Putin Accuses United States of Damaging World Order

Why do the water carrying media describe Putin as a former KGB officer, but never describe Barack as a former community organizer?

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-putin-says-cold-war-victors-want-reshape-123946444.html

 

This article emphasizes "anti western" rhetoric, but totally ignores major point of Putin's speech: mutual respect, equality and 'checks and balances' in relationships between countries as a basis for changing 'world order'. Actually, this is a very insidious speech based on factual situation in the world and, to be just, it should be translated and published by media worldwide to read and learn.

 

meanwhile Putin arms the bigoted rebels in Ukraine.

he is such a lying piece of (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

Personally, I can't wait to see the entire diatribe.

Here's RT's take on it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://rt.com/news/198924-putin-valdai-speech-president/

Vladimir Putin lashed out at the United States and the West for destabilizing the world order of checks and balances for its own gains. He also accused the West of inflaming the situation in Ukraine and said Russia is not interested in building an empire.

The Russian President delivered a fierce broadside aimed at the United States in a speech for the Valdai Club in Sochi, which is an informal group of scholars. He hit out at Washington for behaving without regard to the rest of the world's interests

“The system of international relations needed some changes, but the USA, who believe they were the winners of the Cold War, have not seen the need for this.” He added that the US has been trying to create the world “for their own gains." The Russian President added that because of this, regional and global security had been weakened.

During his speech, Putin used the Russian version of the Latin phrase, “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” (what is allowed for god, is not allowed for cattle,) alluding to the double standards used by Washington.

US sponsoring Islamic extremism

Putin also touched on the issue of the growth of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and also accused the West of, "turning a blind eye," to the encroachment of international terrorism into Russia and Central Asia. Putin believes the US has played a considerable role in sponsoring the growth of Islamic extremism, using the example of Washington's funding of the Mujahidin in the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980's, which eventually gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

“It never ceases to amaze me how our partners have been guilty of making the same mistakes time and again. They have in the past sponsored Islamic extremists who were battling against the Soviet Union, which took place in Afghanistan. It was because of this the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was created,” the president added.

Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) is the latest terrorist organization, which is destabilizing the world and Putin was scathing of countries that have been helping to fund the Islamist militants by buying cut price oil they are selling.

“Terrorists have been selling oil at really low prices and those countries who have been buying it and then selling it on, are financing terrorism, which will eventually come back to bite them,” the Russian President said.

Putin all for Nuclear cuts

Relations between Russia and the US have been plummeting for months; however Vladimir Putin accused the US of using the EU to further its own gains against Russia. He hit out at the numerous sanctions that have been imposed on Moscow, saying, "This was a mistake, which has a knock-on effect on everyone."

“The USA, which has implemented sanctions against Russia, is sawing at the branches, upon which they are sitting,” President Putin added.

The reduction of nuclear arsenals was another issue, which was high on the agenda for the Russian President and once again, he was not afraid of having a dig at Washington for their reluctance to cut the number of nuclear missiles. He mentioned that unfortunately many countries see the only way to preserve their sovereignty is, "To make a nuclear bomb."

The reduction in nuclear arsenals was initially proposed by the Obama administration and Putin admitted it had potential, before talks about decreasing weapons stockpiles collapsed.

"Russia has been all for the continuation of talks about the reduction of nuclear arsenals," and according to President Putin, "Moscow is ready for serious talks, but without “double standards."

Genie out of the bottle

Perhaps Putin's harshest criticism was reserved for the West's creation of color revolutions and "controlled chaos," which he a likened to "letting the genie out of the bottle," with particular reference to Ukraine.

"We have been trying to discuss the Ukraine issue with the EU for a long time, but we were told this was none of our business. They then put two countries against each other, which has led to countless destruction of infrastructure. When I asked why did they do this, they just shrug their shoulders and don’t have an answer," Putin added.

President Putin made reference to the ‘Bear’ defending its territory to take a swipe at the US for its continued encroachment towards Russia’s territory. “He is considered the owner of the Taiga, but he, I know for a fact, does not want to go to a different climatic zone, as it is uncomfortable for him there. However, he will not give it to anyone else; I think that this should be clear,” he said.

The Russian President said that there is no truth whatsoever in claims from the West that Russia is interested in empire building and that Moscow is looking to destabilize the world order. With relations between Russia and the West at a very low ebb, Putin also hinted Russia will look to develop allies further afield.

"Russia has made its choice – we want to develop our economy and develop democratic values. We work with our counterparts in the Shanghai Cooperation, the BRICS union for example. We want our opinions to be respected likewise. We all need to be cautious to not make hasty and dangerous steps. Some of the players on the global front have forgotten about the need for this," he said in another barb directed at Washington.

 

Horrors, publish everything Putin and Lavrov say and have people open their minds? Then how will they follow the dictates of Washington? Anyway what they say is not simplistic enough for the average American, which reminds me of an assessment made of George W. Bushes speeches. They were considered excellent because of his constant repetition of certain parts. Hmmm! Is that why we keep hearing the same stupidities from Obama, Kerry and the media over, and over, and over, and over, and over .....

 

Most politician's of all political persuasions are lying pieces of crap. On March 18th of this year, following the Russian annexation of Crimea, Putin made an interesting speech. In it he rightly accused the West of hypocrisy. His ironic welcoming of the West having suddenly discovered the concept of international law was very well done. His analysis of the might is right approach the West had previously adopted, and their contempt of the UN over Iraq and Afghanistan, was spot on. Putin also was absolutely right in describing the Kosovo situation as “highly analogous” to the situation in Crimea. The problem is that Putin blithely ignored the enormous logical inconsistency in his argument. He stated that the Crimean and Kosovo cases were highly analogous, but then used that to justify Russia’s action in Crimea, despite the fact that Russia has always maintained the NATO Kosovo intervention was illegal (and still refuses to recognize Kosovo). In fact of course Russia was right over Kosovo, and thus is wrong over Crimea.

 

Except the US didn't annex Kosovo. There is no comparison.

 

This is a very good historical speech. May be Obama is a good 'community organizer', but he is an international community disorganizer.

- - - Updated - - -

Crimea was not annexed. Crimea was returned to Russia by will of the people on both sides, Russia and Crimea.

 

Nonsense. You appear to be falling into line with Western media propaganda. The Guardian, for example ( which is one of the more "respectable" newspapers), argued something similar. In reality, the argument that the cases are different are pathetic exercises in special pleading.

 

There are no Americans in Ukraine. Only Russians and Ukrainian nationalists. Nobody can kill all Russians in Ukraine. The only solution is listen to will of people. If they want to break away from Kiev, let it be so. Otherwise, they have to fight for freedom from neo fascists.

 

This is a bit misleading Pronin24.

 

So then the US did annex Kosovo? Damn. They must have us more brainwashed then we thought if we didn't know that? How long tell it's proclaimed the 51st state?

 

Semantics.

 

*shrug* Less stigma associated with organizing communities (or carrying water)... than beating political dissidents. Cultural thing.



"Before Enlightenment you chop wood and carry water, after Enlightenment, you chop wood and carry water." Zen Saying

​

 

Putin is correct, but it ain't going to do squat for the crap piled on his own desk, so he needs to focus on his duty to his people.

 

No one is stopping Russians in the Ukraine from leaving the Ukraine. The problem is when Russians want take half of the Ukraine from the Ukrainians.



(Seriously, your handle is PR Ronin? Could a for-hire troll be anymore obvious...)

​

 

Everything Russia did with Crimea was within international law. The people of Crimea declared their independence against the illegal coup in Kiev after they passed a discriminatory language law, and after busloads of protesters from Crimea were beaten and harassed for eight hours after leaving Kiev. When they became aware that another coup was going to occur in Crimea, they asked Russia for protection. Everything they did was within international law since the Hague had affirmed that people have the right to their self determination, and everything Russia did was within international law, since according to the treaty Russia was entitled to have twenty five thousand troops on Crimea.

The difference between Kosovo and Crimea is that the people in Crimea were Russians, and no one in Crimea was ethnically cleansed while in Kosovo two hundred and fifty thousand Serbs and Romas were ethnically cleansed by Clinton who had no ethnic or cultural connection whatsoever to anyone in Serbia or Yugoslavia. It was purely for Washington's geo political advantage. Also the Kiev government at the time Crimea declared its independence was illegal, so there was no official Ukrainian government at the time, while in Kosovo there was a legal government in Belgrade.

When Clinton intervened illegally in Serbia's civil war under the pretense of genocide, (it was never proven), he illegally bombed Belgrade killing thousands, and destroyed the historical Orthodox Christian presence in Kosovo which went back one thousand years. He also helped the Kosovan Albanians ethnically cleanse two hundred fifty thousand Serbs as well as Romas, and also allowed the Albanians to destroy over one hundred ancient churches and monasteries. Clinton and Albright are war criminals, and should be tried as such.

Once the U.S. set the precedence with Kosovo for its own geopolitical advantage, then Russia had every right to follow the same precedence. It doesn't matter whether Russia recognizes the independence of Kosovo, since it was falsely created by ethnically cleansing the land of its original inhabitants. In Crimea no one was ethnically cleansed, and unlike Kosovo, no one died. The people of Crimea welcomed the help of Russia with bouquets of flowers. Everything was within the will of the Crimean people. Over ninety percent voted to unite with Russia.

To legalize Crimea's independence by the same principal the U.S. used with Kosovo, a referendum was held. And even though the U.S. lobbied against foreign observers attending, they did come from over one hundred countries, and they said that no pressure was exerted on anyone. It went very smoothly. Now compare that with the vote for independence in Scotland. Not all of the observers have recognized it because of the discrepancies.

 

OOhhhhhh....it is to laugh.

 

No is correct. Much as I dislike to agree with Putinism.... The mushy little Russian is far better at playing the game.

 

Are you for real? The name of the land is Nuvorussiya, and it has been called Nuvorussiya for centuries. It was always a part of Russia, that's why the Russians live there. The people who call themselves Ukrainians are Galatians, and they were always a part of Poland. They joined the Nazis and killed the Poles in WWII, and then took their lands, and now they joined the Washington sociopaths and want to kill the Russians and take their land as well.

 

I disagree with your contention that what Russia did in Crimea was legal as I do with your stated premise on which it is based. It is true that Crimea is an ethnic Russian majority province but, contrary to Russian mythology, it's the only one in the whole of Ukraine that is. You are also right to say that, in contrast to Kosovo, nobody in Crimea died. However, the vote was flawed. Your analysis is strongest in your critique of Clinton's actions in Serbia.

 

Oh so then Russia's the one that invaded Iraq and made a mess out of it; and Russia's the one that bombed Libya and made a mess out of it; and Russia's the one that supported the foreign Jihadists against the Syrian government and made a mess out of it; and Russia's the one that gave five billion to foster a coup in Ukraine and made a mess out of it; and Russia's the one that spent money to encourage the students to protest in Hong Kong. Thanks for letting me know.

 

It's part of the Ukraine. New Mexico and New England are parts of the United States. A familiar sounding name isn't a license to invade another country.



​

 

Good to know.




​

 

When the Japanese delegates told Lavrov that annexing Crimea was illegal, Lavrov told them to find the law saying it. They couldn't find it because there is no such law. What does exist though, is a law saying that people have a right to their self determination, and the people of Crimea felt they were under a definite threat and wanted to reunite with Russia.

As for the Ukraine being Russian, it depends on what you mean by being Russia. Originally people identified with their religious affiliation, and the people of The Ukraine are Russian Orthodox except for the minority Galatians which historically was a part of Poland. They are Byzantine Catholics and are under the Pope. They are the Banderite Nazis who are killing and maiming the Orthodox and trying to ethnically cleanse them from their historical homeland so they could take their land, in the same way Bandera killed off the Poles in WWII.

Look, the Ukraine never existed as a nation. It was an administration formed by Lenin when he took a chunk of Poland and a chunk of Russia and united them with some small pieces of Hungary and Romania in the 1920's. This is why the people in Nuvorussiya as well as in other places of Eastern and Southern Ukraine speak Russian.

This is also why they go to Russian schools, and this is also why they marry Russians, and this is also why they conduct their business in Russian, and this is also why they love Russia and hate the E.U. It is their country. Let the Galatians go and declare their independence and join the E.U., or they can reunite with Poland, that is if Poland wants them, and they can leave the rest of Ukraine alone. They have no business there, regardless of what Nuland and the rest of their ilk say.

Here she is with two of her Nazi friends.