Recent Posts and Categories

Alert! Putin: World War is inevitable at this point!

OWoN: This is worth reading and understanding, as other events pivot and change appears. Britain alone had the outreach of 28 Russian bombers coming into our air space this week and our jets were scrambled as they tested our response times. Putin is gearing for war, and making ready. So now we have moved our Subs in on him. We are ready. Now we are tracking all their Bombers from all our advance early warning stations. We have been here before.

Be assured, once we see he is about to hit the UK, we WILL mass Nuke all main Russian cities and Military / Defence bases. Plus our bombers will launch and our ICBM's. The UK alone will hit Russia with hundreds of nukes. Hundreds! Deaths will be in vast millions.

In turn that means both Russia and China will unleash on the US in thousands. American cities at best will get 20 minutes warning inland. All key bases will go and a second wave will follow. All Coast cities will go in total and all within 200 miles of the coast will be gone in 10 minutes. Once we unleash they have no option to to go pre-emptive against the US. The minute he opens those Silos we will be ready to launch. Our Radar scans Russia and we will know. We know we will be gone, but for sure we will put them underground for 20,000 years.




Alert! Putin: World War is inevitable at this point!


2127 News
By FreedomFighter2127
31 October 2014

As the tide shifts back to war, because of winter nearing, Putin now states that war is inevitable in the following speech. The facts are that this world war is planned, it has been planned from the very beginning all the way from Pike’s letter about a world war in the 1800’s, which you can see at the bottom of this post. The planning of this war goes back further than that however. This is a biblical war that will be waged. This is the war of the End Times.


Crusaders2127 Video




As winter nears, war gets closer because of a timeline that parts of Europe will run out of resources for the winter. Russia recently enacted an embargo in the Arctic and is practically a declaration of war. The other part of this is the FACT that during this time if Ebola remains in America, which it will, then it will be able to spread just like influenza A. These are the days.

Below are the 10 main points posted by, “The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin speech as follows:

1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.

2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.

3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia’s decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.

4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.

5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America’s ever-expanding “empire of chaos,” and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia’s challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.

6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.

7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war—nor does she fear it.

8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order—until their efforts start to impinge on Russia’s key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.

9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia’s power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.

To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:

10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States—but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.”


Putin’s full speech: Video




To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world?

Text of Vladimir Putin’s speech and a question and answer session at the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session in Sochi on 24 October 2014.


Putin:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Thank you very much for your attention.


So it Begins.

link

26 comments :

  1. So the UK leave that ffffff NATO and begin co-operate with Russia..... Churchill did it and it worked. Instead of going together after the WW2 you joined NAZI fascist clan instead ....

    So, come to senses, release the content of Black Boxes - Make your government stop working together with NAZI in NATO US , EU and Israel.

    Recognise Palestine, imprison Rottenchild ........

    ;;;;;;
    Start doing RIGHT THINGS.....do not hide behind treaties that bond you to NAZI....break it. Announce that UK will not more take part with NAZI-ZIO -----

    Come to your sense --- stop giving financial support to US. Do you think that Russians smile on that when they know that those money is used against them. Remember Hitler and his support from US and UK - do you think that Russians liked that when they found out where the money came from? Would you like it yourselves:

    Stop accusing Russia your politicians keep doing that again and again...... When was the last time Russia kept publicly accusing UK?

    Do the right thing toward Russians, if it is not late, it can be fixed.

    That harm that was done to Russia by West over centuries cries to heavens...stop doing what generation before you kept doing.....

    It is possible to co-operate with Russia and BRICS. UK can join BRICS as well. I know you UK is scared and W Nobility is scared and try to sustain USA - Russians interpreted as a direct support of USA that does all to destroy Russia.....WN is scared viewing world when USA might cease to exist and we might have Russia and China with BRICS setting the note for the music......I understand but have you acted in the same way when Soviet Union collapsed and USA took over the world? It was OK for the most to face unipolar hegemony.....FAIR? BRICS, Russia do all to survive....this is difference, USA did all to dominate ..... might be that EVOLUTION will reverse it.

    Would you like it if Russia and China does to Scotland what was done to Ukraine? Suppose that Russia would be active and China would keep giving them money to screw Scotland and set there bases? How would you like it? How would you view China financially supporting Russia in that case?

    Rottenchild does all possible to destroy Russia for century again and again - he sits in UK? Arrest him, take the army invade his properties, turn him in to Moscow....

    GAME OVER - WE CAN GO TOGETHER TOWARDS FUTURE

    ;;;;;;;
    UK wants to hit RUSSIA in case Russians get too close? Really! You see, this is the point, the same like with Jesse Ventura - biggest crime in Vietnam was that 55 000 US soldiers died- youth will listen to his story and remember just his about Vietnam war.

    So, simple fact. UK wants to launch nukes in case Russians get too close. Would not Russian be justified to nuke all West just because NATO is getting too close to Russia? Hellllllooooooo. Is Russia stationed with bases and armies in Ireland or Scotland? Then I would say they are too close, yet West is stationed at the Russia border and keep intimidating. Fairness???? In that case West should have been nuked a decade ago over and over again and again for being too close to Russia...

    Please some fairness .....

    ;;;;;;
    UK can do so much, instead they keep waiting on which side they should lean ....... (Might not be all WNobility...I do not know) Make a decision take a risk. Churchill worked together with Russia to destroy NAZI.....it can work again....

    ReplyDelete
  2. After vote in Donbas UK should be first to recognise independence of that region .... and scales would begin to stabilise ...

    Can UK do the right thing??????

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is UK part of NATO, yes it is. Is NATO at the Russian doorstep - so is UK via NATO. Did UK soldiers have war games at the Baltic or Black Sea? Yes. Did Russians have war games at the Chanel - NO.

    What do you think that Russian are ffff idiots to be treated this way? They had enough and they did not start the game....so those who started this game should take different set of action to reverse this game. It is not Russia who should reverse this game....

    UK begin to do the right thing - leave NATO -release Black Boxes of MH 17 do not help NAZI - recognise Dombase independence --- fly to Moscow and begin new negotiations....

    IT IS POSSIBLE.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Russia was able to clean up Zionist thugs from within Kremlin so to speak ..... why West was not doing the same last 15 years or what. If Putin did it, it must be doable also in the West. Why is still Rottenchild sitting in his castles?????

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was wondering the same thing as Vlastimil. Why is the UK not staying out of this completely? How can the UK pretend to be great friend of China, whilst stating that it might nuke Russia? It would help if EU parties would stop their aggressive rhetoric against Russia. Ironically none of these EU parties dare to say the same about China, whilst they know China and Russia are joined at the hip. Is China too big to pick on? I would have expected certain EU parties to instead come up with threats to micro nuke various US miscreants, since they are the ones holding the world hostage by refusing to release the funds....not Russia, China or anyone else part of the BRICS alliance.

    RT News reported that Russian airplanes are indeed being intercepted as reported in Western news, but Western news does not state that these airplanes are travelling within international airspace. They are not doing anything illegal, but the refusal to mention that fact is purposefully aggravating the situation.

    The Dollar is no longer the World Reserve Currency. There is nothing to save or defend. Those in power misused its power and its reign of terror must end in a civilized fashion. Russia and China do not want war. That is nonsense. The USA will collapse on its own. Why would Russia want to risk everything it has built up for a war when its opponent will be decimated by its own incompetence and corruption within a decade if the PP funds do not save it? The only ones who might want to gamble such a thing are banker elitists who did not build up the Jesuit system, but now believe they are in control and yet do not comprehend how to maintain such a system. Incompetent and arrogant....a dangerous combination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russia has low debt and vast resources with entire other continents dependent on its resources. It has ethical conduct against matters such as GMOs and other experimental technologies....thereby actually protecting its population. Chess is one of the ten most favourite sports in Russia, thereby indicating that it has a population with the capability to think steps ahead. Russia implemented matters such as voting rights for women earlier than many other nations including the United States, thereby showing that it is more progressive and just than Western parties often make it out to be. It could not be in a better position than that to rise to the top economically.
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      British public not interested in fighting America's wars – former London mayor Livingstone: http://rt.com/uk/201459-uk-isis-ken-livingston/

      Delete
    2. The key to unraveling the puzzle is the placement of Rotten-child's central banks...does Russia have any? Does China have any? Does UK have any? Control of the money supply is central to aggression and the takeover of a country's resources...thus, stealing the wealth of a country under the guise of democracy...for who? Demon-cracy?????

      -cracy
      Word Origin
      1.
      a combining form occurring in loanwords from Greek ( aristocracy; democracy); on this model used, with the meaning “rule,” “government,” “governing body,” to form abstract nouns from stems of other origin: mobocracy; bureaucracy.

      Compare -crat.
      < Middle French -cracie (now -cratie) < Late Latin -cratia < Greek -kratia, equivalent to krát (os) rule, strength, might (akin to hard ) + -ia -y3

      Get rid of all; including clones, robotoids and the like...this is the change we have been waiting for...

      Delete
  6. John

    Is this all for real? Russia would crush the UK in a war, nuke or boots on the ground. I don't see how the UK would ever hit them hard enough to mortally wound them. It would hurt, but the punch we get back would kill us. Goodbye London, goodbye UK.

    Either way, is this really on the cards?

    Best wishes
    JW

    ReplyDelete
  7. Start flying 28 bombers into UK airspace and be prepared for trouble. One plane was forced down by British fighters and made to land in the UK having been told clearly they had orders to shoot them down if they did not comply immediately. Right now incursions are 3 times greater than last year. WW1 started with the assassination of an Austrian Arch Duke- Ferdinand

    We shoot down a Russian plane flying in our air space, what then? Don't do that and not expect trouble. Put 28 flights in a day onto our radar and damned right we will be jumpy when most are bombers. That is bear baiting us. How close do we allow them to get, to within launch range? How stupid would that be? What if a Pilot flips and launches his own UK attack.What if? And how stupid is it to allow the risk of such mass destruction? Why intensify such flight probes. Continue sabre rattling us this way and a series of bomber risk being shot down. This escalated conduct is madness so damned right we now have subs covering all the key targets. Putin knowingly authorised the assassination of a Russian reporter in London. Brutal murder in our Sovereign territory. Is this civilised conduct? Basis for trust? The UK is not flying 28 Bombers into Russian air corridors.
    So, if it causes planes to be shot down, it can escalate in a heartbeat. Britain knows it will be gone. So damned right the subs will each launch 30 nukes from 4 key hidden locations, plus UK Bombers and land missiles will launch. That alone would be our last resort and forced upon us. It starts with reckless flights. Yes it can escalate so easily, so why sabre rattle us? Be assured, we know we will be gone, but Russia goes with us 90 UK nukes will cause catastrophic destruction. Answer- get out of our air space and don't seek such trouble. You assassinate a Russian Reporter in our Capital City and lose all trust. Now we always see a hostile Bear capable of anything. We don't get a second chance if we allow Russia to pre ernpt an attack first. So don't put us in such a situation. That is how easy it is to create WW111.
    The idiots who create the conditions are the guilty and foolish parties. Get Russian Bombers out of UK air corridors. If not, expect a few to be shot down soon. Two can play those games. You want to test our Defences? We can dam well show you. The act of aggression did not start with us.The risk of such aggression is Russian madness. Cuba too America to the brink. This is our Cuba. Continue those flights and it only needs one to overshoot and we will slot it. What then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand what you are saying John - this is brain storm here and I hope that I can challenge to see vantage from different perspective.

      Try to look at all from Russia perspective - become Russian for a while or one day and you might begin to see things differently....

      1 Let NATO remove their presence from Baltic countries....and all post-communist countries at first. They should not have been there at the first place

      2 You conduct war games at the Black Sea - in Baltic Sea with UK presence and you expect Russia to invite for a party in Kremlin to tell you thank you that you do those war games at our door step...and you want to settle in Ukraine ---- think about that. This is not a plan - this is already reality.

      Is Russia stationed in Scotland or Ireland - did they conduct war games in such proximity as NATO did?

      I keep saying from the beginning - solution is UK leave NATO - GAME OVER. We begin to build new future, unless USA will be break down to few states - this will also mean Game over...

      Do I want USA to be broken - at this point yes as one of the last solutions (last solution is a global war of course...) USA had enough chance to clean the house. Putin did it. Russia wanted mutual co-operation they were refused by West. FACT. If other countries can enjoy work together with Russia like China, India, - BRICS - then it must be possible to work with them hand to hand. Look what BRICS achieved - they work together on principles that West must be ashamed by them.

      3 Putin lost trust by having murdered a journalist on your soil - I can not comment on it I know nothing abou it. It is not right of course -

      However, your PM had murdered (or at least had allowed...) David Kelly MP basically at his home back yard .... how outrageous is this. And Blair enjoys life like a king in UK and around the world.

      ;;;;;;;
      No doubt about it. It is the West that should reverse the course of actions at first towards Russia. You have chances - take them.

      Recognise tomorrow Doneck independence and you might begin to see results...Release Black Boxes of MH 17... force Dutch to release fair investigation right away---so that conflict in Ukraine might end. Of course it was all set up that it will be release when all NAZI-ZIO are settled fully in Ukraine. Then the release mean nothing....Do it now before they are not fully settled there.....

      ;;;;;;
      When Russia does to Scotland what West did to Ukraine then you might talk about being alarmed ..... what would you do then?

      Delete
    2. UK does not stand alone, the power of the US military stand behind our allies. And no one has more nuclear subs patrolling the oceans then the US does, each one capable of delivering multiple independent warheads precisely on target, each sub equipped for maximum effect.

      No one wants war, not even shady US leadership. As a believer in the scriptures, Armageddon cannot be avoided but I do not believe this is the time, there are some things happening in the spiritual realm that have yet to come to pass. Nevertheless, Russia has been testing several countries lately so always best to prepare

      Delete
  8. John

    I do not question motives of WN behind the scene - I do not see there, but tend to trust what you are saying- however on the stage different music is being continuously played. This is the problem....

    1 USA gets financial help 1.1 T - from the behind the scene. How do Russians interpret it when right away attack is being conducted on them via Ukraine. Well money was given to USA for that attack -

    2 Keeping USA over this October by 'from behind the scene players' - for Russia it means again that you financially sponsor somebody who attacks them from West - from South - from any direction

    ;;;;;;;
    Money comes via London - LONDON is main target.

    ;;;;;;
    Russians see it that way - Rottenchild and USA sponsored Hitler - how did Russian take it when they learnt about it?

    ;;;;;;
    You might have good intentions for win-win but on the stage your players (politicians) do play different music. This is problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take it as a brain storm- nothing personal. It is my contribution to challenge to think out of the box....

      .....as always with all respect. I respect UK, I respect US. I had no desires to see USA broke to pieces - or USD or EURO --- but the situation progressed to such level that only those radical steps can save us from disaster as a radical step to leave NATO over night so to speak...

      Delete
  9. Question should not be asked this way: What the hell they are are doing here? Rather it should be this way. What the hell we have done that they are here?

    They do not fly over Brazil do they? Brazil is not freak out!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I hope diplomacy can prevail here.

    This is madness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WHA

      In this site diplomacy will prevail for sure.....but we have madness for too long .......

      I believe we are lucky that in Russia are not hot-blood leaders, I am surprised that they are not in Ukraine cleaning up the NAZI mess created by the West....

      ;;;;;;;
      West wants confrontation .....

      Delete
    2. Russia knows that UsA will implode when the money supply dries up; when gold tops the charts...everything is propped up and illusion is ruling right now. All wars are banker wars...the game is on us...they fund both sides...

      Delete
  11. Here you have it ... fascist dogs in EU.....double standard all the time......

    ;;;;;;;;;
    .....EU does not recognize elections in eastern Ukraine, Europarl official says ........

    ;;;;;;
    UK should stand up and recognise on Monday even before the rooster crows independence of East Ukraine if people down there wish to go on their own.....

    No more double standards ..... rule of LAW as Putin said at VALDAI.... tides changed..... either war or no more double standards. How difficult is this to comprehend?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Australia still open to joining China-led Bank: Abbott
    October 31, 2014
    If Beijing can ensure global transparency and governance standards, Australia will join the China-led new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Friday.
    Abbott said his government will continue discussions with the Chinese government about taking part in the bank despite it not signing a memorandum of understanding with China last week.
    “We would like to join but it’s got to be a multilateral jurisdiction with the kind of transparency and the kind of governance arrangements that, for argument’s sake, the World Bank has,” Abbott told Australian Associated Press.

    ;;;;;;;;

    Interesting ....... I thought that Australia is inept paralysed by USA to total immobility .... yet here they come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Australia is a major Fed Dollar and Ponzi Fiat issuing centre. It has been raised sucking Americas dollar hand out Tit for allowing Asian market monitoring and China. Plus it is major secret HAARP action location.
      Sure,Australia will join flying pigs. Aussies are not known for Fiscal integrity, sorry, but it figures high on the Con Man chart and as Third Generation Crims its interbred. Australia will discover God before integrity. Tinny Town with a plastic conscience. Aussies with a fiscal conscience sits with building Snowmen on the Equator. Sorry guys, nice people, but some seriously bad Dudes in control. .

      Delete
    2. HMMMM, of course had not idea ..... it was respond to news....

      Delete
  13. Saturday, November 1, 2014
    US Destroying Syria’s Oil Infrastructure Under Guise of Fighting ISIS
    The US is considering bombing pipelines in Syria, which it claims is in an attempt to cut off the huge profits being made by ISIS from captured oilfields.

    ;;;;;;;
    Any comment to this one? If I say something fair and just then all think that I am anti-American or whatever....

    ReplyDelete
  14. EU will go bust ... idiots beyond believe ....

    ;;;;;;;;;
    US analyst says plainly ....

    MH: Ukraine has passed. Ukraine said “We are broken, we don’t have any money, we have spent all our money on war. Our export industry is collapsing. If we need gas, we’ll simply steal the gas that Russia is sending to Europe. We are not going to starve - we’ll just take your gas.” And Putin said, “Well, if they try to steal gas like they did a few years ago, we’ll just turn off the gas and Europe won’t get gas”. So Europe realized that it wouldn’t get the gas if it didn’t step behind Ukraine and all of a sudden Europe is having to pay for Ukraine’s war against Russia. Europe is having to pay for the whole mess in Ukraine so that it can get gas, and this is not how they expected it to turn out.

    ;;;;;;,
    EU is herself insolvent .... and they are going to help Ukraine with what --- YAAAHAAA - LET JUST PRINT MORE MONEY...

    ReplyDelete
  15. John

    Exclusively - your friend who passed away from South Africa, Nelson Mandela, in his early days his record was terrorism - how many people he participated in killing? I do not know, I do not need to. He was full of rage against injustice. To kill for him had to be revenge and fight .... terrorist activities of targeting civilians...

    He grew from there to somewhere else..... became a different man at the end of his journey....

    ;;;;;;;;
    Now, you slam Putin because complicity of murder .... I do not question it. In my view he is different person - he grew up.

    Might be different story though - I am just pointing out thing to consider....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vlastimil

      Putin is central with the KGB Thugs and Oligarchs. This is no angel or reformist. He owns power and is a Central KGB Commie with criminal control of the Mafiya and up to the neck in it for his cut. I empathise with his role protecting Russia but is it for the nation,.or his Power base domain? The Oligarchs only survive by paying his kickbacks. This is every bit as bad a KGB thug as the Cabal Agency Goon Squads. I deal with the reality of Putin daily. So does the UK.
      The details of the Back Boxes are known to all who need it. Its no big secret. So assume it was not Russian.OK. Now for Diplomacy leave it at that. Its in play.

      Lets stop this campaign of elevating this thug to be canonised. He is no Angel. Far from it. Lets only eulogise those fitting. Putin needs to be handled with care. London does a pretty good job containing his Russian Mafiya dirtbags..London is far from Disneyland. Often I say nothing, I just let it ride. Intel needs careful hands.
      There are mnay really good and decent Americans also who are far more worthy of praise than Putin. All Americans are not Cabal. Many are as angry and confused. Most are victims.

      Delete
  16. John

    You do not need to be mad on me. I thought that from perspective of public arena I can read what is going on and what would be good to do to calm down the heat.....

    ....obviously it is far from reality to think that I might be able to get to understand what is going on lets to advice or motivate or to shed light ...
    ;;;;;;;
    I am not clearly at the league ..... and I can restrict myself from trying to be there ....

    ;;;;;;;
    As for Russia - all my youth I was mad against Soviet Union and communist with all my passion - I did not like Russia. It took years to get healed from that (none of you were in that position ....) As for now it appeared to me that they built new foundations .....

    ..... I can control myself ... I do not need to elevate what I do not understand ....

    Sorry....



    ReplyDelete

If your comment violates OWON's Terms of Service or has in the past, then it will NOT be published.

Powered by Blogger.