The SCO Just Became the World’s Largest Political Organization

1054469676A tectonic geopolitical shift happened in Astana, Kazakhstan, only a few days ago, and yet barely a ripple registered in Atlanticist circles

At the annual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), founded in 2001, both India and Pakistan were admitted as full members, alongside Russia, China and four Central Asian “stans” (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).

So now the SCO not only qualifies as the largest political organization – by area and population – in the world; it also unites four nuclear powers. The G-7 is irrelevant, as the latest summit in Taormina made it clear. The real action now, apart from the G-20, also lays in this alternative G-8.

Permanently derided in the West for a decade and a half as a mere talk shop, the SCO, slowly but surely, keeps advancing a set up that Chinese President Xi Jinping qualifies, in a subdued manner, as “a new type of international relations featuring win-win cooperation.”

That’s the least one can say when you have China, India and Pakistan in the same group.

The SCO’s trademark, under the radar game is quite subtle. The initial emphasis, as we were entering the post-9/11 world, was to fight what the Chinese qualify as “the three evilsof terrorism, separatism and extremism. Beijing – and Moscow – from the beginning were thinking about the Taliban in Afghanistan, and their Central Asian connections, especially via the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).

Now the SCO is actively warning about the security “deterioration” in Afghanistan and calling for all members to support the “peace and reconciliation” process. That’s code for the SCO from now on directly engaged in finding an “all-Asian” Afghan solution – with both India and Pakistan on board – that should transcend the failed Pentagon “remedy”; more troops.

NATO, by the way, miserably lost its war in Afghanistan. The Taliban control at least 60% of the country – and counting. And adding supreme insult to predictable injury, the Islamic State Khorasan (ISK) – Daesh’s branch in Afghanistan – has just captured Tora Bora, where way back in late 2001 the Pentagon’s B-52s were bombing already-escaped Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Make no mistake; there will be SCO action in Afghanistan. And that will include bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table. China has taken over the rotating presidency of the SCO and will be keen to show practical results in the next summit in June 2018.

Read more in original source: Sputnik

Putin hopes for stronger Russian-Israeli ties

According to the Russian president, numerous immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Russia currently living in Israel present a huge potential for developing the bilateral relations

Russia attaches great importance to bilateral ties with Israel and hopes they will get stronger in the future, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday.

We attach great importance to our contacts with Israel, not only because Israel is one of the key countries on the situation in the Middle East, but also due to historical relations between our countries,” the Russian leader said welcoming the Israeli premier in Moscow.

I am confident that your visit will be fruitful and will serve the cause of further strengthening our relations,” Putin noted.

According to the Russian president, numerous immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Russia currently living in Israel present a huge potential for developing the bilateral relations. Putin noted that, as a rule, these people “retain ties with Russia, and we, for our part, too, cherish these ties.”

He added that the two countries’ leaders are constantly in touch with each other, which confirms the high level of relations between Russia and Israel.

Netanyahu said he wants relations between the two countries to grow stronger in the next 25 years.

This visit [to Russia] is special. We mark the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries within its frameworks and we will discuss how to strengthen and develop these relations in the next 25 years,” he said.

According to the Israeli prime minister, his country and Russia face common threats and have much to discuss.

He thanked the Russian leader for the warn reception and noted that the Russian language is a “live bridge” between the two countries.

This bridge will help us achieve remarkable results in future that would rest not only on common interests but also on empathy and mutual liking. I would like to say thanks for this visit to you once again,” Netanyahu said.

Source: Russian News Agency

Russia, Solzhenitsyn, and the Reset Button

In 2009, Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State, presented her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, with a “reset” button she thought symbolized a new era for Russian and American diplomacy.

Lavrov pointed out the word the Americans had chosen, “peregruzka,” meant “overcharged,” not “reset.” Though the two leaders laughed off the mistake, the mistranslated button was a symbol of persistent misunderstanding between the two nations.

Russia has long been characterized by many in the West as enigmatic; indeed, almost beyond understanding. It was Winston Churchill who in October of 1939, mere weeks after the invasion of Poland by Nazi armed forces, speculated on the role of Russia in the war, famously depicting Russia as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”

He added: “…but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest. It cannot be in accordance with the interest of the safety of Russia that Germany should plant itself upon the shores of the Black Sea, or that it should overrun the Balkan States and subjugate the Slavonic peoples of south eastern Europe. That would be contrary to the historic life-interests of Russia.”

In other words, Churchill could not envision the dismemberment of the Soviet Union by the German war machine without Russia fighting for her “life interests.” History proved him right. Russia survived, though gravely wounded.

The claims of Russia to her unique, historic life interests again came to the forefront when the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s and Russia the nation and empire appeared on the verge of total disintegration. Russia found itself in desperate need of a Weltanschauung that would replace the communist ideology that had held the nation in its grip for seventy years. If she did not, she might even face the prospect of radical shrinkage back to the proportions of Kievan Rus, her empire absorbed into Eastern Europe and the Far East. For some, if not most, of Russia’s political and intellectual leaders, the prospect of seeing the Russian empire virtually disappear was unthinkable.

Discerning that a U.S. Marshall Plan was not in order for Russia, several main figures came forward with ideas for a Russian reset button, one which they saw as including the “historic life interests” of Russia in the post-communist era. One, of course, is Vladimir Putin, whose embrace of Russian Orthodoxy has been a reason for the elevation of Christianity to a place of influence it occupied for over a millennium.

One of the spiritual and philosophical influences behind Putin has been Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Partly due to Putin’s influence, Solzhenitsyn’s master work The Gulag Archipelago is now required reading in Russian schools.

Solzhenitsyn openly rejected the secularist and leftist liberal political philosophy dominating the cultures of Europe and America. Russia, he said, had her own unique spiritual and historic heritage, a heritage that clashed with the dominant ideology of the West. Though he admired the spirituality of the American heartland, he saw the West in general as drowning in a vortex created by moral degradation, anti-religious sentiment, and extreme individualism.

Perhaps the most succinct and prescient analyses of the errors of the liberal democratic West and the failure of the West to understand Russia and Russian spirituality is found in his speech at Harvard University, given in 1978 some eleven years before the collapse of East Germany and the Soviet Union.

Solzhenitsyn reminded the Harvard graduates that the West was not the one and only advanced culture. Russia also deserved high regard as an ancient and autonomous entity:
Any ancient and deeply rooted, autonomous culture… constitutes an autonomous world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking… For one thousand years Russia belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its autonomous character and therefore never understood it…”

In other words, if Russia was an enigma, it was due to Western blindness, a blindness that was largely due to spiritual cataracts. If Russia seemed inscrutable, it was because American and the rest of the West failed to understand the Russian soul and the Russian nation. No reset was possible unless the West returned to its own Christian spiritual roots. Until spiritual eyeglasses provided vision, the materialistic but powerful West would remain blinded by its sense of total superiority.

The West, he went on to say, thought of itself as possessing the most attractive system, and regarded other nations as culturally inferior entities that needed to come up to speed, rejecting their “wicked governments” and “their own barbarity” in order to take “the way of western pluralistic democracy and adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in this direction. However, it is a conception which develops out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, out of the mistake of measuring them all with a Western yardstick.”

Russia had its own ancient and autonomous character and was in some ways more advanced than the secularist West, which he saw as declining in courage, and as inclined toward overemphasis on individual rights seldom ameliorated by a corresponding emphasis on individual obligations. Such was the emphasis on individual rights that “destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space.” The result was that evil had boundless freedom to expand in every part of society, expressing itself as individual “rights,” be those rights exhibiting themselves in pornography, violence, and even anarchy. A firm belief in the basic goodness of human nature coupled with an almost complete misapprehension of the evil inherent in human nature had led the West to embracing what amounted to spiritual and moral anarchy.

The spiritual condition of the West meant its system was not the ideal model for Russia, which Solzhenitsyn characterized as possessing spiritual strength the West had once possessed, but which it had rejected. The West was spiritually exhausted due to the repudiation of the Christian principles on which it was based. As Russia was, even in the midst of the communist regime, gaining her spiritual strength, a vitiated West had virtually nothing to say to her beyond advocacy of runaway materialism and out-of-control individualism.

Solzhenitsyn went on to point out the basic error that led to the decadence of the West; namely, the assumption of the Enlightenment that mankind has no higher force above him, but is autonomous — mankind as the center of everything that exists. In effect, the West, including America, which at its inception believed quite differently, rejected the idea that all “individual human rights were granted because man is God’s creature.” Freedom, he said, is conditional in that it has grave religious responsibilities, an idea that had roots thousands of years old.

He concluded any commonality between Russia and the West had to be spiritual:
“[If] the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge: We shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era. This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward.”

For Solzhenitsyn, Christianity, specifically the Russian Orthodox Church, had informed the Russian soul and Russia since the end of the first millennium, with roots going back to the Eastern Roman Empire. The path leading to restoration of true greatness lay in a return to God and a repudiation of the dark inheritance of a so-called Enlightenment that fostered atheism and sought to tear down Christianity.

Having experienced firsthand the brutality of a regime motivated by atheism, Solzhenitsyn saw a similar deleterious influence at the core of the crisis of the West. Once again, runaway atheism was revealing its inherently destructive nature. In his Templeton Prize Lecture of May 1983, “Godlessness: The First Step to the Gulag,” he said:

“And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God. The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century.
“…the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.
[In the West] …the concepts of good and evil have been ridiculed for several centuries; banished from common use, they have been replaced by political or class considerations of short lived value. It has become embarrassing to state that evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters a political system.”

The West, including America, was sliding toward an abyss of its own making. The young were deliberately being taught godlessness and hatred of their own society. The subsequent corrosion of the human heart and hatred was fast becoming the signature of the contemporary free world, which appeared anxious to export to the rest of the world its own philosophy of godlessness and immorality.

The solution, he concluded, was repentance and return to God:
“…[W]e can propose only a determined quest for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently spurned. Only in this way can our eyes be opened to the errors of this unfortunate twentieth century and our bands be directed to setting them right. There is nothing else to cling to in the landslide: the combined vision of all the thinkers of the Enlightenment amounts to nothing… If we perish and lose this world, the fault will be ours alone.”

Solzhenitsyn’s powerful insights hold much truth. If there is to be a reset between the West and Russia, it must be based on the mutual and ancient Christian roots of both entities. Here in the United States, there is a Christian commonality that still exists, but it desperately requires fostering and revival.

In the meantime, Christianity in the West and in Russia remains a key to the relationship between the two.
Therein lies a way to rapprochement.
Therein lies a possibility of a “reset button.”
The way will not be easy, as the present leaders of the West have largely bowed to the forces of a spiritually arid and atheistic secularism.
But there is hope that some will seek to hear and to heed the voice that says, “This is the way. Walk in it.”

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where she received the seminary’s prize for excellence in systematic theology. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including Russia Insider, National Review, CNS, RealClearReligion and Fox News. She has also presented her views on radio and television. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com.

Author: Fay Voshell
Source: American Thinker
 

On Syria: Thank you, Russia!

Once again, Moscow has shown itself better able to make strategic choices than we are. Russia is not an ideal partner for the United States, but sometimes its interests align with ours. In those cases, we should drop our Cold War hostility and work with Russia. The best place to start is Syria.

American policy toward Syria was misbegotten from the start of the current conflict five years ago. By immediately adopting the hardest possible line—“Assad must go”—we removed any incentive for opposition groups to negotiate for peaceful change. That helped propel Syria into its bloody nightmare.

Russia, which has suffered repeated terror attacks from Islamic fanatics, is threatened by the chaos and ungoverned space that now defines Syria. So are we. Russia’s policy should be ours: prevent the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government, craft a new regime that would include Assad or his supporters, and then work for a cease-fire.

The fall of Assad would create a catastrophic power vacuum like those that have turned Iraq and Libya into terrorist havens. This would be bad for the United States, and even worse for Russia and Iran. We should recognize this common interest, and work with countries that want what we want.

This may seem eminently logical, but the very suggestion is hateful in Washington. It violates a central precept of the liberal/conservative, Republican-Democrat foreign policy consensus: Russia is our eternal enemy, so anything that promotes Russia’s interests automatically undermines ours — and that goes double for Iran. Instead of clinging to this dangerously outdated with-us-or-against-us mantra, we should realize that countries with which we differ in some areas can be our partner in others. Russia is an ideal example.

We would have been more secure as a nation, and might have contributed to a more stable world, if we had followed Russia’s foreign policy lead in the past. The government Moscow supported in Afghanistan, run by Mohammad Najibullah from 1987-92, was more honest and progressive than any that has ruled Afghanistan since American-backed forces deposed Najibullah. Later, Russia urged the United States not to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. They were right both times, and we were wrong. In Syria, Russia is right for a third time. Keeping the odious Assad in power, at least for the moment, best serves American interests. The alternative could be an ISIS “caliphate” stretching from the Mediterranean to the Tigris River.

No military solution is possible in Syria. Continued fighting only adds to the toll of death and horror. Russia wants a negotiated settlement. We are reluctant, because our so-called friends in the region want to keep fighting. They calculate continuing war to be in their interest. It may be — but it is not in the interest of the United States.

Opposition groups in Syria that we have half-heartedly supported refuse to negotiate until a cease-fire is in place. By accepting that formula, the United States guarantees continued war. Instead, negotiations should be aimed at creating a new regime that both Russia and the United States could support. From there, peace can grow.

How long Assad remains in power is not crucial to the United States. Weakening ISIS and al Qaeda is. Fighting those forces is the policy of Russia and Iran. We should recognize this confluence of interests, and work with every country or faction that shares our goals in Syria.

Our reflexive rejection of all cooperation with Russia is a throwback to a vanished era. It prevents us from taking decisive steps to ease the crisis in Syria. Its effects are also being felt in Europe. The Obama administration recently announced a four-fold increase in spending for troop deployments near Russia. Russia responded with military maneuvers near its border with Ukraine. This spiral of tension ignores the reality that Europe can never be truly secure without Russian cooperation.

Refusing to work with Russia hurts us more than it hurts Russia. Seeking avenues of cooperation would benefit both, and contribute to global security. Syria is the best place to start. Russia’s strategy — fight ISIS and al Qaeda, defend Assad, and seek a cease-fire that preserves his regime in some form — is the least bad option. Until we accept it, Syrian blood will continue to flow.

By Stephen Kinzer
Source: Boston Globe

How to Avoid War With Russia

The year ahead could bring conflict or cooperation in these key areas.

Much has been said recently about the unpredictability of Russian foreign policy, and the resulting uncertainty. In reality, Moscow’s interests are quite limited and focused on its near abroad. Understanding how Russia prioritizes its security challenges and how it assesses the security situation on its borders is a start to clearing up much of the uncertainty in Eurasia today. This analysis focuses on critical situations that may develop this year into vital challenges to Russian interests, triggering a response from Moscow.

It has been two years since Russia found itself in the middle of a geopolitical tornado. Could it deliberately stay out of it? We believe not. In nature, wind emerges because of differential pressures between regions. Similarly, in politics, conflicts emerge from a change in the balance of power and destruction of the status quo. The collapse of regimes in Ukraine and in the Middle East created low-pressure zones, drawing neighboring countries into the regional storm. Having found itself in a hurricane, Moscow made its choice. It could have lowered its sails and followed the wind, but it preferred to keep to its course even if it meant sailing against the wind.

Moscow’s offensive had its achievements: Russia is holding the initiative and managing crises wisely for its own purposes. However, in recent months Russia missed at least two sensitive blows. The first was miscalculating the consequences of the public protests in Kyiv in late 2014; the second was underestimating the risk of a Turkish military provocation during Russia’s Syrian operation. However cautious Moscow is in its foreign policy, blind spots trouble every experienced operator.

In its worldview, Russia is a great-power chauvinist and a hard-power athlete. Modern Russia is a status quo player focused predominantly on its nearest abroad. Neither Russian security priorities nor its resources compel Moscow to project power beyond one thousand kilometers from its borders. The basics of Russia’s security strategy are simple: keep the neighboring belt stable, NATO weak, China close and the United States focused elsewhere. Russia supports and abides by international rules, but only until a third party ruins the status quo and harms Moscow’s security interests. When Russia sees the security environment around it as certain and predictable, it feels no need for intervention. But when uncertainty arises and a crisis occurs, Russia responds forcefully.

Logic of a U.S.-Russia Divide
How does Russia see its place in the geopolitics of today? It is clear that the rivalry between the two centers of geopolitical gravity—the United States and China—in defining the rules of international order is a defining process of the twenty-first century. And as the Atlantic bloc is gradually losing its weight, the United States has shifted from expanding to defending its positions. This American strategy may be tagged “new enclosure,” that is, creating exclusive zones enclosed against rivals (first and foremost China) with economic, political and other kinds of barriers.

As a result, Moscow assesses U.S. policy towards Russia as a preventive attack carried out before Russia restores its historic place after the period of crisis. Washington, Moscow assesses, sees the possibility of Russia, clamped deep in the continent, being prevented from being a serious economic rival and therefore unable to form an alternative center of power in Eurasia. A weakened Russia will be kept in fear of Chinese expansion, and will be forced to become an American partner in Washington’s major project for the twenty-first century: the containment of China. And as long as American elites aim for global leadership, there is no alternative to their strategy of weakening Russia. And there is no use looking for a conspiracy in this strategy—Russia simply happens to be in the way of America’s plans. It makes no difference to Washington whether Russian elites are pro- or anti-American; their position only affects the way the United States achieves its goals. With Putin as Russia’s president, Washington avoids the trouble of paying compliments to its opponent, and can easily trip Moscow up.

The way American elites refuse to abandon the idea of global leadership, Moscow cannot afford to be weak. Russia has always been under pressure from rival civilizations to the west and south—pressure that is still growing. The goal of the current sanctions war is to exhaust and drain Russia, making it use up its limited resources, creating feelings of despair and inevitability of collapse among the public. In this environment, Russia chooses to escape direct strikes and distract the offender, shifting the front line far from its territories.

Russia’s first attempt to seize the initiative was the “Turn to the East” and the 2015 BRICS Summit in Ufa, aimed at mobilizing its allies. But it was only successful in part. The BRICS countries were not ready to sacrifice their relations with the United States, and the “Turn” could not bring fast results to influence the current balance of power.

A second, more successful attempt was the Russian operation in Syria. Europe’s exhaustion from Ukraine and the migrant crisis contributed to its effectiveness. But the main reason was the stalemate in U.S. policy, between the declared goal of overthrowing Bashar al-Assad and the impossibility of allowing an ISIS victory. Trying to find a way out, the United States decided, at least temporarily, to accept Russia’s offer to change the game. But the general goal of making Moscow surrender never disappeared. And even though it is not a key short-term goal for the Washington, it will never resist the temptation to use emerging possibilities to weaken Moscow.

Source: National Interest

Putin Is Winning The Final Chess Match With Obama

Let us all work together and hope and pray that the Obama Crash of 2016 does not turn into the Obama Global Depression of 2016.

The world press is filled with violence and sexual attack horror stories about the Islamic refugees escaping from Syria and other war torn countries of the Middle East to Greece and consequently flooding into all areas of Europe. It is actually very easy to travel from Syria to Lebanon and then take the ferry to Turkey and from there to Greece and subsequently the mainland overland to Europe. This is now big business organized like a one-way tour package from the Middle East to Europe.

Although there obviously are some ISIS fighters and Islamic militants slipping into Europe under cover of the humanitarian crises most are simply Sunni Moslems escaping the poverty, death and destruction of foreign military intervention in the region. Yes the sex crimes are a real problem because the majority of those escaping the region are men looking for work coming from a conservative society to the open societies of Europe.

Most immigrants enter Europe through the economic basket case of Greece where the economy has already been destroyed by too much government debt, corruption and EU banking excesses so Greece can afford to do little to stem the Islamic refugee tide. While a case can be made that the location of Syria and Lebanon adjacent to Turkey and the ease of transportation to Greek islands just offshore is helping the flow to Europe. Still the organized nature of the operation makes me wonder if this is also an undercover operation designed to create a new mission for NATO at the same time weakening the economy of Europe to further Washington’s economic interests today in the Obama Crash of 2016.

The world is now in recession at best and maybe flirting with a global depression. This means politicians will do what is best for their national political future and the consequences for the national economy, citizens or business future is of little consequence to them. This also suggests that global alliances will mean little when domestic national politicians are fighting for survival.

-Chess Match 1 – Consider the pattern of Washington actions against Russia. First Washington supported the overthrow of the legitimate but pro Russian government of Ukraine. The goal was three fold, first to control and cut off Russian gas exports to Europe through Ukraine, second to force Russia to vacate their warm water naval base in Crimea or else act militarily against Ukraine and create the fear of a Russian threat against all of Europe. This wouldforce Europe to depend more on NATO that is an extension of the American military power in Europe. Putin’s response was checkmate, as he wisely didn’t take the bait and this plan failed to create the desired Russian military threat to strengthen NATO and US leadership in Europe against Russia.

-Chess Match 2 – The second attempt was to overthrow Assad allowing ISIS to do the dirty work thus opening up a Qatar gas pipeline to Europe again competing with and ending European dependence on Russian gas. This would have meant curtailing much of the Russian gas profits, taxes and government revenues. Again surprisingly Putin acted to defend Syria and Assad from ISIS and again Putin checkmated Washington.

-Chess Match 3 – We are now in the middle of the third chess game between Putin & Obama. This game is the reason for Washington’s destruction and desolation of much of the Middle East. Again remember Washington’s foreign policy objectives are to control Middle East energy resources and force Russia to stand down against American global hegemony.
A strong and united NATO is necessary to put pressure on Russia and since the collapse of communism and the perceived Soviet threat to Europe, NATO has had little reason to exist. Well now I would suggest that part of the Islamic threat and massive movement of refugees to Europe is being manipulated and manufactured as a means to recreate a mission for NATO forces in Europe. A strong Washington led NATO will allow the United States to bring more pressure against Russia.

If I am right here, then what is the checkmate course of action for Russia in Syria and Lebanon? The ultimate solution is for Russia to stop the movement of refugees and Islamic radicals to Europe by forcing ISIS out of Syria and back into Iraq and effectively blocking off the escape routes to Turkey both overland and by ferry.

This would probably take more than just Syrian troops as it may mean Russian troops on the ground in both countries after military security requests from Syria and Lebanon to halt the exodus and end ISIS occupation of Syria. Security in Syria and Lebanon would help to halt the refugee flow to Europe and Putin and Russia would then get the credit they deserve for this action to protect Europe. This successful outcome would guarantee good relations between the people of Europe and Russia ultimately forcing more European politicians and governments to restore friendly and close relations with Putin’s Russia.

This would be the final checkmate needed to force the Obama Administration to reevaluate Neocon policies in the Middle East. American military actions and occupation have already destroyed much of the prosperity of the region. When this is combined with our earlier attempt to weaken Russia and Iran with lower oil prices not taking into account the growing threat of global recession and depression the problem today only gets worse. Today the Middle East is looking at increased instability and a lower standard of living at a time when Europe is suffering economically and can not absorb the inflow of refugees.

Finally, take a look at a map of Europe and you will see the 28 members of the European Union and most are in NATO. Then look at the lone country not in the EU or NATO that can still control it’s borders and policies and it is the neutral but still independent Switzerland. Neutral Switzerland can be a safe haven for your personal and retirement wealth in the coming global crash and depression.

Yes Russia and Europe would do well to work together to counter and halt the flood of Middle East refugees to Europe before the current global recession/depression destroys the prosperity of the region. While the refugee threat might have been a reasonable tool or Washington geopolitical tactic to restore NATO and therefore American leadership over Europe under normal economic conditions, the situation is now getting out of control. With today’s global economic slowdown and the risk of depression threatening the economy of Europe this tactic borders on economic genocide for Europe and must be countered and restrained for the peace and prosperity of the region. Let us all work together and hope and pray that the Obama Crash of 2016 does not turn into the Obama Global Depression of 2016 because of some poorly timed geopolitical brinkmanship and maneuvering suggested by Washington neocon advisors.

Author: Ron Holland | Zero Hedge
Source: Infowars

 

Putin Exposes 40 Nations that Financed ISIS, Including G20 Leaders

Putin revealed, during the G20 summit, the 40 countries from which ISIS finances the majority of their terrorist activities.

The list reportedly included a number of G20 countries.
I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them,” Putin told reporters.
In addition to discussing the need to stop the flow of donor money to ISIS, Putin also reiterated the need to stop the illegal oil trade by ISIS.

(Watch VIDEO)

Source: Conservative Post

Putin exposes obama’s paid isis mercenaries in middle east and syria

President PutinIn a press conference at the Valdai Discussion Club 2014 in answer to a question to a United States Journalist, President Vladimir Putin addressed his concerns regarding the US and their role in the middle east and ISIS. Although the film footage of the press conference has been banned, Live leaks released a copy of the press conference to the public.
The words of Putin are transcribed below word for word from the video originally provided by  Inessa S.
The press and mainstream news has been avoiding this information. It is a scathing , diplomatic account of Russia’s position on the politic behavior and actions in the middle east regarding Syria and ISIS, as well as a reprimand to our press who have failed to do their job.

Putin’s complete oration to the US Journalists:
First point. I never said that I view the US as a threat to our national security. President Obama, as you said, views Russia as a threat, but I don’t feel the same way about the US. What I do feel is that the politics of those in the circles of power, if I may use those terms, the politics of those in power is erroneous. It not only contradicts our national interests, it undermines any trust we had in the United States. And in that way it actually harms the United states as well.
Undermined trust, with the understanding that they are one of the global leaders in politics and in matters of the economy.
I can stay silent on many things, but as I always say, and Dominic here has mentioned it, “one sided actions” in the continuous search for the next “alliance” and coalitions which are predetermined – this is not a method that seeks to discus and agree on mutual grounds of understanding. These are one sided actions. They are carried out all the time. They lead to crises.

I’ve said this before, another threat that President Obama mentioned was ISIS. Well who on earth armed them? Who armed the Syrians that were fighting with Assad? Who created the necessary political information and climate that facilitated this situation?
Who pushed for the delivery of arms to the area? Do you really not understand who is fighting in Syria?
They are mercenaries mostly. Do you understand they are paid money? Mercenaries fight for which ever side pays more. So they arm them and pay them a certain amount. I even know what these amounts are. So they fight. They have the arms. You can’t get them to return the weapons of course, at the end.
Then they discover elsewhere pays a little more…so they go fight there. Then they occupy the oil fields.
Where ever in Iraq, Syria, they start extracting the oil and this oil is purchased by somebody. Where are the sanctions on the parties purchasing this oil?
Do you believe the US does not know who is buying it? Is it not their allies that are buying oil from Isis? Do you not think the US has the power to influence their allies? Or is the point that they indeed do not wish to influence them?
Then why bomb ISIS? In areas they started extracting oil and paying mercenaries more in theose areas the rebels from “civilized” Syrian opposition forces immediately join ISIS, because they pay more. I consider this absolutely unprofessional politics. It is not grounded on facts, in the real world.

We must support civilized, democratic opposition in Syria. So you support, arm them, and then tomorrow they join ISIS. Can they not think a step ahead? We don’t stand for this kind of politics of the US. We consider it to be wrong. It harms all parties, including you (USA).
When it comes to the consideration of our national interests I would really like it if people like you (US journalists) who posed the questions, would one day head your government. Maybe then we can somehow reverse the situation.
If that doesn’t happen, I will at least ask you to deliver my messages to your government. To the President of the United States, the Vice President, and all other relevant people. Tell them that we do not want or look for any confrontation whatsoever. When you start to consider our national interests in your actions, any other disagreements we may have they will self-regulate. This needs to be done, not just talked about. You must consider the interests of others, and you must respect other people.

You cannot “squeeze” others having considered only the benefits that you require from whatever… in economies, in your military activities, in everything. Look at Iraq the situation is terrible. Look at Libya and what you did there, that got your ambassador murdered.

Was it us that did this?
You even had a security council decision to establish a no fly zone. What for? It was so that Gaddafi’s air force couldn’t fly over and bomb the rebels. This wasn’t the smartest decision, but okay… what did you proceed to do yourselves? You started bombing the territory. This is in clear contravention of the security council resolution. It is even outright aggression over a state. Was it us that did this? You did this with your bare hands.
And it ended with the murder of your Ambassador. Who’s fault is it? It is your fault. Is it a good result that your Ambassador was murdered? It is actually a terrible catastrophe.
But do not look around for somebody to blame when it is you making these mistakes. You must do the opposite; rise above the endless desire to dominate. You must stop acting out of imperialistic ambitions. Do not poison the consciousness of millions of people like there can be no other way but imperialistic politics.

We will never forget our relationship when we supported the US in the war of independence (civil war). We will never forget that we collaborated in both world wars as allies. I personally believe that the geo strategic interests of Russia and the US are essentially the same. We must focus on this interrelationship.

Written by Dianne Marshall
The following video was translated by Inessa S .  A grateful thank you to Inessa S. for all her effort to get this news out to the people.
Published on Sep 25, 2015 by Inessa
In 2014, President Obama named the three major threats to US national security; ISIS, Russia and Ebola (because spiraling national debt, unequal distribution of wealth, over-incarceration, climate change etc are less pressing issues.)%)))
It would be fair to say that Russian politicians took much offence to being placed in this list, next to a terror organisation and a disease.
In relation to this statement, Putin answers a number of questions from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club, late 2014.
I’m not affiliated to them but I encourage those interested in Eurasian politics to follow Valdai on Facebook, for truthful insights with leading experts.

Source: The Marshall Report

IS conducts aggressive recruiting campaign using mass culture — Russian Prosecutor-General

Terrorists have unleashed an active propaganda campaign with the use of scenes from movies and video games, which are skillfully oriented towards young people, Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office says.

SOCHI, November 11. /TASS/. The Islamic State (IS) international terrorist group banned in Russia is using all possibilities of modern mass culture to recruit young people into its ranks, said Head of the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office department for supervision of the implementation of laws on federal security, international relations, countering extremism and terrorism Yury Khokhlov. He was speaking at the 7th regional conference of the International Association of Prosecutors of Central and Eastern European and Central Asian countries dedicated to combating terrorism and violent extremism that opened on Tuesday in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

Islamic State has unleashed an active and aggressive propaganda campaign a la modern pop culture for the recruitment of foreign terrorist militants with the use of scenes from movies and video games, which are skillfully oriented towards young people,” Khokhlov said.

With an eye to Russian-speaking audiences extremists use the communication capabilities of such social networking sites as Facebook, Twitter, VKontakte, which have a different number of pages for recruiting new supporters to join the ranks of terrorist militants and their henchmen. Such resources are blocked at the request of the Prosecutor-General’s Office,” he noted.

Khokhlov added that extremists attached great importance to propaganda work, “which means that the measures taken by us should be proportionate to those challenges, especially when it comes to protecting young people from the pernicious influence of the hostile ideology.”

He noted that “almost all terrorist groups had their own online resources with information available in several languages.” There are thousands of such websites, and there are numerous Russian-language ones among them.

Russia’s Prosecutor-General Yury Chaika said on Tuesday that 800 terrorist and extremist websites had been blocked in Russia at the request of the Prosecutor-General’s Office and information removed from 4,500 pages.

International effort needed to counter web extremism

Combined effort by the international community is needed to fight extremist websites since some Internet communities advocating extremism and terrorism enfold nationals of different countries, a top official from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office said on Wednesday.

Ethnic relations and security department head Yuri Khohlov called for consolidated action at a regional conference of prosecutors in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, naming the Misanthropic Division website, blocked by the prosecutor’s office, as a now-neutralised target.

Members of that internet community openly urged extremist and terrorist activity. Web pages of its participants contained materials advocating ideas of racial superiority and racial violence,” he said, noting its activities across Russia, Great Britain, Ukraine, Germany, Spain, Italy and France.

Article 19 of the 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guaranteed freedom of speech but also barred abuse of that freedom and appeals to violence, he told delegates.

Source: TASS. Russian News Angency

Italy ready to back enterprises cooperating with Russia — Economic Development Minister

The country’s government is ready to contribute to exchange of technologies between Russian and Italian companies as well as import substitution operations in Russia.

VERONA, October 23. /TASS/. Italy is ready to back enterprises, which cooperate with Russia, the country’s Economic Development Minister Federica Guidi said on Friday on the sidelines of an economic forum in Verona bringing together politicians and business executives of Russia and Italy.

“Italy is ready to back enterprises, which are cooperating with Russia,” she said, adding that the country’s government is ready to contribute to exchange of technologies between Russian and Italian companies as well as import substitution operations in Russia.

Guidi also called for focusing on cooperation in the sectors, which are not under sanctions.

Source: TASS. Russian News Agency