Post

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1515228143086354435

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1515265125879582720

twitter.com/P_Kallioniemi

More from @FAB87F

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

@FAB87F

Nov 14, 2023

Great comment piece from @general_ben in the Telegraph.

As a former US general, I know the West can and must stand against both Russia and Iran

If we don't fight two wars, we may find ourselves fighting three.

Today, the Western and allied democracies face challenges all around the world.

Two of Iran’s proxies, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi rebels of Yemen, are actively engaged in war against Israel following the shocking Hamas atrocities of October 7.

Read 53 tweets

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

@FAB87F

Nov 9, 2023

COMMENT by @AllisonPearson in the Telegraph

When poppy sellers cannot honour the dead, we must take a stand

It shows how weak our country has become if a patriotic day raising money for veterans ends with them surrounded by enemies of patriotism.

1 of 66

I am not really the protesting kind although I did go on anti-apartheid demonstrations as a student, even spending several hours one mitten-numbing day imprisoned in a cage on the lawn outside the chapel of King’s College, Cambridge.

2 of 66

(Eat your heart out, Nelson Mandela!) Such public displays of righteousness tend to evaporate with the dew of youth. There are no causes now for which I would willingly quit the sofa to scrunch myself into a freezing steel enclosure, or so I thought.

3 of 66

Read 66 tweets

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

@FAB87F

Oct 6, 2023

Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 20th anniversary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

The theme of this year's meeting is “Fair multipolarity: how to ensure security and development for all.”

The moderator of the discussion is the scientific director of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov.

* * *

F. Lukyanov: Good evening, dear colleagues, dear friends!

I am pleased to welcome you to the 20th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

Today, as before, we have the great honor that the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, is participating in our meeting - I am pleased to present to you.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, we are having our 20th meeting. Valdai is 19 years old, and this is the 20th meeting, it happens. When we look at the Valdai archives, we get the feeling that this is a chronicle of a turning point. It was a very interesting time indeed. We are very honored that all these 20 meetings, in my opinion, not once did you miss and not meet with your Valdai colleagues. There are those in the room who have met you before, and for the first time, and there are those who are meeting you for the first time.

I will be very happy to invite you to express your current opinion.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Dear participants of the plenary session! Colleagues! Ladies and Gentlemen!

I am glad to welcome you all to Sochi at the anniversary, as our presenter has just said, the twentieth annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

Our, or, one might say, your forum, which traditionally brought together politicians and scientists, experts and public figures from many countries around the world, once again confirms the high status of a sought-after and intellectual platform. The Valdai Discussions are always a reflection of the most important processes in world politics of the 21st century in all their completeness and complexity. I am sure that this will be the case today – this was probably already the case in previous days when you were discussing with each other, and this will continue to be the case, because we are faced, in essence, with the task of building a new world. And at such defining stages, the role and responsibility of intellectuals like you, dear colleagues, is extremely great.

Over the years of the club’s work, both in the world and in our country, as just said, serious, if not huge, colossal changes have occurred. By historical standards, twenty years is not that long, not that long. But when it falls during the era of the breakdown of the entire world order, time seems to compress.

And I think you will agree that more events have happened in these twenty years than in other times happens in many, many decades, and these changes are qualitative, requiring fundamental changes in the very principles of international relations.

At the beginning of the 21st century, everyone hoped that states and peoples had learned lessons from the costly, destructive military-ideological confrontation of the last century, realized its destructiveness, felt the fragility and interconnectedness of our planet, and were convinced that the global problems of humanity require joint action and the search for collective solutions. But selfishness, conceit, and disregard for real challenges will inevitably lead us into a dead end, as well as the attempt of the stronger to impose their own ideas and interests on others. This should have become obvious to everyone - it should have become, but it turned out that it was not so, no.

When we first met at a club meeting almost twenty years ago, our country was entering a new stage of its development. Russia has overcome the most difficult period of recovery after the collapse of the USSR. We, with all our energy and good will, became involved in the processes of building a new, as it seemed to us, more equitable world order. Fortunately, our country is able to make a huge contribution to them, since we have something to offer our friends, partners, and the whole world.

Unfortunately, some misunderstood our readiness for constructive interaction - they understood it as submission, as agreement that a new order will be built by those who declared themselves victors in the Cold War, in fact, as a recognition that Russia is ready to follow someone else’s lead, ready to be guided not by its own national interests, but by the interests of others.

All these years, we have warned more than once: this approach not only leads to a dead end, it is fraught with an increasing threat of military conflict. But no one was going to listen or hear us, no one wanted to. The arrogance of our so-called partners in the West, you know, was simply off the charts, it’s impossible to say otherwise.

The United States and its satellites have firmly set a course for hegemony - military, political, economic, cultural, even moral and value-based. It was clear to us from the very beginning that attempts to establish a monopoly were doomed to failure. The world is too complex and diverse to be subordinated to one scheme, even if behind it lies the power, the enormous power of the West, accumulated over centuries of colonial policy. After all, your colleagues - many are not here, but they do not deny that the prosperity of the West was largely achieved thanks to the plunder of colonies over the centuries. This is a fact. In fact, this level of development was achieved by plundering the entire planet. The history of the West is essentially a chronicle of endless expansion. Western influence in the world is a huge military-financial pyramid, it constantly needs new fuel to support itself - natural, technological, human resources belonging to others. Therefore, the West simply cannot stop and did not intend to do so. Our arguments, exhortations, calls to reason, and suggestions were simply ignored.

I have already spoken about this publicly – and to our allies, our partners. After all, there was a moment when your humble servant simply suggested: maybe we should join NATO? But no, such a country is not needed in NATO. No. The question is, what else? We thought that we were already our own, excuse me, as our people say, bourgeois. What else? There is no longer any ideological confrontation. What is the problem? Apparently, the problem is geopolitical interests and an arrogant attitude towards others. That's the problem, overconfidence.

We have to respond to the constantly growing military-political pressure. I have said more than once that we did not start the so-called “war in Ukraine.” On the contrary, we are trying to finish it. It was not we who organized the coup d’etat in Kyiv in 2014 – a coup d’etat, bloody, unconstitutional. Wherever it happens, we always immediately hear all the world’s media [mass media], subordinate, first of all, of course, to the Anglo-Saxon world: this is impossible, it is impossible, it is anti-democratic. But here it is possible. They even named the money, the amount of money that was spent on this coup. Everything is possible.

At this time we were engaged in supporting the Crimeans and Sevastopol residents. We did not stage a coup, and we did not intimidate the Crimeans and Sevastopol residents with ethnic cleansing in the Nazi spirit. It was not we who tried to force the Donbass into obedience through shelling and bombing. We were not the ones who threatened to crack down on those who want to speak their native language. Listen, everyone here is informed, literate people. It’s a good idea, excuse the bad manners, to fool the minds of millions of people who perceive reality from the media. But you know what happened: for nine years they bombed, shot, and used tanks. War, a natural war against Donbass, was launched. And no one counted the dead children in Donbass. No one in other countries, especially in the West, cried for the dead.

The war started by the Kyiv regime with the active, direct support of the West is now in its tenth year, and a special military operation is aimed at stopping it. And it reminds us that unilateral steps, no matter who takes them, will inevitably be met with retaliatory actions. Action, as we know, gives rise to reaction. This is what any responsible state, a sovereign, independent and self-respecting country does.

Everyone is aware that in an international system where arbitrariness reigns, where everything is decided by the one who imagines himself to be exceptional, sinless and the only one right, anyone can be under attack simply for the reason that this or that country is not liked by the hegemon who has lost a sense of proportion and, I would add, a sense of reality.

Unfortunately, we have to admit that our counterparties in the West have lost their sense of reality and have crossed all possible boundaries. In vain.

The Ukrainian crisis is not a territorial conflict, I want to emphasize this. Russia is the largest country in the world, with the largest territory. We have no interests in terms of conquering any additional territories. We still have to explore and develop Siberia, Eastern Siberia and the Far East. This is not a territorial conflict or even the establishment of a regional geopolitical balance. The question is much broader and more fundamental: we are talking about the principles on which the new world order will be based.

Lasting peace will be established only when everyone begins to feel safe, understand that their opinion is respected and that there is a balance in the world, when no one is able to force or force others to live and behave as the hegemon wishes, even if even this contradicts sovereignty, genuine interests, traditions, and the foundations of peoples and states. In such a scheme, the very concept of any kind of sovereignty is simply denied and thrown, excuse me, into the trash.

It is obvious that adherence to bloc approaches, the desire to drive the world into a situation of constant confrontation between “us and them” is a vicious legacy of the 20th century. This is a product of Western political culture, at least its most aggressive manifestations. I repeat, the West always needs an enemy – a certain part of the West, the Western elites. We need an enemy, the fight against which can explain the need for forceful action and expansion. But it is also needed to maintain internal control in a certain system of this very hegemon, within blocs - within NATO or other military-political blocs. There is an enemy - everyone must rally around the boss.

It is none of our business how other states live. But we see how in many of them the ruling elites force societies to accept norms and rules that the citizens themselves - at least a large number of citizens, and in some countries, one can say with absolute certainty, the majority of citizens - do not want to accept. And they are forced, constantly inventing reasons for this, finding external culprits for growing internal problems, inventing and inflating non-existent threats.

At the same time, Russia is a favorite topic of such politicians. We are, of course, already accustomed to this, historically accustomed. But they are trying to create the image of an enemy out of everyone who is not ready to blindly follow these Western elites. From anyone: from the People's Republic of China, in certain situations, at a certain moment, they tried the same from India - now they are flirting, of course, we understand this perfectly well, we feel and see the situation in Asia, everything is clear. The Indian leadership, I want to say, is independent, very nationally oriented. I think that these attempts do not make any sense, but nevertheless they continue. They are trying to mold an enemy out of the Arab world, also selectively, they try to act carefully, but nevertheless, in general, this is what it all comes down to - and they are even trying to mold some kind of hostile environment out of Muslims. And so on. In fact, anyone

Artificial geopolitical structures are being imposed on the world and closed bloc formats are being created. We see this in Europe, where they have been pushing forward NATO expansion for decades, and in the Asia-Pacific and southern Asia, where they are trying to break down the open and inclusive architecture of cooperation. The bloc approach, let's call a spade a spade, is a restriction of the rights and freedoms of states to their own development, an attempt to drive them into a certain cage of obligations. This is to a certain extent - and this is an obvious thing - the taking away of part of sovereignty, and then - and very often - the imposition of decisions in other areas besides the security sphere, and above all in the economic sphere, as is now happening in relations between the United States and Europe. No need to explain - if necessary,

To achieve this, they are trying to replace international law with “order” – what kind of “order”? – based on certain “rules”. What “rules”, what these “rules” are, and who invented them is completely unclear. This is just some kind of nonsense, nonsense. But they are trying to introduce this into the consciousness of millions of people. “We must live by the rules.” By what rules?

And in general, if I may, our Western colleagues, especially from the USA, not only arbitrarily set such “rules”, but also teach who should follow them and how, who should behave in general and how. This is all done and said, as a rule, in an openly boorish manner. This is still the same manifestation of this colonial thinking. We hear all the time, it sounds all the time: you must, you are obliged, we are seriously warning you...

Who are you anyway? What right do you have to warn someone? This is simply amazing. Maybe for those who say this, maybe it’s time for you yourself to get rid of arrogance, stop behaving in relation to the world community in such a way, which perfectly understands its tasks, its interests, and really still get rid of this thinking from the era of colonial rule? I would like to say: wipe your eyes, this era is long over and will never return, never.

I will say more: over the centuries, such behavior led to the reproduction of the same thing - big wars, for the justification of which various ideological, and even pseudo-moral justifications were invented. This is especially dangerous today. Humanity has means that, as we know, can easily destroy the entire planet, and manipulation of consciousness on an incredible scale leads to a loss of sense of reality. Of course, we need to get out of this vicious circle, we need to look for some way out. As I understand it, dear friends and colleagues, you are gathering at the Valdai site for this purpose.

In the Concept of Russian Foreign Policy, adopted this year, our country is characterized as a distinctive state-civilization. This formulation accurately and succinctly reflects how we understand not only our own development, but also the basic principles of the world order, for the victory of which we hope.

In our understanding, civilization is a multifaceted phenomenon. It is, of course, interpreted in different ways. There was also an openly colonial interpretation: there is a certain “civilized world” that serves as a model for others, everyone must follow these standards, models, and those who do not agree will be driven into “civilization” with the baton of an “enlightened” master. Those times, as I just said, are over, and our understanding of civilization is completely different.

Firstly, there are many civilizations, and none of them is better or worse than the other. They have equal rights as exponents of the aspirations of their cultures and traditions, their peoples. For each of us it is different. For me, for example, these are the aspirations of our people, my people, of which I was lucky enough to become a part.

Outstanding thinkers around the world, adherents of the civilizational approach, have reflected and continue to reflect on the concept of “civilization.” This is a multi-component phenomenon. Without plunging into philosophical depths - this is probably not the place or time for such reasoning - let's try to describe it in relation to today, I will try to do this in detail.

The main qualities of a state-civilization are diversity and self-sufficiency. Here are the two main components, in my opinion. The modern world is alien to any unification; every state and society wants to independently develop its own path of development. It is based on culture and traditions, strengthened in geography, historical experience, both ancient and modern, and in the values of the people. This is a complex synthesis, in the process of which a unique civilizational community emerges. Its heterogeneity and diversity are the key to sustainability and development.

Over the centuries, Russia has been formed as a country of different cultures, religions, and nationalities. Russian civilization cannot be reduced to one common denominator, but it cannot be divided either, because it exists only in its integrity, in its spiritual and cultural wealth. Maintaining the strong unity of such a state is not an easy task.

Over the centuries we have faced the most difficult trials. We have always overcome them, sometimes at a very high cost, but we have always learned lessons for the future, strengthening our national unity and the integrity of the Russian state.

Today this experience is truly invaluable. The world is becoming more and more diverse. Simple methods of management, brushing everyone with the same brush, as we say, which some states are accustomed to, cannot cope with all the complexity of processes.

What is very important to add here? A truly effective and durable state system cannot be imposed from the outside. It grows naturally from the civilizational roots of countries and peoples, and Russia in this regard is an example of how this happens in life, in practice.

Civilizational support is a necessary condition for success in the modern world, in a world that is chaotic, unfortunately, dangerous and has lost its guidelines. More and more states are coming to exactly this conclusion, realizing their own interests and needs, opportunities and limitations, their identity and the degree of interconnectedness with the outside world.

I am convinced that humanity is moving not towards fragmentation into competing segments, not towards a new bloc confrontation, no matter what motivates it, not towards the soulless universalism of a new globalization - but, on the contrary, the world is on the way to a synergy of states-civilizations, large spaces, communities aware themselves as such.

At the same time, civilization is not a universal structure, one for all - this does not happen. Each of them is different from the others, each is culturally self-sufficient, drawing its ideological and value principles from its own history and its own traditions. Respect for oneself stems from respect, of course, for others, but it also means respect from others. Therefore, civilization does not impose anything on anyone, but it also does not allow anything to be imposed on itself. If everyone adheres to exactly this rule, this will ensure harmonious coexistence and creative interaction of all participants in international relations.

Of course, defending your civilizational choice is a huge responsibility. This concerns responding to external attacks, establishing close and constructive relationships with other civilized communities and, most importantly, maintaining internal stability and harmony. After all, we all see that the international environment today, as I already said, unfortunately, is both unstable and quite aggressive.

And one more very important thing. Of course, you cannot betray your civilization to anyone. This is also the path to general chaos, it is unnatural and disgusting, I would say. For our part, we have always tried and are trying to offer solutions that would take into account the interests of everyone. But our interlocutors in the West seem to have completely forgotten that there are such concepts as reasonable self-restraints, compromises, and the willingness to give in on something in order to achieve a result acceptable to everyone. No, they are literally obsessed with only one thing: to push, precisely to push, and at any cost, here and now their interests. If this is their choice, let's see what comes of it.

The paradox is that tomorrow the situation may change - this is the problem. For example, there will be internal political shifts after the next elections. Here the country insists on something, they push through their actions at all costs - and tomorrow internal political changes occur, and with the same pressure and unceremoniousness, something completely different, sometimes the exact opposite, is pushed through.

The most striking example is the Iranian nuclear program. One [US] Administration pushed through one decision, another came, everything was reversed, and everything went in the opposite direction. How to work in such conditions? Where are the landmarks? What to rely on? Where are the guarantees? Are these the very “rules” that we are told about? It's just some nonsense.

Why does all this happen and why doesn’t it bother anyone? Because strategic thinking has been replaced by following the short-term selfish interests not even of countries and peoples, but of changing influence groups. Hence the incredible irresponsibility of the behavior of the political elites, who often forgot both fear and shame and consider themselves absolutely sinless.

The civilizational approach resists such trends because it is based on the fundamental, long-term interests of states and peoples. Interests that are dictated not by momentary ideological conjuncture, but by all historical experience, the legacy of the past, on which the idea of a harmonious future is based.

If everyone is guided by this, in my opinion, there will be much fewer conflicts in the world, and the methods for resolving them will become much more rational, because every civilization respects, as I already said, others and does not try to change anyone according to its own ideas.

Dear friends, I read with interest the report prepared by the Valdai Club for the current meeting. It says that today everyone is trying to understand, to imagine an image of the future. This is completely natural and understandable, especially for an intellectual environment. In an era of dramatic changes, when the entire familiar way of life is collapsing, it is very important to realize where we are going and what we want to achieve. And, of course, the future is being created today, not only before our eyes, but with our hands.

Of course, when we are talking about such gigantic, incredibly complex processes, it is difficult or almost impossible to predict the outcome. No matter what we all do, life will and will certainly make its own adjustments. But, at least, we must be aware of what we are striving for, what we want to achieve. And there is such an understanding in Russia.

First. We want to live in an open, interconnected world in which no one will ever try to erect artificial barriers to people's communication, creativity and prosperity. There should be a barrier-free environment - that’s what we should strive for.

Second. We want the diversity of the world not just to be preserved, but to be the foundation of universal development. Imposing on any country or people how they should live, how they should feel, should be prohibited. Only true cultural and civilizational diversity will ensure the well-being of people and a balance of interests.

Third. We are for maximum representation. No one has the right and cannot rule the world for others or on behalf of others. The world of the future is a world of collective decisions made at those levels at which they are most effective, and by those participants who are truly capable of making a significant contribution to resolving a specific problem. Not one person decides for everyone, and not everyone even decides about everything, but those who are directly affected by this or that issue agree on what and how to do.

Fourth. We are for universal security and lasting peace, built on respect for the interests of everyone: from great, large states to small countries. The main thing is to free international relations from the bloc approach, from the legacy of the colonial era and the Cold War. We have been talking for decades about the indivisibility of security, about the fact that it is impossible to ensure the security of some at the expense of the security of others. Indeed, harmony in this area is achievable. You just need to put aside pride, arrogance and stop looking at others as second-class partners or as outcasts or savages.

http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/72444

continued...

Fifth. We are for justice for all. The era of exploitation of anyone, I've already said this twice in the past. Countries and peoples are clearly aware of their interests and capabilities and are ready to rely on themselves - and this increases their strength. Everyone should be provided with access to the benefits of modern development, and attempts to limit it for any country or people should be considered an act of aggression, exactly that.

Sixth. We are for equality, for the difference in the potential of different countries. This is an absolutely objective factor. But no less objective is the fact that no one is anymore ready to submit, to make their interests and needs dependent on anyone, and above all on the richer and more powerful.

This is not just the natural state of the international community, it is the quintessence of the entire historical experience of mankind.

These are the principles to which we wish to adhere ourselves and to which we invite all our friends and colleagues to join.

Dear Colleagues!

Russia was, is and will be one of the foundations of the world system, ready for constructive interaction with everyone who strives for peace and prosperity, ready for tough opposition to those who profess the principles of dictatorship and violence. We are confident that pragmatism and common sense will triumph, and a multipolar world will establish itself.

In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to the organizers of the forum, as always, for thorough, high-quality preparation, and to all participants in the anniversary meeting I would like to say [words] of gratitude for your attention.

Thanks a lot.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, thank you very much for such a detailed presentation of general issues, conceptual, because now at the Valdai Club and in many other places everyone is trying to understand the framework that will replace those that no longer work, and so far not very well we succeeded. We know what no longer exists, but we don’t really understand what will happen. Your points are, it seems to me, the first case of such an attempt to at least very clearly lay out the principles.

If possible, to follow up on your speech. Of course, a very interesting part dedicated to civilizations and the civilizational approach. You once said, a long time ago, however, a very vivid phrase, that Russia’s borders do not end anywhere. If Russia’s borders do not end, then Russian and Russian civilization, apparently, have nothing to talk about at all. What does it mean? Where is she?

V. Putin: You know, this was said for the first time in a conversation with one of the former presidents of the United States at my home, in Ogarevo, it was said as a joke, of course, when he was looking at a map of the Russian Federation.

We all know, and I want to repeat it again: Russia remains the largest country in the world in terms of territory. But seriously, then, of course, this first of all has a civilizational meaning. There are many of our compatriots, the Russian world has a global character, the Russian language is one of the official languages of the UN. In Latin America alone, just now we met with parliamentarians , there are 300 thousand of our compatriots. They are everywhere: in Asia, Africa, Europe, and, of course, North America.

Therefore, speaking seriously, I repeat, in the civilizational sense, of course, there are no borders, just as there are no borders of all other civilizations. Take India or China - how many representatives of China live in other countries of the world and how many representatives of India live in other countries of the world! This all intersects and interacts with each other. And it will be very good if this interaction is natural and friendly, aimed at strengthening this state.

F. Lukyanov: So, for you, civilization is not territory, but people?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course, first of all these are people. There will probably be a lot of questions about Ukraine now. Our actions in the same Donbass are primarily and mainly dictated by the protection of people. This is the whole point of our actions.

F. Lukyanov: In this case, can you characterize the special military operation as a civilizational conflict? You said that this is not a territorial conflict.

V. Putin: This is first of all... I don’t know what kind of civilization those on the other side of the front line are defending, but we are defending our traditions, our culture and our people.

F. Lukyanov: Okay. Since we immediately moved on to Ukraine: today, in my opinion, a large European event begins in Spain, Vladimir Zelensky and a number of other important people went there. The issue of continuing support for Ukraine is being discussed. Now, as we know, in the United States there has been some hitch due to the crisis in Congress. Therefore, in Europe, it seems to me, they felt that they would have to take on the financing themselves.

Do you think they will cope? And what do we expect from this?

Vladimir Putin: We are waiting for the manifestation of at least some sprouts of common sense. As for whether they can handle it or not, they need to be asked. Of course, they will cope, I don’t see any problems - the problems are to expand production in order to increase the amount of money that goes to the war and prolongs this conflict. But there are, of course, problems; for this audience, it seems to me, they are understandable and known.

If in the United States, as you said, there is a hitch, it is more of a technical nature, political-technical, so to speak, which consists in the fact that there are problems with the budget, a large debt burden, the budget needs to be balanced. Question: how to balance? Either by supplying weapons to Ukraine and cutting budget expenses, or by cutting social spending? But no one wants to cut social spending, especially because this strengthens the position of the opposition parties, the opposition party in this case. That's all.

But in the end, they will probably find the money and print more. They printed more than nine trillion dollars during the post-Covid period and during the Covid period, so printing something else and scattering it all over the world, increasing food inflation, costs them nothing. They will do it for sure.

As for Europe, the situation here is more complicated, because if in the United States we still observe economic growth over the previous period of 2.4 percent of GDP, then in Europe the situation is much worse. There, in 2021, economic growth was 4.9 percent, this year it will be 0.5. And then only due to the southern countries, due to Italy and Spain, which showed a slight increase.

Yesterday we spoke with our experts about this: I think that growth in Italy and Spain is primarily associated with rising real estate prices and a certain rise in the tourism sector. And in the main economies of Europe there is stagnation, there is a minus in all industries. In the Federal Republic [Germany] - minus 0.1, in the Baltic countries - minus two, even minus three, in Estonia, in my opinion, minus three, in Holland, in Austria - minus everywhere. There is a particularly big disadvantage in the field of industrial production: there, if not a catastrophe, then a very difficult situation in the sphere of real production, especially in the chemical industry, in the glass industry, in the metallurgical industry.

We know that due to relatively cheap energy resources in the United States and certain administrative and financial decisions, many industries from Europe simply move to the United States, close down in Europe and move to the United States. This is well known, this is what I hinted at when speaking here from this rostrum. The burden on the population of European countries is also growing, this is also an obvious thing, this is data from European statistics themselves. The standard of living is falling, over the last month it has decreased, in my opinion, by one and a half percent.

Europe can or cannot? Maybe. Due to what? Due to the deterioration, further deterioration of their economy and the lives of citizens of European countries.

F. Lukyanov: But our budget is not rubber either. Can we cope, unlike them?

Vladimir Putin: We are coping so far, and I have reason to believe that we will cope in the future. In the third quarter of this year we had a surplus of over 660 billion rubles. This is the first.

Second. We will ultimately have a certain deficit at the end of the year - somewhere around one percent. And for the coming years – 2024, 2025 – we expect that the deficit will be somewhere around one percent. Our record low unemployment of three percent has settled and stabilized.

And what is very important - this is a key point, maybe we will return to this again, but I think this is an important, fundamental phenomenon in our economy - we have naturally begun a structural restructuring of the economy. Because what we previously received from European countries for imports was closed for us, and we, just like in 2014, having introduced certain restrictions on the purchase of Western, European, primarily agricultural goods, were forced to invest money in the development of agricultural production within countries. Yes, inflation jumped, but we then ensured that our manufacturers increased their production of the goods we needed. And today, you know, we fully provide ourselves with all basic agricultural products, with basic types of food.

The same thing is now happening in the sphere of real production in industry, and the main growth is coming from the manufacturing industries. Oil and gas revenues have fallen, but they also provide plus three percent, and non-oil and gas revenues, and primarily in the processing industries, plus 43 percent, and this is primarily the steel industry, optics, and electronics. We have a lot to do in the field of microelectronics. We are really still at the beginning of our journey, but it is already growing. All together gives a plus of 43 percent.

We have rebuilt logistics, mechanical engineering is growing, and so on. Overall, we have a stable, stable situation. We overcame all the problems that arose after the sanctions were imposed on us and began the next stage of development - on a new basis, which is extremely important.

It is very important for us to maintain this trend and not miss it. We have problems, including the labor shortage, yes. This is followed by some other questions. But our population's real disposable income is growing. While in Europe they fell, in our country they grew by more than 12 percent.

Here, our own questions arise related to inflation, and it has grown here - now 5.7 percent, yes, but the Central Bank and the Government are taking concerted measures to neutralize these possible negative consequences.

F. Lukyanov: You mentioned the structural restructuring that is taking place.

Some opponents will say that this is the militarization of the economy. Are they right?

Vladimir Putin: Look, we have increased spending on defense, but not just on defense, but on defense and security. They have approximately doubled: it was somewhere around three percent, now it is about six percent – for defense and security. But at the same time, I want to emphasize this, I have already said and am forced to repeat: we have a budget surplus in the third quarter of over 660 billion rubles, and this year there will be a deficit, but only one percent. This is a completely healthy budget and a healthy economy.

Therefore, to say that we spend too much money on guns and forget about oil is not true. I would like to emphasize that everything, namely all the previously announced development plans, the achievement of strategic goals and all the social obligations undertaken by the state to the population are being fully implemented.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you. It's a good news.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, in addition to the conflict in Ukraine, which we will certainly return to more than once, literally in the last days and weeks there have been events in the South Caucasus. President of the European Council Charles Michel said in an interview just yesterday that Russia betrayed the Armenian people.

Vladimir Putin: Who said?

F. Lukyanov: Charles Michel, Chairman of the European Council.

Vladimir Putin: You know, our people say: whose mare would moo, but yours would be silent.

F. Lukyanov: Cow.

Vladimir Putin: A cow, a mare – it doesn’t matter, an animal, in short, some kind of animal.

This is all? I interrupted you, sorry.

F. Lukyanov: Please.

Vladimir Putin: Do you understand what happened and what happened recently? After the well-known events and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we know that there was a conflict, ethnic clashes began between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, they began in the city of Sumgait, then spread to Karabakh. All this led to the fact that Armenia - not Karabakh, but Armenia - brought under its control all of Karabakh and seven adjacent territories, seven regions of Azerbaijan. This, in my opinion, is almost 20 percent of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. And all this went on for many decades.

I must say that - I will not reveal any secret here - many times over the past 15 years we have offered our Armenian friends to compromise. Which? Return five regions around Karabakh to Azerbaijan, keep two for themselves, and thus preserve the territorial connection between Armenia and Karabakh.

But our Karabakh friends told us time after time: no, this will create certain threats for us. We, in turn, said: listen, Azerbaijan is growing, the economy is developing, it is an oil and gas producing country, there are already over 10 million people there, let’s compare the potentials. While there is such an opportunity, we need to find this compromise. For our part, we are confident that we will carry out the relevant decisions within the framework of the UN Security Council, guarantee the security of this naturally emerging Lachin corridor between Armenia and Karabakh, and guarantee the security of the Armenians living in this territory.

But no, they told us: no, we cannot do this. What will you do? We will fight. OK. Things eventually came to the point of armed clashes in 2020, and then I also proposed to our friends and colleagues - by the way, President Aliyev probably won’t be offended by me, but at some point an agreement was reached that the Azerbaijani troops would stop.

To be honest, I thought the issue was resolved. I called Yerevan and suddenly heard: no, let them leave that insignificant part of Karabakh where Azerbaijani troops entered. That's it. I say: listen, what are you going to do? Again the same phrase: we will fight. I say: listen, in a few days they will go to the rear of your fortifications in the Agdam area, and everything will be over, do you understand? - Yes. - What will you do? - We will fight. OK. That's how it all turned out.

Ultimately, we agreed with Azerbaijan that after reaching the Shusha line and into Shusha itself, hostilities would be stopped. A corresponding statement was signed in November 2020 on the suspension of hostilities and the deployment of our peacekeepers. And the next, very important point: the legal status of our peacekeepers was based solely on this statementfrom November 2020. No peacekeeper status ever emerged. I won't say why now. Azerbaijan believed that there was no need for this, and signing without Azerbaijan was pointless. Therefore, the entire status was based, I repeat, solely on the statement of November 2020, and the rights of the peacekeepers consisted of only one thing - monitoring compliance with the ceasefire. That’s it, our peacekeepers didn’t have and don’t have any other rights there. Just monitoring the ceasefire is all. But this precarious state lasted for some time.

Now you mentioned the President of the European Council, Mr. Michel, whom I respect. In Prague in the fall of 2022, under the auspices of Mr. Michel, then President of France Macron and Mr. Scholz, Chancellor of Germany, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan gathered and signed a statement, from which it follows that Armenia recognized Karabakh as part of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Moreover, the heads of the delegations, the leaders of Armenia, directly named the territory of Azerbaijan in square kilometers, which, of course, includes Karabakh, and emphasized that they recognize the sovereignty of Azerbaijan within the framework of the Azerbaijan SSR, which at one time was part of the USSR. And as you know, Karabakh was also part of the Azerbaijan SSR. That is, in essence, the main, absolutely key issue, which was the status of Karabakh, was resolved. When Karabakh declared its independence, no one recognized this independence, not even Armenia, which, frankly, is strange for me, but nevertheless, this was the decision - they did not recognize the independence of Karabakh. But here in Prague they recognized that Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan. And then, at the beginning of 2023, they repeated the same thing a second time at a similar meeting in Brussels.

You know, so, between us, although between us it’s probably no longer appropriate, but nevertheless, if we came [to an agreement]... By the way, no one told us about this, I personally learned this from the press. Azerbaijan has always believed that Karabakh is part of its territory, but by defining the status of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, Armenia made a qualitative change in its position.

After this, at one of the meetings, President Aliyev came up to me and said: well, you see, everyone recognized that Karabakh is ours, your peacekeepers are there on our territory. You see, even the status of our peacekeepers immediately underwent a qualitative change after the status of Karabakh was determined as a part of Azerbaijan. He says: your military is on our territory, and let’s now agree on their status on a bilateral basis. And Prime Minister Pashinyan confirmed: yes, you now need to negotiate on a bilateral basis. That is, Karabakh is gone. You can say whatever you want about this status, but this was the key issue – the status of Karabakh. Everything revolved around this over the previous decades: how and when, who and where will determine the status. That's it, Armenia decided it - Karabakh officially became part of Azerbaijan.

What should we do? Everything that happened in the recent past - a week, two, three ago, and the blocking of this Lachin corridor and so on - all this was inevitable after the recognition of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Karabakh. It was only a matter of time: when and in what way Azerbaijan would establish constitutional order there within the framework of the constitution of the Azerbaijani state. What can you say? How else to react to this? Armenia recognized it, but what should we do? Say: no, we don’t recognize? This is nonsense, right? This is some kind of nonsense.

I will not talk now - I think this is incorrect - about the nuances of our discussions, but what happened in recent days or in recent weeks was an inevitable consequence of what was done in Prague and Brussels. Therefore, Mr. Michel and his colleagues should have thought then, when they apparently persuaded - I don’t know, you have to ask them themselves - somewhere behind the scenes, behind the scenes, the Prime Minister of Armenia Mr. Pashinyan to take such a step, they should have all together think about the fate of the Armenians of Karabakh, they should somehow at least write down something about what and how awaits them in this situation, some kind of order for the integration of Karabakh into the Azerbaijani state, some kind of order related to ensuring security , and respect for their rights. There's nothing like that there. There is only a statement that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, that’s all. So what should we do? If Armenia itself decided so, what should we do?

What did we do? We used everything we had in the legal sense to provide the humanitarian component. As you know, our people died there, by the way, protecting the Armenians of Karabakh, our peacekeepers. We provided them with humanitarian assistance, provided medical assistance, and ensured their exit.

If we go back again to our European so-called colleagues, at least now let them send humanitarian aid to support those unfortunate people, I can’t say otherwise, who left their native places from Nagorno-Karabakh. I think they will do it. But in general, by and large, of course, we need to think about their fate in the long term.

F. Lukyanov: Is Russia ready to support these people?

Vladimir Putin: I just said: we supported them.

F. Lukyanov: Those who left.

Vladimir Putin: Our people died there, protecting them, covering them with ourselves and providing humanitarian support. After all, we have our peacekeepers there, in the center, where all the refugees came, under the protection of our peacekeepers. Thousands gathered there, mostly women and children came there.

And so, of course, we are also ready to provide [help], Armenia does not cease to be our ally. And if there are humanitarian issues there, and there are, we will, of course, discuss them and are ready to provide support and assistance to these people. This goes without saying.

I just told you now how events developed, briefly, but in general, I told you the main thing.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, one more nuance in this regard. Now the Azerbaijani leadership is very harshly purging those who served in Karabakh, the leaders. And there are different people there, including those who are well known in Russia, like Ruben Vardanyan, for example.

V. Putin: He renounced our citizenship, as far as I know.

F. Lukyanov: He refused, but he was there. Can we somehow call on the Azerbaijani leadership to show, I don’t know, mercy?

Vladimir Putin: We have always done this and we are doing it now. I spoke , as you know, on the phone with President Aliyev, but earlier we talked about the fact that no matter what happens, and he assured me all the time that no matter what happens, he will ensure both security and rights of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. But now there are no Armenians left there, everyone has left. Do you know that everyone is gone? There are simply no Armenians there - maybe a thousand or one and a half - that's all. That's it, there's just no one there.

As for the former leaders, I don’t know, I don’t want to go into details, but as I understand it, they especially don’t want to see them in Yerevan. But I proceed from the fact that the leadership of Azerbaijan in this case, when all issues of a territorial nature for Azerbaijan have been resolved, will still proceed from considerations of a humanitarian nature.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/72444

Colleagues, please, if you wish to ask questions.

Professor Feng Shaolei is one of our “veterans”.

Feng Shaolei: Thank you very much.

Feng Shaolei, East China Normal University, Shanghai.

Dear Mr. President, I am very glad to see you again!

The October international conference dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative will be held in Beijing. At the same time, the initiative to connect the Eurasian partnership with the Belt and Road Initiative, which you and Chairman Xi Jinping defined, is almost ten years old.

My question is the same: given the new situation, what new ideas and what specific proposals have you already prepared?

Thank you very much.

V. Putin: We are indeed returning to this topic, and some are even trying to sow doubts that our Eurasian development project - the Eurasian Economic Union - and the “One Belt, One Road” initiative of President Xi Jinping may not have the same interests, may enter into some kind of competition with each other. This is not so, I have already said this many times. On the contrary, we believe that one project harmoniously complements the other.

What's going on? And in relation to China, in relation to Russia - but in relation to Russia to a greater extent today, and in relation to China long before the events in Ukraine began - some partners, we know who exactly, began to introduce various kinds of sanctions. At some point, all this turned into some kind of trade war between China and the United States, restrictions were introduced, including those related to logistics.

We are interested in establishing new logistics routes, and China is also interested. The volume of trade turnover is growing. We are now talking about the North-South corridor. China is building some routes through Central Asian states. We are interested in supporting this; we are building appropriate roads and railways. All this is the subject of our negotiations. This is the first thing.

Secondly, all this is complemented by what is called the sphere of real production. We supply the necessary goods to the People's Republic of China, China supplies us with the necessary goods, and we are building logistics and production chains that certainly fit into the goals that President Xi Jinping has set for the Chinese economy and fit into our development goals – especially in the modern world – our economy and partnerships with other countries. These are quite obviously complementary.

I will not list specific projects now; there are enough of them, including between China and Russia. We built the bridge, you know, we have other logistical plans. We are developing relations, as I already said, in the field of real production. All this together will be the subject of our bilateral contacts and negotiations within the multilateral format. This is a very large and very capacious, capital-intensive job.

I want to emphasize again, I want to focus [attention] on this: all this work was in no way and was never built against anyone. It has a creative beginning and is aimed exclusively at achieving a positive result both for us – Russia and China – and for our partners around the world.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

Richard Sakwa.

R. Sakwa (as translated) : You spoke about changes in international politics, the emergence of sovereign states that protect themselves, they are autonomous actors in international politics. Indeed, this is happening. This is happening within the framework of BRICS Plus; a few months ago there was also a meeting of the SCO.

Thus, the world is changing, international politics, states, post-colonial states are changing. And now these states have made it clear that they want to actively participate in the international community.

Nevertheless, international politics is formed within the framework of a system that was created in 1945 - the UN. Do you see any contradictions between changes in international politics and the paralysis of the UN system and international law? How can Russia help overcome this so that the UN can work better? How can contradictions in international politics be resolved in a more peaceful way, so that they are directed towards the future?

V. Putin: You are certainly right; there are certain contradictions between the framework that was created by the victorious countries in World War II in 1945, and the changed conditions in the world today. 1945 was one situation in the world, today is completely different. And, of course, these legal norms must change in accordance with the changing world.

Here we can approach this differently; we can say that the UN and modern international law, which is built on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations, are outdated and subject to demolition, and it is necessary to create something new. But here, of course, there is a danger that we will eliminate the existing system of international rules, namely real rules, international law based on the UN Charter, but nothing new has been created yet - and we will not create it, and just general chaos will ensue. Its elements already “take place.” But if the UN Charter is completely consigned to the dustbin of history without replacing it with anything, then chaos is inevitable and can lead to very serious consequences.

Therefore, I believe that we must follow the path of changes in international law in accordance with the requirements of today and with the changing situation in the world. In this sense, of course, the UN Security Council should include countries that gain significant weight in international affairs and, simply by virtue of their potential, have the opportunity and influence on the resolution of key international issues.

What countries are these? This is India - more than one and a half billion people, in my opinion, already a population, economic growth of more than seven percent, in my opinion, 7.4 or 7.6 percent. This is a global giant. Yes, there are still a lot of people there who need help and support. But nevertheless, high-tech exports there are growing at a gigantic pace. So this is a powerful country, it is becoming more powerful year by year under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi.

Or Brazil in Latin America – the population is huge, the growth of influence is colossal. South Africa. How can we ignore their influence in the world? This means that their weight in making key decisions on the international agenda should increase.

But, of course, this must be done in such a way that consensus on these changes is achieved, so that it does not destroy the existing international legal regime. This is a complex process, but, in my opinion, we need to go in this direction, along this path.

F. Lukyanov: So you think that the existing international legal regime exists? Isn't it destroyed yet?

Vladimir Putin: It’s definitely not completely destroyed. After all, do you understand what’s the matter? Let's remember the very first years of the UN. What was our Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Gromyko, called then? They called him "Mr. No." Why? Because there were a lot of contradictions, and the Soviet Union very often used its veto power. But it had meaning and significance, it did not lead to conflicts.

In our recent history, we have often heard from Western leaders that the UN system is outdated and does not meet the needs of today. Especially when did it start sounding? During the Yugoslav crisis, when, without any sanctions from the UN Security Council, the United States and its allies began to bomb Belgrade, mercilessly and fearlessly, even hitting the embassy of the People's Republic of China in Belgrade.

Where is this international law? No, they said, there is no need for any international law that existed, it is outdated. Why? Because I wanted to act without regard to this international law. Then, when Russia began to take some actions, they said: how can this be? Ugliness! Russia is violating international law and the UN Charter!

Unfortunately, there have always been attempts to adjust this international law to suit ourselves. Is it good or bad? This is very bad. But at least something exists that is a guideline.

My only concern is that if it gets swept into the trash at all, put away, then there won't even be any landmarks. It seems to me that we need to follow the path of permanent gradual changes. But this must be done, of course. The world has changed.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

Sergey Karaganov.

S. Karaganov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, I am one of the “veterans” and founders of the club. I am in a state close to happiness on the day of his 20th birthday because... Old people, generally speaking, should say that “it was better with us” - it was not better with us, now it is better, more fun, more interesting, brighter, more colorful. So thank you too for your participation. My question is this...

Vladimir Putin: As for “more fun,” it seems to me that it sounds bold.

S. Karaganov: When it’s more interesting, then it’s more fun.

Vladimir Putin: It’s more fun for you, but to be honest, it’s not so much fun for me. (Laughter.)

S. Karaganov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, both outside Russia and now at the [Valdai] Club, one simple issue is being discussed quite sharply. I will formulate it as follows - from myself, of course, not from everyone. Is our doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons outdated? It seems to me that it is certainly outdated, and it even looks frivolous, created in other times and, perhaps, in a different environment, and even follows old theories. Containment no longer works. Isn’t it time for us to change the doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons in the direction of lowering the nuclear threshold and move, of course, firmly, but quickly enough along the ladder of escalation of deterrence, sobering up our partners?

They have become insolent, they directly say that “since you have such a doctrine that you will never use nuclear weapons” - and we, thus, unwittingly allow them to expand and carry out absolutely monstrous aggression.

This is one question, but within it lies another. The world in the coming years - even when we win in one way or another in Ukraine or around Ukraine - the West will still go through very difficult times: new centers will rise, new difficulties will arise. After all, we need to put back the same fuse that was nuclear deterrence and that held the world together for 70 years. Now this West, having forgotten history and fear, is trying to eliminate this fuse. Shouldn't we change our policy in this area?

V. Putin: I know your position, I have read some documents, your articles, notes. And I understand your feelings.

Let me remind you that in Russian military doctrine there are two reasons for the possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia. The first is the use against us, that is, this is a so-called retaliatory strike. But in practice, what does this mean? The missiles launched, our early warning system detected, recorded, made it known that the target is the territory of the Russian Federation - all this happens in seconds so that everyone understands - and already understanding, knowing the information that a strike is being carried out on Russia, we For our part, we respond to this aggression.

I want to assure everyone that today the response is absolutely unacceptable for any potential aggressor, because from the moment the missile launch is detected, no matter where it comes from, from anywhere in the World Ocean or from any territory, in response to a counter strike such a quantity, so many hundreds—hundreds—of our missiles appear in the air that not a single enemy has a chance of survival, and in several directions at once.

The second reason for the use of these weapons is a threat to the existence of the Russian state, if even conventional weapons are used against Russia, but the very existence of Russia as a state is threatened.

Here are two possible reasons for using the weapons you mentioned.

Do we need to change this? What for? Everything can be changed, I just don’t see the need for it. There is no situation in which, say, today something would threaten Russian statehood and the existence of the Russian state, no. I think that no person in his right mind and clear memory would think of using nuclear weapons against Russia.

Nevertheless, the point of view of you, other experts, people who are patriotic, are very worried about what is happening inside the country, around us, worried about what is happening on the line of military contact in the Ukrainian direction - I understand everything, we are watching carefully And believe me, we respect your point of view, but I don’t see such a need to change our concept. The potential enemy knows everything, knows about our capabilities.

Another thing is, for example, I am already hearing calls, for example, to start testing nuclear weapons, to return to testing. Here's what I would say. The United States signed the corresponding international act, document, treaty banning nuclear weapons tests, and Russia signed it. Russia signed and ratified, and the United States signed but did not ratify.

Now we have almost finished work on the modern types of strategic weapons that I spoke about and which I announced several years ago.

The last successful test of the Burevestnik, a global-range cruise missile with a nuclear propulsion system, was carried out. We have actually finished work on the Sarmat, a super-heavy rocket. The question is that we just need to complete some procedures in a purely administrative and bureaucratic manner, move on to their mass production and putting them on combat duty. We will do this soon.

As a rule, experts say that this is a new weapon and it is necessary to make sure that the special warhead will work without failures, and tests must be carried out. I’m not ready to say now whether we really need or don’t need to conduct tests. But to behave in a mirror way in relations with the United States, I repeat once again, when the United States signed but did not ratify, but we signed and ratified - in principle, it is possible to behave in a mirror way with the same United States. But this is a question for the State Duma deputies. In theory, this ratification could be revoked. If we do this, it will be quite enough.

F. Lukyanov: Now in the West some people are already openly expressing the position that such active support for Ukraine is due to the fact that Russia somehow did not respond convincingly enough to the escalation on their part for the past year and a half.

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know, convincingly, not convincingly. But now, since the beginning of the so-called counteroffensive - this is the latest data - since June 4 alone, Ukrainian units have already lost over 90 thousand people - these are sanitary and irretrievable losses, 557 tanks, almost 1900 armored vehicles of various classes. Convincing, not convincing?

We have our own understanding of what moves and how. We understand where and what we need to do, where and what we need to add. We are calmly moving towards achieving our goals, and I am confident that we will achieve them - the implementation of these tasks that we have set for ourselves.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

Radhika Desai.

R. Desai (as translated) : Mr. President Putin, thank you for another, I would say, historically important and thoughtful speech. I'm always very impressed when I listen to you.

I have a question and a personal request. The question concerns my country - Canada. As you know, the Canadian Parliament just made a mockery of itself when they applauded a Ukrainian Nazi veteran in the Canadian Parliament. More than 440 people applauded, and no one asked the question: is this right?

As you know, Prime Minister Trudeau has apologized, it seems, twice already, and the Speaker of Parliament has resigned. And to me this really shows the scale of how far the Western position has come. They are so focused on their ignorant concepts that they have even forgotten how much Russia did to defeat Nazism.

They do not understand that if not for Russia’s contribution, World War II would have ended differently: there would have been no victory. They forgot how much Russia did for victory, 30 million lives were lost - a huge number, it’s hard to even imagine this scale.

Could you comment on this, what do you think about it?

And my personal request to you, this concerns me personally. Sorry if I mispronounce anything, but this concerns my friend, the friend of many of us here and my husband Dimitris Konstantakopoulos. And this is the question of Boris Kagarlitsky. As you know, he was detained and he is concerned about his personal condition.

And I have several reasons why I am talking about this. Several petitions have been signed in Western countries; of course, a lot is said about this case, but we do not sign these petitions because we do not agree with their content, because they are completely anti-Russian. And we have a letter to you, and we hope that you will read it, and we hope that you will understand that we are addressing you as friends of Russia.

Of course, we are in a difficult position because we do not agree with our friend's position, but we remember how much we have learned from him. He has an excellent knowledge of Russian history and has always been committed to Russia. And this is our personal appeal to you: please take care of this personally.

Thank you.

V. Putin: You know, to be honest, I don’t know in detail who Kagarlitsky is - that’s what my colleague [F. Lukyanov] tells me. Of course, I will take your paper, look and react, I promise you, okay?

As for your question, God knows, you and I did not agree that this question would arise, but I was waiting for it, I’ll tell you honestly. And moreover, he took information about what actually happened. This is not an ordinary event for us.

Let me remind you that this division, in which the Ukrainian Nazi you mentioned served, was created by Hitler’s command on April 28, 1943. The Nuremberg trials - not us yesterday or in the conditions of today, but the Nuremberg Tribunal declared the SS division "Galicia", in which this Ukrainian Nazi served, criminal and responsible for the genocide of Jews, Poles and other civilians. This is the decision of the international Nuremberg court.

Let me remind you that this decision was made by independent prosecutors and judges - ultimately judges, of course, based on the data provided by prosecutors in various countries. This organization has been declared criminal.

Let me also remind you of the words - I specifically took this paper with information so that it was specific and evidential - what the speaker of the Canadian parliament said: “Today in this hall there is a Ukrainian-Canadian veteran of the Second World War, who fought for the independence of Ukraine against the Russians. I am proud to say that he is a hero of Ukraine and a hero of Canada, and we are grateful for his service.”

Firstly, if the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament says that during the Second World War this Canadian-Ukrainian or Ukrainian-Canadian Nazi fought against the Russians, he cannot help but understand that he fought on Hitler's side, and not on his own side Homeland - Canada, or was a fascist collaborator - in any case, he fought on the side of the Nazi troops. Let's say he doesn't know this. In no way do I want to offend the feelings of the Canadian people. We treat Canada with respect, no matter what, especially the people. But if he doesn’t know that Hitler and his henchmen fought against Russia during the war, then he’s an idiot. This means that he simply did not go to school and does not have basic knowledge. And if he knows that this man fought on the side of Hitler, and calls him a hero of Ukraine and a hero of Canada, then he is a scoundrel. Either this or that.

These are the people we have to deal with, these are our opponents today from some Western countries.

But what else is important, in my opinion? The Speaker of the Canadian Parliament says: he fought with the Russians and - there is a further quote there [in the document] - today he continues to support Ukrainian troops fighting against the Russians. He, in fact, put Hitler's collaborators, the SS troops and today's Ukrainian combat units, fighting, as he said, against Russia - on the same level - he put them on the same level. This only confirms our thesis that one of our goals in Ukraine is denazification. This means that it is still there and is recognized, this Nazification of Ukraine. And I think our common goal is to achieve denazification.

And finally, of course, it looks absolutely disgusting that everyone applauded this Nazi, and especially the President of Ukraine, in whose veins Jewish blood flows, a Jew by nationality, stands and applauds the Nazi - not just the last of the Nazis, not just an ideological follower, namely a man who destroyed the Jewish population with his own hands. He personally destroyed this, because the German fascists created this SS division “Galicia” primarily to exterminate the civilian population, and this is written down in the decision of the Nuremberg court. They were blamed for the genocide of Jews and Poles - approximately 150 thousand Poles were killed; of course, no one considered the Russians to be Gypsies at all - they were not even considered people. One and a half million Jews were exterminated in Ukraine - just think about this figure. What, wasn't that what happened? What, doesn't anyone know this? Yes everyone knows everybody knows. Wasn't there a Holocaust?

And when the President of Ukraine applauds the man who personally, with his own hands, exterminated Jews in Ukraine, does he mean to say that the Holocaust did not happen? Isn't this disgusting? All means are good, as long as they fight against Russia, such people. And all means are good if used in the fight against Russia. I can imagine that there is simply an irresistible desire to defeat Russia on the battlefield, to achieve its strategic defeat. But is it possible to do this at such a price? I think this is just extremely disgusting. And I really hope that not only we here, in a narrow circle, at the Valdai Club will talk about this, but that somehow public organizations, those who care about the future of humanity, will still formulate their position on this question clearly, unambiguously and with condemnation of what happened.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/72444

Read 7 tweets

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

@FAB87F

Sep 5, 2023

Tonight in #TankieTears I'll introduce an ex-US Army man who switched sides & is now working for the propaganda ministry of Russia. His name is Douglas Macgregor and he's one of the well-known commentators on the Russo-Ukrainian War, making predictions that never come true.

First, let's give credit where credit is due: he was a great war commander during the 90's. His risky "blitzkrieg" style tactic led to some great victories in the Gulf War, and journalist Thomas E. Ricks described him as "one of the Army's leading thinkers on innovation".

His book "Breaking the Phalanx" called for a total overhaul of US army tactics and the head of Army US General Dennis Reimer passed copies of the book to other generals. His other book, "Transformation under Fire", was required reading for all officers in the Israeli Army.

Read 19 tweets

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

@FAB87F

Mar 30, 2023

History of Ukraine Part One - From Birth to Rebirth.

To understand the recent history of Ukraine including the current war we need to understand the genesis of the place which is now called Ukraine.
#Ukraine

1/143

Lithuanian southward expansion reached its peak during the reign of Grand Duke Algirdas (ruled 1345-77) who succeeded in unifying all of the Belarusian and most of the Ukrainian territories in what many scholars have referred to as the Lithuanian-Ruthenian state.

47/143

During the height of its expansion this state included nearly half of the former territory of Kyivan Rus'.

48/143

Read 98 tweets

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

@FAB87F

Feb 15, 2023

The Azov Regiment (sometimes erroneously still termed the Azov Battalion, though the latter folded in 2014) and the threat of “Ukrainian neo-Nazis” has attracted considerable Western press coverage since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February.
lens.monash.edu/@politics-soci…

From 2014 to 2022, the Azov Regiment was based in the city of Mariupol in southeast Ukraine, and this year the Azov fighters gained global visibility as defenders of the city.

Russia finally conquered Mariupol in May after a bloody two-month siege, destroying most of the city in the process.

reuters.com/world/europe/m…

Read 45 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @FAB87F

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

GMan (Ґленн) ☘️🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇸🇵🇱🇮🇱🍊🌻

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!