Western elites and their lackeys in the
media despise Russian president Vladimir Putin and they make no bones about it.
The reasons for this should be fairly obvious. Putin has rolled back US
ambitions in Syria and Ukraine, aligned himself with Washington’s biggest
strategic rival in Asia, China, and is currently strengthening his economic
ties with Europe which poses a long-term threat to US dominance in Central
Asia. Putin has also updated his nuclear arsenal which makes it impossible for
Washington to use the same bullyboy tactics it’s used on other, more vulnerable
countries. So it’s understandable that the media would want to demonize
Putin and disparage him as cold-blooded “KGB thug”. That, of course, is not
true, but it fits with the bogus narrative that Putin is maniacally conducting
a clandestine war against the United States for purely evil purposes. In any
event, the media’s deep-seated Russophobia has grown so extreme that they’re
unable to cover even simple events without veering wildly into fantasy-land.
Take, for example, the New York Times coverage of Putin’s recent Address to the
Federal Assembly, which took place on January 15. The Times screwball analysis
shows that their journalists have no interest in conveying what Putin actually
said, but would rather use every means available to persuade their readers that
Putin is a calculating tyrant driven by his insatiable lust for power. Check
out this excerpt from the article in the Times:
“Nobody
knows what’s going on inside the Kremlin right now. And perhaps that’s
precisely the point. President Vladimir V. Putin announced constitutional
changes last week that could create new avenues for him to rule Russia for the
rest of his life….(wrong)
The
fine print of the legislation showed that the prime minister’s powers would not
be expanded as much as first advertised, while members of the State Council
would still appear to serve at the pleasure of the president. So maybe Mr.
Putin’s plan is to stay president, after all?….(wrong again)
A
journalist, Yury Saprykin, offered a similar sentiment on Facebook, but in
verse:
We’ll be debating over how he
won’t leave,
We’ll be guessing, will he leave or won’t he.
And then — lo! — he won’t be leaving.
That is, before the elections he won’t leave,
And after that, he definitely won’t leave.” (wrong, a third time)
We’ll be guessing, will he leave or won’t he.
And then — lo! — he won’t be leaving.
That is, before the elections he won’t leave,
And after that, he definitely won’t leave.” (wrong, a third time)
This
is really terrible analysis. Yes, “Putin announced constitutional changes last
week”, but they have absolutely nothing to do with some sinister plan to stay
in power, and anyone who read the speech would know that. Unfortunately, most
of the other 100-or-so “cookie cutter” articles on the topic, draw the same
absurd conclusion as the Times, that is, that the changes Putin announced in
his speech merely conceal his real intention which is to extend his time in
office for as long as possible. Once again, there’s nothing in the speech
itself to support these claims, it’s just another attempt to smear Putin.
So what
did Putin actually say in his annual Address to the Federal Assembly?
Well,
that’s where it gets interesting. He announced changes to the social safety
net, more financial assistance for young families, improvements to the health
care system, higher wages for teachers, more money for education, hospitals,
schools, libraries. He promised to launch a system of “social contracts” that
commit the state to reducing poverty and raising standards of living. He
pledged to provide healthier meals to schoolchildren, lower interest rates for
first-time home buyers, greater economic support for working families, higher
payouts to pensioners, raises to the minimum wage, additional funding for a
“network of extracurricular technology and engineering centers”. Putin also
added this gem:
“It is very important that children who are in preschool and
primary school adopt the true values of
a large family – that family is love, happiness, the joy of motherhood and
fatherhood, that family is a strong bond of several generations, united by
respect for the elderly and care for children, giving everyone a sense of
confidence, security, and reliability. If the younger generations accept this
situation as natural, as a moral and an integral part and reliable background
support for their adult life, then we will be able to meet the historical
challenge of guaranteeing Russia’s development as a large and successful
country.”
Naturally,
heartfelt statements like this never appear on the pages of the Times or any of
the other western media for that matter. Instead, Americans are deluged with
more of the same relentless Putin-psychobabble that’s become a staple of cable
news. The torrent of lies, libels and fabrications about Putin are so constant
and so overwhelming, that the only thing of which one can be absolutely
certain, is that nothing that is written about Putin in the MSM can be trusted.
Of that, there is no doubt.
That
said, Putin is a politician which means he might not deliver on his promises at
all. That is a very real possibility. But if that’s the case, then why did his
former-Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, resign immediately after the speech?
Medvedev and his entire cabinet resigned because they realized that Putin has
abandoned the western model of capitalism and is moving in a different
direction altogether. Putin is now focused on strengthening welfare state
programs that lift people out of poverty, raise living standards, and narrow
the widening inequality gap. And he wants a new team to help him implement his
vision, which is why Medvedev and crew got their walking papers. Here’s how The
Saker summed it up in a recent article at the Unz Review:
“The new government clearly indicates that, especially with the
nominations of Prime Minister Mishustin and his First Deputy Prime Minister
Andrey Belousov: these are both on record as very much proponents of what is
called “state capitalism” in Russia: meaning an economic philosophy in which
the states does not stifle private entrepreneurship, but one in which the state
is directly and heavily involved in creating the correct economic conditions
for the government and private sector to grow. Most crucially, “state capitalism”
also subordinates the sole goal of the corporate world (making profits) to the
interests of the state and, therefore, to the interests of the people. In other
words, goodbye turbo-capitalism à la Atlantic Integrationists!” (“The New Russian
Government”, The Saker)
This is
precisely what is taking place in Russia right now. Putin is breaking away from
Washington’s parasitic model of capitalism and replacing it with a more benign
version that better addresses the needs of the people. This new version of
‘managed capitalism’ places elected officials at the head of the system to
protect the public from the savagery of market forces and from
perennial-grinding austerity. It’s a system aimed at helping ordinary people
not Wall Street or the global bank Mafia.
But
while the changes to Russia’s economic model are significant, it’s Putin’s
political changes that have drawn the most attention. Here’s what he said:
(The) “requirements of international law and treaties as well as
decisions of international bodies can be valid on the Russian territory only to
the point that they do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and
citizens and do not contradict our Constitution….”
What
does this mean? Does it mean that Putin will not respect international law or
the treaties it has signed with its neighbors? No, it doesn’t, in fact, Putin
has been an enthusiastic proponent of international law and the UN Security
Council. He strongly believes that these institutions play a crucial role in
maintaining global security, an issue that is very close to his heart. What the
Russian president appears to be saying is that the rights of the Russian people
and of the sovereign Russian government take precedent over foreign
corporations, treaties or free trade agreements. Russia will not allow the
powerful and insidious globalist multinationals to take control of the
political and economic levers of state power as they’ve done in countries
around the world. Putin further clarified this point saying:
“Russia can remain Russia only as a sovereign state. Our nation’s
sovereignty must be unconditional. We have done a great deal to achieve this.
We restored our state’s unity and overcome the situation when certain powers in
the government were essentially usurped by oligarch clans. …We created powerful
reserves, which increases our country’s stability and capability to protect
(us) from any attempts of foreign pressure.”
For
Putin sovereignty, which is the supreme power of a state to govern itself, is
the bedrock principle which legitimizes the state provided the state faithfully
represents the will of the people. He elaborates on this point later in his speech
saying:
“The opinion of people, our citizens as the bearers of sovereignty
and the main source of power must be decisive. In the final analysis everything
is decided by the people, both today and in the future.”
So
while there may be significant differences between Russian and US democracy,
the basic principle remains the same, the primary responsibility of
the government is to carry out the “will of the people”. In this respect,
Putin’s political philosophy is not much different from that of the framers of
the US Constitution. What is
different, however, is Putin’s approach to free trade. Unlike the US, Putin
does not believe that free trade deals should diminish the authority of the
state. Most Americans don’t realize that trade agreements like NAFTA often
include provisions that prevent the government from acting in the best
interests of their people. Globalist trade laws prevent governments from
providing incentives to companies to slow the outsourcing of manufacturing
jobs, they undermine environmental regulations and food safety laws. Some of
these agreements even shield sweatshop owners and other human rights abusers
from penalty or prosecution.
Is
it any wonder why Putin does not want to participate in this unethical swindle?
Is it any wonder why he feels the need to clearly state that Russia will only
comply with those laws and treaties that “do not restrict the rights and
freedoms of our people and citizens and do not contradict our Constitution”?
Here’s Putin again:
“Please, do not forget what happened to our country after 1991.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, ….there were also threats, dangers of a
magnitude no one could have imagined ever before. ….Therefore … We must create
a solid, reliable and invulnerable system that will be absolutely stable in
terms of the external contour and will securely guarantee Russia’s independence
and sovereignty.”
So what happened following the dissolution
of the Soviet Union?
The United States dispatched a cabal of cutthroat
economists to Moscow to assist in the “shock therapy” campaign that collapsed
the social safety net, savaged pensions, increased unemployment, homelessness,
poverty, and alcoholism by many orders of magnitude, accelerated the slide to
privatization that fueled a generation of voracious oligarchs, and sent the
real economy plunging into an excruciating long-term depression.
Economist
Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up
like this:
“In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to
bring new, unprecedented prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented poverty,
indicated not only by a fall in living standards, not only by falling GDP, but
by decreasing life spans and enormous other social indicators showing a
deterioration in the quality of life…..
The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased
from 2 percent to… somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with more than one out
of two children living in families below poverty. The market economy was a
worse enemy for most of these people than the Communists had said it would be.
… In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the national income,
fell by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more
unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices, and the
majority of people wound up with less and less and less…. (PBS interview with
Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding Heights)
At the
same time Washington’s agents were busy looting Moscow, NATO was moving its
troops, armored divisions and missile sites closer to Russia’s border in clear
violation of promises that were made to Mikhail Gorbachev not to move its
military “one inch east”. At present, there are more combat troops and weaponry
on Russia’s western flank than at any time since the German buildup for
operation Barbarossa in June 1941. Naturally, Russia feels
threatened by this flagrantly hostile force on its border. (BTW, this week,
“The US is carrying out its biggest and most provocative deployment to Europe
since the Cold War-era. According to the US Military in Europe Website:
“Exercise DEFENDER-Europe 20 is the deployment of a division-size
combat-credible force from the United States to Europe….The Pentagon and its
NATO allies are recklessly simulating a full-blown war with Russia to prevent
Moscow from strengthening its economic ties with Europe.) Here’s more from
Putin:
“I am convinced that it is high time for a serious and direct
discussion about the basic principles of a stable world order and the most
acute problems that humanity is facing. It is necessary to show political will,
wisdom and courage. The time demands an awareness of our shared responsibility
and real actions.”
This
is a theme that Putin has reiterated many times since his groundbreaking speech
at Munich in 2007 where he said:
“We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic
principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter
of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and,
of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national
borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and
educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is
happy about this?….” (“Wars not diminishing’: Putin’s iconic 2007 Munich
speech, you tube)
What
Putin objects to is the US acting unilaterally whenever it chooses. It’s
Washington’s capricious disregard for international law that has destabilized
vast regions across the Middle East and Central Asia and has put world leaders
on edge never knowing where the next crisis will pop up or how many millions of
people will be impacted. As Putin said in Munich, “No
one feels safe.” No one feels like they can count on the protection of
international law or UN Security Council resolutions.
Putin:
“Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern
Africa… Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention destroyed
government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and
progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard
for human rights, including even the right to life…
The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern
Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were
quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has
tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers
who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from
Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN
Security Council Resolution 1973….”
Is Putin overstating Washington’s role in
decimating Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan or is this a fair assessment of
America’s pernicious and destabilizing role in the region? Entire civilizations
have been laid to waste, millions have been killed or scattered across the
region to achieve some nebulous strategic advantage or to help Israel eliminate
its perceived enemies. And all this military adventurism can be traced back to
the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the triumphalist response from US
powerbrokers who saw Russia’s collapse as a green light for their New World
Order.
Washington
reveled in its victory and embraced its ability to dominate global
decision-making and intervene unilaterally wherever it saw fit. The
indispensable nation no longer had to bother with formalities like the UN
Security Council or international law. Even sovereignty was dismissed as an
archaic notion that had no place in the new borderless corporate empire. What
really mattered was spreading western-style capitalism to the four corners of
the earth particularly those areas that contained vital resources (ME) or
explosive growth potential. (Eurasia) Those regions were the real prize.
But then something unexpected happened.
Washington’s wars dragged on ad infinitum while newer centers of power
gradually emerged. Suddenly, the globalist utopia was no longer within reach,
the American Century had ended before it had even begun. Meanwhile Russia and
China were growing more powerful all the time. They demanded an end to unilateralism
and a return to international law, but their demands were flatly rejected. The
wars and interventions dragged on even though the prospects for victory grew
more and more remote. Here’s Putin again:
“We have no doubt that sovereignty is the central notion of the
entire system of international relations. Respect for it and its consolidation
will help underwrite peace and stability both at the national and international
levels…First of all, there must be equal and indivisible security for all states.”
(Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, ” The Future in Progress:
Shaping the World of Tomorrow, From the Office of the President of Russia)
Indeed, sovereignty is the foundational
principle upon which global security rests, and yet, it is sovereignty that
western elites are so eager to extinguish. Powerhouse multinationals want
to erase existing borders to facilitate the unfettered, tariff-free flow of
goods and people in one giant, interconnected free trade zone that spans the
entire planet. And while their plan has been derailed by Putin in Syria and
Ukraine, they have made gains in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia. The
virus cannot be contained, it can only be eradicated. Here’s Putin:
“Essentially, the entire globalisation project is in crisis today
and in Europe, as we know well, we hear voices now saying that multiculturalism
has failed. I think this situation is in many respects the result of mistaken,
hasty and to some extent over-confident choices made by some countries’ elites
a quarter-of-a-century ago. Back then, in the late 1980s-early 1990s, there was
a chance not just to accelerate the globalization process but also to give it a
different quality and make it more harmonious and sustainable in nature.
But some countries that saw themselves as victors in the Cold War,
not just saw themselves this way but said it openly, took the course of simply
reshaping the global political and economic order to fit their own interests.
In their euphoria, they essentially abandoned substantive and
equal dialogue with other actors in international life, chose not to improve or
create universal institutions, and attempted instead to bring the entire world
under the spread of their own organizations, norms and rules. They chose the
road of globalization and security for their own beloved selves, for the select
few, and not for all.” (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)
As
Putin says, there was an opportunity to “make globalization more harmonious and
sustainable”, (perhaps, China’s Belt and Road initiative will do just that.)
but Washington elites rejected that idea choosing instead to impose its own
self-aggrandizing vision on the world. As a result, demonstrations and riots
have cropped up across Europe, right-wing populist parties are on the rise, and
a majority of the population no longer have confidence in basic democratic
institutions. The west’s version of globalization has been roundly repudiated
as a scam that showers wealth on scheming billionaires while hanging ordinary
working people out to dry. Here’s Putin again:
“It seems as if the elites do not see the deepening stratification
in society and the erosion of the middle class…(but the situation) creates a
climate of uncertainty that has a direct impact on the public mood.
Sociological studies conducted around the world show that people
in different countries and on different continents tend to see the future as
murky and bleak. This is sad. The future does not entice them, but frightens
them. At the same time, people see no real opportunities or means for changing
anything, influencing events and shaping policy.” (Meeting of the Valdai
International Discussion Club)
True,
life is harder now and it looks to get harder still, but what is Putin’s remedy
or does he have one? Is he going to stem the tide and reverse the effects of
globalization? Is he going to sabotage Washington’s plan to control vital
resources in the Middle East, become the the main player in Central Asia, and
tighten its grip on global power?
No,
Putin is not nearly that ambitious. As he indicates in his speech, his
immediate goal is to reform the economy so that poverty is eliminated and
wealth is more equally distributed. These are practical remedies that help to
soften capitalism and decrease the probability of social unrest. He also wants
to fend off potential threats to the state by shoring up Russian sovereignty.
That’s why he is adding amendments to the Constitution. The objective is to
protect Russia from pernicious foreign agents or fifth columnists operating
within the state.
Bottom line: Putin sees what’s going on in the world and has charted a course
that best serves the interests of the Russian people. Americans would be lucky
to have a leader who did the same.
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-federal-assembly-speech-putin-vows-to-reign-in-capitalism-and-shore-up-sovereignty/
