500-YR old DYING Western Empire's HATE-AFFAIR with Putin and the World...

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113


Latest News


Home > Western Media > The "Putin Phenomenon" and Western Media: An Autopsy
Clinton Feature Media Propaganda Putin Russia USA Western Media


The "Putin Phenomenon" and Western Media: An Autopsy

October 24, 2016 -
Ruslan Ostashko, PolitRussia - translated by J. Arnoldski -

Last week was marked by some kind of epidemic that furiously drove the Western media to write critical articles about and draw evil cartoons of Vladimir Putin. Sure, this is what they do, but this time there was literally an explosion of heightened activity.
The Economist, The Spectator, and The New Yorker - this is a far from complete list of publications that placed the image of the Russian president on their covers and addressed him in their articles. To some, this might seem like a sign of global condemnation and the global isolation of Russia, but this is not so. In fact, we are witnessing what can be called the simple and succinct word “hysteria.”
Hysteria arises when the human psyche can’t withstand the collision between strong desires and the compelling, surrounding reality. For example, a child really wants a toy, but the parents refuse to buy it. If the child is ill-mannered and spoiled, then his natural reaction will be hysterical with cries and tears and sometimes even statements that his parents don’t love him.
This is about the same thing that is happening to the Western media and political elite. They really want for Putin to be gone, for him to disappear. They want the almighty Russian oligarchs to remove him and erase his memory from history.
These desires are very strong, but inflexible reality consistently shows Western politicians and the media the finger, which causes a hysterical tantrum. And additional anger is provoked by the fact that Putin does not draw rejection, but rather all the more sympathy among prospective politicians and ordinary citizens in the most different countries. Between the lines, these endless articles describing how bad and dangerous Putin is contain an appeal by Western politicians to their citizens: “Love us, not Putin! Love us, not those who are like Putin!” But without effect.
Now they’ve painted Putin with a black silhouette with red fighter jets in his eyes. What’s next?

Readers of The Economist have gathered a collection of the Putin cartoons that this journal publishes, but British journalists have failed to affect Putin's rating abroad or in Russia.
In addition, the unleashing of Putinphobia is starting to work against Western propagandists. For example, the average Westerner sees the journal The Spectator depicting a caricature of Putin with an RT logo in his hands and thinks: “Here’s a good magazine! I’ll read it at my leisure. They’re probably writing about those terrible and bad Russians!”

The ordinary Westerner goes on the magazine’s website and encounters culture shock from the article entitled “Stop this foolish saber-rattling with Russia!” in which journalist Rod Liddle writes: “It’s not their side that worries me; it’s ours.”
The journalist goes on to say how dangerous Western hypocrisy is, how dangerous the foolishness of Western politicians was in regards to Libya, Syria, Russia, and other countries, and he also shares thoughts as to what is cheaper: buying a ticket to New Zealand, which no one will bomb, or digging a bunker at home, since a nuclear war could happen soon. This example shows that Putin is not a symbol of horror. He can’t be used to scare anybody anymore, but rather only attracts attention, especially the attention of those who are tired of Western politicians.
The political elite of the US, Germany, the UK, and other countries themselves are raising Putin’s rating in ratio to their own disapproval ratings. The ordinary person often thinks of the principle “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and his own hatred and distrust of corrupt and deceitful politicians turns into support and sympathy for the Russian president.
Paradoxically, the more that the media criticizes him, the more laymen come to like him, seeing him as a superhero defying the global establishment. And it is Hillary Clinton, CNN, and The Economist that have worked on this superhero image.
Judge for yourselves. Only a superhero can bomb terrorists, drive up oil prices, hack Democratic Party servers in the US, influence American elections, and drag Ukraine away from the European path and more all at the same time.
In fact, I am 100% sure that the blame for the next wave of the global economic crisis will be at least partially put on Putin. It turns out that Western politicians have created the Putin superhero image and are now wondering: “But what audience likes this?”
People like superheroes. In a world accustomed to Hollywood drama, the Russian president can only be expected to turn into a geopolitical Batman who stands against villains, wastes them in toilets, and doesn’t leave a penny for the official world police.
From the point of view of Western politicians, who are essentially gray and tasteless products of bureaucratic machinery and political image-makers, Putin has done a terrible thing - he has shown the world that a successful politician can be totally different. He can be a patriot, a Christian, and a conservative, i.e., all the things that a Western politician is banned from being.

Putin’s success is political death for the whole generation of globalized, post-Christian, politically correct politicians and all the Clintons and Hollandes. This is why they hate Putin, and why they are failing. For world history, they have already died, but they just don’t get it
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
journal-neo.org
US Attempts to Shame Asia for “Caving to China” | New Eastern Outlook
Author: Tony Cartalucci
It is becoming clear that US influence – despite its “pivot toward Asia” – is waning across the Asia Pacific region. Washington has suffered geopolitical setbacks in virtually every nation in Asia Pacific, including those now led by regimes it has meticulously organized, funded, and backed for decades. It is also waning, however, among those nations considered long-time and crucial US allies.

This includes Southeast Asia’s Thailand, whom the US repeatedly reminds the world has been Washington’s ally since the Cold War and America’s war in Vietnam, and allegedly, even before that.

Washington’s Waning Influence is Based on Floundering Fundamentals

However, in reality, Thailand has incrementally dismantled American influence over it, and has diversified its trade and cooperation with a large variety of nations – including China – as a means of depending on ties with no single nation in particular.

Thailand’s economic trade is focused primarily within Asia, with the majority of its imports and exports divided equally between China, Japan, and ASEAN, with the West collectively representing a smaller – though not insignificant – market.

It is no coincidence that Thailand’s geopolitical ties thus reflect its economic ties around the world – revealing that economic and sociopolitical realities are driving intentional relations regardless of the vast array of “soft power” means at Washington’s disposal.

A look at Thailand’s military inventories reveals a similar strategy of diversifying weapon acquisitions and partnerships as well as developing systems through indigenous industry. What used to be a military dominated by American hardware and military exercises, is transforming with the acquisition of Chinese tanks, European warplanes, Middle Eastern assault rifles, Russian helicopters, and Thai-made armored vehicles – as well as joint drills held with a variety of nations, including for the first time, China.

A similar shift is occurring throughout the rest of Asia, with China naturally assuming a large share of regional cooperation due to its geographic, economic, and demographic size.

Asia’s transformation was entirely predictable, and despite the fact that the United States attempted to “contain” China and preserve its influence throughout the rest of Asia, it did so ignoring the fundamentals of economics and sociopolitical factors, and instead focused on coercion through “trade deals,” compromising military “alliances,” and the creation and perpetuation of artificial strategies of tension both within targeted nations and between Asian states.

More Gimmicks Instead of Fixing Fundamentals

The United States, indifferent apparently to the factors that have led to its decline in Asia Pacific, has decided to double down on “soft power” gimmicks rather than examining and improving its economic fundamentals.

This includes the use of programs aimed at co-opting cadres of “young leaders” in the region to promote US interests and attempt to reverse politically the gains Asia has made economically and geopolitically.

It also includes a relentless propaganda campaign aimed at portraying nations throughout the region as capitulating to Beijing on a variety of issues that are transparently in the entire region’s best interests.

A op-ed in the Bangkok Post – a newspaper literally created by the US government – titled, “Wong saga backfires on regime,” attempts to argue that the recent deportation of a US-funded agitator from Hong Kong back to China symbolizes Bangkok’s “caving in” to China’s “every whim.”

The article claims:

The 12-hour detention of well-known Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong at Suvarnabhumi airport has backfired on the military regime as criticism has poured in from local and international human rights activists over Thailand’s excessive accommodation of Beijing’s demands.

The op-ed then enumerates several other recent deals made between Bangkok and Beijing, claiming they too were made strictly to accommodate Beijing. They include the deportation of suspected terrorists to China who were bound for Turkey and likely on their way to join international terrorist organizations operating in neighboring Syria.

What’s Good for China is Good for Asia

In reality, Joshua Wong was admittedly attempting to enter Thailand to help sow the same US-backed instability in Bangkok he led in Hong Kong. He was specifically meeting US-backed agitators in Bangkok who form one of several fronts attempting to seize back political power for parties backed by and tied to Washington.

Thus, the move to deport Wong back to China was in both Beijing and Bangkok’s best interests.

Likewise, the deportation of terror suspects to China benefited both nations as well. Had Thailand continued serving as a conduit for terrorists bound for Syria – and should Syria eventually collapse under pressure from US-armed terrorists – it will lead to global instability that will reverberate across all of Asia, affecting both China and Thailand.

US attempts to destabilize China – the primary trading partner for nations across the entirety of Asia – is a direct threat to the entire region, not just Beijing.

It is not “caving in” to Beijing to ensure stability prevails and that the US is unable to repeat the “success” of its efforts to stir up political instability in North Africa and the Middle which has led to region-wide war, the death or displacement of tens of millions, the socioeconomic collapse of entire nations, and the potential for wider and more direct war across several regions of the planet.

A final irony the Bangkok Post omits amid its transparent propaganda is the fact that absent of China’s interests, Asia has for decades been made to “cave” to Washington’s every whim. It should be no surprise that a newspaper founded by a former US intelligence officer and funded by the US State Department would exhibit in its editorial pages the same sort of shameless exceptionalism that the US itself exhibits upon the international stage.

However, it is a corrosive, counterproductive “exceptionalism” Asia has collectively decided to move on into the future without.

The sooner Washington can recognize and accept this, the sooner it can rationally realign its relations with Asia toward something tangibly more constructive. While Washington will have to accept Asia as an independent and self-driven region as well as a significant competitor, it can decide whether that competition is healthy and constructive, or unfolds in an atmosphere of confrontation and perpetually impending war.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
journal-neo.org
Who is Going to Pay for the Crimes in the Aleppo Province? | New Eastern Outlook
Author: Martin Berger
The Western media outrage that usually follows any step Moscow and Damascus take in the fight against designated terrorist organizations in Syria suddenly subsided when Belgian warplanes attacked the Kurdish village of Hassager in the province of Aleppo on October 18.

For over a week Brussels has been trying to deny the fact that two F-16s bearing Belgium paint schemes committed a war crime in Syria, despite the fact that Moscow provided the Belgian military and the nation’s political leaders with documented evidence that two Belgian planes were operating in this area after taking off from the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. These jets flew over Iraq, and then at 2:37 AM they crossed the Syrian border about 70 miles northeast of the mountains of Deir ez-Zor, then they refueled in the air via a US Stratotanker KC-135, and at 03:35 AM they began bombing Hassager. At 4:19 AM, after refueling yet again, they carried on patrolling the airspace to the north of Aleppo.

By refusing to acknowledge the involvement of its F-16 aircraft in the October 18 attack, Brussels exhibits its inability to control the actions of its own military.

There could be no error in the identification of these two planes, since after entering the detection zone of radar, any aircraft is identified by its unique attributes and then the data about it is stored in a database. That is how a profile of every aircraft operating over Syria is created, and confusion is unlikely. Therefore, upon entering the detection zone any aircraft in Syria is immediately identified. And since these two planes have repeatedly entered Syria’s airspace, as Russian officials claim, they were capable of establishing immediately that those jets were flown by the Belgium Air Force.

Belgian politicians have repeatedly questioned the reasoning behind the Belgian Armed Force’s participation in illegal US operations in Syria. Therefore, it is possible that the White House and the Pentagon have decided to “tie with innocent blood” those Belgian politicians to their cause, Sending Belgian pilots on such a mission is a particularly significant step from the point of view of Washington, since it’s becoming increasingly apparent that ISIS militants surrounded in eastern Aleppo by Syrian troops won’t be able to carry on fighting for much longer. But the US is still trying to save them – since the liberation of Aleppo will be a major victory for the Syrian government and Bashar al-Assad himself. That is why in Washington, Paris, Brussels and other capitals of NATO countries have threatened Russia and Syria by declaring the ongoing airstrikes in Aleppo “war crimes”, while the head of EU foreign ministries at the EU Council meeting on Syria on October 17, urged the West to bring charges of “war crimes in Syria” to the International Criminal Court.

Therefore, one can only stand in awe at the lack of any adequate assessment of the Belgian Air Force attacks that occurred on October 18, not just from Washington, but also from the EU.

Maybe EU politicians have assumed that the attack was committed by Britain and not Belgium, and the EU will not be compelled to bear any responsibility for these actions? Or is it possible that Brussels hasn’t received instructions from Washington yet, since they are clearly unaccustomed to making any official statements on their own.

It’s also possible that by remaining silent about war crimes in and around Aleppo, Washington and Brussels want to show the world that they can still act with impunity, as it was in Libya, Iraq and a number of other countries. Then, it seems that this continues, since on the night of October 18, the United States Air Force attacked a densely populated part of the Iraqi city of Mosul, at the very same moment when the city was being shelled by cluster munitions and incendiary shells launched by US allies. We already have video footage of a bombed kindergarten in the town of Tal Afar, west of Mosul. In addition, social networks are filled with pictures of the atrocities that the militants supported by the US are committing.

So who will pay for the civilian deaths in Hassager?

- Washington, that has already paid compensation to the family of an Italian citizen Giovanni Lo Porto who was murdered by a US drone.

- Or the Belgian authorities and the EU?

What do you think?

And will there finally be any objectivity in the actions of European and American politicians? Or to achieve this, does one have to replace the entire ruling political establishment in the West?

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
globalresearch.ca
Fighting vs. Funding Terrorism: America’s Ironic “Two-Faced” War on Terror
By Joseph Thomas
US-terrorism.jpg

Rarely ever does hypocrisy align so succinctly as it does within the pages of American policy and media coverage. US policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, recently provided an extreme example of this in a paper titled, “A convenient terrorism threat,” penned by Daniel Byman.

The paper starts by claiming:

Not all countries that suffer from terrorism are innocent victims doing their best to fight back. Many governments, including several important U.S. allies, simultaneously fight and encourage the terrorist groups on their soil. President George W. Bush famously asked governments world-wide after 9/11 whether they were with us or with the terrorists; these rulers answer, “Yes.”

Some governments—including at times Russia, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan among others—hope to have it both ways. They use the presence of terrorists to win sympathy abroad and discredit peaceful foes at home, even while fighting back vigorously enough to look plausible but not forcefully enough to solve the problem. This two-faced approach holds considerable appeal for some governments, but it hugely complicates U.S. counterterrorism efforts—and the U.S. shouldn’t just live with it.

Byman then begins labelling various nations; Somalia as a “basket-case,” Iran as a “straightforward state sponsors of terrorism” and attempts to frame Russia’s struggle against terrorism in Chechnya as somehow disingenuous or politically motivated.

Byman also attempts to claim Syrian President Bashar Al Assad intentionally released terrorists from prison to help escalate violence around the country and justify a violent crackdown, this despite reports from Western journalists as early as 2007 revealing US intentions to use these very terrorists to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran specifically, the New Yorker would reveal.

The US is as Much a Sponsor of Terrorism in Reality as Byman Claims Others are in Fiction

But worse than Byman’s intentional mischaracterisations and lies of omission regarding US allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel’s overt, global-spanning sponsorship of terrorism, is the fact that not only is the US itself engaged in sponsoring terrorism as it poses as fighting against it globally, the Brookings Institution and Byman have specifically and publicly called for the funding, training and arming of designated foreign terrorist groups in pursuit of self-serving geopolitical objectives.

Indeed, Daniel Byman is one of several signatories of the 2009 Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran.”

The report not only reveals the blueprints of using supposedly “peaceful” and “democratic” protests as cover for violent, US sponsored subversion (as was precisely done in Syria beginning in 2011), it specifically lists a US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organisation as a potential US proxy in violently rising up against, and eventually overthrowing the government in Tehran.

The report would explicitly state (our emphasis):

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

The report then admits MEK’s status as a designated foreign terrorist organisation and that it has targeted and killed both American officers and civilians in the past (our emphasis):

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

The Brookings Institution also admits in its report that undoubtedly MEK continues to carry out undeniable terrorist activity against political and civilian targets within Iran, and notes that if MEK is to be successfully used as a US proxy against Iran, it would need to be delisted as a foreign terrorist organisation (our emphasis):

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.

And eventually, that is precisely what was done. MEK would be delisted by the US State Department in 2012, announced in a US State Department statement titled, “Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq,” which noted:

With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992.

The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members. The Secretary’s decision today took into account the MEK’s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.

MEK’s inability to conduct violence in the decade preceding the US State Department’s decision was not because of an ideological commitment to nonviolence, but a matter of strategic limitations placed on the terrorist organisation by Iraqi and Iranian security forces who were determined to liquidate it and who forcibly disarmed the group.

And even if the 2012 US State Department decision was based on an alleged decade of nonviolence, the policymakers at the Brookings Institution who signed their names to “Which Path to Persia?” including Daniel Byman, certainly did not apply the same criteria in suggesting its use as an armed proxy.

In all likelihood, had Iraq and Iran not successfully cornered and disarmed the group, it would be fighting America’s proxy war against Tehran on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border. MEK fighters would be carrying out US-backed armed violence against Iran and Iraq side-by-side other US-backed terrorist groups operating across the region as part of America’s current proxy war against Syria, Russia and Iran.

Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution’s latest paper even at face value is disingenuous, full of intentional mischaracterisations meant to direct attention away from the US and its closest allies’ own sponsorship of terrorism amid a very much feigned “War on Terror.” Understanding that Byman quite literally signed his name to a policy paper promoting the arming and backing of a US State Department designated foreign terrorist organisation makes his recent paper all that more outrageous.

What is also as troubling as it is ironic, is that Byman not only signed his name to calls for arming a listed terrorist organisation, he was also a staff member of the 9/11 Commission, according to his Georgetown University biography. A man involved in sorting out a terrorist attack who is also advocating closer cooperation with listed terrorist organisations is truly disturbing.

The political and ethical bankruptcy of American foreign policy can be traced back to its policy establishment, populated by unprincipled hypocrites like Byman and co-signatories of Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” The US certainly cannot convince other nations to abandon an alleged “two-faced” policy of promoting and fighting terrorism simultaneously when it stands as a global leader in this very practise.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
and just to demonstrate the COMPLETE HYPOCRISY of the US/UK led ''western empire" -- with their ''DOZENS OF NGO'S" for ''freedom and human rights" (to 'fix:' the wars and imperialistic MISERY THEIR countries bring)

hey --- what's better than to have dozens of them PREPARE the way to ''indict" russia as ;war criminal -- at the UN human rights council, eh?
\
-- wonderful....way to HIDE THEIR AUTHORSHIP OF GLOBAL WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY...

that's how the western -- uk/usa led ''empire|" operates after all.

===========================================

rt.com
Over 80 NGOs call for Russia to be dropped from UN rights council over Syria
A number of human rights and aid organizations have urged the United Nations to deprive Russia of its seat on the UN's Human Rights Council (UNHRC), AFP reported on Monday.

More than 80 international organizations have signed the appeal, with such groups as Human Rights Watch, CARE International and Refugees International among them, AFP says.

Read more


The move was prompted by Russia's involvement in the anti-terrorist campaign in Syria.

The signatories asked the UN member states to "question seriously whether Russia's role in Syria which includes supporting and undertaking military actions which have routinely targeted civilians and civilian objects renders it fit to serve on the UN's premier inter-governmental human rights institution," AFP reports, citing the text of the appeal.

The appeal has been submitted ahead of elections to the UN's human rights body that are scheduled for Friday. The UN General Assembly in New York will be selecting members to fill 14 seats, with Russia, Hungary and Croatia running for two seats representing the Eastern European group at the council.

Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, Brazil, Cuba, Egypt and South Africa are among the other countries vying for seats in various regional groups. The US and UK are seeking election to the two seats representing the Western Europe and Others group. Elected nations will be represented in the 47-nation council for three years, starting from 2017.

Russia is currently in the UNHRC, but its membership expires this year.

Read more


Last week, Britain and its Western and Arab allies introduced a resolution to the UNHRC demanding a review into alleged human rights violations in the Syrian city of Aleppo. The council then voted to start an independent special inquiry into the situation in the war-ravaged city.

Russia has been assisting the Syrian Army in fighting Al-Nusra Front terrorists in eastern Aleppo, which has become the militants' stronghold in Syria. However, the West has blamed Moscow and Damascus for most of the civilian casualties in the area.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has called the resolution's accusations "cynical" and "dishonorable."

The fighting has divided the city of Aleppo into two parts, with its western districts currently under government control and eastern parts held by rebels and Al-Nusra Front fighters. Although the militants have constantly attacked western Aleppo, resulting in numerous civilian deaths, last week Russia and Syria initiated a humanitarian ceasefire, giving people a chance to flee the battle scene.

But despite the hopes, civilians have not been able to leave the militant-held eastern Aleppo for days, with terrorists constantly bombing humanitarian corridors. The UN and other aid groups which were supposed to bring humanitarian aid through the corridors were unable to do so because of security concerns.

READ MORE: West should abandon hostile rhetoric & take effective measures to help Syrians

Investigative journalist Willy Van Damme, who has been closely following the Syrian conflict, told RT he was not surprised by the NGO’s move. “I haven't seen the list of all these 80 NGOs, but there are apparently a lot of NGOs involved in Syria exclusively... and they are financed by Saudi Arabia, United States, France, United Kingdom, Qatar… and repeat what their governments want them to say.”

“These organizations are not really dealing with human rights, they use human rights as an excuse to meddle in affairs of other governments,” he told RT. “Double standard is the rule of the game in international diplomacy. The US has destroyed Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan... but these NGOs never talk about it, they don't make any reports on it. You could call them traitors of human rights.”
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
thesaker.is
President Putin Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
Scott
Vladimir Putin took part in the final session of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s 13th annual meeting, which this year took the theme The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow.

Over the three-day event, 130 experts and political analysts from 35 countries examined current issues concerning development of international relations, internal political organisation, the economy, demography, and technology.

The participants looked, in particular, at ways to mitigate the consequences of radical changes on the global political map and the crisis in democratic systems and their work, and discussed development roads for Russia-EU relations and what the global system might look like in 10 years’ time.

The final session was also attended by former President of Finland Tarja Halonen, former President of Austria Heinz Fischer, and former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Tarja, Heinz, Thabo, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure to see you again. I want to start by thanking all of the participants in the Valdai International Discussion Club, from Russia and abroad, for your constructive part in this work, and I want to thank our distinguished guests for their readiness to take part in this open discussion.

Our esteemed moderator just wished me a good departure into retirement, and I wish myself the same when the time comes. This is the right approach and the thing to do. But I am not retired yet and am for now the leader of this big country. As such, it is fitting to show restraint and avoid displays of excessive aggressiveness. I do not think that this is my style in any case.

But I do think that we should be frank with each other, particularly here in this gathering. I think we should hold candid, open discussions, otherwise our dialogue makes no sense and would be insipid and without the slightest interest.

I think that this style of discussion is extremely needed today given the great changes taking place in the world. The theme for our meeting this year, The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow, is very topical.

Last year, the Valdai forum participants discussed the problems with the current world order. Unfortunately, little has changed for the better over these last months. Indeed, it would be more honest to say that nothing has changed.

The tensions engendered by shifts in distribution of economic and political influence continue to grow. Mutual distrust creates a burden that narrows our possibilities for finding effective responses to the real threats and challenges facing the world today. Essentially, the entire globalisation project is in crisis today and in Europe, as we know well, we hear voices now saying that multiculturalism has failed.

I think this situation is in many respects the result of mistaken, hasty and to some extent over-confident choices made by some countries’ elites a quarter-of-a-century ago. Back then, in the late 1980s-early 1990s, there was a chance not just to accelerate the globalisation process but also to give it a different quality and make it more harmonious and sustainable in nature.

But some countries that saw themselves as victors in the Cold War, not just saw themselves this way but said it openly, took the course of simply reshaping the global political and economic order to fit their own interests.

In their euphoria, they essentially abandoned substantive and equal dialogue with other actors in international life, chose not to improve or create universal institutions, and attempted instead to bring the entire world under the spread of their own organisations, norms and rules. They chose the road of globalisation and security for their own beloved selves, for the select few, and not for all. But far from everyone was ready to agree with this.

We may as well be frank here, as we know full well that many did not agree with what was happening, but some were unable by then to respond, and others were not yet ready to respond. The result though is that the system of international relations is in a feverish state and the global economy cannot extricate itself from systemic crisis. At the same time, rules and principles, in the economy and in politics, are constantly being distorted and we often see what only yesterday was taken as a truth and raised to dogma status reversed completely.

If the powers that be today find some standard or norm to their advantage, they force everyone else to comply. But if tomorrow these same standards get in their way, they are swift to throw them in the bin, declare them obsolete, and set or try to set new rules.

Thus, we saw the decisions to launch airstrikes in the centre of Europe, against Belgrade, and then came Iraq, and then Libya. The operations in Afghanistan also started without the corresponding decision from the United Nations Security Council. In their desire to shift the strategic balance in their favour these countries broke apart the international legal framework that prohibited deployment of new missile defence systems. They created and armed terrorist groups, whose cruel actions have sent millions of civilians into flight, made millions of displaced persons and immigrants, and plunged entire regions into chaos.

We see how free trade is being sacrificed and countries use sanctions as a means of political pressure, bypass the World Trade Organisation and attempt to establish closed economic alliances with strict rules and barriers, in which the main beneficiaries are their own transnational corporations. And we know this is happening. They see that they cannot resolve all of the problems within the WTO framework and so think, why not throw the rules and the organisation itself aside and build a new one instead. This illustrates what I just said.

At the same time, some of our partners demonstrate no desire to resolve the real international problems in the world today. In organisations such as NATO, for example, established during the Cold War and clearly out of date today, despite all the talk about the need to adapt to the new reality, no real adaptation takes place. We see constant attempts to turn the OSCE, a crucial mechanism for ensuring common European and also trans-Atlantic security, into an instrument in the service of someone’s foreign policy interests. The result is that this very important organisation has been hollowed out.

But they continue to churn out threats, imaginary and mythical threats such as the ‘Russian military threat’. This is a profitable business that can be used to pump new money into defence budgets at home, get allies to bend to a single superpower’s interests, expand NATO and bring its infrastructure, military units and arms closer to our borders.

Of course, it can be a pleasing and even profitable task to portray oneself as the defender of civilisation against the new barbarians. The only thing is that Russia has no intention of attacking anyone. This is all quite absurd. I also read analytical materials, those written by you here today, and by your colleagues in the USA and Europe.

It is unthinkable, foolish and completely unrealistic. Europe alone has 300 million people. All of the NATO members together with the USA have a total population of 600 million, probably. But Russia has only 146 million. It is simply absurd to even conceive such thoughts. And yet they use these ideas in pursuit of their political aims.

Another mythical and imaginary problem is what I can only call the hysteria the USA has whipped up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election. The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police.

You would think that the election debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.

I have to ask myself and ask you too: Does anyone seriously imagine that Russia can somehow influence the American people’s choice? America is not some kind of ‘banana republic’, after all, but is a great power. Do correct me if I am wrong.

The question is, if things continue in this vein, what awaits the world? What kind of world will we have tomorrow? Do we have answers to the questions of how to ensure stability, security and sustainable economic growth? Do we know how we will make a more prosperous world?

Sad as it is to say, there is no consensus on these issues in the world today. Maybe you have come to some common conclusions through your discussions, and I would, of course, be interested to hear them. But it is very clear that there is a lack of strategy and ideas for the future. This creates a climate of uncertainty that has a direct impact on the public mood.

Sociological studies conducted around the world show that people in different countries and on different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak. This is sad. The future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time, people see no real opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing events and shaping policy.

Yes, formally speaking, modern countries have all the attributes of democracy: Elections, freedom of speech, access to information, freedom of expression. But even in the most advanced democracies the majority of citizens have no real influence on the political process and no direct and real influence on power.

People sense an ever-growing gap between their interests and the elite’s vision of the only correct course, a course the elite itself chooses. The result is that referendums and elections increasingly often create surprises for the authorities. People do not at all vote as the official and respectable media outlets advised them to, nor as the mainstream parties advised them to. Public movements that only recently were too far left or too far right are taking centre stage and pushing the political heavyweights aside.

At first, these inconvenient results were hastily declared anomaly or chance. But when they became more frequent, people started saying that society does not understand those at the summit of power and has not yet matured sufficiently to be able to assess the authorities’ labour for the public good. Or they sink into hysteria and declare it the result of foreign, usually Russian, propaganda.

Friends and colleagues, I would like to have such a propaganda machine here in Russia, but regrettably, this is not the case. We have not even global mass media outlets of the likes of CNN, BBC and others. We simply do not have this kind of capability yet.

As for the claim that the fringe and populists have defeated the sensible, sober and responsible minority – we are not talking about populists or anything like that but about ordinary people, ordinary citizens who are losing trust in the ruling class. That is the problem.

By the way, with the political agenda already eviscerated as it is, and with elections ceasing to be an instrument for change but consisting instead of nothing but scandals and digging up dirt – who gave someone a pinch, who sleeps with whom, if you’ll excuse me. This just goes beyond all boundaries. And honestly, a look at various candidates’ platforms gives the impression that they were made from the same mould – the difference is slight, if there is any.

It seems as if the elites do not see the deepening stratification in society and the erosion of the middle class, while at the same time, they implant ideological ideas that, in my opinion, are destructive to cultural and national identity. And in certain cases, in some countries they subvert national interests and renounce sovereignty in exchange for the favour of the suzerain.

This begs the question: who is actually the fringe? The expanding class of the supranational oligarchy and bureaucracy, which is in fact often not elected and not controlled by society, or the majority of citizens, who want simple and plain things – stability, free development of their countries, prospects for their lives and the lives of their children, preserving their cultural identity, and, finally, basic security for themselves and their loved ones.

People are clearly scared to see how terrorism is evolving from a distant threat to an everyday one, how a terrorist attack could occur right near them, on the next street, if not on their own street, while any makeshift item – from a home-made explosive to an ordinary truck – can be used to carry out a mass killing.

Moreover, the terrorist attacks that have taken place in the past few years in Boston and other US cities, Paris, Brussels, Nice and German cities, as well as, sadly, in our own country, show that terrorists do not need units or organised structures – they can act independently, on their own, they just need the ideological motivation against their enemies, that is, against you and us.

The terrorist threat is a clear example of how people fail to adequately evaluate the nature and causes of the growing threats. We see this in the way events in Syria are developing. No one has succeeded in stopping the bloodshed and launching a political settlement process. One would think that we would have begun to put together a common front against terrorism now, after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort and difficult compromises.

But this has not happened and this common front has not emerged. My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results either. There were people in Washington ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice. This all demonstrates an unexplainable and I would say irrational desire on the part of the Western countries to keep making the same mistakes or, as we say here in Russia, keep stepping on the same rake.

We all see what is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and a number of other countries. I have to ask, where are the results of the fight against terrorism and extremism? Overall, looking at the world as a whole, there are some results in particular regions and locations, but there is no global result and the terrorist threat continues to grow.

We all remember the euphoria in some capitals over the Arab Spring. Where are these fanfares today? Russia’s calls for a joint fight against terrorism go ignored. What’s more, they continue to arm, supply and train terrorist groups in the hope of using them to achieve their own political aims. This is a very dangerous game and I address the players once again: The extremists in this case are more cunning, clever and stronger than you, and if you play these games with them, you will always lose.

Colleagues, it is clear that the international community should concentrate on the real problems facing humanity today, the resolution of which will make our world a safer and more stable place and make the system of international relations fairer and more equal. As I said, it is essential to transform globalisation from something for a select few into something for all. It is my firm belief that we can overcome these threats and challenges only by working together on the solid foundation of international law and the United Nations Charter.

Today it is the United Nations that continues to remain an agency that is unparalleled in representativeness and universality, a unique venue for equitable dialogue. Its universal rules are necessary for including as many countries as possible in economic and humanitarian integration, guaranteeing their political responsibility and working to coordinate their actions while also preserving their sovereignty and development models.

We have no doubt that sovereignty is the central notion of the entire system of international relations. Respect for it and its consolidation will help underwrite peace and stability both at the national and international levels. There are many countries that can rely on a history stretching back a thousand years, like Russia, and we have come to appreciate our identity, freedom and independence. But we do not seek global domination, expansion or confrontation with anyone.

In our mind, real leadership lies in seeing real problems rather than attempting to invent mythical threats and use them to steamroll others. This is exactly how Russia understands its role in global affairs today.

There are priorities without which a prosperous future for our shared planet is unthinkable and they are absolutely obvious. I won’t be saying anything new here. First of all, there is equal and indivisible security for all states. Only after ending armed conflicts and ensuring the peaceful development of all countries will we be able to talk about economic progress and the resolution of social, humanitarian and other key problems. It is important to fight terrorism and extremism in actuality. It has been said more than once that this evil can only be overcome by a concerted effort of all states of the world. Russia continues to offer this to all interested partners.

To be continued.


The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

$27.95
More offers
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
davidswanson.org
The U.S. National Bird Is Now a Drone
Officially, of course, the national bird of the United States is that half-a-peace-sign that Philadelphia sports fans like to hold up at opposing teams. But unofficially, the film National Bird has it right: the national bird is a killer drone.

Finally, finally, finally, somebody allowed me to see this movie. And finally somebody made this movie. There have been several drone movies worth seeing, most of them fictional drama, and one very much worth avoiding (Eye in the Sky). But National Bird is raw truth, not entirely unlike what you might fantasize media news reports would be in a magical world in which media outlets gave a damn about human life.

The first half of National Bird is the stories of three participants in the U.S. military's drone murder program, as told by them. And then, just as you're starting to think you'll have to write that old familiar review that praises how well the stories of the victims among the aggressors were told but asks in exasperation whether any of the victims of the actual missiles have any stories, National Bird expands to include just what is so often missing, and even to combine the two narratives in a powerful way.

Heather Linebaugh wanted to protect people, benefit the world, travel, see the world, and use super cool technology. Apparently our society did not explain to her in time what it means to join the military. Now she suffers guilt, anxiety, moral injury, PTSD, sleep disorder, despair, and a sense of responsibility to speak out on behalf of friends, other veterans, who have killed themselves or become too alcoholic to speak for themselves. Linebaugh helped murder people with missiles from drones, and watched them die, and identified body parts or watched loved ones gather up body parts.

Even while still in the Air Force, Linebaugh was on a suicide watch list and had a psychologist recommend moving her to a different sort of job, but the Air Force refused. She has episodes. She sees things. She hears things. But she's forbidden to discuss her work with friends or even with a therapist who doesn't have the proper "security clearance."

We let Daniel down even more than Heather. He says he actually opposed militarism but was homeless and desperate, so he joined the military. We could have given him a house for much less than we paid him to help murder people at Fort Meade.

Lisa Ling worked on a database filled by drone surveillance that compiled information on 121,000 "targets" in two years. Multiply that by a dozen years. With 90% of victims not among the targets, add up how many people would die in the targeting of the whole list. That'd be over 7 million. But it's not numbers that have poisoned the souls of these three veterans; it's children and mothers and brothers and uncles lying in pieces on the ground.

Ling travels to Afghanistan to see the place at ground level and to meet with drone victims. She meets a little boy who lost his leg and his 4-year-old brother and his sister and his father. On February 2, 2010, drone "pilots" at Creech Air Base murdered 23 innocent members of one family.

The filmmakers have voices read the written transcript of what the drone operators said to each other before, during, and after sending in the missiles that did the damage. This is worse than Collateral Murder. The people whose job it is to identify children and others who should not be murdered have identified children among the group of people being targeted. The "pilots" at Creech are eager to reject this information and to get onto killing as many people as they can. Their lust for blood drives the decision process. Only after they've killed 23 people do they recognize children among the survivors, and the lack of guns.

We see the bodies brought home to bury. Those injured describe their suffering, physical as well as mental. We see people being fitted with artificial legs. We hear Afghans describe their perception of drones. They imagine, just as many Americans may imagine, and just as viewers of Eye in the Sky would imagine, that drone operators have a clear, high resolution view of everything. In fact, they have a view of fuzzy little blobs on a computer screen that looks like it was created in the 1980s.

Linebaugh says there is no way to distinguish the little "civilian" blobs from little "militant" blobs. When Daniel hears President Obama claim that there is always near certainty that no civilians will be killed, Daniel explains that such knowledge is simply not possible. Linebaugh says she was often on the side of the conversation telling the "pilots" at Creech not to murder innocents, but that they always pushed for permission to kill.

Jesselyn Radack, attorney for whistleblowers, says in the film that the FBI told two whistleblowers that a terrorist group had put them on a kill list. She said that the FBI has also contacted Linebaugh's family and warned her that "terrorists" have been searching for her name online, suggesting that she fix this problem by shutting up. (She had written an op-ed in the Guardian).

The FBI also raids Daniel's house, arriving with 30 to 50 agents, badges, guns, cameras, and search warrants. They take away his papers, electronics, and phone. They tell him he is under investigation for a possible indictment under the Espionage Act. This is the World War I-era law for targeting foreign enemies that President Obama has made a routine of using to target domestic whistleblowers. While Obama has prosecuted more people under this law than did all previous presidents combined, we probably have no way of knowing how many people have been explicitly threatened with the possibility.

While we should be apologizing to, comforting, and aiding these young people rather than denying them the right to speak to anybody and threatening them with decades in prison, Lisa Ling did manage to find some kindness. Victims of drone strikes in Afghanistan told her that they forgave her. As the film ends, she's planning another trip to Afghanistan.