fallenBoy

Maailmapoliitika

Põhja-Korea propagandast

19.11.2013 Maailmapoliitika

Põhja-Korea dokumentaalfilm, milles selgitatakse igale inimesele arusaadavas keeles, mis seisus on läänemaailm, kuidas läänemaailma inimesed on orjastatud, mis võtetega ja miks. Selgitab lihtsalt mõjutusmehhanisme — propaganda ja religioon, reklaamindus, sõjad, terrorism jne.

Kohustuslik kirjandus igale inimesele, kes ei saa aru, miks asjad paistavad just sellisena, nagu nad paistavad. Sunduslik kirjandus nendele põmmpeadele, kes unistavad Soomest ja 1000 eurosest lapsetoetusset (sest lapsed ei ole ju midagi muud, kui mitte-rahalised vahendid).

Korea keeles, dubleeritud inglise keelde.

(kuigi alguses kiidetakse Põhja-Koread ja nende juhti, siis filmis seda ei tehta)

Kommentaarid: puuduvad

Huxleylt Orwellile

3.01.2014 Civilization sucks Maailmapoliitika

Ehk “Brave New Worldi” autorilt “1984” autorile.

Wrightwood. Cal. 21 October, 1949

Dear Mr. Orwell,

It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book. It arrived as I was in the midst of a piece of work that required much reading and consulting of references; and since poor sight makes it necessary for me to ration my reading, I had to wait a long time before being able to embark on Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not tell you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is. May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf. The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it. Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World. I have had occasion recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.

Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply in the field of government. Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or six generations. Another lucky accident was Freud’s inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism. This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years. But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World. The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency. Meanwhile, of course, there may be a large scale biological and atomic war — in which case we shall have nightmares of other and scarcely imaginable kinds. Thank you once again for the book. Yours sincerely, Aldous Huxley

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2813/11709699505_5687899739_z.jpg

Kommentaarid: puuduvad

Paavst Francisele suhu pandud sõnad

1.03.2014 Maailmapoliitika

Ükskord ometi saab alustada emotsionaalse hüüatusega “Oo mu Jumal!” ja tegelikult kah adresseerida Kõigekõrgemat.

Eelmise aasta, 2013, detsembri alguses lekkis/tekkis netti Paavst Francise väljaütlemised Kolmandalt Vatikani Nõukogust, mis tekitasid tormi. Küll veeklaasis, aga siiski tormi. Paavst teatas katoliku kiriku kaasajastamisest, sest kirik olevat läbi teinud evolutsiooni. Kutsus inimesi üles tolerantsusele, arusaamisele, et tõde ei ole absoluutne, vaid arenev ja muutuv. Väitis, et Jumalat teenib iga inimene, kes on hooliv ja armastav.

The Third Vatican Council concluded today with Pope Francis announcing that Catholicism is now a “modern and reasonable religion, which has undergone evolutionary changes. The time has come to abandon all intolerance. We must recognize that religious truth evolves and changes. Truth is not absolute or set in stone. Even atheists acknowledge the divine. Through acts of love and charity the atheist acknowledges God as well, and redeems his own soul, becoming an active participant in the redemption of humanity.”

Diversity Chronicle

Paavst väitis ka, et Põrgut ei ole reaalselt olemas, väljendit kasutatakse kirjeldamaks eksinud hinge eraldatust. Lisaks nimetas Paavst lugu Aadamast ja Eevast, seega kogu Piiblit, mõistukõneks:

Through humility, soul searching, and prayerful contemplation we have gained a new understanding of certain dogmas. The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. This doctrine is incompatible with the infinite love of God. God is not a judge but a friend and a lover of humanity. God seeks not to condemn but only to embrace. Like the fable of Adam and Eve, we see hell as a literary device. Hell is merely a metaphor for the isolated soul, which like all souls ultimately will be united in love with God

Diversity Chronicle

Eelnevale lisaks väitis paavst, et kõik religioonid on tõesed, sest nad on tõesed inimeste südametes, viidates varem väljaöeldule, mille kohaselt ei ole olmas absoluutset tõde, seega ka mitte ühte teistest õigemat usku.

All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them. What other kind of truth is there? In the past, the church has been harsh on those it deemed morally wrong or sinful. Today, we no longer judge. Like a loving father, we never condemn our children. Our church is big enough for heterosexuals and homosexuals, for the pro-life and the pro-choice! For conservatives and liberals, even communists are welcome and have joined us. We all love and worship the same God.

Diversity Chronicle

Paavst mõistis hukka ka piibli, väites, et raamat on igivana ja tõed, mis sinna kirja pandud, ei ole enam tõesed, mõned neist vaat et lausvaled.

Uus armastav hoiak väljendub ka selles, et kirik tunnustab naisi kardinalide, piiskopide ja preestritena. Paavst Francis loodab näha kunagi ka naispaavsti.

Paavst näitas näpuga rassistidele, nimetades neid Saatana kehastuseks. Samuti hoiatas kõiki kristlasi, kes ei tunnista teisi usundeid, väljaviskamise eest:

Those who seek to deny a home to the migrant, to the African and the Muslim, risk their membership in the church. We will consider excommunication for those whose souls willingly dwell in the darkness and evil of intolerance and racism. Satan himself is a metaphor or a personification, for the collective evils of mankind. Today, these evils manifest foremost as racism, intolerance, religious persecution and bigotries of all kinds.

Diversity Chronicle

Kokkuvõttes teatas Paavst, et uus Katoliku kirik ei anna hinnaguid, armastab tingimusteta kõiki Jumala lapsi, st kõiki inimesi, seadmata neile tingimusi. Uus kirik ei jaga inimesi grupidesse vastavalt nende filosoofilistele hoiakutele — kiriku jaoks on nii abordi pooldaja, kui vastane, nii homo, kui ka hetero, nii muslim kui ka aafrika animist Jumala laps ning ta hoiab ja kaitseb neid kõiki. Uus kirik mõistab hukka vaid neid, kes oma mõtteis ja tegevuses on õelad, kurjad — rassistid, ekstremistid jne.

Paavst kõnnib Ema Teresa jälgedes:

There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.

– Ema Teresa

Aga see kõik on vale.

Tõestust selle kohta, et Paavst selliseid asju väitnud oleks, ei ole olemas.

Veebileht, millel lugu ilmus, ei ole samuti tõsiseltvõetav, näiteks kolm päeva tagasi ilmus seal lugu “JUSTIN BIEBER COURAGEOUSLY ANNOUNCES HE IS GENDER-FLEXIBLE, SOMETIMES MALE, SOMETIMES FEMALE”.

Kõige suuremad Paavsti hukkamõistjad on kristlased. Kommentaarid erinevatel lehtedel refereeritud loo all on mürgised — nooli loobitakse nii Paavsti (Church’s Obama, Just a man jne), kui teiste uskude kohta. Jääb vägisi mulje, et kristlased on kitsarinnalised, õelad, rumalad, väiklased inimesed, kes kordavad järele mõtteid, millest nad aru ei saa ja kaitsevad ennast küsitavalt tõlgendatud piiblitsitaatidega, ignoreerides raamatu ebamugavamaid lõike.

Kogu selle loo teevad huvitavaks Paavst Francise eelnevad, dokumenteeritud, väljaütlemised, kus ta kinnitab, et Jumalat, kui füüsilist olendit, ei ole olemas, sest Jumal on kõikjal:

Finding God in all things is not an ‘empirical eureka.’ When we desire to encounter God, we would like to verify him immediately by an empirical method. But you cannot meet God this way. God is found in the gentle breeze perceived by Elijah. The senses that find God are the ones St. Ignatius called spiritual senses. Ignatius asks us to open our spiritual sensitivity to encounter God beyond a purely empirical approach. A contemplative attitude is necessary: it is the feeling that you are moving along the good path of understanding and affection toward things and situations. Profound peace, spiritual consolation, love of God and love of all things in God—this is the sign that you are on this right path.

America Magazine

… toetab naiste suuremat osa kiriku tegemistes:

It is necessary to broaden the opportunities for a stronger presence of women in the church. I am wary of a solution that can be reduced to a kind of ‘female machismo,’ because a woman has a different make-up than a man. But what I hear about the role of women is often inspired by an ideology of machismo. Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed. The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role. The woman is essential for the church.

America Magazine

… ei mõista kukka geisid:

When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency is not the problem…they’re our brothers.

National Catholic Reporter

Lisaks veel avalik flirt teiste religioonidega.

Tahaks loota, et tegemist oli vatikani PR trikiga, et harjutada meid suunaga, kuhu Paavst Francis liigub. Olid üks tema mõte ju oma esimesel ülesastumisel, Suurel Reedel 2013 järgmine:

Let us remember this: God judges us by loving us. If I embrace his love then I am saved, if I refuse it, then I am condemned, not by him, but my own self, because God never condemns, he only loves and saves.

Paavst Francis, 29. märts 2013

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8383/8605351139_3ec38a6a9c_z.jpg

Kommentaarid: puuduvad

William C. Van Duyni avakõne Bilderbergide 2014 aasta kohtumiselt

14.06.2014 Maailmapoliitika

Pole teada, kas see kõne ka tõsi on, aga vahva on ta ikkagi.

Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me welcome you at the 60nd edition of the Bilderberg meeting here in Copenhagen..
Since the creation of the Bilderberg meeting back in 1954, my father [William Gerrit Van Duyn], HRH Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld, Henry Kissinger, decided to organize an event to unite different entities from industry, politics and culture. After the fourth Meeting back in 1958, the Bilderberg members put together the conditions of the Treaty of Rome. It was finally signed and the European Community was born with 6 States members. Today the European Community contents 28 countries. And today the Bilderbergers advise 134 states members.

Today, my speech will be officially published by our new enemy : the Media.
Bilderberg isn´t a secret society, never was. Perhaps in the eyes of the population, but what we did is we kept our topics and decision to ourselves. We are not an evil. I do not have an all-seeing eye. My ancestors only made sure the Eye is on the [U.S.] dollar bill.

Bilderberg is no conspiracy, but people and conspiracists with their infantile fantasies see it as such. None of you, and I don’t care how powerful you are, sit around the table in a dark room, holding hands, staring at a crystal ball, planning the world´s future.

The exuberant myth created by conspiracy theorists, journalists, and media moguls has been fabricated about the image of the Bilderberg. But are they really the cause of our consequences? Didn’t we involve ourselves into this luxurious secretive, mystical image? Going back in time, I am today in conversation with a certain controversial researcher who studied the Illuminati for more than 2 decades [Fritz Springmeier]. I respect this gentleman for his courage and vision.
I want to change history.

I do believe that mankind has a right to their future. The population is frustrated, manipulated, and demoralized by their own leaders. They live in their own Cartesian fantasies with the hope God will sent a messiah to save their soul! God has other plans with humanity. He creates the balance between good and evil.

Time changes: and I am glad to feel those changes. I feel a general awareness and singularities of awaken ones….People are beginning to ask me the good questions. Their main question is „what is right?” It´s a phenomenon of response and reaction to an overly felt perception that the entire world is doomed to catastrophe, poverty, injustice and misery.

What makes the Bilderberg so strong?
It is because of its perseverance. Members are coming and leaving, guests come and go but the system grows stronger and stronger. No president, no king, no dictator, nor prime minister dares to criticize my name nor the Bilderbergers, and they know they are the puppets of the powerful Illuminati working from behind the scenes.

The general economy is collapsing. People are grasped by something they don’t always understand. But, it forces them to act in a blind way for their own interest.

That’s what they are doing in major countries and certainly in the United States: the anthropic country! Hillary Clinton told me yesterday it´s like a streaming movement came upon America and washed its pride away. As people realise that their existence is threatened, they pray to God, blame their government, the Bilderbergers and the King of Satan called the Illuminati.

At the recent Council on Foreign Relations speech in Brussels a few days ago, I warned that a “global population awareness,” was threatening a revolution towards their governments.

You come from very different ideological, economic, cultural and political backgrounds. What unites us is that we are all determined to find the solution for humanity and its humankind.

And those who work for their own greediness, success and hunger for fame, who have sold their nations like the Bushs, Mugabe, Orban, Al-Bashir, Kim Jong-Un, are traitors. Not only traitors of their people and their nations, but for humanity as a whole entity.

The subject of this Bilderberg meeting is the One World Government..
Seven years ago the economy of Europe almost collapsed. It wasn’t because of the Europe’s weak economy. It came right to us from the United States of America with their unstable banking system.

The bursting of the U.S. housing bubbles which peaked in 2006 caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally without mentioning the national debts. World economy crisis because of American housing? Because of their gluttony? Does the rest of the world economy need to rely on US economy?

Another key is implemented in the United States: a universal principle of welfare on which the United States is based. But welfare does not mean a useless bum sitting on the couch, eating a pizza, slobbering the beer over himself, watching television, while he/she is waiting for an unemployment check to arrive.

Please ask an average man the intention of the existence of humans, or of government? Would his/her answer be to provide for the general welfare of future generations of mankind? I don’t think so.

People want a Nation, an Empire. Educate the people that is what they want: globalization. People believe that in order to have an Empire, you need money. But money is not a result of wealth. The economy is not based on money but on production and innovation. Money does not make the world go around. Money has no value. When families are harvesting their own vegetables and fruits in their garden they have more value and real money.

Human Mind Control. Human Minds affect the planet. This is how it is measured. It means immortality for the Soul of humankind. We are able to enjoy the universal principles. It allows people to innovate, to believe, and to harmonize the relation between man and nature. Human are destroying their own life on purpose by their hunger for higher living standards. They are digging their own grave pushed by their own debts. If humanity doesn’t change its attitude, 35% of the population will be wiped out. They destroy their own creative power with no reason.

Population blamed on the depression. But the 2008 depression was not an event that wiped out the world capitalists. It was meant to make the world population aware of their greediness and laziness in their life, to let them face the spectacle of poverty. They blame the banks, the governments, and all of us.

Let’s give them what they want:
Why don’t we give them the right of ruling the nature of economy, social welfare, the game of the wars and the innovation of the future…. The Greeks are blowing the European system with their unpayable debts. The French are voting the Front National to rescue the French patriotism. The Italians are Italians. I do not ask you to be too emotional, we’re not Spanish. I even don’t want to go the direction of Eastern Europe, Russia nor Asia.
And then comes Brussels and the European Community. Let’s fire them all. Those horrible useless people, sitting in nice conference room, kick out Herman Van Rompuy (sorry Herman) but he is useless. Brussels the evil city of the world ruled by the Illuminati.
Washington, those wet rags…fighting between dumb Republicans with their belief in guns and gospels against the stupid Democrats with their socialism ideology following the rules of Lenin. Ask a Republican redneck the difference between socialism and facism or the democrats about guns and gospel….. Does the government even know about the needs of its citizens? Do they know about the middle class and its poverty? Are they aware about the lack of education of its citizens? The truth behind the abomination of the health system? We need to resolve the American problem for its population. With a stronger America we will be able to influence the world economy in the right direction for humanitarian purposes. We will have a better understanding in the Asian Market. Guns, gospels, and socialism will not help them. Each single American has to do it by him/herself.

Population will rule perfectly the world for the greater good of Humanity!

I am talking about morality, and not scientific nor economic problems. Do people think about their future in 10 years? What kind of future will they have in 5 decades? Do they have a right to dream? Who are the bad guys here?

I told myself all humanity must be saved. But is it really possible? The brutality in humanity only waits for the courageous and the sane human to perfect the concept of nations. I believe in the fraternity of Nations. But at the moment governments are ruling by their own personal political agendas manipulated by the interest of the industries either to solve the problems in their countries.

It is the duty of the Illuminati to control every movement within any government, to provide security to its population, therefore we create the rules, we decide about nations policy. The Bilderberg needs to guide the economic factors in the right direction and build trust within the population!

I refuse any secrecy of decisions made by us. Why should we continue to rule the system behind closed doors? Why wouldn’t we face the population with their own mirror and tell them: Hey! Wake up….
Bilderberg Meeting is tool of the Illuminati. It runs because of the Illuminati. Bilderberg is the strongest and most powerful association, the perfect concept for sound economic security, by keeping the world order in shape, and the initiator of mankind in the age of reason.

I want this Bilderberg to be the first meeting in a new direction providing openness to the population in regard and respect for the future generations.

Next year positive results will show to the world that we aren’t evil, but we help humanity because humanity isn’t able to rescue itself.

Positive Diversity is the only hallmark of progress with an insurance policy for the population.

Allikas: http://pentracks.com/blog/2014/05/william-c-van-duyns-opening-remarks-bilderberg-mtg-2014/

Kommentaarid: puuduvad

Obama Tallinnas, Putin Moskvas

3.09.2014 Eesti Karjamentaliteet Maailmapoliitika Päevapilt Tallinn

Kui tsiteerida mustanahalist kaaluka seisukohaga daami USA situatsioonikomöödias: “Good show today! Damn good show!”.

Nobeli rahupreemiaga pärjatud Barack tuli Toomasele külla, päev enne sõjaplaanipidamist Walesis. Millest nad küll räägivad — päris kindlasti arutatakse päevakajalisi probleeme ehk siis üle käte läinud abikaasa ohjamist. Kujutan juba ette, kuidas võidurõõmus Barack ühel hetkel nipsab Toomasele: “Michelle is Michelle, but at least she’s not Evelin! You know”. Ja Toomas teab.

Huvitav, mida nad Vladimirist räägivad? Kindlasti sülgavad Kadrioru lossi põrandale ja ajavad jalaga laiali, et kiiremini ära kuivaks, kui jutt temani jõuab. Raibe ei ole nõus loovutama strateegilise tähtusega riiki USA-le! Noh, eks tast saab ju aru kah — on ju Ukraina alati kuulunud Venemaal mõjusfääri ja sealne sõjalaevastik ja -sadam Vladimirile strateegilise tähtusega. Aga jube lahe oleks ikkagi, kui USA saaks sinna oma baasid sisse viia, et siis oleks Vladimir peaaegu nagu sisse piiratud! You know. Ja ärgem unustagem maagaasi! Mustas meres, Ukraina aladel on ju s*tta kanti maagaasi — lükkaks dollarite eest maha, Euroopale näiteks, ei saaks enam Angela kah vastu ajada, et Vladimirit ei tohi kiusata, sest muidu annab too Angelale vasta hambaid. Või keerab gaasikraanid kinni. Veel hullem. Kurat-kurat-kurat, ei tea kohe, mida teha! Hetkel täitsa perse majas — Vladimir koos Xi, Dilma, Pranabi ja Jacobiga korraldavad sülgamisvõistlusi dollari pihta. Nüüd kuuldavasti tahab võistlusest osa võtta ka Angela ja Abdullah! Damn! Saddamiga oli hea ja lihtne — niikui dollarist loobus sai nööri kaela. Ja Muammar — sai nuga, kui hakkas ajama mingit jama kullastandardist. Naljavend! Bashari ja Hassaniga annaks kah veel midagi ehk teha, aga suht läbipaistvaks hakkab asi muutuma, kui kõiki Naftamüüjate Liidu liikmeid, kes ei austa US dollarit, peab hakkama noomima. Ja see demokraatia viimise jutt on kah juba suht kulunud — mõned juba ilguvad ja küsivad irooniliselt, et kas Abdullah siis ei vajagi demoraatiat. Siin ma vaatan on kõik ilusati propaganda pähe õppinud, aga kodukülas mul juba inimesed naervad! Ma ei tea, mida kohe teha — ma ei saa ju lihtsalt pealt vaadata, kuidas nad dollari hävitavad! Kui dollar on väärtusetu, olen ma ju kutupiilu!

Toomas vaatab kärsitult südant puistavat Baracki ning kui too hetkeks vaikib, silmi paha mõtte ees kinni pigistades, ulatab viimasele pitsi viina: “Tee nigu mina!” ja tühjendab pitsi nõtke liigutusega.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/14939659280_a2046b01ee_z.jpg https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5581/15103327076_8240ce4212_z.jpg https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5576/14939766837_e72be53089_z.jpg https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5592/14939660319_105f25a148_z.jpg https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3856/15126343255_54c1a99533_z.jpg

Kommentaarid: puuduvad

Vladimir Putini kõne Sotšis, Valdai klubi kohtumisel

31.10.2014 Maailmapoliitika USA Venemaa

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the XI meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations, 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.

I hope that these changes in organisation 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 realise 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 analyse 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 organisations 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 organisations. 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 defence, 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 mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation 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 globalisation 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 globalisation. 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 globalisation 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 normalising 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 defence 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 favour 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 ‘colour 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 programme, 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 harmonising 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 harmonising positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centres 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 centres 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 civilised 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 – civilised 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 civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘colour 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 Organisation 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 Organisation, 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 neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise 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.

24. oktoober 2014
Allikas: http://eng.news.kremlin.ru/news/23137

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3933/15668627842_96cb6234f7_z.jpg

Kommentaarid: puuduvad