Fri 15 Jun 2012
Summary: Vladimir Putin is back as chief of the Kremlin - with an increasing street-opposision. He tries to hide his true identity, but observers are in no doubt that Putin has big ambitions: He wants to be not only the leader of Russia - but to leave behind him a clear footprint in history: He wants a new world order based on Eurasia - his kingdom, from Lisbon to Vladivostok - allied with China with the world in peace as in the Soviet Union. This is precisely the Eurasia crux, where Putin clashes with the United States and NATO trying to effect Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard strategy to contain Russia, so that this multi-ethnic empire falls apart. Putin steps in Bismarck’s authoritarian footprints - is not just national, however - but a national globalist! Putin is thus the Hegelian antithesis of USA’s New World Order. It seems that Putin with the Khodorkovsky case antagonizes Rothschild’s London City and perhaps it is therefore the Rothschild agent George Soros, along with the U.S. Congress, is behind the White Revolution against Putin.
Many believe Putin is an idealist. One should not be deceived, however: He is a dangerous and ambitious dictator type.
In addition to allegations of electoral fraud, Pres. Putin has a watch collection, which is 6 times as valuable as his annual salary. The opposition is not in doubt: corruption.
In order that the world should not be in doubt, Putin has just held an inaugural speech that lays open his program. In it he talks like an idealist - but clearly draws hostility to the United States and NATO. The establishment of a NATO missile defense at Russia´s borders and further penetration into the territory of the former Soviet Union are stated to be the turning point of East-West relations. After that, Putin sees the West as an enemy.
Mr. Putin definitely opposes the spread of the U.S. / NATO New World Order through local wars and calls this expansion very dangerous. The “right to protect,” he called demagoguery by its trampling on human rights.
The Arab Spring is called interference from abroad to replace one dominant force by another, more aggressive dominant force.
No one should be allowed to repeat the Libyan scenario in Syria. Putin has no solution to the Syrian crisis - requires only reconciliation through negotiations - the same recipe applies to Iran. In this context, it annoys Mr. Putin that the trade agreements Russia previously had with concerned countries - now go to the engaging Western countries (Libya, for example).
Soft power is all too often used to develop extremist, separatist and nationalist attitudes and to provoke in order to manipulate the public. The (western) activities of pseudo-NGOs’ and other agencies who are trying to destabilize other countries, with support from the outside, is unacceptable (forinstance, the Russian White Revolution against Putin).
Illegal drug trafficking is undermining the genetic bank of nations, while creating a breeding ground for corruption and crime and leading to the destabilization of Afghanistan. Far from decreasing, the production of drugs from Afghanistan increased to nearly 40% last year. Russia is exposed to a vicious circle of heroin-related aggression causing enormous damage to the health of Russians.
“Beijing shares our vision of developing an equitable world order” and Putin wants transition from a unipolar world to a more equitable world order – wanting to cooperate on that with the BRICS countries. He believes in the G-20 for the long-term reform of the global economy and finances.
Putin is dissatisfied with the way human rights are being handled globally. “First, the U.S. and other Western countries dominate and politicize the human rights agenda and then use it as a means to exert pressure. At the same time, they are very sensitive and even intolerant to criticism.”
Russia intends to continue its security and to protect its national interests to promote.
The Cold War seems to have returned. According to recent news, Putin is preparing a Russian intervention in Syria against NATO´s mercenary rebels.
Mr Putin desires to reassert his status as a major world player. As Mr Putin’s promise to boycott this summer’s London Olympics suggests, the Russian president seems determined to revive the mood of anti-Western antagonism that pervaded the Kremlin during his previous spell in office. His decision to form an alliance with the Chinese this week to block any attempt by the UN to halt the bloodshed in Syria was not motivated out of any residual affection for the Assad clan. It was a brazen attempt to frustrate the efforts of the Western powers. So far as Mr Putin is concerned, any policy the West wants to pursue will inevitably attract Moscow’s opposition (The Telegraph 7 June 2012).
But what is going on in this silent power broker, Putin? The following excerpt of speech by Putin is a rare insight into Putin´s soul.
Documentation of Summary
Moscow Times 11 June 2012: Investigators seized computers, anti-Kremlin materials and at least 1 million euros worth of cash stuffed in dozens of envelopes during raids of apartments belonging to four leading opposition activists on the eve of a mass anti-Kremlin demonstration.
The four opposition leaders — Alexei Navalny, Sergei Udaltsov, Ilya Yashin and Ksenia Sobchak — were ordered to appear for questioning on Tuesday an hour before protesters are scheduled to begin gathering on Pushkin Square. The developments came after President Vladimir Putin signed on Friday a law that drastically raises fines on illegal protests and seemed to show an increasing urgency on the part of the government to defang the opposition. Family members and associates appeared to be fair game.
The Guardian 12 June 2012: “Those in power should feel this pressure. We will protest by any means, whether peacefully or not,” said Anton Maryasov, a 25-year-old postgraduate student. “If they ignore us, that would mean that bloodshed is inevitable.”
The top Twitter hashtag in Russia on Monday was “Welcome to the Year ‘37,” a reference to the height of the purges under Stalin.
I have previously described Russian president, Vladimir Putin, as an authoritarian leader following the footprints of Otto von Bismarck – in a deadly rivalry with the US in a bid for world domination. These 2 powers are doomed to be be enemies. This is laid down in Zbigniew Brzezinski´s plan to encircle and split Russia in his Grand Chessboard strategy. Now the Rothschild agent, George Soros´ and US Government´s NGOs´ white revolution is challenging Russia in Russia.
Vladimir Putins very expensive hobby: Corruption?
The Daily Mail 9 June 2012 Russian president Vladimir Putin has a collection of timepieces worth almost six times his official annual salary of £72,000.
One of the watches - made from platinum with a crocodile skin strap - sells for more than £300,000 alone.The revelation has raised questions about how the Russian president can afford such a lavish collection. The video, titled ‘Watches of a Kleptocrat’ (thievous ruler) shows Mr Putin saying he would continue with his battle against corruption in a video from 2007. The video was produced by a Russian opposition group
Vladimir Putins program and world view as Russian president
Valdai 27 Febr. 2012: We will strive to ensure a new world order, one that develops smoothly and without unnecessary upheaval.
We hope that our openness will lead to economic and cultural development in Russia while increasing levels of mutual trust, a resource that is in increasingly short supply today.
As before, I believe that the major principles necessary for any feasible civilization include inalienable right to security for all states, the inadmissability of the excessive use of force, and the unconditional observance of the basic principles of international law.
It is through this prism that we perceive some aspects of U.S. and NATO conduct that contradict the logic of modern development, relying instead on the stereotypes of a bloc-based mentality. Everyone understands what I am referring to - an expansion of NATO that includes the deployment of new military infrastructure with U.S.-drafted plans to establish a missile defense system in Europe. I would not touch on this issue if these plans were not conducted in close proximity to Russian borders, if they did not undermine our security and global stability in general. We are worried that …the alliance is already providing us with “facts on the ground”. At the same time, this approach will backfire with respect to global objectives. The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely invulnerable. By definition, absolute invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability for all others. This is something that cannot be accepted. If we had managed to achieve a breakthrough on missile defense, this would have opened the floodgates for building a qualitatively new model of cooperation, similar to an alliance, in many other sensitive areas.
The recent series of armed conflicts started under the pretext of humanitarian aims is …creating a moral and legal void in the practice of international relations. It is often said that human rights override state sovereignty. This is undoubtedly true - crimes against humanity must be punished by the International Court. However, when state sovereignty is too easily violated in the name of this provision, when human rights are protected from abroad and when the same rights of a population are trampled underfoot in the process of such “protection,” including the most basic and sacred right - the right to one’s life - these actions cannot be considered a noble mission but rather outright demagogy.
It is important for the United Nations and its Security Council to effectively counter the dictates of some countries and their arbitrary actions in the world arena. Nobody has the right to usurp the prerogatives and powers of the UN, particularly the use of force with regard to sovereign nations. This concerns NATO. These points are very serious. We recall how states that have fallen victim to “humanitarian” operations.
The Arab Spring: lessons and conclusions
It soon became clear that events in many countries were not following a civilized scenario. Instead of asserting democracy and protecting the rights of the minority, attempts were being made to depose an enemy and to stage a coup, which only resulted in the replacement of one dominant force with another even more aggressive dominant force.
No one should be allowed to employ the Libyan scenario in Syria. The international community must work to achieve an internal Syrian reconciliation. I would like to warn our Western colleagues against the temptation to resort to this simple, previously used tactic: if the UN Security Council approves of a given action, fine; if not, we will establish a coalition of the states concerned and strike anyway. The logic of such conduct is counterproductive and very dangerous.
And one more point. It appears that with the Arab Spring countries, as with Iraq, Russian companies are losing their decades-long positions in local commercial markets and are being deprived of large commercial contracts. The niches thus vacated are being filled by the economic operatives of the states that had a hand in the change of the ruling regime.
One could reasonably conclude that tragic events have been encouraged to a certain extent by someone’s interest in a re-division of the commercial market rather than a concern for human rights.
We intend to work with the new governments of the Arab countries in order to promptly restore our economic positions. Generally, the current developments in the Arab world ….can produce forces that rise from the bottom, including religious extremists, who will strive to change the very direction of a country’s development and the secular nature of a government.
Russia has always had good relations with the moderate representatives of Islam, whose world outlook was close to the traditions of Muslims in Russia. Moreover, I see real possibilities that will enable Russia to fully preserve its leading position in the Middle East, where we have always had many friends.
The notion of “soft power” is being used increasingly often. Regrettably, these methods are being used all too frequently to develop and provoke extremist, separatist and nationalistic attitudes, to manipulate the public and to conduct direct interference in the domestic policy of sovereign countries.
The civilized work of non-governmental humanitarian and charity organizations deserves every support. This also applies to those who actively criticize the current authorities. However, the activities of “pseudo-NGOs” and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.
I’m referring to those cases where the activities of NGOs are not based on the interests (and resources) of local social groups but are funded and supported by outside forces. However, Russia does not use or fund national NGOs based in other countries. We believe that any influence on domestic policy and public attitude in other countries must be exerted in the open.
Today, Iran is the focus of international attention. Needless to say, Russia is worried about the growing threat of a military strike against Iran. If this happens, the consequences will be disastrous. It is impossible to imagine the true scope of this turn of events.
I am convinced that this issue must be settled exclusively by peaceful means. We propose recognizing Iran’s right to develop a civilian nuclear program, including the right to enrich uranium. But this must be done in exchange for putting all Iranian nuclear activity under reliable and comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Russia has obvious interests in Afghanistan and these interests are understandable. Illegal drug trafficking undermines the genetic bank of entire nations, while creating fertile soil for corruption and crime and is leading to the destabilization of Afghanistan. Far from declining, the production of Afghan drugs increased by almost 40% last year. Russia is being subjected to vicious heroin-related aggression that is doing tremendous damage to the health of our people.
Left: King Abdulla of Jordan shows an understanding Putin the Illuminati Lucifer sign.
Beijing shares our vision of the emerging equitable world order. We will continue to support each other in the international arena. We have settled all the major political issues in our relations with China, including the critical border issue. This enables us and the Chinese to act in the spirit of genuine partnership. We will continue to prioritize our cooperation with our BRICS partners. That unique structure, created in 2006, is a striking symbol of the transition from a unipolar world to a more just world order.
I believe that the G20 association will soon become a strategically important tool not only for responding to crises, but for the long-term reform of the world’s financial and economic architecture.
Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as Europeans. We are by no means indifferent to developments in united Europe. That is why Russia proposes moving toward the creation of a common economic and human space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean - a community referred by Russian experts to as “the Union of Europe,” which will strengthen Russia’s potential and position in its economic pivot toward the “new Asia.”
Russia is actively participating in the international effort to support the ailing European economies, and is consistently working with its partners to formulate collective decisions under the auspices of the IMF. Russia is not opposed in principle to direct financial assistance in some cases. We have a stake in ensuring a strong EU, as envisioned by Germany and France.
The abolition of visas would give powerful impetus to real integration between Russia and the EU. The threat to Europeans from Russian economic migrants is largely imagined.
In recent years a good deal has been done to develop Russian-American relations. Even so, we have not managed to fundamentally change the matrix of our relations, which continue to ebb and flow. Nor is mutual understanding strengthened by regular U.S. attempts to engage in “political engineering,” including in regions that are traditionally important to us and during Russian elections.
On the whole, we are dissatisfied with how the issue of human rights is handled globally. First, the United States and other Western states dominate and politicize the human rights agenda, using it as a means to exert pressure. At the same time, they are very sensitive and even intolerant to criticism. Second, the objects of human rights monitoring are chosen regardless of objective criteria but at the discretion of the states that have “privatized” the human rights agenda.
When we are given constructive criticism, we welcome it and are ready to learn from it. But when we are subjected, again and again, to blanket criticisms in a persistent effort to influence our citizens it becomes clear that these attacks are not rooted in moral and democratic values.
Nobody should possess complete control over the sphere of human rights. Russia intends to continue promoting its security and protecting its national interest. We aim to understand and take into account the interests of our partners, and we ask that our own interests be respected.
This is a clear program for Pres. Putin – whether sincere or not. One cannot help but being sceptic, considering his past as a KGB agent and his watchdogs, the Federal Security Service, the FSB, of very tough guys outside even Putin´s control – but controlling the political institutions of Russia (The New Nobility – The Guardian 25 Sept. 2010).
As written by the Telegraph above, Putin is authoritarian – and ambitious for world hegemony in a world today ruled by the US and its unscrupulous NATO. Both Putin and the US want a New world Order – their personal New World Order, the NATO and US on behalf of their bankster masters in the London City and Wall Street, Putin on behalf of Russia and himself. Putin is another Bismarck. This does not bode well for world peace.
Putin´s words about peaceful solution to the rebellion in Syria and Iran´s nuclear program is just rhetoric: Putin cannot handle these problems. Only the US and certain NATO states can stop the bloodshed in Syria by stopping their funding and and weapon supplies to their bloodhirsty “Al-Qaida” warriors and the “Free Syrian Army” on behalf of their masonic partner, the Muslim Brotherhood. Then a negotiated settlement might be found with Russia´s help.
But what is even worse: Putin cannot stop the US meddling with Russian oppositional NGOs “White Revolution” against him. The cold war seems back again.
No Responses to “ Two Presidents II: Putin´s New World Order Program Clashing with That of the US ”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.