Interesting vid here which shows Le Pen ballots perhaps sabotaged so counting machines would register the defect and toss them out.
Hmmmm…

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 25 2022 19:19 utc | 104

Another meeting on economic issues occurred today. Some will see that Glazyev’s suggestions haven’t been ignored as many were implemented and more are suggested. Again as you’ll see at the end of the transcript, central bank head Nabiullina again leads the discussion of the agenda but it’s not provided. Do note that a key Neoliberal sector will have its wings clipped to forward the national interest. As always, the Russian is machine translated, so expect a few oddities:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, good afternoon.
We have agreed to hold regular meetings on the situation in the Russian economy and to monitor changes in key macro indicators that characterize business and investment activity and labour market dynamics.
Such work is certainly of particular importance, because on the basis of a substantive analysis and consideration of potential risks, we have taken and will continue to take measures to provide additional support to our citizens, industries and enterprises, and the economy as a whole.
I would like to emphasise that the Russian economy continues to stabilise. Inflation has slowed, weekly price growth has approached normal levels, and prices for some commodities have already begun to decline.
According to experts, two important factors play a role here: the situation in the foreign exchange market, where the ruble exchange rate has recently been actively strengthening, and the second factor is the dynamics of consumer demand. What I want to emphasize here. After the surge in February-March, there is an objective decline in consumer activity.
It is very important, as they say, not to let go of control over the situation, to prevent the imbalance of economic dynamics. On the one hand, it is necessary to ensure a phased normalization of price dynamics. On the other hand, to avoid a serious reduction in demand, which can lead to disruptions in the work of enterprises, a decrease in budget revenues.
Thus, in the current situation, it is necessary to support domestic companies so that they can increase the supply of goods and services. It is also necessary to stimulate domestic demand and the purchasing power of citizens.
Here I draw attention to such key, fundamentally important indicators as the level of employment and people’s incomes. It is by these indicators, as I have repeatedly said, that we will assess the effectiveness of economic policy.
I would like to note that the final demand is now negatively affected by the decline in the credit activity of the banking system. The reason is commercial risks and an increase in interest rates. Everyone understands this, we know it well.
Let me remind you that the increase in the key rate of the Central Bank was, nevertheless, justified, necessary to stabilize the banking sector and financial markets. This decision has worked, and the Bank of Russia has already begun to gradually reduce the key rate, to reduce the cost of credit in the economy. Other steps are possible here, based on the real situation in this area, it is understandable, but this is the prerogative of the Central Bank.
It is important that these actions are complemented by decisions by the Government. Special programs have been launched to support key sectors of the economy, preferential loans are provided to systemically important enterprises of industry and trade, the agricultural sector, oil refining and the construction sector. For companies from these industries, guarantees from VEB.RF Corporation with a total volume of 800 billion rubles are also provided.
I would like to add that, despite the difficult situation, we have maintained preferential mortgage lending programmes, including family mortgages, and have increased federal funds for these purposes.
At the same time, I consider it necessary to make additional decisions, primarily in terms of mortgage lending. As we can see, the dynamics here is still weaker than forecasts, and in order to make the purchase of housing more affordable for citizens, to stimulate “construction” in general, I propose reducing the rate on preferential mortgages from 12 percent – we recently established it – to 9 percent per annum. Yes, indeed, we recently set 12 percent, but the situation is generally positive and gives us the opportunity to take a step towards reduction. It is also necessary to extend the validity of this preferential mortgage program until the end of this year.
Next topic. A serious problem for many companies remains the shortage of working capital, which are directed to the purchase of raw materials, components, and work. This deficit needs to be filled. When we hold industry meetings, all our colleagues practically talk about it. In this regard, I consider it possible to implement two new measures.
I propose expanding VEB’s programme of guarantee support for lending, extending it not only to systemically important enterprises, but also to other organisations that do not yet have such a status, but have already exceeded the criteria for small and medium-sized businesses and work in manufacturing industries. At the same time, I would like to remind you that we are already implementing special support mechanisms for small businesses. VEB’s guarantees will amount to half of the loan amount. I believe that the volume of loans supported under this programme should be about 1 trillion 100 billion rubles.
Second. For enterprises supplying goods and services to the domestic market, I propose to provide a deferral for the payment of insurance premiums. We talked a lot about various support instruments, we also talked about the High Rate of the Central Bank, I just mentioned this, we talked about various mechanisms to support enterprises and industries, but this is a systemic measure for almost the entire economy. I propose to postpone such payments for one year.
I would like to clarify right away that this measure will affect all the organisations I have just mentioned. This list will not include exporters, companies in the financial sector, wholesale trade, as well as organizations of the public sector. The exact list of industries will be determined by the Government.
The grace period, for which it will not be necessary to pay insurance premiums now, will cover the second quarter of this year, and for manufacturing enterprises, the deferral will extend to the third quarter.
It is estimated that such a measure will affect more than 2.8 million enterprises, employing almost 52 million people. It will save the business about 1.1 trillion rubles in the second quarter and another half a trillion rubles in the third quarter. These funds will work within the economy, ensure the production cycle, and additionally support subcontractors, suppliers and contractors.
I repeat: insurance premiums for the second and third quarters will need to be paid starting from May 2023. Moreover, for organizations of the manufacturing sector in relation to payments for the third quarter, we can think about additional preferences. I will not go into details now, but this can be done in cases of preservation of employment and the wage fund as of June 1 of this year.
I ask the Government, based on the situation in the economy as a whole, to prepare detailed proposals on the criteria for such benefits. Separately, I instruct the Ministry of Finance to provide compensation for the loss of income of extra-budgetary funds. They must have sufficient funds to ensure that the health and social care systems work confidently.
And, of course, I instruct the Government, together with the Bank of Russia, to closely monitor developments and analyse the effectiveness of the proposed mechanisms in order to make additional decisions if necessary.
Let’s move on to discussing the agenda proposed today.
Please give the floor to Elvira Sakhipzadovna [Nabiullina]

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 25 2022 20:15 utc | 106

As promised, Lavrov on the Great Game show, and there’s also a video at the top of the page:

Question: Thank you for agreeing to talk despite being incredibly busy.
Sergey Lavrov: Thank you for the invitation. If the game is big, you need to play.
Question: The game is big, the stakes are high. I am sure that much of what is said in Washington will not fit into your idea of beauty and reality. But I think you will agree with one statement by President Joe Biden – it is important to avoid a third world war. It is necessary to bear in mind the existing danger.
G. Ellison, a well-known leading American Harvard political scientist (former Deputy Secretary of Defense), says that in terms of danger, the current situation is not inferior to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. What do you think about the level of crisis we face today? How realistic is that? What can and will Russia do?
Sergey Lavrov: Russia is already doing a lot. For many years, even under the Trump administration, Moscow and Washington advocated that at the highest level they confirmed the statement of Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in 1987 that there could be no winners in a nuclear war. It should never be unleashed.
We urged Donald Trump’s team to reproduce this important statement for our peoples and the whole world. Unfortunately, it was not possible to prove to colleagues the need for such a step. An agreement was reached with the Joe Biden administration quickly. In June 2021, during the summit in Geneva, our presidents made a statement.
In January of this year, another of our initiatives in this direction was implemented. In connection with the planned start of the Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council adopted a statement of the same content. All five leaders signed a statement of the inadmissibility of nuclear war. This is our principled position. Let’s proceed from it. Now the risks are very significant. I wouldn’t want them to be artificially inflated. There are a lot of people. The danger is serious, real. It should not be underestimated.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, there were not many “written” rules. But the rules of conduct were clear enough. Moscow understood how Washington behaved. Washington understood how Moscow behaved.
Now, too, there are few rules. There is the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-3). It is good and wise that this was Joe Biden’s first foreign policy decision to support Russia’s proposal to extend the Treaty for another five years without any conditions. The Trump administration rejected this formula.
At the same time, other arms control and non-proliferation instruments have been virtually destroyed. There is no treaty on the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, on the elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles (INF). Our proposal for a reciprocal moratorium is rejected. Although we accompanied it with the need to agree on verification mechanisms. The main objection of the West is that they “do not trust” that the Iskander in Kaliningrad does not violate the parameters enshrined in the INF Treaty. On the basis of reciprocity, they were invited to come to Kaliningrad, and we were invited to visit the US missile defense bases in Poland and Romania. Honest suggestion. It’s still being abandoned. The Treaty on Open Skies also “sank into oblivion”. It no longer exists.
START-3 is the only remaining arms control tool. We were ready and started a conversation with the Americans about what will happen in five years (now four years) – after the expiration of this agreement, because everyone proceeds from the fact that this is an extreme extension. Two rounds of talks, held in July and September 2021, were useful, and then we held working contacts. They made it clear that we have serious differences that are clear to us and americans. We agreed on the creation of two working groups. They should identify the subject matter of the treaty and the specific threats to be addressed in further negotiations.
The United States refused almost all contacts due to the fact that we were forced to stand up for the Russians in Ukraine. They were bombed for eight years without any reaction from the West, which only encouraged the Russophobic and neo-Nazi actions of the Kiev regime. They legally banned the Russian language everywhere (in education, the media, everyday life) and encouraged neo-Nazi theories and practices.
Back to talking about the rules. Rules are a buzzword that the U.S. and its allies use when everyone is told to behave “well.” They no longer insist on the implementation of international law, but on respect for the “rules-based world order.” These “rules” are not deciphered in any way.
They say that now there are few rules. For us, they don’t exist at all. There is international law. We respect it, as does the UN Charter. The key provision, the main principle is the sovereign equality of states. The US flagrantly violates its obligations under the UN Charter when it promotes its “rules”. They demand that the whole world blindly, foot in foot, follow them and the already “built” allies (primarily from Europe and some Asian countries). They fail to comply with the obligation to respect the sovereign equality of States. In fact, this equality is grossly trampled upon, forcing everyone to follow their “rules”.
These “rules” were well formulated by US Treasury Secretary J. Yellen. She spoke on a different occasion, but the meaning does not change from this. She spoke about the idea of starting the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions. Being not bound by foreign policy conventions, she clearly emphasized that this reform should in no way lead to the formation of a bipolar world. They say that the United States should actively work with China so that Beijing learns this. You can’t say it more clearly. They want the unipolar world they see it as now. All reforms should be exclusively within the framework of the philosophy of a unipolar world.
Even under the trump administration, the United States spoke in favor of REFORMING THE WTO. As it turned out, on the platforms created by the Americans within the framework of globalization and the rules laid down by them in the WTO, China beat them and continues to beat them. No wonder Washington blocked the work of the dispute settlement body in the WTO, where China has already sent more than a dozen complaints. Using procedural tricks, the Americans block the filling of vacancies in this body. It doesn’t have a quorum, so it doesn’t work.
When it came to the reform of the WTO, Washington made a statement that it should be implemented by the United States and Europe, “not allowing” China to enter it. Such unprofessional disclosure of their plans is one of the modern features of the behavior of our Western colleagues, who are not ashamed of anything. They openly declare that they will be in charge, that NATO has every right to do what it wants. They can say: NATO is a defensive alliance, so “there is no need to be afraid,” “this organization does not threaten anyone’s security.” Immediately, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg can say that NATO bears global responsibility for security throughout the world, including in the Indo-Pacific region.
Also, from the Berlin Wall after the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, they moved the “line of defense” five times (since they are a defensive alliance) to our borders and declared that we “not be afraid”, since this means nothing to our security. It was rather impolite to make it clear that we would not decide what was needed for our security.
Now they will move the “line of defense” of their “defensive” alliance to the South China Sea. Everything is coupled with the creation of AUKUS, QUAD, the tightening of Japan, Korea, half of the ASEAN countries in AUKUS. They are trying to split the entire architecture, which has developed over many decades and was based on consensus, the participation of all major players, including the United States, Russia, India, Japan, China and Australia. This is now also subject to changes in the direction of unipolarity, which they are trying to save with all truths and untruths.
Everyone is “casting spells” that in no case should a third world war be allowed. It is in this context that we must consider the constant provocations of President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team. They demand almost the introduction of NATO troops to protect the Ukrainian government. But everyone always says that they will give Kiev weapons. This, too, “adds fuel to the fire.” They want these arms shipments to force the Ukrainians to fight Russia to the last soldier, if only this conflict drags on longer, so that Russia, as they hope, suffers from it more and more.
Supplying weapons and promoting their efforts in this direction, all leaders (except Poland) declare that the question of sending NATO troops has been excluded. Through Prime Minister Morawiecki, Warsaw proposed a kind of “peacekeeping operation” in Ukraine, clearly interested in sending its servicemen there under peacekeeping flags. Then we can imagine how the historical reminiscence of the Poles who found themselves on their former territory – in the west of Ukraine – will manifest itself.
How should we behave? Can this be compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis? In those years, there was a channel of communication that both leaders trusted. Now there is no such channel. No one is trying to create it. Some timid attempts made at an early stage did not yield much result. Desperate to reach out to NATO all these years. Contrary to the promises, it expanded, contrary to our warnings, they pumped weapons into Ukraine and in every possible way encouraged its Russophobic essence (the regime established under P.A. Poroshenko and strengthening under V.A. Zelensky). We warned about the inadmissibility of drawing Ukraine into NATO. As a last attempt or gesture of goodwill, the Americans and NATO were invited to conclude appropriate security treaties that would ensure the security of all states in the Euro-Atlantic region, including Ukraine. Everyone understood that Ukraine was a “bone of contention”, which revealed a much more global problem and became a trigger in these processes. We proposed concluding an agreement with the United States and NATO on how we will provide guarantees for all countries together, collectively, without expanding any military-political blocs.
They were politely listened to. Then we were told that they could not limit the expansion of NATO. This, they say, will contradict the principle of “open doors”. We reviewed the Charter of the North Atlantic Alliance. Article 10 is not about “open doors”, but about the fact that NATO can invite new members by consensus if they meet the criteria (apparently, democratic control) and, most importantly, if new members contribute to strengthening the security of NATO member countries. There is no question of any “open doors”. We took Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania. How can they strengthen the security of the North Atlantic Alliance if it is “defensive”? This shows that NATO’s expansion has nothing to do with fulfilling its statutory goals. This is the development of territories under American command in line with the strengthening and attempt to perpetuate the unipolar world. Negotiations were held between the delegations of Russia and the United States. I met with E. Blinken. Our team went to the North Atlantic Alliance, where it presented the treaty in the context of Russia-NATO. The talks showed that none of them showed a willingness to take into account our legitimate security interests.
We told them: “Dear friends, this is right on our borders.” President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly and publicly stated that they have already come directly to the “threshold”, despite all our requests, statements and warnings. They just came up and are not going to change anything. They say that this is not against us, that nothing threatens our security. What can you make of that? Now they are actively “courting” India. They want to involve it in their formats in every possible way. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson travelled, and before that there were American delegates. First Deputy Secretary of State Sherman publicly (all this is done without any embarrassment) said that the United States must “help” India understand what is necessary to ensure its security. This is not said to some tiny island country, but to a great civilization. They say to China in much the same way, saying that they will “explain” what punishment will follow if Beijing supports Russia.
At the same time, when the United States suddenly decides that more than ten thousand kilometers away there is a threat to their interests, whether in the former Yugoslavia, iraq or somewhere else in the Middle East, without hesitation, without any legal torment and attempts to look into international law and the UN Charter, they send troops, bomb civilian targets. As it was in Belgrade: bridges, passenger trains, a television center. Former British Prime Minister Thomas Blair said that “this is not a television center, but an organ of aggressive Serbian propaganda.” Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron is not accrediting the RT TV channel and Sputnik to the Elysee Palace, calling them not media outlets, but “propaganda tools”.
These mannerisms, habits and habits sit deep. They razed Iraqi Mosul and Syrian Raqqa to the ground. There lay uncleaned corpses for weeks. All this across the ocean is a threat to the security of the United States of America. Kosovo has the largest military base in the Balkans (maybe not only in the Balkans). No one is going to take it out of there. The “reason” was the “instability” that, allegedly, S. Milosevic escalated in this region, oppressing the Kosovo Albanians. I would like to stress once again that they consider themselves entitled to ensure their security wherever they please, and we are denied the right to defend their own borders and territories where Russians live, who have been oppressed for many years, subjected to bombing, bullying, infringing on their rights to language, culture and traditions.
Here’s the problem: irreparable confidence in one’s own rightness and exclusivity. There is such a term – “exceptional nation”, which both Democrats and Republicans use in the same way. The sense of one’s own superiority revives some memories, especially now, when Russophobia and real racism towards everything Russian are cultivated at the highest level. Canadian Prime Minister David Trudeau recently said: “Vladimir Putin and all those who support him must be punished.” He added that “not only Russia, but all Russians will pay for what is happening.”
Question: I think the Washington administration would not even deny what you said. They would have phrased it a little differently. I would ask: Mr Minister, would you seriously insist that authoritarian countries should have the same rights as democratic countries?
Sergey Lavrov: I will.
Question: Since you will (and this seems unacceptable to them), this is one of the main conceptual differences between Moscow and Washington. You are told that NATO is a strictly defensive alliance, and Russia has nothing to fear. But they mean (you’re not stupid or naïve) that this applies to a situation where you behave “correctly.”
Sergey Lavrov: I understand this very well.
Question: If a country begins to behave incorrectly from the point of view of the “alliance of democracies”, which is called NATO, then depending on what this country does, it may encounter unpleasant consequences. It seems to me that NATO does not hide this in any way.
In view of the dangers you mentioned and the serious discrepancy in approaches to international relations (in general, to what modern civilization is), what to do about the crisis around Ukraine? Are there any prospects for negotiations on a peaceful settlement in Ukraine in the context of an acute conflict there, a large discrepancy of positions and mutual distrust between Russia and NATO, led by the United States?
Sergey Lavrov: The United States, like all other countries that boast that they are democracies without any flaw, have signed and ratified the UN Charter, where the key principle is the sovereign equality of states. It does not say that democracies should have more rights, and autocracies, dictatorships, monarchies should have fewer. It is not said that there is any difference in the rights that UN members have.
Yes, there is the Security Council, this is a somewhat special article. We all know why Franklin Roosevelt insisted on the creation of a Security Council with five permanent members with the right of veto: he did not want the UN to repeat the fate of the League of Nations. If it were not for the institution that was initiated by Franklin Roosevelt, probably the UN would have long ago “sunk into oblivion”, as well as the League of Nations. When great powers fail to use their prerogatives and negotiate among themselves, nothing good comes of it. The veto forces agreement, at least for many years.
Now the Americans and other Western countries are trying to devalue the right of veto. They want to transfer the prerogative of the Security Council to the UN General Assembly. There they can, through “arm-twisting”, blackmail, up to threats that concern the bank accounts of delegations, places of education for their children, get an exhausted, forcibly achieved majority. This is a dangerous trend. Therefore, the Security Council, with its “five” and the right of veto, is the last “island” of international law. They are trying to replace everything else.
It is not for nothing that US President Joe Biden held a “summit of democracies” at the end of 2021. They plan to hold a second one this year and create an organization that will unequivocally function as an “anti-UN” (or un replacement).
The trend is not new. For several years now, the West has been “breeding” (first of all, in Europe, the French and Germans are active in this direction) various platforms, appeals, partnerships on topics that are already being considered by the UN. For example: partnership on international humanitarian law. It is of limited composition, not everyone is taken there. When asked why they do not want to consider these issues in a universal format (there is the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights), they answer that there are many “retrogrades”. The UN, they say, has autocracies, insufficiently democratized countries, and they need to develop ideas that will be progressive. The Germans and the French created in the same vein the “Alliance of Democracies”, the “Alliance of Multilateralists”, that is, “multilateralists”.
When asked why they forgot about the UN, which is the highest embodiment of multilateralism, where all the states of the world are represented (with some exceptions to the unrecognized ones), the answer is again the same: these are organizations where it is necessary to “process” those who oppose multilateralism, and they need the “vanguard of multilateralists.” They will model the EU’s approach to “multilateral cooperation” and build like-minded people around themselves. Again, a sense of their own superiority and, at the same time, even an unwillingness to discuss important things in formats where they will object and oppose something. They don’t want to. Because for a long time, and they need to implement their neoliberal reforms as soon as possible. Plus, I think they feel like they won’t have enough arguments in a fair polemical fight if arguments are made from both sides.
Look at the list of invitees to the “summit of democracies.” There are countries that the U.S. has never considered democratic. They were presented with many complaints about what Washington meant by democracy, but were included in the “alliance of democratic countries” only because the United States wants to use their strategic position to its advantage. They want to adjust them to this “democratic umbrella”, thereby flattering and further using for themselves.
We use the terms “democracy,” “autocracy,” “authoritarian state.” More recently, American political scientists have begun to talk about India not as the largest democracy in the world, but as a country they call an “electoral autocracy.” I said this to my Indian friends. They smiled, they know it. There are many methods to try to keep a particular country in suspense.
As for the negotiations on Ukraine. We are firmly aware that neither the United States nor the United Kingdom (which is trying in every possible way to compensate for its current lonely status after leaving the European Union with its irrepressible activity) advise Zelensky not to accelerate the negotiations, but to toughen his position each time. We saw this after the meeting in Istanbul, where, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin repeatedly said in his interviews and conversations with his colleagues, we first received proposals from them “on paper” with the signatures of the heads of their delegation. We were ready to take them as a basis. They, of course, needed to be refined to become consensus, but were positively regarded by us. So far, the only written proposals have been submitted in Istanbul. They were not in the form of a contract, but in the form of sketches. We promptly shifted these theses to the “contractual genre” and handed over the project to our Ukrainian colleagues. Then they presented us with their counter-ideas, which were radically different from what was done in Istanbul. A huge step backwards. In Lenin’s way. This step (or even two) back was taken on the advice of our American or British colleagues. Maybe the Poles and balts played a role here.
Question: In other words, Ukraine has toughened its position?
Sergey Lavrov: They played back from the positions that the Russian side was ready to take as a basis. We have prepared a document. He “unfolded” their proposals into a contractual language. Kiev officials said, “That’s not the case.” “We’re not going to write it down.” “That’s for later.” Nevertheless, after that, we continued to participate in discussions via video link, arguing our position. A week ago, after another video conference, we handed them an updated version of the contract, which already took into account their subsequent comments. As is usually the case. We wait a week.
At the press conference, Zelensky was asked how he assesses our proposals. He said he hadn’t received anything and hadn’t seen anything. We asked the Ukrainian negotiators whether they had reported to the president. They referred to zelensky’s lack of time. This shows how the President of Ukraine himself treats the negotiations, pathetically declaring that he “prefers peace.”
Question: In preparation for the interview with you, I spoke with representatives of the Administration in Washington. They deny that they are orienting Kiev to delay the negotiations. They say the opposite: they say that their task is to support President Zelensky, and Kiev’s position in negotiations with Russia is the position of the President of Ukraine, not the United States. The main thing that interests me now is the growing American military assistance to the government of Vladimir Zelensky. It seems to me that in Washington the president of Ukraine is afraid (my personal assessment). He managed to put himself uniquely – as the leader of a country that is a “victim of aggression” by a stronger state and, at the same time, as a person who personally demonstrates a desire to support democracy around the world. Washington says that helping Zelensky with the maximum number of weapons is not so much a line to prolong the war as compensation for the fact that the United States refuses to get involved in military operations.
Sergey Lavrov: I would like to disagree. They are already saying in a different way: “V.A. Zelensky must defeat V.V. Putin.” British Prime Minister Boris Johnson says that “Russia must be defeated.” High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Jeanne Borrell says that victory should be achieved “on the battlefield”. It’s not “embarrassing” for them that soldiers aren’t being sent themselves. It’s not that they want to support the new “hero.” V.A. Zelensky is portrayed as a “beacon of democracy”, but in fact promotes in his state at the legislative level a ban on everything Russian and the foundations of strengthening neo-Nazism and Nazi theory and practice.
But that’s not what this is about. They want to try to make sure that suddenly Zelensky will be able to cause some irreparable damage to Russia and defeat them “on the battlefield” (although sensible people understand the situation). The Russians would then have to beg for mercy and agree to far less favorable terms than what they had hoped for. Such speculations are underway.
Question: As for mercy, these are more “commentators” in Congress than in the White House.
Sergey Lavrov: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks almost the same language.
Q: Boris Johnson is a special case.
Sergey Lavrov: I agree with that. But Vladimir Zelensky is also a special case. They are somewhat similar: the ability to work “for the public”, the ability to imitate. For example, they simulate negotiations. Vladimir Zelensky was given a week to familiarize himself with our proposals. Today I am reading the speech of the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada R.A. Stefanchuk. He said that as a result of this crisis, Ukraine will not remove from its constitution the provision on the intention to join NATO. How’s that? At all negotiations, a neutral, non-aligned status of Kiev is discussed, coupled with security guarantees that will extend to a certain territory. V.A. Zelensky publicly says that they are ready for a non-aligned and nuclear-free status, and the speaker of the Verkhovna Rada declares that they will not remove anything from the constitution: both they went to NATO and will continue.
What is perceived in the West as a talented presentation by the President of Ukraine of his interests and approaches is a specific thing. He’s a good actor, but sometimes funny things happen to him that show the state he’s in. If you look closely and read the essence of what he says, you will find a thousand contradictions. Moreover, he can contradict himself every other day on the third, saying something, then refusing, then returning to the declared position again. It’s true.
Do you have a feeling that the Washington administration has developed the image of a man who has subjugated almost the entire Western democratic world and has become an embodiment, a symbol of democracy? Let me repeat once again: where were all our Western colleagues when this democracy banned everything Russian (speech, education, the media) and destroyed the churches of the Russian Orthodox Church? Just like Bandera, Shukhevych, led by the Ukrainian rebel army, serving Hitler (Galicia Division, Waffen SS), destroyed Polish churches and declared that they would destroy everything Polish and kill all Poles. Now even the Poles are trying to keep quiet about it. The Volyn massacre was removed from textbooks in schools, although then the Ukrainian rebel army of Shukhevych and Bandera declared its goal to be the destruction of Poles in about the same way as now neo-Nazis in Ukraine announced the destruction of Russians.
Question: Let’s digress from the intentions of the Washington administration and talk about business. I don’t know how to characterize it: the unprecedented, unexpected (at least for me) scale of American military assistance to the government of Vladimir Zelensky. Two weeks ago , $800 million. A week ago, another 800. Now the Secretary of State and the Minister of Defense have visited Kyiv – another 700.
Sergey Lavrov: This is not only for Ukraine, but also for some other Eastern European countries. Kiev was “unfastened” about half of this.
Question: Fair enough. The question arises: where will this lead? I don’t particularly hear your assessment of these actions (although it is also very important), but what will Russia do about it? Or does Moscow believe that they are trying in Washington, but this will not lead to a serious change in the balance of power?
Sergey Lavrov: I have read several anonymous statements by the current US military when asked what happens to these weapons when they cross the Ukrainian border, where they will find their final destination. They said, “We don’t have information about where all these weapons are going.”
In addition to tanks and armored personnel carriers, thousands of portable anti-aircraft missile systems and terrorist weapons are supplied. It is not for nothing that we have had an agreement with the Americans for many years on mutual information about any deliveries of MANPADS abroad. This allowed them to understand that we do not give dangerous weapons to the wrong hands, and to us – that they will also not make such mistakes, imprudent actions. The Javelin is also a portable missile. Probably, it was invented for tanks, but it can also commit terrorist attacks. Where will it all go? Let me emphasize: this is in thousands and thousands of units.
Previous experience shows that from Ukraine (as from any other poorly controlled country), where the neo-Nazi battalions “Azov”, “Aidar” and other units that are not subordinate to the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (and flaunt this) occupy a special, autonomous, untouchable place in the armed forces, these weapons will spread, including to the countries from where they are now coming to Ukraine. There are also groups of individuals, especially in the context of the wave of migration, who will not mind “putting their hand” on such an opportunity. The U.S. military doesn’t know where it’s going to go. Maybe they know something, they don’t. What will the Russian Federation do? When the Turks sold Bayraktars to Ukraine a long time ago, they were used for many years to conduct reconnaissance in the Donbass, to help bomb this region with artillery of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in gross violation of the Minsk agreements.
The latter were publicly buried by V.A. Zelensky. He refused to comply with them, as well as the decision of the “Normandy” summit in Paris in December 2019, although there was nothing about Lugansk, Donetsk, or Russia. Only he had to adopt a law on the special status of Donbass. That’s all he had to do. He! It didn’t depend on anyone else. He signed on to it. Then for three years he lamented that Russia was not fulfilling the Minsk agreements. It’s KVN. Imitation of negotiations on the implementation of a set of measures. Now there is an imitation of negotiations on the conclusion of agreements with the Russian Federation. So is the imitation of democracy. The abolition of democracy, culture and the dictatorship of the radicals.
These weapons will be a legitimate target for the Russian Armed Forces, which operate as part of a special operation. Warehouses, including in the west of Ukraine, have repeatedly become such a target. How could it be otherwise? NATO, in fact, enters into a war with Russia through a proxy and arms this proxy. “In war as in war.”
As for arms supplies. There is another example of the dishonesty of the Americans in terms of international law and the introduction of their own rules on the principle of “as I want, so I turn.” The United States had about two dozen Soviet-Russian Mi-17 helicopters. In the “best years” (still within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council), we had a comprehensive project with them to cooperate in the interests of the Afghan settlement. It was called the “helicopter package”. We supplied helicopters. They paid for them. We maintained those helicopters, and they were sent to the Afghan security forces. Now Washington has loudly announced that it is handing them over to Zelensky. We drew their attention to the fact that the helicopters were purchased on the basis of a contract with Rosoboronexport. It says that they are supplied exclusively for the needs of the Security Service of Afghanistan and any transfer to a third party is not allowed without the consent of the Russian Federation. The obligation not to transfer to a third party is enshrined in the “end-user certificate letters”. They were signed first before 2013, when this “helicopter package” was in force, by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and then by John Kerry. Therefore, sending these helicopters to Ukraine is a direct violation of obligations in a very important sphere of international relations.
Question: Do I understand correctly that given the current level of Russian-American relations and confrontation in Ukraine, chances for a diplomatic settlement will appear when there is some greater clarity about the military dynamics in Ukraine? What is at this stage about the armed forces, about the dynamics of military confrontation during a special operation, which can make progress in diplomacy and open up some new opportunities or, on the contrary, close them.
Sergey Lavrov: Everything depends not on us, but on those who lead Ukraine and carry out external management of Vladimir Zelensky’s administration. I mentioned Istanbul. At that face-to-face meeting, the Russian side for the first time received “on paper” what the Ukrainians proposed. We were ready to take this as a basis, gave our clarifications, but conceptually agreed with what was proposed there: neutral status, security guarantees, their scope and the procedure for granting them. So, to put it bluntly. They’ve moved away from that concept.
I won’t give out big secrets, but here’s one example. The Istanbul document said that there will be no foreign military bases in Ukraine, there will be no exercises with the participation of foreign armed forces, except with the consent of all the guarantor countries of this treaty, including Russia. It was explicitly written. In the version that they gave us after our positive reaction, it was stated: no exercises, except with the consent of the majority of the guarantor countries. Is there a difference? Obviously. That’s what they did on a number of other proposals they made in Istanbul. I would like to stress once again that these proposals were generally received positively.
Speaking about where and when we can expect the completion of the process of agreeing on the contract, it should be borne in mind that in Istanbul the conversation took place in the situation that then developed “on the ground”. It’s different now. We have a feeling that the West wants Ukraine to continue to fight and, as it seems to them, to wear down, exhaust the Russian army and the Russian military-industrial complex. It’s an illusion.
Are you probably the last Sovietologist left?
Question: No, there are several more, even within the Administration. But the political dynamic in Washington is not on their side.
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, this is the old guard. As my American friends told me, back in the 1990s, when the Soviet Union disappeared, Sovietology somehow ceased to be of interest. People understood that this would not be a very promising profession. Just like the Middle East at some point.
As for the connection between the situation “on the ground” and the outlines of a hypothetical or, say, eventual peaceful settlement. There is such a connection. As we stressed from the very beginning in the statement made by Vladimir Putin when announcing the special operation, we, first of all, want the Ukrainian people to be able to decide for themselves how to live on.
Question: If I understand you correctly, Russia will pursue its own line and is not yet ready to back down from the demands that it put forward at the beginning of the special operation. Will Moscow do what it deems necessary in terms of military action?
Sergey Lavrov: Absolutely. What we consider necessary was announced by President of Russia Vladimir Putin: the destruction of military infrastructure in the context of the demilitarisation of the country, which was made a direct threat to Russia, in the words of President Vladimir Putin, “anti-Russia”. With the strictest measures in order to minimize any damage to the civilian population.
We will expose the fakes that are now multiplying after Bucha. They are trying to present the situation at Azovstal as created by Russia. Allegedly, Moscow prohibits the civilian population from leaving. They lie “left and right”, including the fact that we do not open humanitarian corridors, although this is loudly announced daily, buses and ambulances are being driven up. The Ukrainian side, which holds the civilian population as a “human shield” not only in Mariupol, but also in other parts of the country where hostilities are taking place, our operation is being carried out, either does not notify people, or prohibits them from leaving, forcibly detains them. Those who manage to get out on their own tell how they are treated by servicemen of the Azov battalion and other “territorial organizations”.
As in any situation where armed forces are used, everything will end with a treaty But its parameters will be determined by the stage of hostilities at which this treaty will become a reality.
Question: This was a very interesting and important conversation with the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation. You are a master of diplomacy. It seems to me that you have shown an iron willingness to do what Russia sees fit, and you are not closing the door to diplomatic negotiations. You even said that the initial Ukrainian positions seemed interesting and could be used for some kind of agreement. This is quite a difficult position. Did I misstate it?
Sergey Lavrov: That’s right. But, you know, goodwill is not unlimited. If it is not reciprocated, then this does not contribute to the negotiation process. Many of us are still convinced (as I have already mentioned) that Ukraine’s position is really determined in Washington, London and other Western capitals. Our political analysts say: “That we need to talk with Vladimir Zelensky, we need to talk with the Americans, negotiate with them and reach some kind of agreement.” We are still continuing to negotiate with the team that Volodymyr Zelensky has put up.
As for the Americans. This would be useful, but we do not observe any manifestations of interest on their part regarding contacts on Ukraine or other issues.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 25 2022 23:17 utc | 108

@karlof1, Apr 25 2022 18:01, 103 et al.
MofA asks that posts be “… short and to the point.”
I’m sure you’ll find that your points are better presented, and better considered, if you do as asked.

Posted by: Wazzup? | Apr 26 2022 0:03 utc | 110

Wazzup? | Apr 26 2022 0:03 utc | 113
Do you read Russian official transcripts at all? Perhaps you prefer spending your time navel gazing. Reading labels on snake oil bottles.
In this time of apart from other forms of warfare, cyber warfare – many in the ‘US west’ can rarely now access official Russian transcripts.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Apr 26 2022 0:38 utc | 112

If Ze doesn’t hurry, there might not be nothing left to negotiate.

Posted by: thecelticwithinme | Apr 26 2022 1:55 utc | 114

An Australian mining company persuades the World Bank to loan Madagascar half a billion $ to build a road.
“BlackEarth Minerals is the direct beneficiary of an extraordinary US$535M infrastructure spree, with the World Bank and the Government of Madagascar green-lighting a whole new logistical future for the Maniry graphite project…”
https://stockhead.com.au/resources/a-half-billion-us-leg-up-the-world-bank-has-a-mighty-infrastructure-gift-for-blackearths-maniry-graphite-project/

Posted by: Paul | Apr 26 2022 4:08 utc | 116

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Apr 26 2022 0:38 utc | 115
“Do you read Russian official transcripts at all?”
As a matter of fact I do read Russian official transcripts, but that has nothing to do with the hollow assertion that posting 4000+ word transcripts here is necessary as there are those who cannot access them directly; links to cloud stored text or HTML2PDF would not only do quite nicely they would: facilitate pointed comment, honor MofA’s request, and serve the reasons for that request.
I’ll plead guilty to the pointed nature of my comment, the one that you object to (I was irked), but then there’s this: if my comment to karlof1 wasn’t as it was you might have said nothing; as it is karlof1 now has the opportunity to reflect on his (or her) posting technique, and that may lead to less clutter on MofA.

Posted by: Wazzup? | Apr 26 2022 7:20 utc | 118

Posted by: juliania | Apr 25 2022 13:26 utc | 96
I’ve been thinking about your post. Thanks.
An Old Sydney Push friend, Vic, of Greek descent, could speak and write better Greek than native born Greeks and he knew real history. He toured the middle east examining many ancient battlefields and empires. He collected icons.
Vic told me that 2 million Greeks died of starvation in WW2 due to the allied blockade of Europe [including the British Channel Islands] and the German demand for all greek food. This is not often mentioned.
So sad.

Posted by: Paul | Apr 26 2022 11:42 utc | 120

For those interested in the exploits and endurance of the Norwegian Resistance I recommend this excellent book:
https://www.abebooks.com/9780671281632/German-Atomic-Bomb-David-Irving-0671281631/ pl
Posted by: Paul | Apr 26 2022 9:27 utc | 122

Paul, I’m curious if you have that book as it seems to be out of print and very expensive, so am wondering if it’s worthwhile. I’m mostly focused on the north region of Norway. Things were much different in central and south areas during the occupation. David Irving is prolific – but also very controversial. (fwiw, link not good)

Posted by: waynorinorway | Apr 26 2022 17:19 utc | 122

As promised, Patrushev interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta:

Nikolai Platonovich, today, perhaps, the term “second Cold War” no longer seems an exaggeration. The Americans, without hesitation, declare that they won the confrontation with the USSR and now they will also win. How do you assess these views?
Nikolai Patrushev: Tragic scenarios of world crises, both in past years and today, are imposed by Washington in its desire to consolidate its hegemony, resisting the collapse of the unipolar world. The United States is doing everything to ensure that other centers of the multipolar world do not even dare to raise their heads, and our country not only dared, but publicly declared that it would not play by the imposed rules. Attempts were made to force Russia to renounce its sovereignty, self-consciousness, culture, and independent foreign and domestic policies. We have no right to agree with this approach.
In an attempt to suppress Russia, the Americans, using their proxies in Kiev, decided to create the antipode of our country, cynically choosing Ukraine for this, trying to divide essentially a single people. Having found no positive basis for attracting Ukrainians to its side, Washington, long before the 2014 coup d’état, instilled in Ukrainians the exclusivity of their nation and hatred of everything Russian. However, history teaches that hatred can never become a reliable factor of national unity. If anything unites the peoples living in Ukraine today, it is the fear of the atrocities of nationalist battalions. Therefore, the result of the policy of the West and the Kiev regime controlled by it can only be the disintegration of Ukraine into several states.
Europe, as you warned a year ago, ended up facing an unprecedented crisis, including that caused by the flow of Ukrainian refugees. How can this affect the internal situation in the European countries themselves?
Nikolai Patrushev: Europe is facing a deep economic and political crisis for their countries. Rising inflation and declining living standards are already taking their toll on the wallet and sentiment of Europeans. In addition, large-scale migration complements old security threats, such as illicit drug trafficking and transnational crime, with new challenges. Almost five million Ukrainian migrants have already arrived in Europe. In the near future, their number will grow to ten million. Most Ukrainians who came to the West believe that Europeans should support and provide for them, and when they are forced to work, they begin to rebel.
Representatives of the criminal community who fled from Ukraine will try to occupy niches that are beneficial to them, to put local criminal groups under control, which will undoubtedly be accompanied by a complication of the criminal situation in Europe. Such a common business as the sale of orphans taken from Ukraine for subsequent illegal adoption in Europe will also receive a “new breath”. The West is already faced with the revival of the shadow market for the purchase of human organs from socially vulnerable segments of the Ukrainian population for clandestine transplant operations to European patients.
The flow of migrants from Ukraine began long before 2022, and now it reminds Europe of long-forgotten diseases. After all, only a tenth of refugees from Ukraine are vaccinated against coronavirus infection, viral hepatitis, tuberculosis, rubella and measles. Since in this former prosperous republic of the Soviet Union, the system of sanitary and epidemiological control and primary health care is almost completely destroyed.
The goal of denazification is to defeat the bridgehead of neo-Nazism created by the efforts of the West near our borders.
But these are apparently only flowers?
Nikolai Patrushev: You’re right. This is just the beginning. Against the backdrop of anti-Russian sanctions, the world is gradually plunging into an unprecedented food crisis. Tens of millions of people in Africa or the Middle East will be pushed to the brink of famine by the West. To survive, they will rush to Europe. I am not sure that Europe will survive the crisis. Political institutions, supranational associations, economy, culture, traditions may become a thing of the past. Europe will still bite its elbows, and America will free itself from its main geopolitical fear – the political and economic union of Russia and Europe.
The United States and its allies point-blank ignore the neo-Nazis and open fascist ideology in Ukraine, pumping it with the most modern weapons. Is it not time for us to recognize a number of unfriendly countries as supporters of fascism with all the ensuing consequences?
Nikolai Patrushev: Europe is already facing the intensification of officially banned manifestations of fascism and neo-Nazism, as together with migrants from Ukraine, criminals with neo-Nazi views fed by Bandera’s men are fleeing from inevitable criminal prosecution. This will lead to the revival of Nazi ideas in Europe, to manifestations that not so long ago were considered impossible. The growth of ultra-right sentiments, fueled by tens of thousands of trained and combat experienced Ukrainian radicals, who have already found a common language with European admirers of Hitler, is not excluded.
History spirals. After all, the West almost until September 1939 denied the danger of the Nazi regime. In 1938, Time magazine recognized Hitler as Man of the Year.
Nikolai Patrushev: In the 1930s, the West not only did not deny, but actively contributed to the formation and build-up of fascism in Germany. Big business was especially distinguished. It was later, after the war, that Western historians created the myth of German industrialists who allegedly made the main contribution to the creation of Hitler’s war economy. Some American companies collaborated with the Nazis before 1943, that is, until the decisive turning point in the war.
There is even a version that the Zyklon B gas, with which the Nazis killed people in death camps, was created using Western technologies.
Nikolai Patrushev: And you will read about how the Nazis built this whole process. Everyone knows, for example, IBM. It was on its counting machines that the Nazis kept records and planning of the processes of extermination of people in concentration camps. Its CEO, Watson, received an order from Hitler. And this is just one of many examples. Now history repeats itself. The West is still providing the most active support to Ukrainian neo-Nazis, continuing to pump Ukraine with weapons.
The American and European military-industrial complex is jubilant, because thanks to the crisis in Ukraine, it has no respite from orders. It is not surprising that, unlike Russia, which is interested in the speedy completion of a special military operation and minimizing losses on all sides, the West is determined to delay it at least to the last Ukrainian. For some reason, the world still thinks that militarists and aggressors necessarily wear uniforms. But don’t be fooled by Anglo-Saxon respectability. No costume with a needle will mask hatred, anger and inhumanity.
If all the instructions of the head of state in the field of import substitution had been fulfilled in time, we would have been able to avoid many problems in the economy.
Many of our opponents in the world claim that they do not understand or recognize the goals of a special military operation, believing that they are far-fetched.
Mykola Patrushev: The special military operation has specific goals, on the achievement of which depends not just the well-being, but the lives of millions of people, the salvation of the population of the LPR and the DPR from the genocide that Ukrainian neo-Nazis have been doing for 8 years. At one time, Hitler’s fascism dreamed of destroying the entire Russian population, and today its followers, according to Hitler’s precepts, are blasphemously trying to do this with the hands of the Slavs. Russia will not let this happen.
Speaking of denazification, our goal is to defeat the foothold of neo-Nazism created by the efforts of the West near our borders. The need for demilitarization is caused by the fact that Ukraine saturated with weapons poses a threat to Russia, including from the point of view of the development and use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Do you think that the United States can really orchestrate similar provocations in Ukraine?
Nikolai Patrushev: You are talking about a country whose elite is not able to appreciate other people’s lives. Americans are used to walking on scorched earth. Since World War II, entire cities have been razed to the ground by bombing, including nuclear bombing. They flooded the Vietnamese jungle with poison, bombed the Serbs with radioactive munitions, burned Iraqis alive with white phosphorus, helped terrorists poison Syrians with chlorine. I do not think that the lives of Ukrainians are of concern to the United States, which has repeatedly proved its aggressive anti-human nature. As history shows, NATO has also never been a defensive alliance, only an offensive one.
Why do American elites need all this?
Nikolai Patrushev: America has long divided the whole world into vassals and enemies. In the United States, from childhood, people are hammered into the head that America is a shining city on a hill, and the rest of humanity is just a testing ground for experiments and a resource appendage. Four hundred years ago, immigrants who arrived from England robbed and killed Indians because they considered them uncivilized savages. Now all this has been replaced by democratizing and human rights rhetoric and continues piracy on a global scale. American elites remember how the United States managed to become a superpower after two world wars, and now they do not want to accept the fact that the American global empire is agonizing.
Is the collapse of the U.S.-centric world a reality, in your opinion?
Nikolai Patrushev: This is a reality in which it is necessary to live and build an optimal line of behavior. In this regard, Russia has chosen the path of full protection of its sovereignty, firm defense of national interests, cultural and spiritual identity, traditional values and historical memory.
Our spiritual and moral values allow us to remain ourselves, to be honest with our ancestors, to preserve the individual, society and the state. The Europeans, for example, made a different choice. They adopted the so-called liberal values, although in fact it is neoliberalism. He promotes the priority of the private over the public, individualism, suppressing love for the Fatherland, the gradual withering away of the state. It is now obvious that with such a doctrine, Europe and European civilization have no future. Apparently, they will repeat the unlearned lessons again.
Which ones?
Nikolai Patrushev: There are a lot of them. Don’t forget that all historical upheavals begin with the spread of popular but potentially destructive ideas. Think of the French Revolution. From its misinterpreted slogans arose the tyranny of Napoleon, who drowned half of Europe in blood, but broke his teeth on Russia.
What has our country done? Dismembered France, burned Paris? No, Emperor Alexander I restored French statehood, and in 1815 initiated the creation of the Holy Alliance in Europe. The union aimed to respect the territorial integrity of states, suppress nationalist movements and ensured that Europe had forty years of peaceful existence.
A little more than a hundred years later, the ideology of Nazism appeared. The Soviet Union did everything to destroy it, but at the same time became the initiator of the revival of an independent German state. Stalin at the Yalta Conference insisted on this. The USSR was the first to support the unification of Germany in the late 1980s. Our country has historically played a special role in shaping not only the geopolitical, but also the moral climate in the world.
You figuratively described the Anglo-American style of communication with the world as piracy. Now the West is making the same pirate raid against Russia. And in this regard, the question arises as to what extent was the decision to place gold and foreign exchange reserves abroad justified?
Nikolai Patrushev: This decision turned out to be unjustified from the point of view of the financial security of the state. Another thing is that in this way the West is hitting not only Russia, but also itself. The existing global financial system is built solely on trust, including in the United States as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency. Half a century ago, the factor of gold was present, but in 1971 the States untied their currency from its quotations, which made it possible to carry out money emission virtually uncontrollably.
Trying to support its economy in a constant pre-crisis state, the United States is actively pumping its banks, businesses and population with money secured by government obligations. The result was high rates of inflation in America and Europe. At the same time, the external debt of the United States exceeded 30 trillion dollars. And the Americans for some reason are discussing a possible default by Russia. It’s time for them to default. To overcome the negative consequences and new enrichment, the United States creates a man-made global crisis. That is, they want to solve their problems at the expense of the countries of the rest of the world, by the way, primarily Europe.
Europeans are not embarrassed by this, in my opinion.
Nikolai Patrushev: Moreover, they are happy to step in the direction of the abyss that the United States has dug for them. In this sense, much has changed since the Cold War. Back then, the Europeans resisted Washington more confidently. Apparently, due to the fact that the old generations of realist politicians have not yet become a thing of the past. At that time, the wall was in Berlin, and the current European elite has a wall in their heads.
I do not think that the lives of Ukrainians are of concern to the United States, which has repeatedly proved its aggressive anti-human nature. NATO has also never been a defensive alliance, only an offensive one.
In the 1980s, in an effort to weaken the Soviet economy, the United States tried to prohibit European companies from buying hydrocarbons from Moscow. Then Europe did not follow Washington’s lead. The United States forbade its own companies to sell technology for coastal drilling to the USSR, as a result of which dozens of American and Japanese firms suffered. To delay the construction of a gas pipeline to Europe by the Soviet Union, Washington used disinformation. Nothing reminiscent?
And what do we need to do to ensure the sovereignty of the ruble?
Nikolai Patrushev: For the sovereignization of any national financial system, its means of payment must have intrinsic value and price stability, without being tied to the dollar. Now experts are working on a project proposed by the scientific community to create a two-circuit monetary and financial system. In particular, it is proposed to determine the value of the ruble, which should be secured by both gold and a group of goods that are currency values, to put the ruble exchange rate in line with the real purchasing power parity.
Similar ideas have been voiced before. However, a number of experts said that they go against the conclusions of economic theory …
Nikolai Patrushev: They do not contradict the conclusions of economic science, but contradict the conclusions of Western economic textbooks. The West has unilaterally arrogated to itself an intellectual monopoly on the optimal structure of society and has been using this for more than a decade. Let me remind you that the shock reforms of the 1990s in our country were carried out strictly according to American guidelines.
The fascination of our entrepreneurs, who came out of that era, with market mechanisms alone, without taking into account the specifics of our country, is a risk factor. We are not against the market economy and participation in the world’s production chains, but we are clearly aware that the West allows other countries to be its partner only when it is profitable for it. Therefore, the most important condition for ensuring Russia’s economic security is reliance on the internal potential of the country, the structural restructuring of the national economy on a modern technological basis.
How successfully is this task being solved today? Now there is again a lot of talk about import substitution, but it is no secret to anyone that a decisive breakthrough has not yet been achieved.
Nikolai Patrushev: The tasks and priorities have been set absolutely correctly, and we will continue to implement them. Another thing is that it is necessary to significantly tighten the discipline of their implementation, including among the relevant departments.
If all the instructions of the head of state in the field of import substitution had been fulfilled in time, we would have been able to avoid many of the problems that the Russian economy is facing today.
Let me give you an example. The creation of a plant in St. Petersburg for the production of high-quality insulin was counteracted by a number of structures. Today it is a serious enterprise, the production of medicines in which is completely independent of imports, with the exception of packaging. However, it must also be produced by ourselves, we are told, for example, by food manufacturers. Of course, we cannot turn a blind eye to significant achievements. Significant success in import substitution was achieved by the enterprises of the Rostec Corporation, primarily producing defense industry products.
Another example. Thanks to the Food Security Council Doctrine, it has been possible to carry out accurate calculations and increase the self-sufficiency of our country in basic foodstuffs. This is a very serious achievement, which our country has not been able to achieve completely throughout the twentieth century. Therefore, all attempts by Westerners to shift responsibility for the global food crisis provoked by them to Russia are obviously doomed to failure.
Russia will have to expand the range of domestic high-tech products. It is important to promote domestic developments into production as soon as possible. Special attention will be paid to qualitative changes in the selection of scientific personnel and the assessment of the effectiveness of their activities. Russian science should become the leading productive force, one of the locomotives of our country’s development.
I am sure that we will solve all the problems that have arisen as a result of the sanctions restrictions. Today, Russia is reorienting itself from the European market to the African, Asian and Latin American markets. We attach primary attention to the EAEU, the importance of which in the current conditions is increasing many times over. We are stepping up cooperation with the BRICS and SCO countries, which unite about three and a half billion people on the planet.
You mentioned science, but in modern conditions, it seems that it is necessary to rebuild not only it, but also higher education and schooling.
Nikolai Patrushev: I am sincerely convinced that we cannot successfully develop without a clear understanding by the whole society of our national goals and objectives, the depth of our spiritual and historical identity. Therefore, every resident of our country, every Russian from childhood should know and understand why we all live and work as a single people, what we strive for.
The West continues to act in line with the inhumane doctrine of the “golden billion”, which implies a significant reduction in the world’s population in various ways. To do this, the West has cowardly created an empire of lies, involving the humiliation and destruction of Russia and other undesirable states. They spit in our eyes, but they claim that this is God’s dew.
Washington and Brussels do not hide the fact that their sanctions are aimed at both the material and spiritual impoverishment of Russians. To destroy our education by imposing so-called progressive models of education on us is as strategic a task for Westerners as, for example, bringing NATO closer to our borders.
In fact, there is nothing progressive there. In the United States, for example, many already say that in mathematics lessons it is necessary to sing and dance, because solving problems and equations depresses and discriminates against someone. We don’t need such “progress.” The current situation proves the need to uphold traditional Russian spiritual and moral values, reform the education and enlightenment system with the return of the historically justified advantages of the national school. I am still convinced that the Soviet school of education was historically the most advanced and progressive in the world, and the movement forward should be carried out with this in mind.
And what exactly should be done?
Nikolai Patrushev: It is necessary to pay more attention to the development of logical thinking, to form sustainable knowledge and the ability to make independent decisions, and not just to put crosses in tests. To develop the applied application of fundamental sciences.
It is impossible to rely solely on the digitalization of education, since the Internet can be not only a source of encyclopedic information, but also politicized disinformation. At the heart of everything is the development of personal intellectual and spiritual qualities. Properly educated, comprehensively educated, physically and morally healthy children who know and understand the history and culture of their Motherland, this is our wealth and the key to the guaranteed successful development of Russia. For the sake of the future of our children, for the sake of a prosperous and prosperous country in which they will live, we are working today.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 26 2022 18:07 utc | 124

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/26/caitlin-jonhstone-the-billionaire-savior-of-twitter/

How many times are people going to fall for this “a billionaire is about to stick it to the man and save us all” schtick? It’s very sad that we’re at a point where speech is being throttled so severely that people are hoping an eccentric billionaire will swoop in and rescue them from oppression. Real life is like a dumber, more boring version of Gotham City, except Batman is working with the bad guys.

Posted by: Aleph_Null | Apr 26 2022 18:29 utc | 126

Lavrov/Guterres Presser. As you’ll see, I chose to emphasize one specific section of Lavrov’s comments. IMO, many will agree that section stands at the core of the Ukraine issue and all others. As Lavrov says, that discussion MUST take place. Now I await the Kremlin’s readout of Putin’s meeting with Guterres.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
We had intensive negotiations. We talked about the many challenges facing the UN. There is work that continues on Syria and Libya. We must not forget the Middle East settlement. This is one of the most long-standing conflicts in the world, which, contrary to Security Council resolutions, is moving further away from its solution.
For obvious reasons, the main attention was paid to the situation on the European continent in the context of what is happening in Ukraine, the DPR and the LPR. The situation there was not today or yesterday. We are grateful to the Secretary-General and his team for their understanding of the need to consider the situation in ukraine and around it not in isolation from the processes on the world stage, but in the context of trends that are accumulating and do not always go in line with the ideals of the UN, the principles that are enshrined in the UN Charter. I told our colleague and friend Alexander Guterres in detail today that we see how this situation has largely accumulated. In a decisive context, this happened as a result of the course taken by our American colleagues and their allies towards the unlimited expansion of NATO, the establishment of a unipolar world.
As for our geopolitical space specifically, all this was done in the interests of containing the Russian Federation. It is for these purposes that Ukraine has been consistently used all these long years as a springboard to irritate and contain our country, the activity of the Ukrainian leadership to promote legislation prohibiting the Russian language, Russian media, culture and everything Russian in general was encouraged. And in parallel with this, steps promoting Nazi theory and practice were legislated. Of course, the Secretary-General is aware of the decisions announced by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the reasons and objectives of the operation carried out by our military together with the donetsk and Luhansk militias in Ukraine. These objectives are, first of all, to protect the civilian population. Here we are interested in cooperating with colleagues from the UN, from the International Committee of the Red Cross, in terms of additional efforts to alleviate the suffering and plight of the civilian population.
After the UN Secretary-General’s contacts with our Ministry of Defense took place on March 4 of this year, we formed the Interdepartmental Coordination Headquarters for Humanitarian Response on the basis of the National Defense Management Center of the Russian Federation. UN representatives agree on specific things that help to safely organize the delivery of humanitarian aid. The UN Forces and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs have already managed to send five such convoys to various regions of Ukraine, in addition to the humanitarian aid that is transmitted to Ukrainian citizens on a daily basis, to Donetsk, Lugansk through the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, and various Russian public organizations. Today we discussed possible actions to strengthen our cooperation in this area. I think that following the talks in Moscow, we will be able to decide on steps of this kind, to what extent they can be in demand in the current situation.
Of course, we talked about the fate of the UN as a whole. About the attempts of our Western colleagues to take the discussion of key issues beyond the framework of universal formats under the auspices of the UN and its system, to “breed” various partnerships, appeals that are presented as a “club of advanced workers”, “club of the chosen”. In the same vein is the initiative put forward by France and Germany – the Alliance of Multilateralists. What is this, if not competition with the UN? Or the initiative of the United States, which in 2021 held a “summit of democracies”, where they issued an invitation on their own, without consulting anyone. This also attracted the attention of our interlocutors today. This is, in general, a dangerous “call” for the UN, an attempt to cross out the basic rules and principles of the UN Charter. Namely, that the Organization was created on the basis of the sovereign equality of States. This is written in the UN Charter. This needs to be reminded. We will do this more often so that no one in New York or in the capitals of the member states forgets about it.
I wish to conclude by expressing my sincere gratitude to the Secretary-General, who took the initiative to make such contact. We responded promptly, which underlines the high importance we attach to regular dialogue and comparison of positions with the leadership of the UN Secretariat. With all the difficulties that continue to multiply in world affairs, such frank discussions are very useful for us to eventually return to the origins, to the UN Charter and on the basis of this Very Charter to build any schemes for the development of multilateralism. Multilateralism is one of the key terms today.
Once again, I am grateful that the Secretary-General was prepared to build a conversation today in that context.
Question: Both sides, be it the UN or the international community, are considering a potential diplomatic solution to the crisis and a ceasefire. If Russia wants to resolve the issue diplomatically, is there any organization or country that Moscow has considered as a mediator?
Sergey Lavrov: First of all, I would like to talk about the positions that the international community occupies and how the UN should be guided by these positions along with the enduring principles of the UN Charter. First of all, the principle of the sovereign equality of states, which I have already mentioned.
The UN Secretary-General referred to the General Assembly resolution, which condemned Russia and proclaimed that what is happening in Ukraine is an invasion, a violation of sovereignty, territorial integrity. Let me remind you that the resolution was voted. It was not consensual. Many countries complained to us later that they were forced to catch ambassadors on the sidelines of the UN (our American friends know how to do this) and threatened. Someone has accounts in the United States in some bank, someone has children studying at the university. I’m not exaggerating. It was, and we know it.
However, the resolution was not adopted unanimously. Several dozen countries refused to support it. I understand that any Resolution of the General Assembly should be a mandate for the UN Secretariat (so it sets out its approaches). But similarly, UNSC resolutions should be sacred to the Secretariat, especially those adopted by consensus when all fifteen members vote for a specific decision. It was by consensus in February 2015 that the document entitled “Minsk Package of Measures” was approved, which explicitly states the need for direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk in order to resolve all the problems that existed then within the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It was only necessary to fulfill the obligations signed first by President Poroshenko and then President Volodymyr Zelensky and grant a special status to the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, to ensure amnesty and amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine in the context of decentralization, but while preserving the territorially integral Ukraine. It was necessary to organize elections there in coordination with Donetsk and Lugansk. I don’t recall the UN Secretariat reacting in any way to Kiev’s direct, gross sabotage of the Minsk Agreements. Although UN Security Council resolutions (especially consensus resolutions) are part of international law. We talked about this today. We have good and friendly relations. I believe that such a conversation cannot be postponed.
Now we are at a stage in the development of international relations, when the moment of truth comes: either we all resign ourselves to the fact that someone alone with a group of his satellites decides how humanity will live, or humanity will live on the basis of the UN Charter. Easy choice. No one wants any wars, but it is imperative to present arguments, to demand answers from those who violate the UN Charter. I assure you that more and more countries, especially with their own history, culture, and their own civilisational heritage, want to take this position. This conversation must be inevitable. I hope that it is the UN, with its roots in the Charter (the greatest document of all time) that will play a catalyzing role in developing such an honest dialogue without ultimatums, threats and attempts to solve problems by force, including financial and economic force, abusing its position in the world system. I think it’s limitless.
As for negotiating solutions. We are for them. Immediately after President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky proposed talks in early March, we agreed. But the way the Ukrainian delegation behaved at the talks, the way President Volodymyr Zelensky himself behaved, refusing to confirm that a week ago they received our new proposals (he spoke about this repeatedly), is depressing. Apparently, they are not particularly interested in negotiations. Those who call for preventing Russia from winning and, on the contrary, calling for Russia to be defeated and destroyed, promised Kiev that they would continue this line by pumping Ukraine with weapons in huge quantities. The Ukrainian authorities are now relying on this. If this continues, the negotiations are unlikely to have any result. But I repeat: we are committed to a negotiated solution, a ceasefire. We do this every day, announcing humanitarian corridors that are ignored, in particular, by the militants of the Azov battalion who have settled in Azovstal, who walk around with a swastika, with the emblems and symbols of the Nazi SS (Waffen-SS) battalions. President Zelensky, answering a question from CNN journalists about them, said that they have many such battalions, they are what they are. This phrase “they are what they are” was cut from the interview. It seemed quite embarrassing to present to the Western, democratic community a man with all his hidden thoughts.
We are ready for negotiations. If someone has interesting ideas, they are ready to listen to them. At the previous stages, Ukrainian negotiators did not talk about mediation as such. Our teams meet together. We met three times on the territory of Belarus. Once on Turkish territory. These are platforms for negotiations. We are grateful to both of them for their hospitality and organization. It is too early to talk about intermediaries at this stage. We would like to receive a response to the latest version of the draft document, which was submitted eleven days ago. Ukrainian negotiators did not report it to their president. At least a week later, he was not aware that such a document had been submitted.
Question: Later today, the UN General Assembly is expected to vote on Liechtenstein’s draft resolution on the veto, which is expected to be used by the General Assembly every time one of the five permanent members of the Security Council vetoes it. How does Moscow assess such an initiative? In general, what is Russia’s attitude to the proposals to reform the UN Security Council and, in particular, the initiative that involves the abolition of the veto in the event of a corresponding vote by the General Assembly?
Sergey Lavrov: As for the resolution that has been submitted to the General Assembly. It is clearly stipulated that it has nothing to do with and will not affect in any way the negotiations that have been going on for many years on the reform of the UN Security Council. The veto is not going away. I can confirm this to you responsibly. The right of veto is one of the pillars of the UN. Without it, the Organization will go haywire. The great powers, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, first of all, rely on the principle of unanimity, which is enshrined in the Charter and allows avoiding sharp clashes between them.
Another thing, now the world has become different. Americans publicly declare that they want to make it unipolar for “eternity.” But the objective process goes in the opposite direction. The world is multipolar. We have repeatedly said that the UN Security Council must get rid of its main “defect” – the dominance of one group of countries. Of the fifteen seats, six belong to Western countries and their allies. Developing countries are underrepresented. We have repeatedly stressed that we want to see representatives of Asia, Africa and Latin America in this body on an ongoing basis, and we have directly mentioned our partners from India and Brazil. But there must be a candidate from Africa.
The resolution you mentioned involves the General Assembly discussing situations arising after the use of the VETO in the UN Security Council and is not related to the reform process. It is aimed at democratizing decision-making. We are ready to join the consensus if it develops. It is important to work on the basis of consensus here, because many resolutions that are adopted even by a minority of votes then begin to prevail in certain areas that are beneficial, first of all, to Western countries.
The UN Security Council may be deprived of the opportunity to adopt a resolution not only as a result of the use of one or more vetoes, but also as a result of abstention from voting by six or seven countries. This is also a case when the UN Security Council is split. Perhaps the General Assembly should not remain indifferent to such a situation.
I think it’s a healthy process. If a country uses a veto, then it has something to explain its vote. But in those cases when it comes to the Russian Federation (probably, there will be such cases), we will be able to convincingly explain certain of our positions that we hold in the UN Security Council.
Question: How did Russia respond to the Proposal of the Ukrainian side to hold a special round of talks in Mariupol?
Sergey Lavrov: I heard about this theatrically presented proposal of the Ukrainian negotiating team (the same one that spoke with our negotiators in Belarus, Turkey, then via videoconference) to hold a regular meeting in Mariupol near the walls of Azovstal. Ukrainians love to stage everything. Apparently, they wanted to “stage” another heartbreaking scene.
If we are talking about a serious attitude to work in the framework of negotiations, then it would be better if they responded to our proposals sooner. They’ve been on their side for more than a decade. As it turned out, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky had not even heard of them.
Question: What measures are being taken by the Russian side with regard to the build-up of us arms supplies to Kiev?
Sergey Lavrov: It is not only the Americans who supply weapons. They prefer to force Europe to do this. But they themselves are also taking appropriate steps.
We have repeatedly said that as soon as foreign weapons are on the territory of Ukraine, they become a legitimate target for a special military operation of Russia. Our troops are on the territory of Ukraine. They stand up for the rights of people who have been bombed for eight years. In the West, everyone was silent, regardless of who was part of the Normandy format or not, including Germany and France as co-authors of the Minsk agreements.
All these years, the entire Russian-speaking population was subjected to cruel oppression not only in Donbass and the two proclaimed republics, but also in Ukraine as a whole. Everything is in the statistics. Look at what laws have been adopted in relation to the Russian language and the media. Moreover, not only Russian channels were banned, but also Ukrainian ones, if they were in the hands of a parliamentary, legitimate, legal, but opposition party. Then finally decisions were made to ban the Russian language in everyday life. Nazi ideology and practice were imposed. Everyone shamefully “hid their heads in the sand” – both inside the Normandy format and outside the framework.
The weapons that were already imported into Ukraine at that time really posed a threat to the Russian Federation. The military bases that the British built, in particular, on the Sea of Azov directly posed the same threat. We did not hear any sympathetic voices from various parts of the world when, as a last attempt in the autumn of 2021, we proposed to the Americans and NATO to conclude treaties aimed at ensuring security in Europe, without resorting to expanding membership in military-political blocs.
Now we are engaged in the elimination of such threats and actions taken by the West in violation of its obligations not to strengthen its security at the expense of Russia’s security.
Question: Recently, Russia accredited the first diplomat from the Taliban government. Does this move toward recognition of the Taliban government in Kabul mean?
Is Russia ready to work with intra-Afghan political forces to involve them in the new inclusive Afghan government, as Iranian President Ilobo Raisi recently proposed?
Sergey Lavrov: Indeed, one diplomat was accredited. He has already been sent to Moscow to work at the Embassy by the new authorities – the Taliban Movement. This does not imply official diplomatic recognition.
We are acting in unison with Afghanistan’s key neighbours. Recently, there was a representative conference in China, in which we participated together with the Central Asian countries, Pakistan and Iran. We work on the basis of recognition of the existing realities. We have regular contacts with the Taliban through the Russian Embassy and representatives of agencies that also consider issues of economic cooperation. During the stay of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, more than 140 enterprises were built. They have become the backbone of the Afghan economy. During the 20 years of the NATO coalition’s stay there, not a single such facility has been built. You know what it all came down to and how it ended.
We want to work towards full diplomatic recognition of the new authorities in Afghanistan. With the understanding that they will fulfill their promise and create an inclusive government not only from an ethno-religious point of view. Now there are Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras in the government, but politically they are all Taliban. It is political inclusion that should guide our next steps. The Taliban have proclaimed such a goal.
We are working with political forces located in Afghanistan, primarily in Kabul – former President Khalifa Karzai, former senior official Abdullah. They are interested in dialogue with the Taliban. In our contacts with the Taliban, we encourage them to start such a dialogue and continue substantively.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 26 2022 19:11 utc | 128

Looks like you lost your arm45. FOAD! I just made all those transcripts available to billions globally at a site you can’t censor.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 26 2022 21:22 utc | 130

Posted by: waynorinorway | Apr 26 2022 17:19 utc | 125
“Paul, I’m curious if you have that book as it seems to be out of print and very expensive, so am wondering if it’s worthwhile…..”
Yes I have the book, it has more than 20 references to Norway in the index. David Irving was a student of physics who applied the same evidence based techniques to writing history. The ideal person to write a factual and dispassionate book on the German Atomic bomb. I didn’t give the amazon link because I am not promoting them. I have a number of Irving’s books. I don’t want sanitised versions of history.
As an aside, I researched the first three battles of the 18th Australian Infantry Brigade. Irving also wrote a definitive book on Field Marshal Rommel which was essential reading for understanding the 18th Inf Bde.
Years ago the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Irving would speak at Sydney University so I called them to organise some tickets. I was deliberately connected to someone who didn’t speak English. I called back and was eventually connected to her boss after much hassle. The boss told me the lecture was cancelled because of pressure and threats. I eventually obtained the phone number of the organisers in Adelaide and called them. The cancellation was news to them. So in thanks I was invited to his press conference at a private club in the city where the new venue, the Hungarian Club, was announced. Irving also wrote “Uprising” about 1956. The Hungarians were grateful for that book and provided a venue. I attended the lecture that night. The [unread] media at the press conference were falling over each other to demonstrate open belligerence to Irving but couldn’t land a punch. I asked two questions that he couldn’t quite answer. One on the daughter of Nagy and the other on AJP Taylor. Since then successive governments have banned him from visiting Australia.
The book on the German atomic bomb is fascinating. Norsk Hydro produced tons of heavy water for the project.

Posted by: Paul | Apr 27 2022 1:09 utc | 132

@127 karlof1 | Apr 26 2022 18:07 utc – “Americans are used to walking on scorched earth.”
What an amazing, incidental observation from Patrushev. As I read his thoughts, it seems fairly certain to me that these are well discussed thoughts. If this was a personal interview conducted by talking (as opposed to an email interview, for example), then his views seem remarkably cogent and comprehensive.
This is not to take away from his view, but to infer that this is a view exhaustively discussed in the Security Council. That his ideas are evolved from those of others, and that those of others are evolved from his. That the leadership of Russia stands united in a very clear-eyed view of the situation it inhabits.
There are many paragraphs one could admire, and quote. His entire interview is a masterwork of analysis of the US, the West and Russia, historically and now. It ranges across a broad canvas. I can’t pick a favorite, because he ranges across the past, the present and the future with his vision. I’ll stick with the one I first drew from:

Nikolai Patrushev: You are talking about a country whose elite is not able to appreciate other people’s lives. Americans are used to walking on scorched earth. Since World War II, entire cities have been razed to the ground by bombing, including nuclear bombing. They flooded the Vietnamese jungle with poison, bombed the Serbs with radioactive munitions, burned Iraqis alive with white phosphorus, helped terrorists poison Syrians with chlorine. I do not think that the lives of Ukrainians are of concern to the United States, which has repeatedly proved its aggressive anti-human nature. As history shows, NATO has also never been a defensive alliance, only an offensive one.

This entire interview is beyond superb – I endorse your recommendation of it unreservedly.
~~
By the way, I usually take these long screeds and copy them into a doc to adjust font and size, etc, and then if they have merit, save them as a pdf to my archive – from where, who knows, I may find someone to share it with eventually.
I noted your observance of b’s request not to repost long pieces verbatim, and then noted the relaxing of this protocol as the Russian sites came under attack (and b’s obvious understanding of this necessity).
Of course, one prefers to quote only portions of a piece along with a source link, because it forces us to summarize and prioritize and reorganize to re-tell a thing, and all of this treatment enriches the meaning – as if a piece has already begun discussion before we even post it.
But this is war, and needs must.
~~
Also, I’ve been wanting to say for some time how much I always go to these dead ends of the open threads – sometimes the most profound discussion is taking place, safe from the trolls.
Of course, the trigger for trolls apparently is hair-fine right now, even in this “dead” thread.
Well played, by the way – and this is why the west and the paymasters of all these trolls are losing everything in the real world completely, because they put all their remaining energy into words that don’t matter, while the ground is being reshaped by the vital forces of this world, that care less for words and more for meaning, and only need to speak once.

Posted by: Grieved | Apr 27 2022 3:36 utc | 134

Peter AU1 | Apr 27 2022 3:52 utc | 138
Like I said,..
Scratch any anti Chinese Riots/pogroms/genocides you’d find the blood soaked hands of CIA/MI6/ASIO.
FUKUSA aka AUKUS.

The CIA, Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO), and New Zealand Secret Intelligence Service (NZSIS) have programs to undermine South Pacific governments that establish close relations with Beijing. However, the Human Terrain operatives have gone further. Aware of the animosity that poor Pacific Islanders have toward local successful Chinese businessmen, the bought—and-paid for anthropologists have stirred up riots, especially in Solomon Islands and Tonga, to marginalize China’s influence in the region. There are contingency plans to foment riots against ethnic Chinese in Fiji, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea. The CIA’s Operation Prosyms in Indonesia relied on longstanding animosity between Muslim Indonesians and ethnic Chinese to stoke riots against the Chinese in the aftermath of the 1965 CIA coup against President Sukarno. The mayhem resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 ethnic Chinese and a severance of relations between the CIA-installed Suharto government and China.

yOU aint seen nuthin yet,
These are just the tip of an iceberg.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/01/27/pacific-ocean-pentagon-next-human-terrain-battlefield/

Posted by: denk | Apr 27 2022 4:28 utc | 136

denk | Apr 27 2022 4:28 utc | 139
Thanks. I know the modus operadi but have not read a lot of details re asia pacific.
the yanks/anglos (I’m anglo) seem to think they can create vietams for Russia and China where the populatio will revolt if there are a lot of casualties. Short memories – Chinese peasants armed with rifles drove the high tech yaks back to the starting point. both china and Russia are now very much high tech but both still have the same spirit russia/soviet union showed in driving back the nazis and china driving back the yanks.
From some of the official stuff coming out of China now…. US full spectrum dominance… the yanks will go the way of nazi germany / imperial japan.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Apr 27 2022 4:49 utc | 138

The Revolution… will be Anglicized (Americanized??)
Satire from the Beaverton – 3rd year McGill student hopes to visit Montréal someday
https://twitter.com/TheBeaverton/status/1518968472033714177
Canadian corporations snub French (who’s haughty now??)
https://www.lapresse.ca/debats/editoriaux/2022-04-27/un-c-a-unilingue-anglophone-non-merci.php
Major project for Montréal’s downtown (… we’ll that’s just… something…)
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/grand-montreal/2022-04-26/projet-de-5-millions/un-anneau-geant-au-centre-ville-de-montreal.php
Charles and Camilla are visiting Canada in May (Newfoundland, Ottawa, the North)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-prince-charles-camilla-royal-tour-itinerary-canada/
Their (stated) primary focus is on ongoing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples – and they’ll visit people from Ukraine. (That should be interesting.)
‘Dandelion Challenge’: Quebeckers encouraged not to mow lawns to the promote pollinators
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/dandelion-challenge-quebecers-encouraged-to-grow-out-lawns-in-may-for-pollinators-1.5876540

Posted by: Bruised Northerner | Apr 27 2022 13:53 utc | 140

As promised, Putin’s Parliamentarian Day Speech:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, good afternoon.
I welcome everyone to our traditional meeting. I congratulate you and your colleagues, senators and deputies at all levels, on the Day of Russian Parliamentarism, as well as employees of the legislative apparatus and, of course, veterans of parliamentary activity.
In May, the Council of Legislators will be 10 years old. We have all already seen that this format is useful and in demand. By coordinating the drafting of laws and following the principles of federalism, the Council contributes to the balanced development of the country and reflects the diversity and richness of our regions and territories.
Your work is based on a public, constructive dialogue. Such an open, concrete exchange of views certainly increases the Council’s responsibility to the people and society for every promise, initiative, and every proposal. It should not be that you and I said something to the public sphere, and then all this “hung up”, people wait – and nothing happens. In no case should this be allowed.
In this regard, I would like to stress that the amendments to the Constitution adopted in 2020 not only strengthened the position and influence of the parliament – and this is quite obvious, it is quite obvious, we have strengthened our parliamentarism – but also created conditions for the further formation of independent, sovereign legislation of Russia, for the development of national jurisdiction without the instructions and interference of any external forces. It is the people and only the people of Russia who are the source of power in our country.
Its representatives – parliamentary parties – despite all the competition with each other, invariably speak from the same positions when it comes to basic national interests, about resolving issues of defense and security of our Fatherland.
Such a patriotic attitude is understandable, close to people, always supported by the majority, the overwhelming majority of citizens. This is shown by the elections and all public opinion polls, and in principle there can be no other way, because love for the Motherland is one of the key foundations of Russian statehood and the most important value for our society, which invariably manifests itself at decisive moments for the country.
Such unity of people is worth a lot, guarantees that Russia will adequately respond to the most difficult challenges and threats, and will confidently go through all the tests. It has always been so, and it will be so now.
In this regard, I would like to stress once again that all the tasks of the special military operation launched on February 24 will certainly be fulfilled in order to guarantee peace and security for the residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, the Russian Crimea and our entire country in the historical future.
We must clearly realize that our soldiers and officers have prevented the real danger that is already hanging over our Motherland. With their courage and determination, heroism, they prevented a large-scale conflict that would have unfolded on our territory, but according to other people’s scenarios.
The forces that have historically pursued and are pursuing a policy of containing Russia – historically conducted and are conducting, this was the case in ancient times, you know this well why they did it – such an independent, huge country is not needed even by their ideas. They believe that it is a danger to them simply by the fact of its existence. Although this is far from the case, they themselves pose a danger to the whole world.
We remember the barbaric plans of the Nazis against the Soviet people – to drive them away. Remember, huh? Those who are able to work are forced to work, subjecting them to slave labor and slave conditions, and those who are not needed are for the Urals, to the North for extinction. They had it all spelled out in their documents. These are historical documents. We remember that.
We also remember how Western states in the early 1990s and 2000s encouraged terrorists and bandits in the North Caucasus, speculated on the problems of our past, on really problematic issues, on the injustices of the past against entire peoples, including the peoples of the Caucasus. But they did not do this in order to make us better, not at all, but they did it in order to transfer the problems of the past into our life today, in order to stimulate separatist sentiments in our country, ultimately to dismember and destroy it. That’s what they did all this for, to drive us into what’s called a bear corner. This is what many at all times have sought to do, to do with regard to Russia.
They did not achieve their goal, but they did not accept the fact that they could not do it, that we, despite this onslaught, managed to survive then. Therefore, later they embarked on a massive preparation of an economic war against Russia, step by step using all sorts of pretexts, and sometimes simply without any pretexts, they introduced new sanctions restrictions. By the way, today’s plans for “economic strangulation” also failed.
Along with this, the enemies of our country forced the production of a new “geopolitical weapon” – it is not new in fact, but, of course, gave it new strength, a new impetus – relied on Russophobia and neo-Nazis, from year to year brazenly, unceremoniously turned our neighboring country, Ukraine, into “anti-Russia”.
Let me remind you that when Russia reacted favorably, I would say, in a friendly, comradely, fraternal way to the creation of an independent Ukrainian state, of course, then it was assumed that this would be a friendly state, that we would go further together, strengthening and developing each other, creating the most competitive conditions for our development – yes, in the new historical conditions. But, of course, no one counted on the creation of “anti-Russia” in the historical Russian territories, and we cannot allow this. And then, of course, they brought it to a clash, to a direct clash, pushed Ukraine to a direct clash with Russia, with our country. Let me remind you that such plans, including a military attack on Crimea and Donbass, were spelled out, unfortunately, in the doctrinal Ukrainian documents of today, and the Ukrainian people are destined for the fate of the “expendable material”. I think that the realization of this comes to a large part of the people of Ukraine.
The entire course of recent events, including the Kiev regime’s claims to possess nuclear weapons, the deployment of a network of Western biological laboratories on Ukrainian territory, and the uninterrupted supply of the most modern weapons to Ukraine, confirm that our response to these cynical plans was correct and timely.
Dear colleagues!
I would like to stress once again that our soldiers and officers, donbass militiamen are heroically fulfilling their duty, and all the tasks set, as I have already said, will be solved.
But what I would like to note and say now. I already spoke about this at the very beginning of the special military operation. I would like to stress once again that if someone intends to interfere with the ongoing events from the outside and creates strategic threats unacceptable to Russia, they should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast and fast. We have all the tools for this, such that no one can boast of now. And we will not boast, we will use them if necessary. And I want everyone to know about this, all the decisions we have made in this regard.
Dear colleagues!
I would like to thank all the factions of the State Duma and the Federation Council for their firmness and solidarity support, for ensuring the high pace and quality of law-making work in close cooperation with the Government of the Russian Federation. I hope that legislators in the regions will work just as intensively and as quickly as they will coordinate their activities with regional executive authorities.
Among the measures I am talking about are several packages of anti-sanctions measures adopted in two months, dozens of important laws and by-laws that have already passed through the legislative assemblies and through the Russian parliament.
I would like to note that in the near future specific decisions will be made on the indexation of pensions, all social benefits, as well as salaries of specialists employed in the public sector. For the practical implementation of this step, I ask the parliamentarians to work out all the necessary amendments and legal mechanisms in the most thorough way.
These and our other solutions are aimed at providing direct assistance to the most vulnerable categories of citizens: families with children and people of the older generation. Key sectors of the economy, strategic enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses are also and will be supported. As a result, we not only softened the measures I have just mentioned, but, as has already been said, repelled and blocked the very first, as the West believed, crushing blow from illegitimate sanctions against our country.
Our banking system, national currency, transport, trade, the economy as a whole have resisted and have not “crumbled” – no, on the contrary, they now have a good resource for development, for launching new projects in infrastructure, industry, in developing and unlocking the potentials of all our regions. Of course, this is the result of a balanced, responsible socio-economic policy of recent years, the implementation of our national projects, the result, of course, of your, dear colleagues, coordinated and energetic work in the current extraordinary conditions.
I ask you, together with ministries and departments, gubernatorial teams, as I have already said, the business, scientific and expert community, to continue developing new effective and calculated anti-crisis measures, to strengthen parliamentary control from within over the implementation of decisions taken, to support our people.
At the same time, it is necessary not only to ensure the stability of the economy, the domestic market, the rhythmic work of industrial enterprises, but also to strengthen the industrial and technological sovereignty of our country, and in some areas – and global leadership. This is an absolutely possible task for its solution, where we have – and we do have – the necessary scientific groundwork, engineering schools, and a production base.
How many aircraft have we produced before? Carrier companies were more likely to buy foreign equipment. Yes, foreign equipment has advantages in terms of noise and fuel, but it is necessary that our manufacturers strive for these standards. But they could hardly solve this problem in conditions when the domestic market was seized by foreign producers, that’s the problem. And so it is for almost all products. But where possible, where, I repeat, we have advanced schools, engineering personnel, trained potential, it must be developed. We have a lot of such areas. For many areas of production, including high-tech production, good, new, modern opportunities are opening up.
As I have already said, we will respond to crude, often clumsy external restrictions, to the destruction of all civilized rights and treaties, to attempts to isolate us with greater freedom of entrepreneurship, openness to honest partnership, respect and reliable protection of owners and bona fide investors. All these tasks require the direct participation of the deputy corps both in the center and in the regions.
I ask you personally, directly to work with the heads of municipalities and enterprises, with businesses, NGOs, labor collectives, to help them in solving emerging problems, and as a result, to take additional systemic support measures. And I would like to add that United Russia has a special responsibility here, of course, as the leading party. But I now appeal to all parliamentary parties: I ask you to work in solidarity.
In general, I ask all of you to be in direct communication with people. Whose voters they are, and whether anyone even went to the polls – it does not matter at all today, it does not matter. It is important for all people, for all of them, to give time and attention, to respond if you are asked for help and protection, and sometimes just for advice, people come – and you need to respond to this.
And another extremely important task for those who work in the committees on international affairs, in friendship groups with colleagues from other countries. I understand that at some venues it has become impossible, and it is probably pointless, to work, say, in PACE. In general, many of these platforms were created in the early 1990s not in order to harmonize relations in Europe, but in order to influence the post-Soviet space. You and I are well aware of this. But these tools have outlived their time, no one needs them anymore. Let them deal with their own problems, let them fight for higher wages and for solving the problems that they have there, here we will not take time to talk about it. This also applies to human rights, women’s rights, say, and so on, and women’s inequality in the labour market. In Europe, in the United States, this is full, let them deal with their problems.
But now, nevertheless, it is necessary to make maximum use of all available formats and channels of parliamentary diplomacy: in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in America – those that remain. Direct contacts will never hurt, because we have many supporters there, I assure you, and you know this yourself. But we need to work with them in order to argue our position, defend the truth, convey information to people who want to know it, truthful information.
The day before yesterday, at the board meeting of the Prosecutor General’s Office, I spoke about the need to form a detailed and irrefutable evidence base on all monstrous crimes and violations of international humanitarian law by neo-Nazis and foreign mercenaries. And there are more and more of them there, in Ukraine: once again several people were killed, several were detained, soon the Ministry of Defense will present them to the public. These atrocities will necessarily be given an objective legal assessment. But we need to raise all these issues at the international level, including at the parliamentary level.
I have already spoken about the Kiev regime’s prevented attempt to eliminate some of our journalists by carrying out terrorist attacks. What should I say in this regard?
Criminals, terrorists have been neutralized, detained, and investigative actions are being conducted with them. But it is no secret that such methods – the murder of their own journalists and politicians right on the street – have been used on the territory of Ukraine in recent years quite often. Now we have decided to transfer this practice to our territory.
Of course, we will do everything we can to protect the people who work on Russia’s official channels, on television and radio, and to protect those people who work on the Internet and take a patriotic position, and of course, the overwhelming majority of them in our media space. But we must understand that such a threat exists. Of course, we cannot attach security to everyone in the form of the FSO, FSB or Rosgvardia, but we will do and are obliged to do as much as possible to ensure their safety.
But what I want to say, and what I’m absolutely sure of. Such attempts to intimidate those who work in the media space, to intimidate Russian journalists who take a patriotic position, are doomed to complete failure. On the contrary – I do not doubt this for a second – it will bring even more people into their ranks to show that we have people who are not afraid of anything and who are ready and will defend the interests of our country.
Dear colleagues!
There are a number of urgent tasks on your agenda. I wish you good luck and success in your work ahead. And of course, I congratulate everyone on the upcoming great, main holiday for us – the holiday of the Great Victory! I am sure that the unbending will, courage and loyalty to the Fatherland will always inspire you, all of us.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Take care. Thank you.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 27 2022 18:32 utc | 142

Or,
How did USAss rammed that MCC pact down Nepal’s throat…

a whole-of-government effort was under way to expand US engagement with the Indo-Pacific region, including Nepal, to ensure it is free, open, and operates on a rules-based system…
I stress the word ‘donor’ because our assistance arrives in the form of grants, supported by the generosity of the American taxpayer, and not in the form of loans designed to return a profit to others and increase Nepal’s indebtedness, [‘unlike those chicom ;-)]
the Indo-Pacific Strategy was not an alliance or agreement, and nobody was signing on to it.
It was about freedom, freedom of navigation, freedom of press, protection of sovereignty of countries of the region, enabling them to make the best decisions for the people of those countries both politically and economically free of any kind of coercion

[unlike the chicom of course]
US Embassy in Kathmandu

Of course, it’s Nepal’s sovereign right to decide whether to approve the US-aid project MCC compact agreement

But….
USAss proconsul , Donald Lu

If you choose to reject our generous offer,
There’d be serious consequences, like…
A review of our bilateral relation,
A CONgress probe into Nepal’s human rights and corruption issues ..;-)
hehehehe

The twist and turn of it all,
The sob is talking thru both sides of his mouth and, his ass.
A gift that comes with an ultimatum
Only the gringo could make up shit like this
heheheh

Posted by: denk | Apr 28 2022 4:26 utc | 144

I see no way the great Blinking one can last. Blinkin is toast.
Posted by: thecelticwithinme | Apr 28 2022 4:31 utc | 148

Being promoted on account of failure is a feature, not a bug, of American politics — and, increasingly, its corporate sector as well.

Posted by: malenkov | Apr 28 2022 12:35 utc | 146