High noon in Syria

High noon in Syria

by Don Hank

Fox News is between a rock and a hard place. They have always generally been anti-Putin because they have a lot of Neocon supporters. But now Putin has scored big at the UN. Even the British PM is cautiously inching over to his side and Merkel stated last week that she thinks Assad must be included in negotiations over the fate of Syria. Most European countries are taking a wait and see position and will bolt the US monopoly if such is appropriate. Putin has a plan and clearly wants to stop ISIS. Obama sorta has a, well, you know, maybe a plan or something and has been pretending to fight ISIS for years now. Judging by his actions, his plan is to lose the war on ISIS and allow them to romp freely, slicing throats to their hearts content until Assad – the only leader who has been sincerely fighting ISIS for 4.5 years – is gone. While Obama’s position is incomprehensible and confusing, Putin’s position is clear and easily understood. One could articulate it in part as follows:

Syrian Christians overwhelmingly support Assad because they know that if he leaves power, their life expectancy is considerably shorter.

Assad is not a dictator (though Fox still calls him that in the article below). He was duly elected (unlike the Saudis whom we support – NO Neocon voices are calling for the unelected dictator king to step down. How phony and hypocritical can you get?)

Since the popular Assad is still the president, anyone entering Syria without his permission – including the US military in its pretend fight against ISIS – is there illegally per international law. Putin and his coalition have been invited by the Syrian people via their elected leader to fight ISIS and are there legally and legitimately.

In a court of law, no fair-minded judge would hand a victory to the US or find against Putin, but the US, as the “exceptional” and “indispensable” world manipulator, has in the past bought all the judges so to speak. That is changing. I had pointed out before that the accession of almost all US allies to the AIIB was a signal that the hegemon has lost his support in the world community. And without that, he cannot stand. I had also pointed out that Russia is now selling oil to China for yuan (RMB) as part of a larger campaign to dedollarize world trade. The less the USD is used in international transactions, the less it is worth internationally, as one can deduce from my commentary and translation here. Dollar hegemony (which gives the US government and FRB the extravagant ability to print unlimited dollars for its military adventures) is being fought successfully, a step at a time. We are witnessing the changing of the guard. The good news is that, as I pointed out here, the Eurasianism of Putin, China, the BRICS and other Eurasian partners strictly pursues the multipolar principle whereby there shall not be a hegemon. (BTW, if the countries that joined the AIIB had had any reason whatsoever to believe that the AIIB would enable a hegemon – world dictator in the image of the US – to emerge, they would not have rushed en masse to join it and turn their backs on the US-led World Bank and IMF).

I have added comments to the biased Fox report below.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/30/boots-on-ground-russian-lawmakers-back-putin-sending-troops-to-syria/

Russia launches airstrikes in northern Syria, senior military official says

Published September 30, 2015

FoxNews.com

 

EXCLUSIVE: Russian warplanes have begun bombarding Syrian opposition [FOX USES THE WORD “OPPOSITION” TO SUGGEST TO UNWARY READERS THAT THESE ARE GOOD FOLKS WHO RECEIVED ARMS FROM THE US TO FIGHT A DICTATOR. HOWEVER, THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN TERRORISTS AND “OPPOSITION” HAS LONG BEEN BLURRED. IT IS COMMONLY KNOWN THAT THE US GOVERNMENT ROUTINELY GIVES ARMS TO ANYONE FIGHTING ASSAD AND THESE PEOPLE THEN ROUTINELY TURN AROUND AND JOIN ISIS OR ANOTHER TERROR ORGANIZATION–DON] targets in the war torn nation’s north, working on behalf of dictator [NEOCON FOX IS OBLIGED TO PRETENT THAT ASSAD IS A DICTATOR BECAUSE THEY ARE BEHOLDEN TO THEIR RICH SUPPORTERS TO KEEP UP THIS CHARADE. BUT AS I POINTED OUT ABOVE, ASSAD IS NOT ONLY POPULAR, HE IS DULY ELECTED. THE WEST HAS CONDEMNED HIM FOR KILLING PEOPLE, BUT THE WEST KILLS ALL THE PEOPLE IT WANTS, INTERFERES IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF NATIONS, STARTS AND FUNDS COLOR REVOLUTIONS AND ARAB SPRING-LIKE UPRISINGS AND IN SO DOING PLUNGES NATION AFTER NATION INTO ANARCHY, CREATIG A VACUUM THAT IS PREDICTABLY FILLED BY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, TRIGGERING A MASS MIGRATION THAT IS OUT OF CONTROL. THE KEY US ALLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS A TRUE DICTATOR, THE SAUDI KING WHO IS UNELECTED. THERE IS NO GREATER HYPOCRISY THAN FOX CALLING ASSAD A DICTATOR WHILE GIVING THE SAUDI ROYALS A PASS—DON HANK] Bashar al Assad, according to a senior military official.

The official said airstrikes targeted fighters in the vicinity of Homs, located roughly 60 miles east of a Russian naval facility in Tartus, and were carried out by a “couple” of Russian bombers. It was not clear if the strikes targeted ISIS, Al Qaeda or other forces opposed to Assad, who Moscow is aiding [ANOTHER DECEITFUL SUGGESTION THAT PUTIN IS KILLING US APPROVED FORCES OPPOSED TO ASSAD, ALTHOUGH OBAMA HAS ADMITTED HIS ADMINISTRATION HAD ONLY MANAGED TO TRAIN A HANDFUL AT A PRICE OF SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS PER CAPITA AND THAT THESE MEN HAD MOSTLY DISAPPEARED].  According to a Twitter handle belonging to the Syrian government, the Russian strikes were initiated at the request of Assad. [AGAIN, AS I POINTED OUT ABOVE, THE FACT THAT THE OFFICIAL DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF SYRIA GAVE THE RUSSIANS PERMISSION TO BE THERE SHOWS THAT NO INTERNATIONAL LAWS OR TREATIES HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY PUTIN, WHO, AS A EURASIAN (AS EXPLAINED here), ADHERES TO THE PRINCIPLE OF HONORING NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES—SOMETHING THE US HAS NOT DONE FOR OVER A HALF-CENTURY, FALSELY TELLING ITS PEOPLE THAT IT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO INTERFERE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ANY NATION IT DISAGREES WITH. BY REPORTING THIS, FOX IS ALSO UNWITTINGLY HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT THAT THE US AND ITS ALLIES IN SYRIA ARE THERE ILLEGALLY AND AGAINST THE WILL OF THE SYRIAN PEOPLE. FOX, OF COURSE, WANTS US TO THINK RUSSIA IS THE VIOLATOR HERE BUT JUST THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. THE CASE IS CLEAR CUT AND ONLY THE BRAIN DEAD COULD FAIL TO SEE WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING—DON]

The development came after Pentagon officials brushed aside an official request from Russia to clear air space over northern Syria, where Moscow intends to conduct airstrikes against ISIS on behalf of Syrian dictator [NO, FOX. HE IS NOT A DICTATOR, AS I HAVE SHOWN ABOVE. THE SAUDI KING IS INDEED A DICTATOR (WHO RECENTLY BOMBED A WEDDING PARTY AND KILLED DOZENS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE) BUT YOU WOULD NEVER CALL HIM THAT. WHY? —DON] Bashar al-Assad, according to sources who spoke to Fox News.

The request was made by a Russian three-star general who spoke with U.S. officials at the American embassy in Baghdad, sources said. The general, who was not identified, used the word “please” when delivering the verbal request, known as a “demarche,” according to the written transcript of the exchange.

“If you have forces in the area we request they leave,” the general said.

A senior Pentagon official said the U.S., which has also been conducting air strikes against ISIS, but does not support Assad, said the request was not honored.

[SO IF THE US ENTERS SYRIA IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND IS FIRED UPON BY A NATION THAT IS THERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, THEN THE US HAS NO MORAL RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ANY DAMAGE IT SUFFERS AS A RESULT OF THIS TRESPASSING. (THE PENTAGON MUST ALSO EXPLAIN WHY IT ENDANGERED ITS PERSONNEL BY FORCING THEM TO ENTER TERRITORY ILLEGALLY). THE US HAS BEEN IGNORING INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR DECADES AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE IT WAS CLEARLY THE STRONGEST NATION. BUT NOW WE HAVE A COALITION OF RUSSIA WITH CHINA (THE LATTER MAY OR MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUSSIAN LED COALITION). TOGETHER IT IS LIKELY THAT THEIR POWER IS GREATER THAN THAT OF THE US. FURTHER, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, OUR ALLIES ARE NO LONGER SOLIDLY BEHIND US. THIS CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE US IN ITS ROLE AS A VIOLATOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RUSSIA IN ITS ROLE OF THE PARTY REQUESTED BY THE SYRIAN PEOPLE TO ENTER SYRIA, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SMASH WHAT IS LEFT OF US PRESTIGE AND POWER. IT DIDN’T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY BUT A COALITION OF THE TWO MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES RELENTLESSLY AND RECKLESSLY PURSUING INEXPLICABLE NEOCON POLICIES (WITH THE TACIT PERMISSION OF A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC THAT HAS BEEN TAUGHT TO FOLLOW THE LEADER AND NOT TO THINK FOR ITSELF) CAN’T BE EXPECTED TO WIN FRIENDS OR WARS. WE CAN ONLY HOPE AND PRAY THAT THE ABOVE-CITED PENTAGON OFFICIAL IS BLUFFING – DON]

 

Are you wasting money on one of those “specialized” news sites?

Are you wasting money on one of those “specialized” news sites?

 

Don Hank

 

I recently had a complaint about a comment of mine on my private forum (applicants may apply at zoilandon@msn.com) regarding Stratfor, which I said was a propaganda outlet. A reader was very upset and said that he had worked with companies that paid money to subscribe to Stratfor for information that helped them plan economic strategy. The implication was that they could not be a propaganda outlet if serious companies paid them for hard to find information. I do want to point out that the msm are also charged with being a propaganda arm of the US government. This does not mean they are literally paid hard cash for government-favorable reporting. It goes much deeper than that. What I call “propaganda” is what we call the oficialista viewpoint here in Latin America, for example. It is a viewpoint that is inhaled with the air that people, especially journalists, breathe. Anyone expressing a contrarian viewpoint is persona non grata in government circles and risks not getting invited to official press conferences – or worse. Thus there is a constant inflow and outflow of the officialist viewpoint at outlets like Stratfor. No one has to bribe or pay them to parrot the official party line. It is in their blood stream.

The Stratfor article I was commenting on was one in which the author was fretting that Latvia had a pro-Russian political party that was rapidly growing, raising “concerns” as to what Russia might eventually do.

Of course, the real concern for those who like democratic systems would be that some tyrannical outsider might try to force Latvia to remain aligned with the West despite its desire not to – just as the East of Ukraine is being forced to go along with the wishes of Western Ukraine and the EU-US-NATO bloc. (And yet, Scotland gets to hold a referendum and no one in the Western world accuses them of illegal behavior for breaking away from a sovereign country, ie, the UK).

The Western press, whether a for-profit geopolitical analysis site like Stratfor or the msm, never misses a chance to focus on what evil deed Russia may do but almost never focuses on what might make an EU member like Latvia want spontaneously to align with Russia and eventually drop out of the EU. The real issue, left unmentioned, is not what Russia will do but the domino effect of countries like Latvia harboring anti-EU Russia-friendly parties which are growing in leaps and bounds. These include the UK, Holland and France, countries that if they should drop out – or I should say when they drop out, will completely sink the entire EU grand projet. (Don’t worry, though. Your favorite pay-to-read site will never annoy you with that piece of trivia). Once the EU falls, as it must, that will not be Russia’s fault. If Russia fills the trade vacuum, that is hardly an act of war. It is what we used to call the free market back when there was one.

But the folks at Stratfor think that the Latvian development is about Russian misbehavior.

And you know what irks me no end?

In stark contrast to the very localized development in Latvia, which is none of our business, there is a worldwide development that is about Russia – and also about China and eventually the rest of the BRICS countries – a development that is our business and the business of Stratfor subscribers, like it or not, and that development is dedollarization, which if the msm is doing its job of blacking it out properly, you probably have never heard of.

Dedollarization, the movement that could destroy the US economy, is well underway and includes not only the 5 BRICS members but also Japan, some African countries and some European countries, like France (see my sampler of foreign press articles below). Why France? Because a French bank was soaked a world record fine a while back for trading with some US-blacklisted countries and they are getting fed up with the bullying.

Hey, Stratfor, want something to warn your subscribers about?

How about warning them about dedollarization and the US’s suicidal practice of imposing gargantuan fines on foreign banks at the whim of the US government? Or the practice of provoking Russia by siding with known fascists in former COMECON countries that they still want to trade with. Dedollarization is the chickens coming home to roost. Oh, but that’s embarrassing for the US elites who implement these suicidal policies.

Besides, Russophobia, a popular form of racism, is all the rage in Washington, and Russia is the whipping boy du jour. More to the point, in a country where Russophobia is the official fare, it would be embarrassing to admit that Putin turned the tables on the dull witted Western elites with a brilliant answer to the sanctions against Russia, namely, dedollarization of international trade – the use of currencies other than the dollar to transact.

It is vital for you to know something that the msm will never tell you: there are 2 reasons that the USD is still worth money:

1. Since the Bretton Woods agreement, the world is obliged to use the USD in international trade; and

2. The US military.

Dedollarization is the start of a process that will slowly erode these 2 factors.

With all this in mind, I went to the Stratfor site to see how many articles they had relating to dedollarization, a phenomenon poised to kill the USD and hence bring hyperinflation to the US. (Dear Stratfor readers: don’t you suppose a bankrupted USA full of hungry people might be just a wee bit more important than some folks in the mini-country of Latvia who prefer trading with a stable country like Russia – which has a capitalist economy without the impediment of Keynesianism and whose debt, unlike ours, is only a modest fraction of GDP?).

I can’t tell you how unsurprised I was to find the following using “dedollarization” as the search term at the Stratfor site:

 

Argentina, Brazil: Countries Plan To De-Dollarize Commerce

Argentina and Brazil plan to de-dollarize commerce in their countries in the first part of 2008 to…

 

That’s it. So if I am a Stratfor reader, I am led to believe that dedollarization is a South American phenomenon, confined to Argentina and Brazil. Meanwhile Europe is teetering on the brink of dedollarizaton, African countries are dedollarizing, and China, Japan and Russia have already taken that route in major international transactions. Now remember: Stratfor charges money to its subscribers for refusing to give them vital information that the long term investor can hardly be without!

But you are not alone, Stratfor. Guess how many articles the writer-for-hire Wall Street Journal had relating to dedollarization when I performed that search? Ready for this? Here ya go:

 

SEARCH

Advanced Search

Sorry, there are no results for your search query, please try another search.

ROFL! I love this stuff!

For good measure, I decided I might as well try the pay-to-read New York Times. Since they peddle these big thick wads that take whole forests for a week’s worth of news, why they would surely carry something about dedollarization, wouldn’t they?

Sure.

Here is what the internal search engine managed to dredge up:

 

Challenge for Peru: Shoring up sol

“Dedollarization has been a very slow process,” Peru’s central bank president, Oscar Dancourt, said. “But we’re making progress, we’re on the …

So if we trust Stratfor and NYT, dedollarization is only happening in South America. And if we trust WSJ, it doesn’t exist. Nothing to worry about. Certainly not the nail-biting that Latvia’s growing anti-EU party will cause those Stratfor subscribers, who apparently all hold mostly EU bonds in their portfolios and whose worst nightmare is a coup in Latvia. The Russkies are coming! The Russkies are coming!

Now, if you don’t like the word “propaganda,” don’t use it. In fact, you may, if you like, send me your suggestions for a word that better fits an international news analysis site that keeps vital information away from the reader while plying them with news about the internal politics of one of the smallest countries in the EU – and spinning even that tidbit to blame it on Russia, the whipping boy of the officialistas in Washington, DC. But just because our government is running a hate-Russia campaign does not mean that Stratfor is deliberately giving Washington what it wants, does it? Of course not. It could be just a remarkable coincidence. Yeah.

So omitting that harsh word “propaganda,” would you at least admit that the media, even the subscription-only media that soak you plenty for their gems of hard-to-find knowledge that is all over the internet for free, are at least keeping important news – and I’d have to say the most important news – safely away from your eyes?

Finally, for those who never heard of dedollarization (how would you know from the msm if even outlets specialized in international economic news don’t carry the story?), I will admit that my information on the subject originally came from sites like The Economic Collapse, FedUpUSA and Zero Hedge. I trust these sites because, for one thing, they quote sources, and for another, they don’t sound like a broken record cut in Washington. Nonetheless, for the hard core doubters, I was challenged to do my own search of the world press on dedollarization, just to make sure you wouldn’t think I make stuff up. Below is a list of links amounting to no more than about 1% of the dazzling array of foreign articles on dedollarization that I found in German, French, Spanish, English and Chinese – and I’m talking about the real dedollarization, not obscure events localized in South America but an economic freight train bearing down on you and me as I type. I skipped Russian this time even though that is one of my primary sources for this information. That’s because the American public is trained like Pavlov’s dogs to reject all things Russian and there is little point sending the reader to, say, Russia Direct or the like because, unlike our reliable msm, Russian news is pure “propaganda,” right, Sheeple?

Oh, and did I mention that, despite the fact that Stratfor charged readers for its “news” report on Latvia, that story was all over the internet, here, for example, and wouldn’t have cost the subscribers a dime to get all the details. Without the racist anti-Russian propaganda.

 

Germany:

I first searched the word for dedollarization, Entdollariserung.

My goal was to find sources that did not quote the usual US blogs on this subject because, while I personally have the highest regard for the 3 blogs mentioned above, the elites want us to believe that only “bona fide” sites like WSJ or NYT are worth quoting. So while some foreign sites run translations of Tyler Durden or Michael Snyder on this subject, I chose to skip those and picked sites like this one:

http://www.contra-magazin.com/2014/06/die-entdollarisierung-der-russischen-wirtschaft-schreitet-voran/

 

The below German language article cites ITAR-TASS quoting the Russian Central Bank office and also quoting Vladimir Putin in Shanghai following a talk with Xi Jinping announcing closer cooperation between the central banks of Russia and China. (I found references to this well-known conference in several languages).

http://freies-oesterreich.net/2014/08/10/russland-und-china-wollen-bilateralen-handel-kuenftig-nicht-mehr-ueber-dollar-abwickeln/#more-2513

 

How about a French site discussing how BRICS countries and France are weighing the possibility of dedollarizing due in part to the draconian fines imposed by the US on French banks (for doing things that are legal in France!)?

http://resistanceauthentique.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/laffaire-bnp-paribas-et-la-dedollarisation-du-monde/

 

Central Bank of the Congo is dedollarizing (report in French):

http://tsimokagasikara.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/rdc-un-pas-vers-la-dedollarisation-une-nouvelle-reglementation-de-change-a-la-bcc/

 

Angola bank is dedollarizing (report in English):

http://www.portalangop.co.ao/angola/en_us/noticias/economia/2014/5/26/Reserve-bank-denies-report-foreign-currency-shortage,77c30ca5-8603-406c-b65d-d2e45b453b39.html

Quote: The official said that the economy is in a course of stability and there is a set of measures that have been taken aimed at the maintenance and sustainability of the framework which is the process of de-dollarisation of the economy, started four years ago.

 

El País, In Spanish, reporting directly on meetings of BRICS in Fortaleza, Brazil, where dedollarization was being planned:

http://www.portalangop.co.ao/angola/en_us/noticias/economia/2014/5/26/Reserve-bank-denies-report-foreign-currency-shortage,77c30ca5-8603-406c-b65d-d2e45b453b39.html

 

BRICS countries “must continue dedollarization” (report in Portuguese)

http://www.efe.com/efe/noticias/brasil/economia/brics-paises-emergentes-devem-prosseguir-com-desdolariza-economia/3/2019/2269481

 

Japan, China, dedollarizing

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Kosuke-TAKAHASHI/3769

 

I think you can see the advantage of having access to the multilingual press. Monolingualism is a bit of a hindrance these days if you want to know what is going on in the rest of the world that might just affect you. Especially if you are a subscriber to “specialized” news sites like Stratfor, Wall Street Journal or New York Times, that seem to have trouble reading any language.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov interview

Interview of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the Sunday Evening Show with Vladimir Soloviev

Translated by Don Hank (all footnotes and links were added by the translator)

Original interview on video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itd9WaolJtY 

Original Russian text:

http://el-murid.livejournal.com/1717453.html

Question: Hello, Sergey Viktorovich. What a feeling it is to realize that you are now not just the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but also the Minister of Foreign Affairs military. Every time I see and listen to you, I have a feeling of tremendous anxiety and that the world has gone mad. My generation does not remember this level of escalation. What is actually happening?

Lavrov: I think the entire world system is being reformatted, because after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, those we refer to by the collective word “West” missed a historic opportunity when Russia proposed a number of initiatives that would allow us to truly unite not only the European continent, but also the Euro-Atlantic, including Eurasia. There were suggestions to center this work around the OSCE based on equality of all states. There were suggestions that after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the major threats to the countries that were part of the NATO-North Atlantic bloc had ceased to exist or, at least, would not expand.

We were assured of this; we talked a lot about the fact that now everyone is interested in peer collaboration, which will be based on respect for each other’s security interests, that security is indivisible, and no one would ensure his own security at the expense of others. First they assured that the unification of Germany would not mean the spread of NATO rules and armed forces to the territory of the former GDR. Then this promise, of course, was forgotten. Then they promised not to expand NATO further to the East, not to cover Eastern and Central European countries, as recorded in a number of agreements, which, unfortunately, were not issued legally. But these promises were also violated. Then there were the political declarations signed at the Summit of the OSCE and they created the NATO-Russia Council which ensured NATO countries would not put substantial combat forces on the territory of the new member states of the North Atlantic bloc. This promise also failed to withstand the test of time, like the declaration of indivisible security that I mentioned earlier.

We started asking questions about why the military infrastructure of NATO is moving closer to our borders; why create a missile defense, for which we have good reason to believe that it carries risks for our strategic forces of nuclear containment. We were told not to worry, because it is not against us. But our calculations and facts that Russian experts have repeatedly provided to jointly explore the U.S. and other NATO partners say the opposite. Serious discussion on these topics was not conducted for all these years.

After this the EU Eastern Partnership was initiated, which covered six post-Soviet states – Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, with priority given to Ukraine.

As you know, the EU has offered Ukrainians an association agreement and a free trade zone. We politely raised the issue that we have a huge amount of trade, economic, investment and industrial relations with Ukraine and it would be nice to consider together about how to develop our relationship. They said “We will first make an agreement with the Ukrainians, and then we’ll show you what you have agreed upon.” We were assured that the Association Agreement and free trade zone would be standard – the same as the European Union had concluded with Mexico, South Korea and some other countries. Then, when the already initialed agreement appeared on websites (we had not seen it before that), it turned out that the draft document goes much further than the standard agreements, which we were told about by the EU. It goes so far as to directly affect Russian-Ukrainian trade and economic cooperation, impeding the functioning of the CIS free trade zone, which, incidentally, was formed at the initiative of the and the insistence of the former President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, ie at the insistence of the Ukrainians, and creates discriminatory conditions for Russian goods, worsening the agreements reached after Russia joined the WTO. Our efforts, already at the stage of holding an expert, professional, depoliticized conversation between Ukraine, Russia and the EU, were rejected, although Ukrainians were on board. And they were rejected with the words: “Do not interfere in EU-Ukraine cooperation.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/23/uk-tells-russia-dont-in_n_4841424.html)

Q: Of course, we are a regional power, which, as it turned out, lost some sort of war. Somehow I have not seen any foreign soldiers marching in a victory parade on Red Square. But it turns out they can shout to our representative at the UN, “Do not forget that you are the losers!”[1]

U.S. President Barack Obama tells us that we are a regional power and no one wants to talk to us (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/25/obama_regional_power_russia_is_no_threat_to_us.html). Why should we be informed of what is happening on our borders? Our destiny is to observe and, as I understand it, to continue the theme of decay, begun in 1991. Then we will gain love and respect. In other words, crumble into dust.

Lavrov: At the heart of what is happening is a winner syndrome which has emerged under the new conditions, and which they cling to in the depths of their souls, assuring us that in the “cold war” there were no winners, and we all have benefited from the fact that we now share common values. Of course, there is also the hurt pride: they believed they could ignore us and do whatever they saw fit with Russia’s neighbors and partners, without asking our opinion, ignoring our legitimate interests. Of course, there is obvious resentment over the fact that the next project of the Georgian Saakashvili[2] type had not panned out. All this is definitely being manifested.

Question: But this is manifesting itself in our relationship as well. We thought they were the allies on the Elbe[3], but it turns out that they saw us as the losing country, to which they only had to give McDonald’s and throw us a bone from a distance. Now it seems that the problem is not in relations between Ukraine and Russia, but between Russia and the U.S., which is behaving as though Alaska had voted for reunification with Russia. Why suddenly such an emotional, and I’d say extreme, reaction?

Lavrov: This proves only one thing: the expansion of NATO, the hasty inclusion in NATO and the European Union of new states, including Baltic countries, which did not meet the criteria for membership, but yet were instantly absorbed under an EU policy called the “Eastern Partnership” – all this was conceived with a significant proportion of American schemes to keep Europe under its thumb and to ensure formats of NATO and the EU which would give the U.S. a substantial voice. Concerns that Europe could suddenly become independent or more independent and less dependent on the Euro-Atlantic link are definitely present in Washington.

We can see it. No one talks about it openly, but it manifests itself in all the practical specific steps taken by the United States in connection with the Ukrainian crisis. We were concerned about this because the problem is not in Russian-“Western” or in Russian-Ukrainian relations, but in Ukraine, where there is a deep statehood crisis which must be overcome, and it can only be overcome by the Ukrainians themselves. We are in favor of this being done on the basis of a national dialogue of  awareness on the part of those who came to power in Kiev, and the need to reach out to all Ukrainians, without exception, including all political forces and all regions of the country, starting a real constitutional reform that is transparent and comprehensive. That’s what we need to talk about. Encouraging Ukrainians to hold this national dialogue and constitutional process must be a joint effort of Russia, the U.S. and the EU. But, unfortunately, our Western partners are trying to present the case as if everything revolves around a Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

Question: The Pentagon saw Russian troops on the border with Ukraine. Interestingly, the broadcaster CNN, came and videotaped, but did not find the troops. U.S. State Department officials saw Moscow’s hand in the events in the East and South-East of Ukraine. But when we asked for evidence, we were told: “Why? Everyone has free access to the social networks.”

This is a new logic in international diplomacy when a country decides on its own: “Here we see it, here we don’t; we accept this evidence but not the other. Everything the Russian side says is untrue, and we don’t take it into account, and everything the official Ukrainian side says, is considered legitimate. Europe and America represent ultimate truth.” So what’s the point of even talking to them if they don’t hear us?

Lavrov: You’ve always got to talk, and with everyone. It is always better to talk than not to talk and accumulate misunderstanding.

As for our troops allegedly preparing to roll across the Russian-Ukrainian border in the South-East of the country, I can say that they were training. This was announced, no one hid this fact. Within the framework of the OSCE and the so-called Open Skies Treaty, we have the obligation to inform partners about certain exercises, starting with a certain size and number of deployed forces and materiel, and that’s what we did. Moreover, in response to requests, including those of Ukrainians, Americans and Europeans, inspections were conducted, representatives of these countries were invited, who visited the exercise area and according to their own statements, they drew an official conclusion, finding no threatening military activities. After that, our representatives in the OSCE officially asked the inspectors to make their conclusion known in this esteemed organization. They have not yet done so.

Soloviev : Are they embarrassed?

Lavrov: They probably are. It just does not fit into the overall scheme of the whole situation from the West’s viewpoint.

Question: The Russian delegation went to PACE, where we were frankly humiliated, deprived of all rights except one – the sacred right to pay for membership.

S.V.Larov: And sit in the hall.

Q: Neither the West nor America wants to see the revival of the spirit of slumbering Nazism in the “right sector,” Banderovtsy, Shukhevich,[4] Svoboda (the ”Freedom Party”)[5], the same party that the EU once considered anathema, delegated five members to the current Ukrainian government, and the unpleasantness disappeared instantly. There is a feeling that countries that once had not supported the Hitler coalition were taking revenge on us for having won the Great War.

Sergei Lavrov: I have had many conversations with my colleagues about the nature of the coalition that broke the agreement of February 21, signed by the leaders of three parties that entered into it, and carried out a coup d’état. Of course, we talked about Svoboda (the “Freedom Party,” see footnote). I repeatedly asked John Kerry and foreign ministers of Europe, where one can explore their position on Svoboda and on that party’s policy documents, which provide a direct reference to their succession Declaration in June 1941, proclaiming their mission of helping Hitler impose a new order. I was unable to get a reference to public statements made in this regard.

We certainly know about the numerous speeches of the American, Israeli, and world community as to what the Svoboda Party is, not to mention the “right sector.” In conversations John Kerry told me: “We understand they have a troubled past, but, according to our observations, they are moving toward the political mainstream. “Laurent Fabius [French Foreign Minister–Translator] in one of his speeches said that Svoboda is “just a little bit to the right of others.” An astounding statement!

We have said that such an attitude toward the memory of those who fought and defeated fascism, who saved Europe from Fascism, is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to us to attempt to install in a European a country a coalition involving such people.

Question: This is not a coincidence, but a certain trend. On the one hand, they refuse to see absolute Nazis in the face of Svoboda. On the other hand, when a representative of the Russian delegation to the UN Security Council said that the tragedy in Syrian Kesab, where there is genocide of the Armenian people, cannot be ignored, the Americans blocked this decision. Isn’t this a double standard? Unfortunate Armenians must suffer because Armenia supports Russia?

Lavrov: Fortunately, it is better to be a refugee than to die. The vast majority in Syrian Kesab managed to escape: some to other Syrian districts, some to Lebanon. There were no massacres in the area with photos distributed in the Internet, but photos from other areas of Syria were shown on the internet, and that makes them no less horrific. But the idea of conducting ethnic cleansing in Kesab had emerged. This attempt was obvious, and at one point, it was partially successful. Therefore, when we proposed a clear and unequivocal comment on this topic in the UN Security Council, they said, “But let’s simultaneously condemn the Assad regime, because he is also doing bad things.” There is always a constant linkage tactic, a refusal to condemn specific acts of terrorism in Syria, citing the fact that they would not have happened if Assad had voluntarily disappeared, a violation of all the resolutions of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly, bilateral documents clearly stating that terrorism cannot be justified on any grounds.

Q: A lot of questions about the reunification with the Crimea. We see it quite differently. On radio station “Vesti” and on television, when I consider this topic with our distinguished guests, they all note that a 16,000 strong Ukrainian military corps was stationed in the Crimea. Officially, there were also Russian troops. More than 2.5 million men, and not a shot was fired. This is a real show of will that Americans and Europeans do not want to see. Can no one can tell the essential difference between the Yugoslav scenario and Crimea? Can no one see parallels between the reunification of West and East Germany, and of Russia and the Crimea? Has the level of political blindness and deafness reached an all-time high?

Lavrov: I think I’m pretty sure that everyone sees everything and everyone understands. But thanks to an ideologically charged atmosphere bent on restraining our country, and ill-concealed anger over the fact that it defended its legitimate interests, long violated despite all the constitutions and laws of secession from the USSR, no one has every concealed  the geopolitical project of Russian containment (and this is where it all started ). This is unfortunate and sad. If anyone needed proof of our suspicions and fears, it is no longer needed. All these years our Western partners have lied to us when vowing theirs commitment to a united Europe without dividing lines, swore that they would fully respect our interests and that security is indivisible, etc.

As for parallels that suggest themselves (Kosovo, and more), we are constantly told that “Kosovo was a special occasion; thousands of people were killed there.”[6] This has no part in any civilized framework. It seems that for residents of Crimea, with its overwhelming majority in favor of reunification with Russia, to receive recognition of their inalienable rights, it is necessary that as much blood must be shed in the Crimea as in Kosovo? Excuse me, these are totally unfit parallels and analogies.

But there is a more direct parallel; it is quite interesting — I mentioned it earlier — but I will tell you more. During the decolonization of Africa, in the Comoro islands, which were owned by the French, were released somewhat late from the colonial yoke — independence came only in the early 70s, later than in most other African countries. By arrangement with the colonial power, a referendum was held in which all the Comoros voted for independence except one, Mayotte, the majority of whose residents voted against independence. But the conditions of the referendum were that all should vote en bloc and if the majority said they want independence, then independence would be recognized.

Our French colleagues at the time refused to recognize the results of the referendum, although they were accepted by the UN General Assembly, and they said that a separate additional referendum would be held, and the vote on each island would be tallied and each island would get the status for which it voted. The referendum was repeated. Mayotte again voted against independence, and the UN General Assembly again disagreed with the results of the independent vote. But France said it would recognize the vote of the Mayotte residents. Contrary to the numerous decisions of the UN, which condemned this approach and did not recognize the results of the referendum, Mayotte became a French Overseas Department, i.e., a full-fledged member of the French Republic, in 2011.

Q: It is interesting that neither trade nor political nor economic sanctions followed.

Lavrov: Yes. I repeat, despite disagreement on this by the UN General Assembly, the EU ignores the decision of the international community.

Question: The sanctions against Russia are unusual, very harsh. The officially declared ones seem personalized and reflect resentment, while the informal, economic ones are unique. Everything is forgotten:  the right of business to make a profit and business freedom, and sanctions have even been imposed against journalists[7] for having the audacity to speak their minds. When this was published on the Ministry website warning the Russians that 111 countries signed a treaty with the United States, according to which Russian citizens can turned over to the American authorities…

Lavrov: Or robbed

Question: Or robbed, even on trumped up charges. So it turns out that Russians had better not go abroad?

Lavrov: It is absolutely better to travel. We do everything in our power to broaden these capabilities: annually concluding additional agreements on visa-free regimes, facilitating travel to many countries. Such arrangements exist with nearly all the countries of Latin America, many countries in Asia, and we have been ready to do this with the EU for a long time. Long before the Ukrainian crisis all the arrangements were ready, but their approval was delayed under the influence of a well-known minority[8] in the European Union, which wanted to hinder our rapprochement with the EU solely for reasons of ideological bias.

Question: For reasons of historical revenge..

Lavrov: Including for reasons of historical revenge. Probably in the minds of many, these phobias still play a dominant role.

Travel, of course, needs to be safe, and we pay attention to this issue. For example, during the exacerbation of the situation in Egypt or Thailand when unrest and riots occurred, we were obliged to warn our citizens that it was not safe to go there, so it was best to stay in the resort areas, etc. But what you’re talking about is a problem of a completely different nature associated with the extension of U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction to territories that do not belong to them, but in which Americans feel entitled to seize citizens of other countries if Washington has issues with them. (http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-issues-travel-warning-about-us-citing-threat-kidnapping-1402265). This happened to the Russians K.V. Yaroshenko and Viktor Bout, who were arrested not for anything they had done, but had been lured into a conversation, during which they made certain statements, which undercover agents interpreted as sufficient grounds for their arrest. They were extradited to the United States in violation of the legal and procedural norms of Senegal and Thailand. These are not the only two examples. There are also such cases in European countries and Canada. Recently, at the request of Americans, Russian citizens were taken from Costa Rica, despite our protests and demands to comply with the requirements of applicable law. Therefore, we are obliged to warn Russians that if they have had some kind of relationship with our American partners, if they have reason to believe that there are issues with them, even the most innocuous, it is better…

Q: To go to Sochi!

Lavrov: Why? To Crimea!

Q: That’s a choice: you can go to Sochi or Crimea.

Lavrov: This is true.

Q: It was no accident that I said you were the most popular minister, and not only in Russia. Numerous articles, written by you or about you, have recently appeared in the foreign press, have created an image of a powerful politician. You are both hated and loved, are respected but people say that you allow yourself to make harsh statements. And you are right to do so. But you also point out that you have had for many years a good personal relationship, in particular, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Now you probably see him more often than your own family, holding “marathons” lasting several hours.
Lavrov: But not on the same issues.

Question: I hope we are still a traditional country. When you are dealing with John Kerry, do you ever feel like you are talking to a robot, who can’t hear you, doesn’t want to admit the obvious? Speaking of that, the following question arises: where is there a higher arbiter, who in the case of a dispute between the two major powers can say “break” and decide who is right and who is wrong, if each side claims that it is right and only its opinion is valid?

Lavrov : I cannot describe any of the partners as a robot or, in other words, say they lack understanding. Absolutely not. Secretary of State John Kerry is a highly intelligent man with a vast experience in the United States Senate. As senator, he was the head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and a presidential candidate in a US election that was won by Bush. He is a very erudite, experienced politician and diplomat.

Most of my other partners in conversations that are not intended for the public, express understanding and behave absolutely properly. With them, you can talk, discuss, exchange arguments, even sometimes disagree on things. I note parenthetically that we never say that our line is absolutely correct, and refuse to give an inch, centimeter, millimeter. Absolutely not. Convince us, because we never reject reasonable arguments and compromises since politics is the art of the possible. It is not part of our tradition to dictate to the rest of the world. This is just a trait of some other powers. I would really like the “unipolar world syndrome” to quickly disappear, because the world can only be multipolar. And the stronger the other poles, besides America, the more useful it will be for Washington itself.

Question: But the U.S. can’t see that.

Lavrov: They’ll have to see it, and I think they already do. Just as in the case of talking about Ukraine, or anything else, they will have to admit it. They understand it, sense it internally. Even when the U.S. decided to bomb Iraq or go to Afghanistan, they began to cobble together a coalition, seeking to include even the small island states willing to send at least some signals unit or two staff officers. And in the end, it all added up and it was announced that dozens of states (40 +) formed the coalition and the effort was legitimized, etc. They already knew it was inconvenient to go it alone, and they still understand that.

As you know, on the eve of the recent vote by the UN General Assembly resolution in support of the sovereignty of Ukraine, including Crimea, which is a clear anti-Russian step, there was no capital, where U.S. ambassadors would not go and impudently request to vote for the resolution, saying that they just have to do it. Those who did not agree were blackmailed and threatened. We know this. For obvious reasons I cannot name the countries and names, but it happens.

Q: And yet it didn’t work.

Lavrov: It didn’t work because only half of the members of the UN supported this resolution.

Question: The wisest was Israel, where there was a strike at the time, and they couldn’t vote.
Lavrov: You asked about the visible and invisible sanctions reaching the point of absurdity, when journalists are forbidden to practice their profession, etc. Besides what lies on the surface, we know that all over the world messengers were sent and American and European ambassadors from different countries were instructed to seek a freeze on normal working contacts with our representatives. In Moscow, the ambassadors of the EU and the U.S., apparently, also agreed to communicate less with us on issues that they believe are of interest to us. Although on issues interest to them, they will definitely be in touch with us.

Here you need to understand a simple thing: international relations are based on reciprocity – “Do as is done to you.” We will not retaliate or act out of spite, but we will take a balanced approach to specific situations arising.

When they make statements about certain arrogant new sanctions against Russia, it is entertaining to listen to what follows that. For example, NATO announced it would freeze most practical projects, including the “helicopter” project for Afghanistan. It splits the cost in providing service to Soviet and Russian helicopters, spare parts supplies, primarily with Russian enterprises, training for pilots and maintenance personnel. There are a  number of other projects, including training to combat drug trafficking in Afghanistan and Central Asia. These were projects of the NATO-Russia Council. In announcing these sanctions, one of the Vice Secretary General of NATO, when asked by reporters, said: “We understand that these are the areas in which it is very important to achieve results, but we will continue to seek cooperation in these areas in other formats.” In other words, the NATO-Russia Council will not do it, but the members of the Alliance will seek ways to continue these projects under another “umbrella”. This shows contrived, artificial ideas in line with the logic of “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”

Question: Have these people who are “cutting off their nose to spite their face” put us in a category all by ourselves or is there someone lower down the list than us? Are we alone? Unfortunately, we have people who always vote the same way as we do, like have North Korea, although they’re not the best example. They are willing to do anything to “cut off their nose” to spíte the US. Are there any countries that can be called “wise people” who support Russia?

Lavrov: We have serious support. If smaller countries still cannot afford to openly talk about this because they are too dependent on the West economically and financially, countries that feel more self-reliant and take a serious approach to international relations, understand what is now in question. The problem now is not that it is necessary to help the Ukrainians to overcome the crisis, although that is important, but, as I said, reformatting the world system, the objective formation of a polycentric world order. In late March at the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague, we met with the foreign ministers of the BRICS countries. A statement was adopted which emphasizes the need to avoid interference in the internal affairs of other countries, condemns any policy of unilateral sanctions and expresses commitment to all the principles of the UN Charter in its entirety.

Question : Is BRICS on our side?

Lavrov: BRICS, I think, is not just for us, but understands that the stakes are enormously high, and not in terms of “who wins and who loses,” but in terms of defending their legitimate interests in this changing world.

Question: How long will this last? Have we ended the era of “peace, friendship, chewing gum” and entered a new round of “cold war”? Changing relations, sanctions, extreme rhetoric – will this go on for a decade?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I don’t expect it to last a decade. Even now you can see a number of signs that our Western partners are “torn .” On the one hand, they see quite calm reaction on the part of Russia: They failed to ruffle us with the sanctions which go far beyond the scope of basic human decency. Therefore, our partners want to continue to annoy us hoping to ruffle…

Q: They want to ruffle us to achieve what result? So we could write our names on the Brandenburg Gate[9] again? What’s the idea here?

Lavrov: In simple terms, they want to see how we felt now that we’ve been punished.

Question: Call the parents, bring the report card. Are we school kids or what?

Lavrov: Something like that. It has nothing to do with the real problems of international life, Europe, Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian. In parallel, they have to understand that without us it would be very difficult to solve many problems, and I’m not just talking about Syria or Iran. We’re not about to declare: “If you do this to us, then let the bloodshed continue in Syria; we will not deal with a political settlement or provide humanitarian assistance; let Iran build a nuclear bomb.” Russia will not do this, because we’re responsible people, unlike many who are trying to push us in this direction. Without us it will hardly be possible to seriously address the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula – we don’t want to have a nuclear bomb at our borders.

In addition to the political context and the problems on the agenda of the international community (I can’t use this term without irony, because the West applies this term solely to itself and to those who support it unconditionally), there are the economic and business interests. You can read the press or participate in some activities conducted by business circles of Germany, Italy, Spain, France or the USA. In America, a number of companies are deeply invested in the Russian economy: for PepsiCo, for example, Russia is the second biggest market, while Coca-Cola planned to invest $5 billion by 2016; ExxonMobil invested a mere $10 billion; Boeing, Caterpillar and many others work here. Their response shows that they are not welcoming the signals from Western governments, like, “Come on, guys, don’t develop too much cooperation with Russia.” Businessmen are convinced that it is necessary to maintain and cultivate our economic cooperation not only because business always wants profit, but also because business is not sure that these sanctions are lawful.

 



[1] Referring to a hysterical outburst by Samantha Powers, US ambassador the UN.—Tr.

[2] Mikahil Saakashvili, US backed former Georgian president—Translator.

[3] Lavrov is referring here to the link-up of Soviet and American forces at the Elbe River near the end of WW II.–Translator

[4] Ukrainian nationalists widely accused of collaboration with the Nazis in WW II—Tr.

[5] A party now holding top positions in Ukraine thanks to Western support. Their leader Oleh Tyahnybok, who posed famously with John McCain during the Maidan uprising, is listed by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre as the world’s 5th

most dangerous anti-Semite.

[6] Lavrov is referring to the fact that, despite the irregularity of an outside state (the US in that case) intervening in a war of secession, the US was given the green light during the Kosovo War (1998-9) to bombard Serbian cities, under the pretext of alleged “genocide” of Kosovars by Serbs. Later investigations revealed numerous murders of Serbs by Kosovars as well. The US bombing raids killed untold numbers of civilians. Meanwhile the “international community” has recently condemned Russia for intervening in Crimea to save lives, saying that not enough casualties had accumulated to justify the intervention. Lavrov is nonplussed that the “international community” would require people to be killed to justify intervention and is suggesting it should be the other way around: the fewer the casualties the more successful, and hence, justified, the intervention is—Translator.

[7] There are indeed reports of such sanctions in the Western media, such as here.

[8] I am not sure what “minority” Lavrov is referring to here. However, the UK, for example, has had rocky relations with the Russian Federation over issues of extradition and the Litvinenko murder. Yet despite strong anti-Russian sentiments in the political class, over 60% of UK citizens polled recently by The Independent said Putin was their favorite world leader. Their own David Cameron scored 1%!

[9] TV host Vladimir Soloviev is alluding here to the Battle for Berlin after which the fallen Russian heroes were commemorated with a memorial at Brandenburg Gate. The names of some of the Russian fallen are inscribed on this memorial—Translator.