On May 17, 2022, President Putin had a video-conference meeting on oil industry development with state officers and commercial representatives from the industry. The following is the English translation of the transcript of the meeting, which is sourced from: here.
Recently Donald Trump accused Germany of being dangerously dependent on fuel imported from Russia. The Russian foreign minister has responded to this sally by pointing out that Germany is still occupied militarily by the United States Army. As for importing fuel from Russia, Germany has done so for over 50 years, reliably, without interruption due to political differences. Trump wants to sell fracked fuel from the US to Germany and other parts of Europe. Inside is a video with the Russian foreign minister's comment.
Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban has apparently called on Hungarians to beware of the power of the Sith in his latest speech on migration crisis in Europe. He also declared Eastern and Central Europe the last ‘migrant-free zone.’ "We should never underestimate the power of the dark side," the prime minister said, referencing Star Wars as he referred to the plots of those behind the “migrant invasion,” adding that they “have no solid structure but extensive networks.” Article first published 23 October on RT with the title, ‘Never underestimate the power of the dark side’: Orban goes Star Wars on EU ‘migrant invasion.’
The EU and some of its key member states have been “taken hostage” by a “speculative financial Empire” through an orchestrated “invasion of new immigrants,” Orban said in Budapest on Monday, adding that this mysterious “financial power” was behind the “latest great migration of peoples” that flooded Europe with “millions of migrants.”
“This plan was developed to make Europe a mixed [multicultural] continent,” the prime minister said at an event commemorating the anniversary of the 1956 anti-Soviet uprising in Hungary, adding that “only we managed to stand up against it,” apparently referring to the governments of Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which have taken a staunch anti-migrant stance and refused to accept refugee quotas imposed by Brussels.
Orban then declared Central and Eastern Europe the continent’s last "migrant-free zone." The Hungarian leader expressed the hope that, by acting together, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia could potentially stop mass immigration.
He went on to say that the ultimate goal of the massive inflow of migrants into Europe consisted of depriving it of its Christian and national identity. The prime minister then stressed that Europe should remain "safe, fair, civic, Christian and free" and should regain the splendor he said it had before embracing multiculturalism.
Orban’s remarks concerning the “financial power” behind the mass immigration apparently referred to the Hungarian-born US billionaire George Soros. The Hungarian prime minister has already accused Soros of seeking to create a "new, mixed, Muslimized Europe” in July. He also repeatedly blamed the tycoon of fueling the refugee crisis in Europe, adding that “Brussels has come under George Soros’s influence.”
Orban’s words were echoed by Hungarian MP Andras Aradszki, who claimed that “Soros and his comrades want to destroy the independence and values of nation states” by bringing migrants into Europe. He slammed the billionaire by calling him “Satan” earlier this month.
Orban’s latest remarks also come as Central and Eastern European countries witness a shift to the right. In Austria, two anti-migrant parties took the first two places in the parliamentary election, and are now expected to form the ruling coalition.
Soros and EU striving for ‘mixed, Muslimized Europe’, says Hungarian PM Orban
Just a week later, parliamentary elections in the Czech Republic ended up in a victory of an anti-establishment movement headed by a local billionaire dubbed “the Czech Donald Trump,” who is particularly known for his severe criticism of the EU’s immigration policies.
Hungary itself is engaged in a bitter row with the EU over the refugee relocation quotas, together with Poland and Slovakia. The issue dates back to the EU decision made in 2015 to rehouse some 160,000 refugees from Greece and Italy over a period of two years, only around 27,700 of whom have been settled so far.
Budapest also faces pressure over the fence that covers one-quarter of the length of its borders and was designed to stop the inflow of migrants and asylum seekers at the peak of the refugee crisis. Despite repeated criticism from many European countries, Hungary refuses to remove it and claims that it has helped to cut the inflow of migrants by 99.7 percent since 2015.
Article by Jay Syrmopoulos January 25, 2017. First published on the Free Thought Project Macedonia – Only a week after Hungary announced plans to purge all NGO groups funded by globalist progressive mega-donor George Soros, a new global initiative – Stop Operation Soros (SOS) – dedicated to the countering the influential political/social engineering the billionaire activist is now engaged in across the globe through his Open Society Foundations, was announced in Macedonia.
During a press conference last week, SOS founders called on all “free-minded citizens,” regardless of race, ethnicity or religion, to “fight against one-mindedness in the civil sector, which is devised and led by George Soros,” the Vecer newspaper reported.
This move comes on the heels of the Hungarian government announcing that it will use “all the tools at its disposal” to target and “sweep out” all non-governmental organizations funded by Soros, a Hungarian-born financier who has become one of the U.S. Democratic Party’s major sources of funding, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s ruling party.
Co-founder of the movement, Nikola Srbov, called out Soros for hijacking civil society, in an effort force his own personal ideology upon others by monopolizing civil discourse through strategically funding certain organizations via his group Open Society Foundations.
At the press conference, the group announced that their first step would be to work at uncovering ‘subversive’ activities by Soros-funded NGOs.
“We’ve witnessed the takeover of the entire civil sector and its abuse and instrumentalization to meet the goals of one political party. That is unacceptable and goes beyond the principles of civic organizing,” Srbov said at the press conference.
“The Open Society Foundation, operating under the Soros umbrella, used its funding and personnel to support violent processes in Macedonia. It has monopolized the civil society sector, pushing outside any organization which disagrees with the Soros ideology,” he stated.
Read more at
Video of conference inside: Speeches verbally translated in English, live. Leaders of several European nationalist parties gathered for the ‘Freedom for Europe’ congress, in Koblenz, on Saturday, January 21. The meeting was the first official appearance of Frauke Petry, chair of the AfD (Alternative for Germany), alongside Front National leader Marine Le Pen. Both were joined by Geert Wilders, founder and leader of the Dutch PVV (Party for Freedom), and Liga Nord leader Matteo Salvini. Dubbed a “European counter-summit”, this first-of-its-kind gathering was organised by the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) group from the European Parliament.
On 23 June, just prior to the vote on whether Britain should leave the European Union (referred to as 'Brexit'), Paul Craig Roberts (pictured right) put the case for Brexit in a 30 minute interview with Richie Allen (pictured left).
The interview is embedded below as a YouTube video. This 30 minute interview, provides clear, compelling arguments as to why it is urgently necessary for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, not only to preserve its national sovereignty, but to prevent the war against Russia planned by the rulers of the United States. In the interview Paul Craig Roberts also confronts, and thoroughly demolishes, claims by those arguing for Britain to remain in the European Union, that those advocating Brexit are racist and xenophobic.
He puts clearly and succinctly the arguments that everybody has the right to control the numbers of people entering their community. It is not unreasonable for a community to object to large numbers of people from a different culture suddenly moving into their midst.
Paul Craig Roberts argues that while the British and other Europeans are right to object to as sudden high influx of refugees and immigrants, they should remember that these people are fleeing their own countries because of wars that the rulers of Europe and Britain have inflicted upon their countries.
Paul Craig Roberts "NATO Wants Britain In the European Union For War with Russia. Vote LEAVE Today!"
See also: Engineered Refugee Crisis to Justify "Safe Havens" in Syria (7/9/15) by Tony Cartalucci | Land Destroyer and other articles listed below.
The article below is formed from the start of Germany is 'exploiting' refugee suffering to recruit 'slaves' via mass immigration - Marine Le Pen (7/9/15) | RT. The remainder of the original article consists of stories about appeals by European pro-refugee-rights to let in untold numbers of refugees. 1
As Germany welcomes thousands of refugees, with industries seeking ways to integrate newcomers into country's workforce, Berlin's move to temporarily bypass EU-wide regulations has met strong criticism from France's Marine Le Pen who accused Germany of recruiting "slaves."
The German drive to open its doors to refugees, as well as debated plans to resettle asylum seekers across the EU has been met with strong criticism from a number of politicians, including the leader of right-wing French party National Front, Marine Le Pen who accused Germany of imposing its immigration policy on the EU.
"Germany probably thinks its population is moribund, and it is probably seeking to lower wages and continue to recruit slaves through mass immigration," Marine Le Pen said in Marseille, refusing to admit that pure benevolence was Germany's only motive.#fn2" id="txt2"> 2
Le Pen criticised European politicians for "exploiting the suffering of these poor people who cross the Mediterranean Sea."
"They are exploiting the death of the unfortunate in these trips organized by mafia, they show pictures, they exhibit the death of a child without any dignity just to blame the European consciences and make them accept the current situation," the National Front leader said.
Following days of chaos and uncertainty, thousands of refugees – mostly Syrians – were bused from Hungary to Austria, and then brought by train to Germany, after the countries agreed on allowing migrants access, bypassing the Dublin Regulation.
By Sunday night almost 11,000 migrants arrived in Germany, authorities in Munich said. Germany in August registered more than 100,000 asylum seekers with some 800,000 refugees overall expected to come to Germany in total this year – four times the level of last year.
#fn1" id="fn1">1. #txt1">↑ I have yet to see one of these pro-refugee-rights activists speak up against the West's attempt at regime-change in Syria, as Marine Le Pen has. This proxy war, overtly supported, since March 2011, by France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, the United States, Israel and the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar has, so far, cost the lives of over 220,000 Syrians and is the principle driver of the refugee crisis. See YouTube Video of 3/1/13, Marine Le Pen and Alexander Lukashenko on Syrian Crisis, Marine Le Pen France's new Joan of Arc for Russians (22/3/12) | Live Leak, Le Pen says French government hiding true number of jihadists (20/11/14) | rfi English, Europe's Migrant Crisis Caused by West's Destabilization of Syria – Le Pen (29/8/15) | Sputnik News.
#fn2" id="fn2">2. #txt2">↑ How the RT author can know that Marine Le Pen is wrong about the motives of Angela Merkel and the German corporate interests she represents, is not explained in this artcle.
#OtherArticles" id="OtherArticles">See also: Marine Le Pen: migrants flee from death, brought by French (4/9/15) | Pravda.ru, Stephen Harper Promotes War in Syria as a "Solution to the Refugee Crisis": Canadian Government Is to Blame for the Death of Aylan Kudri (6/9/15) | Global Research, Enhanced US-NATO Military Action in Syria is Contemplated as a "Solution to the Refugee Crisis" (5/9/15) | Global Research, The Guardian: "bomb Assad and save the refugees" (4/9/15) | OffGuardian, Germany is 'exploiting' refugee suffering to recruit 'slaves' via mass immigration - Marine Le Pen (7/9/15) | RT, Europe has to deal with refugee disaster caused by US - Nicolas Maduro to RT (7/9/15) | RT, US to blame for Europe's refugee crisis: Venezuela president (/9/15) | PressTV
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.
“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.
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!
Translated from French by Jenny Bright
Copyright Sayed Hasan, 2015
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
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
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
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
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.
Immigration policy in Britain continues to reveal depths of incompetence, as Europe is under increasing pressure from illegal immigration. Government claims that they are tackling the issues will do little to reassure a worried public.
Migration has enriched many societies, but immigration and the growing cost to communities of accommodating large-scale inflows of people, in a now crowded world, raises many challenging questions. This is not a left or right issue or racist. It is about social and environmental sustainability.
Over 22,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in southern Italy alone in the first three months of 2014. Many more have entered Greece and Spain. Well over 100,000 African immigrants landed in the Spanish Canary Islands trying to gain access to the EU in the last few years. The EU and the media attempt to cloud the picture by calling them ‘irregular’ migrants and ‘undocumented workers’, but the growing consequences of these pressures will have profound impacts.
In 2010 the European Union's population topped half a billion. Of the 1.4 million growth from the previous year, 900,000 resulted from legal immigration alone into the EU. according to Eurostat in July 2010.
The number of foreign nationals given UK passports has soared. By 2050 the Government Actuary’s Department estimates the UK’s population could rise to 90 million, 70 per cent of this due to inward migration - enough to fill a major conurbation the size of Birmingham every five years in what is already the most densely populated country in Europe. Add to this, illegal immigration.
We now face a massive increase in population as our economy is struggling. Is this a sustainable policy supported by the environmental lobby? Is this a future we would vote for? We need to know but are still not being asked.
Displaying a mixture of complacency and incompetence the UK Government first lost control of the immigration and asylum system and then tried to spin the idea that large-scale immigration was vital to our economic interests. Growing evidence has shown this to be profoundly misleading.
What matters, not least to those in already vulnerable communities, is how immigration increases the number of people who are entitled to claim on the economy and the huge impact on infrastructure, schools, health, housing and the environment. The fact that the extra population cancels out any real benefit to the resident population was repeatedly denied until exposed by an investigation published in April 2008 by the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords.
In the last five years, with high unemployment in some member countries, net migration from the whole of the EU rose to about 36 per cent of total net migration into the UK, says MigrationWatch, so nearly two-thirds is still from outside the EU. The eurosceptic press ignores this. But there is much Europe could do.
Illegal immigration pressure builds in Europe
Instability in North African countries has seen a big jump in illegals trying to get into Europe. National authorities in the EU apprehend more than 500,000 illegal migrants annually. In addition, there were 335,895 asylum claims in 2012, according to the EU Home Affairs Directorate.
Five amnesties have taken place in Italy since 1986, involving more than two million immigrants; four in Greece, four in Portugal since 1992 and three in Spain. These amnesties confirm that such strategies do not solve the long-term challenge of dealing with illegal migration.
Immigration has also had a major impact on Sweden and Norway, with their generous policies to would-be immigrants. Of nine million Swedes, roughly 1,080,000 are now foreign-born with around 900,000 children of immigrants. The city of Malmö’s population is almost 40 percent foreign, with high unemployment, social-welfare dependency and crime. Now the government wants to spread the burden, pushing other EU countries to take their share of this Swedish generosity.
Illegal migration into the EU from high-fertility countries that do not provide enough opportunities for their people presents a huge challenge. Lobby groups like the Refugee Council demand that Europe should just roll over and accommodate these continual pressures. Merely, negotiating how many each EU country should take.
Do the media and politicians seriously think that Europe can take in the populations of sub-Saharan Africa and beyond? When will the line be drawn? Most developed countries are already unsustainable in terms of resource use and the environment.
Using conflict situations to override border controls will only worsen this trend. This is a legitimate concern for millions of people, whatever their colour and background.
Once refugees and illegals are given leave to remain, most apply for citizenship and few go back to their country of origin. This can’t go on.
A global people-trafficking industry is running rings around the EU’s ‘human rights’ approach. The EU needs to send a clear message that illegals landing in Europe will simply be sent back to their county of origin within days, not be accommodated and then allowed to move around Europe.
Part of the problem is that EU countries don’t have repatriation agreements with many sender countries, but this could be remedied quite simply, as just about all the sender countries in Africa and many in Asia are recipients of generous Western aid. We need to tell them sign the agreement or aid will not be forthcoming.
Today, only Syria currently has an acute refugee crisis, but even here there is no need to give often large families permanent access to host countries, with follow up ‘family reunion’ leading to chain migration. They could simply be given temporary leave to remain while the situation settled and aid should primarily be targeted cost-benefit wise on refugee camps in neighboring countries
A bigger picture
Some people applaud Australia’s immigration system. They fail to say that Australia is letting in more immigrants each year than the country’s total annual net increase in the resident population. This, in an arid continent with only six per cent of the country suitable as arable land.
Similarly in Canada, where much of the country is too barren to support people, the Government is letting in over 260,000 immigrants a year – over twice the country’s annual net increase in births - and wants it to reach 330,000. Nearly 80 per cent of immigration in Canada is now linked to large-scale family reunion and an asylum backlog rather than primary skilled migration.
In the USA there are believed to be over 12 million illegals in the country and half a million illegal entries into the United States each year. (Pew Hispanic Center).
Ironically, Poland opened its doors to workers from outside the EU in an attempt to ease labour shortages, as it finds itself short of skilled workers because they're flocking to Britain.
Well over a million young people are not in education, work or training in the UK. Yet the Government more than doubled the number of work permits to non-EU immigrants since 1997 - despite the unprecedented influx of migrants from Eastern Europe who do not need permits. British workers wages are being depressed for employer profit, while taxpayers pick up the cost of low-wage welfare payments.
In some London boroughs, which now have immigrant majority populations of over 50 per cent, the proportion of immigrant origin school children is far higher, with potential social implications for increasing alienation and parallel societies, in conflict over cultural values. Official figures show one in every four babies born in Britain in 2009 was to a migrant mother – the rate in England and Wales was one in three.
A report by MigrationWatch (UK) in October 2010 says more than half a million school places will be needed over the next five years to meet future demand. The cost of the 550,000 extra school places will reach £40 billion over the five-year period and rise to £100 billion between now and 2020.
The UK’s Local Government Association warned that “Councils find it difficult to provide services for growing populations that are not recognised by the official statistics and for which they, therefore, receive no financial help” Yet the Government says it is scrapping the 10-year Census to save money.
Even the Conservatives’ pre-2010 election plan to allow 20,000 asylum seekers plus their dependents to come to Britain each year is equivalent to building a town the size of Truro in Cornwall or Godalming in Surrey every year. This is still environmentally unsustainable in a country as densely populated as Britain.
Crime hits us all, not least in vulnerable communities. Research by the International Centre for Prison Studies shows the percentage of foreign nationals in prison in 2012/2013 was 12.8 per cent for England and Wales, 34 per cent in Italy, 31 per cent Spain, 30 per cent Sweden, 44 per cent Belgium, in Austria 49 per cent, Greece 63 per cent and Switzerland 74 per cent - putting huge strain on our prison systems.
These are things we must face in our efforts to tackle existing inequalities in our society, not bury them in the politics of denial. We need more than ‘band aid’ campaigns and must focus real political will on tackling global environmental loss, bloody turf wars and religious feuds, overpopulation and under-employment that leads to poverty and despair.
The safety valve of migration is part of our collective history, but large-scale migration now raises vital social, environmental and economic questions about where the world is going and how we deliver reform and a better life for people wherever they are born. Like most of the key problems of the 21st Century, time to find solutions is running out.
By Brian McGavin, April 2014
One impact of Georgia's nose-thumbing Russia has been for the US and Europe to take a step backwards, away from it. This leaves Georgia, not only vulnerable to a Russian take-over, but it also frees Georgia to succumb to Russia.
See also: Russia Never Wanted a War by Mihkail Gorbachev in New York Times of 19 Aug 08 for a view critical of Georgia's role in the conflict.
The US invasion of Iraq was identified by many oil 'peakniks' as the first of the oil depletion wars. Hostilities around Ossetia between Georgia and Russia, identify this region as the second of the oil depletion warzones.
The World’s longest oil pipeline runs through Georgia
Illustration source: http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/ossetia.htm
South Ossetia is a Georgian state, north of Tbilisi, Georgia, where the world's longest oil pipeline - the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline - runs through on its politically and geographically circuitous route to the Mediterranean from the Caspian Sea. The Caspian Sea is the largest closed body of water in an ancient fiery region full of legend, bordering central Asia. It is also an international wildlife preserve, with many threatened species, including the near-extinct Caspian sturgeon (source of caviar and little sturgeons).
(Photo of Caspian Seal from Wikipedia)
The entire pipeline is underground and fascinatingly high-tech, to cope with the climate, seismic, and gravity features of the regions it tunnels through as well as the high wax content of the oil. It is patrolled by US trained Georgian soldiers.  The crude comes from the Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli oil field in the Caspian Sea, which has slowly been coming on line since 2005 with Gunashli only beginning production in May 2008.
There has been for a long time conflict as to whether the inland body of water known as the Caspian Sea is a sea or a lake. The political difference is that, if it is a lake, then the hydrocarbons (oils and gases) it produces belong to the countries bordering its shores. These are, clockwise from the port of Baku: Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Iran. If it is a sea, however, such products are divided up by median lines.
Caspian oil and gas
Much has been hoped for from the Caspian's oil and gas reserves.
Their location, however, for many reasons, makes profitable oil extraction especially difficult and probably impossible in many cases.
The highest density of mud volcanoes occurs in Azerebaijan and in the Caspian Sea
Conditions make the region sound like a strange and hostile planet, scorching in summer and frigid in winter. Caspian oil has a super-dangerous high sulphur content which means that workers need to wear oxygen tanks to avoid hydrogen sulphide during exploration and extraction. The water is often ice-bound. The winter climate, as well as wet and freezing, is stormy with severe winds. The site of the most important oil reserves off Kazakhstan, in Kashagan field, are located in shallow water which is hard to navigate, and the deposits are in pockets, inconveniently separated by rock layers, 4.02 km or 2.5 miles below the seabed at pressures around 500 times sea level. It has been necessary to build special platforms and equipment. An offshore gas platform and plant for Stage 2 of the Shah Deniz project was costed at $10 billion plus.
Even if the reserves in the Caspian do prove to be huge, and it becomes possible to extract a good portion, the amount of petroleum and other fuels and materials expended in order to do so mean that the margin for profit is much smaller than with wells in the past. This is just one of the reasons why oil is becoming so dear; the easy to get supplies were taken first; now only obscure and difficult deposits remain. On top of this, demand for an ultimately finite supply is rising daily along with population numbers and economic activity.
Although it is true that the pipeline avoids "using tanker transport along the Black Sea and the highly congested Bosporus, " which a shorter pipeline through Russia would have led to, other, more political reasons, have been highlighted by the August Georgia-Russian confrontation.
It is largely these political associations which caused the pipeline to be much longer than it might have been, adding an estimated $3.20 per barrel to the cost of transporting the oil.
Russia is the big power in the area, yet it has been left out of the pipeline in question. What is more, there are several more pipelines in the … um… pipeline and none of them involve Russia. Prior to this one there was the Baku-Supsa pipeline, which transports oil from Azerbaijan to the Black Sea coast of Georgia. Sohbut Kabuz reports that there is a preliminary agreement for construction of a pipeline to ‘connect Romania's Konstanza port to Italy's port of Trieste.” There is another planned to link Ukraine's Odessa-Brodi pipeline to Poland's Gdansk port in the Baltic Sea, and another to transport Azerbaijani and Turkmen natural gas to Europe via Romania and Ukraine. “All give key roles to Georgia,” Kabuz says. 
But Russia obviously believes that the countries around the Caspian, and their product, should be within its hegemony. Unsurprisingly, it is suspicious of US 'democracy' missions and gifts and influence in the area. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is not just an insulting symbol, it is actually siphoning oil out of the area beyond the reach of Russian taxes, and more like this are planned.
Logically, a pipeline through Russia and Iran would have made more sense.
On the face of it, the pipeline took a very strange route when there was a much shorter one available with less geologically unstable terrain (high seismic activity). But that route went through Russia or Iran. Although Russia's oil supply appears to have peaked, the US supply peaked ages ago (in about 1973), but the US is a glutton for oil. Obviously the US does not want to deal with Russia any more than it has to. Not surprisingly the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline was the outcome of US influence in the region. The US paid Turkey something like one fifth of the construction costs ($823m) and has been extending its influence via NATO in the area for some time. The pipeline was designed to accommodate an oil throughput of one million barrels per day, which is around 1/87th of recent daily world demand. (EIA stats)
Colin Campbell, thought that the US invasion of Iraq might have indicated that US expectations may have diminished in the light of the many difficulties associated with extraction and transport in the Caspian region. This disappointment factor might explain, in part, why the US cavalry did not come galloping to Georgia's rescue in the latest hostilities.
Sharing the Caspian coastline, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan gained independence following the fall of the Soviets in 1991. Campbell writes in his superbly informed article on this complex subject, “The Caspian Chimera,” that Dagestan and Chechnya reluctantly remain part of federated Russia but “still seek independence, in a vicious campaign attended by many acts of terror. (...) [adding 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." 
The position of Iran vis a vis the Caspian Sea (or lake) also explains some of the US interest in that country. Both Iran and Russia were obviously excluded from any participation in the construction of the pipeline.
China has been negotiating now since at least 2004 with Kazakhstan to build a 750 km extension of the Atasu-Alasankou oil pipeline to connect with the Kenkiyak and Kumkol oil fields, which are operated by China National Petroleum Company in Kazakh. CNPC stated that it expects to obtain about 5 per cent of its current requirements from the pipeline – 400,000 barrels a day. China's interest in the area could overshadow Europe's because the projected growth in demand from China is greater than Europe's.
Azerbaijan and Georgia receive gas from the Shah Deniz project in Azerbaijan. Interruption of supply forced Georgia to purchase gas at very high prices from Russia between January and July 2007. Georgia was desperate to lose its energy — and political — dependence on Russia and hopes that Shah Deniz may allow her to do this for a while. In the current petroleum gas and oil supply scenario, any country which has a reliable supply for a few years into the future becomes a potential magnet for development or for exploitation, and, in this region, US support.
Europe currently relies on Russia for a quarter of its gas supplies. More diverse supplies would be desirable.
Russia has developed a reciprocal relationship with Venezuelan oil in supplying oil to different customers. Chavez in Venezuela has a strong relationship with Cuba and is a strong promoter of Latin American oil and solidarity with non-US states, especially in the third world. Not insignificantly, on 5 August, Putin announced that Russia ought to "restore [its] position in Cuba and other countries." This was after a visit to Cuba in July from Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin. It is well-known that Latin America has good reason to fear interference by the US in its politics and its oil. 
Sorbet Khabuz feels that Russia percieves its old allies as disloyal when they cooperate on oil-ventures with the EU or the US. He says that Putin objected strongly to Kosovo's independence and "was unhappy that the Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil pipeline (AMBO), extending from Bulgaria's coastal city of Burgaz through Macedonia and ending at Albania's Vlora port, would pass through Kosovo." [Referring to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyan pipeline], he notes that, "The pipeline project in question is being actively supported by the EU and the US with the goal of carrying Azerbaijani and Kazakh oil to the Black Sea via Georgia." 
Why did Georgia rattle its sabers?
On the face of it, it seems very unlikely that Georgia would have picked a fight with Russia if the Georgian president had not believed that he would receive backing from the US and Europe. Neither the US nor the EU have the means to enter into serious new wars, however. The US is already involved in Iraq and Afghanistan because of its own dwindling oil and gas supplies. Russia does have a reasonable supply of oil, coal and lots of gas and the capacity to defend itself. It can be very tough about managing its oil exports and it can form alliances with other oil exporters. It has also been suggested that Russia would not like Iran to develop nuclear capabilities and that this would provide a common point with the US.
One impact of Georgia's nose-thumbing Russia has been for the US and Europe to take a step backwards, away from it. This leaves Georgia, not only vulnerable to a Russian take-over, but it also frees Georgia to succumb to Russia.
Of course, Russia has evacuated, for the time being. If, however, we treat the recent (tragic for the civilians who have been victimised) events as a dress rehearsal, we now know that no-one is going to stop Russia from taking Georgia. A respectable ostensible reason may be to unite Georgian South Ossetia with Russian Northern Ossetia. From there it would be but a small step for Russia to assimilate Georgia. This would then solve Russia's problem of being kept out of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyan pipeline and the Baku Supsa pipeline and all the planned pipelines.
Russia has oil and gas, but it has probably passed its oil peak. If Russia were to acquire Georgia it would then control the BTC pipeline and become oil-rich as well as gas-rich. Although the US and the EU won't like buying the oil from their pipeline in Georgia from Russia, they have already shown that they don't intend to go to war over this prospect. The incentives for Russia to take Georgia and the pipeline are enormous; face-saving and energy securing in a region and a world where most powers are receding in their capacity to fuel daily business, let alone wars.
There is an historic pattern of Russia taking over Georgia in exchange for protection from regional enemies, particularly Persia (old name for Iran) and Turkey. From 1810 to 1878, beginning with Western Georgia, most of Georgia was annexed to the Russian Empire, in an association which, after an initial unsettled period, was not too uncomfortable for the land-owning aristocracy of Georgia and probably made little difference to the severely ill-treated serfs. (Georgia freed its serfs even later than Russia did.)
After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia declared independence from Russia. In 1921 the Red Army occupied Georgia and, Georgia remained a Soviet Republic (state) until 1990.
Historically the Caucasus oilfields were one of the main objectives of Hitler's invasion of the USSR in August 1941, but the German army and its allies failed to reach them. Georgia furnished the Red Army 700,000 soldiers (of which 350,000 died). There were, however German sympathisers who formed the Georgian Legion and fought with the Germans.
Political tension in Georgia prior to the Ossetia incident
There have been many historical tensions within post-soviet Georgia, principally from ethnic separatists in South Ossetia. The country has a history of corruption, even in Communist times by Russian standards.
In November 2003 the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia carried pro-Western Mikheil Saakashvili to power. Georgia accuses Russia of fanning separatism in Abkhaszia and south Ossetia in order to undermine Georgia's government. Russia has accused Georgia of spying and vice versa. Russia maintained or maintains two military bases in Georgia, scheduled to be withdrawn in 2007 and 2008. The United Nations has been involved in Peace Keeping in South Ossetia for some time and there are thousands of displaced people in Georgia. In November 2, 2007 Georgians demonstrated against the government, protesting that President Mikheil Saakashvili's government was corrupt. 
Also, if we know the United States, their versions of economic reform and democracy carry very heavy penalties for ordinary people. Wikipedia reports that
"The Georgian Government is committed to economic reform in cooperation with the IMF and World Bank." "Saakashvili is still (2006) under significant pressure to deliver on his promised reforms. Organisations such as Amnesty International have serious concerns over human rights , and discontent over unemployment, pensions and corruption (...).Georgia's relationships with Russia are at it lowest point in modern history due to Georgian-Russian espionage controversy and related events."
Sounds like the usual privatisation and asset-stripping drill that accompanies friendships with the USA to me. See review of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine
All in all, it might be very hard for Georgia to remain friends with the US if Russia and many of its own citizens did not want it to. Such sentiments are expressed here in a pro-Russian page. And the US doesn't seem all that keen either. One hopes not to see a re-run of situations like the one where the US encouraged the Kurds and Shi'ites to rise up against the Iraqi goverment, but left them to be slaughtered. And was Hussein set up by the US when he asked diplomat, April Glaspie, if Kuwait was important to the US, and she said, "No," and then he invaded, presumably believing that the US would turn a blind eye. After this the US went to the UN and the UN authorised force to get Hussein to withdraw his troops. Hussein agreed to withdraw, but the US seems to have used the opportunity then to attack his troops anyway.
Alternative to war
Instead of war, there may be a different outcome, as oil-writer, Mark Jones suggested :
"It should be borne in mind that the changeover from declining to ascending hegemony can happen - and has historically - not by means of war but with the consent and active participation of the declining power (...) Since the 1939–45 war, the US has in fact made a practice of co-opting present and potential rivals into junior partnership. It has done this not only to Britain, but also to Germany (1960s), Japan (1970s and 1980s) and latterly even to Russia (from 1991).(...)
Of the US situation, he observed,
"If the US has to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world, then it may find that its urban infrastructure is just as uneconomic and unsustainable as was the Soviet Union’s loss-making effort to base itself on the industrialization of the Urals and Siberia. The US currently uses twice as much energy and raw materials per capita as the EU-15 average, and more than ten times that of China. It is desperately uncompetitive. When the dollar has to be backed up by real values, US per capita GNP may fall by half in just a few years, as in the Great Depression. Under these conditions it is hard to see how the US can hope to maintain its global reach and present hegemonic position. (...)
And, in the case of global war:
If, on the other hand, we are set on a course of global war, which was the outcome for “classic” economic depressions before 1914, and again through 1929–36, then Americans have only a very small window of opportunity (like Hitler enjoyed in 1939) before their military advantage evaporates." - Mark Jones, Battle of the Titans in Sheila Newman, (Ed.) The Final Energy Crisis, Pluto, UK 2008.
See also: Russia Never Wanted a War by Mihkail Gorbachev in New York Times of 19 Aug 08 for a view critical of Georgia's role in the conflict.
Sheila Newman is the editor of Sheila Newman, (Ed.)The Final Energy Crisis, Pluto Press, UK, 2008 which is due out around August 27 in Australia and round about the same time in the US. It should already be available in Britain. It is a collection of scientific, economic and political articles about oil depletion and other fuels and new technologies, including fission, fusion, geothermal, cellulosic biofuels and terra preta, by ten different authors.
 The Caspian Sea is considered an independent zoogeographical region due to the diversity, specificity and endemism of its fauna. Waters of the Caspian Sea house 400 endemic aquatic animal species, including the Caspian seal (Phoca caspica) and sturgeons (90% of the world catch). The sea coast provides important sites for many nesting and migratory birds such as flamingoes, geese, ducks, gulls, terns, swans. Many multinational companies are exploring the region for oil and gas. Source (with interesting descriptions of geophysical features and wildlife: http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/pa/pa1308_full.html
 "Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Caspian Pipeline" at Hydrocarbons Technology com, http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/bp/)
 Sohbet Karbuz, “War stirs energy corridor in Georgia,” in Today’s Zaman//www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=150151&bolum=109
 Colin Campbell, "The Caspian Chimera," in Sheila Newman, (Ed.)The Final Energy CrisisSecond Edition, Pluto, UK, 2008.
 Sheila Newman, “Venezuela, Chavez and Latin-American oil on the world stage,” in Sheila Newman (Ed.) The Final Energy Crisis, Second Edition, Pluto UK, 2008.
 "Please cast your minds back to 1990. We must remember the complete history of James Baker, the aristocratic Secretary of State to Bush 41. He instructed our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspy, (remember her?) to tell Saddam Hussein that we had no interest in his fight with Kuwait. Saddam was itching for war with Kuwait whom he accused of slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields. Right after receiving Baker's message sent through Ambassador Glaspy, Saddam invaded Iraq. From that moment on Mr. Baker left April out there turning slowly in the wind. He denied all knowledge of her conversation. (Someone please tell me what lowly ambassador writes their own portfolio?)" Source: Re: Philip Klein's Talking with the Enemy, "Baker's World", The American Spectator, http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10496
 Mark Jones, Battle of the Titans in Sheila Newman, (Ed.) The Final Energy Crisis, Second Edition, Pluto, UK 2008.