Sundance has a great article up right now, in which he shows why his warning about Western COVID authoritarianism is coming true, by highlighting a speech by Vladimir Putin.
Let me back up a bit.
Sundance has been saying that the increasing authoritarianism and brutality of the Western “democracies” over COVID mandates, is placing those countries (including the USA) in the dangerous position of giving real credibility to human rights criticisms by Russia, China and Iran.
He has ALSO been saying that this unearned credibility has significant geopolitical consequence.
Sundance has WARNED, that as Western criticisms of Russia and China grow more hypocritical, those same Western countries will NOT be able to object, much less react, to aggressive moves by Russia and China.
I urge you to go read Sundance’s thoughts – UNTIL you get to the translated transcript of Vladimir Putin’s amazing speech. Sundance only provides the most highly relevant part of the speech.
I want you to come back here, and read THE WHOLE DAMN SPEECH.
(H/T CTH, Rebel News, Kremlin)
REBEL NEWS LINK:
I will save my thoughts for the end. It’s much more profitable if you read his speech yourselves, and come to the same conclusions independently, which I am sure you will.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin:
Ladies and gentlemen,
To begin with, I would like to thank you for coming to Russia and taking part in the Valdai Club events.
As always, during these meetings you raise pressing issues and hold comprehensive discussions of these issues that, without exaggeration, matter for people around the world. Once again, the key theme of the forum was put in a straightforward, I would even say, point-blank manner: Global Shake-up in the 21st Century: The Individual, Values and the State.
Indeed, we are living in an era of great change. If I may, by tradition, I will offer my views with regard to the agenda that you have come up with.
In general, this phrase, “to live in an era of great change,” may seem trite since we use it so often. Also, this era of change began quite a long time ago, and changes have become part of everyday life. Hence, the question: are they worth focusing on? I agree with those who made the agenda for these meetings; of course they are.
In recent decades, many people have cited a Chinese proverb. The Chinese people are wise, and they have many thinkers and valuable thoughts that we can still use today. One of them, as you may know, says, “God forbid living in a time of change.” But we are already living in it, whether we like it or not, and these changes are becoming deeper and more fundamental. But let us consider another Chinese wisdom: the word “crisis” consists of two hieroglyphs – there are probably representatives of the People’s Republic of China in the audience, and they will correct me if I have it wrong – but, two hieroglyphs, “danger” and “opportunity.” And as we say here in Russia, “fight difficulties with your mind, and fight dangers with your experience.”
Of course, we must be aware of the danger and be ready to counter it, and not just one threat but many diverse threats that can arise in this era of change. However, it is no less important to recall a second component of the crisis – opportunities that must not be missed, all the more so since the crisis we are facing is conceptual and even civilisation-related. This is basically a crisis of approaches and principles that determine the very existence of humans on Earth, but we will have to seriously revise them in any event. The question is where to move, what to give up, what to revise or adjust. In saying this, I am convinced that it is necessary to fight for real values, upholding them in every way.
Humanity entered into a new era about three decades ago when the main conditions were created for ending military-political and ideological confrontation. I am sure you have talked a lot about this in this discussion club. Our Foreign Minister also talked about it, but nevertheless I would like to repeat several things.
A search for a new balance, sustainable relations in the social, political, economic, cultural and military areas and support for the world system was launched at that time. We were looking for this support but must say that we did not find it, at least so far. Meanwhile, those who felt like the winners after the end of the Cold War (we have also spoken about this many times) and thought they climbed Mount Olympus soon discovered that the ground was falling away underneath even there, and this time it was their turn, and nobody could “stop this fleeting moment” no matter how fair it seemed.
In general, it must have seemed that we adjusted to this continuous inconstancy, unpredictability and permanent state of transition, but this did not happen either.
I would like to add that the transformation that we are seeing and are part of is of a different calibre than the changes that repeatedly occurred in human history, at least those we know about. This is not simply a shift in the balance of forces or scientific and technological breakthroughs, though both are also taking place. Today, we are facing systemic changes in all directions – from the increasingly complicated geophysical condition of our planet to a more paradoxical interpretation of what a human is and what the reasons for his existence are.
Let us look around. And I will say this again: I will allow myself to express a few thoughts that I sign on to.
Firstly, climate change and environmental degradation are so obvious that even the most careless people can no longer dismiss them. One can continue to engage in scientific debates about the mechanisms behind the ongoing processes, but it is impossible to deny that these processes are getting worse, and something needs to be done. Natural disasters such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis have almost become the new normal, and we are getting used to them. Suffice it to recall the devastating, tragic floods in Europe last summer, the fires in Siberia – there are a lot of examples. Not only in Siberia – our neighbours in Turkey have also had wildfires, and the United States, and other places on the American continent. It sometimes seems that any geopolitical, scientific and technical, or ideological rivalry becomes pointless in this context, if the winners will have not enough air to breathe or nothing to drink.
The coronavirus pandemic has become another reminder of how fragile our community is, how vulnerable it is, and our most important task is to ensure humanity a safe existence and resilience. To increase our chance of survival in the face of cataclysms, we absolutely need to rethink how we go about our lives, how we run our households, how cities develop or how they should develop; we need to reconsider economic development priorities of entire states. I repeat, safety is one of our main imperatives, in any case it has become obvious now, and anyone who tries to deny this will have to later explain why they were wrong and why they were unprepared for the crises and shocks whole nations are facing.
Second. The socioeconomic problems facing humankind have worsened to the point where, in the past, they would trigger worldwide shocks, such as world wars or bloody social cataclysms. Everyone is saying that the current model of capitalism which underlies the social structure in the overwhelming majority of countries, has run its course and no longer offers a solution to a host of increasingly tangled differences.
Everywhere, even in the richest countries and regions, the uneven distribution of material wealth has exacerbated inequality, primarily, inequality of opportunities both within individual societies and at the international level. I mentioned this formidable challenge in my remarks at the Davos Forum earlier this year. No doubt, these problems threaten us with major and deep social divisions.
Furthermore, a number of countries and even entire regions are regularly hit by food crises. We will probably discuss this later, but there is every reason to believe that this crisis will become worse in the near future and may reach extreme forms. There are also shortages of water and electricity (we will probably cover this today as well), not to mention poverty, high unemployment rates or lack of adequate healthcare.
Lagging countries are fully aware of that and are losing faith in the prospects of ever catching up with the leaders. Disappointment spurs aggression and pushes people to join the ranks of extremists. People in these countries have a growing sense of unfulfilled and failed expectations and the lack of any opportunities not only for themselves, but for their children, as well. This is what makes them look for better lives and results in uncontrolled migration, which, in turn, creates fertile ground for social discontent in more prosperous countries. I do not need to explain anything to you, since you can see everything with your own eyes and are, probably, versed on these matters even better than I.
As I noted earlier, prosperous leading powers have other pressing social problems, challenges and risks in ample supply, and many among them are no longer interested in fighting for influence since, as they say, they already have enough on their plates. The fact that society and young people in many countries have overreacted in a harsh and even aggressive manner to measures to combat the coronavirus showed – and I want to emphasise this, I hope someone has already mentioned this before me at other venues – so, I think that this reaction showed that the pandemic was just a pretext: the causes for social irritation and frustration run much deeper.
I have another important point to make. The pandemic, which, in theory, was supposed to rally the people in the fight against this massive common threat, has instead become a divisive rather than a unifying factor. There are many reasons for that, but one of the main ones is that they started looking for solutions to problems among the usual approaches – a variety of them, but still the old ones, but they just do not work. Or, to be more precise, they do work, but often and oddly enough, they worsen the existing state of affairs.
By the way, Russia has repeatedly called for, and I will repeat this, stopping these inappropriate ambitions and for working together. We will probably talk about this later but it is clear what I have in mind. We are talking about the need to counter the coronavirus infection together. But nothing changes; everything remains the same despite the humanitarian considerations. I am not referring to Russia now, let’s leave the sanctions against Russia for now; I mean the sanctions that remain in place against those states that badly need international assistance. Where are the humanitarian fundamentals of Western political thought? It appears there is nothing there, just idle talk. Do you understand? This is what seems to be on the surface.
Furthermore, the technological revolution, impressive achievements in artificial intelligence, electronics, communications, genetics, bioengineering, and medicine open up enormous opportunities, but at the same time, in practical terms, they raise philosophical, moral and spiritual questions that were until recently the exclusive domain of science fiction writers. What will happen if machines surpass humans in the ability to think? Where is the limit of interference in the human body beyond which a person ceases being himself and turns into some other entity? What are the general ethical limits in the world where the potential of science and machines are becoming almost boundless? What will this mean for each of us, for our descendants, our nearest descendants – our children and grandchildren?
These changes are gaining momentum, and they certainly cannot be stopped because they are objective as a rule. All of us will have to deal with the consequences regardless of our political systems, economic condition or prevailing ideology.
Verbally, all states talk about their commitment to the ideals of cooperation and a willingness to work together for resolving common problems but, unfortunately, these are just words. In reality, the opposite is happening, and the pandemic has served to fuel the negative trends that emerged long ago and are now only getting worse. The approach based on the proverb, “your own shirt is closer to the body,” has finally become common and is now no longer even concealed. Moreover, this is often even a matter of boasting and brandishing. Egotistic interests prevail over the notion of the common good.
Of course, the problem is not just the ill will of certain states and notorious elites. It is more complicated than that, in my opinion. In general, life is seldom divided into black and white. Every government, every leader is primarily responsible to his own compatriots, obviously. The main goal is to ensure their security, peace and prosperity. So, international, transnational issues will never be as important for a national leadership as domestic stability. In general, this is normal and correct.
We need to face the fact the global governance institutions are not always effective and their capabilities are not always up to the challenge posed by the dynamics of global processes. In this sense, the pandemic could help – it clearly showed which institutions have what it takes and which need fine-tuning.
The re-alignment of the balance of power presupposes a redistribution of shares in favour of rising and developing countries that until now felt left out. To put it bluntly, the Western domination of international affairs, which began several centuries ago and, for a short period, was almost absolute in the late 20th century, is giving way to a much more diverse system.
This transformation is not a mechanical process and, in its own way, one might even say, is unparalleled. Arguably, political history has no examples of a stable world order being established without a big war and its outcomes as the basis, as was the case after World War II. So, we have a chance to create an extremely favourable precedent. The attempt to create it after the end of the Cold War on the basis of Western domination failed, as we see. The current state of international affairs is a product of that very failure, and we must learn from this.
Some may wonder, what have we arrived at? We have arrived somewhere paradoxical. Just an example: for two decades, the most powerful nation in the world has been conducting military campaigns in two countries that it cannot be compared to by any standard. But in the end, it had to wind down operations without achieving a single goal that it had set for itself going in 20 years ago, and to withdraw from these countries causing considerable damage to others and itself. In fact, the situation has worsened dramatically.
But that is not the point. Previously, a war lost by one side meant victory for the other side, which took responsibility for what was happening. For example, the defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War, for example, did not make Vietnam a “black hole.” On the contrary, a successfully developing state arose there, which, admittedly, relied on the support of a strong ally. Things are different now: no matter who takes the upper hand, the war does not stop, but just changes form. As a rule, the hypothetical winner is reluctant or unable to ensure peaceful post-war recovery, and only worsens the chaos and the vacuum posing a danger to the world.
What do you think are the starting points of this complex realignment process? Let me try to summarise the talking points.
First, the coronavirus pandemic has clearly shown that the international order is structured around nation states. By the way, recent developments have shown that global digital platforms – with all their might, which we could see from the internal political processes in the United States – have failed to usurp political or state functions. These attempts proved ephemeral. The US authorities, as I said, have immediately put the owners of these platforms in their place, which is exactly what is being done in Europe, if you just look at the size of the fines imposed on them and the demonopolisation measures being taken. You are aware of that.
In recent decades, many have tossed around fancy concepts claiming that the role of the state was outdated and outgoing. Globalisation supposedly made national borders an anachronism, and sovereignty an obstacle to prosperity. You know, I said it before and I will say it again. This is also what was said by those who attempted to open up other countries’ borders for the benefit of their own competitive advantages. This is what actually happened. And as soon as it transpired that someone somewhere is achieving great results, they immediately returned to closing borders in general and, first of all, their own customs borders and what have you, and started building walls. Well, were we supposed to not notice, or what? Everyone sees everything and everyone understands everything perfectly well. Of course, they do.
There is no point in disputing it anymore. It is obvious. But events, when we spoke about the need to open up borders, events, as I said, went in the opposite direction. Only sovereign states can effectively respond to the challenges of the times and the demands of the citizens. Accordingly, any effective international order should take into account the interests and capabilities of the state and proceed on that basis, and not try to prove that they should not exist. Furthermore, it is impossible to impose anything on anyone, be it the principles underlying the sociopolitical structure or values that someone, for their own reasons, has called universal. After all, it is clear that when a real crisis strikes, there is only one universal value left and that is human life, which each state decides for itself how best to protect based on its abilities, culture and traditions.
In this regard, I will again note how severe and dangerous the coronavirus pandemic has become. As we know, more than 4.9 million have died of it. These terrifying figures are comparable and even exceed the military losses of the main participants in World War I.
The second point I would like to draw your attention to is the scale of change that forces us to act extremely cautiously, if only for reasons of self-preservation. The state and society must not respond radically to qualitative shifts in technology, dramatic environmental changes or the destruction of traditional systems. It is easier to destroy than to create, as we all know. We in Russia know this very well, regrettably, from our own experience, which we have had several times.
Just over a century ago, Russia objectively faced serious problems, including because of the ongoing World War I, but its problems were not bigger and possibly even smaller or not as acute as the problems the other countries faced, and Russia could have dealt with its problems gradually and in a civilised manner. But revolutionary shocks led to the collapse and disintegration of a great power. The second time this happened 30 years ago, when a potentially very powerful nation failed to enter the path of urgently needed, flexible but thoroughly substantiated reforms at the right time, and as a result it fell victim to all kinds of dogmatists, both reactionary ones and the so-called progressives – all of them did their bit, all sides did.
These examples from our history allow us to say that revolutions are not a way to settle a crisis but a way to aggravate it. No revolution was worth the damage it did to the human potential.
Third. The importance of a solid support in the sphere of morals, ethics and values is increasing dramatically in the modern fragile world. In point of fact, values are a product, a unique product of cultural and historical development of any nation. The mutual interlacing of nations definitely enriches them, openness expands their horizons and allows them to take a fresh look at their own traditions. But the process must be organic, and it can never be rapid. Any alien elements will be rejected anyway, possibly bluntly. Any attempts to force one’s values on others with an uncertain and unpredictable outcome can only further complicate a dramatic situation and usually produce the opposite reaction and an opposite from the intended result.
We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal.
Listen, I would like to point out once again that they have a right to do this, we are keeping out of this. But we would like to ask them to keep out of our business as well. We have a different viewpoint, at least the overwhelming majority of Russian society – it would be more correct to put it this way – has a different opinion on this matter. We believe that we must rely on our own spiritual values, our historical tradition and the culture of our multiethnic nation.
The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.
This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. I specifically asked my colleagues to find the following quote from Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by their character.” This is the true value. However, things are turning out differently there. By the way, the absolute majority of Russian people do not think that the colour of a person’s skin or their gender is an important matter. Each of us is a human being. This is what matters.
In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.
Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “’birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.
Not to mention some truly monstrous things when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa. That is, the teachers actually impose on them a choice we all supposedly have. They do so while shutting the parents out of the process and forcing the child to make decisions that can upend their entire life. They do not even bother to consult with child psychologists – is a child at this age even capable of making a decision of this kind? Calling a spade a spade, this verges on a crime against humanity, and it is being done in the name and under the banner of progress.
Well, if someone likes this, let them do it. I have already mentioned that, in shaping our approaches, we will be guided by a healthy conservatism. That was a few years ago, when passions on the international arena were not yet running as high as they are now, although, of course, we can say that clouds were gathering even then. Now, when the world is going through a structural disruption, the importance of reasonable conservatism as the foundation for a political course has skyrocketed – precisely because of the multiplying risks and dangers, and the fragility of the reality around us.
This conservative approach is not about an ignorant traditionalism, a fear of change or a restraining game, much less about withdrawing into our own shell. It is primarily about reliance on a time-tested tradition, the preservation and growth of the population, a realistic assessment of oneself and others, a precise alignment of priorities, a correlation of necessity and possibility, a prudent formulation of goals, and a fundamental rejection of extremism as a method. And frankly, in the impending period of global reconstruction, which may take quite long, with its final design being uncertain, moderate conservatism is the most reasonable line of conduct, as far as I see it. It will inevitably change at some point, but so far, do no harm – the guiding principle in medicine – seems to be the most rational one. Noli nocere, as they say.
Again, for us in Russia, these are not some speculative postulates, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history. The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation. Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time.
Finally, there is one more point I want to make. We understand all too well that resolving many urgent problems the world has been facing would be impossible without close international cooperation. However, we need to be realistic: most of the pretty slogans about coming up with global solutions to global problems that we have been hearing since the late 20th century will never become reality. In order to achieve a global solution, states and people have to transfer their sovereign rights to supra-national structures to an extent that few, if any, would accept. This is primarily attributable to the fact that you have to answer for the outcomes of such policies not to some global public, but to your citizens and voters.
However, this does not mean that exercising some restraint for the sake of bringing about solutions to global challenges is impossible. After all, a global challenge is a challenge for all of us together, and to each of us in particular. If everyone saw a way to benefit from cooperation in overcoming these challenges, this would definitely leave us better equipped to work together.
One of the ways to promote these efforts could be, for example, to draw up, at the UN level, a list of challenges and threats that specific countries face, with details of how they could affect other countries. This effort could involve experts from various countries and academic fields, including you, my colleagues. We believe that developing a roadmap of this kind could inspire many countries to see global issues in a new light and understand how cooperation could be beneficial for them.
I have already mentioned the challenges international institutions are facing. Unfortunately, this is an obvious fact: it is now a question of reforming or closing some of them. However, the United Nations as the central international institution retains its enduring value, at least for now. I believe that in our turbulent world it is the UN that brings a touch of reasonable conservatism into international relations, something that is so important for normalising the situation.
Many criticise the UN for failing to adapt to a rapidly changing world. In part, this is true, but it is not the UN, but primarily its members who are to blame for this. In addition, this international body promotes not only international norms, but also the rule-making spirit, which is based on the principles of equality and maximum consideration for everyone’s opinions. Our mission is to preserve this heritage while reforming the organisation. However, in doing so we need to make sure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes.
This is not the first time I am using a high rostrum to make this call for collective action in order to face up to the problems that continue to pile up and become more acute. It is thanks to you, friends and colleagues, that the Valdai Club is emerging or has already established itself as a high-profile forum. It is for this reason that I am turning to this platform to reaffirm our readiness to work together on addressing the most urgent problems that the world is facing today.
The changes mentioned here prior to me, as well as by yours truly, are relevant to all countries and peoples. Russia, of course, is not an exception. Just like everyone else, we are searching for answers to the most urgent challenges of our time.
Of course, no one has any ready-made recipes. However, I would venture to say that our country has an advantage. Let me explain what this advantage is. It is to do with our historical experience. You may have noticed that I have referred to it several times in the course of my remarks. Unfortunately, we had to bring back many sad memories, but at least our society has developed what they now refer to as herd immunity to extremism that paves the way to upheavals and socioeconomic cataclysms. People really value stability and being able to live normal lives and to prosper while confident that the irresponsible aspirations of yet another group of revolutionaries will not upend their plans and aspirations. Many have vivid memories of what happened 30 years ago and all the pain it took to climb out of the ditch where our country and our society found themselves after the USSR fell apart.
The conservative views we hold are an optimistic conservatism, which is what matters the most. We believe stable, positive development to be possible. It all depends primarily on our own efforts. Of course, we are ready to work with our partners on common noble causes.
I would like to thank all participants once more, for your attention. As the tradition goes, I will gladly answer or at least try to answer your questions.
Thank you for your patience.
[ end ]
[ Wolf here ]
Before we even get started, note how much the intelligence of that speech differs from our phony President Biden. It’s even smarter than speech-making puppet and ACTUAL President, Barack Obama.
Now – don’t think for a SECOND that Mr. Putin isn’t one VERY cagey cat who’s looking to eat that singing caged bird when nobody is looking.
From the moment Putin shills for phony Globo-Soviet China-helping “climate change”, you know he’s not in it to speak the truth unless that truth benefits Russia.
Yeah, you can say that he’s “playing along with the Globalists”, but why is that?
RUSSIA FIRST. It is smarter for him to play along openly on a strategy that harms America more than Russia, and overtly helps China, than to flip that around and make his own country suffer, merely for credit with a few opponents of globalism in a primary globalist adversary (meaning the United States).
Never for a moment think this guy is saying anything to help America – unless it helps Russia first.
This is part of nationalism, or at least Russia’s version of it. Just accept that, IMO.
From there, also understand that Putin is always looking out for China, too. Russia and China will always have a very complex relationship, where mutual suspicions and mutual courtesies include NEVER saying the wrong thing, risking destabilizing that relationship, and always upholding each other’s SCAMS.
OK? Got that?
The TRUTH only goes so far with Putin. After that, it’s RUSSIA FIRST, LIES OR NO LIES.
Nevertheless, Putin goes on to provide an AMAZING set of NON-HYPOCRITICAL arguments:
- FOR nationalism
- FOR conservatism
- FOR sovereignty
- AGAINST wokism
- AGAINST “racist anti-racism”
- AGAINST tyranny of the minority
- AGAINST Bolshevism
- AGAINST extremism
- AGAINST gender / sexual minority insanity
- AGAINST Western liberal excess
- AGAINST revolution
- AGAINST transhumanism
- AGAINST destruction of society
This is exactly what Sundance is saying. Putin has jumped off his bear, and has GRABBED credibility by both horns, and is milking the bull for all the national macho it will provide!
Corrupt, Soviet-honeymooning, dementia-addled weakling Biden, selling out to China, has given Russia an extraordinary opportunity to recover Soviet-era levels of prominence on the world stage – but without all the stinky Bolshevik baggage of old. Full of fleas and bedbugs, that baggage was gladly taken off Russia’s hands by Democrat doufuses and traitors.
In my opinion, this is exactly where Russia wants things.
I have more opinions, but I will save those for the comments.
What do YOU think of Putin’s speech?
I found that a certain painting, exhibited in the Russian Museum in Saint Petersburg, helps to understand a few things about the Russian psyche. It purports to illustrate an event in 1676.
It seems that there is a certain admiration for the rougher and more straightforward methods of this group — or at least there was when this painting was created, in 1880-1891.
Which is quite amusing when contrasted with Catherine the Great’s elimination of the group in 1775.
Very useful!!! Thank you!!!
This history of the Cossacks is illuminating:
A History on the Cossack People of Eastern Europe — COSSACK DNA
Certainly explains why the Russians would want to eliminate the Cossack States.
It should be noted that Kazakhstan is the ninth largest country in the world by area. And where Pakistan is the land of the Pakis, and Afghanistan is the land of the Afghans, Uzbekistan is land of the Uzbeks, and Turkmenistan is the land of the Turkmen, it is somehow unclear how Kazakhstan might relate to cossacks…..
Maybe not NOW…Kazakhstan Honors Cossacks Who Died Due To ‘Great Famine’
This is a good lesson from history.
What we are seeing now in America is Bolshevik collectivization using capitalists as the MEANS of collectivization. To avoid the FATE of the Kozzacks (sp intentional), we must STOP collectivization of FOOD PRODUCTION by all means necessary.
I sent you two private messages containing my collection of articles on Food as a WEAPON!
I will put them up later as a post, but I can’t do it right now. I have two urgent COVID articles waiting to be done, and I’m dealing with a mountain of hosting issues. AND my wife has chores.
I urge you to allow me to make you an author so that you can simply put this stuff in posts and make my life easier. No additional information is needed. I just change your status and you get a “Write” button.
Kzakhstan and the Kazakh people have nothing to do with Cossacks.
Maybe not strictly nothing, but yeah. “It’s complicated.”
A really great link:
Attempting to put the painting up (from Wikipoo) —
And I’m amazed that Sean Connery was on hand to be the guy on the left of the table with the fur-lined hat and extreme mustache.
I’m sure I’ve seen a whole bunch of these guys in Bond flicks!!!
Ilya Repin did a lot of Russian-history-themed paintings. Like this one of Ivan the Terrible as soon as he realized he’d killed his son:
I think there is a bit of relevant history…..all that “Year Zero”, start-from-scratch, overturn the old order, let a bunch of ignorant students start a new society, redistributionist stuff really got kickstarted by the French Revolution, 1789-1799. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution ] They went so far as to reform the calendar.
This was right after the US had shown how to do a revolution “correctly”, with minimal loss of life and establishment of Constitutional government.
The French Revolution, with all its excesses, lead to the rise of Napoleon, who invaded Russia in 1812.
So there is a direct reason for Putin to figure that excess “woke”, even in foreign countries, may be a threat to Russia.
Yes. Woke America is not going to be good for anybody.
And that was before the Soviet Reign of Terror, which trod well-worn paths in this regard — with the New Soviet Man and redistribution.
There is a reason that Putin has cultivated the Russian Orthodox church, and “traditional values”. One might remember that Don Corleone was resented by other families because he didn’t want addicts littering the streets.
I concur with your summary of his points that we would want to applaud, but each one is a truth that is painful as we have become what he is decrying. It’s late. I hope that made sense.
It makes perfect sense!
My thoughts are the same. Putin is for Russia and Russia’s benefit.
As it should be.
A potent rebuke to the western idiots trying to implement a global governance structure that destroys national sovereignty.
I am heartened by his speech. He is stating that globalism will not succeed, even as he pays lip service to climate change and the covid responses by different nations.
He could be trolling the globalists. It would be interesting to put that photo of Klaus Schwab alongside one of Putin.
The Alphas will defeat the Betas regardless of money and tech support.
Putin is well aware that ‘Gore Bull Schiff warming’ is a crock of Schiff. Based on that I predicted that Russia would nab the Ukraine and Crimea from the grasping European Union. Ukraine is known as the breadbasket of Europe; along with the U.S. and Australia. It’s one of the world’s top wheat exporters and also gives Russia access to a warm water port so Putin was not about to have it join the EU.
Also the Ukraine was considered part of Russia’s sphere of influence per treaty according to Luboš Motl. When the Russia-Ukraine mess exploded I looked at his website for a decent read of the situation. Give what we know now, he seems to have been spot on.
I think the treaty he was referring to: Commonwealth of Independent States
One of many posts Luboš Motl made about the mess.
So why do I know what Putin thinks? Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov is still head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory.
He says: “The Sun defines the climate, not carbon dioxide,”
From Luboš Motl since my original notes are buried in an older computer:
Peer-reviewed global cooling
I can not find it, but there was a paper FROM RUSSIA about the ‘REPORTED’ temperature increase due to weather station closings.
He could be trolling the globalists.
This thought occurred to me. He’s currying favor for some reason. The lack of mention of anything religious plays into their plans.
“He’s currying favor for some reason. “
He saw what was done to POTUS Trump and what is now being done to Canada, Australia and the USA. NOTE he is NOT demanding complete vaccination of his population…
Rumor has it that back in the day, when Americans were regularly held hostage by the PLO, some bright boy over there decided to nab a Russian.
They hadn’t even properly composed a ransom note, when the son of the PLO guy in charge of that bunch of geniuses disappeared.
Pressing on, the PLO delivered a note with their demands. The Russians responded with an envelope of their own…..but no note.
Instead, it contained a finger.
Shortly thereafter, negotiations “broke down” and the Russian was found, unharmed, wandering around a Palestinian city — as was “Achmed the Nine-Fingered” shortly thereafter.
And, somehow, “Russian hostages” never got to be a “thing”….
Oh, I remember this in much more detail. There were all sorts of names and AP facts associated with it, too. This was QUITE real.
I understand that a similar approach was used in dealing with Somali pirates. Something about chaining each to a cinderblock and dropping them off just offshore from their home villages. Some survived by hitting the bottom, grabbing the cinderblock, and running (underwater) toward the beach. Not many.
Certainly an effective message delivery system.
The King of the North
The King of the East
This speech is going to give the Leftists heartburn.
So for that, I applaud Putin for making it!
Exactly. No WAY could I pass up delivering it to them on a silver plate!
PDJT said a while back he saw Putin as a competitor rather than an enemy.
IMHO Nationhood is good, competition is good.
It starts to come unstuck when entities combine and try to corner the market.
Common examples UN,EU,fake news, social media.
At least Putin has been consistent over the last ten years or so. (Remember the Progressive Commies did everything they could to keep Putin and Trump, two religious men, apart.)
JULY 30, 2017 — Putin: The West is Controlled by Satanic Pedophiles
(Interesting that this got disappeared from the internet ASAP. The video too.)
Here is another copy of the video:
Putin Delivers Speech on Moral Crisis of Western States
And from Paul Craig Roberts:
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 — Putin speaking about the collapse of Western civilization at the Valdai International Discussion Club
Thank you, Gail.
Yes! And this is why the Left has been demonizing Putin.
Yes. The west rejected God in ways most people wouldn’t consider, and we are suffering the consequences.
Your posts on this thread gave been great.
Nationalism garnered in by POTUSVSGDJT made prosperity ad peace. Now we have an old opponent becoming wise when we are weak. IMO Putin is telling his people to prepare for WAR!
I have to say the euphemism “live and learn” has made Putin wise.
Putin has always been a savvy leader. He is in bed with China because the US TRAITORS like the Clintons and the Bushies have given him no other choice.
Russian population: 144.1 million (2020)
Chinese population: 1.402 billion (2020)
USA population: 329.5 million (2020)
In other words China could eat them for lunch and Putin knows it.
The problem in allying with China is summed up with: “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.”
Lie down with dragons, get up with dinosaur-grade arthropod parasites!!!
Now that’s an image!
“What do YOU think of Putin’s speech?”
Let’s put it this way … the time for screwing around about the stolen election  has past. Action is now required … N.O.W.
In a weird way, Putin knows this. He knows very well that PDJT, while being America First, well understands Putin’s Russia First stance and will work with him.
China, of course, can’t stand this and must AT ALL COSTS keep the pResident in place.
AT. ALL. COSTS.
Yes, I agree. China has already gone as far as a BIOLOGICAL RELEASE in coordination with out traitors to maintain their control of America. I expect CHEMICAL or NUCLEAR as well as MORE BIOLOGICAL will be deployed to try to keep the Democrat traitors in control.
No matter what, all paths to freedom are ugly.
We are all January Sixth prisoners now.
Right now might be a good time to go back and read:
The Bear and the Dragon – Tom Clancy (released in Aug 2000)
… somethin’s up … just sayin’ …
Thanks! Just read a synopsis of the plot, and my inner Bezmenov, appropriately sped up to modern realities, is chuckling and saying:
“Western ‘national security expertise’ has the same James Bond fascination as the people themselves, and in the same way that KGB realities are much more mundane than James Bond stories, both Russian and Chinese military realities are much more prosaic than Clancy novels. What China wants, China gets without weapons. Who is to say that the Mongol hordes did not so much conquer China, as serve its interests abroad, in the same way that Cossacks served Russia? Both Americans and Russians now serve China’s interests, in their own ways. The Dragon was fed, first with communism, then with capitalism, and now it is the concern of everybody else. It’s still hungry. But it will never make the mistake of allowing any endangering alliance to form against it, and will use any weapon – real or imaginary – to enforce this.”
So yes – worth reading – not as reality, as much as an incentive to study the real dynamics of the superpower triumvirate that never actually went away, but which now has a new leader at the table, willing to poison the drinks, or to pretend to poison the drinks, if that is what it takes to maintain control.
It is ** interesting ** that Mr. Putin never mentioned “the Church” or any of the names of the Almighty God. One supposes that he didn’t want to “offend” either the non-believers in his audience, and/or the considerable numbers of Muslims in the various areas of Russia and its republic-states. Instead, he uses concepts like “morality.”
One also notes the use of “colleagues” and “collective” in the speech.
Mr. Putin is well aware that Communist China is working 24/7 to find a way to subvert and eventually conquer Russia.
Mr. Putin is well aware of his own past as a KGB officer. While one believes he doesn’t regard himself as a kind of Tsar, one also cannot forget that Russians who oppose him are “dealt with” (“Skripaled:). The KGB has come back as the FSB.
He was addressing the world.
Putin knows he is a tsar. That is Russia, for better or worse. They want tsars.
And, after reading Sadie Slay’s discussion over on the Sunday thread, a “Brandon” moniker won’t fit the bill. “RDS” will take its place.
I hear you!
Never in my life have I heard an American political leader give a speech as thoughtful as this.
Putin sounds like Edmund Burke here, and the Russian “conservative” philosopher he quoted made a statement Burke could have made.
The word “conservative” in America has become muddied and tainted to the extent it has come to mean defense of corporations, free trade, and tax reduction only. The ugliest aspect of this deformation have been the incessant articles advocating a “conservative” case for the latest leftist perversion.
“Conservatives” have been led astray and herded into a cul de sac. “Conservatives” have been effectively and safely excised from any influence except sporadic but futile uprisings. At the same time, “conservatives” have been converted into unwitting accomplices in their own destruction.
“Conservative” was never supposed to mean dogmatic or closed minded, just the opposite. “Conservatism” has always been open minded, INCLUDING being open minded to the value of traditions, culture, religious belief, and to the necessity of honoring their longevity as a stabilizing and beneficial force in itself. And “conservatism” has always recognized the necessity and inevitability of change – – organic change.
If “conservatism” has had any unchangeable “dogma,” it has been the central importance of all human life, and the related “dogmas” of pro-creation and the family. Putin said this.
I agree with Wolf on Putin’s reference to climate change and the pandemic. It actually sounded very Trump-like to my ears. Dealing with present, unchangeable realities for political reasons, getting by with solemn assent because any other approach would be counter-productive. And I noticed that the two issues were mentioned WITHOUT the usual propagandistic adjectives and hysterical injunctives, just naming the names.
I disagree with Putin on revolutions, and his mistake was significant. He said something VERY valuable about no revolution being worth it, about revolutions making things worse, and about revolutions creating far more suffering than the suffering which motivated the revolution. I disagree because the American revolution was not as Putin describes revolutions. True, our revolution was unique, but it was a revolution. Maybe most significantly, it was a revolution of human consciousness and practical implementation which may never be duplicated. Putin’s mistake was grave for another reason: in America, the destruction otherwise mentioned by Putin (trangenderism, etc) is motivated in fundamental part by a desire to undo our unique revolution.
The questions and answers with Putin which followed his speech can be found at the link and are also rather marvelous.
To my mind, Putin was implicitly mocking us in a very dry but cogent way, and we deserved the mocking. In effect he said our triumphalist attitude after winning the cold war has been re-paid by descent into blithering absurdity and depravation. Pride came before a fall.
The American Revolution was unique because it was authentic. The French and the Russian revolutions were more about overthrowing royal houses who refused to play along with the central bank scam.
Thank you! An EXCELLENT analysis. You thoughts include most if not all of the comments I wanted to make, but which I felt would be much more authentic coming from others. Your points about conservatism and revolution are exactly what I was thinking. And your additional point about what went wrong at the end of the “Cold War” is also great – my thoughts are similar. I have always felt that America as a whole didn’t play that game correctly – between greed, military expansionism, and hypocrisy, we soured what could have been, and ended up with ALMOST the chump change, although peace WAS the main prize, and that remained true for the former Soviet Union, despite American “war for spending money” elsewhere.
As far as the rest, this. Who can blame Putin for speaking the truth? He waited a decent time, to the point where NOT speaking it would be almost as criminal as not mentioning the Bolshevik seeds planted and left alone to become today’s Biden administration. But then, what’s Russia supposed to do? Outing one’s own spies and plants is simply never done. He’s not being hypocritical there.
Do not forget that the WALL STREET BANKERS and the CITY of LONDON were the ORIGINS of the Bolshevik seeds planted in Russia. They were the reason Russia did not follow the American model.
Despite being the Fake News boogyman, Putin has not been bad for Russia. (Remember Americans have been steadily losing income thanks to inflation since the 1970s.
According to Wiki Putin is “… serving as the current president of Russia since 2012, previously being in the office from 1999 until 2008. He was also prime minister from 1999 to 2000 and again from 2008 to 2012…”
orange = minimum wage
brown = MROT is the minimum monthly wage for employees in Russia
yellow = Average Wage
Is anyone here going to chafe at the notion that we have never finished the American Revolution?
As we were throwing off the yolk of Monarchical oppression we were leaving open the back door to cabal financial totalitarianism.
Yup. The historic enemy never gave up.
I suspect his spech intent is as you said. Once he started talking climate change and using rules via the UN to tackle worldwide “challenges ” suspicious cat took precedence.
Yup. “Russia” (USSR) started the UN with western cover. They will play it to advantage until it’s gone.