26 octobre, 00:58 ·
Information is very, very special and our sources
al-Qathafi IS alive ….
President Vladimir Putin told visiting President
Bashar al-Assad in Moscow when met by Libyan leader Muammar
aal-Qathafi alive, which will lead the battle to liberate Libya will
Russia Btzlaha …
ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺟﺪﺍ ﺟﺪﺍ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭﻧﺎ
ﺍﻟﻘﺬﺍﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ …. ﺍﺧﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ ﻓﻼﺩﻣﻴﺮ ﺑﻮﺗﻦ ﺿﻴﻔﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ
ﺑﺸﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﺳﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺳﻜﻮ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﻊ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺒﻲ ﻣﻌﻤﺮ
ﺍﻟﻘﺬﺍﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﻴﻘﻮﺩ ﻣﻌﺮﻛﺔ ﺗﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﻟﻴﺒﻴﺎ ﻭﺳﺘﻘﻮﻡ
ﺭﻭﺳﻴﺎ ﺑﺘﺴﻠﻴﺤﻪ … ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻻﺳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﺎﺩﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﺪ
ﻫﺎﺗﻔﻴﺎ ……. ﺗﺎﻛﺪﻭﺍ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺔ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﻣﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻪ
and what I think was able Assad of conversation commander
Rest assured that the information is correct Mer in Mieh.
Zero hour, on FB
26 octobre, 18:36 ·
We know it is a source close personally and honest and we know it because he is my neighbor?
The leader Ola alive and crawling internationalist coming holy name before
Enter the new year
Mafia and nights around the world led by Rossi asked for billion
To sacrifice the person of the leader instead of leader and graduated from Tripoli and the person Hedda …
Humaid named Eboumnyar cousin leader was substantially similar to
Saluting the Mafia to send Prime al-Stranj At the same time the largest surgeon
Facelift in the world to conduct cosmetic surgery to Dahr Humaid son
Uncle of the leader like a leader himself, as is evident in the game if al-Stranj
Trkazho little Rah Tarafo Tguetnao and that he is not a leader:
The intention of the game is the same al-Strj Madl leader in the MAJLIS al-Nuwaab speech.
There steadfast creep inside you know Him, a Kabyle was Mksmha
In al-Stranj played by Ola Enlarge this topic JSK Kabylie there really steadfast.
Tall metal castle and the Knights of Kabylie Kabylie and small metal Minister in Kabylie.
Mattel population of soldiers crept in and attack the enemy until you finish Ola exit.
Once again a leader in checks on creep nights I Ancodh a Checkmate
February ended the game or the departure of our Leader.
Incredible Basedk nights and nights Amikdb Braanh Bs right leader Lord neighborhood
And hard to see the heart of the table Ola West, Turkey and the United States make up the Arabs
Tip and Libya lead the world and the end of the Arab rulers traitors proverb nights home
Glass does not survive pry stones
And Ardjao for Srtin leader with Bashar al-Assad in order to Tarafo Lada There are similar or not in shape, height and hair and skin.
For your information leader Bashar al-Assad was knowing that the leader Nawi turns them Ola.
West and cut it like evidence said in a previous interview that there is a surprise to supporters.
Rah light shake the world
He lived light and hold out until victory and the neighborhood you (Aischof Bajunh)
ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻣﻘﺮﺏ ﻭﺻﺎﺩﻕ ﻭﻧﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺎ ﻻﻧﻪ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﻲ ﻫﻮ
ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﻋﻼ ﻗﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﻩ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﺣﻒ ﺍﻻﻣﻤﻲ ﻗﺎﺩﻡ ﻭﺍﺳﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪﺱ ﻗﺒﻞ
ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪﻩ
ﻭﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻓﻴﺎ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻳﺎﻟﻲ ﻳﺘﺰﻋﻤﻬﺎ ﺭﻭﺳﻲ ﻃﻠﺒﺖ ﻣﺒﻠﻎ 10 ﻣﻠﻴﺎﺭ ﺩﻭﻻﺭ
ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻀﺤﻲ ﺑﺸﺨﺺ ﺑﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﻭﺗﺨﺮﺝ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﺍﺑﻠﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻫﺪﺍ
ﺍﺳﻤﻪ ﺍﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﺍﺑﻮﻣﻨﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﻢ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺷﺒﻴﻪ ﺑﺪﺭﺟﻪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﻩ
ﺣﻴﺖ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻓﻴﺎ ﺑﺎﺭﺳﺎﻝ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺮﻧﺞ ﻭﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻛﺒﺮ ﺟﺮﺍﺡ
ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﺠﻤﻴﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺑﺎﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﻪ ﺟﺮﺍﺣﻴﻪ ﺗﺠﻤﻴﻠﻴﻪ ﻟﻴﻀﻬﺮ ﺍﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﺍﺑﻦ
ﻋﻢ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻓﻲ ﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺮﻧﺞ ﻟﻮ
ﺗﺮﻛﺰﻭ ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ﺭﺡ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻮ ﻭﺗﻘﺘﻨﻌﻮ ﺑﺎﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ
ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻌﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺮﺝ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻣﺎﺩﻛﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ
ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻣﺪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺯﺣﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﻢ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻮﻩ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﺎﻳﻞ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻘﺴﻤﻬﺎ
ﻓﻲ ﻟﻌﺒﺖ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺮﻧﺞ ﻋﻼ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻛﺒﺮ ﻫﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﺎﻳﻞ ﻓﻌﻼ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻗﺒﺎﻳﻞ ﺻﺎﻣﺪﻩ
ﺷﺎﻣﺨﻪ ﻣﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻌﻪ ﻭﻗﺒﺎﻳﻞ ﻓﺮﺳﺎﻥ ﻭﻗﺒﺎﻳﻞ ﻣﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻳﺮ ﻭﻗﺒﺎﻳﻞ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﻩ ﻓﻲ
ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﻣﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺯﺣﻔﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻬﺠﻮﻡ ﻋﻼ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺗﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺑﺨﺮﻭﺝ
ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﻣﺮﻩ ﺍﺧﺮﻩ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺯﺣﻒ ﺍﻣﻤﻲ ﻳﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻧﺎ ﺍﻧﻘﻮﺩﻩ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﺶ ﻣﻠﻚ
ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺒﻪ ﺍﻭ ﻓﺒﺮﺍﻳﺮ ﺑﺨﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ
ﻳﺎﻟﻲ ﺑﻴﺼﺪﻕ ﺍﻳﺼﺪﻕ ﻭﻳﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻣﻜﺪﺏ ﺑﺮﺍﺣﺘﻪ ﺑﺲ ﻭﺣﻖ ﺭﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﺣﻲ
ﻭﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺑﻘﻮﻩ ﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻭﻟﻪ ﻋﻼ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﺗﺮﻛﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﻓﻮﻕ
ﺍﻟﻘﻤﻪ ﻭﻟﻴﺒﻴﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺨﻮﻧﻪ ﺑﻤﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻳﺎﻟﻲ ﺑﻴﺘﻪ
ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺟﺎﺝ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻘﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﻩ
ﻭﺍﺭﺟﻌﻮ ﻟﻠﺼﺮﺗﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﻣﻊ ﺑﺸﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﺳﺪ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻮ ﺍﺩﺍ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺷﺒﻴﻪ ﺍﻭ ﻻ
ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻩ
ﻭﻟﻠﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﺑﺸﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﺳﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻤﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺰﻋﻴﻢ ﻧﺎﻭﻱ ﻳﻘﻠﺒﻬﺎ ﻋﻼ
ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﺑﻘﺼﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻴﻪ ﺑﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻔﺎﺟﺎﻩ ﻻﻧﺼﺎﺭ
ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺗﺢ ﺭﺡ ﺗﻬﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ
ﻋﺎﺵ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺗﺢ ﻭﺻﻤﻮﺩ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻲ ﻣﻨﻜﻢ ﺍﻳﺸﻮﻑ ﺑﻌﻴﻮﻧﻪ
Aknibis Elzwawi, informs us:
‘Eachoa Humaid’ died in Germany and unsure of my information, but one hundred percent. How much is still on the end of the year two months Lotto Ancovo ?
12 AUGUST 2014:
“Sons, Sheikh Abdul Salam al-Asmar”, reports:
In the words of the president of Russia, Putin said today:
“if that supporters of Colonel Muammar al-Qathafi moved towards this disgraceful situation in their country,
I’ll be the first to stand with them, avoiding gear will allow for the first error to be repeated.”
(God is great and above Kidd rats.)
10 SEPTEMBER 2015:
arousing the Russian bear.
PUTIN, in St. Petersburg, RUSSIA, QUOTES from the GREEN BOOK of Mu’ammar al-Qathafi at the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM !
“The era of the masses and is actively crawling toward us after the era of republics inflame sentiments and dazzling eyes .. ..”
(Putin quoting from the first chapter of the “Green Book”, in St. Petersburg, 23 MAY 2014.at the World Economic Forum)
Russian President Vladimir Putin during the plenary session of the World Economic Forum in St. Petersburg on Friday, 23 water / May The model of a unipolar world has not achieved tomorrow so obvious even to those who are trying to dictate the rules of the game in politics.
He pointed out that the fact that even perceived by those who are trying to maintain a monopoly and dictate the rules of the game in politics, trade, finance, and the imposition of cultural norms and behavioral.
Putin said that the economic turmoil in 2008 was a sign of the worsening crisis in the development model based on the unity and dominance, pointing out that this must be a lesson in understanding the diversity of the world and assess the new reality and consciously aware of the complex relationships of the list.
Innocent children perceive when love and goodness abound.
Vladamir Putin says:
“God is not what you see, but he is within the heart that is within your breast” :
Millions Supporting Al Gaddafi Mummar w his Prayer-beads:
Green Resistance Destroyed Misurata TV Channel , the green resistance targeted it with RBG.
Libya… Misurata ____________
a rocket attack on the headquarters of radio program broadcasted misurata live on air to report on radio blackout and damaged building
|Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexiy II during the Orthodox Christmas celebration, January 2000.
Vladimir Putin kisses an icon inside the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra monastery in Kiev, April 2000.
Vladimir Putin kisses an Orthodox priest during an Easter service in the Isakyevsky cathedral in St Petersburg, April 2000.
Russian patriarch calls Putin era “miracle of God”
MOSCOW | Wed Feb 8, 2012 8:12pm GMT
(Reuters) – The head of the Russian Orthodox church on Wednesday called the 12 years of Vladimir Putin’s rule a “miracle of God” and criticised his opponents, at a gathering where religious leaders heaped praise on the prime minister.
Putin wants support from spiritual figures for his campaign to win his third term in the Kremlin in a March 4 election. He is facing a growing protest movement and needs to consolidate his core support to avoid a runoff.
FREE GUIDES AND REPORTS FROM DIANOMI
February Stock Tips
Revealed: February Stocks Set to Soar
Download FREE Report
Putin has built his campaign on a contrast with the turbulent 1990s, when millions were thrown into poverty after the collapse of the Soviet Union while ethnic conflicts such as the war in Chechnya threatened to tear Russia apart.
Patriarch Kirill, a bearded cleric seen as a modernising figure in the Russian church, the largest in Orthodox Christianity, compared the period preceding Putin’s ascent to power to the 1941 Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.
“What were the 2000s then? Through a miracle of God, with the active participation of the country’s leadership, we managed to exit this horrible, systemic crisis,” Kirill told a meeting at the ancient St. Daniel’s monastery.
“I should say it openly as a patriarch who must only tell the truth, not paying attention to the political situation or propaganda, you personally played a massive role in correcting this crooked twist of our history,” Kirill said.
Putin replaced the ailing Boris Yeltsin as president in 2000. He presided over an oil-fuelled economic boom until the global economic crisis struck the country in 2008.
Banned by the constitution from running for a third consecutive term, Putin stepped down in 2008 but remained in charge in the position of prime minister.
He looks set to win the election despite the biggest opposition protests of his rule but may be forced into a second round if he fails to get more than 50 percent of the vote in the first.
Kirill called opposition demands to “ear-piercing shrieks” and said the protesters represented a minority of Russians. He said Western consumer culture was admired by many of Putin’s opponents and was a major threat to Russia.
“The majority, I assure you, are those who agree with what I am saying,” Kirill said.
Kirill’s speech was echoed by leaders of other faiths.
“You had it right, the fact that they (opposition protests) took place on Saturday suggests that it was not a Jewish business,” Russia’s chief rabbi, Berel Lazar, told Putin.
“We joked in the synagogue that it would have been better to come for a prayer on that day.”
The gathering was also attended by four muftis from predominantly Muslim Russian regions, a Buddhist lama, an Armenian bishop and representatives of Roman Catholics and other Christian churches.
“Muslims know you, Muslims trust you, Muslims are wishing you success,” said mufti Ravil Gainutdin. Mufti Ismail Berdiyev from the turbulent North Caucasus added: “You are the only person who has shown the United States its place.”
(Reporting by Gleb Bryanski; editing by Andrew Roche)
Vladimir Putin offers Pope John Paul II a limited edition book on the Kremlin’s restoration during his visit to the Vatican, June 2000.
Vladimir Putin, his wife Lyudmila and Patriarch Alexiy II attend a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the installation of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch, June 2000.
Vladimir Putin speaks at a meeting in Moscow as Patriarch Alexiy II listens, August 2000.
Vladimir Putin awards Patriarch Alexiy II with the state award for substantial contribution into spiritual and moral revival of Russia, January 2001.
Vladimir Putin and Lyudmila cross themselves during Easter service at Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, April 2001.
Russia: Putin’s Faith Raises Questions05 April 2007By Chloe Arnold
MOSCOW, April 6, 2007 (RFE/RL) — Recent television images of Russian President Vladimir Putin have shown
him lighting candles at the Vatican and praying on the
edge of the Jordan River.
The president has never disguised his Russian Orthodox beliefs, but are they becoming more conspicuous?
Since coming to power, the Russian president has not tried to conceal his Orthodox faith. But, according to some,
he was not always religious.
Father Igor Vyzhanov, a spokesman for the department of external church relations at the Moscow Patriarchate,
says Putin’s views on religion have changed.
“I heard about a miracle with a small cross which he had experienced, and according to which he started believing,”
Vyzhanov says.‘As for the fact that the president goes to church at Easter, I think this is his personal matter, too.’
Aleksandr Verkhovsky, the director of the Sova Information and Analysis Center, which monitors religiousdiscrimination in Russia, says the president is undoubtedly
a fervent believer.
“Frankly speaking, I don’t see any dynamics [indicating his faith is becoming more intense]. On the contrary,I think it is less than during the first two years of his presidency.
Then, it was really noticeable,” Verkhovsky says.
“But at some point I think he was forced, or he took the decision, to distance himself a little from the churchleadership. Because everyone had the impression that he
was a man interested in the church, and the church leadership hoped that this would mean they would havevery close relations. But, in fact, no one intended to propose
close relationships, because that was not something the government needed.”
Separation Of Church And State
The Russian Constitution asserts that the church and the state must be entirely separate. Traditionally, Russia
has had four official religions — Russian Orthodoxy,
Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism. But there are fears that Putin’s obvious Orthodox faith means he favors one religion
over the others.
This week, the Russian government announced it would hand back land that was seized from the Russian Orthodox
church after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
Aleksei Malashenko, an expert in religious affairs at the Carnegie Moscow Center, says the Orthodox Church isn’t likely
to become Russia’s only official religion.
“But at the same time, we have to recognize that the Russian Orthodox Church occupies a special position, and it has
special relations with [the] state, and their
ambitions are mostly political ambitions. They want to participate in the elaboration of the Russian way of
development,” Malashenko says.
A recent example of this was the decision made by schools in several regions of the country to introduce compulsory
courses on Orthodox Christian culture.
In response, the Council of Muftis of Russia raised its concerns about the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox
Church, and announced it would pressure
the government to expand the instruction of Muslim culture beyond the Muslim republics in the North Caucasus to
other regions with large Muslim communities.
Orthodox In Name
The Sova Center’s Verkhovsky says there are two reasons the Russian Orthodox Church seems to have priority over
other faiths in Russia.
“Firstly, it’s connected to the traditions of the Russian statehood, which perceives itself, roughly speaking, as the heir to
the Principality of Moscow
and the Russian Empire, and not as an amalgam of the multicultured citizens that make up Russia today,” Verkhovsky says.
“On the other hand, the Orthodox faith is, to some degree anyway, the religion of the majority of our citizens who called
themselves Orthodox, even though they don’t entirely know
what this means. Some don’t even believe in God, but they call themselves Orthodox Christians, and so the church
indirectly speaks for them.”
But Father Yakov Krotov, a religious commentator, is more skeptical. He believes the government and the president
give preferentiality to the Orthodox Church over other faiths.
“Putin has shown he is a believer, an Orthodox Christian, but when it comes to politics, he is a politician. That’s to say
that he doesn’t support the Orthodox Church as a whole, he
supports those Orthodox believers who were brought up by the Kremlin nomenclature over the past 60 years,”
“He doesn’t even support the Orthodox faith in particular, he supports those aspects that are part of the religious elite.
That’s to say he suppresses one group of Muslims, and supports
another, he suppresses one group of Jews and supports another. It’s an old Soviet trick: selection. It’s a similar thing to
what Hitler did.”
But Father Vyzhanov doesn’t see anything as sinister in Putin’s faith: “As for the fact that the president goes to
church at Easter, I think this is his personal matter, too. For example,
when the president of the United States shows his religiosity, or points out to his church his confession, no one sees any
problem in this. The presidents are human beings, too.”
There has been speculation that Putin’s recent trip to the Vatican, to meet Pope Benedict XVI, might pave
the way for an unprecedented meeting between the leaders of the
Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths — an indication, Vyzhanov says, that Putin welcomes and supports
The president’s press service says it will not disclose Putin’s plans for Easter Sunday, but it is likely he will mark the
occasion — as he has for many years — by attending the service at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in central Moscow.
02 November 2013, Saturday — “The Russians are coming”
“We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
article in the New York Times entitled “A Plea for Caution From Russia: What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria.”It appeared on September 11 (yes, the anniversary of 9/11).”Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders,” Putin wrote. “It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.”The Russian president went on to say: “If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.”But it was the final line of his essay which was truly astonishing. He wrote: “There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”This appeal to “the Lord” and to “God” by the Russian president raised eyebrows worldwide, not least in Rome.The Russian president was making a reference to a spiritual power, to God; the former KGB agent was speaking not about the forces of historical determinism, but about “blessings” from a personal divinity.
Putin’s Valdai talk
A few days later, on September 19, Putin spoke at an annual gathering to discuss Russia’s future in Valdai, Russia (near Novgorod).
“Putin urges Russians to return to values of religion,” was the title of an AP report by Neil Buckley, present at the meeting. “Vladimir Putin called on Russians to strengthen a new national identity based on conservative and traditional values such as the Orthodox church, warning that the West was facing a moral crisis.”
In his talk, Putin said: “A policy is being conducted of putting on the same level multi-child families and single-sex partnerships, belief in God and belief in Satan. The excesses of political correctness are leading to the point where people are talking seriously about registering parties whose goal is legalizing the propaganda of pedophilia.”
And Putin added: “People in many European countries are ashamed, and are afraid of talking about their religious convictions. [Religious] holidays are being taken away or called something else, shamefully hiding the essence of the holiday.”
So here we see the president of Russia lamenting the loss of public respect for religion, and religious holidays, in the West.
“Do not go down that road”
The Russians, increasingly, are warning the West that the road we are traveling down will lead to the type of society that the communists build in the Soviet Union. They are warning the West against going down that road. Urging us to stop and turn around…
We do invite all to attend our very special “Concert for Peace” in Rome, on Via della Conciliazione #4, at the Auditorium Conciliazione, on November 12, 2013, at 9 p.m. Entrance is free of charge, but we ask if possible that people reserve seats by replying to this email (first come first served).
If anyone would like more information about this important initiative, please write to me by replying to this email. –Robert Moynihan
Russia bans cussing in films, books, music
(CNN) — Thinking about making a film? Better leave out the foul language if you want it to be seen in Russia. The same goes for plays. Even rock stars will need to leave their potty mouths at home.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law Monday that bans swearing at arts, cultural and entertainment events in the country.
Any new film containing obscene language won’t be granted a distribution certificate, so there’s no chance of seeing it at the movie theater.
And copies of books, CDs or films containing swearing can only be distributed in a sealed package labeled “Contains obscene language,” a Kremlin statement said.
Russia’s president annexes … words
Russia will enforce anti-gay law
New Russian law bans U.S. adoptions
According to state news agency ITAR-Tass, individuals caught using foul language face a fine of up to 50.45€, while officials can be fined up to 28.83€ and businesses nearly 1,009.08€. They face a higher fine and a three-month suspension of business for repeated offenses.
Determination of what counts as profane language will be done through “an independent examination,” the news agency said.
According to the Kremlin, the legislation “bans the use of obscene language when ensuring the rights of Russian citizens to the use of the state language, and protecting and developing language culture.”
The law could come into effect as soon as July 1, ITAR-Tass said, but it doesn’t apply to cultural and artistic works that have already been issued.
A report by “rights group Amnesty International“ (UGH!!) in January highlighted a denial of “basic freedoms” (SOME BASIC FILTHY anti-human so-called “FEEDOMS”!!) in Russia, which last year introduced a law barring anyone from talking positively about homosexuality in earshot of minors.
Here he is praying with Muammar al Qathafi:
PUTIN & al-QATHAFI:
English: TRIPOLI. With leader of the Libyan Revolution Muammar Gaddafi.
|Date||16 & 17 April 2008 in Tripoli, Libya|
|Author||Presidential Press and Information Office|
November 3, 2008
IN HIS first visit to Russia since the Soviet era, the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, lauded a new era of co-operation between the two countries as he sought to take advantage of a recent chill between Moscow and Washington.
“Unfortunately, in the past our relations have been mostly focused on military co-operation and politics,” Colonel Gaddafi said as he met the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev. “There was no cooperation in the civilian sectors. Now, Russian companies have already begun to work in various sectors of the Libyan economy. We consider especially important our co-operation in the oil and gas spheres.” Libya’s Foreign Minister, Abdelrahman Chalgham, said the two countries signed a civil co-operation deal “in the area of peaceful use of civilian nuclear [technology], particularly in the design and construction of reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel”.
But Kremlin sources and defence experts agreed that Colonel Gaddafi, who later also met the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, came to Moscow not only to seek co-operation on energy but also to reach an agreement on buying Russian weapons to boost Libya’s defences.
The Russian Interfax agency quoted unnamed Kremlin sources as saying that Libya was interested in buying anti-aircraft missile systems, two squadrons of fighter jets and a variety of other military hardware, including a diesel submarine. Vyacheslav Davidenko, a spokesman for the Russian state weapons exporter Rosoboronexport, neither confirmed nor denied the report.
“Military co-operation between Libya and Russia has always existed,” Mr Davidenko said. “It is continuing now, but I can’t disclose the amount or the sums involved.”
see this video: http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/2166633/post162006861/
by Victoria Oveisa specially for Muammar!
w/ Russian Ambassador 2011 in May:
“We all must care about the growing number of victims of the civil war in Libya and also about the victims of rocket and bomb strikes on the territory of this country. This is the most important thing we should care to. But of course first of all those who are guilty on this tragedy must care to it. Care and pray to save their souls.
I am jealous to this optimism which I hear here that everything will be fine. I agree with one point: Colonel Gaddafi and those Libyans who fight… They give their lives… They could sell themselves, they could keep silent… But they SPEAK, they SPEAK, you understand? They try to open their month.. They might die for this, unfortunately. We saw what was made with Yugoslavia, we saw what was made with Iraq and we see what is being made with Libya now. I see, but many people turn away and say unless these bombs are not being thrown on us, unless our cities are not destroyed, we don’t want to make anything. It will be too late when they destroy, you understand, late!”
THIS IS OUR BROTHER-LEADER!
MUSLIM PRAYER IN TIMBUKTU:
DATE of PROPHET MUHAMMED BIRTH
Al Gaddafi leads Muslims from different parts of the world in prayer, in Timbuktu
Russia’s Putin warns against outside interference
- Turks seek world staged interference as Syria’s Homs bleeds
Wed, Feb 8 2012
- Russia U.N. veto on Syria aimed at crushing West’s crusade
Wed, Feb 8 2012
- Russia’s Putin warns against outside interference
Wed, Feb 8 2012
- Results of Syria talks must not be set in advance: Russia
Wed, Feb 8 2012
- Russia’s Lavrov seeks peace in Syria as insurgent and foreign forces bombard Homs
Tue, Feb 7 2012
By Steve Gutterman and Gleb Bryanski
MOSCOW | Wed 08 Feb 2012 2:58pm EST
(Reuters) – Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the world faced a growing “cult of violence” and Moscow must not let events like those in Libya and Syria be repeated in Russia, warning the West against interference in a country he intends to lead for years to come.
Putin also sent a stark signal to political foes that he will not tolerate threats to stability.
Putin’s remarks, at a meeting with Russian religious leaders, echoed the criticism of U.S. and NATO military action abroad that he frequently voiced as president in 2000-2008.
“We of course condemn all violence regardless of its source, but one cannot act like an elephant in a china shop,” Putin told Russian religious leaders – Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist – as talk turned to Libya and Syria.
“Help them, advise them – limit, for instance, their ability to use weapons – but do not interfere under any circumstances.”
Russia used its veto power in the U.N. Security Council to amplify that message Saturday, locking elbows with China to block a Western-Arab draft resolution supporting a call for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to quit.
Russia said it feared a resolution on Syria would open the door to foreign military intervention, pointing to the March 2010 Libya resolution that Moscow accused NATO of interpreting as broad license to help rebels oust Muammar Gaddafi and the Jamahiriya system he developed for the Libyan peoples.
“A cult of violence has been coming to the fore in international affairs in the past decade,” Putin said. “This cannot fail to cause concern … and we must not allow anything like this in our country.”
By raising the specter of CIA/al-Qaeda led “Arab Spring” armed upheaval-insurrection reaching Russia, Putin seemed to reveal a powerful motive for Moscow’s opposition to Western calls for Assad to step down.
NOT IN RUSSIA
Russia has plenty of true- humanitarian reasons (not the Western fake excuse called “humanitarian intervention”) to resist armed and viollent change in Syria.
Syria has also been a major client for Russian arms and hosts a naval maintenance and supply facility on its Mediterranean coast that is the only base outside the former Soviet Union for Russia’s shrunken navy.
This is “one of the main motives” behind Russia’s stance on Syria, said Vladimir Frolov, president of LEFF Group, a Moscow-based government relations firm.
“What worries Moscow most of all is a precedent in which an organization commanding great international legitimacy, such as the Security Council, decides how power should be transferred inside a sovereign state,” he said.
Putin has often criticized the United States and its NATO allies over its use of military force abroad, from the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the NATO air campaign that helped Libyan rebels overthrow the people’s government of the Jamahiriya and drive Muammar Gaddafi from his homeland last year.
But a shift in Russia’s political landscape seems to have added urgency to the former Soviet KGB officer’s warnings about threats to the stability he has claimed credit for establishing since he rose to power in 1999.
Polls indicate Putin will win the election, and he could rule until 2024 if re-elected after a six-year term.
Putin has countered the so-called “protesters” by casting their leaders as paid puppets of the West and praised tens of thousands of people who attended a rival rally in his support Saturday, saying he agreed with their peaceful message.
It is nothing new for Russia to say sovereign states should be left alone. The Kremlin, nervously watching U.S. global clout grow as Moscow’s own influence receded after the 1991 Soviet breakup, has traditionally championed the right to freedom from interference in internal affairs.
But the new air of political uncertainly inside Russia is making Moscow dig its heels in deeper on Syria, Frolov said.
But while Russia’s unbending position sends a powerful message, it could undermine its chances of maintaining influence in Syria in the long run.
Veto power in the council gives Moscow a high-decibel voce in global affairs and Russia used it to resounding effect on Saturday to block action on Syria.
But a high-profile mission to Syria by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and spy chief Mikhail Fradkov Tuesday seemed to underscore the limits of a foreign policy calculated to counter Western clout.
As Lavrov and Fradkov rode from Damascus airport to Assad’s residence for talks, the Russian Foreign Ministry used Twitter to describe crowds of Syrians lining the route, waving flags and thanking Russia for its support.
They returned hours later with no sign of a breakthrough toward peace, and little to show for the trip but secondhand assurances that Assad’s CIA/MI6 led opponents at home and critics abroad dismissed as a rehash of broken promises.
Russia “has maneuvered itself into a position in which it must bet on Assad’s survival to protect its interests,” Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, wrote in an article published in Foreign Affairs after the Security Council veto.
“Moscow needs to learn that saying no is not good enough,” he wrote.
(Writing by Steve Gutterman)
10 février 2012 writes: b
Salute and Full Support for Vladimir Putinof Russia!Russian Bear Vladimir Putin sends a stark signal to political foes that he will not tolerate threats to the stability he feels he represents to his country Russia..
Putin rightfully intends to lead Russia for years to come.
Go Putin!! We are with You !! G.T.Syria: Putin condemns west’s ‘policy of interference’
Published on Thursday 09 February 2012 02:12Vladimir Putinhas said the world faces a growing “cult of violence” and Moscow must not let events such as those in Libya and Syria be repeated in Russia, warning the west against interference in a country he intends to lead for years to come.Weeks ahead of a March presidential election he is almost sure to win despite the biggest opposition protests of his 12-year rule, Putin also sent a stark signal to political foes that he will not tolerate threats to the stability he feels he represents.Putin’s remarks yesterday, at a meeting with Russian religious leaders, echoed the criticism of US and NATO military action abroad that he frequently voiced as president between 2000 and 2008.
“We, of course, condemn all violence regardless of its source, but one cannot act like an elephant in a china shop,” Putin said as talk turned to Libyaand Syria.“Help them, advise them – limit, for instance, their ability to use weapons – but do not interfere under any circumstances.”A cult of violence has been coming to the fore in international affairs in the past decade,” he added. “This cannot fail to cause concern … and we must not allow anything like this in our country.”
By raising the specter of Arab Spring upheaval reaching Russia, Putin seemed to reveal a powerful motive for Moscow’s opposition to western calls for Assad to step down after 11 months of bloodshed fueled by his crackdown on opponents.
Russia used its veto power in the UN Security Council to amplify that message on Saturday, locking elbows with China to block a western-Arab draft resolution supporting a call for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to quit.
Russia also has pragmatic reasons to resist political change in Syria, its last real foothold in the Middle East.
Syria has been a major client for Russian arms and hosts a naval maintenance facility on its Mediterranean coast, the only base outside the former Soviet Union for Russia’s shrunken navy.Source the Scotsman .com
No preaching needed from western quacks and charlatans
Vladimir Putin is not a man who can be bought, fooled, hoodwinked or silenced. That, in itself, is the major reason the western media, on behalf of its paymasters, seeks to demonize him and question his legitimacy as the next President of Russia.
Vladimir Putin knows a site more of what democracy is about than all the western leaders combined. No rational person sees the definition of democracy as “willing to do what you are told by Washington and / or Tel Aviv.” Thus is the western concept of democracy, coupled with bombs from 30,000 feet up, bullets and blackmail.
Violence and force are what western-style democracy is all about. I am afraid that Russia and the world community are not receptive to that concept.
A democracy does not fund and support terrorists. A democracy does not tell an offending group of armed insurrectionists to not negotiate under any circumstances. A democracy does not go around expecting violence to end when they are covertly and overtly supplying arms to one side.
A democracy does not say NO to free and fair supervised elections (as they did in Libya and are doing in Syria).
All the insolent pig-headed calling of a true democratic procedure a mockery will not hold water. The western media and leaders have been doing plenty of that.
With Putin, Russia can now redeem itself for its error on Libya
– (Larry Jones and “Antiimperialist” for LibyanFreePressNetwork) –
With Putin, Russia can now redeem itself for its error on Libya.
If the Jamahiriya has any strength left (and I hear that it does), then its members should approach Russia and establish an alliance. Jamahiriya officers must not thinking that they “can’t” establish such relations, or that Russia would object.
The Jamahiriya is the legitimate government that was overthrown forcibly. Jamahriya officers should go to Russia and ask that Russia send 100,000 troops to fight along with the Green Resistance, for the purpose of defeating the rats and restoring the Jamahiriya to its rightful place. The U.S., in my opinion, will not lift a finger if Russian troops show up en masse.
The U.S. will posture and huff and puff, but it would not do anything. One reason is that this is an election year. And, although the U.S. government generally doesn’t give a care about public opinion, this time is different. Obama doesn’t want to risk losing votes by involving the U.S. in another war. The Americans citizens are sick and tired of war.
So, this is the time for Jamahiriya officers to stand up as the rightful representives of Libya that they are. The Jamahiriya is a legitimate governments. Legitimate governments have the right to make treaties and alliances with other governments.
Everyone on earth, due to the Internet, knows that the Jamahiriya was displaced by force. The world would applaud the intervention of Russia for a JUST CAUSE: Restoring the Jamahiriya to the position that was so viciously taken away from it, that is, from THE PEOPLE.
Do not assume that Putin would deny such an alliance. Do not assume that. This is only my opinion, that’s all.
This–right now–is the time to move. The rats are planning an election. Some tribes (supposedly) have organized themselves, in the east, to form Barqa. The NTC can’t govern. Libya is without government, except for the Jamahiriya. Ask Russia to send 100,000 troops.
Russia can now redeem itself for its error in abstaning on those resolutions. The Libyan Jamahiriya’s cause is totally just. Differences that existed can be worked out later. But, for now, the Jamahiriya must be restored. Once it is restored, THEN Libyans can decided whether they want to keep the Jamahiriya, or discard it and replace it with some other system.
But Libyans did not make the decision to remove the Jamahiriya–Europeans (and Euro-Americans) did. So, Libya has the moral duty to restore the Jamahiriya back to its governing position. And Libya has a duty to itself, for reasons of pride.
Libya should not allow it to continue that it was FORCED, by the Eurospeans, Americans, and Qataris, to change its government. That is a decision to be made by Libyans, not by outsiders.
I ask again: The appropriate Jamahiriya officers must go to Russia and secure an alliance, including a MILITARY alliance, with Russia. The Jamahiriya, the only legal government of Libya, has the right, as a legal government, to ask Russia to send 500,000 soldiers to Libya for the purpose of fighing alongside the Green Resistance until all rats are either killed, captured and imprisoned, or deported from Libya forever.
The world will not object. The world will applaud.
We all can see, clearly, that there is an imperialist alliance that includes the United States, Canada, Australia, France, England and the S0-CALLED Arab-Muslim Gulf states, such as Qatar. This is a BIG force, despite the fac that the U.S. is facing economic collapse.
So, the union of these imperial forces must be counter-balanced with new alliances. And a start for that alliance, in my opinion, should be Russia, Syria, and Libya. There she be joint, binding commitments between those three countries that they will militarily fight together against any threat that is made to any one, or any combination, of the countries of Syria, Libya and Russia.
There is NO CHOICE in this matter, and Russia, Syria, and the Jamahiriya [Libya] must realize that quickly. The imperialists will never stop, especially if they do not see any threat to their machinations. They only understand force. They are not going to give up their quest to destroy Syria and their desire to control the Mediterranean Sea and the entire area.
They must be driven back to their home countries, and the way to do that is to create very strong defences for Russia, Syria, and the Jamahiriya [Libya]
Other countries must do they same, if they have the sense and dignity to do so. I say “dignity,” because it is pitifully undignified to cringe and bend to the will of imperialists. And the only way to stand up to them without bowing to them is to create new, strong alliances.
If Algeria could look beyond the immediate, it would immediately seek to join an alliance with Russia, Syria, and the Jamahiriya [Libya], and so to would the Polisario and all revolutionary and proud, independent states in the area.
The new alliance MUST face the now well-known fact that the group that is called Al-Qaeda is NOT an Islamic liberation movement, but is a paid organization controlled by the CIA of the United States. This is now such common knowledge that, in the “streets” of the Middle East Al-Qaeda is referred to, by the common people, as Al-CIAda.
Wherever there is the presence of Al-Qaeda, or any group that LOOKS AND ACTS like Al-Qaeda, those groups much be eliminated physically–KILLED. There is no question about that. Al-Qaeda does not negotiate. It is an irrational, violent group, controlled by the CIA, with, unfortunately, youg Muslim men who are not aware that the leaders of Al-CIAda are controlled by, and paid by, the Central Intelligence Agency of the United SNAKES of America. There is no other reality.
Russia, Syria, the Jamahiriya [i.e., Libya] and Algeria must work together to drive Al-CIAda out of North Africa, once and for all. Al-CIAda bases in the Sahara must be crushed without a single ounce of mercy whatsoever. This is because that group is ONE-EYED and dangerous. It cannot be reasoned with. The only solution is to KILL them. That’s it.
North Africa must be cleansed of Al-CIAda. And that can be done both through violence means, and by INTELLIGENCE. Once the intelligence identifies all Al-CIAda members, then they should destroyed. This will send a strong message to the madrassas and other places where Al-CIAda acquires its recruits.
It is time to stand up strongly and let the imperialists know that they will soon have a powerful and fierce counter-balance to contend with. This is the only reality.
There is one other important country that should be in that alliance, but I will not mention it. It should be obvious. I hope that country would join.
These words are my sharing of my thoughts. I do not pretend that my words will go anywhere other than this reply box at this website. On the other hand, I do hope that my words spread to responsible people in the Russian, Syrian, Libyan, Algerian and other governments that can see that they will be picked off, one by one, by the imperialists, unless they unite for their common defence.
There are two important moves that have to be made NOW–RIGHT NOW.
1. Russia, Syria, and the Libyan Green Resistance, must bind together in a strong and permant alliance. You can’t beat these demons without that type of strong unity. That alliance must include a MILITARY component–militarily uniting; fightin together, as ONE unit, so that if the imperalist jump on Syria, then Libya [the Green Resistance] and Russia will fight, with Syria.
2. Russia and Syria must help the Green Resistance in Libya to overthrow the NTC, Al-Qaeda, and all false governments and forces there. Russia and Syria must send troops to Libya, to fight alongside the forces of the Green Resistance for the purpose of re-installing the Libyan Jamahiriya as the legitimate government of Libya.
Russia should send 100,000 troops at least; and Syria must send whatever it can send, but no less than 10,000 troops. This is serious. It has to be done quickly. The U.S. will not do anything. They can’t. They will very soon have their hands tied with their own populace, one-third of which are without employment. The Occupy Movemen has not been that effective, but they have NOT given up, and are re-grouping. They have stopped many Americans from losing their homes, so that’s a good thing.
Now–right now–is the time for Russia, Syria, and the Green Resistance to unite. This is an alliance. And the FIRST test for the strength of that alliance must be the restoration of the Jamahiriya, in Libya, to power. That should be the first goal of the Russia-Syria-Jamahiriya alliance. This will prove the loyalty of the alliance members, and, more importantly, it will prove the EFFECTIVENESS of the alliance.
That alliance will send a SURPRISING and POWERFUL signal to all of the imperialist forces. The imperialist and monarchist Gulf State forces, such as Qatar, will be sent a shockwave. A new power will have emerged: Syria, Russia, and the Libyan Jamahiriya (which will be in full control of ALL of Libya–whether it is liked or not).
The second goal of the alliance, after it completes the liberation of Libya, must be its attempt to convince Algeria to join the alliance. IN TIME, Egypt will come later.
So, the new power will be: Russia, Syria, Libya and Algeria. You can’t fight ALONE. You can’t defend yourself against the demon imperialist, because they have MORE GUNS, more tanks, more everything. But, together, you can defend yourself. They will RESPECT you. Otherwise, the WILL NOT respect you.
I have lived in the belly of the best for 75 years. I know what needs to be done. No one has to listen to this “old man.” But, if those countries DON’T take heed to what I’m saying, then they will be destroyed by the imperialist, and there is no doubt about it.
It is time to move NOW, and move VERY FAST. The nations are independent and can make their decisions as to who they will ally with. Such decisions are not within the authority of the ineffective United Nations body, which is an absolutely USELESS organziation that is designed to carry out the will of the imperialists.
A NEW ORDER has to be created that will stand up against the imperialist order. Get going!
It has been reported that the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, has accused the rat “government” of the NTC, in Libya, of having allowed the creation, and maintenance, of terrorist training camps where terrorists are being trained for the purpose of attacking Syria and toppling the Syrian government. If this rumor is true, then if the Russian government allows those terrorist to enter Syria, then the problems for Russia and Syria are going to increase.
I said before: The demon imperialists ARE NOT going to discontinue their plans. They are working feverishly, day and night, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, moving towards their goal of destroying Syria, and, thus, weakening Russia.
What more does Russia have to wait for, hum? Russia has been waiting and waiting and waiting. And now, the U.S. is at Russian’s doorsteps, planning the deployment of a missle shield that is designed to attack Russia.
And now, the U.S. wants to destroy and control Syria by setting up a puppet government that will be controlled by the U.S. Will Russia YET AGAIN sit back and make the error of thinking that the U.S. can’t complete its goals?
The U.S. destroyed Libya. Russia must now send from 100,000 to 500,000 troops to Libya NOW. It must destroy any terrorist camps that have been set up to train terrorists to attack Syria; it must destroy the NTC, Al-Qaeda, foreign mercenaries, Islamists, and any group, including branches of the so-called “Muslim” Brotherhood that helped to topple the Libyan Jamahiriya.
After destroying ALL of those entities that helped the U.S. to succeed in destroying Libya, Russia must then help the Libyan Jamahiriya to take over Libya again as the legitimate government. Then, it must help Libya to remain free and strong. Russia has NO CHOICE.
If Russia fails to help the Jamahiriya become restored in Libya, then it faces the danger the U.S. Libyan rats spreading their terror to other countries in the North African area. Russia must act now in a military manner. There is no other choice.
Larry Jones – 9 Mar 2012
An answer from “Antiimperialist”
“I think that Russia has a historical problem of military intervention.
Majority of Russian generals were soviet soldiers in Afganistan during 80s, and they know how great disaster was this intervention for their homeland USSR.
16.000 soviet soldiers were killed, country became totally bankrupted and because of young boys who came home in a coffin, social unrests erupted in all parts of soviet state.
USSR collapsed and one of the reasons for that disaster was military intervention in Afganistan.
So I don`t think that they will go to Libya”.
Authors: Larry Jones and “Antiimperialist” for LibyanFreePressNetwork
We thank brothers Larry Jones and “Antiimperialist” for their contribution
America is now a crypto-fascist state, masquerading as a democracy. The European Union is a crypto-fascist entity, elected by no one, and certainly not acting according to the will of the people. No one elected NATO, either, to carry out foreign policy and world policeman duties.
As the next President of the Russian Federation said, “Suspension of the West’s military aid to the Syrian opposition will make the rebel fighters sit down at the negotiating table…it’s unacceptable to support one party to the conflict until it wipes out the other party.” Pure and simple logic, obviously lost on the hypocritical, lying fascist western leaders, particularly the USA and despicable Hillary war zone Clinton.
Vladimir Putin also points out that authorities should react quickly to the people’s demands and remarks that not only have they made their demands known in Russia, but throughout all the countries of Europe and the USA.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has spread like wildfire. All of this is basically a protest against the uneven distribution of wealth in the world, that one percent lives like stuffed pigs while the rest have to go without, hungry, starving, homeless, jobless, without health care.
The west most certainly cannot teach anyone about freedom, democracy, liberty, equality and justice. Their total disrespect for international law has been duly noted, as well as their inability to keep agreements they make.
But make no mistake, the western media has already been in full gear to discredit the Russian elections taking place tomorrow. They are so confident, arrogant and despicable that they have started the process well in advance.
However, this makes it much easier to awaken more and more people to their true demonic, evil, dishonest nature.
It would be wise to ignore their screaming, their lies, their machinations, their utterly repulisve noise, as they march in lockstep to their orders from the fascist privileged stuffed pig elites.
Perhaps these media pigs would like to discuss Florida and Ohio.. and hanging, dimpled or pregnant chads or how only someone rich, with rich backers and the backing of strong lobbies can be elected in a most undemocratic two party system, where third party candidates don’t stand a prayer of serious consideration.
Vladimir Putin is the right man to lead Russia. Russia will serve as the vanguard of true democracy under President Vladimir Putin and the anti-fascist world movement which is gaining strength every day.
Breaking -> United State’s New Hero ~ Vladimir Putin: Russia Issues International Arrest
Warrant For Rothschild Henchman & Leftist Savior George Soros!
23 MARCH 2012 BY VOLUBRJOTR
Keep in mind Vladimir Putin just paid off Rothschild debt.
Vladimir Putin, now in full control of Russia as Prime Minister, wishes to build a strongChristian nation. In a televised Christmas message on January 7 2008 Putin said:
— “The Russian Orthodox Church contributes to the promotion of moral values in society. One should not completely draw a line between the culture and the church. Of course by law in our country the church is separate from the state. But in the soul and the history of our people it’s all together. It always has been and always will be.”
Russia will make The United States reflect upon what they allowed Rothschild to do to their own country. So when you see protests against Vladimir now, keep in mind it is probably staged by The Rothschild’s trying to control Russia once again.
- SGT Report
- Another Fraud Charge On Already Convicted Felon George Soros: Flying The Coop On His Fraud Company And A Million Judgment Against It!
- We Have A Convicted Felon Still Driving Behind The Wheel In America: His Name Is George Soros!
- British Operative Billionaire And Convicted Felon George Soros: Warns Sovereign American Citizens, Against Resisting The British Monarchy’s International Banking System – Nicknamed “Open Society”.
- Convicted Felon George Soros Creeping Around Our Nation: Told Obama To ‘Nationalize’ US Banks By Exorbitant Forced ‘Bailouts’.
- Clinton To Brazil: Obama Sends Billion Of U.S. Tax Dollars To Brazil For Drilling New Oil, While Quashing America’s Drilling Rights.
Putin Issues Arrest Warrant for Financial Terrorist George Soros!!
Financial terrorist and Hungarian bank dick, Convicted Felon George Soros… Russian Intelligence has fingered Soros for using cross-collateralized compounded Swedish and Danish foreign currency derivatives for the purpose of an attack on the Russian stock market..
The thing that should give pause to the Heads of State Western is like Putin did in freeing Russia from those who wanted to bring the total economic and social collapse and beat up in jail all those who have tried.
Are they influencing Lubawitschern Putin? The fact is that Putin is loyal to Russia and its people, and never allow anyone, even when he is in command in that nation, to sell out his country and into the clutches of the NWO lasciarela. For this he ordered to issue an international arrest warrant against George Soros, who has been caught red-handed as he prepared to send financial aid to what is called opposition in Russia, which recently made the streets in dozens of thousands of people telling lies and misinformation-cheating during the elections.
Now Mr. Soros has little room to continue his dirty games with the speculation that has devastated the entire global financial system, in collaboration Rothschild / Rockefeller and other jackals.
Putin’s speech, which was officially issued by the Russian authorities.
Today it is made public the following statement by the Russian Federation and its Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, has been asked for an arrest warrant against the International Terrorist Finance, the Hungarian currency-Mogul George Soros, the Russian secret serviceshave found that Soros was using foreign currency derivatives with other Danes to start an attack against the Russian Currency Shares in the market.
- Political Vel Craft In Russia’s Pravda: Obama The Chicken Is Being Plucked!
- Convicted Felon George Soros 81 Offers Ex-Girlfriend Adriana Ferreyr 31 ~ K to Drop M Lawsuit.
It should be noted that Soros was using these derivatives with the help of Luxembourg banks, which is forbidden after the contract was made by the EU called Basel II.
Both the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and European Union have issued an Interpol “Red Notice” which is not only against the immediate arrest of Soros, but also against the Sharks on Finance, Bush, Clinton, criminal organization, Marc Rich and his firm, which is located in Switzerland, the Commodities Broker-Richfield, which is why the Russian Premier Putin has recently met the Chef of the Federal Reserve Bernanke Bermard making clear that the Russian Federation will not accept that such use is made of people like Soros and Rich to commit criminal acts of the derivatives market and Finance, which led to social destabilization across the globe.
Putin will be done and start the hunt for these criminals and their accomplices Bankers Rothschild, Rockefeller.
Turkey does not go down to the will of the West.
The turkey is not associated with the embargo that the U.S. / Israel and the EU have decided to take against Iran, has stated that the turkish government spokesman, adding that since the decision when the embargo will not be officially given by ‘ UN, Turkey will continue to import oil from Iran, since both states have agreed in the contracts they have in common, the spokesman continued his speech, stating that the EU states that have passed the Embargo you are penalized for their own to please the U.S. government without thinking that the reactions of citizens would be contrary to their decisions, this leads to moodiness and social problems (they’re seeing), Iran itself has decided to cut oil supplies to the EU immediately even if they decided that the embargo should be implemented within 6 months from the declaration.
Turkey itself has commercial contracts with Iran, which also consist of providing material for the maintenance of its nuclear plants that are used for electricity and how it is spread by the Western media who write under pressure governments US / Israeli that control them 100%, that Iran is almost ready to build its atomic and therefore always to serve their master without thinking such catastrophic consequences may ensue, to consider that the Obama administration had agreed that the Turkey remained on good terms with Iran, since when “probably” a threat by the Israeli government to influence the upcoming elections for the presidency, has persuaded him to change course.
The Israeli government made the request of the Greek government of Israeli troops to be stationed with the adjacent military airport on the island of Cyprus, makes it clear that diplomacy has no place in the ranks of the Israeli government, for them, there is only violence under the guise of a threat does not exist and with which they would like to take the absolute domination in the Middle East.
- Satan To Distance Self From Convicted Felon: George Soros Democrat Leadership! VIOLATES NUREMBERG PEACE PRINCIPLES
- Obama Born Again? 2 1/2 Years Of Deception & A Million Law Tab In Blocking Eligibility Lawsuits! But Wait, Why Did Barry Lie On His 2004 Senate Papers?
.P.S. At this hour the government of Greece is ready to leave the European Union and try to save their nation similar to that which took place in Iceland.
P.P.P.S. This is a direct warning to the privately owned, criminal Federal Reserve:
Any attempt to ‘bail out’ Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan and their bogus credit claims against the nation of Greece using U.S. Taxpayers money will lead to a major response by the U.S. Military.
In closing, a direct message to alleged pResident Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro:
When you signed the TREASONOUS, UN-Constitutional National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA), which permanently shredded the U.S. Constitution, you declared war on the American People and forfeited any chance of an alleged re-election.
http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/mccain_rino2.jpg?w=588Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren’t bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA.And I musn’t forget to mention Soros’ involvement with the LSM (Lame Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e.g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to.As Matthew Vadum writes, “The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives.”Richard Poe writes, “Soros’ private philanthropy, totaling nearly billion, continues undermining America’s traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experimentsin social engineering.”Some of the many NGOs (None Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, and many more.. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org.Poe continues, “Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia.”
“George Soros Is An Evil Man. He’s Anti-God, Anti-Family, And Anti-Good.”—Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
- Russias’ Vladimir Putin pipes up! Putin vs Soros (libyaagainstsuperpowermedia.com)
- Obama Soros Take Heed: U. S. Citizens Buy More Firearms For Personal Use In 3 Months, Than What It Takes To Outfit The Entire Chinese And Indian Armies Combined!
- AFL-CIO Chief Issues Warning to Democrats, George Soros: U.S. Largest Labor Union “AFL-CIO” Mobilizes With The International Association Of Machinists Union, Voted To Support The Glass-Steagall Act & To Declare Independence From The Democrat Party!
- How will Vladimir Putin handle Russia’s continuing protests?(russianreport.wordpress.com)
- Hillary Clinton Lies About Brazil : Time To Fair Tax The Bilderbergs, Soros, Rockefellers, & British Petroleum To Feed The Children Of The Oil Drenched Gulf :
- AMERICA, The U.S. Population, Wake Up…George Soros is HERE…..via e-mail to Admin.. (capecoralblogger.wordpress.com)
- Obama Facing A Domestic Military Intervention For His Removal: Judicial System Has Been Bought by Soros!
- Russia foils ‘Chechen plot’ to assassinate Vladimir Putin (telegraph.co.uk)
- Vladimir Putin: “We have won. Glory to Russia” (seeker401.wordpress.com)
- Why U.S. military in Uganda? Soros fingerprints all over it
- Letter: Overkill on Murdoch while adventures of leftist savior Soros unexamined(tcpalm.com)
- Putin to name new govt prior to inauguration – report (rt.com)
- SOROS HAS A WOODY AND ITS NAME IS HOLLYWOOD: Take Every Penny Convicted Felon Capitalist George Soros Has To Give ~ As He Absconded It In The First Place ~ He’s 81 And The Hour Is Getting Late!
- Weekend Reflections: George Soros & The Nazis: Soros has repeatedly called 1944 “the best year of his life.” (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Breaking -> Imminent Arrest Of Rothschild Banking Cabal! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- George Soros’s Voter Guide To Republicans: Bill Whittle (politicalvelcraft.org)
- EU break-up would be catastrophic: George Soros (theglobeandmail.com)
- Are George Soros, The IMF And The World Bank Purposely Trying To Scare The Living Daylights Out Of Us? (tarpon.wordpress.com)
- Solar Minimum-Quiet Sun, Warns Of Deadly Cold And Snow Ahead: While British Controlled Air Waves, Pump Global Warming Lies!
- Breaking -> United State’s New Hero ~ Vladimir Putin: Russia Issues International Arrest Warrant For Rothschild Henchman & Leftist Savior George Soros! | Political Vel Craft(2012indyinfo.com)
- Putin vs Soros (disclose.tv)
- Vladimir Putin has tears in his eyes as he addresses supporters (hazimiai.wordpress.com)
- Vladimir Putin’s victory (hazimc.wordpress.com)
- Obama’s Presidential Power Must Be Suspended By The 25th Constitutional Amendment Immediately. (politicalvelcraft.org)
Russia and the changing world
In the run-up to Russia’s presidential elections, prime minister and presidential candidate Vladimir Putin has to date published a total of seven program statements in which he defines Russia’s niche in a “changing world.” The sixth article on defense policy and army reforms was published byVoltaire Network yesterday. Today we bring to the attention of our readers the latest statement, published Monday in theMoskovskiya Novosti, devoted to international affairs.
In my previous articles I have discussed some of the key foreign challenges that Russia now faces. This subject deserves a more detailed discussion and not just because foreign policy is part and parcel of any government strategy. External challenges and the changing world around us are compelling us to make decisions that have implications for the economy, our culture, the budget and for investment.
Russia is part of the greater world whether we are talking about the economy, media coverage or cultural development. We do not wish to and cannot isolate ourselves. We hope that our openness will result in a higher standard of living for Russia plus a more diverse culture and a general level of trust, something that is becoming increasingly scarce.
However, we intend to be consistent in proceeding from our own interests and goals rather than decisions dictated by someone else. Russia is only respected and considered when it is strong and stands firmly on its own feet. Russia has generally always enjoyed the privilege of conducting an independent foreign policy and this is what it will continue to do. In addition, I am convinced that global security can only be achieved in cooperation with Russia rather than by attempts to push it to the background, weaken its geopolitical position or compromise its defenses.
Our foreign policy objectives are strategic in nature and do not proceed from opportunistic considerations. They reflect Russia’s unique role on the world political map as well as its role in history and in the development of civilization.
I do not doubt that we will continue on our constructive course to enhance global security, renounce confrontation, and counter such challenges as the proliferation of nuclear weapons, regional conflict and crises, terrorism and drug trafficking. We will do everything we can to see that Russia enjoys the latest achievements in scientific and technical progress and to assist our entrepreneurs in occupying an appropriate place on the world market.
We will strive to ensure a new world order, one that meets current geopolitical realities, and one that develops smoothly and without unnecessary upheaval.
Who undermines confidence
- Leader of Libya’s interim government, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, flanked by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister David Cameron, during their visit to Libya following the country’s “revolution.”
As before, I believe that the major principles necessary for any feasible civilization include indivisible security for all states, the unacceptability of excessive use of force, and the unconditional observance of the basic standards of international law. The neglect of any of these principles can only lead to the destabilization of international relations.
It is through this prism that we perceive some aspects of U.S. and NATO conduct that contradict the logic of modern development, relying instead on the stereotypes of a block-based mentality. Everyone understands what I am referring to – an expansion of NATO that includes the deployment of new military infrastructure with its U.S.-drafted plans to establish a missile defense system in Europe. I would not touch on this issue if these plans were not conducted in close proximity to Russian borders, if they did not undermine our security and global stability in general.
Our arguments are well known, and I will not spell them out again, but regrettably our Western partners are irresponsive and are simply brushing them aside.
We are worried that although the outlines of our “new” relations with NATO are not yet final, the alliance is already providing us with “facts on the ground” that are counterproductive to confidence building. At the same time, this approach will backfire with respect to global objectives, making it more difficult to cooperate on a positive agenda in international relations and will impede any constructive flexibility.
The recent series of armed conflicts started under the pretext of humanitarian goals is undermining the time-honored principle of state sovereignty, creating a void in the moral and legal implications of international relations.
It is often said that human rights override state sovereignty. No doubt about this – crimes against humanity must be punished by the International Court. However, when state sovereignty is too easily violated in the name of this provision, when human rights are protected from the outside and on a selective basis, and when the same rights of a population are trampled underfoot in the process of such “protection,” including the most basic and sacred right – the right to one’s life – these actions cannot be considered a noble mission but rather outright demagogy.
It is important for the United Nations and its Security Council to effectively counter the dictates of some countries and their arbitrary actions in the world arena. Nobody has the right to usurp the prerogatives and powers of the UN, particularly the use of force as regards sovereign nations. This concerns NATO, an organization that has been assuming an attitude that is inconsistent with a “defensive alliance.” These points are very serious. We recall how states that have fallen victim to “humanitarian” operations and the export of “missile-and-bomb democracy” appealed for respect for legal standards and common human decency. But their cries were in vain – their appeals went unheard.
It seems that NATO members, especially the United States, have developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours. The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely invulnerable. This utopian concept is unfeasible both technologically and geopolitically, but it is the root of the problem.
By definition, absolute invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability for all others. This is something that cannot be accepted. Many countries prefer not to be straight about this for various reasons, but that’s another matter. Russia will always call a spade a spade and do so openly. I’d like to emphasize again that a violation of the principle of unity and the indivisibility of security – despite numerous declarations committing to it – poses a serious threat. Eventually these threats become reality for those states that initiate such violations, for many reasons.
The Arab Spring: lessons and conclusions
- Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement” flag with the Serbian “Otpor” fist: recycling US-funded revolution “props”?
A year ago the world witnessed a new phenomenon – almost simultaneous demonstrations against authoritarian regimes in may Arab countries. The Arab Spring was initially perceived with a hope for positive change. People in Russia sympathized with those who were seeking democratic reform.
However, it soon became clear that events in many countries were not following a civilized scenario. Instead of asserting democracy and protecting the rights of the minority, attempts were being made to depose an enemy and to stage a coup, which only resulted in the replacement of one dominant force with another even more aggressive dominant force.
Foreign interference in support of one side of a domestic conflict and the use of power in this interference gave developments a negative aura. A number of countries did away with the Libyan regime by using air power in the name of humanitarian support. The revolting slaughter of Muammar Gaddafi – not just medieval but primeval – was the incarnation of these actions.
No one should be allowed to use the Libyan scenario in Syria. The international community must work to achieve an inter-Syrian reconciliation. It is important to achieve an early end to the violence no matter what the source, and to initiate a national dialogue – without preconditions or foreign interference and with due respect for the country’s sovereignty. This would create the conditions necessary for the Syrian leadership-announced measures on democratization. The main objective is to prevent an all-out civil war. Russian diplomacy has worked and will continue to work towards this end.
Sadder but wiser, we are against the adoption of UN Security Council resolutions that may be interpreted as a signal to armed interference in the domestic developments of Syria. Guided by this consistent approach in early February, Russia and China prevented the adoption of an ambiguous resolution that would have encouraged one side of this domestic conflict to resort to violence.
In this context and considering the extremely negative, almost hysterical reaction to the Russian-Chinese veto, I would like to warn our Western colleagues against the temptation to resort to this simple, previously used tactic: if the UN Security Council approves of a given action, fine; if not, we will establish a coalition of the states concerned and strike anyway.
The logic of such conduct is counterproductive and very dangerous. No good can come of it. In any case, it will not help reach a settlement in a country that is going through a domestic conflict. Even worse, it further undermines the entire system of international security as well as the authority and key role of the UN. Let me recall that the right to veto is not some whim but an inalienable part of the world’s agreement that is registered in the UN Charter – incidentally, on U.S. insistence. The implication of this right is that decisions that raise the objection of even one permanent member of the UN Security Council cannot be well-grounded or effective.
I hope very much that The United States and other countries will consider this sad experience and will not pursue the use of power in Syria without UN Security Council sanctions. In general, I cannot understand what causes this itch for military intervention. Why isn’t there the patience to develop a well-considered, balanced and cooperative approach, all the more so since this approach was already taking shape in the form of the afore-mentioned Syrian resolution? It only lacked the demand that the armed opposition do the same as the government; in particular, withdraw military units and detachments from cities. The refusal to do so is cynical. If we want to protect civilians – and this is the main goal for Russia – we must bring to reason all participants in an armed confrontation.
And one more point. It appears that with the Arab Spring countries, as with Iraq, Russian companies are losing their decades-long positions in local commercial markets and are being deprived of large commercial contracts. The niches thus vacated are being filled by the economic operatives of the states that had a hand in the change of the ruling regime.
One could reasonably conclude that tragic events have been encouraged to a certain extent by someone’s interest in a re-division of the commercial market rather than a concern for human rights. Be that as it may, we cannot sit back watch all this with Olympian serenity. We intend to work with the new governments of the Arab countries in order to promptly restore our economic positions.
Generally, the current developments in the Arab world are, in many ways, instructive. They show that a striving to introduce democracy by use of power can produce – and often does produce –contradictory results. They can produce forces that rise from the bottom, including religious extremists, who will strive to change the very direction of a country’s development and the secular nature of a government.
Russia has always had good relations with the moderate representatives of Islam, whose world outlook was close to the traditions of Muslims in Russia. We are ready to develop these contacts further under the current conditions. We are interested in stepping up our political, trade and economic ties with all Arab countries, including those that, let me repeat, have gone through domestic upheaval. Moreover, I see real possibilities that will enable Russia to fully preserve its leading position in the Middle East, where we have always had many friends.
As for the Arab-Israeli conflict, to this day, the “magic recipe” that will produce a final settlement has not been invented. It would be unacceptable to give up on this issue. Considering our close ties with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Russian diplomacy will continue to work for the resumption of the peace process both on a bilateral basis and within the format of the Quartet on the Middle East, while coordinating its steps with the Arab League.
The Arab Spring has graphically demonstrated that world public opinion is being shaped by the most active use of advanced information and communications technology. It is possible to say that the Internet, the social networks, cell phones, etc. have turned – on par with television – into an effective tool for the promotion of domestic and international policy. This new variable has come into play and gives us food for thought – how to continue developing the unique freedoms of communication via the Internet and at the same time reduce the risk of its being used by terrorists and other criminal elements.
The notion of “soft power” is being used increasingly often. This implies a matrix of tools and methods to reach foreign policy goals without the use of arms but by exerting information and other levers of influence. Regrettably, these methods are being used all too frequently to develop and provoke extremist, separatist and nationalistic attitudes, to manipulate the public and to conduct direct interference in the domestic policy of sovereign countries.
There must be a clear division between freedom of speech and normal political activity, on the one hand, and illegal instruments of “soft power,” on the other. The civilized work of non-governmental humanitarian and charity organizations deserves every support. This also applies to those who actively criticize the current authorities. However, the activities of “pseudo-NGOs” and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.
I’m referring to those cases where the activities of NGOs are not based on the interests (and resources) of local social groups but are funded and supported by outside forces. There are many agents of influence from big countries, international blocks or corporations. When they act in the open – this is simply a form of civilized lobbyism. Russia also uses such institutions – the Federal Agency for CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, International Humanitarian Cooperation, the Russkiy Mir Foundation and our leading universities who recruit talented students from abroad.
However, Russia does not use or fund national NGOs based in other countries or any foreign political organizations in the pursuit of its own interests. China, India and Brazil do not do this either. We believe that any influence on domestic policy and public attitude in other countries must be exerted in the open; in this way, those who wish to be of influence will do so responsibly.
New challenges and threats
- Russia has long complained that it is getting flooded with cheap Afghan heroin as the U.S. and NATO refuse to eradicate poppy and stem drugs trade.
Today, Iran is the focus of international attention. Needless to say, Russia is worried about the growing threat of a military strike against Iran. If this happens, the consequences will be disastrous. It is impossible to imagine the true scope of this turn of events.
I am convinced that this issue must be settled exclusively by peaceful means. We propose recognizing Iran’s right to develop a civilian nuclear program, including the right to enrich uranium. But this must be done in exchange for putting all Iranian nuclear activity under reliable and comprehensive IAEA safeguards. If this is done, the sanctions against Iran, including the unilateral ones, must be rescinded. The West has shown too much willingness to “punish” certain countries. At any minor development it reaches for sanctions if not armed force. Let me remind you that we are not in the 19th century or even the 20th century now.
Developments around the Korean nuclear issue are no less serious. Violating the non-proliferation regime, Pyongyang openly claims the right to develop “the military atom” and has already conducted two nuclear tests. We cannot accept North Korea’s nuclear status. We have consistently advocated the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula – exclusively through political and diplomatic means — and the early resumption of Six-Party Talks.
However, it is evident that not all of our partners share this approach. I am convinced that today it is essential to be particularly careful. It would be unadvisable to try and test the strength of the new North Korean leader and provoke a rash countermeasure.
Allow me to recall that North Korea and Russia share a common border and we cannot choose our neighbors. We will continue conducting an active dialogue with the leaders of North Korea and developing good-neighborly relations with it, while at the same time trying to encourage Pyongyang to settle the nuclear issue. Obviously, it would be easier to do this if mutual trust is built up and the inter-Korean dialogue resumes on the peninsula.
All this fervor around the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea makes one wonder how the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation emerge and who is aggravating them. It seems that the more frequent cases of crude and even armed outside interference in the domestic affairs of countries may prompt authoritarian (and other) regimes to possess nuclear weapons. If I have the A-bomb in my pocket, nobody will touch me because it’s more trouble than it is worth. And those who don’t have the bomb might have to sit and wait for “humanitarian intervention.”
Whether we like it or not, foreign interference suggests this train of thought. This is why the number of threshold countries that are one step away from “military atom” technology, is growing rather than decreasing. Under these conditions, zones free of weapons of mass destruction are being established in different parts of the world and are becoming increasingly important. Russia has initiated the discussion of the parameters for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.
It is essential to do everything we can to prevent any country from being tempted to get nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation campaigners must also change their conduct, especially those that are used to penalizing other countries by force, without letting the diplomats do their job. This was the case in Iraq – its problems have only become worse after an almost decade-long occupation.
If the incentives for becoming a nuclear power are finally eradicated, it will be possible to make the international non-proliferation regime universal and firm based on the existing treaties. This regime would allow all interested countries to fully enjoy the benefits of the “peaceful atom” under IAEA safeguards.
Russia would stand to gain much from this because we are actively operating in international markets, building new nuclear power plants based on safe, modern technology and taking part in the formation of multilateral nuclear enrichment centers and nuclear fuel banks.
The probable future of Afghanistan is alarming. We have supported the military operation on rendering international aid to that country. However, the NATO-led international military contingent has not met its objectives. The threats of terrorism and drug trafficking have not been reduced. Having announced its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, the United States has been building, both there and in neighboring countries, military bases without a clear-cut mandate, objectives or duration of operation. Understandably, this does not suit us.
Russia has obvious interests in Afghanistan and these interests are understandable. Afghanistan is our close neighbor and we have a stake in its stable and peaceful development. Most important, we want it to stop being the main source of the drug threat. Illegal drug trafficking has become one of the most urgent threats. It undermines the genetic bank of entire nations, while creating fertile soil for corruption and crime and is leading to the destabilization of Afghanistan. Far from declining, the production of Afghan drugs increased by almost 40% last year. Russia is being subjected to vicious heroin-related aggression that is doing tremendous damage to the health of our people.
The dimensions of the Afghan drug threat make it clear that it can only be overcome by a global effort with reliance on the United Nations and regional organizations – the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the CIS. We are willing to consider much greater participation in the relief operation for the Afghan people but only on the condition that the international contingent in Afghanistan acts with greater zeal and in our interests, that it will pursue the physical destruction of drug crops and underground laboratories.
Invigorated anti-drug measures inside Afghanistan must be accompanied by the reliable blocking of the routes of opiate transportation to external markets, financial flows and the supply of chemical substances used in heroin production. The goal is to build a comprehensive system of antidrug security in the region. Russia will contribute to the effective cooperation of the international community for turning the tide in the war against the global drug threat.
It is hard to predict further developments in Afghanistan. Historical experience shows that foreign military presence has not brought it serenity. Only the Afghans can resolve their own problems. I see Russia’s role as follows – to help the Afghan people, with the active involvement of other neighboring countries, to develop a sustainable economy and enhance the ability of the national armed forces to counter the threats of terrorism and drug-related crime. We do not object to the process of national reconciliation being joined by participants of the armed opposition, including the Taliban, on condition they renounce violence, recognize the country’s Constitution and sever ties with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In principle, I believe it is possible to build a peaceful, stable, independent and neutral Afghan state.
The instability that has persisted for years and decades is creating a breeding ground for international terrorism that is universally recognized as one of the most dangerous challenges to the world community. I’d like to note that the crises zones that engender a terrorist threat are located near the Russian borders and are much close to us than to our European or American partners. The United Nations has adopted the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy but it seems that the struggle against this evil is conducted not under a common universal plan and not consistently but in a series of responses to the most urgent and barbarian manifestations of terror – when the public uproar over the impudent acts of terrorists grows out of proportion. The civilized world must not wait for tragedies like the terrorist attacks in New York in September 2001 or another Beslan disaster and only then act collectively and resolutely after the shock of such cases.
I’m far from denying the results achieved in the war on international terror. There has been progress. In the last few years security services and the law-enforcement agencies of many countries have markedly upgraded their cooperation. But there is still the obvious potential for further anti-terrorist cooperation. Thus, double standards still exist and terrorists are perceived differently in different countries – some are “bad guys” and others are “not so bad.” Some forces are not averse to using the latter in political manipulation, for example, in shaking up objectionable ruling regimes.
All available public institutions – the media, religious associations, NGOs, the education system, science and business – must be used to prevent terrorism all over the world. We need a dialogue between religions and, on a broader plane, among civilizations. Russia has many religions, but we have never had religious wars. We could make a contribution to an international discussion on this issue.
The growing role of the Asia-Pacific Region
- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin attend a photocall with regional premiers after a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in St. Petersburg (Russia), November 2011.
- Photo: China Daily
One of our country’s neighbors is China, a major hub of the global economy. It has become fashionable to opine about that country’s future role in the global economy and international affairs. Last year China moved into second place in the world in terms of GDP and it is poised to surpass the U.S. on that count, according to international – including American – experts. The overall might of the People’s Republic of China is growing, and that includes the ability to project power in various regions.
How should we conduct ourselves in the face of the rapidly strengthening Chinese factor?
First of all, I am convinced that China’s economic growth is by no means a threat, but a challenge that carries colossal potential for business cooperation – a chance to catch the Chinese wind in the sails of our economy. We should seek to more actively form new cooperative ties, combining the technological and productive capabilities of our two countries and tapping China’s potential – judiciously, of course – in order to develop the economy of Siberia and the Russian Far East.
Second, China’s conduct on the world stage gives no grounds to talk about its aspirations to dominance. The Chinese voice in the world is indeed growing ever more confident, and we welcome that, because Beijing shares our vision of the emerging equitable world order. We will continue to support each other in the international arena, to work together to solve acute regional and global problems, and to promote cooperation within the UN Security Council, BRICS, the SCO, the G20 and other multilateral forums.
And third, we have settled all the major political issues in our relations with China, including the critical border issue. Our nations have created a solid mechanism of bilateral ties, reinforced by legally binding documents. There is an unprecedentedly high level of trust between the leaders of our two countries. This enables us and the Chinese to act in the spirit of genuine partnership, rooted in pragmatism and respect for each other’s interests. The model of Russian-Chinese relations we have created has good prospects.
Of course, this is not suggest that our relationship with China is problem-free. There are some sources of friction. Our commercial interests in third countries by no means always coincide, and we are not entirely satisfied with the emerging trade structure and the low level of mutual investments. We will also closely monitor immigration from the People’s Republic of China.
But my main premise is that Russia needs a prosperous and stable China, and I am convinced that China needs a strong and successful Russia.
Another rapidly growing Asian giant is India. Russia has traditionally enjoyed friendly relations with India, which the leaders of our two countries have classified as a privileged strategic partnership. Not only our countries but the entire multipolar system that is emerging in the world stands to gain from this partnership.
We see before our eyes not only the rise of China and India, but the growing weight of the entire Asia-Pacific Region. This has opened up new horizons for fruitful work within the framework of the Russian chairmanship of APEC. In September of this year we will host a meeting of its leaders in Vladivostok. We are actively preparing for it, creating modern infrastructure that will promote the further development of Siberia and the Russian Far East and enable our country to become more involved in the dynamic integration processes in the “new Asia.”
We will continue to prioritize our cooperation with our BRICS partners. That unique structure, created in 2006, is a striking symbol of the transition from a unipolar world to a more just world order. BRICS brings together five countries with a population of almost three billion people, the largest emerging economies, colossal labor and natural resources and huge domestic markets. With the addition of South Africa, BRICS acquired a truly global format, and it now accounts for more than 25% of world GDP.
We are still getting used to working together in this format. In particular, we have to coordinate better on foreign policy matters and work together more closely at the UN. But when BRICS is really up and running, its impact on the world economy and politics will be considerable.
In recent years, cooperation with the countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa has become a growing focus of Russian diplomacy and of our business community. In these regions there is still sincere goodwill toward Russia. One of the key tasks for the coming period, in my view, is cultivating trade and economic cooperation as well as joint projects in the fields of energy, infrastructure, investment, science and technology, banking and tourism.
The growing role of Asia, Latin America and Africa in the emerging democratic system of managing the global economy and global finance is reflected in the work of the G20. I believe that this association will soon become a strategically important tool not only for responding to crises, but for the long-term reform of the world’s financial and economic architecture. Russia will chair the G20 in 2013, and we must use this opportunity to better coordinate the work of the G20 and other multilateral structures, above all the G8 and, of course, the UN.
The Europe factor
Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as Europeans. We are by no means indifferent to developments in united Europe.
That is why Russia proposes moving toward the creation of a common economic and human space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean – a community referred by Russian experts to as “the Union of Europe,” which will strengthen Russia’s potential and position in its economic pivot toward the “new Asia.”
Against the background of the rise of China, India and other new economies, the financial and economic upheavals in Europe – formerly an oasis of stability and order – is particularly worrisome. The crisis that has struck the eurozone cannot but affect Russia’s interests, especially if one considers that the EU is our major foreign economic and trade partner. Likewise, it is clear that the prospects of the entire global economic structure depend heavily on the state of affairs in Europe.
Russia is actively participating in the international effort to support the ailing European economies, and is consistently working with its partners to formulate collective decisions under the auspices of the IMF. Russia is not opposed in principle to direct financial assistance in some cases.
At the same time I believe that external financial injections can only partially solve the problem. A true solution will require energetic, system-wide measures. European leaders face the task of effecting large-scale transformations that will fundamentally change many financial and economic mechanisms to ensure genuine budget discipline. We have a stake in ensuring a strong EU, as envisioned by Germany and France. It is in our interests to realize the enormous potential of the Russia-EU partnership.
The current level of cooperation between Russia and the European Union does not correspond to current global challenges, above all making our shared continent more competitive. I propose again that we work toward creating a harmonious community of economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which will, in the future, evolve into a free trade zone and even more advanced forms of economic integration. The resulting common continental market would be worth trillions of euros. Does anyone doubt that this would be a wonderful development, and that it would meet the interests of both Russians and Europeans?
We must also consider more extensive cooperation in the energy sphere, up to and including the formation of a common European energy complex. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea are important steps in that direction. These projects have the support of many governments and involve major European energy companies. Once the pipelines start operating at full capacity, Europe will have a reliable and flexible gas-supply system that does not depend on the political whims of any nation. This will strengthen the continent’s energy security not only in form but in substance. This is particularly relevant in the light of the decision of some European states to reduce or renounce nuclear energy.
The Third Energy Package, backed by the European Commission and aimed at squeezing out integrated Russian companies, is frankly not conducive to stronger relations between Russia and the EU. Considering the growing instability of energy suppliers that could act as an alternative to Russia, the package aggravates the systemic risks to the European energy sector and scares away potential investors in new infrastructure projects. Many European politicians have been critical of the package in their talks with me. We should summon the courage to remove this obstacle to mutually beneficial cooperation.
I believe that genuine partnership between Russia and the European Union is impossible as long as there are barriers that impede human and economic contacts, first and foremost visa requirements. The abolition of visas would give powerful impetus to real integration between Russia and the EU, and would help expand cultural and business ties, especially between medium-sized and small businesses. The threat to Europeans from Russian economic migrants is largely imagined. Our people have opportunities to put their abilities and skills to use in their own country, and these opportunities are becoming ever more numerous.
In December 2011 we agreed with the EU on “joint steps” toward a visa-free regime. They can and should be taken without delay. We should continue to actively pursue this goal.
In recent years a good deal has been done to develop Russian-American relations. Even so, we have not managed to fundamentally change the matrix of our relations, which continue to ebb and flow. The instability of the partnership with America is due in part to the tenacity of some well-known stereotypes and phobias, particularly the perception of Russia on Capitol Hill. But the main problem is that bilateral political dialogue and cooperation do not rest on a solid economic foundation. The current level of bilateral trade falls far short of the potential of our economies. The same is true of mutual investments. We have yet to create a safety net that would protect our relations against ups and downs. We should work on this.
Nor is mutual understanding strengthened by regular U.S. attempts to engage in “political engineering,” including in regions that are traditionally important to us and during Russian elections.
As I’ve said before, U.S. plans to create a missile defense system in Europe give rise to legitimate fears in Russia. Why does that system worry us more than others? Because it affects the strategic nuclear deterrence forces that only Russia possesses in that theatre, and upsets the military-political balance established over decades.
The inseparable link between missile defense and strategic offensive weapons is reflected in the New START treaty signed in 2010. The treaty has come into effect and is working fairly well. It is a major foreign policy achievement. We are ready to consider various options for our joint agenda with the Americans in the field of arms control in the coming period. In this effort we must seek to balance our interests and renounce any attempts to gain one-sided advantages through negotiations.
In 2007, during a meeting with President Bush in Kennebunkport, I proposed a solution to the missile defense problem, which, if adopted, would have changed the customary character of Russian-American relations and opened up a positive path forward. Moreover, if we had managed to achieve a breakthrough on missile defense, this would have opened the floodgates for building a qualitatively new model of cooperation, similar to an alliance, in many other sensitive areas.
It was not to be. Perhaps it would be useful to look back at the transcripts of the talks in Kennebunkport. In recent years the Russian leadership has come forward with other proposals to resolve the dispute over missile defense. These proposals still stand.
I am loath to dismiss the possibility of reaching a compromise on missile defense. One would not like to see the deployment of the American system on a scale that would demand the implementation of our declared countermeasures.
I recently had a talk with Henry Kissinger. I meet with him regularly. I fully share this consummate professional’s thesis that close and trusting interactions between Moscow and Washington are particularly important in periods of international turbulence.
In general, we are prepared to make great strides in our relations with the U.S., to achieve a qualitative breakthrough, but on the condition that the Americans are guided by the principles of equal and mutually respectful partnership.
In December of last year, Russia finally concluded its marathon accession to the WTO, which lasted for many years. I must mention that, in the finishing stretch, the Obama administration and the leaders of some major European states made a significant contribution to achieving the final accords.
To be honest, at times during this long and arduous journey we wanted to turn our backs on the talks and slam the door. But we did not succumb to emotion. As a result a compromise was reached that is quite acceptable for our country: we managed to defend the interests of Russian industrial and agricultural producers in the face of growing external competition. Our economic actors have gained substantial additional opportunities to enter world markets and uphold their rights there in a civilized manner. It is this, rather than the symbolism of Russia’s accession to the World Trade “club”, that I see as the main result of this process.
Russia will comply with WTO norms, as it meets all of its international obligations. Likewise, I hope that our partners will play according to the rules. Let me note in passing that we have already integrated WTO principles in the legal framework of the Common Economic Space of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
Russia is still learning how to systematically and consistently promote its economic interests in the world. We have yet to learn, as many Western partners have, how to lobby for decisions that favor Russian business in foreign international forums. The challenges facing us in this area, given our priority of innovation-driven development, are very serious: to achieve equal standing for Russia in the modern system of global economic ties, and to minimize the risks arising from integration in the world economy, including Russia’s membership in the WTO and its forthcoming accession to the OECD.
We are badly in need of broader, non-discriminatory access to foreign markets. So far Russian economic actors have been getting a raw deal abroad. Restrictive trade and political measures are being taken against them, and technical barriers are being erected that put them at a disadvantage compared with their competitors.
The same holds for investments. We are trying to attract foreign capital to the Russian economy. We are opening up the most attractive areas of our economy to foreign investors, granting them access to the “juiciest morsels,” in particular, our fuel and energy complex. But our investors are not welcome abroad and are often pointedly brushed aside.
Examples abound. Take the story of Germany’s Opel, which Russian investors tried and failed to acquire despite the fact that the deal was approved by the German government and was positively received by German trade unions. Or take the outrageous examples of Russian businesses being denied their rights as investors after investing considerable resources in foreign assets. This is a frequent occurrence in Central and Eastern Europe.
All this leads to the conclusions that Russia must strengthen its political and diplomatic support for Russian entrepreneurs in foreign markets, and to provide more robust assistance to major, landmark business projects. Nor should we forget that Russia can employ identical response measures against those who resort to dishonest methods of competition.
The government and business associations should better coordinate their efforts in the foreign economic sphere, more aggressively promote the interests of Russian business and help it to open up new markets.
I would like to draw attention to another important factor that largely shapes the role and place of Russia in present-day and future political and economic alignments – the vast size of our country. Granted, we no longer occupy one-sixth of the Earth’s surface, but the Russian Federation is still the world’s largest nation with an unrivaled abundance of natural resources. I am referring not only to oil and gas, but also our forests, agricultural land and clean freshwater resources.
Russia’s territory is a source of its potential strength. In the past, our vast land mainly served as a buffer against foreign aggression. Now, given a sound economic strategy, they can become a very important foundation for increasing our competitiveness.
I would like to mention, in particular, the growing shortage of fresh water in the world. One can foresee in the near future the start of geopolitical competition for water resources and for the ability to produce water-intensive goods. When this time comes, Russia will have its trump card ready. We understand that we must use our natural wealth prudently and strategically.
Support for compatriots and Russian culture in the international context
Respect for one’s country is rooted, among other things, in its ability to protect the rights of its citizens abroad. We must never neglect the interests of the millions of Russian nationals who live and travel abroad on vacation or on business. I would like to stress that the Foreign Ministry and all diplomatic and consular agencies must be prepared to provide real support to our citizens around the clock. Diplomats must respond to conflicts between Russian nationals and local authorities, and to incidents and accidents in a prompt manner – before the media announces the news to the world.
We are determined to ensure that Latvian and Estonian authorities follow the numerous recommendations of reputable international organizations on observing generally accepted rights of ethnic minorities. We cannot tolerate the shameful status of “non-citizen.” How can we accept that, due to their status as non-citizens, one in six Latvian residents and one in thirteen Estonian residents are denied their fundamental political, electoral and socioeconomic rights and the ability to freely use Russian?
The recent referendum in Latvia on the status of the Russian language again demonstrated to the international community how acute this problem is. Over 300,000 non-citizens were once again barred from taking part in a referendum. Even more outrageous is the fact that the Latvian Central Electoral Commission refused to allow a delegation from the Russian Public Chamber to monitor the vote. Meanwhile, international organizations responsible for compliance with generally accepted democratic norms remain silent.
On the whole, we are dissatisfied with how the issue of human rights is handled globally. First, the United States and other Western states dominate and politicize the human rights agenda, using it as a means to exert pressure. At the same time, they are very sensitive and even intolerant to criticism. Second, the objects of human rights monitoring are chosen regardless of objective criteria but at the discretion of the states that have “privatized” the human rights agenda.
Russia has been the target of biased and aggressive criticism that, at times, exceeds all limits. When we are given constructive criticism, we welcome it and are ready to learn from it. But when we are subjected, again and again, to blanket criticisms in a persistent effort to influence our citizens, their attitudes, and our domestic affairs, it becomes clear that these attacks are not rooted in moral and democratic values.
Nobody should possess complete control over the sphere of human rights. Russia is a young democracy. More often than not, we are too humble and too willing to spare the self-regard of our more experienced partners. Still, we often have something to say, and no country has a perfect record on human rights and basic freedoms. Even the older democracies commit serious violations, and we should not look the other way. Obviously, this work should not be about trading insults. All sides stand to gain from a constructive discussion of human rights issues.
In late 2011, the Russian Foreign Ministry published its first report on the observance of human rights in other countries. I believe we should become more active in this area. This will facilitate broader and more equitable cooperation in the effort to solve humanitarian problems and promote fundamental democratic principles and human rights.
Of course, this is just one aspect of our efforts to promote our international and diplomatic activity and to foster an accurate image of Russia abroad. Admittedly, we have not seen great success here. When it comes to media influence, we are often outperformed. This is a separate and complex challenge that we must confront.
Russia has a great cultural heritage, recognized both in the West and the East. But we have yet to make a serious investment in our culture and its promotion around the world. The surge in global interest in ideas and culture, sparked by the merger of societies and economies in the global information network, provides new opportunities for Russia, with its proven talent for creating cultural objects.
Russia has a chance not only to preserve its culture but to use it as a powerful force for progress in international markets. The Russian language is spoken in nearly all the former Soviet republics and in a significant part of Eastern Europe. This is not about empire, but rather cultural progress. Exporting education and culture will help promote Russian goods, services and ideas; guns and imposing political regimes will not.
We must work to expand Russia’s educational and cultural presence in the world, especially in those countries where a substantial part of the population speaks or understands Russian.
We must discuss how we can derive the maximum benefit for Russia’s image from hosting large international events, including the APEC Leaders’ Meeting in 2012, the G20 summit in 2013 and the G8 summit in 2014, the Universiade in Kazan in 2013, the Winter Olympic Games in 2014, the IIHF World Championships in 2016, and the FIFA World Cup in 2018.
* * *
Russia intends to continue promoting its security and protecting its national interest by actively and constructively engaging in global politics and in efforts to solve global and regional problems. We are ready for mutually beneficial cooperation and open dialogue with all our foreign partners. We aim to understand and take into account the interests of our partners, and we ask that our own interests be respected.
La Russie et l’évolution du monde
Dans la deuxième partie de son article consacré à la politique étrangère, Vladimir Poutine fait le point sur les relations de la Russie avec l’Asie et le nouveau partenariat avec la Chine, aborde la question du bouclier antimissile étasunien, la crise en Europe et le projet d’Union économique eurasiatique, l’adhésion de la Russie à l’OMC et le soft-power russe dans le monde. La politique étrangère telle que l’entend Vladimir Poutine, illustrée par la position ferme de Moscou au Conseil de sécurité, tient compte des intérêts Russes, mais ouvre aussi une voie aux pays qui cherchent à s’émanciper de la domination impériale.
Pour la première partie de cet article, cliquer ici
L’Asie-Pacifique acquiert une nouvelle dimension
La Chine, centre crucial de l’économie mondiale, est un voisin de la Russie. Les délibérations sur son futur rôle dans l’économie mondiale et les affaires internationales sont désormais à la mode. L’année dernière, la Chine s’est hissée au deuxième rang dans le monde en termes de PIB, et à court terme, selon les experts internationaux, notamment américains, elle dépassera les États-Unis pour cet indice. La puissance globale de la République populaire de Chine augmente également, y compris son aptitude à projeter ses forces dans diverses régions.
Quelle attitude la Russie doit-elle adopter dans le contexte du facteur chinois qui prend rapidement de l’ampleur ?
Premièrement, je suis persuadé que la croissance de l’économie chinoise n’est pas une menace mais un défi qui comporte un potentiel colossal de coopération dans le domaine des affaires, ainsi qu’une chance de gonfler les “voiles” de l’économie russe avec le “vent chinois.” La Russie devrait établir plus activement des liens de coopération avec la Chine, en conjuguant les potentiels technologique et industriel des deux pays et en mettant à profit, certes de manière intelligente, le potentiel chinois, aux fins de relance économique de la Sibérie et de l’Extrême-Orient russes.
Deuxièmement, la politique de la Chine sur l’échiquier mondial n’offre aucun prétexte à accuser Pékin de chercher à dominer la planète. La voix de la Chine est, en effet, de plus en plus audible dans le monde, et la Russie s’en réjouit, car Pékin partage la vision russe de l’ordre mondial équilibré actuellement en gestation. Les deux pays continueront à s’assister mutuellement dans l’arène internationale en réglant conjointement les problèmes aigus à l’échelle régionale et mondiale et en renforçant la coopération au sein du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies, du groupe BRICS (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud), de l’Organisation de coopération de Shanghai (OCS), du G20, et d’autres organismes multilatéraux.
Enfin, troisièmement, la Russie a réglé tous les problèmes politiques cruciaux dans ses relations avec la Chine, dont le plus important était le litige frontalier. Un mécanisme solide et étayé par des documents juridiquement contraignants a été mis en place dans les relations bilatérales. Les deux gouvernements ont atteint un niveau de confiance sans précédent dans leurs rapports. Cela permet à la Russie et à la Chine d’agir dans un esprit de partenariat authentique basé sur le pragmatisme et la prise en compte des intérêts mutuels. L’actuel modèle des relations sino-russes paraît extrêmement prometteur.
Ceci dit, les relations entre la Russie et la Chine ne sont certainement pas dépourvues de problèmes. Des frictions surviennent de temps en temps. Les intérêts commerciaux des deux États dans les pays tiers ne coïncident pas toujours, la Russie n’étant pas entièrement satisfaite par la structure des échanges commerciaux et par le niveau peu élevé des investissements mutuels. La Russie se prépare à surveiller de près les flux migratoires en provenance de Chine.
Toutefois, mon idée clé est la suivante : la Russie a besoin d’une Chine prospère et stable, et je suis persuadé que la Chine, à son tour, a besoin d’une Russie forte et florissante.
Un autre géant asiatique, à savoir l’Inde, fait également preuve d’une croissance rapide. La Russie et l’Inde sont traditionnellement liées par les relations d’amitié et les deux gouvernements les qualifient de partenariat stratégique privilégié. Son renforcement sera bénéfique aussi bien à nos deux pays qu’au système polycentrique tout entier en gestation dans le monde.
Nous assistons non seulement à la croissance de la Chine et de l’Inde, mais à l’augmentation du rôle de la région Asie-Pacifique tout entière. Dans ce contexte, de nouvelles perspectives de travail fructueux s’offrent dans le cadre de la présidence russe au sein de la Coopération économique pour l’Asie-Pacifique (APEC). En septembre 2012, la Russie accueillera le sommet de l’APEC à Vladivostok, où elle met rapidement en place des infrastructures modernes, ce qui contribuera au développement de la Sibérie et de l’Extrême-Orient russes et permettra à la Russie de rejoindre les processus dynamiques d’intégration au sein de la “nouvelle Asie.”
La Russie attache actuellement et continuera à attacher dans le futur une importance prioritaire aux relations avec ses partenaires du groupe BRICS. Cette structure inédite créée en 2006 est la démonstration la plus spectaculaire du passage d’un monde unipolaire à un ordre mondial plus équilibré. Le groupe réunit cinq pays dont la population s’élève à près de trois milliards de personnes, et qui sont dotés des plus importantes économies émergentes, de gigantesques ressources naturelles et de main-d’œuvre, ainsi que de marchés intérieurs colossaux. Après l’adhésion de l’Afrique du Sud, le groupe BRICS a acquis une dimension réellement mondiale, et il génère déjà plus de 25% du PIB de la planète.
Les pays membres du groupe sont en train de s’habituer à travailler ensemble au sein de cette structure et de s’adapter les uns aux autres. Il s’agit, notamment, de mettre en place une meilleure coordination en matière de politique internationale et de coopérer plus étroitement au sein de l’ONU. Toutefois, après avoir atteint sa vitesse de croisière, le BRICS, fort de ses cinq membres, exercera une influence extrêmement perceptible sur l’économie et la politique mondiales.
Ces dernières années, la diplomatie et le milieu des affaires russes ont commencé à attacher une plus grande importance au développement de la coopération avec les pays asiatiques, latino-américains et africains. Dans ces régions, la Russie bénéficie toujours d’une sympathie sincère. J’estime que l’un des objectifs de la prochaine période sera l’intensification de la coopération commerciale et économique entre la Russie et ces pays, ainsi que la mise en œuvre de projets conjoints dans les secteurs de l’énergie, des infrastructures, des investissements, des sciences et technologies, des banques et du tourisme.
Le rôle croissant des régions susmentionnées dans le système démocratique de gestion de l’économie et des finances mondiales se reflète dans l’activité du G20. J’estime que ce groupe deviendra prochainement un instrument stratégiquement important, non seulement de gestion en période de crise, mais également de réformes à long terme de l’architecture financière et économique de la planète. La Russie présidera le G20 en 2013. Certes, le pays devrait profiter de sa présidence pour améliorer, entre autres, l’interaction entre le G20 et d’autres structures multilatérales, notamment avec le G8 et bien sûr l’ONU.
Le facteur européen
La Russie est une partie intégrante et organique de la Grande Europe, de la civilisation européenne au sens large du terme. Les citoyens russes se considèrent comme des Européens. Nous sommes loin d’être indifférents à l’évolution de l’Union européenne.
C’est la raison pour laquelle la Russie initie la transformation de l’espace situé entre les océans Atlantique et Pacifique en une entité économique et humanitaire unifiée que les experts russes qualifient d’Union de l’Europe et qui renforcera davantage les moyens et les positions de la Russie dans le cadre de son revirement économique vers l’”Asie nouvelle.”
Dans le contexte de l’essor de la Chine, de l’Inde et d’autres économies émergentes, les chocs financiers et économiques qui secouent l’Europe, auparavant oasis de stabilité et d’ordre, ne nous laissent pas indifférents. La crise de la zone euro concerne forcément la Russie, étant donné avant tout que l’Union européenne est le plus grand partenaire économique et commercial de notre pays. Il est évident que la situation en Europe est largement déterminante pour les perspectives de développement du système économique mondial dans son ensemble.
La Russie a activement rejoint les mesures internationales visant à soutenir les économies européennes en difficulté, elle participe constamment à la prise de décisions collectives au sein du Fonds monétaire international (FMI). La Russie n’exclut pas en principe la possibilité d’offrir, dans certains cas, une aide financière directe.
Néanmoins, j’estime que les injections financières en provenance de l’étranger ne peuvent constituer qu’une solution partielle. Le règlement intégral du problème nécessite des mesures énergiques systémiques. Les dirigeants européens sont confrontés à la nécessité de mettre en œuvre des réformes d’envergure visant à remanier foncièrement plusieurs mécanismes financiers et économiques destinés à assurer une véritable discipline budgétaire. La Russie a intérêt à avoir affaire à une Union européenne forte, correspondant à la vision de l’Allemagne et de la France, car nous souhaiterions concrétiser le puissant potentiel de partenariat entre la Russie et l’UE.
L’interaction actuelle de la Russie avec l’Union européenne n’est tout de même pas à la hauteur des défis mondiaux, avant tout sur le plan du renforcement de la compétitivité de notre continent commun. Je suggère de nouveau qu’un effort soit fait afin de créer une communauté harmonieuse d’économies entre Lisbonne et Vladivostok. Et à terme, il s’agit de créer une zone de libre-échange, voire des mécanismes encore plus sophistiqués d’intégration économique. Cela nous permettrait de bénéficier d’un marché commun continental se chiffrant à plusieurs milliers de milliards d’euros. Se trouve-t-il des gens pour douter que ce serait une excellente idée et que cela correspondrait aux intérêts des Russes et des Européens ?
Une coopération plus étroite dans le secteur de l’énergie, allant jusqu’à la création d’un complexe énergétique unifié de l’Europe, est un autre sujet de réflexion. Les étapes importantes visant à atteindre cet objectif sont la construction des gazoducs Nord Stream via la mer Baltique et South Stream via la mer Noire. Les deux projets ont bénéficié du soutien de plusieurs gouvernements, et les plus importantes sociétés énergétiques européennes y participent. Après la mise en exploitation intégrale de ces gazoducs, l’Europe disposera d’un système d’approvisionnement en gaz fiable, flexible et indépendant des caprices politiques de qui que ce soit. Ce sera une contribution réelle et non pas factice à la sécurité énergétique du continent. Or, ce problème revêt une importance particulière étant donné la décision de certains pays européens de réduire ou de renoncer totalement à l’énergie nucléaire.
Force m’est de déclarer franchement que le Troisième paquet énergie, dont la Commission européenne a assuré le lobbying et qui vise à évincer du marché les entreprises russes intégrées, ne contribue pas au renforcement de nos relations. Qui plus est, étant donné la déstabilisation accrue des fournisseurs d’hydrocarbures autres que la Russie, il exacerbe les risques systémiques menaçant le secteur énergétique européen et constitue un obstacle aux investissements potentiels dans de nouveaux projets d’infrastructure. De nombreux politiques européens qui s’entretiennent avec moi se montrent critiques envers le paquet. Il s’agit d’avoir le courage d’éliminer cet obstacle du chemin de notre coopération mutuellement avantageuse.
J’estime qu’un partenariat authentique entre la Russie et l’Union européenne est impossible sans l’abolition des barrières qui entravent les contacts humains et économiques, avant tout celle du régime des visas. L’introduction d’un régime sans visas donnerait une puissante impulsion à une véritable intégration de la Russie et de l’Union européenne, elle permettrait d’élargir les contacts culturels et d’affaires, avant tout entre les petites et moyennes entreprises. La menace pour l’Europe d’un afflux de prétendus immigrés économiques en provenance de Russie relève largement de l’imagination. Les Russes ont l’occasion d’exploiter leur savoir-faire professionel dans leur patrie, et l’éventail de ces possibilités ne fait que s’élargir.
En décembre 2011, la Russie s’est concertée avec l’Union européenne pour élaborer des mesures conjointes visant à établir un régime sans visas. Elles peuvent et doivent être appliquées sans tergiverser. Mon intention est de continuer à me consacrer à ce problème de la manière la plus active.
Les relations russo-américaines
Ces dernières années, un grand effort a été réalisé afin de développer les relations entre la Russie et les États-Unis. Toutefois, la matrice de ces relations n’a pas toujours pas été radicalement transformée et elles continuent de connaître des hauts et des bas. Une telle instabilité dans le partenariat entre la Russie et les États-Unis est due, en partie, à la pérennité de certains stéréotypes et phobies. La façon dont la Russie est perçue par le Congrès américain est particulièrement révélatrice. Toutefois, le problème crucial réside dans le fait que le dialogue et la coopération bilatéraux ne s’appuient pas sur une base économique solide. Les échanges commerciaux sont loin d’être à la hauteur du potentiel des économies russes et américaines. Il en est de même pour les investissements bilatéraux. Ainsi la toile protectrice qui éviterait à nos relations des oscillations conjoncturelles n’a toujours pas été tissée. Il s’agit de la créer.
La compréhension mutuelle entre les deux pays ne s’améliore pas non plus étant donné les efforts réguliers des États-Unis pour procéder à une “ingénierie politique”, notamment dans des régions traditionnellement importantes pour la Russie et également au cours des campagnes électorales russes.
Je répète que l’initiative américaine de créer l’ABM européen suscite une préoccupation de notre part tout à fait légitime. Pourquoi la Russie est-elle plus alarmée que les autres pays ? Le fait est que l’ABM européen influe sur les forces stratégiques de dissuasion nucléaire, dont seule la Russie dispose dans ce théâtre, ce qui compromet l’équilibre militaire et politique peaufiné pendant des décennies.
Le lien indissoluble entre l’ABM et les armes stratégiques offensives est consacré par le nouveau traité de réduction des armes nucléaires START signé en 2010. Le traité est entré en vigueur et il se montre efficace. C’est un résultat crucial en matière de politique internationale. La Russie est prête à examiner divers éléments susceptibles de constituer l’agenda russo-américain en matière de contrôle des armes pour la prochaine période. La règle immuable dans ce domaine est le respect du rapport de forces et l’abandon des tentatives d’utiliser les pourparlers afin de s’assurer des avantages unilatéraux.
Qu’il me soit permis de rappeler que dès 2007 j’ai proposé au président George W. Bush à Kennebunkport de régler le problème de l’ABM. Si elle avait été adoptée, mon initiative aurait modifié la nature traditionnelle des relations russo-américaines et aurait donné une impulsion positive au processus. Qui plus est, en réalisant à l’époque un progrès dans le domaine de l’ABM, nous aurions littéralement ouvert la voie à la création d’un modèle foncièrement nouveau de coopération, proche d’une alliance, notamment dans plusieurs autres domaines sensibles.
Cela ne s’est pas produit. Il serait certainement utile de réexaminer l’enregistrement des pourparlers à Kennebunkport. Ces dernières années, le gouvernement russe a également avancé d’autres initiatives visant à trouver un terrain d’entente dans le domaine de l’ABM. Toutes ces propositions restent en vigueur.
Quoi qu’il en soit, nous ne voudrions pas mettre une croix sur la recherche de compromis dans le règlement du problème de l’ABM. Nous souhaiterions éviter que le système américain soit déployé à une telle échelle que cela rendrait nécessaire la mise en œuvre des mesures de rétorsion que la Russie a rendues publiques.
Récemment, j’ai eu un entretien avec M. Kissinger. Nous nous voyons régulièrement. Et je partage entièrement l’opinion de ce véritable professionnel, selon lequel une coopération étroite et empreinte de confiance entre Moscou et Washington est particulièrement requise au moment où le monde traverse des périodes turbulentes.
Globalement, la Russie était prête à fournir un effort réellement important afin de développer ses relations avec les États-Unis et de réaliser un progrès qualitatif, à condition toutefois que les Américains appliquent dans la pratique le principe du partenariat équitable et mutuellement respectueux.
La diplomatie économique
En décembre 2011, la Russie a adhéré à l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) au terme d’une épopée longue de plusieurs années. J’aimerais faire remarquer qu’à l’étape finale de ce processus, l’administration de Barack Obama et les dirigeants de plusieurs puissances européennes ont apporté une contribution active à la finalisation des accords.
En toute honnêteté, ce processus long et ardu nous a souvent donné envie de “claquer la porte” et de tout abandonner. Toutefois, la Russie n’a pas cédé aux émotions. Au final, notre pays a obtenu des compromis avantageux : les intérêts des producteurs industriels et agricoles russes ont été respectés dans l’attente d’une concurrence accrue de la part des entreprises étrangères. Les acteurs économiques russes bénéficieront de nouvelles possibilités considérables pour accéder au marché mondial et pouvoir y protéger leurs droits de manière civilisée. Pour moi, c’est cela qui constitue le principal résultat et non pas le fait symbolique de l’adhésion de la Russie au “club” mondial du commerce.
La Russie respectera les normes de l’OMC, au même titre que tous ses autres engagements internationaux. Je compte sur un respect similaire des règles du jeu de la part de nos partenaires. Qu’il me soit permis de faire remarquer en passant que nous avons déjà intégré les principes de l’OMC sur la base juridique de l’Espace économique commun regroupant la Russie, la Biélorussie et le Kazakhstan.
En analysant notre façon de promouvoir les intérêts économiques russes sur l’échiquier mondial, on se rend compte que nous en sommes encore à l’étape de l’apprentissage pour le faire de manière systémique et cohérente. Contrairement à nos divers partenaires occidentaux, nous ne possédons pas encore la technique pour promouvoir correctement les mesures profitables aux entreprises russes sur les plateformes où s’effectuent les échanges commerciaux internationaux.
Or, il nous incombe la tâche de résoudre des problèmes cruciaux dans ce domaine en tenant compte du fait que le développement innovateur revêt une importance prioritaire pour la Russie. Il s’agit de garantir à la Russie des positions équitables dans le système actuel des relations économiques mondiales et de réduire au minimum les risques inhérents à l’intégration du pays à l’économie mondiale, notamment dans le contexte de l’adhésion mentionnée à l’OMC et de l’adhésion imminente de la Russie à l’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE).
La condition sine qua non est un accès plus libre et non-discriminatoire de la Russie aux marchés extérieurs. Actuellement on ne prend pas de gants à l’étranger avec les acteurs économiques russes. Ils sont confrontés à des mesures restrictives de nature commerciale et politique, on érige des barrières qui désavantagent les entreprises russes dans la concurrence.
Il en est de même en ce qui concerne les investissements. La Russie cherche à attirer des capitaux étrangers dans son économie en leur ouvrant les secteurs les plus intéressants et en leur offrant de véritables “morceaux de choix”, notamment dans le secteur de l’énergie et des hydrocarbures. Or, les investisseurs russes ne sont pas choyés à l’étranger, voire sont souvent ostensiblement repoussés.
Les exemples sont légion. Il suffit de rappeler l’histoire de l’allemand Opel que les investisseurs russes n’ont finalement pas pu acquérir, même en dépit de l’approbation de la transaction par le gouvernement de la République fédérale d’Allemagne et de la réaction positive des syndicats allemands. Il y a également des cas scandaleux où les entreprises russes se voient refuser la jouissance des droits d’investisseur après avoir investi des sommes considérables dans des actifs à l’étranger. Ces exemples sont particulièrement fréquents en Europe centrale et de l’Est.
Tout cela nous inspire l’idée de la nécessité de renforcer l’accompagnement politique et diplomatique des entreprises russes sur les marchés extérieurs et d’accorder un soutien plus massif à nos projets d’envergure et revêtant une importance symbolique. Il ne faut pas non plus oublier que face à la concurrence déloyale, la Russie est à même de réagir de manière symétrique.
Le gouvernement et les associations des milieux d’affaires russes devraient coordonner plus précisément leurs efforts dans l’arène internationale, mieux promouvoir les intérêts des entreprises russes et les assister dans l’implantation sur de nouveaux marchés.
J’aimerais également attirer l’attention sur un fait important qui détermine largement le rôle et la place de la Russie dans le rapport de forces politiques et économiques actuel et futur au niveau international. Il s’agit du territoire immense de notre pays. Il ne correspond certes plus à un sixième des terres émergées, néanmoins la Fédération de Russie reste l’Etat le plus étendu et doté de ressources richissimes sans égales au monde. Je ne parle pas seulement du pétrole et du gaz mais également des forêts, des terres agricoles et des réserves d’eau douce pure.
Autrement dit, le territoire russe est la source de la force potentielle de la Russie. Auparavant, l’étendue immense du territoire russe assurait principalement la protection de la Russie contre les invasions étrangères. Aujourd’hui, en appliquant une stratégie économique judicieuse, elle pourrait devenir la base cruciale pour augmenter la compétitivité du pays.
J’aimerais évoquer notamment la pénurie d’eau douce qui s’aggrave rapidement dans le monde. On peut prévoir à court terme le déclenchement d’une compétition géopolitique pour les ressources aquatiques et pour la possibilité de fabriquer des produits nécessitant une grande consommation d’eau. La Russie obtient ainsi un atout majeur. Or, elle est consciente de la nécessité de gérer cette richesse avec parcimonie et en faisant des calculs stratégiques.
Le soutien aux Russes de l’étranger et la culture russe dans le contexte international
Le respect de sa patrie est notamment conditionné par l’aptitude de cette dernière à protéger ses citoyens et les personnes appartenant à la même ethnie à l’étranger. Il est important de ne jamais oublier les intérêts des millions de Russes vivant à l’étranger ou se rendant dans d’autres pays en congé ou en mission. Je voudrais souligner que le ministère russe des Affaires étrangères, ainsi que toutes les missions diplomatiques et consulaires sont tenues de fournir une aide et une assistance réelle aux Russes 24 heures sur 24. Les diplomates doivent réagir immédiatement, sans attendre que les médias ne tirent la sonnette d’alarme, aux collisions survenant entre nos citoyens et les autorités locales, ainsi qu’aux incidents et aux accidents de transport.
Nous agirons avec la plus grande détermination afin d’obtenir que les gouvernements letton et estonien mettent en œuvre les nombreuses recommandations des plus importantes organisations internationales relatives au respect des droits généralement reconnus des minorités ethniques. L’infâme statut de “non-citoyen” est inacceptable. Comment peut-on d’ailleurs accepter le fait qu’un Letton sur six et un Estonien sur treize soient des “non-citoyens” dépourvus des droits politiques, électoraux, sociaux et politiques fondamentaux, ainsi que de la possibilité d’utiliser librement la langue russe.
Prenons à titre d’exemple le référendum qui s’est tenu tout récemment en Lettonie et portant sur le statut de la langue russe. Il a de nouveau clairement montré à la communauté mondiale l’acuité du problème. Le fait est que plus de 300.000 “non-citoyens” se sont de nouveau vu refuser le droit de participer au vote. Et le refus de la Commission électorale centrale de Lettonie d’accorder à la Chambre sociale russe le statut d’observateur au référendum est absolument révoltant. Or, les organisations internationales chargées de faire respecter les normes démocratiques généralement reconnues semblent se murer dans leur silence.
Globalement, la façon dont la problématique relative aux droits de l’homme est exploitée dans le contexte des relations internationales est peu susceptible de satisfaire la Russie. Premièrement, les États-Unis et d’autres pays occidentaux cherchent à monopoliser la protection des droits de l’homme, la politiser intégralement et en faire un moyen de pression. Parallèlement, ils ne tolèrent pas les critiques à leur égard et y réagissent d’une manière extrêmement maladive. Deuxièmement, le choix d’objets de monitorage par les défenseurs des droits de l’homme est sélectif. Au lieu d’appliquer des critères universels, les États qui ont “privatisé” ce dossier, agissent à leur guise.
La Russie se sent victime de la partialité, du parti pris et de l’agressivité des critiques malintentionnées dont elle est l’objet et qui dépassent parfois toutes les bornes. Les critiques justifiées des défauts ne peuvent qu’être saluées et donner lieu à des conclusions adéquates. Or, face aux critiques infondées, qui s’abattent vague après vague et visent à manipuler systématiquement l’attitude des citoyens des pays en question envers la Russie, ainsi qu’influencer directement la situation politique en Russie, on se rend compte que ces efforts ne sont pas motivés par des principes démocratiques de la plus haute moralité.
Le domaine des droits de l’homme ne doit être monopolisé par personne. La Russie est une jeune démocratie, et elle se montre souvent excessivement modeste en ménageant l’amour-propre de ses partenaires aguerris. Or, la Russie a son mot à dire : nul n’est parfait quant au respect des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales. Les démocraties bien établies commettent également des violations sérieuses dans ce domaine, et il ne faut pas les passer sous silence. Certes, il ne s’agit pas d’échanger tout bêtement des accusations insultantes, sachant que toutes les parties profitent d’une discussion constructive des problèmes relatifs aux droits de l’homme.
Fin 2011, le ministère russe des Affaires étrangères a publié son premier rapport Sur la situation des droits de l’homme dans certains pays du monde. J’estime que cette activité devrait s’intensifier, notamment afin de contribuer à une coopération plus large et équitable dans la totalité du secteur des problèmes humanitaires et à la promotion des principes fondamentaux de la démocratie et des droits de l’homme.
A ce propos, les faits mentionnés ne sont qu’une partie de l’accompagnement informationnel et propagandiste des activités internationales et diplomatiques de la Russie et de la création d’une image objective de la Russie à l’étranger. Force nous est de reconnaître que nos succès en la matière ne sont pas nombreux. Nous sommes souvent battus sur le terrain informationnel. C’est un problème à part entière et à plusieurs facettes auquel il s’agit de se consacrer sérieusement.
La Russie est l’héritière d’une grande culture reconnue aussi bien en Occident qu’en Orient. Mais nos investissements dans les industries culturelles et dans leur promotion sur le marché mondial restent encore très faibles. La renaissance de l’intérêt mondial envers le domaine culturel et celui des idées qui se traduit par l’implication des sociétés et des économies dans le réseau mondial d’information offre des opportunités supplémentaires à la Russie, dotée de talents confirmés dans la production des valeurs culturelles.
La Russie est non seulement à même de conserver sa culture mais de l’utiliser en tant que facteur puissant de promotion sur les marchés mondiaux. L’espace russophone englobe pratiquement tous les pays de l’ex-URSS et une partie significative de l’Europe de l’Est. Il ne s’agit pas d’un empire mais d’une expansion culturelle. Ce ne sont pas les canons, ni l’importation de régimes politiques mais l’exportation de l’enseignement et de la culture qui contribueront à la création d’un cadre favorable aux produits, aux services et aux idées russes.
La Russie doit renforcer de plusieurs crans sa présence dans le monde en matière d’enseignement et de culture et l’augmenter tout particulièrement dans les pays où une partie de la population parle ou comprend le russe.
Il est nécessaire de discuter sérieusement de la manière la plus efficace d’améliorer la perception objective de la Russie grâce à l’organisation dans notre pays d’importants événements internationaux, à savoir du sommet de la Coopération économique pour l’Asie-Pacifique (APEC) en 2012, des sommets du G20 et du G8 en 2013 et 2014, de l’Universiade de 2013 à Kazan, des Jeux olympiques d’hiver de 2014, ainsi que des Coupes du monde de hockey sur glace et de football de 2016 et de 2018.
La Russie est disposée à continuer d’assurer sa sécurité et de faire respecter ses intérêts nationaux par le biais de sa participation la plus active et la plus constructive à la politique mondiale et au règlement des problèmes mondiaux et régionaux. Notre pays reste ouvert à une coopération sérieuse et mutuellement avantageuse, ainsi qu’au dialogue avec tous ses partenaires étrangers. Nous nous employons à comprendre et à prendre en compte les intérêts de nos partenaires, mais nous les prions de respecter également les nôtres.
201306/24 POSTED BY Volubrjotr
Russia Federation’s President Vladimir Putin
- Russia Kicks Out Monsanto 2012: Russia Kicks Out Rothschild 2006 ~ Obama Ushers In Monsanto VIA ‘North American Union’ Ploy 2011 .
- A Call To Arms Against The Rothschilds And All The Teutonic Zionists Of London Responsible For The NWO Chaos!
- Two Gun Manufacturers Killed In Two Days No Answers: Russia Warns America That Obama Death Squads Fan Out Across The U.S. As Gun Rebellion Looms!
- Vladimir Putin Sends Heavy Russian Destroyer To Protect Iran’s Sovereign Banking System From Rothschild.
Obama’s Heart Eaters: CIA Fomented ‘Muslim’ Brotherhood In Syria
President Putin To Rothschild Czar David Cameron Of England:
“Do You Want to Arm People Who Eat The Organs Of Their Enemies?”
By 2006 Putin had paid off Russia’s debt to the Rothschilds. Russia’s financial dependence on the Mafia financiers was now over.
Putin could then establish what became his Russian Unity Party’s campaign slogan:Putin’s Plan Means Victory For Russia!
This slogan continues to make the New World Order Bankers very nervous… 2007 ~ Political Vel Craft
- Putin Bans Russian Officials From Owning Foreign Rothschild Bank Accounts & Stock! Ending The NWO Cabal….
- Russia’s Vladimir Putin Does A 1776 Revolution On Rothschild’s Ass: John McCain’s Seditious Magnitsky Act!
- Weekend Reflections: America’s New Hero ~ Vladimir Putin ~ The Man Who Walks Within Fatima & Stopped Rothschild In 2006!
- Putin Foils The Rothschild Zionists In Syria: Stopping Rothschild’s Central Banking Scheme For NWO!
- Vladimir Putin denounces Britain’s immorality in Syria
Walls Closing In Upon Jacob Rothschild!
Russia Tells United States Citizens:
“Not To Give Up Your Guns: We Learned From Experience Fighting Rothschild’s Banking Schemes!“
(So also, the Great Jamahiriya is principled upon a totally armed citizenry, where people hold the power, not “an ‘elitist’ few who RUN THE GOVERNMENT!” )
WHEN PUTIN WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT of Russia in 2000, Russia was bankrupt because of the scheming of George Soros.
La Russie et l’évolution du monde
Vladimir Poutine explique sa politique étrangère (1ère partie)
La gouvernance unipolaire est illégitime et immorale
43e conférence sur la sécurité (Munich, 9-11 février 2007)
Voltaire, édition internationale
Vladimir Poutine se pose en protecteur des chrétiens d’Orient
RÉSEAU VOLTAIRE | 10 FÉVRIER 2012
Vladimir Poutine s’est engagé, mercredi 8 février 2012, à classer la protection des chrétiens persécutés parmi les priorités de la politique étrangère russe s’il est élu à nouveau président de la fédération de Russie.
Lors d’une rencontre entre l’actuel chef du gouvernement et les représentants de différentes confessions, un membre du Patriarcat de Moscou a évoqué le problème de la persécution des minorités chrétiennes dans certains pays, notamment, en Irak, en Égypte, au Pakistan et en Inde. Il a exhorté M.Poutine à faire de ce problème l’un des axes de la politique extérieure du pays.
“N’en doutez pas”, a répondu le Premier ministre avant de souligner l’importance de ce problème au niveau international.
La plus grande communauté de chrétiens orthodoxes en Orient vit en Syrie.
Vladimir Putin emerges as protector of Eastern Christians
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin pledged to make the protection of persecuted Christians one of his foreign policy priorities if he wins the 2012 presidential election.
At a meeting on Wednesday between heads of government and representatives of different confessions, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church told him that Christian
minorities are facing repression in certain countries, such as Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan and India. He urged Putin to make this one of his foreign policy directions in future.
“This is how it will be, have no doubt,” replied the Prime Minister before stressing the importance of solving this problem worldwide.
The largest community of Orthodox Christians in the East is located in Syria.
Putin: Promoting Democracy, a vaccination against Orange Revolutions
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin who is likely to win the forthcoming presidential election has spoke out on the country’s democracy in the future.
At a meeting on 22 February 2012 with the commanders of the divisions and brigades of the Russian armed forces, Putin said that it was important for the authorities not to allow foreign countries to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs and to prevent the “orange scenario” from implementation.
The Prime Minister described the development of democracy in Russia as a “vaccination against exporting Orange Revolution into the country”. He presented Libya as a classic example. According to Putin, the ousting of Muamar Kaddafi resulted in tribal score-settling in the country. The Prime Minister believes that Russia should not be a stage for an exported “Orange Revolution”. To this end, there is a need to promote democracy and strengthen public involvement in decision-making. In this case, the opposition plays a significant role if it acts within the frame work of legislation and is independent of the West.
“The Presence of a legal opposition is crucial. Any political campaign linked to elections shakes the situation and this is happening in each and every country. Unfortunately, we have some people who are ready for anything to achieve their political ambitions, and unfortunately, often these ambitions are fed by foreign powers. This is a simple fact. Many countries in the world, including the leading democracies safeguard themselves from foreign interference in their internal affairs, especially in political affairs. I believe that we must take an example from these countries and analyze everything and apply what is necessary without fail. But this does not mean that we must roll up the institutions of democracy and some one must monopolize power in his hand. The choice should always remain in the hands of citizens,” Vladimir Putin said.
According to Vladimir Putin, Russia is not interested in interfering in the affairs of other countries, including neighbours. The Prime Minister described the “Export of Democracy”, which is praised by western politicians, as a counterproductive phenomenon.
Source: The Voice of Russia
Being strong: National security guarantees for Russia
Russian Prime Minister and presidential hopeful Vladimir Putin has outlined his ideas on developing Russia’s defenses in an article published Monday in Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | MOSCOW (RUSSIA) | 28 FEBRUARY 2012
The world is changing, and the transformations underway could hide various risks, often unpredictable risks. In a world of economic and other upheaval, there is always the temptation to resolve one’s problems at another’s expense, through pressure and force. It is no surprise that some are calling for resources of global significance to be freed from the exclusive sovereignty of a single nation, and that this issue will soon be raised as a “matter-of-course.”
There will be no possibility of this, even a hypothetical one, with respect to Russia. In other words, we should not tempt anyone by allowing ourselves to be weak.
It is for this reason that we will under no circumstances surrender our strategic deterrent capability, and indeed, will in fact strengthen it. It was this strength that enabled us to maintain our national sovereignty during the extremely difficult 1990s, when, lets’ be frank, we did not have anything else to argue with.
Obviously, we will not be able to strengthen our international position, develop our economy or our democratic institutions if we are unable to protect Russia – if we fail to calculate the risks of possible conflicts, secure our military-technological independence and prepare an adequate military response capability as a last-resort response to some kind of challenge.
We have adopted and are implementing unprecedented development programmes for our armed forces and for the modernisation of Russia’s defence industry. All in all, we will allocate something like 23 trillion roubles for these purposes over the next decade.
Frankly speaking, there have been plenty of discussions regarding the size and timeliness of such sizable allocations. I am convinced that they fully correspond to the country’s potential and resources. And, most important, we cannot put off the goal of creating modern armed forces and of comprehensively strengthening our defensive potential.
It is not a question of militarising Russia’s budget. In effect, allocating these funds now means we are “paying our bills” for the years when the army and the navy were chronically underfunded, when we procured very few new weapons, while other countries were steadily building up their military might.
A smart defence against new threats
We need a response system for more than just current threats. We should learn to look “past the horizon,” and estimate threats 30 or even 50 years away. This is a serious objective and requires mobilising the resources of civilian and military science and reliable standards for long-term forecasting.
What kinds of weapons will the Russian army need?
What technical requirements will be established for our defence industry? In effect, we need to develop a qualitatively new and smart system for military analysis and strategic planning, for prescribed approaches with prompt implementation by our security-related agencies.
So what is the future preparing for us?
The probability of a global war between nuclear powers is not high, because that would mean the end of civilisation. As long as the “powder” of our strategic nuclear forces created by the tremendous efforts of our fathers and grandfathers remains dry, nobody will dare launch a large-scale aggression against us.
However, it should be borne in mind that technological progress in many varied areas, from new models of weaponry and military hardware to information and communications technology, has dramatically changed the nature of armed conflicts. Thus, as high-precision long-range conventional weapons become increasingly common, they will tend to become the means of achieving a decisive victory over an opponent, including in a global conflict.
The military capability of a country in space or information countermeasures, especially in cyberspace, will play a great, if not decisive, role in determining the nature of an armed conflict. In the more distant future, weapons systems based on new principles (beam, geophysical, wave, genetic, psychophysical and other technology) will be developed. All this will, in addition to nuclear weapons, provide entirely new instruments for achieving political and strategic goals. Such hi-tech weapons systems will be comparable in effect to nuclear weapons but will be more “acceptable” in terms of political and military ideology. In this sense, the strategic balance of nuclear forces will play a gradually diminishing role in deterring aggression and chaos.
We see ever new regional and local wars breaking out in the world. We continue to see new areas of instability and deliberately managed chaos. There also are purposeful attempts to provoke such conflicts even within the direct proximity of Russia’s and its allies’ borders.
The basic principles of international law are being degraded and eroded, especially in terms of international security.
Under these circumstances, Russia cannot fall back on diplomatic and economic methods alone to settle contradiction and resolve conflict. Our country faces the task of developing its military potential as part of a deterrence strategy and at a sufficient level. Its armed forces, special services and other security-related agencies should be prepared for quick and effective responses to new challenges. This is an indispensable condition for Russia to feel secure and for our partners to heed our country’s arguments in various international formats.
Together with our allies, we should also strengthen the capabilities of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, including the Collective Rapid Response Force. The CSTO is ready to fulfil its mission as a guarantor of stability in Eurasia.
The rapid development of its armed forces, nuclear and space industries, the defence industry, military training, fundamental military science and applied research programmes will remain a key priority in Russia’s future policies.
The army saved Russia
The break-up of a single unified country, as well as the economic and social upheaval of the 1990s, dealt a serious blow to all of the state’s institutions. The Russian armed forces also faced serious challenges. Combat training programmes virtually disappeared. Elements of the First Strategic Echelon were hastily withdrawn from Eastern Europe and then deployed in areas lacking infrastructure. The full-strength units that were the most combat-ready were disbanded because the country lacked funding to maintain them and for the construction of military cantonments, bases, training centres and housing.
Officers received no wages for months on end. To be honest, the country even had trouble feeding its military personnel. Tens of thousands of officers and soldiers were being discharged. The number of generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels and majors exceeded that of captains and lieutenants. Many defence industry companies stood idle, accumulated debt and lost their most valuable and unique specialists.
The media was harsh with the armed forces. Day after day, a few “activists” considered it imperative to “kick” and humiliate the army in the most painful manner and to defile everything linked with such concepts as the oath of allegiance, the call to duty, service to the Motherland, patriotism and this country’s military history. Actually, they believed that any day when this wasn’t done, was lost in vain. I have thought about this, and I still consider it a real moral crime and an act of treason.
We must always remember that the country owes a lot to the officers and men who preserved the armed forces in the extremely difficult 1990s against all odds, and who facilitated the combat readiness of military units in times of crisis. Those officers and soldiers fought whenever necessary. They lost their comrades and won. That’s the way things were in the North Caucasus, in Tajikistan and in other “hot spots.” These people preserved the army’s spirit and honour, as well as Russia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Moreover, they defended the safety of Russian citizens making it impossible to humiliate this country and to “write” it off.
Still, the country had to pay dearly for the mistakes made during the numerous and inconsistent reforms, which frequently stipulated nothing more than automatic reductions.
In 1999, terrorist gangs unleashed a direct aggression against Russia, a tragic situation. We had to put together a 66,000-strong military formation virtually piecemeal from combined battalions and separate detachments. Although the basic Russian armed forces had more than 1,360,000 personnel, they lacked full-strength units capable of accomplishing their objectives without additional training.
But the army accomplished its objective. Russian officers, sergeants and soldiers fulfilled their duty. They considered their oath of allegiance to the Motherland to be more important than their lives, health and well-being. And, most importantly, Russian society once again came to realise the simple truth that it must support its armed forces. We must strengthen them otherwise we will end up feeding a foreign army on our soil, or we will even become slaves to thugs and international terrorists.
On the road back, we first prioritised the most urgent projects. We reinstated the system of elementary social guarantees for military personnel and eliminated those ignominious wage arrears. Year after year, we spent increasingly more on the development of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. This was in sharp contrast with those periods when high-priority projects lacked funding.
I remember in 2002 when the Chief of the General Staff proposed liquidating a base for strategic ballistic missile submarines on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Understandably, this proposal was motivated by dire circumstances. This would have deprived Russia of its naval presence in the Pacific Ocean. I decided against this. Due to the lack of the required budgetary funding, we had to ask private companies for help. I would like to thank them for that. Both Surgutneftegaz and TNK stepped up to provide the required funding for the base’s initial reconstruction. Budgetary allocations were later disbursed. Today, we have a modern base in Vilyuchinsk where next-generation Borei class submarines will soon be deployed.
Permanent readiness units comprising contract soldiers were established in every strategic sector. Self-contained formations were also deployed. It was one such formation that forced Georgia to sue for peace in August 2008 and who defended the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
But previous experience proved that the potential for developing the military system inherited from the Soviet Union had become depleted. And by the way, what did that system look like? It comprised thousands of bases, depots, arsenals, numerous headquarters and cadre-strength units. In effect, all of that system’s elements were needed to deploy a mobilisation-type 20th century army with millions of officers and soldiers.
It was not possible to build up the military simply by adding personnel and equipment partly because it didn’t solve the inefficiency problem and partly because the country lacked both the human and financial resources. Most importantly, that system did not meet contemporary and long-term requirements. We could eventually have lost our entire military potential, and we could have lost our armed forces as an efficient mechanism.
There was only one way out. We had to build a new army. We had to establish a modern and mobile army which could maintain permanent combat readiness. This is a very difficult process affecting tens of thousands of people. The inevitable mistakes, grudges and disagreements are all linked with this process. This resulted in a negative public response, including from some military personnel. This reform is not being implemented by one or two people. A very complex institution, which had amassed many problems, is now being overhauled. Setbacks, excesses on the part of “executors,” inadequate informational support, the lack of proper “feedback” channels and the formalistic fulfillment of specific directives can all be called real problem areas in the ongoing reform. Our task is to understand these problem areas and to modify our decisions accordingly, while facilitating a system-wide transformation of the armed forces.
Achievements to date
There are no undermanned units in the Russian armed forces any more. The Army has over 100 combined and special brigades. These are full-scale military units with the requisite personnel and equipment. Their alert reaction time is one hour and they can be deployed to a potential theatre of war within 24 hours.
In the past, it took up to five days to prepare for combat readiness. The deployment and equipment of all the armed forces to wartime conditions could take nearly a year, even though most armed conflicts now last from a few hours to several days.
Why have we chosen the brigade as the main tactical unit? First of all, we have relied on our own experience in the Afghan and other wars, where mobile combat and assault groups reinforced with air and other support units have proved more efficient than regiments and divisions.
The new brigades are smaller than divisions in the number of personnel but have a bigger strike capability, better firepower and support, including artillery, air defence, reconnaissance, communications, and so on. Brigades can operate both autonomously and jointly with other units. I admit that the quality is not perfect in all instances. We need to achieve the required standards in the near future.
The Russian army is getting rid of economic management, community service and other non-core and auxiliary functions. Military personnel now spend nearly all their time on combat training. This is the only way to turn new recruits into professional soldiers, since they are only conscripted for 12 months. Soldiers and officers should carry out their direct duty – intensive combat training. This should also have a positive effect on discipline and law and order in the armed forces and will ultimately improve the prestige of conscription military service.
We are overhauling the system of military education. Ten research and education centres are being formed as a rigid vertical system where officers can improve their professional qualifications. In doing this we are relying both on our own traditions and on global experience.
It is only by relying on military research that military and military technical doctrines can be effective and the General Staff can work efficiently. We must restore the lost authority of our military institutions and integrate them into the system of military education, just as we are doing in the civilian sector of the economy. Military science must have a decisive influence on the formulation of the goals of the defence industry. Competent procurement mechanisms and the Defence Ministry departments responsible for military orders must ensure the efficient development of technical specifications for the design and production stages, as well as the specifications of weapons and military equipment.
There is no question that military research cannot develop properly without partnership with civilian science and without exploiting the potential of our leading universities and state research centres. Scientists must have sufficient information about the current status and development prospects of the army and weapons systems to be able to steer their prospective research in the right direction, and in particular to provide potential military uses for their products.
It should be added that the command agencies in the armed forces have been reduced by half. Four enlarged military districts – Western, Southern, Central and Eastern – have been established and have assumed command of the air force, air defence and naval forces. These are in fact operational and strategic commands. A new arm of the armed services, the Aerospace Defence Forces, became combat operational on December 1, 2011.
The Air Force now has seven large air bases with a powerful infrastructure. The network of airfields is being modernised. In the past four years we have upgraded 28 airfields, the first time this has happened in 20 years. Modernisation projects are planned at a further 12 military airfields.
We have greatly increased the capabilities of our early missile warning system. Tracking stations have been launched in the Leningrad and Kaliningrad Regions and in Armavir, and a similar facility is undergoing tests in Irkutsk. All aerospace defence brigades have been equipped with the Universal-1S automation systems, and the Glonass satellite group has been deployed.
The land, sea and air components of our Strategic Nuclear Forces are reliable and sufficient. The proportion of modern land-based missile systems has grown from 13% to 25% over the past four years. The rearmament of 10 missile regiments with the Topol-M and Yars strategic missile systems will be continued. Long-range aviation will maintain the fleet of strategic Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers; work is underway to modernise them. They will be equipped with a new long-range cruise missile system. Russia’s strategic aviation resumed combat patrols in their zone of responsibility in 2007. A new aircraft is being designed for strategic long-range aviation.
New-generation Borei class strategic submarines are being put on combat duty. These include the Yury Dolgoruky and Alexander Nevsky which are undergoing state trials.
The Russian Navy has resumed patrols of the strategic areas of the world’s oceans, including the Mediterranean. We will continue with these displays of the Russian flag.
Goals for the coming decade
We have begun a large-scale programme to re-equip the Army and Navy and other national security forces. Our number one priorities are nuclear forces, aerospace defence, military communications, intelligence and control, electronic warfare, drones, unmanned missile systems, modern transport aviation, individual combat protection gear, precision weapons and defence capabilities against such weapons.
The training of combat and command personnel should become more intensive, comprehensive and of higher quality. Efforts will be focused on building effective inter-service groups of troops and forces and improving combat readiness.
Our professionals will have to work out a forward-looking ideology for the development of the different branches of the armed forces, and define clear goals and objectives for each of them in the relevant conceptual documents. It is already clear that nuclear deterrence will retain its leading role and importance in the structure of the Russian armed forces, at least until we develop new types of weapons, new-generation assault systems, including high precision weapons. These weapons, as I have already said, are capable of meeting combat goals that are comparable with the current role of the nuclear deterrence forces. In addition, the role of the Navy, the Air Force and the Aerospace Defence Forces will grow significantly over the coming years.
Today’s challenges require us to take resolute steps to strengthen Russia’s air and space defence system. We are being pushed into action by the U.S. and NATO missile defence policies.
A global balance of forces can be guaranteed either by building our own missile defence shield – an expensive and to date largely ineffective undertaking – or by developing the ability to overcome any missile defence system and protect Russia’s retaliation potential, which is far more effective.
Russia’s strategic nuclear forces and air and space defence are designed to serve precisely this purpose. One cannot be “overly patriotic” about this. Russia’s military technical response to the U.S. global missile defence system and its segments in Europe will be effective even if disproportionate. But it will fully match U.S. steps in missile defence.
We aim to restore a blue-water (in the full sense of the word) navy, primarily in Russia’s North and Far East. The activities of the world’s leading military powers in and around the Arctic are forcing Russia to defend its own interests in the region.
In the coming decade, Russian armed forces will be provided with over 400 modern land and sea-based inter-continental ballistic missiles, 8 strategic ballistic missile submarines, about 20 multi-purpose submarines, over 50 surface warships, around 100 military spacecraft, over 600 modern aircraft including fifth generation fighter jets, more than 1,000 helicopters, 28 regimental kits of S-400 air defence systems, 38 battalion kits of Vityaz missile systems, 10 brigade kits of Iskander-M missile systems, over 2,300 modern tanks, about 2,000 self-propelled artillery systems and vehicles, and more than 17,000 military vehicles.
More than 250 military units, including 30 air squadrons, are already using advanced military equipment. By 2020, the proportion of new armaments should rise to at least 70%. The systems remaining in service will also be significantly upgraded.
So the goal for the next decade will be to equip our armed forces with advanced armaments, which have better visibility, higher precision, and faster response times than similar systems used by any potential enemy.
The social dimension
A modern army must employ qualified personnel with the skills to operate the most modern weapons systems. These professionals must have in-depth knowledge and a high level of education and culture. The individual requirements for each officer and soldier are increasing significantly today.
At the same time, servicemen are entitled to receive a full package of social benefits to match the huge responsibility that they bear. This includes access to healthcare services, rehabilitation treatment, health insurance, a decent pension and employment opportunities after retirement. In addition, their salary should be at the same level as for qualified professionals and managers in the leading industries, or even higher.
In 2007, we decided to increase military pay and pensions. At the first stage of the reforms, in 2009, the government launched a major initiative to raise the pay for those who shoulder a special responsibility for upholding Russia’s defences.
We have now taken the next step: from January 1, 2012 military pay has almost tripled. The Armed Forces have become much more competitive as an employer. This has improved the situation significantly. It has created an additional incentive to join the military forces.
Also on January 1, 2012, officers of the Interior Ministry were given a pay raise. Other branches of the military, law enforcement and special services will see their pay rise from January 1, 2013.
The pensions of all retired military servicemen, regardless of the sector of the forces they served in, went up by 60% from January 1, 2012. In the future, military pensions will go up every year by at least 2% above inflation.
In addition, we will introduce a special education certificate so that every retired serviceman will be able to receive education or enrol in a retraining programme at any Russian educational institution.
Housing is another major issue, which has been poorly addressed over many years. In the 1990s, at best the government provided only 6,000-8,000 flats or housing certificates a year. Very often, people retired without receiving any housing at all; they were simply put on the same waiting list along with civilians and had to wait their turn.
Looking back, we can see that housing for military servicemen started increasing significantly from 2000, up to an annual average of 25,000 flats for servicemen. Doing this however required a dramatic change in government policy and a shift to focus financial and organisational resources on to this problem.
The 15+15 Presidential Programme carried out in 2006-2007 was the first measure in this respect. Around 20,000 additional flats were provided to servicemen in the regions where the housing problems were more serious.
Between 2008 and 2011, some 140,000 flats were purchased or built for military personnel employed by the Defense Ministry, with another 46,000 service personnel properties provided beyond that. Nothing of this kind had happened before. We allocated money even during the financial crisis. However, despite the scale of the programme, which was even larger than initially planned, the problem has yet to be resolved.
We should be honest about the reasons for this. Firstly, the Defense Ministry has not kept proper records of the servicemen who need housing. Secondly, staffing arrangements were not directly linked to housing availability. We have to adjust this.
In 2012-2013, the provision of permanent housing to military personnel should be complete. In addition, a modern service housing fund must be created by 2014, which should resolve the “never-ending” problem of military housing.
By the end of 2012, we will provide flats to those service personnel who were discharged in the 1990s but never received housing and are still on municipal waiting lists. That’s over 20,000 people.
The personnel that signed contracts after 2007 will be provided with housing in accordance with plan through the savings and mortgage lending system. The number of people participating in this programme exceeds 180,000, with over 20,000 flats already purchased.
Another crucial issue is the fate of military towns and the thousands of people who live there. They are former service people and their families, pensioners and non-military professionals – all those who have served the armed forces, and thus, the country for many decades.
It is unacceptable that these towns with their problems are just discarded by the Defense Ministry and have to be handled solely by the regional or municipal officials. We must carry out a thorough inventory audit of real property that is owned by the armed forces and is to be transferred into the ownership of the civilian authorities. In other words, residential blocks, kindergartens, public utilities now owned by the Defense Ministry must be transferred to their respective municipalities, after renovation, and when they are fully functional, and – this is particularly important – funds should be supplied for their current maintenance.
Serious changes are planned for military strength acquisition. Currently, 220,000 officers and 186,000 soldiers and sergeants serve under contract. An annual increase of 50,000 service personnel is expected within the next five years. They will serve as sergeants, sergeant majors and military equipment specialists.
Selection will be strict and will consist of several stages. Marshal Georgy Zhukov used to say, “It’s me and the sergeants who command this army.” These “junior commanders” are the backbone of enforcement in the army. They follow through on order, discipline and proper military training. We need respectable people with the appropriate background, moral values and physical qualities for these positions. Not just the junior officers but all contract soldiers will be trained at special training centres and sergeant schools.
We expect that by 2017, 700,000 service personnel out of one-million will be “professionals” and include officers, military students, sergeants and contract soldiers. By 2020, the number of conscripts will decrease to 145,000.
The rationale behind these changes clearly shows that our objective is to create a fully professional army. At the same time, we need to be aware of the fact that a professional army is expensive. If we continue manning the armed forces with contract personnel and conscripts, we will be compromising between this objective and our national capabilities.
But compulsory military service will require qualitative adjustment as well. This is a mandatory requirement for military reform.
Military Police will be introduced to oversee discipline among the personnel. Public, veteran, religious and human rights organisations should be actively involved in the education of the servicemen and the protection of their rights and interests and for forming a healthy moral environment.
I believe we should think about developing the military clergy. Each military unit will have a military chaplain within the next few years.
We understand that there is an issue of social inequality within the current draft system. Conscripts are usually boys from low income and working class families or those who were not admitted to universities and could not apply for deferred service. We need to enhance the prestige of compulsory military service. It should become a privilege rather than a duty.
These measures could include additional privileges for those who serve in the army and want to enroll in the country’s best universities. Another option could be government support for those who want to take professional exams, or government scholarships for the graduates who served in the army and want to continue their education in the best business schools in Russia or abroad. They could also be eligible for preferential terms in applying for civil service posts or being included in the management reserves. The army should be returned to its traditional status as the most important social mobility engine.
In the long term, we should consider introducing stand-by reserve forces. As in many countries, this category of personnel would undergo regular drills and be prepared to serve in combat units if required.
There is no clear idea of a national reserve now. Our immediate task is to conceptualise this and suggest it for discussion. In particular, I would like to speak about the Cossacks. Millions of our fellow citizens today say that they are members of this social class. The Cossacks have historically been in the service of the Russian state, defending its borders and participating in the military campaigns of the Russian Army. After the 1917 revolution, the Cossacks were subjected to harsh reprisals that in essence amounted to genocide. But the Cossacks have survived and preserved their culture and traditions. The government’s task now is to help the Cossacks in every way it can. We must also get them involved in military service and the military and patriotic education of young people.
I think it important to stress the following. The army should definitely become a professional contract army. But we cannot eliminate the notion of honorable military duty for men. They must be ready to defend their Motherland when it comes under threat.
We need to raise the level of our work in organizing the military patriotic education of schoolchildren and promoting military-based sports and physical culture in general. Active military service lasts for twelve months, and a soldier has to concentrate exclusively on combat training. This means that he should join the army physically fit and tough, and better still, knowing how to handle motor vehicles, computers and information technology. In this connection I would like to emphasise the importance to the state of the work done by Russia’s Voluntary Association for Assistance to Army, Air Force, and Navy (DOSAAF).
The federal, regional and municipal authorities should do all they can to help this organisation achieve its goals. Government and public agencies should join hands. In this context, I am in favour of the idea of establishing a voluntary movement of the popular front in support of the army, navy, and the defence industry.
Our aims in the sphere of defence and national security cannot be achieved unless both servicemen and defence industry employees are highly motivated – and unless, let me add, the Russian public shows respect for the Armed Forces and military service.
New requirements of the Russian defence industry
The defence industry, our pride, boasts powerful intellectual and scientific capabilities. But we must also be honest in speaking about the problems that have built up. Russia’s defence research centres and production facilities have been slow to modernise over the last 30 years.
In the coming decade, we need to close this gap. We must regain the technological lead in the entire spectrum of modern military technologies. I would like to stress once again that we will put the task of re-equipping the armed forces firmly in the hands of Russia’s defence industry and scientific infrastructure.
We will have to address several interconnected tasks at the same time: to increase by an order of magnitude the delivery of advanced and next-generation equipment; to form forward-looking scientific and technological capabilities, to develop and master technologies of critical importance to the manufacture of competitive military products; and, finally, to upgrade the technological base of the industries that specialise in the production of advanced weapons and military equipment. We should also build, modernise or re-equip our experimental and test infrastructure.
Today, Russia is firmly integrated into the global economy and open to dialogue with all its partners, including on matters of defence and in the sphere of military-technical cooperation.
But learning from the experience and trends of other countries does not mean that Russia will switch over to using borrowed models or give up the concept of self-reliance. Quite the contrary: to achieve steady socioeconomic development and guarantee national security, we must, while borrowing the best experience, build up and maintain Russia’s military-technological and scientific independence.
In this context, let me address the sensitive topic of buying military equipment from abroad. As is evident from global practice, all the key suppliers of the global arms market, all the most advanced technological and industrial powers are at the same time purchasers of various parts of systems, models, materials and technologies. This makes it possible to quickly solve the most pressing defence problems and, let us be frank, to stimulate domestic producers.
Besides, there is a fundamental difference between buying in order to own something and buying in order to abandon one’s own designs. I am convinced that no amount of “pin-point” purchases of military and scientific equipment can replace the production of our own weapons; these purchases can only serve as a source of technology and knowledge. Incidentally, a similar thing happened in the past. Let me remind you that an entire family of Russian tanks in the 1930’s was based on U.S. and British armoured vehicles. This experience led to the development of the T-34, the best tank of WW II.
In order to really improve this country’s defence capability, we need the world’s best state-of-the-art military equipment, not spending billions and trillions of roubles. It is unacceptable for the army to become a market for morale-sapping obsolescent weapons, technologies and research and development, especially if it is being paid for out of the public purse.
That is why we have made our defence plants and design bureaus comply with stringent requirements, have been encouraging competition and investing heavily in the modernisation of the defence industry, advanced technologies and training of specialists.
The activities of defence industry enterprises should concentrate on the mass production of high-quality weapons with the highest performance characteristics to meet both current and projected defence challenges. Moreover, it is only the latest weapons and military equipment that will enable Russia to strengthen and expand its foothold in the world arms markets, where the winner is the one who can offer the most advanced designs.
Reacting to present-day threats and challenges alone means being doomed to the role of someone who is always playing catch-up. We must do our best to gain a technological and organisational edge over any potential adversary. Such a stringent requirement should become the key criterion for us as we set targets for the defence industry. This will enable industries to engage in long-term planning and know for certain where they should direct resources allocated for technological modernisation and development of new types of weapons. Scientific centres and institutes will be given incentives and clear guidelines for the development of basic and applied research in the military and related areas.
We have made great headway in reforming the army. Now we must revise the principles behind the planning and implementation of the state weapons programme. To enable defence companies to make long-term plans, we have decided to stagger the state’s defence order over three to five or even seven years. But I think that taking this step is not enough on its own.
We must start by linking military planning to the task of providing the army with weapons, military equipment, and other resources. Along with this we should consider establishing a single body responsible for the placement of and oversight of defence contracts. This body would be responsible for the execution of state defence orders in the interests of all agencies concerned.
Adjustments in the government defence order after it has been approved by the government must be kept to a minimum. We should also bear in mind that the purchase price in all cases has to be fair and sufficient to recover the costs of investments and also pay for development, modernisation, recruitment of skilled labour and staff training.
Another problem is that businesses and institutes in the defence industry lack a common database and often duplicate various research projects. We must do our best to create a “search engine,” a common database, common standards and a transparent mechanism of pricing for defence industry projects. We should work for more integration and cooperation between various companies, and we should also standardise production facilities.
At the same time, we need to promote competition, while making state purchases. We must reasonably encourage rivalries for increased quality, primarily during the conceptualisation and research stage. At the same time we must prioritise successful research projects during the creation of ready-made products, so as not to duplicate specific weapons systems.
The defence industry is in no position to calmly try to catch up with the latest developments. We must facilitate breakthroughs and become leading innovators and manufacturers.
To attain a leading global technological position in weapons manufacturing, we must reinstate the entire industrial cycle from modeling and design to commercial production, while specifying troop-level quality and subsequent elimination.
The lack of incentives for the development of companies that might generate breakthrough ideas, the receding relationships between universities, departmental institutes and defence industry businesses creates a lag in defence industry research, as well as the disintegration of science institutes and science-intensive sectors. All this cannot evolve by itself. The state is unable to simply hold tenders and to award contracts.
The state must persistently look for breakthrough R&D projects and find teams of researchers who can implement the respective backlogs in a given sphere. Moreover, the state must promote a healthy competition during R&D projects. This includes unorthodox ideas that might be generated by teams of young enthusiasts.
All countries with a well-developed defence industry prioritise defence-related research as a powerful driving force of innovation growth. It is precisely defence-related research projects receiving large and sustained state funding, which make it possible to implement many breakthrough technologies which would never exceed the profit margin in the civilian sector. The civilian sector manufactures such ready-made products and adapts them to its own needs.
We need modern companies acting as a kind of broker between military, industrial, scientific and political circles. Such companies must be able to single out and support the best aspects of national innovation projects, while circumventing excessive bureaucracy involving too many discussions. Optimal models for these kinds of companies are currently being developed and will soon be initiated.
Several days ago, I met with telecommunications and IT specialists in Novosibirsk. Notably, we discussed leading US universities which have won a reputation for themselves by implementing defence contracts and research projects. I think we must also more actively involve the potential of civilian universities in implementing programmes for the modernisation of the defence industry. Large-scale defence contracts can be another source of university and research centre development.
Sometimes critics claim that rebuilding the defence industry is a yoke for the Russian economy and a back-breaking burden which ruined the Soviet Union in its time. I am confident that this is a misconception.
The Soviet Union collapsed because it suppressed natural free-market development in the economy, and because it neglected people’s interests for too long. It disintegrated as a result of a fruitless attempt to force the entire country to work as one single factory. This inevitably resulted in the loss of control even in the defence industry. In Soviet times, they would simultaneously test and adopt several rival weapons systems. Moreover, the government even failed to facilitate the transfer of elementary technology to civilian use.
We must not repeat our past mistakes here. The huge resources invested in the renewal of the defence industry and in the rearmament programme must facilitate the modernisation of the entire Russian economy. They must serve as a major incentive for quality growth where state spending creates jobs, facilitates market demand and “feeds” science. This implies the accomplishment of the very same effects being stipulated by current modernisation programmes. The only thing is that the defence industry will facilitate a much larger effect than we have previously attained.
The renewal of the defence industry will facilitate the development of the most diverse sectors, including metallurgy, engineering, the chemical and radio-electronic industries, as well as the entire range of information technologies and telecommunications. Enterprises in these sectors will also receive the required resources to renew their production facilities. They will receive new engineering solutions. This will promote the stability of many research teams, as well as their presence in the civilian research market.
A balance has developed in the modern world of the mutual influence of defence and civilian technologies. In certain industries, such as telecommunications, innovative materials and information and communication technologies, it is the civilian technologies that are the driving force behind the burgeoning development of military equipment; in others, such as aviation and space technology, military designs lead the way for innovations in civilian sectors. This situation calls for innovative approaches towards the principles underlying the exchange of information and the revision of obsolete approaches to the protection of state secrets. We should be very rigorous about protecting a limited number of truly important secrets, while at the same time exchanging all other scientific and technical information between all those who are able to use it effectively.
In so doing, it is crucial to ensure the availability of a counter flow of innovations and technologies between the defence and civilian sectors. The intellectual property created in the defence sector should be properly assessed. Such an assessment should take into account the potential of civilian commercialisation and prospects for the transfer of technology. We should manufacture civilian products at defence plants, but avoid repeating the sad experience of the defence industry conversion, in which defence plants were making titanium saucepans and shovels. We already have a good example in the serial production of the first digitalised Russian civilian aircraft, the Sukhoi Superjet.
Clearly, we need to thoroughly revise the economic activities that military and industrial complex enterprises are pursuing. They are plagued by numerous inefficiencies, such as vast unjustified expenses, overhead costs which often run into the thousands of percentage points, as well as tangled and obscure relations with contractors, where a parent company is balancing on the brink of bankruptcy and its subsidiaries and suppliers are generating profits running into two or three figures.
We will aggressively combat corruption in the defence industry and the Armed Forces and hold fast to the principle of the unavoidability of punishment. Indeed, corruption in the sphere of national security amounts to no less than high treason.
Excessive protectiveness has already resulted in our reduced competitiveness, sharp increases in prices for defence products, generation of windfall profits that are being used for personal enrichment of individual businessmen and officials rather than the upgrading of the industry. Open auctions should be held in all instances where they don’t contradict national interests and pose no threat to the safety of state secrets. Defence purchases should be carried out under close public control, and punishment for violations in the sphere of defence government contracting should be toughened.
We will be building the single operating algorithm for vertically integrated entities which shouldn’t be headed by lobbyists representing a particular enterprise. At the same time, we should start breaking departmental stereotypes and engage civilian enterprises and private businesses in the manufacturing of military equipment and defence engineering.
The development of the military-industrial complex by the state alone is already ineffective and will cease to be economically viable in the mid-term. It is important to promote the partnership between the state and private businesses in the defence industry and make the procedures involved in establishing new defence enterprises less complicated. Private companies are prepared to invest their capital, expertise and know-how in the defence industry. We believe that we will have our own entrepreneurs of the calibre of Demidov and Putilov.
The leading manufacturers of armaments and military equipment in the United States and Europe are not run by the state. A fresh look at the industry and innovative business approaches to the organisation of manufacturing processes will give Russian weapons a new breath of life and improve the competitiveness of Russian weapons on international markets. Certainly, employment at privately-run defence enterprises should require security clearance. However, this should not become a barrier to establishing such enterprises or to their participation in state defence contracting. It is precisely such new private companies that may provide technological breakthroughs capable of drastically changing the industry.
The problem is that our private investors do not know exactly which of their capabilities may be used by the defence industry or areas where they can apply their energy or capital. An open information source must be established that clearly states the current needs of the defence industry for private businesses and investment.
Legacy enterprises that were established in Soviet times need to be upgraded. Manufacturing processes should be streamlined in order to be able to use advanced technologies. This work should be performed by highly skilled managers, process engineers and technical officers from private business. Quality management at defence enterprises should be enhanced and reporting should be introduced on spending under state defence contracts.
In addition, national mobilisation needs should be reviewed. The existing system is in many ways antiquated. Today, we don’t need production facilities that just churn out old armaments and ammunition. The defence industry and the mobilisation reserve should be based on the latest high-tech manufacturing facilities capable of making competitive high-quality products. They can be based on existing plants and enterprises that need to be upgraded, or built from the ground up.
Of course, we need to raise the prestige of defence industry occupations. Therefore, it would be wise to provide additional social guarantees, or even privileges, to defence sector employees. In addition, average salaries at state-run defence enterprises and R&D centres should be comparable to military service pay.
Education and on-the-job personnel training should be a focus of particular attention. Many enterprises have run into an acute shortage of technicians and highly skilled workers, which interferes with the timely execution of government orders and with the expansion of manufacturing capacities.
Specialised higher education institutions, including applied bachelors programmes, and vocational schools of general education, whose graduates often go on to work at defence enterprises, should play the key role in resolving this issue. I believe that future employment can be arranged through three-way agreements signed between the educational institution, a sectoral concern and a student. Work at an enterprise should begin when students are still pursuing their studies in college and should take the form of practical training and on-the-job training. In addition to gaining working experience, students will have the opportunity to earn good money and will be motivated to acquire necessary skills. Of course, such on-the-job training should be integrated into curricula.
The prestige of technical specialties is on the rise. Defence enterprises should become the focus of attraction for talented youth and should provide – as was the case in the Soviet Union – broad opportunities for creativity in the sphere of engineering, research and technology.
I believe that we should consider sending young employees of the defence sector and senior students of technical colleges to receive on-the-job training at leading Russian and international labs, institutes and enterprises. Managing modern equipment calls for superior skill sets, deep knowledge, and ongoing training. Therefore, professional advancement programmes at enterprises should absolutely be maintained and supported.
* * *
In the process of building our defence policy and modernising the Armed Forces, we should keep up with the latest trends in the military sphere. To fall behind these trends means becoming vulnerable and putting at risk our country and the lives of our soldiers and officers. We cannot afford repeating the tragedy of 1941, when a lack of readiness of the state and the Army for war led to the vast loss of human lives.
The unprecedented scale of the armaments programme and upgrading of the defence industry re-affirms the seriousness of our intentions. We understand that Russia will have to spend a lot in order to be able to implement these plans.
Our goal is to build an Army and a defence industry that will strengthen, not deplete, our national economy, and that is capable of securing Russia’s sovereignty, the respect of its partners and lasting peace.