How Russia's President Putin Explains The End Of The 'Liberal' Order
Today the Financial Times published a long and wide ranging interview with the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.
A full transcript is currently available through this link.
The talk is making some waves:
- Putin: Russian president says liberalism 'obsolete' - BBC
- Vladimir Putin says liberalism has ‘outlived its purpose’ - Irish Times
- Russia's Vladimir Putin: Liberalism in Europe is 'obsolete' - NBC News
From the last link:
Putin said in an interview with the Financial Times Friday that the "liberal idea has become obsolete," and referred to Germany's decision to welcome more than one million refugees — many fleeing savage urban warfare in Syria — as a "cardinal mistake."
It is only the last part of the very long interview, where Putin indeed speaks of the 'obsolesce' of the 'liberal idea', that seems to be of interest to the media. Most of the interview is in fact about other issues. The media also do not capture how his 'obsolete' argument is ingrained in the worldview Putin developed, and how it reflects in many of his answers.
Here are excerpts that show that the gist of Putin's 'obsolete' argument is not against the 'liberal idea', but against what may be best called 'international (neo-)liberalism'.
bigger
Putin explains why U.S. President Donald Trump was elected:
Has anyone ever given a thought to who actually benefited and what benefits were gained from globalisation, the development of which we have been observing and participating in over the past 25 years, since the 1990s?China has made use of globalisation, in particular, to pull millions of Chinese out of poverty.
What happened in the US, and how did it happen? In the US, the leading US companies — the companies, their managers, shareholders and partners — made use of these benefits. [..] The middle class in the US has not benefited from globalisation; it was left out when this pie was divided up.
The Trump team sensed this very keenly and clearly, and they used this in the election campaign. It is where you should look for reasons behind Trump’s victory, rather than in any alleged foreign interference.
On Syria:
Primarily, this concerns Syria, we have managed to preserve Syrian statehood, no matter what, and we have prevented Libya-style chaos there. And a worst-case scenario would spell out negative consequences for Russia.
...
I believe that the Syrian people should be free to choose their own future.
...
When we discussed this matter only recently with the previous US administration, we said, suppose Assad steps down today, what will happen tomorrow?Your colleague did well to laugh, because the answer we got was very amusing. You cannot even imagine how funny it was. They said, “We don’t know.” But when you do not know what happens tomorrow, why shoot from the hip today? This may sound primitive, but this is how it is.
On 'western' interventionism and 'democracy promotion':
Incidentally, the president of France said recently that the American democratic model differs greatly from the European model. So there are no common democratic standards. And do you, well, not you, but our Western partners, want a region such as Libya to have the same democratic standards as Europe and the US? The region has only monarchies or countries with a system similar to the one that existed in Libya.But I am sure that, as a historian, you will agree with me at heart. I do not know whether you will publicly agree with this or not, but it is impossible to impose current and viable French or Swiss democratic standards on North African residents who have never lived in conditions of French or Swiss democratic institutions. Impossible, isn’t it? And they tried to impose something like that on them. Or they tried to impose something that they had never known or even heard of. All this led to conflict and intertribal discord. In fact, a war continues in Libya.
So why should we do the same in Venezuela? ...
Asked about the turn towards nationalism and more rightwing policies in the U.S. and many European countries, Putin names immigration as the primary problem:
What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said, in the US? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people.Of course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future.
There is also the so-called liberal idea, which has outlived its purpose. Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable.
When the migration problem came to a head, many people admitted that the policy of multiculturalism is not effective and that the interests of the core population should be considered. Although those who have run into difficulties because of political problems in their home countries need our assistance as well. That is great, but what about the interests of their own population when the number of migrants heading to Western Europe is not just a handful of people but thousands or hundreds of thousands?
...
What am I driving at? Those who are concerned about this, ordinary Americans, they look at this and say, Good for [Trump], at least he is doing something, suggesting ideas and looking for a solution.As for the liberal idea, its proponents are not doing anything. They say that all is well, that everything is as it should be. But is it? They are sitting in their cosy offices, while those who are facing the problem every day in Texas or Florida are not happy, they will soon have problems of their own. Does anyone think about them?
The same is happening in Europe. I discussed this with many of my colleagues, but nobody has the answer. The say they cannot pursue a hardline policy for various reasons. Why exactly? Just because. We have the law, they say. Well, then change the law!
We have quite a few problems of our own in this sphere as well.
...
In other words, the situation is not simple in Russia either, but we have started working to improve it. Whereas the liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to be done. The migrants can kill, plunder and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants must be protected. What rights are these? Every crime must have its punishment.So, the liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population. Or take the traditional values. I am not trying to insult anyone, because we have been condemned for our alleged homophobia as it is. But we have no problems with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live as they wish. But some things do appear excessive to us.
They claim now that children can play five or six gender roles. I cannot even say exactly what genders these are, I have no notion. Let everyone be happy, we have no problem with that. But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of people making up the core population.
While Putin says that liberalism is 'obsolete' he does not declare it dead. He sees it as part of a spectrum, but says that it should not have a leading role:
You know, it seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have never existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history of humankind, but everything very quickly ends in a deadlock if there is no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one way or another.Various ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves, but at the same time interests of the general public, those millions of people and their lives, should never be forgotten. This is something that should not be overlooked.
Then, it seems to me, we would be able to avoid major political upheavals and troubles. This applies to the liberal idea as well. It does not mean (I think, this is ceasing to be a dominating factor) that it must be immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position should also be treated with respect.
They cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over the recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both in the media and in real life. It is deemed unbecoming even to mention some topics. But why?
For this reason, I am not a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding everything, arresting everybody or dispersing everybody. Of course, not. The liberal idea cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some things. But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating factor. That is the point. Please.
There is much more in the interview - about Russia's relations with China, North Korea, the Skripal incident, the Russian economy, orthodoxy and the liberal attack on the Catholic church, multilateralism, arms control and the G-20 summit happening today.
But most 'liberal' media will only point to the 'obsolete' part and condemn Putin for his rallying against immigration. They will paint him as being in an alt-right corner. But even the Dalai Lama, held up as an icon by many liberals, says that "Europe is for Europeans" and that immigrants should go back to their own countries.
Moreover, as Leonid Bershidsky points out, Putin himself is, with regards to the economy and immigration, a staunch liberal:
Putin’s cultural conservatism is consistent and sincere.
...
On immigration, however, Putin is, in practice, more liberal than most European leaders. He has consistently resisted calls to impose visa requirements on Central Asian countries, an important source of migrant labor. Given Russia’s shrinking working-age population and shortage of manual workers, Putin isn’t about to stem that flow, even though Central Asians are Muslims – the kind of immigrants Merkel’s opponents, including Trump, distrust and fear the most.
What Putin is aiming at, says Bershidsky, is the larger picture:
[W]hat Putin believes has outlived its usefulness isn’t the liberal approach to migration or gender, nor is it liberal economics – even though Russia has, in recent months, seen something of a shift toward central planning. It is the liberal world order. Putin wants to keep any talk of values out of international politics and forge pragmatic relationships based on specific interests.
...
Putin’s drive to put global politics on a more transactional basis isn’t easy to defeat; it’s a siren song, and the anti-immigrant, culturally conservative rhetoric is merely part of the music.
There is in my view no 'siren-song' there and nothing that has to be defeated. It is just that Putin is more willing to listen to the people than most of the western wannabe 'elite'.
The people's interest is simply not served well by globalization, liberal internationalism and interventionism. A transactional approach to international policies, with respect for basic human decency, is in almost every case better for them.
Politicians who want the people's votes should listen to them, and to Vladimir Putin.
Posted by b on June 28, 2019 at 17:50 UTC | Permalink
next page »It is hard to exaggerate Putin's accomplishments. He almost single-handedly saved Russia from the chaos of the Yeltsin era and near collapse. He has reestablished Russia as a major power. In the face of the American world rampage, he has helped stabilize MENA. By merging Russia's Eurasian Union with China's OBOR, he has helped to set Eurasia on a road to peaceful economic development. He has even managed to get China, India, and Pakistan talking to one another and cooperating in a variety of Eurasian projects.
I doubt he has more than 10 years left as a Russian leader, and maybe not even that. When he finally passes, he will be remembered as another Churchill or Bismarck.
Posted by: ROBERT SYKES | Jun 28 2019 18:15 utc | 2
Hmmm... Putin says the problem is 'multi-culturalism', 'migrants'? What kind of bullshit is this?
Putin doesn't mention that the migrant crisis was caused by Western resource wars, in Syria, Libya and elsewhere. That neoliberalism's impact on the poor countries has led to the vast exodus into Europe and N. America.
I have a feeling that Putin is playing the 'RT game', targeting those disaffected people, who have, in turn been the target of racist, islamaphobic propaganda by Western states, states that for obvious reasons (self-incrimination) won't state the real reasons for the exodus.
The page on liberalism in the classic sense the way it was envisioned in the late 18th and 19th century has long been passed. Liberalism as in nurturing the human soul and intellect and allowing each individual to draw on their qualities and contribute to society with their fullest potential has been supplanted by material and physical liberties alone (Gender, Sexuality, Free Trade, Free Migration aka Free Movement of Slave Labor etc). What today is called liberalism, which I like to equate with neo-liberalism and social 'progressivism', are both parts of post-modernism, a societal model that is falling and failing under its own weight of hubris and inconsistencies.
The 'Do as thou wilt' mindset pushed on the people by the elites is deliberate with the only end goal of creating their 'ideal' world. A world not based on morality, spirituality and absolute truths, but relativism, materialism, loss of basic notions such as gender, family, belonging, in short loss of identity and purpose for mankind to obtain ever greater control over the masses. People are beginning to notice it, however, even if only subconsciously and start to push back against it. Putin knows this, and that is what he is laying out in his interview.
Posted by: Alexander P | Jun 28 2019 18:17 utc | 4
It is just that Putin is more willing to listen to the people than most of the western wannabe 'elite'.
Right on target, b; many thanks again. I'll be sure to read the entire transcript.
Posted by: robjira | Jun 28 2019 18:20 utc | 5
"They claim now that children can play five or six gender roles. I cannot even say exactly what genders these are, I have no notion. Let everyone be happy, we have no problem with that. But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of people making up the core population.'
It has become la la land in the West in regards to gender...if a person wants to be gay, be gay, but let's not force everyone else to pretend reality is not reality..nature choose (dichotomy) for you to be male or female, sucks if that doesn't match your preferences but better luck next life...accept the reality you are in and let's not force everyone one else to pander to your delusions..
See also:
’Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”
https://newspunch.com/john-hopkins-transgenderism-mental-illness/
Posted by: Joe Nobody | Jun 28 2019 18:23 utc | 6
I'm reading the Kremlin's transcript I linked to at the Gabbard thread where I posted a very short excerpt. I continue to read it but stopped to post another very short excerpt IMO is very important:
"One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future." [My Emphasis]
Back to reading!
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 18:27 utc | 7
@ 3--remind me who was fighting the west in syria, again?
Posted by: pretzelattack | Jun 28 2019 18:27 utc | 8
Here are excerpts that show that the gist of Putin's 'obsolete' argument is not against the 'liberal idea', but against what may be best called 'international (neo-)liberalism'.
Just a matter of academic rigour: liberalism is extinct; neoliberalism is literally the "new liberalism", it's successor doctrine. Therefore, when we speak of "liberalism" after 1945, we're automatically referring to neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism was created at Mont Pelerin in the 1930s, and its founding narrative states that everything that happened between/since the death of liberalism (1914-1918) and their own hegemony (1974-75) was an abortion of History and should've never happened. Hence the name "neoliberalism": the new liberalism (adapted to the system of fiat currency instead of the gold standard); the revival of liberalism; the return of liberalism (the liberals).
It's also important to highlight that neoliberalism is not an ideology, but a doctrine (which encompass mainly policies, but may also encompass ideals). It is wrong, for example, to compare socialism with neoliberalism (socialism as anti-neoliberalism): socialism is a scientific theory, and, as a social theory, encompasses a new socioeconomic system, a new set of ideologies, a new set of cultures and a new set of political doctrines. Neoliberalism, therefore, is just one aspect with which the capitalist elites engage against socialism historically (in the doctrinal "front").
Generic question: How many of the 2020 candidates for US President could hold up their end of an interview with such knowledge and style?
Personally I was impressed by Putin's bluntness in stating Merkel had made a "cardinal mistake" when she opened the borders to the hundreds of thousands of illegals. And also this:
And we set ourselves a goal, a task — which, I am certain, will be achieved — to adjust pensions by a percentage that is above the inflation rate.
Compare that to the deliberate US policy if doing the exact opposite.
Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 28 2019 18:40 utc | 10
Can you imagine Trump writing like this? Or Obama, for that matter? Or Bush the Dimmer, or Clinton, or Bush the Spook, or Reagan, or Carter...Hell, you'd have to go back to JFK to find this sort of skill with language and deep analysis. And maybe not then. "They" say you get the leaders you deserve. In that case the Russians have been nice and we Americans have been very, very naughty.
Posted by: Alan McLemore | Jun 28 2019 18:44 utc | 11
So now we wait for MSM 'analysts' to accuse Putin of disrupting the status quo and fomenting revolution.
Posted by: dh | Jun 28 2019 18:45 utc | 12
Barovsky @3
Putin has recognized the influence of our "regime change" wars on the immigrant problem in Europe. He addressed it forcefully in his UN General Assembly speech in 2015 where he asks NATO "Do you know what you've done?" with regards to creating the immigration problems in Europe. Watch here https://youtu.be/q13yzl6k6w0.
From Putin's 2007 Munich speech to this 2015 UN speech and many interviews along the way, I've learned to pay attention to what Putin says. He seems to have an extremely good handle on world events and where they are leading.
Posted by: lgfocus | Jun 28 2019 18:47 utc | 13
Putin puts it in a nutshell. I don't think I'd change a word in the quote. Why does this globalization thesis (what I've taken to calling Managed American Decline) continue to befuddle at least half of the former American middle class?
Blame Bernaysian false consciousness propagation (manufactured consent). Meanwhile Joe Biden speaks of restoring a modicum of 'decorum and dignity' to the Oval Office lol. What he means of course is the resumption of Managed Decline. US household incomes peaked in January 1973, the same month a 32-year-old Senator from Delaware was sworn in to Swampland, never to leave again.
"Has anyone ever given a thought to who actually benefited and what benefits were gained from globalisation, the development of which we have been observing and participating in over the past 25 years, since the 1990s?
China has made use of globalisation, in particular, to pull millions of Chinese out of poverty.
What happened in the US, and how did it happen? In the US, the leading US companies — the companies, their managers, shareholders and partners — made use of these benefits. [..] The middle class in the US has not benefited from globalisation; it was left out when this pie was divided up.
The Trump team sensed this very keenly and clearly, and they used this in the election campaign. It is where you should look for reasons behind Trump’s victory, rather than in any alleged foreign interference."
Posted by: Full Spectrum Domino | Jun 28 2019 18:48 utc | 14
If we really want to know who is interfering in the world's politics, particularly in Russia, we need look no further than this:
https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-national-endowment-for-democracy.html
American-style bought-and-paid-for democracy is not what the world needs.
Posted by: Sally Snyder | Jun 28 2019 18:48 utc | 15
In the west our governments call Mr Putin a thug, a gangster. But, ive never seen any of our politicians sit down and frankly and comprehensively lay out there views, goals, thoughts and musings. To be a good leader or politician you have do have vision, but in the west here i just see talking heads and soundbites, no soul.
Posted by: JDL | Jun 28 2019 18:53 utc | 16
Oh, yeah, the "liberals" are indignant over his pointing out that mass migration causes social disruption.
He racist!
The neoliberal economic plan is to suck the wealth out of the working class and funnel it up to the top 10%, especially the 1%. How to keep the working class from noticing the theft?
How about divide and conquer? That seems to work. Take the native working class and divide it any way that works in that society. In the US, traditionally, it was race, but they added sex a couple of decades ago, then opened the doors to immigration and threw in national origin, and now, just for kicks and giggles, everybody gets to define their own gender and sexual preferences. Awesome. The US is now divided into 243,000,000 separate categories of specialness. And if you don't accept everything someone else tells you as gospel, you are a bigot of some sort (depending on their self identification. It varies.)
They divided up Yemen and Libya by tribes, Iraq and Yugoslavia by religion, it works the same in every country.
When the US blows, it's going to be spectacular.
Posted by: wagelaborer | Jun 28 2019 19:00 utc | 17
You can read the transcript without firewall at:
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/60836
Posted by: Norbert Salamon | Jun 28 2019 19:03 utc | 18
I'm always impressed with Putin's grasp and breadth a la Chirac, whom he admires and emulates.
I posted a few excerpts I felt very important to this and the Gabbard threads; and at the latter I now insist this interview be read, not just suggested. That BigLie Media chose to pounce on Putin's critique of the Liberal Idea displays its agenda and its extremely sorry attempt to discredit/smear Putin yet again. IMO, such media smeared itself. The give-and-take was very productive and informative, containing many lessons, a few of which I pointed to.
Putin's now at the G-20 and has already had one bilateral meeting with TrumpCo. Sputnik offers this recap that includes links to its additional articles published during the day. Much has occurred, and Trump has yet to storm out. Some of the photos are priceless, the May/Putin handshake perhaps being the most telling.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 19:08 utc | 19
That there is a Putin that today leads a great country like Russia seems like a miracle and he appeared at the very moment that Russia needed him.
Part of the West elite hate of Putin is that compared to them he gives off an aura of honesty and truthfulness that is absent from leaders in the West.
Posted by: AriusArmenian | Jun 28 2019 19:10 utc | 20
The "multi-cultural" issue, to the extent that it is an issue, is only an issue as an effect of the actual problem. It is effectively a scapegoat. No one would care about "multiculturalism" if there was a fair economic order in which living standards were increasing. The problem is that western capitalism wants it both ways, it sees the demographic problem it faces and it wants the labor of migrants but it does not want to improve society, it wants to keep its slice of the pie. Hence things will get economically worse while migrants will be an easy "cause" at which to point for the unthinking person. In that sense it becomes a problem insofar as it contributes to fascism, nothing else changing. Putin is right about China utilizing globalization to the benefit of society while the west is only interested in globalization insofar as it opens markets and creates profit for those who own social production. But of course Marx predicted this all long ago, so it is not perhaps surprising that the Chinese Communist Party would be more intelligent here. There is nothing more symptomatic or demonstrative here than the fact that, while western countries debate over a few tens of thousands of immigrants being "too many", China is capable of such feats as eradicating poverty and building incredible and modern infrastructure while being a land of over a billion people.
Posted by: anon | Jun 28 2019 19:17 utc | 21
Reading over the Gabbard comments, I was reminded of another big divide in the US- by party. Americans treat their parties like their tribes and viciously attack heretics of other tribes. The media fans the flames and keeps the "elections" going for years, without a break.
Meanwhile, our ruling overlords pick their next puppet, let us all "vote" on computerized machines, and then the talking heads announce the "winner".
And it all starts over.
Posted by: wagelaborer | Jun 28 2019 19:18 utc | 22
neo-liberalism (aka "crony capitalism") is about compromising the state and the society that it protects in favor of wealthy, powerful interests. Thus, at it's core, it's against the people.
To compensate and distract from this corruption, the people are presented with the 'fruits' of a liberal society: quasi"-freedoms" like gender rights, civil rights, and human rights. I say "quasi-" because these rights are abridged by the powerful elite as they see fit (witness rendition and torture, pervasive surveillance, and Assange).
We fight among ourselves about walls and bathrooms as elites destroy the Commons. In this way, they pick our pockets and kneecap our ability to fight back at the same time.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 19:26 utc | 23
Generic question: How many of the 2020 candidates for US President could hold up their end of an interview with such knowledge and style?
You beat me to the punch.
And the answer to your rhetorical question is, of course, NONE!
Luckily for Americans, Ignorance is Bliss.
Posted by: DM | Jun 28 2019 19:28 utc | 24
Boy did Russia luck out. Yeltsin was smart picking this man.... Look at the whine ass, crying, warmongering. narcissist psychopathic bullies we get. I am envious of the Russians having a leader they can be proud of.
Been about 60 years since I have had a president to be proud of, back when America WAS great,,, and they killed him.
Posted by: ken | Jun 28 2019 19:31 utc | 25
Joe Nobody @6 Personal identity need NOT arise out of what's in one's pants, so how about you mind your own severe mental disorder, keep your nose out of my pants, and leave the rest of us to peacefully express ourselves. Thanks.
Posted by: Trisha Driscoll | Jun 28 2019 19:39 utc | 26
@ Posted by: ken | Jun 28, 2019 3:31:05 PM | 24
Ironically, he died because he failed to do a regime change (Cuba).
13 igfocus
As per your observations re the 2007 and 2015 speeches, they could have been 'game changers', but the anti-Russia campaign in place since the beginning of Putin's presidency aided and abetted by the MSM, the 'Corporate Media', unfortunately were able to dissemble and distract to the extent that the substance of the speeches was never seriously examined and discussed ... shoulda, woulda, coulda.
Posted by: chet380 | Jun 28 2019 19:48 utc | 28
Barovsky 3
Whether V. Putin purposefully omitted the recent wars, or was being diplomatic, the liberalisation of migration goes back at least to the mid 19th century (in modern history). This was a combination of the existence of various empires, increased travel, and the move towards a "more representative" form of democracy that shifted away from traditional hierarchy and taxation, moving ceaselessly towards eventual fiat regimes where monetary supply and fiscal laxity (including as result of population size, read migration) generate more votes and higher headline economic figures.
You won't be surprised to find the old elite, mixed in with the new elite either, they adapt, and in fact face less accountability under the new system, which is "public majority choice" .
EU is archetypal in this respect, it is not hidden at regional scale at all, the extension to include extra-EU migration only helps reinforce an existing direction, that of dissolution of national identity.
The UK plays with nationality like it is handing out candy, the ethic of home nation is gone, policy is widely and openly orientated towards cross cultural assimilation. A form of reductionist attitude as far as common historical loyalty is concerned is now the format, where submission to the establishment order as the meaning of being British is the only format accepted.
In fact, there are some real give-aways to that migration is encouraged, the most obvious maybe is that simple temporary work migration can be accommodated easily and fairly without conceding greater rights. Look at Switzerland or many many other countries, for example. In the rest of Europe it is not just a question of automatic support for migrants or refugees that is the question, nor that there is no obvious effort (or means even) of organizing returns, nor that other countries (US) cause wars (because Europe was instrumental in these wars also), it is that it is fully known that within several years (as few as five if there is no major move to nationalise all, which also sometimes happens), migrants will be as French, or British, or Dutch as their neighbours (which is increasingly less so).
So to put it simply, without the modern liberal attitude having already been installed, leaders of countries would have forcefully rejected destabilising other countries, because they would have known full well that their own citizens would never accept mass migration, nor the atrocity of what might occur without it. Leaders therefore would have been under much more intense scrutiny for their actions, instead now it is teady bears and tears and how good and humane they are. Each country has a slightly different sense of duty or culpability at play that provides leverage, but the wider momentum certainly does not originate as being authored by public choice, nor honest representation of public choice.
Posted by: gzon | Jun 28 2019 19:55 utc | 29
Lionel Barber: Mr President, you have had many meetings with President Xi, and Russia and China have definitely come closer. Are you putting too many eggs in the China basket? Because Russian foreign policy, including under your leadership, has always made a virtue of talking to everybody.
Vladimir Putin: First of all, we have enough eggs, but there are not that many baskets where these eggs can be placed. This is the first point.
Very witty remark. The fastest way, in recent years, to lose friends and become an object of suspicion is to recommend that Putin's actual statements and remarks be read. The 2015 UN speech, case in point, is a remarkable dissection of all that was wrong with the NATO approach in the Mid-east. Not a single Putin-basher, in my experience, has ever read it. They are content to internalize MSM opinions and talking points, and when challenged become quickly emotional and upset. These are intelligent people with, in many cases, academic backgrounds. I don't know how to explain this, but it is somehow connected to the general decline and mediocrity of the "west".
Posted by: jayc | Jun 28 2019 20:03 utc | 30
Funny thing is, he is saying what he said for many years. Its only "news" now because it can be used for the wests propaganda.. ;)
As i would agree to what he says for the most part, the only point he leaves out, is also his biggest flaw as far as his domestic standing is concerned:
ECONOMICALLY he is a neo-lib through and through. From his St. Petersburg times where he was mentored by Yeltsins friends, till his latest "reforms".
Not only are multicultaralism and other liberal utopias dead (This writes someone who ones deeply believed in them), but the economic part of liberalism is dead too. At least if one really cares about the majority of citizens.
And to be clear: I dont see any alternative to Putinism in this conditions of war, and so do most Russians still.
But this does not change the fact that the economic policy of him makes his other achievements a hard to swallow pill for most Russian. And the only thing Putin can truely loose his power over.
Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jun 28 2019 20:03 utc | 31
"They will paint him [Putin] as being in an alt-right corner. But even the Dalai Lama, held up as an icon by many liberals, says that "Europe is for Europeans" and that immigrants should go back to their own countries."
The Dalai Lama? Since when this man is an autority for social matters? Who would doubt he is a rightwinger?
Putin:"The migrants can kill, plunder and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants must be protected. What rights are these? Every crime must have its punishment."
This ist typical right wing bullshit. Where on earth migrants can kill and rape with impunity? In Fantasylandia or where?
There is no reason to defend Putin when he describes his skewed view of the world. The refugees are also victims of neoliberal globalisation, which, by the way, Putin himself has little objection to. At least his prime minister is neoliberal as it gets.
He is right when he criticises the West for trying to put everyone in the same political Prokrustes bed, but certainly not when he denounces those seeking help as dangerous criminals. Objectively speaking, Germany benefits from the million refugees. This has created many new jobs and is beginning to be helpful in paying the pension. The low-wage sector already existed before, Chancellor Schröder set it up without refugees. If anything must be criticised in this context, it is the freedom of movement for persons in the EU.
Putin should be more concerned about pursuing a more social policy at home.
Of course this does not change the main thing; by far the biggest problem in this world is the empire, certainly not Putin. But still one should not fall into Manichaean thinking.
Posted by: Pnyx | Jun 28 2019 20:03 utc | 32
@ken #24
Putin was Prime Minister during Yeltsin's last term and became president when Yeltsin resigned. He got that position because he was a protegee of the St. Petersburg mayor, Sobchak.
Many people thought he would be another non-entity like Yeltsin: easily manipulated and without any concrete agenda beyond self enrichment and staying in power.
Clearly, many people were wrong.
Posted by: c1ue | Jun 28 2019 20:05 utc | 33
Liberal can mean a lot of things to many people.
In this interview Putin is constructing the "interests of the core population" against "multiculturalism". It is vile.
He can't be talking about Russia as Russia IS a multicultural country with more than 185 ethnic groups, some 100 languages and quite a few religions including Buddhism and of course Islam.
So I assume he is trying to impress the European and American nationalist lunatic right wing from Brexiteers to Le Pen, FPÖ, AFD and Orbanists. Maybe with a nod to Poland when talking about not destroying the Catholic Church.
At the same time he is "liberal" when it comes to globalisation.
"The G20 has played a very tangible role. Since its inception in 2008, when the financial crisis flared up, the G20 has accomplished many useful things for stabilising the global financial system, for developing global trade and ensuring its stabilisation. I am talking about the tax aspect of the global agenda, the fight against corruption, and so on. Both China and Russia adhere to this concept."
Right. So goods, money, businessmen and politicians are supposed to travel globally but not us people. People are core sheep to be kept within borders.
Posted by: somebody | Jun 28 2019 20:31 utc | 34
Thanks for the FT transcript link.
Transcript: ‘All this fuss about spies ... it is not worth serious interstate relations’
LB: Can we just turn to North Korea? How do you assess the current situation and do you believe that in the end, any deal or agreement will have to accept the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons and that total dismantling is just not possible? If I could just add, Mr President, I ask you this because Russia has a fairly small but still a land border with North Korea.VP: You know, whether we recognise North Korea as a nuclear power or not, the number of nuclear charges it has will not decrease. We must proceed from modern realities, which are that nuclear weapons pose a threat to international peace and security. Another pertinent question is where this problem stems from. The tragedies of Libya and Iraq have inspired many countries to ensure their security at all costs.
What we should be talking about is not how to make North Korea disarm, but how to ensure the unconditional security of North Korea and how to make any country, including North Korea feel safe and protected by international law that is strictly honoured by all members of the international community.
Putin is a true professional, a real statesman. Glad this man is alive and on planet Earth.
If the current Western warmongers had any self awareness they would be able to see they are way out of their league right now.
Posted by: Zack | Jun 28 2019 20:35 utc | 35
Will US Elites Give Détente With Russia a Chance? -- The Nation
The Trump-Putin meeting in Japan is crucial for both leaders—and for the world.
By Stephen F. Cohen
<...>
Putin’s domestic problem, on the other hand, is economic and social. Russia’s annual growth rate is barely 2 percent, real wages are declining, popular protests against officialdom’s historically endemic corruption are on the rise, and Putin’s approval rating, while still high, is declining. A public dispute between two of Putin’s advisers has broken out over what to do. On the one side is Alexei Kudrin, the leading monetarist who has long warned against using billions of dollars in Russia’s “rainy day” funds to spur investment and economic growth. On the other is Sergei Glaziev, a kind of Keynesian, FDR New Dealer who has no less persistently urged investing these funds in new domestic infrastructure that would, he argues, result in rapid economic growth.
During his nearly 20 years as Kremlin leader, Putin has generally sided with the “rainy day” monetarists. But on June 20, during his annual television call-in event, he suddenly, and elliptically, remarked that even Kudrin “has been drifting towards” Glaziev. Not surprisingly, many Russian commentators think this means that Putin himself is now “leaning toward Glaziev.” If so, it is another reason why Putin has no interest in waging cold war with the United States—why he wants instead, indeed even needs, a historic, long-term détente.
It seems unlikely that President Trump or any of the advisers currently around him understand this important struggle—and it is a struggle—unfolding in the Russian policy elite. But if Trump wants a major détente (or “cooperation,” as he has termed it) with Russia, anyone who cares about international security and about the well-being of the Russian people should support him in this pursuit. Especially at this moment, when we are told by the director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research that “the risks of the use of nuclear weapons…are higher now than at any time since World War Two.”
Posted by: John Smith | Jun 28 2019 20:40 utc | 36
b writes:
"Asked about the turn towards nationalism and more rightwing policies in the U.S. and many European countries, Putin names immigration as the primary problem."
The actual question posed by Barber was:
"Again a big picture question. I talked at the beginning of our conversation about fragmentation. Another phenomenon today is that there is a popular backlash against elites and against the establishment and you have seen that – Brexit in Britain. Perhaps you were speaking about Trump’s America. You have seen it with the AFD in Germany; you have seen it in Turkey; and you have seen it in the Arab world. How long do you think that Russia can remain immune to this global movement of backlash against the establishment?"
The fundamental, primary answer given by Putin begins by his rephrasing the multifaceted question:
"What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said, in the United States? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people." [My Emphasis]
Putin then places what's bolded above into the Russian context:
"Of course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future." [My Emphasis]
Only then does he turn to his idea of the obsolescence of the "liberal idea," brings up one of its components, the issue of multiculturalism, and then speaks to the issue of migration and the problems being blamed on it and not its causes--which he has already pointed-out:
"There is also the so-called liberal idea, which has outlived its purpose. Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable."
Historically, the migration of entire ethnic groups is almost exclusively due to limitations on resources caused by some type of externality since migration in reality is a radical act. The modern reason for such radical acts Putin rightfully says results from the "gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people," not because of some other natural cause. Such a gap I've recently addressed as that expressed by George Kennan in 1947 when he noted the USA comprised only 6% of the global population but consumed more than 60% of the natural resources and that a method to continue that disparity must be found and implemented. There's your gap, for which the Cold War that was already started was deliberately escalated to provide the policy means to continue the disparity. Today's problems have that Zero-sum policy choice at their root, but all too few know that's where the root of the problem lies, although some have proposed methods to resolve it. And the clear disagreement in implementing the proposed solution is at the root of today's geopolitical crises.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 20:45 utc | 37
I see we have some fools who are incapable of critical reading and accuse Putin of things he most definitely is not. That he's a right-wing neoliberal is utter bullshit and those making such accusations ought to hang their in heads in deep shame for displaying their massive ignorance.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 20:50 utc | 38
I noticed NBC's version says Putin has aligned himself with anti-immigrant politicians. Then it goes on to mention Novichok incidents and Litvenenko before quoting Trump saying that he had a good relationship with Putin. It is disgusting to see how low US MSM goes. Meanwhile they ignore most of the substance of his interview.
Posted by: Curtis | Jun 28 2019 21:02 utc | 39
I think it's important to draw a distinction between liberalism/humanism that grew out of the Enlightenment and the social phenomena that we see today.
Just as with crony capitalism vs. capitalism, neo-liberalism deforms the liberal 'ideal' into a servant of the powerful.
In this way, the West has lost its way. And it was guided there by neocons that played on the fears of the wealthy in the 60's and 70's.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 28 2019 21:06 utc | 40
Putin sounds like a right wing hate muffin. What's wrong with the world? Da gays. Da immigrants.
The influx of immigrants has to do with Imperial wars of resource domination and trade control. That is the problem, not some overly tolerant attitude on the part of 'liberal' countries. Without a doubt, liberalism needs to be taken off its pedestal. It's fundamentally an economic ideology which espouses the liquid power of money. Liberalism, particularly in its 'neo' form, needs to come under close scrutiny and serious criticism. But it's not liberalism that gives us gay rights. It's humanism that gives us both general and specific human rights.
The stuff Putin spouts about democracy is raving nonsense. Imposing democracy doesn't work because its not a thing that can be imposed. On top of that, the nations imposing said democracy are hardly beacons of democracy themselves. Bland references to western 'democratic institutions', as if that were a real thing, are some kind of joke.
Try again, Putin. Think deeper.
Posted by: paulll | Jun 28 2019 21:15 utc | 41
John Smith @36--
Thanks for the Cohen excerpt. I've followed Putin since he took over for Yeltsin and watched him wade through the trenches of several battles to first stabilize & maintain then improve the overall state of the Russian people, which he has always said is his #1 goal. In some ways, Putin's 20 years at the top echelon of the Russian government can be equated with the USSR's accomplishments from 1930-1950. Putin is simultaneously a Nationalist and an Internationalist, which is why him and Xi are so close. A commentator above noted the question about having too many eggs in one basket. Putin's reply shows why so many other nations want to join Russia & China's joint developmental plans:
"We do not have to join anything, and we do not have to direct our policy against anyone. In fact, Russia and China are not directing their policy against anyone. We are just consistently implementing our plans for expanding cooperation. We have been doing this since 2001, and we are just consistently implementing these plans. [My Emphasis]
"Take a look at what is written there. We have not done anything that transcends the framework of these accords. So there is nothing unusual here, and you should not search for any implications of the Chinese-Russian rapprochement. Of course, we assess the current global developments; our positions coincide on a number of matters on the current global agenda, including our attitude towards compliance with generally accepted rules in trade, the international financial system, payments and settlements."
Putin gets harped on for his use of the term partners, but he doesn't cease using it, even to describe relations with extremely adversarial governments because he understands that in most cases those governments don't reflect or pursue the interests of their citizenry--particularly the international business sector. Meanwhile he says there's no ideological divide within the international realm anymore. I've written here why he's mistaken, but would really like to ask him to further explain himself and his reasons why he thinks that's so. After all, he just pointed to and explained the very basis for that divide, which I've addressed.
The audience most needing to read and digest Putin's remarks are the Outlaw US Empire's Current Oligarchy, for they are the entities that must change their attitude and cease generating chaos in the world.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 21:28 utc | 42
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28, 2019 4:50:51 PM | 38
Seriously, the emperor has no clothes.
This here is Putin
What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said, in the United States? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people.
Equality tends to be measured in the GINI index. The lower the more equality.
Russia has a GINI index of 37,7. United States of 41.5.
So yes, his analysis might apply to the US (though historically there has not been much change and the poverty rate has decreased not increased) but European GINI index (and standard of living) is much better than Russia's with Germany at 31.7 and Scandinavia below 30.
Talking about "the overwhelming majority of the people" .... Donald Trump won with 45.9% of the vote in 2016.
And this here earns a prize in outright lying
You know, first of all, we do not have oligarchs anymore. Oligarchs are those who use their proximity to the authorities to receive super profits. We have large companies, private ones, or with government participation. But I do not know of any large companies that get preferential treatment from being close to the authorities, these are practically non-existent.
I could go on for ever. It is propaganda for the stupid people.
Posted by: somebody | Jun 28 2019 21:35 utc | 43
somebody who calls me one of "the stupid people."
I think you should "go on forever," and just keep going and going and going, for you are going nowhere in your dismissal of most everything except your own navel.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 21:40 utc | 44
Robert Sykes @2
"When he [Puutin] finally passes, he will be remembered as another Churchill or Bismarck."
Churchill was a drunken sot (he had an exemption for alcohol when he visited the US during prohibition - for 'medical' reason) who thought nothing of gassing Arabs simply because they were Arabs, and wanted joint USUK and Wehrmacht forces to take on the USSR after the defeat of Germany. Fortunately the UK military were not as corrupt then as now so they told him to get lost. He also personally signed off on the partition of Europe into western and eastern aligned areas of influence (now down to Stalin's malevolence and unprovoked expansionism in today's history where the US defeated Germany in WWII).
Posted by: Yonatan | Jun 28 2019 21:46 utc | 45
thank you b!!! putin is a real leader in a crowd of political monkeys (no offense to the monkeys), who can't light a match beside putin.. i will read the full transcipt...
@22 jr.. i agree with you and your last line especially --"We fight among ourselves about walls and bathrooms as elites destroy the Commons. In this way, they pick our pockets and kneecap our ability to fight back at the same time."
the part about elites destroying the commons is so bang on and disgusting.. it has to stop...
@46 karlof1... i don't think somebody said that! he might have implied that, but even then it seems somebody is a straight shooter and saying what he thinks without adding insult.. maybe i am losing my perceptiveness!
Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 21:51 utc | 46
here is a direct link to the full transcript from ft news.
https://www.ft.com/content/878d2344-98f0-11e9-9573-ee5cbb98ed36
Posted by: james | Jun 28 2019 21:52 utc | 47
I have to say from reading (very quickly, I must admit) through the transcript that the interviewer Lionel Barber in many respects seems very poorly informed about news items close to home (for him, that is.)
He blundered through the Skripal poisoning incident by stating that a man died from touching Novichok. The word "perfume" appeared in another statement soon after. Where Barber learned this from, who knows, but FT readers would reasonably assume that in preparing his questions for Vladimir Putin, Barber would have done some basic research on the Skripal poisoning incident and Dawn Sturgess's death that was tied to the original incident by the British government.
Barber also had the temerity to ask Putin where he supposedly stashes his huge US$40 billion fortune. Any other politician accused of stealing billions from the government would have told off Barber for making statements not based on evidence. The fact that the leaking of the Panama Papers in 2016 failed to turn up anything on Putin (apart from a former childhood friend who once held an offshore account) and that for years Western intelligence agencies have been searching in vain for offshore accounts linked to Putin seem to have made no impression on Barber.
The interviewer also had no answer when Putin made the point that Britain's next prime minister will not necessarily be the British people's choice. Barber could have said that the next prime minister might well call a general election.
Even in Venezuela, that so-called bastion of ee-vul and failed socialism, when a President becomes incapacitated and cannot serve out a full term, and must be replaced by an acting President, the acting President must call for new elections, as Nicolas Maduro certainly did in 2013 after Hugo Chavez's death.
Posted by: Jen | Jun 28 2019 21:53 utc | 48
One particual quote that Mr. Helmer highlighted (and the only outright lie AFAIK):
Putin: we do not have oligarchs anymore. Oligarchs are those who use their proximity to the authorities… I do not know of any large companies that get preferential treatment from being close to the authorities, these are practically non-existent.
Somehow he forgot his Buddy Oleg Deripaska.. And quite some others that most Russian sure know as getting a preferential treatment.
;)
Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jun 28 2019 21:54 utc | 49
Thanks enormously b for focussing on this interview. As karlof1 has pointed out above, Putin's focus in all of these matters is upon the wellbeing of the people, both in his country and in all others. Stability rises above even incompetent leadership, and that is consistent with deploring the abandonment of security protocols that have been agreed to heretofore.
He wasn't reluctant to state that his priority, as for any leader should be, is 'Russia first'. But unlike the US drive for superiority, for him Russia will be first if the stability it exemplifies is copied by other nations in whatever version of democracy most acceptable to the people of each country. Nor did I see him advocating the abolition of 'liberalism' but simply pointing out that pushed to extremes of policy that system is not working. Example: open borders, which I would equate to no regulation of markets. One might also say that his remarks about Venezuela are consistant - liberal ideas there seem to put anyone in the public square declaring he is president in opposition to democracy itself!
His explanation of oligarchy was also interesting. An oligarch is a rich person or company who has power in governmental affairs. He didn't say it, but how the US has become guilty of this no longer needs saying.
Thank you again, b!
Posted by: juliania | Jun 28 2019 22:00 utc | 51
We don't have oligarchs?
They fooking write the bills, congress signs off on them and passes the bills.
A few Oligarchs - Buffet, Bezos, WalMart, Adelson, Gates, Goldman Sachs, BOA; Monsanto Bayer; Blue Cross, ETNA, and etc via AHIP; Lockheed Martin, Koch...
Posted by: Kristan hinton | Jun 28 2019 22:03 utc | 52
Somebody @ 45:
I second Karlof1 in saying please do go on forever in making statements and cherry-picking particular facts (and omitting their context) that make you look foolish.
When VVP says there are no more oligarchs in Russia any more, he is referring to people like Mikhail Khodorkovsky (now living in Switzerland after serving jail time in Russia) who sought to buy politicians with money and influence. Other oligarchs took note of the Putin government's punishment of Khodorkovsky for refusing to get out of politics by fleeing with their money to Britain.
If you have access to sources of information and knowledge that Putin himself does not have, about the transparency of large Russian corporations and their projects (and joint ventures with the Russian federal and regional goverments), you ought to let us know before you accuse Putin of outright lying.
Posted by: Jen | Jun 28 2019 22:10 utc | 53
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28, 2019 5:40:43 PM | 46
Well, this here is John Helmer making fun of Putin's claim that there are no more oligarchs in Russia - he is a specialist on the topic.
Putin did not force a single oligarch to invest his capital in Russia. It was Western sanctions that forced Russian oligarchs to chose.
Posted by: somebody | Jun 28 2019 22:15 utc | 54
@ 3--remind me who was fighting the west in syria, again?
Posted by: pretzelattack | Jun 28, 2019 2:27:47 PM | 8
With all due respect, let's not get all rosy-eyed over Putin. I fully support what Putin has done in Syria, because he's defending Russia's interests. Whether he's fighting the West or defending Russia's interests, doesn't alter the fact, every move he makes is driven by national self interest first and 'fighting the West', last. In fact, I don’t think Putin is fighting the West, he’s defending Russia (same as Stalin did). Putin is no democrat, Russia is a capitalist state but one with a tragic history. And for me it’s personal, I lost my entire Russian family during WWII, no graves, no death certificates, exterminated in its entirety and there's not a single Russian family that didn't lose someone during that hell.
We need only look at the fuckup Putin made of Libya (Iraq I understand), ‘no fly zone’ indeed! And therein lies the weakness of having a single, powerful leader, they’re not infallible. Putin/Lavrov calculated that there was no advantage to getting involved.
And anyway, my comments are not directed at Putin’s foreign policy (which by the look of it, is mostly Lavrov’s foreign policy). Putin plays to specific sections of the West’s population and Russia is a conservative country. All the talk about ‘too many migrants’, reflects this and reaches lots of Europeans. Hey but it’s just my opinion.
RT has a very witty piece about the Financial Times decision to highlight Putin's "Liberalism's obsolete" statement instead of the vastly more important substance of the interview and how the rest of BigLie Media took the narrative cue. The author begins by pointing out liberalism's hypocrisy:
"The shock in the headlines was palpable, how could anyone question the dominance of liberalism? Liberals will accept anything (literally, that is the point) but they turn distinctly authoritarian when their beliefs are questioned." [My Emphasis]
His conclusion's just as good, but I won't give it away. Of course, if Liberalism meant anything goes, wouldn't that be anarchy, and isn't that an underlying aspect of the chaos purposely being generated?
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 22:21 utc | 56
Kudos to Putin for saying something. What do I mean by something? I mean something that doesn't carry the stench of Orwellian doublespeak that infects the blathering of most all of our leaders. Yes.
I have often railed against my liberal education and the torment it brought me as I broached the modern world in my early 20s. Now I have mixed feelings about it. What's the phrase? "if you aren't a liberal in your twenties you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative by thirty you have no sense."
For better or worse, Putin I'm guessing is right, and the world is thankfully pulling back from its own 'tower of Babel' arrogance and utopianism.
If I had to hazard a guess, I would imagine this is the gist of Putin's talk.
Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Jun 28 2019 22:27 utc | 58
Putin doesn't understand what we're telling the kids about gender? It's very easy. Here's one of the genders. (This will be on the test later).
"Aporagender" is a nonbinary gender identity and umbrella term for "a gender separate from male, female, and anything in between while still having a very strong and specific gendered feeling" (not to be confused with an absence of gender or agender).
Posted by: wagelaborer | Jun 28 2019 22:29 utc | 59
Where is it written that it's Putin's duty to force Russian citizens to invest in Russia? Enforcing such behavior strikes me as something akin to what Stalin would do. Are US citizens forced to invest in the USA? And this could continue until we go though all the world's nations. Isn't the liberal idea that people are free to do what they choose so long as they don't violate the rights of others? Isn't forcing a person to do something against their will the basic definition of authoritarianism? Robert Bridge writes an excellent essay dedicated to the 70th anniversary of its publication showing how 1984 is becoming reality within the nations wherein it was predicted. But everything wrong in the world is attributed to Russia, China, Putin, Xi, and so forth--not on illiberal policies designed to keep elites elite!
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 22:35 utc | 60
One thing that somebody in his ramblings on Putin seems to overlook is what Putin in the interview himself says and Juliania also points out. The task of any government is to preserve security of its citizens, I think actually it is the basis of the modern nation state. Only with internal security can there be prosperity. Whether socialist or capitalist, any society first seeks that and Putin is quite right that security issues have been increasing markedly in western Europe due to mass immigration.
Additionally, you then draw on Russia as a multicultural nation to somehow try and refute Putin's statement about the failure of multiculturalism in Europe. Sure, national identity is not always defined by a common language or ethnicity and probably this is for the better! However, identity is defined by a set of common held values and believes that developed over centuries of co-existence. This co-existence is something entirely different in Russia where Tatars and other minorities have co-existed with the majority Slavs for centuries. When compared to Western Europe's multiculturalism triggered by recent waves of mass migration. It is funny that you write above that liberal can mean many different things to different people, yet purposefully use the term multiculturalism on both Russia and western Europe while disregarding the deep differences between the two.
Finally, you somehow equate Putin's statement:
"...The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people."
With inequality, when really interests can also refer to moral, social and all sorts of other rules of co-existence. Sure Russia has an inequality problem, this in no way refutes or diminishes Putin's statement that western elites increasingly disregard the needs and views of their citizens.
Posted by: Alexander P | Jun 28 2019 22:42 utc | 62
Pnyx 32
Whether representative, or not, there are enough cases where migrants have been dealt with in a way that is as he describes. I personally don't extrapolate that onto migrants, but onto the political class. Yes, you will find various of the complaints about this at further right sites, does not mean they are not true either. I think we have to keep an open mind as to what is occuring, for example that we are being presented with problem and wanted reply simultaneously, that we then invite wider overall control.
Freedom of movement in Europe post-war was not a problem, the only requirement was to present a European ID at any border. That meant simply that countries guaranteed that those entering were from a list of countries they agreed with. No big deal, in fact it was always a good reminder that you had changed country and were under another authority.
I think when you say Putin is globalist, it is easy to confuse the meaning. Global trade and diplomacy has been with us for a long time, however Globalist with a capital G tends to imply a one world structure which has some kind of overarching power. He deals with globalists, because his country is prominent on the global stage. At the same time he has taken Russia towards a stance of independence, its concerns are mostly in bordering regions, as is "normal". That is to say that I don't think Russia has the intent of global dominion, or of merging into attempts of that by other countries. We can always say that being involved in global affairs makes you globalist by association, but that is a line which is very hard to define properly, if it exists.
Posted by: gzon | Jun 28 2019 22:48 utc | 64
"Has anyone ever given a thought to who actually benefited and what benefits were gained from globalisation, the development of which we have been observing and participating in over the past 25 years, since the 1990s?
China has made use of globalisation, in particular, to pull millions of Chinese out of poverty."
This is Putin endorsing economic liberalism, international capital markets, wrongly asserting it to be responsiveness to the wishes of the people. In particular it is the contemptible endorsement of Yeltsin's counterrevolution, posing as the adult in the room who fixed things. Putin is merely the janitor who cleaned up the mess after the fire sale. When the stock's been sold, of course you don't need a Yeltsin to sell out the country. Insofar as Putin has been successful, which he largely hasn't outside the capital cities, it has been Russian oil exports. In terms of industrial strength Russia has been falling further and further behind. China's concessions to global capital have produced a flock of billionaires who will rule or ruin.
"What happened in the US, and how did it happen? In the US, the leading US companies — the companies, their managers, shareholders and partners — made use of these benefits. [..] The middle class in the US has not benefited from globalisation; it was left out when this pie was divided up.
The Trump team sensed this very keenly and clearly, and they used this in the election campaign. It is where you should look for reasons behind Trump’s victory, rather than in any alleged foreign interference."
This is nonsense. The term middle class as used here is deceitful as "middle class" is not a synonym for suburban and rural white, the issue of deindustrialization is glossed over and there isn't ever any division of the pie by the classes in any country. Also, Trump didn't win the election, even if the big money people had commercial media give billions of free PR to Trump while insanely pillorying Clinton and ignoring anybody else.
Fundamentally Putin is a buffoon who's confused relentless cunning in the pursuit of selfish goals with being a genuine leader.
Posted by: steven t johnson | Jun 28 2019 22:53 utc | 65
Posted by: steven t johnson | Jun 28, 2019 6:53:55 PM | 68
"Fundamentally Putin is a buffoon who's confused relentless cunning in the pursuit of selfish goals with being a genuine leader."
You're so wrong, whatever else he is, he's no fool. In actual fact, he's a former member of the Soviet nomenklatura and a nationalist. "Selfish goals"? What his personal goals or those of his country?
@68 Some good trolling here.
Let me guess, Russia's economy only exports oil, has no industrial base (never mind their actual export numbers and products demonstrating this not to be the case). And Putin was bound to be successful because he was cleaning up the mess of others and that's an easy task per se.
Then you go on pretending that only suburban and rural white men voted for Trump (had that been the case he would not have won states like Florida). These kinds of illogical and non-factual posts do not greatly contribute to the overall discussion that usually take place in this forum.
Posted by: Alexander P | Jun 28 2019 23:05 utc | 67
You can't go knocking immigrants without calling out the maker, the cause of the immigrant problem (US NATO war for territory and resource extraction, war for political control/full spectrum dominance).
It is purely ignorant if one actually believes it (they're coming for welfare checks and food stamps NOT because they fear for the lives of their children). And it's deceitful and opportunistic to use it as a political football.
This is the kind of rhetoric one expects from a deceitful, opportunistic liar like Trump or Lindsey Graham.
Posted by: Kristan hinton | Jun 28 2019 23:19 utc | 68
wagelaborer @ 16 said;"The neoliberal economic plan is to suck the wealth out of the working class and funnel it up to the top 10%, especially the 1%. How to keep the working class from noticing the theft?
How about divide and conquer? "
Absolutely right on target..
@21 also with;"Meanwhile, our ruling overlords pick their next puppet, let us all "vote" on computerized machines, and then the talking heads announce the "winner".
And it all starts over.
Just about covers it..Good posts..
Putin's statesmanship is obvious...
Posted by: ben | Jun 28 2019 23:21 utc | 69
68
Look through the wealth and income percentiles for the US over the last decades and you will see what is meant by middle class vs top %.
As Karlof notes though, the question is of resource consumption also, and in that sense the US as a whole still enjoys a high level, much of it prepared by Chinese hands. Financing it is the part that is playing havoc, including for the US population , in various ways.
That Putin endorses the direction of China in this, well as he says, economic liberalism is not all bad That does not make him neo-liberal or similar. Chinese state capitalism is a peculiar creature anyway, a sort of controlled liberalisation. Whether it is what the Chinese people appreciate, is something very different, probably you would get a very mixed set of answers if you asked.
Posted by: gzon | Jun 28 2019 23:33 utc | 70
Any bets on when the so called 'liberal' west clues into what it is Putin is telling us?
Is seems to me that the term liberal has been perverted to the extent that it no longer has a useful meaning. Eerily similar to the treatment socialist was given by the Nazi regime. Too those paying attention this shouldn't come as a surprise, sadly to most it would be offensive to suggest such a thing.
The law of opposites in action, thanks B.
Posted by: Tannenhouser | Jun 28 2019 23:34 utc | 71
Some are confusing cultural liberalism with economic neoliberalism. Putin is a cultural conservative as is China but he is also a proponent of neoliberalism , as is China. Trump is a proponent of both
Both China and Russia are culturally and ethnically homogeneous, relatively speaking, unlike the US. In the US “liberals” have a diverse audience who are susceptible to buying into the racist and sexist attack on the white male. The perfection of the divide and rule strategy.
Such a strategy can not work in China or Russia as there is not as much diversity. Also Russia has its orthodox Christian religion and China has its illusive “socialist “ religion. Thus both counties rely on nationalism which is cemented on a national religion to oppose a foreign enemy (US and West). Conflict with the US and West , fake or otherwise, helps both countries maintain popular support although Putins is slipping since reducing pension benefits.
Back to Cultural liberalism . It is a by product of the enlightenment which sought to reduce Christianity’s influence and introduce freedom and tolerance. Not a bad thing in itself. It was hijacked by the illuminated elite in the 18th century who created Marxism to provide a secular religion that could destroy Capitalism, Nationalism and Religion by pitting labor against the Capitalists.
Unfortunately for the illuminated elite, they failed. Despite the revolution in Russia that they financed and was supported by a disaffected minority, the revolution did not spread beyond its borders.
A group of illuminated intellectuals banded together in Germany to ponder this perplexing fact. Known as the Frankfurt school they decided the flaw in Marxism was it had no cultural component. Also, they discovered that most of labor had bought into the materialism of capitalism. Their solution was to introduce Cultural Marxism. After moving to the US during Hitlers takeover, centered at Columbia University initially, they eventually joined up with the Tavistock Institute and its intelligence agencies in US and UK to subvert the liberal order. Starting from the 60’s Cultural Marxism began to grow like a cancer destroying not just the liberals, but infecting the Christian heartland using Christian Zionism and fueling a hatred of Islam and love of War and Militarism.
In the mid 60’s government unleashed a flood of legal immigrants from non European regions while encouraging illegal immigration from its southern borders. The flow of drugs by Dope Inc was unimpeded. The dilution of American Culture had begun and leaving it susceptible to further erosion. Hollywood and the media joined forces to promote these ideas. The rest is history
This is not just a one party phenomena. Trump (twice divorced, history of abusing women whose mentor was the AIDs stricken Roy Crohn, who made a living with Casinos with his pedophilia pal Epstein lurking in the background and all sorts of Mafia connections, with his daughter converting to Judaism and her Chabad husband) hardly represents traditional American cultural values. President Trump recently said that his administration would lead an effort to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. This is the guy the Party of the Christian Right support. Lol
As for Trumps war on immigration. Its all smoke and mirrors. He always loved illegal immigrants, they were the easiest group of employees to underpay (or not pay) and exploit.
Posted by: Pft | Jun 28 2019 23:41 utc | 72
Jrabbit @ 41 opined;"Just as with crony capitalism vs. capitalism, neo-liberalism deforms the liberal 'ideal' into a servant of the powerful."
"In this way, the West has lost its way. And it was guided there by neocons that played on the fears of the wealthy in the 60's and 70's."
Perceptive as hell rabbit. Great take, and true.
The
"fears of the wealthy" gave rise to the Powell memo in '71,
a blueprint for the wealthy to remake the U$A, and give them total control.
https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/
Posted by: ben | Jun 28 2019 23:43 utc | 73
Tip o' the cap to karlof1 for the spirited defense of Putin.
Nobody's perfect, but, compare Putin to the Cretans who run this nation (U$A), and the differences are obvious..
Posted by: ben | Jun 28 2019 23:49 utc | 74
I searched the text and discovered sanctions weren't mentioned once. Since the G-20 is fundamentally about economic development and globalized commerce, and although trade wars was mentioned, I found it odd that topic was omitted. Fortunately, Magnier points to an important paper published prior to the G-20 on the topic by European Council on Foreign Relations: "Meeting the challenge of secondary sanctions." The summary provides a list of bullet points, two of which I'll excerpt:
"•In future, states will likely weaponise economic interdependence with the EU to target countries that are more important to the European economy than Iran, such as China and Russia."
A situation that's already happening and being done by only one state.
"•The EU and its member states should strengthen their sanctions policy, begin to build up their deterrence and resilience against secondary sanctions, and prepare to adopt asymmetric countermeasures against any country that harms European interests through secondary sanctions."
The question begged: What is going to be done now since they're already "harm[ing] European interests"?
Published on June 25, the authors realize the issue's importance, that action is demanded, and a solution must be arrived at. Of course, did any EU G-20 participants read the paper is a valid question; and if so, what line of action will they take, if any, at the G-20?
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 28 2019 23:49 utc | 75
Karlof1@63
“Where is it written that it's Putin's duty to force Russian citizens to invest in Russia? “
Well, he can prevent them from exporting capital outside the country. Many western countries had limitations on how much capital you could export in the 20th century. JFK was concerned with capital flight and was proposing to tax it before he was killed. It went through in a watered down form after his death before being scrapped in the 70’s
Its not Stalinism to protect your countries jobs and citizens welfare. Neoliberalism gives the elites the freedom to do whatever they wish without concern for nationalist interests. Of course, the US is controlled by Globalists (both parties),so whats good for China and other non US interests is good for the US and global elites since they seek dominance over the world
Trump is a faux populist. Basically controlled opposition to give anti-globalists in the US the sense they have someone looking after them. The laugh is on them
Posted by: Pft | Jun 28 2019 23:54 utc | 76
ben @77--
Thanks for that!
Pft @75 says Putin/Russia/Xi/China practice neoliberalism which is grossly incorrect--they both promote the Win-Win philosophy of a socialized/mixed economy that uplifts all whereas Neoliberalism promotes the Zero-sum philosophy that ends with one winner owning all at the expense of everyone else--The Game of Monopoly weaponized--and thus the ideological divide between Russia/China/et al versus the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals Putin won't admit exists as I've pointed out many times.
Ah... Finally 5pm Pacific and time for a beer. TGIF everyone!
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 29 2019 0:01 utc | 78
Pft @79--
No, it's not up to Putin; as in the USA, it's up to the legislature/congress/duma. It's Putin's duty to either sign or veto the legislation same as with POTUS. Putin can advocate for such a policy, but he cannot personally impose one, nor can Trump.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 29 2019 0:25 utc | 79
@2
"When he finally passes, he will be remembered as another Churchill or Bismarck."
No, he will be remembered as *much* better than Churchill.
An awful man and a war criminal.
Posted by: Really? | Jun 29 2019 0:27 utc | 80
karlof1 "The question begged: What is going to be done now since they're already "harm[ing] European interests"?"
We may well see that in the coming weeks with Instex. I believe Russia and perhaps China are using the US attack on Iran to split the bobbling heads away from the US. The tanker and pipeline attacks are designed, I believe, as a wake up call for these bobbling heads rather than the US being the main target.
Putin's modus operandi is to turn US attacks to his advantage and I believe this is the case with the current US attack on Iran.
Gruff in a post in an earlier thread comments that the US puppets around the world are still forced at times to go against the US due to local pressures and the prospect of being re-elected or simply booted out.
I think this is what is happening now. The bobbling heads and their populations know that Iran has followed the nuke agreement to the letter, then there are the large companies within these countries that are losing business due to US sanctions on Iran and Prior to that Russia. Also the threats of sanctions over nord stream.
Iran Russia China play their cards right, they have a good chance of splitting the EU away from the US.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 29 2019 0:56 utc | 81
ITT: Identity politics victims airing their mental disorders.
"Respect my delusion! My gender is unicorn if I say so, and you are a deplorable person if you refuse to help me reinforce this fantasy of mine!"
Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 29 2019 1:07 utc | 82
Vladimir Putin's Views on Everything, Publish Today
http://johnhelmer.net/vladimir-putins-views-on-everything-published-in-london-today/
That's right, Putin says Russia has no oligarchs. Others close to the President have recently said similar things, demonstrating Kremlin insiders are singing from the same book of kleptocrat songs. This interview is about perception management from start to finish. Had the interviewer not been a participant in the charade he would have asked how much the non existant oligarchs who sorround him have stolen from Russia and the former Soviet space and why they should be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains, mostly in Rothschild/City of London banks and real estate.
From the beginning, when the BBC promoted Putin the oligarch-slayer apparently taking a piece out Oleg Deripaska for not paying his workers (recall the scenario beginning with the famous phrase: when Putin came to town -- suprise I can't find it now)
and Tony Blair was telling everyone Putin was The Man, I have strongly suspected the fix was in with respect to pilfering globalist masonics and their falsified narratives which dismember you whilst making them insanely rich.
Putin is a collaborator and a neoliberal through and through. Untold trillions have poured out of Russia since he became President. What he ultimately works for is preserving the stolen wealth of Russian gangsters, whether it be in dollars or dollar alternatives, most often safely tucked away in Rothschild banks.
On the one hand he seems to be advocating for conservative values and therefore ultimate truth but in the realm international relations he firmly believes it's only national interests that actually matter.
People will believe what they want to believe, I suppose. With respect to Putin or the latest Obama hopi changi psyop girl Tulsi, you will only hear what these lifetime actors say because the spooks who control all media WANT you to hear. Some will hear wrong but most will hear the supposedly verbotten message, as is intended, the only possible choice being we should all take Putin's hand. So be confident as you are running away from all the Trump's, Bolsonaro's and Boris Johnson's of the declining neoliberal (not liberal) order you have only one place to go and that is the better Rothschild-BRICS NWO.
Posted by: C I eh | Jun 29 2019 1:07 utc | 83
putin has - for me at least - several strong points and seems generally intelligent in the meaningful "i get the way stuff works" way as opposed to the western establishment's "me get shiny paper from harvard!" semblance of intellect. that said, saying "(neo)liberalism is a joke" is akin to saying "adam sandler isn't funny". in russia - where the parasitic nature of economic liberalism was on full display for over a decade - it's on the level of "water is wet". it reeks of blasphemy to the cancerous "elites" running the show but everyone else got the memo around 2008 if not earlier. i could also get into the issues with russia's own brand of capitalism but that's a whole other text wall.
as for his immigration comments, it's hard to say how much was playing diplomatic for other leaders dealing with influxes of refugees and how much was uninformed and reflexive "derp derp rapefugees" wank. he knows better than most why there are refugees to begin with and should also know that "rape and plunder" are hardly exclusive to them. i'd also like to see a single case of a migrant "killing with impunity" and being allowed to walk free because of some imaginary "rights" granted to them. oh wait - i can think of quite a few, actually!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%9319_Gaza_border_protests#Casualties
when he and bibi stop jerking each other off for five minutes i'll take his concern seriously.
Posted by: the pair | Jun 29 2019 1:53 utc | 84
No rules count for those willing to bring Russia down – Kremlin spokesman (FULL INTERVIEW)
“…size doesn’t matter here. You can be small, but you can do much more influential things. That is what you [RT] are doing. And that what makes them nervous because you are [RT] pretending to be a rival for them and this rivalry can ruin the system of brainwash. This is the reality what we see.”
Read that again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ATdRpvQKvI
The quote can also be found here:
Posted by: C I eh? | Jun 29 2019 2:04 utc | 85
@ 86 said in part; " you have only one place to go and that is the better Rothschild-BRICS NWO."
Given the state of the West's "4th reich NWO", maybe some may want to try the BRICS NWO.
Posted by: ben | Jun 29 2019 2:11 utc | 86
@ C I eh? 86
Well I suppose we will find out if alternative arrangements with Iran "don't quite work out" and the US turns over the country without anyone doing more than say "Hey!" . We will be thankful that the event was limited etc. and everyone will go back to "building a better future now".
This is the sort of reason analysts talk about miscalculation, because I don't think anyone knows for sure how anyone else will behave.
Posted by: gzon | Jun 29 2019 2:21 utc | 87
Transcript of Putin's interview with FT in English, and from the official Kremlin website.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/60836
According to John Helmer it "is a more accurate reflection of Putin’s views. Read the excerpts which the FT hasn’t found fit to quote."
John Helmer article link;
http://johnhelmer.net/vladimir-putins-views-on-everything-published-in-london-today/#more-21093
Posted by: Deborah | Jun 29 2019 2:24 utc | 88
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/60836 Norbert Salamon @ 17
https://www.ft.com/content/878d2344-98f0-11e9-9573-ee5cbb98ed36 by James at 39 another ..thanks
https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-national-endowment-for-democracy.html Sally Snyder @14 USA meddling in Russia
Can you imagine American with Putin at the helm? by: Alan McLemore@ 11
Anon At 20 and gzon@29 .. Multi-culturalism is a product of economic zionism (Capitalism extended into feudal lord monopolism and capitalist as clients of states becoming states as clients of monopolists. Blended stable civilizations produce a strong coherent like minded body who vote to restrain malicious, corrupt leadership and amoral forces. Nationality, is a named object, programmed by propaganda.
Wagelaborer @1and Jackrabbit @22 jayc@30 Karlof1 @ 44<=yes, but from the beginning, the 1789 constitution operated as estoppel to democracy. Democracy is retained and allowed only in (525X1) Article I and even that is made subject to approval by the 2 person Article II (2X2). Not since 1789 have governed Americans enjoyed a participation, a voice, or investigatory insight into the methods, means or intentions of those who wield the power and possess the authority inherient in the USA constitution. Propaganda taught the governed, the constitution has meaning, contrary to the facts. Contained, People: are not allowed to peer outside or trust outsiders. The so-called "Outlaw US Empire's Current Oligarchy" cannot change attitude or chaos generating behaviors, because it is the essence of economic zionism, it is for this reason that WWIII will be fought.
Propaganda is the stupidity teacher that supports economic zionism. somebody @ 45
by: juliania @ 53 Putin focus=> well being, stability, Russia first, non functional liberalism expressed in open borders, and definition of oligarch<= very useful contribution to the analysis.. thanks.
Putin is a confused, cunning buffoon in pursuit of selfish goals.. by: ST johnson @ 68 <= Americans refuse to elect to the USA anyone not a [lying] confused, cunning buffon, in pursuit of selfish goals..at least it seems that way? Barovsky @69.. Putin's no fool.. His personal interest is to advance his nation's goals.
worth repeating=> wagelaborer @ 16 said;"The neoliberal economic plan is to suck the wealth out of the working class and funnel it up to the top 10%, especially the 1%. How to keep the working class from noticing the theft? How about divide and conquer? Absolutely right on target.. @21 also with;"Meanwhile, our ruling overlords pick their next puppet, let us all "vote" on computerized machines, and then the talking heads announce the "winner".And it all starts over. Just about covers it..Good posts..
Putin's statesmanship is obvious...ben @ 72
Posted by: snake | Jun 29 2019 2:45 utc | 89
At the end of the interview, Putin is asked to name someone he admires (I might have misremembered so do correct me if that wasn't the question). His answer surprised me - Peter the Great. That answer surprised me as there are some things about Peter the Great that wouldn't seem so admirable, but then I suppose much flowed from his reign. Dostoievski did have roots in the liberalism of the day, being a Saint Petersburg resident and all, and his great talent was achieved thanks to the Europeanization which Peter helped bring about for Russia. His, Dostoievski's novels draw on European literature but bring to it a quality that is uniquely Russian. So too does their classical music, the ballet, opera - and Russian's know full well that their own Tchaikovski and many of their great dancers were and are gay. Do you then condemn and reject? No, you do not. They are great artists; you cannot. There's the depth of Russian complexity - it is both east and west and its Christianity, as well as its atheism, is too.
It was Dostoievski after all, who found solace in the belief that the Russian people were the source of Russia's greatness, while embracing the slavic heritage; so indeed there is an interesting mixture there of elite and not so elite, which refuses really to be categorized as this or that 'ism'. It's like the idea of multipolarity - all fervent beliefs are to be respected but not one dominating over all the rest.
Posted by: juliania | Jun 29 2019 3:04 utc | 90
@89 ben
I do not object to taking a sensible course. I object to people using sophisticated 'brainwash' tools to take us wherever they want us to be. Their use of these massively elaborate full spectrum mind control techs, which leave me feeling dirty, dishevelled and generally terrified all of the time, are clues I can use to discern their intention is not to improve my life but instead to enslave me; or keep me enslaved, as the case may be. Anyone advocating for BRICS positions unconsciously, without for example addressing issues brought up by the Chinese Sesame social credit and control system, as so many here do, are doing the work of those who insist I must be held down by the proverbial jack boot forever, just as Eric Blair promised back in 1948.
Posted by: C I eh? | Jun 29 2019 3:06 utc | 91
@90 gzon
Miscalculation is indeed possible but dissuade yourself from the notion you are witnessing random events. Geopolitics is theatre of the mind and so long as you remain aware of it you may yet be able to rationally calculate what is actually in your interest, and what most definitely is not.
Posted by: C I eh? | Jun 29 2019 3:19 utc | 92
@ juliania with the quote from the interview about Peter the Great and Putin
Thanks for that sharing and contextualization......not something West does well
@ C I Eh? with the question about the proverbial jackboot
I admit to writing about such and share my belief that a public jackboot is far preferable to a private one but you seem to think that both are inherently enslavement.....please explain
To the "liberal idea" subject of the posting......I struggle with the framing because to me it is a top/bottom world and liberal idea or 'international (neo-)liberalism' are obfuscatory terms, IMO.
Putin made it clear that these concepts arose as part of globalization and to me they hide the cultural genocide that globalization has wrought. Globalization destroyed the coherence of all the countries that are exporting refugees because profit over balanced development at locals pace....and I think it is part of the plan to destroy social safety net in US/EU counties.
From what I posted recently on the Media and Public... thread about the G20, most of the world leaders are focused on improving the global balance of power regarding finance but maybe it is a dog whistle to call it a challenge to the liberal idea.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 29 2019 3:35 utc | 93
I have just discovered Moon of Alabama ... and I'm seeing this article on Putin's comments about the European invasion, and who benefits etc., and I just did a search on the comments looking for 'Jew' or 'Israel' or 'Kalergi' and not one hit, which seems very odd to me, and suggests that these are forbidden terms on this site. So, I'm just checking with this post. The Kalergi plan (google it) is a plan the replace the population of Europe with a mixed race population and it is being studied by the UN, here is an archived UN report that has been deleted ..
Posted by: Allan Davis | Jun 29 2019 3:36 utc | 94
The missing link .... https://web.archive.org/web/20160304094410/http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ReplMigED/migration.htm">http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ReplMigED/migration.htm">https://web.archive.org/web/20160304094410/http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ReplMigED/migration.htm
Posted by: Allan Davis | Jun 29 2019 3:37 utc | 95
Barovsky@59 pretends that wanting to be the Big Boss isn't a personal goal, but Putin letting fascists take over Ukraine uncontested out of cowardice is a national goal. No, Crimea is not enough to compensate for NATO and crypto-Nazis across the Dniepr. Donetsk and Lugansk are a historically unique chimera of quagmire that will someday blow up. The value of a warm water port in the Mediterranean is a Tsarist wet dream, not a national interest.
Alexander P@70 thinks Putin's Russia isn't weakening in its industrial base (though come to think of it it's agricultural base isn't so great either,) apparently simply because it's not gone back to horse-drawn plow and blacksmiths using hammers. The US is still an enormous manufacturing country, but deindustrialization is still a thing for it too. Long-term trends in per capita production, demographic changes and internal markets for manufactures count.
Again, Trump did not win the election, the Electoral College put in the loser and everyone who says otherwise is either a damn fool or a lying sack of shit. This is not a good choice. It was Putin who was trying to imply Trump won the majority of "Americans" using "middle class" to stand for flyover country, i.e., rural and suburban, which is supposed to be white America. It no more voted unanimously for Trump than urban areas voted unanimously for Clinton. The term middle class should be reserved for people who at a minimum own income-generating property of some sort, who can afford for the mothers not to work and can send all kids to college and when the head of the family dies, there's an estate. That's middle class and it's not what Putin meant, which means it was just another political con job.
gzon@75 seems at a guess to imagine income and wealth are normal distribution (or bell curve, it you prefer,) where the middle is the majority plus or minus one standard deviation. Wealth and income are distributed like that. At a guess, the upper class is pretty much the cliche 1%, while the middle class is the next 9%. The rich are a minuscule group despite owning most of the wealth, while the true middle class is in no way comparable, despite having much more wealth than the rest of us. The working class is varied, but most appear to be a few paychecks away from destitution. The prospects of paying for children's higher education and helping them get started on their own homes seem to be dimming yearly for most families. This is the bulk of the population. There is a large part-employed unemployed underclass, the lower element of which are falling through the cracks. Many are homeless and other survive through welfare, family charity, the ever decreasing private charity and crime. Putin's use of "middle class" is professional politician bafflegab, not insight.
snake@92 not only thinks Trump won the election, snake thinks elections in the US are free and fair. This is only true if you restrict free and fair to meaning election fraud isn't massive and centrally organized. No political insight here, I'm afraid.
Posted by: steven t johnson | Jun 29 2019 3:42 utc | 96
@ psycohistorian #96
I admit to writing about such and share my belief that a public jackboot is far preferable to a private one but you seem to think that both are inherently enslavement.....please explain
Coercive power. Who holds the leash. Public or private really who cares. Frankly it's the leash that's problem, both for what is does to the holder and what is does to the dog, I think it needs no further elaboration except maybe to say it is an ideal I am speaking about, not some plan of execution. I have always put some faith in good people and so I look for them, whether they are in public or private institutions, social or othwerwise, is so much less important. Good people are inherently sovereign and responsible to other good people and so ultimately that is where I believe the solution will be found.
I agree with most of the the rest of your comment. Much of our language is obfuscatory and human society is hierarchical. Putin does indeed highlight important negative consequences of globalization. My contention is he does so in a manner that is overwhelmingly supportive because that's what his oligarchical masters demand. This is no where more evident than in the realm of finance including the Rothschild Central Bank of Russia. What the globalists are after, the truth of the matter, and it is the same as what the Russian oligarchs are after, is to draw a line under their criminality and keep what they have stolen from us over the last 2 generations especially. The switch to a new fiat is an opportunity for them to consolidate themselves and cancel the debt they owe to us, not the other way round. Once these 'partners' have accomplished their primary goals, by the cynical means which they are now using including mainly technologies of psdychological coercion, the jackboot forever scenario becomes completely inescapable, though perhaps not forever given all things are cyclical.
Posted by: C I eh? | Jun 29 2019 5:08 utc | 97
To the people referring to John Helmer at his Dances With Bears blog in asserting that Vladimir Putin lies when he says there are no more oligarchs in Russia: the article that Helmer references himself in demonstrating that Arkady Rotenberg is a favoured pal of Putin's is his own (Helmer's, that is) and it is dated 5 October 2014.
At the time a politician in the Duma (equivalent to House of Representatives in US Congress) had introduced a bill for Russia to compensate (out of the state budget) Rotenberg and other business people affected by US and European sanctions on their business activities in the countries where the sanctions had legal effect.
Significantly three opposition parties in the Duma opposed the proposed legislation. The bill proposing compensation was not passed.
I'd be very wary in quoting Helmer on most issues relating to Putin or the Russian government.
In any case, it seems that any person who meets with Putin to discuss a possible business venture that might require funding from the Russian government (or the Russian government to assist in financing and building the necessary infrastructure for the venture to go through) automatically becomes a favoured crony of his, in the eyes of Western mainstream news media.
A few years ago in Australia the executives of Toyota and General Motors approached the government of the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott for additional subsidies to continue automobile manufacturing. This is not unusual, car manufacturing in most countries usually attracts hundreds of millions of dollars (or their equivalent in other currencies) of taxpayer funding. Would such a request have made those Toyota and GM execs "cronies" of Abbott if he had said "yes"? (BTW Canberra said "no" and apparently did it in such a way that the two companies couldn't get out of Australia fast enough.)
Posted by: Jen | Jun 29 2019 5:29 utc | 98
@ C I Eh? with the response about globalization....
I believe like you that most folk are well intentioned given a chance and hold out hope that China's approach to socialism with a Chinese face will be an improvement over the fiat faith in the oligarchs of the past/present.
It is my understanding that Russia does not owe any money to the private banks of the West and does not hold US Treasuries so if Russia is controlled by this "Rothschild Central Bank of Russia" as you call it, I don't see the collusion with the West but do with China.
I am hoping this all becomes clearer in the next 6 months or so......
Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 29 2019 5:32 utc | 99
99
Working class are usualy defined as lower almost 50%, middle class the next almost 50%, the rich are a few % at the top. What we are talking is how wealth has changed over time
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4108218-u-s-household-incomes-50-year-perspective
for example. There are other interesting charts of mean by age, as well as wealth. However the "middle class" just casualy spoken is talking more vaguely of the average person's experience, because the term class denotes a social phenomenon as much as anything else. If you apply that to the above charts then I guess you are looking at the middle quintiles. So income increases are not bell shaped, nor are quintiles, income increases are near flat except for the top quintile, some charts also give the top 5% or top 1% and their increases are even greater.
On the other hand, sometimes I am surprised that the west still manages to maintain a higher level of wealth at all, when various other factors are taken into account.
Posted by: gzon | Jun 29 2019 6:00 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
he makes a lot of sense on neoliberalism. i guess this makes me a russian agent.
Posted by: pretzelattack | Jun 28 2019 18:05 utc | 1