On President Putin’s Interview with Tucker Carlson…

Something somewhat historical happened just two days ago, though it is unclear how many Americans will understand its significance...

Tucker Carlson traveled to Moscow for a 2 hour, unedited, unfiltered, interview with President Putin.

This is already unprecedented.

It is unprecedented in that several million Americans will be actually listening to President Putin expressing his thoughts (not to mention several millions more of the western world).

Let us be honest with ourselves here, most Americans have not actually heard President Putin speak a full thought. Rather the internet is bombarded with diluted and villainized impressions - with no shortage of unflattering photos taken of him in mid-speech like this is to serve as some sort of replacement for actually listening to what he has to say.

The majority of Americans have a bit of a bad habit of desiring to make quick judgements and impressions of things without taking too much time to understand what it is they are looking at. The whole world looks at Americans this way, as a fast consumerist society that treats its politics not too differently from its fast food choices. If Americans do not like this characterization of themselves, then the best way to counteract this is to actually have the attention span to watch this interview and engage in a serious discussion about it. Since what President Putin thinks, whether Americans like it or not, clearly also affects the welfare of American lives at this point, let alone the economy of the United States.

Vladimir Putin has been the president of Russia for 19+ years. (From December 31, 1999-May 7, 2000. From May 7, 2000- May 7, 2008. And from May 7, 2012 until the present.) FYI he was Prime Minister of Russia for four years from 2008-2012. Thus, it is a little ridiculous that most Americans in fact know very little about how President Putin actually thinks, and what his intentions are for Russia and her relationship to the rest of the world, when he in fact frequently goes out of his way to make his thoughts as clear as possible with numerous speeches, that are translated and transcribed into English, such as the yearly Valdai Conferences, where he is known to spend hours answering questions from the Russian public and even questions from abroad.

In fact, it was quite something to hear a leader of a country speak about his interactions with several Presidents of America, which had crossed over five U.S. Presidents (Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr., Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden) and covers a period of eight U.S. presidential terms. This should already give people in the room the feeling of being in the presence of someone who has a wealth of experience.

And it is no surprise that there is now a blitzkrieg of quickie news reports intended for those who have not yet watched this 2 hour discussion and in a swarm of panic are clearly meant as a desperate deterrence, warning Americans to “not even waste your time” on listening to the “barbarian” attempting to share his perspective with the “civilized” western world. “Nothing to see here folks, really!” Anything he says are just a bunch of lies…right?

The fact that President Putin started the interview asking Tucker “Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?” was a clear setting of the tone so to speak. It was a clear intervention on the typical manner that American news reporting occurs, which are in 2-5 min sound bites. Part of the reason why this is counter-productive to real understanding is due to the simple fact that history cannot be explained in 2-5 min sound bites. Hundreds of books are written on these subjects but we can’t hear the president of Russia say a few paragraphs?

And the other reason why it is counter-productive is because it can be used to frequently change the subject which dissuades the audience from sitting and reflecting on a thought. In fact President Putin on several occasions, despite talking several minutes to answer a question, would often respond to Tucker, after his interruption with another question on a completely different subject, that he was not yet done answering the question.

This method of discussion is not President Putin being “tyrannical” or “not used to being questioned about his reasons for doing things,” it is in fact the manner in which a truly civilized person responsibly discusses subjects that will affect the lives of billions of people on this planet. Why would we think that such large questions deserve such small answers in the first place?

After all, despite a great deal of lack of respect coming from Americans towards President Putin’s leadership, the stark reality is that what Russia decides and how it chooses its relationships are now major game changers for how the world economy will function and thus Russia does have a global voice, and it is a voice that we would do well to at least take the time to listen to in this one interview, for our future is no longer disconnected from the future of Russia.

It is for this reason that I decided to do an overview of President Putin’s discussion with Carlson in case anyone got lost in the long responses, which were in fact full of important historical lessons.

The full transcript and video of the interview can be found on the Russian Kremlin website.

President Putin begins with a history lesson of how the Russian state was created, which included the region of Kiev over 1000 years ago. Obviously if we were to talk about the merits of today’s U.S. borders, including its possession of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, we would expect there to be some degree of history to explain how such things came to be and why, at least from an American point of view, those regional possessions are justified.

However, what stands in stark contrast to what Putin is outlining here vs. the very existence of the United States which was, whether we like it or not, formed at the expense of the indigenous peoples who were already living there - in stark contrast to this large elephant in the room, Putin is actually outlining a Russian history with Ukraine (which was originally Russian until relatively recently) that dates back over 1000 YEARS!

Let’s think about this a little more shall we? President Putin was actually given a bit of a hard time even from Tucker Carlson for this long account of Russian history with the region that is known as Ukraine today, but in reality has only come recently into existence through artificial means (we will get into why this is shortly).

So, unlike the American territories, Ukraine was originally Russian over 1000 years ago and has continued to have a strong Russian identity, culture and language TO THIS DAY, with about 1/3 of the Ukrainian population speaking predominantly Russian.

---

Whereas the United States was founded not just at the expense of the indigenous peoples already living there, but would also later commit a genocide against the indigenous peoples in the 19th century! I am not saying here that the founding of America was all bad, but what has been the overall conduct of the American government and its people against the indigenous peoples is not something one can simply pardon themselves of as if such actions were justified. The matter is indeed very complicated, for those who wish to know more about the British and Scottish Rite manipulations of the situation they can refer here.

But, suffice to say, it is still a general American failure that a genocide along with concentration camps otherwise known as reservations were committed and implemented against the indigenous peoples without too much opposition from the American people. There needs to be at least a public acknowledgment of this wrongdoing.

This is the supreme irony of the United States who has made incessantly loud and bombastic interferences with the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, and yet cannot even justify its own existence using the same black and white standard it is applying to Russia.

Just to be clear here, this subject of the indigenous peoples is not what President Putin mentioned in his discussion with Carlson. However, this is a point that has been made numerous times by the Russian government and its PR and press and is a view that has been frequently brought up and is largely shared by the non-western world (which amounts to over 70% of the world’s population at this point).

And most importantly, it is a VALID point.

Back to President Putin’s discussion with Carlson - President Putin makes the point that by the 9th century, Kievan Rus’ began to develop two centers of power, Kiev and Novgorod.

---

Today’s Belarus, Russia and Ukraine all recognize the people of Kievan Rus’, which was ruled by the Rurik Dynasty, as their cultural ancestors. [Kievan Rus existed from 880 to 1240.]

The next point is especially important, if not for Americans, for Russians and Ukrainians alike.

President Putin states: “The next, very significant date in the history of Russia, was 988. This was the Baptism of Russia, when Prince Vladimir, the great-grandson of Rurik, baptized Russia and adopted Orthodoxy, or Eastern Christianity. From this time the centralized Russian state began to strengthen. Why? Because of a single territory, integrated economic ties, one and the same language and, after the Baptism of Russia, the same faith and rule of the Prince. The centralized Russian state began to take shape.”

Prince Vladimir is known as Vladimir the Great and ruled as the Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev. It was Vladimir the Great who united the two centers of power, Kiev and Novgorod under a unified leadership. It is very significant that it is Vladimir the Great who adopted Orthodox/Eastern Christianity and baptised Russia since he is also recognized by the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people today as their great ancestral leader, whom they call Volodymyr the Great.

In fact, the far-right Ukrainian nationalists, use the symbol of the trident, also known as the tryzub, to signify the great reign of Volodymyr the Great from 1000 years ago.

 

For the far-right Ukrainian nationalists, Volodymyr the Great signifies the Golden Age of the pure Ukrainian race to which they aspire to return to and to which they believe they can achieve through ethnic cleansing. For more on this refer to my paper “How the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement Post-WWII was Bought and Paid for by the CIA.”

Chapter 5: How the Ukrainian Nationalist Movement Post-WWII was Bought and Paid for by the CIA

CYNTHIA CHUNG

·

JANUARY 6, 2023

[This is a chapter from my newly released book ‘The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set: the Birth of International Fascism and Anglo-American Foreign Policy.’ For further details on different formats and how to purchase click here.] The audio version of this chapter is available here.

Read full story

We can at least appreciate here how self-serving of a historical perspective this is coming from the far-right Ukrainian nationalists. How can Vladimir/Volodymyr the Great be both the great unifier creating a centralized Russian state, with the same religion and the same language, the Russian language, and yet also be a representative of a pure Ukrainian ethnicity which didn’t even exist as a concept then???

In President Putin emphasising that it was Vladimir the Great who baptised Russia, it is a clear message to the Ukrainian nationalists who think themselves entirely disconnected from the Russian heritage and bloodline, to the point that they wish to exterminate the Russian bloodline through their participation in Blood and Soil ideology -that they are in fact one with the Russian people. This is a strong message and it is underlined by the belief that there is a brotherhood here, and thus as President Putin said later on in the interview with Carlson, this is largely viewed as a civil war and not a war of one country invading another. For more on why President Putin thinks this way refer here.

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers: Why Does Ukraine Seem to Have So Many Nazis Nowadays?

CYNTHIA CHUNG

·

MARCH 26, 2022

 

---

In the history of civilization, Politics has more often than not, been a matter reduceable to the question of “whose side are you on?” Granted it is not an easy affair to discern what most-nearly approaches truth in the fog of “the present.” Hindsight is 20/20 they say, although that is also not entirely true, for the interpretation of history is just an…

Read full story

At this point, we should already appreciate in the discussion, less than 5 minutes in, that there is a long shared cultural heritage and history between Russia and Ukraine, and that they share a common father, Vladimir/Volodymyr the Great. Let us also remind ourselves that over 90% of Ukrainians spoke the Russian language in the 1990s, right after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and today at least 1/3 of the Ukrainian population is predominantly Russian speaking and identifies as Russian.

Kievan Rus’ would disintegrate during the Mongol invasion of the 1240s, however, different branches of the Rurik dynasty would continue to rule parts of Rus’ under the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia (modern-day Ukraine and Belarus), the Novgorod Republic (overlapping with modern-day Finland and Russia) and Vladimir-Suzdal (regarded as the cradle of the Great Russian language and nationality which evolved into the Grand Duchy of Moscow).

However, the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia soon fell under the vassalage of the Golden Horde, which was originally a Mongol and later Turkicized khanate originating as the northwestern section of the Mongol Empire.

President Putin states: “Back in the Middle Ages, Prince Yaroslav the Wise introduced the order of succession to the throne, but after he passed away, it became complicated for various reasons. The throne was passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the prince who had passed away to his brother, then to his sons in different lines. All this led to the fragmentation and the end of Rus as a single state. There was nothing special about it, the same was happening then in Europe. But the fragmented Russian state became an easy prey to the empire created earlier by Genghis Khan. His successors, namely, Batu Khan, came to Rus, plundered and ruined nearly all the cities. The southern part, including Kiev, by the way, and some other cities, simply lost independence, while northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty. They had to pay tribute to the Horde, but they managed to preserve some part of their sovereignty. And then a unified Russian state began to take shape with its centre in Moscow.”

---

The Golden Horde was the European section of the Mongol Empire shown in the above map in yellow. The region of Galicia-Volhynia, what today’s far-right Ukrainian nationalists identify as the cradle of their civilization would be among the first under Mongolian vassalage and lost all sovereignty.

The far-right Ukrainian nationalists view the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia as their legacy after the Golden Age of Kievan Rus’ but the sad reality is that this legacy began almost immediately under Mongolian vassalage and would only continue as an increasingly disempowered possession of empires that would in turn follow after the Mongol Empire.

It is also important to note here that the legacy of Vladimir the Great, who had created a unified Kievan Rus’ under one language - the Russian language, one religion - Eastern Orthodox Christianity and with distinct Russian cultural and economic ties, this legacy survived and was carried forward by Russia and its center went from Kiev and Novgorod to Moscow where it increasingly regained its sovereignty away from the Mongol Empire.

Thus, the legacy of Vladimir the Great survived through Russia’s ability to regain its sovereignty and never lose it completely to the Mongolian Empire.

The next empire the Galicia-Volhynia region would be subjected to (now split off from Russia) was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Again, in President Putin’s interview with Carlson, he is referring to the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia as part of Russia, “the southern part of the Russian lands, including Kiev” and he views this lost of sovereignty as a loss of sovereignty of a section of Russia that was taken over by the Mongol Empire, followed by the Lithuanian Empire which would later become the Polish-Lithuanian Empire. In other words, these Russian people were cut off from the rest of Russia due to the Mongol Empire and later the Polish-Lithuanian Empire.

It was during this rule by the Polish in particular and their attempt at “Polonization” of these subjected Russian people that many cruel abuses and injustices occurred. This is also why there was so much hatred towards the Polish people by Ukrainians who had decided to side with the Nazis during WWII and to which pogroms were conducted by the Ukrainian population against the Jewish and non-Jewish Polish population (for more on this refer here).

President Putin states: “During decades, the Poles were engaged in the ‘Polonization’ of this part of the population: they introduced their language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe (u kraya) they were ‘Ukrainians.’ Originally, the word ‘Ukrainian’ meant that a person was living on the outskirts of the state, near the fringe, or was engaged in border service. It didn't mean any particular ethnic group.

So, the Poles were trying in every possible way to polonize this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly. All that led to the fact that this part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw [in Poland] demanding that their rights be observed and that people be commissioned here, including to Kiev…”

It is very interesting what President Putin does next. He hands Tucker Carlson the documents from the archives, copies of letters from Bogdan Khmelnytsky to Warsaw, Poland demanding their rights be upheld.

Bogdan Khmelnytsky (1595-1657) was the military commander of the Cossacks and founder of the Cossack Hetmanate, also known as the Zaporozhian Host or the Army of Zaporozhia, the region that is now largely called Ukraine.

President Putin states: “Here are letters from Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the man who then controlled the power in this part of the Russian lands that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld, and after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. There are copies of these documents. I will leave them for your good memory. There is a translation into Russian, you can translate it into English later.

Russia would not agree to admit them straight away, assuming this would trigger a war with Poland. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Zemsky Sobor, which was a representative body of power of the Old Russian state, made the decision: those Old Russian lands became part of the Tsardom of Muscovy.

As expected, the war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, and then a truce was concluded. In all, after that act of 1654, 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland was concluded, “the eternal peace,” as it is said. And those lands, the whole left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, reverted to Russia, while the entire right bank of the Dnieper remained in possession of Poland.”

When Khmelnytsky’s letters demanding for the rights of the Cossacks to be upheld were ignored by Warsaw he formed the Pereiaslav Agreement, which was a pledge of allegiance by the Cossacks to the Tsar of Russia (then Alexis, who reigned from 1645-1676). The ceremony to this pledge was held in the town of Pereiaslav, what is now central Ukraine.

What this signified was that Khmelnytsky and his Cossack forces would defend the Steppe from not only the encroaching Polish-Lithuanian Empire but from the Ottoman Empire in return for Russia’s support and protection. Thus, the Cossacks would return to Russia and become a part of the Tsardom of Muscovy and were a sort of Spartan defender of the Steppe.

On a bit of a side note, Ilya Repin, a Russian painter considered one of the greatest painters in the world, would paint a well-known humorous depiction of the Cossacks reply to the offensive and derogatory demands of the Turkish Sultan. As the story goes, the Zaporozhian Cossacks (meaning from "beyond the rapids"), inhabiting the lands around the lower Dnieper River, had defeated Ottoman Empire forces in battle. However, despite the Sultan’s army having suffered this loss, he nonetheless demanded that the Cossacks submit to Ottoman rule! The Cossacks, led by Ivan Sirko during this time, replied in a characteristic manner: they wrote a letter, replete with insults and profanities. Ilya Repin’s painting exhibits the Cossacks' pleasure at striving to come up with ever more base vulgarities.

Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks by Ilya Repin, painted 1880-1891. In another funny side note, the territorial debate of what is Russian and what is Ukrainian does not stop with geography but continues in the debate of ownership of people, including Ilya Repin, who is now being recognised by one museum in Finland and one museum in the Netherlands as Ukrainian rather than Russian. Apparently it does not matter that he was raised within the Russian language, religion, education, culture and society more broadly, it is all about geography which as we can see is also not a very strong case of being free of Russian heritage. It also completely ignores the fact that the subjects Ilya Repin painted were Russian patriotic subjects, thus it makes no sense in attempting to sever him from the Russian heritage based on this fact alone. According to this viewpoint of denying Ilya Repin as Russian, which is rather contrarian - Ilya Repin is to be regarded as a great non-Russian painter who painted beautiful paintings about Russian life and Russian subjects….hmmm. Doesn’t quite work does it?

This is again a very significant story of the Cossacks as defenders of Russia, ultimately to be integrated into the lands of Russia since the Ukrainians, most notably the far-right Ukrainian nationalists view Khmelnytsky as a major heroic figure in Ukrainian nationalist history. Yet how can one view the significance of Khmelnytsky as detached or even opposed to that of Russia? You cannot, and yet this is what is being attempted in the rewriting of history today.

Recall that President Putin says “Nevertheless, in 1654, the Zemsky Sobor, which was a representative body of power of the Old Russian state, made the decision: those Old Russian lands” defended by the Cossacks “became part of the Tsardom of Muscovy.”

It is for this reason that President Putin I think went through the trouble of giving copies of these letters to Carlson, which clearly confused many American viewers if not Carlson himself, as to its significance. Putin wanted to put this evidence of Khmelnytsky’s intention and actions on record as a historical fact. To remember that the Cossacks came to ask for Russian help against the abuses of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire and were shortly after integrated into Russia, having been old lands of Russia to begin with. Again recall, this is largely the region that is known as Ukraine today. This land was again recognised as Russian when the peace settlement between Russia and Poland took place. Thus, the lands which would only come to be known as Ukraine much later, are quite clearly a part of Russian lands in a lawful and voluntary way by the 17th century.

Thus, after centuries of being subjugated by the Mongol Empire and later the Polish-Lithuanian Empire, these subjugated lands originally from Kievan Rus’, returned under the protection of Russia whom it holds a common father with, and thus common origin and heritage.

After all, it is not just a western audience that is viewing this historical interview. Much of the eastern European population who hold a strong dislike towards President Putin and likely have also never taken the time to hear him speak at length, will likely do so if it is initiated by a large western media platform, and that is exactly what has happened. President Putin is thus also very much speaking to the people of Eastern Europe who have yet to listen and not just to Americans in this interview.

President Putin goes on to state: “Under the rule of Catherine the Great, Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west. This all lasted until the Revolution. Before World War I, Austrian General Staff relied on the ideas of Ukrainianization and started actively promoting the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainianization. Their motive was obvious. Just before World War I they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure themselves favourable conditions in the border area. So the idea which had emerged in Poland that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians, but rather belonged to a special ethnic group, Ukrainians, started being propagated by the Austrian General Staff.”

Thus, this idea of a bloodline and heritage that was detached from being Russian was again promoted for political reasons.

President Putin goes into the relevant history of the 20th century continuing this thread, which if people would like to read more of this from myself can refer here and here.

Chapter 6: Operation Gladio: How NATO Conducted a Secret War Against European Citizens and Their Democratically Elected Governments

CYNTHIA CHUNG

·

OCTOBER 1, 2022

[This is a chapter from my newly released book ‘The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set: the Birth of International Fascism and Anglo-American Foreign Policy.’ For further details on different formats and how to purchase click here.] The audio version of this chapter is available here.

Read full story

It is important to note here, since the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is always discussed without any historical context and is also often intentionally misrepresented, that it was a decision made by Russia that was its very last resort since the West had abandoned Russia and essentially desired to feed her to the dogs. Russia merely tried to buy time.

On March 18^th 1939 at Stalin’s direction Litvinov, Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, proposed that France, Britain, Poland, Russia, Romania and Turkey join together at a conference to draw up a treaty to stop Hitler. Chamberlain was strongly against the idea, writing to a friend: “I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives.”

On April 14^th 1939, Lord Halifax, British Foreign Minister said that Britain would not extend an alliance to Russia in case Germany were to attack. Russia was clearly being told to go at it alone.

On April 16^th 1939, Stalin had Litvinov propose to Sir William Seeds the British ambassador, that Russia, France and Britain make a pact that would bind their three countries to declare war on Germany if they or any nation between the Baltic and the Mediterranean were attacked. Great Britain and France refused.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed August 23rd, 1939, is what has gone down in history in notoriety. However, an important fact is often left out which completely changes the character of the popular interpretation of the Soviet compromise with Nazism, that this notorious pact was signed a full 11 months after UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the appeasement deal with Hitler on September 30th, 1938, known as the Munich Agreement (aka the Munich Betrayal).

Historian Alex Krainer writes:

“The story we were taught in school was that the British government agreed to partition Czechoslovakia only as a desperate measure to avoid a greater European war. This view is based on the idea that Germany was already an overwhelming military power that could easily crush Czechoslovakia’s weak defenses. However, this idea is patently false.

…Created in 1919, Czechoslovakia was the most prosperous, most democratic, most powerful and best administered of the states that emerged from the Habsburg Empire… the idea that the Germans had a military advantage and that Czech’s security was weak were both fabrications of a sustained propaganda campaign, which was orchestrated by the British media and government representatives to mislead the British and European public…

In terms of quality, armaments and fortifications, the Czech army was known to be the best in Europe and was superior to the German army in every way except for air support. On September 3rd, 1938, the British military attaché in Prague wrote a cable to London, stating: ‘There are no shortcomings in the Czech army, as far as I have been able to observe…’

In addition, Czech security was supported by strategic alliances with France and the Soviet Union both of whom were at that time very keen on holding Germany in check and both of whom were significantly superior to Germany in terms of military strength.”

That is, Czechoslovakia did in fact capitulate without resistance, but this was not because her defenses were weak. Rather, it was because her government had been given false promises and was ultimately played in favour of Germany by the treacherous scheming of Britain’s secret diplomacy. Lord Halifax, who was quoted earlier, was among the leading British negotiators of the Munich Agreement.

The Munich Agreement allowed Hitler’s Germany to acquire Czechoslovakia’s superior army and transformed Germany into a colossal military threat that would be much more difficult to defeat. Germany had been allowed to become an ultra-supreme force through direct British intervention.

It was only 11 months later that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed by the Russians as a means to forestall what was clearly the inevitable; a German attack on Russian soil, with the backing of Britain and France. In addition, the Bank of England (BoE) and the Bank of International Settlements, through BoE Governor Montague Norman, allowed for the direct transfer of 5.6 million pounds worth of gold to Hitler that was owned by the Bank of Czechoslovakia.

Questionable actions from England indeed.

You can watch Alex Krainer’s lecture to the Rising Tide Foundation here on this subject.

President Putin states: “So before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler and although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler. As the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany, and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on 1 September 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.

By the way, the USSR — I have read some archive documents — behaved very honestly. It asked Poland’s permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet planes flew over Poland, they would be downed over the territory of Poland. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the war began, and Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia, as under the well-known Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, part of that territory, including western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia. Thus Russia, which was then named the USSR, regained its historical lands [under the leadership of Stalin].

After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call World War II, all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to Russia, to the USSR. As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation, the lands which had originally being German: the eastern parts of Germany (these are now western lands of Poland). Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic sea, and Danzig, which was once again given its Polish name. So this was how this situation developed.

In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.

…For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And, again for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine; and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever.”

Thus, rather ironically, the recognition of a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine, which was recognised as Russian under Catherine the Great and earlier, was instigated by Lenin himself, though this region was still considered under the greater USSR.

This does throw a bit of a wrench into the Ukrainian nationalist idea that their independence has rather been oppressed by Soviet rule, when in fact it was the Soviets themselves who created the semi-autonomous region to begin with. This is also what happened in the case of Crimea by the way, Crimea was given to the Ukrainian-USSR by Nikita Khrushchev, a population that was and is to this day ethnic Russian and Russian speaking. Crimea was also an important geostrategic location and was where Russia has always historically had a naval base stationed. Such decisions are highly questionable and one wonders if they were made free of western interference, nonetheless, we can see such decisions were so unnatural that they are now reverting back to the old geographical borders. Crimea has returned to Russia and eastern Ukraine has also largely returned to Russia of their own voluntary accord.

President Putin states: “The Soviet Ukraine was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point, when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo-Turkish wars, they were called ‘New Russia’ or Novorossiya. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR, and for unknown reasons again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization. It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet republics. This involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not bad in principle. That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created.

After World War II, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania (today known as Western Ukraine). So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Ukraine and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin’s will.”

President Putin continues: “Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. And everything that Russia had generously bestowed on Ukraine was dragged away by the latter.

…The second point is a very important one. I want you as an American citizen and your viewers to hear about this as well. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and therefore there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed, voluntarily and proactively, to the collapse of the Soviet Union and believed that this would be understood by the so-called civilized West as an invitation for cooperation and associateship. That is what Russia was expecting both from the United States and the so-called collective West as a whole.”

Recall that in 2007 President Putin gave a now famous speech at the Munich Security Conference. In this speech he discussed the fallacy of a unipolar world order envisioned by NATO and that there can only exist a multipolar world at this stage in history:

“This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that ‘security for one is security for all.’ As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: ‘When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.’

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.”

Due to the length of this essay, for those who wish to know more about how the developments leading up to the Ukraine war occurred and why Russia feels justified for its actions and regards this as a civil war refer to my papers here and here where I have written about this subject extensively and is in agreement with President Putin’s outline in his interview with Carlson.

Chapter 14: Sleepwalking Into Fascism: Why CIA/NATO’s Foreign Policy Has Been Consistent for the Past 77 years

CYNTHIA CHUNG

·

JANUARY 8, 2023

[This is a chapter from my newly released book ‘The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set: the Birth of International Fascism and Anglo-American Foreign Policy.’ For further details on different formats and how to purchase click here.] The audio version of this chapter is available here.

Read full story

Also for those who would like to know more about what exactly happened in the Canadian Parliament in saluting an actual Nazi during Zelensky’s visit refer here:

Are We Really to Believe that the Canadian Government Isn’t In Fact a Pro-Nazi Establishment?

CYNTHIA CHUNG

·

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

By Cynthia Chung Yet another “deeply embarrassing” scandal for the Canadian government, this time involving a 98-year old Ukrainian Nazi who received a standing ovation in the Canadian Parliament during Ukrainian President Zelensky’s address this past Friday, on September 22, 2023. Hmmm, coincidence?

Read full story

It is during this next part of the interview that it gets particularly interesting considering Tucker Carlson had released just days before his visit to Moscow, his incredibly irresponsible interview with Mr. Square-Head aka Mr. Conjecture, Bret Weinstein who appeared to live more in his imagination than anything partaking in reality or an understanding of basic geopolitics and history during his entire interview with Carlson.

I am going to go on a mini-rant about this since, well, it was Tucker Carlson who agreed to this and aired it, again, only days before his talk with President Putin so I think it is relevant to discuss this here in relationship to the interview with President Putin which was conducted it seems at least partially with a wishful hoping that President Putin would want to be courted. As President Putin responded himself to Carlson’s retort that he sounds “bitter” about Anglo-America’s refusal to invite Russia into NATO. President Putin responded with: “You said I was bitter about the answer. No, it's not bitterness, it's just a statement of fact. We're not the bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it's not about those kinds of matters in such circumstances.”

Carlson again repeats that he think President Putin is bitter in his aftermath of the interview back at his hotel room. It is as if Carlson really wants to believe, and wants whoever is watching to believe President Putin is “bitter” about the West’s treatment of him since this gives the impression that President Putin would still like to be invited into the club. This is truly a case of being deaf-blind-and dumb if anyone is to believe this fairy-tale at this point. That Russia would be so foolish as to forsake its alliance with China in favor of being the West’s favourite pet. Good grief!

Is Carlson not aware that President Putin in a recent speech had referred to those Russian oligarchs who betrayed Russia, those that were connected to Moscow on the Thames within the City of London - President Putin referred to these traitors as “Those who would sell their grandmothers to be given the opportunity to sit in the halls of their masters.” Paraphrasing here, but that was essentially what he said. Does that sound like a guy that wants to be courted by the West?

Days before Carlson’s interview with President Putin, Bret reports on the Tucker Carlson show of a “hostile” Chinese presence, backed by the Chinese government, stationed in Panama that is according to Bret and his “tour-guide” Green Beret Michael Yon somehow responsible for funneling an unknown number of migrants into the United States, and hinting at a possible Chinese military take-over of the country. Bret and Michael have yet to show any actual evidence for the incredible level of fear-mongering they are stirring up (as with much that has gone down the memory hole, we are supposed to regard Green Berets as something patriotic and not actually part of some of the most sinister activities within the Vietnam War and Operation Gladio more broadly).

Bret apparently became convinced of this general outlook (let’s be honest here, if he was not, he would not have come onto Carlson’s show in the first place to share his thoughts with millions of viewers) after he saw about 100, yes you heard right - sound the Paul Revere alarm!!! A gigantic horde made up of 100 Asian people in an unidentified camp who refused to talk to him, not realising maybe it had something to do with the fact that his tour-guide was a Green Beret who was refused entry into China during the CIA directed Hong Kong color revolution in 2019. After of course their productive coup in the Maidan in 2014, to which President Putin directly brings up in his interview with Carlson - that it was the CIA who orchestrated the Maidan coup. President Putin also brings up the fact that Tucker Carlson had made an application to the CIA, but we are told, was rejected…

Bret uses this observation of 100 people, who he was denied access to and who refused to talk to him, which he in turn concludes as “hostile" based on these two facts alone, as the basis for a one hour trip into the imaginary meanderings of someone who has absolutely no knowledge of what he is speaking about and making conjecture after conjecture as if he were on the Nature channel trying to read the body behaviours of tent-making bats, attempting to decipher their numerous body gesticulations as signs of hostility towards American freedom!

Yet Bret found no contradiction in his romantic description of his experience studying tent-making bats for the Smithsonian Institute stationed in, if not nearby, the American military base in Panama at the time, which was an unforgettable experience which he described quite warmly reminiscing about his stay at the American military base. Apparently only Americans can station military bases throughout the world and this is a great thing. But a grouping of 100 Asians in Panama who refused to talk to you is justification to sound the Paul Revere alarm to millions of Carlson viewers…

This is rather disturbing considering John Perkins in his very well-known book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” describes how the President of Panama, Omar Torrijos, was assassinated by U.S. agents for opposing the interests of the Anglo-American owners of Panama’s foreign debt, something that I think Perkins makes a pretty solid case for and was directly implicated in as an economic hit-man to Panama.

Thus, Panama was essentially an occupied country by the United States during Bret’s first stay in Panama, which he seems completely oblivious to, or maybe he was aware and prefers Panama this way…

John Perkins begins his preface in his “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” with:

“ ‘Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development ( USAID), and other foreign ‘aid’ organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization. I should know; I was an EHM.’

I wrote that in 1982, as the beginning of a book with the working title, Conscience of an Economic Hit Man. The book was dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been my clients, whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits — Jaime Roldos, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We EHMs failed to bring Roldos and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.

I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989, the first Gulf War, Somalia, the rise of Osama bin Laden. However, threats or bribes always convinced me to stop.”

But Perkins would eventually write the book, and his love and respect for the man Omar Torrijos, a man Perkins personally knew and referred to as “the hero of modern Panama” was strongly felt.

As with most people who disagree with the United States, Torrijos was labeled a dictator, however, Perkins describes the man as a true leader of the Panama people who courageously fought for their welfare and a more prosperous future. How is Bret not even seemingly aware, or at least in complete disregard to Perkin’s well-known accounts of such economic assassinations let alone the fact that Panama was an occupied country during his visit? And yet he encouraged the idea that he held some sort of special relationship and insight into Panama dynamics, including its politics and the thoughts of the people??? I think not.

Bret goes on to disgustingly dismiss the idea that a bridge he visited that crosses from Panama to the Darien Gap that connects with Columbia could possibly be for connecting the two regions together for, here is a crazy thought, an economic benefit in trade.

 

Bret refers to this bridge as the “bridge to nowhere” and writes in his Twitter feed that in his recent trip with Michael Yon to Panama, he was taken to Yaviza where a bridge is being built extending the Pan American highway into the Darien gap. Yes, apparently highways are also not acceptable in Bret’s view of what Panamanians are allowed to build.

Bridges bad, check. Highways bad, check. Chinese build bridges and highways, check. Thus, Chinese must be planning an invasion of the United States, check.

Who could argue with such airtight facts?

What is yet another level of disgusting in this whole narrative, is that Panama was once a part of Columbia until American colonization. Perkins writes in his “Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man”:

“Panama was part of Colombia when the French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps, who directed construction of the Suez Canal, decided to build a canal through the Central American isthmus, to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Beginning in 1881, the French undertook a mammoth effort that met with one catastrophe after another. Finally, in 1889, the project ended in financial disaster —but it had inspired a dream in Theodore Roosevelt. During the first years of the twentieth century, the United States demanded that Colombia sign a treaty turning the isthmus over to a North American consortium. Colombia refused.

In 1903, President Roosevelt sent in the U.S. warship Nashville. U.S. soldiers landed, seized and killed a popular local militia commander, and declared Panama an independent nation. A puppet government was installed and the first Canal Treaty was signed; it established an American zone on both sides of the future waterway, legalized U.S. military intervention, and gave Washington virtual control over this newly formed "independent" nation.

Interestingly, the treaty was signed by U.S. Secretary of State Hay and a French engineer, Philippe Bunau-Varilla, who had been part of the original team, but it was not signed by a single Panamanian. In essence, Panama was forced to leave Colombia in order to serve the United States, in a deal struck by an American and a Frenchman — in retrospect, a prophetic beginning.”

Apparently Bret, who is supposed to know some basic facts about Panama also left this big detail out, is he even aware? Within this context, how can one think they hold the moral ground and say Panama and Columbia should not be interconnected with each other? Two regions that were the same people sharing the same culture and heritage until the Americans created a forceful divide at the turn of the 20th century?

In fact, China has also built thus far three bridges and is working on a fourththat cross-over the Panama Canal. These are projects that have clearly been approved by the Panama government. Yet, Bret dismisses this explanation of economic development as almost irrelevant and can only see a sinister motive here. Bret even admits that he thinks Panama should ask the permission of the United States to build these bridges and highways!!!

Bret admits that it is HIS OWN GOVERNMENT ultimately who is allowing these migrants in, but does not bother to ponder this reality further and goes on to conclude that it must be due to Chinese infiltration with absolutely no evidence, not even evidence to showcase that the migrants who travel through Panama from South America are in fact entering the United States but there is at least a great deal of encouragement to do so inside Panama according to Bret from…the United States government!!! Hmmm. And this is why Panama cannot economically develop and work with China?!?!?!?!

We can almost hear Bret wish outloud for the good old days when the Americans had an actual military base stationed in Panama and where nothing crossed the Panamal Canal without their approval. The good ol’ days when its CIA jackals roamed the plains freely and Bret studied the mating rituals of tent-making bats.

My apologies if my hard criticism offends some people since Bret has done some good work on the C*VID front, however, this is just another example of those who fought hard for freedom in their country but ultimately were about putting one’s own liberty at the forefront of others, that is American liberty. Bret has clearly shown that he is not concerned with the liberty of non-Americans in this interview.

But I digress, back to the interview with President Putin…

After just a few days of this circus monkey interview with Bret, Carlson travels to Moscow to speak with President Putin. One almost wonders if this was done on purpose, as a way of pretending like Russia and China are not each other’s greatest allies and economic partners.

Carlson says: “Well, of course, it did come true [NATO’s expansion], and you’ve mentioned it many times. I think, it’s a fair point. And many in America thought that relations between Russia and United States would be fine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, at the core. But the opposite happened. But have never explained why you think that happened, except to say that the West fears a strong Russia. But we have a strong China that the West doesn’t seem to be very afraid of. What about Russia, what do you think convinced the policymakers to take it down?”

Yes, Carlson had the audacity to say to President Putin that Americans are not afraid of a strong China. Wow… What is Carlson thinking he is accomplishing by this amnesiac comment? This just days after Bret’s fear mongering interview that set millions of Americans into a crazed anti-China frenzy?!?! It is at this point that President Putin makes it crystal clear where Russia stands concerning China, and how he views China’s intentions.

President Putin states: “The West is afraid of a strong China more than it fears a strong Russia because Russia has 150 million people, and China has a 1.5 billion population, and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds — over five percent a year, it used to be even more. But that's enough for China. As Bismark once put it, potentials are most important. China's potential is enormous — it is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy. It has already overtaken the United States, quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid clip.

Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom, let's not reason in such terms.

Before President Putin returns to his discussion about China, he goes on to discuss the developments of the bombing of Yugoslavia that was done by NATO and the Americans in violation of international law and the UN Charter. For those who would like to read more on this story refer here.

This is one of the greatest humanitarian crises that was caused by NATO and the United States less than 25 years ago that was completely unjustified in the level of mayhem and death it inflicted on the Yugoslavian people. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a result was divided into seven regions, many areas continue to suffer from ongoing war and strife. As President Putin stated the cause of the Serbian people is an especially sympathetic one.

President Putin states: “Remember the developments in Yugoslavia, before that Yeltsin was lavished with praise, as soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in support of Serbs, and we couldn't but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex processes underway there, I do. But Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs, because Serbs are also a special and close to us nation, with Orthodox culture and so on. It's a nation that has suffered so much for generations. Well, regardless, what is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support. What did the United States do? In violation of international law and the UN Charter it started bombing Belgrade.”

President Putin explains how the United States attempted to destroy the Russian economy and thought Russia would not be able to survive economic warfare with the United States.

However, it is in fact Russia who has clearly come out on top in the economic war with the U.S. which Carlson himself does not deny.

President Putin states: “Look at what is going on in the world. Even the United States' allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves. Seeing this, everyone starts looking for ways to protect themselves. But the fact that the United States applies restrictive measures to certain countries, such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing assets, etc., causes grave concern and sends a signal to the whole world.

What did we have here? Until 2022, about 80 per cent of Russia's foreign trade transactions were made in US dollars and euros. US dollars accounted for approximately 50 per cent of our transactions with third countries, while currently it is down to 13 per cent. It was not us who banned the use of the US dollar, we had no such intention. It was the decision of the United States to restrict our transactions in US dollars. I think it is a complete foolishness from the point of view of the interests of the United States itself and its tax payers, as it damages the US economy, undermines the power of the United States across the world.

By the way, our transactions in Yuan accounted for about 3 per cent. Today, 34 per cent of our transactions are made in Rubles, and about as much, a little over 34 per cent, in Yuan.

Why did the United States do this? My only guess is self-conceit. They probably thought it would lead to a full collapse, but nothing collapsed. Moreover, other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in yuan. Do you even realize what is going on or not? Does anyone in the United States realize this? What are you doing? You are cutting yourself off… all experts say this. Ask any intelligent and thinking person in the United States what the dollar means for the US? You are killing it with your own hands.

Carlson responds: “I think that is a fair assessment. The question is what comes next? And maybe you trade one colonial power for another, much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power? Is the BRICS, for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the Chinese economy? In a way that is not good for their sovereignty. Do you worry about that?”

Here Carlson actually has the audacity to refer to China as not only a colonial power, but a “much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power” than the United States, while admitting that his own country is an actual colonial power.

President Putin responds to this accusation of China with: “We have heard those boogeyman stories before. It is a boogeyman story. We are neighbours with China. You cannot choose neighbours, just as you cannot choose close relatives. We share a border of 1000 kilometers with them. This is number one.

Second, we have a centuries-long history of coexistence, we are used to it.

Third, China's foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive, its idea is to always look for compromise, and we can see that.

The next point is as follows. We are always told the same boogeyman story, and here it goes again, though in a euphemistic form, but it is still the same bogeyman story: [yet] the cooperation with China keeps increasing. The pace at which China's cooperation with Europe is growing is higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese-Russian cooperation. Ask Europeans: aren’t they afraid? They might be, I do not know, but they are still trying to access China's market at all costs, especially now that they are facing economic problems. Chinese businesses are also exploring the European market.

Do Chinese businesses have small presence in the United States? Yes, the political decisions are such that they are trying to limit their cooperation with China.

[leans in and looks straight at Carlson]

It is to your own detriment, Mr Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China, you are hurting yourself. It is a delicate matter, and there are no silver bullet solutions, just as it is with the dollar.

So, before introducing any illegitimate sanctions — illegitimate in terms of the Charter of the United Nations — one should think very carefully. For decision-makers, this appears to be a problem.”

I think the message is pretty clear here from President Putin. “China’s foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive, its idea is to always look for compromise, and we can see that.” That does not sound like the actions of a colonial power does it?

American viewers, who are being encouraged by such media outlets like the Tucker Carlson show, to view the Chinese as non-human, soulless boogey-men should take note here. President Putin has made it crystal clear that he, who should know China much better than the Americans since Russia is not only neighbours with China and has a long historical relationship but also because President Putin is quite experienced in intelligence gathering.

In other words, he would know if such boogey-men stories were true or not. He is explicitly stating they are not true. If Americans want to regard President Putin as someone wise and genuine, they cannot discount these words.

Carlson than goes on to ask another question, and it is here that President Putin makes the point that he was not done answering the previous question concerning China and goes on to further emphasize his positive relationship with China.

President Putin states: “I will tell you. But let me finish the previous thought. We, together with my colleague and friend President Xi Jinping, set a goal to reach 200 billion dollars of mutual trade with China this year. We have exceeded this level. According to our figures, our bilateral trade with China totals already 230 billion, and the Chinese statistics says it is 240 billion dollars.

One more important thing: our trade is well-balanced, mutually complementary in high-tech, energy, scientific research and development. It is very balanced.

As for BRICS, where Russia took over the presidency this year, the BRICS countries are, by and large, developing very rapidly.

Look, if memory serves me right, back in 1992, the share of the G7 countries in the world economy amounted to 47 per cent, whereas in 2022 it was down to, I think, a little over 30 per cent. The BRICS countries accounted for only 16 per cent in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7. It has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This is due to the trends of global development and world economy that I mentioned just now, and this is inevitable. This will keep happening, it is like the rise of the sun — you cannot prevent the sun from rising, you have to adapt to it. How do the United States adapt? With the help of force: sanctions, pressure, bombings, and use of armed forces.

This is about self-conceit. Your political establishment does not understand that the world is changing (under objective circumstances), and in order to preserve your level — even if someone aspires, pardon me, to the level of dominance — you have to make the right decisions in a competent and timely manner.

Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia and, say, other countries, are counterproductive. This is an obvious fact; it has already become evident.

…It is not about the personality of the leader [referring to American leader], it is about the elites’ mindset. If the idea of domination at any cost, based also on forceful actions, dominates the American society, nothing will change, it will only get worse. But if, in the end, one comes to the awareness that the world has been changing due to objective circumstances, and that one should be able to adapt to them in time, using the advantages that the U.S. still has today, then, perhaps, something may change.

Look, China's economy has become the first economy in the world in purchasing power parity; in terms of volume it overtook the US a long time ago. The USA comes second, then India (one and a half billion people), and then Japan, with Russia in the fifth place. Russia was the first economy in Europe last year, despite all the sanctions and restrictions. Is this normal, from your point of view: sanctions, restrictions, impossibility of payments in dollars, being cut off from SWIFT services, sanctions against our ships carrying oil, sanctions against airplanes, sanctions in everything, everywhere? The largest number of sanctions in the world which are applied – are applied against Russia. And we have become Europe's first economy during this time.

The tools that the US uses don't work. Well, one has to think about what to do. If this realization comes to the ruling elites, then yes, then the first person of the state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the people who make decisions at various levels expect from this person. Then maybe something will change.”

I think that suffices as the overall message President Putin wished to make to an American audience, whether the Americans have the capability to understand this remains to be determined. Either way President Putin has made it clear, whether the United States wishes to adapt or not to the changing world, a multipolar world, the world will continue on with or without the participation of the United States whose use of brute force in war and economics has finally rendered itself “useless.”

Also watch for free our RTF Docu-Series “Escaping Calypso’s Island: A Journey Out of Our Green Delusion” and our CP Docu-Series “The Hidden Hand Behind UFOs”.