Putin Explains Russia’s Syrian Policy

horiz-long grey
Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) talks to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a session of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, September 15, 2015. Putin on Tuesday said Russia would help Tajikistan ensure stability after gun battles killed more than 20 people this month, stoking fears of religious-related unrest in the ex-Soviet state. REUTERS/Mikhail Klimentyev/RIA Novosti/Kremlin ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. IT IS DISTRIBUTED, EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) talks to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a session of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, September 15, 2015. Putin on Tuesday said Russia would help Tajikistan ensure stability after gun battles killed more than 20 people this month, stoking fears of religious-related unrest in the ex-Soviet state. REUTERS/Mikhail Klimentyev/RIA Novosti/Kremlin


 

Alexander Mercouris

summit meeting of Eurasian States in the Tajik capital Dushanbe has provided Putin with a platform to set out Russia’s position on the Syrian crisis.

As is often the case with Putin’s speeches, the Western media has barely reported it. Instead there continues to be the usual ill-informed speculation “about what Russia is doing in Syria”, founded on farfetched claims of grand Russian geopolitical strategies spiced up with false reports of Russian military activity.

In essence what Putin is saying is very simple: the Islamic State is an existential threat to everyone and all those involved in the Syrian civil war should put aside their differences and their geopolitical strategies to combine against it.

To that end Putin proposes a revival of what is in essence the peace plan to bring an end to the Syrian conflict proposed by Kofi Annan at the Geneva Conference in 2012 – that there should be negotiations between the Syrian factions to set up a power sharing government until a final settlement of the conflict can be agreed.

As Putin points out, Assad has accepted this proposal (“President Assad is ready to involve the moderate segment of the opposition forces in these processes, in managing the state”).

At the same time Putin restates that Russia will continue to provide the Syrian military with the supplies it needs to sustain itself, though he is careful to say that this is “necessary military technology assistance” – not (so far) active involvement in the fighting by the Russian military. Putin does not rule that possibility out but it is clear he only envisages it taking place as part of a broad international coalition against the Islamic State.

Above all Putin remains adamantly opposed to regime change. He points out that it is the West’s relentless pursuit of regime change that has destabilized the entire region, and which has caused the refugee exodus.

Besides, as Putin points out, defeating the Islamic State “….without active participation by the Syrian authorities and military, without participation by the Syrian army, as the soldiers fighting with the Islamic State say….” makes no sense at all.

As we have discussed previously, this is the Russian position.

If defeating the Islamic State is indeed the overriding priority, then Putin’s logic cannot be faulted.

The problem is – as has become very clear over the last few weeks – for the US and for the other members of the regime change coalition it is not.

It seems that for them overthrowing the government of President Assad remains the priority.

As the falsity of the claims of direct Russian military action in Syria became too strong to argue away, the Western government and media emphasis has shifted over the last few days to claims that the Russians are instead focusing on building a military presence in Syria, possibly as some sort of bargaining tool.

horiz-long greyPutin remains adamantly opposed to regime change. He points out that it is the West’s relentless pursuit of regime change that has destabilized the entire region, and which has caused the refugee exodus.


 

There has been much talk – including production of satellite photographs – concerning Russian construction of an air base in Latakia. There has also been talk of the deployment of advanced T90 tanks and S300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. The US has also made attempts to prevent the flight of Russian cargo planes to Syria, which the Russians claim are carrying humanitarian supplies but which the US thinks – or wants people to think – are in reality carrying weapons.

It is certainly possible – and even likely – that in the face of the crisis caused by the rise of the Islamic State the Russians have stepped up their military supplies to Syria.

However some of the claims that are now being made do not look especially compelling.
The Russian presence in Latakia for example is nothing new. The Russians have long maintained a listening station there, and it makes sense in view of the deteriorating situation to extend the nearby airstrip and to deploy a small number of troops to secure it.

Whilst it is just possible the Russians are indeed establishing some sort of bridgehead, the Russian moves are equally consistent with precautionary steps for a possible hurried evacuation of the personnel manning the facility in case of a further deterioration of the situation, and this frankly looks like a more plausible explanation of what we are seeing.

As for the deployment of S300 missiles in Syria, no evidence of such a deployment exists, and these reports are certainly false. {Not to mention that Syria and Russia would be perfectly justified to introduce what are essentially defensive weapons against an aggressive enemy constantly threatening obliteration by land, air and sea.—Eds.]

In the light of Putin’s comments it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, as we discussed previously, the disinformation campaign about the Russian military build-up in Syria is intended to discredit the current Russian diplomatic initiative before it properly gets going, rather than because of any genuine concerns that the Russian military presence in Syria is increasing.

Whether that is so or not, the alarm expressed in Western capitals about the Russian military presence in Syria is nothing short of extraordinary.

Putin is surely right that the Islamic State poses a danger to everyone and that the way to deal with it is to combine against it. That this logic is being so vehemently resisted is bizarre and frankly tragic, and shows how fixated with their geopolitical plans Western leaders have become.

The following are extracts from a speech made by Putin in Dushanbe taken from Russia’s Presidential website:

“I mentioned the situation in Syria and Iraq; they are the same as the situation in Afghanistan, in that they worry all of us. Please allow me to say a few words on the situation in this region, the situation around Syria.

The state of affairs there is very serious. The so-called Islamic State controls significant stretches of territory in Iraq and Syria. Terrorists are already publicly stating that they have targets set on Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. Their plans include expanding activities to Europe, Russia, Central and Southeast Asia.

We are concerned by this, especially since militants undergoing ideological indoctrinations and military training by ISIS come from many nations around the world – including, unfortunately, European nations, the Russian Federation, and many former Soviet republics. And, of course, we are concerned by their possible return to our territories.

Basic common sense and a sense of responsibility for global and regional security require the international community to join forces against this threat. We need to set aside geopolitical ambitions, leave behind so-called double standards and the policy of direct or indirect use of individual terrorist groups to achieve one’s own opportunistic goals, including changes in undesirable governments and regimes.

As you know, Russia has proposed rapidly forming a broad coalition to counteract the extremists. It must unite everyone who is prepared to make, or is already making, an input into fighting terrorism, just as Iraq and Syria’s armed forces are doing today. We support the Syrian government – I want to say this – in countering terrorist aggression. We provide and will continue to provide the necessary military technology assistance and urge other nations to join in.

Clearly, without active participation by the Syrian authorities and military, without participation by the Syrian army, as the soldiers fighting with the Islamic State say, you cannot expel terrorists from this nation, as well as the region overall, it is impossible to protect the multi-ethnic and multi-faith people of Syria from elimination, enslavement and barbarism.

Of course, it is imperative to think about the political changes in Syria. And we know that President Assad is ready to involve the moderate segment of the opposition, the healthy opposition forces in these processes, in managing the state. But the need to join forces in the fight against terrorism is certainly at the forefront today. Without this, it is impossible to resolve the other urgent and growing problems, including the problem of refugees we are seeing now.

Incidentally, we are seeing something else: we are currently seeing attempts to practically put the blame on Russia for this problem, for its occurrence. As if the refugee problem grew because Russia supports the legitimate government in Syria.

First of all, I would like to note that the people of Syria are, first and foremost, fleeing the fighting, which is mostly due to external factors as a result of supplies of arms and other specialized equipment. People are feeling the atrocities of the terrorists. We know that they are committing atrocities there, that they are sacrificing people, destroying cultural monuments as I already mentioned, and so on. They are fleeing the radicals, first and foremost. And if Russia had not supported Syria, the situation in that nation would have been even worse than in Libya, and the flow of refugees would be even greater.

Second, the support of the legitimate government in Syria is not in any way related to the flow of refugees from nations like Libya, which I already mentioned, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and many others. We were not the ones that destabilised the situation in those nations, in whole regions of the world. We did not destroy government institutions there, creating power vacuums that were immediately filled by terrorists. So nobody can say that we were the cause of this problem.

But right now, as I said, we need to focus on joining forces between the Syrian government, the Kurdish militia, the so-called moderate opposition, and nations in the region to fight the threat against Syria’s very statehood and the fight against terrorism – so that together, with our efforts combined, we can solve this problem…” —(V. Putin, President of Russia)

horiz-long grey

ABOUT ALEXANDER MERCOURIS

Alexander is a writer on international affairs with a special interest in Russia and law.  He has written extensively on the legal aspects of NSA spying and events in Ukraine in terms of human rights, constitutionality and international law.  He worked for 12 years in the Royal Courts of Justice in London as a lawyer, specializing in human rights and constitutional law.

His family has been prominent in Greek politics for several generations.  He is a frequent commentator on television and speaker at conferences.  He resides in London.

Screen Shot 2015-08-22 at 7.41.15 PM

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

Statue-of-Liberty-crying-628x356
horiz-black-wide






Big Lie: U.S. Allies with Saudis ‘Because We’re Addicted to Their Oil’

Eric Zuessehoriz-long grey

Salman, the new Saudi King.

Salman, the new Saudi King.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n Syria and elsewhere, the U.S. allies with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations that back or even install ISIS and Al Qaeda Islamic jihadists, even while the U.S. wages war against those jihadists. This has puzzled some people, because the U.S. propaganda-line about the matter doesn’t make much sense.
 …
For example, the “Billionaire Scion Tom Friedman” (more about him below) wrote in his NYT  column, on September 2nd:
 …
It is not an accident that several thousand Saudis have joined the Islamic State or that Arab Gulf charities have sent ISIS donations. It is because all these Sunni jihadist groups — ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Nusra Front — are the ideological offspring of the Wahhabism injected by Saudi Arabia into mosques and madrasas from Morocco to Pakistan to Indonesia. And we, America, have never called them on that — because we’re addicted to their oil [emphasis mine].
Is America allied with the chief financial backers of Islamic jihad because we need to buy oil from them? Hardly.
 …

It’s not “because we’re addicted to their oil.” That reason ended long ago, but the popular belief that we’re allied with hardline Islamic Arab states, Sunni-run nations in the Middle East, because of the oil-issue — that they have oil, and we need their oil — continues on as popular lore, long after the reality ended, because it’s constantly being pumped by the U.S. aristocracy’s ‘news’ media and the journalists they hire.

horiz-long greyEditorsNote_WhiteIf you want to know why we despise Tom Friedman, NYTimes columnist, warmonger, arrogant billionaire, and hypocrite, click on the bar below.


 

Friedman: an ego as inflated as his bank account. White Charger of the warmongering punditocracy.

Friedman: an ego as inflated as his bank account. White Charger of the warmongering punditocracy.

[learn_more]


This video from the USA is called: Greenwash Guerrillas Pie Thomas Friedman on Earth Day.


Thomas Friedman, the author and NY Times columnist, was invited to Brown University to give a keynote speech on Earth Day, before a packed auditorium. His talk, titled “Green is the new Red White and Blue” was about how corporate environmentalism (based on putting a price on the atmosphere, and investing in biofuels and techno-fixes) can restore America to its “natural place in the global order.” Luckily, this outrageous neoliberal capitalist propaganda was interrupted with a surprise visit from the Greenwash Guerrillas. Leaflets were thrown to the crowd, stating: Thomas Friedman deserves a pie in the face… * Because of his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism’s conquest of the planet * For telling the world that the free market and techno fixes can save us from climate change. From carbon trading to biofuels, these distractions are dangerous in and of themselves, while encouraging inaction with respect to the true problems at hand. * For helping turn environmentalism into a fake plastic consumer product for the privileged * For his long-standing support for the US Occupation of Iraq and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Such committed support to the US War Machine and its proxy states overseas cannot be masked behind any twisted mask of “green” – the US Military is the largest single emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. * For his pure arrogance.


On behalf of the earth and all true environmentalists — we, the Greenwash Guerrillas, declare Thomas Friedman’s “Green” as fake and toxic to human and planetary health as the cool-whip covering his face.[/learn_more]

horiz-long grey
REGULAR TEXT BY ERIC ZUESSE CONTINUES HERE

American leaders have been close to the Saudi royal despots for generations, but the Bush clan has taken the affiliation to new, undignified heights. Photo: George W Bush with the late King Abdullah.

American leaders have been close and sometimes ostensibly subservient to the Saudi royal despots for generations, but the Bush clan has taken the affiliation to new, undignified heights. Photo: George W Bush with the late King Abdullah.

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]ome historical background of America’s evolving relationship with the Saudi royal family is necessary in order to understand in a truthful way, U.S.-Saudi (and broader U.S-Arabic) relations. (On the Saudi side, incidentally, that refers to relations between the U.S. Government and the King of Saudi Arabia, because the King is  the Government of Saudi Arabia: he’s an absolute dictator there, and he owns not just the Government, but much of the economy. For example, ever since 1980, the Saudi Government, the King, has owned 100% of Aramco, the world’s largest oil company. Aramco’s reserves are more than 250 billion barrels, which at $40/barrel are, alone, worth $1 trillion, but Forbes  and Bloomberg refuse to calculate the fortunes of royalty and other heads-of-state; so, the fiction is spread, by those business-publishers and others, that the world’s richest person is instead Bill Gates, at a mere $79.2 billion (according to Forbes), which is far less than a tenth of King Salman’s fortune. The Saudi King owns the Saudi Government, and the Saudi Government owns Aramco and lots more — a fortune that’s probably worth several trillion dollars. The U.S. is allied with the Saudi King. But it’s no longer because of all the oil he has.)horiz-long grey
There is no more communism — it’s just raw greed and power-politics, which have now grown like a cancer to obliterate other priorities of the U.S. Government in international relations. Screen Shot 2015-08-22 at 7.41.15 PM
[dropcap]A[/dropcap]t the beginning of the relationship, the U.S.-Saudi alliance was indeed based upon oil. As Thomas W. Lippman headlined at The Link in April 2005, about “The Day FDR Met Saudi Arabia’s Ibn Saud”:
 …
It was February 14, 1945. The end of World War II was finally in sight as Allied forces advanced on Berlin and fought their way toward the Japanese heartland. With victory assured, Roosevelt was looking toward the future and envisioning new security and economic arrangements for the nation he had led through twelve tumultuous years. …
Chevron, or SOCal, the affiliate which got renamed Aramco] held exclusive production rights. At the same time the U.S. Armed Forces, fighting a global war, wanted an air base someplace in the Middle East that was not under British or French control. And Roosevelt, looking past the combat, nursed the hope that Abdul Aziz [King Ibn Saud], who despite his lack of formal education and his country’s backwardness was a hero in the Arab world, would somehow be helpful in solving a daunting problem that the president knew was coming: the future of Palestine and the resettlement of Europe’s surviving Jews. The Nazi death camp at Auschwitz had been liberated a month before the president left Washington en route to Yalta, and the full scope of the Holocaust was being revealed to the world. The Jews had a claim on the world’s conscience, and on Roosevelt’s.
 …
Before 1942, there had been no U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia. But now there was an Embassy in the kingdom. And Chevron:
 …
February 1943. At the urging of Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior and wartime oil administrator, Roosevelt declared Saudi Arabia vital to the defense of the United States and therefore eligible for financial aid. As the British journalist David Holden wrote in his history of Saudi Arabia, “The great American takeover had begun.” Official contacts between the United States and Saudi Arabia now multiplied quickly, at steadily higher levels.
 …
The U.S. was allied with the UK, but FDR opposed all empires, including the UK’s, and the USSR’s (which was in reality a diffuse sphere of global influence); and his goal was that control of the post-WWII world would be by a non-imperialistic America, and by no other country, no country which had an empire. He wanted no empires at all, but instead a gradually emerging democratic world government to rule over international relations, for which purpose the U.N. would be formed, as being only a transitional step toward such a democratic global federal government. (Then, in FDR’s vision, not even the U.S. would be in control after that global democracy would be established; the U.S. would instead be the local federal governmental unit, the U.S. Government, over this land, under the global nation, the world government, the global democratic federal republic, encompassing all nations.)

FDR: What did he really knew and when did he know it?

FDR: A visionary and authentic democrat or cunning capitalist defender?

 …
The President’s briefing book to  prepare him for his meeting with the King on 14 February 1945, described the King at length, as a person from an alien culture, including:
 …
Any relaxation of his steadfast opposition to Zionist aims in Palestine would violate his principles. … According to Arab and Moslem custom, the women of his family are strictly secluded and, of course, should not be mentioned. … To a visitor of ministerial rank, he often makes a facetious offer of an Arab wife, in addition to any wife the visitor may already have.
 …
The Link  added an important postscript to Lippman’s article:
 …
But, then, the Cold War began; and the story became even more interesting:
 …
While the Cold War was on, there was much posturing by America’s aristocracy saying that they didn’t want to conquer the Soviet bloc, but only to free those nations from communism. Well, communism collapsed on its own, in around 1990; and the Warsaw Pact ended, but NATO didn’t end. It turns out that America’s aristocracy were set upon conquest, after all — conquest ultimately of Russia (and maybe of China too, but that’s not yet clear). And so we’ve had “Obama’s Secret Deals with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.” This isn’t really an oil-and-gas play, such as Tom Friedman pretends; it’s a conquest play, to strangle the Russian economy, by replacing Russia’s oil and gas that’s being pipelined via Ukraine into the EU (the world’s largest energy-market), and by instead piping Saudi and Qatari oil-and-gas into the EU, through Syria (which is why they want Assad overthrown). That’s why Saudi King Salman agreed with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Ryadh on 11 September 2014 to flood the global market with oil — to strangle Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and other BRICS (and pro-BRICS) countries — and it’s why the Saudi-funded Al Qaeda and Qatari-funded Muslim Brotherhood are being backed to overthrow Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria. There is no more communism — it’s just raw greed and power-politics, which have now grown like a cancer to obliterate other priorities of the U.S. Government in international relations. And that’s what’s behind the current refugee-crisis, and so much else.
 …
[dropcap]R[/dropcap]ussia’s President Vladimir Putin wants Russia to be accepted as an ally of the United States, but America’s aristocrats (and their agent Obama) refuse. Russia’s strategy under Putin, against Islamic jihadists, has been remarkably successful, while America’s strategy under both Bush and Obama has caused Islamic jihad to blossom (thus producing the current refugee-crisis in Europe), but the United States has consistently spurned Putin’s urgings to American Presidents for Russia to be accepted by America as an ally — for the Cold War finally to end on America’s side, as it did on Russia’s.

Hillary with King Salman: polishing the Saudi apple.

Hillary with King Salman: polishing the Saudi apple.

 …
Furthermore, unlike back in 1945, when FDR and the Saudi King came to their historic agreement, the U.S. is no longer even nearly so dependent upon Saudi oil as before. Moreover, if the U.S. accepted Putin’s offer (like the similar offer from the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev) for Russia to ally with the U.S., then the U.S. could also buy Russia’s oil and gas, thus reducing even further any need for Saudi product. The chief economic competitor of the Arabic oil potentates is Russia, but U.S. Presidents aren’t supposed to be serving those people, who are the main financiers of Islamic jihad.
[dropcap]H[/dropcap]owever, the entire idea that a nation has to be allied with  a given other nation in order to buy from it — oil or any other commodity — is itself ludicrous, except if the two nations are at war with one-another, in which case, the hostilities themselves are causing the problem, not caused by  the problem. The United States Government doesn’t want to trade with Russia. America’s aristocracy instead want to conquer Russia. They want to grab Russia’s oil etc., not to buy it. Similarly, but more successfully, in 1953, they wanted to and did grab Iran’s oil, not buy it — and that’s the reason why the Iranian people were in no mood to love Americans when they finally managed to overthrow the U.S.-imposed dictator, the Shah in 1979.
The American aristocracy, including its agents such as Tom Friedman, know better than to keep up the ancient excuse that America’s alliance with the Sauds is still “about oil.” But they pretend otherwise. Communism is dead [at least for the time being], and the USSR is gone, but today’s U.S. Government is no longer like FDR’s; it’s no longer representing the U.S. public, even in an imperfect capitalist “democracy”; it’s no longer democratic in direction or intent; it now represents instead the U.S. plutocracy itself. The idea that the “U.S. Allies with Saudis ‘Because We’re Addicted to Their Oil’” is just another part of the big lie, that the U.S. is still what it was under FDR — that it’s still a real democracy, and that it’s still concerned about human welfare, instead of about sheer conquest, and empire. This is about stealing oil (and everything), not about buying it. It’s raw psychopathy.
 …
horiz-long grey

They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

 

Screen Shot 2015-08-22 at 7.41.15 PM

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

Statue-of-Liberty-crying-628x356
horiz-black-wide






Vladimir Putin’s Foreign-Policy Objectives, & His Desire for U.S. to Be an Ally

horiz grey line

 putin-conferenceTable-photolenta_big_photo-2
[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n September 4th, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin restated, as he has many times before, that he seeks a U.S.-Russian alliance to overcome the global Islamic jihad movement, in Syria, Iraq, and everywhere.

Then, on Tuesday September 8th, Yahoo News bannered, “Austria joins growing voices that say Assad must be part of Syrian solution,” and reported that Austria’s Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz said: “In my opinion the priority is the fight against terror. This will not be possible without powers such as Russia and Iran.” German Economic News noted then that, “Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo had already called on Monday for negotiations with Assad to end the war.”


Eric Zuesse, crosspost with strategic-culture.org (first iteration).


However, the U.S. government is strongly opposed to accepting Putin’s offer of an alliance to overcome Islamic jihad.

Putin’s foreign-policy objectives are consistent; and his latest turn fits with all that has preceded, which has been his single-minded focus, ever since he first became Russia’s leader in 2000: to defeat the global threat of Islamic jihad, which has been the chief military concern for Russia itself, ever since the First Chechen War, during 1994-96, radicalized the predominantly Sunni (Saudi-based) Muslim Chechen Republic, to separate themselves from the predominantly Orthodox Catholic Russia. By the time of Putin’s contest for the Presidency in 2000, Putin’s hard line against religious separatism became a leading factor in his electoral victory.
putin-2On 11 February 2004, this is how the pro-Western Moscow Times, which wikipedia refers to as “the first Western daily to be published in Russia,” described “Putin and the Chechen War: Together Forever”:

, Putin launched an “anti-terrorist operation” in Chechnya. Suddenly Putin was the No. 1 politician in the country. …
 
The Chechen fighters were operating on the assumption that the Kremlin would not tolerate substantial losses on the eve of the election. This is why Chechen detachments flouted military logic and remained in Grozny after it was surrounded, continuing to offer fierce resistance.
 
June 2000 Putin’s support would have evaporated. This concern probably explains Yeltsin’s decision to step down early, bringing the election forward by several months.
 

I [Alexander Golts] doubt that any Russian politician today would have the nerve to remind Putin of the promises he made back in 2000. He vowed “to crush the terrorist scum’.”
However, Simon Shuster, who likewise is anti-Putin, had this to say about Chechnya, in the cover story of TIME, eleven years later, on 22 June 2015:

Chechnya has undergone a striking transformation. Its cities have been rebuilt with money from Moscow. All traces of its separatist rebellion have been suppressed. And most importantly, a new generation has been raised to respect—at times even to worship—the Russian leader and his local proxies. With no clear memories of the wars for independence, the young people of Chechnya are now the best guarantee that Russia’s hold over the region will persist.
 .
Putin might not have “crushed the terrorist scum,” but he has held it at bay for long enough a time to reestablish relative peace in Chechnya, along with a previously unparallelled degree of prosperity.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he International Crisis Group, a pro-Western and anti-Russian NGO, and an affiliate of NATO’s Atlantic Council, vigorously criticizes the authoritarianism and cult of personality that Putin has imposed in Chechnya, even while reluctantly acknowledging that:
The number of Chechens in the insurgency has been steadily decreasing. With their centuries-long record of being ready to die for their independence, Chechens do not seem very susceptible to the suicidal ideology of a global jihad. Many who are have joined the conflict in Syria, which has significantly drained the human resources of the North Caucasus insurgency overall, but especially in Chechnya. A Chechen interior ministry source estimated in 2013 that 200-500 Chechens were fighting in Syria.
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Islamic jihadists are more comfortable in, and more accepted by the residents of, the anti-Assad, pro-Sunni, areas of Syria, doing war against Shiia Muslims, and against the Russian-supported secular Shiia President Assad, than they are back home in their native land (Chechnya in Russia). Even Putin’s enemies acknowledge Putin’s successes against the Saudi-based Sunni international Islamic jihad movement. Putin has become an experienced specialist in the war against Islamic terrorism.


Whereas the United States simply spreads Islamic jihad, even while bombing jihadists and creating more martyrs for “the cause” of jihad, Russia has found ways instead to push back effectively against the Saudi-originated movement of Islamic jihad, and to develop, during decades, a peaceful regional diversity, which can encompass even areas where (as in Chechnya) Islamic or sharia law is imposed, and do this even within a predominantly Christian-majority nation (such as Russia, but this also describes the United States).


“The United States opposes Islamic jihad (a monster largely of its own invention), but it opposes Russia more…”horiz grey line

 The U.S. never had to deal with the challenge that Russia has, of containing within itself a majority-Muslim state, and especially not containing a state whose majority are Sunni Muslim, the variant of Islam that (unlike Shiia Islam) produces jihadists, people with suicide-belts etc., who seek to impose a global Caliphate, a worldwide regime that imposes strict Islamic law.
The ICG report on Chechnya criticizes today’s Chechnya, by saying that, “Much of the population lives off pensions and welfare payments,” and that corruption and clan-rule are the norm, but all that’s really new in this is actually the peace, and the pensions: corruption and clan-rule have been the rule in Chechnya for centuries, at the very least.
Simon Shuster’s video at TIME, about today’s Chechnya, opens:
The kids growing up in Chechnya these days are a lot luckier than their parents and their grandparents. At least the youngest ones have only known their homeland to be a peaceful and even quite beautiful place, full of enormous mosques, and skyscrapers, and shopping districts, and fast-food joints.
Shuster then refers to the civil war, but he says, “Today, Chechnya is a very different place,” and he acknowledges that the adults there, who remember the wars, are much happier now, that the jihadists are gone, or dead.


Ramzan_Kadyrov,_2014.jpeg

Kadyrov: Moscow’s man in Chechnya, but more independent than many think.

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]l Jazeera television, which is controlled by gas-rich Qatar’s anti-Russian Sunni royal family, the Thanis, has criticized Putin for his placing in control of Chechnya the anti-jihadist Chechen Muslim, Ramzan Kadyrov. Thanis are also the chief financial backers for the Muslim Brotherhood, and, along with the Saud family (the main financial backers of Al Qaeda), are also among the main financial backers of the Syrian warriors who are fighting to replace the secular Shiite leader, Assad, by a sectarian Sunni Islamic regime in Syria.

The anti-Russian American newspaper, New York Times, headlined on 1 July 2004, “Qatar Court Convicts 2 Russians in Top Chechen’s Death,” and reported:
In U.S.-allied nations generally, anti-Russian jihadists have, to a large extent, been sympathetically received, and favorably reported (as in that cited NYT article).
So: Regardless of Putin’s success at dealing with Islamic jihadists, his invitation to the United States to work together to defeat the Sunni, and mainly Saudi and Thani-funded, international movement for Islamic jihad for a global Caliphate, will probably continue to meet only America’s cold shoulder. The United States opposes Islamic jihad, but it opposes Russia more.
Or, at least, the U.S. Government does. Obama primarily seeks to defeat Russia, not to ally with it — not even against Islamic jihad. And here’s how serious he is about that goal: In order to be able to install a NATO base on Russia’s doorstep in Russia’s neighbor Ukraine, the U.S. on 4 February 2014 selected a new leader for Ukraine, and installed that new leader in a coup three weeks later. This new government was/is rabidly anti-Russian. The U.S. and Russia have, accordingly, reactivated their nuclear-weapons arsenals, for a possible direct war, no longer merely conflicts via proxies. However, Putin still is inviting Obama to switch from being obsessed with defeating Russia, to becoming allied with Russia. He’s, in effect, saying to Obama: “Okay, if NATO is to continue, then let us into it, and let us all agree, together, that the enemy to peace and international progress is the Islamic jihadist movement, and all of the aristocrats who fund it.”
[dropcap]H[/dropcap]owever, Putin probably holds little hope of a favorable response to this. As the great investigative historian William F. Engdahl wrote, on 15 May 2015 at journal-neo.org:
Not long after the CIA and Saudi Intelligence-financed Mujahideen had devastated Afghanistan at the end of the 1980’s, forcing the exit of the Soviet Army in 1989, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself some months later, the CIA began to look at possible places in the collapsing Soviet Union where their trained “Afghan Arabs” could be redeployed to further destabilize Russian influence over the post-Soviet Eurasian space.
 
They were called Afghan Arabs because they had been recruited from ultraconservative Wahhabite Sunni Muslims from Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the Arab world where the ultra-strict Wahhabite Islam was practiced. They were brought to Afghanistan in the early 1980’s by a Saudi CIA recruit who had been sent to Afghanistan named Osama bin Laden.
 
With the former Soviet Union in total chaos and disarray, George H.W. Bush’s Administration decided to “kick ‘em when they’re down,” a sad error. Washington redeployed their Afghan veteran terrorists to bring chaos and destabilize all of Central Asia, even into the Russian Federation itself, then in a deep and traumatic crisis during the economic collapse of the Yeltsin era.
 
In the early 1990s, Dick Cheney’s company, Halliburton, had surveyed the offshore oil potentials of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the entire Caspian Sea Basin. They estimated the region to be “another Saudi Arabia” worth several trillion dollars on today’s market. The US and UK were determined to keep that oil bonanza from Russian control by all means.
Engdahl also included this:

Bin Laden brought in another Saudi, Ibn al-Khattab, to become Commander, or Emir of Jihadist Mujahideen in Chechnya (sic!) together with Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev. No matter that Ibn al-Khattab was a Saudi Arab who spoke barely a word of Chechen, let alone, Russian. He knew what Russian soldiers looked like and how to kill them.
 
Chechnya then was traditionally a predominantly Sufi society, a mild apolitical branch of Islam. Yet the increasing infiltration of the well-financed and well-trained US-sponsored Mujahideen terrorists preaching Jihad or Holy War against Russians transformed the initially reformist Chechen resistance movement. They spread al-Qaeda’s hardline Islamist ideology across the Caucasus. Under [Richard] Secord’s guidance, Mujahideen terrorist operations had also quickly extended into neighboring Dagestan and Chechnya, turning Baku into a shipping point for Afghan heroin to the Chechen mafia.
 
From the mid-1990s, bin Laden paid Chechen guerrilla leaders Shamil Basayev and Omar ibn al-Khattab the handsome sum of several million dollars per month, a King’s fortune in economically desolate Chechnya in the 1990s, enabling them to sideline the moderate Chechen majority.21 US intelligence remained deeply involved in the Chechen conflict until the end of the 1990s. According to Yossef Bodansky, then Director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Washington was actively involved in “yet another anti-Russian jihad, seeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forces.” …
 
Basayev and al-Khattab imported fighters from the Saudi fanatical Wahhabite strain of Sunni Islam into Chechnya. Ibn al-Khattab commanded what were called the “Arab Mujahideen in Chechnya,” his own private army of Arabs, Turks, and other foreign fighters. He was also commissioned to set up paramilitary training camps in the Caucasus Mountains of Chechnya that trained Chechens and Muslims from the North Caucasian Russian republics and from Central Asia.
Enghdahl referred to a 26 April 2015 speech by Putin, which had that history as its background:
A short way into his remarks, the Russian President stated for the first time publicly something that Russian intelligence has known for almost two decades but kept silent until now, most probably in hopes of an era of better normalized Russia-US relations.
 
Putin stated that the terror in Chechnya and in the Russian Caucasus in the early 1990’s was actively backed by the CIA and western Intelligence services to deliberately weaken Russia. He noted that the Russian FSB foreign intelligence had documentation of the US covert role without giving details.
 
What Putin, an intelligence professional of the highest order, only hinted at in his remarks, I have documented in detail from non-Russian sources. The report has enormous implications to reveal to the world the long-standing hidden agenda of influential circles in Washington to destroy Russia as a functioning sovereign state, an agenda which includes the neo-nazi coup d’etat in Ukraine and severe financial sanction warfare against Moscow.



Brzezinski

Brzezinski

[dropcap]N[/dropcap]ot all of this has remained as being secret. There have even been some proud public participants in the American aristocracy’s hatred of Russians. For example: the child of dispossessed Polish nobility who emigrated to the United States and who as an adult was brought by the oil-baron heir David Rockefeller into several U.S. Presidential Administrations, Zbigniew Brzezinski (who co-founded with Rockefeller the Trilateral Commission) was quite proud of his anti-Russian hatred. (He had actually been born near Lviv, in the most pro-Nazi and anti-Russian part of present-day Ukraine. A racist hatred of Russians was intense there.) He was interviewed on page 76 of France’s Le Nouvel Observateur, on 15 January 1998, translated by Bill Blum, posted at Global Research by Michel Chossudovsky:

today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! 

There is even a video-clip, “Brzezinski And The Mujahideen 1979,” which shows Brzezinski in 1979, arriving in Afghanistan and telling the Mujahideen (soon to be called the Taliban), “Your cause is right, and god is on your side.”
In other words: the U.S. aristocracy wants to grab Russia’s natural resources; and the fact that Russia is no longer part of any international communist alliance, the fact that the Cold War is over, is not going to end the war by America’s aristocracy for control of Russia and its resources. All that the end of communism does for America’s aristocrats is remove what had been their excuse for revving up Joseph R. McCarthy, etc., to stir hatred of what had for decades been Russians’ ideology. All that’s left now is the American aristocracy’s own greed, and psychopathy. But Putin still is publicly inviting those people to join with Russia in a global alliance, perhaps an entirely new NATO, to crush the Islamic jihad movement.
The public should know about the invitation, and should know why it has always been (and is being) rejected.
horiz grey line
They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Screen Shot 2015-08-22 at 7.41.15 PM

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

Statue-of-Liberty-crying-628x356
horiz-black-wide






Russia Insider: Response to Frontline’s Hatchet Job on Putin


EditorsNote_WhiteTHESE VIDEOS WERE ORIGINALLY EDITED AND COMPILED IN RUSSIA. For some reason we are still unable to pinpoint, their reproduction on Western sites is a bit spotty. The segmented presentation—also suffering from glitches and failures to transmit—has been distributed  by our colleagues at SOTT.NET and through LiveLeak. BREAKING! YouTube, in its inscrutable logic, has decided to block this video worldwide. Somebody, difficult to identify, is claiming copyright infringement. Too bad that YouTube audiences—at large—may not be able to see this. We are working to find an alternative channel and will advise as soon as it is available. The version below is now a Vimeo edition. We hope this one will play well and reliably, as per Vimeo’s standards. —BP

PRESIDENT!

Screen Shot 2015-09-10 at 1.36.01 PM

 

ADDENDUM

Segments, as distributed via LiveLeak. These segments may not play as reliably as the Vimeo version above. 

Screen Shot 2015-08-22 at 7.41.15 PM

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!

But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

BLACK LINE HERE




Putin’s Way: Frontline propaganda garbage, dressed as brave journalism.

Screen Shot 2015-08-22 at 7.41.15 PM

PBS documentary Putin’s Way: Half-truths and lies in the service of US warmongering against Russia

Screen Shot 2015-09-09 at 6.21.30 PM

By Andrea Peters

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]ast week, PBS, the major public broadcaster in the United States, re-aired the one-hour exposé Putins Way on its “Frontline” television program. It is currently available for streaming on the “Frontline” web site.

The film was initially released in January 2015. Created by writer, director and producer Neil Docherty, it features the work of investigative reporter Gillian Findlay.

Screen Shot 2015-09-09 at 6.20.53 PM

Putins Way is not so much a documentary as a propaganda piece intended to justify Washington’s confrontation with Russia and make the case for regime-change in Moscow, if necessary by military means. Proponents of the anti-Putin campaign among intellectuals and in the government and media are no doubt delighted by the combination of half-truths, omissions and hypocritical expressions of moral indignation that characterize the film. But the viewer genuinely seeking to understand the origins and character of the oligarchy ruling Russia will find little insight.


Screen Shot 2015-09-09 at 6.25.37 PM

Putins Way begins by promising its audience “the inside story of the Russian president’s rise to power.” It provides a smattering of facts about Vladimir Putin’s childhood and early life and a rudimentary outline of his evolution from KGB officer working in East Germany, to deputy mayor of Saint Petersburg working under the tutelage of Anatoly Sobchak, to prime minister under Boris Yeltsin, and finally to the Russian presidency. This narrative is accompanied by a menacing, horror film-like score.

Along the way, the film presents evidence of corruption involving Putin and his allies. Examples include the future president filching money amassed through the sale of state resources for the designated purpose of purchasing food for Saint Petersburg; Putin’s use of his position as Saint Petersburg’s chair of foreign economic relations to cut special deals with overseas investors; the funneling of government money intended for construction projects into the purchase of vacation villas; cooperation with organized crime; and turning a blind eye to money laundering.

Screen Shot 2015-09-09 at 6.13.18 PM

The documentary is filled with out of context images and narrative calculated to convey the suggestion we are in the presence of a depraved and unprincipled autocrat—a”new czar”.

The documentary asserts that corruption in Russia today is more systematic that at any previous time in the country’s history. Russian investigators whose work has been censored speak to the camera.


SIDEBAR | PATRICE —————————————————————————

Docherty

Docherty

Putin’s Way, the shameful hatchet job produced by Frontline for PBS should have been called Putin’s in the way…of American Imperial Hegemony, because that’s the true nature and underhanded motivation behind this pretentious pseudo documentary. From the first frames, it’s obvious the film is transparently devoid of decency, not to mention a mature, balanced, and contextual understanding of world events and Russian affairs. As the author of this article states, this program is nothing but a nonstop concatenation of outright lies and innuendo, the exercise all the more irritating because of the sheer hypocrisy of the producers and the perfidy of their goals. One is moved to ask: Who do these Anglo-Americans think they are, this cynical, sanctimonious, careerist mob that has no qualms whitewashing the most morally corrupt and criminal empire in the modern world, to hurl stones at Russia and Putin in the name of higher values? For an answer you might want to ask Neil Docherty, the Scottish-born Canadian responsible for this vehicle, now firmly embedded in Frontline’s self-congratulatory subculture, but I doubt he’d say anything remotely truthful or worth repeating here.  If Docherty believes in the claptrap he produced, he’s worse than a fool, he’s a fool in a position of power. But if he doesn’t believe in the program’s value or intent, and yet did the job for careerist reasons, or pure vainglory, he’s a certifiable whore. Either way, he’s no example of true journalism. Below, the program’s trailer, and the blurb accompanying its presentation on YouTube.—PG

FRONTLINE investigates the accusations of criminality and corruption that have surrounded Vladimir Putin’s reign (sic) in Russia. Tracing his career back over two decades, “Putin’s Way” reveals how the accumulation of wealth and power has led to autocratic rule (sic) and the specter of a new Cold War.


END OF SIDEBAR

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]merican professor Karen Dawisha, who recently published the book Putins Kleptocracy, notes that the process of theft began in the 1990s. In relation to the stealing of money intended to purchase food supplies for Saint Petersburg, she indignantly declares, “So millions, millions were made in just that episode alone!”

Karen Dawisha098

Dawisha

Dawisha (left) and the filmmaker leave out of this tale two critical facts. First, during the 1980s and 1990s, the United States and Europe wholeheartedly supported the regimes of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, under whose oversight the widespread theft of state-owned property was initiated and then expanded to staggering levels. Second, the privatization “shock therapy” policies that underlay this process and led to the immense inequality Dawisha laments later in the documentary were crafted in Washington. The approach to privatization in Russia became known as the “Washington consensus.”

Harvard academics, working alongside representatives of the Clinton administration, the International Monetary Fund and right-wing reformers inside Russia, drew up measures they knew would place vast wealth in the hands of a tiny minority. Both former Communist Party insiders like Vladimir Putin and overseas investors from the US, Europe and elsewhere—i.e., those individuals who would have been sitting in the lobby of Putin’s office when he oversaw Saint Petersburg’s foreign economic affairs—fed at the trough.

In his book Post-Soviet Russia: A Journey Through the Yelstin Era, Roy Medvedev lists a string of revelations published in the Russian press during the mid-1990s documenting how major resources, including portions of the country’s military-industrial complex, disappeared into private hands with hardly a penny in compensation to the state. But, as Anatoly Chubais, one of the main architects of this process and a darling of Washington, said in 1997, “I held, and I still hold, that the creation of private property in Russia was an absolute value [to strive for]. In order to achieve this goal, it was necessary at times to sacrifice certain schematic notions of economic efficiency.”


“The widespread theft of state-owned property was initiated and then expanded to staggering levels…[under Gorbachev and especially Yeltsin] and the policies that underlay this process and led to the immense inequality Dawisha laments later in the documentary were crafted in Washington.”Screen Shot 2015-08-22 at 7.41.15 PM

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n 1993, when a conflict erupted between the Yeltsin regime and the parliament over these deeply unpopular policies, the Russian president bombarded the parliament building, killing hundreds. US President Bill Clinton endorsed these actions, declaring, “President Yeltsin had no other alternative but to try to restore order.” At that time, Washington had no objection to the profoundly anti-democratic methods of the new Russian ruling elite.

While the film later complains that Putin did not “take Russia on a path closer to the West—democratic, liberal and capitalist,” in reality, the present state of affairs is the direct outcome of the bureaucracy’s liquidation of the Soviet Union through an alliance between Western capitalism, Communist Party bureaucrats and sections of the USSR’s aspiring petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. Putins Way intentionally omits this history in an effort to cover up the central role played by American imperialism in the political and socio-economic calamity that brought Putin and the forces he represents to power.

Furthermore, the billions stolen by Russia’s oligarchs pale in comparison to the colossal theft that occurred during and after the 2008-2009 world economic crisis, which saw the
US and global financial industry bailed out to the tune of trillions even as the home values, pensions and jobs of ordinary people were wiped out. The documentary’s efforts to portray Putin as the world’s greatest financial criminal are preposterous and hypocritical. When an exercised Dawisha describes the Russian parliament as a “pay-to-play system” and implies that the audience ought to be incensed by the level of wealth inequality in Russia, one wants to retort, “Who are you kidding?”

Changing what needs to be changed, the film’s exposures of grotesque levels of inequality could easily be mistaken for an exposé of the situation in the United States.

rus-Mikhail_Khodorkovsky_2013-12-22_3

Khodorkovsky

As one gets further into Docherty’s film, it becomes clear that those behind Putins Way do not actually have a problem with criminal oligarchs. They have a problem only with those oligarchs who are insufficiently subservient to Washington. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was once the richest man in Russia, is featured prominently. His ill-gotten wealth comes from swindling in Russia’s nascent banking industry in the early 1990s and control over Yukos, one of the country’s energy giants, established through the “loans for shares” scam of the shock therapy era.

This oligarch, who was jailed by Putin in 2003 on tax evasion charges, says he came into conflict with the Kremlin because, in response to the passage of US legislation making it illegal to do business with companies that engage in bribe-taking and other corrupt practices, he suggested that Russian firms clean up their act. Khodorkovsky tells us he thought Putin would “choose the European model… because it was obviously more beneficial for the country.”

The viewer is meant to believe that if only the likes of Khodorkovsky were in power, Russia would be delivered from the terrible grip of the Putin machine. Sergei Kolesnikov and Valeri Morozov, wealthy tycoons who abandoned the Kremlin, are also called upon to give testimony against the regime from which they profited handsomely.

While Docherty portrays Russia’s oligarchs-turned-anti-Putinists in a flattering light, he derides ordinary people. Observing that in 2011 Putin’s regime was the target of mass anti-government protests, Putins Way bewails the Kremlin’s subsequent resurgence in popularity on the basis of anti-Westernism. Clips from pro-Putin demonstrations are intended to make the population look like dupes.


Screen Shot 2015-09-09 at 6.22.27 PM

The middle chapters of Putins Way deal with the murky circumstances under which Putin, a little known government bureaucrat, was elevated to the presidency. The documentary describes the decrepit state of the Yeltsin regime and the ailing president’s need to find a replacement who would block investigations into corruption. Putin is chosen as the man for the job, but the conditions have to be created to put him in power and turn the country’s attention away from a burgeoning domestic crisis.

The film moves on to the September 1999 apartment bombings in Russia, which the Kremlin linked to the ethnic-nationalist conflict in the breakaway region of Chechnya. Despite evidence that the country’s security services were involved, the attacks were used as a pretext to launch a second war in Chechnya. This coincided with the assumption of the presidency by Putin, who portrayed himself as a national hero fighting to deliver the country from the grip of terrorists. Several commentators recount the ways in which investigations into the apartment bombings were blocked and critics jailed.

The narrator recounts this sequence of events indignant and outraged at the very notion of a government using a terrorist attack to rescue itself from a domestic crisis and start a war. One wonders if Docherty thinks his audience is infinitely gullible and stupid. There are clear parallels between Putin’s rise to power and the disputed origins of the Bush administration, which took office on the basis of a stolen election and used the 9/11 attacks—which have never been seriously investigated—to stoke up patriotic sentiment and launch wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One of the clearest expressions of the political bias of Putins Way is the absence of any mention of the US-orchestrated, far-right coup in Ukraine in February 2014 that brought to power a violently anti-Russian government, which has been brutally repressing Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population and all those opposed to its fascistic policies. The purpose of this omission is to portray Russia as an imperialist power and the aggressor in Eastern Europe.

We are told by the narrator, “Putin has invaded Crimea and redrawn the map of Ukraine, claiming he is protecting ethnic Russians,” as if the Kremlin’s intervention in Ukraine was an aggressive action, rather than a defensive response to the US and German drive to turn Ukraine into a client state of Western imperialism and reduce Russia to a semi-colonial status.

Furthermore, Docherty leaves out the fact that Russia’s annexation of Crimea was validated by a popular referendum, whose legitimacy has not been questioned. In a turnout of more than 80 percent of the voting age population, over 95 percent of voters supported rejoining Russia.

One accusation is heaped on another. Without presenting a shred of evidence, Putins Way implies that the Kremlin was behind the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

The “Frontline” documentary ends on a particularly ugly note. Referring to Putin, Dawisha declares, “I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s willing to back down. And it’s not his style at all, ever. He doesn’t back down.” Then, Natalia Gevorkyan, a biographer of Putin, concludes a story of the Russian president in which she compares him to a cornered rat. “He will not say, ‘OK, let’s talk,’ he will jump,” she says.

What is the point of all this? If Putin is not a man with whom one can negotiate, then, like vermin, he should be stamped out. And if, as the film implies, the majority of the population are also pro-Putin, why should they not be treated the same way?


ANDREA PETERS is a cultural and media critic with wsws.org.

Screen Shot 2015-08-21 at 7.20.36 PM

Glyph

Books of distinction from our publishing house, Punto Press. Yes, you can read terrific books and still support The Greanville Post— effortlessly.

TOE_HalfPage_300x600_REV-1

CLICK BELOW TO BUY THEM AT AMAZON.
TIME OF EXILE (PRINT)
TIME OF EXILE (eBook)
(All titles available in both print and eBook formats!)



“…in the new exuberant aggressiveness of world capitalism we see what communists and their allies held at bay.” – Richard Levins (Source: The Proletarian Center).


Just a beer a month is enough to keep us going. How about it?

The Greanville Post and its sister site, Cyrano’s Journal Today are the best edited political blogs in the anglophone world. No one matches our standards. 


Please remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).