Putin's Battle Plan to Take Odessa
Wednesday, July 1, 2026
Saturday, August 16, 2025
Friday, August 15, 2025
Friday, June 13, 2025
Why Trump Cannot Be the Antichrist! Part 3
How can the Antichrist come from Russia and yet fulfil the prophecy that he will come from one of the nations of the broken up Grecian Empire: Egypt, Assyria, Turkey, or Greece?
Can we speculate? How did Jesus
fulfil the Old Testament prophecies about his “birthplace?” Let’s look
at three of the different prophecies used in the New Testament and
claimed to be fulfilled in Jesus. We will be reading from the book of Matthew.
Matthew 2
“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of
Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for
we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
“Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
“When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.
“And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
“When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. (Hosea 11:1)
“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. (Jeremiah 31:15)
“But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
“And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” (End of Matthew 2)
From the text we can see how Jesus was able to fulfil three seemingly contrary prophecies about the Messiah. Micah prophesied the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.
Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come
forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from
of old, from everlasting.”
In Matthew 2:5-6 we find the fulfilment: “And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”
We know form Matthew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. However, Matthew also quotes from Hosea 11:1 indicating that the verse was prophetic of Jesus also.
Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15 “Out of Egypt have I called My son.”
Though Jesus was born in Bethlehem, his parents fled to Egypt because Herod sought to kill the child. Later, after Herod’s death, they returned from Egypt, fulfilling the prophecy. However, Herod’s son was ruling in Jerusalem, therefore, fearing him, they travelled north and made Nazareth their home and in turn fulfilled the prophecy about the Branch being a “shoot” or “netzar,” which in Hebrew is very similar to the name Nazareth.
Isaiah 11:1-5 “And there shall come forth a rod (or shoot) out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.”
Clearly, the passage is a prophecy
about the Messiah which Jesus fulfilled.
In Hebrew the word for “shoot” or
“branch” found in Isaiah 11:1 has a similar sound as the town of
Nazareth. In Google search we find,
(In Hebrew, "Nazare" or "Nazarene" (Ναζαρέθ in Greek) refers to a person from the city of Nazareth or a follower of Jesus of Nazareth. The name Nazareth itself is believed to have roots in Hebrew words meaning "branch" or "shoot," potentially linking it to prophetic texts about the Messiah.)
(Isaiah 11:1, which prophesies a "shoot" springing from Jesse's stump and a "branch" bearing fruit, is interpreted by Matthew as a fulfilment of the prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene. Matthew's Gospel states that Jesus went to live in Nazareth, a town, for this very reason. The Hebrew word "netzer" (which translates to "branch" in Isaiah 11:1 is also the root of the name "Nazareth".)
Google search continues,
(The Hebrew word "netzer" (נֵצֶר) means "branch" or "shoot," often associated with the messianic prophecies in the Bible. It's used in Isaiah 11:1 to describe a "branch" that will grow from the stem of Jesse, symbolizing a future ruler and deliverer. The word "Netzer" is also linked to the name "Nazareth," as in Matthew 2:23, where Jesus is called a "Nazarene".)
Matthew 2:23 “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
We see Jesus fulfils three different prophecies concerning where he
comes from. The Jewish authorities believed he was from Galilee and couldn’t be
the Messiah, who they thought would come from Bethlehem. In John’s Gospel we
find the exchange.
John 7:39-52 “Many of the people therefore, when
they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others
said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
Has not the scripture said, That Christ comes of the
seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So,
there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them
would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.
“Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Does our law judge any man, before it hears him, and knows what he has done? They answered and said unto him, Are you also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee arises no prophet.”
Jesus’ real birthplace was Bethlehem, but it was hidden from the religious authorities. Jesus ended up fulfilling three seemingly different prophecies which seem to conflict with one another, but in truth were synchronized.
.jpg)
In a like manner, the Antichrist
could be born in Assyria, for example, by a Russian father and a Syrian mother.
The Russian pilots came down from Moscow to help train Assad’s pilots during
the years when Russia and Syria were closely aligned. It was in 1956 that the
Soviet Union sent Russian pilots to Damascus to help train the Syrian pilots to
be able to fly the Russian MIGS-17 jets. By the end of 1957, two MiG-17 squadrons
were established at Mezzeh Military Airport in Damascus, according to Google. However, during
the Arab spring years in 2015 when America was trying to destabilize Syria and
remove Assad, many of the Russian pilots’ wives moved to Russia with their children.
Therefore, a son of a Russian father and Syrian mother born in Syria, but growing up in Russia could eventually grow into our Antichrist figure and become a military and political ruler in Russia and lead an invasion force against Israel at some future date. A child born in 1960, four years after the Russian pilots originally were stationed in Damascus, would today be 65 years old. A child born in 2015, the year that many Russia/Syrian families moved to Russia would only be 10 years old today.
Here's a link to an article explaining how Russian children living in refugee camps in Syria, Turkey and Iraq are being repatriated to Russia
If Russia manages to terminate her war with Ukraine in victory, she would be able to change her focus to the Middle East and her former Arab/ Muslim friends whom she has not been able to give much attention during the prolonged war with Ukraine.
Russia has been getting back on her feet from the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1989. Now, with a stronger military, and with military experience from the Ukraine war, Russia could be learning all she needs to be capable of making a future invasion of Israel a possibility. With the continued abuse of the Palestinian people to the point of genocide, the world may very well accept such an intervention by Russia in the Middle East as a God send.
In the next part, we will look at the major characteristics of the Antichrist?
Thursday, March 13, 2025
Wednesday, November 13, 2024
Thursday, February 15, 2024
Sunday, June 25, 2023
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Putin is outplaying Trump in the Middle East
Russian President Vladimir Putin made a surprise visit to Syria on Monday as part of a whirlwind Middle Eastern tour. Putin, who also stopped in Egypt and Turkey, met leaders, posed for photo-ops, inked a huge energy deal and, all in all, played the part of an influential international statesman. While President Trump has sparked outrage across the region, Putin played the role of sober and dependable partner.
In Cairo, Putin announced the resumption of direct Russian commercial flights to the country for the first time since a plane bombing there in 2015. Discussions with President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi also circled around the signing of a Russian contract for a $30 billion nuclear energy plant as well as a possible agreement for the Russian air force to use Egyptian bases.
In Ankara, Putin met Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for the eighth time in 2017, further proof of how dramatically relations between the two countries have improved in the year since the assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey and the two years since Turkish forces shot down a Russian fighter jet. Erdogan and his allies have slowly come around to accepting that Russia simply outflanked them in Syria and, in any case, are more animated by their current grievances with Washington.
There’s a healthy amount of skepticism about what that “significant part” may add up to, but the moment still presents Russia a chance to gloat over the efficacy of its engagement in Syria. Critics at the time of the intervention, including yours truly, suggested that Moscow was walking into a quagmire. Two years later, however, Putin has demonstrated both that Russia stands by its friends and that it can project power well beyond Eastern Europe.
“As America shrank from its traditional role in the Middle East, Russia expanded its own, making an ostentatious show of fighting Islamist terrorists on behalf of a reluctant Western Christendom,” wrote the Atlantic’s Julia Ioffe in a recent cover story on Putin’s strategy.
By comparison, two successive U.S. administrations have struggled to come up with a coherent Middle East policy. Commentators of various stripes lambaste the Obama administration for turning on the Arab strongmen who were traditional U.S. allies before the pro-democracy uprisings of 2011 and then for not doing enough to unseat Assad as the rebellion in Syria picked up steam.
Paradoxically, Trump–who decries a legacy of U.S. wars in the region–made a big show of launching missiles at a Syrian government airfield after the Assad regime carried out a chemical weapons attack on civilians earlier this year. Since then, however, he has shown little interest in Syria beyond executing the final stages of the Obama-era campaign against the Islamic State, which included the recent recapture of the city of Raqqa. Trump also ended U.S. covert support for Syria’s beleaguered “moderate” rebels.
Trump’s latest fracas isn’t likely to help, either. In Ankara, alongside Erdogan, Putin capitalized on disquiet over Trump’s move to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He emphasized that Trump’s order “doesn’t help the Mideast settlement and, just the other way round, destabilizes the already difficult situation in the region.”
A Pew survey conducted this year among people in a number of countries in the region found that 64 percent see Russia as more influential in Middle Eastern affairs than compared to a decade ago. That perception may grow in the months to come, with Russia well-poised to benefit. “For many local actors, Russia’s increasing presence seems to be more appealing as a source of some balance,” wrote Turkish academic Talha Kose in the Daily Sabah, a pro-Erdogan newspaper. “The Trump administration’s erratic moves like the recent declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will only accelerate the decline of U.S. influence and pave the way for Moscow.”
According to Salem, the Russians are “not interested in a new Cold War, but they will take their opportunities” to expand their influence in the Middle East and play the part of an international power. Their efforts to do so will include exporting arms and civilian nuclear energy–as seen in the mooted deal with Egypt–and cultivating access to potentially huge natural gas deposits in the eastern Mediterranean.
Politically, as Trump enters heavy-handedly on one side of the Saudi-Iranian rivalry, Salem says the Russians will “nibble wherever they can, happy to be an effective number two player” in the Middle East in contrast to the chaotic role played by the United States.
“Moscow has a strategy, is executing it through timely and well-considered policies that have successfully strengthened its position not only with Iran but also with our allies and across the entire Middle East,” wrote Stephen Blank of the conservative American Foreign Policy Council. But, he added, that’s not the case for Washington: “U.S. involvement has degenerated into a series of spasmodic and at best tactical moves and at worst unfocused rage against notional threats even as we resolutely fail to deal with the actual threats to our position and influence.”
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Monday, August 22, 2016
Russia Asserts Its Military Might in Syria
MOSCOW–Russia flexed its muscles again over Syria on Friday, for the first time launching cruise missiles at targets from warships in the Mediterranean Sea days after beginning bombing runs from a base in Iran.
Taken together, the new military moves appeared to be a demonstration that Russia has the ability to strike from virtually all directions in a region where it has been reasserting its power–from Iran, from warships in the Caspian Sea, from its base in the Syrian coastal province of Latakia and now from the Mediterranean.
The United States also asserted its military might in a new way, scrambling its aircraft to protect its forces, and those it is supporting, from Syrian government airstrikes. The Pentagon issued a blunt warning to the Syrian government after its warplanes struck a Kurdish-controlled region where American military personnel were on the ground.
“The Syrian regime would be well advised not to interfere with coalition forces or our partners,” said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.
Talks appear to have stalled between Russia and the United States on a proposal to carry out joint operations in Syria against militant groups both countries consider terrorist. Russian and Syrian government airstrikes have intensified lately, with no progress on the horizon for a political solution to end the war.
While both Russia and the United States say they share the goal of defeating the Islamic State group in Syria, they are waging parallel but separate wars against the militant group while simultaneously backing opposite sides in the conflict between Russia’s ally, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and his other opponents, including rebels backed by the United States.
Russian air power, which entered the war last fall, has helped Mr. Assad hold on to power and make advances against rebels.
The war is also providing President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a public proving ground–and a showcase to his adversaries–for new, sophisticated weaponry.
The Russian cruise missiles are not a game-changer in the war. But the long-range bombers flying from Iran, and the heavier payloads they can carry, pose a new threat to insurgents and civilians.
The Russian Ministry of Defense said Friday that two ships from the country’s Black Sea Fleet, the Zelyony Dol and the Serpukhov, fired three missiles from positions off the coast of Syria in the eastern Mediterranean.
The Kalibr missiles are a new addition to Russia’s arsenal, similar to American Tomahawk cruise missiles. And like Tomahawks, they are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
But taken in the context of the dozens of strikes that Russia carries out daily, the three missile attacks were hardly significant. The ministry said the missiles hit a garrison, a command center and a weapons depot belonging to the Levant Conquest Front, until recently called the Nusra Front and officially affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Far more important militarily is the decision to fly the long-range bombers from Iran rather than from Moscow as it had before; if it continues, this could result in a more devastating air war over a long period of time.
The United States, too, engaged in saber-rattling on Friday.
The Pentagon said it had scrambled aircraft over northeastern Syria in a warning to the government after Syrian warplanes hit areas controlled by Kurdish fighters that are working with the American military to fight the Islamic State. The government and the Kurdish-led forces have had only occasional skirmishes, maintaining a kind of de facto truce, and the government airstrikes came amid their most serious clashes yet.
Scrambling the jets was the most robust American response yet to Syrian government airstrikes, although Syrian and Russian attacks have repeatedly hit predominantly Arab rebel groups backed by the United States, as well as hospitals, schools and civilian areas. The American move prompted grumbling from opponents of Mr. Assad, who said that the United States appeared ready to offer stronger protection to its Kurdish-led allies than to other rebel groups or civilians.
Two SU-24 bombers struck Thursday near the city of Hasakah in north-central Syria, said Captain Davis, the Pentagon spokesman. No members of the American military were harmed in the strikes, he said.
The episode prompted the United States to contact the Russian military, which indicated that its planes had not participated in the strikes, Captain Davis said. American officials urged the Russians to contact the Syrian government with a blunt message: “United States aircraft would defend troops on the ground if threatened,” Captain Davis said.
He said American forces on the ground in Syria also tried to contact the Syrian pilots directly using a standard ground-to-air frequency. “They did not answer,” he said.
Captain Davis declined to specify how many Americans were on the ground near where the Syrian strikes occurred, saying only that it was “a small number.” Over all, the United States has said there are about 300 members of the Special Forces operating in Syria to train, advise and assist their partners fighting on the ground.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Sunday, October 4, 2015
The Mind of Mr. Putin
By Patrick J. Buchanan, Creators Syndicate, October 2, 2015
So Vladimir Putin in his U.N. address summarized his indictment of a U.S. foreign policy that has produced a series of disasters in the Middle East that we did not need the Russian leader to describe for us.
Fourteen years after we invaded Afghanistan, Afghan troops are once again fighting Taliban forces for control of Kunduz. Only 10,000 U.S. troops still in that ravaged country prevent the Taliban’s triumphal return to power.
A dozen years after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, ISIS occupies its second city, Mosul, controls its largest province, Anbar, and holds Anbar’s capital, Ramadi, as Baghdad turns away from us–to Tehran.
The cost to Iraqis of their “liberation”? A hundred thousand dead, half a million widows and fatherless children, millions gone from the country and, still, unending war.
How has Libya fared since we “liberated” that land? A failed state, it is torn apart by a civil war between an Islamist “Libya Dawn” in Tripoli and a Tobruk regime backed by Egypt’s dictator.
Then there is Yemen. Since March, when Houthi rebels chased a Saudi sock puppet from power, Riyadh, backed by U.S. ordinance and intel, has been bombing that poorest of nations in the Arab world.
Five thousand are dead and 25,000 wounded since March. And as the 25 million Yemeni depend on imports for food, which have been largely cut off, what is happening is described by one U.N. official as a “humanitarian catastrophe.”
“Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years,” said the international head of the Red Cross on his return.
On Monday, the wedding party of a Houthi fighter was struck by air-launched missiles with 130 guests dead. Did we help to produce that?
What does Putin see as the ideological root of these disasters?
“After the end of the Cold War, a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think they were strong and exceptional, they knew better.”
Then, adopting policies “based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity,” this “single center of domination,” the United States, began to export “so-called democratic” revolutions.
How did it all turn out? Says Putin:
“An aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions. … Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster.
Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.”
Is Putin wrong in his depiction of what happened to the Middle East after we plunged in? Or does his summary of what American interventions have wrought echo the warnings made against them for years by American dissenters?
Putin’s concept of “state sovereignty” is this: “We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the right one.”
The Soviet Union tried that way, said Putin, and failed. Now the Americans are trying the same thing, and they will reach the same end.
Unlike most U.N. speeches, Putin’s merits study. For he not only identifies the U.S. mindset that helped to produce the new world disorder, he identifies a primary cause of the emerging second Cold War.
To Putin, the West’s exploitation of its Cold War victory to move NATO onto Russia’s doorstep caused the visceral Russian recoil. The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that overthrew the elected pro-Russian government led straight to the violent reaction in the pro-Russian Donbas.
What Putin seems to be saying to us is this:
If America’s elites continue to assert their right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations, to make them conform to a U.S. ideal of what is a good society and legitimate government, then we are headed for endless conflict. And, one day, this will inevitably result in war, as more and more nations resist America’s moral imperialism.
Nations have a right to be themselves, Putin is saying.
They have the right to reflect in their institutions their own histories, beliefs, values and traditions, even if that results in what Americans regard as illiberal democracies or authoritarian capitalism or even Muslim theocracies.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy.
Wednesday and Thursday, Putin’s forces in Syria bombed the camps of U.S.-backed rebels seeking to overthrow Assad. Putin is sending a signal: Russia is willing to ride the escalator up to a collision with the United States to prevent us and our Sunni Arab and Turkish allies from dumping over Assad, which could bring ISIS to power in Damascus.
Perhaps it is time to climb down off our ideological high horse and start respecting the vital interests of other sovereign nations, even as we protect and defend our own.
So Vladimir Putin in his U.N. address summarized his indictment of a U.S. foreign policy that has produced a series of disasters in the Middle East that we did not need the Russian leader to describe for us.
Fourteen years after we invaded Afghanistan, Afghan troops are once again fighting Taliban forces for control of Kunduz. Only 10,000 U.S. troops still in that ravaged country prevent the Taliban’s triumphal return to power.
A dozen years after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, ISIS occupies its second city, Mosul, controls its largest province, Anbar, and holds Anbar’s capital, Ramadi, as Baghdad turns away from us–to Tehran.
The cost to Iraqis of their “liberation”? A hundred thousand dead, half a million widows and fatherless children, millions gone from the country and, still, unending war.
How has Libya fared since we “liberated” that land? A failed state, it is torn apart by a civil war between an Islamist “Libya Dawn” in Tripoli and a Tobruk regime backed by Egypt’s dictator.
Then there is Yemen. Since March, when Houthi rebels chased a Saudi sock puppet from power, Riyadh, backed by U.S. ordinance and intel, has been bombing that poorest of nations in the Arab world.
Five thousand are dead and 25,000 wounded since March. And as the 25 million Yemeni depend on imports for food, which have been largely cut off, what is happening is described by one U.N. official as a “humanitarian catastrophe.”
“Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years,” said the international head of the Red Cross on his return.
On Monday, the wedding party of a Houthi fighter was struck by air-launched missiles with 130 guests dead. Did we help to produce that?
What does Putin see as the ideological root of these disasters?
“After the end of the Cold War, a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think they were strong and exceptional, they knew better.”
Then, adopting policies “based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity,” this “single center of domination,” the United States, began to export “so-called democratic” revolutions.
How did it all turn out? Says Putin:
“An aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions. … Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster.
Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.”
Is Putin wrong in his depiction of what happened to the Middle East after we plunged in? Or does his summary of what American interventions have wrought echo the warnings made against them for years by American dissenters?
Putin’s concept of “state sovereignty” is this: “We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the right one.”
The Soviet Union tried that way, said Putin, and failed. Now the Americans are trying the same thing, and they will reach the same end.
Unlike most U.N. speeches, Putin’s merits study. For he not only identifies the U.S. mindset that helped to produce the new world disorder, he identifies a primary cause of the emerging second Cold War.
To Putin, the West’s exploitation of its Cold War victory to move NATO onto Russia’s doorstep caused the visceral Russian recoil. The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that overthrew the elected pro-Russian government led straight to the violent reaction in the pro-Russian Donbas.
What Putin seems to be saying to us is this:
If America’s elites continue to assert their right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations, to make them conform to a U.S. ideal of what is a good society and legitimate government, then we are headed for endless conflict. And, one day, this will inevitably result in war, as more and more nations resist America’s moral imperialism.
Nations have a right to be themselves, Putin is saying.
They have the right to reflect in their institutions their own histories, beliefs, values and traditions, even if that results in what Americans regard as illiberal democracies or authoritarian capitalism or even Muslim theocracies.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy.
Wednesday and Thursday, Putin’s forces in Syria bombed the camps of U.S.-backed rebels seeking to overthrow Assad. Putin is sending a signal: Russia is willing to ride the escalator up to a collision with the United States to prevent us and our Sunni Arab and Turkish allies from dumping over Assad, which could bring ISIS to power in Damascus.
Perhaps it is time to climb down off our ideological high horse and start respecting the vital interests of other sovereign nations, even as we protect and defend our own.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Putin vs. Obama and the other main storylines at the U.N. General Assembly
By Ishaan Tharoor, Washington Post, September 28, 2015
Autumn in Manhattan: The leaves are turning, there’s a chill in the breeze, the traffic is once again snarled on the east side, and convoys of black SUVs flank the entrances of the city’s toniest hotels. Yes, the United Nations’ General Assembly is in session. Here are the key narratives to track.
Putin’s power play. President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin were set to meet on the sidelines of the General Assembly on Monday. Well before the two addressed the chamber filled with world leaders and dignitaries, the contours of their disagreements were clear.
In his Monday morning speech, Obama denounced Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, a Black Sea territory that most governments recognize as part of Ukraine. He also signaled his concern with Russia’s recent military escalation in Syria in defense of the embattled regime of President Bashar al-Assad and warned that there “cannot be … a return to the pre-war status quo”–that is, as the United States has insisted in the past, Assad must go.
Putin didn’t equivocate on the matter, either. Russia is a staunch and longtime ally of the Syrian government. In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” he said that the aid provided by the United States and a number of other countries to rebel factions fighting the Assad regime “contravenes the principles of international law and the U.N. Charter.”
Putin, whose government is widely seen as the main actor behind a separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine, said Russia backs “only legal government entities.”
Obama’s speech was framed around sober, liberal themes: the need for multilateralism when addressing global challenges, the limits of military power, the importance of strengthening inclusive, democratic institutions in every country and the perfidy of domineering strongmen. These were all, in some sense, direct or indirect jabs at Putin’s authoritarian politics.
Putin responded in kind later in the day. He gestured at the U.S. track record of intervention in the Middle East, and the anarchy unleashed following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. He framed the 2011 upheavals of the Arab Spring–which were celebrated as a democratic awakening by the White House–as a threat to Middle Eastern stability. He asked “those responsible” (presumably the U.S.): “Do you know what you’ve done?”
Putin also said Russia was eager to take more of a lead role in coordinating a response to the terrorist threat in Iraq and Syria, a cause in which it has backing from Iran.
Iran’s moment. This is the first General Assembly session following the July announcement of a proposed nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, including all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Obama hailed the agreement at the U.N. as a victory for the prevailing international order that makes “our world safer.”
The deal faced a heated backlash in Washington, with many congressional Republicans and neo-conservatives decrying what they considered appeasement to a regime long at odds with the United States. They failed to rally enough support against the deal in the U.S. Senate and its passage now appears to be a fait accompli.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has pinned his political fate on the deal, which will eventually see the loosening of sanctions on the Iranian economy in return for Tehran complying with measures aimed at curbing its ability to produce a nuclear weapon.
In an interview with CNN, Rouhani mocked the opponents of diplomacy. “Some of them wouldn’t even know where Tehran was in relation to Iran,” he said. “Some of them didn’t know where Iran was geographically, not distinguishing that one is the capital of the other.”
On Monday, Rouhani said the deal was a “victory over war,” championed Iran’s future economic prospects and launched his own barb at Israel, singling out the “Zionist regime” as the Middle East’s only nuclear power while calling for regional non-proliferation.
Who sounds most like the pope? Pope Francis left the United States before a blood moon rose in the night sky, but his whirlwind visit still casts a shadow on the meetings at the U.N. The pontiff spoke passionately about a number of key international crises: the threat of climate change; the perils of growing global economic inequity; the imperative to welcome immigrants and refugees.
Expect quite a few of these themes to be echoed in the speeches of the General Assembly, particularly regarding the refugee crisis facing Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, perhaps the most outspoken world leader on the need to provide for Syrian refugees, is scheduled to speak Thursday.
The question of Palestine. On Wednesday, the flag of Palestine will be raised among the other 193 member states of the United Nations. Hundreds of world leaders have been invited by the Palestinians to attend the ceremony; the United States, Israel and a handful of other nations will be sure to boycott the event.
Palestine, like the Holy See, has non-member observer status at the U.N., but a recent General Assembly resolution permitted its flag to be flown outside the organization. The raising of the flag will mark a “glorious day,” according to the Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour.
Like much of the enfeebled Palestinian efforts to force the matter of Palestinian statehood on the international stage, it is a purely symbolic gesture. On the ground, a separate, viable Palestinian state is nowhere in sight. And its potential existence is rejected by senior members of the current right-wing government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Among many governments in the West, there is deepening frustration with the current status quo, and a host of European countries took steps to recognize Palestine as an independent state in recent years. But there is also a creeping apathy. Obama, in his remarks Monday, made no mention whatsoever of Israel and the Palestinians–a conspicuous absence for any U.S. president addressing the U.N.
Autumn in Manhattan: The leaves are turning, there’s a chill in the breeze, the traffic is once again snarled on the east side, and convoys of black SUVs flank the entrances of the city’s toniest hotels. Yes, the United Nations’ General Assembly is in session. Here are the key narratives to track.
Putin’s power play. President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin were set to meet on the sidelines of the General Assembly on Monday. Well before the two addressed the chamber filled with world leaders and dignitaries, the contours of their disagreements were clear.
In his Monday morning speech, Obama denounced Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, a Black Sea territory that most governments recognize as part of Ukraine. He also signaled his concern with Russia’s recent military escalation in Syria in defense of the embattled regime of President Bashar al-Assad and warned that there “cannot be … a return to the pre-war status quo”–that is, as the United States has insisted in the past, Assad must go.
Putin didn’t equivocate on the matter, either. Russia is a staunch and longtime ally of the Syrian government. In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” he said that the aid provided by the United States and a number of other countries to rebel factions fighting the Assad regime “contravenes the principles of international law and the U.N. Charter.”
Putin, whose government is widely seen as the main actor behind a separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine, said Russia backs “only legal government entities.”
Obama’s speech was framed around sober, liberal themes: the need for multilateralism when addressing global challenges, the limits of military power, the importance of strengthening inclusive, democratic institutions in every country and the perfidy of domineering strongmen. These were all, in some sense, direct or indirect jabs at Putin’s authoritarian politics.
Putin responded in kind later in the day. He gestured at the U.S. track record of intervention in the Middle East, and the anarchy unleashed following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. He framed the 2011 upheavals of the Arab Spring–which were celebrated as a democratic awakening by the White House–as a threat to Middle Eastern stability. He asked “those responsible” (presumably the U.S.): “Do you know what you’ve done?”
Putin also said Russia was eager to take more of a lead role in coordinating a response to the terrorist threat in Iraq and Syria, a cause in which it has backing from Iran.
Iran’s moment. This is the first General Assembly session following the July announcement of a proposed nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, including all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Obama hailed the agreement at the U.N. as a victory for the prevailing international order that makes “our world safer.”
The deal faced a heated backlash in Washington, with many congressional Republicans and neo-conservatives decrying what they considered appeasement to a regime long at odds with the United States. They failed to rally enough support against the deal in the U.S. Senate and its passage now appears to be a fait accompli.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has pinned his political fate on the deal, which will eventually see the loosening of sanctions on the Iranian economy in return for Tehran complying with measures aimed at curbing its ability to produce a nuclear weapon.
In an interview with CNN, Rouhani mocked the opponents of diplomacy. “Some of them wouldn’t even know where Tehran was in relation to Iran,” he said. “Some of them didn’t know where Iran was geographically, not distinguishing that one is the capital of the other.”
On Monday, Rouhani said the deal was a “victory over war,” championed Iran’s future economic prospects and launched his own barb at Israel, singling out the “Zionist regime” as the Middle East’s only nuclear power while calling for regional non-proliferation.
Who sounds most like the pope? Pope Francis left the United States before a blood moon rose in the night sky, but his whirlwind visit still casts a shadow on the meetings at the U.N. The pontiff spoke passionately about a number of key international crises: the threat of climate change; the perils of growing global economic inequity; the imperative to welcome immigrants and refugees.
Expect quite a few of these themes to be echoed in the speeches of the General Assembly, particularly regarding the refugee crisis facing Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, perhaps the most outspoken world leader on the need to provide for Syrian refugees, is scheduled to speak Thursday.
The question of Palestine. On Wednesday, the flag of Palestine will be raised among the other 193 member states of the United Nations. Hundreds of world leaders have been invited by the Palestinians to attend the ceremony; the United States, Israel and a handful of other nations will be sure to boycott the event.
Palestine, like the Holy See, has non-member observer status at the U.N., but a recent General Assembly resolution permitted its flag to be flown outside the organization. The raising of the flag will mark a “glorious day,” according to the Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour.
Like much of the enfeebled Palestinian efforts to force the matter of Palestinian statehood on the international stage, it is a purely symbolic gesture. On the ground, a separate, viable Palestinian state is nowhere in sight. And its potential existence is rejected by senior members of the current right-wing government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Among many governments in the West, there is deepening frustration with the current status quo, and a host of European countries took steps to recognize Palestine as an independent state in recent years. But there is also a creeping apathy. Obama, in his remarks Monday, made no mention whatsoever of Israel and the Palestinians–a conspicuous absence for any U.S. president addressing the U.N.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Using Cash and Charm, Putin Targets Europe’s Weakest Links
By Andrew Higgins, NY Times, April 6, 2015
NICOSIA, Cyprus–When Cyprus seized hundreds of millions of dollars from bank depositors, many of them Russians, as part of an internationally brokered deal two years ago to rescue its collapsing financial system, the Russian leader, Vladimir V. Putin, denounced the move as “dangerous” and “unfair,” warning of a sharp chill in relations.
But Mr. Putin was all smiles recently when he received Cyprus’s president, Nicos Anastasiades, in Moscow, hailing relations with the Mediterranean nation as “always being truly friendly and mutually beneficial” and agreeing to extend–on greatly improved terms for Cyprus–a $2.5 billion Russian loan.
The shift from fury to declarations of eternal friendship displayed Mr. Putin’s well-known flair for tactical back flips. But it also showed his unbending determination to break out of sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States and the European Union for Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and support for armed rebels in eastern Ukraine.
Mr. Putin has methodically targeted, through charm and cash and by fanning historical and ideological embers, the European Union’s weakest links in a campaign to assert influence in some of Europe’s most troubled corners. One clear goal is to break fragile Western unity over the conflict in Ukraine.
On Wednesday, Greece’s new left-wing prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, is the next to visit Moscow. Ahead of the trip, Mr. Tsipras declared himself opposed to sanctions on Russia, describing them as a “dead-end policy.”
On Sunday, Mr. Putin’s efforts to peel away supporters from the European Union opened a new rift, after the United States ambassador in Prague criticized a decision by the Czech president, Milos Zeman, to attend a military parade in Moscow on May 9. And in February, Mr. Putin visited Hungary, the European Union’s autocratic backslider, peddling economic deals.
Russia has so far been unable to turn such hand-holding into something more concrete against sanctions that require the approval of all 28 European Union members. But pressure for a rupture is building.
Speaking in an interview last week here in Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, Mr. Anastasiades said Cyprus had grave doubts about Europe’s policy toward Russia and was part of a “group of member states who have the same reservations.”
He ruled out breaking ranks with what for the moment remains a consensus in favor of keeping up economic pressure on Russia. But he said he expected a unanimous vote in favor of lifting sanctions when they come up for review this summer.
He said he was convinced that Mr. Putin “realizes the consequences of further military involvement” in Ukraine and “means business” in putting in place a cease-fire agreement reached in February.
The cracks opening up in Europe’s policy toward Russia have presented a difficult problem for Donald Tusk, the former prime minister of Poland who is now president of the European Council, a body in Brussels that represents the European Union’s 28 leaders.
“To keep Europe united is today the biggest challenge,” Mr. Tusk said last month, referring to “the very fragile and difficult consensus” reached by European countries after Moscow seized Crimea in March last year.
Moscow’s skill at prying open fissures in European unity has been on display in Cyprus, a tiny nation that, because of its tight historical, religious and economic ties with Russia, has taken on an oversize role as a pivotal player in the geopolitical struggle set off by the conflict in Ukraine.
Tugged in different directions by outside powers, Cyprus hosts British military bases and vast eavesdropping facilities, allows the United States Navy to use its ports and has been a member of the European Union since 2004.
Yet it still looks to Russia as a vitally important diplomatic protector, particularly in relation to Turkey’s military occupation of the north of the country, and as a crucial source of business for its financial services industry, still a pillar of the economy despite the 2013 meltdown.
An agreement sealed during Mr. Anastasiades’s visit to Moscow allows Russian warships to dock in Limassol, Cyprus’s commercial hub and heavily dependent on wealthy Russians who want to set up shell companies to shuffle their assets overseas.
Mr. Anastasiades insisted that military accords signed in Moscow merely extended a 1996 agreement and were “nothing new.” The terms of the agreements, however, are all secret, so it is impossible to know what Russia managed to gain.
Mr. Anatasiades, who traveled to Moscow after recovering from heart surgery in New York, denied tilting away from the West toward Russia. As the leader of a small country, divided since a Turkish invasion in 1974 and situated on a fault line between East and West, Mr. Anastasiades said he seeks good relations with all sides and “even with the devil.” He added, “I do not have the luxury to choose my friends.”
He said Russia might also get a role in the search for and development of gas reserves off the coast of Cyprus, a venture until now monopolized by Western companies.
Russia’s ambassador to Cyprus, Stanislav Osadchi, told a Russian-language newspaper, one of several in Limassol serving the town’s large Russian-speaking population, that the meeting with Mr. Putin, “demonstrated that, despite attempts to isolate Russia and revive the Cold War, there are countries that do not want this.”
The United States, in contrast, has struggled to get a hearing. When Russia won gushing praise on social media for restructuring its loan to Cyprus, the United States ambassador, John M. Koenig, tried to dampen the enthusiasm with messages posted on Twitter that were widely interpreted as implying a link between Mr. Anastasiades’s visit to Moscow and the killing a few days later of the Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov.
The Twitter posts set off an uproar, prompting the United States ambassador to issue a contrite statement that his comments had been “misunderstood.”
“For lots of people on this island, Russia is seen as a savior,” Harry Tzimitras, director of PRIO Cyprus Center, a Norwegian-funded research group in Nicosia. This, he added, provides fertile ground for efforts by Moscow to “infiltrate the European Union” and “show that it can disrupt certain policies” promoted by Washington and Brussels.
Vasilis Zertalis, the head of Prospectacy, a financial service company, described Cyprus as a “small piece on a big chessboard.” Europe, he said, tried to advance its own position during the 2013 banking crisis by seeking to end Cyprus’s role as a haven for Russian money.
“They wanted to scare the Russians away,” he said. “But the money that left was from Britain, from other European countries and from America.”
Ordinary Cypriots and politicians, he said, “all gave up on the European Union” because of the harsh bailout terms in 2013 and “know that the United States will never take a stand against Turkey.”
“So,” he said, “the only allies Cyprus really has are Russia and maybe China.”
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Monsanto and Ukraine
By Joyce Nelson, Counterpunch, Aug. 22, 2014
Finally, a little-known aspect of the crisis in Ukraine is receiving some international attention. On July 28, the California-based Oakland Institute released a report revealing that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under terms of their $17 billion loan to Ukraine, would open that country to genetically-modified (GM) crops and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. The report is entitled “Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict.”
In late 2013, the then president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, rejected a European Union association agreement tied to the $17 billion IMF loan, whose terms are only now being revealed. Instead, Yanukovych chose a Russian aid package worth $15 billion plus a discount on Russian natural gas. His decision was a major factor in the ensuing deadly protests that led to his ouster from office in February 2014 and the ongoing crisis.
According to the Oakland Institute, “Whereas Ukraine does not allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, Article 404 of the EU agreement, which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed: it indicates, among other things, that both parties will cooperate to extend the use of biotechnologies. There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the agribusiness industry. As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank Piper Jaffray, ‘Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the most promising growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and DuPont’.”
Ukrainian law bars farmers from growing GM crops. Long considered “the bread basket of Europe,” Ukraine’s rich black soil is ideal for growing grains, and in 2012 Ukrainian farmers harvested more than 20 million tonnes of corn.
In August 2011, WikiLeaks released U.S. diplomatic cables showing that the U.S. State Department has been lobbying worldwide for Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations like DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow. The U.S. non-profit Food & Water Watch, after combing through five years of these cables (2005-2009), released its report entitled “Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda” on May 14, 2013. The report showed the U.S. State Department has “lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology, and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules—even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically-engineered (GE) foods.”
According to consortiumnews.com (March 16, 2014), Morgan Williams is at the nexus of Big Ag’s alliance with U.S. foreign policy.” Besides being president and CEO of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, Williams is Director of Government Affairs at private equity firm SigmaBleyzer, which touts Williams’ work with “various agencies of the U.S. government, members of Congress, congressional committees, the Embassy of Ukraine to the U.S., international financial institutions, think tanks and other organizations on U.S.-Ukraine business, trade, investment and economic development issues.”
Meanwhile, Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stated in April: “We don’t have a goal of developing GM products here or to import them. We can feed ourselves with normal, common, not genetically modified products. If the Americans like to eat such products, let them eat them. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.”
Hill + Knowlton, with its Kuwait “incubator babies atrocities” falsehood, was instrumental in getting the American public to back the first Gulf War on Iraq in the early 1990s. Now the company is involved in fomenting a Cold War 2 or worse, and on behalf of Monsanto—recently voted the “most evil” corporation on the planet. That’s something to recall in the midst of the extensive mainstream media demonizing of Putin.
Finally, a little-known aspect of the crisis in Ukraine is receiving some international attention. On July 28, the California-based Oakland Institute released a report revealing that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under terms of their $17 billion loan to Ukraine, would open that country to genetically-modified (GM) crops and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. The report is entitled “Walking on the West Side: the World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict.”
In late 2013, the then president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, rejected a European Union association agreement tied to the $17 billion IMF loan, whose terms are only now being revealed. Instead, Yanukovych chose a Russian aid package worth $15 billion plus a discount on Russian natural gas. His decision was a major factor in the ensuing deadly protests that led to his ouster from office in February 2014 and the ongoing crisis.
According to the Oakland Institute, “Whereas Ukraine does not allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, Article 404 of the EU agreement, which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed: it indicates, among other things, that both parties will cooperate to extend the use of biotechnologies. There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the agribusiness industry. As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank Piper Jaffray, ‘Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the most promising growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and DuPont’.”
Ukrainian law bars farmers from growing GM crops. Long considered “the bread basket of Europe,” Ukraine’s rich black soil is ideal for growing grains, and in 2012 Ukrainian farmers harvested more than 20 million tonnes of corn.
In August 2011, WikiLeaks released U.S. diplomatic cables showing that the U.S. State Department has been lobbying worldwide for Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations like DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow. The U.S. non-profit Food & Water Watch, after combing through five years of these cables (2005-2009), released its report entitled “Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda” on May 14, 2013. The report showed the U.S. State Department has “lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology, and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules—even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically-engineered (GE) foods.”
According to consortiumnews.com (March 16, 2014), Morgan Williams is at the nexus of Big Ag’s alliance with U.S. foreign policy.” Besides being president and CEO of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, Williams is Director of Government Affairs at private equity firm SigmaBleyzer, which touts Williams’ work with “various agencies of the U.S. government, members of Congress, congressional committees, the Embassy of Ukraine to the U.S., international financial institutions, think tanks and other organizations on U.S.-Ukraine business, trade, investment and economic development issues.”
Meanwhile, Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stated in April: “We don’t have a goal of developing GM products here or to import them. We can feed ourselves with normal, common, not genetically modified products. If the Americans like to eat such products, let them eat them. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.”
Hill + Knowlton, with its Kuwait “incubator babies atrocities” falsehood, was instrumental in getting the American public to back the first Gulf War on Iraq in the early 1990s. Now the company is involved in fomenting a Cold War 2 or worse, and on behalf of Monsanto—recently voted the “most evil” corporation on the planet. That’s something to recall in the midst of the extensive mainstream media demonizing of Putin.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Putin Says Deal With Ukraine Was a Good-Will Gesture
By David M. Herszenhorn, NY Times, December 19, 2013
MOSCOW—President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Thursday explained his decision to rescue Ukraine with a $15 billion bailout and discounts on natural gas as a gesture of good will given the close historic ties between the two countries.
"I will be very frank with you and don’t take it as an irony—we very often use the term ‘brother nation’ or ‘sister nation,’" Mr. Putin said, seeming buoyant and supremely confident at his annual news conference here.
"We see the current situation, both political and economical is quite difficult," Mr. Putin said. "So if we say it is a sister nation, we should do what family members do. We should support our sister nation when in dire straits. This is the number one reason why this decision was taken."
Mr. Putin’s announcement of the loan and gas deal on Tuesday threw a lifeline to Ukraine’s embattled president, Viktor F. Yanukovich, who has been facing not only a severe and deepening economic crisis but also more than three weeks of civil unrest from protesters who have occupied Independence Square and seized control of several public buildings in Kiev, the capital.
The loan from Russia, using money from its national welfare fund, spares Mr. Yanukovich—at least for the moment—from further negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, which in exchange for its own aid package had demanded systemic economic reforms, including some tough austerity measures.
Mr. Putin’s move to offer unilateral assistance was a bold and risky step. The rules for investing money from the Russian national welfare fund require long-term bond ratings of at least AA, while Ukraine’s current rating from both Fitch and Standard & Poor’s is B- with a negative outlook.
But the bailout also underscored Russia’s economic and strategic interests in Ukraine and Mr. Putin’s resolve in keeping Ukraine within the Russian sphere of influence.
Russia maneuvered aggressively to dissuade Mr. Yanukovich from signing far-reaching political and trade agreements with the European Union and, by offering the bailout package, Mr. Putin ensured that Mr. Yanukovich would not revive those accords anytime soon.
To Mr. Putin’s evident glee, his bold steps left European officials stunned, and scrambling for a response.
Mr. Putin traditionally holds a large news conference in December, spending hours answering questions about the past year. Compared to a year ago, when he seemed tense and appeared to be in pain from a lingering back injury, Mr. Putin on Thursday seemed in high spirits and eager to spar with reporters.
In recent months, he has recorded a number of foreign policy successes that have established Russia as a dominant force in counterbalancing Western dominance of world affairs. These have included granting temporary asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security Agency who exposed aggressive American surveillance programs; protecting his longtime ally, President Bashar al-Assad, from an American military strike by proposing a plan to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons; and swooping in to help Ukraine.
In just over a month, Mr. Putin will play host to the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, which he seems clearly to view as integral to his legacy as Russia’s pre-eminent leader of the 21st century. Ahead of the Olympics, Russia has come under criticism for its human rights record, and also for some new legislation, including a law banning propaganda on nontraditional relationships that is widely viewed in the West as an effort to suppress homosexuality.
In response to a question about what seems to be a clash of cultures between Russia and the West, Mr. Putin said that Russia was merely defending its values and traditions, and he suggested that the West was trying to impose its views on others.
"It is not about criticizing somebody," Mr. Putin said. "It is about protecting us from aggressive behavior on the part of some social groups, which I believe do not just live in a way they like, but they try to aggressively impose their opinion on other people and other countries."
In response to a question, Mr. Putin said that he had not met personally with Mr. Snowden, whose disclosures about surveillance programs have changed the way many governments, including some of Washington’s closest allies, view their relationship with the United States.
"I was not lucky to meet Snowden personally," Mr. Putin said. "I have many tasks at hand."
Asked about his relationship with President Obama, in the context of the Snowden situation, Mr. Putin said, “I envy him. I envy him because he can do all this and he is not going to be punished for it.” He also joked: “Well, espionage is one of the oldest professions, along with some other professions that I will not elaborate about.”
On another security topic, Mr. Putin denied that Russia had deployed short-range ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave nestled between Lithuania and Poland, but said that the country may do so as a counterbalance to American efforts to install a missile defense shield in Europe.
"We haven’t made that decision," Mr. Putin said, responding to a question from a state-run television channel about reports that the missiles were located in the enclave. "They should calm down," he said.
MOSCOW—President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Thursday explained his decision to rescue Ukraine with a $15 billion bailout and discounts on natural gas as a gesture of good will given the close historic ties between the two countries.
"I will be very frank with you and don’t take it as an irony—we very often use the term ‘brother nation’ or ‘sister nation,’" Mr. Putin said, seeming buoyant and supremely confident at his annual news conference here.
"We see the current situation, both political and economical is quite difficult," Mr. Putin said. "So if we say it is a sister nation, we should do what family members do. We should support our sister nation when in dire straits. This is the number one reason why this decision was taken."
Mr. Putin’s announcement of the loan and gas deal on Tuesday threw a lifeline to Ukraine’s embattled president, Viktor F. Yanukovich, who has been facing not only a severe and deepening economic crisis but also more than three weeks of civil unrest from protesters who have occupied Independence Square and seized control of several public buildings in Kiev, the capital.
The loan from Russia, using money from its national welfare fund, spares Mr. Yanukovich—at least for the moment—from further negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, which in exchange for its own aid package had demanded systemic economic reforms, including some tough austerity measures.
Mr. Putin’s move to offer unilateral assistance was a bold and risky step. The rules for investing money from the Russian national welfare fund require long-term bond ratings of at least AA, while Ukraine’s current rating from both Fitch and Standard & Poor’s is B- with a negative outlook.
But the bailout also underscored Russia’s economic and strategic interests in Ukraine and Mr. Putin’s resolve in keeping Ukraine within the Russian sphere of influence.
Russia maneuvered aggressively to dissuade Mr. Yanukovich from signing far-reaching political and trade agreements with the European Union and, by offering the bailout package, Mr. Putin ensured that Mr. Yanukovich would not revive those accords anytime soon.
To Mr. Putin’s evident glee, his bold steps left European officials stunned, and scrambling for a response.
Mr. Putin traditionally holds a large news conference in December, spending hours answering questions about the past year. Compared to a year ago, when he seemed tense and appeared to be in pain from a lingering back injury, Mr. Putin on Thursday seemed in high spirits and eager to spar with reporters.
In recent months, he has recorded a number of foreign policy successes that have established Russia as a dominant force in counterbalancing Western dominance of world affairs. These have included granting temporary asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security Agency who exposed aggressive American surveillance programs; protecting his longtime ally, President Bashar al-Assad, from an American military strike by proposing a plan to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons; and swooping in to help Ukraine.
In just over a month, Mr. Putin will play host to the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, which he seems clearly to view as integral to his legacy as Russia’s pre-eminent leader of the 21st century. Ahead of the Olympics, Russia has come under criticism for its human rights record, and also for some new legislation, including a law banning propaganda on nontraditional relationships that is widely viewed in the West as an effort to suppress homosexuality.
In response to a question about what seems to be a clash of cultures between Russia and the West, Mr. Putin said that Russia was merely defending its values and traditions, and he suggested that the West was trying to impose its views on others.
"It is not about criticizing somebody," Mr. Putin said. "It is about protecting us from aggressive behavior on the part of some social groups, which I believe do not just live in a way they like, but they try to aggressively impose their opinion on other people and other countries."
In response to a question, Mr. Putin said that he had not met personally with Mr. Snowden, whose disclosures about surveillance programs have changed the way many governments, including some of Washington’s closest allies, view their relationship with the United States.
"I was not lucky to meet Snowden personally," Mr. Putin said. "I have many tasks at hand."
Asked about his relationship with President Obama, in the context of the Snowden situation, Mr. Putin said, “I envy him. I envy him because he can do all this and he is not going to be punished for it.” He also joked: “Well, espionage is one of the oldest professions, along with some other professions that I will not elaborate about.”
On another security topic, Mr. Putin denied that Russia had deployed short-range ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave nestled between Lithuania and Poland, but said that the country may do so as a counterbalance to American efforts to install a missile defense shield in Europe.
"We haven’t made that decision," Mr. Putin said, responding to a question from a state-run television channel about reports that the missiles were located in the enclave. "They should calm down," he said.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Putin Says Russia's Power Is Moral as Well as Military
Reuters, December 12, 2013
MOSCOW—President Vladimir Putin warned the West on Thursday not to underestimate Russia’s military might but cast his country as a force for moral good and a bastion of traditional values.
In his annual state-of-the-nation speech, Putin portrayed Russia as a country of growing importance and as a moral counterweight to the United States, despite the loss of its Cold War status as a superpower.
He used the occasion to reinforce his image as a champion of conservative values, intended to appeal to his traditional supporters in working-class areas outside big cities following protests against his rule led by young urban professionals.
"Nobody should have any illusion about the possibility of gaining military superiority over Russia," Putin told hundreds of members of parliament, businessmen and government and church leaders in a vast and ornate Kremlin hall.
"We will never allow this to happen. Russia will respond to all these challenges, political and military."
Putin’s assertive tone reflected Russia’s stronger international profile since helping to bring about a deal to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons, averting the threat of U.S. military strikes against Damascus.
Russia is also competing with the European Union for influence over former Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, where pro-European demonstrators are staging mass protests against a government that is leaning closer to Moscow.
"We do not aspire to be called some kind of superpower, understanding that as a claim to world or regional hegemony," he said. "We do not infringe on anyone’s interests, we do not force our patronage on anyone, or try to teach anyone how to live."
Russia’s image and its human rights record are under international scrutiny as it prepares to host the Winter Olympics in Sochi in less than two months’ time, an event on which Putin has staked much of his own prestige.
He faces criticism in the West over a law banning ‘gay propaganda’ which critics say encourages discrimination against homosexuals.
But with the head of the Russian Orthodox Church sitting in the front row of the Kremlin’s St George Hall, he shrugged that off, saying his views would increase respect for Russia.
"We know there are ever more people in the world who support our position in defense of the traditional values that for centuries have formed the moral foundation of civilization," he said, putting "traditional family values" top of the list.
He called for unity among ethnic groups, greater patriotism and attempts to increase the population. Families with three children, a rarity in Russia, should be the norm, he said.
Putin, 61, has frequently appealed to such values since he returned to the presidency for a third term in May 2012. He has portrayed the Church as a moral guide for a nation unmoored by the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.
MOSCOW—President Vladimir Putin warned the West on Thursday not to underestimate Russia’s military might but cast his country as a force for moral good and a bastion of traditional values.
In his annual state-of-the-nation speech, Putin portrayed Russia as a country of growing importance and as a moral counterweight to the United States, despite the loss of its Cold War status as a superpower.
He used the occasion to reinforce his image as a champion of conservative values, intended to appeal to his traditional supporters in working-class areas outside big cities following protests against his rule led by young urban professionals.
"Nobody should have any illusion about the possibility of gaining military superiority over Russia," Putin told hundreds of members of parliament, businessmen and government and church leaders in a vast and ornate Kremlin hall.
"We will never allow this to happen. Russia will respond to all these challenges, political and military."
Putin’s assertive tone reflected Russia’s stronger international profile since helping to bring about a deal to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons, averting the threat of U.S. military strikes against Damascus.
Russia is also competing with the European Union for influence over former Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, where pro-European demonstrators are staging mass protests against a government that is leaning closer to Moscow.
"We do not aspire to be called some kind of superpower, understanding that as a claim to world or regional hegemony," he said. "We do not infringe on anyone’s interests, we do not force our patronage on anyone, or try to teach anyone how to live."
Russia’s image and its human rights record are under international scrutiny as it prepares to host the Winter Olympics in Sochi in less than two months’ time, an event on which Putin has staked much of his own prestige.
He faces criticism in the West over a law banning ‘gay propaganda’ which critics say encourages discrimination against homosexuals.
But with the head of the Russian Orthodox Church sitting in the front row of the Kremlin’s St George Hall, he shrugged that off, saying his views would increase respect for Russia.
"We know there are ever more people in the world who support our position in defense of the traditional values that for centuries have formed the moral foundation of civilization," he said, putting "traditional family values" top of the list.
He called for unity among ethnic groups, greater patriotism and attempts to increase the population. Families with three children, a rarity in Russia, should be the norm, he said.
Putin, 61, has frequently appealed to such values since he returned to the presidency for a third term in May 2012. He has portrayed the Church as a moral guide for a nation unmoored by the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.
