Vladimir Putin

One of many interesting parts of Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin was Putin's explanation of what he means by needing to stop the Nasification of Ukraine.

Update, 7:20AM Qld time, Friday 9 Feb : Tucker Carlson will be interviewing Vladimir Putin at 11:00PM GMT or, in Queensland, 9:00AM - (apologies, 9:00AM and not 9:00PM) tomorrow on Friday and at 10:00AM in NSW and Victoria.

Tucker Carlson will be soon interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin. He will be putting to Putin many of the claims made against him by the Corporate/Legacy media in the west and will allow him to give his side in response. Whilst large numbers of Western journalists have conducted fawning, uncritical interviews with his adversary Ukrainian President Volodomir Zelenskyy, Tucker will be first Western journalist to have interviewed Putin since the commencement of Russia's "Special Military Operation" against the Zelenskyy government's military forces in February 2022, nearly two years ago. To be notified by email when the live interview will commence, go to https://tuckercarlson.com. The interview will subsequently posted to Tuckewr's Twitter Channel, where there will be no paywalls or any other obstacles to prevent anyone from watching it, in full, for free on his Twitter account.

Update, 9/2/23 : An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over ashes." As shown in the RTD (Russia Today Documentary channel) video embedded below, the Ukraini

Russian President Vladmir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan held a four-hour meeting on August 5 in Sochi which may change the course of the Middle East, and end the US occupation of Syria.

Mimi al-Haram (aka 'Syrian Girl')'s shows a very thorough understanding of the conflicts within and from outside Syria and an ability to transmit the complexity in ways that make it possible for most of us to quickly grasp the issues. Her new video, embedded inside this candobetter.net article, explains just how unreasonable, dishonest and merciless the US-NATO policy is towards Syria and the Syrian people. If the Syrians or the Russians had responded in kind to America's acts of aggression on the last day of the ceasefire of the third week of September 2016, it is not hard to see how this action could be taken by the US and its allies to escalate the conflict much further, even to the point of an all-out nuclear war.

Australians need to go outside mainstream press to avoid more war

Australians need to become interested in the war in Syria independently of what they are presented by the mass media. They need to become critical of their government and opposition's support for US-NATO intervention in Syria because that intervention is uninvited, illegal and dangerous - dangerous to Syria and risky for world peace. They should be utterly shocked that members of the Australian Air Force assisted in the US air attack on the Syrian Army at Deir ez-Zor. They need to take note of the obvious contradiction between a so-called 'fight for democracy' and Australia's support of numerous fundamentalist (takfiri) gangs and see this for the war propaganda that it is. The so-called 'refugee movement' needs to ask itself why, if Bashar al-Assad is such a hateful dictator, his army, which is majority Sunni, has not revolted. We need to question the idea that Syrian refugees are running from the Syrian government. No, the majority of Syrians have run to the Syrian government, which currently provides the only safe havens for displaced persons in the country.[1] With the assistance of a de-corticated mass-media we are being conned by a bunch of neo-cons who only want to control access to all the resources in the region, including Russia's.

How did we let the anti-war movement die?

Back in 2003, Australia had the largest anti-war marches since the Vietnam war. This mass movement obviously failed to stop Australia's entry into the Iraq war in 2003 and has since dissipated to almost nothing. How this occurred should be the subject of an investigation.[2] In the meantime, many Australians who were so well informed about the Iraq war have since failed to understand anything about subsequent wars against Libya, East Ukraine and now the wars against Syria and Yemen. We need to refocus on the anti-war movement and get specific about the current wars.

The US elections, war and the Middle East - what Australians should know

The wars in the Middle East are not just some unfortunate side-show. They could well lead to nuclear conflict, something that has been relatively unimaginable since the Bay of Pigs episode during John Fitzgerald Kennedy's presidency. China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea's nuclear weapons are minor concerns compared to the country most likely to start a nuclear war, and the one with the most nuclear weapons - enough to blow the world up - the United States. Because of this, most people who are actually watching the events in Syria and her region as they play out between US-NATO and the rest, hope for a change of regime in the United States, away from the current 'hawk-like' (warlike) one we have. If elected to president, Hilary Clinton intends to continue the dangerously provocative foreign policies she pursued as foreign secretary to Obama. Trump, for all his entrepreneurial brashness, has suggested that the United States does not need to continue to 'police' the world and might seek commonalities with her current enemies, rather than pick fights over differences.

All media should demand detailed public debates between hostile leaders

James Sinnamon, the founder of this website, candobetter.net, has suggested that where world leaders have differences that cause them to want to start wars, they first should debate those differences publicly with each other, and the press should transmit those debates and examine them critically. The Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have shown themselves willing to submit themselves and their policies to thorough scrutiny, even by hostile news media. [3] In comparison, western leaders do not subject themselves anywhere near as much to detailed questioning and critical scrutiny. This needs to change. The people of the west and of those countries threatened by our leaders with war should have the right to require those hostile leaders to present themselves and their arguments for detailed scrutiny by the news media of the countries to which they are hostile. Today it is possible for anyone in the world with an internet connection to follow and publicly criticise such debates via a growing number of digitised international press alternatives. Russia, for instance, has RT, and Iran gives excellent coverage of the region as well as the rest of the world via Iranian Press TV. Both these digital stations have direct news transmission services as well as numerous interview programs in several languages. Notable interviewers on RT, for example, are Peter Lavelle, Afshin Rattansi, Oksana Boyko and Sophie Shevardnadze. Iranian Press TV also conducts interviews and has exceptionally lively and confronting debates in The Debate. Russian and Iranian internet TV give much greater coverage of the so-called 'developing' countries like Africa, South America, and India than the western media, because these reflect their region and their politics.

President Kennedy predicted the problem of media silence and the war industry

US President Kennedy (1961-1963) was very aware of the military industrial complex and its increasing demands for secrecy around the wars it urged upon the world. He felt that the press in his day was already too compliant with notions of national secrecy. Things have deteriorated since then. US President Obama during his term has delivered the harshest punishments on whistleblowers of any US president. Anticipating such problems, Kennedy said on April 27, 1961, in a speech at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City:

"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it."

NOTES

[1] "Good News! Reconciliation, peace and return home of Syrian refugees in two Syrian locations due to Syrian Government efforts"
Prior to the war Syria hosted millions of refugees from other US-NATO interventions in the region, especially from Iraq. There is also a huge population of Palestinians in Syria since the creation of Israel. They have their own special status there, receiving free housing, education and health-care like Syrians. See Yamouk and the Palestinians in Syria - Article by Mo Salhi All these refugees, who are entirely the result of foreign interference in this region since before the first world war, with many changes of borders and renaming of countries there, have been placed in danger along with the Syrian-born population. "At the start of 2007 UNHCR estimated that the number of Iraqi refugees in Syria exceeded 1.2 million, a huge influx to a country with a population of. 18 million." (Source: Iraqi refugees in Syria, Forced Migration Review:

"Syria has offered Iraqi refugees care and assistance, and continues to do so, in spite of the limited nature of its material resources. At the start ofUNHCRestimatedthat the number of Iraqi refugees in Syria exceeded 1.2 million, a huge influx to a country with a population of million. This heavy number of arrivals hashad anextreme effecton all facets of life in Syria, particularly on the services which the state offers to citizens. There has been a sharp increase in the cost of livingandthe unexpected weightof numbers has had dramatic impacts on the infrastructure and the economy.

The sudden increase in the population has led to a rise in costs in all areas of life. The prices of foodstuffs and basic goods have gone up by 30%, property prices by 40%and rentals by 150%.

Water consumption has increased by 21%. The additional cost to the Syrian government of supplying Iraqi refugees with drinking water and sanitation alone came to$6.millionlast year. There are so many Iraqi refugees that they have become a burden on the labour market. In Syria’s unemployment rate was 18%.

The human health needs of the Iraqi arrivals are mounting, in particular among women, children and the elderly. The Syrian government is endeavouring, with whatresourcesithas, to meet their needs, including carrying out necessary surgical operations, health care interventions, vaccinations against epidemics andchildhoodimmunisations.

It should be noted that health services and medical care are free of charge in all government hospitals and public clinics.

This has led to a health care crisis and shortage of hospital beds. Teaching hospitals alone estimate the costs of treating Iraqi refugees in 2006 at approximately$163,000.The Syrian Red Crescent spent some $60,000 on providing treatment and surgery to around 730 Iraqis in 2006. There is a pressing need to equip two 200- bed hospitals and to set up clinics to supply the 1.2 million Iraqis with the necessary medicines and equipment.

Basic education in Syria is free and the cost of higher education is usually nominal. As a result there has been a steady rise in enrolment, leading to schoolandclassroomovercrowding which has adverse repercussions on equality of access to learning and education and on the health of students and teachers. Inability toabsorbmorepupils is likely to lead to a rise in school drop-out rates.

Accordingly there is a pressing need to enlarge the existing schools and build about 100 more schools, so that all these students can be assimilated in ordertopreventinstances of drop-out. The total cost is estimated at approximately $60 million.

According to UNHCR, the number of Iraqi refugee families in Syria without a breadwinner is estimated to be around 27%. The situation of female-headed households is grave.
The war in Iraq has resulted in new circumstances never previously common in Syria or Iraq. Conditions have forced some families to work in prostitution or toencouragetheir daughters to work in this field – something offensive to the customs of both Syrians and Iraqis.

Harsh living conditions have also led to the spread of child labour and increased drop-out rates. There is an insufficient provision of cultural and recreationalcentres,nursery schools and playgrounds. There is also an urgent need to provide appropriate care for the elderly and for the very large number of new arrivalswithdisabilities, more than a third of which are attributable to war injuries. There is a pressing need to support these disadvantaged families, and to create homesto carefor the victims of war and displacement, the elderly and children, particularly orphans and people with disabilities.

They need physical, mental and social support to prepare them for return to their original communities once the war has ended and conditions are stabilised.

Overcrowding and the reduced standard of living have brought about a rise in crime of more than 20% in areas with concentrations of Iraqi refugees. We are witnessing kindsof crimes previously unknown in either Iraq or Syria – kidnapping, ransom demands and blackmail, as well as the involvement of organised crime in prostitution, killingsand intimidation. In 2006 the Syrian police and security authorities thus had to spend an additional $15 million on maintaining law and order.

Conclusion Iraqi refugees constitute a numerically enormous mass of humanity in comparison to the number of the inhabitants of the region. Certain agencies estimate thatthe number of refugees in states neighbouring Iraq is greater than the total number of refugees in all the countries of the European Union. Syria’s economy and infrastructureare buckling under the great weight of the burden.

The relief and aid which Syria has offered to Iraqi refugees in its territory over the past two years (2005-06) alone has amounted to $162 million. In light of the continuing rise in incoming Iraqi refugee numbers, it is estimated that the cost of humanitarian, health and education support for Iraqi refugees over the next two years will exceed $256 million.

It is necessary, in our view, that the international community acknowledge the need to find political solutions to the crisis in Iraq the tragic reality that more than four million Iraqis have been displaced and strengthen the international relief effort required to meet the crisis the burdens thrust on neighbouring states the risk that any further deterioration in the situation will lead to even greater number of displaced people with implications for the entire region the urgent need to provide financial support to cover the cost of providing services to Iraqi refugees in Syria and also to build the capacities of governmental and non-governmental organisations such as the Syrian Red Crescent the need to provide necessary financing for UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies working to help migrants and refugees in the neighbouring countries the importance of offering assistance and funding to support the right of Iraqi refugees and migrants to return to their homes and creating appropriate circumstances for them to do so.

The Iraqi authorities and the foreign troops present on Iraqi territory must urgently shoulder responsibilities placed on them under international law to ensure protection, security and services to all residents of Iraq, including those groups that are weakest and most exposed to danger and persecution, such as the Palestinian refugees. "

"President Bashar al-Assad Interview: “The Refugee Crisis is Caused by Terrorism and Western Policies”""President Assad: The conflict has been, since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, about who wins the support of the people in Syria. Consequently, it doesn’t make sense for us to shell civilians if we want to win them to our side. This is in theory. Practically, while moving around in Syria, you will find that in any area under the control of the state, all sections of Syrian society, including the families of the militants, are being cared for by the state. What is more is that in a city like Raqqa, which is under the full control of Daesh (ISIS), the state continues to pay the salaries of employees and send vaccines for children. So, it doesn’t make sense for the state to shell civilians while doing all the above, unless we are talking about mistakes which happen in every battle. The general rule is that there are innocent victims in every war. This is a rule of thumb in wars, but this is definitely not the Syrian state’s policy.

Question 3: Mr. President, what do you say to those emigrating to Europe? Do you ask them to come back?

President Assad: I would like to ask every person who left Syria to come back. That’s natural but not enough. Emotions are not enough. They would ask: “why should I come back? Has terrorism stopped? Have the basic requirements for life been restored?” Many of those who have emigrated are neither against the Syrian state or with the terrorists, but sometimes there are circumstances which force people to emigrate. So, my answer to this question is: when terrorism recedes, and things are better, they will return of their own volition without any invitation. So, instead of asking these people to return, I’ll call on the European governments, which have been a direct cause for the emigration of these people, by giving cover to terrorists in the beginning, and through the sanctions imposed on Syria, to help in making the Syrians return to their country."

[2] It seems likely that some anti-war energy has been purposely diverted into disconnected pro-refugee movements by people funded by open-borders proponent George Soros (via his organisations, such as Open Societies Foundations) because these movements show almost no interest in the wars that drive the growing numbers of displaced people. This is despite Soros's investment in the weapons industry. We can also see the effect of Soros's ersatz socialism in the naive support of any movement in Syria branded as 'revolutionary' or 'rebel'. Because of their disconnect from the wider reality, these well-funded, almost exlusively refugee-focused movements, have proved a boon to the warmakers and their supporters in government and the opposition here in Australia, in Europe and the United States. They have not helped stem the tide of displaced people from Syria and the Middle East. Their naive support for takfiri 'rebels' is itself the major cause of displacement, death and suffering, destruction of infrastructure, and weakening of government services and protection. Our education system has a lot to answer for in its failure to teach Australians to question rather than to follow leaders.

[3] See for example "Video: SBS interview with Syrian President 1 July 2016" and Syrian President al-Assad interviewed by CBS News and News conference of Vladimir Putin.

Adapted from PressTV article Russia to supply Saudis with Iskander missile complexes (4/7/15) In recent years, particularly since 2011, Russia has, been an obstacle to the plans by the United States and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, to re-establish global hegemony through further bloody wars of aggression such as those fought against the people of Iraq and Libya.

However, the surprise visit to Russia by the ruler of Saudi Arabia earlier this year after it had launched a war of aggression against neighbouring Yemen and whilst it continued to arm and fund the hordes of terrorists who had been attempting to invade Syria since 2011, would have been of concern to anti-war activists across the globe.

On 4 July, as Saudi Arabia's war continued, it was reported in the in the Iranian PressTV article republished below, that Russia is supplying to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia its Iskander ballistic missile systems.

If the sale proceeds, it will be hard to continue to see Russia in 2015 as that much morally superior to the Tsarist Empire that helped start the First World War in 2014 or the police state of Josef Stalin.

Russia to supply Saudis with Iskander missile complexes

Russia has announced its readiness to provide Saudi Arabia with Iskander tactical missile systems, a Russian official says.

This file photo shows a Russian Iskander ballistic missile launcher rolling
during a rehearsal of a military parade in Alabino outside of Moscow. (AFP)

"If we, let's say, begin the talks today they will certainly take some time," Tass news agency quoted Igor Sevastyanov, a deputy director general of Russia's state weaponry trading corporation Rosoboronexport, as saying on Friday.

"I think if Saudi Arabia wants buying [sic] this equipment, Russia will supply it," he added.

Sevastyanov added that a number of procedures must be carried out for the process of delivery of such a weapon to begin.

A Saudi delegation has also been presented with coastal guard ships and patrol vessels at the International Maritime Defense Show IMDS-2015 underway in the city of St. Petersburg.

The development comes amid Riyadh's incessant aggression against Yemen, which has killed and injured hundreds of people over the past weeks.

This photo taken on June 15, 2015 shows a view of the destruction caused by Saudi air-
strikes in the UNESCO-listed heritage site in the old city of the Yemeni capital, Sana'a.

Saudi Arabia has been attacking different areas in Yemen since late March, without any authorization from the United Nations and heedless of international calls for the cessation of its deadly campaign against the Arabian Peninsula country.

In an unprecedented move, Russia and Saudi Arabia also on June 18 signed an agreement on cooperation in the field of nuclear energy.

The deal was signed after Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Saudi Arabia's Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman in St. Petersburg on the same day.

Saudi Arabia recently signed a slew of deals with France worth billions of dollars to buy patrol ships, border guard helicopters and planes from the European country.

MR/HSN/HMV

By Sayed Hasan (27/6/15) republished from GlobalResearch. This article includes three embedded videos with transcripts.
Update, 4 July 2015: France rejects asylum request from Assange | Sky News.
Updates, 1 July 2015: Western Presstitutes Dumbfounded by Vladimir Putin’s 89% Approval Rating by Paul Craig Roberts, What does Vladimir Putin’s 89% rating really mean? by The Saker.

#D4EBF9;float:left;margin-right:6px;padding:4px;text-align:center;">

75.5% of Russians
support President
Vladimir Putin

“As you know, the modern world, especially the Western world, is highly monopolised and many Western countries – whether they want to hear this or not – have voluntarily given up a considerable part of their sovereignty. To some extent, this is a result of the politics of blocs. Sometimes we find it very difficult to come to terms with them on geopolitical issues. It is hard to reach an agreement with people who whisper even at home for fear of being overheard by the Americans. This is not a joke or a figure of speech.” (Vladimir Putin)

Vladimir Putin denounces, more and more explicitly, the servility of France and Europe towards the United States, whether in the case of wire-tapping French leaders or that of the Mistral ships.

The publication by WikiLeaks of documents establishing the wire-tapping by the United States of three French Presidents was an open secret known since the revelations of Edward Snowden. Far from protesting against the flagrant violation of French sovereignty that the espionage of its top leaders constitutes, our government bravely hastened to hush up this scandal, as was expected by Lavrov and Putin. Let us remember that France prided herself in 2013 for having rejected the asylum for Edward Snowden, and that it is illusory to believe that these revelations could change anything : official France cannot but turn down flat Julian Assange's calls.

#D4EBF9;float:left;margin-right:6px;padding:4px;text-align:center;">

Francois Hollande com-
plains of alleged Rus-
sian interference in Uk-
raine whilst arming ter-
rorists fighting the pop-
ularly elected Syrian
President Bashar al-
Assad. This war has,
so far, cost the lives of
220,000 Syrians by one
estimate.

By refusing the delivery of two helicopter carriers ordered and paid for by Russia, France is both disgraced and discredited internationally as a reliable economic partner and military supplier. The inept pretext of the Ukrainian crisis and alleged Russian interference, invoked by a country that involved itself in the Syrian crisis by arming Al-Nusra terrorists (of which it is apologetic) and calling for the overthrow (even murder) of the legitimate Syrian leader, reveals the extent of the hypocrisy and indecency of the French government and its subjection to American diktats. Especially since this same government then concluded huge arms sales contracts with the barbaric regimes of Qatar and even Saudi Arabia, engaged in an illegal and criminal war in Yemen.

While trade between the US and Russia is increasing, their European “allies” are forced to impose sanctions on Moscow and suffer alone its formidable repercussions: thus Vladimir Putin has renewed for one year the Russian embargo on food products from Europe.

Vladimir Putin recently said to Charlie Rose, an American TV star presenter who asked incredulously if Russia really aspired to gain respect (indeed, what a preposterous idea):

“You know, I hear this all the time: Russia wants to be respected. Don't you? Who does not? Who wants to be humiliated? It is a strange question. As if this is some exclusive right – Russia demands respect. Does anyone like to be neglected?” To this rhetorical question, our French leaders respond ‘yes’ without hesitation and continue to whisper in their own homes for fear of prying ears (and microphones).

Instead of a rapprochement with Russia, a historic partner concerned about the respect of States and their sovereignty, in addition a rising great power and champion of the defence of international law, France and Europe prefer subjugation to the US, the superpower in irremediable decline with which they chain their destinies. It is easy to conceive the repulsion that Russian elites, despite their professionalism, must feel for our inglorious leaders. Probably to the extent of the felt more and more by their own peoples, whom Putin chooses to address directly.

Former arrogant colonial power and conqueror, then sovereignist Gaullist Republic, France is now relegated to the status of American sub-colony whose independence and national interests are routinely violated and trampled, as much by the stateless and spineless leaders in Paris, repeatedly guilty of the crime of high treason (abolished, thankfully for them), as by the imperial hawks in Washington.

Even a country like Algeria, a former French colony run by a corrupt and retrograde military regime, has at least leaders concerned of their national interests to the point of refusing any participation in the Saudi-American coalition against Yemen, while Hollands’ France was ready to pounce gleefully on a new crusade in Syria, which could have triggered World War III. One may ask, to use an expression of Norman Finkelstein, why prostitutes have such a bad reputation... Welcome to Western mediocracy!

Sayed 7asan

Translated from French by Jenny Bright

Copyright Sayed Hasan, 2015

Transcripts

Vladimir Putin on the tapping of French Presidents: This scandal will be stifled (English subtitles)

Briefing session with permanent members of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, 25 June 2015

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/49766

Transcript:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

Mr Lavrov will tell us about the consultations in Paris. Let's start with this. Please, Mr Lavrov.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov:On the whole, it was not useless because even despite certain wrangling during the discussion, the main outcome was the acknowledgement of the fact that there is no alternative to complete fulfilment of the Minsk Agreements. First and foremost, the acknowledgement by our German and our French partners of the fact that the overwhelming part of the Minsk provisions should be implemented through direct dialogue between authorities in Kiev and Donetsk and Lugansk.

I can't say that we have resolved all the problems because this should be done directly by the Contact group and the working subgroups created. I will report on that in more detail later, but on the day of our meeting, a report on the taps [by the United States of the French leadership] was published, and this gave rise to unrest in France so this was another thing that distracted our attention.

Vladimir Putin: How will this scandal end?

Sergei Lavrov: Frankly speaking, I think that Germany's example [the US special services wiretapping the German leadership] gives the answer: I think that both sides will try to blanket the scandal and forget about it.

Vladimir Putin: That is what would happen.

Putin denounces the ’submission’ of France: ”Even without Mistral, we will survive” (English subtitles)

Direct Line with Vladimir Putin, April 16, 2015

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/49261

Transcript:

[...]

Olga Ushakova: Let’s take another question from the audience – from Dmitry Shchugorev's section this time.

Dmitry Shchugorev: We have Dmitry Abzalov here, the president of the Center for Strategic Communications. Please, go ahead.

Dmitry Abzalov: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. I have this nagging question about Mistral ships. This week, the second ship was tested and left for the French shipyard. What are the prospects? Will we push for having these ships delivered to us? Will we seek financing? In general, what will our military and economic partnership with the European Union and France, in particular, be like after what happened a year ago?

Vladimir Putin: The refusal to deliver ships under the existing contract is, of course, a bad sign. However, frankly speaking, it's of little consequence for us or our defence capability. We signed these contracts primarily to support our partners and offer work to their shipyard. We planned to use the ships in the Far East. For us, this is not critical.

However, I believe that the leadership of France – and the French people in general – are honourable people and will return the money. We are not even going to demand any penalties or exorbitant fines, but we want all of our costs covered. This certainly means that the reliability of our partners – who, acting as part of the military-political bloc, in this case NATO, have lost some of their sovereignty – has suffered, and is now questionable. Of course, we will keep this in mind as we continue our military and technical cooperation.

Kirill Kleymenov: Our partners may find that it was an easy way for them to get off the hook.

Vladimir Putin: That's all right, we'll survive.

[...]

Vladimir Putin to the peoples of the West: Russia is not an imperial power, the US spy on NATO members (English subtitles)

Speech by Vladimir Putin on the integration of the Crimea to Russia, March 18, 2014 – With a reflection on this intervention dated April 22, 2014

Source : http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889

Transcript:

[...]

Today, I would like to address the people of the United States of America, the people who, since the foundation of their nation and adoption of the Declaration of Independence, have been proud to hold freedom above all else. Isn't the desire of Crimea's residents to freely choose their fate such a value? Please understand us.

I believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also understand me. Let me remind you that in the course of political consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, at the expert, though very high level, some nations that were then and are now Germany's allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.

I also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your national feelings. We have always respected the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state, incidentally, unlike those who sacrificed Ukraine's unity for their political ambitions. They flaunt slogans about Ukraine's greatness, but they are the ones who did everything to divide the nation. Today's civil standoff is entirely on their conscience. I want you to hear me, my dear friends. Do not believe those who want you to fear Russia, shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that. As for Crimea, it was and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.

I repeat, just as it has been for centuries, it will be a home to all the peoples living there. What it will never be and do is follow in Bandera's footsteps!

[...]

Direct Line with Vladimir Putin – April 17, 2014

Source : http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20796

Transcript:

[...]

Kirill Kleymenov: But before giving the floor to [our correspondent in Germany], I'd like to ask you to return to the speech that we discussed at the very beginning, the one that you made before signing the treaty on Crimea and Sevastopol's accession to Russia. Many people were very impressed by it and compared it to your Munich speech. They even called it your best speech.

I'd like to ask you why you made this speech. First, the protocol didn't demand it and, second, the format was very unusual – you addressed peoples rather than countries or governments.

Vladimir Putin: The format was chosen based on the importance of the event and the situation. This is an unusual event in the life of our people, our country and our state. This is why I considered it my duty to address the Federal Assembly and the people of the Russian Federation in the presence of members of the State Duma and the Federation Council. This is the first point.

Second. Why was the speech addressed to the peoples of other countries rather than their governments? As you know, the modern world, especially the Western world, is highly monopolised and many Western countries – whether they want to hear this or not – have voluntarily given up a considerable part of their sovereignty. To some extent, this is a result of the politics of blocs. Sometimes we find it very difficult to come to terms with them on geopolitical issues. It is hard to reach an agreement with people who whisper even at home for fear of being overheard by the Americans. This is not a joke or a figure of speech. Listen to me, I'm serious, I'm not joking. However, they are our main partners on economic and some other issues.

But I addressed the peoples of these countries primarily because an ordinary person from Germany, France or Italy will instantly sense whether a statement is false or not. Our position is absolutely open, honest and transparent, and for this reason it is easier to get it across to ordinary people than even to some leaders. It seems to me we succeeded to some extent. No matter what government rules a country, it will have to consider the opinion of its voters. This is why I addressed the people.

[...]

(Candobetter Ed: We are putting this article back on the front page because it is obviously relevant today.) Malcolm Fraser died today, March 20, 2014. Although loathed by a large section of the population because of his role in usurping Gough Whitlam, in what many believe was a CIA coup,[1] Malcolm Fraser since redeemed himself in many ways by advocating more thoughtful and responsible policy in Foreign Affairs. The current government and opposition are unlikely to acknowledge this most valuable role because it was critical of both of them. In recent interviews Fraser deplored the gung-ho and dishonest attitude of the west in pursuing wars and warned of the dangers to the world if the West continued to dismiss the legitimate concerns of Russia, the East and the Middle East. In this video and transcript, first published on 7 August 2014, Malcolm Fraser describes US/NATO moves on Ukraine as provocative. Russian stance justified. America feels it can break international law. The West should not, under any circumstances, involve itself militarily in the affairs of Crimea, Ukraine. Ukraine should be free to make whatever economic relationships it likes with other countries, whether with Russia or the West or both, but it should not become part of a defence bloc, a military block, and therefore [...] should not be eligible to join NATO, which Russia would reasonably interpret as provocative. Agrees that most Australian politicians showing poor judgement on Ukraine, Putin. Thinks this is partly influenced by mass media through deliberate slant. (First published on 20 March 2014.)

This has been republished from Voltaire Net.See also: Putin's 2014 Q&A marathon LIVE UPDATES (18/12/14), 'Can't stuff this bear' and other Putin Q&A quotes (18/12/14)

On Thursday 18 December 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a Press conference. It included his address which lasted from 9:12AM until 12:38PM GMT. President Vladimir Putin has been condemned by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abott and the Australian newsmedia for alleged Russian aggression against Ukraine and complicity with the alleged shooting down of the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17. In spite of this not one of the Australian journalists, nor any other Western journalist present put these allegations to President Putin. Roman Tsymbalyuk of the Ukrainian News Agency UNIAN did put those allegations. Both his question and Vladimir Putin's response are included.

#EDF5FA;">On Friday 9 December, the SBS 6.30PM evening news reported dismissively about the conference whilst it did not feature at all on the ABC 7:00PM news. Examples of previous 'reporting' about Vladimir Putin by SBS include Comment: Vladimir Putin the impaler (26/8/13), 'Get out of Ukraine': Canadian PM 'shirt-fronts' Putin at G20 (16/11/14), West behaving like an 'empire': Russian president (19/12/14), Kremlin denies Putin leaving G20 early (16/11/14), Putin slams G20 for imposing sanctions (15/11/14).

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, colleagues.

I am very happy to see you in high spirits. As we did last time, I will begin by briefing you on the work done during the year and then I will try to answer your questions.

First the most important thing: the economic performance. In the first 10 months of this year, the gross domestic product grew by 0.7 percent, and the final figure may be around 0.6 percent. My colleagues and I met yesterday to finalise the figures. The trade surplus grew by $13.3 billion to reach $148.4 billion.

Industrial production picked up some speed after last year's lull. In the first 10 months of the year, it went up by 1.7 percent. Unemployment is also low: at times, it dropped to below 5 percent, and now it is around 5 percent, possibly 5.1 percent.

The agroindustrial complex is developing. I believe that by the end of the year growth there will amount to 3.3 percent. As you may know, this year we had a record crop of 104 million tonnes.

Despite the turbulent situation on the financial market, the federal budget this year will show a surprlus. In other words, revenue will exceed expenses by 1.2 trillion rubles [over $20 billion], which is about 1.9 percent of the GDP. The Finance Ministry is still working on the final calculations, but the surplus is definite.

The main achievement of the year in the social sphere is of course the positive demographics.

Natural population growth in the first 10 months of the year was 37,100 people. The death rate is going down in this country, while the birth rate is increasing. This is a very good trend and we must make every effort to maintain it. As promised, we continued adjusting the maternity capital. In 2014 it amounted to 429,408.5 rubles.

We have met and exceeded the targets set for this year for salary rates for ten workforce categories. I am sure you know what I am talking about. First of all, these are teachers at schools and institutions providing supplementary education, counsellors, university faculty members, medical doctors, paramedics and nurses, and employees of cultural institutions. In 2014, we adjusted pensions to inflation twice: by 6.5 percent on February 1 and by an additional 1.7 percent on April 1.

We gave significant attention this year to enhancing the combat capability and efficiency of the Armed Forces. I will not go into detail here. I would only like to mention the social sphere. In 2014, 11,700 Defence Ministry servicemen received permanent housing and 15,300 received service housing. This is 100 percent of the year's target figures.

These are the numbers I wanted to begin with. Now a few words regarding the current situation. I believe we all know that the main issue of concern to this country's citizens is the state of the economy, the national currency and how all this could influence developments in the social sphere. I will try to briefly describe this situation and say how I expect it to develop. Basically, that is where we could end this news conference. (Laughter) However, if you have any further questions I will try to answer them.

The current situation was obviously provoked primarily by external factors. However, we proceed from the view that we have failed to achieve many of the things that were planned and that needed to be done to diversify the economy over the past 20 years. This was not easy, if at all possible, given the foreign economic situation, which was favourable in the sense that businesses were investing into areas that guaranteed maximum and fast profits. This mechanism is not easy to change.

Now, as you may know, the situation has changed under the influence of certain foreign economic factors, primarily the price of energy resources, of oil and consequently of gas as well. I believe the Government and the Central Bank are taking appropriate measures in this situation. We could question the timeliness or the quality of the measures taken by the Government and the Central Bank, but generally, they are acting adequately and moving in the right direction.

I hope that yesterday's and today's drop in the foreign currency exchange rate and growth of our national currency, the ruble, will continue. Is this possible? It is. Could oil prices continue falling and would this influence our national currency and consequently all the other economic indexes, including inflation? Yes, this is possible.

What do we intend to do about this? We intend to use the measures we applied, and rather successfully, back in 2008. In this case, we will need to focus on assistance to those people who really need it and on retaining – this is something I would like to highlight – retaining all our social targets and plans. This primarily concerns pensions and public sector salaries, and so forth.

Clearly, we would have to adjust our plans in case of any unfavourable developments. We would certainly be forced to make some cuts. However, it is equally certain – and I would like to stress this – that there will be what experts call a positive rebound. Further growth and a resolution of this situation are inevitable for at least two reasons. One is that the global economy will continue to grow, the rates may be lower, but the positive trend is sure to continue. The economy will grow, and our economy will come out of this situation.

How long will this take? In a worst-case scenario, I believe it would take a couple of years. I repeat: after that, growth is inevitable, due to a changing foreign economic situation among other things. A growing world economy will require additional energy resources. However, by that time I have no doubt that we will be able to do a great deal to diversify our economy, because life itself will force us to do it. There is no other way we could function.

Therefore, overall, I repeat, we will undoubtedly comply with all our social commitments using the existing reserves. Fortunately, this year they have even grown.

I would like to remind you that Central Bank reserves amount to $419 billion. The Central Bank does not intend to ‘burn' them all senselessly, which is right. The Government reserve, the National Wealth Fund, the Reserve Fund have grown this year by about 2.4-2.5 trillion rubles to a total 8.4 trillion rubles. With these reserves I am certain we can work calmly to resolve our main social issues and to diversify the economy; and I will repeat that inevitably the situation will return to normal.

I would like to end my introductory remarks here. As I have said, we could end the whole news conference here, but if you do have any questions, I am ready to answer them.

PRESIDENTIAL PRESS-SECRETARY DMITRY PESKOV: This year I would like to begin with those who have been working with the President throughout the year – the Kremlin press pool. First I would like to give the floor to the dean of the Kremlin press pool Vyacheslav Terekhov, who has been working with Mr Putin for many years and who travels to all the remote parts of the world and all the cities and towns of this country. Mr Terekhov, please.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is what they call nepotism.

VYACHESLAV TEREKHOV, INTERFAX: But I've got an interesting job.

There is something I would like to clarify, Mr President. Judging by the situation in the country, we are in the midst of a deep currency crisis, one that even Central Bank employees say they could not have foreseen in their worst nightmares.

Do you believe that things will get better in two years, as you mentioned, and we will recover from this financial and economic crisis? Criticism was piled on the Government and the Central Bank for the ruble's Black Monday and Tuesday. Do you agree with this criticism?

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I said that given the most unfavourable foreign economic situation this could last (approximately, because no one can say for certain) for about two years. However, it may not last that long and the situation could take a turn for the better sooner. It could improve in the first or second quarter of next year, by the middle of next year, or by its end.

Nobody can tell. There are many uncertain factors. Therefore, you could call it a crisis or something else, you can decide which word to use. However, I believe I made it quite clear that the Central Bank and the Government are generally taking appropriate measures in this situation. I believe some things could have been done sooner, and this is actually what the expert community are criticising them for.

What does the job involve, in my view? And what are the Central Bank and the Government actually doing? First, as you may know, they raised the key interest rate. I hope the rate will remain for the duration of these complicated developments connected with the foreign economic situation, and the economy will adjust one way or another.

What is the basis for my optimism? The idea that the economy is bound to adjust to life and work in conditions of low prices on energy resources. This will become a fact of life.

How soon will the economy adapt if the prices remain at the current level or even go below 60 [USD/barrel], 40, or whatever? For us it could be any figure, the economy would simply have to get structured. How fast will this happen? This is hard to say. But it is inevitable. I would like to highlight this. This will be a fact of life.

What is the Central Bank doing? They have raised the key interest rate. What else do they need to do? And what are they already doing? To stabilise the national currency they need to somewhat limit ruble liquidity and give economic entities access to foreign currency liquidity. This is exactly what the Bank is doing. Their foreign currency interest rate is quite low – 0.5.

Overall, I think it is up to the Central Bank to decide whether to reduce the interest rate or not, they should see and react accordingly. They should not hand out our gold and foreign currency reserves or burn them on the market, but provide lending resources. And they are doing this as well.

The so-called repo is a well-known instrument here. They can be offered for a day, a week, 28 days, almost a month, or for a year. This is money that is returned, but it gives economic entities the opportunity to make use of the foreign currency. Everything is being done right.

They should probably move at least half a pace faster. Of course, I see the criticism levelled at the Central Bank and its Governor. Some of it is justified, some is not. The Government should also bear responsibility. They should work with exporters who have sufficiently high foreign currency revenues.

The Prime Minister met with heads of our major companies and we can see some results. Many of them have to return their loans and think of the condition their companies are in.

Every company, just like every individual, tries to save ‘for a rainy day'. Is such behaviour economically justified? In terms of economic logic, it is not. Nevertheless, companies do it, and we now see a certain result, the ‘rebound' is happening.

The Government should be taking other measures as well. What do I mean? For instance, combatting inflation is of course the Central Bank's job. However, there are things that we have mentioned already, things I spoke of in public during our meetings with the Government.

For instance, the prices of petrol and food are something they should work on. Moreover, the current situation, whatever anyone says, requires a ‘hands on' approach. They have to meet with producers, those who are on the market, with retailers and with the oil companies that have significantly monopolised the market. The Federal Antimonopoly Service should function properly.

These actions have to be joint and reasonable, though without any violation of the individual competence of, say, the Central Bank or the Government. Nevertheless, they should coordinate their actions, and do so in a timely fashion.

Therefore, they can criticise Nabiullina [Central Bank Governor] all they like, but one should bear in mind that overall their policy is right. The Central Bank is not the only one responsible for the economic situation in the country.

DMITRY PESKOV: Another presidential press pool old-timer, Alexander Gamov of the Komsomolskaya Pravda. Is there anything you would like to ask?

ALEXANDER GAMOV, KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA NEWSPAPER: First, I have something to say. Mr President, I believe many people were looking forward to seeing you here at this news conference. Many were trying to predict your mood, because this would largely set the mood for the entire country. You are here, and you already smiled several times, so thank you for your optimism. We hope everything will happen just the way you said it would.

Over to my questions. Since 2008, we have been talking about the need to get rid of our oil addiction and restructure our economy to make it more efficient. However, the developments of the past few days have shown that we did not manage to achieve this.

We are still addicted, and nobody knows how long this will last. Could you say openly what you personally think: will we be able to use this crisis for to our advantage, lose our addiction and rebuild the economy? I realise that this would take time.

And my second point. In your Address to the Federal Assembly, you named, to the welcoming applause of the country and the business community, a whole list of concessions that have long been suggesting themselves. However, there is the danger in Russia, as you well know, that all important and useful resolutions, including presidential ones, get lost in the excessive red tape and general slack.

Are you confident that this time you statements, your resolutions will be implemented and your optimism will be supported with real action?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As we all know, only an insurance policy can give you confidence. The main insurance for us here is the right macroeconomic policy and reserve funds for resolving social issues. This is the kind of insurance policy that would give us confidence.

As for excessive red tape, I can say this: there must be some people from the European Union here. If you ask them about red tape in Brussels, they will tell you all about it. Our bureaucracy is child's play compared to theirs.

The problem does exist, however, and it is not about red tape. Do you know what it is? I said at the very start that I would say a few things and we might as well end the news conference. It looks like that was no joke.

This is not about decisions getting bogged down in red tape. It is about the foreign economic situation forcing economic entities to invest, say, in energy resources, the chemical industry or metals. So regardless of all the Government's attempts to fine-tune the instruments of taxation and benefits for businesses that are not involved with raw materials, this is a very complicated process, because the budget does not usually have the required funds.

We have been using all these instruments for several years already. We are trying to create more favourable conditions for the development of production, but it is moving forward with difficulty. Especially when one can make large profits by investing in energy resources. As you may know, at least 80 percent of all applications to the Government (believe me, this is true) have to do with getting access to some field rather than investing in some high technology area. Why is this? Because the returns there are fast and big.

I am coming to your question. If the situation changes, then life itself will force us to invest in other industries. And this gives me optimism, strange as it might seem. True, in some ways it would be more difficult. True, we would have to resolve social issues at any cost and meet the targets set in the social section of the 2012 Presidential Executive Orders.

Can we do it? Yes, we can. However, at the same time we need to make use of the current situation to create additional conditions for developing production and economic diversification. I hope that the current state of affairs will make this possible.

ANDREI KOLESNIKOV, KOMMERSANT NEWSPAPER: Mr President, in early 2012 in one of your pre-election articles that were later documented as Executive Orders of May 2012, as we all know, while describing the situation at the time you quoted Alexander Gorchakov [19th century Russian diplomat]. You said, “Russia is concentrating.”

Can you say what is happening to the country now? What is it doing? Is it still concentrating, or maybe the time has come to de-concentrate, to finally relax?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We must work. Little has changed in this sense. Moreover, the current conditions are pushing us to move forward. I keep tackling it from different perspectives, and I see you and your colleagues keep raising the same issue. We must work, and the external conditions are forcing us to become more efficient and to shift to innovative development.

What does the future of our economy require? We have to create favourable conditions for business, to ensure freedom of entrepreneurship, we need to guarantee ownership rights, to stop using law enforcement agencies to chase those we do not like and use those instruments for competition. We need more benefits for production facilities; we need to develop those regions of the Russian Federation that require special attention, like the Far East.

Are we doing this? We are. However, in my Address I spoke of an entire programme of action. I am referring here to 4-year tax holidays, to 3-year inspection holidays for those companies that have no record of any serious violations, to benefits for small businesses. We must carry on with the concentration and support it with real efforts.

VLADIMIR KONDRATYEV, NTV TELEVISION COMPANY: Mr President, we recently marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. You witnessed the event when you were still working in the German Democratic Republic. A lot has been achieved, perhaps not exactly what we hoped for, and we had great hopes, but there have been certain achievements. It was thanks to your persistence that Russia was once close to a visa-free travel agreement with Europe.

In this anniversary year, a new wall appeared within a matter of weeks. It is not made of concrete, but it is no less obvious, a wall of alienation, suspicion, mutual mistrust and mutual reproaches. Where can this cooling lead us? Some go as far as speaking of the beginning of a new Cold War. Will we be living in a divided world or is there any possibility to resume dialogue and cooperation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You just said the Berlin Wall fell, but some new walls are being put up now. I will respond, and I hope you will agree with me.

It is not now that this happened. You are an expert on Germany and on Europe. Didn't they tell us after the fall of the Berlin Wall that NATO would not expand eastwards? However, the expansion started immediately. There were two waves of expansion. Is that not a wall? True, it is a virtual wall, but it was coming up. What about the anti-missile defence system next to our borders? Is that not a wall?

You see, nobody has ever stopped. This is the main issue of current international relations. Our partners never stopped. They decided they were the winners, they were an empire, while all the others were their vassals, and they needed to put the squeeze on them. I said the same in my Address [to the Federal Assembly]. This is the problem. They never stopped building walls, despite all our attempts at working together without any dividing lines in Europe and the world at large.

I believe that our tough stand on certain critical situations, including that in the Ukraine, should send a message to our partners that the best thing to do is to stop building walls and to start building a common humanitarian space of security and economic freedom.

Since I have mentioned Ukraine, I have to give the floor to our colleagues from Ukraine. Go ahead, please.

ROMAN TSYMBALYUK, UKRAINIAN NEWS AGENCY UNIAN: I have two short questions, if I may.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Go ahead, please.

ROMAN TSYMBALYUK: My first question concerns the punitive operation you have launched in eastern Ukraine, which is mostly spearheaded against Russian speakers. It's an open secret that it is Russian servicemen and Russian militants who are fighting there. Question: How many Russian servicemen and units of equipment have you sent there, and how many of them have been killed in Ukraine? What would you as the Commander-in-Chief say to the families of the Russian servicemen and officers killed there?

And my second short question, if I may. We had a president called Viktor, who is now hiding in Russia. He had imprisoned the number one on the Batkivshchyna list, Yulia Tymoshenko. She has been released, but now the current number one on the party list is in prison, this time in Russia...

VLADIMIR PUTIN: What? Say it again please?

ROMAN TSYMBALYUK: The number one on the list of Yulia Tymoshenko's party, Batkivshchyna, is currently in a Russian prison. I have a question: On what conditions will you release Ukrainian pilot Savchenko, Ukrainian film director Oleg Sentsov and at least 30 Ukrainian prisoners of war whom you are keeping in various prisons in Russia? Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let's begin with the second question, and then I will certainly answer your first question.

The question about Ukrainian citizen Savchenko and the conditions for her release. I have an open and, as far as I can see, a clear position on this issue. You can see in this audience the colleagues of our journalists – they are also your colleagues – who have died in the line of duty in southeast Ukraine. I want to stress that they did not take part in fighting for any of the sides, and they were unarmed. It is the duty of all state agencies, including the military ones, to protect their lives and health and to give them an opportunity to do their professional duty which is to provide objective and full information, at least as they see it. It is a fact that has been recognised in the civilised world. They have been killed. According to our law enforcement agencies, Ms Savchenko called in artillery fire via radio. If it is reliably established during the pretrial investigation and the subsequent trial that she was not involved and is not guilty, she will be released immediately. But if they prove that she was indeed involved in the journalists' murder, a Russian court will issue a proper ruling, as I see it, and she will serve her sentence in accordance with the verdict. However, no one has the right to hold anyone guilty of a crime on account. I mean that Russian legislation includes the presumption of innocence. So we'll see how the pretrial investigation proceeds, and what conclusions the Russian court will make.

As for the other servicemen you have mentioned, we don't consider them prisoners of war. They are in detainment in Russia, and they are being investigated on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity. This is all I can say on your second question.

Now to the first question, about responsibility. In Russia, like in any other presidential republic, it is the president who is responsible for everything. And responsibility for military personnel rests with the Commander-in-Chief. Let me remind you that in Russia this is one and the same person.

All those who are following their heart and are fulfilling their duty by voluntarily taking part in hostilities, including in southeast Ukraine, are not mercenaries, since they are not paid for what they do.

Russian public opinion holds that what is now happening in southeast Ukraine is actually a punitive operation, but it is conducted by the Kiev authorities and not the other way around. The self-defence fighters of the southeast were not the ones who sent troops to Kiev. On the contrary, the Kiev authorities amassed their military forces in the southeast of Ukraine, and are using multiple rocket launchers, artillery and fighter jets.

What is the problem here and how it can be solved? I'll try to answer this question as well. The problem is that after the government coup (and no matter how others call it and what is being said in this respect, a government coup was carried out in Kiev by military means) part of the country did not agree with these developments.

Instead of at least trying to engage in dialogue with them, Kiev started by sending law enforcers, the police force, but when that didn't work out, they sent in the army, and since that didn't work out either, they are now trying to settle the issue by using other forceful methods, the economic blockade.

I believe that this path has absolutely no future whatsoever and is detrimental to Ukraine's statehood and its people. I hope that by engaging in dialogue – and we are ready to assume the role of intermediaries in this respect – we will succeed in establishing a direct, political dialogue, and by employing such methods and political instruments we will reach a settlement and restore a single political space.

ANTON VERNITSKY, CHANNEL ONE RUSSIA: Mr President, are the current economic developments the price we have to pay for Crimea? Maybe the time has come to acknowledge it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No. This is not the price we have to pay for Crimea... This is actually the price we have to pay for our natural aspiration to preserve ourselves as a nation, as a civilisation, as a state. And here is why.

As I've already mentioned when answering a question from your NTV colleague, and as I've said during my Address to the Federal Assembly, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia opened itself to our partners. What did we see? A direct and fully-fledges support of terrorism in North Caucasus. They directly supported terrorism, you understand? Is that what partners usually do? I won't go into details on that, but this is an established fact. And everyone knows it.

On any issue, no matter what we do, we always run into challenges, objections and opposition. Let me remind you about the preparations for the 2014 Olympics, our inspiration and enthusiasm to organise a festive event not only for Russian sports fans, but for sports fans all over the world. However, and this is an evident truth, unprecedented and clearly orchestrated attempts were made to discredit our efforts to organise and host the Olympics. This is an undeniable fact! Who needs to do so and for what reason? And so on and so forth.

You know, at the Valdai [International Discussion] Club I gave an example of our most recognisable symbol. It is a bear protecting his taiga. You see, if we continue the analogy, sometimes I think that maybe it would be best if our bear just sat still. Maybe he should stop chasing pigs and boars around the taiga but start picking berries and eating honey. Maybe then he will be left alone. But no, he won't be! Because someone will always try to chain him up. As soon as he's chained they will tear out his teeth and claws. In this analogy, I am referring to the power of nuclear deterrence. As soon as – God forbid – it happens and they no longer need the bear, the taiga will be taken over.

We have heard it even from high-level officials that it is unfair that the whole of Siberia with its immense resources belongs to Russia in its entirety. Why exactly is it unfair? So it is fair to snatch Texas from Mexico but it is unfair that we are working on our own land – no, we have to share.

And then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no use at all. Perhaps they'll stuff it and that's all.

So, it is not about Crimea but about us protecting our independence, our sovereignty and our right to exist. That is what we should all realise.

If we believe that one of the current problems – including in the economy as a result of the sanctions – is crucial... And it is so because out of all the problems the sanctions take up about 25 to 30 percent. But we must decide whether we want to keep going and fight, change our economy – for the better, by the way, because we can use the current situation to our own advantage – and be more independent, go through all this or we want our skin to hang on the wall. This is the choice we need to make and it has nothing to do with Crimea at all.

YEVGENY ROZHKOV, VESTI ROSSIYA-1 CHANNEL: Good afternoon, Mr President.

First of all, the Crimea issue is more or less clear. The only question perhaps is how much we will have to eventually invest in its development after the difficult Ukrainian past. The most urgent question for me is about eastern Ukraine, which is now calling itself Novorossiya. How do you see the future of that part of Ukraine? Do you believe in the success of the Minsk agreements? Do you think they will help reconciliation? And how are we going to further help Donbass? Will it be humanitarian aid, as it is now, or something else?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think I answered a part of your question in my response to your Ukrainian colleague. We assume that the crisis will be resolved sooner or later. The sooner the better, of course. This is the first point.

Second, it should be addressed and settled by political means, and not through pressure, no matter what type of pressure, whether an economic blockade or the use of armed force. And, of course, we will help the people, as we are doing now (as you may know, a tenth humanitarian convoy has been sent). After all, we should proceed from the fundamental principles of international law and from people's right to decide their fate on their own.

It was not by chance that I... It's not just a casual phrase, when I said that peace should be restored and problems should be resolved by political means. We proceed from the assumption that a common political space will be restored. It's hard to say at this point what it would look like, but I think we should strive for this. The problem is, however, that both sides need to strive for this. Both! And people living in Ukraine's southeast should be respected. Economic ties should be restored.

It is a fact that much of Ukraine's power industry burns Donbass coal, but up until now they aren't buying this coal. We were asked to influence Ukraine's southeast, Donbass, to make the miners agree to supply coal. We did that, but they are not buying it. Why? Because they've closed all the banks and are unable to make payments. Our colleagues told me yesterday: We are ready to pay and have transferred a prepayment. I've made inquiries and found that there is no prepayment. They allegedly wired the money to the miners' bank cards, but the cards are not working! And this is how it is with each issue. Nevertheless, there is no other way but a peace settlement.

As far as the Minsk agreements are concerned, it's a very important part of this, and we want them to be complied with because, first, the initiative for the Minsk meeting came from me and from Petro Poroshenko. I have no doubt that he is striving for this. But he is not the only one over there. We have been hearing statements from other officials, who advocate basically a war to the end. The implication is that all of this is likely to lead to a continental crisis. We hear many bellicose statements. I still think that President Poroshenko is oriented towards settlement. But concrete actions and steps are needed.

Should the Minsk agreements be implemented or shouldn't they? Yes they should! Let me repeat: I was one of those who initiated them and we... I'll say an important thing. Look, I'd like everyone to hear this. Our representatives in Minsk signed a memorandum in September and there were protocols to it that defined the disengagement line. The representatives of Donetsk didn't sign those protocols. That's the problem. They said at the very start: We can't.

When we tried to insist – I'll be frank with you about this, since the public needs to know these things ­– they told us that they can't leave these villages (there were three or four disputed villages), because their families live there, and they can't risk their children, wives and sisters being killed or raped. This is the most important thing. However, the Ukrainian officials did not withdraw their troops from the areas that they were supposed to leave, such as the Donetsk Airport, either. They're staying there.

Are you aware of the latest developments? The self-defence forces allowed them to rotate their troops at the airport. They took them to a bathhouse and sent them some food. This may well put a smile on your faces, but, on the other hand, this is a positive development. Perhaps, in the end, people will be able to agree on things among themselves. Everyone is insisting on exchanging prisoners of war. I believe that they should all be exchanged unconditionally. But life is more complicated than that. When these lists became available, it turned out (in any case, that's what the Donbass self-defence fighters told us), that the lists from Ukraine include people who have been detained not in connection with the hostilities in southeastern Ukraine, but somewhere in Kherson or Odessa. These lists must be checked. Nonetheless, we insist and I believe that we need to get these people back home to their families for the New Year or Christmas, regardless of all other circumstances.

Yesterday, they agreed to exchange 30 people. Representatives of the self-defence forces went to the exchange location, and a representative of the Kiev authorities said, “No, we are not going to proceed with the exchange until the next meeting in Minsk.” Well, you can do that, of course, but it would be nice if they could let go at least 30 people ... But these are details. Anyway, it would be a positive move, including in terms of implementing the Minsk agreements, which is an important and necessary process.

An agreement was reached to hold a videoconference today or tomorrow. First, there will be a dialogue during this videoconference, but the next step should be made at a meeting in Minsk. There's another important thing. It's essential for the Kiev authorities to keep their end of the bargain. There was an agreement on adopting an amnesty law. It is nowhere to be seen. They keep telling us that a law on special status was passed, but it couldn't be implemented, this law, do you understand that? Because the law could come into force and actually become effective only after the other law had been adopted – about the disengagement line. It has not been adopted so far. This compilation has to stop. If Ukraine wants to restore peace, tranquillity and its territorial integrity, the people who live in certain regions of the country must be respected and a straight, open, and honest political dialogue must be maintained with them. It must be a political dialogue without any pressure. I hope that in the end everyone will go down that path.

VERONIKA ROMANENKOVA, TASS: Thank you. This year, it became clear that energy diplomacy has become a key factor in geopolitics. How justified is Russia's turning to the East and the gas contracts it has signed with China and Turkey?

Have all the pitfalls of these projects been considered? Many still doubt that the Chinese contract will be profitable, while the potential Turkish Stream will leave Russia dependent on Turkey. Do you have anything to say here?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, I don't. These things are so obvious that it would be impossible to argue. I often hear comments about Russia's turn towards the East. Now, if you read American analysts, they also write about the United States' turn towards the East. Is this true? Partly, yes. Why? Is this political? No. This stems from the global economic processes, because the East – that is, the Asia-Pacific Region – shows faster growth than the rest of the world. New opportunities open up. As for energy, the demand for resources is racing in leaps and bounds in China, India, as well as in Japan and South Korea. Everything is developing faster there than in other places. So should we turn down our chance? The projects we are working on were planned long ago, even before the most recent problems occurred in the global or Russian economy. We are simply implementing our long-time plans.

About the Chinese contract – it is not a loss-making project. It enjoys privileges on both sides – on both sides, I must stress. This is true. China offered some benefits as well. I will not go into details right now – these benefits aren't extraordinary or anything; the Chinese government simply decided to provide some support to the project participants. We, in turn, agreed to do the same. So the project definitely became profitable. Definitely.

Moreover, we have agreed on a pricing formula, which is not much different – if at all – from the one applied to our European contracts, except for the specific regional market coefficients. This is regular practice. In addition, it will help Russia, which will receive and accumulate gigantic resources at the project's initial stage, to begin connecting our Far Eastern regions to the gas distribution grids, not just to export gas through the pipeline. This will allow us to make the next – a very important – step. We will be able to link together the western and eastern gas pipeline systems and promptly rechannel resources back and forth when needed, depending on the international market. This is very important. Without it, we would never be able to connect Eastern Siberia and the Far East to the gas distribution system. So this project holds many potential benefits. Not to mention that it is a huge construction site that will create jobs and generate tax income at every level, and revive Russia's Far East and the entire region.

About Turkey. The Turkish economy is also growing and requires additional energy resources as much as the APR. We built the so-called Blue Stream pipeline many years ago, and now our Turkish partners are considering increasing the supplies to the Turkish market. Should we refuse?

We have reached all the key agreements with them, which cover the pricing formula, supply schedule and other aspects. We more or less understand their requirements, and we will certainly sell them what we have and what they need. Of course, we will do this.

Will a so-called European hub be built on the border of Turkey and Greece? This is not for us to decide. The decision largely depends on our European partners: Do they want stable, guaranteed and absolutely transparent energy supply from Russia, which they badly need, without any transit risks? Great! Then we'll start working, and the pipeline would reach Macedonia via Greece, go on to Serbia and to Baumgarter in Austria. If they don't want this, we won't do it. The thing is that there is no cheaper and more reliable supplier than Russia, and there won't be any in the near future.

GRIGORY DUBOVITSKY, RIA NOVOSTI: Mr President, I'd like to go back to the situation on the currency market, which changes from one day to another and is a great concern for millions of Russians. Many experts, including you, Mr President, have said the current situation could be blamed also on currency profiteers. Concrete companies and individuals have been named. Can you give us those names? Are they Russians or foreigners? And why can't they be stopped? Are they too strong? Or are we too weak?

I have a second question on the same subject, if I may. Do the Central Bank and the Government plan to peg or devalue the ruble?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is what our Ukrainian partners did, quite unsuccessfully. Are you asking if we plan to force our companies, our main exporters, who receive revenues in foreign currency, to sell it? They would just buy it back the next day, as it happened in Kiev and as it happens in other countries.

The next step in this case should be to set a limit on the purchase of foreign currency on the domestic market. We won't go this far, and so the Central Bank and the Government are not planning, quite correctly as far as I see it, to limit our exporters in this field.

This doesn't mean, though, that the Government should not act through its representatives on company boards. After all, these are our largest energy companies. They are partly state-owned, which means that we can influence their policies, but without issuing any directives or restrictions. This we won't do.

As for the so-called profiteers, it is not a crime to play on the currency market. These market players can be foreigners or various funds, which are present on the Russian market and have been operating quite actively there. Or they can be Russian companies. Overall, as I said at the beginning of this meeting, this is an accepted practice in a market economy. Profiteers always appear when there is a chance to make some money.

They don't show up to steal or to cheat but to make some money in the market by creating favourable conditions, by pushing, for example, as was done in the beginning of this process, like, in this particular case, the Central Bank of Russia was pushed to enter the market and start selling gold and foreign currency reserves in the hope of intervening and supporting the national currency.

But the Central Bank stopped, and it was the right thing to do. Perhaps it would have been better if it had been done earlier and in a tougher way. Then perhaps it wouldn't have been necessary to increase the rate to 17 percent. But that is a different matter. A matter of taste, so to speak. Although it is still rather significant. It is true. So, I told you who they are.

You know, two days ago I had a friendly telephone conversation with some of them and I asked, “So why are you holding back?” By the way, I didn't make them do anything. “Our loan payments are due soon,” was the reply. Then I say, “I see. OK, if you scrape the bottom of the barrel, can you enter the market?” He took a minute and replied: “Well, I guess we have three billion dollars.” They have three billion in reserves. See what I mean? It is not 30 kopeks. And this is just one company.

So if each company has three billion, in total it is not 30 but 300 billion. Still, we can't force them. Even top management of the companies with state participation must anticipate what will happen and ensure the stability of their companies. To this end, the Government must work very closely with them and ensure, along with the Central Bank, foreign currency and ruble liquidity whenever it is necessary.

VIKTORIA PRIKHODKO, MOSKOVSKY KOMSOMOLETS NEWSPAPER: Good afternoon, Mr President. The number of beds in hospitals in several regions, and mainly in Moscow, is decreasing. Therefore, the number of staff is decreasing. What do you think about that? And will a similar experiment be carried out in other regions? People are concerned that as a result of the reform they will not be provided with the right to medical aid that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, you are talking about a major issue in our life at present, one of the fundamental issues I would say. Education and healthcare must always be within clear sight of the state and the regional governments. In this case, it is the Moscow Government.

Naturally, we must see, understand and react precisely to what is happening in a particular professional community. Any changes that occur must be introduced in cooperation with representatives of the medical community – in this particular case. If the Moscow Government skipped this stage for some reason, it is a mistake that must be corrected. What should guide us in the first place when working on issues like healthcare and education? We should be guided by people who use the healthcare and education services. Millions of people are waiting for the healthcare industry to improve. Our citizens, consumers of healthcare services are those, whom we must think about first of all. What are people saying? They are not pleased with the healthcare. This is despite all the efforts. We must analyse what's going on and what should be done to improve the situation.

I won't assess what the Moscow authorities have done now. They acted within their competence. We're saying that our healthcare is expensive but not very efficient. In many cases beds are used not for treating patients, but for improving their health, especially in the autumn and winter. Probably, this is not bad but the bed space is not designed for this.

We must make our medical aid high-tech, as is being done at good clinics, by the way in this country as well. So, for four or five days a person receives intensive therapy in a hospital and then completes his treatment at an outpatient clinic. How much time do people spend in a hospital bed at the moment? I don't want to make a mistake but on average it's not four or five days but much longer. Moreover, the city of Moscow believes that the bed capacity is excessive by about 30 percent. Of course, something has to be done about this. Why? Because if we keep it the way it is we will have to pay for land, electricity, heating and the like. These are inefficient costs. They are not used for treating people; just inefficient expenses. It's better to spend the funds on improving the quality of medical care, equipping hospitals and outpatient clinics with modern technology, and on training medical personnel.

I'm now referring, as I see it, to the reform of healthcare as a whole rather than actions of the Moscow authorities. But I think what they have done recently is correct on the whole. First, they launched a dialogue with the medical community. Second, they made a decision on additional compensation for released doctors. If I'm right, they are paying up to 500,000 rubles to medical specialists, 300,000 to the nursing staff and 200,000 to auxiliary medical personnel.

Moreover, they are drafting a programme for retraining specialists. Doctors may attend upgrade courses at the expense of the city from two or three months to two years. Naturally, the city needs to decide who will work and in what position but this cannot be done without consulting the medical community. I'm hoping that the city of Moscow will act carefully, very carefully, without hurting anyone. The main point is that they should not forget the most important principle of not only a doctor but of all transformations in healthcare – do no harm.

NATALYA GALIMOVA, GAZETA.RU: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. Speaking to the Federal Assembly after the referendum in Crimea you used the expression “a certain fifth column and national traitors.” You didn't specify whom you meant but thanks to you the term “fifth column” has again become part of the political vocabulary.

Since then, your supporters have labelled those who oppose the authorities the fifth column. To whom were you referring when talking about national traitors and the fifth column, and where, in your opinion, is the line that separates the opposition from the fifth column?

Finally, do you feel personally responsible for the revival of this term, which increases hostilities and divisions in society? Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not feel any responsibility whatsoever in this respect. Everything I do is aimed at consolidating Russian society, not dividing it. If you think it did happen, I believe you. It's probably the way things really are. Maybe you have an even more acute feel for it than I do. However, in my public statements I have to be more cautious. I'll think about that. That said, we can't mask the truth indefinitely and sometimes it is our duty to call the things by their names. This is an extremely complex issue. I'll be totally frank: answering your question isn't easy, since we're walking a very fine line here. It would probably be very challenging to come up with an academic definition of where the opposition ends and the fifth column begins.

This very year, and by the way the year 2014 is the Year of Culture, we celebrated the anniversary of Mikhail Lermontov, the genius of Russian poetry. We all remember his lines. We remember what he wrote about the Borodino battle: “By Moscow then we die // As have our brethren died before.” But he also wrote: “Farewell, farewell, unwashed Russia, // The land of slaves, the land of lords, // And you, blue uniforms of gendarmes, // And you, obedient to them folks.”

Was he an opposition activist? Of course he was. He was an opposition activist. As you may be aware, and probably a lot of you know, when he wrote “The Death of a Poet” on the death of Pushkin, one of his relatives saw the text and asked Lermontov to soften it a bit. Lermontov was so infuriated, that he actually made it even more bitter and edgy. The poem ended with “And your black blood won't wash away // The poet's sacred blood.”

He was definitely opposing the authorities, but I think he was also a patriot. This is very fine line. After all, he was an officer, and a very brave and courageous one, who wasn't afraid to get into the line of fire in the country's interests. By the way, in the last movie by Nikita Mikhalkov, such officers, who actually brought these efforts to their logical end, the revolution, were later killed by revolutionaries. Maybe if they could get a second chance, they would not have done what they did from the outset to destroy Russian statehood.

After all, the line that separates opposition activists from the fifth column is hard to see from the outside. What's the difference? Opposition activists may be very harsh in their criticism, but at the end of the day they are defending the interests of the motherland. And the fifth column is those who serve the interests of other countries, and who are only tools for others' political goals.

POLINA DANILOVA, STUDENT NEWSPAPER OTKRYTKA, THE INSTITUTE FOR THE HUMANITIES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES (IGUMO): Good afternoon. This year the institute joined the nationwide Gifted Children programme. We have created an online platform for identifying and supporting the gifted children in all Russian regions. This helps foster a feeling of patriotism, social responsibility to the country and also professionalism. It's important that it is not a commercial but a social project that is implemented by young people and for young people. And now I'd like to ask my questions. Will these socially significant projects receive federal assistance? Mr Putin, are you personally ready to support our initiative? We really hope for your assistance and support. Thank you for your answer in advance, and please come to IGUMO. We know that you'll like it. Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Just a second, how do you plan to implement this in practice?

POLINA DANILOVA: We have launched the Gifted Children portal in trial mode, and will open it to the public in February. It is a professional online venue where children will be able communicate on professional issues. It will have...

VLADIMIR PUTIN: So they will communicate there, but what will you do?

POLINA DANILOVA: There will be 25 categories, from which they can choose what they like and what is interesting for them. They will interact, share opinions and learn about contests they can participate in.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I see. Yes, this is a very good and important initiative.

I wish you success. Of course, we'll try to support the largest possible number of projects in this field, including yours. I'll ask my colleagues to collect information about what's being done and where, and how we can help you.

As you know, I have recently said in my address [to the Federal Assembly, that there would be scholarships for gifted children, the school graduates who enroll at universities, additional scholarships paid by the government until they graduate from their universities. As for what I personally can do, I'll tell you a secret. It concerns a small project I initiated after the Winter Olympics, a permanent winter sports training centre for children in the Imereti Valley. This project has been launched. But the next thing I'm going to say... The Minister of Sport is probably listening to this broadcast. I hope he won't faint at hearing what I'm about to say... I want to change this project. I want this centre, which is a big and very impressive building right on the Black Sea shore... First, it should be a non-governmental project, and, second, there should be two other parts aside from the children we have been bringing from the country's children's sports schools. I mean that we should additionally bring children from the nation's physics and mathematics schools and from music schools. This children's centre should consist of three parts – sports, music and mathematics. I have great hope that in the course of this work... Currently there are 200 young athletes from all over the country and they will stay for 21 days. The same arrangement should be applied to children from music schools and from physics and mathematics schools. This will help us and the specialists who will work on the ground to choose the most gifted children, to get a good look at them, to work with them almost individually, and to help them at the next stage to find themselves at a university or in life. So, we will move together in this direction. Thank you very much.

ALEXANDER YUNASHEV, LIFE NEWS: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. A year ago, you pardoned Khodorkovsky. He promised you then that he would not engage in politics. But today he declares almost presidential ambitions. My question is: do you have any regrets?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: And where will he run for president?

ALEXANDER YUNASHEV: My next question is this. Is he a political opponent or an opponent and a patriot into the bargain? How do you see it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, do you have one question or two?

ALEXANDER YUNASHEV: I have three.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Three! What will the others do while we debate all this until the morning?

Well, Mr Khodorkovsky did ask for a pardon, at least he sent a relevant petition and seemed to have no intention to engage in politics. But when I was considering the pardon, I didn't proceed from what he could or couldn't do, or whether he would or wouldn't engage in politics. It's his choice and he has the right to do it like any other citizen of the Russian Federation, provided he conforms to the necessary criteria, including for top positions in the country. Well, God help him! Let him work. As for me, I took my decision out of humanitarian considerations. He said in his letter that his mother was gravely ill. You know, mother is sacred. I am not being ironic. And he had almost served out his term in prison. Did it make any sense to keep him there, bearing in mind that he wouldn't even have a chance to say good-bye to his mother? That's what it was all about, and he said as much in his letter. I have no regrets and I think I did the right thing.

PAVEL PCHYOLKIN, CHANNEL ONE: Mr Putin, my question is about the Olympic Games and about sports and politics. The Olympic Games and their success both in terms of their organisation and the athletes' performance was one of the most spectacular events of this year. It was a huge project. We could hope for a multiplication effect in the economy. After all, we've built an immense infrastructure, made enormous investments and demonstrated that this country is capable of implementing projects on this scale.

Don't you think that Russia did not have a chance to benefit from the Olympic Games because of the tragedy in Ukraine?

And one more question. We are now preparing to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup. It's quite an expensive event that requires a lot of investment. In the wake of the sanctions, falling oil prices and the falling ruble, will Russia be capable of hosting the World Cup at all?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: First, let me talk about the Olympics. I think we achieved everything we wanted in the preparation of and the hosting of the Olympic Games. We achieved even more than we dreamt of. We won the Olympics for which I would like to give special thanks to our Olympic and Paralympic athletes who are the real heroes of the Games.

Regarding Ukraine, it's true, the Games were just coming to a close when these tragic events began to unfold. But it was not our fault. We did not start the coup. It had nothing to do with us. I wish it had never happened, but it did.

Speaking about whether we are pleased with the Olympics, of course we are pleased. By the way, we can see this from what is happening with the facilities. As you probably know, in many countries the Olympic facilities are just left empty after the Games. Completely empty. Between the seasons our facilities are more or less empty too.

But we planned some efforts in advance and built the Formula 1 track there. Then the Olympic Park hosted the World Chess Championship and some other events. Let me see. I think you know that the facilities are all booked up starting in December and until the end of February. I'm certain that they'll be very busy until the end of the alpine skiing season. Totally. What does this mean? It means that Russians now have a year-round centre for health and recreation, for both winter and summer sports.

Besides that, we'll continue to host major competitions in bobsleigh and other sports. I just mentioned in another response that we'll be developing children's sports. There is now a children's ice hockey team in Sochi. It's a great team. It loses sometimes but it's a young team and it wins sometimes too. The team has great fans. I remember Governor of the Krasnodar Territory Tkachyov told me, “We don't need a team. We don't have a hockey culture. We want football. Nobody will be interested.” I visited the stadium just recently, a month ago, and it was full. Ten thousand people! Full house. We must say thank you to the fans. Generally, ice hockey fans are quite civilised. They come to the games with their children, wives, with their entire families. It's great. The facilities will be developed further.

Speaking of the World Cup – yes, it is expensive but let me remind you that unlike many other countries that even refuse to host major competitions - do you know how these countries are different from ours? The number of people doing physical fitness and sports per 1,000 population is much higher there than in Russia.

Why is that? This is partly due to the poorly developed sports infrastructure. If we want to live longer, if we want our people to be healthy and go to skating rinks instead of liquor shops, then skating rinks must be available. We need to create new football fields, hockey rinks and fitness centres. Importantly, people should spend their money on gym memberships rather than on partying with friends. We need to create a culture where people practise physical fitness and sports. Then, the life expectancy in Russia we will be more than the current 70-71 years.

In this regard, we need to hold such events as the World Cup, because the number of children playing football will increase dramatically. Among other things, this infrastructure will be built not just in Sochi, but in more than 10 other Russian cities paired with the development of transport infrastructure, the healthcare system, etc., as was in Sochi. It's just another way of investing in Russia, and this money will be well spent.

KSENIA SOBCHAK, DOZHD TV CHANNEL: I have two questions for you, if you will.

First, while everyone is concerned about the developments in Ukraine, there are events unfolding in the Chechen Republic that concern us. Namely, Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov has de facto announced that Russian laws and the Russian Constitution do not apply in the Chechen Republic. He has publicly stated that there would be certain reprisals regarding relatives of people accused of terrorism who have not yet been convicted in court. In this regard, I would like to get an answer from you: as a lawyer and the guarantor of the Constitution, will you protect the citizens who have been left vulnerable, in fact, to pre-trial reprisals? Their homes have been burned, and the only human rights organisation in Chechnya was subjected to searches and even set on fire. What do you plan to do about this?

VLADIMIR PUTIN (to Dmitry Peskov): Why did you give her the floor?

DMITRY PESKOV: I'm sorry about that.

KSENIA SOBCHAK: May I ask my second question now?

DMITRY PESKOV: Ms Sobchak, let's show some respect for others and have one person ask one question.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Ok, since you have the floor, go ahead and ask your second question. What is it about?

KSENIA SOBCHAK: I would like to clarify for myself and our audience this fine line between the fifth column and the opposition. Things are now clear with Lermontov, but it would be nice to sort things out with the present. Mr Putin, once you publicly stated that there was a bullying campaign against my father at some point in time. I think today, the term “bullying” has come back into our lives.

I'm referring not only to the harassment of Makarevich, the allegations about invented friends of the junta (I know these people and I'm sure that many of them are true patriots of their country), or all the epithets like “yid Banderites” heard on federal channels. I get the sense that federal channels are deliberately fanning hatred in Russian society. Take for instance the episode about a crucified boy from Slavyansk that was shown on the first federal channel where the state has a controlling stake. This episode was considered... It was proved to be false, but nobody apologised for it. Aren't you afraid of such hatred in our society where some people are so strongly pitted against others? And what are you going to do to reduce this hatred? Do you think that people are still being divided into allies of yours and Bandar-logs?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Bandar-logs exist, of course. Kipling said this, not me. As for the main topic, let's start with the first question.

I'm referring to what Kadyrov said about the relatives of terrorists, their homes, expelling them from the republic and so on. Naturally, I can have only one view on this: in Russia everyone must obey the existing laws and nobody is considered guilty until this is proved by court. This is the first point.

Second, I've already said that life is complicated. I'll tell you something from the practical experience of counterterrorism units. Generally – I won't say always – the relatives of people who commit acts of terror know about them in the overwhelming majority of cases, if not more. But this does not give anyone the right, including the head of Chechnya, to resort to extrajudicial reprisals. I absolutely agree with you on this.

Moreover, the relevant law-enforcement agencies are now conducting a preliminary investigation into this. It is necessary to find out who burnt down houses and killed them (relatives of the terrorists) because they were wearing masks.

As for Kadyrov's statement, it could have been simply emotional, and then someone seized on it. I understand the emotions because 14 police officers were killed in this act of terror. It all started with the murder of traffic policemen. It wasn't in a firefight. These people were savagely shot point-blank and many died later on. All in all, 14 were killed and 38 wounded, some of them seriously.

As you know, thousands took to the streets to demonstrate. Under the circumstances, the head of the republic made some emotional statements.

I'm sure that these remarks fully lived up to people's expectations. But he had no right to say that. And it would be absolutely correct to verify the facts. To repeat, apart from public remarks and the subsequent actions, including actions to destroy these residential buildings, a probe should be conducted to establish what really happened. Maybe someone took advantage of that and did it. Maybe not. And then the law enforcement agencies will need to respond appropriately. At the same time (and you know this very well), unfortunately or fortunately, such methods are used in international antiterrorist practice. They are most actively used in Israel. But this is not all. This is not about Israel. We saw that after 11 September, torture was legalised in the United States. How can that be explained? Furthermore, it was not only legalised, but a methodology for using torture was developed! So life is complicated and diverse, but we must follow the law. I agree with you there. If we go outside the law, it will only lead to chaos. We'll investigate the facts and respond appropriately.

Now regarding what you described as persecution campaigns. I just know – I learned about that when I came to Moscow. Even before that, I had suspicions that persecution was organised against your father. However, when I came to Moscow, I found direct evidence of it. Even then it seemed strange to me that after Anatoly Sobchak acquired a dismal 100 square metre flat, two criminal cases were opened against him within a week: They don't open [criminal cases] for months, but now two were opened within a week. Then, during an election campaign, the fact that criminal cases were initiated was included in leaflets that were dropped over Leningrad from airplanes. Of course, it was a clearly orchestrated campaign, and it was organised by certain government officials in the struggle against him. I would like to assure you that there has been no organised persecution of people who disagree with our actions, say, in Ukraine or in Crimea or on some other domestic political issues. None of the official power bodies, no official government representatives are doing this. If there is some reaction from the public, from the people who disagree with this position, the people who have encountered this today should understand that they cannot monopolise the right to make sweeping accusations, that there are people who disagree with their position and that they will also face accusations. It's important to learn to react to this properly. It is unnecessary to make such a hue and cry, shouting from the rooftops: Help, I'm being harassed! Reaction should also come from the public domain.

As for the government bodies, let me reiterate that there were no and won't be any attempts, instructions or efforts to stigmatise anyone. Unlike Russia, this is not the path chosen by, say, our European partners. For example, Gazmanov, Valeria and Iossif Kobzon were banned by Latvia's Foreign Ministry from entering the Latvian Republic. This is an example of an official position of a government body. The Russian authorities never have adopted or will adopt such a stance.

ALEXEI ANISHCHYUK, REUTERS NEWS AGENCY: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. In the last year Russia has been engulfed in what could be called one of the gravest crises in its contemporary history. It all started at the end of 2013 with the developments in Ukraine, followed by a deterioration in relations with the West, reminiscent of the “cold war”, and in recent days we have been witnessing an acute currency exchange crisis, which could grow into a financial and economic crisis. The risks are there. I know all too well that you often tend to blame some external forces for everything. I also know that some in the Russian elite, from your inner circle, who are the most well-informed people in Russia, despite all their public statements, tend to lay the blame for some things on you as the person who has been in charge of taking all the key decision in Russia for the last 15 years...

VLADIMIR PUTIN: What are the names?

ALEXEI ANISHCHYUK: Unfortunately, I can't tell you. They usually talk on condition of anonymity. But lately such statements could be heard in their conversations with reporters.

My question in this respect is the following: To what extent are you confident that your inner circle unconditionally supports you? Do you see any risk of a government coup or even a palace coup? You have stated on a number of occasions what you would do in case of an “orange revolution” or, God forbid, a “red revolution.” But do you have a plan in the event of treachery in your inner circle or a palace coup?

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding a palace coup, I can assure you that we don't have “palaces,” so a palace coup isn't really possible. The official presidential residence is in the Kremlin, it is well protected, which is an important factor for the stability of state institutions in Russia.

But this is not what stability is all about. It's actually based on... There is no other stability as solid as the support of the Russian people. I don't think you have any doubts as to whether our key foreign and domestic policy initiatives benefit from such support.

Why is this happening? Because people feel deep down inside that we, and I in particular, are acting in the interests of the overwhelming majority of Russians.

As for the question of who is to blame and who is not for the developments in Ukraine that kicked off the series of cataclysms we are currently witnessing, you know very well what I think. I have on many occasions said that a coup was committed and that it was a big mistake. Eastern Europe, our neighbours, including Ukraine, is not a banana republic, not even North Africa or Somalia, where you can stage a coup using some special tools, militants, or people who are unhappy with government policies. You are saying that I'm accusing someone. No, I'm not accusing anyone, I'm just stating a fact.

Without going into details, I will say a few words about our discussions on this account with our partners. You may be aware of the agreement between the opposition and the Ukrainian government of 21 February. The agreement was signed by the three foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France as guarantors of the agreement. Do you follow me? We had talks with the leaders of the United States, who kept telling us, “Yanukovych should not use force no matter what.” He didn't and what he got was a coup. We are now being told, “What could we do? The situation got out of control, which is called an excessive act in criminal law.” I beg to differ. If that's an excessive act, then what were you supposed to say, even if you weren't able to stop these radicals who broke into the presidential administration and took over the Government building? You should have told them as follows, “We do want to see you in Europe, we do want you to sign and ratify the association agreement, you are indeed part of the European family, but if you act this way, you will never be part of Europe, and we will never support you. Go back to the agreement of 21 February, form a national unity government and start working together.”

I'm sure that if that was their position, there would be no civil war in Ukraine with its many casualties. Our colleagues have adopted a different stance. From giving out cookies during the Maidan protests, they moved on to political and economic promises. By the way, the Ukrainian people need the money, but no one is going to do this on their own, only through international financial institutions. Therefore, I believe that our position was completely justified and objective from day one.

Now about the elites. You know, there is elite wine, there are elite resorts. There are no elite people. You know what the Russian elite is? It's a worker. A farmer. Someone who carries our entire country on his shoulders. Has been carrying it for centuries, and will carry it for centuries to come. All other levels, including elites and others, are absolutely groundless. There are rich people and poor people, sick people and healthy people. But they are all equal before the country and before the law. There are rich patriots. You may wonder if that's possible. Maybe, some are unhappy. Of course, what would they be happy about? They are disgruntled. But the question is, how they are going to get out of this situation. Always being dependent on someone, always being on the hook?

One of our companies with offshore incorporation on some islands has made a decision on the dividends. It's a legitimate company operating in an offshore zone, a large company. A decision was made. Do you know what happened next? As there were some people covered by sanctions there, the local directors declined and said they could not transfer money for dividend payments to them, and that they had to hold consultations. “Who are you going to consult? You must pay, it's the law.” They said this was true, but that they would not honour the law. They were told, “That's an outrage, we're going to take you to court.” And do you know what they did? I'll tell you: They resigned. This is nothing but a circus act. They resigned, and the money cannot be transferred without their signatures. Moreover, it's impossible to appoint anyone to these positions because an order was issued not to fill these vacancies. So, the money is hanging in midair.

If you are speaking about representatives of the Russian business community, do they want to live this way? Most of them don't. Only a powerful Russian state can become the main protector of Russian citizens' interests, regardless of what they are doing, business included.

MIKHAIL BAZHENOV, BUSINESS FM: Good afternoon. Mr President, in your annual Address to the Federal Assembly, you said that there were plans for an amnesty of capital. A week has already passed, but we have heard no other details. I would like to ask about some details. When will the amnesty start, how long will it last, and how much do you plan to repatriate? And here is probably the most important thing: How do you envision the mechanism of this amnesty? Will all capital be repatriated, including illegal capital, or not? Or, perhaps, some screening procedure will be introduced? And how would businesses respond to the screening concept? Will they believe that it would be possible to pass this procedure and to continue calmly doing business in Russia? In the long run, what guarantees will they receive that they will not have to answer any questions from law enforcement and tax agencies, etc., after registering their businesses in Russia? Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I see. First, how much do we plan to return? We do not set any capital repatriation targets at all. The repatriation of capital is not the main issue. This is not a fiscal measure. This is about legalisation. If a company wants to keep its money and assets abroad, it is free to do so. This issue implies legalisation, so that they come and register here. This is the most important thing. I want to make this clear.

Second, I will personally see to it that there are no violations regarding mechanisms and guarantees. And I want to warn all my colleagues, including those from law enforcement agencies, that we will take extremely tough action against those violating the principle that I just mentioned.

As for screening, I believe that there should be no screening procedures. Everyone wishing to come here, register and become legalised here should have this right. I have noted many times that a presumption of innocence exists with regard to criminal cases, and everything is considered legal unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about mechanisms. These mechanisms have not been worked out so far, and we need to think about this. The Government is working on this now. I believe that we need to legalise not only offshore property, but also property that has been registered, reregistered or hidden at front companies, by relatives, or in some other way in Russia. Everyone should declare their property once and for all, turn the page and proceed.

YEVSTOLIYA TARANDA, ARCTIC TV NETWORK: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. I represent Yamal Region, and the Yamal Region proper. Many people are sending their regards and words of support to you. Hang in there on the external contour. I have a question about my region. People are worried that the governors of Yamal and Yugra [the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area] will no longer be elected. Are there enlargement plans, and will these regions – Yamal, Yugra and the Tyumen Region – be merged? You have been to our region more than once, and you know about our conditions and specifics, and that we don't want this to happen. What do you think on this issue? Will there be a single huge federal entity from Kazakhstan to the Arctic?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let's talk about federal entities – please, sit down – their merger and all other related issues. There is a federal law, according to which regions can be merged only based on the free expression of will of the people who live there. This is done differently in different regions: It can be done through a referendum or by decision of the given region's legislative assembly. No decision should be forced on people from above; doing so is counterproductive. At the same time, as everyone here knows, our productive forces are distributed around the country extremely unevenly. As a result, one region's revenue may differ from that of another region by 26 times or even more, if my memory serves me. And people's living standards, including healthcare, education and the like, also differ radically, which is bad, overall.

However, I'd like to say again that this is a highly delicate matter, especially when it concerns ethnic republics, and we must never force any unification plans on people. Only people themselves can make the correct decision based on their life experience and their understanding of developments in the economy and social sphere.

Of course, there could be some pro-unification political forces, but then there are also anti-unification forces... This should proceed as openly as possible and with the public involved to the greatest extent. Decisions must not be forced from above.

JOHN SIMPSON, BBC: Western countries almost universally now believe that there's a new Cold War and that you, frankly, have decided to create that. We see, almost daily, Russian aircraft taking sometimes quite dangerous manoeuvres towards western airspace. That must be done on your orders; you're the Commander-in-Chief. It must have been your orders that sent Russian troops into the territory of a sovereign country – Crimea first, and then whatever it is that's going on in Eastern Ukraine. Now you've got a big problem with the currency of Russia, and you're going to need help and support and understanding from outside countries, particularly from the West. So can I say to you, can I ask you now, would you care to take this opportunity to say to people from the West that you have no desire to carry on with the new Cold War, and that you will do whatever you can to sort out the problems in Ukraine? Thank you!

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much for your question. About our exercises, manoeuvres and the development of our armed forces. You said that Russia, to a certain extent, contributed to the tension that we are now seeing in the world. Russia did contribute but only insofar as it is more and more firmly protecting its national interests. We are not attacking in the political sense of the word. We are not attacking anyone. We are only protecting our interests. Our Western partners – and especially our US partners – are displeased with us for doing exactly that, not because we are allowing security-related activity that provokes tension.

Let me explain. You are talking about our aircraft, including strategic aviation operations. Do you know that in the early 1990s, Russia completely stopped strategic aviation flights in remote surveillance areas as the Soviet Union previously did? We completely stopped, while flights of US strategic aircraft carrying nuclear weapons continued. Why? Against whom? Who was threatened?

So we didn't make flights for many years and only a couple of years ago we resumed them. So are we really the ones doing the provoking?

So, in fact, we only have two bases outside Russia, and both are in areas where terrorist activity is high. One is in Kyrgyzstan, and was deployed there upon request of the Kyrgyz authorities, President Akayev, after it was raided by Afghan militants. The other is in Tajikistan, which also borders on Afghanistan. I would guess you are interested in peace and stability there too. Our presence is justified and clearly understandable.

Now, US bases are scattered around the globe – and you're telling me Russia is behaving aggressively? Do you have any common sense at all? What are US armed forces doing in Europe, also with tactical nuclear weapons? What are they doing there?

Listen, Russia has increased its military spending for 2015, if I am not mistaken, it is around 50 billion in dollar equivalent. The Pentagon's budget is ten times that amount, $575 billion, I think, recently approved by the Congress. And you're telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy? Is there any common sense in this?

Are we moving our forces to the borders of the United States or other countries? Who is moving NATO bases and other military infrastructure towards us? We aren't. Is anyone listening to us? Is anyone engaging in some dialogue with us about it? No. No dialogue at all. All we hear is “that's none of your business. Every country has the right to choose its way to ensure its own security.” All right, but we have the right to do so too. Why can't we?

Finally, the ABM system – something I mentioned in my Address to the Federal Assembly. Who was it that withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Treaty, one of the cornerstones of the global security system? Was it Russia? No, it wasn't. The United States did this, unilaterally. They are creating threats for us, they are deploying their strategic missile defence components not just in Alaska, but in Europe as well – in Romania and Poland, very close to us. And you're telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy?

If the question is whether we want law-based relations, the answer is yes, but only if our national economic and security interests are absolutely respected.

We negotiated WTO accession for 19 years or so, and consented to compromise on many issues, assuming that we are concluding cast-iron agreements. And then... I will not discuss who's right and who's wrong (I already said on many occasions that I believe Russia behaved the right way in the Ukrainian crisis, and the West was wrong, but let us put this aside for now). Still, we joined the WTO. That organisation has rules. And yet, sanctions were imposed on Russia in violation of the WTO rules, the international law and the UN Charter – again unilaterally and illegitimately. Are we in the wrong again?

We want to develop normal relations in the security sphere, in fighting terrorism. We will work together on nuclear non-proliferation. We will work together on other threats, including drugs, organised crime and grave infections, such as Ebola. We will do all this jointly, and we will cooperate in the economic sphere, if our partners want this.

SAIDA ZHARKINOVA, MIR TV COMPANY, KAZAKHSTAN: Good afternoon, Mr President. Saida Zharkinova from Kazakhstan. Naturally, my question concerns integration issues. Starting from January 1, 2015, the Eurasian Economic Union will become fully effective, and the three countries – Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia – will be joined by Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Is there a cause for concern with the current crises in our economies? Do you think this common market could turn into a common crisis?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, Kazakhstan, as well as the Russian Federation, is a gas and oil producing country, so regardless of the integration under the Eurasian Economic Union, one way or another Kazakhstan – as well as Russia – is facing an unfavourable scenario on foreign markets. Will we be able to handle this situation? I have already said that we will inevitably emerge from this situation with positive results, due to global economic growth and demands for energy resources, which we have now and will have in future, and due to the fact that our economies, one way or another, will adapt to the low prices for energy resources.

But what is at the core of the proposal made by President Nazarbayev a while ago, which we are successfully implementing, regarding integration? It would be easier to do this together, providing free space for transition of goods, workforce and capital. Of course, this is easier through joint efforts. Moreover, during the existence of the Customs Union, our trade turnover grew by 50 percent in recent years. This is a serious objective indicator, and we will rely on the positive achievements related to integration.

There is a woman from the newspaper Krestyanskaya Zhizn raising her hand... We cannot do without farmers, considering this year's grain harvest of 104 million tons. Let's congratulate our farmers once more on this achievement and thank them.

SVETLANA SAMSONOVA, KRESTYANSKAYA ZHIZN NEWSPAPER, VOLGOGRAD: Good afternoon. My question is about agricultural development, which is impossible without resolving human resources issues. Let me give you an example: we have a farmer in the Volgograd Region, Mikhail Rostov. A man who worked for him, a turner, has retired, and he hasn't been able to find a replacement for a long time. Mr Rotov offered an adequate salary, by agricultural standards, as well as accommodation and meals, but no one is interested. This is a problem other farmers face as well, especially in vegetable growing: no one is willing to work hard, and farmers fear that very few people will be working in the fields, for instance, next year. Farmers believe that this workforce issue is a threat to national food security. Do you agree? What can be done about this? How can the personnel problem be solved in the agricultural sector?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Needless to say, I share the concern of agricultural producers over the difficulties of working under the current conditions, but on the other hand I cannot but share the optimism of those who believe that the clearing of the domestic market for our producers is creating many serious opportunities for developing the agriculture industry.

As for the personnel, we should think about this in advance, of course. The state is thinking about it. I'm referring to the training of middle- and high-skilled workers. We should use all of these training opportunities. We have wonderful, simply wonderful universities and vocational schools that train agrarians. Our Agricultural Academy has become part of the big Academy and I'm hoping that it will produce a positive synergetic effect for this important branch of the Russian economy. Apart from everything else (we talked with the Prime Minister about this yesterday), the Government has decided to add about 20 billion rubles to the agriculture industry. So next year, support to agriculture will be about 200 billion rubles and I hope the agrarians will feel it.

It goes without saying that it is very important for us to make sure that the funds received from the sale of a record (104 million tonnes) harvest reach the agricultural producers and by no means land in the hands of some middling go-betweens.

As for the personnel... Well, we must hire them in time. Food prices are objectively and sometimes without a reason, still increasing, which is not very good for consumers, but this is an opportunity for agricultural producers. I hope that everyone will take advantage of it.

ALYONA YEVTYAKOVA, GUBERNIYA TV CHANNEL, VORONEZH REGION: Mr President, tell me please... In my region – it is now in the top ten in terms of commissioning new housing – the percent of purchases with mortgages has increased to 60 percent. Considering the current economic situation, what will happen to mortgages, loans and the Young Family programme?

If I may, I'd like to ask you another question – people won't forgive me if I don't ask it – and I probably shouldn't go back to my city... Tell me, please... When I was getting ready for the trip I asked my acquaintances: what question would you ask Mr Putin? And all of my aunt's friends said in unison: he is Russia's number one bridegroom! Yes, that's it. A bachelor's life for more than a year. Does Mr Putin have the time for a private life? If possible, please start from the first reply. Thank you very much.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Please pass on my heart-felt greetings to the friends of your aunt. Thank them for such attention.

As for mortgages, this is a serious issue. This is indeed a very serious issue. Now that the Central Bank's key interest rate is 17 percent, it is difficult to offer mortgages, if it's possible at all.

I must say that in the past few years the use of mortgages has grown at higher rates than we expected. I'm afraid to make a mistake in absolute figures but they were higher than expected. As for the interest rate... It has changed – at first 9.5 percent, then 10 percent, but people were still taking out loans.

To be continued.

First published on RT (14/10/14).
See also: Complaint re ABC handling of Tony Abbott's insults and unsubstantiated allegations against Putin (14/10/14) by David Macilwain.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whose threat to 'shirt­-front' The Russian President over his baseless allegations that he was complicit in the MH17 tragedy was labeled 'immature' by Ambassador Odoevsky

A Russian diplomat in Australia called the remark of Australian PM Tony Abbott about his intention to "shirtfront" Vladimir Putin "immature." He reminded the Aussie politician that he might be "very fit" but Putin is "a professional judo wrestler." Abbott's scandalous remark came on Monday after he told journalists that he is going to "shirtfront" the Russian president on the sidelines of G20 summit over the tragedy of the Malaysian airliner crash in the Donetsk Region of Ukraine in July. "I am going to shirtfront Mr Putin – you bet I am – I am going to be saying to Mr Putin Australians were murdered, they were murdered by Russian backed rebels," Abbott said. Shirtfront is a football technique for a front-on chest bump or rough handling aimed at knocking your rival backward to the ground. Its "a reportable offence and considered illegal," says the Australian Football Rules website. The Russian Embassy in Australia, however, didn't let Abbott's remark go unnoticed. Third secretary of the Russian Embassy in Canberra, Aleksandr Odoevsky, told the Australian Associated Press that the remarks of the Australian PM were "immature."

Russian President Vladimir Putin.(RIA Novosti)

"We consider the recent statements tough talk and immature," Odoevsky said.

"Hopefully there's no fight. Well, definitely we admire the Australian prime minister. He's very fit, but the Russian president... he's a professional judo wrestler," Odoevsky told Ten Network television.

Abbott toned down his language a day later as he failed to answer journalists questions about shirtfronting Putin and whether he regretted his statement. He said he is "absolutely determined to have a very robust conversation with the Russian president."

"We've all seen the impact of Russian policy on the innocent people on board Flight MH17. I think the very least I can do, speaking for Australia's dead and speaking for the families of Australia's dead and indeed speaking for the world's victims is to have a very robust conversation with President Putin," he added.

But Odoevsky said that the Russian President is only planning to attend multilateral meetings, not separate ones.

"There has not been a request for bilateral meetings between Russian and Australian leaders, so we are not exactly sure where and when Prime Minister Abbott would like to shirtfront President Putin," he said.

Abbott still hopes to meet the Russian president during the G20 summit.

"But I certainly expect that while he's a guest of Australia, he will undertake to have a conversation with the Australian prime minister," Abbott said.

Jacqui Lambie, a senator from Australias Palmer United Party, said that Abbott and Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten should "stop acting like hormone-affected school boys trying to out macho each other on the footie field – and start acting like mature leaders of a great country."

Earlier, Shorten had said that Putin should "show enough conscience" not to come to Australia.

Comic Jazz Twemlow criticized the remarks of the Australian PM, saying that "someone should tell Tony Abbott that gaffes arent like baby turtles."

"What was the reckless, childish taunt? To the sound of foreheads being slapped everywhere, on Monday the prime minister threatened to 'shirtfront' Vladimir Putin, leading to the inevitable mass purge of jokes that turned your timelines into a scrolling tapestry of male chests," he wrote in the Guardian article.

He said of Tony Abbott that "perhaps he's trying to impress the public.""In which case, if this is the image of the Australian public Abbott has, shame on us. How much more machismo does he think we can mentally ingest?" he asked.

The G-20 summit in scheduled to be held in Brisbane, Australia on 15 and 16 November 2014.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down on its way from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur over eastern Ukraine on July 17, with 298 passengers on board.

A preliminary report into the disaster delivered by Dutch investigators on September 9 said that the MH17 crash was a result of structural damage caused by a large number of high-energy objects striking the Boeing from the outside.

Earlier a number of Western countries blamed Russia for the tragedy. Moscow, however, denies such allegations, saying there is a lack of new evidence presented in the report.

UPDATE 24 Nov: We have just published an apology from the ABC regarding this complaint, here: http://candobetter.net/node/4197 where they have apologised for their misinformation.David Macilwain again complains to the ABC about their uncritical recycling of propaganda about the MH17 aircraft downing. He also expresses his disgust at the posturings of Tony Abbott with regard to the G20 and Vladimir Putin, based on this propaganda.

Dear 7.30 and ABC current affairs presenters,

I have sent the email below to ABC complaints, and copy it here for your information:

I am seriously disturbed by the handling of Tony Abbott's outrageous insults and allegations against Vladimir Putin today, by 7.30 reporter/presenters.

According to the transcript, Leigh Sales said:

...'since the shooting down of Malaysian flight MH17 over Ukraine by pro-Russian militia'....

Subsequently Sabra Lane repeated this in her own words:

...'after Malaysian flight MH17 was shot down by Russian-backed rebels over Ukraine'...

This allegation, presented as unchallenged fact by both presenters, is not merely only an allegation, but one which is entirely false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile, even one somehow fired mistakenly by separatists. At the same time there is ample evidence from multiple sources that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter plane, with or without Western collusion.

Compounding Abbott's mendacity, and sheer idiot bravado in seeking to confront Putin, is the fact that all government leaders and intelligence agencies involved in the Ukraine conflict are aware of the truth - it is simply not possible that they could not be.

If the ABC is capable of asking itself a question and not taking the answer from other Western media sources or 'Coalition' governments, it should ask why we have not seen the US satellite data from Eastern Ukraine, that Russia has been demanding since July? We know it exists, and it would demonstrate conclusively the nature of the projectile that brought down MH17. What possible motive could the US have for not releasing it?

It is to be hoped that before Putin graces Australia with his presence, someone with more sense than our punch-drunk PM will have a little word in Abbott’s ear; the truth about the atrocity in Ukraine WILL come out, and he will need to be thinking about all the lies that he has told about our actions in Ukraine before they catch up with him.
The ABC would be as well to do the same.

(To shed some light on what actually happened on July 17th, a most comprehensive investigation and report was produced by a group of Russian engineers recently, covering both the technical details of all possible munitions responsible, and the wider implications and political context. Their conclusion is one now accepted by most impartial observers, and merely awaits confirmation pending release of US satellite data and information from the Kiev control tower seized by Ukrainian secret service on July 17th.)

While the possible involvement of Western agencies in downing MH17 is an atrocity of unbelievable proportion, the clear ‘innocence’ of separatist forces in this crime is what concerns us here - our behaviour and sanctions policy towards Russia being based on a presumption of their guilt.

http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MH17_Report_Russian_Union_of_Engineers_EN_Oceania_Saker.docx

Please download the 28 page report from this site.

with regards, David Macilwain,

This letter, written to Mr Bill Shorten, leader of Australia's opposition, criticises the basis of his position on MH17 and the attitude he has officially expressed towards President Putin of Russia's attendance at the G20 summit. The letter cites scientific analysis that casts huge doubt on the involvement of a missile. It points out that there has been no official report on the results of any investigation of MH17's fate, notably nothing to implicate Russia. Unofficial copies of documents (samizdat)[1] are thought to indicate that the countries participating in the MH17 investigation have signed a secret non-disclosure agreement where any participant (including the very suspect Kiev) has the right to veto publication of the results without explanation. The truth about the cause of the horrifying fate of the 298 appears to have been subsumed by propaganda to which Australia's Prime Minister and opposition leader both shamefully bow. The letter suggests that Australia should not subscribe to baseless attacks on Putin in order to help the US's bid maintain position in a unipolar world. The BRICs countries and Indonesia and Argentina - arguably our natural allies - are unlikely to be impressed by such dishonesty and it serves no good cause.

14 October 2014

Dear Mr Shorten,

I write to you out of concern for your stand on the visit by President Putin to Australia for the G20 meeting in Brisbane.

On the ABC yesterday, it was presented as a fact that Malaysian Airline flight 17 was shot down over Ukraine by pro-Russian militia.

Since the plane was shot down, there have been many claims about who was responsible, but no official investigation has attributed blame.

For example, ABC news reports have referred to surface-to-air missiles shooting down the plane despite this supposed 'fact' not being established by any official investigation. There is no suggestion in the report by the Dutch Safety Board that a missile shot down MH17. It draws no conclusion regarding what weapon was used, but it does highlight the following (p.25):

The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside.

Michael Bociurkiw, a Canadian in the first team of OSCE monitors sent to investigate the wreckage and the site, said in a CBC news video interview that damage to the cockpit 'looks like machine gun fire', not a missile.

The official report (p.25) states that "Puncture holes ..suggested that small objects entered from above cockpit floor". This would not be inconsistent with conclusions drawn by a Russian Union of Engineers report which contends that MH17 was attacked by a fighter jet.

An unidentified combat aircraft (presumably a Su-25 or MiG -29), which was a tier below, on a collision course, in the cloud layer, sharply gained altitude and suddenly appeared out of the clouds in front of the civilian aircraft and opened fire on the cockpit, firing from a 30 mm caliber cannon or smaller. The pilot of a fighter jet can do this while in "free hunting" mode (using onboard radar) or with the help of navigational guidance using airspace situation data from ground-based radar.

As a result of multiple hits from shells there was damage to the cockpit, which suddenly depressurized, resulting in instant death for the crew due to mechanical influences and decompression. The attack was sudden and lasted a fraction of a second; in such circumstances the crew could not sound any alarm as the flight had been proceeding in regular mode and no attack was expected.

In an article in New Straits Times Online, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, a Malaysian scholar and the president of the International Movement for a Just World, poses the question in regards to the downing of MH17, "Who stands to gain from the incident?"
Dr Chandra writes,

The public should be wary of fabricated "evidence" .... after what we have witnessed in the last so many years. Have we forgotten the monstrous lies and massive distortions that accompanied the reckless allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which led eventually to the invasion of that country in 2003 and the death of more than a million people? Iraq continues to bleed to this day. What about the Gulf of Tonkin episode of 1964 which again was a fabrication that paved the way for wanton United States aggression against Vietnam that resulted in the death of more than three million Vietnamese?

Professor Karel van Wolferen from the University of Amsterdam refers to the shooting down of MH17 in an article titled,"The Insidious Power of Propaganda" .

The story of the downed plane with 298 dead people is no longer news, and the investigation as to who shot it down? Don't hold your breath. Last week Dutch viewers of a TV news program were informed about something that had been doing the rounds on internet samizdat: the countries participating in the MH17 investigation have signed a non¬disclosure agreement. Any of the participants (which include Kiev) has the right to veto publication of the results without explanation. The truth about the cause of the horrifying fate of the 298 appears to have been already settled by propaganda. That means that although there has been no shred of evidence that the official story of the 'rebels' shooting down the plane with Russian involvement, it remains a justification for sanctions against Russia.

Mr Shorten, on ABC 7.30 last night, you declared

The Government is between a rock and a hard place. It's an international conference, not a conference run by Australia, so if Putin has the arrogance to turn up, to visit a nation whose nationals died in this plane crash, he can, but I'm like most Australians; I wish that Putin would at least show enough conscience to be able to not come to Australia because he's rubbing our faces in it.

The G20 is an 'international conference' as you state. However, it should be noted all the BRICS countries will be represented at it, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Argentina and Indonesia will also attend; they are countries which perhaps are more naturally aligned with BRICS than the 'international community' led by the United States. (In fact, President Cristina Kirchner from Argentina was a special guest at the 6th BRICS summit this year.) No doubt, the leaders of these countries will be paying close attention to the stand Australian political leaders take on President Putin's visit and the welcome he receives in Brisbane.

We are entering a period in history when there are strong pushes from particular countries to establish a unipolar world so the United States can remain the dominant economic and military power. If it is necessary to fabricate, lie, wage wars, and to take belligerent stands against the leaders and peoples of particular countries simply to maintain the predominance of the United States, then a unipolar world cannot surely be in the long-term interests of Australia or other countries. Supporting unconscionable actions deemed necessary to ensure this century belongs to America will not only compromise our values and beliefs but will risk our becoming isolated from important partners, not to mention the risks of a major world conflict.

To survive the 21st century, the world needs a stable multipolar world. As the host of the G20, Australia has the opportunity to have a voice on the world stage and display a leadership which will be highly regarded and hold us in good stead in coming years if it reflects a deep and courageous integrity as well as a vision for the people of the world as a whole.

Kind regards,

Susan Dirgham

NOTES

These notes were added by candobetter.net's editor.

Samizdat (Russian: ?????????; IPA: [s?m?z?dat]) was a key form of dissident activity across the Soviet bloc in which individuals reproduced censored publications by hand and passed the documents from reader to reader.

World and European overpopulation as viewed by a warm, humane, generous, down-to-earth and witty Irish senator in a surprising response to an interview about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights (LGBT rights). I am a great fan of the interviewer, Oksana Boyco, but in this episode her interviewee outshines her in my opinion, making for a most unusual program. David Norris, who speaks Irish and Hebrew, and has lived in Israel, is also famous for a recent parliamentary speech on Israel and Gaza, which I have embedded at the end of this article.

Heteronormative Russia

In this interview rt's Oksana Boyko, interviews Irish Senator, David Norris, on whether it is defensible for Russia and some other countries to 'delay' the introduction of gay marriage and public acknowledgement of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Oksana says the world has been rather harsh on Russia over its 'slowness' to adopt western recognition of homosexual rights at institutional level. Cannot the world try to understand that Russia needs to go through some legislative 'back and forth'; some 'legislative transition' on these issues, asks Oksana. Homosexuality is not criminalised in Russia, but 'homonormative advocacy' is illegal.

Different views on population decline

Oksana actually suggests to David Norris that there is a concern that the fact that homosexuals have many fewer children than heterosexuals means that homosexual marriage rights could affect the birth rate and increase the threat of population decline. This is one of the reasons that she questions the advisability of 'homonormative advocacy'.

Norris's answer is an utter breath of fresh air. He says that, in his life, world population has tripled and what a good thing it would be if the birth rate were to decline. He notes that Europe's population uses an unsustainable amount of materials and energy, which would be reduced if the population were to reduce.

Contraception and not wanting to live in misery is the main reason the birth rate has dropped in Europe. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it, says Norris.

Ancient Greeks and parliaments today

In response to Oksana's suggestion that open homosexuality is a relatively new concept for Russia, Norris comes back at her with how homosexuality was present in 67% of 'primitive' societies according to Margaret Meade and was central to Ancient Greek civilisation and how so many giants among the Ancient Greeks were homosexual and celebrated their homosexuality, which was the dominant paradigm in Ancient Greece. (Indeed, the evidence in the Greek classics of the truth of this seems incontravertible.)

When Oksana puts it to David Norris that his views on homosexuality and the ancient Greeks may have cost him the Irish parliamentary presidency some years ago he says that he was the victim of a defamatory campaign by the mainstream press, whom he has successfully sued on this matter.

The program finishes with Norris having a dig at Vladimir Putin's bare-chested horse-riding (reference to a famous photo). Oksana mentions drolly that bare-chested horse-riding is something that Russian men like to do, and not an erotic specialty of Putin's.

Throughout I wondered if Oksana was playing devil's advocate, since she seems to enjoy the whole interview, and both she and David Norris remain in good humour.

David Norris's famous recent speech on Israel in Irish Parliament on 5 August 2014 follows here:

You can read more on David Norris on wikipedia, among many other sources, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Norris_%28politician%29#Education_and_academic_career

It seems that he typically tells the truth where others do not dare to. For instance, he has said, of drug legalisation,
"The blunt instrument of criminalisation is not working because of the vast profits it generates for organised crime ... my view is that the welfare of the community, including the victims of drug abuse, may be better served by having access to quality controlled, legally prescribed drugs." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Norris_%28politician%29#Education_and_academic_career It is indeed unusual for an elected politician to acknowledge that illegal drug profits are so important that they will always undermine criminal laws against them.

By Anatoly Kucherena (8 Oct 2014). Republished from Global Research

Anatoly Kucherena is a Russian lawyer and professor who has counselled Edward Snowden, the US computer professional who leaked classified information and sought asylum in Russia.

Increasingly, I am receiving requests for legal support from Russian and Western individuals and businesses who are suffering from the economic sanctions imposed by the West on Russia, and from Russia’s counter-measures. The legality of these sanctions is dubious at best. They flagrantly violate the free trade principles enshrined in the World Trade Organisation treaty and a host of other agreements. But putting legal arguments aside, politicians on all sides would do well to study the human cost of sanctions, and genuinely consider alternatives to this self-defeating form of economic warfare.

Economic sanctions rarely achieve anything, even in geopolitical terms. They merely fuel suspicion and hostility between states and peoples. Since the West first imposed sanctions this spring, Russia’s leadership has only further dug in its heels. It is telling that even President Obama and other leading American politicians have, on more than one occasion, admitted that sanctions have had no real impact on the Kremlin’s stance on Ukraine.

Yet the West pursues this strategy with palpable glee, goading an already angered Vladimir Putin.

The most recent round of Western sanctions defies any logic whatsoever, coinciding with the start of the ceasefire and the beginnings of a political settlement between the warring parties in Ukraine. In Russian eyes, this merely proves the West was never interested in peace. It also undermines those in Kiev arguing for political solutions.

Why does this madness continue?

The idea that Russians, feeling an ever-increasing amount of economic pain, would eventually take to the streets and force a change in the Kremlin’s policy is, of course, a laughable pipe dream. It fundamentally misreads the psychological impact of sanctions and the patriotic resolve they create. Never have Putin’s approval ratings reached greater stratospheric levels than today. Even his support among Russia’s middle classes and the highly educated is on the rise, surely not something Washington’s foreign policy hawks had hoped to achieve.

What galls me most, however, is that those who are paying the price for such myopia have no role in the conflict at all. As we Russians say, they are “guilty without guilt”. I find this very hard to stomach. Sanctions are beginning to bite. But it is ordinary businesses and citizens – both European and Russian – who are bleeding, not the Moscow decision-makers who the West claims to be targeting. Contracts are being cancelled, joint ventures shelved, investments cut. Yet which Greek farmer or German manufacturer ever asked or voted for sanctions?

The great irony is that sanctions are a boon for Russian domestic producers, punishing precisely those foreign companies who invested in Russia, having been helped and encouraged to do so by their own governments. Now they are being left to rot, and those same governments are to blame.

I know, of course, that politics is a fickle game, often without recourse to justice. I am not naive. But economic sanctions offend the most basic principles of justice and the rule of law. They target civilian populations to overpower an opponent in a geopolitical conflict. In economic warfare, this makes sanctions the moral equivalent of the London Blitz, the deliberate bombing of residential areas to force an enemy to his knees.

People facing ruin ask me what I can do for them. The only avenue for legal redress is to file suits in national, European or international courts against the governments who initiated the sanctions. But this would be expensive and is unlikely to lead to a quick and satisfactory solution. Even if the courts ruled favourably – and governments abided by the ruling – how likely is it they would also indemnify business losses?

The EU provides compensation to farmers now barred from selling produce to Russia. But while this may placate them for now, asking EU taxpayers to pay farmers for destroying produce that would otherwise be sold to Russians remains a hare-brained policy. It cannot but fail in the long term.

As Russia inevitably lines up a salvo of counter-measures, the West should wake up and stop playing tit-for-tat with sanctions. Not only do sanctions destroy jobs and businesses, they also ride roughshod over the basic rights of individuals and companies. They make a mockery of the age-old principle of no punishment without crime. But above all, the use of sanctions erodes the values of equality, fairness and due process that Ukrainians appear to be fighting (and dying) for.

15 Years of Putin rule in one infograph. 25 June 2014. (See enlarged version inside.)

"No wonder so many governments around the world are jealous of what he's accomplished - taking a failing Russia from Communism to a successful country - while these same envious European and American leaders put their own countries further into debt, by following the failed Socialist policies Russia learned from.

While Obama is wrapped up with the influx of illegals into America, a tanking economy, scandal after scandal, sticking his nose into Syria, Iraq and Ukraine, Putin scores another historic victory: Austria Signs South Stream Pipeline Deal In Defiance Of Europe.

Is it any wonder the Russian people give him an approval rating of 80%?"

Source: http://ozziesaffa.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/15-years-of-putin-rule-in-one-infograph.html

Candobetter.net Editor comment: This article does not take into account oil and gas reserves and the ability to realise them, nor does it analyse the dirigist quality of Russian government. It claims that the US and non-Russian Europe are failing because of socialist policies, but others would say they are failing because of the right-wing economic rationalism and disaster economics. Overall, however, it is obvious that Putin is a success who deserves world admiration but who is, instead, the object of NATO jealousy, covetousness and spite.

#F5A9A9;line-height:120%;">In a political situation that could just end up as World War Three, Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott has been barging about like a frightening drunk with his atrociously prejudiced and premature statements assuming Vladimir Putin and Russia’s guilt in the MH17 airline tragedy. Even more alarming that his pathetic bids to make world stage on the matter have been reported with such hokum gravitas by the Australian mass media.

#006633;">Appendix video: MH17 Crash: Ukrainian media stories about looting of toy and wedding ring proven FAKE!

The Australian mass media have jumped on the anti-Putin bandwagon like dogs attacking a [politically] chained bear on command, after showing almost no interest in the Odessa Massacre and other world-class atrocities carried out by the Ukraine regime they all back. Added to this, Bill Shorten’s remarks about uninviting Putin make him seem like some shadowy ape jealously mimicking Abbott’s hysterical antics on the world Punch and Judy stage. The remarks of the British Prime Minister have been similarly ill-judged and Hilary Strangelove-Clinton’s were sinister. “To put Putin on notice that he has gone too far and we are not going to stand idly by.” (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/mh17-hillary-clinton-says-russian-backed-rebels-likely-shot-down-plane) In fact, the anti-Russian side has still not produced evidence that Russia has been supplying any help to the separatists in Eastern Ukraine over the past few months and it has not produced evidence that Russia or the East Ukrainian rebels had anything to do with the shooting down of MH17.

We have been collecting a few headlines over the past few days and shaking our heads with dismay at the hopeless obedience to their masters and the political ignorance of Australian journalists. We wonder, are they all just syndicated real-estate ad writers in their day jobs?

Here are some examples of apparently uninformed and prejudicial reporting:

Australian Financial Review, 20-22 July 2014 (Weekend edition): Jamie Walker, “Furious Abbott demands Putin account for ‘unspeakable crime’.

So, no need for an investigation, apparently?

Weekend Australian, July 20-22, 2014. “A crime against humanity”. In this article, the author proceeds as if they have hard evidence against Russia, whereas there was none: ”The nation has been plunged into mourning over the deaths of 28 Australians in a missile attack by Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine on a packed Malaysia Airlines flight, an attack that Tony Abbott condemned as a crime against Australia and the world.” Well, it was a crime against Australia and the World but we still don’t know who did it or why, although early evidence points more at the Kiev regime.

ABC, 22/7/2014: “Obama increases pressure on Putin to influence rebels at MH17 site,” www.abc.net.au/news/world.

What would Obama have the rebels and Putin do that they are not already doing, other than surrender the evidence to the Ukrainian government so that it can hide it?

“Stay away Mr Putin”, Sunday Mail, July 20, 2014 by Jason Tin, Stephen Drill and Samantha Maiden. It continues, “Australia doesn’t want Russian President Vladimir Putin in Brisbane for November’s G20 summit, unless he co-operates fully with the manhunt for the terrorists who blew MH17 out of the sky.”

We might just as well call for the United States and Australia to cooperate and yield to the international investigators the evidence they have that proves their allegations against Russia and Putin or stay away from the jolly G20.

The Australian, 21 July 2014, front page:”Irate West demands Putin’s help”, by Brendan Nicholson and Stefanie Balogh. […]The international community is outraged over Mr Putin’s denial of any Russian involvement and his refusal to support an investigation or to exert influence over pro-Russian militia controlling the crash site.”

In fact, the pro-Russian militia is fully cooperating and there is no reported obstruction by these anti-Kiev Eastern Ukrainians (pro-Russian is a bit of a misnomer), however there is evidence that Kiev has prevented an international team from joining international observers in East Ukraine, where they are awaited.

The Australian, 21 July 2014,page 4, “Sad truth is the ability to pressure Moscow is limited.” Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor, Washington: “The growing worldwide condemnation of Vladimir Putin over Russia’s involvement in the downing of MH17 has been effectively led by Tony Abbott, but may yet yield little in concrete results.”

Sheridan shamelessly flatters Australian PM Abbott for his reprehensible behaviour, predictably jumping on the anti-Russian bandwagon.

The Australian, 22 July 2014, front page: “Putin backs recovery of bodies,” by Jamie Walker and Brendan Nicholson. This is another ‘when did Putin stop beating his wife’ kind of article. It begins by pretending that Putin was recalcitrant about cooperating with an international investigation into the MH17 tragedy, implying that he is now responding to pressure: “Vadimir Putin has bowed to international pressure and pledged Russian support to recover bodies and key evidence…” […]

The article goes on to imply, without any evidence at all, that Russia is obviously responsible for the downed airliner, but not admitting to it: “Despite fresh buck-passing over who was responsible for shooting down the Malaysia Airlines plane[…], the Russian President promised ‘full co-operation’ to end an impasse with Russian-backed rebels and enable the dead and the crucial black box recorders to be handed over.”

All through these disinformative articles the idea has been promoted that East Ukrainian separatists who do not approve of the US-backed oligarchy in Kiev are in favour of becoming Russian and are supported and backed by the Russian Government. In fact, they are primarily seeking independence from the Kiev regime, which would like Russia to close its border against hundreds of thousands of women and children refugees who are fleeing it. Those remaining have been fighting with few weapons against heavy aerial bombardment from the Kiev-regime military and para-military who have committed many atrocities which have not been reported by the media and which do not seem to bother Mr Abbott or Mr Shorten or the various ‘journalists’ employed to pen propaganda in the Australian mainstream press.

#MH17video" id="MH17video">Appendix video: MH17 Crash: Ukrainian media stories about looting of toy and wedding ring proven FAKE!

Russia’s president has blamed the turmoil in Ukraine on the country’s newly-elected leader Petro Poroshenko. Vladimir Putin also criticized the West for its intention to turn the planet into a "global barracks."

Click here for top 10 takeaways from Putin's foreign policy speech

Russia’s president has laid the blame for the ongoing turmoil between Kiev and south-eastern regions squarely at the feet of Petro Poroshenko, after the Ukrainian leader terminated the ceasefire.

He has stressed that Russia and European partners could not convince Poroshenko to not take the path of violence, which can’t lead to peace.

“Unfortunately, President Poroshenko has made the decision to resume military actions, and we – meaning myself and my colleagues in Europe – could not convince him that the way to reliable, firm and long-term peace can’t lie through war,”

Putin said. “So far, Petro Poroshenko had no direct relation to orders to take military action. Now he has taken on this responsibility in full. Not only military, but also political, more importantly."

Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko walks at the military camp near the town of Svyatogorsk in Eastern Ukraine, June 20, 2014 (Reuters / Stringer)

On Monday, the leaders of Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine held a phone call in which Putin stressed the need to prolong the ceasefire and the creation of “a reliable mechanism for monitoring compliance with it and the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] should play an active role.”

Russia offered that checkpoints on the Russian side should be monitored by representatives of the Ukrainian Border service as well as OSCE observers for “the joint control of the border.”

As the violent conflict continues in the east of Ukraine and the number of refugees fleeing to Russia grows, Putin vowed to provide help to everyone who needs it.

“Everything that’s going on in Ukraine is of course the internal business of Ukrainian government, but we are painfully sorry that people die, civilians,” Putin said. He added that the killing of journalists was “absolutely unacceptable.”

“In my opinion, there is a deliberate attempt to eliminate representatives of the press going on. It concerns both Russian and foreign journalists,” the president said.

‘West should stop turning world into 'global barracks'

Speaking in front of ambassadors on Tuesday, Putin expressed hope that Western partners will stop imposing their principles on other countries.

"I hope pragmatism will still prevail. The West will get rid of ambitions, pursuits to establish a ‘world barracks’ – to arrange all according to ranks, to impose uniform rules of behavior and life of society,” Putin said.

"I hope the West will start building relations based on equal rights, mutual respect and mutual consideration of interests.”

Putin recalled the situation with France and the delivery of the Mistral-class ships that was agreed between Moscow and Paris, but was jeopardized in March.

“We know about the pressure that our American partners put on the French so that they would not deliver the Mistral [ships] to Russia,” Putin said. “And we know that [they] hinted
that if the French don't deliver Mistral, sanctions on banks will be gradually removed, or at least minimized. What is this, if not blackmail?"

A photo taken on May 9, 2014 in Saint-Nazaire, western France, shows the Vladivostok warship, a Mistral class LHD amphibious vessel ordered by Russia to the STX France shipyard. The Vladivostok warship is one of two navy ships ordered to France by the Russian army (AFP Photo)

Russia is ready to have dialogue with the US only bases of equality, Putin added.

“We are not going to stop our relations with the US. The bilateral relations are not in the best shape, that is true. But this - and I want to emphasize - is not Russia’s fault,” he told diplomats.

Speaking about international relations, Putin stressed that Russia always tried to be “predictable, to do business on an equal basis”, however, in return, its interests were quite often ignored.

‘Ukraine devised shady schemes to get gas’

Putin then touched upon a gas deal with Ukraine, saying that the country “devised some shady schemes with some of their partners” to get “the so-called reverse supplies.”

“It is artificial reverse traffic. There is no such thing in reality,” Putin said. “How is it possible to use the same pipe to pump gas both ways? You do not have to be a major specialist in the gas sector to understand that this is unrealistic," he said. “They have devised some shady schemes with some of their partners,” Putin added. “They are getting Russian gas and paying to some of their partners in Europe, who under-consume these amounts."

Original source was http://rt.com/news/169628-putin-ukraine-west-barracks/

Russia's President Vladimir Putin is trying to save the world from war. We should all help him. Today Putin's presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov reported that President Putin has asked the Russian legislature to repeal the authorization to use force that was granted in order to protect residents of former Russian territories that are currently part of Ukraine from the rabid Russophobic violence that characterizes Washington's stooge government in Kiev.

Washington's neoconservatives are jubilant. They regard Putin's diplomacy as a sign of weakness and fear, and urge stronger steps that will force Russia to give back Crimea and the Black Sea naval base.

Inside Russia, Washington is encouraging its NGO fifth columns to undercut Putin's support with propaganda that Putin is afraid to stand up for Russians and has sold out Ukraine's Russian population. If this propaganda gains traction, Putin will be distracted by street protests. The appearance of Putin's domestic weakness would embolden Washington. Many members of Russia's young professional class are swayed by Washington's propaganda. Essentially, these Russians, brainwashed by US propaganda, are aligned with Washington, not with the Kremlin.

Putin has placed his future and that of his country on a bet that Russian diplomacy can prevail over Washington's bribes, threats, blackmail, and coercion. Putin is appealing to Western Europeans. Putin is saying, "I am not the problem. Russia is not the problem. We are reasonable. We are ignoring Washington's provocations. We want to work things out and to find a peaceful solution."

Washington is saying: "Russia is a threat. Putin is the new Hitler. Russia is the enemy. NATO and the US must begin a military buildup against the Russian Threat, rush troops and jet fighters to Eastern European NATO bases on Russia's frontier. G-8 meetings must be held without Russia. Economic sanctions must be put on Russia regardless of the damage the sanctions do to Europe." And so forth.

Putin says: "I'm here for you. Let's work this out."

Washington says: "Russia is the enemy."

Putin knows that the UK is a complete vassal puppet state, that Cameron is just as bought-and-paid-for as Blair before him. Putin's hope for diplomacy over force rests on Germany and France. Both countries face Europe's budget and employment woes, and both countries have significant economic relations with Russia. German business interests are a counterweight to the weak Merkel government's subservience to Washington. Washington has stupidly angered the French by trying to steal $10 billion from France's largest bank. This theft, if successful, will destroy France's largest bank and deliver France to Wall Street.

If desire for national sovereignty still exists in the German or French governments, one or both could give the middle finger to Washington and publicly declare that they are unwilling for their country to be drawn into conflict with Russia for the sake of Washington's Empire and the financial hegemony of American banks.

Putin is betting on this outcome. If his bet is a bad one and Europe fails not only Russia but itself and the rest of the world by accommodating Washington's drive for world hegemony, Russia and China will have to submit to Washington's hegemony or be prepared for war.

As neither side can afford to lose the war, the war would be nuclear. As scientists have made clear, life on earth would cease, regardless of whether Washington's ABM shield works.

This is why I oppose Washington's policies and speak out against the arrogance and hubris that define Washington today. The most likely outcome of Washington's pursuit of world hegemony is the extinction of life on earth.

#C1FFC1;line-height:120%;">

#wantedintro" id="wantedintro">Editorial introduction: Seven decades ago, the civilised world, including Australia, fought a terrible and bloody war to save humanity from German Nazism, Italian Fascism and the murderous Japanese Empire. The cost to humanity was appalling: 60 million died and much of the world's productive capacity was destroyed._{#fnwanted1" id="txtwanted1">1} Had the Nazis won, the cost to humanity would have been even more terrible as a new era of enslavement and mass murder would have commenced.

Russia's Investigative Committee has put Ukraine's interior minister Arsen Avakov and governor of Dnepropetrovsk Region Igor Kolomoysky on international wanted list

Arsen Avakov

The Russian Investigative Committee has declared Ukrainian interior minister Arsen Avakov and Dnepropetrovsk regional administration head Igor Kolomoisky internationally wanted, Investigative Committee spokesman Vladimir Markin told Interfax on Saturday.

"Investigative Committee investigators have issued a directive on declaring Arsen Avakov and Igor Kolomoisky wanted in a criminal case dealing with the use of prohibited means and methods of warfare, aggravated murder, the obstruction of professional activities of journalists, and abduction. This directive has been forwarded to the Interior Ministry's main criminal investigations department.

Avakov and Kolomoisky have been put on the international wanted list valid on the territories of all Interpol member-states," Markin said.

Avakov and Kolomoisky have been accused of organizing a number of crimes, including murder, the use of prohibited means and methods of warfare, the obstruction of professional activities of journalists, and abduction, which are covered by Russian Criminal Code Articles 33, 205, 356, 144, and 126, he said.

Russian investigative committee charges Ukrainian officials with war crimes_{#fnwanted2" id="txtwanted2">2}

Russian investigative committee charged Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and Dnepropetrovsk Region Governor Igor Kolomoyskyi with war crimes, the committee's official spokesman Vladimir Markin said Friday.

"Under the criminal case, launched on the grounds of a crime of using forbidden warfare, a first degree murder, interfering with the professional activity of journalists and kidnapping of people, a notice has been given of charges against Igor Kolomoyskyi and Arsen Avakov," he said in a statement.

Markin said earlier, the investigators believed the recent kidnapping of Zvezda television channel journalists and the preceding illegal detention of journalists from the same channel, as well as several other Russian journalists were conducted with the knowledge of Avakov, Kolomoyskyi and Defense Ministry officials.

On June 14, Russia's Zvezda (Star) channel reported the second detention of its journalists in Ukraine in the past two months reporter Evgeny Davydov and sound engineer Nikita Konashenkov were captured in Dnepropetrovsk and held in the Justice Ministry building. The journalists were released and arrived in Moscow two days later.

Both journalists were visibly bruised, and were ushered to an ambulance to be taken to a hospital for screening.

On Tuesday, a Russian TV journalist and a sound engineer were killed in a mortar attack near Ukrainian city of Luhansk.

A total of five media workers have been killed in Ukraine since the beginning of the year.

Read also:

It's beyond understanding that killings of journalists occur in 21st century Europe – expert

Five media workers killed in Ukraine since beginning of year - Reporters Without Borders

Russian reporters' death shows criminal essence of Ukraine's punitive operation - CSTO

East Ukrainian self-defence forces reject Kiev's ultimatum to disarm, republished from article of 22 June 2014 on PressTV.

#wantedappendix" id="wantedappendix">Appendix: Russia puts Ukraine minister, governor on wanted list

– republished from PressTV.

Russia's Investigative Committee has put Ukraine's Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and Igor Kolomoisky, the governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region, on the international wanted list over charges of war crimes.

The committee spokesman, Vladimir Markin, said Saturday that the two Ukrainian officials have been put on the international wanted list, which is valid in the territories of all Interpol member states.

Avakov and Kolomoisky are wanted in a "criminal case dealing with the use of prohibited means and methods of warfare, aggravated murder, the obstruction of professional activities of journalists, and abduction," said Markin.

The committee spokesman did not rule out the possibility of adding more Ukrainian officials to the wanted list.

"Investigators are taking measures to establish all persons from among commanders and servicemen of Ukraine's armed forces, 'the National Guard of Ukraine' and (far-right ultra-nationalist movement) Right Sector militants involved in conducting a punitive operation against the civilian population in Ukraine's southeast, which has killed many civilians," said Markin.

The spokesman continued by saying that more than 40 investigators are working with people arriving from Ukraine, who have suffered from crimes. According to Markin, the investigators have so far questioned 2,400 eyewitnesses and over 1,000 people who have arrived in Russia from Ukraine's troubled east and who have filed applications to Russian investigators for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

On June 20, Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko ordered the government forces to observe a week-long unilateral ceasefire in the country's southeastern region. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Saturday that he is concerned that despite the truce, Kiev's military operation "is increasing."

Ukraine's mainly Russian-speaking parts in the east have been the scene of deadly clashes between pro-Russia protesters and the Ukrainian army since Kiev launched military operations in the southeastern regions in mid-April in a bid to root out the protests there.

The government in Kiev says it is targeting armed protesters, but reports say many civilians have been caught in the fighting. According to the United Nations, at least 356 people, including 257 civilians, have been killed in the clashes since May 7.

CAH/HJL

Footnote[s]

#fnwanted1" id="fnwanted1">1. #txtwanted1">↑ Even if the Second World War could not have been avoided — and some political participants believe it could have been, notably UK Labor politician Konni Zilliacus (1894-1967), — the death toll should not have been anywhere near as great for the Western Allies. (As terrible as these losses were, they were still only a fraction of the death toll suffered by countries like the Soviet Union, Poland and China.) The Second World War, in the West could easily have ended by 1943. The overthrow of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in July 1943 and the all-too-brief liberation of the entire Italian Peninsula from the yoke of fascism is only one of a number of examples where the opportunity for a quick victory over Nazi Germany was thrown away. Evidently because the manufacturers of the Western Allies' war materials stood to gain far more by prolonging the war than by ending it, the war was needlessly prolonged. This will be the subject of another article. How the terrible defeats of 1941 and the vastly more terrible death toll — at least 20 million — suffered by the Soviet Union in that war, could have been avoided will be the subject of another article too. - Ed

#fnwanted2" id="fnwanted2">2. #txtwanted2">↑ At times, the link to the Voice of Russia web-site is not good in Australia. When I clicked on the link my browser displayed the message: "502 Bad Gateway — nginx". In fact, no pages from Voice of Russia (http://voiceofrussia.com/) can be downloaded at the moment. - 10:31PM 22 June 2014, Ed

Intel is the inventor of the x86 series of microprocessors, the processors found in most personal computers. Because of suspicions that Intel chips facilitate US spy-ware, like many other countries, Russia is seeking a way around this.

22 June, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LocalOrg) - Russia's ITAR-TASS News Agency reported in an article titled, "Russia wants to replace US computer chips with local processors" that: Russia's Industry and Trade Ministry plans to replace US microchips Intel and AMD, used in government's computers, with domestically-produced micro processor Baikal in a project worth dozens of millions of dollars, business daily Kommersant reported Thursday.

Breaking the back of multinational monopolies is a matter of national security. 

Image: The NSA is not an indep­endent agency nor does it merely answer to those in Wash­ington. It is a manifest­ation of an over­reaching corporat­ocracy that will stop at nothing to expand its various monopolies. The key to defeating the NSA is not attacking it directly but by under­mining and replacing the corporate interests that created it and direct it in the first place.

It also stated:

The Baikal chips will be installed on computers of government bodies and in state-run firms, which purchase some 700,000 personal computers annually worth $500 million and 300,000 servers worth $800 million. The total volume of the market amounts to about 5 million devices worth $3.5 billion.

In addition to the obvious financial benefits for Russia of locally manufacturing processors, there are several other dimensions within which the move will be beneficial, including in terms of national security.

Long has it been reported that US-manufactured processors may have vulnerabilities engineered into them, at the request of US intelligence agencies including the National Security Agency (NSA). Australia's Financial Review revealed in 2013 in an article titled, "Intel chips could let US spies inside: expert, that:

One of Silicon Valley's most respected technology experts, Steve Blank, says he would be "surprised" if the US National Security Agency was not embedding "back doors" inside chips produced by Intel and AMD, two of the world's largest semiconductor firms, giving them the possibility to access and control machines.

The claims come after The Australian Financial Review revealed that computers made by Chinese firm Lenovo are banned from the "secret" and "top secret" networks of the intelligence and defence services of Australia, the US, Britain, Canada and New Zealand because of concerns they are vulnerable to being hacked.

Internationally renowned security research engineer Jonathan Brossard, who unveiled what Forbes described as an "undetectable and incurable" permanent back door at last year's prestigious Black Hat conference, told the Financial Review that he had independently concluded that CPU back doors are "attractive attack vectors".

If correct, the allegations would raise the stakes in a growing cyber cold war, and fuel claims that US snooping leaves the Chinese in the shade.

The move by Russia would help protect government assets from foreign spying and cyber attacks enabled by the potential vulnerabilities described in the Financial Review. And because of the large scale of production that will be needed to supply the Russian government's annual demand, the possibility of Russian-made processors being used outside of state agencies and firms could help secure Russia's wider national IT infrastructure as well.

Dependence on foreign technology has created a potential threat to Russia's IT infrastructure. Technological self-sufficiency, then, can clearly be seen as a priority for national security. Developing independent technology requires an emphasis on education, research, and development, but the price of neglecting these areas renders a nation at the mercy of those that haven't.

Image: Just as manu­facturing your own processors affords you added security for IT infra­structure, locally produced, organic agri­culture affords you food security.

The West's geopolitical primacy has been enabled by the various corporate-financier monopolies that exist upon Wall Street and in the City of London. Breaking the back of these monopolies requires nations to develop alternatives that undermine and ultimately displace these monopolies from within their borders. Russia's decision to produce processors domestically is one example of this. Nation's focusing on domestic food security by encouraging local, organic farming undermines and displaces the West's big-agri monopolies and in particular their attempts to monopolize the very code of life itself through the proliferation of patented GMOs.

And while governments should be focused on national-level solutions to undermine and displace foreign monopolies threatening national security, on the local level there are steps regular people can take to protect their communities and themselves - including boycotting and replacing Fortune 500 monopolies with local solutions, and the creation of local institutions and organizations that are composed and serve the interests of the people that created them.

Follow us on Twitter via @Landdestroyer and @LocalOrgInfo or on Facebook.

What else you can do

• Link to this article or earlier publications of this article from your Twitter page, Facebook or your own blog.
• Discuss and link to this article this article on forum discussions.

• Link to this or the original pages in forum discussions. An example of HTML to link back to this page is:

  <a href=/"http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3893">Russia to Swap Intel-AMD Processors For Local Technology</a>

  An example of HTML to link to the page on the Land Destroyer Report is :

  <a href=/"http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/russia-to-swap-intel-amd-processors-for.html/">Russia to Swap Intel-AMD Processors For Local Technology</a>

• Republish this article on your web site. The html code source code for this article is attached as a file, which you can download. It is suitable for web-sites built with free open-source content-management software such as Drupal.

Professor Brat can expect to be attacked by "journalists" across the political spectrum with every sort of accusation and scandalous report. He risks a well paid former female student coming forward to complain that while counseling her on her grades, he leaned forward and put his hand on her thigh._{#fnPcr_3" id="txtPcr_3">3} Or worse.

This will be Professor Brat's likely fate even though his election was not about Cantor being Israel's Representative, a fact that the voters who elected Brat probably don't even know. Professor Brat himself might not know it, hence this warning. Professor Brat accused Cantor of representing, not Israel, but "large corporations seeking insider deals, crony bailouts and a constant supply of low-wage workers." This ensures that the transnational corporations and military/security complex will join the Israel Lobby in gunning for Representative Brat.

And, in addition, Brat is unlikely to be warmly welcomed by the Republican Party as he defeated one of the party's top leaders. This could start a trend, and Republicans could lose Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader in the Senate. Also, many, if not most, House Republicans will have spent a number of years accommodating Cantor in exchange for favors that the Majority Leader can confer, and they are not happy that their investments in Cantor have been wiped out.

A likely explanation of Brat's victory is that it was a protest vote, like the recent EU elections where the major parties in the major countries lost to relatively new and heavily demonised third parties, such as Farage's Independent Party (1993) in the UK and Le Pen's National Front Party (1972) in France. The establishment is already at work explaining that these electoral victories along with Brat's are due to their racist anti-immigration stance. Little doubt that immigration played a role, especially in the UK and France, but the extraordinary gain in third party clout is due to the public's disgust with the corrupt traditional parties who have ceased to represent the public on any issue.

Just as I think Representative Brat is a marked man, so are Farage and Le Pen. (Yes, I know, Marine is a woman, but the term is "marked man.") The Establishment thought that Farage and Le Pen could be disposed of with lies and demonization. Their unexpected victory in the EU elections has brought that supposition into question. If Farage and Le Pen cannot be assassinated by the media, the prospect of physical assassination arises. The Establishment has perfect cover. As both political leaders speak out against the heavy level of immigration that is transforming the national existence of the UK and France, the intelligence services that serve the state can easily come up with a "deranged Muslim."

The main target of Farage and Le Pen is not immigrants. Their important target is the EU, which, more than immigration, is attacking national sovereignty, thus dissolving the peoples of historic European countries into a new and artificial entity called Europe.

Farage and Le Pen are also opposed to Washington's control of European countries and their foreign policy through NATO and other organizations dominated by Washington. Washington is no more willing than the Israel Lobby to take assaults on its power lying down. Attacks on the EU and on NATO are regarded as attacks on US interests. My conclusion is that the lives of Farage and Le Pen are at risk.

And so is Vladimir Putin's. Despite Washington's demonization, Putin has risen to recognition as the most capable world leader. Unlike Obama, Putin walks freely among crowds. He doesn't stand behind a bullet proof shield when he gives a speech. Russia is overrun with opposition groups well paid by Washington. Putin needs to recognize his danger before he is removed.

Like Israel, Washington has no tolerance for those who get in its way. Just ask Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Viktor Yanukovych, and Bashar al-Assad.

Yes, dear readers, I know, the list is longer. You don't need to write in to tell me.

Footnote[s]

#fnPcr_1" id="fnPcr_1">1. #txtPcr_1">↑ From Australia, it has not been easy to cast judgement against Israel, a nation founded in 1947 by survivors of the Jewish Holocaust in which 6 million were brutally murdered. The Holocaust is possibly most brutal act ever carried out against any one one racial and cultural group in the history of humankind.

Ironically, in spite of the fact that many of the founders of Israel had relatives, partners friends, murdered by the Nazis were lucky, themselves, to have survived the Nazi death camps, they, themselves, behaved abominably towards native Palestinians — stealing their land, mass murder such as at Deir Yassin in order to cause other Palestinians to flee for their lives. In 1956 and 1967, the United Kingdom, the United States and France colluded with Israel in wars of aggression against its Arab neighbours including Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

A chilling example of the criminality of the state of Israel is documented in the article Kennedy, the Lobby and the Bomb (2/5/2013 - republished on candobetter.net) by Laurent Guyénot. On the sunny day of June 8, 1967, two days before the end of the Six Day War of 1967, in which Israel conquered the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of Jordan:

"... three unmarked Mirage bombers and three torpedo boats flying an Israeli flag bombed, strafed and torpedoed for 75 minutes this NSA (National Security Agency) ship -unarmed, floating in international waters and easily recognizable - with the obvious intention of leaving no survivors, machine-gunning even the lifeboats. They only stopped at the approach of a Soviet ship, after killing 34 crew members, mostly engineers, technicians and translators. It is assumed that if they had succeeded in sinking the ship without witnesses, the Israelis would have attributed the crime to Egypt, so as to drag the United States into war on the side of Israel."

... http://www.voltairenet.org/article178401.html file:///?q=node/3432

More than any other article I have read, this article by Laurent Guyénot makes it clear why Israel is so hated and feared in the region. Only the close proximity of a Soviet warship, whose crew witnessed the crime, thereby enabling survivors to be rescued, prevented Egypt from being blamed. Had this occurred the U.S. would have had a pretext to join to also declare war on Egypt and a much larger and much more bloody conflict, conceivably even World War 3, would have ensued.

More recently, Israeli Mossad agents were observed in Kiev in February 2014 working alongside Nazi anti-semites helping to overthrow the democratically elected Ukrainian government of President Victor Yunokovych.

#fnPcr_2" id="fnPcr_2">2. #txtPcr_2">↑ A full list is not included in this article. Presumably, Paul Craig Roberts assumes that, in the United States, this is common knowledge what the other five "powerful interest groups" are, but, writing from Australia, I don't know. - Ed

#fnPcr_3" id="fnPcr_3">3. #txtPcr_2">↑ Whistleblower Julian Assange faces charges of rape and sexual assault in Sweden.

{Vladimir Putin] has claimed U.S. "mercenaries" were operating alongside Ukrainian forces, while infiltrating Russian special forces to seize Crimea and organize violence in Ukraine's east.

comment: Again, no citation is given. After neo-Nazis and their extreme right-wing neo-liberal allies seized power in a CIA-orchestrated putsch in Kiev, Crimeans, not wishing to live under the rule of the new Ukrainian Reich, organised to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia to which Crimea legally belonged until 1956. In 1956 it was given to Ukraine by Nikita Khruschev, the then leader of the Soviet Union. For more information, read: Latest Report: Crimea Referendum: 95 percent Vote for Union with Russia (16 March 2014), Crimea Rejects the US-NATO Sponsored Neoliberal Neo-Nazi Ukrainian Regime (16 March), Ukraine and Crimea, An Illegal Putsch and a Democratic Referendum. (5 April).

Later on Tom Malinovsksy concedes that the new Ukrainian neo-Nazi "authorities aren't perfect.". The full text of Tom Malinowski's article is reproduced further below.

Behind Putin's Cynicism and Hypocrisy

The Kremlin's ruler wants to extend to neighboring countries the tyranny he imposes on his own people.

You can usually figure what Russian President Vladimir Putin is doing and why by noting the actions and values he falsely projects onto others.

Over the past several weeks, for example, he has accused the Ukrainian government of stripping autonomy from Ukraine's eastern regions, while moving to end local elections in Russia.

He has claimed U.S. "mercenaries" were operating alongside Ukrainian forces, while infiltrating Russian special forces to seize Crimea and organize violence in Ukraine's east.

He has called the Internet a CIA creation, while trying to bring Russian social media under the control of a secret police-dominated state.

So when Mr. Putin justified intervention in Ukraine by accusing its government of human rights abuses, it was a bad sign for the Ukrainians who would soon be subject to his rule.

The new authorities in Kiev aren't perfect. But international organizations have found no evidence that they are or were suppressing the rights of the ethnic-Russian minority in Crimea or Ukraine's east. Pro-Kremlin separatists, on the other hand, have been attacking their unarmed opponents with growing abandon. Every offense Russia falsely attributed to Ukraine's Maidan is in fact being committed by its own forces and proxies.

The pattern began in Crimea. Shortly after Russia's intervention, local authorities announced that ethnic Tatars &emdash; who had returned over the years to Crimea after their mass deportation by Joseph Stalin &emdash; would have to vacate their land. Before the deportation's 70th anniversary this week, police conducted mass searches of Tatar homes.

On over a dozen occasions in the days that followed, armed men attacked or detained local and international journalists. Pro-Russian forces kidnapped and tortured Ukrainian civic activists. At least two were killed in detention, their bodies dumped in forests; more are still missing. International organizations report that around 5,000 people &emdash; including minority Christians, Jews and at least 3,000 Tatars &emdash; have fled Crimea and sought refuge elsewhere in Ukraine.

In Ukraine's east, polls show that the great majority of people &emdash; whether they supported the Maidan revolution or not &emdash; don't want to join Russia. But when the citizens of Donetsk, Slovyansk and Kharkiv have come out to oppose Moscow's intervention, pro-Russian militias have repeatedly assaulted them; more than 100 peaceful demonstrators in the east have been hospitalized after such attacks.

Abductions, torture and killings have also intensified in the east. Three bodies of supporters of the Kiev government recently washed up on a riverbank in Slovyansk, bearing signs of torture. Acting on orders from the self-appointed "mayor" of Slovyansk, pro-Russian militias have begun to drive local Roma families from their homes.

In these and other ways, Mr. Putin is extending into eastern Ukraine the repression he has imposed inside Russia in recent years, in direct opposition to what eastern Ukrainians would enjoy as part of a united Ukraine: local autonomy, freedom of expression and internationally monitored free and fair elections. This isn't just the effect of Mr. Putin's intervention; it is arguably the intent. The example of Ukraine's Maidan &emdash; of ordinary people overthrowing a corrupt, authoritarian ruler so that they could draw closer to European democracies &emdash; was a threat to the ruler of the Kremlin. For this, in Mr. Putin's mind, Ukraine had to be punished and humiliated, if not carved into pieces.

Russia's actions are a threat to a postwar international order designed to banish the old pattern of large powers swallowing small ones. But the crisis in Ukraine is also a contest of values. This isn't a contest between the West and Russia, but between people everywhere &emdash; including in Moscow &emdash; who believe that states exist to serve their citizens, and regimes that think it should be the other way around.

The sanctions that Washington and Brussels have imposed to stop Russian aggression have costs. All sanctions do, and because the potential costs are higher for Europe, paying this price isn't a mere gesture. But it is striking that in Europe, those most vulnerable to Russia's countermeasures &emdash; from Estonia to Poland to the Czech Republic &emdash; have nonetheless been among the most vocal in pressing us to act.

The effect is even more pronounced among Russian dissidents I have recently met &emdash; men and women who are labeled "traitors," "foreign agents" and "extremists" for questioning the Kremlin, but who still urge us to resist what their government is doing. The closer one is to the heart of the problem, the more one sees what's at stake.

Those of us who live further away should see things as clearly. We were right to seek practical cooperation with Russia and to encourage its integration as a respected power into global institutions. I hope that the time will come when this is possible again. But in the current crisis, we are right not to make the mistake of projecting our hopes onto the ruler of Russia in the way he projects his cynicism onto us.

Vladimir Putin did nothing wrong by reuniting Crimea with Russia, said Janusz Korwin-Mikke, a European Parliament MP and leader of the Polish political party called the Congress of the New Right. During a panel discussion on local TV he asked others not to talk ill of Putin because "he did nothing to deserve such treatment." "If, for example, 95 percent of Lvov's citizens were Poles who voted on a referendum to join Poland, no Polish leader would’ve been able to refuse them," he pointed out.

Meanwhile, referring to the tragic events which took place in February at the Independence square in Kiev, he said that "the terrorists who killed 20 police officers and 60 protesters were trained in Poland."

Late May the Eurosceptic Korwin-Mikke's political party achieved success for the first time in its history by clearing the 5 percent voting threshold during the Euro parliament elections. The New Right representatives received support of 7,15 percent of Polish voters. Mr. Korwin-Mikke declared that his main goal is to destroy the European institutions from within.

© Photo: RIA Novosti/Alexander Maksimenko

Speaking about the Russian-Ukrainian relations regarding the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, Mr. Korwin-Mikke said that Petr Poroshenko should begin negotiating with Russia. After the inauguration on June 7 Poroshenko should draw a border – whether it will encompass Donetsk or not is irrelevant as long as it is a clearly defined border – and say: "This is my country!" And afterwards he should join Moscow at the bargaining table, Mr. Korwin-Mikke said.

Appendix 1: Msm reporting about Crimea

Don't Forget Crimea (NYT, 8/6/2014 - behind paywall), Crimea is ours for ever, says Ukraine’s new president (The Times, 8/6/2014), Ukraine president vows not to give up Crimea (Guardian, 7/6/2014), Ukraine's New President Pledges to Retake Crimea (Vice News, 8/6/2014), The Invasion of Crimea Is Hurting Russia's Other Exclave (Forbes, 6/6/2014)

Ukraine President Poroshenko’s Inauguration Speech: No Compromise with Donesk and Lugansk (Global Research, 8/6/2014)

Appendix 2: Some non-msm reporting about Crimea

Crimea rules out rejoining Ukraine's territory, Crimea Leaders Rule Out Ever Rejoining Ukraine (FarsNews, 8/6/2014)

#F5F6CE;line-height:120%;">"The geology of the region itself as well as its position as a geographical gateway to the Middle East, explains wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, confusing dialogues with Iran and, now, moves on Ukraine. I really wonder if Australian politicians actually realise what they are backing in the region." Sheila Newman (Evolutionary sociologist specialised in oil geopolitics.) ₁ This article summarises the initial Western misrepresentations and informs or reminds the historically educated reader of the history of this ancient petroleum-bearing region.

Anglophone press maintains depressingly low standard of reporting

The bias in Australian news reporting on Russia and the Ukraine is profoundly depressing. There is no responsible analysis of the role of the then 'opposition', with members now in parliament, and the use of snipers to fire at police and protesters alike in provoking President Yannukovych to temporarily leave the Ukraine. [Note I have removed the term 'resignation' because he has not resigned. I apologise for the confusion - Sheila Newman] _{#fnSubj2" id="txtSubj2">2} There is no acknowledgement of how elected President Yannukovych formally requested Russia's help - or it is mentioned as if it were specious. Although there was an election due within a year, Yannukovych was forced to flee in peril of his life by the forces that put the current illegal government in place. There is no acknowledgement of the validity of a 97% Yes referendum in Crimea to join Russia._{#fnSubj3" id="txtSubj3">3} There is no acknowledgement that Crimea already had separate administration within the Ukraine and that the great majority of its population identifies as Russian. There has been an over-emphasis on how a minority group of muslims said they had avoided voting and now complain that their needs were not met by the referendum and an underemphasis on how many voted and what they voted for. Little or no convincing evidence has been given for slurs implying that the referendum was either not legal or not well-managed. There is no acknowledgement of the reasonableness and democracy in calling a referendum, which is an example the increasingly undemocratic Anglophone West would do well to follow. There is hardly any mention in the Australian and other Anglophone press that the parliament of Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov, whom Obama greeted in the Whitehouse almost instantly _{#fnSubj4" id="txtSubj4">4} and whose government Australia supports in East Ukraine, contains six members with severe fascist and Nazi affiliations, which kind of explains how the use of snipers was part of the campaign to get rid of the elected government. The increasing evidence of US and NATO aligned Western powers provoking the Kiev coup is not being covered in the Australian and other Western press. There is also no mention that President Yannukovych had offered to bring on early elections to give the opposition a chance to win government legally. There is a constant use of the adjective 'aggressive' to describe Russia's actions in going, on invitation, into a largely ethnic Russian Crimea which had voted to rejoin Russia, in a region where European power-grabs threaten hard-won agreements between the many diverse countries involved in recovering and transporting oil and gas out of the Caspian Sea area.

Oil and Gas in the Caspian region near Ukraine and Crimea

Most of all, there has been a glaring failure of Australian and US and other Anglophone news sources and governments to report that getting power over this region means getting power over major oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea and pipelines leading from its shared shores through several different countries with destinations as far as Britain _{#fnSubj5" id="txtSubj5">5} and China. That is why dividing the Ukraine up between Western Europe and Russia is such a big deal.

The Caspian Sea: History, political borders, rights to mine etc.

The Caspian Sea is the largest inland sea. "Geographically, it is a salt-water inland sea or lake covering about 375,000 square kilometres, bordered by the Elburz Mountains of Iran to the south and the Caucasus to the northwest. The Volga River flows into it from the north, forming a large delta near Astrakhan, but evaporation is sufficient to counter the influx, leaving it some 30 meters below world sea level. It is flanked to the north by Russia itself, followed clockwise by Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, and Azerbaijan. The three "-stans” gained independence following the fall of the Soviets in 1991. Dagestan and Chechnya, which are still Moslem provinces of Russia on the shores of the Caspian, are still seeking their independence, in a vicious campaign attended by many acts of terror. Under international law, ownership of the offshore mineral rights depends on whether it is deemed a lake or a sea. In the case of the lake, they belong jointly to the contiguous countries, whereas in the case of a sea they are divided up by median lines. The matter, which is no small issue, has yet to be fully resolved, but it seems in practice to be moving in the direction of the latter formula. It is worth noting here that Tehran, the capital of Iran, lies only 100km from the Caspian shore, so its role in the future of the region cannot be ignored." (Colin Campbell, "The Caspian Chimera," Chapter 5 in Sheila Newman, (Ed)., The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Edition, Pluto Press, 2008."

Don't the Australian public deserve to know of the many geological reasons why this area is so politically fraught, instead of being subjected to incredibly superficial theories of ego and ethnicity, when any explanation is offered at all for territorial sensitivity in the region?

There is a fabulous and apocryphal geopolitical context to this vast oil and gas-bearing region that is the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Russia started the first pipeline there in the 1880s in Baku on the edge of the Caspian Sea, with a pipeline which carried kerosene a total of 835km to the Batumi, Georgia, a port on the Black Sea. It was the longest pipeline in the world at that time. Joseph Stalin actually led workers in the oil industry there.

"In the late 19th century Baku on the Caspian Sea was the site of a pipeline to the Black Sea, financed by Rothschild and Shell Oil. Joseph Stalin was a workers' leader there in an atrocious working environment. By the end of the Second World War, established easily accessible wells in the Caspian were less productive and, although the Soviet Union continued some new development there, including the building of off-shore platforms, it focused more on inland resources which did not require investment in offshore drilling equipment." (Colin Campbell, "The Caspian Chimera," Chapter 5 in Sheila Newman, (Ed)., The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Edition, Pluto Press, 2008.)

Since the late 19th century this area has been the object of colonial exploitation and wars over its mineral wealth, with British and US exploration teams competing against each other and against Russia. President Trueman's duplicitous policies towards Russia and Ukraine are the subject of Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States series (book and films). (See interview of Peter Kuznik, Oliver Stone's co-writer on this material here.) The political behaviour towards the region by the US between the First and Second World Wars was eerily similar to its behaviour today.

These geopolitical features have bred extremely tough political survival behaviour in associated royal and elected governments. The toughness is expressed in authoritarian government and sophisticated international relations with commercial organisations, international finance and international governments. Since the first oil shock in the early 1970s, the oil-exporting countries in this region have attempted to shrug off colonial rulers and assert independence. The political countershock from the West has been to fight those attempts. Gaddafi led the formation of OPEC which coordinated the policies of the oil-producing countries, with the aim of getting a steady income for its member states in return for secure supply of oil to oil importers. His efforts assisted independence amongst member oil-producing countries and a world price for oil. There was a brief period when it seemed that the West might respectfully integrate the leaders of those Eastern independence movements and the oil producing countries, but draw-down on world oil resources, through increased demand and finite supply, ever more expensively accessed, has coincided with escalating aggression on the part of the west. Russia and China, for their parts, are acting defensively to secure their geopolitical links with their neighbours.

Pipeline-linked countries vulnerable targets

Most important in the new problems with Syria and Ukraine and Crimea, is access to pipelines conveying oil and gas resources from the Caspian Sea region through surrounding countries, which have strategic power and risks. The absence of reporting on this crucial aspect of East-West hostilities in the Western media makes the Western powers and their media promoters and corporate supporters look guilty and the populations of Western countries look uneducated and incurious. Coverage from the Teheran Times and Russia Today is far more reality based.

"The recent U.S.-backed coup that toppled the former government in Ukraine has been couched in the noble rhetoric of democracy, humanitarian intervention and self-determination, but a closer examination reveals an ugly underside of realpolitik whose motive is energy dominance. Like Syria, Ukraine has one of the key gas pipeline corridors coveted by the U.S. and its NATO allies that is still under the influence of a so-called R&D (resistant and defiant) country such as Russia.

To understand what is happening in Ukraine and Syria, and how Qatar and Azerbaijan are involved, we must briefly look at regional energy developments following the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. While the Persian Gulf is well known for its abundant energy resources, the Caspian Sea Basin also has seen oil exploration and production since the early 1900s however the U.S. and the West had scant involvement there before the end of the Cold War. Since the breakup of the former Soviet Union, the United States and Russia have engaged in fierce competition to control the energy resources of the newly created Caspian Sea littoral states." Source: "The last Argument of Kings," Tehran Times, March 18, 2014 by stratagem, http://www.phantomreport.com/pipeline-predicament-the-ukraine-syria-russia-u-s-gas-nexus"

Importance of who supplies China with gas

Russia's impending new contract to supply its neighbour China with gas for the next 30 years could be one of the things that caused Western powers to make desperate efforts at this time to get control of the Ukraine in order to influence oil supply contracts in the region. (Gazprom negotiations).

Supplying China has been an important goal of competing powers in the region because whoever supplies China has a very powerful friend. Even though contemporary oil-exploration is done by commercial corporations, states vie to develop and maintain relations with these companies. This need to dominate oil-exploration companies is likewise a major reason for US interference in South American and African politics and for South American states to make friends with Russian, Chinese and African states and their geo-exploration companies. Western powers are trying to destroy these alliances by using their own alliances which include supporting Israeli annexation of territories, amassing of arms, and Saudi Arabian attempts to religiously colonise free Arab states, like Syria.

We should all be trying to get along and to plan to downsize world economy in line with dwindling fuel resources, but half the world is doing the opposite.

State Politics and Fossil Fuel Depletion

There is no doubt that the world's industrial powers are encountering increasing trouble accessing affordable fossil fuel resources. All the signs are there: war, loss of democracy, environmental suicide.

A few years ago, the United States began using huge quantities of explosive material in order to crudely reopen old mines and start new ones in situations which it had not pursued before because of their inherent danger, pollution and landscape costs.

It is naive to accept the spin that the US puts on fracking for shale-oil and gas, by which it implies that it now has abundant fuels to supply growth indefinitely. The reality is that the U.S. has to spend more barrels of oil to get shale oil and gas than were ever required to get oil from wells. The reason the US is going after shale-oil and gas is because most remaining crude oil reserves are now very hard to get to, due to their inaccessible geological position and due to international political competition for these scarce resources. And getting shale oil and gas costs more than energy; it costs democracy and it has the capacity to ruin any resilience in the economy. See "Fracking Democracy". People are protesting across the US at how the government is permitting shale-oil and gas mines to take over their farms. They are afraid of pollution (notably of water), subsidence, and the truly awful scale of mining which is transforming landscape and politics, as well as air, soil and water, with massive emissions of carbon gases. Fracking has been banned in France, although the US-influenced EU is trying to overturn this, as it has overturned French law on use of hormone-based pesticides like Roundup and genetically modified crops. The Western powers have also tried to interest the Ukraine in giving them fracking rights in the Ukraine.

Profligate petroleum users have no place in the 21st century

Unfortunately Australia is unwisely following the United States style on fossil fuel recovery. The EU, which tended to have more conservative, longer-view plans, is at risk of being dragged into the same profligate style due to the growing influence of a US-influenced banking system on the EU and the debts which this has already caused in European countries.

Australia, the United States, and Britain, have all exhausted their petroleum reserves by pursuing policies of economic and population growth in the face of common sense. They have also used an expensive and inefficient commercial approach to exploring for and mining petroleum at home and abroad. As oil geologist, Colin Campbell, put it, western oil-explorers "had to pretend that every borehole had a good chance of finding oil" [in order to attract investors], whereas their Soviet counterparts, "were very efficient explorers, as they were able to approach their task in a scientific manner, being able to drill holes to gather critical information" - which meant that, due to being state-financed, they didn't have to sink lots of unproductive and costly wells.

Colin Campbell describes the difficulties of oil and gas mining in the Caspian Sea, explaining how the countries of the region exploited oil resources that could be more conventionally mined. Much of the oil and gas reserves there are, not only under the sea, but deep under the sea-floor:

"In the years following World War II, they brought in the major producing provinces of the [Soviet] Union, finding most of the giant fields within them. Baku [on the Caspian Sea] was by now a mature province of secondary importance, although work continued to develop secondary prospects and begin to chase extensions offshore from platforms. The Soviet Union had ample onshore supplies, which meant that it had no particular incentive to invest in offshore drilling equipment. The Caspian itself was therefore largely left fallow, although the borderlands were thoroughly investigated. Of particular importance was the discovery of the Tengiz Field in 1979 in the prolific pre-Caspian basin of Kazakhstan, only some 70km from the shore. Silurian source-rocks had charged a carboniferous reef reservoir at a depth of about 4,500 meters beneath an effective seal of Permian salt. Initial estimates suggested a potential of about 6Gb, but the problem was that the oil has a sulphur content of as much as 16 per cent, calling for high-quality steel pipe and equipment, not then available to the Soviets. Development was accordingly postponed. The fall of the Soviet regime in 1991 opened the region to Western investment. " (Colin Campbell, "The Caspian Chimera," Chapter 5 in Sheila Newman, (Ed)., The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Edition, Pluto Press, 2008.

A more cautious Soviet approach and the difficulty of access due to cold climate has meant that Russia has not used up all its oil and gas supplies. It has a good record of efficiency in the surrounding region. Due to the depletion of traditional oil reserves, the time has come when oil-exploration in these dangerous and icy regions nearby Russia will find finance.

Population policies and entitlement to fuel resources

We could go further and say that, as long as the Anglophone countries insist on growing their populations and their economies - which really means growing their need for energy resources and their output of pollution - and starting wars to fulfill these unwise policies of continued growth - they don't deserve what they are going after. We maybe should include India which, like Australia, as an ex-British colony, has all the problems of the Anglophone system where focused beneficiaries of population growth promote it in flagrant opposition to public opinion. The only obvious solution to the problem of finite resources can be to share remaining scarce resources equitably among polities which agree to stop engineering growth and demand upwards. That is a way to avoid continuing wars. In contrast to the rapid population growth in Anglophone countries and India, Russia's population is not growing fast and China has a responsible population policy.

Fracking and western sabre-rattling in this region

The reason for the civil war in Syria almost certainly lies in the growing desperation by the United States and Europe about maintaining large supplies of cheap oil, in competition with China and Russia, with Russia relatively well-situated geopolitically. The United States trumpets its successful recovery through fracking as a cover but, as explained above, anyone who knows anything about oil knows that fracking oil and gas costs far more oil and gas than earlier methods of retrieving oil and gas, but the industries and governments just aren't revealing how much.

The two inland seas, the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea are the sites of major oil and gas exploration, although concerted exploration of the Black Sea is only just beginning, and expectations are modest._{#fnSubj6" id="txtSubj6">6} The reserves in the Caspian, however, are enormous, but the question is how much can ever be accessed and mined. These reserves are deep, dirty, dangerous and nearly inaccessible deposits laced with highly poisonous hydrogen sulphide, however they are sufficiently important for commercial and government exploration to have persevered, leading to the construction of extremely long pipe-lines to transport gas across multiple countries, from Baku, Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean coast of Turkey; from Baku via Russia to Novorossiysk on the Black Sea, thence to Western Europe. Accompanying the longest of these pipelines, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, which runs from Azerbaijan through Armenia and Turkey, to the South is Syria, Iraq and Iran, and, above them: Georgia, Russia and Ukraine, with Crimea just above Novorossiysk on the Black Sea. On the other side of the Black Sea is Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria. On the other side of the Caspian Sea from the Russian side are Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.

The recent coup against the legitimate Ukraine Government has meant that Russia now has to consider building a very expensive new pipeline around the top of the Ukraine to avoid new incursions into its territory bordering on the Caspian Sea.

You can see from the map, "Proposed and actual gas pipelines," (Source: Wikipedia commons circa 2007 but still useful) how difficult it would be for Europeans to impose economic sanctions on Russia, for Russia is an important supplier of gas to the rest of Europe. This is likely to cause a split between America, Saudi Arabia, Canada and Australia, which do not have this relationship with Russia. The United States has, however, recently begun exporting shale gas to Europe, creating an impression that it has huge supplies and hoping to reduce Russia's income from and power derived from supplying Europe in the short term._{#fnSubj7" id="txtSubj7">7} In the mean time, it seems the US is actually having problems supplying its own needs:

"U.S. Natural Gas Inventories

Natural gas working inventories fell by 74 Bcf to 822 Bcf during the week ending March 28, 2014. Colder-than-normal temperatures and a few late-season winter storms during the month resulted in increased heating demand, prompting larger-than-normal withdrawals. Stocks are now 878 Bcf less than last year at this time and 992 Bcf less than the five-year (2009-13) average for this time of year. Total stocks, as well as stocks in all three regions, are currently less than their five-year (2009-13) minimums." Source: Energy Information Agency, (EIA), http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/natgas.cfm?src=Natural-b1

NOTES

#fnSubj1" id="fnSubj1">1. #txtSubj1">⇑ Sheila Newman's research thesis for environmental sociology, "The Growth lobby in Australia and its Absence in France" (pdf - 100,000 words plus) , was about differences in the way that Australia and France adapted their population, housing and environmental policies after the first oil shock. It contains an historical comparison of pre-oil shock oil-economics in both countries. Later she was co-editor for the first edition of Andrew McKillop and Sheila Newman, The Final Energy Crisis, Pluto Press, UK, 2006; and sole editor for Sheila Newman (Ed. and Author), The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Edition, Pluto Press, UK, 2008, which is a collection of her work plus scientific articles by nine scientists in disciplines ranging from particle physics through agriculture to environmental science and one economist. In 2013 she published, Demography, Territory, Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, 2013. [Paperback and Kindle.] The second in the Demography Territory Law series: Demography Territory Law 2: Land-tenure and the origins of Capitalism in Britain, is due for publication by June or July 2014 and asks whether the confluence of coal and iron in Britain caused its massive population growth, assisted it, or followed on from it, whether capitalism was inevitable and why it happened in Britain rather than elsewhere in Europe.

#fnSubj2" id="fnSubj2">2. #txtSubj2">⇑Ramazan Khalidov and Takeshi Hasegawa, "Ukraine Opposition Behind Snipers in Kiev According to a Leaked Phone Call, Modern Tokyo Times, March 6, 2014; "Recorded call reveals Ukraine opposition snipers, not Yanukovych, fired on protestors in Kiev," PR News Channel, March 6, 2014: "In the second leaked conversation regarding Ukraine in as many months, two top-level diplomats have been recorded discussing a potential bombshell in the crisis in Ukraine.

According to The Guardian, the 11-minute conversation between EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet details new allegations that the snipers who killed protestors in the Ukrainian capital were not agents of former president Viktor Yanukovych, but rather agents of the opposition forces.

"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition,” Paet said during the conversation. [...] "Following the declaration, Paet went on to mention that the new Ukrainian government has heard the evidence, yet has shown no interest in investigating the claims.[...]"

#fnSubj3" id="fnSubj3">3. #txtSubj3">⇑ Mark Byrnes, "Crimea's Controversial Election Day," The Atlantic Cities, March 17, 2014.

#fnSubj4" id="fnSubj4">4. #txtSubj4">⇑ http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/moscow/gazprom-says-expects-to-sign-gas-supply-deal-26644803 Matt Vasilogambros and Marina Koren, "White House: In Meeting With Obama, Ukraine's Prime Minister Embraces the West"National Journal.

#fnSubj5" id="fnSubj5">5. #txtSubj5">⇑ The Nord Stream gas pipeline takes gas to Germany, from where it is transported to Britain and other countries. I am not clear as to whether there are still plans to continue the pipeline underwater to Britain.

#fnSubj6" id="fnSubj6">6. #txtSubj6">⇑ The Black Sea has nothing comparable to the proven reserves in the Caspian Sea, but the need to find oil and gas is becoming so pressing that companies have taken out exploration licences for gas reserves they would previously not have bothered with. The Skifska natural gas field located on the continental shelf of the Black Sea was discovered in 2012 and there are other promising deposits offshore from Ukraine. "At the helm of the new energy diplomacy effort is Carlos Pascual, a former American ambassador to Ukraine, who leads the State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources. The 85-person bureau was created in late 2011 by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state at the time, for the purpose of channeling the domestic energy boom into a geopolitical tool to advance American interests around the world."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/us-seeks-to-reduce-ukraines-reliance-on-russia-for-natural-gas.html?_r=0

#fnSubj7" id="fnSubj7">7. #txtSubj7">⇑ See Gail Tyverborg, "The Absurdity of US Natural Gas Exports", March 31, 2014, http://ourfiniteworld.com/

Putin's annual Q&A session 2014 (FULL VIDEO)

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, whose pronouncements on Syria have featured on candobetter.net recently, has authored today's editorial opinion for the New York Times, calling on the US not to invade Syria. Full text reproduced here.

A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 in the New York Times

MOSCOW — "RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

Originally published on the New York Times site, where you can also read over 500 comments (at time of this report - 2135hrs 12/9/2013 Melbourne time)."

Comments can be made on the New York Times site.

Paul Craig Roberts, Stephen Lendman: Obama and Kerry Declare that Amerika Stands for War and is Proud of It

This article was first published on paulcraigroberts.org and on Information Clearing House 8 Sep 2013. See also: A brief for animals of 5 June 2013, Nature's Capital Is The Limiting Resource of 24 Jan 2013

Guest column by the distinguished commentator and radio host Stephen Lendman:

Syria has agreed to the Russian proposal to give up its chemical weapons, but the war criminal and totally isolated obama regime, the scum of the earth, says it will attack Syria regardless.

How will the world respond to the Amerikan Third Reich, the worst threat to truth, justice, peace, and humanity that the world has ever experienced? Will the world submit to rule by an outlaw state whose corrupt government represents no one but the Israel Lobby?

Editorial Comment: This article is, in many ways, contrary to the views of YouTube broadcaster, the Syrian Girl. In her broadcast If Syria disarms chemical weapons we lose the war, she argues that the agreement is a betrayal of Syria by President al-Assad, Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Government.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36179.htm

Lavrov Calls Kerry's Bluff

By Stephen Lendman

September 09, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Russian Foreign Sergei Lavrov wants peace. He's going all out against war on Syria. He's doing it responsibly.

Important world leaders back him. So does overwhelming global anti-war sentiment.

On Monday, Lavrov met with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. He did so in Moscow.

"We are calling on the Syrian authorities not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control, but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," he said.

"We have passed our offer to Muallem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer."

Al-Moallem pledged "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression." Lavrov promised Moscow's support.

He's trying to broker a diplomatic solution. In return, he wants Obama to cancel attack plans.

He cited John Kerry saying Assad "could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week."

"Turn it over, all of it without delay and allow (a) full and total accounting, but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."

Doing it would avoid military intervention, Kerry said. Damage control followed his statement. State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki reinterpreted his comments.

He "was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons," she said.

"His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment."

Reinterpreting Kerry's statement shows Obama's true intention. Falsely blaming Assad for using chemical weapons is cover for long planned regime change.

War is Obama's option of choice. Lavrov's best efforts may fall short. He forthrightly pursued them throughout months of conflict. He's not about to stop now.

He faces long odds. Obama didn't wage war on Syria to quit. He won't do so no matter what Lavrov, Moallem, Assad or other Syrian officials pledge. Rogues states operate that way. America's by far the worst.

Moallem's doing his best anyway. So is Lavrov. From Moscow, he said:

"We have agreed on practical steps to be taken bilaterally and in cooperation with other states for giving the political settlement a chance."

"No matter how serious the current situation may be, our Syrian partners and we are confident that possibilities remain for a political settlement."

"Russia has been staying in touch with all (Syrian) opposition groups without an exception in the recent years and we will carry on our efforts to try to convince them that there is no alternative to an international conference."

"If our contacts express that this (conference) may help, then we do not rule out the possibility of an invitation to Moscow of all who are interested in peace and a political settlement in Syria and reject the military scenario."

"What are the real interests of the US behind launching this aggression," he asked?

"Obama is not listening to Americans, Europeans, and UK Parliament. We thank American people for standing against striking Syria."

"We admire the American people who voice their protest against military intervention," added Muallem.

"What are the real interests of the United States behind launching this aggression? Why does US want to help those who are behind 9/11?

Washington "will be wrong to destroy (Syria's) army and help Al Qaeda. We're confident Russian efforts on peace talks will stop strikes."

Lavrov replied, saying:

"UN inspectors should return to Syria to investigate alleged use of chemical weapons."

"The alleged chemical attack on August 21 was orchestrated." Anti-Assad elements bear full responsibility.

"We must consolidate government and rebels to evict terrorists. We are taking active moves to prevent devastating strike. Every report on chemical arms use must be closely studied."

"Syria is open to Geneva-2 peace talks with no pre-conditions. We call on US colleagues to focus on talks, not on strikes."

"Syria strike will only enable terrorism. Russia believes no group should monopolize peace talks."

"Dialogue is necessary among all Syrians. It's the only solution. UN inspectors must go back to Syria, but some powers are obstructing."

He left no doubt which ones he means. They're headquartered in Washington. Obama's a warmaker. He deplores peace. He's going all out to prevent it. He plans war to do so.

"Russia is well-supported in the view that military action in Syria will provoke rampant terrorism," said Lavrov.

Moallem said his government is ready for Geneva II with no preconditions. "We are still ready to do that. But I do not know what may happen after an act of aggression by the United States. Probably a missile will fly over and thwart this.

America sides with terrorists, he added. It plans to be Al Qaeda's air force.

"But if such aggression against Syria aims, as we suspect, to considerably weaken the military potential of the Syrian army in the interest of al-Qaeda and various affiliated groups, then we will raise our objections," he stressed.

"Then we have the right to ask a question about the genuine interests of the United States that wishes to unleash an attack on the behalf of Jabhat al-Nusra and similar groups."

"We've come here just as the US is sounding war drums. Our feeling is that Russia plays an important role of staving off aggression."

"That is where Russia's moral ground lies, since a peacekeeper is always stronger than a warmonger."

"Mr. Assad has sent his regards and said he was grateful to Mr. Putin for his stand on Syria both before and after the G20 summit."

"Russia plays an important role in preventing aggression."

Lavrov added that Russia's "stand on Syria is unwavering and does not permit a military solution of the Syrian conflict, especially foreign intervention."

"The position of Russia is well-known. It is immune to change and varying circumstances."

"This position says there is no alternative to peaceful, diplomatic settlement of the Syrian conflict, especially not a military solution employing foreign intervention."

"On the background of the unfolding campaign calling to use force against Damascus, Russia is taking steps to prevent a pernicious situation in the Middle East."

"There cannot be any deals behind backs of the Syrian people from the Russian side in what refers to the policies Russia is following."

He added that force against Syria would cause a wave of regional terrorism. Perhaps that's precisely what Obama intends.

He needs pretexts to intervene. Peace and stability defeat his agenda. It requires violence and destabilization. He plans lots more ahead.

He faces stiff world opposition. On September 9, Reuters headlined "Analysis: Obama growing isolated on Syria as support wanes".

"White House efforts to convince the US Congress to back military action against Syria are not only failing, they seem to be stiffening the opposition."

He's making more enemies than friends. He's doing so at home and abroad. Skeptics way outnumber supporters.

Hindsight may show he shot himself in the foot. Peace activists hope so. He'll give it another go Tuesday night. He'll try enlisting support for what most people reject.

They're tired of being lied to. They want peace, stability, and jobs. They want America's resources directed toward creating them.

They want leadership representing everyone equitably. Obama's polar opposite. He supports wealth, power and privilege alone. He spurns popular interests.

He chooses war over peace. He's less able to sell what most people reject. Odds favor he'll attack Syria anyway.

Pretexts are easy to fabricate. They're longstanding US policy. Expect another major one if Ghouta's Big Lie falls flat. It's likely planned ready to be implemented if needed.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html - Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Update, 8 Sep 2013 : Stories which reveal complicity of former 'Labor' Foreign Minister Bob Carr in U.S. plans to start war against Syria: Interview of January 2013 with Bob Carr on Australia Network, Australia right to back Syria strike: Carr, Australian spies confirmed chemical use on civilians by Syrian regime (which confirms the complicity of Australia's 'intelligence' agencies), US and allies further isolated on Syria after French President Francois Hollande waits on UN report.

This article was originally published on www.paulcraigroberts.org on 5 September 2013 as The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars. See also: Paul Craig Roberts: U.S. war criminals (and their Australian accomplices) totally discredited of 2 Sep 2013.

Paul Craig Roberts explains that the serial liars U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are finally being held to account by world public opinion for the death and destruction they have inflicted upon Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. However, unless they are tried for their crimes at the International Criminal Court at the Hague, there can be no enduring peace.

Editorial comment

Unlike what occurred on past occasions when the U.S. Government launched wars against the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, much of world public opinion, including majorities within the U.S. and within many countries, whose governments are allied to the U.S., are opposed to its planned war against Syria and have organised effectively to prevent it _{#fnSubj3" id="txtSubj3">3}

Also, there are a number of honest and principled world leaders, who have substantial resources and who are willing to use those resources to stand up to the world's bullies. One is Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, who has been supplying Syria with many of the armaments necessary to defend itself against the West's proxy terrorists and threatened invasion by Western Nations.

Others include the leaders of Iran and the BRICS nations including many governments of Latin America.

That Putin was able to expose U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry before the world for the liar that he is _{#fnSubj5" id="txtSubj5">5} was because of his profile and that the Russian and other Governments have set up media outlets which are able to tell the truth to a large proportion of the world's population who would otherwise have their views largely moulded by presstitute media.

The Australian government has acted barely less shamefully

Much of what Paul Craig Roberts has written of Barack Obama and John Kerry is also true of Australian 'Labor' Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Senator Bob Carr, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs. Australia's role in inflicting harm on the peoples the world in recent years has been largely overlooked. As an example, nowhere in former U.S. Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney's book about Libya_{#fnSubj4" id="txtSubj4">4}, is Kevin Rudd's shameful role in starting the NATO invasion of Libya in 2011. _{#fnSubj6" id="txtSubj6">6} As 'roving' Australian Foreign Minister in the Middles East in March 2011, Kevin Rudd called for the establishment of the "no-fly" zone, because it was deceitfully reported the Libyan Air Force was indiscriminately bombing civilians.

Since then Kevin Rudd and Bob Carr have done much to help start a new war against Syria They have also spread lies similar to those told by Kerry and they have taken diplomatic initiatives to help start the war. Fortunately for Syria and the world, their hard efforts appear to have come unstuck thanks to the weight of world public opinion in support of Syria.

The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars

Paul Craig Roberts, 5 September, 2013

Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouth? Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or "America will lose face"?

The obama regime's lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know: John Kerry is a liar. Putin said: "This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad._{#fnSubj1" id="txtSubj1">1}"

When Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent by the criminal bush regime to lie to the UN, Powell and his chief of staff claim that Powell did not know he was lying. It did not occur to the Secretary of State that the White House would send him to the UN to start a war that killed, maimed, and dispossessed millions of Iraqis on the basis of total lies.

The despicable John Kerry knows that he is lying. Here is the American Secretary of State, and obama, the puppet president, knowingly lying to the world. There is not a shred of integrity in the US government. No respect for truth, justice, morality or human life. Here are two people so evil that they want to repeat in Syria what the bush war criminals did in Iraq.

How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals? Why are not obama and John Kerry impeached? The obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the obama regime is worse. The obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted.

Whether the criminal obama regime can purchase the collaboration of Congress and the European puppet states in a transparent war crime will soon be decided. The decision will determine the fate of the world.

As for facts, the report released to the UN by the Russian government concludes that the weapons used in chemical attacks in Syria are similar to the weapons in the hands of al-Nusra and are different from the weapons known to be possessed by Syria. _{#fnSubj2" id="txtSubj2">2}

The obama regime has released no evidence to the UN. This is because the criminal regime has no evidence, only made up fairy tales.

If the obama regime had any evidence, the evidence would have been released to British Prime Minister david cameron to enable him to carry the vote of Parliament. In the absence of evidence, cameron had to admit to Parliament that he had no evidence, only a belief that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Parliament told Washington's puppet that the British people were not going to war on the basis of the Prime Minister's unsubstantiated belief.

Are the American people and the rest of the world just going to stand there, sucking their thumbs, while a new Nazi State rises in Washington?

Congress must vote down the war and make it clear to obama that if he defies the constitutional power of Congress he will be impeached.

If the US Congress is too corrupt or incompetent to do its duty, the rest of the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. Any of its members caught traveling abroad will be arrested and turned over to the Hague for trial.

Footnotes

#fnSubj1" id="fnSubj1">1#txtSubj1">↑. Putin Calls Kerry a Liar on Syria of 5 Sep 2103 by David Jackson on Information Clearing House

#fnSubj2" id="fnSubj2">2.#txtSubj2">↑ Russia Releases Key Findings on Chemical Attack Near Aleppo Indicating Similarity With Rebel-made Weapons
of 5 Sep 2103 from Russia Today on Information Clearing House

#fnSubj3" id="fnSubj3">3. #txtSubj3">↑ Many, who are opposed to war, nevertheless still accept many of the lies fed to them by the presstitute media. To the extent that they do, their opposition to the war can only be muted. As one example, many accept the unsubstantiated view atrocities are being committed by both sides of the conflict. Others choose to promote the view that President Bashar al-Assad is corrupt, but invariably fail to provide evidence when challenged. In time, more and more people will come to understand that these views are wrong.

#fnSubj4" id="fnSubj4">4. #txtSubj4">↑ The Illegal War on Libya (Clarity Press, 2012) by Cynthia McKinney.

#fnSubj5" id="fnSubj5">5. #txtSubj5">↑ See US lied about absence of Al Qaeda in Syria - President Putin in the Voice of Russia of 5 September 2013.

#fnSubj6" id="fnSubj6">6. #txtSubj6">↑ See Rudd, PM Split On Libya No-Fly Zone in the Melbourne Age of 5 March 2011.

UPDATE! Since November the 13th Valentin Danilov is a free human being. Now he's at home in Krasnojarsk.
Nearly 900 signatures have been collected from scientists in Russia on behalf of colleagues falsely imprisoned because of association with foreigners. They ask for your support for their campaign to free their fellows. "...Russian Federation (RF) officials have repeatedly appealed to scientists who left Russia for the West in the 1990s, to come back and work for the good of Russian science and the modernization of the country. ... But the authorities have “forgotten” those Russian scientists who were condemned for “state treason”, for “the disclosure of state secrets” or for “exporting technologies of dual military and ordinary applications”, who were imprisoned for lengthy periods under charges faked by the Federal Safety Service (FSS). "

Scientists… they’re just an easy target

UPDATE! Since November the 13th Valentin Danilov is a free human being. Now he's at home in Krasnojarsk. Article re petition translated by Boris Osadin and Edited by Sheila Newman from the original at Novaya gazeta, No. 44 (1602) 26.04.2010, p.13

UPDATE: Today candobetter.net received a happy notification from Boris Osadin that Valentin Danilov has been freed.

"Dear Sheila,
it's a pleasure for me to tell you that since November the 13-th Valentin Danilov is a free human being. Now he's at home in Krasnojarsk.
Thank you for your anxiety and help.
Sinserely yours
Boris Osadin."

The article below (initially published 2010-05-07 18:19:04 +1000) gives the history of this scientist's political imprisonment in Russia.

Address to: The President of the Russian Federation (RF), The Russian Federation Federal Meeting, the Government of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation.

Over recent months Russian Federation (RF) officials have made repeated appeals to scientists who left Russia for the West in the 1990s, to come back and work for the good of Russian science and the modernization of the country. Very good conditions and big salaries have been promised to those who return.

But the authorities have “forgotten” those Russian scientists who were condemned for “state treason”, for “the disclosure of state secrets” or for “exporting technologies of dual military and ordinary applications”, who were imprisoned for lengthy periods under charges faked by the Federal Safety Service (FSS).

Investigators, prosecutors and judges sent to prison for many years Igor Sutyagin, Valentin Danilov, Igor Reshetin, Ivan Petkov, Sergey Vizir, Michael Ivanov, and Alexander Rojkin. Why? Just because of contacts with foreigners. Meanwhile, to this day, no-one has repudiated Putin’s public statement about criminal responsibility for contacts with foreigners.

Thanks to public support some scientists managed to avoid imprisonment by getting conditional terms instead or even succeeded in getting their investigations closed. The threat of prosecution of scientists in Russia hasn’t disappeared, however. It hangs over those who work on scientific problems which bureaucrats cannot understand.

FSS doesn’t leave condemned scientists alone even in prison. For example Igor Sutyagin served 10 years out of 15 in jail and earned the right to an early parole, but the men of the FSS deprived him of that right.

The Russian Public Committee for Protection of Scientists supposes that the main task of today’s Russian FSS is to fabricate an illusion that anti-Russian forces with supporters lurk within our borders, and Russian scientists have been selected as the easiest people to target with this invented conspiracy.

Over the past 10 years more than 20 scientists have been prosecuted in Russia by the FSS under far-fetched pretexts. And the authorities refuse to discuss this disgraceful situation. Meanwhile intellectual activity in the country, where special services have got unlimited power and where corruption exceeds all limits, is also diminished by growing corporatisation.

It seems very strange to invite foreign scientists into the country to reinvigorate science here, yet to overlook the plight of those Russian scientists already here, innocent, yet languishing in prison.

President Medvedev has not fulfilled our hopes for objectivity and humanity.

Repeated appeals to the new president by famous Russian scientists and public figures, asking him to reconsider cases, for amnesty or, finally, just to show mercy to convicted scientists have been fallen on deaf ears.

Because of this situation we are making another attempt to draw the attention of society and the scientific community this problem of reprisals against men of science, which is due to mercenary interests of FSS men who receive rewards and promotions for fabricating criminal cases. Every year the FSS publishes a report about the hundreds of “spies” it has caught. The situation has obviously overwhelmed justice, logic or truth.

We call for a transparent and public review process to investigate for cases where criminal guilt was manufactured, the freeing of innocent scientists from their wrongful imprisonment and for the punishment of those found guilty of fabricating evidence and of bringing this false evidence against these scientists.

Amnesty cannot substitute for justice. The granting of amnesty or clemency would be acceptable only as a preliminary event.

Until there is a public freeing of the innocent and falsely imprisoned Russian scientists the modern Russian authority has no moral right to call for the return of Russian scientists currently living abroad. Moreover, it has no right to play with the futures of foreign scientists either.

We hereby call upon Russian and men and women of science from other nations, public figures of all nations and ordinary citizens to sign this address.

Ludmila Alekseeva – Moscow Helsinki Group,
Yury Ryjov – Academician (RAS);
Aleksey Simonov – Glasnost Protection Fund;
Sergey Kovalev – A.D. Sakharov’s Heritage
Commission;
Ernst Cherny -- Public Committee
for Protection of Scientists;
Svetlana Gannushkina – “Assistance of Citizens”;
Boris Pustynszev – “Control of Citizens”;
Boris Osadin – professor;
Yury Vdovin -- “Control of Citizens”;
Leo Ponomarev – “For human rights”;
Eugeny Ikhlov – journalist;
Irina Osipova – “Memorial”;
Aleksander Altunian – scientist;
Aleksey Yablokov – Member-correspondent of RAS;
Gleb Yakunin – priest
Sheila Newman – Environmental Sociologist & Writer

www.novayagazeta.ru

Novaya gazeta has begun to gather signatures
for the liberation of Russian scientists

To sign if you don't read Russian therefore cannot access the above newspaper site:

If you don't read Russian, but want to sign - send your name to
ErnstChern[AT]yandex.ru
or

with a subject heading of "Russian Scientists".

Notes

Illustrations adapted from @0114926386.1272890392@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccfadekfkfmemdcefecekjdffidfkh.0">audio-book of Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, a classic novel of Soviet imprisonment and the Signet edition.