Archives for posts with tag: Putin

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you” -Chuck Schumer

Well, Schumer is likely correct in the preceding but there’s a very questionable follow-on…

“Whether you are a super liberal Democrat or a very conservative Republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community” -Chuck Schumer

I’m not aware Trump has called for ‘dismantling’ the intelligence community per se but it should be mentioned in the context of Schumer warning everyone ‘don’t go there’, there have been numerous, I would characterize as responsible, calls over the years to dismantle the operations sector of the CIA. But maybe Schumer’s protective scare-mongering over the matter of our notoriously corrupt intelligence agencies goes to a deeper matter; the matter of the most powerful intelligence agency operating in the USA is MOSSAD, an entity which has penetrated every aspect of American governance. And then recall we are dealing with Zionists, whether the hyper-conservative cult-Christians dealt with in Part 1 of this series or the ‘super liberal’ Chuck Schumer and his ilk. There is one public forum in this world and likely only one, where you would discover a man whose cult beliefs conflate Jesus’ teachings with Hitler’s behavior and expect that a good thing, that is Mike Pence, rubbing shoulders and sharing a podium with a super liberal Democrat along the lines of Chuck Schumer: that venue is AIPAC.  AIPAC is one of MOSSAD’s favorite playgrounds and it’s not the first time [1] Jewish Zionists have consorted with Nazis (important note: all Jews are not practicing Zionists, not by a long shot, just as a majority of Christians are not political Zionists, despite theological demand in certain sects of both religions that Zionism is paramount.)

Now, let’s look at a thumbnail sketch of past possibilities versus actual outcome and we can reasonably surmise which intelligence agency had come out on top (to now) in the most recent USA election cycle. To begin, we examine Bernie Sander’s role as ‘sheepdog’ [2].

“The sheepdog’s job is to divert the energy and enthusiasm of activists a year, a year and a half out from a November election away from building an alternative to the Democratic party, and into his doomed effort. When the sheepdog inevitably folds in the late spring or early summer before a November election, there’s no time remaining to win ballot access for alternative parties or candidates, no time to raise money or organize any effective challenge to the two capitalist parties.

“At that point, with all the alternatives foreclosed, the narrative shifts to the familiar “lesser of two evils.” Every sheepdog candidate surrenders the shreds of his credibility to the Democratic nominee in time for the November election. This is how the Bernie Sanders show ends, as the left-leaning warm-up act for Hillary Clinton” –Bruce Dixon, May 2015

Why the sheepdog in the larger, geopolitical picture? The only real threat to Israel’s miscreant behaviors lies outside of the normal body politic or, a third party success, with the American voter freed from the constraints of the Democrat-Republican ‘duopoly’ in the USA. The Democrats habit is the ‘sheepdog’, the Republican habit in the 2000s had been computerized vote fraud in the primaries, it is a known fact that’s how Ron Paul had been disposed of in most primaries over more than one election cycle and is how George W Bush was elected in 2000 (with a Supreme Court decision pushing him over the top) and reelected in 2004; but this would have been too obviously dangerous to attempt in 2008, 2012 & 2016 general elections and wasn’t applied in the 2016 primaries likely for the reason is this phenomena had become closely monitored by two many parties since the documentary Hacking Democracy [3]. Both of these methods, when putting evangelical Zionists into office as means to the stated end, that  is working towards implementing the Yinon Plan, would be supported by MOSSAD. It must have been a great temptation for a Pentagon that could not stomach Hillary in the 2016 cycle in a system where it is allies of the Department of Defense counts your vote [4].

“E-voting has obvious downsides—no ability to check recorded votes, no ability to perform meaningful recounts and susceptibility to electronic voting fraud. Nonetheless, the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates that by January 1 states submit plans to make the switch in time for the 2006 elections.

“More troubling, the backers of the act and the manufactures of e-voting machines are a rat’s nest of conflicts that includes Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and Accenture. Why are major defense contractors like Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin mucking about in the American electoral system? And who are Accenture and EDS?”

More likely than not, when computerized voter fraud is too dangerous to employ at the national (general) election level, it is nevertheless frequently employed at the state level with an eye to pushing the national agenda in certain direction [5].

Back to the ‘sheepdogging’ model: Sanders sandbagging the progressive electorate for the Democrats in 2016 is a particularly interesting case, relevant to today’s subject. There was a tremendous drive that was anti-Clinton in the liberal progressive movement organized behind Sanders. This unnerved the Clinton people within the DNC who began working to sabotage Sanders lest he morph from sheepdog to unintended nominee. This is when things get interesting with the DNC mails leak promoted in Western corporate media as a so-called ‘hack.’

No one has argued the released mails detailing the DNC plot to sabotage Sanders were not authentic. But rather than employ effort to call out and to disqualify Clinton, Sanders kept his head down, endorsed Hillary and effectively sent enough of his base off to elect Trump [6].

Sanders_vote - 1

Did Sander’s people challenge ‘the Russians did it’ propaganda line, demand the DNC servers be examined by forensic specialists and investigate Crowdstrike? No. They sat back and said nothing as the FBI folded the tent concerning the entire business of investigating the DNC (didn’t seize the server that was supposedly hacked) and what’s more is, Sanders has joined the chorus of ‘Putin is the 21st Century’s geopolitical Vlad the Impaler’ [7]. As well we have:

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (D.C.) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker told BuzzFeed in an email.

“According to one intelligence official who spoke to the publication, no U.S. intelligence agency has performed its own forensics analysis on the hacked servers.

“Instead, the official said, the bureau and other agencies have relied on analysis done by the third-party security firm CrowdStrike, which investigated the breach for the DNC. [8]

Looking a bit deeper, a very relevant question is posed:

“Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If it’s done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be investigated?” [9]

In actuality we know it was the assassinated Seth Rich took the DNC mails with a thumbdrive [10]. More than that, we know the DNC mails that had damaged Clinton together with Sanders sheepdog act were released by Wikileaks whose fingerprints are found all over [11] the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ that has thrown the Middle-east into turmoil, breaking up nations and generally following geopolitical footprints that point to a gradual implementation of the Yinon Plan for a ‘Greater Israel.’ In this midst of this, Bernie Sanders doesn’t want you to know that he was a big piece of the electoral puzzle that fell together in favor of Trump. Why? Why is ‘anti-war’ Sanders on ‘the Russians did it’ path (pointed towards war) when in fact there is entirely too much evidence to the contrary available to his people to credibly make that case, particularly in regards to the DNC mails? Why did Sanders deliberately fold his hand in favor of Trump? Meanwhile Sanders supports the absolutely corrupt script detailed in Part 2 of this series…

“Democrats should wait for special counsel Robert Mueller to complete his investigation against the president before seeking impeachment, Sanders said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He was referring to a Democrat-led resolution to impeach Trump that died on the House floor Friday.

“I think Mr. Mueller is doing a very good job on his investigation,” Sanders said. “If Mueller brings forth the clear evidence that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, I think you have grounds for impeachment” [12]

…even as Trump implores his treasonous Attorney General Jeff Sessions to do something…

““Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the “other side” including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr……” [13]

&

“Ex-NSA contractor to spend 63 months in jail over “classified” information. Gee, this is “small potatoes” compared to what Hillary Clinton did! So unfair Jeff, Double Standard” [14]

…that will not be done. Trump doesn’t get that Jeff Sessions is a Mike Pence fraternal brother (Coe cult radical Christian Zionist) ‘Never Trump’ personality who purposely allows this charade to go forward in a process supported by Sanders. At this point Trump is expendable to the Israelis, having moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and torn up the Iran agreement, all that is left to do is get an American war with Iran going, to push Netanyahu’s support for Yinon forward, and the chances of that go up with an American President in deep trouble. How odd it would seem to the uninitiated but clear eyed observer, were one to perceive Bernie Sanders ultimately responsible for a President in hard hitting war with Iran and ayatollahs showing no inclination whatsoever to ‘make a deal.’

“Oded Yinon … 1982 paper for Kivunim (Directions) entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”, is often used as a reference point for evidence of an Israeli aim to balkanise the surrounding Arab and Muslim world into ethnic and sectarian mini-states” [15]

It follows, Vladimir Putin, the man standing in the way of Syria’s breakup and working to keep the Iran agreement intact and avert a war, must be demonized to realize Bibi Netanyahu’s goals. In fact, Israel’s intelligence services focus has historically prioritized Russia, first, and the USA second [16]. Relevant to this, I had begun this series with an Alastair Crooke quote from his excellent essay ‘The Metaphysics of our Present Global Anguish’ where he details the failures of secularism resulting in pushing people away from enlightenment inspired thinking and towards renewed focus on national religion, national patriotism and national ethnic identity rooted in diverse ancient memories of origin, all things despised by neoliberal globalists. Here is a bit more complete quote:

“500 years ago, the Enlightenment crushed the brief impulse from the Ancient world in Europe, known as the Renaissance. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it is the world of today’s élites which is imploding. What had been imagined as defeated, beyond recovery, is cautiously arising out from our crumbled ruins. The wheel of time turns, and comes around, again. It may all fare badly – the mode of linear one-track thinking implanted in the West does have an inbuilt propensity towards totalitarianism. We shall see” –Alastair Crooke [17]

The paradox of Crooke’s essay in relation to this series is, at the heart of this circumstance, at this stage of the game it is difficult to distinguish between the neoliberal Zionist and the authentic Nazi; where on either party’s part the actual ‘identity’ is behind a mask. But if you were the MOSSAD people manipulating or instructing Bernie Sanders (not to speak of Jared Kushner!), the reader never guessing Sanders’ present program perfectly merges with the treason of faux followers of Jesus at the Pentagon, would be part and parcel of the intelligence agency plan.

*

A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

 

Narcissist & Goon

^ The Narcissist and the Goon ^

In the New York Times photo (August, 2008) you’re looking at two useful idiots. If everything Condoleezza touched, turned to shit, it is the criminal piece of shit on the right of the photo, represents closing out Condoleezza’s career with a classic, utter failure, typical of the Bush administration. Today, we’ll profile this idiot, a New York lawyer named ‘McHeil’ Saakashvili, for purpose of showing just how counter-intuitive it is, to shove purportedly high IQ type personalities, without an iota of decency or common sense, into positions of leadership.

Mikheil Saakashvili’s trajectory:

Attended Ukraine’s Kiev University Institute of International Relations towards the end of the Soviet era. Subsequently, Saakashvili was educated in the USA, on a Department of State sponsored fellowship (attended Columbia University law school as an Edmund S. Muskie Fellow) in the early 90s and then practiced commercial law at Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, in New York City. No doubt was recruited by the CIA during this period, concerning his next career move.

Returned to Georgia and was elected to parliament.

Came to power as President of Georgia through a CIA sponsored coup in 2003 (the Rose Revolution.)

Had been entirely outsmarted, in a geopolitical game of provocation-counter-provocation, as instigator-pawn in the hands of NATO, resulting in the Russia-Georgia war of 2008.

Prematurely initiated what would become a suicidal provocation of Russia, when ordering sniper and mortar attacks on South Ossetia on 1 August 2008, killing six people including a Russian peacekeeper, as NATO sponsored war games were wrapping up, with the USA military participating. The ‘Immediate Response 2008’ NATO war games including 1,000 U.S. troops had just ended and elements of US special forces (acting as CIA paramilitary) remained in Georgia. The Russians did not take the bait with an over-reaction, but simply continued preparations to counter what they saw coming.

Six days later, as the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games was underway in Beijing, where George W. Bush was sitting with then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Georgia launched an all-out assault on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, ostensibly to bring a nominally Georgian region, that is ‘lawless’ South Ossetia, under control of Georgian sovereignty. This is a region which had refused to align with Georgia with the breakup of the Soviet Union but attached itself to Russia instead.

President Medvedev ordered the Georgians militarily engaged, Russian forces promptly rolled over the Georgian offensive and by the time the war ends, five days later, much of Georgia has been occupied.

Condoleezza. She Makes Phone Calls.

On the USA side, it was Condoleezza Rice coordinating public relations with Saakashvili, finally managing to beg a ceasefire from the Russians, just prior to the very near, and complete, collapse of the Georgian military. Prior to capitulation, most of this western intelligence engineered media scrum refers to, or portrays, images of Condoleezza on the phone, like a maniacally barking Chihuahua, insisting on world condemnation of Russian aggression. The red bear yawns.

Meanwhile, the U.S. had provided military transport planes to bring 2,000 Georgian troops back from Iraq post-haste, for the fighting, too late, the USA trained, supported and advised Georgian military, replete with CIA paramilitary (USA special forces), had been humiliated.

The Georgia ambassador to the USA stated “No one predicted it would go this far”, giving up this had been a plan in collusion with the USA from the beginning. Five months later, the Bush administration ends and Rice leaves office with an absolutely failed legacy, from Afghanistan to Iraq, with Georgia the exclamation point.

One year later, in September 2009, a European Union investigation of the war came to conclusion there was no question whatsoever it was Georgia had initiated the major hostilities in South Ossetia (never mind Wikipedia reads like a peculiar personality at Stanford’s Hoover Institution dictated what amounts to a blatant, self-excusing revisionist history.)

Saakashvili remained the USA’s [now not very] useful idiot, as President of Georgia (accused of reelection electoral fraud), until forced out by term limits in 2013. Shortly after, he leaves Georgia, with the opposition in power, investigating Saakashvili’s abuse of office. Eventually a warrant is issued for Saakashvili’s arrest concerning:

1) shielding his interior ministry’s murder of Sandro Girgviliani;
2) embezzlement of funds from the State Protection Service for personal use, a total of 9 million Georgian lari (3.37 million US dollars);
3) complicity in the beating of Georgian MP Valery Gelashvili;
4) ordering the raid and seizure of Imedi TV, which had exposed and criticized the Saakashvili regime’s criminal behaviors

In 2014 Saakashvili is one of many CIA associated co-engineers of the Maidan coup in Ukraine, deeply invested in the sniper action, resulting in murders of nearly 100 police and protestors alike. In May of 2015 he is rewarded with the governorship of Odessa Oblast [a region] by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko (with a push from the USA.) Awarded a Ukrainian passport, Saakashvili’s citizenship is revoked, by Georgia, for taking Ukrainian citizenship.

Some might wonder how it could be a Georgian could leave his own country and be immediately appointed to high office in Ukraine (Governor of Odessa.) The short story is, this generation of politicians all held a common Soviet citizenship, prior to the 1990s, and there is not nearly the same sense of ‘foreign’ between the former Soviet states as one might typically experience in western countries. Saakashvili’s initial higher education had been at university in Kiev, Ukraine, as an ordinary citizen (not a foreign student) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR.)

Meanwhile, Saakashvili’s USA handlers actually expected him to clamp down on Ukraine’s runaway corruption and this idiot actually tried to do so (the corrupt attempting cleaning up the corrupt, geopolitics is rife with incompetent oxymoron) and alienated the Ukrainian administration across the board, up to and including, his candy oligarch mentor, Poroshenko. Saakashvili resigned before he could be fired by Poroshenko, in September 2016. Poroshenko then revoked Saakashvili’s citizenship while McHeil was abroad, effectively deporting him, rendering Saakashvili a stateless exile in Poland.

By this time, with 2017 approaching, the Ukraine conflict is simmering and not nearly ‘hot’ enough, to please the western intelligence agencies. Poroshenko, who gives lip service (political fellatio) to western intelligence agencies’ (read NATO) desire of cracking down on the Donbass ethnic Russian rebels, but only that, understands reigniting all out war will only result in his loss of control over (and administration’s looting of) whatever remains of Ukraine’s resources. What Poroshenko may not fully understand is, the NATO states’ intelligence agencies, having given up on stabilizing Ukraine as a NATO aligned state, are not only perfectly willing, but by this time probably determined, to altogether destroy Ukraine, if necessary, to provoke Putin.

Re-enters the picture, in 2017, the moron Saakashvili. Banned from entry to Ukraine, he ‘manifests’ (a paid) crowd and the border guards ‘fail’ (read were bribed) to prevent his entry. Repeat a near identical scene in Kiev, as though scripted; Poroshenko’s police break down his apartment door, McHeil Saakashvili retreats to the roof and shouts down to people in the street “I’m McHeil Saakashvili, save me from the candy oligarch’s police!” As if the average Ukrainian would care, Saakashvili’s polling popularity registers at 2%. But like magic, a (hired) crowd manifests to intercept the police van taking him in. National guard troops sent to secure the van (read were bribed) ‘fail’ to stop the crowd setting McHeil free. At last glimpse (prior to posting this), McHeil is living in a tent pitched in front of Ukraine’s parliament, untouched (read the candyman’s security apparatus is bought off.) All of this will have cost NATO intelligence (read CIA, MI6 & Germany’s BND, primarily) what amounts to pennies in a Ukraine where people are near to subsisting on the air one can breathe, since neo-nazis were put into power by the same.

Message to the candy oligarch Poroshenko? ‘We own you, so start playing ball, and raise the violence levels in Donbass, so we can point the finger at Putin, or else you’ll get what’s coming to you.’

McHeil Saakashvili’s future? Well, this prognosis is quite interesting. My best educated guess would be, based on decades observation and study, is McHeil is being  set up for assassination, to be blamed on either Poroshenko (to push him out) or more likely, Putin. This useful idiot, Saakashvili, with his history of failures, is to be sacrificed for cynical but practical reasons. Number one, he’s a persistent failure. Number two, he is a recent embarrassment, not so much for his flamboyancy, but because he has been compromised and dead men don’t talk. The propaganda methodology is straightforward; in the case of blaming Putin, motive will be ascribed to revenge linked to the 2008 war. Saaskashvili is probably not aware…

…investigative reporting has very recently interviewed 3 Georgian snipers who were part of initiating the Maiden massacre (80 dead) and these snipers have not only been tied directly to Saakashvili’s connections in the Georgian security services, but have admitted as much. If Saakashvilli knew this, there is no way he’d be camped on a public square in Kiev. Unlike the related Odessa massacre documentary, which had been almost immediately banned (by the CIA’s friends) at youtube, this documentary has been allowed to remain up. The ‘right’ people in Ukraine will eventually stumble across it.

The preferred outcome of the western intelligence agencies would be a Ukrainian opposed to the 2014 ‘color revolution’ (coup) will take their chance (while feeling very justified, in the absence of legitimate institutions) to deliver vigilante justice and take Saakashvili out (to be blamed on Putin in western press.) If this doesn’t work out, a ‘patsy’ will be employed to same effect. If the candy oligarch has half a brain, he’ll find a way to arrest McHeil and hand him to Georgia. Meanwhile, in present circumstance, McHeil Saakashvili is a dead man walking.

9 December 2017 update: Saakashvili was finally arrested last night and brought into pre-trial detention center. Now, the candy oligarch still has a dilemma. If he hands Saaksashvili to Georgia, does the Saakashvilli complicity in the 2014 Ukraine coup, that is providing snipers, see more light of day, exposing the current Ukrainian regime? Moreover, if candy-man keeps McHeil in a Kiev dungeon and there were to be another ‘regime change’ with McHeil once again free, he no doubt ‘knows too much’ about candy-man’s corruption. On the other hand, if the candy oligarch does keep Saakashvili in a Ukrainian prison, to keep the idiot’s mouth shut, and McHeil somehow dies in custody, that looks bad too.

Maybe Poroshenko should ask Putin what to do (laughs.)

12 December 2017 update: Yesterday the court freed McHeil, opening the dunce to  assassination, certainly the CIA’s preferred outcome, anything but extradited to Georgia where he might ‘sing’ or be faced with credible witnesses and evidence of his political crimes, not only corruption. The prosecutor appeals but in a totally corrupt Ukraine, it is clear who holds the upper hand and it isn’t Poroshenko. Oligarch Gas Princess (CIA Orange Revolution asset) Tymoshenko embraces McHeil like a Black Widow spider, oh yeah, that’s auspicious. Break a leg, as the thespians say…

*

Note on the preceding: Condoleezza Rice has been floated within the Trump administration as a possible ‘special envoy’ tasked to ‘stabilize’ the Balkans, only going to emphasize the willingness of Trump to employ a previously proven ‘reverse Midas touch’ will see his administration surpass all the years of near total idiocy of the consummate moron ‘dubya.’ The ‘other’ side of that coin is, insofar as useful idiots, Condoleezza’s incompetence has been responsible for generating conflict enriching the arms dealers in multiple hundreds of billions. A useful idiot, indeed.

Observation: ‘Dr’ Rice, as well the highly educated Mikheil Saakashvili, only go to prove ‘education’ is not a defining point of good leadership; ethics and common sense are the by far better qualifications. We are, sadly, lacking these latter two qualifications, perhaps altogether, in the western democracies present leaders. It has been said ‘cream rises to the top.’  Surely it does, but as a metaphor, only in a sanitary environment in institutions of government. Much more true in present circumstance is ‘flotsam rises to the top of the sewage pond.’

S1

cosmology is the conspiracy

Recent evidence points to serious infighting within the national security apparatus of the United States. Yet, observers as astute as William Engdahl appear to believe Trump’s ascendance is a rather perfectly stage-managed event by the American oligarchs. While I often agree with Engdahl, where I disagree presently is his ‘plan b’ idea that industrialist oligarchs put up Trump as their candidate. My take is, we’re looking at competing cliques in the ‘national security’ establishment between Clinton aligned (Brennan-Obama- CIA-Brzezinski neoliberal led) and Trump aligned (Pentagon-Christian Zionist-Israeli-Kissinger neoconservative led) camps. The American oligarchs will profit in any case but they do not necessarily control how events unfold. Also I expect Engdahl’s predicting four years minimum to a third war between the world powers is easily in error. This could happen much sooner; as once an unforeseen event sets a larger chain of events in motion, history instructs us there is no recovery of equilibrium before that chain of events have played out.

Ron’s Conspiracy Theory

It would appear quite possible that groups of people create collective realities seeming unconsciously, and cause via their collective belief, events to take on what would appear to be an ‘unconscious’ but in reality is a ‘super-conscious’ intelligence that is organized, functions as though it were managed by individuals (even when it is not) and the result is, we can read into those events as though they were managed in a sense they actually are not.

This collective ‘meme’ can explain what is called in the biblical sense ‘principalities of darkness’ or that is to say a ‘spirit of evil’ managing events in a sense of both conspiracy and superstition.

There is quite a bit of ‘coincidental incidence’ in our world indicating peoples of the western culture are creating reality quite independent of self-aware thought and, to a rational observer, it could seem almost certainly by design when in fact this is not necessarily the case. Such would explain a belief in Illuminati when in fact it did not exist in any individual self conscious or ego-aware organized form but nevertheless manifest as an observable phenomena of symptoms or consequence derived from a collective super-conscious phenomenon.

A conclusion could  be there is a ‘super awareness’ of the group causes what appear ingenious evils of conspiracy when in fact there is no one individual or group of managers within the group capable of implementing these designs which, nonetheless in actuality, are perceived. To accomplish reality of evil would only require evil ideas as cultural drivers; example given Original Sin and the devastation visited upon our world’s women, the greatest and ongoing holocaust among holocausts.

The natural progression to end result would be, when a large portion of an aggressive society collectively believes in Armageddon as an archetype, all of the necessary players will naturally manifest in a super-conscious organized format empowered to bring it off, where no one individual or group of individuals or players could effect this by individual or personal volition; nevertheless the super-consciousness of the event’s initiating group insures creation of this reality for the collective whole.

Have you looked at the apocalyptic ‘good versus evil’ fables driving our world’s several fundamentalist religions’ reality recently? If cosmology is the effective driver of what appears to be pointed to inevitable catastrophic outcome, better to change fables, you think? Now, just how do you suppose this could be accomplished? As things stand,  we’re all little more than an extinction event waiting to happen. All of us.

Projection: Putin will feign hypnosis for the old snake-charmer Kissinger and take whatever he is able; to relieve the neoliberal initiated NATO build-up on Russia’s European borders. At the end of the day, however, Russia will not abandon Iran or be split from China. Neoconservative myopia will determine a failed attempt at back-stabbing the Russians; as this decrepit game is far too old and well understood to be effected with any competence. Meanwhile, the Russian propaganda apparatus is already sucking in the pundits with ‘this is good for Moscow’ relating to Kissinger taking the stage in what must be that career geopolitical criminal’s final and failed act. How the West’s narcissist neoconservative reptiles will (with immense stupidity) react in the face of failure will, more likely than not, determine when (not if) the third war between world powers initiates –

*

Business Insider parrots Associated Press who parrots NBC:

The NBC report said that the evidence is “nearly incontrovertible””

putin_ap_nbc_hack_lie_-jpg-1

Further it had been asserted:

“that the intelligence comes from “diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies.” It didn’t identify the countries involved or how they might have such sensitive information from Putin’s inner sanctum”

And those third party spies would be from NATO’s three Chihuahuas? The CIA’s favorite Kiev Nazis? Any nation with leadership subject to CIA blackmail or Russophobe (Poland would be a suspect) intelligence service willing to launder faked intelligence for the CIA? That would be the most likely source of CIA ‘intelligence’ reporting ‘hacked information’ attributed to Putin that most likely was leaked (and almost certainly wasn’t hacked.) So, the CIA has handed the very, very lame (but still dangerous) duck Obama ‘nearly incontrovertible’ evidence … ‘nearly’ meaning in Orwellian dialect the ‘classified’ evidence Putin hacked (the already leaked information) can be refuted, but shouldn’t be, because the CIA says it’s so:

“Professional standards require intelligence professionals to lie, hide information, or use covert tactics to protect their “cover,” access, sources, and responsibilities. The Central Intelligence Agency expects, teaches, encourages, and controls these tactics so that the lies are consistent and supported (“backstopped”). The CIA expects intelligence officers to teach others to lie, deceive, steal, launder money, and perform a variety of other activities that would certainly be illegal if practiced in the United States. They call these tactics “tradecraft,” and intelligence officers practice them in all the world’s intelligence services” -Hulnick & Mattausch, “Ethics and Morality in U.S. Secret Intelligence”

Skills employed in the CIA’s relationships with journalists, do you suppose?

forked tongue professionals

“…the [Central Intelligence] Agency has a whole stable of writers, its favorite magazines and newspapers, its publishing houses, and its “backgrounders” ready to go at all times” – former Pentagon liaison to the CIA Colonel L Fletcher Prouty

Let’s jump back 3 years and look at case where the professional media whores servicing the CIA were actually busted in their lies but this was (why shouldn’t you be surprised) never reported by those same media street-walkers covering the beat. Remember Obama accusing Assad of gassing his own people with sarin nerve agent at Ghouta, Syria, in 2013?

“We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out” -Barack Obama

obama_sarin-jpg-1

“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media” — former CIA Director William Colby

Yeah, that plays, CNN doesn’t have to worry it will be called out on repeating Obama’s lie to PBS because The New Yorker dropped Seymour Hersh who had to move to the (unknown to Americans) London Review of Books to accomplish reporting:

“…more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with what local police told the press were two kilograms of sarin. In a 130-page indictment the group was accused of attempting to purchase fuses, piping for the construction of mortars, and chemical precursors for sarin…”

hersh_lrb-jpg-1

And we certainly don’t have to worry about NATO member Turkey letting the cat out of the bag it was a NATO nation’s intelligence agency facilitated the sarin attack blamed on Assad because our ally in the ‘war on terror’ shut down the newspaper that dared report the facts:

“Wiretapped phone conversations reveal the process of procuring the gas at specific addresses as well as the process of procuring the rockets that would fire the capsules containing the toxic gas. However, despite such solid evidence there has been no arrest in the case. Thirteen individuals were arrested during the first stage of the investigation but were later released, refuting government claims that it is fighting terrorism”

Zaman_attack.jpg - 1

Where is the western media on this story? Where is ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post and ‘friends’? Oh, that’s right, they get the facts exactly backwards because:

“You could get a [Washington Post] journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” -CIA operative cited in “Katherine The Great” by Deborah Davis

It took a Washington Post blacklisted ‘fake news’ website to blow this next whistle on the CIA:

“Dr. Ulfkotte says the corruption of journalists and major news outlets by the CIA is routine, accepted, and widespread in the western media, and that journalists who do not comply either cannot get jobs at any news organization, or find their careers cut short”

cia_german_press-jpg-1

“There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level.” -William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer

Yeah, and it would seem at the LA Times too:

“Email exchanges between Ken Dilanian and public relations officers at the agency were discovered after the Intercept sent a FOIA request to the CIA over its relationship with reporters. In many of the emails, Dilanian promised to provide the agency with positive coverage, often going so far as to change entire drafts of articles based on the CIA’s replies”

cia_vetted-jpg-1

“During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report”

“Contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services”

“The Agency’s relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy … to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.”

Preceding quotes from ‘CIA and the Media’ by Carl Bernstein. What has changed? Nothing, when it requires a CIA veteran, Melvin Goodman, to blow the whistle on the Washington Post performing fellatio on the CIA at (SURPRISE!) a Washington Post blacklisted ‘fake news’ site:

“David Ignatius, The Washington Post’s self-appointed apologist for the Central Intelligence Agency, has struck again. Last year, Ignatius argued that it was “just plain nuts” to investigate the CIA’s assassination program because “nobody had been killed”

goodman_ignatius-jpg-1

“Propaganda experts in the CIA station in Kinshasa busily planted articles in the Kinshasa newspapers, Elimo and Salongo. These were recopied into agency cables and sent on to European, Asian, and South American stations, where they were secretly passed to recruited journalists representing major news services who saw to it that many were replayed in the world press. Similarly, the Lusaka station placed a steady flow of stories in Zambian newspapers and then relayed them to major European newspapers

“During a staff meeting I voiced my concern to —-, were we on safe ground, paying agents to propagandize the New York press? The agency had recently been warned against running operations inside the United States and propagandizing the American public. —- seemed unconcerned. We were safe enough, he said, as long as we could plausibly claim that our intent was to propagandize foreigners at the United Nations

“The task force worked out the details by cabling New York, Lusaka, Kinshasa, and key European stations. Each delegation opened a bank account in Europe to which European-based CIA finance officers could make regular deposits. Thereafter the CIA could plausibly deny that it had funded anyone’s propagandists in the United States. It would be extremely difficult for any investigators to prove differently

“Director Colby testified before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, saying: “We have taken particular caution to ensure that our operations are focused abroad and not at the United States to influence the opinion of the American people about things from the CIA point of view.” A remarkable statement in view of what we had been doing in the task force (footnoted: Director Colby received copies of all [relevant] cables and memoranda.)”

Preceding quotes from ‘In Search of Enemies‘ by dissident CIA officer John Stockton

back to the Russian ‘hack’ bs

As is typical with CIA propaganda on hot button issues, and it is more than likely tasked idiots at Langley are in frenetic meetings, there are multiple stories that seem to be made up on the go:

“The gist of the Case Against Russia goes like this: The person or people who infiltrated the DNC’s email system and the account of John Podesta left behind clues of varying technical specificity indicating they have some connection to Russia, or at least speak Russian. Guccifer 2.0, the entity that originally distributed hacked materials from the Democratic party, is a deeply suspicious figure who has made statements and decisions that indicate some Russian connection. The website DCLeaks, which began publishing a great number of DNC emails, has some apparent ties to Guccifer and possibly Russia. And then there’s WikiLeaks, which after a long, sad slide into paranoia, conspiracy theorizing, and general internet toxicity has made no attempt to mask its affection for Vladimir Putin and its crazed contempt for Hillary Clinton. (Julian Assange has been stuck indoors for a very, very long time.) If you look at all of this and sort of squint, it looks quite strong indeed, an insurmountable heap of circumstantial evidence too great in volume to dismiss as just circumstantial or mere coincidence”

russia_hack_bs-jpg-1

Pretending for a moment there had been a hack, and assuming a Russian speaker involved, if this were not a false lead planted by a hacker, a Russian speaker pointing to Russia as ‘nearly incontrovertible’ evidence is ludicrous. 30% of Ukraine’s population speaks Russian as their 1st language, most of the rest speak Russian as their 2nd language. Over 30% of Latvians speak Russian at home. Russian is spoken by significant portions of the populace throughout the central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Russian is the 1st language of 70% of Belarus’ populace. Millions speak Russian exterior to Russia. What a piece of crap for evidence. Any intelligence agency in the world could be behind the purported hack (if there had been a hack), particularly Poland, Latvia and Ukraine, with an ax to grind for Putin. And if it had been Russian intelligence directing a hack, they’d certainly not have been so sloppy.

What’s more is, if the CIA hasn’t cleaned up its act since CIA officer John Stockwell had penned his exposé ‘In Search of Enemies’, and certainly the CIA has not, it could as easily be the CIA itself had manufactured and laundered ‘evidence’ (provided in closed meetings to congressmen) of a so-called ‘hack’ through a third party for purposes of information operation aimed at a clique in the USA national security apparatus they’re contesting. This could be a Clinton aligned CIA going after Trump aligned national security professionals. In my estimation, the greatest likelihood is, we’re seeing an inside turf war play out in ‘mainstream’ media the CIA has/had a relationship with for a very long time:

“PAO (Public Affairs Office) now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn some “intelligence failure” stories into “intelligence success” stories, and it has contributed to the accuracy [canned laugh here] of countless others. In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods” -Robert Gates, CIA internal memo (1991)

finally

“Currently, the Post’s coverage of the CIA does not disclose that the newspaper’s sole owner is the main owner of CIA business partner Amazon”

wapo_cia-jpg-1

Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $300 million. Bezos is also majority owner of amazon, which holds a $600 million contract with the CIA. Which do you suppose is the better business move for billionaire Bezos? Calling out the CIA on its malfeasance? Or taking CIA scripts for Washington Post reporting?

Disclaimer: This article should not be construed to attribute to the author a preference of Trump over Clinton. In my estimation, both camps are equal opportunist criminals.

*

Boris_Nemtsov

Vainglorious and very dead

On Boris Nemtsov’s murder, The Saker appears to have nailed it:

“The bottom line is that in Russia this false flag is already a clear failure, not even the notorious Russian “liberal” or “democratic” “non-system” opposition wants to touch this thing”

The hit would be laundered no matter who was behind it. This almost certainly is not Putin’s people, even if they were so inclined, a murder is counter-productive precisely for reasons of opponents propaganda opportunities. If they viewed Nemtsov as a threat, they’d find some dirt on him related to his Yeltsen era activities and send him to jail. What the broader public fails to understand is, and this could include people like Nemtsov who might have actually have believed the USA was his friend, the cynicism behind the western intelligence agencies political murders is nearly beyond an ordinary mortal’s grasp.

I’ll use the example of a so-called ‘contra’ during the anti-Sandinista movement in Nicaragua’s upheaval. On the Costa Rica border there was a group led by a former Sandinista who was problematic for the CIA, Eden Pastora, and they tried to kill him with bomb blamed on Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas in Managua. They wanted him out of the way because he could not be manipulated by the Americans. There could be a parallel drawn with the Russian opposition.

Here’s how the game is played: In the cold calculation of who might be ‘chosen’ or ‘disposed of’ in any projection towards an end game, there will be profiles created on the opposition. Anyone who profiles as unfavorable to the larger agenda, for instance a high profile but marginal personality like Nemtsov, who has little chance of success, and anyone not prone to manipulation, would be considered more useful dead to the western democracies intelligence agencies agenda with blame pinned on, in this case, Putin.

But it will be hard to trace the actual perpetrators on account of intelligence agency model of laundering political killings. For instance the Israelis in the past have hired PLO teams to make hits on targets tangential or unrelated to the Palestinian conflict; this is accomplished, example given, by Mossad posing as mafia proposing a very hefty hit fee, a business contract groups like Adu Nidal would not turn down from the (masked) Israelis simply for reasons of economics. This is likely why Swedish prime minister Olaf Palme’s assassination has never been solved.

Related to this, former Israeli intelligence operative Ari Ben-Menache’s 25 year old work, The Profits of War, is highly relevant to this day:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/02/24/profits-of-war/

As counter-intuitive as it might seem, the higher profile Russian opposition figures should consider asking Putin’s people to provide their security.

Putin_Valdai_club

 

If I disagree with Putin, let’s make up an arbitrary number of 20% of the time, I can as easily say I disagree with the USA and allied Western democracies’ polices 80% of the time. My disagreements with Putin are largely philosophical. My disagreements with the USA are largely practical, or with practical crooks and practical liars.

How would I disagree with Putin? His embrace of the Christian patriarch at Moscow and by inference embrace of a failed philosophy of nearly two millennia aggression, deceit and the ‘forgiveness’ excusing one’s ‘sins’ with a legacy of empire. Restated, a philosophy of excused from responsibility for one’s actions (a common thread in all Christian nations of Europe and its world-wide legacy), cannot have a happy ending; a day will come when a future Russian leader is not so rational as Putin.

As well, Putin’s related embrace of the current economic model of sustained development (born out of Christian civilization) exploiting natural resources to grow one’s own national and world economy, human behavior pointing us to environmental collapse. Any truly great leader of this age will point their nation to alternative culture and model.

One the other hand, when compared to the USA particularly (and Western democracies generally) so-called ‘Christian’ sociopaths who would rule the world, Putin, who demonstrates old fashioned principles and related self-discipline, stands head and shoulders above the lot. The Western democracies plunder of the world’s resources for sake of instant gratification profiting a comparatively few the 21st century Western empire serves, stands in stark contrast to Putin having clawed Russia back from the oligarchs of the Yeltsen era and seeking to find some semblance of sanity taking Russia forward.

It follows, Putin’s Speech to the Valdai International Discussion Club’s eleventh session at Sochi on 24 October 2014, is well worth a read:

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organizers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organizations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

An organization and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.

 We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.


Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organizations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition. 

Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilize. That is what a real mobilization policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalization based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalization. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalization are visible now in many countries. 

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.


Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.


At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.

So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.


Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defense system.

Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favor of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘color revolutions’ to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?

What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a “greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalization of such new poles, creating powerful regional organizations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centers and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilized way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘color revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organization rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasize this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.

We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Putin’s speech originally posted at the blog site ‘Club Orlov

Ukraine for Dummies

When it comes to Ukraine, you can listen (sub-titled) right here:

One would presume Putin’s close advisers have access to Russian intelligence, and Sergei’s assessment lines up very well with this sites open source analysis:

Ukraine for Dummies

Deep State IV (related)

%d bloggers like this: