Friday, June 26, 2015

Vladimir Putin Barack Obama explained that the Russian troops in the Donbas is not

Vladimir Putin Barack Obama explained that the Russian troops in the Donbas is not

Vladimir Putin Barack Obama explained that the Russian troops in the Donbas no | Russian Spring
Obama again called on Russia to withdraw all the mythical "troops" from the territory of Donbas.
"It is easy to predict that response, President of the Russian Federation", - said Peskov, answering journalists' questions.
Russian President Vladimir Putin explained to President Barack Obama that the statements that the Donbas are Russian military - is misleading.
This misconception about the presence of Russian troops is broadcast by different leaders, and each time the Russian side gives its explanations, "- he said.
The press secretary also said that the conversation between Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama was "very long and constructive", RIA Novosti reported.

When Putin Speaks, in His Own Words | by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Propaganda Reigns in the West

When Putin Speaks, in His Own Words

The lies about Russia and Russia’s president have grown so thick, threatening the world with devastating war, that distinguished Americans have formed  the American Committee for East-West Accord.  The members of the founding board are former US senator Bill Bradley, Amb. Jack Matlock who was US ambassador to the Soviet Union during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, William J. vanden Heuvel who was US ambassador to the UN during the Carter administration,  John Pepper who is the former chairman and CEO of Proctor Gamble, Gilbert Doctorow who is a businessman with a quarter century of business experience with Russia, and professors Ellen Mickiewicz of Duke University and Stephen Cohen of Princeton University and New York University.
It is extraordinary that the cooperation between Russia and the US created over the decades by successive administrations, beginning with John F. Kennedy and culminating in the end of the Cold War with the Reagan-Gorbachev agreements, has been destroyed by a handful of American neoconservative warmongers in the past year and one-half. The achievement of a 40-year struggle wiped out overnight by a handful of insane warmongers who believe that Washington has a right to world hegemony.
The problem began with President Clinton violating the promises given to the Russians that NATO would not be taken into Eastern Europe. This breach of American promise was followed by the George W. Bush regime withdrawing from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty and changing US war doctrine to permit pre-emptive nuclear attack by the US on other countries, principally Russia.
These provocations were followed by announcement of US missile bases on Russia’s borders.
The Obama regime added a coup in Ukraine, long a province of Russia, and the establishment of a US vassal government that threatens Russian security.
In the past such provocations would have led, if not to war, at least to counter-provocations.  However, Vladimir Putin is a cool and thoughtful character, a credit to the human race.  He politely complains of the provocations, but continues to refer to Washington and the pseudo-governments of Washington’s vassal states as Russia’s “partners,” even though he knows that they are Russia’s enemies.
Putin responds to threats, to illegal sanctions, and to incessant propaganda  with statements that governments need to respect each other’s national interests and to work together for common benefit.  No politician in the West speaks in this way. Western politicians, including non-entities such as Washington’s lapdog UK PM Cameron, issue threats to Russia in violent language that make Adolf Hitler’s threats seem mild by comparison. Russia could destroy the UK in a few minutes, and we have the spectacle of the moronic British PM issuing threats to Russia despite the fact that the UK is not capable of bringing any meaningful force whatsoever with which to confront Russia. The lapdog Cameron relies on Washington, just as the moronic Polish government relied on the “British guarantee.”
The Washington morons think that they are isolating Russia, but what the fools are doing is isolating Washington and its vassals from the world.  The large, important countries of Asia, Africa, and South America are allied with Russia, not with Washington.  The BRICS–Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa–have created their own development bank and are conducting trade among themselves in their own currencies without use of the US dollar, the failing “world reserve currency.”
Save the web address of the American Committee for East-West Accordand keep up with their work.  Do not rely on the presstitute media.  Robert Parry recently described, accurately, the New York Times as Washington’s version of Big Brother’s (Orwell, 1984) “Two Minutes of Hate.”
Putin is the image that the presstitute NYTimes flashes on the screen to evoke the inculcated hate of “the enemy.”  The hate of the enemy keeps Washington’s wars going and conditions Americans to accept their own loss of liberty as habeas corpus, due process, and right to life crumble in front of their unseeing eyes, eyes blinded by propaganda.
At the just concluded St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to which I was invited but was unable to go, which I regret as I might have been introduced to Putin, Putin gave believable assurances to a large array of foreign businesses present that Russia was committed to the rule of law and that their activities in Russia are safe.  If you believe any of the propaganda fed to you by the Western presstitutes, including Bloomberg, about the “collapsing Russian economy,” you can disabuse yourself of the lies by reading Putin’s account of the Russian economy.
Of more interest is the interview he gave to the outmatched American presstitute, Charlie Rose.  For your convenience, here is the interview:
Interview with the President of Russia and Other Parties at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum
Charlie Rose: Mr President, I would like to begin by saying that it is a pleasure to be here in your home city, the place where you began your political career. This is also a historically important city – Russia was born here as an empire. This is a very important place.
There are some very serious issues that can be resolved only if Russia takes action, if you take part. We are talking about economic policy, foreign policy, Ukraine, the Baltic states, Europe, Syria, Iran, China, and Russia. There are very many questions, there are problems, and there are conflicts. Russia has to play its part in finding solutions to many problems. There is the issue of borders, the issue of Russia and Ukraine. Could you help us understand as you see it: where are we? How did we get there and where do we go from here?
Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to thank you for agreeing to work with us today and moderate this meeting. This forum is called the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. I would like us to focus on economic issues. However, I would agree with you that without resolving a number of acute critical situations it is hard to move along in the economic sphere.
We have discussed the developments in Ukraine on numerous occasions, and I understand that this is unavoidable. However, you know, we either keep talking about Ukraine all the time, or a few years ago we were talking about the crisis, say, in Iraq and some other countries. We keep talking about things that already happened, but we never discuss why they happened. And if you do want to talk about this and it does seem important, I would prefer to begin with precisely that.
Why did we arrive at the crisis in Ukraine? I am convinced that after the so-called bipolar system ceased to exist, after the Soviet Union was gone from the political map of the world, some of our partners in the west, including and primarily the United States, of course, were in a state of euphoria of sorts. Instead of developing good neighbourly relations and partnerships, they began to develop the new geopolitical space that they thought was unoccupied. This, for instance, is what caused the North Atlantic block, NATO, to go east, along with many other developments.
I have been thinking a lot about why this is happening and eventually came to the conclusion that some of our partners seem to have gotten the illusion that the world order that was created after World War II, with such a global centre as the Soviet Union, does not exist anymore, that a vacuum of sorts has developed that needs to be filled quickly. I think such an approach is a mistake. This is how we got Iraq, and we know that even today there are people in the United States who think that mistakes were made in Iraq. Many admit that there were mistakes in Iraq, and nevertheless they repeat it all in Libya. Now they got to Ukraine.
We did not bring about the crisis in Ukraine. There was no need to support, as I have said many times, the anti-state, anti-constitutional takeover that eventually led to a sharp resistance on the territory of Ukraine, to a civil war in fact.
Where do we go from here? I would not like to get too deep into the subject here. Today we primarily need to comply with all the agreements reached in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. I would like to reiterate that we would never have signed this document if there had been anything we were not satisfied with. Now that it happened and we signed it, we will work to achieve its full implementation.
At the same time, I would like to draw your attention and the attention of all our partners to the fact that we cannot do it unilaterally. We keep hearing the same thing, repeated like a mantra – that Russia should influence the southeast of Ukraine. We are. However, it is impossible to resolve the problem through our influence on the southeast alone. There has to be influence on the current official authorities in Kiev, which is something we cannot do. This is a road our western partners have to take – those in Europe and America. Let us work together.
Charlie Rose: What do you want from the Kiev Government, what should they do?
Vladimir Putin: We do not want anything. The people of Ukraine should want the Ukrainian government to do something, or not to do.
We believe that to resolve the situation we need to implement the Minsk agreements, as I said. The elements of a political settlement are key here. There are several.
The first one is constitutional reform, and the Minsk agreements say clearly: to provide autonomy or, as they say decentralisation of power, let it be decentralisation. This is quite clear, our European partners, France and Germany have spelt it out and we are quite satisfied with it, just as the representatives of Donbass are. This is one component.
The second thing that has to be done – the law passed earlier on the special status of these territories – Lugansk and Donetsk, the unrecognised republics, should be enacted. It was passed, but still not acted upon. This requires a resolution of the Supreme Rada – the Ukrainian Parliament, which is also covered in the Minsk agreements.
Our friends in Kiev have formally complied with this decision, but simultaneously with the passing by the Rada of the resolution to enact the law they amended the law itself – article 10, I believe, which practically renders the action null and void. This is a mere manipulation, and they have to move from manipulations to real action.
The third thing is a law on amnesty. It is impossible to have a political dialogue with people who are threatened with criminal persecution. And finally, they need to pass a law on municipal elections on these territories and to have the elections themselves. All this is spelled out in the Minsk agreements, this is something I would like to draw your attention to, and all this should be done with the agreement of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Unfortunately, we still see no direct dialogue, only some signs of it, but too much time has passed after the Minsk agreements were signed. I repeat, it is important now to have a direct dialogue between Lugansk, Donetsk and Kiev – this is missing. Finally, they have to begin the economic recovery of these territories, of course.
I would like to repeat something I have already said many times: the excuse that ‘we do not have the money’ does not work here. If the current authorities in Kiev believe that this is Ukrainian territory inhabited by Ukrainian citizens who have the right to receive, say, disability benefits or the pensions that they earned under the existing Ukrainian law, the Kiev authorities cannot refuse to pay, they simply have no right to do so. They are violating their own constitution. All this has to be done, and not in words, but in practice.
Charlie Rose: As you may know, the United States of America believe that you are arming the separatists, you encourage them, you engage the Russian Armed Forces to fuel the conflict. There is strong concern that this could lead to a new cold war.
Vladimir Putin: You know, it is not local conflicts that cause a cold war, but global decisions – like the withdrawal of the United States from the antimissile defence treaty. This is a step that pushes us all towards a new spiral in the arms race because it changes the global security system.
As for regional conflicts, the conflicting sides seem to always – and I stress, always find weapons. This is true of eastern Ukraine as well.
I would like to say that if this situation is resolved by political means, no weapons will be necessary, but it does require goodwill and a desire to enter into direct dialogue, and we will assist in this. What we cannot do and would never agree to is for someone somewhere, anywhere, to proceed from a position of force, first using the police (they call it militia there), then special services, and then the armed forces.
Before the army units and the so-called battalions – armed nationalist units – appeared on those territories, there were no weapons there; and there still would have been none had they tried to resolve the situation by peaceful means right from the start. Weapons appeared there only after they started killing people using tanks, artillery, multiple launch rocket systems and aviation. That gave rise to resistance. Once an attempt is made to resolve the issue by political means, the weapons will be gone.
Charlie Rose: What are the acceptable borders for Ukraine, for Russia? What borders do you find acceptable?
Vladimir Putin: What do you mean when you speak of borders: geographical borders, political borders?
Charlie Rose: Political borders.
Vladimir Putin: Regarding cooperation, we have always said and continue to say – there is nothing new here – that with all the current difficulties, I have always thought that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, one ethnic group, at least; each with their own peculiarities and cultural characteristics, but with a common history, a common culture and common spiritual roots. Whatever happens, in the long run Russia and Ukraine are doomed to a common future.
We have proceeded right from the start from the idea that Ukraine has the right to make its own choice – civilizational, political, economic or any other. It is no secret – we all know that Russia actually initiated the disintegration of the Soviet Union and providing sovereignty to all these countries. Nothing has changed since then. However, apart from the ties I mentioned earlier, ones that took shape over decades, very specific things in the present hold Russia and Ukraine together: we have a common engineering infrastructure, a common energy infrastructure, a common transportation infrastructure, common regulations and so on and so forth. We are held together by the ability to speak the same language. Now, this has to do with Russia and our interests.
We have always proceeded from the notion that we will resolve everything, even disputes, by means of negotiations – and it is only natural for neighbours to have disputes. However, if some third parties get involved in these negotiations, we expect them to take our interests into account as well, rather than simply offer us a choice. If you are asking what we expect in the political sense – we expect a comprehensive, trust-based and equal dialogue.
Charlie Rose: I would like to get back to Ukraine, but let us talk about Russia’s relations with a whole number of countries, including the United States and China. Characterise the relationship with the United States: what’s wrong with it? What’s right with it? What does it need?
Vladimir Putin: In other words, where we have some positive developments and where we have problems.
I will begin with the problems. The problem is that we are being forced to accept other’s standards and solutions without consideration for our understanding of our own interests. We are actually being told that the United States knows best what we need. Let us decide what our interests and needs are ourselves, proceeding from our own history and culture.
Charlie Rose: How exactly is the United States trying to decide what you need?
Vladimir Putin: By interfering in our internal political processes, including by means of funding the non-public sector, by imposing international security decisions.
For instance, I already mentioned the issue we came across first – Iraq, and this immediately cooled off our relations. Do you remember the statement ‘If you are not with us, you are against us’? Do you call this dialogue? This is an ultimatum. You should not use ultimatums when talking to us.
Now over to the things that unite us – these do exist. We are united by the desire to eventually combat common threats, including terrorism, the expansion of drug threat and a very dangerous tendency towards the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. There are also issues of humanitarian interaction, like combatting severe infections that hit entire regions of the world. There are issues dealing with the global economy, and this has to do with the sector that we have a direct significant influence on – energy. There are also other spheres where we are cooperating quite successfully and I expect that this would serve as the basis that would make it possible for us to restore our previous relations with the United States and move on.
As for the People’s Republic of China, the level, nature and confidence of our relations have probably reached an unprecedented level in their entire history. For 40 years – I would like everyone to hear this – for 40 years we have been negotiating border issues. We found compromises and solutions; we met each other halfway and closed the issue. 40 years! We have not managed to resolve these issues with all countries. Besides, we are developing economic ties, we are actively cooperating within international organisations and the United Nations Organisation.
We are creating new unions that are developing quite actively and are becoming attractive to many other countries: this is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, for instance. It was initially created to resolve border issues after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, but it then developed and now it is an organisation that other countries would like to join. Most probably at the coming summit in Ufa (our next summit is in Bashkiria) we will decide to accept India and Pakistan. We are also developing other forms of cooperation – BRICS, for instance.
In my address, I spoke of the integration of our efforts within the Eurasian Economic Union and the Silk Route Economic Belt. In other words, we are developing our relations in this area too. China is our major trade and economic partner. Our relations are developing very effectively.
Charlie Rose: Some say this is a natural relationship because China has the cash and Russia has natural resources, so there is a natural affinity right there. 
Vladimir Putin: You should read what American analysts write. I am sure you do and are only pretending not to. American analysts, politologists and economists say the United States is also turning towards China. China is a growing economy. If anyone has any concern over a decrease in their growth rates, the First Deputy Chairman of the State Council of China said that 7 percent is the highest economic growth in the world in any case.
Not only Russia. Why? The whole world is looking at Asia, and Europe is also looking for opportunities to develop relations, while for us this does come naturally – we are neighbours and this is a natural affinity. Besides, there are certain values that we jointly uphold on the international arena quite successfully, like equal access to resolving key international issues.
Charlie Rose: Is it a more natural affinity than Europe and the United States? Is China more in the future a place that Russia feels more comfortable with than Europe or the United States? And could that lead to some anti-western alliance?
Vladimir Putin: Anti-western?
Charlie Rose: Anti-western, anti-American.
Vladimir Putin: There is no country, including China, against which we or China, as far as I understand China’s policy, would build our policy. We do not form alliances ‘against’, we build alliances in favour of things – in favour of implementing our national interests.
I would like to stress: you are expanding the North Atlantic bloc, NATO. The Soviet Union no longer exists, while the bloc was set up to counterbalance the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is gone, the Warsaw Treaty is gone, while NATO not only exists, it is expanding. You are doing it, while China and we are not creating any blocs, we do not have a bloc mentality, we are trying – and successfully, it seems – we are trying to think globally, not only sharing responsibility, but also trying to find mutually acceptable solutions and compromise. We never proceed from the position of force. We always search for solutions, solutions within the process of negotiations.
Charlie Rose: We have read much about you and your country; there are three things that I constantly see. One is a sense of wanting to be respected, another is to have an equal conversation, a third is a sense, perhaps in your history, a great concern about borders and having a buffer zone for Russia. Am I accurate in that?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I hear this all the time: Russia wants to be respected. Don’t you? Who does not? Who wants to be humiliated? It is a strange question. As if this is some exclusive right – Russia demands respect. Does anyone like to be neglected? It is actually not about respect or the absence thereof – we want to ensure our interests without in any way harming our partners. However, we are counting on a constructive, direct and substantive dialogue. When we see an absence of dialogue or an absence of desire to talk to us, this naturally causes a certain response.
I will tell you an interesting story that has to do with the so-called eastern partnership that our colleagues in Western Europe are promoting. This idea, incidentally, is actively supported in the United States as well. Our first reaction to the idea of an eastern partnership was quite positive. Why? Because we proceeded from the notion that Russia and the East European countries are held together by a thousand ties, including economic ones. These are common technical regulations, as I said, common infrastructures and so on. Therefore, we proceeded from the idea that if Europe started working with them, pulling them in in some way, this would inevitably lead to some constructive interaction with Russia. And we would work together. We would argue over some things, agree on others, but we would be arriving at some common solutions that would allow us to build a new economic and, eventually, humanitarian and political space.
Unfortunately, none of this ever happened. How did the crisis in Ukraine that you began with occur: Ukraine was offered to sign the association agreement. Wonderful. However, everyone knows that Ukraine is a member of the free trade zone within the CIS (which Ukraine, actually, wanted to get established). This zone offers lots of preferences and benefits.
It took us 17 years to negotiate the terms of our accession to the WTO. Now, in one move, they decided to enter the customs territory of the Russian Federation through Ukraine. Is that the way things should be done? And when we suggested holding consultations, we were told it was none of our business. Is that the way issues should be resolved, specifically where Russia is concerned?
What has trust got to do with it? This is not about trust – it is about having our interests taken into consideration.
Charlie Rose: Let me talk about a couple of places where there is a dramatic need for cooperation between the United States and Russia. One is Iran and the nuclear negotiations and the P5+1. Do you think there will be an agreement? And what kind of agreement do you want to see?
Vladimir Putin: First, I want to stress what I see as the essential point here, namely that we have a common understanding with all participants in this process, including the United States and European countries, and Iran itself, I hope, on the fact that we all categorically oppose the spread of weapons of mass destruction. This is our position of principle and it is this that enables us to work constructively with the United States in this area.
We are very pleased to see that the Iranians have also changed their position considerably, which has made it possible to reach the agreements we have today. We most certainly support these agreements. The only thing that I think would be counterproductive would be to deliberately undermine the agreements by putting demands on Iran that it cannot fulfil and that are not relevant to the main issue – the issue of non-proliferation. I hope, though, that things will not reach this point and we will sign the agreement soon. I think that [Foreign Minister] Sergei Lavrov knows better than me when it will be signed.
Sergei Lavrov: When it is ready.
Vladimir Putin: I ask, “When can we sign it?”, and he says, “When it is ready.”
Our diplomats always talk this way. (Laughter)
I think the signing will take place soon. I met yesterday with the Director General of the IAEA, and what is most important of all here is that after the signing, the process of executing these agreements must begin, and this will take approximately six months.
Just as important though, is for your country, the United States, to take a positive attitude towards these agreements and give them your support, to secure Congress’ support. We know the discussions currently taking place in the United States, and we know that the President has the power to sign these agreements himself, meaning they do not need to be ratified. This is not our affair and we cannot decide it. There are issues we cannot decide for the authorities in Kiev, and there are matters we cannot decide for the authorities in Washington. The ball is therefore in your court. But we hope that the US President will achieve a result that will most certainly go down as one of the biggest foreign policy achievements of his presidency.
Charlie Rose: But do you believe that this agreement will go ahead, given what Mr Lavrov just said?
Vladimir Putin: I do, and we are working towards this. We think it is absolutely essential to defuse the situation. It is equally important, though, for all of the regional powers to have the assurance that they will not end up confronting a worsening situation in the region or face threats. This is the situation we absolutely have to avoid. I stress that Russia seeks to develop good-neighbourly and friendly relations with Iran and with all the countries in this region.
Charlie Rose: I have another foreign policy question before we turn to the economy and the issues a number of speakers raised.
Syria is another matter very much on our minds today. Do you see any solution to the current situation? Russia supports Bashar al-Assad’s government and has done so for many years. Iran also supports Assad’s government. It seems as though the pendulum is swinging this way and that. What possible solution do you see? How can we end this terrible civil war that has created millions of refugees? When can we find a solution?
Vladimir Putin: The sooner, the better. Let me repeat that our position on this issue is based on the fear that Syria could descend into the same kind of situation as what we see in Libya or in Iraq.
You know, after all, that before the state authorities and Saddam Hussein himself were destroyed, there were no terrorists in Iraq. Let’s not forget this. People prefer not to talk about this today, but is it really so hard to see who created the conditions for terrorism to flare up in these places? After Iraq was invaded, the old authorities were all sent fleeing or were destroyed, and Saddam was hanged. And then we ended up with the Islamic State.
Look at what is happening in Libya. It has ceased to exist as a state and is in the process of total disintegration. Even US diplomats have suffered losses there. We know the tragic events that took place there. The main issue, as we see it, is that we do not want to see Syria take this same road. This is our main motivation for supporting President Assad and his government. We think this is the right position. It would be difficult to expect us to take any other line. Moreover, I think that many would agree with our position on this issue.
I mentioned Iraq several times. We know what is going on there. The United States supports Iraq, supports, arms and trains the Iraqi army. In two or three attacks, the Islamic State captured so many weapons, more than the Iraqi army probably even has. This includes armoured vehicles and missiles, though the general public is poorly informed about all of this. This was all just recently. The Islamic State is now better armed than the Iraqi army. And this has all happened with the United States’ support.
The United States supposedly withdrew from Iraq, but our special services and the information we receive from Iraq itself indicate that thousands of US service personnel are still in Iraq. The results are deplorable and tragic.
We do not want all of this to repeat itself in Syria. We call on our partners in the United States and Europe, but above all in the United States, of course, to make greater efforts to fight this absolute evil that is fundamentalism, the Islamic State and similar groups that essentially all have their roots in the well-known global terrorist organisations that have already launched repeated attacks against the United States itself. Our call is for political settlement, which should, of course, guarantee the regime’s transformation, and we are ready to discuss this matter with President Assad too.
The UN just recently declared the importance of working together with President Assad to fight the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. We are ready to work with the [Syrian] President to ensure that the political transformation process can go ahead so that all people in Syria feel that they have access to the instruments of power, and in order to put an end to this armed confrontation. But we cannot achieve this from outside and through the use of force. This is the real issue.
Charlie Rose: All right, but are you ready to call on President Assad to step down if this would make an alternative political solution possible or would help to fight the Islamic State, say?
Vladimir Putin: Our moderator is a real American. I said, “without outside intervention”, and he asks me if we are “to call on President Assad to step down?” Only the Syrian people can do this. How can we ignore such basic things as this? As I just said, we are ready to engage in dialogue with President Assad about carrying out political reforms together with the healthy opposition forces. I think this is constructive and realistic.
Charlie Rose: Mr President, let’s come back to the economy. I have many questions. Here, we have Ronny Chichung Chan of Hang Lung Properties investment company, Mahmood Hashim Al-Kooheji, general director of Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company, and also president of YPF Argentina, Miguel Galuccio, with whom we will talk about energy. We all heard a lot about China here today. What opportunities do you see for building more profitable cooperation between China and Russia?
President of Investment Company Hang Lung Properties Ronny Chan: As the President [Vladimir Putin] said, I think the economy is the key area for cooperation between China and Russia. As a businessman, I think that Russia and China are a match made in heaven. Russia is rich in natural resources, whereas China lacks natural resources but is growing fast. China has capital for buying natural resources. From an economic point of view, it would be hard to find two countries that complement each other better.
The only remark I want to make is that I am sure that President Putin has a strategic vision for Russia’s relations with China, but Mr President, I am not so sure about your business community. I am not so sure that your businesspeople are ready to make use of the advantages the Chinese market offers. Just take a look around. How many Chinese are there here in the audience? I feel quite alone here on the stage. How many Russians are there in China? I don’t even know. Talking to my Russian friends about all of this over the last couple of days, I came to the conclusion that people here still see Asia as a place they would like to get hold of, but they are not ready to go and commit themselves economically there.
President Putin said just now that China is one of the world’s big economic powers today. Mr President, I would like the business leaders present here today to show more readiness to engage in practical work with us. You mentioned financing, for example, which is essential for many Russian projects. Many companies are registered in Hong Kong, because the Hong Kong market is linked to the Shanghai market, and will soon be linked to the Shenzhen market too. The Shanghai stock exchange is the fifth-biggest in the world, the Hong Kong exchange is in sixth place, and Shenzhen is number eight. If we combine these three exchanges, we get the second biggest securities market in the world. Why not have Russian companies register in Hong Kong? This would help them in their work with China. I think this would be an excellent opportunity, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin: I agree with my colleague that we need to give Russian-Chinese economic relations concrete substance and projects. I think too that we need to do this not just in big business, but also develop ties at the level of small and medium-sized businesses, so as to weave a natural and living fabric for working together in all different production sectors.
In terms of individual countries, though, China is our number one trading partner. Our bilateral trade comes to $85 billion. Yesterday, I spoke about this with the First Vice Premier [Zhang Gaoli], and I discuss it regularly with President Xi Jinping. I think that over the coming years, we could take our trade to a figure of $200 billion.
All of what you said just now is absolutely correct. We must proceed without haste, of course, take things carefully and ensure all the necessary conditions. This goes for both us and our Chinese partners. I said in my opening remarks that we do not place any restrictions on free movement of capital. Even during the difficult crisis of 2008 and 2009, and last year too, we did not restrict capital exports in any way. But we hope that our partners will offer the same conditions. The yuan is becoming an increasingly stronger regional currency. We all see that this is happening. But experts know that there is not enough free movement of capital. If steps in this direction go ahead, this will be major progress towards liberalising our relations.
We understand very well that our Chinese partners also have to take a cautious approach, and they are the better judges of what measures they should take. The decision to carry out payments for our trade operations in our national currencies – the yuan and the ruble – is already a big step towards deepening and expanding our relations. The first yuan-ruble trading took place just recently, and we are sure that this will continue and develop, and will create new opportunities for work in the real sector of the economy.
Overall, I agree with you. We need to keep moving in this direction and we shouldn’t focus just on agreements at the government level and just on decisions made by the sovereign funds and so on. Of course, this is all important, too, and creates a platform for broader format work. We are working on this and we will continue in this direction.
Thank you.
Charlie Rose: Thank you. Next, we have Mr Mahmood Hashim Al-Kooheji, the general director of Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company. What investment opportunities do you believe exist in Russia, and what questions do you have?
General director of Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company Mahmood Hashim Al-Kooheji: Please allow me to thank you, Mr President, for organising this forum and for inviting me to attend, because this gives us an opportunity to meet our partners in Russia.
Mumtalakat is Bahrain’s sovereign fund. Like other sovereign funds, we have the opportunity to invest throughout the world. We feel that it is imperative to have sustainable growth and there should be potential for investments that will give us long-term stability and interest.
We have investments in Europe, the United States and other regions. We are currently considering and analysing opportunities to invest in Russia. When you ask me about the Russian economy, I think that it is very promising and it has a very solid foundation. The reason I think this is because the Russian economy has a highly trained workforce, a highly educated workforce within the country. In addition, it has the necessary resources that support this workforce – this has been brought up extensively. So the Russian economy is a very large market, which makes it much simpler for us to find a niche. These three components allow us to feel confident that investments in Russia will be good market investments and will be long-term.
Our fund tries to find partners that will allow us to work freely in the economy. I think, Mr President, your initiative in organising the Russian Direct Investment Fund is a very good idea and it is a major step because when we came to the Russian market, we found an institution, an organisation, that knows this market and works with it professionally and transparently. This is very important when we are selecting our partners. Any investment in the Russian economy allows us to find the necessary partner. This makes the Russian economy very appealing to us in the long-term.
Charlie Rose: Thank you.
To my right is Miguel Galuccio from Argentina. As you know, Argentina and Gazprom have signed an agreement on working tougher on a gas field. What are the opportunities for joint work between the two states in the energy sector?
President of YPF Argentina Miguel Galuccio: First of all, thank you very much, Mr President, for giving me the opportunity to participate in this forum.
Energy is a very important direction for all South American nations, especially Argentina. We have extensive experience in economic growth, which our economy demonstrated over the past ten years. We are producing oil and gas – mainly gas. We have traditional natural resources, we also have natural gas and traditional energy resources. Moreover, we also have non-conventional sources of energy, which we are now beginning to develop.
Volume has increased by 25 percent recently. We believe non-conventional energy sources can be very efficient, and their production can be very profitable. To meet this goal, we must make major investments into this sector, and we need other nations’ and companies’ technologies and know-how. We feel there are great opportunities arising in energy.
We are engaged in strategic cooperation with Russian companies. Russia and Argentina have formed a wonderful relationship. We strive to develop the potential of our relations and work in various sectors. Our company has signed an agreement with Gazprom that will give us the opportunity to continue cooperating effectively in the future. We have signed a memorandum of mutual understanding, which is aimed towards the joint development of our country’s resource base.
Thank you.
Charlie Rose: Do you have any other comments on this issue, as far as opportunities that are becoming available for both countries are concerned? It seems to me it would be very interesting to hear the points of view from different regions.
We already talked today about the effect of sanctions. You feel the effect of the sanctions is overstated. Many people have said so. How do you view the opportunities and the need for further advancement of the Russian economy? What paths exist for this, in terms of the institutional framework, the rule of law and so on?
Vladimir Putin: With regard to what was just said by our colleagues, as far as Argentina is concerned, President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and I discussed the opportunity for cooperation in the oil and gas sector during her visit to Russia and my visit to Argentina. We agreed that our leading companies will engage in joint work. To be honest, I don’t know what happened next, but I was very glad to hear just now about the specific agreements to begin this joint work. Indeed, Argentina has enormous potential, and naturally, working together with a leading global company like Gazprom can give a very positive result.
As for sovereign wealth funds, if I am not mistaken, the Bahrain sovereign fund is not only a partner of our Russian Direct Investment Fund, but also has an agreement that, I believe, your fund has 10 percent participation in all the projects by the Russian Direct Investment Fund – is that correct? Please note what our partners have agreed to. Automatically, as soon as the Russian Direct Investment Fund implements a project, the Bahrain fund automatically joins at 10 percent. This is a very high level of trust not only towards the Russian economy, but also towards the professionalism of the colleagues at the Russian Direct Investment Fund. I would like to ask everyone to welcome our partner and express words of gratitude for this trust.
Things are not so bad as far as sanctions are concerned: there are upsides and downsides. This is a time when we are undergoing structural changes and it is genuinely possible to take steps that can have long-term positive effects.
As for the sanctions you mentioned, and how we are going to overcome today’s situation, I would describe the current state of affairs by saying that it is not any kind of catastrophe for us. We feel that we must achieve several goals; they are less ambitious than the ones we set several years ago, but I very much hope that this will be a different quality – a better quality – than we had in previous years.
Here is what we want to achieve: first of all, we want to ensure our economy’s growth in the short term, over the coming years, at the global average level, which is about 3.5 percent.
Second, it is imperative for us to achieve annual labour productivity growth of 5 percent.
And third – this is a very important indicator – we must bring inflation down to 4 percent. This is what we must strive for – absolutely, through a coordinated and balanced macroeconomic and budget policy.
All the trends we are currently seeing in our economy allow us to assert that these goals are absolutely realistic and we will reach them soon. At the same time, we would naturally prefer not to respond to the destructive actions that some of our partners are attempting to impose – and which they are imposing at a loss to themselves. There have been various calculations among our European partners; some have said that European manufacturers are losing around 40 to 50 billion; now, the most recent reports I saw and heard from Europe say that European manufacturers may suffer losses of up to 100 billion.
Our trade with Europe has dropped by nearly a quarter. Meanwhile, trade with your country, the United States, has grown by 5.6 percent. Our commodity flows from EU countries to the Russian Federation have decreased somewhat, and import has nearly halved; it used to be just under $30 billion, and now it is slightly over $15 billion.
At the same time, if we look at the trade structure, with the increase in trade with the United States, imports from the US have increased by about 11 percent. Overall, we can certainly say that this does not balance out the losses in cooperation with Europe, but I am confident, I know for certain, that nobody wants any losses at all, in the sense that Russia is experiencing a recession and many experts in Europe – not Russian experts, European ones – are talking about stagnation.
So if we want to create absolute growth in the global economy, in Europe, in Russia and in general, then we certainly need to eliminate various sanctions, especially unlawful ones imposed outside the framework of the United Nations, and work together. I have already stated how we are going to do that. We will broaden economic freedoms, this is a key element; we will ensure a competitive jurisdiction and work on our human resources and improving management systems.
Charlie Rose: On my right is Heinz Hermann Thiele, Knorr-Bremse chairman of the supervisory board. We were just talking about sanctions and import substitution. What do you think are the risks and opportunities? What could you say in this regard about Russia? How do you see the situation from a Western point of view?
Supervisory Board Chairman of Knorr-Bremse Heinz Hermann Thiele: I doubt I can present the European point of view here, because you know, many countries on the continent hold different views. I can only speak for myself personally and I can share my view of the situation.
I have always been against sanctions and I still believe they are wrong. I am not the only person in Germany who holds this view. I support President Putin’s statement: it is time to bring the sanctions to an end.
I hope that now everyone in Europe has seen that Europe itself has suffered from the sanctions, and very significantly. If we look at the statistics from 2014–2015, the last two years, exports from Germany to Russia have dropped by 50 percent. I am not counting our subsidiaries which are working in Russia – and we have many of them – incidentally, they are working quite successfully in manufacturing and transport; we have excellent experience in cooperating with Russian partners.
Coming back to the situation in other European nations, look at Italy: Italy has lost only 10 percent of exports compared to the indicators for last year. So the situation is not as bad for them. In other words, the effects for different European nations also differ. Their interests vary as well. In this respect, I cannot say that we have common interests. Common decisions are made at the political level, but one way or another, regardless of the motivation, these are wrong decisions.
We must understand that Russia, in implementing its policy of turning to the East, is taking an absolutely logical step, because the East can offer Russia a great deal. We should not forget that we Europeans, we Germans – my company, I have a medium-sized company – we are working on the international arena, we have great relations with, for example, the Chinese. We have excellent joint business, and we very much like working with them. Why shouldn’t Russia do the same?
To some degree, it is tragic that we have pushed Russia in that direction through the sanctions. We need to leave the sanctions behind. But all nations should have the opportunity to make independent decisions on where it is best to develop partnerships: in the West or the East, it does not matter. We are in favour of global development – peaceful development, I should add. Unfortunately, at this time, we cannot say that we are satisfied with the situation in either aspect.
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

Has Washington Gone Looney Tunes?

Author: F. William Engdahl

Has Washington Gone Looney Tunes?


Given a series of recent speeches by leading US officials and actions, the question must be frankly posed: Has Washington gone collectively looney tunes? Even as the governments of the EU are moving to buck US pressures and ease the sanctions, the Obama Administration seems intent on marching in the direction of a nuclear confrontation with Russia. As the ancient Greek expression puts it, “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad…” The following recent developments fit that pattern quite nicely, thank you.

On June 5, Ashton Carter, the neo-conservative Obama Defense Secretary gave clear indications he is prepared to be far more provocative against Russia than his fired predecessor, Chuck Hagel. Carter convened a special meeting in Stuttgart, Germany of two dozen US military leaders and US Ambassadors in Europe at the headquarters of US European Command. He told them, “We have something that has taken a sad turn recently, which is Russia.”

That in itself was not so notable as were the reports that the neo-con US Defense Secretary, “Ash”—that is his nickname, appropriately enough—Carter discussed at the Stuttgart meeting returning US short-range nuclear missiles to European NATO countries to target Russia.

On June 7, just two days after Carter’s Stuttgart remarks, UK Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, told the press that the UK might again place American nuclear missiles on British soil because of what he termed “heightened tensions” with Russia. The Foreign Secretary said there were “worrying signs” about the increased activity of Russian forces and that the UK would “consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons.”

The UK Telegraph reported that Ash Carter was considering unilaterally abrogating a Cold War-era treaty with Russia’s predecessor, the Soviet Union, and re-deploying nuclear-capable missiles in Europe.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Hammond went on to reveal what a psychologist might clinically call paranoid schizophrenia. First he sounded the war drums, declaring boldly, “We have got to send a clear signal to Russia that we will not allow them to transgress our red lines.” The last NATO politician to foolishly talk about red lines was US President Barack Obama in Syria in 2013 and that nearly landed the US in a Middle East conflagration so dangerous that his own generals reportedly threatened to resign. Then, in the next breath, Hammond the tough guy talking about re-stationing US intermediate-range nuclear missiles on UK soil, blurts out, “At the same time, we have to recognize that the Russians do have a sense of being surrounded and under attack and we don’t want to make unnecessary provocations.”

Does that mean the UK will only make “necessary” provocations? Indeed, the intellectual and moral quality of western politicians in the last decades has become laughable.

Neither Britain nor France, both NATO countries with nuclear arsenals, signed the 1987 INF Treaty, something Moscow at the time vehemently protested.

Germans agree US Pershing II missiles

In 1983 the German Bundestag agreed to allow the deployment of American Pershing II middle-range nuclear missiles on German territory, at the same time the Reagan Administration announced it was initiating an anti-ballistic missile defense system, later dubbed Star Wars. Both decisions led to a state of extreme military tensions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO until the USA and Soviet Union agreed to sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in December 1987 which provided for destruction of all middle range weapons on both sides.

Significantly, that was one year after Washington and Saudi Arabia had deliberately collapsed the price of crude oil to well below $10 a barrel, devastating the Soviet hard currency dollar budget that was essential to obtain technologies to counter the US Star Wars and other NATO military threats.

Now Washington seems to be saying, to quote the words of the great New York Yankees baseball catcher, Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” But 2015 is not at all the same world as 1983, and the Russian Federation, especially in de facto alliance with China and others, is not the bankrupt Soviet Union of 1983.

NATO to take Kaliningrad?

It seems that the Pentagon is considering far more mad moves than merely returning mid-range nuclear missiles to Europe. According to hackers who managed to enter the system of the Lithuanian Armed Forces, that tiny Baltic country is getting ready to militarily annex Russia’s Kaliningrad region. It reads like a fantastic rewrite of the 1950’s Peter Sellers satire film, The Mouse that Roared, with Lithuania cast in the role of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, declaring war this time, not on the United States, but on the Russian Federation.

Kaliningrad is a Russian Oblast today of some 960,000 ethnic Russian inhabitants. It became part of the Soviet Union in 1945, at the Potsdam Conference, when the US and British Governments agreed to the transfer to the Soviet Union of the city of Koenigsberg, renamed Kaliningrad, and the area adjacent to it.

Because of Washington’s eastward expansion of NATO after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, Kaliningrad is situated now between NATO members Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic Sea. Because it is the only Russian Baltic Sea port “ice-free” all year round, it plays a vital strategic role in harboring the Russian Baltic Naval Fleet and three Russian air force bases.

When the Bush Administration announced it was stationing US missiles in Poland in 2007 as part of its upgraded Ballistic Missile Defense deployment, tensions between Moscow and Washington reached a break point, as Russia threatened to station nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad, a threat dropped in 2009 as a response to Obama’s feint, called “reset.” For NATO, using tiny Lithuania today as her proxy, to seize Kaliningrad, would amount to a declaration of nuclear war against Russia.

According to Lithuanian news portal Delfi, the hacked documents of the Lithuanian Defense Ministry reveal that ongoing NATO maneuvers in the region would provide the cover for the surprise attack. Right now some 2,100 soldiers from nine NATO member states part of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) are taking part in military exercises in northwestern Poland. Later this summer, NATO’s “Allied Shield” will be also held in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, involving 15,000 troops from 19 NATO member states and three partner nations, including Sweden, later this month.

Who violates INF?

Moscow accuses Washington of violating the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty by placing missile defense launchers in Poland and Romania, capable of firing Tomahawk thermonuclear cruise missiles at Russian and Belarus targets.

To cover over the brazen US INF violations, Ash Carter claims the Obama Administration “suspects” Russia has tested ground-launched cruise missiles with a range that is not allowed by the INF treaty. Testing missiles, even if true, and Washington has produced no proof, is a far cry from deploying nuclear-capable missiles in Poland and Romania and to planning the invasion by NATO of one of Russia’s prime military enclaves, Kaliningrad.

The so-called Russian INF Treaty violations that are being used as a pretext for Washington to again place intermediate-range missiles in Europe, aimed at Russian targets, were supposedly committed by Moscow in 2008, according to New York Times reports. But it was only in 2013, just prior to their launching Maidan Square protests that led to the Washington coup d’etat in Ukraine, did the US State Department even raise the possibility of violation. Then it was only in July, 2014 when, according to the New York Times, that US President Obama had written a letter to President Putin accusing Russia of those 2008 testingviolations.viii

The leak of the letter at the time, July, 2014, fit conveniently with the Obama Administration demonization of Putin’s Russia. The NATO Supreme Commander, US General Philip M. Breedlove stated in April 2014 that the alleged 2008 Russian “violation” required a response. “A weapon capability that violates the INF, that is introduced into the greater European land mass, is absolutely a tool that will have to be dealt with. It can’t go unanswered.”

Little wonder Russian analysts accuse Washington of setting loose a propaganda barrage, blaming Russia for violations, so that they could justify returning their nuclear missiles to European NATO and Asia where they would target both Russia and China.

Mad, heated-up people in Washington, London and elsewhere in NATO are literally playing nuclear “chicken.” Are the Poles, Lithuanians, Germans and British that stupid that they cannot see the larger consequences of the Washington NATO game? Or are they that suicidal? After all, it is they who would become a thermonuclear ash-heap, not the United States. Just as it has been the German and other EU economies which have suffered massively under US-imposed Russia sanctions.

How ridiculous this all is. Roaring mad mice streaming out of the cracks in the august edifices of Washington and London and Vilnius, squeaking and running about in a mad frenzy. It’s Looney Tunes rebaked in Washington these days. But Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Elmer Fudd, Tweety Bird and Sylvester the Cat did a better job than these guys.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Khazarian crime syndicate, the Rothschild family, & the Bush/Clinton crime family is being dismantled

Benjamin Fulford – June 22, 2015: Bush, Rothschild prosecutions, new disclosures, Greece, all signs of accelerating cabal take down

There are rapidly accelerating indications the Khazarian crime syndicate that illegally seized power in the United States and many European countries is being systematically dismantled. A New York appeals court, for example, has ruled that officials who served during the George Bush Jr. regime can be sued and can face criminal charges. That opens the way for the mass jailing of the perpetrators of the 911 mass murder incident.
Another sign is that a French judge has ordered one of the most senior members of the Rothschild family, Baron David de Rothschild, to be questioned by police on fraud charges.
Also, the killing of J.P Morgan (Bush) bankers has reached a new height with the “sudden death” of their Vice Chairman and high powered deal maker Jimmy Lee. More than a dozen JP Morgan bankers have died suddenly recently and it is clear somebody is following a trail. Rest assured that trail leads to the Bush/Clinton crime family.
Meanwhile, there is a growing consensus the Greek crisis is coming to a head soon and massive withdrawals of Euros from Greek banks show that at the street level people know a Greek default is inevitable. However, a formal Greek default would start a domino effect that would topple Germany, France and the rest of the Euro zone before eventually reaching the United States. For that reason the Greek government knows that the EU central bank, the IMF and their Fed bosses will not pull the plug on them but will instead buy time with various accounting tricks. That is why Greece’s Economy Minister made confident predictions about the Greek debt crisis in Moscow last week after meeting with Russian officials.
Despite all the fudged numbers and smoke and mirrors coming out of Western governments, the Western financial system (the Federal Reserve Board) is already bankrupt. The Fed’s corporate subsidiary, the United States of America Corporation headed by “acting president” Barack Obama has been issuing fake financial data for years now to create the appearance all is well. Recently, for example, their total debt numbers have stayed frozen at $18.11 trillion since March 16th, over 100 days.
The White Dragon Foundation also received new confirmation the Fed has been bankrupt for a lot longer than that. Some senior Asian bankers who met with Alan Greenspan (when he was head of the Fed) and with then US president Al Gore to ask about Manchurian gold the Fed was obligated to return to them were told by Greenspan the Fed could not pay back the gold they owed them “because they had none.” Greenspan also said the Fed could not pay them trillions of dollars of cash instead because “that would bankrupt the government.” Instead, the bankers said, they were offered a “master trader license.” After they left the Federal Reserve Building in New York, they went to a Starbucks for coffee. While they were having coffee their car exploded. They immediately took a subway to the airport and caught the next available flight to the Philippines.
They then went to see the head of Interpol in Europe. The head of Interpol took them to see the P2 Freemasons who run the Vatican. The P2 explained to them there would be a coup d’etat in the United States followed by an invasion of Iraq “because that was how the system worked.” They thought these people were crazy until September 11th, 2001.
These Asians still have their legitimate claims against the Fed and the Feds will not be allowed to bomb their way out this time. The current public faces of the Fed cabal are puppet president Obama and Fed Chair Janet Yellen.
Since they also cannot pay the money they owe the Asians, the Asians and their BRICS allies have been busily building an alternative financial system. The new BRICS bank is expected now to open on July 7th while the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is also moving ahead.
This move is being accompanies by major cyber warfare. A lot of it is being reported in the corporate media in the form of stories about data being stolen on all US Federal employees etc.
However, plentiful anecdotal evidence suggests the real cyber-warfare is taking place between world financial networks. A senior banker at the cabal supported Asian Development Bank in Manila was worried about his US dollar bank account inside the US so he asked for the money to be transferred to his bank in the Philippines. The Philippine bank told him they could not make the transfer because the cabal controlled SWIFT international financial transactions system “was not working.”
This writer also experienced some trouble when trying to pay his VISA bill at an ATM. I was told I needed to contact a human representative. I went to a VISA processing office and the clerk put my card into their ATM. The bill that appeared was way bigger than my real bill and the clerk told me to ignore it and not to worry about it but just pay the amount on my paper bill. She explained they were having “system adjustments.” A funny thing also happened when this writer asked for financial details from the Paypal internet transaction system. Paypal sent me detailed financial data belonging to an entirely different person. When asked why they would send me the wrong person’s private transaction data they explained “they were having system troubles.”
This is all anecdotal but the fact that most of the over 50 bankers who have recently died suddenly and mysteriously were IT experts shows that financial cyber-warfare is moving out of cyberspace.
The fact is the Western financial IT system has created hundreds of trillions, if not quadrillions, quintillions or more dollars and Euros that have no basis in reality. At the end of the day, analogue reality is going to win and that is why the BRICS alliance with their control of commodities and manufacturing, are winning. The Pentagon is also winning because they actually control men with weapons who are willing to fight if necessary.
The people who are losing are the Khazarian mob. The fact that Bush/Clinton house slave Barack Obama is being pressured to release the 28 pages about Saudi Arabia redacted from the official 911 report shows the Saudi’s are the next Khazarian dominoes to fall.
Newly installed Saudi King Salman sent his son to Russia last week to offer the Russians complete control of the global oil market in exchange inter-continental ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, according to Pentagon officials. He returned empty handed. The Saudis have the nuclear weapons the Israelis gave them but they cannot fire them much further than Yemen. That means they cannot use nuclear blackmail to prevent the ongoing takedown of that odious regime by Pentagon white hats and their regional allies.
The Nazi regime installed by the Khazarians in the Ukraine is also freaking out now that their patrons are clearly losing the battle for the planet earth. According to Sputnik News (a possible agency front) Ukranian President Petro Poroshenko asked the Ukrainian Constitutional Court to rule that the overthrow of his predecessor Viktor Yanukovich was unconstitutional.
In other words, a key participant in the illegal Khazarian coup against his predecessor is suddenly criticizing the coup. The best advice we can give Poroshenko is to tell him to forget about trying to suck up to the Russians and find a deep hole to hide in instead.
However, there is unlikely to be anywhere on this planet, or even in this universe, for the Khazarian Satanists like Poroshenko to hide in anymore.
The collapse of their global debt slavery regime is accelerating and their immunity from prosecution for mass murder is evaporating along with their funny money.
The British, the Swiss, the Germans, the French and the Vatican have already abandoned the Khazarians and allied with the WDS and BRICS alliance.
Pope Francis recently confirmed this change by issuing an encyclical calling for almost exactly what the WDS has been calling for, a massive campaign to end poverty and stop environmental destruction. The global warming part of his talk was out of touch with reality but clearly the Pope’s heart is in the right place. Negotiations between the Vatican and the WDS are ongoing and friendly. The same is true of the British, the French and the Germans.
Regime change is also coming to Japan. There is a lot about that we cannot report at the moment but clearly the puppet regime here is on its last legs. The last dominoes to fall will be Washington DC, Israel and New York.
We do not like to put specific dates on when this will happen but we do note that the IMF has postponed a meeting to decide how to proceed without the United States until September. We note that a year of jubilee has been predicted by the Vatican, religious Jews and many others to start on September 13th, 2015. September 13th this year falls on a Sunday so the last trading day before that will be September 11th. Remember, remember, the 11th of September. Also remember the blood moon on September 28th.