Quantcast
Channel: Free Pages

EN — LARRY ROMANOFF– Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion — Chapter 11 – The Chimera of Democracy

$
0
0

  

November 13, 2022

 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Chapter 2 — The Jewish Origin 

Chapter 3 – Multi-Party Democracy 

Chapter 4 –The Right-Wing Brain 

Chapter 5 – Choosing Government Leaders 

Chapter 6 – The Theology of Politics 

Chapter 7 – The Theology of Elections

Chapter 8 — Rubber-Stamp Parliaments

Chapter 9 – Democracy and Universal Values 

Chapter 10 – Myths of Democracy

Chapter 11 – The Chimera of Democracy  

Chapter 12 – Bernays and Democracy Control

Chapter 13 – Democracy to Fascism 

Chapter 14- The Non-Imperial Empire 

Chapter 15 – China’s Democracy Experiments 

Chapter 16 – China is Not the West

 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

11. Chapter 11 – The Chimera of Democracy

By Larry Romanoff

 

BULGARIAN    CHINESE    ENGLISH    ESTONIAN    POLSKI   ROMANIAN    

 Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion free e-book 

 



Americans often fervently and unquestioningly attribute a kind of divine origin for their treasured democracy with claims that it originated centuries ago in Greece, promoted by some of the world’s greatest thinkers like Plato and Socrates, and is the natural and permanent state of man. But once again the Americans are simply displaying their ignorance, with sound bytes taken out of context and substituted for knowledge. There is no evidence whatever that multi-party anything is natural, and even less evidence that it’s permanent, and belief in a nonsense does not make it true. A form of representative government did indeed appear in ancient Greece, but it was entirely bereft of the cloak of reverence with which Americans have since clothed it. Here is Socrates’ judgment of democracy, as reported by Plato in his ‘Republic’:

 

“The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery. And so, tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty.”

 

Plato wrote that democracy was not the zenith of government but only just above the nadir of complete anarchy. He wrote that democracy would inevitably degenerate into oligarchy and, finally, tyranny – a fascist police state. These identical sentiments have persisted throughout history to the present day: Willy Brandt, former German Chancellor, was quoted as saying that “Western Europe has only 20 or 30 more years of democracy left in it; after that it will slide, engineless and rudderless, under the surrounding sea of dictatorship, and whether the dictation comes from a politburo or a junta will not make that much difference.”[1]

 

Contained in notes attributed to Scottish judge and historian Alexander Tytler, was the profound observation that:

 

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. The passage continued on to say that a democracy would always collapse from the eventual wholesale looting, always to be followed by a dictatorship. The point was that democracy is always temporary in nature and prima facie cannot exist as a permanent form of government because a democracy naturally evolves into kleptocracy, two coyotes and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. In a book on John Adams, David McCullough wrote of Adams’ deep concerns that the American electoral process would degenerate into a two-party system where each “gang” would put its interests above the interests of the American people. It is difficult to argue against the thesis that the US has already travelled most of this path. That isn’t quite the same thing as the highest form of government system, or fulfilling the yearnings of all mankind. And in fact, Socrates’ words reflect precisely the same observations and conclusions echoed much later by Tytler, that democracy as a form of government is self-terminating because it is the only system open to the kind of insidious corruption that will permit the rich and powerful, those with a lust for power, to eventually arrogate all power to themselves and usurp the throne. Both these men, and others, are saying the same thing: democracy deteriorates into a fascist dictatorship. We will see there is much evidence this is already occurring.

 

Similarly, in his book ‘Sorrows of Empire’, Chalmers Johnson wrote that four sorrows were certain to be visited on the US, with the cumulative effect of destroying any semblance of ‘democracy’ and replacing it with a fascist military police state. His ‘four sorrows’ were: (1) a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans everywhere, (2) a loss of democracy and rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and transforms the ‘executive branch’ into a military junta (a fascist dictatorship), (3) the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, and (4) bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects. The first three of these have already been fulfilled, while the fourth may be only a matter of time.


Read More


 


EN — LARRY ROMANOFF — Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion — Chapter 12 – Bernays and Democracy Control

$
0
0

  

December 21, 2022

 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Chapter 2 — The Jewish Origin 

Chapter 3 – Multi-Party Democracy 

Chapter 4 –The Right-Wing Brain 

Chapter 5 – Choosing Government Leaders 

Chapter 6 – The Theology of Politics 

Chapter 7 – The Theology of Elections

Chapter 8 — Rubber-Stamp Parliaments

Chapter 9 – Democracy and Universal Values 

Chapter 10 – Myths of Democracy

Chapter 11 – The Chimera of Democracy  

Chapter 12 – Bernays and Democracy Control

Chapter 13 – Democracy to Fascism 

Chapter 14- The Non-Imperial Empire 

Chapter 15 – China’s Democracy Experiments 

Chapter 16 – China is Not the West

 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

12. Chapter 12 – Bernays and Democracy Control

By Larry Romanoff

 

BULGARIAN    CHINESE    ENGLISH    ESTONIAN    POLSKI   ROMANIAN   

 Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion free e-book 

  点击此处获取免费电子书 

 


From their experiences in the formulation, manipulation and control of public perception and opinion with the CPI, both Lippman and Bernays later wrote of their open contempt for a “malleable and hopelessly ill-informed public” in America.[1] Lippmann had already written that the people in a democracy were simply “a bewildered herd” of “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders[2] who should be maintained only as “interested spectators”, to be controlled by the elite “secret government”. They concluded that in a multi-party electoral system (a democracy), public opinion had to be “created by an organized intelligence” and “engineered by an invisible government”, with the people relegated to the status of uninformed observers, a situation that has existed without interruption in the US for the past 95 years. Bernays believed that only a few possessed the necessary insight into the Big Picture to be entrusted with this sacred task, and considered himself as one member of this select few.

 

“Throughout his career, Bernays was utterly cynical in his manipulation of the masses. In complete disregard of the personal importance of their sincerely held values, aspirations, emotions, and beliefs, he saw them as having no significance beyond their use as tools in the furtherance of whatever were the commercial and political ends of his hirers.”

 

In his book ‘Propaganda’,[3][3a][4] Bernays wrote, “It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace. The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

 

Bernays’ original project was to ensure US entry into the European war, but later he primarily concerned himself with the entrenchment of the twin systems of electoral democracy and unrestricted capitalism the elites had created for their benefit, and with their defense in the face of increased unrest, resistance, and ideological opposition. Discovering that the bewildered herd was not so compliant as he wished, Bernays claimed a necessity to apply “the discipline of science”, i.e., the psychology of propaganda, to the workings of democracy, where his social engineers “would provide the modern state with a foundation upon which a new stability might be realized”. This was what Lippmann termed the necessity of “intelligence and information control” in a democracy, stating that propaganda “has a legitimate and desirable part to play in our democratic system”. Both men pictured modern American society as being dominated by “a relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses”. To Bernays, this was the “logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized”, failing to note that it was his European handlers who organised it this way in the first place.

 

Lippman and Bernays were not independent in their perverted view of propaganda as a “necessity” of democracy, any more than they were in war marketing, drawing their theories and instruction from their Jewish masters in London. The multi-party electoral system was not designed and implemented because it was the most advanced form of government but rather because it alone offered the greatest opportunities to corrupt politicians through control of money and to manipulate public opinion through control of the press. In his book The Engineering of Consent,[5] [5a] Bernays baldly stated that “The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process”. In other words, the essence of a democracy is that a few “invisible people” manipulate the bewildered herd into believing they are in control of a transparent system of government, by choosing one of two pre-selected candidates who are already bought and paid for by the same invisible people.

 

Even before the war, the ‘secret government’, i.e., the European Jewish handlers of Lippman and Bernays, had fully recognised the possibilities for large-scale population control and had developed far-reaching ambitions of their own in terms of “Democracy Control”, and using the US government once again as a tool. Their interest was not limited to merely the American population, but quickly included much of the Western world. With Lippman and Bernays as their agents, these invisible people had the US government applying Bernays’ principles in nations all over the world, adding the CIA Project Mockingbird[6][7][8][9][10], the VOA[11][12], Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, Radio Liberty, and much more to their tools of manipulation of the perceptions and beliefs of peoples of dozens of nations. The US State Department, by now totally onside, claimed that “propaganda abroad is indispensable” for what it termed “public information management”. It also recognised the need for absolute secrecy, stating that “if the American people ever get the idea that the high-powered propaganda machine was working on them, the result would be disaster”. But the high-powered machine was indeed working on them, and continued to an extent that might have impressed even Bernays.

 Read More




EN — LARRY ROMANOFF — Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion — Chapter 13 – Democracy to Fascism

$
0
0

 


 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Chapter 2 — The Jewish Origin 

Chapter 3 – Multi-Party Democracy 

Chapter 4 –The Right-Wing Brain 

Chapter 5 – Choosing Government Leaders 

Chapter 6 – The Theology of Politics 

Chapter 7 – The Theology of Elections

Chapter 8 — Rubber-Stamp Parliaments

Chapter 9 – Democracy and Universal Values 

Chapter 10 – Myths of Democracy

Chapter 11 – The Chimera of Democracy  

Chapter 12 – Bernays and Democracy Control

Chapter 13 – Democracy to Fascism 

Chapter 14- The Non-Imperial Empire 

Chapter 15 – China’s Democracy Experiments 

Chapter 16 – China is Not the West

 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

13. Chapter 13 – Democracy to Fascism

By Larry Romanoff

 

BULGARIAN    CHINESE    ENGLISH    ESTONIAN    POLSKI   ROMANIAN    

 Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion e-book

 

Fascism is a political ideology fundamentally authoritarian in character, with a strong nationalism and an essentially belligerent militaristic outlook. Fascism carries primarily a corporate perspective as opposed to a socialist view, directed to satisfying the needs, values and objectives of finance and corporations, organising both the economy and the political system according to this agenda. A fascist government actively suppresses any objection to its ideology and will crush any movement which opposes it. In keeping with their belligerent nature, fascist governments generally view violence and war as stimulants to national spirit and vitality. Being politically Right-Wing, they maintain their position through firm control or compliance of the media, and most often engage in a vast array of lies and deception. These governments tend to be bigoted, if not racist, invariably require “enemies” to achieve public solidarity, and are often supremacist or at least ‘exceptional’ in their self-assessment. They either believe, or pretend to believe, that they have a license on truth. Large military budgets, the creation and demonisation of fictitious enemies to propagate fear and maintain population control, are all typical characteristics of a fascist regime, as is massive public surveillance.

 

In 1995 the Italian Scholar Umberto Eco produced a paper titled ‘Eternal Fascism’ in which he examined the characteristics of fascist regimes. In 2003, Laurence W. Britt did an excellent and scholarly work in dissecting and categorising past fascist regimes, in which he revealed common threads that linked all of them in “patterns of national behavior and abuse of power“. He wrote that “Even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi, (which is) not a revelation … but useful … to shed needed light on current circumstances.” I am including here a composite of edited extracts from these two papers with additional commentary of my own. Significant statements by these two authors are in quotation marks. This is a list of the characteristics of fascist states, taken from Britt’s original article:

 

13.1. Early Warning Signs of Fascism

 

      • Powerful and continuing nationalism
      • Supremacy of the military
      • Obsession with national security
      • Obsession with crime and punishment
      • Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
      • Disdain for human rights
      • Corporate power is protected while labor power is suppressed
      • Controlled mass media
      • Rampant cronyism and corruption
      • Intertwined religion and government
      • Fraudulent elections
      • Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
      • Rampant Sexism

 

If we examine the US on these categories, we find an almost perfect match. Certainly, the US has the most strident nationalism of all nations today, with the hysteria of patriotism and flag-worship unabated and even increasing, with the delusional theory of American Exceptionalism as virulent as ever. There is no question about military supremacy, with the US spending almost twice as much on its military as the rest of the world combined and being by an order of magnitude the world’s largest arms manufacturer and dealer. President Obama stated flatly that for the US to remain ‘peaceful and prosperous‘ it needed the world’s largest and most powerful military to maintain an overwhelming military supremacy. Obsession with issues of national security is so common in the US today it has become an object of ridicule. Every manner of information is withheld, every manner of lie is told, every manner of crime is committed, all with the excuse of ‘national security’. Britt noted that a national security apparatus was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints, with its actions always justified under the rubric of protecting “national security”, and that questioning these oppressive activities is now often portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

 READ MORE





EN — LARRY ROMANOFF — Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion — Chapter 14 –The Non-Imperial Empire

$
0
0

 


 
Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Chapter 2 — The Jewish Origin 

Chapter 3 – Multi-Party Democracy 

Chapter 4 –The Right-Wing Brain 

Chapter 5 – Choosing Government Leaders 

Chapter 6 – The Theology of Politics 

Chapter 7 – The Theology of Elections

Chapter 8 — Rubber-Stamp Parliaments

Chapter 9 – Democracy and Universal Values 

Chapter 10 – Myths of Democracy

Chapter 11 – The Chimera of Democracy  

Chapter 12 – Bernays and Democracy Control

Chapter 13 – Democracy to Fascism 

Chapter 14- The Non-Imperial Empire 

Chapter 15 – China’s Democracy Experiments 

Chapter 16 – China is Not the West

 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

14. Part 14- The Non-Imperial Empire

By Larry Romanoff

CONTENT

14.1. Introduction

14.2. Hurtling Into Darkness

BULGARIAN    CHINESE    ENGLISH    ESTONIAN    POLSKI   ROMANIAN 

 Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion free e-book 

 

14.1. Introduction

 

The powerful surreptitious development of fascism in the US as described earlier is only one link in a long chain, the end purpose which is to first remove all power from the people and then remove most of the power from domestic governments and other governing bodies. We have already seen that most of this has already been accomplished in America, but it has also been accomplished to almost the same degree in Europe. Few are aware that the European Union has been vehemently disparaged as not only un-democratic but as fundamentally anti-democratic, in other words, tending to the same authoritarian fascism as is the US.

 

One sign is its lack of transparency. Few are aware that in the past 20 years the EU has not managed to pass a single audit, and is so opaque, so controlled by a few individuals two levels removed from European national governments that no elected body has any access to information. The EU Commission’s Chief Accountant, Marta Andreasen, refused to sign off on the accounts, claiming the entire EU accounting system was open to fraud. She was suspended and later fired, and the EU’s accounts were never approved. The EU institutions have virtually waged a class war on not only its members but on their economies and populations, an economic war designed from the start to weaken the nation-states to a point of total dependence on Brussels, entrenching neo-liberalism in the hands of a non-elected elite who now hold all the power and who report to no one. The entire sovereignty of the individual European nations has been supplanted by a cabal of Zionist Jews operating from the City of London.

 

Privatisation of state assets has played a central role in this process, with all states being slowly forced to dispossess themselves of their entire national infrastructure, including gas utilities, transport and postal services, electricity generation, motorways, airports, regional ports and even water supplies. The nations are being hollowed-out in preparation for their surrender of sovereignty. The signs are clear, and they are everywhere. The budgets of member states are increasingly subject to the scrutinisation and approval of this same cabal, with new legislation and policies that increasingly transfer more authority away from the nation-states to the non-elected and unaccountable central administration. Decisions that now vitally affect every European citizen are taken by anonymous bureaucrats who have no stake in their nations.

 

None of this was an accident. The Imperial ambitions of this secret Eurocratic elite were hiding in plain sight for many years. In fact, one smug senior EU official, Manuel Durão Barroso, arrogantly boasted that this was the formation of the first ever “non-imperial empire“. In his words, 27 nations decided to work together to “pool their sovereignty“, the problem being, of course that they didn’t do it by choice, and in fact many flatly rejected that suggestion, but their nations have been pushed to this state nevertheless. One of the signs of the arrogance and control of this Jewish cabal is that in 2011 it simply replaced the elected governments of Greece and Italy with technocrats reporting to their central secret government – the same one that controls the US. One British Member of Parliament stated at the time that the people and their governments were cut out altogether, and that “the lamps are going out all over Europe”. And he was correct.

 

If we think back to the Article on Bernays and War Marketing, to the intense and relentless program of propaganda and disinformation, this thread of fascism was precisely the strategy these men created and followed to eliminate resistance to US entry to the First World War, and in fact to convert resistance to eagerness. Further, if we scour the Jewish-owned Western media today, we find constant attacks on socialism but not a word on fascism. More than this, we find severe personal attacks on anyone who dares introduce the topic of fascism in an American or even a European context, and nowhere can we find discussions of fascism in the Western media. As you will see later, the world is slowly proceeding toward fulfilment of a grand plan of what many have termed an endgame of ‘global tyranny’, essentially a worldwide fascist dictatorship. You have read of the group of Jewish bankers who attempted to overthrow the US government and install a fascist dictatorship, using General Smedley Butler as a front man. That plan has only been delayed, not forgotten, and the signs today are more than obvious in both the US and the European Union. The entire subject of fascism has been locked away in a closet, totally removed from the publication list, so as not to create premature alarm among the intelligent population.




 Read more






EN – LARRY ROMANOFF – Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion – Chapter 15 – China's Democracy Experiments

$
0
0

  

 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Chapter 2  - The Jewish Origin 

Chapter 3 – Multi-Party Democracy 

Chapter 4 –The Right-Wing Brain 

Chapter 5 – Choosing Government Leaders 

Chapter 6 – The Theology of Politics 

Chapter 7 – The Theology of Elections

Chapter 8 - Rubber-Stamp Parliaments

Chapter 9 – Democracy and Universal Values 

Chapter 10 – Myths of Democracy

Chapter 11 – The Chimera of Democracy   

Chapter 12 – Bernays and Democracy Control

Chapter 13 – Democracy to Fascism 

Chapter 14- The Non-Imperial Empire 

Chapter 15 – China's Democracy Experiments 

Chapter 16 – China is Not the West

 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

Part 8 – China's Democracy Experiments

By Larry Romanoff 

 

CONTENT

15.1 Introduction

15.2. Kindergarten Democracy

BULGARIAN     CHINESE     ENGLISH     ESTONIAN     POLSKI    ROMANIAN  

 Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion free e-book

 


15.1 Introduction

 

I have written earlier that the multi-party electoral system ( “democracy” ) is the only form of government designed to be controlled by outsiders, naturally leaving it open to corruption and fraud.  The Chinese, listening to the Americans, discovered all the proof of this in their own back yard. China has experimented with small-scale introductions of Western-style democratic elections for local officials in rural areas.

 

We are often told that “first impressions” are the most important, that on initially meeting a person or entering a new situation, we see it most clearly at that first introduction. With the passage of time, our perceptions become clouded and dimmed by extraneous factors and our focus scattered by irrelevancies. On the introduction of “democracy” to the Chinese, they saw it very clearly as it really was – a system for obtaining political power that was just begging to be manipulated. In fact, it was seen as the very purpose of such a system and to have been designed specifically for such a purpose. And it was.    

 

In early 2014, in Changsha, China's nursery of democracy and many other imaginative crimes, there was a massive vote-buying scandal where almost 60 individuals were charged for electoral fraud, dereliction of duty, disrupting elections, buying votes, bribery and related corruption, involving more than 500 governors and various local party officials who were disqualified and relieved of their posts , their crimes involving many thousands of citizens and more than 100 million yuan in bribes. And this was only one case of many. 

 

In North China's Hebei province,  one town had two failed elections within a month, corrupted by vote-buying with twice as many votes as eligible voters , stolen ballot boxes and much other electoral fraud. Many towns and villages introduced multi-party elections in the late 1980s, with many experiencing similar problems. In September of 2016, there was a massive election-Rigging Scandal in Liaoning, with  more than 500 people paying bribes to get friends elected . China's National People's Congress  expelled 45 governors, nearly half the number elected from Liaoning , because of bribery and election fraud. In addition,  more than 500 lawmakers were dismissed or resigned from the 619-member Liaoning People's Congress , and several people were arrested.

 

I was surprised that anyone was surprised. That's democracy. That's how it works. It was designed to be wide open to corruption. In the West, we have more experience so we do it more quietly and in different ways, but the result is the same. Wherever money can buy legislative power, all open systems will become corrupted.

 

The Chinese saw  “democracy”  as it really was – a way to obtain control of a government by collecting votes.  The easiest way to collect votes is to buy them ,  and there isn't even any morality here. Before moralizing about the Chinese, consider that if it's okay for AIPAC and corporations to buy politicians, why isn't it okay for politicians to buy voters?  The next easiest way (if you're willing to be a bit dishonest) is to print excess ballots and stuff the ballot boxes .  And let's not forget that stuffing ballot boxes was a tradition in the US and Canada 200 years ago.

 

But again, with this  “new”  political system, we are being offered full control of the government of a city, by the simple expedient of having people vote for us. There is no other requirement, and anyone can do it. It's obvious that someone with money and ambition will rise to this challenge and find a way, honest or otherwise, to get those votes.

 

These are serious issues in China because increasingly the king-makers in the background will be foreigners. Jewish Consulate staff, members of the US State Department, Embassy officials who are CIA but disguised as diplomats, the NED, USAID, AmCham and dozens of American NGOs, are all spending money and working in the background to influence government in China. That's the truth, and if it's apparent to me it should be obvious to many others. Their success in Hong Kong is stunning; the Americans have obtained enormous influence on the political landscape in Hong Kong and are so clever and experienced that the hundreds of thousands of little Hong Kong puppets cannot even see the strings. And they have every intention of doing the same in Mainland China.   

 

15.2. Kindergarten Democracy

 

But these examples were nothing compared to what happened at the Chunhui Primary School in Zhengzhou , where 1,700 small children learned lessons about “democracy” that they will unfortunately never forget. These students used to have a “backward, old-fashioned, traditional, Chinese-style” system of choosing student leaders where the selection was based on silly things like scholastic merit and the recommendations of teachers as to character. But, thanks to American pressure, they      “altered their tradition” and instead turned to modern, Western-style “democracy” .  

 

And how did that work? Well, one student (with a very poor academic record) was chosen as a leader because he was “good at basketball” and was “friendly” . And how did they get themselves elected? Well, they learned to conduct democratic election campaigns, just like all Westerners. According to media reports, “Some played the saxophone, some danced, and some showed off their calligraphy or painting skills, played traditional Chinese musical instruments as a way of impressing voters.” One mother was so eager to make her little kid a king that she more printed than 1,000 pretty little blue election cards with his name, asking everyone to vote for him.     

 

The Headmaster of the school, Hu Jianling, said the program aimed to encourage students to “bravely express their ideas” and to “participate in the school's management . ” In the opinion of the school, these student leaders proved Hu's plan “effective and perhaps even beneficial . ”    

 

Let's examine what really happened here. I have no wish to embarrass Mr. Hu, who I am sure is a fine gentleman with good intentions, but what kind of devil possessed this man that he thought it was a good idea to get 1,700 10-year-old kids to “bravely participate in the school's management” ? What the hell does he think a school is? In this one experiment in this one school, we can see all the pathetic flaws of Western democracy, flaws apparently invisible to the teachers, the parents and especially to the students who have learned a corrupt lesson in living that they will probably never forget. If you want to corrupt the population, it is always best to begin with the children, because that will make the corruption permanent.  

 

First, what was the purpose of these elections?  It should be to select the most competent person for a job that carries responsibilities to the students, but nowhere in any of this little kindergarten travesty was there even a mention of competency or responsibility. None. These little politicians just wanted to be elected because they wanted to be elected, not because they had any ability or wanted to accomplish anything useful for their schoolmates. There were no students who campaigned to eliminate excessive homework or to have cleaner washrooms or more after-school tutoring. They just wanted to be leaders and to have the accompanying power and prestige, with not a thought to any obligation involved.

 

Even worse, how did these little political campaigns?  How did they conduct themselves to convince their electorate to vote for them? Well, they “leveraged their personal popularity” ” from good looks or sports ability, or their father's money for buying pretty dresses and nice bicycles. They “leveraged their entertainment ability” by playing the saxophone or other instruments. They “leveraged their painting and calligraphy skills” , and they no doubt found many inventive 10-year-old ways to run around the school begging for votes. How wonderful. The mother who paid to print the cute little blue cards for her kid to pass out will next time have a 5-yuan note attached to them. Those little kids learned that the only real qualification for becoming a leader and taking power is a talent for psychological manipulation, that credentials are ignored in obtaining votes.     

 

Are these the primary ingredients of a good leader?  Is this how China chooses its General Secretary and Politburo members? Do they sit in Tiananmen Square and play a saxophone or a guitar, or paint caricature portraits of tourists? This is how the Americans select their leaders, but why teach this to Chinese children as an ideal?

 

But this was only the first attempt and our little politicians had no experience on which to draw. They will do much better the next time. They will quickly learn that you can buy votes, and will begin raising small amounts of money to give out more than cute blue cards to anyone who promises to vote for them. They will learn that you can attract votes by making promises – not by keeping them, but by making them. So, they will promise to reduce homework, with no idea of ​​how to do that and with the knowledge that they have no power to accomplish such a result in any case. But they will promise, at least to try.  

 

They will learn they have the power to grant gifts of patronage, and will promise to place popular voters on committees, with the expectation these individuals will help to sway other voters. They will promise to work for easier marking standards, better school lunches, and many other things that the smart candidates will know are fundamental issues for all students. They will learn to read the wishes of the student body and to turn desire those into votes and personal power. They will quickly learn to become real politicians. In short, they will learn to lie and manipulate. 

 

They already know that a school year is a long time and that kids have short memories; they intuitively know they won't be held accountable for failing to deliver, and they also know there is no accountability anyway, that after they are elected, nobody can do anything to them. If there were personal responsibility, there would be no candidates. 

 

And it gets worse. In all segments of society, including elementary schools, there are always  'king-makers'  lurking in the background, those who don't want to be in the light but who prefer to sit in the shadows and pull the strings. These are the clever ones who amass the real power and who intuitively understand how to control events to their ultimate satisfaction regardless of the wishes of the greater group. These are the dangerous ones; they are too clever by half, and are naturally manipulative. Often, they have a mother who is of like mind and character, providing all the guidance necessary. The first thing they learn is that the power lies in the nominations, not in the voting.  

 

And now we naturally enter the field of multi-party politics where we have two or three king-makers, each with a following, each selecting a likely candidate who will be obedient and controllable, and will say, “I can make you the leader . Would you like that?” And off we go, each king-maker (and his mother) designing a platform of campaign promises guaranteed to attract naive, innocent and inexperienced little voters.  

 

This is where it will lead, and there is nothing the school or the teachers can do to prevent it. Why? Because the original premise, however nicely-worded, is false, flawed, and almost criminal.  The purpose of this selection process should be to choose the best leaders for the school, mature, responsible little people of good character who can set an example for the other children, who care about the welfare of their school-mates and who will sincerely use their power to improve the school's environment. But we have discarded that objective and instead created a purposeless popularity contest that is wide open to every kind of social pressure and corruption. We are not selecting our leaders on their ability or their character or their sense of responsibility, but instead on their personal marketing ability – on their skills to influence and manipulate others to vote for them, honestly or otherwise.

 

In all of this, where is the discussion of credentials, of qualifications for a position of responsibility? Totally absent. In fact, the prior system of teacher character recommendations and scholastic excellence – in other words, credentials – which was a perfect system, was specifically abandoned so these idiotic yuppies could emulate the Americans and accommodate their foolish version of “democracy”  .

 

There is no evidence that any of these little candidates had any leadership skills, good academic records, a sound character, or indeed any understanding whatever of the needs and wishes of either the students or the teachers. None would be old enough to have any appreciation of the meaning of participating in the management of the school. None will be selected on any of the necessary attributes of a leader. Few if any will have any real qualifications for a leadership position, and none will understand the responsibility they are accepting. They are little kids.

 

And what of the students who vote?  What will they consider in casting their votes for a student leader? The ability to play a saxophone? Mama's pretty blue cards? Few if any will have an appreciation of their responsibility, few will know how to choose wisely, and none will have the ability to properly evaluate a (more or less) unknown person for a job whose duties they do not understand. My congratulations. Welcome to American-style politics, the one thing China was fortunate to not have. 

 

But this is precisely what China now has in its rural areas with the introduction of Western-style democratic elections for local officials. These are much more serious because the participants are adults, the decisions affect real lives, and because too often the king-makers in the background are almost all American and Jewish.

 

 

*

Mr. Romanoff's writing  has been translated into 32 languages ​​​​and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai's Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney's new anthology 'When China Sneezes'. (Chapt. 2 - Dealing with Demons ). 

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/   +  https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com

 

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Copyright ©  Larry Romanoff ,  Blue Moon of Shanghai ,  Moon of Shanghai , 2024

 


EN – LARRY ROMANOFF – Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion – Chapter 16 – China is Not the West

$
0
0

 


 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Chapter 2 — The Jewish Origin 

Chapter 3 – Multi-Party Democracy 

Chapter 4 –The Right-Wing Brain 

Chapter 5 – Choosing Government Leaders 

Chapter 6 – The Theology of Politics 

Chapter 7 – The Theology of Elections

Chapter 8 — Rubber-Stamp Parliaments

Chapter 9 – Democracy and Universal Values 

Chapter 10 – Myths of Democracy

Chapter 11 – The Chimera of Democracy  

Chapter 12 – Bernays and Democracy Control

Chapter 13 – Democracy to Fascism 

Chapter 14- The Non-Imperial Empire 

Chapter 15 – China’s Democracy Experiments 

Chapter 16 – China is Not the West

 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion

16. Part 16 – China is Not the West

By Larry Romanoff 

 

BULGARIAN    CHINESE    ENGLISH    ESTONIAN    POLSKI    ROMANIAN 


 Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion free e-book 

 

 

CONTENT

16.1. Introduction

16.2. The Chinese are not Interested in “Politics”

16.3. Not Many Chinese are Interested in Government, Either

16.4. Foreign Resentment of China’s One-Party Government

16.5. The Compradors

 

 

16.1. Introduction

 

China is different in having a one-party government, which Americans consider a religious heresy, but the system has enormous advantages. Here, there is no forced separation of officials on the basis of political ideology. China’s entire social spectrum is represented in government in the same way as in Chinese or any other society. There is no partisan in-fighting. Unlike the West, China’s system looks for consensus rather than conflict. Government decision-making is not a sport where my team has to win. It is simply a group of people with various viewpoints working together to obtain a consensus for policy and action for the overall good of their nation. China’s one-party system is superior in virtually all respects to what we have in the West, and how can it be otherwise when the nation’s government officials don’t waste their time fighting juvenile ideological battles with opposition parties.

 

One of the greatest deciding factors permitting China’s rise is the lack of a belligerent political environment due to the absence of multi-party politics. China’s one-party government is in for the long term; it makes no short-term decisions for the sake of political expediency. China makes decisions for the good of the whole country and, having made them, implements them. There is no partisanship, there are no lobbyists or special interest groups with the power to skew important decisions and rob the population of what it might have had. The benefits of this system can be seen in its results. China has already far surpassed the undeveloped nations that adopted Western democratic governments, and likely has a brighter future than most of them. Why is the West so eager for China to abandon a centuries-old system that clearly works well, in favor of one designed for ideological battles, conflicts and shouting wars?

 

China’s one-party system is the only thing saving it from destruction, and China needs to stop apologising for it. It is precisely due to China’s so-called “authoritarian” system that only the smartest and most competent can get into leadership positions. It is due only to China’s one-party system that 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty and that China’s GDP has increased by 1700%, a feat never achieved in history by any so-called democracy. And while I don’t want to be unkind, if you’re Chinese, how do you imagine that your “democratic participation” would have improved the above results? My advice is to be grateful for what you have, because you really don’t know how lucky you are.

 

China’s government leaders manage by consensus, not by power, authority or bullying. It is their job to create agreement and unified willing participation in the country’s policies to meet its goals. At this level there are no children, and there is no one person with the power to start a war just because he doesn’t like someone, or who is free to alienate other nations on the basis of some blind personal ideology. In China, many people and industries are permitted to present their case, but private or short-term interests will not emerge victorious in this system. Your proposals will receive support and will succeed only if they are to the long-term benefit of the country as a whole – the greatest good for the nation and for the population. In the US system, corporations control the government; in China’s, the government controls the corporations. And those firms may often not get their way even if they are government-owned. On the introduction of HSR (High-Speed Rail) in China, some Chinese airlines (especially the state-owned ones) complained like hell, and with good reason, because many had to dramatically scale back their flight schedules since many people prefer the train. But the wide HSR network was seen as being in the best interests of the entire country and it went ahead. That is also why China has by far the best, and the least expensive, mobile phone system in the world.

 

One American was trying to convince some of my Chinese friends of the great benefits of the uninformed selecting the incompetent, claiming that American-style democracy “gives you more choices”. Choices of what? He was equating the task of selecting the senior management of one of the largest and most important countries in the world, with buying shampoo in the supermarket. “I can give you more choices.” The many senior officials of China’s government are the only people who truly and completely understand the challenges China faces, both from within and from without, and who know the kind and quality of people needed to guide the nation. They are the only people who are competent to evaluate and judge those who are best suited to lead China through the next decades. Nobody outside of those central departments knows how to identify and select those who are capable of leading and protecting China. China today has leaders with a competence unmatched anywhere in the world, men and women who have devoted their lives to the difficult magic of making China a first-world country in only one or two generations, bringing this wonderful country to the international prominence it once had and will have again. And too many Americans, including all of the US government, would like very much to prevent this from happening because it is a challenge to their worldwide domination.

 

In October of 2013, Qiushi published one of the most excellent and intelligent articles I have ever read on the subject of democracy and multi-party politics. I do not know the name of the author, but he is a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, in the School of International Relations and Public Affairs. He wrote that:

 

The ‘benchmark for appraising democracy is determined entirely by a small handful of countries who had “a contingent of campaigners paid by various foundations to go around the world delivering speeches and selling the case for democracy. Thus, democracy, together with the social sciences founded on its basis, is more like a propaganda tool employed by the West than anything else, and the resulting knowledge bubble is far from small. Under the Western-style appraisal mechanisms of democracy, there is only one precondition that needs to be met for a developing country to be considered a “democracy”, or to “graduate” from the class of authoritarian countries: that country must show obedience to Western countries, and must give up its independent foreign and domestic policies. Any country that does so is immediately rewarded with “international” praise”.

 

He also cautioned Chinese, as I strongly do myself, to stop apologising for China’s system of government because it is in fact one of the best in the world. And the Americans don’t have to like it.

 

The Americans fill their media with articles on China’s government system, often posing disingenuous but supposedly-thoughtful questions like “What will democracy add to China’s efficiency?” This is clever propaganda since the question stakes out in advance the position that a multi-party system is naturally superior and more efficient, thereby framing our discussion and limiting it to a useless opinion-based debate. The simple truth, available to anyone who looks, is that China’s one-party system is almost infinitely more efficient and responsive than any Western model, and even a partial attempt to emulate the Western system, especially the American one, would automatically restrict further progress in China, and would likely work to eliminate the gains already made. To my mind, the most serious mistake the Chinese people can make is to attribute even a shred of credibility to claims of superiority or benefit in a multi-party political system. Rather than feelings of inferiority, the Chinese should be taking pride in their country’s political framework and stop apologising for its grand success.

 

Again, we need only look at the results to realise the truth of this. No nation in the history of the world has achieved China’s stunning level of progress and development, the credit for which goes in large part to China’s government system and its selection and training of leaders. It’s true the system must adapt to eliminate flaws but the basic framework is unassailable. It isn’t China that shut down half its government for lack of funding. It isn’t China where 30% of the population lost their homes to a fraudulent scheme by its bankers. It isn’t China where millions of educated jobless and homeless are sleeping in tent cities or  in the sewers under Las Vegas, and where fully 25% of the people are living below the poverty line and dependent on government assistance for food. It isn’t China where 70% of parents believe their childrens’ lives will be worse than their own, nor is it China where the people have lost all hope for a better future. These distressing conditions, and many more, are all in America and credit for them must be given entirely to the corrupt and dysfunctional multi-party democratic system that Americans have been taught to venerate while it bleeds them dry.

 

Many foreign observers are now (finally) admitting openly that China’s form of government exhibits multiple signs of superiority over Western systems, and that it is largely responsible for China’s efficiency, for its rapid development, and for its speed of response in areas like the Sichuan earthquake and the planning and deployment of its high-speed train system. The West could learn a lot from China’s government system. It works, beautifully. It has transformed the economy, brought hundreds of millions out of poverty and caused incomes to triple or more in the past ten years alone. It has put men into space, built the world’s fastest trains, the longest undersea tunnels, the world’s longest bridges, the largest dams. It has produced a growth rate of over 10% per year for 30 years, compared to perhaps 3% in the West. Americans love to disparage China’s government as authoritarian, but this “authoritarian” government has almost entirely eliminated illiteracy, liberated Chinese women and extended life expectancy for all from 41 years in 1950 to 76 and still rising today. It has created an educational system that has few apologies to make, and its social welfare system will soon be the envy of many nations. It is rapidly creating the world’s largest genuine middle class. And it’s hardly begun.

 

16.2. The Chinese are not Interested in “Politics”

 

In any Western country, political discussions often become emotionally-heated rather quickly, since most everyone has an opinion and many hold those opinions very strongly. The only surprise is that the violent emotions don’t lead more often to physical violence. However, since China hasn’t politics but only government, the discussions are normally muted. Not everyone has an opinion, few of those opinions inspire emotion, and debates are most often rational. Moreover, these debates seldom occur, since few people in any population are sufficiently knowledgeable to intelligently discuss the operations of a national government. And even fewer are interested, unless the government appears to be functioning badly. Most people in China will freely confess that they lack the knowledge of government, primarily because it is outside their field of study and employment, and they have no illusions about their ability to affect their national or local governments in a positive way. They “participate” only if something actually goes wrong. And, sometimes things, at least at the local level, do go wrong, and then the “participation” is quite loud. And, in each such case, if the local authorities fail to act quickly, the national government will step in and force a rectification. In China, “mistakes” by a government are seldom allowed to persist, and they often have prison sentences attached to them.

 

It is always a shock to Westerners, especially Americans, that some countries don’t permit ‘the people’ to meddle in government unless they have serious credentials and know what they’re doing. In a recent NYT article, it was reflected that Chinese typically believe that peasants (small-town Americans) “are too unschooled to intelligently select the nation’s leaders“. I don’t see how we can avoid the conclusion that they have it right.

 

Few educated Chinese see the Western multi-party democratic model as particularly appealing because they don’t equate politics with government – as Westerners do – nor do they see sanity in the selection of national leaders as a team sport. The Chinese see the West as having a system where anyone, even a person with no education, training, knowledge, experience, ability – or even intelligence – can rise to become the President or Prime Minister, and where high government office requires no credentials other than popularity. They look on this with an interesting mixture of disbelief and disdain. They are also aware that a multi-party system requires the forcible division of a society into ideologically different groups with violently opposing interests. China has made no such social divisions, and the culture would mitigate against them since they would of necessity lead to conflict and biased ideological agendas, disregarding the good of the country as a whole. Divisions of this kind are anathema to the Chinese, as they should be to us Westerners. As I’ve noted elsewhere, the number of Chinese citizens interested in the US-style of multi-party democracy is about the same as the number of Americans interested in communism.

 

By contrast, Westerners often observe that the Chinese are apolitical or even apathetic, having no interest in politics. This is true, but it reflects a fundamental ignorance since China neither has nor wants “politics“, and treats government as “government“. The Chinese see government as an occupation, a career like any other. They do not view government through the chromatic and otherwise distorted political team-sport lens as Westerners do. Some people in every country may be attracted or tempted by the prospect of a powerful position in government or industry, but this tends to be a small minority. Most Chinese, as probably most people in every country, want stability and a chance to improve their lives. So long as the government is able to create an environment that offers hope and a stable platform for improvement, they have little interest in the functioning of the government and are happy to leave it to those who are in charge.

 

16.3. Not Many Chinese are Interested in Government, Either

 

The Chinese people have a much more mature and realistic attitude toward government than do people in the West, in that they look at government as government, not through the primitive psychological mask of party politics. And when they look at government, they do not delude themselves into believing that running a country is as simple as ordinary Western people think it is. They are aware that a government position necessarily means the assumption of great responsibility. They know it requires a high level of expertise to understand and deal with issues of social policy, population, international trade and finance, the national and international economy, the nation’s industrial policy, foreign policy, military matters, border disputes, friction with US imperialism, and dozens more major and serious topics. And, in the end, most Chinese don’t feel they have the knowledge or experience to affect the course of their country in any positive way – and of course they are correct. They recognise that their government officials have committed their lives to education and training, to acquire the knowledge and skills to manage and lead a country and a society, and they are justifiably aware of their own personal shortcomings. In China, a government career is a commitment requiring one’s full participation, but those not in the professional fields of national governance are not encouraged to do so because they are likely to be uninformed. We cannot argue that this is wrong, and it does seem a more intelligent and realistic way of thinking about government.

 

16.4. Foreign Resentment of China’s One-Party Government

 

The reason the Americans and the European Jewish mafia hate China’s one-party system is not because it’s a bad system, but because it cannot be controlled by external forces. China’s one-party system is a perfect form of government, as is obvious by the results it has produced, but the Americans and the Jews cannot get their fingers into it. If China has no political parties and no public elections, how can I buy the candidates? And if I cannot buy the candidates, how can I control the government?

 

These people are willing to spend huge sums of money to buy control of China’s government and then have the power to influence all its policies, to initiate legislation and to slowly take control of the government. But in China, I can do nothing. The selection of China’s leaders is done quietly, in private. I don’t even know how the system works, and if I don’t understand the system, I cannot manipulate it. That’s why the Americans scream so loudly about China needing more “transparency” in its leadership selection. Why should they care how China chooses its leaders? It’s none of their business. China doesn’t criticise the way Americans choose their leaders. The Americans propose their “transparency” in moral terms, as if China were committing a sin by not being more “open”, but the issue is that they need to understand how it works so they can try to figure out a way to manipulate it. The truth is that China’s one-party government is the main armor preventing the country from being destroyed by the Westerners one more time.

 

The Americans, and their European banker puppet-masters, know perfectly well that China’s leaders understand their intent and will never cooperate, so the American propaganda machine turns to the Chinese people. “You need democracy. You need multi-party politics. You deserve to have ‘choices’, because selecting a President is the same as buying shampoo in a supermarket. You should be like us, with the ‘freedom’ to choose your shampoo. Trust us. Have a revolution and overthrow your government. That’s what God wants you to do.”

 

It should be noted here that the Americans, as a fundamental part of their incessant interference in China’s internal affairs, make great effort to cultivate attitudes in China that will foster and support the development of a Left-Right political division in Chinese society, because the natural conflict inherent in this ideological divide is a prerequisite for the kind of political change the Americans want to inflict on China. In fact, the Americans have gone so far as to conduct extensive studies on the regional social structures of China to determine where in the country they might find the highest concentrations of those who might be considered “conservative” or “Right-Wing”, and this is where they look for puppets and “democratic dissidents” they can use to provoke China’s national leaders. This is the source of Ai Weiwei, Chen Guangcheng, Liu Xiaobo, and many others. The Americans incite these people to provoke and provoke until the government has no choice but to act, then flood the international media with stories of China “cracking down” on “political dissidents”. It’s all a huge fraud, a kind of game the Americans love to play. But in reality, it is always possible in any country to find a few disaffected individuals who are weak-minded and incite them to provoke their governments, usually to their great personal detriment, but then these individuals are always expendable. Witness the little American darling Joshua Wong in Hong Kong, inspired by the American Consulate in HK to push his luck far past the limit and now spend perhaps 20 years in prison as a reward. But, as I said, these puppet-idiots are all expendable.

 

There is one saving grace that may protect China from this disease called “democracy”, a matter that seems to be entirely unknown in the West. Instead of adopting a new policy and hoping it works as intended, the government will conduct small trials in selected areas, perhaps sometimes for years, to learn the real-world effects on all segments of society, adjusting as they go, until they believe they have something that can work nationwide. It is only after such focused trials that new directions will be taken. It is my fervent hope they are doing this with the introduction of elections for local rural officials. Also, one portion of “democracy with Chinese characteristics” is that there are, and have been, many policy proposals where the Chinese leaders are uncertain of the range of the welcome such legislation might receive from the general population, or of the potential economic or other effects a particular new legislation. In the first case, prior to proposing any legislation, the government will form literally thousands of teams to circulate among the population nationwide to discuss the new proposed legislation and obtain a clear picture of the views and preferences of the people. And the government definitely does listen to the will of the people, taking great pains to explain the reasons for various proposals and to arrive at a solution compatible with the overall aims for the nation, but one that will have the support of the people. If this isn’t “democracy”, I don’t know what would be.

 

In an interview published in the Huffington Post some years ago, Helmut Schmidt, German’s former Chancellor, had this to say about the multi-party electoral system (“democracy”) for China:[1]

 

“Democracy is not the end point of mankind. Democracy has a number of serious failures. For instance, you have to be elected every four years and you have to be re-elected after the next four years. So, you try to tell the people what they would like to hear. The multi-party system is not the crown of progress ” . . . I would not sell it to the Chinese. The British have sold it to the Indians and to the Pakistanis and the Dutch tried to sell it to the Indonesians. Democracy is not really working in India. I would not tell the Egyptians to introduce democracy; nor would I pitch it to the other Muslim countries like Malaysia, Iran and Pakistan. It is a Western invention. It was not invented by Confucius. It did not work in ancient Rome [nor in Athens], and then it had not functioned in any other country in the world. And whether you become a democracy or not remains to be seen. My feeling is that [China] will not become a democracy.”

 

As I have noted elsewhere, the disparity between the quality of elected politicians in Western countries and the analogous officials in China’s government, especially at the national level in the Central Government, is a discrepancy so vast that comparisons are largely meaningless. Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, praised China’s President Xi Jinping as “a man of great breadth” and put him in “the Nelson Mandela class of persons”, saying “that man has iron in his soul”, and Xi has been widely praised (except in the US) as a man who “will become the first truly global leader”. These are not compliments we see being paid to Western politicians. Why would China want to change?

 

16.5. The Compradors

 

Still, the American interference project is very active in China today, the US government spending (by its own admission) more than $300 million each year inside China, searching for and coaching ‘dissidents’ and ‘democracy activists’ as well as other yuppie compradors wanting to ‘restructure’ China’s government to permit more foreign control.

 

I have often discussed various topics related to government, politics, the West, with groups of people in China – mostly young professionals, all university graduates, and have been frequently surprised at the attitudes of some who have been strongly influenced by foreign sources. The attitudes expressed, and even the words and phrases used, were too similar, almost verbatim, appearing to have come from some American source that was listing all the advantages of US-style “democracy”. I heard many comments like “China needs two political parties”, or “The West is so rich because it has democracy and a superior education system.” And so many others, cut from the same cloth, all idealised and false American propaganda, baseless and uninformed, riddled with American moral superiority and battered with a list of China’s comparative failings.

 

But when I explained, for example, that the West was rich primarily due to colonialism, to extermination of populations and looting of resources, these people were speechless. None appeared to have any idea that the US was encircling China with propaganda, with military, trying to infiltrate and collapse both China’s government and economy. None understood that the form of China’s government made it closed to foreign interference, which was primarily the reason the US wants China to open up and adopt multiple political parties. Most people to whom I spoke were naive, innocent, and dangerously unaware of the political forces surrounding them. These people were spellbound as I outlined many of these issues; they simply had no idea.

 

I fully concur with James Petras’ observation that “These Chinese yuppies imitate the worst of Western consumerist life styles and their political outlooks are driven by these life styles and Westernized identities which preclude any sense of solidarity with their own working class.” Many of these people are now embedded in China’s economic or other systems and are in position to do real harm. Many of them, especially ‘dissidents’ or ‘activists’ are supported and financed by American NGOs, but in their ignorance, they perceive no threat. To the extent that these people gain influence, they distract and weaken China, just as their traitorous counterparts did 150 years ago by effectively being intermediaries for their own colonisers.” As Petras again pointed out, the entire last crop of these Chinese collaborators were totally discredited before the Chinese people, and the same needs to happen again today.

 

President Xi has warned of the necessity to eradicate “subversive currents coursing through Chinese society”, as well as the dangers of American-financed NGOs in China, quoting a government document stating that “Western forces hostile to China and dissidents within the country are still constantly infiltrating the ideological sphere” and have “stirred up trouble” in many sensitive areas. I couldn’t agree more.

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com

*

Notes

[1] Helmut Schmidt: ‘I Would Not Sell Democracy To The Chinese’

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/china-democracy_n_5067120.html

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Copyright © Larry RomanoffBlue Moon of ShanghaiMoon of Shanghai, 2022



EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF: Police State America -- Chapter 1--The Rise of the Police State

$
0
0

 00

 

Police State America -- Volume One

Chapter 1-The Rise of the Police State

Chapter 2 — The FBI

Chapter 3 –COINTELPRO

Chapter 4 — Universal Public Surveillance

Chapter 5 — Other Surveillance

Chapter 6 — Searching for Anarchists, or Maybe Just Political Activists

Chapter 7   — Winning the Information War

Chapter 8 — Arbitrary and Unaccountable Law Enforcement

Chapter 9 — The Militarisation of the Police

Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

Chapter   13 — The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil

 

Police State America

Chapter 1-The Rise of the Police State

By Larry Romanoff

 

 

 

CHINESE    ENGLISH

 

 Police State America - Volume One free e-book

 


By the end of the Vietnam war, US corporations were no longer competitive in the world economy and were losing the bulk of their domestic market to imports, leading to de-industrialisation and the large-scale relocation of manufacturing to Asia, primarily China. Since then, the US has experienced large and increasing trade deficits regardless of currency exchange rates or other external conditions. With its military adventures financed entirely on debt, the US also began running increasingly larger budget deficits, with increasingly fewer funds for public programs like social welfare or education, or to maintain or rebuild its already-dilapidated physical infrastructure.

After the US abandoned the gold standard and unilaterally scuttled the Bretton-Woods agreement, debt financing for the Vietnam war resulted in a massive expansion of the money supply, leading to a decade of ruinous inflation with the US dollar depreciating by about 95%.

Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th president of the United States. A former actor and president of the Screen Actors Guild, he was elected governor of California in 1966 and US president in 1981. He is standing in front of a sign reading 'Let's Make America Great Again', during his electoral campaign. (Photo by MPI/Getty Images)

 

It was then, at the end of the 1970s, that the US experienced the biggest political upheaval in its recent history, what James Petras appropriately called "The Great Transformation", brought about by Bernays' secret government. In another Volume, I will detail the massive corporate social changes that occurred in the US in the early 1980s, but will discuss some here.

 

It was during this time under President Ronald Reagan that the invisible elite took the US government and the nation on an alarming ideological turn to the extreme right, and everything changed. In addition to the mass deindustrialisation of the country and the destruction of labor unions and workers' rights, Reagan opened the doors to deregulation and privatisation, and effectively turned the keys of the country over to the elites and their large corporations and banks. It was this that paved the way for the parade of human, economic, political and military atrocities that continue to this day.

 

President Ronald Reagan addresses the nation from the Oval Office ontax reduction legislation. Source

 

This was when Reagan, under the advice of his handlers, proclaimed at least 200 Presidential Directives designed almost without exception for the benefit of the secret government and their banks and corporations. One need only look at the historical record to prove this point. Reagan was painfully unintelligent, without the mental capacity to have even conceived of such plans for the devastation and cannibalisation of so many nations, all of which were illegal by every measure and concocted solely to satisfy the commercial greed of Bernays' invisible people. These were primarily private laws dictated by the secret government which authorised the use of the US military and CIA to overthrow dozens of governments and to fund and install dictators that would permit the wholesale plundering of nations with unconscionable civilian repression resulting in at least 10 million deathsThis was when US militarism and military repression became openly mainstream activities, and which continued until the world could no longer stomach the tales of atrocities. This was when the CIA dusted off its 1,000-page torture manual, accumulated from long experience in the Philippines and Indonesiaand distributed it widely for decades to America's puppet dictators. It was when we saw an explosion in the US military budget as well, tripling in a short time to the extent that the US today spends almost twice as much on its military as the entire rest of the world combined, when the US global military expansion accelerated even as the domestic economic situation degenerated.

This was when Washington's neocon Zionists took virtually full control of US foreign policy, especially including the Middle East but also utilising the US military for their aggressive financial predation of South and Central America. This was when the US Congress began to lose the final vestiges of a democratic government, surrendering its legislative and oversight powers to the White House and AIPAC. This was when the US entered its long series of current wars, from Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria, meant to end with the destruction of Iran and Somalia, all to ensure the American Jews' (many of whom are dual US-Israeli citizens) plans of solidifying Israel's overwhelming power in the Middle East.

 

And in all of this, we witnessed a steady growth of the domestic police state apparatus conducted with military aggressiveness. You will recall from the Chapter on Bernays and Democracy Control the report produced for the Trilateral Commission by Samuel Huntington, where he complained that the civil protests and disobedience were a crisis of democracy and that the public needed to be properly indoctrinated. This was the origin of America's decisive swing to civil repression and fear as a means to ensure the desired apathy and noninvolvement of the people in the affairs of their government.

 

This was when the NSA so broadly expanded both its domestic and international espionage activities into ever more illegal areas and methods, and when the FBI became increasingly involved in suppressing dissension in all its forms. This was when we began to see the enormous growth of the domestic security and quasi-military agencies like Homeland Security and the proliferation of a multitude of repressive government powers and policing agencies involved in every aspect of civilian life. It was when decisions were made to create an enormous civil-military bureaucracy focused on domestic civilian control, when the Department of Homeland Security built and staffed its 800 internment camps in preparation for the civil unrest that would be unleashed from the invisible government's planned economic and social policies.

 

 

A large FEMA trailer park is seen next to the University of New Orleans campus in the Lakeview area August 25, 2006 in New Orleans, LA.MARIO TAMA/GETTY IMAGES

 

Naturally, there was increasingly less funding available for the nation's social programs, resulting in the gradual evisceration of all social services, primarily education and health care, the huge budget deficits and national debt being used to justify dismantling the social safety net. This was when Reagan claimed that a universal health care plan "would mean the end of freedom in America". Included here was the new hysteria for privatisation, the prison system perhaps most worthy of note since it reflected a planned return to the world of slavery and convict leasing.

 

This was when Bernays' elite bankers began the push to the extreme financialisation of the US economy and for deregulation, especially of the US financial system. When we look at the facts, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that these massive financial and tax changes occurred primarily to assist the Jewish bankers and elite industrialists in a vast plan to eviscerate the lower and middle classes and embark on what was perhaps the greatest planned transfer of wealth in human history.

 

President Bill Clinton addressing a White House conference to discuss ideas about how best to reform Social Security to ensure its solvency well into the 21st century, 1998. (Credit: Robert Giroux/Getty Images)

 

As Reagan, and then Bush Sr. disappeared from the political scene, Clinton had already been primed to complete the transitionIt was under Clinton's watch that the invisible government effectively legitimised a war on social policy and completed the removal of worker protection. It was his weakness and virtual treason that conspired to de-regulate the US banking system, repealing the Glass-Steagal Act, opening wide the doors to the financialisation of the economy, abandoning US economic policy to the FED and the Jewish bankers of Wall Street, paving the way for their massive profits leading to the 2008 social collapse.

 

It was also under Clinton that American Jews were inserted in about 80% of all strategic posts, effectively taking control of US foreign policy in the Middle East, thus ensuring Israel's military and hegemonic ambitions were fully imported into the White House and that the US military would execute them by proxy. It was also Clinton who initiated the expansion of the prison system and much of the repressive police state anti-terrorist legislation. It is true the US has never been a paragon of socialism but it was Clinton's conversion to Zionism and his own ideological orientation that strongly propelled the US on its path from the remaining vestiges of humane social policy and good government to a police state.

 

Under George Bush, America more or less completed the transition to surrendering full control of its legislative and executive branches to AIPAC and the invisible government. In many respects Bush was the ideal puppet; gullible, grateful, eager to please, surprisingly unintelligent and uninformed, weak and easily-led; putty in the hands of his neocon Zionist masters.

 

The multiple outrageous wars, the massive increase in military spending, the vast network of torture prisons, the unlimited unregulated freedom for the FED and Wall Street to work their magic of financial destruction and wealth transfer. There was also a new campaign with heavy media support, to demonise Muslims and to repress domestic activists, especially anyone critical of Israel. And of course, coincident with the financialisation of the US economy and the evisceration of the middle class, under Bush we saw the continued dumbing-down of education, a devastating rollback of social programs and the rise of a vast political-police apparatus designed for domestic suppression and civil war.

 

Obama inherited these social, financial and military crises and may well have harbored hopes for a change in direction but, due in equal parts to naivete, ambition and cowardice, he capitulated to the demands of the Jewish secret government, with all parts of the grand plan continuing unabated and some increasing in both scope and brutality. Under Obama and an increasingly compliant and complicit Congress, the falsely-christened "Homeland Security" apparatus has grown exponentially, today comprising almost 400,000 employees and a budget of almost $200 billion. And few military actions deserve more vicious condemnation than his destruction and looting of Libya by proxy for his Jewish masters.

 

The essential point is that all of these items, programs, processes and events were related, part of the same plan concocted by the same invisible government. Today we are in the final stages of the deep structural changes involved in this grand process, witnessing more dismantling of social services and education, a still-increasing financialisation of the economy, the continued impoverishment of society, and a vast increase in both domestic and international espionage and surveillance as part of the support mechanism for the police state. It is partially due to the fact that the event of 9-11 formed such an integral part of this program that a great many remain firmly convinced 9-11 was a planned event meant to facilitate and justify much of the remainder of the agenda, especially civilian repression and curtailing of civil rights, and to justify the perpetual war on terror that would itself be used as a kind of proxy for increasing world domination.

 

David Rockefeller (L) with his brothers in New York in September 1967; (L-R) David, Winthrop, John D Rockefeller III, Nelson and Laurance

 

In case you're tempted to dismiss the above comment as an over-reaction or a kind of 'conspiracy theory', consider this quote by David Rockefeller in an address to the Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller is referring to the Bilderberg Group - whose existence was hotly denied for decades and derided as just another conspiracy theory: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of public scrutiny during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and fully prepared to march towards our one world-government. The supranational sovereignty of our intellectual elites and world bankers is surely preferable to the globe as a whole." It was also Rockefeller who stated that his group needed one final dramatic impetus, "another Pearl Harbor event", to bring this New World Government to the throne. 9-11 was that event.

 

The Jewish Zionists who hold, or have held, key positions in various presidential administrations and in the scaffold that supports the police state, have featured prominently in smoothing the transition. James Petras pointed out that it was Michael Chertoff who intervened immediately after 9/11 "to free scores of Israeli spy suspects and 5 Israeli Mossad agents who had been witnessed filming and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center and were under active investigation by the FBI". Chertoff was also the chief architect of the global war on terror and of the Patriot Act, both of which have served to severely limit civil and legal rights and to accelerate the transition to a police state. In no small part, their support emerges from the majority of members of the US Congress who define themselves as "Israel First", and who appear more than willing to place the interests of that nation second to those of their own.

 

In 2013, Finian Cunningham wrote a valuable article in which he critically and bluntly outlined concerns about the US totalitarian system, claiming that US democracy was for all intents and purposes a dead corpse. He began by stating that the desperate US manhunt for Snowden showed above all else how petrified US leaders have become of ordinary citizens revealing the truths about their despotic rule. He wrote:

 

"American society is collapsing from the sheer weight of its decrepit capitalist economy. The social system is unsustainable. It is like a distended rotten sack that is coming apart at the seams from inexorable burgeoning pressure. Today, the US has evolved into a dystopia, not a democracy, where obscene wealth and privilege stand in the face of massive poverty and misery. One indicator of this abysmal inequality is the fact that the 400 richest Americans have more material wealth than 155 million of their fellow citizens combined. Another datum: some 50 million Americans – a sixth of the population – are surviving on food handoutsUnemployment, homelessness, suicide rates, prescription drug addiction, rampant gun crime all speak in different ways of social meltdown."

 

He wrote that it was hard to believe that not so long ago the US was regarded as the economic paradigm of the world, but now increasingly resembles a giant sprawling ghetto of unremitting poverty interspersed with a few gated rich communities populated by the top one percent of society. "The American ruling class, as with their elite counterparts around the world, are figuratively sitting within their privileged niches and petrified by the mounting discontent 'outside'. Through their criminal ransacking and rigging of wealth, the powers-that-be have through their own insatiable greed created a powerful potential enemy - virtually the entire population, both in the US and around the world. In this highly unstable situation of elites and masses that bankrupt capitalism has furnished, "democracy" can no longer be tolerated by the rulers. That is why the rulers have embarked on massive information gathering, monitoring, spying and surveillance. It is all about maintaining "control" of a precarious and explosive disequilibrium."

 

Cunningham again: "One basic duty of any state is to protect its citizens from foreign enemies who are conventionally understood to be state militaries or non-state terrorist groups. But from Snowden’s revelations of US government surveillance of telecommunications, the vast bulk of America’s spying is on civilians. Snowden disclosed in one instance how Chinese hospitals and universities – not military installations – were among the many international civilian targets for American government snooping. US national security officials defend this global dragnet method as a necessary way to trawl for terrorists." But we now know that no terrorist plots have been uncovered anywhere, at least none that were not fabricated by the FBI, and in truth the only dangers from terrorism today are those created by the US itself. Journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote that Americans have learned that the US surveillance apparatus is not directed primarily at the Chinese or Russian governments or terrorists, but at them, and that "what has been 'harmed' is not the national security of the US but the ability of its political leaders to work against their own citizens and citizens around the world in the dark, with zero transparency or real accountability."

 

 

Cunningham wrote, and I concur, that America's increasing militarism and an imperative to assert control over social meltdown and rebellion, were the result of the imploding neocon capitalist system. He said this "historic failure of capitalism explains the alarming growth in militarism and the intensification of domestic surveillance powers and civil repression. It was in this context where he claimed "American democracy is, for all intents and purposes, a dead corpse. Only criminal wars and repression of its citizens are keeping the moribund system on a life-support system." In the 1970s, US Senator Frank Church led an investigation into illicit American government covert operations and warned that if the NSA were to ever become deployed against the American public, as opposed to foreign enemies, then that country’s democracy would be finished. That is precisely the present abysmal outcome of secret US state powers.

 

No police state can function without a centralisation of power. This is especially important in areas of surveillance and espionage coupled with a reliable and ruthless quasi-military and police for control of civilian conduct and political dissension. It's not for nothing that power has been increasingly concentrated in the White House for several decades now, nor is it an accident that we have seen legislative changes creating the immense Homeland Security apparatus, as well as the illegal creation of a widespread domestic surveillance network. Successive US Presidents have not only assumed powers not entirely theirs but have increasingly taken advantage of what are called Presidential Directives, which are one-man executive orders made under the guise of advice from the National Security Council and which have the full force and effect of law. Given their presumed connection with national security, many of these are classified Top Secret and cannot be revealed even to the elected Congress or the courts. It is by these 'laws' that the government prosecuted the Occupy Wall Street protestors and that political dissidents are convicted of 'terrorism'. In court, the government charges a dissident with breaking a secret law, the content of which cannot be revealed for reasons of national security, and for which crime the evidence also cannot be revealed for the same reason. Every day, individuals are prosecuted and foreign policy initiatives taken, none of which can be disclosed. If this isn't a fascist police state, what would be?

 

 

Media control is an essential and integral part of a functioning police state, centralisation being necessary to distribute propaganda and censor information and to help maintain and manipulate the climate of fear which permits the reduction of civil liberties. It is therefore not an accident that US legislative changes permitting corporate concentration have especially included the mass media. This control of public opinion has steadily increased and become more powerful over the years through media concentration. The US government has increasingly responded to intense lobbying and finally permitted media monopolies and oligopolies to emerge, resulting in the extreme centralisation and control of content and ideology we see today.

 

In November of 2014, Dave Lindorff wrote an article titled "Metastasizing of the Police State of America", which he opened by stating "One can no longer speak in terms of the US as a country that is moving towards becoming a police state. We are living in a police state". He noted that "at least 40 agencies of the US government from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Supreme Court are using undercover agents to spy on ... citizens", and says the US has "passed the tipping point" of being a police state. He noted too that, according to a New York Times report, "even NASA and the Smithsonian Institution have undercover operatives. Undercover cops and agents are assuming the identities of teachers, doctors, journalists and even priests". Lindorff wrote, "This information has to be put together with the rampant militarization of local police forces, who have become an occupying army, and with the proliferation of spying activities by state and local police agencies, encouraged by the establishment by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security of myriad “Joint Anti-Terrorism Strike Forces, and of 76 so-called Fusion Centers."

 

Lindorff said he used to scoff at what he saw as wild claims that Americans were living in a police state, but that he's changed his mind, and that Americans are totally ignorant of the fact that they are being constantly watched and subject to arbitrary arrest, that they discover the truth only when they cross a line. In discussing the freedom of Americans to criticize and protest against the ruling elites, he wrote that while they may feel free to act, Americans must note "the terrible lengths to which this government is going to repress political activists. The list of people being hounded and persecuted by the US police state is far too long to publish. Suffice to say if police repression can happen to the people on that list, it can happen to all of us." And that says it all.

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com 

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2023

 

 


EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF: Police State America -- Chapter 2 -- The FBI

$
0
0


  Police State America -- Volume One

Chapter 1-The Rise of the Police State

Chapter 2 — The FBI

Chapter 3 –COINTELPRO

Chapter 4 — Universal Public Surveillance

Chapter 5 — Other Surveillance

Chapter 6 — Searching for Anarchists, or Maybe Just Political Activists

Chapter 7   — Winning the Information War

Chapter 8 — Arbitrary and Unaccountable Law Enforcement

Chapter 9 — The Militarisation of the Police

Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

Chapter   13 — The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil

Chapter 2 -- The FBI

By Larry Romanoff

 

 CHINESE     ENGLISH

 

 Police State America - Volume One free e-book 

   



Most people, including most Americans, are surprised to learn of the history of the FBI’s involvement in monitoring and disrupting peaceful, dissident activity in the United States. This agency has a long history dating back to the 1950s of mass surveillance, of targeting of people based on political ideology, of efforts to disrupt the movements for social justice, for efforts to shut down black liberation movement, the antiwar movement. Despite its fabricated image as America's highest-level police force, the FBI has always functioned primarily as America's political police force, with a responsibility to undermine and destroy any political developments that would challenge the existing order. The FBI has for the best part of a century operated as the secret police of the elite establishment against the people, similar to the political police forces in any repressive fascist state, and engaging in all manner of illegal acts which often included murder. It has developed to an art the techniques of performing "sting" and entrapment operations. Its agents have on countless occasions planned and initiated acts of terrorism and violence through the use of dissidents they had cultured and trained, often infiltrating opposing groups, inciting them to violence, and providing them with weapons and explosives. The Church Congressional Committee produced documentation of the White House use of the FBI or previous agencies for the purpose of political repression as far back as 1920, with these practices continuing into the present, and by the 1970s and 1980s there were countless revelations about the abuses of the FBI, the CIA, and other security agencies.

  

J Edgar Hoover, head of the Federal Bureau of Investigaton, (right) and his associate, Clyde Tolson at the Joe Louis and Jack Sharkey fight at Yankee Stadium, New York on 18th August 1936. This image is from the files of the United States National Archives. (Photo by Popperfoto via Getty Images/Getty Images)

 

The FBI has always been willing to use false claimsand false charges to eliminate real or imagined political threats. The Director of the FBI, Edgar J. Hoover, once wrote that "The purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt(political enemies) and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge." One needn't have been dangerous or threatening to attract the attention of the FBI; it was often sufficient to be politically objectionable in some way. Many political dissidents in the US have been killed, with many more framed and convicted for crimes of which they were innocent, spending decades in prison. Countless numbers of political activists were simply neutralised through a long list of illegal tactics. The record of these activities is long and frightening; there has been little the FBI would not do to prevent American citizens from engaging in unapproved political activity.

 

The FBI has a long history of having people imprisoned and even executed on flimsy or false evidence, many of whom have been proven innocent in later years. The Washington Post reported in 2013 that authorities had known for years that flawed forensic work by FBI examiners had led to convictions of innocent people, but FBI officials had never investigated the cases. This has been a repeated pattern for the agency. Multiple problems of false convictions have appeared several times in the past, usually when whistle-blowers revealed the problems to the media. Very recently, the Department of Justice began an unprecedented review of old criminal cases and found many in which FBI "experts" convicted innocent people by using exaggerated scientific testimony. In one case, a Supreme Court stayed the conviction of a man only hours before he was to die by lethal injection. He had been convicted on FBI testimony of a double homicide, but evidence of his innocence that had been hidden by the FBI surfaced at the last moment.

 

Federal prosecutors in DC have in recent years increasingly acknowledged that "errors by an elite FBI forensic unit" led to wrongful convictions, many of those wrongfully convicted having spent 25 or more years in prison before being cleared. One of the difficulties in re-opening these cases is that too often the original evidence somehow 'disappeared' when challenged, requiring other forms of modern testing necessary to prove innocence. There are now thousands of these questionable convictions being re-examined, almost all of them originating from the early 1980s and onward, false FBI convictions being yet another part of the Great Transformation. More than that, for decades the justice system refused to release information as to which convictions relied on the potentially-tainted evidence of this 'elite FBI forensic unit'.

 

This saga of tainted FBI prosecutions is resembling the auto recalls by General Motors - increasing by the week, with no end in sight. In 2014 it was revealed that nearly every FBI criminal case examined by the Justice Department included flawed or fraudulent forensic testimony. It was so bad that the massive examination of past cases that was mandated by the Justice Department was put on hold by the FBI because it was simply incapable of facing the vast extent of past manipulation and illegality. It required a year of increasing pressure by the Justice Department to re-commence the investigations, which revealed that almost every single FBI case reviewed, covering the past at least 20 years, was hopelessly tainted. And contrary to FBI claims of a 'rogue examiner', this has proven to be a systemic weakness infecting the entire justice system in America.

 

In May of 2014, Clyde Haberman wrote an article in the NYT detailing how the FBI's vaunted crime lab had convicted countless thousands of innocent people on supposed 'scientific' evidence that has now been proven false. A 2009 Report by the National Academy of Sciences found "serious problems" with methods routinely relied on by prosecutors and the police that included fingerprinting, blood typing, weapons identification, shoe print comparisons, handwriting, bite marks and hair testing. DNA has now been added to the list. One non-profit group specialising in freeing those wrongly convicted has succeeded in hundreds of false DNA matches alone. As far back as 1997, the FBI's own inspector general reported that the bureau’s crime lab was often sloppy. "Technicians were found to have exaggerated the reliability of their findings beyond the bounds of science, typically slanting their conclusions in the prosecution’s favor. A forensics expert who used to work in the federal lab, claimed there was "absolutely a disconnect between what I could say as a scientist and what the prosecutors, or the defense attorneys, wanted me to say"In 2012, the FBI reached an understanding where it agreed to "stay within the confines of known science", and is examining several thousand old cases to determine if faulty lab evidence played a role in guilty verdicts. It appears so far that innocence is proven in about half of all old cases subject to new DNA testing.

 

Newly-released documents show that the FBI has consistently targeted all political activist groups for surveillance, typically categorising them as criminal, subversive or terrorist. Groups devoted to such diverse activities as animal rights, promoting bicycle lanes, or complaining of increases in electricity rates, have been infiltrated, spied upon, labeled as subversive anarchists, and often threatened, intimidated and arrestedOne group protesting the Iraq war was designated as an anarchist white supremacist group and therefore dangerous to the nation. Many individuals have been included in a nationwide US terrorist database, for just such activities. The list of tactics and dirty tricks engaged in by the FBI over many decades, is astonishing to non-Americans and could never exist in a civilised nation. Americans are misled into believing that because one of them can make disparaging political comments without apparent state censure, this applies to the entire nation. But if that one person's views surface in the public realm and begin to gain traction, the full brutal power of the state will quickly descend. Ask Martin Luther King.

 

When the FBI took a dislike to a person, they would do any or all of the following: they would spread derogatory information and circulate vicious false rumors to the victim's family, friends and business associates, often by planting false information in the media. They would send anonymous letters containing death threats or accusations of marital infidelity; they would bully and frighten employers into firing their victims, or coerce landlords into evicting victims from their homes or places of businessThe FBI specialised in having the IRS perform spurious tax audits and prosecuting fictitious violations. They would often interrogate a victim and his associates, making their interest publicly known, so as to intimidate the victim and destroy his reputation. They would intimidate groups into cancelling speaking invitations by political activists and would often arrest and prosecute these people on fabricated charges. The FBI performed vast numbers of illegal wiretaps and surveillance activities on victims and their associates, often threatening them, and more than occasionally would physically assault activists, sometimes causing serious injuries. And they were well-known for breaking into their victims' homes and offices and vandalising the premises. All of these were commonly done to intimidate dissidents or truth-tellers into silence, and to destroy them if they could not be silenced. In addition to their own actions, FBI agents would often make use of impressionable people who could be used as dupes to further the agency's work. They would incite these people to forcefully disrupt meetingsinfiltrate peaceful demonstrations and turn them violent, attack local police, and often perform bombings and other acts of violence.

 

Martin Luther King friend and photographer was FBI informant. Ernest Withers, who was trusted by civil rights leader to sit in on strategy meetings spied on black activists and white radicals. Source

 

Since the early days of Edgar J. Hoover, theFBI has been notorious for compiling lists of names and histories to accompanythose names, all having proven useful for various acts of intimidation, blackmail and extortion. Today,the FBI receives much local competition from the NSA, especially in the areas of extortion and blackmail of public figures and politicians, but still seems to have the lower-level terrorists all to itself. One of its more despicable activities is entrapping or setting up individuals to commit crimes - in circumstances where they would never have done so on their own - only so it can arrest them for doing so. But much worse, it appears to have developed a habit of doing domestically within the US what the CIA and the NED do so proficiently outside the US - searching out radicals and extremists, inciting their passions, inflaming their emotions, funding them, providing them with arms and explosives and encouraging them to commit various acts of violence or terrorism, in service of the state. One judge stated that "Only the government could have made a ‘‘terrorist' out of" a person charged in her courtroomThere have been a great many of these sting operations conducted during the past 10 or 12 years, and no small number prior to that time.

 

The situation has become so uncontrolled that when the FBI claims to have stopped 50 terrorist acts in recent years - as they did claim - it was proven that 49 of them were fabricated, and the 50th was trivial. It now seems that virtually every "terror" case in the US in recent years has had the FBI’s fingerprints all over it, including the Boston Marathon 'bombing'. "According to the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School, nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved an FBI sting operation. The FBI typically uses informers or dupe agents to establish relations with these people and act as messengers to carry out the FBI sting. The informers are often criminals or ex-criminals who participate because they are seeking leniency on criminal charges and hope to avoid prison or obtain a reduced sentence. They encourage and assist others to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI and, under the FBI’s guiding hand, they provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism." I won't reproduce a list here; a quick internet search for "FBI entrapment" will tell you most of what you need to know.

 

According to an article published in the New York Times on April 28, 2012, titled, "Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the FBI": "The United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years - or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.

 

But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested." And further, "The FBI has for many years mounted carefully orchestrated sting operations or 'entrapment', where even individuals with no apparent predisposition to commit a crime are induced to do so by US government agentsThey seek out susceptible individuals and set traps for them, encouraging and inciting them to commit acts of violence, and then arresting these dupes on charges of terrorism when they attempt to carry out these acts. Often, they find people whose only 'crime' would appear to consist of comments made in a public chat room."

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com 

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2023

 


EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF: Police State America -- Chapter 3 -- COINTELPRO

$
0
0

   Police State America --Volume One

Chapter 1-The Rise of the Police State

Chapter 2 — The FBI

Chapter 3 –COINTELPRO

Chapter 4 — Universal Public Surveillance

Chapter 5 — Other Surveillance

Chapter 6 — Searching for Anarchists, or Maybe Just Political Activists

Chapter 7   — Winning the Information War

Chapter 8 — Arbitrary and Unaccountable Law Enforcement

Chapter 9 — The Militarisation of the Police

Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

Chapter   13 — The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil

Police State America --CHAPTER 3 --COINTELPRO

 

J. Edgar Hoover at Oval Office, White House, Washington, D.C., July 24, 1967. Yoichi R. Okamoto / Wikimedia

CHINESE    ENGLISH

 

 Police State America - Volume One free e-book 



   

This section should be of particular interest to all those who believe or promulgate the fiction of America as a bastion of freedom of speech and assembly, most especially the freedom to criticise and speak out against the policies of the US government. The FBI has been used as a rather brutal tool against dissenting domestic political groups for many decades, primarily to discredit all those revealing illegalities of government agencies, protesting for change or seeking independence for Puerto Rico or Hawaii or, particularly, those revealing truths of the government's false flag operations. The program is still in full force today.

 

COINTELPRO was a secret program operated by the FBI that was meant to undermine the popular upsurge of political dissension which began to sweep the US during the late 1960s and early 1970s, partly in response to the Vietnam war which most people were beginning to see as an inhuman travesty of immense proportion. The name stands for "Counterintelligence Program", a plan hatched by the FBI to eliminate political opposition inside the US. Working in full cooperation with local police and prosecutors, the FBI created myriad schemes to "misdirect, discredit, disrupt and otherwise neutralize" the many individuals and groups that were politically active and demanding change in the government. The programs, following Bernays' principles, were meant to distort the public's view of dissident political groups, to isolate them as enemies of the state, and to use this misinformation to legitimize the brutal repression of political dissension within the US. "By operating covertly, the FBI and police were able to severely weaken domestic political opposition without shaking the conviction of most US people that they live in a democracy with free speech and the rule of law."

 

At first, they tried traditional methods of repression, using harassment and prosecution for political crimes, but when these methods failed the FBI secretly used fraud and violence to sabotage this political activity which was supposed to have been guaranteed by the US  constitution. Its methods ranged far beyond surveillance and intimidation, and eventually came to imitate a domestic version of the same covert actions for which the CIA has become infamous. As measures to intimidate political dissidents, the agency arranged evictions from homes and offices, the loss of employment, frame-ups and false arrests, break-ins and vandalism, and physical attacks and violence. Many of these actions involved serious physical assaults and the killing of political dissidents. They became so extensive and vicious that as one writer claimed, they "amounted to terrorism on the part of the government". I have included below details of some of these cases. During this long period of COINTELPRO activity, the FBI openly boasted of its success in having local militants repeatedly "arrested on every possible charge until they could no longer make bail". Though most people were eventually released, many were convicted of serious charges on the basis of perjured testimony by FBI agents, with more false convictions coming to light even today. This intense legal and police harassment had several objectives.One was that the false arrests would remove the dissident leaders from their activity and from contact with supporters; another was to create huge legal expenses for individuals and groups that might eventually bankrupt anyone who dared to mount political protests in the US. They also spared no effort to paint these political dissidents and protestors as dangerous criminals.

 

In stark contrast to jingoistic American claims of the independence of the judiciary, the FBI and the US Department of Justice also used these processes to turn US courts into FBI-controlled instruments of political repressionForced appearances by thousands of individuals before grand juries on charges of being terrorists, were sufficient to dissuade dissidents from further political activity. And in contrast to the utopian American claims about a rule of law, many individuals were jailed during this period without criminal charges or trials, in the same kind of political internment that had been practiced in the most brutal dictatorships. This was neither the first nor the last time the US government would resort to such tactics to silence political dissension, with the US media almost invariably suppressing the information.

 

The CIA was also heavily involved in this political repression, having infiltrated the Black, student and antiwar movements, and also using its power and contacts to make extensive use of university professors, journalists, labor leaders, publishing houses, cultural organizations and Foundations to mold US public opinion against any political dissension. In recent years there has been increased cooperation between the FBI, the military and the CIA, with political repression within the US now much more sophisticated. Special elite units within the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and the US military are now trained and equipped for what is called "counter-insurgency" or "low-intensity warfare". These manuals still teach the essential methodology of COINTELPRO, and focus on early intervention to neutralize political opposition before it can take hold. These clandestine operations to discredit and disrupt any sign of political dissension in the US are now institutionalised.

 

America, as "the land of the free" is a complete myth, an imaginary fairy-tale existing only in the minds of the gullible and uninformed which definition sadly includes a great many Americans.

 

The FBI also acts to protect the US military and the CIA from public exposure. Over the years, when the US was involved in its brutal and repressive activities in other nations, especially the massive deaths and savage political repressions in South and Central America, it was the FBI who acted to intimidate and threaten political dissidents in the US. When American citizens wanted to travel to Nicaragua or El Salvador to see for themselves the human catastrophes the US had unleashed in those countries, the FBI immediately categorised those citizens with a "terrorist" label, claiming they were traitors to America. They had their trips disrupted, airline and hotel reservations cancelled, their passports and private papers confiscated, their homes and offices burglarised and ransacked, and they were constantly harassed by FBI agents demanding political information. These police actions created such an envelope of fear that it became virtually impossible for American citizens to sustain any kind of political movement or to challenge US government policy.

 

COINTELPRO was discovered in 1971, when political dissidents broke into an FBI office, stole all their secret files on this activity, and released them to the news media. Until this point, nobody would have believed the US government and its agencies capable of such brutal and illegal political repression. Further information obtained by lawsuits and the public confessions of former agents, eventually created an enormous scandal that threatened the very legitimacy of the American government. In response, the US Congress compelled the FBI (and only the FBI) to reveal part of what it had done, and to promise it would not engage in such activities again. But in the end, nothing changed, and the FBI today is far more criminal than in those earlier years.

 

Even the US Congress had admitted that the FBI has recently created many fake "terrorist" events in its fabricated sting operations. Operations like COINTELPRO, CHAOS, and OPERATION GARDEN PLOT, or the HOUSTON PLAN were all evidence of a virulent fascism arising in America, all involving the highest levels of military and civilian intelligence and all levels of police agencies in a full-scale attempt to discredit, disrupt and destroy all political dissension and activist movements that sprang up from the 1960s to today. These plans led directly to the assassinations of Martin Luther King and  Malcolm Xas unacceptable"Black Messiahs", who might constitute a threat to the ruling elite and the control they exercise through their so-called democratic parties.

 

When a San Diego newspaper published articles exposing the President's friends, it was immediately attacked. Bullets were fired into the office, paint splashed over furniture, equipment smashed, records and subscription lists stolen, staff cars firebombed, vending machines vandalized. When the newspaper attempted to relocate to new offices, their prospective landlord was arrested by the police on a fabricated murder charge. Released after an hour of "interrogation", he told the newspaper they would have to find new offices somewhere else.

 

Many independent newspapers had their premises or printing presses bombed, some many times, by the FBI for failure to heed warnings about political content. The FBI would publish fabricated stories of sexual or financial misdeeds in "friendly" newspapers. They would give private warnings to radio stations that their broadcast licenses would be revoked if they aired "dissident" content. The objective of these COINTELPRO activities was to block the penetration of political dissension into any channel of American life where public opinion might be molded, to prevent opposing political ideas from attaining any influence over the peopleVery simply, any media outlet that was politically objectionable to the secret government was a victim of this kind of brutal political repression by the FBIThe process exists today in more clever, more sophisticated, and more brutal form.

 

Noam Chomsky wrote of COINTELPRO many years ago in a 2002 book titled Understanding Power, when he stated the following:

 

"At the exact same time that Watergate was discovered, there were exposures in the courts and through the Freedom of Information Act of massive FBI operations to undermine political freedom in the United States, running back to Roosevelt but really picking up under Kennedy. It was called 'COINTRELPRO' and it included a vast range of things ... the straight Gestapo-style assassination of a Black Panther leader ... organizing race riots in an effort to destroy black movements … attacks on the American Indian Movement, the women’s movement, you name it … fifteen years of FBI disruption of the Socialist Workers Party – that meant regular FBI burglaries, stealing membership lists and using them to threaten people, going to businesses and getting people fired from their jobs and so on. That fact alone … is already vastly more important than … a bunch of Keystone Kops [breaking] into the Democratic National Committee headquarters one time. The Socialist Workers Party is a legal political party after all … And this wasn’t just a bunch of gangsters, this was the national political police; that’s very serious. In comparison to this, Watergate is a tea party."

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

 

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com 

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2023

 

EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: Police State America — Chapter 4 — Universal Public Surveillance

$
0
0

   Police State America --Volume One

Chapter 1-The Rise of the Police State

Chapter 2 — The FBI

Chapter 3 –COINTELPRO

Chapter 4 — Universal Public Surveillance

Chapter 5 — Other Surveillance

Chapter 6 — Searching for Anarchists, or Maybe Just Political Activists

Chapter 7   — Winning the Information War

Chapter 8 — Arbitrary and Unaccountable Law Enforcement

Chapter 9 — The Militarisation of the Police

Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

Chapter   13 — The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil

Police State America -- Chapter 4 -- Universal Public Surveillance

CHINESE    ENGLISH

 Police State America - Volume One free e-book 

We have read about the NSA domestic espionage network, about the CIA and Google collecting data, about Facebook and Twitter, about Microsoft's operating systems and most other software containing back doors for the NSA or other agencies, and of all the other personal data being collected and mined. But all these are only a small part of a comprehensive surveillance system that contains other and more frightening components, many with a physical presence and lethal capabilities.

IMSI catchers 

 

IMSI (or ISMI) means 'Mobile Subscriber Identity'. This is an inexpensive and relatively simple technology used to intercept mobile phone calls and text messages by imitating mobile phone towers. These devices mimic the signals from telecom towers and trick cellphones into reporting their unique registration information. But, having made contact, they do much more. They can listen to and record conversations, and disrupt calls. They can retrieve all data from replying phones including text messages and emails, contact data, communication history and photos. These devices have been used by the US military and intelligence officials since the early days of mobile phones, for more than twenty years, and are commonly used today in foreign countries where the CIA or NSA want to intercept communications between government or military officials. This was one of the first breakthroughs in covert surveillance by US agencies, and are used 24 hours a day within the US, attempting intercept communications from all foreign embassies and consulates, and all foreign dignitaries and diplomatic staff located in the US.

 

 

Naturally, the US government claims it uses this technology to locate criminals or, as always, "terrorists", a claim that needs to be strongly ridiculed as the patent rubbish that it is. For one thing, if law enforcement wants to find a criminal, the sensible approach is to have the phone company monitor that one phone, not to indiscriminately and covertly contact millions of phones hoping to find that one. Secondly, there is no evidence that there are now, or have ever been, terrorists within the US, and there is no record of either law enforcement or the intelligence agencies having ever located even one such person during the past 25 years of spying. This is simply one more part of the extent to which fascism has infiltrated the US mentality. Previously, these agencies collected this data and more from the telecom firms themselves but, in final efforts to avoid the legal necessity of judicial oversight and the 'paper trail' left by using a middleman, they now collect the data privately with no trail and no accountability.

 

These devices, commonly known as 'dirtbags', used to be located on the ground, carried in vehicles that relentlessly scanned the immediate area for all signals that might be useful for American espionage against foreign government officials located within the US. One such device was known as a Stingray, and manufactured by Boeing Aircraft, and the US government spent tens of millions of dollars obtaining Stingrays for many local areas. However, these devices are now airborne in a major way. The US government has an entire fleet of small Cessna aircraft equipped with IMSI catchers that cover virtually all of the populated area of the US and operate on a daily basis, a far more sophisticated program than anything previously understood about covert use of such technology. Again, the Washington DC area is the one hardest hit with this program, the authorities using a wide array of aircraft and other airborne devices in their surveillance and monitoring of the activities of foreign diplomats in the city. Call interception and recording are high on their list of objectives.

 

The category of "other airborne devices" is worthy of attention, since mini-drone aircraft are now fully capable of carrying one of these interception devices. These little drones are inexpensive, silent or virtually so, can fly much closer to the ground than can larger aircraft, and often go unnoticed by the public. Many of these are now used by private individuals for aerial photography, for news gathering and other useful purposes, with no easy way to distinguish espionage drones from any other. This is again one more ominous indication of the 'Terminator Society' that the US is rapidly becoming.

 

The US Congress has passed new laws permitting US airspace to be filled with unmanned military drones which will be used for unspecified "domestic operations". The FAA claims that 30,000 or more drones will be airborne in the next five or six years. That's 1,000 drones flying over each and every city with a population above one million, or 100 drones over every city with a population of 100,000 or more. The legislation demands the FAA arrange clearance, airspace and infrastructure for the highest possible number of drones to be active. Deployment and operational tests will be conducted by many agencies including NASA and the Department of Defense, and of course local police forces, but perhaps the primary deployment will fall to DHS - the Department of so-called Homeland Security. It is worth noting that many American educational institutions are involved in every stage of this new plan, including MIT with its long history of military research. Google and Facebook, being CIA clones, are hotly pursuing the extremely profitable commercial drone market to keep the technology in the family.

 

Authorities claim their initial plan is to give these drones "non-lethal weapons" capability, but we need no predictive ability to know they will very soon be firing lethal weapons and executing people on the ground, since there is no historical evidence of the US government or any of its branches ever drawing a line at non-lethal anything. These drone aircraft were developed as weapons for cowardly surveillance and targeted killings of civilians in foreign countries and will not change their purposes or methods when applied to domestic applications. Domestic law enforcement agencies appear excessively anxious to do broad scale civil surveillance, primarily to control civil unrest and political dissension such as street protests and the like. Firing tear gas and small-caliber ammunition, these drones are the perfect crowd-control devices, permitting the agencies to monitor and attack participants in a civil disturbance while sitting comfortably and risk-free in a control room that might be thousands of miles away. Using their CIA-Google face-recognition technology, they can also identify and target the leaders and will be able to pursue those who escape their initial attacks. Drones can carry scanners not only for facial recognition, but for license plates, thermal imaging, Wi-Fi and more. They can be armed, and can be as small as birds, in which case the numbers could become unlimited. The US is heading for a "Terminator-style" civil environment and I see nothing that will change the direction. The drones are already flying over the US, with laws being changed to permit unlimited air access and eliminate all restrictions on civilian surveillance. To look at all the current signs and connect all the disparate pieces, is frightening.

 

"These weapons fulfill the US Air Force’s fantasy of "death from above", carried out by pilots working in the security and comfort of US bases who, acting as judge, jury, and executioner, destroy supposed enemies from computer consoles as if it were a video game. The cowardliness of wars of aggression being conducted against innocent people in dirt-poor lands by unseen "UAV pilots" in air-conditioned offices thousands of miles away cannot be over-emphasized. This is what unmanned aircraft have brought so far to the reputation of the United States – a new low in the entire universe of human ethics."

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

 

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com 

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2024


Peter Thiel: From Gaza AI War Criminal To White House Puppet Master

$
0
0

 Dear Friends,

When you have time please read this article till the end. Thanks.

 http://www.defenddemocracy.press/peter-thiel-from-gaza-ai-war-criminal-to-white-house-puppet-master/


 

Peter Thiel: From Gaza AI War Criminal To White House Puppet Master

17/10/2024

 

By Alan Macleod
Oct 9, 2024

The screams of babies as buildings collapse in Gaza. Terrified parents carrying the remains of their children away in plastic carrier bags. These scenes – altogether too familiar today – come enabled by German-American tech billionaire Peter Thiel and his company, Palantir, whose software uses AI and big data to help the Israeli military surveil, target and slaughter hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. It is also used by ICE, the FBI and U.S. law enforcement to destroy privacy, to attack whistleblowers, and to turn the Orwellian concept of “pre-crime” (identifying and tracking potential subversives before they commit any offense) into a reality.

The Silicon Valley oligarch has deep ties to the CIA and the military-industrial complex and is one of the Republican Party’s most powerful backers. Already one of the world’s most influential individuals, if Donald Trump wins in November, Thiel has set himself up to become a “shadow president,” wielding gigantic power over us all. This is his story.

Shadow President


Donald Trump is surging. A recent New York Times poll found the former president is ahead in several key battleground states, making the coming election too close to call. One man undoubtedly heartened by this news is Peter Thiel, the German-born tech entrepreneur and co-founder of such companies as PayPal and Palantir. Thiel, whose net worth stands at $10 billion, bankrolled Trump’s successful 2016 campaign when few others would. He served on his transition team and as an advisor, leading commentators to label him a “shadow president.”

This time, however, Thiel will enjoy even more influence in the White House, as Trump has selected Ohio Senator and Thiel protégé J.D. Vance as his vice president. Thiel – who has previously stated that freedom and democracy are incompatible- bemoaned the extension of the vote to women and denounced the public as an “unthinking demos” – took Vance under his wing when the latter was still at college. From there, Thiel secured Vance his first job in 2013. Two years later, Vance joined his venture capital firm, and in 2020, he provided the seed money for Vance to start his own investment group.

Vance is a political neophyte, first running for Senate only in 2021. He was able to do so thanks to an enormous $15 million donation from Thiel – the largest ever amount to a Senate candidate. That Thiel had plucked someone from his own firm and bankrolled his political career raised many eyebrows at the time, with many feeling the billionaire had essentially bought a senate seat and put a pawn in his place. However, the stakes have been raised considerably now that Trump has selected Vance as his running mate. “J.D. Vance owes both his political career and his previous venture capital career to Peter Thiel,” Whitney Webb, an investigative journalist who has closely tracked Thiel’s exploits, told MintPress News.

It has not always been plain sailing between Trump and Vance. The latter began his political career as a vocal “Never Trump” Republican, describing the 45th president as an “idiot” and “America’s Hitler.” It was Thiel himself who personally escorted Vance to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to smooth over the relationship. The tech mogul’s pitch was successful, and in July, Trump shocked many by picking the inexperienced senator as his VP – a decision that gave Thiel unprecedented power and influence over the country’s direction.

AI War Criminal

The United States government has unequivocally backed Israeli aggression in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. And central to that support has been the role that Thiel has played. Thiel’s company, Palantir, is using AI to surveil the Palestinian population and help generate massive kill lists for the Israeli military based on that data.

According to an investigation by an Israeli outlet, +972 Magazine, Israel is using a piece of software called Lavender, which develops profiles on every person in Gaza, assigning them a score of 1-100 based on individuals’ perceived connections to Hamas. A wide range of characteristics, including sharing similar work schedules to or being in a WhatsApp group with a known Hamas member, would raise one’s score. If an individual’s number reached a certain level, they would automatically be put on a kill list. In the first months of the war alone, Lavender identified over 37,000 Palestinians to be executed.

Although not mentioned explicitly by name in the +972 Magazine report, Palantir is widely assumed to be part of the Lavender project. The group has long provided the Israeli military with vast amounts of AI hardware and software. Moreover, at the height of the Gaza onslaught, it announced it had entered into a new “strategic partnership” with the Israeli Defense Ministry to “supply technology to help the country’s war effort.” “Both parties have mutually agreed to harness Palantir’s advanced technology in support of war-related missions,” the company’s executive vice-president, Josh Harris, said, adding: “This strategic partnership aims to significantly aid the Israeli Ministry of Defense in addressing the current situation in Israel.”

Lavender is known to be distinctly hit-or-miss. Many professions with similar communication patterns to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives, including police and firefighters, or even people with the same name as a resistance fighter, were flagged for execution. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) sources suggest a 10% false positive rate.

Nevertheless, IDF analysts were told to treat Lavender suggestions as orders, turning the program into an automated kill list. One individual said that they devoted only 20 seconds to each target, only to check if the individual Thiel’s software marked for execution was male. Other than that, humans were there only to “rubber stamp” Lavender’s decisions.

Today, Israel also uses AI-powered “Smart Shooter” guns at checkpoints, capable of mowing down dozens of Palestinians without any human input whatsoever.

The Israeli military systematically targeted Gazans at night while entire families were in their own homes, sleeping. “We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity,” one intelligence officer said, adding: “On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in [their] homes without hesitation, as a first option. It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.” Israelis called this system “Where’s Daddy?” presumably a reference to the cries of newly orphaned Gazan children.

For most of these assassinations, the Israeli military preferred to use cheaper, unguided missiles, commonly referred to as “dumb bombs.” Unlike guided missiles, these munitions lacked precision targeting, and so needed to be larger and pack more explosives, causing massive collateral damage. Israel would use these bombs to destroy entire apartment buildings if Lavender identified even a suspected junior Hamas member living there.

Read also:

Turkish envoy assumes Israel post as relations warm

 

For the IDF, it was simply a question of resources. “You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage [of precision guided bombs],” explained one intelligence officer. The massive collateral damage barely factored into the equation. Palestinian lives were considered so unimportant that Israeli commanders accepted up to 100 civilian deaths per Hamas target.

It was this deliberate destruction of entire apartment complexes that led to the unprecedented wiping out of entire extended families. Palestinian families often lived together in the same building. And when those buildings were felled every night, bloodlines would be extinguished with one keystroke or mouse click. MintPress News recently spoke to Ahmed al-Naouq, a Gazan who lost 21 members of his family to Israeli bombing.

Perhaps most controversially, Lavender also gave children a score of 1-100 and recommended many for execution. Israel was delighted with Lavender’s performance, with one commander explaining that human targeting produced “bottlenecks” that limited the IDF’s capacity for violence. “We [humans] cannot process so much information. It doesn’t matter how many people you have tasked to produce targets during the war — you still cannot produce enough targets per day,” they said. The IDF’s insatiable thirst for destruction could only be quenched through AI Lavender only became less useful after Israel had leveled the strip, displacing nearly the entire population and causing complete chaos. This made the system less able to track individuals’ movements.

Israel’s Biggest Supporters

The level of destruction in such a short period of time is nearly unprecedented in the modern era. Serious estimates suggest that up to 335,000 people have been killed in less than one year. “The situation today in Gaza cannot be analyzed or qualified otherwise than as a genocide. I have not seen a genocide where the intent was so ostentatious and vindicated over and over,” Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in the Palestinian Territories, said. “This is one of the most critical cases of genocide, a tragedy foretold, because of the intent to eliminate the Palestinians with all means available – be it transferring them or neutralizing them or segregating them,” she added.

Israel is currently being investigated for genocide by the International Court of Justice. And Thiel is one of its key enablers.

When asked a question about Lavender at the Cambridge University Union, Thiel was flustered, stating:

“My bias is to defer to Israel. It’s not for us to second-guess everything. And I believe that, broadly, the IDF gets to decide what it wants to do, and that they’re broadly in the right and that’s the sort of the perspective I come back to. And if I fall into the trap of arguing you on every detailed point, I would actually be conceding the broader issue that the Middle East should be micromanaged from Cambridge. And I think that’s just simply absurd. And so I’m not going to concede that point.”

Thiel has done more than just defer to Israel, however. In January, he flew Palantir executives out to Tel Aviv to host a board meeting in “solidarity” with Israel. It was there that Palantir announced its new strategic partnership with the Israeli military. In October 2023, Palantir also took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times, expressing its total commitment to the Israeli war effort. “Certain kinds of evil can only be fought with force. Palantir stands with Israel,” the company posted on Twitter. These actions precipitated an exodus of employees from the organization, as numerous staff members refused to be complicit in the violence.

Since October 7, Palantir has been the target of numerous protests, with groups condemning the company’s complicity in the slaughter. Palantir’s actions are so unethical that they have even caused significant cognitive dissonance for company executives. “I have asked myself, ‘If I were younger at college, would I be protesting me?’” Palantir CEO Alex Karp once admitted. Nevertheless, Karp has denounced the student protests against Israel as “antisemitic” and warned that they pose a threat to the military-industrial complex, saying: “If we lose the intellectual debate, you will not be able to deploy any army in the West again.”

One group pushing for an end to the partnership between Silicon Valley and the Israeli military is Tech for Palestine, a community of tech workers who support Palestinian liberation. “I would like to see the tech industry fully divest from Israel. That would be a major step forward,” Paul Biggar, founder of Tech For Palestine, told MintPress, adding that Silicon Valley is directly contributing to Palestinian suffering:

“The goals should be that Palestinian people are afforded full equality and freedom from the Apartheid and oppression of Israel. Any acts that are committed by tech companies that support the Israeli state are de facto apartheid actions. And any involvement in Israel’s war economy is supporting the violation of international humanitarian law and involvement in crimes against humanity.”

The Brains of Ukraine

Thanks to its use in Gaza, Palantir markets its products as battle-tested. But the company is deeply involved in the war in Ukraine as well, providing surveillance, intelligence and targeting solutions for the Ukrainian government. Palantir was one of the first Western corporations on the ground after the Russian invasion and has deeply embedded itself into the Zelensky administration. More than half a dozen ministries, including the Ministry of Defense, depend on its software. Palantir uses satellite imagery and artificial intelligence to assess battlefield situations and provide the military with digital kill lists, similar to what they do in Israel. The company is responsible for most of the Ukrainian military’s targeting capability. “It’s like a superpower,” one Ukrainian minister said of Palantir.

The organization presents its actions in Ukraine as a moral crusade for righteousness:

“We believe that when we can make a difference in the service of a just cause, such as in the defense of Ukraine, we carry a moral responsibility to do so. And so, we are proud to provide our technical experience and technology to Ukrainian forces defending their homeland, national sovereignty, and personal freedoms.”

Yet, given its other actions around the world, it seems to act less as a champion for human rights and more as an extension of the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. national security state.

“CIA Front”

Today, Palantir is a digital juggernaut valued at over $79 billion. But it was not always like that. In its early days in the 2000s, the business floundered and could find neither clients nor investors. A cash injection from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s investments arm, rescued it from oblivion.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999 and seeks to nurture and sponsor new companies that can supply the intelligence community with cutting-edge technologies to keep them one step ahead of their competitors. The “Q” in its name is a reference to “Q” from the James Bond franchise – a creative inventor who supplies the spy with the latest in futuristic tech. Many top tech firms today, including Google and Elon Musk’s SpaceX, enjoyed intimate relationships with the CIA and owe their prominence to the agency.

Read also:

Crisis in Israel: Generals stop war-maniac Lieberman!

 

Palantir is no different, growing up alongside the burgeoning post-9/11 national security state. Its first customers were primarily intelligence agencies. Indeed, until 2008, the CIA was its only client. The government remains its most important customer; it currently possesses more than $1.5 billion in government contracts, including with the CIA, FBI, NSA, U.S. Army, Navy, and Space Force. Many of these were secured during the Trump presidency when Thiel had unparalleled access to the presidency. In 2020, it moved its headquarters away from the Bay Area to Denver, cementing its attempt to position itself less as a tech group and more alongside military contractors such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton. Palantir is “arguably a CIA front company,” Webb told MintPress.

Real-Life Minority Report

The 2002 movie “Minority Report” is set in a dystopian future where corrupt police arrest citizens before they commit any crimes. But thanks to Palantir, the concept of “pre-crime” has become less science fiction and more a reality.

The group works with law enforcement across the country, using big data to track Americans’ movements, interactions with other people, social media posts and more. It builds up a complex web of information predicting which individuals are more likely to be gang members or perpetrators of violent crime.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) also uses Palantir software to surveil, arrest and deport undocumented immigrants, causing fear, alarm, and panic in immigrant communities across the country. Palantir renewed its contract with ICE, even over objections from its own employees, many of whom resigned in protest.

“Tech companies such as Palantir provide the digital backbone that allows for ICE to carry out raids, arrests and mass deportations,” Jesse Franzblau, Senior Policy Analyst with the National Immigrant Justice Center, told MintPress. “In the past, ICE has relied on Palantir to target the parents and caregivers of unaccompanied children and to coordinate workplace raids. The government should not be allowed to contract with companies that help ICE put a target on the back of immigrant communities.”

Thus, today, the same group that helps Israel carry out its onslaught against Palestinians also tears families apart inside the United States – an illustration of how America’s imperial projects abroad are fundamentally intertwined with the war on black and brown people at home.

Perhaps even more dystopian is that it also works with government agencies to build profiles on employees that identify which are most likely to become whistleblowers. These “subversives” can then be isolated, investigated or punished. Moreover, it has developed complex software to ensure leakers of classified information can always be caught.

This war on whistleblowers reached new levels in 2010 when Palantir published a plan to undermine, attack and destroy WikiLeaks and its supporters. The document, entitled “The WikiLeaks Threat,” recommended that the U.S. government carry out cyberattacks and spread “disinformation” about the organization by creating a “media campaign to push the radical and reckless nature of WikiLeaks activities.”

It suggested cutting off funding sources for WikiLeaks by spreading fear among its supporters that they would be arrested for donating and carrying out targeted attacks against prominent WikiLeaks supporters, such as journalist Glenn Greenwald.

The document was hacked and circulated online, causing a huge scandal for Palantir. Although the company offered a full apology to both WikiLeaks and Greenwald, Webb’s investigation noted that most of Palantir’s anti-WikiLeaks lines of attack were indeed carried out.

Palantir also likely has access to your most sensitive health data. The company works with health providers in the United States and Great Britain. This has triggered a reaction in the U.K., where the group No Palantir in Our NHS was formed. A statement on their website explains their objections:

“Palantir is a U.S. tech and security corporation with a terrible track record. They help governments, intelligence agencies, and border forces to spy on innocent citizens and target minorities and the poor.

We don’t trust them with our health data, and we don’t trust them to respect the values of our National Health Service… Palantir operates so far under the radar, it is special ops.”

PayPal Mafioso

By the time he started Palantir in 2003, Thiel was already extremely wealthy. He had previously co-founded online payment service PayPal, which was sold to eBay for $1.5 billion the previous year. There, he made connections with another early PayPal investor, Elon Musk.

Early PayPal employees went on to develop an extraordinary amount of the modern tech economy, so much so that they are widely referred to as the “PayPal Mafia.” Members of this mafia went on to found the video platform YouTube, the review site Yelp, and the business social network LinkedIn. Others sit on the boards of Microsoft and Reddit.

Thiel is universally described as the “don” of the PayPal Mafia. The billionaire was Facebook’s first outside investor, buying over 10% of the company for a paltry $500,000. He also served on its board of directors from 2005 until 2022. This savvy investment netted him a gigantic return on his investment.

Thiel also had ulterior motives in founding PayPal, seeing the project as an attempt to use the power of money to overturn democracy as we know it and allow him to implement his deeply conservative agenda. “The initial founding vision was that we were going to use technology to change the whole world and basically overturn the monetary system of the world,” he said. However, he knew his ideology could never stand up to public scrutiny and would never be accepted by society. As he noted:

“We could never win an election on getting certain things because we were in such a small minority, but maybe you could unilateral change the world without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who are never going to agree with you through technological means, and this is where I think technology is this incredible alternative to politics.”

Vampire Capitalist

Like many individuals working in Silicon Valley, Thiel holds many controversial beliefs about society that should be better understood, given that he may become the shadow president in November.

While still a student, he founded The Stanford Review, a deeply conservative newspaper that attacked attempts to diversify the student body and anyone who challenged American exceptionalism or the superiority of Western culture.

In 1995, alongside fellow future PayPal mafioso David Sacks, he wrote and published the book, “The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and Political Intolerance on Campus: Multiculturalism and the Political Intolerance on Campus.” The book warned against multiculturalism, argued that racism and sexism were greatly exaggerated and that U.S. universities displayed a profound anti-Americanism and intolerance of all things Western.

Read also:

Les talibans de San Francisco

 

These arguments would later become standard conservative talking points. Thiel has also personally bemoaned the extension of the franchise to women and stated that freedom and democracy are incompatible because of the stupidity of the American population, whom he calls the “unthinking demos.”

And while Thiel claimed that racism was largely a thing of the past, in 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor sued Palantir for egregiously racist hiring practices. The government’s case noted that 85% of Palantir software engineer applicants were Asian, but despite this, Palantir still hired significantly more non-Asians than Asians. This meant that Asians were four times less likely to be hired. Palantir eventually agreed to pay nearly $1.7 million to settle the lawsuit.

Thiel often identifies a supposed woke agenda as one of America’s more pressing problems. In a recent interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, he compared wokeism to Saudi Arabian Wahhabism. Unlike many Trump supporters, however, he blamed the Christian Church for its ubiquity, stating:

“[Christianity] always takes the side of the victim and there’s something where it is like some kind of deformation or intensification… And maybe you should think of wokeness as ultra-Christianity or hyper-Christianity.”

If even the American Christian Church is too liberal for Thiel, then where does he see a future? In cyberspace, outer space, and in building floating towns in the ocean where people can finally be free from government interference and the woke agenda. The 56-year-old entrepreneur sees the Internet, human colonization of other planets, and building autonomous cities on the water as potential libertarian utopias.

These are far from Thiel’s only quixotic schemes. Like many Silicon Valley executives, he also has many alternative beliefs about health. His, however, go further than many others. On a quest to live indefinitely, he follows a strict anti-aging routine, including taking human growth hormone pills and reportedly harvesting the blood of poor but healthy teenagers and injecting it into his body to boost his immune system. “Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested in Young People’s Blood,” reads one headline from American Business magazine, Inc.

Thiel funds several biology and anti-aging start-ups, including those that use stem cells to treat medical ailments. He believes society has been hoodwinked by “the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual” and has suggested immortality could be achievable, a notion that has deeply concerned academics and commentators alike. As a last resort, he plans to have his body cryogenically frozen if his endeavors do not succeed.

Free Speech Champion?

In addition to funding big online media like Facebook and Reddit, Thiel (alongside Vance) invested heavily in video platform Rumble. Launched in 2013, Rumble saw little success for years. But after Thiel and Vance sunk their money into it, it has become a conservative media stalwart, marketing itself as a “free speech app” that will not censor its users.

Yet Thiel’s commitment to the free flow of information has not always been consistent. Famously, he funded multiple lawsuits, to the tune of around $10 million, against Gawker, which eventually caused the news website to close its doors. In a 2009 interview, he argued that Gawker journalists “should be described as terrorists, not as writers or reporters” and claimed that they were Silicon Valley’s al-Qaeda. Considering how Palantir was aiding the U.S. government with its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and how the U.S. was treating its enemies in its War on Terror, Thiel’s words could be seen as quite the threat.

The lawsuits were roundly condemned as having a “chilling effect” on the free press. For instance, the editor-in-chief of the politics magazine Mother Jones described it as part of a campaign of “press intimidation.” Gawker had drawn Thiel’s ire for previously outing him as gay. Thus, instead of promoting a new era of free speech online, Thiel’s Rumble venture appears more likely to be an attempt to construct a conservative media in his image, just as he is rebuilding the modern Republican Party.

Ultimately, Thiel is a walking contradiction: a libertarian who got rich from fat military contracts, an immigrant working with ICE and a free speech advocate who attacks media outlets. He presents himself as an outsider. Yet he is a mainstay at many of the world’s most elite institutions and conferences, including the Bilderberg Group, the Munich Security Conference, and the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

In many ways, his persona is almost out of a comic book, a real-life Lex Luthor. From aiding an Israeli genocide in Gaza to using AI to surveil immigrants at home to spearheading a war against whistleblowers, Thiel’s story perfectly encapsulates how Silicon Valley has been folded into the national security state and works to maintain the American empire well into the 21st century.

Yet his latest venture into politics could arguably be his most consequential project. He has always had a close relationship with the U.S. government. However, a Trump/Vance White House could bring the billionaire a level of influence he previously could only have dreamed of. Thiel does not particularly seek out the limelight. However, with Trump surging in the polls, there is an increasing chance that he will soon have an even more profound influence over our lives, whether we like it or not. Therefore, it is crucial that we understand the man who could be calling the shots come November.

Feature photo | Illustration by MintPress News

* Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017, he published two books, Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.orgThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin Magazine, and Common Dreamspeace with Russia, more wars in…Russia Says ‘Let’s Be Realistic’ About Chances of…Climate …

SOURCEwww.mintpressnews.com 

PT -- MANLIO DINUCCI: Bombas Nucleares Debaixo dos Nossos Pés

$
0
0

Bombas Nucleares Debaixo dos Nossos Pés

Manlio Dinucci

 

NATO Steadfast Noon Exercise and Nuclear Modernization in Europe. Source



A NATO anunciou que teve início a 14 de Outubro de 2024, o seu exercício nuclear anual, Steadfast Noon, com a duração de duas semanas, com mais de 60 aviões de 13 países a realizarem voos de treino sobre a Europa Ocidental. Participam caças capazes de transportar ogivas nucleares norte-americanas, incluindo os primeiros caças F-35A da NATO declarados aptos para o uso nuclear. Participam bombardeiros pesados, caças de escolta, aviões de reabastecimento em voo e aviões de guerra electrónica, com um efectivo de 2.000militares de oito bases aéreas.

No exercício de guerra nuclear, claramente dirigido contra a Rússia, participa também a Itália, que - juntamente com a Alemanha, a Bélgica e a Holanda - adere à “Partilha Nuclear” da NATO.

Qual é o grau de “partilha”, explica a própria NATO num texto oficial:

 

1) “O planeamento nuclear da NATO é levado a cabo pelo Grupo de Alto Nível, presidido pelos Estados Unidos”.

2) “Os Estados Unidos mantêm o controlo e a custódia absolutos das suas armas nucleares implantadas na Europa, enquanto os Aliados fornecem apoio militar.”

 

Por outras palavras, são os EUA que fornecem aos Aliados europeus as armas nucleares sobre as quais mantêm o controlo absoluto, enquanto os Aliados europeus fornecem aviões e pessoal militar preparados para armas nucleares sob o comando absoluto dos EUA.

A “partilha nuclear" está a estender-se para além dos países que oficialmente fazem parte dela: esta situação é demonstrada pelo facto da Polónia, da Roménia e da Finlândia estarem a participar no exercício de guerra nuclear. Visto que os aviões da NATO, com dupla capacidade convencional e nuclear,  também estão posicionados nos Estados Bálticos, este facto significa que os EUA criaram uma frente avançada na Europa a partir da qual pode ser lançado um ataque nuclear contra a Rússia.

Ao mesmo tempo, os EUA “revitalizaram” as bases nucleares na Europa, equipando-as com caças F-35A e com as recentes bombas nucleares B61-12. Em Itália, a base de Ghedi, onde está estacionada a 6ª Ala da Força Aérea Italiana e a base de Aviano, onde está estacionada a 31ª Ala de Caças dos EUA, foram “remodeladas”. As outras bases nucleares “actualizadas” são as de Kleine Brogel, na Bélgica, Volkel, nos Países Baixos e Büchel, na Alemanha, às quais se junta a base de Lakenheasth, na Grã-Bretanha, “requalificada” em segredo.

Os Estados Unidos estão a “renovar” o seu arsenal nuclear com uma despesa prevista de 1,7 biliões de dólares, conduzindo uma corrida ao armamento que se está a tornar mais perigosa do que a ocorrida durante a Guerra Fria. Basta dizer que as armas nucleares americanas instaladas na Europa, perto da Rússia, podem atingir São Petersburgo ou Moscovo em poucos minutos.


Tradutora:

Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Email: luisavasconcellos@gmail.com

  


 

EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF: Police State America --Volume One -- Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

$
0
0

 
 
 
By Larry Romanoff 

Occupy Wall Street protestors march down Fifth Avenue towards Union Square during a May Day rally in New York City. Photograph: Monika Graff/Getty Images

 

CHINESE    ENGLISH

    Police State America - Volume One free e-book  

 
 

 

Most people know about the massive "Occupy Wall Street" protests that occurred in the US during 2011 and 2012. Briefly,these were spontaneous protests that began in the US and spread to other Western countries, involving hundreds of thousands of people in the US and attracting tens of thousands in cities in other nations.These protests arose not so much because of the US banker-caused financial crisis, but when it became clear the US government planned no action either to punish those responsible or to initiate reforms to prevent such disasters from recurring, but instead to protect and reward the perpetrators.The main issues raised by this civil society movement were social and economic inequality in America, the institutionalised greed and corruption of US multinational business,and the enormous influence of corporations on the US government, especially from the large banks and financial companies.

 

 

In 2012, American police harshly, and often brutally, dispersed protesters of the Occupy Wall Street movement that had been proceeding for nearly two months, the extremely harsh actions of law enforcement agents causing first outrage on the Internet, and then in the streets. The campaign spread across other cities in the US, then to dozens of other nations, culminating in bloody riots and widespread fires in the UK. Despite the fact that the protesters were supported by almost half of the US population, the authorities had no dialogue with them, preferring the language of batons and clubs, water cannons and tear gas. Newly-released documents show that the violent crackdown on the Occupy movement was coordinated not only by the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and local police, but was coordinated with the big banks themselves. The evidence reveals a terrifying network of coordinated activity by US government agencies "working for and with the big banks"to silence and politically disable the protestors. It is now apparent that plans had been made months in advance by the banks, the FED, state and local police departments, and FBI officials to share information and crush all public opposition to the banks that had engineered one of the greatest social disasters in US history.

 

ACLU: FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that FBI agents surveilled Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protestors, questioned activists about an OWS organizer, and in one internal memorandum listed the peaceful protest movement as domestic terrorists. Government agencies such as DHS, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Domestic Security Alliance Council, the Federal Reserve are all included in FBI correspondences concerning OWS. Source

 

In a truly frightening event, the FBI broadcast a letter to various law enforcement agencies, titled: "International Terrorism Matters",to inform these agencies that the Occupy Wall Street movement "has been determined to be an organisation which is opposed to the US war with Iraq", i.e., they were now officially classified as "low-level terrorists", and that this information could be used to justify "any action deemed appropriate". And you know what that means.

 

I have discussed elsewhere the many US financial crises. Our focus here is not the 2008 crisis nor the protests against those responsible, but rather the response of the US government - which was not focused on either those who caused the social and economic collapse or on remedial regulation and legislation,but entirely on containing protests by the public who had been financially devastated.While the American public waited patiently for several years for their government to take some leadership action, the government itself wasted no time in taking action against its own public who were the victims of the collapse. In the background, recently-released government documents revealed that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not only been monitoring these civil movementsbut had classified them as domestic terrorist organisations and targeted them for severe treatment.The FBI launched a massive espionage campaign meant to infiltrate and disrupt these movements. The latest photo identification technology was applied, searching all government database records including medical, military and even driving licenses in attempts to identify the leaders and specifically target them for intimidation and violence. Not only that, these agencies shared their collective information with the very bankers and other corporations against which the public was protesting.

 

Source

 

It is now apparent that a great amount of collusion existed between the government, the Wall Street Bankers and the FED, various police and enforcement agencies, the media, and many local governments as well, producing coordinated attempts to intimidate, silence and suppress public disaffection and protests against the US government and its "friends".The FBI and DHS arranged conferences with the mayors of large US cities, where suppression of public discontent was discussed, the consensus being that these widespread public protests could "not be allowed to gain any credibility".After these organised meetings, the US government began orchestrated and systematic waves of attacks on the protesters, many of them involving substantial violence. These concerted actions by the FBI and related agencies fell firmly under the definition of "domestic terrorism". In other words, the government had classified a peaceful civil society movement as terrorism and then itself moved to apply genuine terrorism against these people, using physical force and violence against a civilian population for purposes that were purely political. Many foreign media commented on the fact that the US mainstream media failed to cover this massive movement adequately, in many cases ignoring the protests altogether even though they continued for over a year. Many single protest events that involved as many as 100,000 individuals passed virtually unnoticed due to a media conspiracy of silence.

 

But President Obama comments serve only to highlight that US politicians, including the President, have almost totally lost control of the government of the nation, and that it is the major private interests - the banks, the owners of the FED, the large corporations, and the CIA/military that control the country.

 

Even President Obama noted that, in the wake of the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression, with huge social and financial damage throughout the country, the same people who acted irresponsibly in causing the crisis were now acting irresponsibly in preventing protest against those same abusive practices. But his comments serve only to highlight that US politicians, including the President, have almost totally lost control of the government of the nation, and that it is the major private interests - the banks, the owners of the FED, the large corporations, and the CIA/military that control the country. In any case, the powers in control did indeed launch a major military-style offensive against these civil society groups in a manner that would do credit to an axis of evil dictatorship. In addition to the espionage, the intimidation, and the widespread use of force, US government agencies arrested more than 10,000 individuals who were considered leaders, and initiated widespread violent assaults on many tens of thousands more.Most of this was quietly ignored by the US media.

 

So much for fabled democracy and freedom of assembly. Leading media outlets of the country tried to ignore the campaign for a long time, preferring to talk about the "march of democracy" in Libya and Syria, or the "bad policy" of Russia, China or Venezuela in dealing with political unrest.According to Americans, protests in other countries are cries for freedom and good government, but these same protests in the US are caused by criminals and terrorists fully deserving of police abuse.In the meantime, of course, the US spends huge amounts of money and effort to sponsor these dissidents in other countries, solely for the pleasure of being able to point an accusing finger at the 'unfair' treatment they receive at home.

 

         

Medical attention: Cecily McMillan collapsed at the Occupy protest on March 17 in Zuccotti Park after reportedly being dragged by police.

 

Cecily McMillan, a 25-year-old student was attending an Occupy Wall Street demonstration in Manhattan when she was seized by police, beaten so ferociously that she was black and blue on her ribs and arms and went into a seizure.Media photographs show a policeman grabbing her breast from behind, and McMillan instinctively throwing up an elbow to protect herself, catching a policeman under the eye. After being beaten, she was arrested and is now slated to serve a seven-year prison term for "assaulting a police officer". She was only one of more than 700 protestors brutally treated and arrested in what was described in the media as "an orgy of police misconduct". Professors from two New York law schools produced a scrupulously detailed report of the police routinely using excessive force to crush the protest movement, and New York was by no means the only city where this occurred. Los Angeles was far worse, but the media and all outsiders were prohibited from viewing the police violence, and no charges have ever been laid against the officers. In one case, the Oakland Policeintentionallyshot US Marine veteran Scott Olsenin the head during a protest.

 

Photojournalist Kristyna Wentz-Graff, her Journal Sentinel ID badge clearly visible, is handcuffed Wednesday while covering a protest. Credit: Lita Medinger. Source

 

Almost all reporters covering the protests were immediately arrested and thrown into prison, to prevent public knowledge of the police violence. Anyone with a camera or mobile phone, especially those attempting to photograph the many instances of police brutality, was arrested or threatened with arrest and the device seized and destroyed. Reporters were often arrested on falsified charges that would later have to be dismissed for lack of evidence, but the arrests served to intimidate the media into silence. Many reporters, and those with cameras, were physically attacked by the police, thrown to the ground, pepper-sprayed, beaten and kicked, and then arrested on trumped-up charges of "civil disobedience, disorderly conduct, criminal trespassing, unlawful assembly, and even public drunkenness".Any journalists covering the police brutality toward the protesters were specifically identified and targeted by the police. Many demonstrators attempted to use video recording of the many instances of police violence and brutality as a way to document and to deter this behavior, but the position of the US government and its law-enforcement agencies was that"the public use of cameras to document police brutality is an illegal act".

 

ACLU: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 gives the president absolute power to decide who is an enemy of our country and to imprison people indefinitely without charging them with a crime. Source/来源

 

It is in this light that the US government labeled as terrorists anyone active in this movement or even supporting the movement.It is astonishing that Americans will still attempt to defend their so-called 'freedoms', claiming particularly of speech and assembly, in direct contradiction to the facts on the ground. One government official quoted the US Military Commissions Act, which states that, "Anyone who speaks out against the government’s policies can be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant"and imprisoned indefinitely (without trial or recourse).That includes American citizens". How do we reconcile this statement with claims of freedom of speech?

 

FBI DOCUMENT ‘[DELETED’] PLOTS TO KILL OCCUPY LEADERS BY SNIPER RIFLES ‘IF DEEMED NECESSARY’

 

But it's much worse than this. Documents were obtained from the FBI office in Houston, Texas, that outlined a plan to use mercenaries to kill the leaders of this Occupy Wall Street movement if it progressed much further.In that city as in many others, official reaction to the demonstrations involved violent assaults by police on the activists, and this is where the assassination plot was hatched.To quote the FBI document, "(An organisation) planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors in Houston, Texas . . . planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles". The FBI confirmed that the document was genuine and that it originated in the FBI's Houston office. It offered neither explanation nor apology. It appears that the organisation involved was an FBI/CIA-linked mercenary-for-hire organization called Craft International, which has a contract funded by the US Department of Homeland Security. This is America today, where Hollywood and the media daily pump out propaganda on the treasured democratic values of freedom of expression and assembly.

 

Protesters affiliated with Occupy Wall Street march down Broadway in Manhattan towards Wall Street on May 1, 2012 in New York City. Occupy Wall Street has joined with unions during the May Day protests, a traditional day of global protests in sympathy with unions and leftist politics. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

 
*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 —Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com 

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS& PDF ARTICLES

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2024

 

EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF: Police State America --Volume One -- Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting

$
0
0
 
  Police State America --Volume One

Chapter 1-The Rise of the Police State

Chapter 2 — The FBI

Chapter 3 –COINTELPRO

Chapter 4 — Universal Public Surveillance

Chapter 5 — Other Surveillance

Chapter 6 — Searching for Anarchists, or Maybe Just Political Activists

Chapter 7   — Winning the Information War

Chapter 8 — Arbitrary and Unaccountable Law Enforcement

Chapter 9 — The Militarisation of the Police

Chapter 10 — Occupy Wall Street

Chapter 11 — Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

Chapter 12 — The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism

Chapter   13 — The Next American Revolution? Anticipated Civil Unrest

 

Chapter 11 -- Intimidating the Media & Subverting the Press

By Larry Romanoff 

CHINESE    ENGLISH

 

  Police State America - Volume One free e-book   

 

In all the world's fascist states, increasing state criminality and civil rights violations are always accompanied by an extreme and even obsessive determination to control information and fact, as well as a surprising viciousness in pursuing those revealing embarrassing truths. This is precisely the situation today in the US and, contrary to all claims about a prevailing rule of law, American authorities increasingly trash civil rights on the fictitious grounds of defending national security.Instead of enacting legislation to curb abusive surveillance and the multitude of crimes and abuses by all levels of the state, they are obsessed with hunting down and punishing whistleblowers. It is abundantly clear the US has no intention of ceasing any of its illegal practices anywhere in the world, and the viciousness of its witch hunts is entirely to instill sufficient fear in American hearts that soon nobody will dare to report even the most egregious crimes or violations.

 

At this early December 2010 summit in Kazakhstan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (center left) expressed her regrets to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (far left) for the leaked disclosures regarding US diplomats spying on the UN.

 

When Wikileaks broke the news about Hillary Clinton's astonishingly stupid directive ordering State Department staff to spy on UN officials and other foreign dignitaries, it was a foregone conclusion the woman wouldn't rest until Julian Assange was dead or in prison for life.When Manning embarrassed the government with revelations of a widespread lust for killing, US officials acted with a Neanderthal vengeance simply to inflict as much lasting pain as possible. We can also expect that Edward Snowden’s life will be measurably shortened.

 

In 2021, we documented 142 assaults of journalists. For the second consecutive year, the majority of those assaults came during protests: 95 percent in 2020 and 77 percent in 2021. The year began with a protest that became a riot, as the US Capitol was stormed by a mob attempting to stop certification of election results. The Tracker documented at least 16 journalists assaulted in Washington, DC, while covering those events, many of whom were targeted. Source

 

The US media is not nearly so free as many people believe. Bernays' mythology machine tells us the US is today and has always been the world leader in media openness, the fabled "freedom of the press"for which Americans believe they are so famous, but that has never been true. Reporters without Borders published a report stating that the US is very low and still falling on the list of press freedom, being about 50th out of 180 countries, below many dictatorships and axis of evil republics, and far below China and other civilised nations.In particular, the US is accused of employing an "overly broad and abusive" interpretation of the concept of national securityto restrict information. Ever since Lippman and Bernays got their hooks into the White House, there has been a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception, misusing the media as the main channel of misinformation. The falsehoods, fabricated news stories, biased and twisted reporting will never be exposed because the media are not only reading from the same script but are in a real sense part of the origination, due to their ownership. If the media’s own interest in promoting the agenda is not strong enough, US authorities have exerted tremendous pressure to report events in an appropriate manner. Reporters criticizing those in power may be smeared by the government and targeted for arrest. Indeed, the government treats real reporters as terrorists, and journalists are often targeted under counter-terrorism laws.

Migrants, journalists, and U.S. activists run from tear gas on Jan. 1, 2019, after U.S. authorities fired tear gas over the border wall in Tijuana, Mexico.Photo: Kitra Cahana. Source

 

Not only has the government imprisoned media owners and reporters for criticisms, it also claims the power to indefinitely detain journalists without trial or access to an attorney. When prize-winning journalists Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and Daniel Ellsbergsued the government over the indefinite detention of Americans, the judge insistently asked the government attorneys five times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about official criminality. The government refused to promise that such journalists would not be imprisoned for life without any right to ever see a lawyer, a judge or a courtroom. How is this materially different from the oppression, civil repression and secrecy we find in totalitarian and fascist dictatorships?

Secretive White House Surveillance Program Gives Cops Access to Trillions of US Phone Records. A WIRED analysis of leaked police documents verifies that a secretive government program is allowing federal, state, and local law enforcement to access phone records of Americans who are not suspected of a crime. Source

 

Leonard Downie, a former executive editor of The Washington Post, interviewed many reporters and editors and wrote in a 30-page analysis, "In Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. The Obama administration's aggressive war on leaks and its determined efforts to control information that the news media needs to hold the government accountable for its actions are without an equal since the Nixon administration."Since that time, many journalist sources have been prosecuted on felony charges for talking to reporters. Today,journalists and any of their sources who are even 'suspected' of discussing embarrassing information are investigated and forcibly subjected to lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records.In late 2013 it was revealed that US Federal investigators had secretly and without notice seized the home, office and mobile phone records of more than 100 reporters and editors of the Associated Press.These records apparently contain detail of months of communication with confidential sources that the NYT claimed provided a road map to all the AP's news gathering operations, activities and sources. This is part of an aggressive government policy to identify, intimidate and prosecute all those leaking information on the illegal activities of US government agencies. The Administration's McCarthy witch hunts are taking a further distressing turn with the creation of the "Insider Threat Program",a new internal surveillance program in every government agency whereby all co-workers spy on each other and report each other to the authorities.

 

Perhaps the single greatest scam ever devised is the way the US-centralized empire found that it can kill and displace people in geostrategically crucial and resource-rich regions under the guise of fighting terrorism, then when violence and extremism inevitably arises out of that mass-scale trauma they can use it to justify even more interventionism under the guise of fighting terrorism. We are ruled by monsters.Source

 

Anything that might challenge the legality, wisdom or cause for the US so-called "war on terror" is treated brutally, with civil liberties not only being threatened but removed, and with some individuals losing their lives. Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent James Risen said, "The more direct part is to frighten people in the government from talking, to have a chilling effect on whistle blowers, to make them understand there is a big brother that will get them if they step out of line".These widespread attempts to instill fear, appear to be having the desired effect. Jeff Cohen, a New York journalism professor said there have been many incidents in the US where journalists were arrested, harassed, and detained for political reasons. "What shocked me when I worked at cable television news, at MSNBC and elsewhere, is how timid journalists were in this country". "In a survey performed by the Pew Research Center and the Columbia Journalism Review, it was documented that in the US there exists "a tremendous self-censorship by journalists", with almost half of journalists and broadcasters claiming they have purposely avoided newsworthy stories or changed the tone, to serve the economic or political interests of other parties. These might be advertisers, politicians, or some of the more powerful lobby groups."

 

The Russian Embassy in the United States sent a note of protest to the State Department after police officers sprayed RIA Novosti correspondent Mikhail Turgiev with tear gas in the face in Minneapolis. Source

 

Journalists and reporters in all parts of the US today are regularly threatened, roughed-up, beaten and injured, and often arrested and imprisoned by Federal agencies and local police, yet the mainstream US news media are both so indoctrinated and intimidated by US authorities that they almost never report these occurrences, preferring instead to sanctimoniously criticise journalistic disputes in other nations. The media in major cities like Washington, New York and Los Angeles complain that local police and federal authorities are consistently and increasingly hostile to reporters writing on government malfeasance or covering public instances of police brutality during protests and other such events. During the Occupy Wall Street protests, many dozens of media personnel were attacked by police, pepper-sprayed in their eyes, beaten with police batons, forcibly evicted from protest areas, and generally treated very aggressively. The police forces have become increasingly militaristic and belligerent with media personnel documenting that aggression against the public. In response to the publicity given their past brutalities, the police increasingly go to great lengths to identify journalists, demanding all reporters identify themselves and then physically transporting them far from the scene so they will be unable to see and report on police brutalities. In an article in the Huffington Post, police were quoted as claiming the rules were "to protect journalists from being harmed during the operation".

 

Barrett Brown. Source</

Barrett Brown, a well-known and well-published US investigative journalist is facing 105 years in prison forrevealing US government secrets. Actually, he didn't "reveal" anything. What he did do was post an article on the internet that contained a link to information the US government considered not "top secret" but simply "sensitive". His sole "crime" was to post that link to information that was widely available on the Internet and that the public could have seen on many dozens of websites. Brown is now officially "an enemy of the state", has been charged with a 17-count indictment, and Federal prosecutors applied for a gag order preventing Brown, his lawyers and anyone else from commenting on the case or even admitting it exists. What better way to silence a "dissident" than to put him in prison for more than 100 years? It is frightening to think that a government can arbitrarily and without prior notice proclaim virtually anything as 'politically sensitive', including but not limited to criticism of the government, regardless of how widely-available that information might be, and have the simple posting of a link result in life imprisonment. This vicious and widespread abuse, coordinated with government agencies, law enforcement and the courts, is the major weapon used by the US government to silence political activism, now standard procedure by US prosecutors to intimidate and silence those who criticise questionable or illegal activities by US government agencies. As always, the US media are totally silent, preferring to deflect public attention in the US writing by outrageous articles on a CIA-sponsored seditious anarchist being detained in some other nation. One thing the US desperately needs, but does not have, is a 'free press'.

 

 

A group of well-known American journalists jointly published a book in 2002 that contained examples from their personal experiences that effectively destroyed the American myth of a free press. The book was titled ‘Into the Buzzsaw, and contains documented evidence of government intimidation, media suppression and control of news. Some of the stories involved massacres by US troops in North Korea, proof that the US abandoned many POWs in Vietnam, documented evidence of CIA direct involvement in trafficking cocaine and heroin, and the fraudulent 'news' that emanates from most US media newsrooms. Several wrote of government intimidation, loss of employment and their blacklisting, experienced when they either refused to back off on stories that almost certainly involved serious government crimes resulting in many deaths, or when they refused to falsify reports on the results of their investigations. Many were offered 'consulting contracts' of hundreds of thousands of dollars to cease their investigations, but refused and were terminated. Because these journalists challenged the US government and military on stories like the crash of TWA Flight 800, or threatened to expose discoveries about Monsanto and its GM seed or growth hormones in milk, they were not only harassed and threatened, but lost their jobs and careers.They are now what is termed "radioactive", in that no media outlet will hire them and almost no publishers will accept their books or articles; they have been totally excommunicated from the journalistic world for daring to challenge and expose those with power. The book has won nearly every journalism award that exists but its authors are nevertheless subjected to character assassination and denigrated in the mainstream media as incompetent or crazy.The book provides a rare insight into both the power and the willingness of the US government and its secret handlers to suppress truth, control public information and cover up vast crimes. Mostly, they just did their job of investigative reporting a bit too well, and paid a heavy price for their integrity.

 

More people have been prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act during the Obama-era than previous presidents combined. Photograph: Olivier Douliery/Olivier Douliery/Corbis. Source

 

Obama campaigned on a promise of open and transparent government, but all credible sources condemn him for creating precisely the opposite, squeezing the media and civil service to severely restrict any leaks.And these are not leaks of damaging top-secret information, but revelations of serious crimes. Far from being open and transparent, the White House rushes to seize journalists' records and files, with prosecution threats emerging seemingly everywhere. Yet the US still foolishly flaunts its "free press" mythology around the world while destroying that freedom at home and grossly interfering with that same freedom in other countries. David Sanger, the former chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times, described the Obama administration as "the most closed, control-freak administration I've ever covered". A New York Times reporter described the Obama administration as "the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation", and the New York Times's editor, Jill Abramson, called the Obama White House the "most secretive... that I have ever been involved in covering."

   

And in yet another 'black is white' narrative, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said the administration is committed to "unprecedented openness", with the government "more transparent and more accessible than ever". And Arch Puddington, the director of psychiatry for the mental institution known as Freedom House, said "The United States has the freest environment for the press in the world. Freedom of the press is the pillar of American democracy, thecornerstone of a free society."How do we respond to lies that big?

 

The Americans make huge waves in the media when China refuses to renew press visas for so-called journalists in China who are usually on the CIA or State Department payroll, but the US media are invariably silent when the US government cancels visas and deports foreign journalists from the US, an event which occurs more often than you might imagine. Al-Jazeera was one of the victims of this frequent 'journalistic cleansing', its reporters having made the mistake of telling truths the US didn't want told. Al-Jazeera journalists were praised as "excellent reporters" and made very welcome in America when they criticised China, but when they produced negative reports about the US, their credentials were immediately revoked, their visas cancelled, and the individuals deported. The US media, of course, were silent on these events. It's worth noting that China's trouble with al-Jazeera began only after the US bought control of it and began using it as a political tool inside China.

 

Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen in the Collateral Murder video. Photograph: WikiLeaks. Source

 

Numerous documented reports emerged from Iraq that the US military engaged in the unhesitating extermination of reporters attempting to broadcast the truth of the US invasion. In one case that received little media attention in the West, the military blew out most of a floor in a hotel in downtown Baghdad where reporters were staying. The military's version was that the event was an accident caused by "bad intelligence", a claim that was clearly a lie since the use of that hotel as a media residence had been well-known for many months. A large us battle tank navigated its way into downtown Baghdad, sought out a particular hotel, positioned itself with a particular orientation, then targeted and totally blew out one particular floor of that hotel - the floor where most of the journalists were located. Hardly an accident, and only one of many. A number of independent reports confirmed that the US had killed several hundred journalists in Iraq, in circumstances where only a very few might have qualified as non-deliberate.

 

Obama's legacy 'is one of near-total failure', according to Harvard professor Stephen Walt. Source

哈佛大学教授Stephen Walt表示,奥巴马的遗产几乎完全失败了

 

During the height of the war, al-Jazeera in Qatar was one of the most vocal regional media decrying American brutalities and lies about Afghanistan and Iraq, so much so that the US government eventually eliminated the threat by forcing the Emir of Qatar to sell a controlling interest in al-Jazeera to the CIA and silencing forever its dissenting voice. It has since been documented that George Bushhad made plans to launch a large air assault on Al Jazeera’s head office in Qatar with the intent to bomb it to rubble, destroying the building and killing the people.Prior to that, the US had bombed and put missiles into Al-Jazeera’s bureau in Baghdad, destroying the building, killing the staff, and warning other reporters of the dangers of telling the truth.The US claimed it was yet another "mistake", but Qatar had supplied the US with precise map coordinates of its office precisely to prevent such an accident. There are documented reports that the US military has deliberately killed reporters in almost every nation where it has launched its 'wars of liberation'or where it was 'protecting American interests'.

 
*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 —Dealing with Demons).

 

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com 

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS& PDF ARTICLES

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2024

   

PT -- Manlio Dinucci -- Pangea/Grandangolo --- ELEIÇÕES USA: OS MECANISMOS DA FRAUDE

$
0
0

 

ELEIÇÕES USA: OS MECANISMOS DA FRAUDE

 

O sistema de eleições presidenciais

Manlio Dinucci

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsDHOcR458Y&list=UUEuYmHCv1tgNBmqAe7VQEiA&index=2

 

1) Os dois partidos decisivos, o PartidoRepublicano e o Partido Democrata (N.da T.: Em inglêsDemocratic Party), escolhem o seu candidato presidencial através de eleições primárias realizadas nos 50 Estados. Estas eleições são realizadas de forma diferente consoante o Estado. Nalguns, os candidatos são escolhidos através de votação secreta, noutros através de reuniões abertas, os “caucuses”. Nalguns Estados, apenas os membros do partido que organiza a reunião aberta (caucus) podem participar nessa mesma reunião aberta: noutros Estados, os indivíduos que não são membros desse partido ou os membros do partido rival, também podem participar e votar.

 

2) Dependendo do resultado da reunião aberta (caucus), é atribuído a cada candidato um número variável de delegados, que representam o seu Estado na Convenção Nacional do Partido que escolhe o candidato presidencial. A Convenção conta com a presença não só dos delegados dos Estados, mas também dos super-delegados: personalidades importantes do Partido que podem votar em quem quiserem, invertendo, por vezes, a situação.

 

3) Depois dos dois partidos terem escolhido os seus candidatos à Presidência, realizam-se eleições gerais. Os eleitores não elegem directamente o Presidente, mas sim um Grande Eleitor que representa o candidato escolhido.

 

4) Os 558 Grandes Eleitores(N. da T.: Que formam o Colégio Eleitoral dos EUA) elegem o Presidente dos Estados Unidos. Cada Grande Eleitor representa o partido a que pertence, mas a Constituição dos Estados Unidos não obriga cada Grande Eleitor a votar no candidato presidencial escolhido pelo seu partido.

 

5) Cada Estado tem uma quota de Grandes Eleitores, calculada para favorecer os Estados mais pequenos: o Wyoming, pouco povoado, tem um Grande Eleitor por cada 194.000 habitantes; a Califórnia, mais povoada, tem um por cada 723.000 habitantes.

 

Resultado:

Este sistema permite manobras políticas de todo o género: por exemplo, fazer com que os membros do próprio partido participem e votem na reunião aberta (caucus) do partido adversário para não eleger um determinado candidato considerado politicamente perigoso. A atribuição de um Grande Eleitor em função do número de habitantes, que varia de Estado para Estado, por vezes conduz à eleição para a Presidência dos Estados Unidos de candidatos que receberam menos votos nas eleições gerais.

 

O mecanismo da votação

 

1) Não existe nenhuma lei federal que exija a identificação das pessoas que se dirigem às mesas de voto. O Governador da Califórnia, que pertence ao Partido Democrata, promulgou uma lei que proíbe a exigência de identificação das pessoas que se apresentam nas assembleias de voto para votar.

 

2) Nas eleições de 2020, o voto por correspondência aumentou acentuadamente superando 66 milhões (contra 28 milhões em 2016).

 

3) Uma lei de 2002 exige a presença de uma máquina de voto electrónica em todas as assembleias de voto. Não existe qualquer norma para construir uma máquina electrónica utilizável de forma segura.

 

4) Cerca de um quarto dos eleitores votará com máquinas que emitem boletins de voto em papel. Os restantes votarão com máquinas electrónicas que armazenam os votos e podem ou não, produzir um registo em papel de cada voto.

 

Resultado:

Este mecanismo permite todo o tipo de fraudes. Os boletins de voto que chegam por correio são abertos e registados por pessoal contratado através de empresas privadas, nas quais pode haver pessoas encarregadas de falsificar os resultados. As máquinas de voto electrónico podem ser adulteradas, carregando-as com programas que falsificam os resultados. O Professor Alex Halderman, que ensina informática na Universidade de Michigan, demonstrou-o, simulando uma votação em que as máquinas electrónicas anularam o resultado.

2 de Novembro de 2024

Manlio Dinucci

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Email: luisavasconcellos@gmail.com


EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: America’s Deep State Revisited

$
0
0

 

America’s Deep State

 

By Larry Romanoff

 

ENGLISH      LITHUANIAN

 

 

Under the guidance of the invisible people, many members of the establishment’s think-tanks are increasingly, and openly, arguing that US democracy today is “incapable of meeting the challenges facing the country”, concluding that the US needs a new “top down” solution that would be exercised by executive power independent of the elected Congress. Several people including NYT columnist Thomas Friedman have argued that “power should shift from contentious, ideologically diverse elected bodies subject to pressure from the ‘lower orders’, toward credentialed “experts” operating in Washington, Brussels or the United Nations.” Perhaps it needs to be stated clearly that the “contentious, ideologically diverse bodies” are the elected Congress and lower house, and the “lower orders” being dismissed with a whiff of contempt are of course the people. The secret government now openly promotes that the elected government be sidelined as contentious and irrelevant, with power transferred to the same Zionist European bankers – the ‘credentialed experts’ – who already control much of the world behind the scenes. We have now become so bold that democracy is being openly dismissed while the de facto government slowly emerges from the shadows as an authoritarian dictatorship controlled from Europe.

 

If you recall, these are precisely the sentiments voiced by Lippman and Bernays almost 100 years earlier, claiming the ‘bewildered herd’ needed guidance and engineered consent from the “intelligent few”. This also mirrors the conclusions from the Trilateral Commission’s report on its crisis of democracy, again boldly stating that Americans needed to be “properly indoctrinated” so as to limit (or eliminate) public involvement in political democracy. As to the foolish nonsense about American-style democracy requiring a highly-educated population, I believe it was Andrew Bacevich who wrote in ‘The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism’: “For US-style democracy it is important that the candidates be not only incompetent but as uninformed as the voters. It is only from this fundamental ignorance that the ‘wise men’, the policy intellectuals that form the secret government, are able to control the White House and Congress.”

 

Bernays’ secret government and the European bankers have cherished this plan of an American fascist dictatorship for many decades, a plan that almost succeeded when a group of Jewish financiers and George H. W. Bush‘s father made their abortive attempt at a military coup in 1934. Nevertheless, clandestine control of the US government is already fact, even in the absence of a formal proclamation. The plan has been developing in the dark for decades by the bankers, the Foundations and think-tanks and the Bilderberg Group, and is increasingly coming into the open. The American people have no more authentic control over their government than do people in countries we call dictatorships, neither on foreign policy nor on domestic economic and social issues. The truth is that America’s elected politicians have no influence over most important activities of the secret government that runs America today. Those who control the executive branch often operate not only entirely outside the law but in many cases entirely outside the very constitution of the United States. Kanya D’Almeida wrote that “the richest one percent has hijacked the very foundations of democracy”, that corporate capital had infected the body politic despite the constitution and separation of powers. And in fact, they have taken advantage of the separation of powers by focusing their efforts on the enormous transfer of power to the White House which they control. As stated earlier, one of the tools has been the use of Presidential Directives, creating a vast network of secret and private law and policy under the guise of national security imperatives.

 

 

One news article reported statements from a former high-level Department of Justice official that Congress was aware the powers behind the White House had revised their social control programs and implemented many illegal practices after 9-11, and that Congress had tried and failed to learn how extreme were these programs and how serious was the lawbreaking. It stated the White House insisted on maintaining secrecy, in fact on hiding from the elected Congress most information related to dozens of presidential directives that dictated not only US national security policy but most foreign policy. The content and substance of these presidential directives, which have the force of law, are still unknown, the White House simply defying Congress and refusing to reveal its actions. It was in this context that Thomas Drake wrote “Since the government unchained itself from the constitution after 9/11, it has been eating our democracy alive from the inside out. The rulers of America are despotic elites who are living in fear and trepidation of their own people and of people power around the world rising in rebellion against the misrule of capitalism.” New York Mayor John Hylan stated a bit earlier, “The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties”.

 

In his book The New Freedom, written in 1913, Woodrow Wilson wrote “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” Senator William Jenner wrote in 1954, “Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government – a bureaucratic elite.”

 

 

President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1913, “These International bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these papers to club into submission or rive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government.” Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee from 1920 to 1931, wrote in 1932: “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here – a super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is – the Fed has usurped the government.” US Senator Daniel Inouye, said at the end of the Iran-Contra hearings, “There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.”

 

The U.S. intelligence community is officially made of 17 organizations, but there is even more to the story.A groundbreaking investigation from the Washington Post found some rather daunting figures:— 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies are working on intelligence, counterterrorism, or homeland security in the U.S.— Just the NSA alone is contracting with more than 250 companies on intelligence work, including big names like Northrop Grumman and SAIC. Source

 

I have written elsewhere of the White House using the Justice Department to extort compliance from the banks in imposing illegal economic sanctions on political enemies, and the Department claiming it had no obligation to divulge anything to the elected government. The entire Justice Department has been hijacked, and no longer reports to Congress. The Commerce Department, the State Department, the CIA, NSA, FBI, and the military, all report to the secret government through the White House.

 

A recent US media article on NSA spying stated: “An attempt to cut off funding for the NSA’s collection of phone data suffered a surprisingly narrow defeat, 217 to 205. The amendment was in no danger of becoming law – the Senate would have killed it and, if all else failed, President Obama would have vetoed it. But it put the intelligence establishment on notice: The spooks don’t decide how far is too far. We do. An online reader produced an excellent summation of what he called “this gem of reasoning”. His comment:

 

“The NSA has for years operated a massive, secret, worldwide data-vacuuming system, against all domestic and international law. When discovered, US legislators presented a bill to cut off NSA funding. The bill failed, but no matter, because even if it had passed the House, the Senate would have killed it. And if the Senate didn’t kill it, the White House would have vetoed it. The Legislative Branch quite evidently has no remaining control over even such politically serious issues that affect the fundamentals of personal rights, privacy, law-breaking on a massive scale, the creation of a police-state system, international relations and, of course, expense. This outstanding example of the total and frightening absence of legislative control proves that “the people are in charge”. Got it.”

 

 

In March of 2012 Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang Jisi published an important position paper for the Brookings Institute on the topic of US-China “strategic distrust”, for which they claimed input from many “top American leaders”, but which omitted the elected representatives of the US government, rendering Congress pointedly conspicuous by its absence, at least from the definition of ‘top leaders’. The paper’s most telling point in this context was a statement by Lieberthal that in the most vital issues affecting not only the US but the world, Congress played no active part but was “able to make its concerns felt” about activities undertaken by the White House and the real government. So, in an imaginary “democracy” where the elected representatives of the people are supposedly supreme, the best they can do is ‘make their concerns felt’ to those who really control the country.

 

What greater admission could we have of an emasculated Congress that has virtually been stripped of its functions, forcibly pushed to the side as a kind of nuisance advisory body? Items like the budget and trade are insignificant here; what matters in this context are the CIA, the NSA, the military, the Libyas and Iraqs and Irans, the FED and the bankers, and the judiciary, and in these matters, Congress has apparently become irrelevant. Again, these are not the signs of a democracy, not even a fairy-tale one. Americans fervently boast of the many checks and balances in their vaunted democracy, but this myth was never real and certainly isn’t real today. We maintain the pretense of a democracy by conducting elections for a Congress that no longer retains any real power, but the people continue to preach the religion while God is already dead. Only the church has been preserved to maintain the illusion.

 

A striking example is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being promoted today. The US Congress has exclusive authority over trade policy, but the secret government drafted documents and commissioned the conducting of negotiations not only in secret but with a refusal to even let Congress have knowledge of the contents. One congressman was permitted to see only a few sections of this trade agreement, and only then in an isolated room without camera, computer or even a pencil. There are many legitimate fears of the illegality of much of this legislation and of its attempts to emasculate the national sovereignty of all participating nations, yet the White House claims national security as a basis for demanding that Congress pass this massive legislation without information as to its contents. The concentration of power in the White House and the simultaneous rendering of Congress to irrelevancy have reached an extent that would be the envy of most dictators.

 

Consider again the TPP. This vastly ambitious program of imperial over-reach was not conceived by either Obama or the Commerce Department but by the invisible people who pull the puppet strings and who are using the White House and Cabinet as a false front to achieve their commercial objectives. Neither Obama nor his Commerce Secretary have the imagination or belligerent greed to have concocted such a scheme, nor the hubris to assume they could bully Congress into passing the bill without knowledge of its contents. Neither Obama nor the Commerce Department are such pathological bullies as to demand that the Pacific nations sign the agreement sight unseen. No, this was entirely conceived by the puppet-masters using the White House and government structure as tools to further their own personal hegemonic ambitions. This was not the result of a strong President dictating to a weak Congress and boldly assuming powers forbidden to him by the Constitution, but a weak and ambitious President being willingly manipulated by the power behind the throne and a Congress threatened, bullied and bribed into obedience.

 

Similarly, we did not have “Bush’s war” or “Obama’s war” but rather the secret government’s war conducted through the White House without reference to Congress, having used the White House as a front and the US military as a tool to achieve their commercial and political objectives. Considering only Iraq and Libya, the secret government used the US military as a personal army to conduct a private war against two innocent nations from which more than $100 billion was plundered for the personal profit of a few powerful bankers and corporate owners, in a place far enough away that nobody knew what was happening, and with no oversight, no reporting to Congress and no accounting to the world for the death and destruction.

 

No president has authority to undertake such devastating military adventures on his whim but, when Obama was pushed to launch his months-long military destruction of Libya, that travesty was planned and launched entirely without reference to Congress, an open admission of its irrelevance. Only Congress has authority to declare war or to permit belligerent military engagements, but in each case the power behind the White House simply re-wrote the rules and re-defined the terms. Those in the secret government then proceeded to fulfil their agenda without a whimper of objection from Congress, a silent testimony to the power of AIPAC and the Jewish lobby that not only wanted the wars and arranged their financing but indirectly provided the financing of the election campaigns of most Senators and Congressmen. Even more, during a time when the US government was placing staff on forced unpaid vacations and tourist attractions across the country were all closed for lack of funds, the secret government had no difficulty in finding the cash to destroy Libya and another $100 billion for its attempt on Syria.

 

Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt together toured the opposition camp in Kiev in December 2013

 

In similar vein, we can recall State Department employee Victoria Nuland boasting of the $5 billion spent on destabilising Ukraine and overthrowing its government during this same time of empty bank accounts. We also have her conversation on Ukraine that was posted online for the world, where she famously dismissed Europe’s objections to the forcible and violent overthrow of Ukraine’s government by saying, “Fuck the EU”, and continued to decide the new puppet rulers of that country. Note that it wasn’t the White House deciding who would be acceptable as new leaders of the Ukraine, nor was it the US Congress, and certainly not the Ukrainian people whose so-called ‘democracy’ doesn’t even qualify as farce. Nuland’s husband is Robert Kagan, who is active in the Brookings Institute and the Carnegie Endowment for Perpetual War, both of whom are neocon Zionist Jews playing Monopoly with real countries, and it was Nuland making those decisions, one sign of where the real power lies.

 

It has been similarly true with the multitude of corporate crimes committed by the same invisible people, the same suspects that populate every such list, all too big to fail and too powerful to prosecute. Their political immunity and legal impunity are so entrenched today as to be almost unassailable. The 2008 financial devastation was not an accident but a boldly-planned felonious wealth transfer of such magnitude as to deserve reclassification as treason, yet only the innocent victims will pay. Relatively minor and easily-recovered fines levied against the banks will do nothing but punish innocent shareholders. The tens of millions who lost their homes will receive nothing, while the perpetrators bask with their hundreds of billions in profits and bonuses. Once again, not a whimper of objection from the elected members of the People’s Congress. The executives of the financial and other giant corporations have de facto criminal immunity for all their actions. In what other sphere do criminals redefine laws to exclude their illegal acts while the authorities watch silently and helplessly, and when it occurs that the criminals have the power to define legality as they do today in the US, is it not the criminals who are now in charge?

 

Some years back, Paul Findley wrote a book titled ‘They Dare to Speak Out’, detailing the Jewish influence and control of the US government. In his book, Findley quoted US Senator William Fulbright, then the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who had conducted investigations into foreign control of his nation’s government, and who wrote in 1973,

 

“Israel controls the Senate … around 80% (of US Senators) are completely in support of Israel, and Jewish influence in the House of Representatives is even greater. Anything Israel wants (Israel will get). …[Israel] is able to stifle free speech, control our Congress, and even dictate our foreign policy”. In a CBS TV interview, Fulbright stated further, “The Israelis control the policy in the Congress and the Senate. I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews … terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen … I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get Congress to do anything they don’t approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country.”

 

Fulbright stated repeatedly that the US Senate was “subservient” to Israel and the Jews, which prevented the government from applying any pressure on Israel in its atrocities toward the Palestinian people. He claimed the US possessed sufficient leverage on Israel because “we supply all the wherewithal – or a major part of the wherewithal – to finance or to pay for everything Israel does”, but he added that the leverage couldn’t be applied because “Israel controls the Senate“. He also stated “The Senate is subservient to Israel, in my opinion much too much. We should be more concerned about the United States interest rather than doing the bidding of Israel. This is a most unusual development. The great majority of the Senate of the United States – somewhere around 80 percent – are completely in support of Israel. This has been demonstrated time and again and this has made it difficult for our government.”

Israeli settler attacks Palestinian woman in Jerusalem’s Old City during the ‘Jerusalem Day’ flag march, May 29, 2022. The flag march is an annual display of right-wing Israeli nationalism and anti-Palestinian racism intended to celebrate Zionist forces’ seizure of East Jerusalem in 1967. (Photo: Ohad Zweigenberg/social media). Source

 

Several authors have written that the Congress’ constant display of allegiance to the Jews and Israel instead of to the US was both embarrassing and unpatriotic, especially considering that Israel is almost totally dependent on American financial and military aid. Many have further noted that the Jewish-controlled media present such a “biased and sympathetic portrayal” of Israel, and further prevent any opposing views or truths of the Palestinians’ bitter suffering, that apparently only 4% of Americans are at all aware of the Jews’ 70-year long brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people. The long history of US Congressional support for Israel led former Secretary of State James Baker to call the Congress “The Little Knesset” after Israel’s Knesset (parliament) in Jerusalem. One US Senator lamented that he had the right to criticise his own government, but no such right to criticise the government of Israel even if its actions were against the US national interest. Paul Craig Roberts wrote When the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony”, and former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan described Capitol Hill as “Israeli-occupied territory”.

 

In this context, and in a stunning combination of utopian pathology, propaganda, boldness, and irony, the US media produced a small flurry of noise in the person of Jewish-American Senator Barbara Boxer who obediently proclaimed she had been warned by the FBI that “Chinese citizens or government officials might try to contact her office ‘in an effort to influence U.S. foreign policy'”. ‘Chinese officials’ might try to influence US foreign policy? And what of the Jews’ efforts to influence US foreign policy? Not a peep from her. As one writer pointed out, “That such double standard material can be published without ironic intent is a blazing indictment of the American mass media and current political system.”

 

The Moorer Report in October 2003:  The attack on the Libertywas a deliberate attempt to sink the ship and kill all 294 crew. Fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the US Navy from coming to the defence of the Libertyby recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack. There had been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history.A danger to national security exists whenever elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel’s interests when they conflict with American interests. Source

 

Admiral Thomas Moorer, who was Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in 1983 “I’ve never seen a President stand up to the Jews. They always get what they want. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.” It was the same Admiral Moorer, America’s highest ranking military officer, who could not get an honest investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. For background, the Jewish military attacked an unarmed US espionage vessel in international waters, hoping to destroy it and lay the blame on Iran. The Liberty was attacked repeatedly over a span of several hours by jet aircraft and torpedo boats, killing 34 Americans and wounding another 174, but failed to sink the vessel. The Israelis attributed the failed attack to accidental mis-identification, but all the survivors claimed that US flags were clearly flying on the ship during the attack and that in radio contact the Israelis had identified the Liberty as a US vessel. This was clearly another false-flag operation that failed in its mission by leaving survivors to testify to the truth. But the White House, on the demand of its Jewish handlers, swept the affair under the carpet to the extent that all survivors were forbidden to ever discuss the matter under pain of criminal sanction, and most were too afraid to talk even after they had retired from the US military. At the time, a White House spokesman stated that “(President) Johnson isn’t going to start a war over a few dead sailors”.

 

An Unnecessary War

Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a definitive paper on the Iraq war, documenting that it was, in their words, “the Jewish lobby” that wanted – and got – the war. Libya was the same, and it is only the Jews who want the invasion and destruction of Syria and Iran, and most likely supplied the chemical weapons to the so-called Syrian rebels and provided the photo shoots as proof. Obama tried his best to oblige his handlers with an invasion of Syria even though his own military leaders disparaged the idea as crazy. Then, to save face when the plot had clearly failed, he proposed to put the matter to a vote of Congress which was where it died. It was already well-known that Congress was 80% against and that a vote would never pass, just as with the UK. All of these military engagements were not only based on preposterous lies but were reprehensibly illegal and immoral, but neither the puppets nor the puppet-masters were held to account. Moreover, the names of the puppet-masters will be nowhere recorded, a true invisible government.

 

Convicted spy Jonathan Pollard (left) leaves federal court in 2016 with his lawyer, Eliot Lauer. Pollard was arrested in 1985. | AP Photo/Larry Neumeister

 

In 2001, an Israeli cabinet meeting was broadcast on Israel Radio, during which a disagreement arose between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres was warning Sharon that Israel should heed American demands in their dealings with the Palestinians and that Sharon’s obstinacy would endanger Israeli interests and “turn the US against us.” Sharon replied to Peres, “Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” Also in 2001, the Jewish Prime Minister Netanyahu openly mocked the US on Israeli television, saying “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.” And we have Netanyahu again when he was visiting Jonathan Pollard, the American Jew who was convicted as a traitor and spy for leaking volumes of US military secrets to Israel. On leaving Pollard’s prison cell, Netanyahu was quoted as having said, “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away”.

 

In July and August of 2014, when Israel was conducting yet another savage offensive against the Palestinians, the Wall Street Journal reported that White House and State Department officials were taken by surprise to learn that the Israeli military had been securing large supplies of weapons and ammunition directly from their friends in the Pentagon, without the knowledge or approval of the White House. Both Jewish and American officials said this was yet one more indication of how little influence the White House and State Department had in terms of extractions the Jews can make from the US, the President and his White House staff essentially finding themselves on the outside looking in. The Journal reported that Israeli officials considered Obama to be weak and naive, and were just bypassing him to deal directly with the Pentagon and Congress to satisfy their wishes. They apparently said they weren’t concerned about tensions with the White House or a failure to obtain Obama’s approval for anything because he would soon be gone anyway, and they could just outwait him. There have been other incidents of this kind, one where the Jewish lobby managed to get possession of the only squadron of American’s most highly developed aircraft which had been obtained for the US military at great expense and internal lobbying. A Defense Department official apparently told the Israelis that to ship those aircraft to Israel would be politically impossible, given the very difficult circumstances of their purchase. He claimed the Israeli response was to say, “Just get the aircraft ready. We’ll take care of Congress.” And they did. The aircraft were shipped to Israel, and the Americans did without.

 

3/29/1979-New York, NY: Senators Daniel P. Moynihan (l) and Jacob Javits look on as Israel Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledges applause 3/28 before addressing a gathering of Jewish leaders.

 

On November 25, 1977 the Jewish Press ran an article titled ‘US foreign policy is now based on how foreign countries treat their native Jews’. For background, a Russian Jew named had become seditious and troublesome to the Russian government and had been imprisoned. The Jews were crying for his release. The article noted that US Senators Moynihan and Javits of New York, two ardent Zionists, notified the Soviet Government that grain shipments from the US would be cancelled if the Russians failed to release Sharansky. He was released and deported to Israel. Consider for a moment the depth of the Jewish influence that would result in two Senators taking upon themselves the authority to decide and dictate a serious US foreign policy mandate to another nation on a trivial matter, and without legislative or executive authorisation.

 

Helen Thomas (right) walks behind President Richar Nixon and a large group in China on Feburary 1, 1972.

 

US Journalist Helen Thomas, who covered the White House for more than six decades, was forced to resign from her position at Hearst News after saying in an interview that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine”. In a published interview, Thomas said that Jews have “total control” over the White House and US Congress, that “it’s not a secret. It’s very open … Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood. Same thing with the financial markets. There’s total control. We are owned by the propagandists against the Arabs. There’s no question about that. Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.”

 

It is even much worse than the above paragraphs suggest. Today, it is virtually impossible for a politician to be elected in the US without first declaring his (or her) undying allegiance to Israel and the Jews, and certainly any suggestion of a criticism of either Israel or the Jews will guarantee the end of a political career. I am unaware of any US Senator or Congressman in recent times who has been elected without first proclaiming an unconditional support for, and loyalty to, not the US, but Israel. This is so true that in the last US Presidential election, the candidates for the American presidency were campaigning not in the US but in Israel. Mitt Romney was campaigning heavily in Israel, hoping to win the US election that way, and other US politicians have done the same.

 

Similarly, Hillary Clinton who harbored hopes of becoming US President, began her preparatory campaigning at the American Jewish Committee and AIPAC, where she presented as credentials her past efforts to assist Israel in protecting its military supremacy in the Middle East, and by her apparent willingness to start World War Three by attacking Iran to remove Israel’s last stumbling block to military supremacy.

 

President Shimon Peres awarded  President Obama with the Presidential Medal of Distinction for his unique contribution to the security of the State of Israel.

 

In March of 2013, in an astonishing display of arrogant power, Israel’s President Shimon Peres presented the country’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Distinction, to US President Obama for being a good boy. And every US President must appear for the obligatory photo-shoot while wearing a yarmulke at the wailing wall, being humiliatingly paraded like a performing monkey for the amusement of the Emperor.

 

In early 2014 Jeff Blankfort wrote an article titled ‘Rendering Unto AIPAC, in which he included this paragraph:

 

“Early in their campaigns, every viable candidate on the Democratic or Republican ticket will receive a visit from an AIPAC staff member requesting a statement describing his or her current position on the US-Israel relationship. For those who are short on words, AIPAC will gladly provide assistance. These statements are then made available to pro-Israel donors in the candidate’s district as well as to a long list of donors throughout the country. In exchange for what is invariably a pledge of loyalty to Israel, AIPAC will see that the candidate will have no shortage of volunteers and funds, although these will not come directly from AIPAC. It was, however, the spectacle of watching Obama, Hillary Clinton, and McCain, the three individuals who were vying to become the leader of the world’s only superpower, joined by House and Senate leaders of both parties, humbling themselves before the AIPAC audience, that led veteran journalist, Arnaud de Borchgrave, to reveal to readers an elemental truth about the US political process and the decision-making parameters available to the next American president.”

 

Arnaud de Borchgrave’s truth” in the Times article, was this: “Once a year, the Israel lobby in Washington known as AIPAC holds its annual convention where anyone who is anyone in the political world comes to render fealty, rather than homage. (For those who don’t know, ‘fealty’ is subservient obedience and loyalty of a peasant to his feudal lord and master: Ed) It has become a political rite of passage, like a medieval contract … Anyone who doesn’t pass the litmus test can forget about becoming president of the United States, or senator or even congressman.”

 

Blankfort also detailed how, in another flashy display of Jewish political power and control of American politics, the Jewish billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson “summoned” the several most likely candidates for the next Presidential election, in order to “,” one of them. Blankfort noted that all obeyed the summons and groveled before their lord, “doing their best to sell themselves like applicants at a job interview“. Adelson apparently interrogated each ambitious candidate and demanded from each “First of all and above everything else, blind and unconditional obedience to the government of another state: Israel”.

 

This again brings us back to Bernays who, in his book ‘Propaganda‘, wrote almost 100 years ago, “… it is well-known that (a Presidential candidate) may be decided upon by half a dozen men sitting around a table in a hotel room”. The bald truth is that ‘the people’ in America have never had any useful influence on their precious democratic process, due to the power of the political parties which are controlled by the same secret government. As I mentioned elsewhere, voting by itself is irrelevant because all the power resides in those who select the candidates who are in turn pre-selected for their ideology and their willingness to be controlled. It should be clear that if I have the power to select the candidates, your votes will be inconsequential in terms of the final result for either domestic or foreign policy. Americans live in an illusion of mythology stoked by generations of extensive propaganda, firmly believing in the supremacy of a political system that is little more than a poorly-managed stage play dependent for its success on an unthinking and ignorant population. It isn’t the smart people who revere the Western multi-party political system, but the unintelligent and uninformed, the ignorant and simple-minded, who have been overwhelmed by propaganda and terminally infected with a false theology.

 

Ben Bagdikian: No American citizen can vote intelligently without knowledge of the ideas, political background, and commitments of each individual candidate.” Source

 

It is not only the ultimate selection of candidates and the necessary material assistance and financial support to ensure election that are contained in this; perhaps even more important are the ability – and vicious determination – to ensure election losses and the removal of elected candidates who fail to please their Jewish masters. Any elected member of Congress who dares to speak out against Israel’s brutal policies, who brings unfavorable attention to the Jews, or who challenges Israel’s noose around Washington’s neck will, as Blankfort noted, be either intimidated into silence or reversing their positions or will be invariably picked off in the next election. Senator Fulbright, whom I’ve mentioned above, attracted unfavorable attention with his testimony and statements about Jewish control of the US elected representatives, being described by AIPAC as “consistently unkind to Israel and our supporters in this country”, and was defeated in the next election when his AIPAC-selected opponent garnered overwhelming attention from the Jewish media as well as campaign cash. There are other notable examples of US politicians incurring AIPAC’s wrath for failure to heed the wishes of the Jews, and being subsequently “targeted by AIPAC and defeated in the next election”. So many Americans live under the delusion that they, and they alone, decide who wins and who loses when in fact they are pitifully irrelevant to the process. Then we have the media, virtually entirely under Jewish control and which, except in extreme cases, can of itself determine the result of any election and the fate of any politician. As Ben Bagdikian noted, media power is political power in that only a few individuals totally control how politicians will be presented – or NOT presented – to the voting public. It therefore becomes almost impossible for electoral candidates to survive if their agenda and ideology do not conform to those of the Jews.

 

Blankfort related that just a few months after becoming President, Obama received letters that had been circulated by AIPAC and that had been signed by about three-fourths of all Congressmen and Senators, advising him to accommodate himself to the wishes of Israel and the Jews. The letter, apparently containing an AIPAC tag on it to reveal its true origin, “was clearly designed to send a message to the president that, as far as Congress is concerned, Israel’s desires trump those of the United States.” According to Blankfort, all the media were provided with copies of the letter and all chose to ignore it. Many US Presidents, Senators and Congressmen have received such communications which ultimately persuaded them to ‘reassess’ their positions and select a policy position more favorable to the Jews. Being a “Friend of Israel” is a necessary prerequisite to political office in most Western nations, including not only the US but Canada, the UK, Australia and more. It is neither a secret nor a surprise that Jews, Zionist zealots, and other supporters of Israel are “deeply embedded at all levels in the fabric of political life” and consequently function at the hearts of these governments. This is so true that Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper foolishly snubbed an appearance at the UN for the sake of appearing at a meeting of some nondescript Jewish group in the US to receive a “Man of the Year” award for his undying allegiance to Israel and the Jews.

 

The Jews boast openly about their political influence and power, Jewish publications bragging that they made Obama what he is, and one Jewish Zionist famously claiming Barack Obama is the first Jewish President”. James Petras wrote a useful article in which he quoted a Chicago Jewish News article claiming Obama had been “discovered” by a Jewish Zionist professor at Harvard when he was still studying law there, and decided he was “recruitable”. She recounted how she enlisted the aid of family, friends, financiers, and helped obtain prestigious employment for him, followed by introductions to a wide array of Jewish Zionists, including financial supporters, all of whom worked to ensure Obama would be permanently “embedded” in their network. Petras also noted that as a senator, Obama shared an office with a fanatical Jewish Zionist named Ira Silverstein, who later boasted of his role in ‘educating’ Obama about Jews and Israel. Obama did not appear out of the blue sky as a breath of fresh air for America; he had been specifically selected, assiduously cultivated and carefully groomed by the Jews for two decades before he was presented as a ‘choice’ to the country, and by that time it was already much too late for the people.

 

Mark Dubowitz

 

It is to these people that Obama owes his allegiance, and his first acts in office were to fill the White House and many important agencies with radical Zionists, most of whom were Jewish, and also to purge these agencies of any who failed to please AIPAC. The process is very broad and deep, and includes most visible politicians and government officials. In referring to Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Petras noted they are so deeply infused with Israel-First ideology that they were “Zionized Zombies“. I would concur. Truly, few people realise the depth of Jewish influence and control in Washington, especially on US foreign policy. Israel not only badly wants to destroy Iran militarily so as to eliminate a threat to its military supremacy, but it wants the US to destroy its enemies for it and, through its US lobbying power, is in fact dictating the terms under which the US military will do so. It was the radical Jewish Zionist Mark Dubowitz, who is neither an elected nor appointed government official, who wrote much of the legislation relating to sanctions on Iran.

 

It is not the elected Congress and not the White House, but the secret government mostly represented by its friends in AIPAC, that determines and dictates US policy for Israel and the Middle East, and for much of the world, certainly toward Eastern Europe and especially Russia and the Ukraine. AIPAC is not the power behind the throne; rather it is the public face of that power, doing the bidding of names that will never be mentioned. In this sense, it is not different from what is loosely called ‘the Jewish lobby’, being only one arrow in a quiver that includes the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford Foundations, the US FED and the Bank of England along with other bankers, financiers like George Soros, the Hollywood studio and mass media owners, sundry other so-called NGOs, and many multi-national corporations. They are all members of the same choir and are all singing the same song, with both lyrics and melody written by the international Jewish financiers in Europe.

 

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, joined by the Presidential Cabinet members, pose for a Cabinet portrait Thursday, April 1, 2021, in the Grand Foyer of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz).

 

An important part of this political landscape consists of organisations like the already-mentioned Trilateral Commission, which is an offshoot of the also US-based ‘Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) that the European Rothschilds created as the American version of their UK-based ‘Round Table’. The CFR was created in the US for the Rothschilds by our old friend Lippman, and by Colonel Edward Mandell House who was a member of Bernays’ secret government and the Jewish puppet-master of Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt. The CFR consists largely of members of America’s elite ruling class and the secret government, and exerts a staggering influence over almost all aspects of American life, to say nothing of a pervasive and pernicious influence on American politics. This is so true that virtually all American presidential candidates are members of the CFR, and in fact their membership and overall approval are prerequisites for presidential candidacy. No US president will be elected, nor in fact permitted to run, without CFR permission. One US Congressman stated,

 

CFR Founders in 1921. Source

 

“The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high-level decisions for converting the US from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member of New World Order dictatorship.”

 

This so-called council is still a subsidiary of the European Rothschild’s Round Table, which was originally created by Cecil Rhodes as a mechanism for world domination, and given to Rothschild to continue, and is still controlled by the same Zionist European bankers with their “pernicious and pervasive” influence on Europe as much as on the US.

 

According to an official statement, The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of Western Europe, Japan and North America to foster closer cooperation among these three regions on common problems. It seeks to improve public understanding of such problems, to support proposals for handling them jointly, and to nurture habits and practices of working together among these regions. That sounds good, but the ‘private citizens’ were a secret group of seventeen very powerful people that included David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, McGeorge Bundy and others from the New World Order Bilderberg Group who met at Rockefeller’s New York estate to plan this monster. The Commission wasn’t created in any sense to ‘solve problems’ but to do heavy social and political engineering, dealing with the ‘crisis of democracy’ and preparing a move to authoritarian fascism. The US media, again almost entirely Jewish-owned, are silent on the CFR and the Trilateral Commission and their influence and power in the nation.

 

Not long ago, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu attempted to increase the pressure on Obama to deal harshly with Iran by bypassing the White House and the US government altogether, and appearing on a Sunday TV talk show to appeal directly to the American public. Inserting himself directly into US politics while claiming he didn’t want to insert himself into US politics, Netanyahu insisted the Americans must act quickly and forcibly to eliminate all threats to Jewish military supremacy in the Middle East. Iran, of course, is one of those threats, with Israel having been claiming for ten years that Iran was two days away from having nuclear weapons. The Jewish-controlled US media are of course silent on the one essential point which is to ask why it is okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons and be an existential threat to Iran, but it is not okay for Iran to possess the only suitable deterrent of its own weapons. Netanyahu spoke eloquently about the security of Israel but ignored the fact that Israel’s military presence and extreme belligerence threaten the security of every other nation in the Middle East. The Jewish lobby has sufficient influence that Netanyahu has on occasion demanded, and received, permission to bypass the White House and address the US Congress directly, to make more clear his expectations of them. This was neither the first nor last time an Israeli prime minister had gone over a president’s head and appealed directly to Congress or the American people.

 

None of this is new. Jewish influence on American politicians and in particular on the White House has existed for at least most of the last century. There is no shortage of documentation of various US presidents confiding to their staff that their Jewish handlers would shortly be informing them of the appropriate decisions and courses of action to be taken. Another quote from Findley‘s book:

 

“When I lived in America, I learned that Jewish personalities, most of them rich donors for the parties, had easy access to the President. They used to contact him over the head of the Foreign Secretary and the representative at the United Nations and other officials. They were often in a position to alter the entire political line by a single telephone conversation…”

 

Given all of this, it is long past time for everyone to stop pretending that the Jews do not control the US government, notwithstanding the inevitable condemnation as an anti-Semite for doing so. Any examination of the American political scene is obliged to recognise that the US is closer to being a Jewish state than an American one, especially considering, but by no means limited to, the treasonous allegiance by the US congress sworn to Israel and the Jews. A dog doesn’t serve two masters.

 

Financial power is crucial to the success of this influence. A recent article noted that in the 2012 election about 30% – nearly one-third of all ‘disclosed’ political contributions came from only 31,000 donors, or 0.0001 of the population, less than one ten-thousandth. It further noted that not a single member of the House or Senate was elected without financial assistance from this group, and about 85% of these politicians received more money from this tiny group than from all their small donors combined. This tiny, but rich and powerful minority of people are “the political gatekeepers of American politics”. They decide which candidates are acceptable to them, which hold the ‘correct’ opinions and ideologies, and which will vote the way the elite want them to vote. It is not the American public who are selecting candidates to represent their interests, but this small clique buying politicians who can be trusted to carry out their agenda. The American people can do no better than vote for one of two pre-selected clones, with their choices being both inconsequential and irrelevant. By any definition of the word, democracy in America is a myth.

Louis Brandeis was the first Jewish justice on the the U.S. Supreme Court. In this 1930 photo, he is seated in the bottom row on the far right. Source

 

This influence has for long extended to appointments to a vast selection of important executive posts within many departments of government and, more often than we want to know or admit, involves elements of extortion or blackmail. Few Americans, and even fewer others, are familiar with the appointment of Louis Brandeis to the US Supreme Court, an event privately hailed by the Jews as ‘their’ first Supreme Court judge. President Wilson was approached by a Jewish lawyer, Samuel Untermeyer, who claimed to have a female client who badly needed $40,000 and who possessed a collection of passionate and indiscreet love letters sent to her by Wilson when they were illicit lovers, and was threatening to make the letters public. Untermeyer, knowing Wilson had no access to a sum that large, offered to pay the $40,000 out of his own pocket in return for a favor: Wilson would agree to recommend a person of Untermeyer’s choosing to the next opening on the Supreme Court. That person was Brandeis and, above strenuous public objection, Wilson pushed forcefully until the appointment was confirmed. Untermeyer kept the Wilson love letters “to ensure they would never fall into the wrong hands”, but also to ensure his future control over Wilson. It is probably true that the appointment of many Jews to government posts have been made willingly or on merit alone, but it is also true there have been many of the other kind.

 

 Free PDF  The Deep State Mike Lofgren

 

Mike Lofgren was a high-level US congressional staff member who spent 28 years on Capitol Hill, serving on both the House and Senate budget committees, and who wrote in early 2014 a brief paper titled  ‘Anatomy of the Deep State’, revealing his accumulated observations about the power behind the throne of the US government. There are many names for this secret entity that has existed for at least the past 100 years. I have followed Bernays’ lead in calling it the ‘Secret Government‘; Lofgren uses the term ‘Deep State‘; they are the same. He began by stating, “I use the term to mean a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process”. I include below a few of Lofgren’s comments, edited for brevity. His intent and content are unchanged.

 

“There is the visible government in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading. (It) is another government concealed behind the one that is visible, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself, (and its) protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel allows them to escape the consequences (of their actions).”

 

The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, certain key areas of the judiciary and a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some of the defense and intelligence committees. All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. The Deep State does not consist only of government agencies. What is euphemistically called “private enterprise” is an integral part of its operations. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect (Washington) to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests.”

 

Lofgren included the Treasury Department in the Deep State because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. He went on to write, “It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies.” And here, of course, he had it absolutely right; it is the domestic and foreign bankers who are indeed the “ultimate owners” of the Deep State, but in this he failed to include the US FED and its European owners who determine and dictate both financial and political policy to the rest.

 

Chinese journalist Lee Fang produced some stunning facts for a research report in which he documented that individuals often receive multi-million-dollar bonuses when they leave secretive Wall Street to enter the active, visible government. According to Fang, many large corporations who want to influence public policy give executives huge bonuses if they take jobs within the government. Among them are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, the Blackstone Group, Fannie Mae, Northern Trust. Citigroup even awards additional retirement pay upon leaving to take a “full-time high-level position with the US government or regulatory body”. The Bank of America gave Stefan Seelig more than $9 million in bonus pay when he was nominated to become the Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, and Michael Froman received over $4 million when he left Citigroup to become the current US trade representative. “The fox is groomed for the chicken coop, and the Deep State grows fat on its prey.”

 

Sir Montagu Norman, a Rothschild agent and Governor of the Bank of England for many years, was considered the single most influential banker in the world. In 1924, he said this in a speech to bankers in New York city: “Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world.

 

Lofgren was correct in claiming the Deep State is an ideology that is a kind of corporatism, but in categorising it as nameless, he didn’t quite connect all the dots. It does indeed have a name – the New World Order. The Deep State is extremely Right-Wing, primarily Jewish, and fervently Zionist. Many people have described portions of it, but approach from too many points of view: corporate domination, human rights, banking, surveillance, politics. It is all of these, and none of them. It is as much about the Bush’s enormous landholdings in Brazil or the Rothschilds setting up a new bank to hold lands extorted from developing countries as it is about health care or the housing crisis or the NSA and DHS. This is about a small group of powerful individuals working steadily to build a farm where the people of the world are the cattle. The Deep State, the Secret Government, the New World Order, are all names and faces of the same entity which is at its core an international fascist dictatorship, with the security state and its internment camps forming an increasingly integral part.

 

Lofgren wrote, “Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. Their preferred pose is that of the politically neutral technocrat offering well considered advice based on profound expertise (but) that is nonsense (since) they are deeply dyed in the hue of the official ideology of the governing class.” Consider his words adjacent to those quoted earlier which argued that “power should shift from contentious, ideologically diverse elected bodies subject to pressure from the ‘lower orders’, toward credentialed “experts” operating in Washington, Brussels or the United Nations.” Different words, same meaning. Lofgren stated further that these individuals possess a deep ideology which he called “the red thread” that runs through both the Washington consensus and the war on terror, embracing the financialisation and de-industrialisation of the US economy, outsourcing, deregulation and privatisation, the commoditisation of labor and “American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere; it’s our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war”. He also noted that it included the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction, and I would add the security state and its brutal suppression of political dissent, as well as the perpetual ‘war on terror’ to increasingly justify the withdrawal of all civil rights.

 

“The Deep State is the big story of our time. (It) is a government within a government that operates off the visible government and operates off the taxpayers. But it doesn’t seem to be constrained in a constitutional sense by the government. The Deep State, based on the twin pillars of national security imperative and corporate hegemony, has until recently seemed unshakable. It is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change.”

 

Lofgren went on to say that the Deep State’s physical expansion and consolidation of power “would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken”. While the US government was laying off staff, forcing unpaid vacations, closing all tourist facilities for lack of funds, there was no shortage of cash to destroy Libya or attempt the destruction of Syria, nor the $2 billion to build the NSA data storage center. He wrote “That the secret and unaccountable Deep State floats freely above the gridlock … is the paradox of American government in the 21st century: drone strikes, data mining, secret prisons and Panopticon-like control on the one hand; and on the other, the visible parliamentary institutions of self-government declining to the status of a banana republic amid the gradual collapse of public infrastructure.” He said it is true that US government is dysfunctional and broken, that it no longer works, “but somehow Obama can go into Libya. He can assassinate US citizens. He can collect all our phone records. He can even bring down a jet carrying a president of a sovereign country without asking anyone’s permission. And no one seems to connect the two, the failure of our visible constitutional state and this other government that operates according to no constitutional rules or any constraint by the governed.”

 

But these people are not interested in either government or governing, in the traditional sense of meaning of these words. They are instead arranging the parasitic extraction of wealth from the population, and want the people to remain under control. Beyond that, they have little interest. These people are vampires. They are parasites. They are venal and extractive. Lofgren again:

 

“The Deep State has been extracting value from the American people in vampire-like fashion. While it seems to float above the constitutional state, its essentially parasitic, extractive nature means that it is still tethered to the formal proceedings of governance. They are extracting revenue from the American people everywhere they can find a revenue stream: public schools, housing, prisons, infrastructure, pipelines, fracking, oil and gas exploration, Social Security, privatization of health insurance and health care.”

 

 

Russian border line. Situation by the end of October 31, 2024. Source

 

We should not proceed further without noting here that this Deep State or Secret Government is the source of the destruction of the social contract that governed the US after the Second World War. It is these people who are responsible for the gutting of the American economy, for outsourcing, deindustrialisation, the destruction of labor, the evisceration of the middle class, and so much more. It is they who have been responsible, through their ownership of the US FED (and other nations’ central banks) for all the economic booms and busts during the past more than 100 years, extracting enormous wealth from the population at each cycle. It is they who have launched the class war on all but the elites in the US, Canada and all of Western Europe. It is they who arranged the US$5 billion investment in overthrowing successive governments in Ukraine, and it is they who want yet again the destruction of Russia. They are also responsible for virtually all the interference in China’s internal affairs and the efforts to derail China’s progress. There are dangers lurking here so great as to be almost impossible to overestimate, and to ignore or dismiss them would be foolhardy in the extreme.

 

The Power of Lobbie

 

Frederic Bastiat wrote “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”, a statement perfectly describing the US today. Not so many years ago, appeals to government to oppose, propose, or amend legislation or regulations, were public matters conducted openly and on the record. Clandestine visits to elected members of a government or its senior civil servants with the intention of swaying legislation and regulations in terms favorable to the visitor were termed “influence-peddling” and considered a felony generally rewarded by a prison sentence. No longer. Today, influence-peddling is the fastest-growing industry in America, and is no longer a crime but a profession with high salaries that has changed its name to lobbying‘.

Jack Abramoff

 

One of America’s most powerful political game-makers and lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, was eventually sent to prison for his imaginative lobbying activities, one of which involved collecting about $80 million in lobbying fees from American Indian tribes while collecting other fees on opposite sides of the same issues, cheating all his clients equally. A recent news article noted that most American lobbying firms employ family members of US Senators and Congressmen to increase their success ratio, and almost half of all politicians who fail re-election become lobbyists. As someone so nicely wrote, “This means the wife is lobbying the husband, the father is lobbying his son, and the hooker is lobbying her customer.” This is one of the true faces of democracy in all Western nations today.

 

The legalisation of lobbying was meant only to simplify the process of influencing and corrupting US elected officials, permitting corruptive influences to function openly in the light. Few seem to recognise that this has been a substantial degenerative influence on all levels of government in America, corrupting not only the White House and the politicians in Congress but most officials at the State level and virtually all regulatory bodies, the FDA certainly among them. The secret government, with its army of lobbyists carrying their armloads of cash, have succeeded in subverting almost every meaningful department of the US government. Monsanto’s paid lobbyists succeeded in Congress creating legislation prohibiting information on GM food content on consumer packaging. The powerful lobbyists of General Motors and some major oil companies succeeded in George Bush’s White House joining their lawsuit against the State of California to destroy the future of electric automobiles in the US.

 

Through this same lobbying network, the FED and the bankers succeeded in having Clinton and the Congress remove all banking regulations, resulting in not only obscene profits being vacuumed from the public but permitting them to profit to the extent of trillions of dollars from the 2008 financial crisis as well as the bailout. It was Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Jewish-American Treasury Secretary who was instrumental in abolishing the Glass Steagal act which allowed commercial and investment banks to merge. One of the biggest beneficiaries of this change was CitiGroup, which promptly entered investment banking and hired Rubin as an ‘advisor’, paying him more than $125 million for his sterling efforts on their behalf. The same lobbyists, with the same ready cash and political influence, then succeeded in obtaining $7.7 trillion to bail out the banks after the implosion, leaving the people to fend for themselves.

 

The same secret government and their corporate lobbyists obtained the tax concessions that permitted them to offshore and outsource most of US industry, profiting hugely themselves while hollowing out the entire nation and permanently dislodging tens of millions of jobs. These same people acted with astonishing vengeance and lust to destroy what may have been the last hope of a universal healthcare plan for Americans, solely to fill their own pockets. This is the reason public corporations are now classed as people who will take the blame and pay the penalties (if any) for white-collar crime, excusing the elites and their corporate managers who should all be hung for felonies and treason. It is primarily due to the powerful lobby of the NRA that the US is the most heavily-armed society in the world with the most abominable tally of gun crimes. These same lobbyists have succeeded in freeing the pharmaceutical industry from any liability, even for what amounts to mass murder, and even when their drug trials are proven to have been totally fabricated.

 

The US Food and Drug Administration has been totally corrupted by the lobbyists and their masters, as have most all regulatory bodies with responsibility for everything from auto safety to banking, from the stock exchanges to agriculture, from drugs and medications to building standards and airports. The US Agriculture Department has abandoned virtually all responsibility for public safety, and nobody is any longer watchful of the chemical contamination of ground water in the East or the reckless and soon-fatal destruction of the aquifers in the arid US Southwest. Most industries, not only banking but more importantly food and medications, are now ‘self-regulated’, which means no regulation whatever and with the freedom to commit crimes and plunder society without the nuisance of laws or moral restraint.

 

Of course, the Jewish lobby is widely recognised as being the most pervasive and powerful in the US, with by far the most influence on not only the White House and Congress, but in the military and espionage communities, the judiciary and other areas. The Jewish lobby not only controls US foreign policy in the Middle East, but ensures Israel’s continued receipt of more than $3 billion each year in cash and military grants. This last alone serves to ensure Israel’s pervasive military threat over the entire Middle East as well as a rich supply of the latest in American weapons technology. Without this enormous sum of money, Israel would be of no more political consequence than Dubai. The Jewish lobby, combined with its friends at the FED, the mostly-Jewish American bankers and industrialists, has likely contributed most to the outsourcing and hollowing-out of American business, and certainly for the financial disaster in 2008. It has been adequately documented that this Jewish lobby was entirely responsible for the US military destruction of both Iraq and Libya, the US military being used as a private army for this lobby group and the secret government.

 

February 22, 2024 – More than ten demonstrators were arrested at the end of the peaceful demonstration inside of the building where Senator Gillibrand and Schumer have offices.

 

AIPAC has been mentioned earlier as the largest and most visible of the Jewish lobby groups but there are many dozens, if not hundreds, in the US, operating at all levels of the country. It is due to the lobbying of one or another Jewish group that all traces of Christmas, including even a Christmas tree, are being removed from American public schools on the basis that Jews are “offended” by the celebration of Christian festivals. Given the extensive penetration into every aspect of American government and regulatory body, and its progress over generations, it is probably impossible to trace the total effects of this one group on the nation. Certainly, much of this influence has been both expensive and disastrous for the US and the people, the wars and debts alone justifying condemnation, to say nothing of the fact that, through this powerful lobby, the US is financing and providing the weapons for the immense tragedy in Palestine. Americans have no cause for pride in supporting this thoroughly evil hijacking of a nation and the slow genocide of its people simply to please the Jews who form less than 2% of the US population.

 

There is no way to argue that this development of secret lobbying and even more secret cash is of any benefit to the US as a nation, because it effectively prevents any consideration of the good of the country or its people. Others have written that the US government is virtually paralysed by all the pressure and payments from this lobbying culture, increasingly directing itself only to the benefit of a relatively few bankers and industrialists who are becoming wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice while destroying the goose that is laying the golden eggs. Many writers, myself included, argue that the US today has the most dysfunctional government in the world, but that accusation is not strictly accurate. Writing of the death of Trayvon Martin, Robin Kelley said that justice was always going to elude Martin, not because the system failed, but because it worked, and Bonnie Kerness made precisely the same point in writing of the private prison system. Similarly, it is not that the US system of government doesn’t work; the problem is that it is working exactly as intended. The intent, from the late 1970s, was to concentrate power in the White House while emasculating Congress, then take full control of the White House and therefore the entire government system. The secret government simultaneously created two sets of laws – one for themselves and the other for society, while freeing themselves of all tax, legal and moral liability. The overall objective was to plunder the American economy and the American people, avariciously draining the public trough and the assets of the citizens, without apparent limit or restraint.

Binyamin Netanyahu was once overheard by an ex-CIA agent as saying to a group of his supporters, “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away.” Source

 

To be even more clear, the intent, from the very beginning, was to drain both the US government and the American people to the point of bankruptcy, to the stage where there was nothing more to steal. It was not precisely an attempt to eviscerate the American middle class but to gut all of America. The only survivors will be the relative handful of elites and the small educated management group who function as their lieutenants – the MBAs and lawyers at Monsanto and the young Ph.Ds. at the Carnegie and Ford Foundations or the Rand Corporation. The rest of the nation is disposable. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away”. The word “suck” would have been more appropriate than “squeeze”, but the result is probably the same. In this matter as in so many others, the public are blind, not so much to the causes of their nation’s manifold miseries, but to the intent. It isn’t so much that people cannot see, as that they don’t want to believe what they see. As Hitler said so correctly when commenting on the big lies being told about the German people by the Jews, people don’t want to believe that others could do these things and, even when faced with incontrovertible facts, will still doubt and waver and continue to think there may be some other explanation.

From A 1992 Published Interview Granted By President George H. W. Bush To Sarah McClendon, ‘The Grand Dame’ Of The White House Press Corps At The Time: “If the people knew what we were doing, they would hang us in the streets. Source

 

No American wants to believe that a morally-righteous American corporation like Mattel or Apple, GM or P&G, would deliberately lobby the government for an offshore tax break while secretly planning to destroy millions of jobs in the US, trashing their own country for the sake of their own profits. But that is precisely what happened. The offshoring and outsourcing of American jobs were not an accident; they were the plan. If we only think, it could not have been otherwise. The 2008 financial crisis was similarly not an accident but a plan, with the evidence in the open wherever we care to look. For Americans, the problem is a compound one in that they must not only realise that their own famous corporations in which they take such patriotic pride, have in fact betrayed them, and that this betrayal was part of a deliberate plan, but also that the plan was conceived and executed in cooperation with their own government. Few Americans have the insight or courage to face this most difficult of realisations – that their government conspired to betray them and has in fact been doing so for many decades. It was not for nothing that George Bush Sr. said, “If the people knew what we were doing, they would hang us in the streets.

David Brooks: The people are anxious, pessimistic, ashamed, helpless and defensive. Source

 

The propaganda machine has so successfully instilled the foolishness of a morally-sanctified “democracy” so deeply into the American psyche that it has become a virtual self-definition of the concept of American identity, with this silly faith forming life’s only anchor. To now face a reality where democracy of the people equals betrayal of the people, is an existential threat, a collapse of the American identity. The entire narrative has been based on this hysterical political religion which has always been a lie, with the proof in overwhelming evidence no more so than today. David Brooks wrote in the NYT that “Americans have lost faith in the credibility of their political system, which is the one resource the entire regime is predicated upon. The people are anxious, pessimistic, ashamed, helpless and defensive.” Of course. The question is why this process took so long.

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/and https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

2186604556@qq.com

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2024


 Other works by this Author

 

 

Valdai Discussion Club 21 st annual meeting on November 7, 2024

$
0
0

 Valdai Discussion Club meeting


Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

 



November 7, 2024

23:50

Sochi

The theme of the meeting is Lasting Peace on What Basis? Common Security and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21st Century.

* * *

Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov: Ladies and gentlemen, guests, friends, participants of the Valdai Discussion Club meeting!

 

We are starting the plenary session of the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. We have spent four wonderful days full of discussions and now we can try to sum up some of the results.

 

I would like to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to the stage.

 

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you. Thank you very much.

 

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

 

I am delighted to welcome all of you to our traditional meeting. First of all, I would like to thank you for taking part in acute and substantive discussions of the Valdai Club. We are meeting on November 7, which is a significant date both for Russia and the entire world. The Russian Revolution of 1917, like the Dutch, English and great French Revolutions in their time, all became, to a certain extent, milestones in the development path of humanity and largely determined the course of history, the nature of politics, diplomacy, economies, and social structure.

 

We are also destined to live in an era of fundamental, even revolutionary changes, and not only to comprehend but also to take a direct part in the most complex processes of the first quarter of the 21st century. The Valdai Club is already 20 years old, almost the same age as our century. By the way, in cases like this they often say that time flies by quickly, but not in this case. These two decades were more than filled with the most important, sometimes dramatic events of truly historical scale. We are witnessing the formation of a completely new world order, nothing like we had in the past, such as the Westphalian or Yalta systems.

 

New powers are rising. Nations are becoming more and more aware of their interests, their value, uniqueness and identity, and are increasingly insistent on pursuing the goals of development and justice. At the same time, societies are confronted with a multitude of new challenges, from exciting technological changes to catastrophic natural disasters, from outrageous social division to massive migration waves and acute economic crises.

 

Experts talk about the threat of new regional conflicts, global epidemics, about complex and controversial ethical aspects of interaction between humans and artificial intelligence, about how traditions and progress reconcile with each other.

 

You and I predicted some of these problems when we met earlier and even discussed them in detail at the Valdai Club meetings. We instinctively anticipated some of them, hoping for the best but not excluding the worst scenario.

 

Something, on the contrary, became a complete surprise for everyone. Indeed, the dynamics is very intensive. In fact, the modern world is unpredictable. If you look back 20 years and evaluate the scale of changes, and then project these changes onto the coming years, you can assume that the next twenty years will be no less, if not more difficult. And how much more difficult they will be, depends on the multitude of factors. As I understand, you are coming together at the Valdai Club exactly to analyse all these factors and try to make some predictions, some forecasts.

 

There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage. Its outcome will determine whether we will be able, through joint efforts, to build a world that will allow all nations to develop and resolve emerging contradictions based on mutual respect for cultures and civilisations, without coercion and use of force. And finally, whether the human society will be able to retain its ethical humanistic principles, and whether an individual will be able to remain human.

 

At first glance, it might appear that there is no alternative. Yet, regrettably, there is. It is the dive of humanity into the depths of aggressive anarchy, internal and external splits, the erosion of traditional values, the emergence of new forms of tyranny, and the actual renunciation of the classical principles of democracy, along with fundamental rights and freedoms. Increasingly often, democracy is being interpreted not as the rule of majority but of minority. Traditional democracy and the rule of the people are being set against an abstract notion of freedom, for the sake of which, as some argue, democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech, and an unbiased media can be disregarded or sacrificed.

 

The peril lies in the imposition of totalitarian ideologies and making them the norm, as exemplified by the current state of Western liberalism. This modern Western liberalism, in my view, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative or sovereign and independent thought. Today, it even seeks to justify neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism, and even the mass genocide of civilians.

 

Moreover, there are international conflicts and confrontations fraught with the danger of mutual destruction. Weapons that can cause this do exist and are being constantly improved, taking new forms as the technologies advance. The number of nations possessing such weapons is growing, and no one can guarantee that these weapons will not be used, especially if threats incrementally multiply and legal and moral norms are ultimately shattered.

 

I have previously stated that we have reached red lines. The West’s calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, reveal the reckless adventurism of certain Western politicians. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism could lead to a global catastrophe. Meanwhile, the former hegemons, who have been accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly astonished that their commands are no longer heeded. Efforts to cling to their diminishing power through force result only in widespread instability and more tensions, leading to casualties and destruction. However, these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining absolute, unchallenged power. For the march of history cannot be halted.

 

Instead of recognising the futility of their ambitions and the objective nature of change, certain Western elites seem poised to go to any lengths to thwart the development of a new international system that aligns with the interests of the global majority. In the recent policies of the United States and its allies, for instance, the principle of ”You shall not belong to anyone!“ or ”You're either with us or against us“ has become increasingly evident. I mean to say, such a formula is very dangerous. After all, as the saying of our and many other countries goes, ”What goes around comes around.“

 

Chaos, a systemic crisis is already escalating in the very nations that attempt to implement such strategies. The pursuit of exclusivity, liberal and globalist messianism and ideological, military, and political monopoly is steadily depleting those countries that pursue these paths, pushing the world towards decline and starkly contradicting the genuine interests of the people in the United States and European countries.

 

I am confident that sooner or later the West will come to this realisation. Historically, its great achievements have always been rooted in a pragmatic, clear-eyed approach based on a tough, sometimes cynical but rational evaluation of circumstances and their own capabilities.

 

In this context, I wish to emphasise once more: unlike our counterparts, Russia does not view Western civilisation as an adversary, nor does it pose the question of ”us or them.“ I reiterate: ”You're either with us or against us“ is not part of our vocabulary. We have no desire to teach anyone or impose our worldview upon anyone. Our stance is open and it is as follows.

 

The West has indeed amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system. However, it is precisely ”one of“ alongside other rapidly advancing nations and groups. Hegemony in the new international order is not a consideration. When, for instance, Washington and other Western capitals understand and acknowledge this incontrovertible fact, the process of building a world system that addresses future challenges will finally enter the phase of genuine creation. God willing, this should happen as soon as possible. This is in the shared interest, especially for the West itself.

 

So far, we – meaning all those interested in creating a just and stable world – have been using too much energy to resist the destructive activities of our opponents, who are clinging to their monopoly. This is obvious, and everyone in the west, the east, the south and everywhere else is aware of this. They are trying to preserve their power and monopoly, which is obvious.

 

These efforts could be directed with much better results towards addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine and new technology. This is where we should focus our energy, and this is what all of us should be doing.

 

I will take the liberty of making a number of philosophical digressions today. After all, this is a discussion club, and I hope these digressions will be in the spirit of the discussions we have been holding here.

 

As I said, the world is changing radically and irreversibly. Unlike previous versions of the world order, the new world is characterised by a combination or parallel existence of two seemingly incompatible elements: a rapidly growing conflict potential and the fragmentation of the political, economic and legal spheres, on the one hand, and the continued close interconnection of the global space as a whole, on the other hand. This may sound paradoxical. We have grown used to these trends following and replacing one another. For centuries, the times of conflicts and division were followed by more favourable periods of interaction. This is the dynamics of historical development.

 

It turns out that this principle no longer applies. Let us reflect on this. Violent, conceptual and highly emotional conflicts greatly complicate but do not stop global development. New links of interaction emerge in place of those destroyed by political decisions or even military methods. These new links may be much more complicated and sometimes convoluted, yet they help maintain economic and social ties.

 

We can speak from experience here. Recently, the collective West – the so-called collective West – made an unprecedented attempt to banish Russia from global affairs and from the international economic and political systems. The number of sanctions and punitive measures applied against our country has no analogues in history. Our opponents assumed that they would inflict a crushing defeat, dealing a knockout blow to Russia from which it would never recover, thereby ceasing to be one of the permanent fixtures in the international community.

 

I think there is no need to remind you of what really happened. The very fact that this Valdai conference, which marks a major anniversary this year, has attracted such a high-profile audience speaks for itself, I believe. Valdai is just one example. It just brought into perspective the reality in which we live, in which Russia exists. The truth is that the world needs Russia, and no decisions made by any individuals in Washington or Brussels who believe others should take their orders can change this.

 

The same applies to other decisions. Even a trained swimmer will not go very far upstream, regardless of the tricks or even doping they might use. The current of global politics, the mainstream, is running from the crumbling hegemonic world towards growing diversity, while the West is trying to swim against the tide. This is obvious; as people say, there is no prize for guessing. It is simply that clear.

 

Let’s return to the dialectics of history, the alternation of periods of conflict and cooperation. Has the world really changed so much that this theory no longer applies? Let’s try to look at what is happening today from a slightly different angle: what is the essence of the conflict, and who is involved in it today?

 

Since the middle of the last century, when Nazism – the most malicious and aggressive ideology, the product of fierce controversies in the first half of the 20th century – was defeated through timely action and at the cost of tremendous losses, humanity was faced with the task of avoiding the revival of this evil and a recurrence of world wars. Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes, the general vector was defined at that time. It was a total rejection of all forms of racism, the dismantling of the classical colonial system and the inclusion of a greater number of full-fledged participants in international politics. There was an obvious demand for openness and democracy in the international system, along with rapid growth in different countries and regions, and the emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches aimed at expanding development opportunities and achieving prosperity. Like any other historical process, this gave rise to a clash of interests. Yet again, the general desire for harmony and development in all aspects of this concept was obvious.

 

Our country, then called the Soviet Union, made a major contribution to consolidating these trends. The Soviet Union assisted states that had renounced colonial or neo-colonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. I would like to emphasise that in the mid-1980s, it was the Soviet Union that called for an end to ideological confrontation, the overcoming of the Cold War legacy, an end to the Cold War and its legacy, and the elimination of barriers that hampered global unity and comprehensive world development.

 

Yes, our attitude towards that period is complicated, in light of the consequences of the national political leadership’s policies. We have to confront certain tragic consequences, and we are still battling with them. I would like to highlight the unjustifiably idealistic urges of our leaders and our nation, as well as their sometimes naïve approaches, as we can see today. Undoubtedly, this was motivated by sincere aspirations for peace and universal wellbeing. In reality, this reflects a salient feature of our nation’s mentality, its traditions, values, and spiritual and moral coordinates.

 

But why did these aspirations lead to diametrically opposite results? This is an important question. We know the answer, and I have mentioned it repeatedly, in one way or another. The other party to the ideological confrontation perceived those historical developments as its triumph and victory, viewing them as our country’s surrender to the West and as an opportunity and the victor’s right to establish complete dominance, rather than as a chance to rebuild the world based on new and equitable concepts and principles.

 

I mentioned this some time ago, and I will now touch on it briefly, without mentioning any names. In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool in their own hands. That was the principle they were guided by. They lacked a broad outlook and overall cultural and political awareness; they failed to comprehend the situation and understand Russia. By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed. These are the real origins of the conflicts in our historical era, beginning with the tragedies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine and the Middle East.

 

Some Western elites thought that their monopoly and the moment of unipolarity in the ideological, economic, political and partially even military-strategic sense were the destination point. Here we are. Stop and enjoy the moment! This is the end of history, as they arrogantly announced.

 

I do not need to tell this audience how short-sighted and inaccurate that assumption was. History has not ended. On the contrary, it has entered a new phase. And the reason is not that some malicious opponents, rivals or subversive elements prevented the West from establishing its system of global power.

 

To tell the truth, after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Soviet socialist alternative, many thought that the monopoly system had come to stay, almost for all eternity, and they needed to adjust to it. But that system started wobbling on its own, under the weight of the ambitions and greed of those Western elites. When they saw that other nations became prosperous and assumed leadership in the system they had created to suit their needs – we must admit that the victorious nations created the Yalta system to suit their own needs after WWII and later, after the Cold War, those who thought they had won the Cold War started adjusting it to suit their own needs – so, when they saw that other leaders appeared within the framework of the system they created to suit their own needs, they immediately tried to adjust it, violating in the process the very same rules they upheld the day before and changing the rules they themselves had established.

 

What conflict are we witnessing today? I am confident that it is not a conflict of everyone against everyone caused by a digression from the rules the West keeps telling us about. Not at all. It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern, as I have said, is the preservation of its domination. To achieve this goal, they are ready to destroy the achievements that are the result of a long period of movement towards a common global system. As we see, they are not succeeding and will not succeed.

 

At the same time, the West is hypocritically attempting to persuade us that the achievements humanity has strived for since the Second World War are jeopardised. This is not the case at all, as I have just pointed out. Both Russia and the vast majority of nations are committed to bolstering the spirit of international advancement and the aspirations for lasting peace that have been central to development since the mid-20th century.

 

What is truly at stake is something quite different. What is at stake is the West's monopoly, which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was held temporarily at the end of the 20th century. But let me reiterate, as those gathered here understand: any monopoly, as history teaches us, eventually comes to an end. There can be no illusions about this. Monopoly is invariably detrimental, even to the monopolists themselves.

 

The policies of the elites within the collective West may be influential, but given the limited membership of this exclusive club, they are neither forward-looking nor creative; rather, they focus on maintaining the status quo. Any sports enthusiast, not to mention professionals in football, hockey, or martial arts, knows that a holding strategy almost invariably leads to defeat.

 

Turning to the dialectics of history, we can assert that the coexistence of conflict and the pursuit of harmony is inherently unstable. The contradictions of our era must eventually be resolved through synthesis, transitioning to a new quality. As we embark on this new phase of development, building a new global architecture, it is crucial for us all to avoid repeating the mistakes of the late 20th century when, as I have previously stated, the West attempted to impose its, in my view, deeply flawed model of Cold War withdrawal, which was fraught with the potential for new conflicts.

 

In the emerging multipolar world, there should be no nations or peoples left as losers or feeling aggrieved and humiliated. Only then can we secure truly sustainable conditions for universal, equitable, and secure development. The desire for cooperation and interaction is undoubtedly prevailing, overcoming even the most acute situations. This represents the international mainstream – the backbone course of events.

 

Of course, standing at the epicentre of the tectonic shifts brought about by profound changes in the global system, it is challenging to predict the future. However, understanding the general trajectory – from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation – allows us to attempt to sketch at least some of the pending contours.

 

During my address at last year’s Valdai Forum, I ventured to delineate six principles which, in our estimation, ought to underpin relations as we embark upon a new phase of historical progression. I am persuaded that the events which have unfolded and the passage of time have only corroborated the fairness and validity of the proposals we advanced. Let me expound upon these principles.

 

Firstly, openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.

 

To illustrate, consider the scenario that unfolded last year following the devastating earthquake in Asia Minor. For purely political reasons, aid to the Syrian people was obstructed, resulting in certain regions bearing the brunt of the calamity. Such instances of self-serving, opportunistic interests thwarting the pursuit of the common good are not isolated.

 

The barrier-free environment I alluded to last year is indispensable not merely for economic prosperity but also for addressing acute humanitarian exigencies. Moreover, as we confront new challenges, including the ramifications of rapid technological advancements, it is imperative for humanity to consolidate intellectual efforts. It is telling that those who now stand as the principal adversaries of openness are the very individuals who, until recently, extolled its virtues with great fervour.

 

Presently, these same forces and individuals endeavour to wield restrictions as a tool of pressure against dissenters. This tactic will prove futile, for the same reason that the vast global majority champions openness devoid of politicisation.

 

Secondly, we have consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability. It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative. Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfil this role? It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task. Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others. Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.

 

The international community is a living entity, with its civilisational diversity making it unique and presenting an inherent value. International law is a product of agreements not even between countries, but between nations, because legal consciousness is an integral part of every unique culture and every civilisation. The crisis of international law, which is the subject of broad public discussion today, is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.

 

The rise of nations and cultures that have previously remained on the periphery of global politics for one reason or another means that their own distinct ideas of law and justice are playing an increasingly important role. They are diverse. This may give the impression of discord and perhaps cacophony, but this is only the initial phase. It is my deep conviction that the only new international system possible is one embracing polyphony, where many tones and many musical themes are sounded together to form harmony. If you like, we are moving towards a world system that is going to be polyphonic rather than polycentric, one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard. Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.

 

Have I mentioned post-WWII international law? This international law is based on the UN Charter, which was written by the victorious countries. But the world is changing – with new centres of power emerging, and powerful economies growing and coming to the forefront. That predictably calls for a change in the legal regulation as well. Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is inevitable. Law reflects life, not vice versa.

 

Thirdly, we have said more than once that the new world can develop successfully only through the broadest inclusion. The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated what usurpation leads to, when someone arrogates to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of others.

 

Those countries that are commonly referred to as great powers have come to believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are – in fact, to define others’ national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but worst of all, it hinders an actual solution to the problems at hand.

 

In its very diversity, the emerging world is bound to be anything but simple. The more fully-fledged participants involved in this process, the more challenging it becomes to identify an optimal solution that satisfies all parties. Yet, once such a solution is achieved, there is hope that it will be both sustainable and enduring. This, in turn, allows us to dispense with arrogance and impulsive flip-flop policies, instead fostering political processes that are both meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable adequacy. By and large, this principle is spelled out in the UN Charter and within the Security Council.

 

What is the right of veto? What purpose does it serve? It exists to prevent the adoption of decisions that do not suit players on the international stage. Is this beneficial or detrimental? It may be perceived as detrimental by some, as it allows one party to obstruct decision-making. However, it is beneficial in that it prevents the passage of decisions that are unacceptable to certain parties. What does this imply? What does this stipulation signify? It urges us to enter the negotiating chamber and reach consensus. That is its essence.

 

As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security – and, consequently, their prosperity – depends on it.

 

There are countless examples where complex yet solvable contradictions between neighbouring countries and peoples have escalated into intractable, endemic conflicts due to the manoeuvrings and blatant interference of external forces, who are, in essence, indifferent to the fate of the conflict participants, regardless of the bloodshed or casualties inflicted. Those who intervene externally do so purely out of self-interest, without bearing any responsibility.

 

Moreover, I believe that regional organisations will assume a significant role in the future, as neighbouring nations, irrespective of the complexity of their relations, are invariably united by a shared interest in stability and security. For them, compromises are indispensable to achieving optimal conditions for their own development.

 

Next, the key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.

 

The bloc policy and the legacy of the Cold War colonial era run contrary to the essence of the new international system, which is open and flexible. There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.

 

We talked on many occasions about the destructive role NATO continued to play, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, when it seemed that the alliance had lost its formally declared reason and the meaning of its existence. I believe that the United States recognised that this instrument was becoming unattractive and redundant, but it needed the bloc and still needs it to exercise command in the zone of its influence. That is why they need conflicts.

 

You know, even before the modern-day acute conflicts began, many European leaders told me: “Why are they trying to scare us with you? We are not frightened, and we do not see any threats.” This is an exact quote, do you see? I believe that the United States was aware of or sensed this as well, and regarded NATO as an organisation of secondary importance. Trust me, I know what I am speaking about. However, experts there knew that they needed NATO. How could they maintain its value and attraction? They needed to scare everyone and to divide Russia and Europe, especially Russia and Germany and France, by means of conflicts. This is why they pushed the situation towards a state coup in Ukraine and hostilities in its southeastern regions, in Donbass. They simply forced us to respond, and in this sense, they have attained their goal. As I see it, the same is taking place in Asia and on the Korean Peninsula now.

 

Actually, we see that the global minority is preserving and strengthening its military bloc in order to maintain its power. However, even the bloc countries themselves see and understand that the Big Brother’s harsh dictate does not help achieve the goals they are facing. Moreover, these aspirations run contrary to the interests of the rest of the world. Cooperating with countries that can benefit you and developing partner ties with those who are interested in this is a clear priority for the majority of countries worldwide.

 

It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacles created to hinder a natural development of a multipolar international system. I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation. During the period of Western domination, this approach was imposed on everyone as a universal approach, but it is far from being universal and not always effective.

 

Eastern philosophy, as many here are deeply familiar with – perhaps even more so than I am – takes a fundamentally different approach. It seeks harmony of interests, aiming for everyone to achieve their essential goals without compromising the interests of others, the principle of “I win, and you win too.” All the ethnicities of Russia, throughout history, whenever possible, have similarly emphasised that the priority is not to impose one’s views at any cost, but rather to persuade and to foster genuine partnership and equal cooperation.

 

Our history, including the history of our national diplomacy, has repeatedly demonstrated the values of honour, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency. One needs only to recall Russia’s role in shaping the order in Europe after the Napoleonic wars. I am aware that some people there interpret this, to a certain extent, as an effort to preserve monarchy, and so on. But that is not the point now. Rather, I am referring to the broader approach taken in addressing these challenges.

 

The emerging community within the BRICS framework serves as a prototype for new, free, and non-block relationships between states and peoples. This also highlights that even some NATO members, as you know, are interested in closer cooperation with BRICS. It is likely that other countries may also consider deeper collaboration with BRICS in the future.

 

This year, our country held the chairmanship of the group, culminating in a recent summit in Kazan. I cannot deny that building a unified approach among many countries, each with distinct interests, is a challenging task. Diplomats and government officials had to invest considerable effort, employ tact, and actively practice listening to one another to reach the desired outcome. This required significant dedication, but it fostered a unique spirit of cooperation grounded not in coercion, but in mutual understanding.

 

We are confident that BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms – where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet – can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.

 

The future Eurasian security system, now beginning to take shape across our vast continent, is founded on a spirit of respect and mutual consideration of interests. This approach is not only genuinely multilateral but also multifaceted. Today, security is a complex notion which encompasses more than just military and political dimensions; it cannot be achieved without socio-economic development and the resilience of states against a range of challenges, from natural to man-made. This concept of security spans both the physical and digital realms, including cyberspace and beyond.

 

My fifth point is about justice for all. Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues.

 

There is hardly a developed country on this planet that has not faced an increasingly uncontrolled and unmanageable inflow of people seeking to improve their wellbeing, social status and to have a future. Some of them are simply trying to survive.

 

In wealthier societies, these uncontrolled migration flows, in turn, feed xenophobia and intolerance towards migrants, creating a spiralling sense of social and political unease and raising the level of aggression.

 

There are many reasons to explain why many countries and societies have been falling behind in terms of their social and economic development. Of course, there is no magical cure for this ill. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically-motivated development barriers.

 

Attempts to weaponise the economy, regardless of the target, are detrimental to everyone, with the most vulnerable – people and countries in need of support – being the first to suffer.

 

We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education, and finally, the orderly and free movement of people must not be impacted by whatever conflicts or disputes. These are fundamental human rights.

 

My sixth point is that we keep emphasising that sovereign equality is an imperative for any lasting international framework. Of course, countries differ in terms of their potential. This is an obvious fact. The same applies to the capabilities and opportunities they have. In this context, we often hear that achieving total equality would be impossible, amounting to wishful thinking, a utopia.

 

However, what makes today’s world special is its interconnected and holistic nature. In fact, sometimes countries that may not be as powerful or large as others play an even greater role compared to great powers by being more rational and results-driven in using their human, intellectual capital, natural resources and environment-related capabilities, by being more flexible and smart when tackling challenging matters, by setting higher living and ethical standards, as well as in administration and management, while also empowering all their people to fulfil their potential and creating a favourable psychological environment. This approach can bring about scientific breakthroughs, promote entrepreneurial activity, art and creativity, and empower young people. Taken together, all of this counts in terms of global influence and appeal. Let me paraphrase a law of physics: you can outperform others without getting ahead of them.

 

The most harmful and destructive attitude that we see in the modern world is supreme arrogance, which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively. Russia has never done this. This is not who or what we are. We can see that our approach is productive. Historical experience irrefutably shows that inequality – in society, in government or in the international arena – always has harmful consequences.

 

I would like to add something that I may not have mentioned often before. Over several centuries, the Western-centric world has embraced certain clichés and stereotypes concerning the global hierarchy. There is supposedly a developed world, progressive society and some universal civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside, and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilisational hierarchy.

 

It is clear that this concept works for a crude colonial approach, for the exploitation of the global majority. The problem is that this essentially racist ideology has taken root in the minds of many, creating a serious mental obstacle to general harmonious growth.

 

The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different. To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.

 

The truth is that we see how they engage with other cultures that are different. On the surface, they show genuine interest in local music and folklore, seeming to praise and enjoy them, but beneath this facade, their economic and security policies remain neo-colonial.

 

Look at how the World Trade Organisation operates – it does not solve anything because all Western countries, the main economies, are blocking everything. They always act in their own interests, constantly replicating the same models they used decades and centuries ago – to continue to control everyone and everything.

 

It should be remembered that everyone is equal, meaning that everyone is entitled to have their own vision, which is no better or worse than others – it is just different, and everyone needs to sincerely respect that. Acknowledging this can pave the way for mutual understanding of interests, mutual respect and empathy, that is, the ability to show compassion, to relate to others’ problems, and the ability to consider differing opinions or arguments. This requires not only listening, but also altering behaviour and policies accordingly.

 

Listening and considering does not mean accepting or agreeing, not at all. This simply means recognising the other party’s right to their own worldview. In fact, this is the first necessary step towards harmonising different mindsets. Difference and diversity must be viewed as wealth and opportunities, not as reasons for conflict. This, too, reflects the dialectics of history.

 

We all understand here that an era or radical change and transformation invariably brings upheavals and shocks, which is quite unfortunate. Interests clash as if various actors have to adjust to one another once again. The world’s interconnected nature does not always help mitigate these differences. Of course, this is quite true. On the contrary, it can make things worse, sometimes even injecting more confusion into their relations and making it much harder to find a way out.

 

Over the many centuries of its history, humanity has grown accustomed to viewing the use of force as the last resort for resolving differences: “Might makes right.” Yes, sometimes this principle does work. Indeed, sometimes countries have no other choice than to stand for their interests with arms in hand and using all available means.

 

That said, we live in an interconnected and complex world, and it is becoming increasingly complex. While the use of force may help address a specific issue, it may, of course, bring about other and sometimes even greater challenges. And we understand this. Our country has never been the one to initiate the use of force: we are forced to do that only when it becomes clear that our opponent is acting aggressively and is not willing to listen to any type of argument. And whenever necessary, we will take any measure we need to protect Russia and all its citizens, and we will always achieve our goals.

 

We live in an intrinsically diverse, non-linear world. This is something we have always understood, and this is what we know today. It is not my intention today to revel in the past, but I can remember quite well the situation we had back in 1999, when I became Prime Minister and then went on to become President. I remember the challenges we faced at the time. I think that Russian people, just like the experts who have gathered in this room, all remember the forces which backed terrorists in North Caucasus, who supplied them weapons, sponsored them, and offered moral, political, ideological and informational support and the extent of these practices.

 

I can only scoff, with both ridicule and sadness, at what we were hearing at the time: We are dealing with al-Qaeda, which is evil, but as long as you are the target, it is fine. What kind of attitude is that? All this brings nothing but conflict. At the time we had a goal to invest everything we had and spend all the time at our disposal and all capabilities to keep the country together. Of course, this served everyone’s interests in Russia. Despite the dire economic situation in the wake of the 1998 economic crisis and despite the devastated state of our military, we came together as a nation to fend off this terrorist threat and went on to defeat it. Make no mistake about that.

 

Why have I brought this to your attention? In fact, once again some have come to believe that the world would be better off without Russia. At that time, they tried to finish Russia off after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, it seems that someone is once again nurturing this dream. They think that this would make the world more obedient and pliant. However, Russia stopped those aspiring to global dominance in their tracks many times over, no matter who it was. This is how it will be in the future, too. In fact, the world would hardly get any better. This message must finally get across to those trying to go down this road. It would do nothing but make things even more complicated than they are today.

 

Our opponents are coming up with new ways and devising new tools in their attempts to get rid of us. Today, they have been using Ukraine and its people as a tool by cynically pitching them against Russians and turning them into cannon fodder, all while perorating about a European choice. What kind of choice is that? Let me assure you that this is not our choice. We will defend ourselves and our people – I want this to be absolutely clear to everyone.

 

Russia’s role is certainly not limited to protecting and preserving itself. It may sound a bit grand, but Russia’s very existence guarantees that the world will retain its wide colour gamut, diversity and complexity, which is the key to successful development. These are not my words. This is something our friends from all regions of the world often tell me. I am not exaggerating. To reiterate, we are not imposing anything on anyone and will never do. We do not need that, and no one else needs it, either. We are guided by our own values, interests and ideas of what is right and what is not, which are rooted in our identity, history and culture. And, of course, we are always ready for a constructive dialogue with everyone.

 

Those who respect their culture and traditions have no right not to treat others with the same respect. Conversely, those who are trying to force others into inappropriate behaviour invariably trample their own roots, civilisation and culture into mud, some of what we are witnessing.

 

Russia is fighting for its freedom, rights, and sovereignty. I am not exaggerating, because over the previous decades everything, on the face of it, looked favourable and nice when they turned the G7 into the G8 and, thankfully, invited us to be members.

 

Do you know what was going on there? I witnessed it first-hand. You arrive at a G8 meeting, and it becomes immediately clear that prior to the G8 meeting, the G7 had got together and discussed things among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then invited Russia to come. You look at it and smile. I always have. They give you a warm hug and a pat on the back. But in practice they do something opposite. And they never stop to make their way forward.

 

This can be seen particularly clearly in the context of NATO’s eastward expansion. They promised they would never expand, but they keep doing it. In the Caucasus, and with regard to the missile defence system – take anything, any key issue – they simply did not give a hoot about our opinion. In the end, all of that taken together started looking like a creeping intervention which, without exaggeration, sought to either degrade us or, even better for them, to destroy our country, either from within or from outside.

 

Eventually, they got to Ukraine, and moved into it with their bases and NATO. In 2008, they decided at a meeting in Bucharest to open the doors to NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. Why, pardon me for my plain language, why on earth would they do that? Were they confronted with any difficulties in international affairs? Indeed, we did not see eye to eye with Ukraine on gas prices, but we addressed these issues effectively anyway. What was the problem? Why do it and create grounds for a conflict? It was clear from day one what it would lead to ultimately. Still, they kept pressing ahead with it. Next thing you know they started expanding into our historical territories and supporting a regime that clearly tilted toward neo-Nazism.

 

Therefore, we can safely say and reiterate that we are fighting not only for our freedom, not only our rights, or our sovereignty, but we are upholding universal rights and freedoms, and the continued existence and development of the absolute majority of the countries around the world. To a certain extent, we see this as our country’s mission as well.

 

Everyone should be clear that putting pressure on us is useless, but we are always prepared to sit down and talk based on consideration of our mutual legitimate interests in their entirety. This is something that we urge all international dialogue members to do. In that case, there may be little doubt that 20 years from now, in the run-up to the 100th anniversary of the UN, future guests of a Valdai Club meeting, who at this point may be schoolchildren, students, postgraduates, or young researchers, or aspiring experts, will be discussing much more optimistic and life-affirming topics than the ones that we are compelled to discuss today.

 

Thank you very much for your attention.

 

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, thank you for this broad and multi-dimensional description of the world and Russia’s views on it. It is especially pleasant for us that it was at this platform that you presented your basic principles last year and you elaborated on them today.

 

I believe that it starts looking like a doctrine. We do not expect you to name it after the Valdai Club, but it is nice that it is being born here.

 

Mr President, we discussed many of the issues you have addressed here at our 21st meeting. I would like – all of us would like to tell you about some of our ideas, which were not voiced at all our sessions, of course, because there were many of them, but the ones we discussed at the most important of them. You have mentioned one of them.

 

I would like to ask your permission to start with Ruslan Yunusov, a long-running member and colleague whom you know very well. He attended our session on artificial intelligence, a stand-out issue.

 

Ruslan Yunusov: Good evening, Mr President.

 

It is true that we discussed one of the issues you have mentioned today – artificial intelligence. We had a separate session at our meeting, called Artificial Intelligence – A Revolution or a Fashion Trend?

 

Before telling you about the results of that session, I would like to mention a unique event this year, namely the two Nobel Prizes awarded for achievements in the field of AI. They were awarded in both physics and chemistry, which has never happened before. Does this mean that we are witnessing an AI revolution? I would rather say “yes” than “no,” although the Nobel Committee’s decisions are often influenced by fashion trends.

 

Regarding the theme of our discussion, I would like to emphasise some of the aspects were discussed.

 

We began with an issue of concern to many. Will artificial intelligence replace human beings or not, especially in the fields that require a creative approach, like science and arts? What is the situation in science today? AI already has a role in the scientific process indeed. Many achievements have been made with AI’s assistance. At the same time, we also see that humans have not been removed from the scientific process but rather than the process itself has been accelerated and that the demand for skilled young scientists has increased. So, we do not see any risk here. We also discussed some aspects of an AI economy. During the Covid pandemic, around 2020, we thought that recovery from the global economic recession would be ensured above all by a driver such as artificial intelligence.

 

We discussed whether the forecasts came true or not. It is true that AI is making its way into the economy, in various economic sectors. But if we look at the figures, we will see that our optimistic expectations have not materialised. The result so far is more conservative than we expected. Moreover, these expectations have not abated, and we see the development of investment bubbles, which is fraught with negative economic effects in the future. At the same time, artificial intelligence as a technology will most likely continue to develop and will form the basis of the economy.

 

We have also engaged in discussions concerning security matters. Today, it is impossible to overlook the fact that terrorist and extremist organisations are extensively utilising artificial intelligence technologies for recruiting new members and in their broader propaganda efforts. Fake news and videos have become standard tools within their arsenals.

 

Conversely, artificial intelligence is also being used in anti-terrorist and counter-extremist operations. It aids in identifying these very extremist elements within society. Moreover, it serves to influence those harbouring doubts, steering them away from such dangerous paths, thereby preventing them from succumbing to extremism. This, too, proves effective.

 

We deliberated on the balance between the positive and negative aspects of artificial intelligence in this realm. It appears that the positive aspects hold sway, and we are hopeful that this balance will continue to tip in favour of the positive.

 

Naturally, at the Valdai forum, we cannot overlook the political dimension of artificial intelligence. Studies have been conducted where researchers evaluated the basic generative models of artificial intelligence for political inclinations. It emerged that artificial intelligence is not neutral; its political leanings are markedly skewed towards left liberalism, closely mirroring the views of its creators.

 

Furthermore, in recent years, artificial intelligence training has increasingly relied on synthetic data rather than real-life material, which has contributed to the radicalisation of these models’ perspectives.

 

In the coming years, we will witness the first university graduates who have integrated artificial intelligence into their academic endeavours. Previously, students engaged deeply with primary sources when crafting term papers and essays. Now, with a mere prompt to artificial intelligence, the result is produced. This shift is poised to diminish educational quality. More perilously, however, is the subtle influence artificial intelligence exerts, shaping the worldviews of the youth and instilling ideologies. These ideologies are often forged not within our country but abroad, or even further afield, across the ocean.

 

Summing up, we recognise the imperative to bolster control over the regulation of artificial intelligence. However, relying solely on prohibitive measures will not yield the desired outcomes. Instead, we must support and advance our domestic artificial intelligence technologies.

 

It is encouraging that we have established a robust foundation, and significant progress is evident. We must continue to build upon this, as it will likely form the cornerstone of technological sovereignty in this domain.

 

It is worth noting that Russia stands among the trio of nations globally with a comprehensive IT technology stack, which indeed underpins our sovereignty.

 

To conclude my brief remarks, our foreign guests have observed that certain countries have already imposed restrictions, if not outright bans, on the use of artificial intelligence technologies. For us, for Russia, this presents an opportunity. We have the potential to assert ourselves as a technological leader by exporting artificial intelligence technologies to our partner countries.

 

Thank you very much.

 

To be continued.

IT -- Manlio Dinucci - Trump Tra Guerra e Pace

$
0
0

 

 

TRUMP TRA GUERRA E PACE

Manlio Dinucci

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke_yXSUQULU&list=UUEuYmHCv1tgNBmqAe7VQEiA&index=2

 

Donald Trump, appena eletto presidente degli Stati Uniti con una maggioranza schiacciante rispetto a Kamala Harris, ha così enunciato le linee portanti della sua politica estera: “Voglio dire alla comunità mondiale che, mentre metteremo sempre al primo posto gli interessi dell'America, tratteremo in modo equo con ciascuno - tutti i popoli e tutte le altre nazioni. Cercheremo un terreno comune, non l'ostilità; la partnership, non il conflitto.”

 

Poiché già nel precedente mandato Trump incontrò Putin, e per questo negli Stati Uniti fu sottoposto al primo tentativo di impeachment, c’è la possibilità che oggi, avendo la maggioranza nel Congresso, riapra un tavolo negoziale con Putin per mettere fine alla guerra Russia-Ucraina, ossia alla guerra che la NATO sotto comando USA conduce contro la Russia. Che cosa dovrebbe fare l’Amministrazione Trump in Europa?

 

1) Fare in modo che venga immediatamente attuato un cessate-il-fuoco tra Nato/Ucraina e Russia. 

2) Aprire un negoziato al vertice tra i Presidenti di Stati Uniti e Federazione Russa.

3) Fare in modo che venga demilitarizzato e denuclearizzato l’intero fronte europeo, ritirando le forze nucleari USA-NATO a raggio intermedio schierate in Europa a ridosso del territorio russo e le forze nucleari russe a raggio intermedio schierate in territorio russo a ridosso dell’Europa e in Bielorussia.

4) Togliere le sanzioni alla Russia e riallacciare i rapporti politici, economici e culturali tra Stati Uniti e Russia.

5) Fare in modo che venga convocata, sotto l’egida dell’ONU, una Conferenza Internazionale – con la partecipazione di USA, NATO, UE, Ucraina, Russia e Bielorussia – per una soluzione negoziata del conflitto Russia-Ucraina e l’instaurazione di un sistema di sicurezza in Europa.

 

Diversa è la situazione sull’altro fronte di guerra, quello mediorientale. Trump, come tutti i precedenti presidenti degli Stati Uniti, sostiene Israele.  In base alle preannunciate linee di politica estera, che cosa dovrebbe invece fare l’Amministrazione Trump in Medio Oriente?

 

1) Fare in modo che venga immediatamente attuato nella regione un cessate-il-fuoco fra tutte le parti in conflitto, che Israele ritiri da Gaza e Cisgiordania le sue forze armate e gli insediamenti di coloni, che i Territori Palestinesi siano governati dagli organismi scelti dai Palestinesi stessi.  

2) Fare in modo che venga convocata, sotto l’egida dell’ONU, una Conferenza Internazionale – con la partecipazione di tutti i Paesi della regione a partire da Israele e Iran - per una soluzione negoziata dei conflitti e l’instaurazione di un sistema di sicurezza in Medioriente.

  

La situazione è resa ancora più complessa dal fatto che Trump è stato votato a grande maggioranza dai 150.000 Americani (ossia Ebrei con doppia cittadinanza statunitense e israeliana) che vivono in Israele (paese con 10 milioni di abitanti,) e che 60.000 di questi sono insediati in Cisgiordania: qui costituiscono il 15% dei coloni che, armati e sostenuti dal governo israeliano, si stanno impadronendo delle terre e altre proprietà palestinesi.

 

Potrà l’Amministrazione Trump, nella sua politica estera, cercare “un terreno comune, non l'ostilità; la partnership, non il conflitto”?  Il debito pubblico statunitense supera per la prima volta i 35 mila miliardi di dollari., un livello pari a quello del PIL. La spesa militare USA, che supera ampiamente i 1.000 miliardi di dollari annui (comprese altre voci oltre il budget del Pentagono), continua crescere. Crescono di conseguenza gli interessi sul debito pubblico pagati ogni anno, che stanno superando il livello della stessa spesa militare.  Di questa beneficia largamente Elon Musk, l’uomo più ricco del mondo che ha largamente finanziato la campagna elettorale di Trump e probabilmente avrà un importante incarico nella sua Amministrazione. La società missilistica di Musk, SpaceX, gestisce il programma di lancio dei razzi della NASA e il Pentagono si affida a lui per portare in orbita la maggior parte dei satelliti militari. La macchina bellica statunitense è in piena azione perché sta aprendo un altro fronte di guerra, quello contro la Cina.

 

8 novembre 2024

Manlio Dinucci

 

 

PT -- Manlio Dinucci -- TRUMP ENTRE A GUERRA E A PAZ

$
0
0

 

TRUMP ENTRE A GUERRA E A PAZ

Manlio Dinucci

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke_yXSUQULU&list=UUEuYmHCv1tgNBmqAe7VQEiA&index=2

 

Donald Trump, recém-eleito Presidente dos Estados Unidos por uma esmagadora maioria sobre Kamala Harris, enunciou assim o fio condutor da sua política externa: “Quero dizer à comunidade mundial que, embora coloquemos sempre os interesses dos Estados Unidos em primeiro lugar, trataremos de forma justa todos os povos e todas as outras nações. Procuraremos um terreno comum, não a hostilidade; procuraremos a parceria, não o conflito”.

 

Visto que já no mandato anterior Trump se encontrou com Putin e, por isso, foi sujeito à primeira tentativa de impeachment nos Estados Unidos, existe a possibilidade de que hoje, tendo uma maioria no Congresso, reabra uma mesa de negociações com Putin para pôr fim à guerra Rússia-Ucrânia, ou seja, a guerra que a NATO sob comando dos EUA está a travar contra a Rússia. O que é que a Administração Trump deve fazer na Europa?

1) Garantir que um cessar-fogo entre a NATO/Ucrânia e a Rússia seja concretizado imediatamente. 

2) Abrir negociações de cimeira entre os Presidentes dos EUA e da Federação Russa.

3) Assegurar a desmilitarização e a desnuclearização de toda a frente europeia, retirando as forças nucleares de alcance intermédio dos EUA e da NATO instaladas na Europa perto do território russo e as forças nucleares de alcance intermédio da Rússia, instaladas em território russo perto da Europa e na Bielorrússia.

4) Levantar as sanções contra a Rússia e restabelecer as relações políticas, económicas e culturais entre os EUA e a Rússia.

5) Assegurar a convocação de uma conferência internacional sob os auspícios da ONU – com a participação dos EUA, da NATO, da União Europeia, da Ucrânia, da Rússia e da Bielorrússia – para uma solução negociada do conflito Rússia-Ucrânia e para a criação de um sistema de segurança na Europa.

A situação na outra frente de guerra, o Médio Oriente, é diferente. Trump, tal como todos os anteriores presidentes dos EUA, apoia Israel.  De acordo com as linhas preditas da política externa, o que deveria a administração Trump fazer no Médio Oriente?

1) Garantir que seja concretizado imediatamente  um cessar-fogo na região entre todas as partes em conflito, que Israel retire as suas forças armadas dos colonatos de Gaza e da Cisjordânia, que os Territórios Palestinianos sejam governados por entidades escolhidas pelos próprios palestinianos.

2) Assegurar a convocação de uma Conferência Internacional sob os auspícios da ONU – com a participação de todos os países da região, a começar por Israel e pelo Irão – para uma solução negociada dos conflitos e para a criação de um sistema de segurança no Médio Oriente.

 

A situação torna-se ainda mais complexa pelo facto de Trump ter sido votado esmagadoramente pelos 150.000 americanos (ou seja, judeus com dupla nacionalidade, americana e israelita) que vivem em Israel (um país com 10 milhões de habitantes) e que 60.000 deles estão instalados na Cisjordânia: aqui representam 15% dos colonos que, armados e apoiados pelo governo israelita, estão a apoderar-se de terras e outras propriedades palestinianas.

 

Será que a Administração Trump, na sua política externa, poderá procurar “um terreno comum e não a hostilidade; a parceria e não o conflito”?  A dívida pública dos EUA ultrapassa pela primeira vez os 35 triliões de dólares, um nível igual ao do PIB. As despesas militares dos EUA, que excedem largamente 1 trilião de dólares por ano (incluindo outras rubricas para além do orçamento do Pentágono), continuam a crescer. Os juros da dívida nacional pagos todos os anos crescem na mesma proporção e estão a exceder o nível da própria despesa militar.  Este facto beneficia largamente Elon Musk, o homem mais rico do mundo, que financiou em grande parte a campanha eleitoral de Trump e que terá provavelmente um cargo importante na sua administração. A empresa de foguetões de Musk, SpaceX, gere o programa de lançamento de foguetões da NASA e o Pentágono depende dela para colocar em órbita a maioria dos satélites militares. A máquina de guerra dos Estados Unidos está em pleno andamento porque está a abrir outra frente de guerra, a frente contra a China.

8 de Novembro de 2024

Manlio Dinucci

 

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Email: luisavasconcellos2012@gmail.com

 

 

President Vladimir Putin at Valdai Discussion Club meeting

$
0
0

 

Valdai Discussion Club meeting

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

 

November 7, 2024

23:50

Sochi

The theme of the meeting is Lasting Peace on What Basis? Common Security and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21st Century.

* *

Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov: Ladies and gentlemen, guests, friends, participants of the Valdai Discussion Club meeting!

We are starting the plenary session of the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. We have spent four wonderful days full of discussions and now we can try to sum up some of the results.

I would like to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to the stage.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you. Thank you very much.

 

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

 

 

I am delighted to welcome all of you to our traditional meeting. First of all, I would like to thank you for taking part in acute and substantive discussions of the Valdai Club. We are meeting on November 7, which is a significant date both for Russia and the entire world. The Russian Revolution of 1917, like the Dutch, English and great French Revolutions in their time, all became, to a certain extent, milestones in the development path of humanity and largely determined the course of history, the nature of politics, diplomacy, economies, and social structure.

 

We are also destined to live in an era of fundamental, even revolutionary changes, and not only to comprehend but also to take a direct part in the most complex processes of the first quarter of the 21st century. The Valdai Club is already 20 years old, almost the same age as our century. By the way, in cases like this they often say that time flies by quickly, but not in this case. These two decades were more than filled with the most important, sometimes dramatic events of truly historical scale. We are witnessing the formation of a completely new world order, nothing like we had in the past, such as the Westphalian or Yalta systems.

 

New powers are rising. Nations are becoming more and more aware of their interests, their value, uniqueness and identity, and are increasingly insistent on pursuing the goals of development and justice. At the same time, societies are confronted with a multitude of new challenges, from exciting technological changes to catastrophic natural disasters, from outrageous social division to massive migration waves and acute economic crises.

 

Experts talk about the threat of new regional conflicts, global epidemics, about complex and controversial ethical aspects of interaction between humans and artificial intelligence, about how traditions and progress reconcile with each other.

 

You and I predicted some of these problems when we met earlier and even discussed them in detail at the Valdai Club meetings. We instinctively anticipated some of them, hoping for the best but not excluding the worst scenario.

 

Something, on the contrary, became a complete surprise for everyone. Indeed, the dynamics is very intensive. In fact, the modern world is unpredictable. If you look back 20 years and evaluate the scale of changes, and then project these changes onto the coming years, you can assume that the next twenty years will be no less, if not more difficult. And how much more difficult they will be, depends on the multitude of factors. As I understand, you are coming together at the Valdai Club exactly to analyse all these factors and try to make some predictions, some forecasts.

 

There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage. Its outcome will determine whether we will be able, through joint efforts, to build a world that will allow all nations to develop and resolve emerging contradictions based on mutual respect for cultures and civilisations, without coercion and use of force. And finally, whether the human society will be able to retain its ethical humanistic principles, and whether an individual will be able to remain human.

 

At first glance, it might appear that there is no alternative. Yet, regrettably, there is. It is the dive of humanity into the depths of aggressive anarchy, internal and external splits, the erosion of traditional values, the emergence of new forms of tyranny, and the actual renunciation of the classical principles of democracy, along with fundamental rights and freedoms. Increasingly often, democracy is being interpreted not as the rule of majority but of minority. Traditional democracy and the rule of the people are being set against an abstract notion of freedom, for the sake of which, as some argue, democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech, and an unbiased media can be disregarded or sacrificed.

 

The peril lies in the imposition of totalitarian ideologies and making them the norm, as exemplified by the current state of Western liberalism. This modern Western liberalism, in my view, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative or sovereign and independent thought. Today, it even seeks to justify neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism, and even the mass genocide of civilians.

 

Moreover, there are international conflicts and confrontations fraught with the danger of mutual destruction. Weapons that can cause this do exist and are being constantly improved, taking new forms as the technologies advance. The number of nations possessing such weapons is growing, and no one can guarantee that these weapons will not be used, especially if threats incrementally multiply and legal and moral norms are ultimately shattered.

 

I have previously stated that we have reached red lines. The West’s calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, reveal the reckless adventurism of certain Western politicians. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism could lead to a global catastrophe. Meanwhile, the former hegemons, who have been accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly astonished that their commands are no longer heeded. Efforts to cling to their diminishing power through force result only in widespread instability and more tensions, leading to casualties and destruction. However, these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining absolute, unchallenged power. For the march of history cannot be halted.

 

Instead of recognising the futility of their ambitions and the objective nature of change, certain Western elites seem poised to go to any lengths to thwart the development of a new international system that aligns with the interests of the global majority. In the recent policies of the United States and its allies, for instance, the principle of ”You shall not belong to anyone!“ or ”You're either with us or against us“ has become increasingly evident. I mean to say, such a formula is very dangerous. After all, as the saying of our and many other countries goes, ”What goes around comes around.“

 

Chaos, a systemic crisis is already escalating in the very nations that attempt to implement such strategies. The pursuit of exclusivity, liberal and globalist messianism and ideological, military, and political monopoly is steadily depleting those countries that pursue these paths, pushing the world towards decline and starkly contradicting the genuine interests of the people in the United States and European countries.

 

I am confident that sooner or later the West will come to this realisation. Historically, its great achievements have always been rooted in a pragmatic, clear-eyed approach based on a tough, sometimes cynical but rational evaluation of circumstances and their own capabilities.

 

In this context, I wish to emphasise once more: unlike our counterparts, Russia does not view Western civilisation as an adversary, nor does it pose the question of ”us or them.“ I reiterate: ”You're either with us or against us“ is not part of our vocabulary. We have no desire to teach anyone or impose our worldview upon anyone. Our stance is open and it is as follows.

 

The West has indeed amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system. However, it is precisely ”one of“ alongside other rapidly advancing nations and groups. Hegemony in the new international order is not a consideration. When, for instance, Washington and other Western capitals understand and acknowledge this incontrovertible fact, the process of building a world system that addresses future challenges will finally enter the phase of genuine creation. God willing, this should happen as soon as possible. This is in the shared interest, especially for the West itself.

 

So far, we – meaning all those interested in creating a just and stable world – have been using too much energy to resist the destructive activities of our opponents, who are clinging to their monopoly. This is obvious, and everyone in the west, the east, the south and everywhere else is aware of this. They are trying to preserve their power and monopoly, which is obvious.

 

These efforts could be directed with much better results towards addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine and new technology. This is where we should focus our energy, and this is what all of us should be doing.

 

I will take the liberty of making a number of philosophical digressions today. After all, this is a discussion club, and I hope these digressions will be in the spirit of the discussions we have been holding here.

 

As I said, the world is changing radically and irreversibly. Unlike previous versions of the world order, the new world is characterised by a combination or parallel existence of two seemingly incompatible elements: a rapidly growing conflict potential and the fragmentation of the political, economic and legal spheres, on the one hand, and the continued close interconnection of the global space as a whole, on the other hand. This may sound paradoxical. We have grown used to these trends following and replacing one another. For centuries, the times of conflicts and division were followed by more favourable periods of interaction. This is the dynamics of historical development.

 

It turns out that this principle no longer applies. Let us reflect on this. Violent, conceptual and highly emotional conflicts greatly complicate but do not stop global development. New links of interaction emerge in place of those destroyed by political decisions or even military methods. These new links may be much more complicated and sometimes convoluted, yet they help maintain economic and social ties.

 

We can speak from experience here. Recently, the collective West – the so-called collective West – made an unprecedented attempt to banish Russia from global affairs and from the international economic and political systems. The number of sanctions and punitive measures applied against our country has no analogues in history. Our opponents assumed that they would inflict a crushing defeat, dealing a knockout blow to Russia from which it would never recover, thereby ceasing to be one of the permanent fixtures in the international community.

 

I think there is no need to remind you of what really happened. The very fact that this Valdai conference, which marks a major anniversary this year, has attracted such a high-profile audience speaks for itself, I believe. Valdai is just one example. It just brought into perspective the reality in which we live, in which Russia exists. The truth is that the world needs Russia, and no decisions made by any individuals in Washington or Brussels who believe others should take their orders can change this.

 

The same applies to other decisions. Even a trained swimmer will not go very far upstream, regardless of the tricks or even doping they might use. The current of global politics, the mainstream, is running from the crumbling hegemonic world towards growing diversity, while the West is trying to swim against the tide. This is obvious; as people say, there is no prize for guessing. It is simply that clear.

 

Let’s return to the dialectics of history, the alternation of periods of conflict and cooperation. Has the world really changed so much that this theory no longer applies? Let’s try to look at what is happening today from a slightly different angle: what is the essence of the conflict, and who is involved in it today?

 

Since the middle of the last century, when Nazism – the most malicious and aggressive ideology, the product of fierce controversies in the first half of the 20th century – was defeated through timely action and at the cost of tremendous losses, humanity was faced with the task of avoiding the revival of this evil and a recurrence of world wars. Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes, the general vector was defined at that time. It was a total rejection of all forms of racism, the dismantling of the classical colonial system and the inclusion of a greater number of full-fledged participants in international politics. There was an obvious demand for openness and democracy in the international system, along with rapid growth in different countries and regions, and the emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches aimed at expanding development opportunities and achieving prosperity. Like any other historical process, this gave rise to a clash of interests. Yet again, the general desire for harmony and development in all aspects of this concept was obvious.

 

Our country, then called the Soviet Union, made a major contribution to consolidating these trends. The Soviet Union assisted states that had renounced colonial or neo-colonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. I would like to emphasise that in the mid-1980s, it was the Soviet Union that called for an end to ideological confrontation, the overcoming of the Cold War legacy, an end to the Cold War and its legacy, and the elimination of barriers that hampered global unity and comprehensive world development.

 

Yes, our attitude towards that period is complicated, in light of the consequences of the national political leadership’s policies. We have to confront certain tragic consequences, and we are still battling with them. I would like to highlight the unjustifiably idealistic urges of our leaders and our nation, as well as their sometimes naïve approaches, as we can see today. Undoubtedly, this was motivated by sincere aspirations for peace and universal wellbeing. In reality, this reflects a salient feature of our nation’s mentality, its traditions, values, and spiritual and moral coordinates.

 

But why did these aspirations lead to diametrically opposite results? This is an important question. We know the answer, and I have mentioned it repeatedly, in one way or another. The other party to the ideological confrontation perceived those historical developments as its triumph and victory, viewing them as our country’s surrender to the West and as an opportunity and the victor’s right to establish complete dominance, rather than as a chance to rebuild the world based on new and equitable concepts and principles.

 

I mentioned this some time ago, and I will now touch on it briefly, without mentioning any names. In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool in their own hands. That was the principle they were guided by. They lacked a broad outlook and overall cultural and political awareness; they failed to comprehend the situation and understand Russia. By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed. These are the real origins of the conflicts in our historical era, beginning with the tragedies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine and the Middle East.

 

Some Western elites thought that their monopoly and the moment of unipolarity in the ideological, economic, political and partially even military-strategic sense were the destination point. Here we are. Stop and enjoy the moment! This is the end of history, as they arrogantly announced.

 

I do not need to tell this audience how short-sighted and inaccurate that assumption was. History has not ended. On the contrary, it has entered a new phase. And the reason is not that some malicious opponents, rivals or subversive elements prevented the West from establishing its system of global power.

 

To tell the truth, after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Soviet socialist alternative, many thought that the monopoly system had come to stay, almost for all eternity, and they needed to adjust to it. But that system started wobbling on its own, under the weight of the ambitions and greed of those Western elites. When they saw that other nations became prosperous and assumed leadership in the system they had created to suit their needs – we must admit that the victorious nations created the Yalta system to suit their own needs after WWII and later, after the Cold War, those who thought they had won the Cold War started adjusting it to suit their own needs – so, when they saw that other leaders appeared within the framework of the system they created to suit their own needs, they immediately tried to adjust it, violating in the process the very same rules they upheld the day before and changing the rules they themselves had established.

 

What conflict are we witnessing today? I am confident that it is not a conflict of everyone against everyone caused by a digression from the rules the West keeps telling us about. Not at all. It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern, as I have said, is the preservation of its domination. To achieve this goal, they are ready to destroy the achievements that are the result of a long period of movement towards a common global system. As we see, they are not succeeding and will not succeed.

 

At the same time, the West is hypocritically attempting to persuade us that the achievements humanity has strived for since the Second World War are jeopardised. This is not the case at all, as I have just pointed out. Both Russia and the vast majority of nations are committed to bolstering the spirit of international advancement and the aspirations for lasting peace that have been central to development since the mid-20th century.

 

What is truly at stake is something quite different. What is at stake is the West's monopoly, which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was held temporarily at the end of the 20th century. But let me reiterate, as those gathered here understand: any monopoly, as history teaches us, eventually comes to an end. There can be no illusions about this. Monopoly is invariably detrimental, even to the monopolists themselves.

 

The policies of the elites within the collective West may be influential, but given the limited membership of this exclusive club, they are neither forward-looking nor creative; rather, they focus on maintaining the status quo. Any sports enthusiast, not to mention professionals in football, hockey, or martial arts, knows that a holding strategy almost invariably leads to defeat.

 

Turning to the dialectics of history, we can assert that the coexistence of conflict and the pursuit of harmony is inherently unstable. The contradictions of our era must eventually be resolved through synthesis, transitioning to a new quality. As we embark on this new phase of development, building a new global architecture, it is crucial for us all to avoid repeating the mistakes of the late 20th century when, as I have previously stated, the West attempted to impose its, in my view, deeply flawed model of Cold War withdrawal, which was fraught with the potential for new conflicts.

 

In the emerging multipolar world, there should be no nations or peoples left as losers or feeling aggrieved and humiliated. Only then can we secure truly sustainable conditions for universal, equitable, and secure development. The desire for cooperation and interaction is undoubtedly prevailing, overcoming even the most acute situations. This represents the international mainstream – the backbone course of events.

 

Of course, standing at the epicentre of the tectonic shifts brought about by profound changes in the global system, it is challenging to predict the future. However, understanding the general trajectory – from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation – allows us to attempt to sketch at least some of the pending contours.

 

During my address at last year’s Valdai Forum, I ventured to delineate six principles which, in our estimation, ought to underpin relations as we embark upon a new phase of historical progression. I am persuaded that the events which have unfolded and the passage of time have only corroborated the fairness and validity of the proposals we advanced. Let me expound upon these principles.

 

Firstly, openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.

 

To illustrate, consider the scenario that unfolded last year following the devastating earthquake in Asia Minor. For purely political reasons, aid to the Syrian people was obstructed, resulting in certain regions bearing the brunt of the calamity. Such instances of self-serving, opportunistic interests thwarting the pursuit of the common good are not isolated.

 

The barrier-free environment I alluded to last year is indispensable not merely for economic prosperity but also for addressing acute humanitarian exigencies. Moreover, as we confront new challenges, including the ramifications of rapid technological advancements, it is imperative for humanity to consolidate intellectual efforts. It is telling that those who now stand as the principal adversaries of openness are the very individuals who, until recently, extolled its virtues with great fervour.

 

Presently, these same forces and individuals endeavour to wield restrictions as a tool of pressure against dissenters. This tactic will prove futile, for the same reason that the vast global majority champions openness devoid of politicisation.

 

Secondly, we have consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability. It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative. Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfil this role? It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task. Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others. Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.

 

The international community is a living entity, with its civilisational diversity making it unique and presenting an inherent value. International law is a product of agreements not even between countries, but between nations, because legal consciousness is an integral part of every unique culture and every civilisation. The crisis of international law, which is the subject of broad public discussion today, is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.

 

The rise of nations and cultures that have previously remained on the periphery of global politics for one reason or another means that their own distinct ideas of law and justice are playing an increasingly important role. They are diverse. This may give the impression of discord and perhaps cacophony, but this is only the initial phase. It is my deep conviction that the only new international system possible is one embracing polyphony, where many tones and many musical themes are sounded together to form harmony. If you like, we are moving towards a world system that is going to be polyphonic rather than polycentric, one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard. Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.

 

Have I mentioned post-WWII international law? This international law is based on the UN Charter, which was written by the victorious countries. But the world is changing – with new centres of power emerging, and powerful economies growing and coming to the forefront. That predictably calls for a change in the legal regulation as well. Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is inevitable. Law reflects life, not vice versa.

 

Thirdly, we have said more than once that the new world can develop successfully only through the broadest inclusion. The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated what usurpation leads to, when someone arrogates to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of others.

 

Those countries that are commonly referred to as great powers have come to believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are – in fact, to define others’ national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but worst of all, it hinders an actual solution to the problems at hand.

 

In its very diversity, the emerging world is bound to be anything but simple. The more fully-fledged participants involved in this process, the more challenging it becomes to identify an optimal solution that satisfies all parties. Yet, once such a solution is achieved, there is hope that it will be both sustainable and enduring. This, in turn, allows us to dispense with arrogance and impulsive flip-flop policies, instead fostering political processes that are both meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable adequacy. By and large, this principle is spelled out in the UN Charter and within the Security Council.

 

What is the right of veto? What purpose does it serve? It exists to prevent the adoption of decisions that do not suit players on the international stage. Is this beneficial or detrimental? It may be perceived as detrimental by some, as it allows one party to obstruct decision-making. However, it is beneficial in that it prevents the passage of decisions that are unacceptable to certain parties. What does this imply? What does this stipulation signify? It urges us to enter the negotiating chamber and reach consensus. That is its essence.

 

As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security – and, consequently, their prosperity – depends on it.

 

There are countless examples where complex yet solvable contradictions between neighbouring countries and peoples have escalated into intractable, endemic conflicts due to the manoeuvrings and blatant interference of external forces, who are, in essence, indifferent to the fate of the conflict participants, regardless of the bloodshed or casualties inflicted. Those who intervene externally do so purely out of self-interest, without bearing any responsibility.

 

Moreover, I believe that regional organisations will assume a significant role in the future, as neighbouring nations, irrespective of the complexity of their relations, are invariably united by a shared interest in stability and security. For them, compromises are indispensable to achieving optimal conditions for their own development.

 

Next, the key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.

 

The bloc policy and the legacy of the Cold War colonial era run contrary to the essence of the new international system, which is open and flexible. There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.

 

We talked on many occasions about the destructive role NATO continued to play, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, when it seemed that the alliance had lost its formally declared reason and the meaning of its existence. I believe that the United States recognised that this instrument was becoming unattractive and redundant, but it needed the bloc and still needs it to exercise command in the zone of its influence. That is why they need conflicts.

 

You know, even before the modern-day acute conflicts began, many European leaders told me: “Why are they trying to scare us with you? We are not frightened, and we do not see any threats.” This is an exact quote, do you see? I believe that the United States was aware of or sensed this as well, and regarded NATO as an organisation of secondary importance. Trust me, I know what I am speaking about. However, experts there knew that they needed NATO. How could they maintain its value and attraction? They needed to scare everyone and to divide Russia and Europe, especially Russia and Germany and France, by means of conflicts. This is why they pushed the situation towards a state coup in Ukraine and hostilities in its southeastern regions, in Donbass. They simply forced us to respond, and in this sense, they have attained their goal. As I see it, the same is taking place in Asia and on the Korean Peninsula now.

 

Actually, we see that the global minority is preserving and strengthening its military bloc in order to maintain its power. However, even the bloc countries themselves see and understand that the Big Brother’s harsh dictate does not help achieve the goals they are facing. Moreover, these aspirations run contrary to the interests of the rest of the world. Cooperating with countries that can benefit you and developing partner ties with those who are interested in this is a clear priority for the majority of countries worldwide.

 

It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacles created to hinder a natural development of a multipolar international system. I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation. During the period of Western domination, this approach was imposed on everyone as a universal approach, but it is far from being universal and not always effective.

 

Eastern philosophy, as many here are deeply familiar with – perhaps even more so than I am – takes a fundamentally different approach. It seeks harmony of interests, aiming for everyone to achieve their essential goals without compromising the interests of others, the principle of “I win, and you win too.” All the ethnicities of Russia, throughout history, whenever possible, have similarly emphasised that the priority is not to impose one’s views at any cost, but rather to persuade and to foster genuine partnership and equal cooperation.

 

Our history, including the history of our national diplomacy, has repeatedly demonstrated the values of honour, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency. One needs only to recall Russia’s role in shaping the order in Europe after the Napoleonic wars. I am aware that some people there interpret this, to a certain extent, as an effort to preserve monarchy, and so on. But that is not the point now. Rather, I am referring to the broader approach taken in addressing these challenges.

 

The emerging community within the BRICS framework serves as a prototype for new, free, and non-block relationships between states and peoples. This also highlights that even some NATO members, as you know, are interested in closer cooperation with BRICS. It is likely that other countries may also consider deeper collaboration with BRICS in the future.

 

This year, our country held the chairmanship of the group, culminating in a recent summit in Kazan. I cannot deny that building a unified approach among many countries, each with distinct interests, is a challenging task. Diplomats and government officials had to invest considerable effort, employ tact, and actively practice listening to one another to reach the desired outcome. This required significant dedication, but it fostered a unique spirit of cooperation grounded not in coercion, but in mutual understanding.

 

We are confident that BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms – where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet – can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.

 

The future Eurasian security system, now beginning to take shape across our vast continent, is founded on a spirit of respect and mutual consideration of interests. This approach is not only genuinely multilateral but also multifaceted. Today, security is a complex notion which encompasses more than just military and political dimensions; it cannot be achieved without socio-economic development and the resilience of states against a range of challenges, from natural to man-made. This concept of security spans both the physical and digital realms, including cyberspace and beyond.

 

My fifth point is about justice for all. Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues.

 

There is hardly a developed country on this planet that has not faced an increasingly uncontrolled and unmanageable inflow of people seeking to improve their wellbeing, social status and to have a future. Some of them are simply trying to survive.

 

In wealthier societies, these uncontrolled migration flows, in turn, feed xenophobia and intolerance towards migrants, creating a spiralling sense of social and political unease and raising the level of aggression.

 

There are many reasons to explain why many countries and societies have been falling behind in terms of their social and economic development. Of course, there is no magical cure for this ill. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically-motivated development barriers.

 

Attempts to weaponise the economy, regardless of the target, are detrimental to everyone, with the most vulnerable – people and countries in need of support – being the first to suffer.

 

We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education, and finally, the orderly and free movement of people must not be impacted by whatever conflicts or disputes. These are fundamental human rights.

 

My sixth point is that we keep emphasising that sovereign equality is an imperative for any lasting international framework. Of course, countries differ in terms of their potential. This is an obvious fact. The same applies to the capabilities and opportunities they have. In this context, we often hear that achieving total equality would be impossible, amounting to wishful thinking, a utopia.

 

However, what makes today’s world special is its interconnected and holistic nature. In fact, sometimes countries that may not be as powerful or large as others play an even greater role compared to great powers by being more rational and results-driven in using their human, intellectual capital, natural resources and environment-related capabilities, by being more flexible and smart when tackling challenging matters, by setting higher living and ethical standards, as well as in administration and management, while also empowering all their people to fulfil their potential and creating a favourable psychological environment. This approach can bring about scientific breakthroughs, promote entrepreneurial activity, art and creativity, and empower young people. Taken together, all of this counts in terms of global influence and appeal. Let me paraphrase a law of physics: you can outperform others without getting ahead of them.

 

The most harmful and destructive attitude that we see in the modern world is supreme arrogance, which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively. Russia has never done this. This is not who or what we are. We can see that our approach is productive. Historical experience irrefutably shows that inequality – in society, in government or in the international arena – always has harmful consequences.

 

I would like to add something that I may not have mentioned often before. Over several centuries, the Western-centric world has embraced certain clichés and stereotypes concerning the global hierarchy. There is supposedly a developed world, progressive society and some universal civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside, and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilisational hierarchy.

 

It is clear that this concept works for a crude colonial approach, for the exploitation of the global majority. The problem is that this essentially racist ideology has taken root in the minds of many, creating a serious mental obstacle to general harmonious growth.

 

The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different. To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.

 

The truth is that we see how they engage with other cultures that are different. On the surface, they show genuine interest in local music and folklore, seeming to praise and enjoy them, but beneath this facade, their economic and security policies remain neo-colonial.

 

Look at how the World Trade Organisation operates – it does not solve anything because all Western countries, the main economies, are blocking everything. They always act in their own interests, constantly replicating the same models they used decades and centuries ago – to continue to control everyone and everything.

 

It should be remembered that everyone is equal, meaning that everyone is entitled to have their own vision, which is no better or worse than others – it is just different, and everyone needs to sincerely respect that. Acknowledging this can pave the way for mutual understanding of interests, mutual respect and empathy, that is, the ability to show compassion, to relate to others’ problems, and the ability to consider differing opinions or arguments. This requires not only listening, but also altering behaviour and policies accordingly.

 

Listening and considering does not mean accepting or agreeing, not at all. This simply means recognising the other party’s right to their own worldview. In fact, this is the first necessary step towards harmonising different mindsets. Difference and diversity must be viewed as wealth and opportunities, not as reasons for conflict. This, too, reflects the dialectics of history.

 

We all understand here that an era or radical change and transformation invariably brings upheavals and shocks, which is quite unfortunate. Interests clash as if various actors have to adjust to one another once again. The world’s interconnected nature does not always help mitigate these differences. Of course, this is quite true. On the contrary, it can make things worse, sometimes even injecting more confusion into their relations and making it much harder to find a way out.

 

Over the many centuries of its history, humanity has grown accustomed to viewing the use of force as the last resort for resolving differences: “Might makes right.” Yes, sometimes this principle does work. Indeed, sometimes countries have no other choice than to stand for their interests with arms in hand and using all available means.

 

That said, we live in an interconnected and complex world, and it is becoming increasingly complex. While the use of force may help address a specific issue, it may, of course, bring about other and sometimes even greater challenges. And we understand this. Our country has never been the one to initiate the use of force: we are forced to do that only when it becomes clear that our opponent is acting aggressively and is not willing to listen to any type of argument. And whenever necessary, we will take any measure we need to protect Russia and all its citizens, and we will always achieve our goals.

 

We live in an intrinsically diverse, non-linear world. This is something we have always understood, and this is what we know today. It is not my intention today to revel in the past, but I can remember quite well the situation we had back in 1999, when I became Prime Minister and then went on to become President. I remember the challenges we faced at the time. I think that Russian people, just like the experts who have gathered in this room, all remember the forces which backed terrorists in North Caucasus, who supplied them weapons, sponsored them, and offered moral, political, ideological and informational support and the extent of these practices.

 

I can only scoff, with both ridicule and sadness, at what we were hearing at the time: We are dealing with al-Qaeda, which is evil, but as long as you are the target, it is fine. What kind of attitude is that? All this brings nothing but conflict. At the time we had a goal to invest everything we had and spend all the time at our disposal and all capabilities to keep the country together. Of course, this served everyone’s interests in Russia. Despite the dire economic situation in the wake of the 1998 economic crisis and despite the devastated state of our military, we came together as a nation to fend off this terrorist threat and went on to defeat it. Make no mistake about that.

 

Why have I brought this to your attention? In fact, once again some have come to believe that the world would be better off without Russia. At that time, they tried to finish Russia off after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, it seems that someone is once again nurturing this dream. They think that this would make the world more obedient and pliant. However, Russia stopped those aspiring to global dominance in their tracks many times over, no matter who it was. This is how it will be in the future, too. In fact, the world would hardly get any better. This message must finally get across to those trying to go down this road. It would do nothing but make things even more complicated than they are today.

 

Our opponents are coming up with new ways and devising new tools in their attempts to get rid of us. Today, they have been using Ukraine and its people as a tool by cynically pitching them against Russians and turning them into cannon fodder, all while perorating about a European choice. What kind of choice is that? Let me assure you that this is not our choice. We will defend ourselves and our people – I want this to be absolutely clear to everyone.

 

Russia’s role is certainly not limited to protecting and preserving itself. It may sound a bit grand, but Russia’s very existence guarantees that the world will retain its wide colour gamut, diversity and complexity, which is the key to successful development. These are not my words. This is something our friends from all regions of the world often tell me. I am not exaggerating. To reiterate, we are not imposing anything on anyone and will never do. We do not need that, and no one else needs it, either. We are guided by our own values, interests and ideas of what is right and what is not, which are rooted in our identity, history and culture. And, of course, we are always ready for a constructive dialogue with everyone.

 

Those who respect their culture and traditions have no right not to treat others with the same respect. Conversely, those who are trying to force others into inappropriate behaviour invariably trample their own roots, civilisation and culture into mud, some of what we are witnessing.

 

Russia is fighting for its freedom, rights, and sovereignty. I am not exaggerating, because over the previous decades everything, on the face of it, looked favourable and nice when they turned the G7 into the G8 and, thankfully, invited us to be members.

 

Do you know what was going on there? I witnessed it first-hand. You arrive at a G8 meeting, and it becomes immediately clear that prior to the G8 meeting, the G7 had got together and discussed things among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then invited Russia to come. You look at it and smile. I always have. They give you a warm hug and a pat on the back. But in practice they do something opposite. And they never stop to make their way forward.

 

This can be seen particularly clearly in the context of NATO’s eastward expansion. They promised they would never expand, but they keep doing it. In the Caucasus, and with regard to the missile defence system – take anything, any key issue – they simply did not give a hoot about our opinion. In the end, all of that taken together started looking like a creeping intervention which, without exaggeration, sought to either degrade us or, even better for them, to destroy our country, either from within or from outside.

 

Eventually, they got to Ukraine, and moved into it with their bases and NATO. In 2008, they decided at a meeting in Bucharest to open the doors to NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. Why, pardon me for my plain language, why on earth would they do that? Were they confronted with any difficulties in international affairs? Indeed, we did not see eye to eye with Ukraine on gas prices, but we addressed these issues effectively anyway. What was the problem? Why do it and create grounds for a conflict? It was clear from day one what it would lead to ultimately. Still, they kept pressing ahead with it. Next thing you know they started expanding into our historical territories and supporting a regime that clearly tilted toward neo-Nazism.

 

Therefore, we can safely say and reiterate that we are fighting not only for our freedom, not only our rights, or our sovereignty, but we are upholding universal rights and freedoms, and the continued existence and development of the absolute majority of the countries around the world. To a certain extent, we see this as our country’s mission as well.

 

Everyone should be clear that putting pressure on us is useless, but we are always prepared to sit down and talk based on consideration of our mutual legitimate interests in their entirety. This is something that we urge all international dialogue members to do. In that case, there may be little doubt that 20 years from now, in the run-up to the 100th anniversary of the UN, future guests of a Valdai Club meeting, who at this point may be schoolchildren, students, postgraduates, or young researchers, or aspiring experts, will be discussing much more optimistic and life-affirming topics than the ones that we are compelled to discuss today.

 

Thank you very much for your attention.

 

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, thank you for this broad and multi-dimensional description of the world and Russia’s views on it. It is especially pleasant for us that it was at this platform that you presented your basic principles last year and you elaborated on them today.

I believe that it starts looking like a doctrine. We do not expect you to name it after the Valdai Club, but it is nice that it is being born here.

Mr President, we discussed many of the issues you have addressed here at our 21st meeting. I would like – all of us would like to tell you about some of our ideas, which were not voiced at all our sessions, of course, because there were many of them, but the ones we discussed at the most important of them. You have mentioned one of them.

I would like to ask your permission to start with Ruslan Yunusov, a long-running member and colleague whom you know very well. He attended our session on artificial intelligence, a stand-out issue.

Ruslan Yunusov: Good evening, Mr President.

It is true that we discussed one of the issues you have mentioned today – artificial intelligence. We had a separate session at our meeting, called Artificial Intelligence – A Revolution or a Fashion Trend?

Before telling you about the results of that session, I would like to mention a unique event this year, namely the two Nobel Prizes awarded for achievements in the field of AI. They were awarded in both physics and chemistry, which has never happened before. Does this mean that we are witnessing an AI revolution? I would rather say “yes” than “no,” although the Nobel Committee’s decisions are often influenced by fashion trends.

Regarding the theme of our discussion, I would like to emphasise some of the aspects were discussed.

We began with an issue of concern to many. Will artificial intelligence replace human beings or not, especially in the fields that require a creative approach, like science and arts? What is the situation in science today? AI already has a role in the scientific process indeed. Many achievements have been made with AI’s assistance. At the same time, we also see that humans have not been removed from the scientific process but rather than the process itself has been accelerated and that the demand for skilled young scientists has increased. So, we do not see any risk here. We also discussed some aspects of an AI economy. During the Covid pandemic, around 2020, we thought that recovery from the global economic recession would be ensured above all by a driver such as artificial intelligence.

We discussed whether the forecasts came true or not. It is true that AI is making its way into the economy, in various economic sectors. But if we look at the figures, we will see that our optimistic expectations have not materialised. The result so far is more conservative than we expected. Moreover, these expectations have not abated, and we see the development of investment bubbles, which is fraught with negative economic effects in the future. At the same time, artificial intelligence as a technology will most likely continue to develop and will form the basis of the economy.

We have also engaged in discussions concerning security matters. Today, it is impossible to overlook the fact that terrorist and extremist organisations are extensively utilising artificial intelligence technologies for recruiting new members and in their broader propaganda efforts. Fake news and videos have become standard tools within their arsenals.

Conversely, artificial intelligence is also being used in anti-terrorist and counter-extremist operations. It aids in identifying these very extremist elements within society. Moreover, it serves to influence those harbouring doubts, steering them away from such dangerous paths, thereby preventing them from succumbing to extremism. This, too, proves effective.

We deliberated on the balance between the positive and negative aspects of artificial intelligence in this realm. It appears that the positive aspects hold sway, and we are hopeful that this balance will continue to tip in favour of the positive.

Naturally, at the Valdai forum, we cannot overlook the political dimension of artificial intelligence. Studies have been conducted where researchers evaluated the basic generative models of artificial intelligence for political inclinations. It emerged that artificial intelligence is not neutral; its political leanings are markedly skewed towards left liberalism, closely mirroring the views of its creators.

Furthermore, in recent years, artificial intelligence training has increasingly relied on synthetic data rather than real-life material, which has contributed to the radicalisation of these models’ perspectives.

In the coming years, we will witness the first university graduates who have integrated artificial intelligence into their academic endeavours. Previously, students engaged deeply with primary sources when crafting term papers and essays. Now, with a mere prompt to artificial intelligence, the result is produced. This shift is poised to diminish educational quality. More perilously, however, is the subtle influence artificial intelligence exerts, shaping the worldviews of the youth and instilling ideologies. These ideologies are often forged not within our country but abroad, or even further afield, across the ocean.

Summing up, we recognise the imperative to bolster control over the regulation of artificial intelligence. However, relying solely on prohibitive measures will not yield the desired outcomes. Instead, we must support and advance our domestic artificial intelligence technologies.

It is encouraging that we have established a robust foundation, and significant progress is evident. We must continue to build upon this, as it will likely form the cornerstone of technological sovereignty in this domain.

It is worth noting that Russia stands among the trio of nations globally with a comprehensive IT technology stack, which indeed underpins our sovereignty.

To conclude my brief remarks, our foreign guests have observed that certain countries have already imposed restrictions, if not outright bans, on the use of artificial intelligence technologies. For us, for Russia, this presents an opportunity. We have the potential to assert ourselves as a technological leader by exporting artificial intelligence technologies to our partner countries.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: I would also like to say a couple of words, if I may.

First, of course, artificial intelligence is a highly important development tool. AI development ranks among our priorities, primarily, of course, in the economic sphere and in other fields, including the use of big data. We are facing major workforce shortages and posting minimal, 2.4 percent, unemployment rates. This amounts to a shortage of human resources. In the future, we believe that these economic problems can be resolved by developing state-of-the-art technologies, and we prioritise the use of AI technologies in this context.

Do pros outweigh cons? Does the development of nuclear energy technologies spell more benefits or more negative consequences? Civilian nuclear technologies play a tremendous and highly important role in medicine, agriculture and transportation, and their role will continue to increase. I am confident that this will become particularly relevant in the context of climate change issues.

At the same time, there are nuclear weapons. This creates major threats for humankind. The same is absolutely true of AI technologies. How is this regulated, and how do people use them? This is a good question. Of course, many countries regulate this. As you say, certain countries ban them. I believe that it is impossible to ban them. AI will eventually make its way, no matter what, especially in conditions of greater competition. I am not talking about armed confrontation, but overall economic competition is increasing. AI will inevitably continue developing in conditions of a competitive struggle. In this respect, we can certainly join the ranks of leaders, considering our certain advantages.

Sovereignty is a highly important component. Of course, these platforms are mostly created abroad, and they form people’s world outlook; this is absolutely correct. We should realise this and expand our sovereign AI network. Of course, we need to use all available assets, but we have to develop our own aspects here.

Sber and Yandex are actively engaged in this area, and overall, their work has been quite successful. We will certainly persist in our efforts, there is no doubt about that, especially as AI begins to replicate itself, which is both fascinating and highly promising.

However, there are, of course, potential risks involved. We must recognise and understand these risks and adjust our work accordingly. As I mentioned, this is one of our most critical areas of focus. By “our,” I mean the state, industry specialists, and society as a whole, because the development of AI technologies inevitably raise many moral and ethical issues that require our full attention.

You mentioned the risk of forming radical views, and so on. Indeed, we must counter these risks by offering our own perspective and worldview on the events unfolding within our society and globally. This is something we will address together.

Thank you for highlighting this issue.

Ruslan Yunusov: Thank you very much. We will continue to analyse the developments in this area.

Vladimir Putin: By all means.

Ruslan Yunusov: And indeed, artificial intelligence in Russia should be trained on Russian data to ultimately reflect our culture.

Vladimir Putin: Vladimir Putin: Absolutely. We certainly have the capability to do this, that’s clear. I am confident we will succeed, and it will provide strong support for our development, bringing us significant benefits.

Thank you.

Ruslan Yunusov: Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, when we have sovereign artificial intelligence, will it be able to offer us the Russian idea for the 21st century?

Vladimir Putin: It can only assist us in addressing the challenges we face, and it is very important how we define these challenges.

Given that AI works with big data, we have all the necessary resources: intellectual and technological capabilities, along with abundant free energy. There is much for us to collaborate on, including tackling profound philosophical and fundamental issues that you mentioned.

We need to make use of all the resources at our disposal. It is up to us to decide whether we trust or not the results of research based on modern principles, which, among other things, involve the use of artificial intelligence.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

We have also discussed a related topic: artificial intelligence and digitalisation go together with information and everything happening to it right now, and there are indeed many things happening: both positive and negative.

Our Indian colleague, Arvind Gupta, took part in this session.

Please, go ahead.

Arvind Gupta: Thank you.

My name is Arvind Gupta, Mr President, and I come from India. I work at the intersection of technology and society, and building a digital public infrastructure for population-scale problems.

Thank you, Mr President. You have already addressed some of the issues that my colleague Ruslan has talked about on AI. I thank you for listening to our summary. Our expert panels discussed the issue of something which is adjacent to AI – and I will in the end mention that – of information manipulation, surveillance, using technology and data, and the lack of transparency in all technology systems today.

Mr President, you know, the group discussed that internet was designed about 40–45 years ago to be a global public good. Unfortunately now, like many other things it has become very unipolar. It is controlled by a few big tech firms with their own ideological leanings. And some of these platforms or big tech firms are not allowed to operate in countries like India, Russia, Indonesia and many others for their roles in manipulation and surveillance.

The second issue we discussed, Mr President, was the algorithms that, again, that we discussed previously in the AI session also, really define how we think.

AI is actually becoming a new buzzword today, but the algorithms have been around for a long time. And they really define how we think, how we consume, how we elect our governments. You know, as all of us have agreed, they have a leaning towards an ideology and definitely are not neutral. So, the algorithms themselves are biased.

The other thing the group discussed was the whole weaponisation of information and data, and that, coupled with the biased technology platforms, is giving certain nation states massive power and it is influencing national security, democracy and the public order in general.

So, Mr President, you are aware that this has been the form of Western technology platforms, but India presented an alternate model during its G20 Presidency to these Western technology platforms. It is a platform which takes society into account. It is a bottom-up platform built around identity – a universal identity system, a universal payment system. It is actually used by more than a billion people in India, and more than 20 other countries use it. This is to present how India has created a different vision for technology from the Western vision that exists today.

Mr President, I must commend Russia for succeeding, making the MIR platform very successful in Russia in a very, very short time. That also shows the power of technological sovereignty that was just mentioned, that it can be done if the desire is there.

Mr President, the issue that you just discussed – I mean progress with this biased nature of technology and technology platforms, and the non-neutral nature with what is coming head on to us – the artificial intelligence era. Given that we let a few big companies control the Internet, how do we ensure that our culture, our society, our national interests are going to be protected in this whole era of artificial intelligence?

What kind of guardrails do we need to build from the start to have fair and responsible AI? How do we ensure that like-minded states work together for non-weaponisation of AI, for non-weaponisation of artificial intelligence?

Lastly, Mr President, we would like to hear from you how do we build trust in the information that we see in news and technology at large. That was one of the most defining things that the group debated and we are looking forward to hearing your view.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin:  Of course, this is a very important topic similar to the previous question about artificial intelligence, its use and development. There are several aspects here.

First, of course, the use of the internet should be based on sovereign algorithms. We must strive for this.

Second, it is very difficult for us as a state – it is possible, but it will be partly counterproductive – to prohibit everything. In Russia, the professional community arrived at the conclusion that it is necessary to decide on the rules of behavior in the internet, and independently adopted certain self-restraints, especially related to some possible destructive impact on society as a whole, especially on the children. It seems to me that this is a way to ensure the interests of the majority of people and society as a whole.

Of course, the internet must obey the domestic legislation of the country where work in this area is taking place. This is obvious.

What we witness is an information manipulation. Most unfortunate, this is happening. But, let me repeat: if the activity of the internet is subject to internal laws, to internal legislation, then we will be able to minimise possible negative consequences.

I understand that there are technological limitations and technological difficulties to implement all this. But if we take the relevant efforts together with the professional community, which sees where threats to society as a whole can emerge and works professionally to suppress these threats, then the state will by all means support these efforts.

For such countries as India, as Russia, this problem is quite solvable, because we have very good specialists, very good maths schools, and there are people who are already leaders themselves, if not their companies, then they themselves are leaders in this field. We have all the resources for this. I repeat once again, this is not a problem for such countries as India or Russia.

As for the Mir payment system, then yes, this can be regarded as success. It works well, reliably. It would work even better, in more countries, if there were no artificial obstacles created to hinder its operation. But even though these obstacles are being created, it is developing, and we will replicate success of this kind.

The theme of the internet has already become eternal, to my mind. You said that it was created to be used for the benefit of humankind. It was certainly created for other purposes but at some point, its intended purpose categorically changed. And it is necessary that activity in the internet, just like any human activity, be subject to the moral and ethical rules and laws of the states where this system operates.

I repeat once again: it is not always easy to do this in terms of technology, but we should certainly try to achieve this. Society must protect itself from destructive influence, but it should do everything to ensure that the exchange of information is free and that it benefits the development of a particular state, and indeed the entire international community.

We in Russia will aspire to this. I know that India is following the same path. We will be happy to cooperate with you in this area.

Thank you for paying attention to this. On the other hand, it is impossible not to pay attention to this and not to engage in this work. I wish you every success.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, do you use the internet yourself?

Vladimir Putin: You know, in a very primitive way: I press a few buttons from time to time to look something up.

Fyodor Lukyanov: But still, you do it, right?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Using our search engines?

Vladimir Putin: Yours, yours.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Fine. Thank you, that’s comforting. (Laughter.)

We discussed in great detail the environment and the state of the world in terms of climate, among other things. I would like to ask our good comrade Rasigan Maharajh from South Africa to tell us more about it.

Rasigan Maharajh: Thank you very much, Mr President, also for updating us that the dialectic of history continues itself.

Environmental problems, as you mentioned as well, cannot be solved separately from redressing global inequality problems. The World Meteorological Organisation, the international weather body, recently noted that human-caused climate change has resulted in widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere. The year 2023 was the warmest on record by a large margin, with widespread extreme weather.

This trend continued into the first half of 2024 and continues. According to the WMO, the science is clear: we are far off track from achieving vital climate goals. The impacts of climate change and hazardous weather are reversing developmental gains and threatening the wellbeing of people and the planet. Greenhouse gases and global temperatures are at record levels. The emissions gap between aspiration and reality remains high.

The colonial and imperial phases of globalisation largely established the current wealth systems. And they are essentially premised, as mentioned by you in various parts of your update, upon unequal exchanges between the Global North and the Global South or, as you framed it, the Global Minority and the Global Majority.

Some colleagues – Hickel and associates working at the London School [of Economics] – calculated that the Global North extracted raw materials, land, energy and labour worth approximately $10.8 trillion in 2015. Just that number could have ended extreme poverty 70 times over.

Between 1990 and 2015, the 25-year period, the cumulative drain from the Global South was approximately $242 trillion. It is abundantly clear that unequal exchange is a significant driver of global inequality, uneven development and ecological breakdown.

Whilst the heroic struggles for national liberation challenged aspects of colonial and imperial subjugation, the institutional apparatus established after the Second World War, or the Great Patriotic War, has served to maintain the hegemony of the Global North, and specifically the advantages of the G7.

The global Covid-19 pandemic exposed the structural flaws in our international system, while reminding us, as you have mentioned as well, that no one is safe unless we are all safe. Our collective scientific and technological competences, however, generated rapid solutions that helped us save lives.

Notwithstanding, we are again witnessing attempts to weaponise intellectual property systems. There are thorough restrictions on how knowledge is shared and against the transfer of technologies. These must be collectively resisted and condemned. All countries should seek wider and deeper cooperation and collaboration to accelerate the co-construction of knowledge, to enable just transitions from the unsustainability of the extractive exploitation without receiving the benefits of this value addition.

Efforts at reforming international institutions that continue to facilitate the process of unequal exchange, however, generate more and more frustration and despair. Even as acknowledged recently at your successful 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan – this was from the Secretary-General of the UN –the current international financial architecture is outdated, ineffective and unfair.

This was echoed recently, just to the west of us, in a global policy forum in Germany, which determined that these institutions have failed in their mission to prevent and mitigate crises and to mobilise sufficient financing for internationally agreed development goals.

Our common security can only be enhanced by actively reducing these inequalities in world systems, actively promoting knowledge sharing, and ensuring equitable opportunities for the development of all.

Now, I want to round up by saying that our very survival is at risk, should we fail to match our rhetoric with our actual practices and the resources to support all countries facing increased environmental degradation, climate change and ecological precarity. Enduring peace could be a collateral benefit of such progressive transformations. Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Without a doubt, everything that you have discussed with your colleagues here at the Valdai Club clearly represents a critical area of research for humanity. We will not go into detail or debate the causes of ongoing developments now.

Clearly, climate change and global warming is what is happening. Why is it happening? Is it caused by human activity, or are there other factors at play, including outer space, or is it something that happens to Earth now and then, which we do not really understand? However, changes are clearly there. That is a fact. It would be reckless on our part to do nothing about it, and that is undeniable.

We in Russia know this first-hand because warming in our country is going at a faster pace than anywhere else around the world. Over the past 10 years, we have seen temperatures go up by 0.5 degrees, and even more – by 0.7 degrees – in the Arctic. We see this clearly. For a country with 60 percent of the territory in the permafrost zone, this factor has practical consequences. We have entire towns and cities, as well as production facilities and more, built on permafrost. This is a very serious matter with serious consequences for us. So, we understand what this is all about.

Incidentally, we have one of the world’s greenest energies, 40 percent of which comes from gas and nuclear generation, as well as hydrogeneration. Overall, low-emission energy accounts for 85 percent of the total energy generation in Russia, which makes it one of the greenest operations globally. Also, I believe Russia is home to about 20 percent of the world’s forests, which represents a significant absorption capacity.

We are pondering this and we have plans, which we made public some time ago, stating the year by which we will work to reduce man-made emissions. And, of course, we will work on it.

By the way, those who made the biggest fuss over this issue are, unfortunately for everyone and most likely for themselves as well, moving in exactly the opposite direction.

For instance, coal generation in Europe is sharply up. Not long ago, there was a lot of clamour in Europe against coal-fired generation. What they did after all is they have expanded it instead of shutting it down. This is strange, but it is a fact. Again, they did so for some far-fetched political reasons. But that is a separate topic.

Now, regarding artificial obstacles to the development of the emerging economies linked to the environmental agenda. These so-called green obstacles, which some countries have started creating for the emerging economies and markets, are nothing other than a new instrument they have invented to hinder development.

If they are concerned, really concerned about climate change, which is something we should think about, of course, they should provide sources of funding and technologies for the countries that are ready to work in this sphere, so that they can calmly adopt these innovative technologies without sustaining losses. Otherwise, they would be trailing behind progress.

Some rightly tell those who demand immediate conversion to innovative technologies that they themselves had used up all the sources of energy and had polluted everything, including the atmosphere, and now demand that we immediately move to new levels of power generation. They wonder how they can accomplish this. Should they spend all their remaining resources on purchasing innovative technology from them? This, again, is a tool of neo-colonialism.

Give people an opportunity to live and develop, if you really and sincerely think that we all must take care of this issue together. Provide the sources of funding and technologies instead of limiting access to them. I fully agree with you, if that is what you hinted at in your speech. It cannot be any other way, the way I see it.

The same goes for funding. As I have said, according to our experts, whom I fully trust, the United States cashed in $12 trillion out of thin air over the past 10 years simply because the US dollar is a global currency. They did it by printing and circulating more dollars, which usually get back to their banks and their financial system, which are getting an additional income and profit from that. It is a tactical position. They just make money out of thin air, and this is what everyone should bear in mind.

If they simply issue this money which represents windfall profit for them. This money should be used as a source of funding, including for the environmental agenda. Share your windfall profits with us, if you are really concerned about the environment. If that is what you hinted at, I can say that you are absolutely right, and it is difficult to argue with this approach. This is how it should be done.

Well, this is probably all I can say. I have nothing more to add to this. That is, there is much more to say, but I have outlined the main points.

Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, has President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev invited you to the climate conference scheduled for next week?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, he has.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Will you go?

Vladimir Putin: I have recently been there, and President Aliyev and I have agreed that Russia would be represented at a high level. Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin will participate in this event.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Excellent.

Let us segue to the next topic that concerns us all, since most of us here specialise in international affairs. You initiated the idea of Eurasian security. We have dedicated many discussions to this issue, and this year’s Valdai paper largely focused on it as well, and the session was quite engaging.

I would like to ask our friend Glenn Diesen from Norway to share the main takeaways with us.

Glenn Diesen: Thank you. Mr President, my name is Glenn Diesen. I am a professor of political economy from Norway. Our panel was on Eurasian security. I would like to outline three main points. The first was that the source of conflict today appears to be a conflict between unipolarity and multipolarity. To a large extent, this represents a new phenomenon in international affairs, as in the 19th century we had Great Britain as the dominant maritime power in conflict with the Russian Empire as the dominant land power. In the 20th century, we had the United States as the dominant maritime power against the Soviet Union. And in the present time it is somewhat different, as we have the United States again as the dominant maritime power.

But on the Eurasian continent we are now seeing the emergence of multipolarity, which also presents a lot of new opportunities because even the largest economy, China, does not really have the capability and does not even display the intention of attempting to dominate this continent. Instead, we see initiatives being put in place for a multipolar Eurasia. So, this puts us in conflict between the unipolar system attempted to be restored by the United States versus a multipolar system. And the global majority seems to obviously prefer multipolarity, which is why I think BRICS has been such a great attraction for many countries.

However, in our discussions we also discovered a consensus that there were some concerns or at least a desire for Eurasia to be an anti-hegemonic movement as opposed to being an anti-Western one, as the objective should be to harmonise interests and end this era of bloc politics as opposed to Eurasia merely becoming a bloc. And again, the attraction of the BRICS countries towards this Eurasian format largely rests on the idea that we could overcome bloc politics rather than succumbing to it.

The second point we had was that the appeal of Eurasia is also to a large extent the multivectoral foreign policy, that is, the ability to diversify economic connectivity with all the major poles of power. And this is seen as a necessity, a requirement to have more political independence, more autonomy in the economy and foreign policy, and not merely being a spectator in international affairs. And yet again, this is why most countries do not want to choose between competing blocs but instead find a way of harmonising. And again, the global majority wants Eurasian multipolarity, as this is a requirement for genuine multilateralism and not the false one, which is also being promoted under Washington.

And the third and final point was that multipolar Eurasia has certain systemic incentives for harmonising interests because the great powers in Eurasia have somewhat different formats for Eurasian integration, and different interests. We can see this also with Russia and China, but we also see that none can really pursue their objectives or formats for integration without cooperation with these other centres of power. So, this creates incentives to harmonise interests. It seems that this is also what has made BRICS successful.

I remember a decade ago many people expected Central Asia to be a clash point between China and Russia. Instead, we see it becoming an area of cooperation. So, this gives optimism to other parts of Eurasia as well. And this is drastically different from the alliance system, which is usually used to advance unipolarity. In your speech, you referred to the imperial impulse of dividing countries. So, under the alliance system, there is always an interest in having division between China and India, between the Arabs and the Iranians, between Europe and Russia, simply because this helps to divide the region into dependent allies and weaken adversaries.

So, in the spirit of harmonising interests I also had a question premised on the inability we had in Europe to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement after the Cold War. And I think this has been a source of many of our tensions. We never established a system based on indivisible security. Instead, we returned to bloc politics and abandoned some of the hopes we initially had in the early 1990s by instead going with NATO expansion.

So, my question was if Eurasian multipolarity can offer a different format for cooperation between Russia and Europe as well. I ask this because a few years ago I had a book with the title Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia, and I was wondering about your opinion, if you see a possibility of this path forward. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I apologise. Could you please repeat what you said at the end? Please rephrase your question.

Glenn Diesen: My question was premised on the idea that across Eurasia we have seen many countries being able to overcome their differences, their political differences through economic connectivity. We see the deals the Chinese were promoting between the Arabs and the Iranians. And I was wondering if there were some format for Greater Eurasia in which Europe would be a part of this Greater Eurasia, if there was an ability to use BRICS or some other institution to also foster better relations between Russia and Europe, so [that] we can overcome this bloc politics in Europe, which we were never able to overcome after the Cold War.

Vladimir Putin: You know, once the Cold War was over, there was a chance to overcome the bloc mentality and bloc policy itself. I will say it again: when the Cold War was over, there was a chance to overcome bloc mentality and policy.

I mentioned earlier in my remarks that I am convinced that the United States did not need that. Clearly, they were afraid that this would weaken their control over Europe, whereas they wanted to keep it, which they did and have tightened it even more.

I think this will eventually weaken the vassal subordination system. I do not mean anything bad by what I am about to say, and, God forbid, I am not accusing or reproaching anyone of anything. We can see, however, that many European countries, nearly all European NATO members, are in fact acting against their own interests for the benefit of the US politics and economy.

In some US states, energy is 65 to 80 percent cheaper than in the EU countries. They are making deliberate taxation moves, such as reducing revenue tax, or creating favourable conditions for relocating entire businesses and industries from Europe to the United States. And some do relocate.

Sectors directly relying on primary energy sources, such as the fertiliser and the glass industries, to name a few, were the first ones to get affected by it. These industries have wound down their operations because they no longer made economic sense, and are relocating to the United States.

The second phase of restructuring affected the metallurgical industry, and now the automotive industry.

Governments can blame corporate management for inefficiency all they want, but the current state of affairs primarily stems from the government policies, and the management was forced to find ways to save their businesses and jobs in these circumstances, which it is not always doable.

So, the conflict of which we are, unfortunately, part, has made it possible for the United States to reinforce its leadership, to put it mildly. In fact, the countries have found themselves in a state of semi-colonial dependency. Frankly, I did not expect to see that happen, but it is their choice.

The same is happening in Japan, which is surprising. What have we done to deserve this? We have done nothing wrong, in word or in deed. But they have imposed sanctions on us. Why would they do that to us?

Now, the question is what we should do about that. We have not done anything wrong. There are colleagues from Japan here, maybe they have questions.

The situation with Europe is even worse. I have already said this, but I will indulge in recalling a conversation with former Chancellor Kohl in 1993, when I chanced to be present during his conversation with the then mayor of St Petersburg. I had not forgotten my German then and acted as the interpreter. He let the official interpreter go. “Take some rest,” he said. I stayed with them to do the interpreting.

As a man who only recently was an officer of the Soviet Union’s foreign intelligence service, I was surprised by what he said. Frankly, I listened, interpreted and was surprised, to put it mildly, because my head was filled with Cold War clichés, and I was a KGB intelligence officer.

Unexpectedly, Kohl said that the future of Europe, if it wanted to remain an independent centre of the global civilisation, could only be together with Russia, that we must join our efforts. My jaw dropped. He went on in the same spirit, speaking about his views on the situation in America and where and how the United States would direct its efforts. I will not repeat what he said, but he did not say anything bad about the United States. He spoke as an analyst and an expert, not as a German chancellor.

However, 80, 85 or even 90 percent of what he said is happening now. I can see this happening; all of us can see this. Of course, we must try to create a Eurasian security system. It is a vast continent. And Europe obviously can, and I believe that it must, become an integral part of this system.

You have said that China does not have the capability or the intention to dominate this continent. You also mentioned Central Asia; I will speak about it here too. I think our friends from China are certainly with us today. There is nothing about domination in the Chinese philosophy. They do not strive for domination. That is the point and the attraction of the concept or initiative which President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping has formulated, the Belt and Road initiative. A common belt and a common road. This is not just a Chinese road; it is a common road. This is what we believe and how we act, at least in bilateral relations, that is, in the interests of each other.

What is happening in Central Asia? Many expected it to be a site of conflict or clash between China and Russia. This has not happened. You see, the point is that these are young states with economies that need to be developed. Demography is on the rise there, for example, the population of Uzbekistan grows by a million every year. A million every year, can you imagine that? It has a population of 27 or 28 million, and it grows by a million every year. The population of India grows by 10 million a year, as my friend, Prime Minister Modi, told me. But India’s population is 1.5 billion, while Uzbekistan has 37–38 million people, and will have 40 million soon, up one million every year. That is a lot. There are many problems there.

If the People’s Republic of China comes and helps these economies, this means that their economic cooperation helps stabilise their domestic processes and statehoods, which is in Russia’s interests. We want to see a stable situation and stable development there. This is in our interests as well. That is why there is no rivalry there; there is cooperation there. It is not hindering our traditional relations with that part of the world. The countries of Central Asia, which had been part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries, not just remember but also value the special contacts and special ties between us. This is benefitting everyone.

If we are doing this to create a security system for the Eurasian continent… Incidentally, I see and hear that some European countries have again started talking about creating a common security system from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and have returned to the idea which, I believe, was proposed by Charles de Gaulle in his time. Actually, he proposed a common security system to the Urals. But it should be created all the way to Vladivostok, of course. So, the idea has been revived. If our colleagues decide to do this…

But the most important thing that you have said and I have mentioned, which is set out in the OSCE documents, is that the security of some must not contradict or infringe on the security of others. This is extremely important. If all of us do so, and if we increase the level of trust, as you said… The lack of trust is the main problem on the Eurasian continent and in relations between Russia and European countries.

You can criticise Russia as much as you want, and we probably make many mistakes as well, but when they tell us that they had signed the Minsk agreements on Ukraine only to give Ukraine an opportunity to rearm, and had not at all intended to settle the conflict peacefully, what trust is there to speak of? Come on, guys, what kind trust are you talking about? You have openly said that you cheated us, that you lied to us and played foul, and now you expect us to trust you? However, it is necessary to gradually revitalise the system of mutual trust. We can sit here talking about it all night, but this could be the first step towards creating a common system of Eurasian security. Can we do this or not?

Mr Kohl, whom I mentioned at the beginning, believed that this is not just necessary, but absolutely indispensable. I share this view.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, why do you think that Mr Kohl was more sincere than Ms Merkel, whom you mentioned and who spoke about the Minsk process?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we were just talking, the three of us. It was in Bonn where the German government was sitting, whereas Ms Merkel, whom you have mentioned, spoke in an atmosphere of a certain public pressure and in conditions of a crisis. The situation was different. Unlike Ms Merkel, who spoke in the presence of and for the media, Mr Kohl spoke calmly, freely expressing his views not just in the absence of the media but also in the absence of his interpreter whom he had sent away. That is why I proceed from the assumption that he was speaking absolutely sincerely.

Fyodor Lukyanov: One more question, if I may, on the same subject raised by Glenn and mentioned by you. In the neighbouring countries the population is growing, and in your remarks, you mentioned migration flows. This has been a very hot topic lately, including in our country.

Do you see this as part of Eurasian security? Do you discuss this with your Eurasian colleagues?

Vladimir Putin:Yes, certainly, we discuss this frequently.

I have already said that unemployment is at its all-time low today at 2.4 percent. In fact, this amounts to full employment. We have a labour shortage. And of course, we need labour to develop the economy.

Moreover, labour shortage is currently one of the main obstacles to our economic growth. We have half a million people or even 600,000 who can get a job in construction right now, and the industry will not notice. We need 250,000 people in manufacturing industry right now, and it would not cover all its needs either.

At the first stage we need to create conditions so that people who come to work for us are ready for this: they must have a good command of the Russian language, know our traditions – we have talked about this many times – know our laws, and not only know all of this, but be ready to abide by them.

This way, there will be no irritation or rejection on the part of our citizens; and we need, above all, of course, to focus on the interests of the people of Russia. This is absolutely obvious. I want my colleagues in the regions of the Russian Federation – the heads of regions, to hear me, as well as the law enforcement agencies.

As for the people that come to us: they must also benefit from a modern environment and live in dignity, enjoy all the benefits of civilisation in health care, education and so on. There are distortions here too. I will not go into details now, but we must work on this.

My colleagues, my friends, the leaders of the republics of the former Soviet Union and I discuss this all the time. And they themselves want to train people who would like to come and work for us, to prepare them for this kind of work in the Russian Federation.

What is needed for this? We must answer this question too. We need to create schools, we are now building schools, we are creating schools. We need to send Russian language teachers, who are in short supply and whom they would gladly accept and would accept ten times more. So here, too, the ball is to a certain extent in our court. They are ready and willing to do this. We will do this together.

However, in the future, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we need to make sure that the Russian labour market receives, first of all, people with good education, well-trained professionally – and some of the people who come to us today would stay to work at home – and that we create manufacturing facilities there that would be included in the overall value-added chain for making of certain goods. We would give them orders, they would produce certain components, and the final assembly could be either with us or with them, and then people not only in Uzbekistan, but also in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan would have jobs there, in their homeland, living in the environment of their native language, their culture. In general, we could work together this way.

To a certain extent, we need to restore the cooperation chains that we had in the Soviet Union, of course, on a new technological basis, on a new logistical basis. And then the overall system will be more sustainable, and growth rates for all participants in this process will be guaranteed. And there will not be such tension in this sphere.

We have just talked about artificial intelligence and other possibilities. We need to deal with labour shortages – of course, this is what all the experts are talking about – by relying new technological capabilities, and to adopt a new technological framework, improving performance and efficiency. I looks quite possible to me.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Mr President, something important happened yesterday, and the whole world was watching, holding its breath. The United States elected its next president. This will be already the sixth head of state for the United States on your presidential watch, but he was also the fourth. It happens, you know.

Did any of them leave any trace in your memory? Maybe you have positive or less positive memories about some of them. And whom did you enjoy working with?

Vladimir Putin:You know, they are all interesting people. I can hardly imagine a man getting the highest political office in one of the world’s leading countries while being mediocre, dumb or uninteresting.

What do I mean? In fact, domestic politics in the United States has been evolving towards more political infighting and more political tension with opponents and political rivals of the head of state using all kind of tricks to derail his agenda. Quite often, they use dirty tricks which are far removed from the kind of political culture they pretend to adhere to.

Remember all the attacks Bush had to face? He was called illiterate, not smart, or ignorant. But this was not true. We had a lot of differences and contradictions. I believe that in terms of US policy towards Russia, most of them focused all their efforts in staging what amounted to a covert intervention, once you take a general view of their actions.

However, as a person, I can tell you that George W. Bush, who was the Governor of Texas before becoming President, and was in charge of a very challenging state, a huge one, by the way – he succeeded in this position. Judging by my experience with him, he is just as smart as anyone in this room, no matter what they say about his low IQ, etc., and he was just as smart as any of his political rivals. And I know this for a fact, since I talked to him in person, and I spent a night at his ranch in Texas. I also met his parents many times who invited me to their home, and they visited me too.

Here is what I can tell you: when I talked to his father, who was former President of the United States too, but when we talked he was no longer President, of course – he told me quite honestly and in a calm voice: “We made a big mistake when we decided to stonewall the Moscow Olympics. This prompted Russia to do the same with our Olympics. This did not make any sense.” This is what he told me face-to-face: “This was nonsense, and a big mistake. Why are we doing all this?”

But so what? This did not change anything. Faced with outside pressure, the International Olympic Committee literally turned into a circus. They have gone the whole nine yards in transforming the Olympic movement into a marketing ploy, and are destroying it with their own hands.

But that is not what I am getting at – I am not talking about that now, I am talking about the people I have had to work with. Each of them is a remarkable person. They reached as high as they did for a reason.

Fyodor Lukyanov: What is the next President like from this point of view?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you can regard him in any way you like. After all, at the outset – during his first presidential term – everyone said that he was mainly a businessman and that he did not understand much about politics, that he could make mistakes.

But, first, I can tell you: his behaviour when he faced an assassination attempt really impressed me. He turned out to be a courageous man. And it was not just the raised hand and the call to fight for their shared ideals. It was not just that, although, of course, this was more of a reflex. A man shows himself in extraordinary conditions – this is where a man shows himself. And he showed himself, in my opinion, in the right way: he showed his courage, as a man.

As for politics during his first term in office, I do not know whether what I say reaches him, but still I will say it now. I am saying this absolutely sincerely: I have the impression that he was hounded from all sides, that they would not let him do anything. He was afraid to take a step to the left, to the right, to say an extra word.

I do not know what will happen now, I have no idea: this is his last term after all, so it is up to him to make his choices. But what has been said publicly so far is mostly… I do not want to comment now on what was said during the presidential campaign, I think it was said consciously trying to win votes, but whatever. And what has been said in terms of trying to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion at least deserves attention.

Availing myself of this opportunity, I would like to congratulate him on his election as President of the United States of America. I have already said that we will work with any head of state who has the trust of the American people. We will live up to this pledge.

Fyodor Lukyanov: And if he fulfils everything that he has been talking about all the time, and if calls you before the inauguration and says: “Vladimir, let us meet”?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I do not think it would be shameful for me to call him. I do not do this because there was a time when the leaders of Western countries have been calling me almost every week, and then suddenly they stopped. If they do not want to do it, so be it. As you can see, we are alive and well, and are developing, moving ahead.

If someone of them wants to resume contacts, I have always said and I want to say again: we have nothing against it. We are ready to resume our contacts and have discussions. But there are many people willing to have discussions, there is a whole audience here, but if not, we will have a discussion with you then.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Does this mean that you are ready to have discussions with Trump?

Vladimir Putin:We are ready, of course.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Good.

Well, since Trump is not in this room, I suggest that we have a discussion with those who are here. Let us start with Professor Feng Shaolei.

Feng Shaolei: Mr President.

I am very glad to see you once again. First, I want to convey the gratitude on behalf of my Chinese colleagues for the brilliant organisation of the Kazan Summit by our Russian friends.

I also want to say a big thank you to you for personally supporting our club, including for this lively and interactive discussion.

I have recalled that eight years ago at this forum I had the honour of asking you: what are your thoughts on the relationship between Russia, the United States and China? Your answer was spot on: you said that they should be mutually respectful and mutually beneficial. Eight years have passed since that time. There are so many changes taking place around the world. On the one hand, there is all this competition, and all these terrible sanctions. But, on the other hand, China has been there for Russia as its strategic partner, and there has been a lot of positive momentum in developing cooperation within BRICS.

Here is my question: what is your assessment of the current and future development of the Russia-China strategic partnership?

Second, will it be possible to bring relations between Russia, the United States and China back to normal in the new environment?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding relations between Russia and the Chinese People’s Republic, they have reached a historical high and are based on mutual trust, which is something we lack in our relations with other countries, above all with Western countries. I have already said why.

I know, if we had representatives here of those whom I am targeting in my remarks, they would have presented a lengthy list of claims against Russia and against me. But this is not the point right now. I just want to say that the level of trust between Russia and China is at its highest point in recent history. And this, precisely this, and our personal, friendly – genuinely friendly – relations with President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, offers a solid foundation for enabling our two countries to forge closer ties.

I will not go into details now but still, 240 billion in trade does not make you the biggest trade partners, but it is still the fourth largest trade balance among China’s major trade and economic partners. This is quite a result already, and also a very important fact. And we really complement each other well. We started with energy, including nuclear energy. As our technological capabilities grow, we share these technologies, this is very important, and this importance is growing. Therefore, we are expanding our cooperation across the board, the palette of our capabilities, focusing more and more on high technology in all kinds of domains.

China has achieved a lot. I have already said – I do not remember if I mentioned this here during the previous session – but at other events I said that our experts believe that China has adopted and developed an economic model organically, based on its needs. This model has proved to be much more effective compared to many other leading economies around the world. Let us admit that Chinese specialists have been able to combine economic planning with a market economy, while at a political level, our friends have managed not to stand in the way of these specialists and let them do their job. This is very important. And the results are there. This goes to say that the Chinese economy outperforms other economies despite a slight deceleration in terms of growth rates lately.

Unfortunately, the United States adopted a double containment policy by trying to contain and deter both China and Russia. Why do they need this, considering that they have to focus on two fronts at the same time? Of course, it is clear that the United States views China’s growing economic might as a threat, a threat to their dominance.

In my opinion, if they want to work and be effective in their efforts, these are the wrong methods. They must change them. They need to prove that they have an edge through fair and open competition, which would enable the United States to trigger its internal resources and development drivers. But what has the United States been doing? It has been undermining its own development with all these bans and restrictions. It seeks to ban Chinese goods or Chinese technology on the US market. But what will come out of this? Higher inflation and higher manufacturing costs. This will be the result – nothing more.

As for our interactions, our cooperation with the People’s Republic of China can be quite complementary in the sectors where the United States has been trying to contain China.

For example, we started with the energy sector. And there has been a lot of momentum in the oil and gas sector, and in the nuclear industry too. We are proactively working together to build new units at nuclear power plants, and on oil and gas deliveries too. All this contributes to China’s efforts to achieve its energy security in a reliable and sustainable manner. In fact, we are neighbours, so there is no one who could stand in our way – no storms, or efforts to close down navigation routes. Nothing can stand in the way of our cooperation, since we share the same border. This way, we can guarantee supplies today and in the future.

I think that everyone would win and there would be no losers if the United States, for example, changes course in the way it treats both Russia and China by moving away from its double containment policy towards a trilateral cooperation framework.

Fyodor Lukyanov: There was another question on the topic of trilateral cooperation.

Vladimir Putin:This is what I have just said in the end of my reply. You missed my point.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Sorry, I got distracted.

Vladimir Putin: You had something else on your mind.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I believe General Salik from Pakistan had a question; I saw him raise his hand.

Naeem Salik: Thank you very much, Mr President.

My question is about the stability between the global powers. The New START Treaty is expiring in February 2026, and there appear to be no chances of its renewal or extension. No other treaty is being negotiated.

How do you see, at the end of this agreement, maintaining the stability of relations between the global powers?

Vladimir Putin: As you know, we have never turned away from continuing dialogue on strategic stability. It is no secret – this is well known not just in this room, but worldwide – that the United States and, if I may say, its satellites (there is no other way to call these leaders in present-day conditions) are following a course set from overseas with respect to Russia, often against their own interests. The United States has made it its goal to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.

What does it mean to inflict a strategic defeat on a particular country? If it does not mean destroying that country, then perhaps it is about reducing it to an insignificant role. In that case, why do we need nuclear weapons? And yet, they say they want to engage in dialogue with us on strategic stability. How does that add up? And they are presumably rational, mature leaders. We are open to dialogue, but under current conditions, there are numerous complexities to consider.

Your colleague from China just raised a question about the dynamics within the Russia-China-US triangle. I deliberately chose not to delve deeply into this topic and opted to keep issues of international security outside the scope of my response.

Cooperation between Russia and China is a key factor in ensuring international stability in general but it also concerns strategic stability in the sphere of nuclear weapons. For years, we have been urged to “work with your friends in China” and get them involved in discussions about reducing their nuclear arsenals. In response, our Chinese counterparts have said, “What are you talking about? We have fewer carriers and warheads. What is there to reduce? Either you reduce your arsenal to our level, or we increase ours to match yours, and then we can discuss reductions together.” It is a logical stance, right? Anything else is simply nonsensical.

At the same time, we observe the nuclear arsenals of NATO countries, aside from the United States, expanding – specifically those of the United Kingdom and France. They are not merely growing; they are undergoing qualitative changes. Not so long ago, I was told, ”NATO is not a military political alliance; it is first and foremost a political alliance, and only secondarily, a military one.“ However, we see this is not the case. Indeed, the United States, whether intentionally or not – I suspect, intentionally – has shifted the military aspect of NATO back into the spotlight, collectively declaring their intention to inflict a strategic defeat upon us. And how can we overlook the nuclear arsenals of the UK and France?

This issue today is not straightforward; it is even more complex than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Yet, we recognise our responsibility as a nation. In terms of our capabilities, the number of carriers and warheads, and the quality of our modern weaponry, which we are enhancing – we are now on the brink of deploying our latest advancements, developments I mentioned five years ago, with tests nearing completion – we all understand this. In general, we stand ready for dialogue. However, it is imperative that the other side approaches it with honesty, considering all facets of our relations.

It is untenable to claim that while they aim to inflict a strategic defeat upon us, they simultaneously reassure their citizens, ”Everything is fine, business as usual. Don't worry, don't give it a second thought.“ It simply won't wash: a strategic defeat for us, yet they dismiss it as inconsequential. So, let us lay our cards on the table, engage in a calm, business-like discussion, free of double, triple, or indeed quintuple standards. We have suggested this numerous times. But each time we attempt to engage substantively, the conversation stalls. We shall see how the new administration will articulate its proposals, if any, on this matter.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you mentioned a demonstration of the latest developments. Are there any state-of-the-art innovations in the pipeline?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, new developments are continually emerging. Just yesterday, I had a conversation with one of the heads of our major concerns, and he shared his ideas in this area. However, it is simply premature to discuss this further at this stage.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Professor Nogueira, Brazil, in the first row.

Paulo Nogueira Batista: Thank you for the opportunity. I am Paulo Nogueira Batista from Brazil.

I would like to ask you, Mr President, if you could expand a little on two topics you touched upon in your presentation and comments: BRICS and the US dollar.

What role do you see for BRICS in constructing alternatives to the unreliable and dysfunctional dollar system? Russia proposed during its 2024 chairmanship of BRICS a detailed, interesting proposal for a new system of cross-border payments based on national currencies.

How do you see this discussion going forward? Are you confident that we can move forward on this basis?

My second point is a more difficult one. Don’t you agree that payments in national currencies have a limit and that we ultimately must move step-by-step, gradually and carefully towards new means of payment and a new reserve currency? President Lula, by the way, made this point in his statement to the Kazan Summit, and I would like to hear your views on that.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, my position is based on the recommendations of our experts, and I have complete trust in them. They are undoubtedly world-class professionals. I have already discussed our proposal in detail. When an idea is presented, my role is to promote these ideas within the country, among experts, the Government, and the Central Bank, to ensure it is formalised appropriately. Once I have a clear understanding of the discussion, I present these ideas to our partners.

I presented one of these ideas to President Lula, and he expressed interest. He welcomed our experts to Brazil at a very high level, inviting representatives from the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance, as well as almost the entire economic team. Our colleagues and friends in Brazil were genuinely engaged. Now, let me briefly explain what we are discussing.

We adopted a similar approach with other BRICS countries. I had productive discussions with nearly all the leaders, and in general, everyone found these ideas appealing.

So, what exactly are we proposing? What is new? We suggest establishing a new investment platform utilising electronic assets and advancing their development. Specifically, we are talking about creating an electronic payment platform designed to facilitate investments in emerging markets, particularly in South Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America.

Let me reiterate our reasoning. We believe this is necessary due to significant demographic trends occurring in these regions: population growth and capital accumulation. Urbanisation remains relatively low, but it is certain to increase. As urbanisation expands, new economic growth centres will emerge, and people in these areas will strive to improve their living standards, with governments likely to follow suit in supporting these efforts.

In our view, these regions of the world will experience the highest growth rates. We believe that countries like China, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, some other countries will also see growth, but the regions I mentioned earlier will demonstrate much faster and more significant growth. They will require investments, technology, and skilled personnel. We are confident that by leveraging new investment opportunities and a new platform, we can help meet these needs.

Moreover, we can make these digital tools almost inflation-free, because in case of an oversupply we can withdraw some of them, and if there is a shortage, we can issue more and regulate them with the help of oversight on the part of central banks and the BRICS New Development Bank. The BRICS New Development Bank senior executives liked this idea as well.

There are different opinions, different approaches. Overall, some have more interest in these ideas, others less, but we agreed to create a working group at the expert level, at the government level. We will be addressing this issue now at the government level. We are in no hurry.

This is not a response to ongoing events. It is not even our way to counteract financial restrictions. I will say more about that later. No, it is just an idea for organising our work on promising and fast-growing markets. This applies to BRICS countries and beyond. We see this as an investment opportunity and an opportunity to tap into these markets, and for them, an opportunity to take advantage of our capabilities.

If it is impossible to do it any other way, we will rely solely on promising projects which we will implement and have them pay us back. This mechanism can be launched, and it will work well, we believe.

Speaking of today, the use of national currencies is already yielding positive results. For example, two-thirds of Russia’s trade and 88 percent of BRICS countries’ trade are now conducted in national currencies.

We are discussing ways to use digital tools for financial information exchange between our countries' central banks known as BRICS Bridge system which we discussed at the expert level with all our BRICS partners. The second system, also within BRICS, is for stock exchange settlements. I think this is the best solution today. This is what we are working on and should focus on in the near future.

I have heard a lot of discussions at the expert and journalistic levels about the need to consider creating a single currency. However, it is too early to talk about that, and it is not a goal we have set for ourselves. To even consider a common currency, we would first need to achieve a higher level of economic integration among our countries. Secondly, the quality of our economies must reach a certain level, ensuring they are similar and compatible in terms of structure and performance. Anything beyond that would be unrealistic and could even be harmful. Therefore, there is no need to rush into this.

I would like to conclude by reiterating something I often emphasise when answering questions like this. We never aimed to abandon the dollar, nor do we have such an intention. It is the political and financial authorities of the United States or Europe when they refuse to accept payments in euros. The euro has yet to establish itself as a global currency, and yet, they are undermining it themselves. It is absurd.

The issue with Europe is that economic decisions are often made by politicians who, unfortunately, lack expertise in financial economics. This harms their countries. As for us in Russia, we are not abandoning the dollar, nor did we ever intend to. We have simply been denied the use of the dollar as a payment method. If they choose to deny us, so be it. However, I believe this is a terrible mistake by the US financial authorities, because the strength of the US today is built on the dollar. And yet, they are cutting off the very foundation of their own power.

It seemed to me that the dollar is like a sacred cow, something that should never be disturbed. But no, they have taken it into their own hands and essentially cut off its horns, stopped taking care of it, and instead are exploiting it recklessly. What is this? Yet, it is their own doing. Payments in dollars have not declined drastically around the world just yet, nor has its role as a means of accumulation been significantly reduced. However, even among their closest partners, the use of the dollar is slowly diminishing, and this is becoming a clear trend. They are bringing this upon themselves.

We are not engaged in a battle, our proposals are not set against the dollar. In response to the challenges of our time, in response to new trends in the global economy, we are thinking about creating new instruments. First and foremost, as I mentioned earlier, our goal is to create a system, use the systems already developed in each country, that facilitates the exchange of financial information, and we will develop the instruments I have mentioned.

Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Aleksandar Raković, Serbia

Aleksandar Raković: Mr President, I am Aleksandar Rakovic, a historian from Belgrade, Serbia. It is my honour to see you, listen to you and talk to you again. My question for tonight for you is this: according to your opinion, what are the state and individual mechanisms that Russians, Serbs and other people around the globe must use to defend our traditional values and protect ourselves and our identities from the invasive and imposing Western ideology that we saw this year at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding what transpired at the opening ceremony, to be honest, I didn't watch it at first. But then, I was informed that something noteworthy was happening, so I took a look. Frankly, I am at a loss as to what the organisers aimed to achieve, or why the International Olympic Committee permitted it. It was undeniably insulting to millions of devout Christians. Why is there a need to insult anyone, to affront their religious feelings? Those responsible might claim they did not mean any insult and see nothing insulting in their actions.

Yet, similar situations arise for followers of Islam when the Quran is burned or when illustrations, including comics of the Prophet, are published under the guise of freedom of expression. I shall reiterate what I have often stated: the freedom of one individual or society ends where another's begins. For if you feel like you can insult someone, insult their religious beliefs, and declare, ”This is my freedom; I do as I please,“ this logic could dangerously extend to acts as grave as murder – ”I want to kill.“ ”I want to kill.“ Off he goes and kills. ”This is my freedom in action.“ Is that justifiable? It's utter nonsense, of course.

People seem to have a lack of boundaries, or as we say, ”they don't see the limits.“ If you've got a vision, by all means, pursue it. But if you realise it might insult someone else, then perhaps it's best to hold back. It's that simple – a straightforward rule.

They seem to think it's acceptable to behave in such a manner. This is akin, by the way, to allowing men to compete in women's sports, which effectively undermines women's athletics. In my view, and I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, some sports don't seem suited for women. I apologise if this offends women, and some might argue I'm mistaken. Fair enough, that's a separate discussion.

However, if women choose to participate in these sports –weightlifting, boxing, wrestling, for instance – let them compete amongst themselves. When a man, claiming to be a woman, enters the fray and dominates, even breaking noses, it essentially kills women's sports. Soon, it will be increasingly difficult for women to compete anywhere. It's all rather nonsensical.

Let those individuals compete amongst themselves. Those who identify as women, let them participate in their own category at the Olympic Games. Similarly, those who possess medical certificates indicating lifelong ailments and thus use performance-enhancing drugs, let's establish a separate competition for them. It's quite simple, really. What's the problem? It doesn't offend anyone, by the way.

And how should we safeguard our values? By employing all means at our disposal.

Wang Wen: My name is Wang Wen, I am from Chongyang Institute, Renmin University of China. I am so glad to see you again. My question is about Russia’s China policy in the coming four years, as well as the changes in the future international system, because we know that Trump is back.

Just imagine, if one day President Trump calls you and asks to join forces to compete with China, how would you respond? Would you accept President Trump’s suggestion about uniting with Russia and resisting China?

My second question is about the future international system, because you often mention that the international system is undergoing fundamental change.

So, in your view, what will the international order and framework look like in the future?

And in your view, in the future international order and system, what roles should Russia, China and the United States act upon in the future?

How do you propose to coordinate the relationship among Russia China and the United States? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin:I will try to keep my answer brief. First, our cooperation and friendship with China are not directed against any other country, including the United States. Our relations with China are focused on fostering the development of our countries and ensuring the security of nations.

The same approach applies to our relationship with the United States. I find it unlikely that such a question would come from the President-elect, as I believe he understands that it does not reflect the current realities we face. Russia does not align with anyone against others. This would be especially unrealistic regarding China, with whom we have reached an unprecedented level of mutual trust, cooperation, and friendship, as I have mentioned before.

I believe that countries like China and Russia, which share thousands of kilometres of border and a deep history of coexistence within a shared region, possess a significant legacy of common values despite cultural differences. This is an extraordinary achievement that we should actively build upon today, preserving and strengthening it for future generations.

Regarding the possibility of restoring relations with the United States, we are open to it. However, much depends on the United States, as we have not damaged our relationship with them, nor have we imposed restrictions or sanctions against them. We have never contributed to fuelling armed conflicts near their borders, nor have we ever been striving for this. I want to emphasise that we never allowed ourselves to do things like that.

It remains unclear why the United States feels justified in doing otherwise. I hope they will eventually recognise that such things should not be done if we wish to prevent global conflicts.

The US President-elect, Mr Trump, has expressed similar sentiments. We will have to see how this will play out in practice, given that the presidency in the United States is influenced by certain established commitments and the interests of those who supported his path to power.

Jacques Chirac once told me, “What kind of democracy are we really talking about in the United States? Without a billion dollars in your pocket, you should not even think about running in elections, let alone actually participate.” That is the reality. And those who provide these billions naturally play a role in shaping the future team. If they back someone, they are able to influence those they supported as part of that team.

It is crucial for an elected leader to effectively establish contact not only with influential groups and the so-called deep state, but also with the public, with the voters themselves. If the leader fulfils promises made to the people, their authority strengthens, enabling them to become a more independent political figure, even in dealing with the influential groups that supported their coming to power. This is a highly complex process.

What will happen in the United States is something neither you nor I can predict. However, I sincerely hope that our relations with the United States will eventually be restored. We remain open to this possibility.

Please.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

You mentioned Japan. Please, Mr Abiru.

Taisuke Abiru: Thank you. Taisuke Abiru, Sasakawa Peace Foundation.

Let me ask a similar question, but also related to Japan. The strategic situation in East Asia is getting increasingly tense, primarily due to the strategic rivalry between the United States and China. Russia is clearly on China’s side in this rivalry. The frequency of joint military exercises between Russia and China has noticeably increased in the region.

On the other hand, Asia is a region that has many values, and Russia’s strategic interests there should not be limited to relations with China. How is Russia trying to reconcile two challenges: on the one hand, its position in the US-China standoff in East Asia, and the preservation of space for Russia’s strategic multilateral interests in this region?

One more thing: How would you assess the future of Russian-Japanese relations in this strategic context, say, in five years?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, the situation in East Asia is not getting any calmer or more stable, but China has nothing to do with it. Of course, China is our closest partner, our friend, but I will try to be reasonable.

Is China creating any blocs? I am not trying to be China’s advocate here, but I understand that there are many interior problems there, but there are always problems between neighbours. We know – there is no secret here – that there are certain tensions on the Chinese-Indian border, but people with experience and skills who think about the future of their nations look for compromises and find them, like the Prime Minister of India and the President of China are doing now. They are having a dialogue, in Kazan at the BRICS summit as well, and I hope this will have a positive impact on the future development of Chinese-Indian relations.

As for the overall situation in East Asia: is China creating blocs there? It is the United States that is creating blocs: one bloc, a second, a third. NATO is formally interfering. Nothing good happens when closed military-political blocs are created under the obvious leadership of one major country. As a rule, all other countries work in the interests of this state, which creates these blocs. Let those who agree with everything so easily think about it.

Should issues arise – and neighbours always have issues – the goal is for the leaders of these countries to always strive to muster their strength, courage, and patience, as well as willingness to push for a compromise at the regional level, without resorting to external interference. If this attitude gains momentum, such compromises can always be arrived at.

Considering this, accusing China of harbouring aggressive intentions at a time when it is not China but rather the United States is creating aggressive blocs, appears to be an entirely flawed approach.

Now, with regard to the idea that Russia has sided with China rather than with those who are creating these blocs. Well, of course, we are on China’s side. First, because of what I mentioned earlier: we do not believe that China is pursuing an aggressive policy in that region.

Taiwan is the focal point of many developments that are unfolding in the region. Everyone formally agrees that Taiwan is part of China. But in practice, they are acting in a completely opposite manner and stoking tensions. Why? Is it not for the same reason they provoked the crisis in Ukraine? Are they not seeking to instigate a crisis in Asia and then tell everyone else, “Get over here! You need me to cope with this.” Perhaps, this is the logic that underlies the events in Asia as well?

That is why we support China. We believe it pursues an absolutely balanced policy, and China is our ally. Our trade volume is substantial, and we maintain cooperation in the sphere of security.

You mentioned that we are conducting exercises. Yes, we are. But is the United States not conducting regular exercises with Japan and other countries?

I pointed out once that we have not been using our strategic aviation since the late 1990s. It no longer made long flights in the neutral zone, at a time where the United States continued to do so. We watched, we watched, and we watched it until eventually we resumed our strategic aviation flights.

The same is true in this case: the United States has been conducting exercises there endlessly, and eventually we, Russia and China, started conducting exercises as well. Exercises pose no threat to anyone and are conducted with the sole purpose of ensuring our security. We believe they are a proper tool to stabilise the situation in Asia and around the globe.

The countries in that region have nothing to fear. To reiterate, our cooperation with China in general and in the military and military-technical fields, among others, is aimed at strengthening our security and is not directed against third countries.

Regarding Japan and our bilateral relations, I shall reiterate what I conveyed to your colleagues: we have not deteriorated our relations with Japan. Have we, in recent times, committed any transgressions against Japan? We have been engaged in negotiations, endeavouring to resolve the challenging matter of the peace treaty.

Incidentally, there were questions concerning potential compromises based on the Declaration of 1956, which the Soviet Union had ratified. However, it was subsequently renounced by the Japanese side. Still, at Japan's request, we revisited this Declaration and resumed our dialogue. Admittedly, it was no facile task, yet we listened to our partners and contemplated how to proceed based on the Declaration of 1956.

Then, quite unexpectedly, Japan imposed sanctions against us, positioning Russia as a threat – third or fourth on their list. What threat do we pose? Why are we perceived as a threat by Japan? Sanctions were imposed. What grievance have we caused you? Why such measures? Merely because of a directive from Washington? You might have simply replied, ”Hi, guys, we’ll think about it,“ without offending your partner, your ally. Was it imperative to comply without question? Why did you do that? I find it perplexing.

Thankfully, there remain astute individuals in Japan: they persist in cooperation, particularly within the energy sector. They do not forsake our companies and recognise the reliability of our engagements. Despite Japan's imposition of certain sanctions, we have refrained from retaliation. Japanese enterprises have collaborated with us and continue to do so; they wish to maintain this partnership, and thus they shall.

We now observe indications even from American companies that they wish to re-enter our market. They may return, albeit under new conditions and with inevitable losses. However, this is not our fault.

We stand prepared to cultivate relations with Japan for the ensuing five years and indeed the next fifty. Japan is inherently our partner, being our neighbour. Our shared history has seen varied epochs, including both tragic chapters and those of which we can take pride.

We in Russia love Japan; we love Japanese culture, we love Japanese cuisine. We have not dismantled anything. You may draw your own conclusions, and we shall not engage in tomfoolery or assign undue blame. We are ready; we welcome your return, and that is all.

That is all, I believe there is nothing more to add.

To be continued.

Russia Showed Its Doom’s Day Weapon In Action

$
0
0

 Russia Showed Its Doom’s Day Weapon In Action

 https://southfront.press/russia-showed-its-dooms-day-weapon-in-action/

 

Illustrative Image


On November 21, the modern warfare entered its new stage. The war between Russia and the West has changed forever. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation launched their advanced medium-range ballistic missile.

The missile struck the State Factory “Production Union Pivdennyi Machine-Building Plant named after O.M. Makarov”, officially abbreviated as Pivdenmash or Yuzhmash in the city of Dnipro (Dnepropetrovsk). According to local reports, the large industrial facility suffered strategic destruction. All communications and traffic were blocked in the area, a lot of ambulances arrived on the spot. Officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) came to the area. The scale of destruction is likely to be shown by the satellite imagery soon.

The Ukrainian military claimed that Kinzhal missiles were also used in the attack. Another Patriot system was reportedly destroyed on the outskirts of the city before the main blow.


https://s5.cdnstatic.space/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/strike-1.mp4?_=1

Download video

Moscow showed its Doom’s Day weapon in action. The RS-26 Rubezh ballistic missile was reportedly launched from the Kapustin Yar test site in Astrakhan Oblast. The flight time to the target located about 800 kilometers away is estimated to be less than 5 minutes. The speed of the combat units at the final stage of the flight was about 5-7 kilometers per second.

The RS-26 Rubezh is a ballistic missile of medium range, which is normally designed to carry nuclear warhead. It was developed by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering as part of the Avangard program. It was created on the basis of the RS-24 Yars. Information about this mobile missile system, like its rocket, is completely classified.

The RS-26 reportedly has a starting weight of about 40-50 tons and is capable of delivering 4 separate combat units at a distance of 2,000 to 6,000 kilometers. Its warhead is three times larger than the Iskander’s warhead. Accordingly, it is much more powerful.

It has an advanced protection against the missile defense system and reportedly four individual thermonuclear warheads with a capacity of 150-300 kilotons each. No foreign air defense system is reportedly able to intercept it.

 

https://s5.cdnstatic.space/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/strike-2.mp4?_=2

The Rubezh missile is aimed at carrying out nuclear strikes but in apparently in today’s attack the combat units were equipped with metal blanks. The published footage drom Dnipro shows the kinetic effect of the use of such ammunition. It is possible that the rocket was equipped with a Avangard-R hypersonic glider.

 

The footage also shows that the launched rocket had 6 combat units with 6 warheads in each. It is possible that the Russian military used its secret RS-27 or Yars missiles of the same type.

 https://s5.cdnstatic.space/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/zakh.mp4?_=3

Download video

 

Moscow does not officially comment on the strikes but Russian diplomacy played well the media game that Kiev and its Western patrons imposed. LINK After the strikes, the spokeswomen of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mariya Zakharova held a media briefing, during which she had a ‘surprise’ call. Everyone clearly heard that the strikes reported by the media should not be commented. Thus, this was unofficial confirmation of the attack.

Apparently, Moscow warned the NATO countries about the impending strike in advance. That is why there was hysteria in Kiev the day before. Russian revenge was not long to wait but Kyiv and its patrons were surprised by its scale, target and timing.

After today’s strikes, the world will not be the same. Showing its advanced missile systems in action, Russia has demonstrated that it possesses unique missile technologies and is ready to use them effectively. In the event of the transformation of the conflict in Ukraine into a full-scale war with NATO, such complexes can already be used with standard nuclear ammunition.

Moscow responded to the strikes with NATO missiles on Russian territory in a sophisticated manner, giving a clear sign to Western warmongers.  There is no point no point on the European map protected from attacks by such Russian missiles. Today, NATO countries have no ability to intercept them, at least over the territory of Europe.

The exact number of missiles of this type in service with the Russian military is secret. According to open sources, the Russian Federation possesses at least 200 RS-26 Rubezh and PC-24 Yars missiles, which is more than enough to deal series of devastating blows on its enemies.

Russia responded to escalation. Now the ball is in Western court. The further steps are yet to come but it is clear that the provocations, including strikes with Western cruise missiles on Russian critical military, transport and energy infrastructure will be paid at too high price.

 

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

 

ENGLISH/PORTUGUÊS -- Statement by the President of the Russian Federation/Declaração do Presidente da Federação da Rússia

$
0
0

 Statement by the President of the Russian Federation

 

November 21, 2024

20:10

The Kremlin, Moscow

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I would like to inform the military personnel of the Russian Federation Armed Forces, citizens of our country, our friends across the globe, and those who persist in the illusion that a strategic defeat can be inflicted upon Russia, about the events taking place today in the zone of the special military operation, specifically following the attacks by Western long-range weapons against our territory.

 

The escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, instigated by the West, continues with the United States and its NATO allies previously announcing that they authorise the use of their long-range high-precision weapons for strikes inside the Russian Federation. Experts are well aware, and the Russian side has repeatedly highlighted it, that the use of such weapons is not possible without the direct involvement of military experts from the manufacturing nations.

 

On November 19, six ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles produced by the United States, and on November 21, during a combined missile assault involving British Storm Shadow systems and HIMARS systems produced by the US, attacked military facilities inside the Russian Federation in the Bryansk and Kursk regions. From that point onward, as we have repeatedly emphasised in prior communications, the regional conflict in Ukraine provoked by the West has assumed elements of a global nature. Our air defence systems successfully counteracted these incursions, preventing the enemy from achieving their apparent objectives.

 

The fire at the ammunition depot in the Bryansk Region, caused by the debris of ATACMS missiles, was extinguished without casualties or significant damage. In the Kursk Region, the attack targeted one of the command posts of our group North. Regrettably, the attack and the subsequent air defence battle resulted in casualties, both fatalities and injuries, among the perimeter security units and servicing staff. However, the command and operational staff of the control centre suffered no casualties and continues to manage effectively the operations of our forces to eliminate and push enemy units out of the Kursk Region.

 

I wish to underscore once again that the use by the enemy of such weapons cannot affect the course of combat operations in the special military operation zone. Our forces are making successful advances along the entire line of contact, and all objectives we have set will be accomplished.

 

In response to the deployment of American and British long-range weapons, on November 21, the Russian Armed Forces delivered a combined strike on a facility within Ukraine’s defence industrial complex. In field conditions, we also carried out tests of one of Russia’s latest medium-range missile systems – in this case, carrying a non-nuclear hypersonic ballistic missile that our engineers named Oreshnik. The tests were successful, achieving the intended objective of the launch. In the city of Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, one of the largest and most famous industrial complexes from the Soviet Union era, which continues to produce missiles and other armaments, was hit.

 

We are developing intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in response to US plans to produce and deploy intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. We believe that the United States made a mistake by unilaterally destroying the INF Treaty in 2019 under a far-fetched pretext. Today, the United States is not only producing such equipment, but, as we can see, it has worked out ways to deploy its advanced missile systems to different regions of the world, including Europe, during training exercises for its troops. Moreover, in the course of these exercises, they are conducting training for using them.

 

As a reminder, Russia has voluntarily and unilaterally committed not to deploy intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles until US weapons of this kind appear in any region of the world.

 

To reiterate, we are conducting combat tests of the Oreshnik missile system in response to NATO’s aggressive actions against Russia. Our decision on further deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will depend on the actions of the United States and its satellites.

 

We will determine the targets during further tests of our advanced missile systems based on the threats to the security of the Russian Federation. We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against military facilities of those countries that allow to use their weapons against our facilities, and in case of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond decisively and in mirror-like manner. I recommend that the ruling elites of the countries that are hatching plans to use their military contingents against Russia seriously consider this.

 

It goes without saying that when choosing, if necessary and as a retaliatory measure, targets to be hit by systems such as Oreshnik on Ukrainian territory, we will in advance suggest that civilians and citizens of friendly countries residing in those areas leave danger zones. We will do so for humanitarian reasons, openly and publicly, without fear of counter-moves coming from the enemy, who will also be receiving this information.

 

Why without fear? Because there are no means of countering such weapons today. Missiles attack targets at a speed of Mach 10, which is 2.5 to 3 kilometres per second. Air defence systems currently available in the world and missile defence systems being created by the Americans in Europe cannot intercept such missiles. It is impossible.

I would like to emphasise once again that it was not Russia, but the United States that destroyed the international security system and, by continuing to fight, cling to its hegemony, they are pushing the whole world into a global conflict.

We have always preferred and are ready now to resolve all disputes by peaceful means. But we are also ready for any turn of events.

If anyone still doubts this, make no mistake: there will always be a response.


Português

Declaração do Presidente da Federação da Rússia


21 de novembro de 2024

20:10

Kremlin, Moscovo

Presidente da Rússia Vladimir Putin: Gostaria de informar o pessoal militar das Forças Armadas da Federação Russa, os cidadãos do nosso país, os nossos amigos em todo o mundo e aqueles que persistem na ilusão de que pode ser infligida à Rússia uma derrota estratégica, sobre os eventos que estão a ocorrer hoje na zona da operação militar especial, especificamente após os ataques de armas ocidentais de longo alcance contra o nosso território.

 

A escalada do conflito na Ucrânia, instigada pelo Ocidente, continua com os Estados Unidos e os seus aliados da NATO ao anunciarem anteriormente, que autorizam a utilização das suas armas de alta precisão de longo alcance para efectuar ataques no interior da Federação Russa. Os peritos estão bem cientes, e o lado russo já o sublinhou várias vezes, que a utilização de tais armas não é possível sem o envolvimento directo de peritos militares dos países fabricantes.

 

Em 19 de Novembro, seis mísseis balísticos tácticos ATACMS produzidos pelos Estados Unidos, e em 21 de Novembro, durante um ataque combinado de mísseis envolvendo sistemas britânicos Storm Shadow e sistemas HIMARS produzidos pelos EUA, atacaram instalações militares dentro da Federação Russa nas regiões de Bryansk e Kursk. A partir desse momento, tal como salientámos repetidamente em comunicações anteriores, o conflito regional na Ucrânia provocado pelo Ocidente assumiu elementos de natureza global. Os nossos sistemas de defesa aérea neutralizaram com sucesso estas incursões, impedindo o inimigo de atingir os seus objectivos imaginários.

 

O incêndio no depósito de munições na região de Bryansk, causado pelos destroços dos mísseis ATACMS, foi extinto sem vítimas ou danos significativos. Na região de Kursk, o ataque teve como alvo um dos postos de comando do nosso grupo Norte. Lamentavelmente, do ataque e da subsequente batalha de defesa aérea resultaram vítimas, tanto mortais como feridos, entre as unidades de segurança do perímetro e o pessoal de serviço. No entanto, o pessoal de comando e o pessoal operacional do centro de controlo não sofreu baixas e continua a gerir eficazmente as operações das nossas forças para eliminar e empurrar as unidades inimigas para fora da região de Kursk.

 

Gostaria de sublinhar mais uma vez, que a utilização de tais armas pelo inimigo não pode afetar o curso das operações de combate na zona de operações militares especiais. As nossas forças estão a avançar com êxito ao longo de toda a linha de contacto e todos os objectivos que estabelecemos serão alcançados.

 

Em resposta à instalação de armas de longo alcance americanas e britânicas, em 21 de Novembro, as Forças Armadas russas realizaram um ataque combinado a uma instalação do complexo industrial de defesa da Ucrânia. Em condições de terreno, também realizámos testes de um dos mais recentes sistemas de mísseis de médio alcance da Rússia – neste caso, transportando um míssil balístico hipersónico não nuclear que os nossos engenheiros designaram por Oreshnik. Os testes foram bem sucedidos, atingindo o objectivo pretendido com o lançamento. Na cidade de Dnepropetrovsk, na Ucrânia, foi atingido um dos maiores e mais famosos complexos industriais da era da União Soviética, que continua a produzir mísseis e outros armamentos.

 

Estamos a desenvolver mísseis de alcance intermédio e de alcance mais curto em resposta aos planos dos EUA de produzir e instalar mísseis de alcance intermédio e de alcance mais curto na Europa e na região da Ásia-Pacífico.

 

Acreditamos que os Estados Unidos cometeram um erro ao destruir unilateralmente o Tratado INF em 2019 sob um pretexto hipotético. Hoje em dia, os Estados Unidos não só estão a produzir esse equipamento, como, como podemos ver, descobriram formas de distribuir os seus sistemas de mísseis avançados em diferentes regiões do mundo, incluindo na Europa, durante exercícios de treino para as suas tropas.Além do mais, no decurso desses exercícios, estão a realizar treinos para utilizá-los.

 

Recorde-se que a Rússia se comprometeu, voluntária e unilateralmente, a não instalar mísseis de alcance intermédio e de alcance mais curto até que armas deste tipo dos EUA apareçam em qualquer região do mundo.

 

Para reiterar, estamos a realizar testes de combate do sistema de mísseis Oreshnik em resposta às acções agressivas da NATO contra a Rússia. A nossa decisão sobre a continuação da instalação de mísseis de alcance intermédio e de alcance mais curto dependerá das acções dos Estados Unidos e dos seus satélites.

 

Determinaremos os alvos durante os novos testes dos nossos sistemas de mísseis avançados baseados nas ameaças à segurança da Federação Russa.

 

Consideramo-nos no direito de utilizar as nossas armas contra instalações militares dos países que autorizam a utilização das suas armas contra as nossas instalações e, em caso de escalada de acções agressivas, responderemos de maneira idêntica e decisiva.Recomendo que as elites dirigentes dos países que estão a elaborar planos para utilizar os seus contingentes militares contra a Rússia considerem seriamente esta questão.

 

Escusado será dizer que, ao escolher, se necessário e como medida de retaliação, os alvos a atingir por sistemas como o Oreshnik em território ucraniano, sugeriremos antecipadamente que os civis e os cidadãos de países amigos que residem nessas áreas abandonem as zonas de perigo. Fá-lo-emos por razões humanitárias, aberta e publicamente, sem receio de retaliações por parte do inimigo, que também estará a receber esta informação.

 

Porquê sem medo? Porque actualmente não existem meios para contrapor essas armas.

 

Os mísseis atacam os alvos a uma velocidade de Mach 10, ou seja, 2,5 a 3 quilómetros por segundo. Os sistemas de defesa aérea actualmente disponíveis no mundo e os sistemas de defesa antimíssil que estão a ser criados pelos americanos na Europa não conseguem interceptar esses mísseis. É impossível.

 

Gostaria de sublinhar mais uma vez que não foi a Rússia, mas sim os Estados Unidos que destruíram o sistema de segurança internacional e que, ao continuarem a lutar, ao agarrarem-se à sua hegemonia, estão a empurrar o mundo inteiro para um conflito global.

 

Preferimos sempre e estamos prontos a resolver todos os diferendos por meios pacíficos.Mas também estamos prontos para qualquer mudança de orientação dos acontecimentos.

 

Se alguém ainda duvida disso, não se engane –  haverá sempre uma resposta.

 

 

 


EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: What part will your country play in World War III?

$
0
0

 

CROATIAN    ENGLISH   ESPAÑOL  GREEK  NEDERLANDS   POLSKI   PORTUGUÊS    PORTUGUÊS BR  ROMANIAN   РУССКИЙ

What part will your country play in World War III?

By Larry Romanoff

 

The true origins of the two World Wars have been deleted from all our history books and replaced with mythology. Neither War was started (or desired) by Germany, but both at the instigation of a group of European Zionist Jews with the stated intent of the total destruction of Germany. The documentation is overwhelming and the evidence undeniable. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

 

That history is being repeated today in a mass grooming of the Western world’s people (especially Americans) in preparation for World War IIIwhich I believe is now imminent. It is evident that War Clouds are gathering. The signs are everywhere, with media coverage and open talk of war in many countries. The RAND Corporation have for years been preparing military scenarios for World War III, and NATO is reported to be currently doing so. Vast movements of NATO troops and equipment are either in preparation or process to surround Russia. The US is surrounding China with military bases including the world’s largest in Guam. Both China and Russia are surrounded with nearly 400 US biological weapons labs. Iran is entirely vulnerable from the American military build-up in the Middle East.

 

Through their control of the mass media, the Jews’ Anger Campaign against China (12) (see note 13) is unrelenting, and successful, for at least the past two years filling the pages and airwaves with false atrocity tales against China, barrages of these lies occurring almost daily. These follow the same template used by the same people against Germany to stoke hatred and prepare the populations for World Wars I and II. It is the same – and based on the same kinds of liesas those used to prepare for the invasions of Iraq, Libya and Syria. These people are utilising every manner of provocation against China, including increasingly outrageous and reckless military challenges in the South China Sea and near Taiwan. The entire world is being taught to hate China, Russia, and Iran. Attempts to convert India to China’s enemy are becoming increasingly desperate.

World War III will consist of the combined forces of the US, NATO and Israel (who considers itself a world military power) provoking a conflict aimed at the final destruction of China, Russia, and Iran, the three countries that must be destroyed to satisfy the dream of building Satan’s Third Temple in Jerusalem and initiating our New World Order. That is the plan. Your belief in it is not material to its execution.

 

We cannot count on anything from the Americans because they are too stupid; arrogantly and blindly willing to function as the Bankers’ Private Army one more time,having sworn fealty to the same persons who hold ultimate control of both the CIA and Mossad. England served that purpose for a century or more, but was readily sacrificed when the bankers transferred their flag to the US. A World War will leave the US physically and financially in ruins, much as the first two wars destroyed the British Empire and left England bankrupt. These people are ruthless beyond measure; to get what they want, they will fight to the last American. But as Benjamin Netanyahu famously said, “Once we squeeze everything we want from the US, it can dry up and blow away.” And it will. But no matter because the Bankers are already transferring their flag to NATO– a supra-national military that reports to no one and that will be our official oppressor in our Brave New World.And we cannot count on the masses of Western people because they are simply pawns in these geo-political contests, few understanding the tragic pit into which they so willingly leap.

 

The British Royal Family is 100% onside. If you doubt this, ask Queen Elizabeth for a public statement that England will refuse any part in another world war. She will ignore you, as would Boris Johnson and the UK’s parliamentary cabal, since they are in the forefront of the plans. Ask Canada’s cowardly Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to resolutely state that Canada will refuse to follow the Americans into another world war. He will refuse.We cannot count on Germany; that country today is an American/Jewish colony lacking a will of its own. Much of Eastern Europe, like Australia, has been twisted and turned, stupidly believing they will be held harmless by the power of NATO when in reality they will be among the first sacrificial lambs in this Third War.Italy, France, and Spainwill almost certainly be bullied into participation; the remainder of Europe is largely irrelevant. Japan, also being an American/Jewish colony with no will of its own, plus being a major US military-operations base, will have no choice but to sacrifice itself.

There is no way to avoid the conclusion that history is indeed repeating itself, demonising yet another nation, deliberately engendering sufficient hatred and anger to justify another world war. Even confirmed Western ideologues will admit that what I have written here is true. What will be the position of your country’s government when the charge for the war cannon is finally ignited? Are you able to explain why you believe a Third World War is a good idea? If you are a European, haven’t you seen enough of war?If you are an American, hasn’t your government already killed enough innocent people? If you are a Jew, why don’t you speak out against this cabal of 300 or 400 before it’s too late?

 

Given the source of the push for a Third World War and the planned destruction of China, one is left to consider what, if anything, can be done to prevent a third worldwide holocaust. Even knowing the sources, it is hardly practical to declare war on at most a few thousand individuals scattered among perhaps ten nations.

 

I know of only one way to prevent the World War Three that is now imminent:make Israel pay for it. If in the final position of authority of one of the targeted nations, I would call in the Israeli ambassador and inform him that if my nation were forced into a war with the US, I would of course respond. However, my first retaliation would be not against the US but against Israel, that I would apply a necessary portion of my arsenal to ensure that Israel would remain uninhabitable for 500 years and that Satan’s Third Temple would never be built.It is my thesis that Israel is too important to these people to be sacrificed, and that faced with such a threat deemed credible, they would back off. With everything I know, I do not believe a third world war can be otherwise prevented.

 

 

I will of course be accused of anti-Semitism, but this is not about me; it is about a small handful of Jewish European bankers and industrialists who want a third world war to destroy the old order before the new can be installed. These people must be named and their objectives exposed. In any case, in a judicial debate of offending a few hundred people or starting a third world war, which is the greater crime?

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 150 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons)

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/+ https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at: 

2186604556@qq.com

 *

Notes

(1) https://hofs.online/david-irving-churchills-war/

(2) https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/01/13/germanys-war-chapter-4-the-allied-conspiracy-to-instigate-prolong-wwii/

(3) https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/the-war-criminal-churchill/

(4) https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/schul05.htm  

(5) “Germany is getting too strong. We’ve got to smash her.” – Winston Churchill speaking during a private lunch in 1936. Reminiscenses in 1961 of General Robert E. Wood. World War II. By Carl J. Schneider, Dorothy Schneider. Page 15.

Free Downlod of this book: https://pt1lib.org/book/728795/c85219?id=728795&secret=c85219

(6) “We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast). “This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany.” – Winston Churchill (Autumn 1939 broadcast)

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p1da79e/Following-the-Treaty-of-Versailles-Germany-was-ordered-to-pay-the-war-costs-of/

(7) “You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler of a Jesuit priest.”– Winston Churchill [1940]; Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 45); This book was published in Great Britain in 1950 under the title “Winston Churchill in war and peace.” The American version titled “Winston Churchill: British bulldog”  https://www.amazon.com/Winston-Churchill-British-bulldog-career/dp/B0006ATSO8

(8) https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/jewish-responsibility-for-both-world.html

(9) https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/zionism-hidden-tiranny-by-benjamin-h.html

(10) https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/the-jewish-declaration-of-war-on.html

(11) https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/the-jewish-betrayal-of-germany-and.html 

(12) The Anger Campaign against China; https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/08/blog-post_49.html

(13) The International Jews have some reason to resent China, which was to be dismembered and turned into a perpetual cash cow, a plan frustrated by Mao and his revolution. It was not “the British” but the International Jewish banking families, the Rothschilds, Sassoons, Kadoories, Hardoons and others that were entirely responsible for China’s 150 years-long opium travesty. Immediately after World War Two, one of Mao’s first acts was to expel all the Jews from China and confiscate all their opium assets – including all of the city of Shanghai and the Mainland Branches of the HSBC. They haven’t forgotten, and they want their money back.

 

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2021


Will Washington Destroy the World? Paul Craig Roberts

$
0
0

 Will Washington Destroy the World?

November 25, 2024

 

Will Washington Destroy the World?

Paul Craig Roberts



How is it possible not to be alarmed when the fate of humanity is in the hands of such utterly stupid people?

 

Americans who think themselves  informed because they watch CNN, read the NY Times, and listen to NPR, regard my warnings about nuclear war as disinformation, even hysteria.  They say that US government officials, such as Secretary of State Blinken and National Security advisor Jake Sullivan, are not stupid or insane.


Dear readers, you tell me how you can give permission for the US and NATO to fire missiles into Russia, especially when the Russian President has clearly stated it means the US and NATO are at war with Russia, and not be stupid and insane.  That Blinken and Sullivan gave this permission in the face of Russia revising her war doctrine and permitting nuclear weapons to be used at a lower threshold indicates that the United States has a Secretary of State and National Security Advisor who are disconnected from reality. 


All Americans, and perhaps the human population as a whole, might die as a result of these two utterly stupid men.  Both of the fools represent the military/security complex and Israel.  Neither is capable of thinking beyond the interest of the power and profit of the US military/security complex and Israel’s interest.  The military/security complex and Israel are their only constituencies.  The rest of the world is sacrificed to these two interests.


The utter stupidity of Blinken and Sullivan is matched by the American whore media, a brothel that sells itself for money. Yesterday one of the principle whores, the Washington Post, published what is without doubt  the most ignorant and stupid editorial in recorded history.  The utter fools who wrote it said that it is not worth stopping the march to Armageddon if Trump makes a bad deal: “If Trump leaves Ukraine dismembered, America will look weak and dictators will be emboldened.”


Examine this loaded language from the editors of the Washington Post and wonder how America can possibly survive. For the dumbshit Washington Post editors, it is more important to keep the war going on the road to Armageddon than to “look weak.”


What dictators will be emboldened?  Putin, elected overwhelmingly for a quarter of century by margins that not even Trump can achieve?  For the dumbshit Washington Post editors, “dictators” are those who will not subject their sovereignty to Washington’s hegemony. Who are these “dictators? They are the leaders of Russia, China, and Iran, the favorite manufactured enemies of the Israel Lobby and the American military/security complex.


Dear readers, yesterday I informed you that the new intermediate range Russian missile –created only because President Trump in his first term voided the INF Treaty that President Reagan and President Gorbachev signed, a treaty  that greatly reduced the chances of nuclear war– can be used to destroy in a very few minutes all US and NATO military assets in Europe and the Middle East without the use of nuclear warheads.


Why did President Trump make this incomprehensible mistake that shows a dangerous lack of judgment?  Because he was advised either by totally evil people or totally stupid people.  How do we know it will be any different this time?  This is what the Russian government wonders.

  

It is not enough that the Washington Post, whose stupidity is a danger to life on earth, regards understanding the Russian point of view as weakness, but also the Wall Street Journal  joins in the push toward Armageddon.  


Holman Jenkins, once a semi-intelligent person, has fed the war impulse with his acceptance on November 23 of the Biden regime’s propaganda that North Korean troops are fighting Ukrainians side-by-side with Russians.


There is no evidence that I can find that North Koreans are participating in the conflict.  They are in Russia for demonstrative reasons to show that the Russian/North Korean defense pact is real.  The purpose of the pact is to show the dumbshits in Washington that American pressure on China with regard to Taiwan can be countered with pressure on South Korea.  The low grade morons who comprise the US government are far too stupid to understand that the threat produced by their provocation of China is South Korea being overrun.


Look at America’s leaders and tremble.  Senator Lindsey Graham, a man without a brain, is ready to go to war with Russia, China, and Iran.  What does the fool think the consequences will be?  American victory? Yes. That is how stupid he is.


The United States is incapable of going to war. All of the services are demoralized by the Biden regimes DEI policies that promoted not on ability and merit,  but on the basis of dark skin, female gender, and sexual perversion.  


American weapon systems are so inferior to Russian ones that America vs. Russia is like stoneage people fighting a modern army. The majority of America’s extraordinary expensive F-35s are so defective that they are not operational. All America has is nuclear armed ICBMs. The question is whether Russia’s hypersonic missiles wipe them out before they can lift off.


What America and the world need is peace.  Washington must repudiate the Zionist neoconservatives, give up its goal of world hegemony, accept the sovereignty of other countries, and stop sanctioning them for not submitting to Washington’s hegemony. If Washington doesn’t stop doing this, America will cease to exist.  It is that simple.


Take a minute and think.  Where are there any intelligent, moral people anywhere in the American Establishment?  There are none.  That is why a leader–Donald Trump–had to be brought in from the outside. 


But what can he do?  His movement is immature. Most of his supporters think the battle is over with his election. The American Establishment remains in place.  It is institutionalized everywhere, state, local, and federal government, in the media, the corporations, Wall Street, the banking system, the universities and law schools, the public school systems, the judiciary, and in the generations of Americans taught in universities that America as presently constituted is an evil, exploitative, racist, sexist country, and that Trump is in the way of moral progress.


Where are the resources with which Trump can renew America?  The journalism schools turn out Woke journalists. The education departments turn out Woke teachers. The law schools turn out Woke lawyers. We have an educational system that produces anti-Americans who are opposed to MAGA America.

Trump has already lost his nominee for attorney general.  He might lose Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard as well.  His picks for Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, UN Ambassador, ambassador to Israel, and Middle East envoy are all Zionist allied with Israel, everyone of which is willing to go to war with Iran, whose government they define as evil.


Can Trump and his warmonger appointees accept Russia’s reincorporation of former territories of Russia back into Russia and zero possibility of any US/NATO missile sites on Russia’s borders, including the ones in Poland and Romania? If not, Trump has no prospect of ending the West’s participation in a conflict that the West initiated.


Will Putin accept more missiles fired ino Russia while he awaits Trump’s presidency to see if Washington comes to its senses?  That is  Putin’s inclination given his humanitarian character,  but the idiot West is working to shut down this restraint.  The West is doubling down on its missile attacks on Russia. France has joined Washington and the UK in green-lighting the use of its long-range missiles against Russia. The French foreign minister said no constraints should be placed on the use of the missiles. The foolish French minister added that France is open to extending an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO. What is it, if not stupidity, to ignore Russia’s warning that enough is enough and to poison the situation in order to prevent the possibility that Trump can work to defuse the dangerous situation?


Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova  said that the French minister’s comments are “not support for Ukraine, but rather a death knell for Ukraine.” Indeed, the death knell is being sounded for the world if nuclear war breaks out.


Such a war is possible, because Western leaders are completely lost in their own propaganda. The French foreign minister thinks that Europe’s security is at stake in Ukraine. “Each time the Russian army progresses by one square kilometer, the threat gets one square kilometer closer to Europe.”  How can the French foreign minister not know that Russia has no plans for an army sufficiently large to occupy Europe?  How can he not know that Russia intended its intervention in Ukraine to be confined to the Russian area of Donbas and that it is the West that is widening the war?  How can the French minister not know that Russia is focused on Russia, the BRICS, the silk road and wants no distractions in Europe.  A person has to be completely stupid to see in the Donbas intervention the unfolding of a plan to conquer Europe.


The situation that confronts us is that Western leaders have been made stupidly ignorant by their own propaganda and are incapable of realizing the real threat they have created–nuclear war.  The New York Times reports that some US and European officials have discussed providing Ukraine with nuclear weapons.  Could anything more stupidly irresponsible be done?  How is it possible that people this dangerously stupid can be Western leaders?


How is it possible not to be alarmed when the fate of humanity is in the hands of such utterly stupid people?

 

 https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/11/25/will-washington-destroy-the-world/

 


Nuclear conflict risk, Ukraine and Syria escalation: READ Lavrov’s interview with Tucker Carlson (FULL VERSION)

$
0
0

  

Nuclear conflict risk, Ukraine and Syria escalation: READ Lavrov’s interview with Tucker Carlson (FULL VERSION)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov joined the conservative American journalist to discuss recent international issues and to explain Russia’s position


Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has given an exclusive interview to conservative American journalist Tucker Carlson this week. The two talked about a wide range of topics of international concern, primarily the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the state of US-Russia relations. Here’s the full text of the conversation.

Carlson: 

Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now?


Lavrov:

I wouldn’t say so. And in any case, this is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries, especially with a great country like the United States. And President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for American history, for American achievements in the world, and we don’t see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe.

Carlson:

But the United States is funding a conflict that you’re involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself. So that doesn’t constitute war?

Lavrov:

Well, we officially are not at war. But what is going on in Ukraine is what some people call a hybrid war. I would call it a hybrid war as well, but it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they’re doing with long-range modern weapons without the direct participation of American servicemen. And this is dangerous, no doubt about this.

We don’t want to aggravate the situation, but since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are being used against mainland Russia as it were, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapon system called Oreshnik, was taken seriously.

However, we also know that some officials in the Pentagon and in other places, including NATO, started saying in the last few days something like that NATO is a defensive alliance, but sometimes you can strike first because the attack is the best defense. Some others in STRATCOM, Thomas Buchanan is his name, representative of STRATCOM, said something which allows for an eventuality of exchange of limited nuclear strikes.

And these kinds of threats are really worrying. Because if they are following the logic which some Westerners have been pronouncing lately, that don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announced their red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again. This is a very serious mistake. That’s what I would like to say in response to this question.

It is not us who started the war. Putin repeatedly said that we started the special military operation in order to end the war which the Kiev regime was conducting against its own people in parts of Donbass. And just in his latest statement, President Putin clearly indicated that we are ready for any eventuality. But we strongly prefer a peaceful solution through negotiations on the basis of respecting the legitimate security interest of Russia, and on the basis of respecting the people who live in Ukraine, who still live in Ukraine, being Russians. Their basic human rights, language rights, religious rights, have been exterminated by a series of legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament. They started long before the special military operation. Since 2017, legislation was passed prohibiting Russian education in Russian, prohibiting Russian media operating in Ukraine, then prohibiting Ukrainian media working in the Russian language, and the latest, of course there were also steps to cancel any cultural events in Russian. Russian books were thrown out of libraries and exterminated. The latest was the law prohibiting the canonic Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

You know, it’s very interesting when people in the West say we want this conflict to be resolved on the basis of the UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Russia must withdraw. The Secretary General of the United Nations says similar things. Recently his representative repeated that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions, while respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It’s a misnomer, because if you want to respect the United Nations Charter, you have to respect it in its entirety. The United Nations Charter, among other things, says that all countries must respect the equality of states and the right of people to self-determination. And they also mentioned the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and this is clear that what they mean is the series of resolutions which they passed after the beginning of this special military operation which demand the condemnation of Russia, that Russia get out of Ukraine; territory in its 1991 borders. But there are other United Nations General Assembly resolutions which were not voted on, but which were consensual, and among them is a declaration on principles of relations between states on the basis of the Charter. And it clearly says, by consensus, everybody must respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the right of people for self-determination, and because of that represent the entire population living on a given territory.

To argue that the people who came to power through military coup d’état in February 2014 represented Crimeans or the citizens of eastern and southern Ukraine is absolutely useless. It is obvious that Crimeans rejected the coup. They said, leave us alone, we don’t want to have anything with you. So we did: Donbass and Crimeans held referendums, and they rejoined Russia. Donbass was declared by the putschists who came to power a ‘terrorist group’. They were shelled, attacked by artillery. The war started, which was stopped in February 2015.

The Minsk agreements were signed. We were very sincerely interested in closing this drama by seeing the Minsk agreements implemented fully. It was sabotaged by the government which was established after the coup d’état in Ukraine. There was a demand that they enter into a direct dialogue with the people who did not accept the coup. There was a demand that they promote economic relations with that part of Ukraine. And so on and so forth. None of this was done.

The people in Kiev were saying we would never talk to them directly. And this is in spite of the fact that the demand to talk to them directly was endorsed by the [UN] Security Council. The putschists said they are terrorists, we would be fighting them, and they would be dying in cellars because we are stronger.

Had the coup in February 2014 not happened and the deal which was reached the day before between the then president and the opposition [been] implemented, Ukraine would have stayed in one piece by now, with Crimea in it. It’s absolutely clear. They did not deliver on the deal. Instead they staged the coup. The deal, by the way, provided for the creation of a government of national unity in February 2014, and holding early elections, which the then president would have lost. Everybody knew that. But they were impatient and took the government buildings the next morning. They went to this Maidan Square and announced that they had created the government of the winners. Compare the government of national unity to prepare for elections and the government of the winners.

How can the people whom they, in their view, defeated, how can they pretend that they respect the authorities in Kiev? You know, the right to self-determination is the international legal basis for the decolonization process which took place in Africa on the basis of this charter principle, the right to self-determination. The people in the colonies, they never treated their colonial powers, colonial masters, as somebody who represents them, as somebody whom they want to see in the structures which govern those lands. By the same token, the people in the east and south of Ukraine, people in Donbass and Novorossiya, they don’t consider the Zelensky regime as something which represents their interests. How can they do that when their culture, their language, their traditions, their religion, all this was prohibited?

The last point is that if we speak about the UN Charter, resolutions, international law, the very first article of the UN Charter, which the West never, never recalls in the Ukrainian context, says, “Respect human rights of everybody, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion.”

Take any conflict. The United States, UK, Brussels, they would interfere, saying, “Oh, human rights have been grossly violated. We must restore the human rights in such and such territory.” On Ukraine, never, ever have they mumbled the words “human rights,” seeing these human rights for the Russian and Russian-speaking population being totally exterminated by law. So when people say, “Let’s resolve the conflict on the basis of the Charter,” - yes. But don’t forget that the Charter is not only about territorial integrity. And territorial integrity must be respected only if the governments are legitimate and if they respect the rights of their own people.

Carlson: 

I want to go back to what you said a moment ago about the introduction or the unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system that you said was a signal to the West. What signal exactly? I think many Americans are not even aware that this happened. What message were you sending by showing it to the world?

Lavrov:

Well, the message is that you, I mean the United States, and the allies of the United States who also provide these long-range weapons to the Kiev regime, they must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call the strategic defeat of Russia.

They fight for keeping the hegemony over the world on any country, any region, any continent. We fight for our legitimate security interests. They say, for example, 1991 borders. Lindsey Graham, who visited some time ago Vladimir Zelensky for another talk; he bluntly, in his presence, said that Ukraine is very rich with rare earth metals and they cannot leave this richness to the Russians. We must take it. We fight.

So they fight for a regime which is ready to sell or to give to the West all the natural and human resources. We fight for the people who have been living on these lands, whose ancestors were actually developing those lands, building cities, building factories for centuries and centuries. We care about people, not about natural resources which somebody in the United States would like to keep and to have Ukrainians just as servants sitting on these natural resources.

So, the message which we wanted to send by testing in real action this hypersonic system is that we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests.

We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take nuclear character. Our military doctrine says that the most important thing is to avoid a nuclear war. And it was us, by the way, who initiated in January 2022 the message, the joint statement by the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council saying that we will do anything to avoid confrontation between us, acknowledging and respecting each other’s security interests and concerns. This was our initiative.

And the security interests of Russia were totally ignored when they rejected at about the same time the proposal to conclude a treaty on security guarantees for Russia, for Ukraine in the context of coexistence and in a context where Ukraine would not ever be a member of NATO or any other military bloc. These security interests of Russia were presented to the West, to NATO and to the United States in December 2021. We discussed them several times, including during my meeting with Antony Blinken in Geneva in January 2022. And this was rejected.

So we would certainly like to avoid any misunderstanding. And since the people, some people in Washington and some people in London, in Brussels, seemed to be not very capable of understanding, we will send additional messages if they don’t draw the necessary conclusions.

Carlson: 

The fact that we’re having a conversation about a potential nuclear exchange and it’s real... thought I’d never see.

And it raises the question, how much back-channel dialogue is there between Russia and the United States? Has there been for the last two and a half years? Is there any conversation ongoing?

Lavrov:

There are several channels, but mostly on the exchange of people who serve [prison] terms in Russia and in the United States. There were several swaps.

There are also channels which are not advertised or publicized, but basically the Americans send through these channels the same message which they send publicly. You have to stop, you have to accept the way which will be based on the Ukrainian needs and position. They support this absolutely pointless ‘peace formula’ by Vladimir Zelensky, which was additioned recently by [his] ‘victory plan’. They held several series of meetings, Copenhagen format, Burgenstock. And they brag that [in the] first half of next year they will convene another conference and they will graciously invite Russia that time. And then Russia would be presented an ultimatum.

All this is seriously repeated through various confidential channels. Now we hear something different, including Vladimir Zelensky’s statements that we can stop now at the line of engagement, line of contact. The Ukrainian government will be admitted to NATO, but NATO guarantees at this stage would cover only the territory controlled by the government, and the rest would be subject to negotiations. But the end result of these negotiations must be the total withdrawal of Russia from Ukrainian soil. Leaving Russian people to the Nazi regime, which exterminated all the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking citizens of their own country.

Carlson:

If I could just go back to the question of nuclear exchange. So there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States can speak to each other to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that could kill hundreds of millions of people.

Lavrov:

No. We have this channel which is automatically engaged when a ballistic missile launch is taking place.

As regards this Oreshnik hypersonic mid-range ballistic missile. 30 minutes in advance, the system sent the message to the United States. They knew that this was the case and that they don’t mistake it for anything bigger and really dangerous.

Carlson:

I think the system sounds very dangerous.

Lavrov:

Well, it was a test launch, you know.

Carlson:

Yes. Oh, you’re speaking of the test, okay. But I just wonder how worried you are that, considering there doesn’t seem to be a lot of conversation between the two countries. Both sides are speaking about exterminating the other’s populations. That this could somehow get out of control in a very short period and no one could stop it. It seems incredibly reckless.

Lavrov:

No, we are not talking about exterminating anybody’s population. We did not start this war. We have been, for years and years and years, sending warnings that pushing NATO closer and closer to our borders is going to create a problem.

In 2007, Putin started to explain [this] to the people who seemed to be overtaken by the ‘end of history’ and being dominant, no challenge, and so on and so forth.

And of course, when the coup took place, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it. There is a conversation between Victoria Nuland and the then-American ambassador in Kiev when they discuss personalities to be included in the new government after the coup. The figure of $5 billion spent on Ukraine after independence was mentioned as the guarantee that everything would be like the Americans want.

So we don’t have any intention to exterminate Ukrainian people. They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people.

Carlson:

How many have died so far, do you think, on both sides?

Lavrov:

It is not disclosed by the Ukrainians. Vladimir Zelensky was saying that it is much less than 80,000 persons on the Ukrainian side.

But there is one very reliable figure. In Palestine during one year after the Israelis started their operation in response to this terrorist attack, which we condemned. And this operation, of course, acquired the proportion of collective punishment, which is against international humanitarian law as well. So during one year after the operation started in Palestine, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is estimated at 45,000. This is almost twice as many as the number of civilians on both sides of Ukrainian conflict who died during ten years after the coup. One year and ten years. So it is a tragedy in Ukraine. It’s a disaster in Palestine, but we never, ever had as our goal killing people.

And the Ukrainian regime did. The head of the office of Vladimir Zelensky once said that we will make sure that cities like Kharkov, Nikolaev will forget what Russian means at all. Another guy in his office stated that Ukrainians must exterminate Russians through law or, if necessary, physically. Ukrainian former ambassador to Kazakhstan Pyotr Vrublevsky became famous when giving an interview and looking into the camera (being recorded and broadcast) he said: “Our main task is to kill as many Russians as we can so that our children have less things to do”. And statements like this are all over the vocabulary of the regime.

Carlson:

How many Russians in Russia have been killed since February of 2022?

Lavrov:

It’s not for me to disclose this information. In the time of military operations special rules exist. Our ministry of defense follows these rules.

But there is a very interesting fact that when Vladimir Zelensky was playing not in international arena, but at his comedy club or whatever it is called, he was (there are videos from that period) bluntly defending the Russian language. He was saying: “What is wrong with Russian language? I speak Russian. Russians are our neighbors. Russian is one of our languages”. And get lost, he said, to those who wanted to attack the Russian language and Russian culture. When Vladimir Zelensky became president, he changed very fast.

Before the military operation, in September 2021, he was interviewed, and at that time he was conducting war against Donbass in violation of the Minsk agreements. And the interviewer asked him what he thought about the people on the other side of the line of contact. He answered very thoughtfully there are people and there are species. And if you, living in Ukraine, feel associated with the Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake of your kids, for the sake of your grandkids, get out to Russia.

And if this guy wants to bring Russians and people of Russian culture back under his territorial integrity, I mean, it shows that he’s not adequate.

Carlson:

So, what are the terms under which Russia would cease hostilities? What are you asking for?

Lavrov:

Ten years ago, in February 2014, we were asking only for the deal between the president and the opposition to have government of national unity, to hold early elections, to be implemented. The deal was signed. And we were asking for the implementation of this deal. They were absolutely impatient and aggressive. And they were, of course, pushed, I have no slightest doubt, by the Americans, because if Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador agreed the composition of the government, why wait for five months to hold early elections?

The next time we were in favor of something was when the Minsk Agreements were signed. I was there. The negotiations lasted for 17 hours (well, Crimea was lost by that time because of referendum). And nobody, including my colleague John Kerry, meeting with us, nobody in the West was worried about the issue of Crimea. Everybody was concentrated on Donbass. And the Minsk Agreements provided for territorial integrity of Ukraine, minus Crimea (this was not even raised) and a special status for a very tiny part of Donbass, not for the entire Donbass, not for Novorossiya at all. Part of Donbass, under these Minsk Agreements, endorsed by the Security Council, should have the right to speak Russian language, to teach Russian language, to study in Russian, to have local law enforcement (like in the states of U.S.), to be consulted when judges and prosecutors are appointed by the central authority, and to have some facilitated economic connections with neighboring regions of Russia. That’s it. Something which President Macron promised to give to Corsica and still is considering how to do this.

And when these agreements were sabotaged all along by Pyotr Poroshenko and then by Vladimir Zelensky. Both of them, by the way, came to presidency, running on the promise of peace. And both of them lied. So when these Minsk Agreements were sabotaged to the extent that we saw the attempts to take this tiny part of Donbass by force, and we, as President Putin explained, at that time, we suggested these security arrangements to NATO and the United States, which was rejected. And when the Plan B was launched by Ukraine and its sponsors, trying to take this part of Donbass by force, it was then that we launched the special military operation.

Had they implemented the Minsk Agreements Ukraine would be one piece, minus Crimea. But even then, when Ukrainians, after we started the operation, suggested to negotiate, we agreed, there were several rounds in Belarus, and one later they moved to Istanbul. And in Istanbul, Ukrainian delegation put a paper on the table saying: “Those are the principles on which we are ready to agree.” And we accepted those principles.

Carlson:

The Minsk Principles?

Lavrov:

No. The Istanbul Principles. It was April 2022.

Carlson:

Right.

Lavrov:

Which was: no NATO, but security guarantees to Ukraine, collectively provided with the participation of Russia. And these security guarantees would not cover Crimea or the east of Ukraine. It was their proposal. And it was initialed. And the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, who is now the chair of the Vladimir Zelensky faction in the parliament, he recently (a few months ago) in an interview, confirmed that this was the case. And on the basis of these principles, we were ready to draft a treaty.

But then this gentleman who headed the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul said that Boris Johnson visited and told them to continue to fight. Then there was…

Carlson:

But Boris Johnson, on behalf of…

Lavrov:

He said no. But the guy who initialed the paper, he said it was Boris Johnson. Other people say it was President Putin who ruined the deal because of the massacre in Bucha. But they never mentioned any more massacre in Bucha. I do. And we do.

In a sense, they are on the defensive. Several times in the United Nations Security Council, sitting at the table with Antonio Guterres, I (last year and this year) at the General Assembly, I raised the issue of Bucha and said, guys, it is strange that you are silent about Bucha because you were very vocal when BBC team found itself on the street where the bodies were located. I inquired, can we get the names of the persons whose bodies were broadcast by BBC? Total silence. I addressed Antonio Guterres personally in the presence of the Security Council members. He did not respond. Then at my press conference in New York after the end of the General Assembly last September, I asked all the correspondents: guys, you are journalists. Maybe you’re not an investigative journalists but journalists normally are interested to get the truth. And Bucha thing, which was played all over the media outlets condemning Russia, is not of any interest to anyone - politicians, UN officials. And now even journalists. I asked when I talked to them in September, please, as professional people, try to get the names of those whose bodies were shown in Bucha. No answer.

Just like we don’t have any answer to the question, where is the results of medical analysis of Alexey Navalny, who died recently, but who was treated in Germany in the fall of 2020. When he felt bad on a plane over Russia, the plane landed. He was treated by the Russian doctors in Siberia. Then the Germans wanted to take him. We immediately allowed the plane to come. They took him. In less than 24 hours, he was in Germany. And then the Germans continued to say that we poisoned him. And now the analysis confirmed that he was poisoned. We asked for the test results to be given to us. They said, no, we give it to the organization on chemical weapons. We went to this organization, we are members, and we said, can you show to us, because this is our citizen, we are accused of having poisoned him. They said that the Germans told us not to give it to you. They found nothing in the civilian hospital, and the announcement that he was poisoned was made after he was treated in the military Bundeswehr hospital. So it seems that this secret is not going…

Carlson:

So how did Navalny die?

Lavrov:

Well, he died serving the term in Russia. As far as it was reported, every now and then he felt not well. Which was another reason why we continued to ask the Germans: can you show us the results which you found? Because we did not find what they found. And what they did to him, I don’t know.

Carlson:

What the Germans did to him?

Lavrov:

Yeah, because they don’t explain to anybody, including us. Or maybe they explain to the Americans. Maybe this is credible.

But they never told us how they treated him, what they found, and what methods they were using.

Carlson:

How do you think he died?

Lavrov:

I am not a doctor. But for anybody to guess, even for the doctors to try to guess, they need to have information. And if the person was taken to Germany to be treated after he had been poisoned, the results of the tests cannot be secret.

We still cannot get anything credible on the fate of Skripals - Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The information is not provided to us. He is our citizen, she is our citizen. We have all the rights and the conventions which the UK is party to, to get information.

Carlson:

Why do you think that Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the UK, would have stopped the peace process in Istanbul? On whose behalf was he doing that?

Lavrov:

Well, I met with him a couple of times, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was motivated by some immediate desire or by some long-term strategy. He is not very predictable.

Carlson:

But do you think he was acting on behalf of the US government, on behalf of the Biden administration, or he was doing this independently.

Lavrov:

I don’t know. And I wouldn’t guess. The fact that the Americans and the Brits are leading in this “situation” is obvious.

Now it is becoming also clear that there is a fatigue in some capitals, and there are talks every now and then that the Americans would like to leave it with the Europeans and to concentrate on something more important. I wouldn’t guess.

We would be judging by specific steps. It’s obvious, though, that the Biden administration would like to leave a legacy to the Trump administration as bad as they can.

And similar to what Barack Obama did to Donald Trump during his first term. Then late December 2016, President Obama expelled Russian diplomats. Just very late December. 120 persons with family members. Did it on purpose. Demanded them leave on the day when there was no direct flight from Washington to Moscow. So they had to move to New York by buses with all their luggage, with children, and so on and so forth.

And at the same time, President Obama announced the arrest of pieces of diplomatic property of Russia. And we still never were able to come and see what is the state of this Russian property.

Carlson:

What was the property?

Lavrov:

Diplomatic. They never allowed us to come and see it though under all conventions. They just say that these pieces we don’t consider as being covered by diplomatic immunity, which is a unilateral decision, never substantiated by any international court.

Carlson:

So you believe the Biden administration is doing something similar again to the incoming Trump administration.

Lavrov:

Because that episode with the expulsion and the seizure of property certainly did not create the promising ground for beginning of our relations with the Trump administration. So I think they’re doing the same.

Carlson:

But this time President Trump was elected on the explicit promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. So I mean, he said that in appearance after appearance. So given that, there is hope for a resolution, it sounds like. What are the terms to which you’d agree?

Lavrov:

Well, the terms, I basically alluded to them. When President Putin spoke in this Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 14th of June he once again reiterated that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles which were agreed in Istanbul and rejected by Boris Johnson, according to the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation.

The key principle is non-bloc status of Ukraine. And we would be ready to be part of the group of countries who would provide collective security guarantees to Ukraine.

Carlson:

But no NATO?

Lavrov:

No NATO. Absolutely. No military bases, no military exercises on the Ukrainian soil with participation of foreign troops. And this is something which he reiterated. But of course, he said, it was April 2022, now some time has passed, and the realities on the ground would have to be taken into account and accepted.

The realities on the ground are not only the line of contact, but also the changes in the Russian Constitution after referendum was held in Donetsk, Lugansk republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. And they are now part of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution. And this is a reality.

And of course, we cannot tolerate a deal which would keep the legislation which are prohibiting Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it is a violation of the obligations of Ukraine under the UN Charter, and something must be done about it. And the fact that the West (since this russophobic legislative offensive started in 2017) was totally silent and it is silent until now, of course we would have to pay attention to this in a very special way.

Carlson:

Would sanctions against Russia be a condition?

Lavrov:

You know, I would say probably many people in Russia would like to make it a condition. But the more we live under sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on yourself, and to develop mechanisms, platforms for cooperation with ‘normal’ countries who are not unfriendly to you, and don’t mix economic interests and policies and especially politics. And we learned a lot after the sanctions started.

The sanctions started under President Obama. They continued in a very big way under the first term of Donald Trump. And these sanctions under the Biden administration are absolutely unprecedented.

But what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, you know. They would never kill us, so they are making us stronger.

Carlson:

And driving Russia east. And so the vision that I think same policymakers in Washington had 20 years ago is why not to bring Russia into a Western bloc, sort of as a balance against the rising east. But it doesn’t seem like that. Do you think that’s still possible?

Lavrov:

I don’t think so. When recently President Putin was speaking at Valdai Club to politologists and experts, he said we would never be back at the situation of early 2022. That’s when he realized (for himself, apparently, not only he, but he spoke publicly about this) that all attempts to be on equal terms with the West have failed.

It started after the demise of the Soviet Union. There was euphoria, we are now part of the ‘liberal world’, democratic world, ‘end of history’. But very soon it became clear to most of the Russians that in the 1990s we were treated as - at best as junior partner, maybe not even as a partner, - but as a place where the West can organize things like it wants, striking deals with oligarchs, buying resources and assets. And then probably the Americans decided that Russia is in their pocket. Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton, buddies, laughing, joking.

But even at the end of Boris Yeltsin’s term, he started to contemplate that this was not something he wanted for Russia. And I think this was very obvious when he appointed Vladimir Putin prime minister, and then left earlier, and blessed Vladimir Putin as his successor for the elections which were coming and which Putin won.

But when Vladimir Putin became president, he was very much open to cooperation with the West. And he mentions about this quite regularly when he speaks with interviewers or at some international events.

I was present when he met with George Bush Jr., with Barack Obama. Well, after the meeting of NATO in Bucharest, which was followed by NATO-Russia summit meeting in 2008, when they announced that Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO. And then they tried to sell it to us. We asked: why? There was lunch and President Putin asked what was the reason for this? Good question. And they said this is something which is not obligatory. How come?

Well, to start the process of joining NATO, you need a formal invitation. And this is a slogan - Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO. But this slogan became obsession for some people in Tbilisi first, when Mikhail Saakashvili lost his senses and started the war against his own people under the protection of OSCE mission with the Russian peacekeepers on the ground. And the fact that he launched this was confirmed by the European Union investigation, which they launched and which concluded that he gave the order to start.

And for Ukrainians, it took a bit longer. They were cultivating this pro-Western mood. Well, pro-Western is not bad, basically. Pro-Eastern is also not bad. What is bad is that you tell people, either/or, either you go with me or you’re my enemy.

What happened before the coup in Ukraine? In 2013, the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych negotiated with the European Union some association agreement which would nullify tariffs on most of the Ukrainian goods to the European Union and the other way around. And at some point, when he was meeting with Russian counterparts, we told him, Ukraine was part of the free trade area of the Commonwealth of Independent States. No tariffs for everybody. And we, Russia, negotiated agreement with World Trade Organization for some 17 years, mostly because we bargained with European Union. And we achieved some protection for many of our sectors, agriculture and some others. We explained to the Ukrainians that if you go zero in your trade with European Union, we would have to protect our customs border with Ukraine. Otherwise the zero tariff European goods would flood and would be hurting our industries, which we tried to protect and agreed for some protection. And we suggested to the European Union: guys, Ukraine is our common neighbor. You want to have better trade with Ukraine. We want the same. Ukraine want to have markets both in Europe and in Russia. Why don’t we sit three of us and discuss it like grownups? The head of the European Commission was the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso. He responded it’s none of your business what we do with Ukraine. 

And then the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych convened his experts. And they said, yes, it would be not very good if we have opened the border with European Union, but the customs border with Russia would be closed. And they would be checking, you know, what is coming. So that the Russian market is not affected.

So he announced in November 2013 that he cannot sign the deal immediately, and he asked the European Union to postpone it for until next year. That was the trigger for Maidan, which was immediately thrown up and ended by the coup.

So my point is that this either/or. Actually, the first coup took place in 2004, when after second round of elections, the same Viktor Yanukovych won presidency. The West raised hell and put pressure on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to rule that there must be a third round. The Constitution of Ukraine says there may be only two rounds. But the Constitutional Court, under the pressure of the West, violated the Constitution for the first time then. And pro-Western candidate was chosen. At that time, when all this was taking place and boiling, the European leaders were publicly saying Ukrainian people must decide: are they with us or with Russia?

Carlson:

But it is the way that big countries behave. I mean, there are certain orbits, and now it’s BRICS versus NATO, US versus China. And it sounds like you’re saying the Russian-Chinese alliance is permanent.

Lavrov:

Well, we are neighbors. And of course geography is very important.

Carlson:

But you’re also neighbors with Western Europe. And you’re part of it, in effect.

Lavrov:

Through Ukraine the Western Europe wants to come to our borders.

And there were plans that were discussed almost openly to put British naval bases on the Sea of Azov. Crimea was eyed. Dreaming about creating NATO base in Crimea and so on and so forth.

Look, we have been very friendly with Finland, for example. Overnight, the Finns came back to the early years of preparation for World War II when they were best allies of Hitler. And all this neutrality, all this friendship, going to sauna together, playing hockey together, all this disappeared overnight. So maybe this was deep in their hearts, and the neutrality was burdening them, and niceties were burdening for them. I don’t know.

Carlson:

They’re mad about the ‘winter war’. That’s totally possible.

Can you negotiate with Zelensky? You’ve pointed out that he has exceeded his term. He’s not democratically elected president of Ukraine anymore. So do you consider him a suitable partner for negotiations?

Lavrov:

President Putin addressed many times this issue as well. In September 2022, during the first year of the special military operation, Vladimir Zelensky, in his conviction that he would be dictating the terms of the situation also to the West, he signed a decree prohibiting any negotiations with Putin’s government.

During public events after that episode, President Vladimir Putin is asked why Russia is not ready for negotiations. He said, don’t turn it upside down. We are ready for negotiations, provided it will be based on the balance of interest, tomorrow. But Vladimir Zelensky signed this decree prohibiting negotiations. For starters, why don’t you tell him to cancel it publicly? This will be a signal that he wants negotiations. Instead, Vladimir Zelensky invented his ‘peace formula’. Lately, it was complemented by a ‘victory plan’. They keep saying, we know what they say when they meet with European Union ambassadors and in other formats, they say no deal unless the deal is on our terms.

I mentioned to you that they are planning now the second summit on the basis of this peace formula, and they don’t shy away from saying, we will invite Russia to put in front of it the deal which we agreed already with the West.

When our Western colleagues sometimes say nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine in effect, this implies that anything about Russia without Russia. Because they discuss what kind of conditions we must accept.

By the way, recently they already violated, tacitly, the concept nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. There are passes, there are messages. They know our position. We are not playing double game. What President Putin announced is the goal of our operation. It’s fair. It’s fully in line with the United Nations Charter. First of all, the rights: language rights, minority rights, national minority rights, religious rights, and it’s fully in line with OSCE principles.

There is an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe which is still alive. And well, several summits of this organization clearly stated that security must be indivisible, that nobody should expand his security at the expense of security of others, and that, most important, no organization in Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance. This was last time it was confirmed by OSCE in 2010.

NATO was doing exactly the opposite. So we have legitimacy in our position. No NATO on our doorsteps because OSCE agreed that this should not be the case if it hurts us. And please restore the rights of Russians.

Carlson:

Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the United States? This is a question in the United States. Who is making these decisions?

Lavrov:

I wouldn’t guess. I haven’t seen Antony Blinken for years. When it was the last time? Two years ago, I think, at the G20 summit. Was it in Rome or somewhere? In the margins. I was representing President Putin there. His assistant came up to me during a meeting and said that Antony wants to talk just for ten minutes. I left the room. We shook hands, and he said something about the need to de-escalate and so on and so forth. I hope he’s not going to be angry with me since I am disclosing this. But we were meeting in front of many people present in the room, and I said, “We don’t want to escalate. You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia.” He said, “No. It is not strategic defeat globally. It is only in Ukraine.”

Carlson:

You’ve not spoken to him since?

Lavrov:

No.

Carlson:

Have you spoken to any officials in the Biden administration since then?

Lavrov:

I don’t want to ruin their career.

Carlson:

But have you had meaningful conversations?

Lavrov:

No. Not at all.

When I met in international events one or another person whom I know, an American, some of them say hello, some of them exchange a few words, but I never impose myself.

It’s becoming contagious when somebody sees an American talking to me or a European talking to me. Europeans are running away when they see me. During the last G20 meeting, it was ridiculous. Grown-up people, mature people. They behave like kids. So childish. Unbelievable.

Carlson:

So, you said that when in 2016, in December, the final moments of the Biden administration, Biden made the relationship between the United States and Russia more difficult.

Lavrov:

Obama. Biden was vice-president.

Carlson:

Exactly. I’m so sorry.

The Obama administration left a bunch of bombs, basically, for the incoming Trump administration.

In the last month since the election, you have all sorts of things going on politically in bordering states in this region. In Georgia, in Belarus, in Romania, and then, of course, most dramatically in Syria, you have turmoil.

Does this seem like part of an effort by the United States to make the resolution more difficult?

Lavrov:

There is nothing new, frankly. Because the US, historically, in foreign policy, was motivated by making some trouble and then to see if they can fish in the muddy water.

Iraqi aggression, Libyan adventure - ruining the state, basically. Fleeing from Afghanistan. Now trying to get back through the back door, using the United Nations to organize some ‘event’ where the US can be present, in spite of the fact that they left Afghanistan in very bad shape and arrested money and don’t want to give it back.

I think this is, if you analyze the American foreign policy steps, adventures, most of them are the right word - the pattern. They create some trouble, and then they see how to use it.

When the OSCE monitors elections, when it used to monitor elections in Russia, they would always be very negative, and in other countries as well, Belarus, Kazakhstan. This time, in Georgia, the monitoring mission of OSCE presented a positive report. And it is being ignored.

So when you need endorsement of the procedures, you do it when you like the results of the election. If you don’t like the results of elections, you ignore it.

It’s like when the United States and other Western countries recognized unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, they said this is the self-determination being implemented. There was no referendum in Kosovo - unilateral declaration of independence. By the way, after that the Serbs approached International Court of Justice, which ruled that (well, normally they are not very specific in their judgment, but they ruled) that when part of a territory declares independence, it is not necessarily to be agreed with the central authorities.

And when a few years later, Crimeans were holding referendum with invitation of many international observers, not from international organizations, but from parliamentarians in Europe, in Asia, in post-Soviet space, they said, no, we cannot accept this because this is violation of territorial integrity.

You know, you pick and choose. The UN Charter is not a menu. You have to respect it in all its entirety.

Carlson:

So who’s paying the rebels who’ve taken parts of Aleppo? Is the Assad government in danger of falling? What is happening exactly, in your view, in Syria?

Lavrov:

Well, we had a deal when this crisis started. We organized the Astana process (Russia, Türkiye and Iran). We meet regularly. Another meeting is being planned before the end of the year or early next year, to discuss the situation on the ground.

The rules of the game are to help Syrians to come to terms with each other and to prevent separatist threats from getting strong. That’s what the Americans are doing in the east of Syria when they groom some Kurdish separatists using the profits from oil and grain sold, the resources which they occupy.

This Astana format is a useful combination of players, if you wish. We are very much concerned. And when this happened, with Aleppo and surroundings, I had a conversation with the Turkish minister of foreign affairs and with Iranian colleague. We agreed to try to meet this week. Hopefully in Doha at the margins of this international conference. We would like to discuss the need to come back to strict implementation of the deals on Idlib area, because Idlib de-escalation zone was the place from where the terrorists moved to take Aleppo. The arrangements reached in 2019 and 2020 provided for our Turkish friends to control the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone and to separate the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (former Nusra) from the opposition, which is non-terrorist and which cooperates with Türkiye.

And another deal was the opening of M5 route from Damascus to Aleppo, which is also now taken completely by the terrorists. So we, as ministers of foreign affairs, would discuss the situation, hopefully, this coming Friday. And the military of all three countries and the security people are in contact with each other.

Carlson:

But the Islamist groups, the terrorists you just described, who is backing them?

Lavrov:

Well, we have some information. We would like to discuss with all our partners in this process the way to cut the channels of financing and arming them.

The information which is being floated and it’s in the public domain mentions among others the Americans, the Brits. Some people say that Israel is interested in making this situation aggravated. So that Gaza is not under very close scrutiny. It’s a complicated game. Many actors are involved. I hope that the context which we are planning for this week will help stabilize the situation.

Carlson:

What do you think of Donald Trump?

Lavrov:

I met him several times when he was having meetings with President Putin and when he received me twice in the Oval Office when I was visiting for bilateral talks.

Well, I think he’s a very strong person. A person who wants results. Who doesn’t like procrastination on anything. This is my impression. He’s very friendly in discussions. But this does not mean that he’s pro-Russian as some people try to present him. The amount of sanctions we received under the Trump administration was very big.

We respect any choice which is made by the people when they vote. We respect the choice of American people. As President Putin said, we are and we have been open all along to the contacts with the current administration. We hope that when Donald Trump is inaugurated, we will understand. The ball, as President Putin said, is on their side. We never severed our contacts, our ties in the economy, trade, security, anything.

Carlson:

My final question is: how sincerely worried are you about an escalation in conflict between Russia and the United States, knowing what you do?

Lavrov:

Well, we started with this question, more or less.

Carlson:

It seems the central question.

Lavrov:

Yes. The Europeans whisper to each other that it is not for Vladimir Zelensky to dictate the terms of the deal - it’s for the US and Russia.

I don’t think we should be presenting our relations as two guys decide for everybody. Not at all. It is not our style.

We prefer the manners which dominate in BRICS, in Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where the UN Charter principle of sovereign equality of states is really embodied.

The US is not used to respect sovereign equality of states. When the US says we cannot allow Russia to win on Ukraine because this would undermine our rules-based world order. And rules-based world order is American domination.

Now, by the way, NATO, at least under Biden administration, is eyeing the entire Eurasian continent, Indo-Pacific strategies, South China Sea, East China Sea, is already on NATO agenda. NATO is moving infrastructure there. AUKUS, building ‘quartet’ Indo-Pacific Four as they call it (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea). US, South Korea, and Japan are building military alliance with some nuclear components. And Jens Stoltenberg, the former Secretary General of NATO, last year after the summit he said that the Atlantic security is indivisible from Indo-Pacific security. When he was asked does it mean that you go beyond territorial defense, he answered - no, it doesn’t go beyond territorial defense, but to defend our territory, we need to be present there. This element of preemption is more and more present.

We don’t want war with anybody. And as I said, five nuclear states declared at the top level in January 2022 that we don’t want confrontation with each other and that we shall respect each other’s security interests and concerns. And it also stated nuclear war can never be won, and therefore nuclear war is not possible.

And the same was reiterated bilaterally between Russia and the United States, Putin-Biden, when they met in 2021 in Geneva in June. Basically, they reproduced the statement by Reagan-Gorbachev of 1987 ‘no nuclear war’. And this is absolutely in our vital interest, and we hope that this is also in vital interest of the United States.

I say so because some time ago John Kirby, who is the White House communications coordinator, was answering questions about escalation and about possibility of nuclear weapons being employed. And he said, “Oh, no, we don’t want escalation because then if there is some nuclear element, then our European allies would suffer.” So even mentally, he excludes that the United States can suffer. And this is something which makes the situation a bit risky. It might – if this mentality prevails, then some reckless steps would be taken, and this is bad.

Carlson:

What you’re saying is American policy makers imagine there could be a nuclear exchange that doesn’t directly affect the United States, and you’re saying that’s not true.

Lavrov:

That’s what I said, yes. But professionals in deterrence, nuclear deterrence policy, they know very well that it’s a very dangerous game. And to speak about limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster, which we don’t want to have.