for several decades before Bush was President, Jupiter Island had an ordinance requiring fingerprinting of all housekeepers, gardeners and other non-residents working on the island. The Jupiter Island police department says that there are sensors in the two main roads that can track every automobile on the island. If a car stops in a street, the police will be there within one or two minutes. Surveillance is a duty of all employees of the town of Jupiter Island. News reporters are to be prevented from visiting the island.”

Jupiter Island resident Robert A Lovett, a partner of Prescott Bush (S&B 1917) was Assistant Secretary of War from 1941-1945. It was Lovett who was the main American advocate of terror-bombing of civilians. It was Lovett who organized the Strategic Bombing Survey in collaboration with the Tavistock Institute in order to terrorize the civilian population of Germany by such actions as fire-bombing of Dresden. He also advised Lyndon Johnson to carry out such terror-bombing of Vietnam. C. Douglas Dillon, a neighbor of George Bush on Jupiter Island, became undersecretary of State after the death of John Foster Dulles in 1958. From 1953 – 1957 Dillon had been ambassador to France and had coordinated the U.S. backing of the French imperialism in Vietnam. The results of this policy became catastrophic for France and eventually the U.S. and Vietnam and adjoining regions leading to tens of millions of deaths. Jock Whitney, ambassador to Britain, was a neighbor of Prescott Bush on Jupiter Island and set up a propaganda organization for the CIA and the British intelligence.

S & B member Averell Harrimann betrayed John F. Kennedy’s attempts to de-escalate the Vietnam war. James Douglas writes about John Kenneth Galbraith’s proposal to JFK to use the Indian government to communicate with the Communist bloc in the matter. “In response to the President’s order to wire such instructions to Galbraith, Harrimann ‘struck the language of de-escalation from the message with a heavy pencil line’ as scholar Gareth Porter discovered in examining Harrimann’s papers. Harriman dictated instructions to his colleague Edward Rice for as telegram to Galbraith that instead ‘changed the mutual de-escalation approach into a threat of the U.S. escalation of war if the North Vietnamese refused to accept U.S. terms’ thereby subverting Kennedy’s purpose. When Rice tried to reintroduce Kennedy’s peaceful initiative into the telegram Harrimann intervened. He again crossed out the de-escalation proposal, then ‘simply killed the telegram altogether.’ As a result of Harrimann’s obstruction, Galbraith never did receive JFK’s mutual de-escalation proposal to North Vietnam.”

John Kennedy was betrayed during the Bay of Pigs invasion by three leading lights of the CIA: Director Allen Dulles and two Deputy Directors Richard Bissell and Gen. Charles Cabell. Bissell had studied at Yale and had refused an offer to become a member of S&B. However, his brother was an S&B member. All three were to play a role in the JFK assassination as JFK had sacked all three of them for having betrayed him. The real disaster during Bay of Pigs occurred when McGeorge Bundy called off the attack on the surviving T33s of Castro’s air force in violation of explicit orders of JFK. Bundy was a member of Order of S&B. His brother William Bundy was also a member of the Order of S&B. Thus S&B members played a crucial role in subverting JFK’s administration. Antony Sutton et al writes about the Bundy brothers: “The two brothers from their positions in the CIA, the Department of Defense and the State Department and as special assistants to President Kennedy and Johnson exercised significant impact over the flow of information and intelligence during the Vietnam war.” William Bundy became the editor of Foreign Affairs, the quarterly journal of the Council on Foreign Relations while McGeorge Bundy became head of the Ford Foundation.

When Gen. Eisenhower instructed that U2 flights over U.S.S.R. be stopped in view of an impending summit with Khrushchev, it was Bissell who betrayed the orders and managed the U2 flight, flown by Gary Powers, which came down over U.S.S.R. leading to a cancellation of the summit. Donald Gibson wrote: “Richard Bissell was the man who developed and almost certainly played a role in the Gates-Powers mess.” Gates was then secretary of defense. Thus S&B members sabotaged the policy of reduction of tensions with the Soviet Union and at the same time sabotaged JFK’s policy of disengaging from Vietnam, eventually playing a role in his assassination. James Jesus Angleton, the head of the CIA’s counter-intelligence wing, played a key role in the JFK assassination. He was a member of the Order of S&B. Members of the Order were responsible for horrendous bombing of civilians during WWII as well as the Vietnam and subsequently Iraq wars under S&B presidents the Bushes, killing tens of millions of innocent civilians.


The Bohemian Grove: An Elite Satanic Club

The Order of S&B stands for serious and managed or forced population reduction as well as the elimination of those who are poor or weak, or have physical or mental handicaps. George H.W. Bush stated: “The per capita income gap between the developed and developing countries is increasing, in large part the result of higher birth rate in poorer countries … Famine in India, unwanted babies in the United States, poverty that seemed to form an unbreakable chain for millions of people – how should we tackle these problems … It is quite clear that one of the major challenges of the 1970s … will be the curb of the world’s fertility.” This thinking is quite similar to that of Adolf Hitler, with whom S&B members cooperated. Hitler had stated: “Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy must not perpetuate their suffering in the body of their children… The prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on the part of physically degenerate and mentally sick over a period of 600 years would … free humanity from an immeasurable misfortune.” The Order of S&B subscribes to this philosophy.

Averell Harriman’s mother had funded the race-science movement in the U.S. in 1910 because she shared with the Farish family an interest in raising thorough breds among horses, extending the same to humans. Dr. Ernst Rudin of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy and Demography was brought to New York for the 1932 New York Eugenics Conference arranged by the Harrimanns, where he was unanimously elected president of the International Federation of Eugenics Societies. In 1928 Dr. Rudin had addressed the Federation’s meeting in Munich speaking on “Mental Aberration and Race Hygiene.” According to Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin components of the world eugenics movement included: “sterilization of mental patients (‘mental hygiene societies’); execution of insane criminals and terminally ill (‘euthanasia societies’); and eugenical race purification by prevention of births to parents from ‘inferior’ blood stocks (‘birth control societies’). Before Auschwitz death camps became a household word, these British-American-European groups called openly for the elimination of ‘unfit’ by means including force and violence.” This movement was backed by the S&B members, particularly the Harrimann family. The Rockefellers also funded this movement significantly.

In summary the Order of Skull and Bones has produced three U.S. presidents, two chief justices, numerous Senators, Congressmen, ambassadors, and cabinet members. They have influenced the U.S. society in a profound way through control of education, law, business, finance and industry. Chief Justice and Bonesman M.R. Waite simply declared in 1886, without any debate, that corporations have the rights of a person. The Order has had a global impact through setting up of UN and international judicial organizations. The Order has promoted war and genocide as a part of its Malthusian philosophy and has worked for making the state more powerful and the individual rights subservient to the demands of the state. The state does not exist to serve the individual, it is the other way round. The Order is, to use Sutton’s phrase, America’s Secret Establishment.

Antony C. Sutton, who had exposed the Order of Skull and Bones through his books and ongoing work died mysteriously in 2002. Kris Millegan wrote: “Antony Sutton was a giant among men. His integrity cost him dearly, his vocation, his income, his family … maybe even his life. Tony had collapsed to his kitchen floor early one morning. All the coroner would tell me was ‘natural causes’. I asked his partner for many years what happened; she said she didn’t know, she was sleeping. The only thing strange was some folks had moved into the apartment upstairs a few weeks before and then moved right out after Tony’s passing.” The Order may have had a hand in his death.

Tucker Interviews Prez Putin

Par : AHH

Ep. 73 The Vladimir Putin Interview pic.twitter.com/67YuZRkfLL

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 8, 2024

The Vladimir Putin Interview (timestamp on Telegram)

00:00:00
Introduction

00:02:00
Putin gives a history of Russia & Ukraine

00:25:04
NATO Expansion

00:30:40
NATO & Bill Clinton

00:41:10
Ukraine

00:48:30
What triggered this conflict?

01:02:37
A peaceful solution?

01:11:33
Who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines?

01:24:13
Re-establishing communication with the US

01:36:33
How powerful is Zelensky?

01:48:36
Elon Musk & AI

01:51:07
Imprisoned American journalist Evan Gershkovich

≈≈

Tucker: The following is an interview with the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Shot February 6th, 2024, at about 7 p.m in the building behind us, which is, of course, the Kremlin. The interview, as you will see if you watch it, is primarily about the war in progress, the war in Ukraine, how it started, what’s happening, and most pressingly how it might end. One note before you watch. At the beginning of the interview, we asked the most obvious question, which is why did you do this? Did you feel a threat, an imminent physical threat, and that’s your justification. And the answer we got shocked us. Putin went on for a very long time, probably half an hour, about the history of Russia going back to the eighth century. And honestly, we thought this was a filibustering technique and found it annoying and interrupted him several times, and he responded. He was annoyed by the interruption. But we concluded in the end, for what it’s worth, that it was not a filibustering technique. There was no time limit on the interview. We ended it after more than two hours. Instead, what you’re about to see seemed to us sincere whether you agree with it or not. Vladimir Putin believes that Russia has a historic claim to parts of western Ukraine. So our opinion would be to view it in that light as a sincere expression of what he thinks. And with that, here it is. Mr. President, thank you. On February 22nd, 2022, you addressed your country in a nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started, and you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that the United States, through NATO, might initiate a, quote, surprise attack on our country and too American ears, that sounds paranoid. Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue. How did you conclude that?

Vladimir Putin: It’s not that America, the United States was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia. I didn’t say that. Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?

Tucker: Here’s the quote. Thank you. It’s a formidable serious talk.

Vladimir Putin: Because your basic education is in history, as far as I understand.

Tucker: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: So if you don’t mind, I will take only 30 seconds or one minute to give you a short reference to history for giving you a little historical background.

Tucker: Please.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s look where our relationship with Ukraine started from. Where did Ukraine come from? The Russian state started gathering itself as a centralized statehood. And it is considered to be the year of the establishment of the Russian state in 862. But when the townspeople of Novgorod invited a Virangian Prince Rurik from Scandinavia to reign. In 1862, Russia celebrated the 1000th anniversary of its statehood. And in Novgorod there is a memorial dedicated to the 1000 anniversary of the country. In 882 Rurik’s successor, Prince Oleg, who was actually playing the role of regent at Rurik’s young son. Because Rurik had died by that time, came to Kiev. He ousted two brothers who apparently had once been members of Rurik’s squad. So Russia began to develop with two centers of power Kiev and Novgorod. The next very significant date in the history of Russia was 988, this was the baptism of Russia when Prince Vladimir, the great grandson of Rurik, baptized Russia and adopted Orthodoxy, or Eastern Christianity. From this time, the centralized Russian state began to strengthen. Why? Because of the single territory. Integrated economic ties. One and the same language. And after the baptism of Russia, the same faith and rule of the Prince, the centralized Russian state began to take shape. Back in the Middle Ages, Prince Yaroslav the Wise introduced the order of succession to a throne. But after he passed away, it became complicated for various reasons. The throne was passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the prince who had passed away to his brother. Then to his sons in different lines. All this led to the fragmentation and the end of Rus as a single state. There was nothing special about it. The same was happening then in Europe. But the fragmented Russian state became an easy prey to the empire created earlier by Genghis Khan. His successors, namely Batu Khan plundered and ruined nearly all the cities. The southern part, including Kiev, by the way, and some other cities, simply lost independence. While northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty. They had to pay tribute to the horde, but they managed to preserve some part of their sovereignty. And then a unified Russian state began to take shape with its center in Moscow. The southern part of Russian lands, including Kiev begun to gradually gravitate towards another magnet, the center that was emerging in Europe. This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and it was even called the Lithuanian Russian Duchy because Russians were a significant part of this population. They spoke the old Russian language and were Orthodox. But then there was a unification, the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. A few years later. Another union was signed, but this time already in the religious sphere, some of the Orthodox priests became subordinate to the Pope. Thus these lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian state. During decades the Poles were engaged in colonization of this part of the population. They introduced a language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe, they were Ukrainians. Originally the word Ukrainian meant that the person was living on the outskirts of the state, along the fringes, or was engaged in a border patrol service. It didn’t mean any particular ethnic group. So the poles were trying to, in every possible way, to colonize this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly, all that led to the fact that this part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw demanding that their rights be observed and people be commissioned here, including to Kiev.

Tucker: I beg your pardon. Could you tell us what period, I’m losing track of where in history, we are in the Polish oppression of Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: It was in the 13th century. Now, I will tell you what happened later. And give the dates so that there is no confusion. And in 1654, even a bit earlier this year. The people who were in control of the authority over that part of the Russian land, addressed war so, I repeat, demanding that they send them to rulers of Russian origin and Orthodox faith. But Warsaw did not answer them, and in fact rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow so that Moscow took them away. So that you don’t think that I’m inventing things. I’ll give you these documents.

Tucker: Well, I, it doesn’t sound like you’re inventing. And I’m not sure why it’s relevant to what happened two years ago.

Vladimir Putin: But still, these are documents from the archives. Copies. Here’s the letters from Bohdan Khmelnytsky, the man who then controlled the power in this part of the Russian lands, that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld. And after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow. Asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. There are copies of these documents. I will leave them for your good memory. There is a translation into Russian. You can translate it into English later. But Russia would not agree to admit them straight away, assuming that the war with Poland would start. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Russian assembly of top clergy and landowners, headed by the Tsar, which was the representative body of the power of the old Russian state, decided to include a part of the old Russian lands into Moscow Kingdom. As expected, the war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, and then in 1654, a truce was concluded. And 32 years later, I think a peace treaty with Poland, which they called eternal peace, was signed. And these lands, the whole left bank of Dnieper, including Kiev, went to Russia. And the whole right bank of Dnieper remained in Poland. Under the rule of Catharina the Great Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west, this all lasted until the Revolution. Before World War 1, Austrian General Staff relied on the ideas of Ukrainization, and started actively promoting the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainization. The motive was obvious. Just before World War 1, they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure themselves favorable conditions in the border area. So the idea which had emerged in Poland, that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians, but rather belong to a special ethnic group, Ukrainians started being propagated by the Austrian General Staff. As far back as the 19th century, theorists calling for Ukrainian independence appeared. All those, however, claimed that Ukraine should have a very good relationship with Russia. They insisted on that. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood, and the civil war began, including the hostilities with Poland. In 1921, peace with Poland was proclaimed. And under that treaty, the right bank of Dnieper River once again was given back to Poland. In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler. It did collaborate with Hitler, no, Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship. An alliance, demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the so-called Danzig Corridor, which connected the bulk of Germany with East Prussia and Konigsberg. After World War One, this territory was transferred to Poland. And instead of Danzig, a city of Gdasnk emerged. Hitler asked them to give it amicably, but they refused. Of course, still they collaborated with Hitler and engaged together in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia.

Tucker: But may I ask, you’re making the case that Ukraine, certainly parts of Ukraine, eastern Ukraine is in effect Russia has been for hundreds of years. Why wouldn’t you just take it when you became president 24 years ago? You have nuclear weapons. They don’t. It’s actually your land. Why did you wait so long?

Vladimir Putin: I’ll tell you, I’m coming for that. This briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it explains many things.

Tucker: It’s not boring. Just not sure how it’s relevant.

Vladimir Putin: Good, good. I’m so gratified that you appreciate that. Thank you. So before World War 2, Poland collaborated with Hitler. And although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler, as the Poles had not given the Danzig corridor to Germany, and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War 2 by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started, on 1st September 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland. Sobieski. By the way, the USSR, I have read some archive documents, behaved very honestly, and it asked Poland’s permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet planes flew over Poland, they would be downed over the territory of Poland. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the war begun and Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia. This under the well known Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, a part of the territory including western Ukraine was to be given to Russia, thus Russia, which was then named the USSR regained its historical lands. After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call World War 2, and all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to Russia, to the USSR. As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation, the lands which had originally been German. The eastern parts of Germany. These are now western lands of Poland. Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic Sea and Danzig. Which was once again given its Polish name. So this was how this situation developed. In 1922 when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.

Tucker: Right.

Vladimir Putin: Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities. For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And again, for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands, together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine, and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever. Even if we go as far back as 1654, when these lands returned to the Russian Empire. That territory was the size of 3 to 4 regions of modern Ukraine, with no Black Sea region. That was completely out of the question.

Tucker: In 1654.

Vladimir Putin: Exactly.

Tucker: I’m just, you obviously have encyclopedic knowledge of this region. But why didn’t you make this case for the first 22 years as president, that Ukraine wasn’t a real country?

Vladimir Putin: The Soviet Union was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo Turkish wars, they were called New Russia or another Russia. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR. And for unknown reasons, again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainization. It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet republics. This involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not a bad, in principle. That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created. After the World War 2, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania. So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Soviet Ukraine, and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin’s will.

Tucker: Do you believe Hungary has a right to take its land back from Ukraine, and that other nations have a right to go back to their 1654 borders?

Vladimir Putin: I’m not sure whether they should go back to their 1654 borders. But given Stalin’s time, so-called Stalin’s regime, which, as many claim, saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states. One can say that they could claim back those lands of theirs while having no right to do that. It is at least understandable.

Tucker: Have you told Viktor Orban that he can have part of Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: Never. I have never told him. Not a single time. We have not even had any conversation on that. But I actually know for sure that Hungarians who live there wanted to get back to their historical land. Moreover, I would like to share a very interesting story with you. I digress, it’s a personal one. Somewhere in the early 80s, I went on a road trip in a car from then Leningrad, across the Soviet Union through Kiev. Made a stop in Kiev and then went to western Ukraine. I went to the town of Beregovoy and all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in the language I did not understand in Hungarian, in Russian and in Hungarian. Not in Ukrainian, in Russian and in Hungarian. I was driving through some kind of village, and there were men sitting next to their houses, and they were wearing black three piece suits and black cylinder hats. I asked, are they some kind of entertainers? I was told no, they were not entertainers, they were Hungarians. I said, what are they doing here? What do you mean? This is their land. They live here. This was during the Soviet time in the 1980s. They preserved the Hungarian language, Hungarian names and all their national costumes. They are Hungarians and they feel themselves to be Hungarians. And of course, when now there is an infringement.

Tucker: What that is, and there’s a lot of that, though I think many nations are upset about Transylvania as well as you obviously know. But many nations feel frustrated by the redrawn borders of the wars of the 20th century and wars going back a thousand years, the ones that you mentioned. But the fact is that you didn’t make this case in public until two years ago, February. And in the case that you made, which I read today, you explain at great length that you felt a physical threat from the West in NATO, including potentially nuclear threat. And that’s what got you to move. Is that a fair characterization of what you said?

Vladimir Putin: I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside of the genre of the interview. That is why I asked you at the beginning, are we going to have a serious talk or a show? You said a serious talk. So bear with me, please. We’re coming to the point where the Soviet Ukraine was established. Then in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and everything that Russia had generously bestowed on Ukraine was dragged away by the latter. I’m coming to a very important point of today’s agenda.

Tucker: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership. I do not understand what the Russian leadership was guided by at the time, but I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine. First, I think that then Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine were in fact a common language. More than 90% of the population there spoke Russian. Family ties, every third person there had some kind of family or friendship ties. Common culture. Common history, finally, common faith, coexistence with a single state for centuries and deeply interconnected economies. All of these were so fundamental. All these elements together make our good relationships inevitable. The second point is a very important one. I want you as an American citizen and your viewers to hear about this as. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and therefore there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed voluntarily and proactively to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and believed that this would be understood by the so-called civilized West as an invitation for cooperation and association. That is what Russia was expecting, both from the United States and this so-called collective West as a whole. There were smart people, including in Germany, Egon Bahr, a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union, that they knew security systems should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unified Germany, but a new system should be also established to include the United States, Canada, Russia and other Central European countries. But NATO needs not to expand. That’s what he said. If NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia’s borders. That’s all. He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once. If, he said, you don’t listen to me, I’m never setting my foot in Moscow once again. Everything happened just as he had said.

Tucker: Of course, it did come true. And I and you’ve mentioned this many times. I think it’s a fair point. And many in America thought that relations between Russia and the United States would be fine with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the opposite happened. But you’ve never explained why you think that happened, except to say that the West fears a strong Russia. But we have a strong China the West does not seem very afraid of. What about Russia do you think, convinced policymakers they had to take it down?

Vladimir Putin: The West is afraid of strong China more than it fears a strong Russia, because Russia has won 150 million people and China has 1.5 billion population. And its economy is growing by leaps and bounds, or 5% a year. It used to be even more, but that’s enough for China. As Bismarck once put it, potentials are the most important. China’s potential is enormous. It is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy. It is already overtaking the United States quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid clip. Let’s not talk about who is afraid of whom. Let’s not reason in such terms. And let’s get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of civilized nations, nothing like this happened. You tricked us. I don’t mean you personally when I say you. Of course I’m talking about the United States. The promise was that NATO would not expand eastward. But it happened five times. There were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that. We were trying to persuade them. We were saying, please don’t. We are as bourgeois now as you are. We are a market economy and there is no Communist Party power. Let’s negotiate. Moreover, I have also said this publicly before. There was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States. Remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words: God bless America. Everything he said were signals, let us in. Remember the developments in Yugoslavia before that, Yeltsin was lavished with praise. As soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in support of Serbs. And we couldn’t but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex processes underway there. I do, but Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs, because Serbs are also a special and close to us nation, with Orthodox culture and so on. It’s a nation that has suffered so much for generations. Well, regardless. What is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support. What did the United States do? In violation of international law and the UN charter it started bombing Belgrade. It was the United States that led the genie out of the bottle. Moreover, when Russia protested and expressed its resentment, what was said? The UN charter and international law have become obsolete. Now everyone invokes international law, but at that time they started saying that everything was outdated. Everything had to be changed. Indeed, some things need to be changed as the balance of power has changed. It’s true, but not in this manner. Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing. He understood everything, I assure you. Well, I became president in 2000. I thought, okay, the Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let’s re-open the door that Russia had tried to go through. And moreover, I said it publicly, I can reiterate. At a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing President Bill Clinton, right here in the next room, I said to him, I asked him: Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen?” Suddenly he said, “you know, it’s interesting. I think so.” But in the evening, when we met for dinner, he said: You know, I’ve talked to my team, no, it’s not possible now. You can ask him. I think he will watch our interview, he’ll confirm it. I wouldn’t have said anything like that if it hadn’t happened. Okay, well, it’s impossible now.

Tucker: Were you sincere? Would you have joined NATO?

Vladimir Putin: Look, I asked the question, is it possible or not? And the answer I got was no. If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership position was….

Tucker: But if he had said yes, would you have joined NATO?

Vladimir Putin: If he had said yes, the process of rapprochement would have commenced, and eventually it might have happened if we had seen some sincere wish on the side of our partners. But it didn’t happen. Well, no means no, okay, fine.

Tucker: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know, you’re clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?

Vladimir Putin: You said that I was bitter about the answer. No, it’s not bitterness. It’s just the statement of fact. We’re not bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it’s not about those kind of matters in such circumstances. We just realized we weren’t welcome there, that’s all. Okay, fine. But let’s build relations in another manner. Let’s look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leaders. I can only guess why, too big a country, with its own opinion and so on. And the United States, i have seen how issues are being resolved in NATO. I will give you another example now concerning Ukraine. U.S. leadership exerts pressure and all NATO members obediently vote. Even if they do not like something. Now, I’ll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 2008. Although it’s being discussed, I’m not going to open a secret to you say anything new.Nevertheless, after that, we try to build the relations in different ways. For example, the events in the Middle East, in Iraq, we were building relations with the United States in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner. I repeatedly raised the issue that the United States should not support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasus’s? But they continue to do it anyway. And political support, information support, financial support, even military support came from the United States and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasus. I once raised this issue with my colleague, also the president of the United States. He says it’s impossible. Do you have proof? I said yes, I was prepared for this conversation, and I gave him that proof of motive. He looked at it and you know what he said? I apologize, but that’s what happened. I’ll quote, he says, “well, I’m gonna kick their ass.” We waited and waited for some response. There was no reply. I said to the FSB director: Write to the CIA”. What is the result of the conversation with the president? He wrote once, twice. And then we got a reply. We have the answer in the archive. The CIA replied: We have been working with the opposition in Russia. We believe that this is the right thing to do and we will keep on doing it.” It’s just ridiculous. Well, okay. We realized that it was out of the question.

Tucker: Forces in opposition to you? So you’re saying the CIA is trying to overthrow your government?

Vladimir Putin: Of course they meant in that particular case, the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasus. That’s who they call the opposition. This is the second point. The third moment is a very important one, is the moment when the US missile defense system was created at the beginning. We persuaded for a long time not to do it in United States. Moreover, after was invited by Bush Juniors Father Bush senior to visit his place on the ocean.I had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his team. I propose that the United States, Russia and Europe jointly create the missile defense system that we believe, if created, unilaterally threatens our security. Despite the fact that the United States officially said that it was being created against missile threats from Iran. That was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system. I suggested working together: Russia, the United States and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, “Are you serious?” I said, “Absolutely”.

Tucker: May I ask what year was this?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t remember. It is easy to find out on the internet. When I was in the USA at the invitation of a Bush Sr.. It is even easier to learn from someone I’m going to tell you about. I was told it was very interesting. I said, “Just imagine if we could settle such a global strategic security challenge together. The world will change. We’ll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones. But we could drastically change the situation in the world.” He says “Yes, and asks, “Are you serious? I said, “Of course”. “We need to think about it.” I said, “Go ahead please”. Then Secretary of Defense Gates, former Director of CIA and Secretary of State Rice came in here in this cabinet, right here at this table. They sat on this table. Me, the Foreign Minister, the Russian Defense Minister on that side. They said to me, yes, we have thought about it. We agree. I said, “Thank God, great”. “But with some exceptions.”

Tucker: So, twice you’ve described U.S. presidents making decisions and then being undercut by their agency heads. So it sounds like you’re describing a system that’s not run by the people who are elected, in your telling.

Vladimir Putin: That’s right, that’s right. And then they just told us to get lost. I’m not going to tell you the details because I think it’s incorrect. After all, it was confidential conversation, but our proposal was declined. That’s a fact. It was right then when I said, “Look, but then we will be forced to take counter measures. We will create such strike systems that will certainly overcome missile defense systems. The answer was, “We are not doing this against you, and you do what you want. Assuming that it is not against us, not against the United States. I said, “Okay”. Very well. That’s the way it went. And we created hypersonic systems with intercontinental range, and we continue to develop them. We are now ahead of everyone, the United States and the other countries in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems. And we are improving them every day. But it wasn’t us. We proposed to go the other way and we were pushed back. Now about NATO’s expansion to the east. Well, we were promised no NATO to the east, not an inch to the east, as we were told. And then what? They said, well, it’s not enshrined on paper, so we’ll expand. So there were five waves of expansion. The Baltic states, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on. And now I come to the main thing. They have come to the Ukraine. Ultimately, in 2008, at the summit in Bucharest, they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open. Now, about how decisions are made there. Germany, France seemed to be against it, as well as some other European countries. But then, as it turned out later, President Bush and he’s such a tough guy, a tough politician, as I was told later, he exerted pressure on us and we had to agree. It’s ridiculous. It’s like kindergarten. Where are the guarantees? What kindergarten is this? What kind of people are these? Who are they? You see, they were pressed. They agree. And then they say Ukraine won’t be in the NATO. You know, I say I don’t know. I know you agreed in 2008. Why won’t you agree in the future? Well, they pressed us then I say, why won’t they press you tomorrow and you’ll agree again? Well. It’s nonsensical. Who’s there to talk to? I just don’t understand. We’re ready to talk. But with whom? Where are the guarantees? None. So they started to develop the territory of Ukraine. Whatever is there? I have told you the background, how this territory develops. What kind of relations? They were with Russia. Every second or third person there has always had some ties with Russia. And during the elections in already independent sovereign Ukraine, which gained its independence as a result of the declaration of independence. And by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state. And in 2008, suddenly the doors or gates to NATO were opened to it. Oh come on. This is not how we agreed. Now, all the presidents that have come to power in Ukraine, they relied on the electorate with a good attitude to Russia in one way or the other. This is the southeast of Ukraine. This is a large number of people. And it was very difficult to persuade this electorate, which had a positive attitude towards Russia. Viktor Yanukovych came to power. And how, the first time he won, after President Kuchma, they organized the third round, which is not provided for in the Constitution of Ukraine. This is a coup d’etat. Just imagine someone in the United States wouldn’t like the outcome….

Tucker: In 2014?

Vladimir Putin: No, this was before that. After President Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovych won the elections. However, his opponents did not recognize that victory. The US supported the opposition and the third round was scheduled. But what is this? This is a coup. The US supported it and the winner of the third round came to power. Imagine if in the US something was not to someone’s liking and the third round of election, which the US Constitution does not provide for, was organized. Nonetheless, it was done in Ukraine. Okay. Viktor Yushchenko, who was considered the pro-Western politician, came to power, but fine we have built relations with him as well. He came to Moscow with visits. We visited Kiev. I visited it too, we met in an informal setting. If he’s pro-Western, so be it. It’s fine. Let people do their job.The situation should have developed inside independent Ukraine itself as a result of Kuchma leadership. Things got worse and Viktor Yanukovych came to power. Maybe he wasn’t the best president and politician, I don’t know. I don’t want to give assessments. However, the issue of the association with the EU came up. We have always been leanent into this. Suit yourself. But when we read through the treaty of association, it turned out to be a problem for us since we had the free trade zone and open customs borders with Ukraine, which under this association had to open its borders for Europe, which would have led to flooding of our market. But we said, no, this is not going to work. We shall close our borders with Ukraine then the customs borders, that is. Yanukovych started to calculate how much Ukraine was going to gain, how much to lose and said to his European partners, I need more time to think before signing. The moment he said that, the opposition began to take destructive steps which were supported by the West. It all came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.

Tucker: So he did more trade with Russia than with the EU? Ukraine did.

Vladimir Putin: Of course. It’s not even the matter of trade volume, although for the most part it is. It is the matter of cooperation size which the entire Ukrainian economy was based on. A cooperation size between the enterprises were very close since the times of the Soviet Union. Yeah. One enterprise there used to produce components to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine and vice versa. They used to be very close ties. A coup d’etat was committed. Although I shall not delve into details now as I find doing it inappropriate. The US told us, calm Yanukovych down and we will calm the opposition. Let the situation unfold. In the scenario of a political settlement. We said, all right, agreed, let’s do it this way. As the Americans requested, Yanukovych did use neither the armed forces nor the police. Yet the armed opposition committed a coup in Kiev. What is that supposed to mean? Who do you think you are? I wanted to ask the then US leadership.

Tucker: With the backing of whom?

Vladimir Putin: With the backing of CIA, of course, the organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn’t let you in. Although it is a serious organization, I understand. My former is a V in the sense that I served in the First Main Directorate, Soviet Union’s intelligence service. They have always been our opponents. A job is a job. Technically, they did everything right. They achieved their goal of changing the government. However, from political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake. Surely it was political leadership’s miscalculation. They should have seen what it would evolve into. So in 2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup. And it was indeed a coup. They created the threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched the war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started. There’s a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large scale military operation. Then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO’s doors. How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side this would have been a culpable negligence. That’s what it would have been. It’s just that the US political leadership pushed us to the line we could not cross because doing so could have ruined Russia itself. Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith. In fact, just part of Russian people in the face of this “war machine”.

Tucker: So that was eight years before the current conflict started. So what was the trigger for you? What was the moment where you decided you had to do this?

Vladimir Putin: Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict. By the way, back then, the representatives of three European countries Germany, Poland and France aligned, they were the guarantors of the signed agreement between the government of Yanukovych and the opposition. They signed it as guarantors. Despite that, the opposition committed a coup and all these countries pretended that they didn’t remember that they were guarantors of the peaceful settlement. They just threw it in the snow right away. And nobody recalls that. I don’t know if the US knew anything about the agreement between the opposition and the authorities and its three guarantors, who, instead of bringing this whole situation back in the political field supported the coup. Although it was meaningless, believe me, because President Yanukovych agreed to all conditions, he was ready to hold an early election, which he had no chance of winning frankly speaking. Everyone knew that. Then, why the coup? Why the victims? Why threatening Crimea? Why launching an operation in Donbas? This I do not understand. That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the deputy secretaries of state said that they cost a large sum of money. Almost 5 billion. But the political mistake was colossal. Why would they have to do that? All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action, without the losing Crimea. We would have never considered to even lift the finger if it hadn’t been for the bloody developments on Maidan. Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our borders should be along the borders of former union republics. We agreed to that, but we never agreed to NATO’s expansion, and moreover, we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us. For decades we kept asking, don’t do this, don’t do that. And what triggered the latest events? Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk agreements which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014 in Minsk where the plan of peaceful settlement in Donbas was set forth. But no, the current Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials and then president himself said that they don’t like anything about the Minsk agreements. In other words, they were not going to implement it. A year or a year and a half ago, former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole that they indeed signed the Minsk agreements, but they never intended to implement them, they simply led us by the nose.

Tucker: Was there anyone for you to talk to? Did you call us President and Secretary of State and say, if you keep militarizing Ukraine with NATO forces, this is going to get, we’re going to act.

Vladimir Putin: We talked about this all the time. We addressed the United States and European countries leadership to stop these developments immediately. To implement the Minsk agreements. But frankly speaking, I didn’t know how we were going to do this. But I was ready to implement them. These agreements were complicated for Ukraine. They included lots of elements of those Donbas territories independence. That’s true. However, I was absolutely confident. And I’m saying this to you now. I honestly believe that if we managed to convince the residents of Donbas and we had to work hard to convince them to return to the Ukrainian statehood, then gradually the wounds would start to heal. But when this part of territory reintegrated itself into a common social environment, when the pensions and social benefits were paid again, all the pieces would gradually fall into place. No, nobody wanted that. Everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only. But we could not let that happen. And the situation got to the point when the Ukrainian side announced, no, we will not do anything. They also started preparing for military action. It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it.

Tucker: Do you think you’ve stopped it now? I mean, have you achieved your aims?

Vladimir Putin: No. We haven’t achieved our aims yet because one of them is de-nazification. This means the prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi movements. This is one of the problems that we discussed during the negotiation process, which ended in Istanbul early this year. And it was not our initiative because we were told by the Europeans in particular that it was necessary to create conditions for the final signing of the documents. My counterparts in France, in Germany said, How can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads? The troops should be pulled back from Kiev. I said, all right. We withdrew the troops from Kiev. As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin and got prepared for a long standing armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe. That is how the situation has developed, and that is how it looks now.

Tucker: Pardon my ignorance. What is what is de-nazification? What would that mean?

Vladimir Putin: That is what I want to talk about right now. It is a very important issue. De-nazification. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity. Well, if the intuitionist, you know. And it came up with nothing better than to build this identity upon some false heroes who collaborated with Hitler. I have already said that in the early 19th century, when the theorists of independence and sovereignty of Ukraine appeared, they assumed that an independent Ukraine should have very good relations with Russia. But due to the historical development, those territories were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Poland, where Ukrainians were persecuted and treated quite brutally as well as were subject to cruel behavior. There were also attempts to destroy their identity. All this remained in the memory of the people. When World War 2 broke out, part of this extremely nationalist elite collaborated with Hitler, believing that he would bring them freedom. The German troops, even the SS troops made Hitler’s collaborators do the dirtiest work of exterminating the Polish and Jewish population. Hence this brutal massacre of the Polish and Jewish population, as well as the Russian population too. This was led by the persons who are well known, Bandera, Shukhevych. It was those people who were made national heroes. That is the problem. And we are constantly told that nationalism and neo-Nazism exists in other countries as well. Yes, they are seedlings, but we uproot them. And other countries fight against them. But Ukraine is not the case. These people have been made into national heroes in Ukraine. Monuments to those people have been erected. They are displayed on flags. Their names are shouted by crowds that walk with torches, as it was in Nazi Germany. These were people who exterminated Poles, Jews and Russians. It is necessary to stop this practice and prevent the dissemination of this concept. I say that the Ukrainians are part of the one Russian people. They say, no, we are a separate people. Okay, fine. If they consider themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so. But not on the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology.

Tucker: Would you be satisfied with the territory that you have now?

Vladimir Putin: I will finish answering the question. You just asked the question about neo-Nazism and denazification. The president of Ukraine visited Canada. The story is well known, but being silenced in the Western countries. The Canadian Parliament introduced the man who, as the speaker of the Parliament said fought against the Russians during the World War II. Well, who fought against the Russians during the World War two. Hitler and his accomplices. And it turned out that this man served in the SS troops, he personally killed the Russians, Poles and Jews. The US troops consisted of Ukrainian nationalists who did this dirty work. The president of Ukraine stood up with the entire Parliament of Canada and applauded this man. How can this be imagined? The President of Ukraine himself, by the way, is a Jew by nationality.

Tucker: Really my question is, what do you do about it? I mean, Hitler has been dead for 80 years. Nazi Germany no longer exists. And so, true. And so I think what you’re saying is you want to extinguish or at least control Ukrainian nationalism. But how? How do you do that?

Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. Your question is very subtle, and I can tell you what I think. Do not take offense.

Tucker: Of course.

Vladimir Putin: This question appears to be subtle. It is.

Tucker: Quite pesky.

Vladimir Putin: You say Hitler has been dead for so many years, 80 years. But, his example lives on. The people who exterminate the Jews, Russians or poles are alive. And the president, the current president of today’s Ukraine, applauds him in the Canadian Parliament, gives a standing ovation. Can we say that we have completely uprooted this ideology? If what we see is happening today, that is what De-nazification is in our understanding. We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice and try to preserve it. That is what De-nazification is. That is what we mean.

Tucker: Right. My question was more specific. It was, of course, not a defense of Nazis, new or otherwise. It was a practical question. You don’t control the entire country. You don’t control Kiev. You don’t seem like you want to. So how do you will eliminate a culture or an ideology or feelings or a view of history in a country that you don’t control. What do you do about that?

Vladimir Putin: You know, as strange as it may seem to you during the negotiations at Istanbul, we did agree that we have it all in writing. Neo-Nazism would not be cultivated in Ukraine, including that it would be prohibited at the legislative level. Mr. Carlson, we agreed on that. This, it turns out, can be done during the negotiation process. And there’s nothing humiliating for Ukraine as a modern, civilized state. Is there any state allowed to promote Nazism? It is not, is it? Oh, that is it.

Tucker: Will there be talks? And why haven’t there been talks about resolving the conflict in Ukraine? Peace talks.

Vladimir Putin: There have been they reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev, as I have already said, the other side threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of Western countries, European countries and the United States to fight Russia to the bitter end. Moreover, the President of Ukraine has legislated a ban on negotiating with Russia. He signed a decree forbidding everyone to negotiate with Russia. But how are we going to negotiate if he forbade himself and everyone to do this? We know that he is putting forward some ideas about this settlement, but in order to agree on something, we need to have a dialog. Is that not right?

Tucker: Well, but you wouldn’t be speaking to the Ukrainian president. You’d be speaking to the American president. When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden?

Vladimir Putin: Well, I cannot remember when I talked to him. I do not remember. We can look it up.

Tucker: You don’t remember?

Vladimir Putin: No.

Tucker: Why? Do I have to remember everything? I have my own things to do. We have domestic political affairs.

Tucker: Well, he’s funding the war that you’re fighting, so I would think that would be memorable.

Vladimir Putin: Well, yes, he funds, but I talked to him before the special military operation, of course. And I said to him then, by the way, I will not go into details, I never do. But I said to him, then, I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there, in Ukraine, by pushing Russia away. I told him, told him repeatedly, by the way, I think that would be correct if I stop here.

Tucker: What did he say?

Vladimir Putin: Ask him, please, it is easier for you. You are a citizen of the United States. Go and ask him. It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation.

Tucker: But you haven’t spoken to him since before February of 2022.

Vladimir Putin: No, we haven’t spoken. Certain contacts are being maintained, though. Speaking of which. Do you remember what I told you about my proposal to work together on a missile defense system?

Tucker: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: You can ask all of them. All of them are safe and sound. Thank God. The Former President. Condoleezza is safe and sound. And I think Mr. Gates and the current director of the intelligence agency, Mr. Burns, the then ambassador to Russia, in my opinion, are very successful, ambassador. They were all witnesses to these conversations. Ask them. Same here. If you are interested in what Mr. President Biden responded to me, ask him. At any rate, I talk to him about it.

Tucker: I’m definitely interested. But from the outside, it seems like this could devolve or evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict and could, um, initiate some nuclear launch. And so why don’t you just call Biden and say, let’s work this out.

Vladimir Putin: What’s there to work out? It’s very simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership. If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That’s it. And then we can agree on some terms before you do that, stop. What’s easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what?

Tucker: And what messages do you get back?

Vladimir Putin: You were going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I’m afraid, I’m afraid. Please don’t. What is there to talk about?

Tucker: Do you think NATO is worried about this becoming a global war or a nuclear conflict?

Vladimir Putin: At least that’s what they’re talking about. And they’re trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat. This is an obvious fact. And thinking people, not philistines, but thinking people, analysts, those who are engaged in real politics, just smart people, understand perfectly well that this is a fake. They’re trying to fuel the Russian threat.

Tucker: The threat I think you’re referring to is a Russian invasion of Poland. Latvia. Expansionist behavior. Can you imagine a scenario where you send Russian troops to Poland?

Vladimir Putin: Only in one case, if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don’t have any interest. It’s just threat mongering.

Tucker: Well, the argument, I know you know this is that, well, he invaded Ukraine. He has territorial aims across the continent. And you’re saying unequivocally you don’t.

Vladimir Putin: It is absolutely out of the question. You just don’t have to be any kind of analyst. It goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war and a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction. It’s obvious. There are certainly means of deterrence. They have been scaring everyone with us all along. Tomorrow, Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons. Tomorrow Russia will use that. No, the day after tomorrow. So what. In order to extort additional money from U.S. taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with Russia in the Ukrainian theater of war. But the goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible.

Tucker: One of, our Senior United States senators from the state of New York, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday, I believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian effort, or U.S. soldier citizens could wind up fighting there. How do you assess that?

Vladimir Putin: This is a provocation and a cheap provocation at that. I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine. They are mercenaries from the United States. They’re the bigger number of mercenaries comes from Poland, with mercenaries from the United States in second place and mercenaries from Georgia in third place. Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of a very serious global conflict. This is obvious. Do the United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory. Don’t you have anything better to do? You have issues on the border. Issues with migration, issues with the national debt. More than $33 trillion. You have nothing better to do. So you should fight in Ukraine. Wouldn’t it be better to negotiate with Russia? Make an agreement. Already understanding the situation that is developing today, realizing that Russia will fight for its interests to the end. And realizing this actually a return to common sense, start respecting our country and its interests and look for certain solutions. It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational.

Tucker: Who blew up Nord Stream?

Vladimir Putin: You for sure.

Tucker: I was busy that day. I did not blow up Nord Stream. Thank you though.

Vladimir Putin: You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.

Tucker: Did you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I won’t get into details, but people always say in such cases, look for someone who is interested. But in this case, we should not only look for someone who is interested, but also for someone who has capabilities, because there may be many people interested, but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carrying out this explosion. These two components should be connected. Who is interested and who is capable of doing it?

Tucker: But I’m confused. I mean, that’s the biggest act of industrial terrorism ever, and it’s the largest emission of CO2 in history. Okay, so if you had evidence and presumably given your security services or Intel services, you would that NATO, the US, CIA, the West did this, why wouldn’t you present it and win a propaganda victory?

Vladimir Putin: In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world’s media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don’t you know that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information and we will not achieve results. It is clear to the whole world what happened then. Even American analysts talk about it directly. It’s true.

Tucker: Yes I, but here’s a question you may able to answer. You worked in Germany famously. The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this, but they. And it damaged their economy greatly. It may never recover. Why are they being silent about it? That’s very confusing to me. Why wouldn’t the Germans say something about it?

Vladimir Putin: This also confuses me, but today’s German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction. After all, it is not only about Nord Stream one, which was blowing up and the Nord Stream two was damaged, but one pipe is safe and sound and gas can be supplied to Europe through it. But Germany does not open it. We are ready. Please. There is another route through Poland called Yamal Europe, which also allows for large flow. Poland has closed it, but Poland pecks from the German hand. It receives money from the pan European funds, and Germany is the main donor to these pan-European funds. Germany feeds Poland to a certain extent and they close their route to Germany. Why? I don’t understand Ukraine, to which the Germans supply weapons and give money. Germany is the second sponsor of the United States in terms of financial aid to Ukraine. There are two gas routes through Ukraine. They simply closed one route. The Ukrainians. Open the second route. And please get gas from Russia. They do not open it. Why don’t the Germans say, look, guys, we give you money and weapons. Open up the valve. Please let the gas from Russia pass through for us. We are buying liquefied gas at exorbitant prices in Europe, which brings the level of our competitiveness and economy in general down to zero. So do you want us to give you money? Let us have the decent existence to make money for our economy, because this is where the money we give you comes from.They refuse to do so. Why? Ask them. That is what is like in their heads. Those are highly incompetent people.

Tucker: Well, maybe the world is breaking into two hemispheres. One with cheap energy, the other without. And I want to ask you that if we’re now a multipolar world, obviously we are. Can you describe the blocks of alliances? Who is in each side. Do you think?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, you have said that the world is breaking into two hemispheres. A human brain is divided into two hemispheres. At least one is responsible for one type of activities. The other one is more about creativity and so on. But it is still one and the same head. I the world should be a single whole. Security should be shared rather than a meant for the golden billion. That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable and predictable. Until then, while the head is split in two parts, it is an illness, a serious adverse condition. It is a period of severe disease that the world is going through now. But I think that thanks to honest journalism, this work is akin to the work of the doctors. This could somehow be remedied.

Tucker: Well, let’s just give one example. The U.S. dollar, which has kind of united the world, in a lot of ways, maybe not to your advantage, but certainly to ours. Is that going away as the reserve currency, the com the universally accepted currency? How have sanctions do you think changed the dollar’s place in the world?

Vladimir Putin: You know, to use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the US political leadership. The dollar is the cornerstone of the United States power. I think everyone understands very well that no matter how many dollars are printed, they’re quickly dispersed all over the world. Inflation in the United States is minimal. It’s about 3 or 3.4%, which is, I think, totally acceptable for the US. But they won’t stop printing. What does the debt of $33 trillion tell us about? It is about the emission. Nevertheless, it is the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its power across the world. As soon as the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power. I would not like to use any strong language, but it is a stupid thing to do and a grave mistake. Look at what is going on in the world. Even the United States allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves. Seeing this, everyone starts looking for ways to protect themselves. But the fact that the United States applies restrictive measures to certain countries, such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing assets, etc., causes grave concern and sends a signal to the whole world. What did we have here? Until 2022, about 80% of Russian foreign trade transactions were made in US dollars and euros. U.S. dollars accounted for approximately 50% of our transactions with third countries. Well, currently it is down to 13%. It wasn’t us who banned the use of the US dollar. We had no such intention. It was the decision of the United States to restrict our transactions in U.S. dollars. I think it is complete foolishness from the point of view of the interests of the United States itself and its taxpayers, as it damages the U.S. economy, undermines the power of the United States across the world. By the way, our transactions in yuan accounted for about 3%. Today, 34% of our transactions are made in rubles and about as much. A little over 34% in yuan. Why did the United States do this? My only guess is self conceit. They probably thought it would lead to full collapse, but nothing collapsed. Moreover, other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in yuan. Do you even realize what is going on or not? Does anyone in the United States realize this. What are you doing? You are cutting yourself off. All experts say this. Ask any intelligent and thinking person in the United States what the dollar means for the US. But you are killing it with your own hands.

Tucker: I think that’s. I think that’s a fair assessment. The question is what comes next? And maybe you trade one colonial power for another, much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power. I mean, or is the the BRICs, for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the Chinese, the Chinese economy? In a way that’s not good for their sovereignty. Do you worry about that?

Vladimir Putin: Well, we have heard those boogeyman stories before. It is a boogeyman story. We’re neighbors with China. You cannot choose neighbors, just as you cannot choose close relatives. We share a border of 1000km with them. This is number one. Second, we have a centuries long history of coexistence. We’re used to it. Third, China’s foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive. Its idea is to always look for compromise. And we can see that. And that’s the next point is as follows. We are always told the same boogeyman story. And here it goes again through in euphemistic form. But it is still the same boogeyman story. The cooperation with China keeps increasing the pace at which China’s cooperation with Europe is growing is higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese Russian cooperation. If you ask Europeans, aren’t they afraid they might be? I don’t know. But they are still trying to access China’s market at all costs, especially now that they are facing economic problems. Chinese businesses are also exploring the European market. Do Chinese businesses have small presence in the United States? Yes. The political decisions are such that they are trying to limit the cooperation with China. It is to your own detriment, Mr. Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China. You are hurting yourself. It is a delicate matter and there are no silver bullet solutions, just as it is with the dollar. So before introducing any illegitimate sanctions, illegitimate in terms of the charter of the United Nations, one should think very carefully for decision makers. This appears to be a problem.

Tucker: So you said a moment ago that the world would be a lot better if it weren’t broken into competing alliances, if there was cooperation globally. One of the reasons you don’t have that is because the current American administration is dead set against you. Do you think if there were a new administration after Joe Biden, that you would be able to reestablish communication with the U.S. government? Or does it not matter who the president is?

Vladimir Putin: I will tell you. But let me finish the previous thought. We, together with my colleague and friend President XI Jinping, set their goal to reach $200 billion of mutual trade with China this year. We have exceeded this level. According to our figures, our bilateral trade with China totals already 230 billion. And the Chinese statistics says it is $240 billion. One more important thing. Our trade is well balanced, mutually complementary in high tech, energy, scientific research and development. It is very balanced. As for BRICs, where Russia took over the presidency this year, the BRICs countries are by and large developing very rapidly. Look, if memory serves me right, back in 1992, the share of the G7 countries in the world economy amounted to 47%, whereas in 2022 it was down to, I think, a little over 30%. The BRICs countries accounted for only 16% in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7. It has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This is due to the trends of global development and world economy, as I mentioned just now. And this is inevitable. This will keep happening. It is like the rays of the sun. You cannot prevent the sun from rising. You have to adapt to it. How do the United States adapt with the help of force sanctions, pressure, bombings and use of armed forces? This is about self conceit. Your political establishment does not understand that the world is changing under objective circumstances. And in order to preserve your level, even if someone aspires, pardon me to the level of dominance. You have to make the right decisions in a competent and timely manner. Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia and say other countries, are counterproductive. This is an obvious fact. It has already become evident. You just asked me if another leader comes and changes something? It is not about the leader. It is not about the personality of a particular person. I had a very good relationship with say Bush. I know that in the United States, he was portrayed as some kind of a country boy who does not understand much. I assure you that this is not the case. I think he made a lot of mistakes with regard to Russia, too. I told you about 2008 and the decision in Bucharest to open the NATO’s doors to for Ukraine and so on. That happened during his presidency. He actually exercised pressure on the Europeans. But in general, on a personal human level, I had a very good relationship with him. He was no worse than any other American or Russian or European politician. I assure you he understood what he was doing as well as others. I had such personal relationship with Trump as well. It is not about the personality of the leader. It is about the elites mindset, leader deal. If the idea of domination at any cost, based also on forceful actions dominates the American society, nothing will change. It will only get worse. But if in the end, one comes to the awareness that the world has been changing due to the objective circumstances, and that one should be able to adapt to them in time using the advantages that the US still has today, then perhaps something may change. Look, China’s economy has become the first economy in the world than purchasing power parity in terms of volume. It’s over to the US a long time ago. The USA comes second, then in the 1.5 billion people, and then Japan with Russia in the fifth place. Russia was the first economy in Europe last year, despite all the sanctions and restrictions. Is it normal from your point of view, sanctions, restrictions and possibility of payments in dollars being cut off from Swift services sanctions against their ships carrying oil? Sanctions against airplanes. Sanctions in everything, everywhere. The largest number of sanctions in the world which are applied, are applied against Russia. And we have become Europe’s first economy during this time. The tools that U.S. uses don’t work. Well, one has to think about what to do. If this realization comes to the ruling elites, then yes, then the first person of the state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the people who make decisions at various levels expect from this person. Then maybe something will change.

Tucker: But you’re describing two different systems. You say the leader acts in the interest of the voters, but you also say these decisions are not made by the leader, they’re made by the ruling classes. You’ve run this country for so long, you’ve known all these American presidents. What are those power centers in the United States? do you think? Like who actually makes the decisions?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know. America is a complex country. Conservative on one hand, rapidly changing on the other. It’s not easy for us to sort it all out. Who makes decisions in the elections? Is it possible to understand this when each state has its own legislation? Each state regulates itself. Someone can be excluded from elections at the state level. It is a two stage electoral system. It is very difficult for us to understand it. Secondly, there are two parties that are dominant: the Republicans and the Democrats. And within this party system, the centers that make decisions that prepare decisions. Then look, why, in my opinion, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such an erroneous, crude, completely unjustified policy of pressure was pursued against Russia. After all, this is a policy of pressure. NATO expansion, support for the separatists in Caucasus. Creation of a missile defense system. These are all elements of pressure. Pressure, pressure, pressure. Then dragging Ukraine into NATO is all about pressure, pressure, pressure. Why? I think, among other things, because excessive production capacities were created. During the confrontation with the Soviet Union. There were many centers created and specialists on the Soviet Union who could not do anything else. They convinced the political leadership that it is necessary to continue chiseling Russia, to try to break it up, to create on this territory several quasi state entities, and to subdue them in a divided form, to use their combined potential for the future struggle with China. This is a mistake, including the excessive potential of those who worked for the confrontation with the Soviet Union. It is necessary to get rid of this. There should be new, fresh forces, people who look into the future and understand what is happening in the world. Look at how Indonesia is developing. 600 million people. Where can we get away from that? Nowhere. We just have to assume that Indonesia will enter. It is already in the club of the world’s leading economies. No matter who likes it or dislikes. Yes, we understand and are aware that in the United States, despite all the economic problems, the situation is still normal with the economy growing decently. The GDP is growing by 2.5%, if I’m not mistaken. But if we want to ensure the future, then we need to change our approach to what is changing. As I already said, the world would nevertheless change regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end. The world is changing and the United States themselves. Experts are writing that the United States are nonetheless gradually changing their position in the world. It is your experts who write that. I just read them. The only question is how this would happen. Painfully and quickly or gently and gradually. And this is written by people who are not anti-American. They simply follow global development trends. That’s it. And in order to assess them and change policies, we need people who think, look forward, can analyze and recommend certain decisions at the level of political leaders.

Tucker: I just have to ask you, you’ve said clearly that NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you all were made in 1990. It’s a threat to your country. Right before you send troops into Ukraine, the Vice President of the United States, went to the Munich Security Conference and encouraged the president of Ukraine to join NATO. Do you think that was an effort to provoke you into military action?

Vladimir Putin: I repeat, once again, we have repeatedly, repeatedly proposed to seek a solution to the problems that arose in Ukraine after 2014 coup d’etat through peaceful means. But no one listens to us. And moreover, the Ukrainian leaders who were under the complete US control suddenly declared that they would not comply with the Minsk agreements. They disliked everything there and continued military activity in that territory. And in parallel, that territory was being exploited by NATO military structures under the guise of various personnel training and retraining centers. They essentially began to create bases there. That’s all. Ukraine announced that the Russians were a non titular nationality, while passing the laws that limit the rights of non titular nationalities in Ukraine. Ukraine having received all the southeastern territories as a gift from the Russian people, suddenly announced that the Russians were a non titular nationality in that territory. Is that normal? All this put together led to the decision to end the war. That neo-Nazi started in Ukraine in 2014.

Tucker: Do you think Zelensky has the freedom to negotiate a settlement to this conflict?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know the details. Of course, it’s difficult for me to judge, but I believe he has. In any case, he used to have. His father fought against the fascists Nazis during World War Two. I once talked to him about this. I said, Volodymyr, what are you doing? Why are you supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine today while your father fought against fascism? He was a frontline soldier. I will not tell you what he answered. This is a separate topic, and I think it’s incorrect for me to do so. But as to the freedom of choice. Why not? He came to power on the expectations of Ukrainian people that he would lead Ukraine to peace. He talked about this. It was thanks to this that he won the elections overwhelmingly. But then when he came to power, in my opinion, he realized two things. Firstly, it is better not to clash with neo-Nazis and nationalists because they are aggressive and very active. You can expect anything from them. And secondly, the U.S. Led West supports them and will always support those who antagonize with Russia. It is beneficial and safe. So he took the relevant position despite promising his people to end the war in Ukraine. He deceived his voters.

Tucker: But do you think at this point, as of February 2024, he has the latitude, the freedom, to speak with you or your government directly about putting an end to this, which clearly isn’t helping his country or the world. Can he do that, do you think?

Vladimir Putin: Why not? He considers himself a head of state. He won the elections. Although we believe in Russia that the coup d’etat is the primary source of power for everything that happened after 2014. And in this sense, even today, government is flawed. But he considers himself the president and he is recognized by the United States, all of Europe, and practically the rest of the world in such a capacity. Why not? He can. We negotiated with Ukraine in Istanbul. We agreed. He was aware of this. Moreover, the negotiation group leader, Mr. Arakhamia, his last name I believe, still heads the faction of the ruling party, the party of the president in the Rada. He still heads the presidential faction in the Rada, the country’s parliament. He still sits there. He even put his preliminary signature on the document. I am telling you. But then he publicly stated to the whole world, we were ready to sign this document but Mr. Johnson, then the Prime Minister, came and dissuaded us from doing this, saying it was better to fight Russia. They would give everything needed for us to return what was lost during the clashes with Russia. And we agreed with this proposal. Look, his statement has been published. He said it publicly. Can they return to this or not? The question is, do they want it or not? Further on, president of Ukraine issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with us. Let him cancel that decree. And that’s it. We have never refused negotiations indeed. We hear all the time, is Russia ready? Yes. We have not refused. It was them who publicly refused. Well, let him cancel his decree and enter into negotiations. We have never refused. And the fact that they obey the demand or persuasion of Mr. Johnson, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous. And it’s very sad to me because, as Mr. Arakhamia put it, we could have stopped those hostilities with war a year and a half ago already. But the British persuaded us and we refused this. Where is Mr. Johnson now? And the war continues.

Tucker: That’s a good question. Where do you think he is, and why did he do that?

Vladimir Putin: Who knows. I don’t understand it myself. There was a general starting point. For some reason, everyone had the illusion that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield. Because of arrogance, because of a pure heart, but not because of a great mind.

Tucker: You’ve described the connection between Russia and Ukraine. You’ve described Russia itself a couple of times as orthodox. That’s central to your understanding of Russia. You’ve said you’re Orthodox. What does that mean for you? You are a Christian leader by your own description. So what effect does that have on you?

Vladimir Putin: You know, as I already mentioned, in 988 Prince Vladimir himself was baptized following the example of his grandmother, Princess Olga. Then he baptized his squad. And then gradually, over the course of several years, he baptized all the Rus. It was a lengthy process from pagans to Christians. It took many years but in the end, this orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, deeply rooted itself in the consciousness of the Russian people. When Russia expanded, then absorbed other nations who profess Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism, Russia has always been very loyal to those people who profess other religions. This is our strength. This is absolutely clear. And the fact is that the main postulates main values are very similar. Not to say the same in all the world religions I have just mentioned, and which are the traditional religions of the Russian Federation. By the way, Russian authorities were always very careful about the culture and religion of those people who came into the Russian Empire. This, in my opinion, forms the basis of both security and stability of the Russian statehood. All the peoples inhabiting Russia basically consider it their motherhood. If, say, people move over to you or to Europe from Latin America and even clearer and more understandable example, people come, but yet they have come to you or to European countries from their historical homeland. And people who profess different religions in Russia consider Russia their motherland. They have no other motherland. We are together. This is one big family and our traditional values are very similar. ‘ve just mentioned one big family, but everyone has his or her own family. And this is the basis of our society. And if we say that the motherland and the family are specifically connected with each other, it is indeed the case, since it is impossible to ensure a normal future for our children and our families unless we ensure a normal, sustainable future for the entire country, for the motherland. That is why patriotic sentiment is so strong in Russia.

Tucker: The one way in which the religions are different is that Christianity is specifically a nonviolent religion. Jesus says, turn the other cheek. Don’t kill. How can a leader who has to kill – of any country – how can a leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to yourself?

Vladimir Putin: It is very easy when it comes to protecting oneself and one’s family, one’s homeland. We won’t attack anyone. When did the developments in Ukraine start? Since the coup d’etat and the hostilities in Donbas began. That’s when they started. And we were protecting our people, ourselves, our homeland and our future. As for religion in general, you know, it’s not about external manifestations. It’s not about going to church every day or banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart, and our culture is so human oriented. Dostoyevsky, who was very well known in the West and the genius of Russian culture, Russian literature, spoke a lot about this, about the Russian soul. After all, Western society is more pragmatic. Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values. I don’t know, maybe you won’t agree with me, but Western culture is more pragmatic after all. I’m not saying this is bad. It makes it possible for today’s golden billion to achieve good success in production, even in science and so on. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m just saying that we kind of look the same.

Tucker: So do you see the supernatural at work as you look out across what’s happening in the world now? Do you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself, these are forces that are not human?

Vladimir Putin: No, to be honest. I don’t think so. My opinion is that the development of the world community is in accordance with inherent laws, and those laws are what they are. It’s always been this way in the history of mankind. Some nations and countries rose, became stronger and more numerous and then left the international stage, losing the status they had accustomed to. There’s probably no need for me to give examples, but we could start with Genghis Khan and horde conquers, the Golden Horde and then end with the Roman Empire. It seems that there has never been anything like the Roman Empire in the history of mankind. Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually grew, as did their population. In general, the barbarians were getting stronger and begun to develop economically, as we would say today. This eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the regime imposed by the Romans. However, it took five centuries for the Roman Empire to fall apart. The difference with what is happening now is that all the processes of change are happening had been much faster paced than in Roman times.

Tucker: So when does the AI empire start do you think?

Vladimir Putin: You’re asking increasingly more complicated questions. To answer them you need to be an expert in big numbers, big data and AI. Mankind is currently facing many threats due to the genetic researchers, it is now possible to create this superhuman. A specialized human being. A genetically engineered athlete, scientist, military man. There are reports that Elon Musk has already had the chip implanted in the human brain in the USA.

Tucker: What do you think of that?

Vladimir Putin: I think there’s no stopping Elon Musk. He will do as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you’ll need to find some common ground with him. Search for ways to persuade him. I think he’s a smart person. I truly believe he is. So you’ll need to reach an agreement with him because this process needs to be formalized and subjected to certain rules. Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest development in genetics or in AI? One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen. Once mankind felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons. All nuclear nations begun to come to terms with one another, since they realized the negligent use of nuclear weaponry could drive humanity to extinction. It is impossible to stop research in genetics or AI today, just as it was impossible to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day. But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI or genetics or any other field, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things.

Tucker: I appreciate all the time you’ve given us. I just gotta ask you one last question. And that’s about someone who is very famous in the United States. Probably not here. Evan Gershkovich who’s the Wall Street Journal reporter. He’s 32. And he’s been in prison for almost a year. This is a huge story in the United States. And I just want to ask you directly, without getting into the details of it or your version of what happened, if, as a sign of your decency, you would be willing to release him to us and we’ll bring him back to the United States.

Vladimir Putin: We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have never seen anyone reciprocate to us in a similar manner. However, in theory, we can say that we do not rule out that we can do that if our partners take reciprocal steps. When I talk about the partners, I first of all refer to special services. Special services are in contact with one another. They are talking about the matter in question. There is no taboo to settle this issue. We are willing to solve it but there are certain terms being discussed via special services channels. I believe an agreement can be reached.

Tucker: So typically, I mean this stuff has happened for obviously centuries. One country catches another spy within its borders. It trades it for one of its own intel guys in another country. I think what makes and it’s not my business, but what makes this different is the guy’s obviously not a spy. He’s a kid, and maybe he was breaking your law in some way, but he’s not a super spy and everybody knows that. And he’s being held hostage in exchange, which is true with respect. It’s true. And everyone knows it’s true. So maybe he’s in a different category. Maybe it’s not fair to ask for, you know, somebody else in exchange for letting him out. Maybe it degrades Russia to do that.

Vladimir Putin: You know, you can give a different interpretations to what constitutes a spy. But there are certain things provided by law. If a person gets secret information and does that in conspiratorial manner, then this is qualified as espionage. And that is exactly what he was doing. He was receiving classified, confidential information, and he did it covertly. Maybe he did that out of carelessness or his own initiative. Considering the sheer fact that this is qualify this espionage. The fact has been proven as he was caught red handed when he was receiving this information. If it had been some farfetched excuse, some fabrication, something not proven, it would have been a different story then. But he was caught red handed when he was secretly getting confidential information. What is it then?

Tucker: But are you suggesting he was working for the U.S. government or NATO, or he was just a reporter who was given material he wasn’t supposed to have? Those seem like very different, very different things.

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know who he was working for. But I would like to reiterate that getting classified information in secret is called espionage. And he was working for the US special services, some other agencies. I don’t think he was working for Monaco as Monaco is hardly interested in getting that information. It is up to the special services to come to an agreement. Some groundwork has been laid. There are people who, in our view, are not connected with special services. Let me tell you a story about a person serving a sentence in an allied country of the U.S. That person, due to patriotic sentiments, eliminated a bandit in one of the European capitals. During the events in the Caucasus, do you know what he was doing? I don’t want to say that, but I will do it anyway. He was laying our soldiers taken prisoner on the road and then drove his car over their heads. What kind of person is that? Can he even be called human? But there was a patriot who eliminated him in one of the European capitals. Whether he did it of his own volition or not. That is a different question.

Tucker: I mean, that’s a completely different. He’s a 32 year old newspaper reporter.

Vladimir Putin: He committed something different. He’s not just a journalist. I reiterate. He’s a journalist who is secretly getting confidential information. Yes, it is different, but still, I’m talking about other people who are essentially controlled by the US authorities, wherever they are serving a sentence.

Tucker: There is an ongoing dialog between the special services. This has to be resolved in a calm, responsible and professional manner. They’re keeping in touch, so let them do their work.

Vladimir Putin: I do not rule out that the person you refer to, Mr. Gershkovich, may return to his motherland. But at the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia. We want the U.S. Special Services to think about how they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services are pursuing. We are ready to talk. Moreover, the talks are underway and there have been many successful examples of these talks crowned with success. Probably this is going to be crowned with success as well. But we have to come to an agreement.

Tucker: I hope you let him out. Mr. President, thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I also want him to return to his homeland at last. I’m absolutely sincere. But let me say once again, the dialog continues. The more public we render things of this nature, the more difficult it becomes to resolve them. Everything has to be done in calm manner.

Tucker: I wonder if that’s true with the war though. I guess I want to ask one more question, which is and maybe you don’t want to say so for strategic reasons, but are you worried that what’s happening in Ukraine could lead to something much larger and much more horrible? And how motivated are you just to call the U.S. government and say, let’s come to terms?

Vladimir Putin: I already said that we did not refuse to talk. We’re willing to negotiate. It is the western side, and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the US. It is evident. I do not want you to take it as if I am looking for a strong word or an insult. But we both understand what is happening. The financial support. 72 billion U.S. dollars was provided. Germany ranks second, then other European countries come. Dozens of billions of U.S. dollars are going to Ukraine. There’s a huge influx of weapons. In this case, you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to a negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree. We did not refuse.

Tucker: Sure, but you already said it. I didn’t think you meant it is an insult because you already said correctly, it’s been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating a peace settlement by the former British Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration. So, of course they’re a satellite. Big countries control small countries. That’s not new. And that’s why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not President Zelensky of Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: Well if the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume they did it under the instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it. Let it find the delicate excuse so that no one is insulted. Let it come up with a way out. It was not us who made this decision. It was them. So let them go back on it. That is it. However, they made the wrong decision. And now we have to look for a way out of this situation to correct their mistakes. They did it, so let them correct it themselves. We support this.

Tucker: So I just want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding what you’re saying. I don’t think that I am. I think you’re saying you want a negotiated settlement to what’s happening in Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: Right. And we made it. We prepared the huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He had fixed his signature to some of the provisions, not to all of it. He put his signature and then he himself said, we were ready to sign it, and the war would have been over long ago. 18 months ago. However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talk to us out of it and we missed that chance. Well, you missed it. You made a mistake. Let them get back to that. That is all. Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else’s mistakes? I know one can say it is our mistake. It was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014, in Donbas. As I have already said by means of weapons. Lt me get back to furthering history. I already told you this. We were just discussing it. Let us go back to 1991, when we were promised that NATO would not expand to 2008, when the doors to NATO opened to the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and U.S. military bases started to appear on the territory, Ukraine creating threats to us. Let us go back to coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless, though, isn’t it? We may go back and forth endlessly, but they stopped negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready. What else is needed?

Tucker: Do you think it’s too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two years ago Ukrainian territory?

Vladimir Putin: I said let them think how to do it with dignity. There are options if there is a will. Up until now, there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat to Russia on the battlefield. But now they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve, if possible, at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition. It is never going to happen. It seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue.

Tucker: Would you be willing to say congratulations, NATO, you won and just keep the situation where it is now?

Vladimir Putin: You know, it is a subject matter for the negotiations. No one is willing to conduct or, to put it more accurately… they’re willing, but do not know how to do it. I know they want to. It is not just I see it, but I know they do want it, but they are struggling to understand how to do it. They have driven the situation to the point where we are at. It is not us who have done that. It is our partners, opponents who have done that. Well now let them think how to reverse the situation. We’re not against it. It would be funny if it were not so sad that. This endless mobilization in Ukraine, the hysteria, the domestic problems, sooner or later it will result in an agreement. You know, this probably sounds strange given the current situation. But the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt anyway. It will take a lot of time, but they will heal. I’ll give you very unusual examples. There is a combat encounter on the battlefield. Here is a specific example. Ukrainian soldiers get encircled. This is an example from real life. Our soldiers were shouting to them. There is no chance. Surrender yourselves. Come out and you will be alive. Suddenly the Ukrainian soldiers were screaming from there in Russian. Perfect Russian. Saying Russians do not surrender. And all of them perished. They still identify themselves as Russian. What is happening is, to a certain extent, an element of a civil war. Everyone in the West thinks that the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever, and now they will be reunited. The unity is still there. Why are the Ukrainian authorities dismantling the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Because it brings together not only the territory. It brings together our souls. No one will be able to separate the soul. Shall we end here, or is there anything else?

Tucker: Thank you, Mr. President.

Zionism cannot be negotiated with – it must be defeated!

Par : AHH

The following article is a response to the scurrilous attacks on our party that have been printed in the Daily Telegraph and the Jewish Chronicle.

*****

Dr Ranjeet Brar is a lifelong campaigner against racism, against fascism and against zionism.

He has been arrested four times as a direct result of his support for the anti-zionist, anti-imperialist struggle of the Palestinian people. In singling him out again, Britain’s pro-zionist mainstream media are playing their part in a concerted attack on his professional status and medical practice – and therefore also upon the communities he serves.

The timing of these events is not accidental. Our rulers’ support for zionist Israel is coming under the greatest pressure it has ever faced, and their ability to shore up the economic, diplomatic and PR holes in their project is rapidly declining.

The crisis of legitimacy for British politicians and media has been markedly exacerbated by their unashamedly pro-Israel stance in recent months. When ‘democratic’ means of diverting and confusing the public have failed, repression is the only means left for silencing inconvenient truths.

The United Nations’ International Court of Justice recently ruled that Israel is likely to be committing genocide in Palestine. It has awarded provisional measures and ordered Israel to ensure that it stops the commissioning of genocide.

Israeli ‘defence’ minister Yoav Gallant, who famously justified the genocide in Gaza by stating on television that “we are fighting against human animals”, labelled the ICJ as “antisemitic”. Presumably the Israeli judge was also guilty of ‘antisemitism’?

Our party puts Israel’s current crimes in historical context, and Ranjeet has openly and publicly defended Palestine, the Palestinians and their right to exist.

Therefore also – in accordance with UN resolutions (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva conventions of 1949; resolution 2105 of 1965; resolution 2625 of 1970; 1974, resolution 3314 of the UNGA; resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982) – he has defended Palestine’s right to resist occupation and genocide. In so doing he is simply stating international law.

We note that zionism, as a genocidal ideology, cannot be accommodated. It must be challenged wherever it raises its head. It is given succour by our politicians and media precisely because it is a tool of Britain’s imperialist ruling class.

In the video above, Ranjeet outlines this position in a historical, factual and antiracist speech given recently at City University in London.

We note that the Daily Telegraph has launched a vicious attack upon Ranjeet and our party for having the temerity to continue speaking out against zionist genocide in a political climate that is increasingly repressive.

This attack on free speech is part of former home secretary Suella Braverman’s pro-genocide campaign to label the millions of working-class Britons who support Palestine as “hate marchers” and “terrorists”.

The Telegraph’s distorted article plays into this narrative, claiming that our party’s anti-zionist views are “racist”.

Compare the doctored quotations in its headlines with the whole speech and decide for yourself whether these allegations stand up to scrutiny. Speaking the truth is not a crime – yet!

We note also the tired trope of ‘vulnerable’ students who must be protected from ‘hurtful’ and ‘offensive’ truths. Where is the Telegraph or City University’s concern for the actual bodily harm being done to hundreds of Palestinian civilians every single day under zionist bombardment?

Why is the illegally occupying power (Israel) deemed to have all the rights and the occupied (the Palestinians) none? Why are those who stand with the oppressed demonised and silenced while those who stand with the oppressors are protected and promoted?

Landmark finding in David Miller tribunal

We note in this context the landmark ruling in the case of sacked history professor David Miller that anti-zionist beliefs are a protected characteristic under British discrimination law – further undermining the Telegraph’s really racist (anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian and pro-genocide) and zionist campaign.

Prof Miller said: “I am extremely pleased that the tribunal has concluded that I was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by the University of Bristol. I am also very proud that we have managed to establish that anti-zionist views qualify as a protected belief under the UK Equality Act.

“This was the most important reason for taking the case and I hope it will become a touchstone precedent in all the future battles that we face with the racist and genocidal ideology of zionism and the movement to which it is attached.

“The determination that I was sacked for my anti-zionist views is a huge vindication of my case all the way through this process. The University of Bristol maintained that I was sacked because zionist students were offended by my various remarks, but it was plain from the evidence of its own witnesses that this was untrue, and it was the anti-zionist nature of my comments which was the decisive factor.

“I also want to note that this verdict is a massive vindication of the approach I have taken throughout this period, which is to say that a genocidal and maximalist ideology like zionism can only be effectively confronted by a maximalist anti-zionism.

“Apologies, debate and defensiveness of the sort illustrated by many on the left, and even in the Palestine solidarity movement, will not work. The zionist movement cannot be negotiated with. It must be defeated.”

≈≈

What makes Palestine so important to the imperialists and why can’t the USA stop digging its own grave?

Joti Brar and Garland Nixon: Palestine and Yemen, episode 2

In this second instalment of their regular series, Comrade Joti Brar and radio host Garland Nixon discuss Yemen and Palestine, touching on: the vigour of the Palestinian resistance despite apparently overwhelming odds; the role of Yemeni solidarity in the Red Sea; the importance of the zionist project to US imperialism; the degradation of the US military machine; the export of capital as part of Lenin’s thesis on imperialism; and finally finishing up with a broad overview of the Ukraine war.

Garland begins by asking for Joti’s thoughts on the importance of the debacle in the Red Sea – referring to Yemen’s capture of Israeli ships and the resulting redirection of global trade — a move that revealed the power of a state that is only ever presented as a poor victim in western media (if it is mentioned at all).

Putting the situation into a wider context, Joti points out that although different parts of the middle east are facing their own struggles, the various resistance forces have all “over the years increasingly come to realise that their struggle is centred in Palestine; because zionism is the main weapon that the imperialists use to control all of the middle east. They’re not there to control Palestine, they’re there to control the region.”

And so, the reason Palestine and other peoples in the middle east fight back? Oppression breeds resistance. And as the oppression faced by these countries is largely directed by US imperialism through the state of Israel, Palestine has logically become the centre of their struggle.

So why is the zionist project so critical to imperialism, Garland asks? To the onlooker it appears totally bizarre that the US government is willing to continue funding and arming Israel, staking its (albeit in tatters) international reputation, when public discontent at home grows by the day and workers all over the world are marching and acting against it?

Oil. This is the simple answer given by comrade Joti. The United States of America is the world’s biggest imperialist power, and the imperialist global economy (and its war machines) runs on oil.

Ever the insightful listener, Garland proceeds to describe the degraded state of the USA’s military, calling it “feckless and ridiculous” as compared to its cold war peak. Adeptly summarising the contradiction of the military-industrial complex – where profit-driven public contractors manufacturing the same equipment as its opponents at an infinitely dearer cost are rotting the system of US imperialism from the inside – Garland asks how the system can paradoxically weaken itself in this way?

The huge military power that is the USA is relying on private industry to provide an essential service. In this way, capitalism is shooting itself in the foot. Military contractors need to make a profit in order to survive, and every dime they make is a cost to the US government not borne by its opponents in the middle east, many of whose weapons are made underground, sometimes even without electricity.

In the end, of course, the decisive factor in any war is not weapons but people. The Koreans and Vietnamese long ago proved that a seemingly weak but motivated people, well organised and fighting for a just cause, will ultimately defeat the demoralised troops of an aggressive power far from home.

In these days when the USA fears to put boots on the ground for just this reason, preferring instead to bomb from skies where its planes meet no air defences, the resistant armies of the middle east have also learned the art of tunnel warfare pioneered by the Chinese, Koreans and Vietnamese resistance forces in the mid-20th century.

Little by little, at great and painful cost, they have learned the strengths and found the weaknesses of their imperialist enemies. The successful blockading of the Red Sea to Israeli-aligned ships by Yemen’s Ansarullah government is just one indicator that the axis of middle-eastern resistance has not been wasting its time in the last 50 years.

Irreversible Decline of US Primacy in West Asia

Par : AHH

US Bombing Spree Won’t Reverse Decline of US Primacy in Middle East

Update on US military operations in the Middle East…

🔹US retaliates for deadly attack on US bases in the region by targeting Iranian-linked infrastructure and formations in Iraq and Syria;

🔹The US base was allegedly hit by a drone and despite attempts to depict it as a “lucky hit,” it demonstrates how vulnerable US troops occupying the region have become;

🔹US air defenses are insufficient in terms of quantity and quality to protect US bases from a growing number of missiles and drones;

🔹While the US insists it is not seeking conflict in the region, its sole purpose in the region is to violently overthrow the Syrian and Iranian governments and coerce the rest of the region to advance US interests at the cost of their own interests and sovereignty;

🔹US Department of Defense officials have admitted that in Syria the US is deliberately withholding the nation’s own energy and agricultural resources to use economic recovery and reconstruction as “leverage” over Syria and its allies;

References:

  1. Voice of America – US Begins Retaliation for Deadly Drone Attack on Its Soldiers (February 2, 2024)
  2. New Yorker – The Redirection (2007)
  3. New York Times – Behind the Sudden Death of a $1 Billion Secret C.I.A. War in Syria (2017)
  4. CSIS – Syria in the Gray Zone (October 31, 2019)
  5. US Department of Defense – Dana Stroul, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East
  6. Popular Mechanics – A Drone Attack Devastated U.S. Troops in Their Sleep. Is This the New Normal? (January 29, 2024)
  7. Washington Post – U.S. mixed up enemy, friendly drones in attack that killed 3 troops.

Where to Find My Work:

Maria Zakharova on USUK bombing Syraq

Par : AHH

As usual, the Russian Foreign Ministry brings clarity, cutting through the flagging production of the fogging machine: (1) the British, who said they would not participate in the aggression, lied and did participate in last night’s criminal bombing. And (2) the larger operation to torch the entire region, as with Europe through the Ukraine, remains unchanged through the ongoing calculated behavior of the Anglo-Zionists.

≈≈

3 February 2024 15:22

Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on US strikes on Iraq and Syria

The US strategic bomber attack on Iraq and Syria, which destroyed and damaged dozens of facilities and killed numerous civilians, has once again demonstrated to the world the aggressive nature of US policy in the Middle East and Washington’s total disregard for international law.

The obedient participation of British Royal Air Force in the US attack should not give anyone the illusion of an “international coalition” taking action. London has yet to answer for its zealous support of the provocations launched by its bosses in Washington.

It is clear that the airstrikes were specifically intended to further escalate the conflict. By relentlessly attacking the facilities of allegedly pro-Iranian groups in Iraq and Syria, the United States has been purposefully attempting to draw the largest countries in the region into the conflict.

Confident of its impunity, Washington continues to sow chaos and destruction in the Middle East. The largest US air operation in the region since 2003, presented by Joe Biden as an “act of retaliation” for an unknown UAV attack on a US base in Jordan, has no justification. The attempts to flex their muscles in order to influence the political situation in the United States, as well as their desperation to salvage the failed international policies of the current US administration in the context of the ongoing election campaign are leading to a further escalation of international tensions and further undermining US credibility in the Arab world.

The recent events have confirmed that the United States is not seeking solutions to the region’s problems, nor has it ever sought any. Washington has always been content with a situation where chronic disagreements in the Middle East were only getting worse. It is not even about American strategists’ usual indifference towards the regional states’ aspirations or interests; rather, it is their obsession with creating hotbeds of tension from Finland to the Suez Canal, from Libya to Afghanistan, far from their own borders, closer to their “adversaries,” but also closer to their loyal allies in NATO and the EU.

We strongly condemn this new outrageous act of US-British aggression against sovereign states. We insist on the urgent consideration of this situation by the UN Security Council.  (emphasis in original on the Ministry’s Telegram channel)

Western ‘values’ sink to a new low

Par : AHH

Defunding UNRWA: US and Western ‘values’ sink to a new low

By Abdel Bari Atwan at Rai Al Youm

Before discussing the sadistic and inhuman attack on UNRWA led by the US and some of its Western clients based on politicised Israeli allegations, I must point out that my own schooling and healthcare and the survival of my 13-member family were largely due to this agency. There are millions like me in diaspora refugee camps or in exile around the world who, despite some reservations, owe it our gratitude and appreciation.

Israel is waging a war of extermination which began with bombing from the air, ground, and sea and proceeded to the systematic destruction of all the basic requisites of life for people in the Gaza Strip via enforced evacuation and starvation, bombardment and massacres, barring the entry of food and medical aid, and destroying most of the hospitals and schools, water, electricity and fuel sources, and even bakeries.

Ten states followed the USA, leader of the ‘free world’ and champion of democracy and human rights, in ending all funding to UNRWA because Israel accused 12 of its employees — with no investigation or evidence presented — of involvement in Hamas’ 7 October attack on military bases and settlements int he Gaza Envelope, even though the agency had hurriedly sacked them all in a bid to spare two million people from starvation.

I have lived in the West for 40 years since obtaining an employment contract with an Arab media institution in London. In other words, I did not come as a political refugee, but have been paying onerous taxes from day one until now, even though I am above retirement age.

One of the constant accusations I have encountered is that we Arabs and Muslims make hasty and irrational judgements without proper consideration, and this is inconsistent with Western values which are based on reason, evidence-based judgement, and established fact.

Much of this rational West has made a mockery of those values by following the US in defunding UNRWA without conducting any independent investigation to examine the Israeli claims.

Israel accused 12 of UNRWA’s 30,000 employees of breaking neutrality rules by joining the resistance, and the agency instantly terminated their contracts. What Western law could possibly justify such an injustice, collectively punishing 30,000 innocent staffers and — more seriously — starving two million people who have been forced into tents or onto streets time and time again, with 27,000 of them killed and 70,000, injured, and 86% of their homes destroyed?

The fabricated charges against UNRWA are the latest in a series of smears against the UN, its agencies, and its secretary-general which Israel has used to justify bombing schools and hospitals, closing borders, and preventing the delivery of humanitarian and medical aid. Tens of thousands took refuge in UN facilities in the belief they could provide a measure of protection and that even Israel would abide by the rules and ethics of war and refrain from bombing them. But that belief was tragically mistaken. The US and its Western acolytes place this rogue state above all and any law.

UNRWA has said it now won’t be able to continue providing relief and healthcare services in the Gaza Strip beyond the end of February. This means tens of thousands of people, especially children and the elderly, will die of hunger and illness, and 30,000 more families will have no breadwinners. How does that make Biden, Macron, or the other Western leaders who submitted to US and Israeli orders and cut off funding feel? They’re probably overjoyed, having no semblance of humanity or compassion or sympathy for the oppressed.

Anyone cutting off funding to UNRWA makes themselves complicit in the genocidal war along with Netanyahu and all his supporters in and outside the occupation state. They will one day be held accountable, if not in this world, then the next.

Finally, a word of appreciation for those Western countries that refused to submit to Israeli extortion — including Switzerland, Spain, Norway, and Greece — and announced they would continue funding UNRWA. They showed there is still some reason left in a world benighted by US hegemony in the service of Israeli massacres and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip.

≈≈

Here’s more context of UNRWA and why it is moving onto center stage in the ethnic cleansing and Annihilation of the Palestinian nation. The coordinated defunding, delegitimization and removal of this vital UN body by the Anglo-Zionists has long been in the works.

US-Iran Showdown

Par : AHH

Message for Joe Biden: Don’t Mess with Iran

In this week’s episode of the New Rules podcast, we delve into the recent escalation between Iran and the US, with Biden administration reportedly considering striking Iran. We hosted University of Tehran professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi who warned that if a new war breaks out in the Middle East, the US will lose against Iran and its allies in the Axis of Resistance.

“The attacks that are taking place in Syria and Iraq show how vulnerable the Americans are. But the real reason right now, why the Americans are occupying Iraq and Syria? They say it’s to contain Iran and to limit Iran’s influence. But in reality, it’s about taking away the sovereignty of countries and to strengthen Israel,” he told the New Rules podcast.

Also available on our official X page:
Tweets by NewRulesGeo

Pepe Escobar on widening war: NATO’s WWIII Scenario?

Par : AHH

 

Journalist and geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar joins to discuss the latest in the widening U.S. war in the Middle East, a coming Gaza ceasefire, how travels to Russia 🇷🇺, the conflict in Ukraine and much more in the multipolar world!

≈≈


Journalist and geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar:
🔹https://t.me/rocknrollgeopolitics on Telegram
🔹https://twitter.com/RealPepeEscobar on Twitter (X)

Danny Haiphong YouTube channel:
🔹https://www.youtube.com/@geopoliticshaiphong

Will the Hegemon Ever Accept a New Westphalian World Order?

Par : AHH

There will be no peaceful road towards the new Westphalian world order. Fasten your seat belts – it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

By Pepe Escobar at Strategic Culture

A new book by scholar Glenn Diesen, The Ukraine War & The Eurasian World Order,  out in mid-February, asks the make-or-break question of the young 21st century: will the Hegemon accept a new geopolitical reality, or will it go Captain Ahab on Moby Dick and drag us all to the depths of a – nuclear – abyss?

An extra touch of poetic beauty is that the analysis is conducted by a Scandinavian. Diesen is a professor at the University of Southeast Norway (USN) and an associate editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. He had a stint at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, working closely with the inimitable Sergey Karaganov.

It goes without saying that European MSM won’t touch him; rabid yells – “Putinista!” – prevail, including in Norway, where he’s been a prime target of cancel culture.

That’s irrelevant, anyway. What matters is that Diesen, an affable, unfailingly polite man and an ultra-sharp scholar, is aligned with the rarified cream of the crop who is asking the questions that really matter; among them, whether we are heading towards a Eurasian-Westphalian world order.

Apart from a meticulous deconstruction of the proxy war in Ukraine that devastatingly debunks, with proven facts, the official NATOstan narrative, Diesen offers a concise, easily accessible mini-history of how we got here.

He starts to make the case harking back to the Silk Roads: “The Silk Road was an early model of globalization, although it did not result in a common world order as the civilizations of the world were primarily connected to nomadic intermediaries.”

The demise of the Heartland-based Silk Road, actually roads, was caused by the rise of the thalassocratic European powers reconnecting the world in a different way. Yet the hegemony of the collective West could only be fully achieved by applying Divide and Rule across Eurasia.

We did not in fact have “five centuries of western dominance”, according to Diesen: it was more like three, or even two (see, for instance, the work of Andre Gunder Frank). In a historical Long View that barely registers.

What is indeed The Big Picture now is that “the unique world order” produced by controlling “the vast Eurasian continent from the maritime periphery is coming to an end”.


Mackinder is hit by a train

Diesen hits the nail on the head when it comes to the Russia-China strategic partnership – on which the overwhelmingly majority of European intellectuals is clueless (a crucial exception is French historian, demographer and anthropologist Emmanuel Todd, whose latest book I analyzed here.)

With a lovely on the road formulation, Diesen shows how “Russia can be considered the successor of the Mongolian nomads as the last custodian of the Eurasian land corridor”, while China revives the Ancient Silk Roads “with economic connectivity”. In consequence, “a powerful Eurasian gravitational pull is thus reorganizing the supercontinent and the wider world.”

Poviding context, Diesen needs to engage in an obligatory detour to the basics of the Great Game between the Russian and British empires. What stands out is how Moscow already was pivoting to Asia all the way to the late 19th century, when Russian Finance Minister Sergei Witte started to develop a groundbreaking road map for a Eurasia political economy, “borrowing from Alexander Hamilton and Friedrich List.”

Witte “wanted to end Russia’s role as an exporter of natural resources to Europe as it resembled ‘the relations of colonial countries with their metropolises’”.

And that implies going back to Dostoyevsky, who argued that “Russians are as much Asiatics as European. The mistake of our policy for the past two centuries has been to make the people of Europe believe that we are true Europeans (…) It will be better for us to seek alliances with the Asiatics.” Dostoyevsky meets Putin-Xi.

Diesen also needs to go through the obligatory references to Mackinder’s “heartland” obsession – which is the basis of all Anglo-American geopolitics for the past hundred and twenty years.

Mackinder was spooked by railway development – especially the Trans-Siberian by the Russians – as it enabled Moscow to “emulate the nomadic skills of the Scythians, Huns and Mongols” that were essential to control most of Eurasia.

Mackinder was particularly focused on railways acting “chiefly as feeders to ocean-going commerce”. Ergo, being a thalassocratic power was not enough: “The heartland is the region to which under modern conditions, sea power can be refused access.”

And that’s what leads to the Rosetta Stone of Anglo-American geopolitics: to “prevent the emergence of a hegemon or a group of states capable of dominating Europe and Eurasia that could threaten the dominant maritime power.”

That explains everything from WWI and WWII to the permanent NATO obsession in preventing a solid rapprochement between Germany and Russia, by any means necessary.


The Little Multipolar Helmsman

Diesen offers a succinct perspective of Russian Eurasianists of the 1920s such as Trubetskoi and Savitsky, who were promoting an alternative path to the USSR.

They conceptualized that with Anglo-American thalassocracy applying Divide and Rule in Russia, what was needed was a Eurasian political economy based on mutual cooperation: a stark prefiguration of the Russia-China drive to multipolarity.

Savitsky in fact could have been writing today: “Eurasia has previously played a unifying role in the Old World. Contemporary Russia, absorbing this tradition”, must abandon war as a method of unification.

Cue to post-Maidan in 2014. Moscow finally got the message that trying to build a Greater Europe “from Lisbon to Vladivostok” was a non-starter. Thus the new concept of Greater Eurasian Partnership was born. Sergey Karaganov, with whom Diesen worked at the Higher School of Economics, was the father of the concept.

Greater Eurasia Partnership repositions Russia “from the periphery of Europe and Asia to the center of a large super-region.” In short, a pivot to the East – and the consolidation of the Russia-China partnership.

Diesen dug up an extraordinary passage in the Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, proving how the Little Helmsman in 1990 was a visionary prefiguring multipolar China:

“In the future when the world becomes three-polar, four-polar or five-polar, the Soviet Union, no matter how weakened it may be and even if some of its republics withdraw from it, will still be one pole. In the so-called multipolar world, China too will be a pole (…) Our foreign policies remain the same: first, opposing hegemonism and power politics and safeguarding world peace; and second, working to establish a new international political order and a new international economic order.”

Diesen breaks it down, noting how China has to a certain extent “replicated the three-pillared American System of the early 19th century, in which the U.S. developed a manufacturing base, physical transportation infrastructure, and a national bank to counter British economic hegemony.”

Enter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO); the AIIB; the de-dollarization drive; the China International Payment System (CIPS); increased use of yuan in international trade; the use of national currencies; Made in China 2025; The Digital Silk Road; and last but not least, BRICS 10 and the NDB, the BRICS development bank.

Russia matched some of it – as in the Eurasia Development Bank (EDB) of the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) and in advancing the harmonization of financial arrangements of BRI and EAEU projects via the SCO.

Diesen is one of the very few Western analysts who actually understands the drive to multipolarity: “BRICS+ is anti-hegemony and not anti-Western, as the objective is to create a multipolar system and not assert collective dominance over the West.”

Diesen also contends that the emerging Eurasian World Order is “seemingly based on conservative principles.” That’s correct, as the Chinese system is drenched in Confucianism (social integration, stability, harmonious relationships, respect for tradition and hierarchy), part of the keen sense of belonging to a distinct, sophisticated civilization: that’s the foundation of Chinese nation-building.

Can’t bring Russia-China down

Diesen’s detailed analysis of the Ukraine proxy war, “a predictable consequence of an unsustainable world order”, is extrapolated to the battleground where the future, new world order is being decided; it is “either global hegemony or Westphalian multipolarity.”

Everyone with a brain by now knows how Russia absorbed and re-transformed everything thrown by the collective West after the start of the Special Military Operation (SMO). The problem is the rarified plutocracy that really runs the show will always refuse to acknowledge reality, as Diesen frames it: “Irrespective of the outcome of the war, the war has already become the graveyard of liberal hegemony.

The overwhelming majority of the Global South clearly sees that even as what Ray McGovern indelibly defined as MICIMATT (military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex) cast the Russia-China partnership as the main “threats” – in reality those that created the “gravitational pull to reorganize the world order towards multipolarity” – they can’t bring Russia-China down geoeconomically.

So there’s no question “the conflicts of the future world order will continue to be militarized.” That’s where we are at the crossroads. There will be no peaceful road towards to Westphalian world order. Fasten your seat belts – it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

The Resistance Swarms The US

Par : AHH

The US is so deeply mired in an unwinnable battle from the Levant to the Persian Gulf that only its adversaries in China, Russia, and Iran can bail it out.

by Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar at The Cradle

Deterrence in defense is a military strategy where one power uses the threat of reprisal to preclude attack from an adversary, while maintaining at the same time the freedom of action and flexibility to respond to the full spectrum of challenges. In this realm, the Lebanese resistance, Hezbollah, is an outstanding example.

Hezbollah’s clarity of purpose in establishing and strictly maintaining ground rules that deter Israeli military aggression has set a high regional bar. Today, its West Asian allies have adopted similar strategies, which have multiplied in the context of the war in Gaza.

America, surrounded

While the Yemeni resistance movement Ansarallah is comparable to Hezbollah in certain respects, it is the audacious brand of defensive deterrence practiced by the Islamic Resistance of Iraq that is going to be highly consequential in the near term.

Last week, citing sources in the State Department and Pentagon, Foreign Policy magazine wrote that the White House is no longer interested in continuing the US military mission in Syria. The White House later denied this information, but the report is gaining ground.

The Turkish daily Hurriyet wrote on Friday that while Ankara is taking a cautious approach to media reports, it does see “a general striving” by Washington to exit not only Syria but the entire region of West Asia, as it senses that it has been dragged into a quagmire by Israel and Iran from the Red Sea to Pakistan.

Russia’s special presidential representative for the Syrian settlement, Alexander Lavrentiev, also told Tass on Friday that much depends on any “threat of physical impact” on American forces present in Syria. The swift US military exit from Afghanistan took place with virtually no advance notice, in coordination with the Taliban. “In all likelihood, the same may happen in Iraq and Syria,” Lavrentiev said.

Indeed, the Islamic Resistance of Iraq has stepped up its attacks on US military bases and targets. In a ballistic missile attack on Ain al-Asad airbase in western Iraq a week ago, an unknown number of American troops sustained injuries, and the White House announced its first troop deaths on Sunday when three US servicemen were killed on the Syrian-Jordanian border in strikes earlier that day.

Calling Beijing for help

This situation is untenable for President Joe Biden politically — in his re-election bid next November — which explains the urgency of the National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan’s meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Friday and Saturday in Thailand to discuss the Ansarallah attacks in the Red Sea.

US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby explained Washington’s rush for Chinese mediation thus:

“China has influence over Tehran; they have influence in Iran. And they have the ability to have conversations with Iranian leaders that — that we can’t. What we’ve said repeatedly is: We would welcome a constructive role by China, using the influence and the access that we know they have…”

This is a dramatic turn of events. While the US has long been concerned about China’s growing sway in West Asia, it also needs that influence now as Washington’s efforts to reduce violence are getting nowhere. The US narrative on this will be that the “strategic, thoughtful conversation” between Sullivan and Wang will not only be “an important way to manage competition and tensions [between the US and China] responsibly” but also “set the direction of the relationship” on the whole.

Meanwhile, there has been hectic diplomatic traffic between Tehran, Ankara, and Moscow, as Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi traveled to Turkiye, and the moribund Astana format on Syria last week got kickstarted. Succinctly put, the three countries anticipate a “post-American” situation arising soon in Syria.


A US exit from Syria and Iraq?

Of course, the security dimensions are always tricky. On Friday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad chaired a meeting in Damascus for commanders of the security apparatus in the army to formulate a plan for what lies ahead. A statement said the meeting drew up a comprehensive security roadmap that “aligns with strategic visions” to address international, regional, and domestic challenges and risks.

Certainly, what gives impetus to all this is the announcement in Washington and Baghdad on Thursday that the US and Iraq have agreed to start talks on the future of American military presence in Iraq with the aim of setting a timetable for a phased withdrawal of troops.

The Iraqi announcement said Baghdad aims to “formulate a specific and clear timetable that specifies the duration of the presence of international coalition advisors in Iraq” and to “initiate the gradual and deliberate reduction of its advisors on Iraqi soil,” eventually leading to the end of the coalition mission. Iraq is committed to ensuring the “safety of the international coalition’s advisors during the negotiation period in all parts of the country” and to “maintaining stability and preventing escalation.”

On the US side, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a statement that the discussions will take place within the ambit of a higher military commission established in August 2023 to negotiate the “transition to an enduring bilateral security partnership between Iraq and the United States.”

Pentagon commanders would be pinning hopes on protracted negotiations. The US is in a position to blackmail Iraq, which is obliged, per the one-sided agreement dictated by Washington during the occupation in 2003, to keep in the US banks all of Iraq’s oil export earnings.

But in the final analysis, President Biden’s political considerations in the election year will be the clincher. And that will depend on the calibration by West Asia’s resistance groups, and their ability to ‘swarm’ the US on multiple fronts until it caves. It is this ‘known unknown’ factor that explains the Astana format meeting of Russia, Iran, and Turkiye on January 24-25 in Kazakhstan. The three countries are preparing for the endgame in Syria. Not coincidentally, in a phone call last Friday, Biden once again told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “to scale down the Israeli military operation in Gaza, stressing he is not in it for a year of war,” Axios‘ Barak Ravid reported in a ‘scoop’.

Their joint statement after the Astana format meeting in Kazakhstan is a remarkable document predicated almost entirely on an end to the US occupation of Syria. It indirectly urges Washington to give up its support of terrorist groups and their affiliates “operating under different names in various parts of Syria” as part of attempts to create new realities on the ground, including illegitimate self-rule initiatives under the pretext of ‘combating terrorism.’ It demands an end to the US’ illegal seizure and transfer of oil resources “that should belong to Syria,” the unilateral US sanctions, and so on.

Simultaneously, at a meeting in Moscow on Wednesday between the Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev and Ali-Akbar Ahmadian, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, the latter reportedly stressed that Iran-Russia cooperation in the fight against terrorism “must continue, particularly in Syria.” Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to host a trilateral summit with his Turkish and Iranian counterparts to firm up a coordinated approach.


The Axis of Resistance: deterrence means stability

Iran’s patience has run out over the US military presence in Syria and Iraq following the revival of ISIS with American support. Interestingly, Israel no longer abides by its “de-confliction” mechanism with Russia in Syria. Clearly, there is close US-Israeli cooperation in Syria and Iraq at the intelligence and operational level, which goes against Russian and Iranian interests. Needless to say, the backdrop of the imminent upgrade of the Russia-Iran strategic partnership also needs to be factored in here.

These developments are a vintage illustration of defensive deterrence. The Axis of Resistance turns out to be the principal instrument of peace for the issues of security that entangle the US and Iran. Clearly, there isn’t any method or any reasonable hope of convergence to this process, but, fortunately, the appearance of chaos in West Asia is deceiving.

Beyond the distractions of partisan argument and diplomatic ritual, one can detect the outlines of a practical solution to the Syrian stalemate that addresses the inherent security interests of the US and Iran that are embedded within an outer ring of US-China concord over the situation in West Asia.

Russia may seem an outlier for the present, but there is something in it for everyone, as the pullout of US troops opens the pathway to a Syrian settlement, which remains a top priority for Moscow and for Putin personally.

≈≈

AHH: We can dream, no? This would be a dream outcome. Certainly, inordinate amounts of strategic patience have been observed to date and the most generous off-ramps provided.. Alas! Reality adheres closer to Greek tragedy, particularly as we consider the accumulated pleonexia, sense of impunity, fear, and guilt of the kakistocratic Anglo-Zionist Oligarchy. These ceased being rational or even capable actors. And Retreat fully assumes accountability. We can still hope…

The Ukraine Charade, Revisited

Par : AHH

Zhuangzi: “You can’t talk about the ocean to a frog living in a well, you can’t describe ice to a summer midge, and you can’t reason with an ignoramus.”

by Pepe Escobar at  ZeroHedge

Selected players scattered around the Beltway silos of power, diligently working as messengers for the people who really run the show in the Hegemon, have concluded that a no holds barred confrontation with Russia would lead to the collapse of all of NATO; undo decades of US iron grip on Europe; and ultimately cause the Empire’s downfall.

Playing brinkmanship games sooner or later would meet the indestructible red lines inbuilt in the unmovable Russian object.

US elites are smarter than that. They may excel on calculated risk. But when the stakes are this high, they know when to hedge and when to fold.

The “loss” of Ukraine – now a graphic imperative – is not worth risking the loss of the whole Hegemonic ride. That would be too much for the Empire to lose.

So even as they get increasingly desperate with the accelerated imperial plunge into a geopolitical and geoeconomic abyss, they’re frantically changing the narrative – a domain in which they excel.

And that explains why discombobulated European vassals in NATO-controlled EU are now in total panic.

Davos this week offered bucketloads of Orwellian salad. The key, frantic messages: War is peace. Ukraine is not (italics mine) losing and Russia is not winning. Hence Ukraine needs way more weaponizing.

Yet even Norwegian Wood Stoltenberg was told to toe the new line that matters: “NATO is not moving into Asia. It’s China that is coming close to us.” That certainly adds a new wacky meaning to the notion of moving tectonic plates.

Keep the Forever Wars engine running

There is a total void of “leadership” in Washington. There is no “Biden”. Just Team Biden: a corporate combo featuring low-rent messengers such as de facto neocon Little Blinkie. They do what they’re told by wealthy “donors” and the financial-military interests that really run the show, reciting the same old cliché-saturated lines day after day, bit players in a Theatre of the Absurd.

Only one exhibit suffices.

Reporter: “Are the airstrikes in Yemen working?”

The President of the United States: “Well, when you say working, are they stopping the Houthis? No. Are they gonna continue? Yes.”

The same in what passes for “strategic thinking” applies to Ukraine.

The Hegemon is not being lured into fighting in West Asia – as much as the genocidal arrangement in Tel Aviv, in tandem with US Zio-cons, wants to drag it into a war on Iran.

Still, the imperial machine is being steered to keep the Forever Wars engine running, non-stop, at varying speeds.

The elites in charge are way more clinical than the whole Team Biden. They know they will not win in what will soon be country 404. But the tactical victory, so far, is massive: enormous profits out of the frantic weaponizing; totally gutting European industry and sovereignty; reducing the EU to the sub-status of a lowly vassal; and from now on plenty of time to find new proxy warriors against Russia – from Polish and Baltic fanatics to the whole Takfiri-neo ISIS galaxy.

From Plato to NATO, it may be too early to state it’s all over for the West. What is nearly over is the current battle, centered on country 404. As Andrei Martyanov himself stresses, it was up to Russia, once again, “to start dismantling what today has become the house of demons and horror in the West and by the West, and she is doing it again in a Russian way – by defeating it on the battlefield.”

That complements the detailed analysis expressed on the new hand grenade of a book by French historian Emmanuel Todd.

Yet the war is far from over. As Davos once again made it quite clear, they will not give up.

Chinese wisdom rules that, “when you want to hit a man with an arrow, first hit his horse. When you want to capture all the bandits, first capture their chief.”

The “chief” – or chiefs – certainly are far from being captured. BRICS+ and de-dollarization may have a shot at it, starting this year.

The plutocratic endgame

Under this framework, even massive US-Ukraine corruption involving rings and rings of theft from lavish US “aid”, as recently revealed by former Ukrainian MP Andrey Derkach, is a mere detail.

Nothing has been done or will be done about it. After all, the Pentagon itself fails every audit. These audits, by the way, did not even include the income from the massive multi-billion dollar heroin operation in Afghanistan – with Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo set up as the distribution center for Europe. The profits were pocketed by US intel operatives off the books.

When fentanyl replaced heroin as a domestic US plague, it was pointless to continue occupying Afghanistan – subsequently abandoned after two decades in pure Helter Skelter mode, leaving behind over $7 billion in weapons.

It’s impossible to describe all these Empire-centric concentric rings of corruption and institutionalized organized crime to a brainwashed collective West. The Chinese, once again, to the rescue. Taoist Zhuangzi (369 – 286 B.C.): “You can’t talk about the ocean to a frog living in a well, you can’t describe ice to a summer midge, and you can’t reason with an ignoramus.”

NATO’s cosmic humiliation in Ukraine notwithstanding, this proxy war against Russia, against Europe and against China remains the fuse that could light up a WWIII before the end of this decade. Who will decide it is an extremely rarefied plutocracy. No, not Davos: these are only their clownish mouthpieces.

Russia has reactivated a military factory system at lightning speed – now standing at about 15 times the capacity of January 2022. Along the front line there are about 300,000 troops, plus in the back two pincer armies of hundreds of thousands of mobile troops in each pincer being prepared to create a double envelopment of the Ukrainian Army and annihilate it.

Even if country 404 is utterly defeated in 2024, once again it’s imperative to stress it: this is far from over. The leadership in Beijing fully understands that the Hegemon is such a disintegrating wreck, on the way to secession, that the only way to hold it together would be a world war. It’s time to re-read T.S. Eliot in more ways than one: “We had the experience but missed the meaning, / and approach to the meaning restores the experience.”

Lavrov at UNSC: Using Truth as a Hammer

Par : AHH

Lavrov at UNSC: Day Two West Asia & Palestine: Using Truth as a Hammer

with thanks to Karl at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium

Lavrov pulls out a verbal hammer at the end of his remarks at the second day of special UNSC hearings on Ukraine with today’s about the situation in West Asia and Palestine in particular. Here’s Sergey with all emphasis being mine:

Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary-General,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today we are holding a meeting on the situation in the Middle East, primarily on the Palestinian issue, at a truly dramatic moment. Not only considerations of big politics, but also universal morality require us to take urgent measures to enact a ceasefire to end the suffering of the people in Palestine. Likewise, there is a need for steps aimed at preventing further destabilization of the situation in other parts of the Middle East.

So far, our Council has not been able to provide an adequate response to this truly fateful challenge. The reason is well-known – it is the position of the United States, which blocks all efforts and initiatives to stop the bloodshed in the occupied territories. The cunning of American diplomacy, which alternately vetoes ceasefire resolutions and calls for a “reduction in the intensity” of hostilities in Gaza, is astonishing. Clearly, this gives carte blanche to continue the collective punishment of the Palestinians.

On the eve of our meeting, we made another attempt to elicit a united response from the Council to what was happening and proposed a draft presidential statement demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. However, the United States and its allies blocked this document, confirming that saving the lives of Palestinian civilians is not one of their priorities.

The humanitarian consequences of such a policy are dire. Almost 30,000 civilians were killed, including a huge number of women and children. Northern Gaza is almost completely destroyed and uninhabitable. 80% of the total population of the sector are internally displaced persons. A real human tragedy with no end in sight.

The shortage of all vital necessities has reached alarming proportions. I would like to draw your attention to an article in The Jerusalem Post on January 5, written by Professor David Nitzan of Ben-Gurion University (formerly the WHO Emergency Coordinator). The article is based on the assessments of environmental experts, including Israeli specialists. Assessments cast doubt on whether Gaza will ever be habitable after the conflict ends.

As a result of the bombardment, the soil, groundwater, coastal sea area, and the atmosphere are already unprecedentedly polluted with a thick layer of products of explosions and combustion, destroyed equipment, ammunition, chemicals, decomposing biomass (no matter how terrible it may sound), household waste and sewage. Natural sources of drinking water have disappeared. In fact, the sewage infrastructure has been destroyed. It is estimated that 22% of Gaza’s agricultural land will never be restored. Tens of thousands of cases of diarrhea, acute respiratory diseases, scabies, skin rashes and other diseases have been recorded. The risk of epidemics has increased dramatically. The lack of humanitarian access is recognized by the World Health Organization as the main obstacle to the delivery of humanitarian aid. WHO has canceled six planned humanitarian missions to the northern Gaza Strip since the end of December 2023 after requests were denied.

In order to alleviate the suffering of the people of Gaza, Russia, like a number of other countries, has sent hundreds of tons of food, medical devices and medicines to the Gaza Strip. We support the UN humanitarian agencies on the ground, who, unfortunately, are also victims of the war, including 150 dead. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently spoke about this, describing this figure as unprecedented in the history of the Organisation’s participation in various operations in conflict zones.

Of particular concern is the propagation of abhorrent ideas such as the forcible displacement of Palestinians from their places of origin. Such a scenario is unacceptable and should not be implemented under any circumstances. The massive violence by the Israeli army and Jewish settlers in the West Bank must also be stopped immediately, and any attempt to undermine the status quo of Jerusalem’s holy sites must be ruled out.

The failure of this Council to take exhaustive measures has led to the fact that the current escalation of the conflict in Palestine has metastasized throughout the region. And once again, not without the disastrous participation of the United States and its allies, whose military presence in the Middle East, as well as in other parts of the Eurasian continent, creates new unacceptable risks to international security. We categorically condemn the unjustified aggression against Yemen undertaken under the leadership of Washington and London without the sanction of the UN Security Council. The actions of the Anglo-Saxons pose a direct threat to international peace and undermine a world order based not on their “rules” but on the supremacy of universal international law and the central role of the United Nations. We also condemn Israel’s bombing of Syria, including strikes that are declared to be aimed at structures that are legally present in that country at the invitation of its legitimate government. Political assassinations must stop. The situation on Lebanon’s border with Israel is explosive.

It is obvious that unilateral military actions only exacerbate the already difficult situation in the Middle East. A situation that has not developed today and reflects a long history. We are talking about the repeated invasions of independent states by the Americans and their satellites, which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, the destruction of statehood in Libya, the war in Syria, huge flows of refugees, and an unprecedented surge in international terrorism, including on the African continent.

Russia does not accept terrorist manifestations in any form. We also categorically condemned the attacks on civilians in Israel on October 7, 2023. Unlike some of our Western colleagues, who profess double standards, we do not divide extremists into “bad” and “good,” into “us” and “them.” We insist on the release of all detainees in Gaza, regardless of their nationality and origin.

Mr. President,

Today, we hear more and more often, primarily from Western representatives, calls to focus not on today, but on the “day after” of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as if the escalation in Gaza had already stopped and the situation there allegedly no longer required the Council’s attention. But the cunning logic of the Western delegations is obvious. By blocking all the Council’s much-needed efforts to call on the parties to a ceasefire, the United States and its allies want to turn this extremely uncomfortable page as soon as possible, which makes them complicit in the carnage unleashed against the civilian population in Gaza.

I would like to emphasise that the UN Security Council must still fulfil its mandate and call for a ceasefire. Otherwise, there is no guarantee that hostilities will not resume with renewed vigor. And in the absence of such a guarantee, as well as the unconditional implementation of UN decisions on the creation of a Palestinian state, all talk about “tomorrow” is not only premature, but also pointless. And this is well understood by potential donors who could invest in the future reconstruction of Gaza.

When it comes to discussing the parameters of “tomorrow”, the following factors should be of fundamental importance.

First, the consolidated will of the Palestinian people themselves. The Palestinians, who have been deprived of a chance for statehood for decades, deserve to see this issue finally resolved. The first and foremost condition for this is the unity of the Palestinian nation itself. We trust that our Palestinian brothers and sisters will show strategic wisdom and renounce all opportunistic considerations and internecine strife that impede nation-building. They should decide for themselves what their future state should look like, who should govern it and how. In my opinion, our Western colleagues call this democracy. The imposition of solutions from the outside and the “social engineering” so beloved by Western colleagues are categorically unacceptable here.

No less important is the unity of the positions of all external players, who should be guided not by their own political interests and plans in the region, trying to transmit them through one or another Palestinian faction, but by the imperative of finding a speedy solution to the centuries-old conflict. Russia has made its proposals on how to achieve this goal. They could be an important element of a new effective mediation mechanism that enjoys the confidence of both Palestinians and Israelis. We will continue this work.

The second key factor is the inviolability of the two-state formula for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement and the imperative to implement it as soon as possible. We are extremely concerned about the statements of the Israeli leadership that cast doubt on it. We would also like to draw your attention to the extremely vague statements made by the US Department of State leadership in this regard. It seems that Washington is once again relying on its supposedly “effective” but in fact absolutely failed bilateral diplomacy, hoping to somehow “settle” the parameters of the Middle East settlement that are beneficial to it before the November elections and not caring at all about the long-term consequences.

We have seen all this many times before. Each round of the arrogant unilateral policy of the United States in the Middle East, its separate, “shuttle” negotiations with the Party of Regions, accompanied by financial promises, ends in an increasingly bloody outbreak of escalation. That is what happened this time. Washington first “buried” the work of the Quartet of international mediators, and now it is consistently blocking all international efforts to de-escalate within the framework of the UN Security Council. The cynical short-sightedness of the US leadership is well illustrated by the statement by President Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser, a week before October 7, 2023, that “the Middle East region has not been so calm over the past two decades.”

Colleagues (and I am addressing my Western colleagues), the whole world is waiting for you to realise that your persistent disregard for multilateral diplomacy and its outright sabotage have repeatedly led to tragic results.

For Russia, as well as for the overwhelming majority of members of the international community, it is obvious that the logic of confrontation on the Palestinian issue can be overcome only through joint efforts based primarily on the interests of the states of the region. It is they who must ultimately decide his fate. The germs of such positive processes have already been outlined: the normalization of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia with the assistance of China has begun, Syria’s membership in the Arab League has been restored, and a dialogue between Damascus and Ankara is being established.

The task of any international mediation is not to interfere in these processes, not to turn the region into a platform for geopolitical struggle, but to create the most favourable external conditions for restoring trust between the countries located here.

This is what all Russian initiatives for a Middle East settlement are aimed at. After the acute phase of the current crisis, which should be facilitated by the UN Security Council’s joint call for a ceasefire, we propose to convene consultations at the ministerial level to consolidate the positions of key regional players and develop practical steps on their basis to facilitate the restoration of Palestinian unity.

At the next stage, the format of an international conference on the Middle East settlement will be in demand, as the representatives who spoke before me have said. Its goal is the proclamation of a Palestinian state, the development of measures to ensure the reliable security of Israel and the normalization of its relations with all Arab and Muslim countries in general. Russia came up with the idea of convening such a conference in this hall about 15 years ago. Hopefully this idea gets the attention it deserves.

The broader idea of creating a collective security system in the Persian Gulf and in the Middle East as a whole, which would consolidate trust, transparency and guarantees of equal security for all countries in the region, remains on the table. As you know, Russia has specific proposals in this regard, which we have been discussing with all interested countries for a long time. The above is our vision for moving forward. But first, I repeat, it is necessary to achieve an immediate ceasefire.

In conclusion, I would like to call on the members of the Security Council not to succumb to the exhortations of the United States that they allegedly have “everything under control” and that they are “resolving issues on the ground,” and not to postpone the creation of a Palestinian state until better times. It is important that the UN Security Council not only reaffirm that there is no alternative to the existing international legal framework on this most pressing issue, but also outline specific ways and deadlines for its implementation. These are not just obligations arising from UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, the Madrid Principles and other decisions. That is the moral imperative of the international community, and we call for it to be fulfilled.

Mr. Chairman,

Today, some delegations considered it possible to repeat the accusations against Russia in connection with the special military operation against the Nazi regime in Kiev with a memorized tongue twister. Colleagues, I leave these statements on your conscience, although I understand that she will endure a lot.

I would like to emphasise a fundamental point. We have no right to allow the UN decisions on the creation of a Palestinian state to be “buried”, as the 2015 Minsk Agreements, unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, were “buried”, the guarantors of which were France and Germany, which later admitted that they did not even think of implementing them. Such criminal acts against the Palestinian people must not be allowed to happen again.

The Romans sowed the ground with salt so it was untillable as the finishing touch on their genocidal methods and the Zionists have merely modernized the method. I say we put the Zionist settlers in Gaza and let the Palestinians have the rest of Palestine. The offensive against the Outlaw US Empire was well put as was the overall argument for immediate action on mandating a ceasefire. How much of Lavrov’s and other’s views get media exposure will be important, although we can assume very little will be aired or published within NATOstan. The accusations against US, UK, and France for gross violations of UNSC Resolutions were very strong and 100% correct, but those nations have no sense of honor or morality, so I expect a continuing blockade of the required action to send the conflict into a political phase. We’ll see what happens today.

❌