I listened live to Putin’s speech yesterday with great interest. Here is my own analysis, for what it is worth.
Putin was strongest in his accusations of western 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. That is indeed true, and attempts by the West – including the Guardian – to argue the cases are different are pathetic exercises in special pleading.
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.
I was very interested that Putin made distinct reference to the appalling crimes against the Tartars in the 1930’s, but also to the terrible suffering of Ukrainians in that period. His references were not detailed but their meaning was clear. I was surprised because under Putin’s rule there has been a great deal of rehabilitation of Stalin. Archives that were opened under glasnost have frozen over again, and history in Russian schools now portrays Stalin’s foreign policy achievement much more than his crimes (and it is now again possible to complete your Russian school education with no knowledge the Stalin-Hitler pact ever happened). So this was both surprising and positive. Designed to be positive was his assurance that Crimea will be trilingual. We will see what happens; Putin’s Russia is in fact not tolerant of its ethnic populations in majority Russian areas, and in fact contains a great many more far right thugs than Ukraine – probably about the same percentage of the population.
The 97% referendum figure is simply unbelievable to any reasonable person and is straight out of the Soviet playbook – it was strange to see Putin going in and out of modern media friendly mode and his audience, with their Soviet en brosse haircuts and synchronized clapping – obviously liked the Soviet bits best.
The attempt to downplay Russia’s diplomatic isolation was also a bit strange. He thanked China, though China had very pointedly failed to support Russian in the Security Council. When you are forced to thank people for abstaining, you are not in a strong position diplomatically. He also thanked India, which is peculiar, because the Indian PM yesterday put out a press release saying Putin had called him, but the had urged Putin to engage diplomatically with the interim government in Kiev, which certainly would not be welcome to Putin. I concluded that Putin was merely trying to tell his domestic audience Russia has support, even when it does not.
But what I find really strange is that the parts of the speech I found most interesting have not drawn any media comment I can see. Putin plainly said that in his discussions with Kuchma on the boundaries of Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they hadn’t wanted to open any dispute with what they expected to be a friendly neighbor, and that therefore the boundaries of Ukraine had never been finally demarcated. He said twice the boundaries had not been demarcated. That seemed to indicate a very general threat to Eastern Ukraine. He also spoke of the common heritage of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in a way that indicated that he did not accept that Ukraine might choose a political future away from Russia.
Secondly, he said that on the day the Soviet Union broke up, Russians in many places had “woken up to find themselves in a foreign country.” Again from the context in which he said it, this referred not just to Crimea, and not just even to the rest of Ukraine, but to Russian nationals all over the Former Soviet Union. I would be worrying a lot about this part of the speech if I was Kazakh, to give just one example. Putin seemed to be outlining a clear agenda to bring Russian speaking areas of CIS countries back in to Mother Russia – indeed, I see no other possible interpretation of his actions in Georgia and Ukraine.
I think that we should start listening much more carefully to what he says. I also think that the weakness of the EU’s response to events gives Putin a very dangerous encouragement to pursue further aggrandizement. I posted a few days ago:
The EU I expect to do nothing. Sanctions will target a few individuals who are not too close to Putin and don’t keep too many of their interests in the West. I don’t think Alisher Usmanov and Roman Abramovic need lose too much sleep, that Harrods need worry or that we will see any flats seized at One Hyde Park. (It is among my dearest wishes one day to see One Hyde Park given out for council housing.) Neither do I expect to see the United States do anything effective; its levers are limited.
The truth is of course that the global political elite are in the pockets of the global financial elite, and while ordinary Russians are still desperately poor, the money the oligarchs rip out of Russia’s backward commodity exporting economy is parceled around the world financial system in ways that make it impossible for the western political classes to do anything. Whose funds would the hedge fund managers look after? Whose yacht could Mandelson and Osborne holiday on?
Personally I should like to see a complete financial freeze on the entire Russian oligarchy. The knock on effects would only hurt a few bankers, and city types and those who depend on them (cocaine dealers, lap dancers, Porsche dealers, illegal domestic servants). Sadly we shan’t see anything happen. They won’t let Eton go bust.
Resident Dissident 22 Mar, 2014 – 11:45 am
That’s not good enough just to say I believe Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. It’s a cop out. You do not watch what you call conspiracy theories or argue against them. Anybody can make a cursory statement and say there I’ve said it, it’s true, but it does not address any of the facts found in your idea of conspiracy theory, which has the same foundation as your repetition of the global western buzz-phrase “land-grab”.
http://www.interpretermag.com/why-are-you-silent/
A question that the Putinistas would also do well to consider – especially Mr Goss who is so voluble in criticising Theresa May (yes he called her a fascist) for far less offensive behaviour, but now employs a combination of silence and diversionary tactics when it comes to Mad (rhetorical not a medical diagnosis) Vlad.
“You do not watch what you call conspiracy theories or argue against them.”
I do watch – and I even read Mr Aaronovich’s excellent book on them. I also argue against them as well – as you know only too well – but there becomes a time when you see enough evidence to reach a firm view as I have done with 9/11 a long time ago.
Please stop you diversionary tactics this is not a 9/11 thread – there are other topics relevant to this thread on the table that you continue to ignore. Your behaviour at present amounts to classic trolling.
RD.
I’ve seen your posts for long enough to know you are not really here to contribute. I won’t be drawn into your endless, “your fascists / massacres / etc” are worse than mine pantomime.
If you want to know my views on these matters, for what they are worth, there are plenty there. Just look back.
…
John.
Thanks. My first walk… beautiful….so much so that I’m off again..life too short to bury myself in the blogosphere today!
Resident Dissident; “Am I the only one here who finds Macky’s twisting of Uzbek’s words (which are written in his second language) and his constant bullying somewhat unseemly”
I do beg your pardon for only just now noticing that you have made comments about me, as opposed to being made to me !
Re your concern for the gentle “MAD Lefties” shrieking Uzbek, here a little summary of our little discussion, in very simple language that I’m sure you can follow, and then made some enlightening thoughts about;
Uzbek claims Russians are especially & inherently bad (chauvinistic).
Uzbez claims Russian history proves this centuries spanning badness (national/ethnic/racial chavanism).
Macky points out that Russians are not uniquely & inherently bad, but are exactly normal humans the same as every other people.
Macky does this by highlighting the badness/chauvinism that is intrinsic in the openly & officially promoted creeds of both the “Chosenness” of the Jews, & the “Manifest Destiny” doctrine of the Americans.
Uzbek fails to acknowledge these clear examples of other States actually indoctrinating badness/chauvinism in their citizens.
Uzbek fails to acknowledge that his dubious contention that Russian identity has always been deliberate cultivated to be chauvinistic, is in stark contrast to incontestable chauvinistic official creeds of both the Jewish & American identities.
Uzbek,s failure to acknowledge the above two points, that disprove his contention that Russians are especially & inherently bad (chauvinistic); reveals a hypocritical inconsistency that betrays his prejudice towards Russians.
Therefore his criticism of Russia & Russians, and his take on the Ukraine events are not motivated by rational argumentation, but instead are driven by the demon of irrational racism.
Resident Dissident; “While Macky is on the subject of massacres perhaps he might wish to acknowledge those undertaken by Milosevic’s thugs on the Kosovans well before the NATO action, which he previously glossed over/ignored in his usual one sided analysis. I also wonder if he shares the view of his hero Galloway that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest catastrophe of his life”
I’m more than happy to address these issues, but let’s follow your hypocritical advice just given to John Goss, and try to stay on topic, so here’s a question for you given your views on the Crimean Referendum;
Since it’s universally acknowledge that the majority pro-Russian population will always vote Yes for closer integration with Russia, why would they need the “intimidation” of Russian troops to ensure something that is a complete certainty ?
“I think everyone should pressure Resident Dissident about his views on 9/11. Considering 85% of Americans do not believe the government story. He’s so full of himself but if you try to pin him down on a particular issue he diverts. ”
The real fun comes in trying to pin down a troofer to a particular conspiracy theory. Everybody knows the hijackers were CIA patsies but they didn’t exist and the planes were flown by remote control only of course cargo planes packed with explosives were substituted for the airliners which were flown off to an unknown secret location and the twin towers rigged for demolition using nano-thermate which is an incendiary not an explosive so mini-nukes were used instead only of course there were no planes and the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition and the planes added on afterwards using CGI and nobody died because all the bereaved are hired actors only of course we now know the towers weren’t rigged with explosive at all but destroyed by a ray gun fired from a satellite and the many tons of debris everybody thought had been sent to landfill without forensic investigation had in fact been totally destroyed. The attacks were planned by the Israelis and carried out by Freemasons disguised as neo-conservative giant lizards under the direction of the Illuminati and funded by the NWO.
There, that should clear things up.
RD 11.58. Still not good enough. You need to argue why the relatives of 9/11 victims are not allowed an inquiry into what caused the demolition of the twin towers and building 7. Quite clearly al Qaeda (a US conceived organisation) never had the capability. And God help the US if they could not intercept two rogue aircraft which had changed flight paths if it ever came to intercepting nuclear missiles. Above 1,000 scientists and engineers, mostly US, believe these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Do the relatives of the victims not deserve an inquiry?
By the way it is not off topic. In 2011 Putin would even have agreed with you. Don’t know what his views are after the US funded coup of the fascists in Ukraine. Russia Today again. He argues that he cannot believe US special agencies were behind it.
http://rt.com/politics/9-11-putin-seliger-investigation-toronto-355/
Craig says: “Putin was strongest in his accusations of western hypocrisy.” Tell me why, Resident Dissident, the relatives should not have an inquiry.
You’re another one Kempe (or not) who tries to put ideas into people’s heads about what ‘troofers’ believe.
This is why I believe there should be an investigation as mentioned at 10.30 am.
Aaron Russo’s interview with Alex Jones (not the singer/actress) is a good place to start because Aaron was Jewish (he was probably dying from cancer when he did this interview. It is short.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZjKKUEHTKk
Then there is General Wesley Clark’s interview. It is even shorter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LTdx1nPu3k
As to the evidence. It lasts much longer but is well worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8
Argue that, especially the third link. Instead of your stupid fantasies about what you would like people to believe those of us with an alternative view argue. Bet you can’t. Put up or shut up.
On the subject of stupid fantasies John which of the myriad alternative explanations for 9/11 do you subscribe too? I understand each one comes with incontrovertible evidence that cannot be de-bunked and therefore must be true (blue teapot!) so you must’ve formed an opinion by now.
If there’s any entertainment to be had from from the 9/11 “truth” movement it’s been watching them turn in on each other as factions take up ever more bizarre and fantastic theories. It’s accepted that belief in conspiracy theories makes troofers feel empowered. They believe they are in possession of knowledge not accessible or understood by the rest of us, the “sheeple”, and it seems that within the conspiracy movement troofers who believe in the latest and most improbable theory feel themselves empowered above their fellows.
Whilst there is a tendency to regard the whole conspiracy movement as a collection of harmless loons when the bereaved of events such Sandy Hook, Boston and 9/11 are being harassed and abused by idiots trying to trick or bully a confession from people they think are crisis actors or “vicsims” (simulated victims) it stops being funny. When parents are being fed lies in attempt to dissuade them from having their children vaccinated (in my experience people who believe one conspiracy theory generally believe all conspiracy theories) we’re talking manslaughter.
Just popping in to do a Komodo. CM has become a snakepit and I don’t like snakes, so let Craig reap what he sowed…Neocon Jubilee !
Kempe, I believe in investigation to determine cause. If the investigation is conducted by an independent body, with independent experts called, and results can be tested the likelihood of an acceptable outcome is enhanced. I do not agree even though in your “experience people who believe one conspiracy theory generally believe all conspiracy theories” so let’s stick with 9/11, or otherwise I will think you are trying to divert the discussion, and we get too much of that.
Did you watch the third link in my last comment. It names names. The US does not want to satisfy the needs of families of victims of 9/11. Why would you think that is?
Whether you like it or not we will soon have a definitive answer as to whether passenger planes were involved in 9/11 because an ex-CIA pilot, a very experienced pilot, has not just questioned the official version, but taken out an affidavit swearing that it is impossible. That means the legal arm of US government will have to respond, or his affidavit becomes enshrined in law as the truth. It amounts to put up or shut up and I suspect the response will be shut up.
http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers
Resident Dissident, 9:52 am; yes, I object to the bullying of Uzbek in the UK, and to various contributors’ apparent selective blindness to crimes and gross injustices by Russia. Thank you for arguing the opposing case. But I’m also somewhat suspicious that you and ESLO are in fact the same contributor, and I am not satisfied with the 9/11 Commission Report.
Ben-MAD, 2:33 pm; Craig didn’t sow any of this, unless you mean by having a very open policy on comments. Craig has been very consistent in opposing foreign military interference wherever it occurs.
Mary, Macky
Some more on bbc bias….an exchange with the eloquent John Hilley Re –
David Cameron’s ‘benign’ part in the ‘Middle East peace process’ – exchange with the BBC
” How much propaganda can be packed into one seemingly innocuous BBC news comment?
Here’s a little insight.” J.H. @
http://johnhilley.blogspot.co.uk/
P.S…Mary if that’s you in the comments section you have already seen the piece 🙂
Re World war iii…
A great article By Felicity Arbuthnot
Ukraine, “Colored Revolutions”, Swastikas and the Threat of World War III
As the US, EU and Britain huff and puff in barrel loads of clichés: “red lines” are “crossed”, “sovereignty and territorial integrity” has been “violated”, they stand “shoulder to shoulder” with their Neo-Nazi counterparts in the interim puppet government.
They are “resolute” against “Russian aggression”, and will not “stand idly by”, sanity seems in short supply.
US Secretary of State, John Kerry representing a country which makes Genghis Khan look like a wimp when it comes to illegal invasions, still retains the prize for jaw dropper of the decade: “You just don’t, in the 21st century, behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext”, he pontificated on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
On the thirteenth anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq and the total destruction of it’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity”, by America and Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron has scuttled off to Brussels for a meeting of European Union Ministers to agree on a “robust response” to Russia – which has fired not a shot, invaded no one and threatened nothing except to respond that if sanctions were imposed on Russia they might consider a trading response. Fair enough, surely?
The government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea called a referendum, distinctly disturbed by the threat by Kiev’s US proxy government that the Russian language was to have no status, and Jews and blacks would not be tolerated.
Stop Fascism: Participate in the Referendum
A fraction under 97% voted to cede to Russia, with a turnout of over 80% – an electoral enthusiasm of which Western governments could only dream.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-colored-revolutions-swastikas-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/5374625
John, any serious investigation, independent or not, would be a waste of time as it would simply be dismissed as part of the cover up.
Lear might be a highly skilled pilot but he is not an engineer and we have to ask ourselves just how feasible is the version of events he’s proposing, that every scrap of video and every snapshot of the event has been faked and that somehow everybody within visual range of the WTC was replaced on that morning by reliable actors? Ludicrous. It would be far less trouble to actually fly planes into the towers.
BOT. Russian forces are reported to have stormed Ukrainian air bases in Crimea. It’s been reported that Ukraine was in the process of evacuating these bases anyway but has the bloodshed really started?
Kempe, if you had read it thoroughly you would have seen that John Lear belongs to a group called Pilots for 911 truth, which maintains that it does not offer a theory or point blame. Neither do I but some that do suggest these ‘planes’ were ‘drone’ planes.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
Could not make it up. The wife of a president who kills extrajudically by unmanned drone, presides over Guantanamo and SuperMax prisons, imprisons the likes of Chelsea Manning and allows mass surveillance to take place, talks about lecturing China on human rights.
Go back where you came from Michelle.
Michelle Obama Tackles Human Rights In China
Michelle Obama’s promise to pursue “soft diplomacy” in China has not stopped her taking on some tougher issues.
Saturday 22 March 2014
The US first lady has touched on human rights concerns during a visit to China, but stopped short of levelling any criticism against Beijing itself.
Michelle Obama briefly set aside her policy of ‘soft diplomacy’ on Saturday to give a speech advocating freedom of expression and open access to information.
She told a group of some 200 students at Beijing’s prestigious Peking University that universal rights should not be dependent on a person’s country of birth.
/..
http://news.sky.com/story/1230209/michelle-obama-tackles-human-rights-in-china
Guilty as charged Brian. I have tremendous admiration for him.
Some laughs here John. Sunstein is flogging his new book on conspiracy theories. He went on Reddit to answer questions.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/20q586/iaman_author_of_a_new_book_on_conspiracy_theories/
He is the husband of Samantha Power the US ambassador to the UN. She recently berated the Russian ambassador.
Thanks Mary. Somebody questioned the blanket term ‘conspiracy theory’ as I have done also. I can’t really discuss the book itself because I have not read it, and will not have time this year. I actually think Sunstein’s book on conspiracy theories has just as much chance of being a conspiracy itself as the so-called conspiracies discussed. It will certainly be written with an agenda – most books are. As we all know by the way David Aaronovitch supported Hutton over the Dr David Kelly death and called those campaigning for an inquest as conspiracy theorists how the government gets its hacks to hack out their line.
http://surelysomemistake.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/piss-and-wind-david-aaronovitch-on.html
Is it not appalling that when there should have been an inquest, Dr David Kelly, an Inquiry was held, and when there should have been an Inquiry, Lockerbie, a court case was held which wrongly convicted Abdelbaset al Megrahi. No wonder people question our government and their media lickspittles.
“But I’m also somewhat suspicious that you and ESLO are in fact the same contributor”
And how do you suggest we prove that we are not?
RD 11.58. Still not good enough.
Who the hell do you think you are? I don’t need to argue anything. I could point out that the blog owner does not share your viewpoint re 9/11 – perhaps in your arrogance you might wish to tell him that his position is not good enough either. Please stop your trolling and diversionary tactics.
“Since it’s universally acknowledge that the majority pro-Russian population will always vote Yes for closer integration with Russia, ”
Well they didn’t in 1992
The intimidation of the Russian troops was necessary so that the referendum could be held – not to influence the result which I agree was a foregone conclusion in the circumstances created by their illegal invasion.
As for you script re Uzbek I think that it just further exemplifies your bullying – you create a strawman regarding Uzbek’s position. I must say reading your case I was rather reminded of the style of the 1930s show trials.
At the risk of encouraging Mr Goss’s trolling I should also point out that I have a good friend who lost his brother in 9/11 and I can assure you that the last thing he would like to see is yet another enquiry into 9/11 and he is clear who he holds responsible. I’m afraid your position is derived from a hatred of the US which has reached such a level that rationality went out of the window a long time ago.
Who the hell do you think you are?
John Goss. Who are you?
When you are upset you cease even to try to argue. Give me a link that answers the concerns of those killed in 9/11 or argue on their behalf. You can’t get away with I said it so it must be true. I am sure the owner of this blog would not dismiss alternative ideas on 9/11 without a responsible argument. In fact if I recall correctly, although he did not believe 9/11 was an inside job, he did question the demolition of building 7. You question nothing if it is the government line not even the ‘land grab’ phrase pumped out earlier this week.
“Give me a link that answers the concerns of those killed in 9/11 or argue on their behalf. You can’t get away with I said it so it must be true.”
Are you thick or being deliberately obtuse, I was quoting the views of a personal friend – strangely enough he hasn’t decided to advertise his grief at the loss of his big brother on the internet.
Enough no more food for this troll.
It is quite clear to anyone with half a brain that I was answering your 6.27 comment. I had not refreshed the screen and you know it. So don’t come that!
Resident Dissident, you never took me up on Putin previously sharing your view on 9/11. That’s what makes it pertinent to this feed Debunking Putin. So don’t make me out to be trolling, something I’m sure you have a lot more experience at than me. Why am I surprised your good friend shares your view on 9/11? I’ll tell you one thing, if it was my family I would want to know the truth. Like these 300 families.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
Resident Dissident, 6:22 pm:
Well you could comment under your real name, or link to contact details like I do. Such measures are not poof, but they increase authenticity. So does linking to any social network profiles such as Facebook or Linkedin. Or we could arrange a real-world meeting, maybe at some demonstration or protest we both support. You could e-mail me, and we could exchange numbers and talk on the telephone. You could link to comments you’ve posted on other blogs. There are many possibilities.
Clark
I’ve explained before why I use a handle rather than my name – my employer would be none too pleased in my expressing political opinions publicly. I am sorry but all the other alternatives you suggest would involve a risk of my anonymity being revealed. Perhaps when I retire or move to a more tolerant employer. I have posted elsewhere as Tory Boys Never Grow Up and on sites I trust with my email using my first name.
Has Uzbek acquired “MAD lefties” tourette’s or something?
It’s kind of hard to take someone seriously, when they say things like “I am not responding to bloody racist mad leftie sh..t.“, then proceed to address supposed “MAD lefties” a couple of dozen times in the same thread.