Vladimir Putin and the New Hope for Mankind- part 2 | WPN World People News

To put this speech in context, be aware that it was delivered four years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, three years after the NATO expansion into Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania (Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic had already joined NATO in 1999), and two years after the “Orange Revolution” had overthrown the legitimate government of Ukraine. Western moves for the military encirclement of Russia were well underway. The speech also occurred one year after the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and two years after the initial founding of the BRICS.

He said, in part:

What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision making.

It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious, not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

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

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves: Wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. . . . And no less people perish in these conflicts—even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of force—military force—in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.

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?

No One Feels Safe

And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this—no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats—though they were also well-known before—have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.

And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly—changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.

I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that [he said] the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN truly unites the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law has a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.

NATO Expansion

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.

But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each, [have been established]. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: Against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. [Manfred] Wörner in Brussels on May 17, 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?

The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice—one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia—a choice in favor of democracy, freedom, openness, and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.

And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us—these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to disassemble and dismantle these new walls?

V. Leadership

Individual action, individual courage, when it springs from a commitment to what is morally right and historically truthful, can change history. It is this quality of creative human intervention, of “voluntarism” if you wish, which is the defining characteristic of the development of the human species.

However, this is no schoolbook academic term. It is not the province of dilettantes. As stated, leadership involves courage; it involves a heavy personal responsibility for one’s actions. It stems from a deep moral character within the soul of the individual in question.

Putin’s courage at Munich, much as in his stand in Dagestan in 1999, reveals this quality of character and leadership. The soul of Putin, so to speak, was unveiled to the people of Russia even during his first twelve months in office.

During the winter of 1999-2000 a human crisis erupted throughout the entire Far East of Russia. After eight years of free trade and western looting, most of the productive economy of Russia was shuttered, with only desperate black market activity keeping large sections of the population alive. By January 2000, hundreds of thousands of people in the Far East were freezing, with no heat and no coal. Industrial activity and government functioning were both paralyzed. The imminent death of thousands, and perhaps millions, was apparent. Putin flew to the Far East. He traveled to many cities. He walked the streets and talked to citizens. He fired 28 mayors; elected officials and business leaders were arrested, some pulled out of bed in the middle of the night. He ordered emergency coal shipments. He even flew in tens of thousands of electric radiators to be distributed to the needy. Putin acted—much like Franklin Roosevelt’s stand for the “forgotten man” in the United States—as the defender and champion of the Russian people against the corruption of the political machinery and the power of the Russian oligarchy that engulfed Russia throughout the 1990s.

Sinking of the Kursk

On Aug. 12, 2000 the nuclear submarine, the Kursk, the most modern warship in the Russian Navy, exploded and sank without warning while on an exercise in the Barents Sea. All 118 crewmen died, 95 immediately and 23 within hours after the sinking. Even though there was no hope for rescue, the tragedy produced anger and rage against the government due to both the inept rescue efforts as well as a continual series of lies which came from naval officials who tried to cover up what had occurred. On Aug. 22, ten days after the sinking, President Putin traveled to the Vidyayevo naval base and met with about 350 family members of the Kursk crew as well as several hundred other residents of the navy base.

Putin began the meeting by informing the women in the room that there was no hope for rescuing the crew members, that their husbands and sons were dead. The six hour meeting was one of accusations, screaming, crying, and denunciations, with people demanding, “Why have you murdered our husbands? . . . Why are you lying to us? . . . Who are you going to punish for their deaths?” One woman cried out, “You better shoot yourselves now! We won’t let you live, bastards!”

A witness who later reported on the event stated that as he watched Putin talk to the families, he had never felt such an intense atmosphere of pain and anger in his entire life: “I honestly thought they would tear him apart . . . There was such a heavy atmosphere there, such a clot of hatred, and despair, and pain . . . I never felt anything like it anywhere in my entire life . . . All the questions were aimed at this single man.” Putin never left his chair and answered every question and accusation until the meeting ended after six hours.

VI. The Russian Miracle

Between 2001 and 2007 the Russian economy grew at a rate of 7% per year. Russia’s Domestic Product (GDP) increased sixfold, climbing up from 22nd to the 10th largest in the world.8 Average wages increased almost tenfold and real disposable income doubled. The percentage of people living below the poverty line was cut in half. Nearly all foreign debt was paid off, freeing the nation from the diktats of the International Monetary Fund and western banks.9 Between 1999 and 2008, revenues of the central government more than doubled.

In 2008 Putin established a special state investment fund designed to accumulate energy revenues. Its explicit purpose was to direct capital investment into the country’s industrial, transportation, and communications infrastructure.

Since 2001, industry has grown substantially as has production, construction, real incomes, credit, and the middle class. Major cities, such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, as well as many, many provincial cities like Novgorod, have become unrecognizable to anyone who had seen them or visited them during either the Yeltsin years or the late Soviet period. They are now vibrant, prosperous, and teeming with economic activity and human life.

By 2012, under Putin’s leadership, Russia reversed its suicidal twenty-five-year depopulation trend, what economist Sergey Glazyev has defined as the western-imposed Genocide against Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today, Russia can boast of what no Western European nation can—a natural “baby boomlet,” that is, population growth that is not reliant upon Third World immigration. Concrete steps, including economic and other subsidies, were implemented to encourage family formation and childbirth, but in the final analysis this rebirth of the Russian nation has come from the Optimism that now permeates the country.

China and Space

In 2009 China became the top trade partner of Russia. Trade between the two nations went from $4.3 billion in 1995 to $59.3 billion in 2010, and then to $87.5 billion in 2012. In 2013, during the first official visit of Chinese Premier Xi Jinping to Moscow, the Chinese and Russian leaders announced a goal of $200 billion in annual trade between their two nations by 2020.

In 2015, during a state visit to Beijing to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, President Putin stated in an interview that “Russian-Chinese ties have now probably reached a peak in their entire history and continue developing. The partnership between Russia and China is based on sincere friendship and sympathy between our peoples, on deep respect and trust, consideration for each other’s key interests and commitment to make our countries flourish.”

As the Russian-Chinese partnership has developed, an increasing emphasis has been placed on cooperation between their space agencies and plans for large-scale space projects. Despite the damage and decay inflicted on the Russian space program during the Yeltsin years, these initiatives are now picking up momentum. In July 2015 joint Russian-Chinese plans were announced to conduct joint manned space missions, including to the moon. The announcement was made by Denis Kravchenko, deputy general director of the United Rocket and Space Corporation, who stated, “The Chinese side expresses interest in collaborating to create manned Lunar exploration infrastructure.” Plans are now proceeding to solidify an aerospace alliance and to conduct joint manned space missions, including to the Moon. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has announced Russia’s intention to create a permanent manned Lunar station in collaboration with China.

All of these developments have their origin in the 2001 Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation signed by President Vladimir Putin and Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin. The same is true for the 2001-2009 emergence of both the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS. All of this begins with Vladimir Putin’s appointment as Russian Prime Minister in August of 1999. Many people today view Russia as the weaker partner in the China-Russia alliance, and economically and technologically this is undeniable.

Putin Had Opened the Door

But it was Putin who opened the door to aid China in overcoming its own geo-political isolation, and it has continued to be Putin—in the Crimea, Syria, and elsewhere—who has provided a quality of brilliant strategic leadership against the designs of London and Barack Obama. The Russian intervention into Syria has been one of those singular, historic, and unexpected actions upon which the entire directionality of world affairs might be changed. To this very moment, as you the reader study this article, Vladimir Putin continues to provide—day to day and hour by hour—extraordinary leadership as the NATO war hawks push the world closer and closer to thermonuclear war.

The Syria deployment demonstrated—with absolute finality—Putin’s superior strategic thinking to that of his enemies in the west. Much like Douglas MacArthur’s creation of the Inchon Landing, the trans-Atlantic war faction is now confronted with a superior mind.

Russia and China. China and Russia. This is a partnership. It represents not merely hope for the future but, more immediately, the strategic power to stop the war drive. It represents all that is best, at this moment, about the potential for future human development.

Source: Executive Intelligence Review