Category Archives: Current Events

of Jews, Khazars, Zionists, and Christians

emotions don’t replace responsibility

Years ago my family attended church with a Jew from the east coast.  He was raised in an orthodox home and in the tenets of Judaism.  I hung an Israeli flag on the wall with a framed picture of the signing of Israel’s independence from 1948 in a hallway of the church.  He was not just angry; he was livid.  He wanted to shred the flag and he struggled to even get out the words of what a blasphemous sign that was to him and to real Jews.  I had no understanding.  I did not know why this incurred such passionate hatred.

I read my Bible regularly and love God with all of my heart, soul and strength.  I’ve read countless passages like Psalm 99:2 “The Lord is great in Zion, and He is exalted above all the peoples.” And Psalm 87:2, “The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the other dwelling places of Jacob.”  I knew Zion as the mountain of the Lord and the place exalted throughout Scripture.  So when I heard “Zionists”, I thought they were believers and it was a Christian thing.  However….

Zionism is just a clever name for the Khazars, of the ancient kingdom Khazaria.  Khazaria was a kingdom that became settled by an ancient people called Khazars from the third century or so.  The Khazars consisted of Turks, Fins and Mongols.  Historians explain that they were in constant warfare with Persia and Armenia as early as the third century, and fought in partnership with Attila the Hun in the 5th century.  Somewhere around 550 A.D. the Khazars began settling between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea in the region commonly known as Caucasus.  They established a capital called Itil at the mouth of the Volga River where it dumps into the Caspian Sea.

The Khazars were a brutal people, thirsty for dominion.  After establishing Itil, they assumed control over the Volga River by exacting a 10% toll on all cargo passing through.  They attacked and killed anyone who refused to pay the toll.  As they gained power, they attacked the more peaceful Slavonic tribes in neighboring regions and made them subjects of Khazaria, requiring a tribute under the threat of attack.  Their empire expanded to the north and into southeastern Europe.

To the south and west of Khazaria was the Byzantine Empire of Eastern Orthodox Christian leadership, and to the southeast was the Moslem Empire of the Arab Caliphs.  They had been pressuring Khazaria to adopt Christianity or Islam.

In 740 A.D. a curious thing happened.  The Kagan (Khazaria ruler) announced an adoption of Judaism as their national religion, probably for political reasons of independence and to relieve the pressure from Byzantine and the Moslem Empire.  The succeeding Khazar rulers took Jewish names and they began to be referenced as the “kingdom of Jews”.  By the 9th century Khazaria became a haven for Jews from other lands, and the Khazaria were intermarrying with Jews while Khazaria continued oppressing peoples and subjugating them to pay tribute.

This history matters, so stay with it.  In the 8th century an eastern branch of Vikings known as the Varangians, (or as Rus), navigated the Dnieper, Don and Volga rivers and found themselves in the unpleasant position of having to pay tribute to the Khazars.  The Rus Vikings settled among Slavonic tribes under Khazar domination and began struggling against Khazaria for independence from them.  In 862 the Rus leader, Rurik, founded the city of Novgorod and birthed the Russian nation.  However, they were in constant contention with the Khazars.

In 989 the Russian leader Prince Vladimir of Kiev accepted baptism into Christianity.  He then began promoting Christianity among the Russian people, and Russia was considered a Christian nation around this time.  (Prince Vladimir is called Saint Vladimir in Russia.)  Because of obvious commonalities, Byzantine and Russia formed a natural alliance.  In 1016, Russian and Byzantine forces attacked Khazaria and defeated Georgius Tzul, the Khazar warloard, which led to the demise of Khazria.  The Khazars dispersed and migrated to eastern Europe and other places and intermarried with Jews.

“As they moved and lived among the Jewish people, the Khazar Jews passed on a distinct heritage from generation to generation.  One element of the Khazar Jew heritage is a militant form of ZIONISM.  In the view of Khazar Jews, the land occupied by ancient Israel is to be retaken – not by miracle but by armed force.  This is what is meant by Zionism today, and this is the force that created the nation which calls itself Israel today.  The other major ingredient of the Khazar Jew heritage is hatred for Christianity, and for the Russian people as the champions of the Christian faith.  Christianity is viewed as the force which caused the ancient so-called kingdom of the Jews, the Khazar kingdom, to collapse.  Having once dominated much of what is present-day Russia, the Khazar Jews  still want to reestablish that domination – and for a millennium they have been trying to continually do just that.”1

If you’ll follow the history of the Khazers, known as Zionists and Jews in various parts of the world, you’ll find connections to multitudes of nefarious schemes and partnerships with elitist bankers and governments.  Serious students of Zionists have credibly linked them to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia that overthrew the Christian government of the Czars and replaced it with the atheist Communist government.

In fact, in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington, David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”2

It was common knowledge of the Bolsheviks and their obvious link as Jews.  What was less common was that most of them were actually Khazars, or mixed Khazer/Jew descent and this had been their plan since being ousted from their kingdom nine centuries earlier.  Those who speak out against Zionism are speaking out against this.  They are not anti-Semitic.  They do not hate true Jews.

A small orthodox sect of Russian Christians spent sixty years quietly growing its resistance to the Bolshevik government in Russia until they were able to wrest control of the Kremlin away from them in the mid to late 70s.  This gave them the momentum and ability to posture the downfall of the USSR in 1991, restoring Russia to its original name and expelling most of the Bolsheviks from Russia.  [I realize I’m skipping over a lot of history here, but that can all be researched if the interest is there.]

“…on August 19, 1979, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum died in New York.  He died in the morning, and was buried the same afternoon.  Very short notice, and yet some 100,000 Jewish men arrived in time for the funeral.  It is hard to imagine how many more hundreds of thousands could not arrive on such short notice.  A month later, on September 18, his followers placed a memorial tribute by way of a paid advertisement in the New York Times, and clearly it spoke for many Jews.  Among other things it said, quote:  ‘He was the undisputed leader of all Jews everywhere who had not been infected by Zionism’; and also, quote:  ‘With a courage all too rare in our time, he called the Zionist state ‘a work of Satan, a sacrilege, and a blasphemy.’  The shedding of blood for the sake of the Zionist state was abhorrent to him.’

“These words, my friends, were spoken by Orthodox Jews mourning for their fallen leader.  And the new Christian rulers of Russia would agree for they, too, regard the Zionist state of Israel as a counterfeit, a cruel and dangerous hoax for Christian and Jew alike.  The Khazar state called the ‘Kingdom of the Jews’ a thousand years ago was a parasite, living on the tribute from survival on a never-ending flow of support from outside.  Left unchecked, the Russians believe that the Khazar Jews will destroy Christianity by means of Zionism, and Russia through Bolshevism; so Russia’s Christian rulers are on the offensive against their enemies of a thousand years, the Khazars.”3

This was written in September 1979 during Soviet upheavals in their government.  What we need to understand is the Zion of the Bible is not the same as the Zionists spoken of and referred in our culture.  We cannot connect the two as being the same thing just because they use familiar terms to us that are precious as Christians.  History proves otherwise.

Zionism has nothing to do with ancient Israel, but unfortunately can be linked to modern Israel and its formation in 1948.  It can also be directly linked with Rothschild and elitist bankers’ ambitions for world dominion.  Zionists are Khazars.  Khazars are Zionists.  And neither has anything to do with the Zion of the Bible.  Zionism has simply hijacked some very Biblical names, assumed some façade of religion, and our ignorance has done the rest.

Coupled with my understanding of the present situation on News with Views, we have things we need to learn.  Presently:  Chuck Baldwin has written some pretty controversial pieces regarding Israel and/or Zionism.   Mr. Baldwin wrote an article against Netanyahu.  Many readers have labeled him anti-Semitic.  The publisher of the news site News With Views, Mr. Walter, has received numerous concerned calls, emails, and communications about the perceived “error” of Mr. Baldwin’s ways.  Mr. Baldwin’s views don’t necessarily represent Mr. Walter’s views, so he has taken the corrective measure to state a disclaimer.  When the pressure increased, Mr. Walter emailed Mr. Baldwin’s office to explain that he would not be publishing anti-Israel pieces in the future.  Mr. Baldwin was out of the office and the secretary took the message.  If this isn’t a classic case of “telephone”, (aka the rumor game), I don’t know what is.  Somehow this got turned into Mr. Walter selling his soul for $1000 in Zion money.

If we’d all take a step back and realize we’re at different levels in our education, we’re at different levels of maturity, and we’re at different levels of understanding, we’d have more grace and humility for situations like this.  To date, this has only served to discredit Christians and dishonor the God we claim to serve.  Again.  So now hundreds of Chuck’s followers have jumped on the bandwagon to condemn News With Views.  And News With Views has seemingly sided with restricting freedom of speech, the press, and I hope not freedom of thought.

I wish that Chuck Baldwin could continue to write his dissenting opinions on Zionism and Israel’s link to world dominionists.  As a writer, I’d like to know we can still exercise our freedoms of opinion and expose what we know of darkness and truth, even if it makes others uncomfortable or challenges their paradigms — even if we’re wrong or there are other opinions.  Truth has a way of making its way to the open.  Can we let the process work?

If we’re all truth seekers, and if we’re Christians as well, our standard is pretty explicit.  We must represent our Lord and Savior in all manner.  Our speech must be true and honest.  Our actions must have love and grace.  Our hearts must be humble and pliable in our Master’s hands.

Some of us see Israel as the land of Abraham under covenant, and thus should be defended.  Other see a deception that should be exposed (Rev 2:9 “I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.”).  Is there enough room and grace to state our own perspectives without calling out the lynching mobs?  Can a conservative website post controversial opinions that come from different perspectives?  If you’re opposed to my point of view can you just not read it or listen to it?  Or must you petition to silence me?  Can you bring me your concerns and your perspectives without denying my right to work my own out?

When dealing with the world, we are shrewd.  When dealing with our brethren we are accountable to the standard of the Kingdom of God.

Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.  For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.  So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.

Romans 14:16-20

 

 

 

 

1Dr. Peter Beter, Audio Letter #50, September 30, 1979

2 David R. Francis, Russia from the American Embassy (New York: 1921), p. 214.

3 Dr. Peter Beter, Audio Letter #50, September 30, 1979

For more information on the Khazars, read The Thirteenth Tribe; the Khazar Empire and its Heritage by Arthur Koestler, 1976.

Super Bowls and symbolism…

Perhaps to understand the implications of Super Bowl 51, it helps to understand symbolism and how God chooses to employ it on occasion.  Symbolism is rarely a tit for tat (i.e. this one thing is this other thing), instead it is usually a generality.  For instance, God told Hosea to marry a harlot, (a prostitute), and to have children with her.  This, God said, represented Israel forsaking God for idols.  Hosea was to marry Gomer, a prostitute, which is strangely parallel to Israel (the nation) forsaking its monotheism of worshiping God, and replacing it with idolatry, (i.e. worshiping the gods of other nations).

There are other clues in this picture.  For instance, Hosea’s name actually means “to be open, wide or free” (Strong’s).  This, in a general sense, could depict Israel’s freedom as a nation up to this point.  Gomer’s name actually means “to end, as in the sense of completion or failure” (ibid).  Strangely, this too in a general sense could depict Israel’s freedom as a nation was coming to an end after a great failure of marrying foreign gods.  (By marrying, I mean joining in intimate relationship.  Israel was considered “married” to God, which is why God later “divorces” her, which is another message.  But realize when you’re married, you’re known by your husband’s name.  Israel was married to God originally, and was known to belong to God.  When Israel started fornicating with other gods by worshiping the other nations’ gods, Israel was found by God to be unfaithful.)

But the point is, God used a prophet to depict a symbol or analogy of what was going on in the nation at the time.  To further His point, God required Hosea to name his children from Gomer specific names to depict the state or upcoming state of the nation of Israel.  Hosea was to name the first child “Jezreel” to deal with a sin of Jehu against Jezreel. He also foretold He would be ending Israel’s kingdom soon.  Then Hosea and Gomer had “Lo-ruhamah”, which was to symbolize God’s determination to no longer show compassion and forgiveness toward Israel.  And then they had “Lo-ammi” because God was no longer considering Israel His people.

[This is far from the only time God used symbolism and allegories.  Think of how Ezekiel was to lie on his side to represent the iniquity of Israel (Ezek. 4); his wife was taken from him as a sign (Ezek. 24); he was to put on traveling clothes and dig a hole in the wall as a sign(Ezek. 12).  Recall that Christ spoke in parables to depict scenarios.  The parables were not literal, but they served as symbols for things He was illustrating.]

Considering God has spoken to His people with signs throughout recorded history, and Christ is “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8), God very well may still speak to His people with signs, allegories and parables.  What does this have to do with the Super Bowl?

I had not given signs and Super Bowls any thought before 2009.  I’m a pretty avid NFL fan, and Sundays in our household found the TV (which was rarely on any other time) on all day.  I was doing chores as I wandered past the TV and paused to see who was playing.  The Saints were playing and it was the first half of the season.  I don’t follow New Orleans so this didn’t matter much to me, except God spoke to me just then.  And He said, “Watch the Saints.  Watch what I’m going to do with the Church this year.  I’m going to demonstrate it through the Saints.  They will win the Super Bowl as a sign that the Church is at a turning point in this nation.”

It’s important to understand the New Orleans Saints were a losing team, generally speaking.  Since their inception in 1967, they didn’t find their first winning season for two more decades.  Overall, they have twenty-five losing seasons to their eight winning seasons.  (seven seasons of an even win/loss record)  It was an unlikely scenario that unfolded with the season.  They went on to have their best season of their history and to win the Super Bowl.  (I, in fact, made a public statement two weeks before the Super Bowl to say that the Saints were going to win, based on what God had shown me.)

From that point on, I began to listen for God’s heart during the NFL season and other national events.  He seemed to use national “entertainment” or sporting events to demonstrate what He was doing in areas that were not sports or entertainment.  I knew that the Ravens and 49ers were going to go to the Super Bowl in 2013 because God told me about half-way through the season.  He said they would represent brother against brother, and the inference was that it was a time of choice for God’s people.  Christians were going to face increased conflicts with their own family members based on their allegiance to Christ.  I did not know who was going to win for awhile, until the Lord showed me the difference between the brothers.  John means “God is gracious” while James (Jim) means “supplanter” (“to take the place of something else by force or plotting” – Webster’s).

I haven’t known or understood all the Super Bowls since 2009.  Sometimes I don’t get anything.  Sometimes I don’t get it until after, (like when the Seahawks won in 2014, God simply told me:  “look who gives Me the glory”).  Sometimes He shows me stuff before or during.  Which leads to the current Super Bowl…

There is a lot of outcry about the Patriots dominating the playoffs and Super Bowls, but what I kept getting was they were symbolizing the true patriots of America.  By that I mean those who adhere to the Constitution and the spirit in which America was originally founded.

Since 9/11/01, the Patriots have been to the Super Bowl seven times.  I picked that date because it was the time of the misnomer: the Patriot Act.  (a grossly unconstitutional act)  It took me awhile to start catching on to the battle raging for control of the United States through the various entities, but once I started learning, I discovered there was way more going on than meets the eye.

So in the last fifteen years, the Patriots have gone to the Super Bowl seven times.  Let that sink in.  Is it possible the Lord could be speaking through this?  In comparison during that span, there are eleven individual teams that have gone ONE time, four teams that have gone TWO times, and two teams that have gone THREE times.  I’m not a mathematician, but out of 32 total teams, for one team to dominate in the last 15 years, the odds are, well, I’m not a mathematician…

Now look at the teams they beat in the Super Bowl:  Rams, Panthers, Eagles, Seahawks and Falcons.  And look at the team they lost against, twice:  Giants.

A “giant” to a Christian would represent the enemy of God.  (Think David and Goliath, the Israelites and Rephaim, etc.)  Giants usually represent the works of darkness contending with the purposes of God.  Now, look at what years the Patriots lost to the Giants:  2008 and 2012.  (That would be election years, and those elections would be when Obama won.)  I’m not saying this is a “thus sayeth the Lord”; I’m just saying the parallels are a little startling.

God didn’t tell me who was going to the Super Bowl this year.  I asked, but He didn’t tell me.  He just told me to pay attention to what happens.  I speculated the Cowboys would go, as “America’s team”, considering Trump’s election.  When they got knocked out, I sat back and watched.  Pay attention to the words that were used to describe this game and one recurring word I heard was “historical”.  Remember that it was the game that broke a number of records:  first team to overcome a deficit larger than ten points, first game to go into overtime, first coach to win five Super Bowls, first quarterback to win five Super Bowls.

And then I looked at some small details, like this:

  • Twelve is the number of divine government. (Brady’s #)
  • Patriots represent the citizens of a nation that uphold and pledge allegiance to the nation’s identity.  (think Constitution, original founding, spirit of intent, etc.)
  • Two is the number of division or separation*. (Ryan’s #)                                                              *(It also means witness or testimony.)
  • A falcon is a hawk that is trained to sport, and “falcon” is given to the female alone. The male hawk trained to sport is considered smaller, weaker, and less courageous and is called a tircelet or tarsel.  (from the 1828 first edition Webster dictionary)  So a falcon is a stalker or predator of female origin.

Again, this isn’t a “word from God” and I’m not saying God has told me this.  I am saying I have learned to watch and see how things unfold as God orders them.  Is it coincidental that the Patriots played the Falcons at a time our nation is divided (#2)?  Is it a coincidence that a falcon is a female hawk trained to sport and operating as a stalker or predator at the same time Hillary lost an election to a man who wants to give the people the power back (another Constitutional principle)?

Could we simplify it to say our nation is engaged in a battle between patriots in support of the Constitution and upholding the Constitutional Law of the land which preserves freedom, and predators seeking to destroy our freedoms, finances, and security?  That it is God’s government in battle against a divisive spirit?  (#12 vs. #2)

If God could possibly be speaking through any of this, what might we be able to learn?  If we base it loosely and look at it generally speaking, maybe we could observe that God has given the upper hand to the true Patriots for this season, and that the adversity is a predator (consider 1 Peter 5:8).  The first part of the battle had a stalemate, but the second quarter brought the predator ahead significantly (21-3).  The third quarter saw a modest attempt by the Patriots to regain ground while the predator gained some as well 28-9, while the last quarter saw a surge in Patriot ground gained, leveling the battle ground (28-28), and catapulting further battle in overtime.  The Patriots gained the victory in a historical relentless drive and historical conclusion.

Translation:  We should be encouraged.  We, the People, the patriots of the Constitution and the nation it serves, should be relentless and never give up in our advancement of righteousness in our nation.  The battle will look like we’re losing for awhile, but if we are relentless, we will come back.  Then the battle will be extended for a brief time and if we remain relentless and focused, we will get the victory.

At least that’s my take on Super Bowl LI.

 

 

National disasters and their relation to Israel…

There’s a biblically based theory that America’s dealings with Israel have direct consequences to America.  Various passages of Scripture are cited, like Obadiah 1:15 that reads, “For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen:  as thou has done [to Israel], it shall be done unto thee; thy reward shall return upon thine own head.”

It’s the premise that Israel is the apple of God’s eye and whoever touches Israel must deal with God.  (See Zechariah 2:8)  It’s the promise to Abraham of his seed (offspring):  “And I will bless them that bless you, and curse those who curse you.” (Genesis 12:3)

Jerusalem in particular seems to be a flash point.  God said through Zechariah, “In that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people:  all that burden themselves with it shall be cut to pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” (Zech. 12:3)

It’s unfortunate that the world pays little attention to the Word of God.  Nations and people could save themselves much pain and suffering if they only heeded His Word, corporately and individually.  The Bible is the world’s best-selling book of all time, and the most circulated and translated book of all time.  There are an estimated six billion copies of the Bible in circulation in the world today.  There are nations that people sacrifice everything to get a copy, and imprudent nations that have Bibles readily available yet do nothing with them.

That being said, within its pages are God’s plan and purposes for the nation of Israel.  Israel was God’s idea.  He took one man, Abraham, and blessed him for his faithfulness and belief in God.  From this one man he produced nations of people.  Israel is the namesake nation for Abraham, named after Israel’s grandson Jacob, who the Lord renamed “Israel”.  Jacob’s twelve sons made up the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel.  The actual history of Israel is fascinating, but too long to attempt even an overview of here.  Suffice to say, when the nation of Israel was dispersed (because of God’s judgment for their unfaithfulness to God), these nations spread out over the scope of the earth and became other nations with other names.  The modern day nation of Israel is actually Judah, from the people from the tribe of Judah, commonly referred to as “Jews”.  That means there are eleven other tribes scattered across the earth that have actually become their own nations.  (Yes, America is one of them.)

The land of Israel, however, is under a perpetual covenant with God.  Its boundaries were given to it when God authorized its formation.  Its boundaries are actually much larger than its modern-day boundaries.  That peoples existed on the land before the nation of Israel was founded is obvious, and that other peoples existed and dwelled on the land after Israel’s dispersion is also obvious.  However, if one would heed the Word of God, one would learn that God has specific boundaries for the nation of Israel and those boundaries matter to Him.  Point in case is the re-formation of Israel after thousands of years of exile.  All of the matters of the land of Israel and the people of Israel were prophesied in the Bible centuries before they came to pass, and they came to pass as it was written.  Therefore the peoples that claim the land God authorized and covenanted to Abraham’s offspring, have no authority for being there and are quite literally trespassing.  Now they can be there at invitation, but they have no authority to claim the land as their own.

Whoever fights against these things is quite literally fighting against God.

In Sunday School, May 22, 2011, I said to the group, “Watch the news.  Some sort of disaster should be hitting America soon.”  About seven hours later the Joplin tornado hit and 116 people were killed, making it the deadliest tornado in American history.  How did I know something was going to happen?  Because on Friday, May 20, 2011, Obama called on Israel to divide its land and put their borders back to their 1967 borders.  When we interfere with Israel’s land, we face judgment on ours.  It was not me being super-spiritual, it was just me observing the patterns and predicting the next one based on past ones.

Another example?  In 2005, at America’s prompting and political pressure, Israel removed ten thousand Jews from twenty-five settlements in Gaza.  It’s not what they wanted to do, but because of the pressure from America to do so to be “politically correct”, they acquiesced.  The evacuation and removal of these Jewish settlements took seven days and were completed on August 22, 2005.  On September 21 twenty-one Gaza settlements were handed over to the Palestinians, making it the largest evacuation in modern history of Jews in their own land.  When the Palestinians took the settlements over, they looted and burned it all to the ground, starting with the churches.

On August 23, when the last of the Jews were removed from their land, a tropical storm over the Bahamas was upgraded to a level one hurricane called Katrina.  By August 29, Katrina was a level five hurricane with a diameter of 375 miles.  The damage from this storm was unprecedented in America’s hurricane history.  It destroyed entire neighborhoods, leveled 120,000 buildings and 70% of the city’s structures.  Similarities between the Israeli evacuations of their settlements and New Orleans’ evacuation of its citizens are startling.

Coincidence?  Maybe one time is a coincidence.  Maybe even two.  But when you look at the history of disasters to America within days of devastating interference in Israel’s land and protection, the coincidences become obvious patterns.  The Word of God is true and man is the liar.  Many of these “coincidences” are documented in John P. McTernan’s book As America has Done to Israel.  It’s worth the read.  The evidence is damning.  The movie “The Perfect Storm” was another true example of disaster hitting America after its meddling in Israel’s affairs.  Read chapter nine of McTernan’s book to see historic example after example of America’s interference and the consequential disasters that follow.  [pages 147-207]

Not convinced?  Really research Japan’s stance against Israel’s developments, and their support of Palestinian developments and the devastating consequence for their nation that came from a historic earthquake/tsunami in the spring of 2011.  An excellent research of it can be found at https://janmeador.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/japans-earthquake-tsunami-the-hand-of-god/.

Natural disasters are not normally manipulated or caused by human hands.  They’re still the way the Creator of the earth can demonstrate His thoughts, if you will.  It’s not to say that every disaster that hits our soil is because of affairs with Israel, but when it becomes devastating in the areas of lives lost, damages to civilizations, and dollars in damages, it’s a good idea to see where maybe we have displeased or angered God.  It’s a great idea to actually read His Word to see if we’re conducting our lives in manners that bring His blessings or curses.

To a Vestige of Free-Thinkers and Truth Seekers

Have we reached a point in America where there is no longer a majority that reason from logic and common sense? Have the visceral images and sounds of an entertainment industry lauding counter-moral agendas and a political machine that manipulates half-truths into propaganda so reprogrammed a significant part of America’s population that we can no longer call a snake by its name, tell a truth from a lie, discern the vital from the urgent?

My mailing list keeps getting smaller. Our attention spans are shorter, and we quite simply don’t have or take the time to learn, instruct and teach in a manner that brings growth, maturity and authentic change. If we can’t get it said in four or five sentences, if our emotions aren’t wowed, our lusts not whet, or cannot connect with our current shallow and selfish interests, frankly we don’t have time for it. We are, after all, the 21st century Americans. We are quite busy making a living, storing up “things”, exploiting our children for the elusive dream of fame and fortune, and if we still have time, promoting our pet charities to ease our ever-growing uncomfortableness at the shallowness of our lives. Surely if we can find some good cause to throw some lip service to, we can forgive the emptiness we occasionally glimpse in the few moments in between switching hamster wheels. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, most of what can be found is mediocrity at best, and perhaps greater luxury than our predecessors. Purpose has been whittled down to making a few bucks and living a little more comfortably.

I try to magnify the severe down-spiraling slope into the cesspool events around us, in hopes an awakening will take place before it’s altered beyond recovery. I find it’s exhausting to bring an issue of vital importance to a complacent and apathetic respondent who has no grid for understanding the severity of the issue in the first place. Our foundations are missing. Rarely can I start with the issue at hand for the desperate need to backpedal, sometimes centuries, to lay a foundation of even WHY this needs discussion and action! When I have to do that, I lose half of my audience because, well, see paragraph two. The 21st century American can’t be bothered with such trifles. There are bills to be paid, positions to be secured, and entertainment to be absorbed.

When I plead with an American audience to turn off the television and pick up some non-fiction books, or to stop surfing the web and begin researching instead, I get blank stares, some excuses, but mostly nothing. To put a thought deeper than last night’s CSI before the 21st century American is almost a waste of time anymore. There appears no capacity, no interest, and no understanding for anything deeper than pop trend.
So when I want to bring forth a forty-minute speech from the acclaimed statesman of Russia, I already know a large, large percentage will not have the attention span or the mental aptitude to even read it. Then there’s a group that when they read it, they won’t have a grid or knowledge base to understand its implications. If I stop at those two awarenesses, I’m reluctant to even proceed. So I’ve backed out and decided to address this to the vestige of free-thinkers and truth seekers of 21st century America.

Will you take the time to read Vladimir Putin’s speech last month to the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session in Sochi October 24, 2014? He is addressing the theme that came forth at the discussion forum of “New Rules” or “Game without Rules”. He expounds on the United States’ position of self-pronounced world leader since the Cold War and its effects on the world, leading up to and especially currently. It’s a world issue, though his interests are Russia. His indictments of the USA are necessary to understand, (and difficult to absorb if we’ve only based our grid on American mass media and American public education). He underscores the dangerous imbalance of world politics because of the reckless politics coming out of Washington, and he does so with specific examples.

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

I am a patriot of the United States of America, but not a blind puppet. When our government agencies go rogue and are no longer accountable to the citizens it represents or the Constitution which gives it its boundaries, we the people are responsible for holding it accountable. Vladimir Putin has addressed the current world scenario where America is playing by its own rules, changing the rules at their whim, and the world is in a more precarious position because of it. He is publicly announcing that Russia will no longer abide by such despotism. Is anyone listening?

The federal government has gone rogue domestically as well. The illegal and unconstitutional actions of our federal government domestically are enough to keep us busy cleaning house at home, but it still hasn’t happened. Now a world power and acclaimed world statesman has announced its break from the game and refusal to acquiesce to America’s bullying, and no one thinks they need to listen? This isn’t considered news worthy to the American public? Can the American public even understand the implications? Are we so dumbed down by teleprompting quips and clichés packaged in a pre-programmed outlet that a meaningful and profound forty-minute speech flies right over our heads obliviously and to our own destruction?

If you are of this vestige I speak of, please help me get the word out. Please help educate your family, your friends, your children, your neighbors to truths that are of profound importance and implication for those of us who are called by the blessed and great name of “Americans”.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much for your attention.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2014/10/putin-to-western-elites-play-time-is.html