From Information Clearinghouse, this article includes a link to the FULL, unadultered, uncensored Putin interview which I read. In fact, I read it obsessively, three times. Once as if it were a fictional story to see where the plot led me. Two, to analyze Putin, and the man that he IS. And the third time to try to remember all the details he has given us.
I have clipped and snipped, hoping you will read the entire article yourself and left in what I consider MASTER LINKS to understanding the current nature of resource wars (Russia is hugely, if not entirely, dependent on OIL for prosperity). But there is more here, too ... how do you ensure democracy in THESE times, that it is hard to really write about. Putin has some vigorous clues in his words. OH, well, I just re-read it. I left everything in! This is IMPORTANT STUFF.
Putin's Censored Press
Conference:
The transcript you weren't supposed to
see
By Mike Whitney
06/10/07 "ICH"
--- - On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an hour
and a half-long press conference which was attended by many members
of the world media. The contents of that meeting---in which Putin
answered all questions concerning nuclear proliferation, human
rights, Kosovo, democracy and the present confrontation with the
United States over missile defense in Europe---have been completely
censored by the press. Apart from one brief excerpt which appeared
in a Washington Post editorial, (and which was used to criticize
Putin) the press conference has been scrubbed from the public
record. It never happened. (Read the entire press conference
archived here
)
Putin's performance was a tour de force. He
fielded all of the questions however misleading or insulting. He was
candid and statesmanlike and demonstrated a good understanding of
all the main issues.
The meeting gave Putin a chance to give
his side of the story in the growing debate over missile defense in
Eastern Europe.
*snip*
The Bush administration' s belligerent foreign policy has
backed the Kremlin into a corner and forced Putin to take
retaliatory measures. He has no other choice
If we want to
understand why relations between Russia are quickly reaching the
boiling-point; we only need to review the main developments since
the end of the Cold War. Political analyst Pat Buchanan gives a good
rundown of these in his article "Doesn't Putin Have a Point?"
Buchanan says:
"Though the Red Army had picked up
and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it
had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited
our moment. Not only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact,
planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a
scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the
birthplace of Stalin.
Second, America backed a pipeline to
deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey,
to bypass Russia.
Third, though Putin gave us a green light
to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the liberation of
Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central
Asia permanent.
Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as
directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now learn we are going
to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom
are they directed?
Fifth, through the National Endowment for
Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think
tanks, foundations, and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom
House, headed by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been
fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet
republics, and Russia herself.
US.-backed revolutions have
succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia, but failed in Belarus.
Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that
it sees, not without justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow
regimes.
Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of
Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious
province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights
through her territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has
always had a maternal interest in the Orthodox states of the
Balkans.
These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a
small point?"
Yes--as Buchanan opines---Putin does have a
point, which is why his press conference was suppressed. The media
would rather demonize Putin, than allow him to make his case to the
public. (The same is true of other world leaders who choose to use
their vast resources to improve the lives of their own citizens
rather that hand them over to the transnational oil giants; such as,
Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez) Even so, NATO has not yet
endorsed the neocon missile defense plan and, according to recent
surveys, public opinion in Poland and the Czech Republic is
overwhelmingly against it.
Unsurprisingly, the Bush
administration is going ahead regardless of the controversy
Putin cannot allow the United States to deploy its missile
defense system to Eastern Europe. The system poses a direct threat
to Russia's national security. If Putin planned to deploy a similar
system in Cuba or Mexico, the Bush administration would immediately
invoke the Monroe Doctrine and threaten to remove it by force. No
one doubts this. And no one should doubt that Putin is equally
determined to protect his own country's interests in the same way.
We can expect that Russia will now aim its missiles at European
targets and rework its foreign policy in a way that compels the US
to abandon its current plans.
The media has tried to
minimize the dangers of the proposed system. The Washington Post
even characterized it as "a small missile defense system" which has
set off "waves of paranoia about domestic and foreign opponents".
Nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As Putin said at the press conference, "Once the missile
defense system is put in place IT WILL WORK AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE
ENTIRE NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES. It will be an
integral part of the US nuclear capability.
"For the first
time in history---and I want to emphasize this---there are elements
of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply
changes the whole configuration of international security..Of
course, we have to respond to that."
Putin is right. The
"so-called" defense system is actually an expansion (and
integration) of America's existing nuclear weapons system which will
now function as one unit. The dangers of this should be obvious.
The Bush administration is maneuvering in a way that will
allow it to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A.
Boyle, calls the "longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike
against Russia".
In Boyle's article "US Missiles in Europe:
Beyond Deterrence to First Strike Threat" he states:
"By
means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces
would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes
that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike
capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence. ".
This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature.
But especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief,
Thomas Schelling --winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by
the Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and
distinguished it from "deterrence. " .The USG is breaking out of a
"deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture.
(Global Research 6-6-07)
That's right. The real goal is to
force Moscow to conform to Washington's "diktats" or face the
prospect of "first-strike" annihilation. That's why Putin has
expressed growing concern over the administration' s dropping out of
the ABM Treaty and the development of a new regime of low yield,
bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The "hawks" who surround Bush have
abandoned the "deterrence" policy of the past, and now believe that
a nuclear war can be "won" by the United States. This is madness and
it needs to be taken seriously.
The Bush administration sees
itself as a main player in Central Asia and the Middle
East---controlling vital resources and pipeline corridors throughout
the region. That means Russia's influence will have to be
diminished. Boris Yeltsin was the perfect leader for the
neoconservative master-plan (which is why the right-wingers Praised
him when he died) Russia disintegrated under Yeltsin. He oversaw the
dismantling of the state, the plundering of its resources and
state-owned assets, and the restructuring of its economy according
to the tenets of neoliberalism.
No wonder the neocons loved
him.
Under Putin, Russia has regained its economic footing,
its regional influence and its international prestige. The economy
is booming, the ruble has stabilized, the standard of living has
risen, and Moscow has strengthened alliances with its neighbors.
This new-found Russian prosperity poses a real challenge to Bush's
plans.
Two actions in particular have changed the Russian-US
relationship from tepid to openly hostile. The first was when Putin
announced that Russia's four largest oil fields would not be open to
foreign development. (Russia has been consolidating its oil wealth
under state-run Gazprom) And, second, when the Russian Treasury
began to convert Russia's dollar reserves into gold and rubles. Both
of these are regarded as high-crimes by US corporate chieftains and
western elites. Their response was swift.
John Edwards and
Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) task force which concocted the basic pretext for an all-out
assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that Putin is "rolling
back democracy" began; it's a feeble excuse for political
antagonism. In their article "Russia's Wrong Direction", Edwards and
Kemp state that a "strategic partnership" with Russia is no longer
possible. They note that the government has become increasingly
"authoritarian" and that the society is growing less "open and
pluralistic" . Blah, blah, blah. No one in the Washington really
cares about democracy. (Just look at our "good friends" in Saudi
Arabia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan) What they're afraid
of is Putin ditching the dollar and controlling his own oil. That's
what counts. Bush also wants Putin to support sanctions against Iran
and rubber stamp a Security Council resolution to separate Kosovo
form Serbia (Since when does the UN have the right to redraw
national borders? Was the creation of Israel such a stunning success
that the Security Council wants to try its luck again?)
Putin does not accept the "unipolar" world model. As he said
in Munich, the unipolar world refers to "a world in which there is
one master, one sovereign--- - one centre of authority, one centre of
force, one centre of decision-making. At the end of the day this is
pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for
the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.. What
is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at
its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern
civilization. "
He added:
"Unilateral and frequently
illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they
have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension.
Judge for yourselves-- -wars as well as local and regional conflicts
have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more,
significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost
uncontained hyper use of force - military force - in international
relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of
permanent conflicts.
We are seeing a greater and greater
disdain for the basic principles of international law. And
independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming
increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of
course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its
national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic,
political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other
nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In
international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a
given question according to so-called issues of political
expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course
this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one
feels safe. I want to emphasise this - no one feels safe! Because no
one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will
protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment
when we must seriously think about the architecture of global
security."
How can anyone dispute Putin's analysis?
"Unilateral and illegitimate military actions", the
"uncontained hyper-use of force", the "disdain for the basic
principles of international law", and most importantly; "No one
feels safe!"
These are the irrefutable facts. Putin has
simply summarized the Bush Doctrine better than anyone else.
The Bush administration has increased its frontline American
bases to five thousand men on Russia's perimeter. Is this conduct of
a "trustworthy ally"?
Also, NATO has deployed forces on
Russia's borders even while Putin has continued to fulfill his
treaty obligations and move troops and military equipment hundreds
of miles away.
As Putin said on Tuesday: "We have removed
all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put
them behind the Urals" and "reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We
have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional
Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF) But what have we seen in
response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military
bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two
new missile launch areas -- a radar in Czech republic and missile
systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is
going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm
unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do
the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped
full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be
concerned."
(This is why Putin's comments did not appear in
the western media! They would have been too damaging to the Bush
administration and their expansionist plans)
Who Destroyed
the ABM?
Putin said:
"We did not initiate the
withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But what response
did we give when we discussed this issue with our American partners?
We said that we do not have the resources and desire to establish
such a system. But as professionals we both understand that a
missile defense system for one side and no such a system for the
other creates an illusion of security and increases the possibility
of a nuclear conflict. The defense system WILL DESTROY THE STRATEGIC
EQUILIBRIUM IN THE WORLD. In order to restore that balance without
setting up a missile defense system we will have to create a system
to overcome missile defense, which is what we are doing now."
Putin: "AN ARMS RACE IS UNFOLDING. Was it we who withdrew
from the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We
already told them two years ago, "don't do this, you don't need to
do this. What are you doing? YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SYSTEM OF
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY. You must understand that you are forcing us
to take retaliatory steps." .we warned them. No, they did not listen
to us. Then we heard about them developing low-yield nuclear weapons
and they are continuing to develop these weapons." We told them that
"it would be better to look for other ways to fight terrorism than
create low-yield nuclear weapons and lower the threshold for using
nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on the brink of nuclear
catastrophe. But they don't listen to us. They are not looking for
compromise. Their entire point of view can be summed-up in one
sentence: 'Whoever is not with us is against us.'"
Putin
asks, "So what should we do?" The present predicament has brought us
"the brink of disaster".
Putin: "Some people have the
illusion that you can do everything just as you want, regardless of
the interests of other people. Of course it is for precisely this
reason that the international situation gets worse and eventually
results in an arms race as you pointed out. But we are not the
instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert
resources to this? And we are not jeopardizing our relations with
anyone. But we must respond.
Name even one step that we have
taken or one action of ours designed to worsen the situation. There
are none. We are not interested in that. We are interested in having
a good atmosphere, environment and energy dialogue around Russia".
So, what should Putin do? And how else can he meet his
responsibilities to the Russian people without taking defensive
"retaliatory" action to Bush's act of war. By expanding its nuclear
capability to Europe, all of Russia is in imminent danger, and so,
Putin must decide "precisely which means will be used to destroy the
installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat
for the Russian Federation". (Note that Putin NEVER THREATENS TO AIM
HIS MISSILES AT EUROPEAN CITIES AS WAS REPORTED IN THE WESTERN
MEDIA)
Putin has made great strides in improving life for
the Russian people. That is why his public approval rating is
soaring at 75%. The Russian economy has been growing by 7% a year.
He's lowered the number of people living beneath the poverty-line by
more than half and will bring it down to European levels by 2010.
Real incomes are growing by an astonishing 12% per year. As Putin
says, "Combating poverty is one of our top priorities and we still
have to do a lot to improve our pension system too because the
correlation between pensions and the average wage is still lower
here than in Europe."
If only that was true in America!
Russia now has the ninth largest economy in the world and
has amassed enormous gold and currency reserves--the third largest
in the world. It is also one of the leading players in international
energy policy with a daily-oil output which now exceeds Saudi
Arabia. It is also the largest producer of natural gas in the world.
Russia will only get stronger as we get deeper into the century and
energy resources become scarcer.
Putin strongly objects to
the idea that he is not committed to human rights or is "rolling
back democracy". He points out how truncheon-wielding police in
Europe routinely use tear gas, electric-shock devices and water
cannons to disperse demonstrators. Is that how the West honors human
rights and civil liberties?
As for the Bush
administration- --Putin produced a copy of Amnesty International' s
yearly report condemning the United States conduct in the war on
terror. "I have a copy of Amnesty International' s report here, which
includes a section on the United States," he said. "The organization
has concluded that the United States IS NOW THE PRINCIPLE VIOLATOR
OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WORLDWIDE."
He added, "We have
a proverb in Russian, 'Don't blame the mirror if your face is
crooked.'"
Putin is fiercely nationalistic. He has helped to
restore Russia's self-confidence and rebuild the economy. He's
demonstrated a willingness to compromise with the Bush
administration on every substantive issue, but he has been
repeatedly rebuffed. The last thing he wants is a nuclear standoff
with the United States. But he will do what he must to defend his
people from the threat of foreign attack. The deployment of the
missile defense system will require that Russia develop its own new
weapons systems and change its thinking about trusting the United
States. Friendship is not possible in the present climate.
As for "democracy"; Putin said it best himself:
"Am
I a 'pure democrat'? (laughs) Of course I am, absolutely. The
problem is that I'm all alone---the only one of my kind in the whole
wide world. Just look at what's happening in North America, it's
simply awful---torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained
without trial and investigation. Just look at what's happening in
Europe---harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear
gas used first in one capital then in another, demonstrators killed
on the streets... I have no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi
died."
Well said, Vladimir.
Click on "comments" below to read or
post comments
Comment (0)
Technorati Tags: Putin, Russia, current events, G8
No comments:
Post a Comment