......Enemies can bring out the best in us!
The Jews will always be with us as a test: a moral test, and a test of our willpower. Without the Jews there never would have been a national socialism. The Jew, by being a lying, greedy, cruel oppressor, brings out the best in us, the Aryan. We react to him and decide to be the very opposite of the Jew. In this strange way, he is actually useful -- hard as that is to imagine. 
https://trutube.tv/video/13987/The-March-Of-The-White-Race-Children-Of-Elysium-medium
.....Website visitors around the globe
1/30 @ 1:06 : Landsberg Am Lech, DE
1/30 @ 1:05 : Cambridge, GB
1/30 @ 1:04 : Langenlonsheim, DE
1/30 @ 1:04 : Bayreuth, DE
1/30 @ 1:04 : Dachwig, DE
1/30 @ 1:03 : Las Vegas, Nevada, US
1/30 @ 1:03 : Switzerland, CH
1/30 @ 1:02 : Bayreuth, DE
1/30 @ 1:02 : Marion, North Carolina, US
1/30 @ 1:00 : Naperville, Illinois, US
1/30 @ 12:59 : Wroclaw, PL
1/30 @ 12:57 : Langenlonsheim, DE
1/30 @ 12:57 : Hengoed, GB
.....To donate
http://johndenugent.us/donations-log/
....Objected to my removing his Facebook post
A typical young person of the selfie generation and "Facebook friend" (which means nothing) wrote me:
--I posted something on your wall on how Putin agrees with the Holocaust, and that it happened, and that Jews were innocent and you took it off your wall
I replied:
Dear A,
The next time, I would like a short greeting first, such as "Hi, John." I believe in politeness. Even a Facebook "friendship" has rules. 
Yes, I did. Sorry, but please try to understand the following, A:
1) remember that this is my FN wall, not yours, and I am not obligated to keep your things up on my wall, nor you to keep my things on your wall. Right?
2) I am someone with extensive overseas interests, perhaps unlike you, interests you are probably unaware of, and there are about 5 million hits today on my name.
3) I have stated one billion times that Putin is a chess player who does not show his real cards, but his overall actions are extremely anti-Jewish. he opposed the Jewnited Snakes, he arms and protects Iran, he arms and protects Syria, and he sells powerful weapons with Venezuela. He works with the BRICS states to undermine the Jewnited Snakes dollar....
If he shakes hands with a rabbi, or maybe, maybe throws three revisionists in jail, and thereby saves 120 million white Russians by avoiding an open war with world Jewry, it is dirty and I hate it.
Probably unlike you, I am personal friends with many leading revisionists, whom I have met, talked with, stayed in their homes, gotten them needed money, etc., but maybe it was temporarily necessary.
Some of the many revisionists I am friends with or have helped in important ways:
Vincent Reynouard
Fritz Berg
Friedrich Paul Berg's "NaziGassings.com"
www.nazigassings.com/
Seen in this group pic at the 12th IHR conference: ( I know everyone personally whose face is circled)
Circled faces from left to right:
Professor Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zuendel and behind him Fritz Berg,
Fred Leuchter, Mark Weber, then David Irving (behind) and Juergen Graf
Fredrick Toeben
The heroic, often imprisoned Australian revisionist Fredrick Toeben in front of the Sydney Opera House
Comrade, Putin's Russia was prostrate and on the floor in 2000 when Putin took power, and it still is not ready to take the Jews on.
Those who do and are unready end up like Kaddafi and Hitler, dead and their country a pile of smoldering ruins and all their dream shattered.
Kaddafi with a bayonet shoved up his rectum
Germany in 1945
Finally, Alex, I suggest you read my blog today: http://johndenugent.us/english/support-putin/ [which is this one]. Do not demand the chess player Putin show YOU all his cards.
And most of all, watch what he does, not what he says.
JdN
.....Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over
[source:http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2014/10/putin-to-western-elites-play-time-is.html: all photos were added by me, JdN]
Most people in the English-speaking parts of the world missed Putin's speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi a few days ago,
.
Sochi's 2014 Winter Olympics Park in the foreground
....and, chances are, those of you who have heard of the speech didn't get a chance to read it, and missed its importance. (For your convenience, I am pasting in the full transcript of his speech below.) Western media did their best to ignore it or to twist its meaning. Regardless of what you think or don't think of Putin (like the sun and the moon, he does not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most important political speech since Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech of March 5, 1946.
In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game. Previously, the game of international politics was played as follows: politicians made public pronouncements, for the sake of maintaining a pleasant fiction of national sovereignty, but they were strictly for show and had nothing to do with the substance of international politics; in the meantime, they engaged in secret back-room negotiations, in which the actual deals were hammered out.
.
Previously, Putin tried to play this game, expecting only that Russia be treated as an equal. But these hopes have been dashed, and at this conference he declared the game to be over, explicitly violating Western taboo by speaking directly to the people over the heads of elite clans and political leaders.
The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin speech as follows:
1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.
2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.
�
3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.
4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.
5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding �empire of chaos, and has no interest in building a new empire of her own. (This is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already vast territory.)
Russia is twice the size of the US
Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.
6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.
Russia's Sukhoi-34 -- their top-of-the-line fighter-bomber:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYRKtihmY0U
7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today
Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable,
Russia is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war, nor does she fear it!
..
8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order --until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take.
But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests,will be taught the true meaning of pain.
9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.
Putin attending a Russian Orthodox church service
JdN: Putin is more popular than ever as a result of standing up to the Jewnited Snakes:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/09/explaining-putins-popularity-rallying-round-the-russian-flag/
Excerpt:
...before the seriousness of the crisis in Ukraine was obvious, Putin's approval rating stood at a solid 64 percent. The most recent reading, from August 2014, put Putin's approval at a massive (even by his standards) 84 percent.
To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:
10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States --but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements;refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.
Russian National Anthem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCDUxkHXBz0
To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world?
.....Jew Chess Champion Garry Kasparov Cries That Vladimir Putin Needs to be Stopped
Daily Slave (taken from the DailyStormer (http://www.dailystormer.com/jew-chess-champion-garry-kasparov-cries-that-vladimir-putin-needs-to-be-stopped/)
November 11, 2014
The Jewish chess champion Garry Kasparov is crying about Vladimir Putin and Russia's shift towards nationalism in an interview conducted by the EU Observer. Even though I certainly don't agree with all of Vladimir Putin's statements or policies, Putin is correct to shift Russia on to a more nationalist footing. It is merely a response to the subversive Jewish-led activity that occurred recently in Ukraine.
Nationalism is also an antidote to the subversive internationalist parasite of world Jewry which is probably why Kasparov issobbing about this.
Kasparov even rambles on about Russia resembling Nazi Germany and other nonsense. If a Jew like Kasparov is comparing Russia to Nazi Germany, than Putin must be doing a few things right.
EU Observer:
Chess legend Garry Kasparov was once the pride of the Soviet Union.
But 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall he lives in exile, accusing Russian leader Vladimir Putin of strategic failure and the EU establishment of ignorance in its dealings with Moscow.
Kasparov, who spoke to EUobserver on the eve of the Berlin Wall anniversary, said he will never forget the date it fell 9 November 1989 because on that very same day, four years earlier, I had just won the world [chess] championship.
The end of the wall has come to symbolise the end of the Cold War.
But for Kasparov, who gave up chess to become an opposition activist, Europe risks entering another dark chapter in history.
What we are seeing in Russia is a resurgence of imperialism and nationalism in its most dangerous form, he said, comparing Russia's actions in Ukraine and Putin's domestic propaganda to Nazi Germany on the eve of World War II.
This Jew is still a diehard communist who wants to see Russia turn back in that direction.
....Chinese LOVE "Putin the Great"
Why Russia's President Is 'Putin the Great' in China
Like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin Is Seen as a Strong Leader Who Isn't Afraid to Confront the West
By Jeremy Page [Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-russias-president-is-putin-the-great-in-china-1412217002]
Oct. 1, 2014 10:30 p.m. ET
Books about Vladimir Putin far outsell those on other foreign leaders, according to the staff at Beijing's Wangfujing bookstore.
BEIJINGIn the recommended-reading section of Beijing's Wangfujing bookstore, staff members have no doubt which foreign leader customers are most interested in: President Vladimir Putin, or "Putin the Great" as some Chinese call him.
Books on Mr. Putin have been flying off shelves since the crisis in Ukraine began, far outselling those on other world leaders, sales staff say. One book, "Putin Biography: He is Born for Russia," made the list of top 10 nonfiction best sellers at the Beijing Newsnewspaper in September.
China's fascination with Mr. Putin is more than literary, marking a shift in the post-Cold War order and in Chinese politics. After decades of mutual suspicionand one short border conflict,Beijing and Moscow are drawing closer as they simultaneously challenge the U.S.-led security architecture that has prevailed since the Soviet collapse, diplomats and analysts say.
The former rivals for leadership of the Communist world also increasingly share a brand of anti-Western nationalism that could color President Xi Jinping's view of the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Beijing accuses Western governments of stirring unrest there, much as Mr. Putin blamed the West for the pro-democracy protests in Kiev that began late last year.
Russia has begun portraying the Hong Kong protests, too, as U.S.-inspired. Russian state-controlled television channels this week claimed that Hong Kong protest leaders had received American training.
The Pew Research Center says China is one of the few countries where popular support for Russia has risen since Moscow's confrontation with the West over Ukraine --rising to 66% in July from 47% a year earlier.
A poll by In Touch Today, an online news service run by China's Tencent Holdings Ltd., put Mr. Putin's approval rating at 92% after Russia annexed Crimea in March.
"Putin's personality is impressiveas a man, as a leader. Chinese people find that attractive. He defends Russia's interests," says Zhao Huasheng, an expert on China-Russia relations at Shanghai's Fudan University. "Russia and China can learn a lot from each other."
It is partly realpolitik. Russia needs China's market and capital, especially as Western sanctions over Ukraine bite, the analysts say, while Beijing sees Moscow as a source of diplomatic support and vital energy resources.
The countries concluded a long-awaited deal in May for Russia to supply $400 billion of gas to China over 30 years. They have forged agreements to build a railway bridge over their common border and an ice-free port in Russia's far east. They have also unveiled plans to set up ground stations on each other's land for their satellite global-positioning navigation systems.
Also driving the realignment is rapport between Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi, whose leadership increasingly resembles his Russian counterpart's charismatic nationalist authoritarianism.
"Putin and Xi Jinping are quite similar," says Yu Bin, an expert on China-Russia relations at Wittenberg University in Ohio. The leaders are from the same generation, they are both 61,and both want to re-establish their countries as world powers and challenge Western dominance following periods of perceived national humiliation.
Xi Jinping, left, and Vladimir Putin increasingly share a similar brand of anti-Western nationalism. Above, the two leaders are seen together in Shanghai in May.
Mr. Xi has since made his relationship with Mr. Putin a priority. He chose Russia for his first foreign visit as Chinese president and was one of the few world leaders to attend the Sochi Winter Olympics. Mr. Xi has met Mr. Putin nine times since taking office, most recently at a Central Asian security forum in Tajikistan last month.
"I have the impression we always treat each other as friends, with full and open hearts," Mr. Xi told Mr. Putin in Moscow last year, according to an official Kremlin transcript. "We are similar in character."
He told Russian students later that China and Russia were both going through "an important period of national rejuvenation" and had "the best great-power relationship" in the world.
......China and Russia sign SECOND HUGE energy deal!
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-signs-gas-supply-deal-with-china-2014-11
.....Text of Vladimir Putin's speech and a question & 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.
German cartoon -- Chancellor Merkel texts Obama: "I had a fight last night with my husband in bed." Obama texts her: " I know."
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.
The leaders of Russia, India, Brazil, China and South Africa met to create an alternative to the US dollar
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.
The REAL purpose is a surprise first strike on Russia by the United States. 1) We launch a surprise attack on Russia, destroying 90% of their missiles:
2) they fire off their surviving 10%;
3) our ABMs shoots down almost all of the 10%. A few million Americans die as a few Russian missiles get through -- but Russia is gone.
Mickelsen base, North Dakota in the 1970s
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.
US drops JDAM bombs on an Afghan village: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D_zHRakOXY
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.
Article on Obama and his use of drones
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?
Female soldiers in North Korea
President Assad of Syria and family
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 stabil