Natylie Baldwin's Blog, page 168

Briahna Joy Gray: Fund Ukraine OR ELSE? Liberals Called Me A ‘SUBHUMAN FASCIST’ For Defending CPC Letter

Link here.

Briahna Joy Gray discusses U.S. interventionism in Ukraine, a topic of debate on a recent episode of her podcast, “Bad Faith.”

Full Transcript of Vladimir Putin’s Remarks at the Valdai Discussion Club Meeting

Russian President Vladimir Putin

from Kremlin website, 10/27/22

The theme of this year’s forum is A Post–Hegemonic World: Justice and Security for Everyone. The four day-long meeting brought together 111 experts, politicians, diplomats and economists from Russia and 40 foreign countries, including Afghanistan, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Turkiye, the United States, and Uzbekistan, to name a few.

Moderator of the Valdai Club’s plenary session Fyodor Lukyanov: Good afternoon, Mr President,

We look forward to seeing you every year, but this year, perhaps, we were more impatient than usual, since there are lots of issues to discuss.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I suppose so, yes.

Fyodor Lukyanov: The forum mainly focused on matters related to the international order, such as how the world is changing and, most importantly, who, in fact, is at the helm of the world, who runs it, and whether the world is amenable to being run at all.

However, we are discussing this as observers, but you have power, so please share your thoughts with us.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I had a chance to get a sense of what you discussed here during the last few days. It was an interesting and substantive discussion. I hope you do not regret coming to Russia and communicating with each other.

I am happy to see you all.

We have used the Valdai Club platform to discuss, more than once, the major and serious shifts that have already taken place and are taking place around the world, the risks posed by the degradation of global institutions, the erosion of collective security principles and the substitution of “rules” for international law. I was tempted to say “we are clear about who came up with these rules,” but, perhaps, that would not be an accurate statement. We have no idea whatsoever who made these rules up, what these rules are based on, or what is contained inside these rules.

It looks like we are witnessing an attempt to enforce just one rule whereby those in power – we were talking about power, and I am now talking about global power – could live without following any rules at all and could get away with anything. These are the rules that we hear them constantly, as people say, harping on, that is, talking about them incessantly

The Valdai discussions are important because a variety of assessments and forecasts can be heard here. Life always shows how accurate they were, since life is the sternest and the most objective teacher. So, life shows how accurate our previous years’ projections were.

Alas, events continue to follow a negative scenario, which we have discussed more than once during our previous meetings. Moreover, they have morphed into a major system-wide crisis that impacted, in addition to the military-political sphere, the economic and humanitarian spheres as well.

The so-called West which is, of course, a theoretical construct since it is not united and clearly is a highly complex conglomerate, but I will still say that the West has taken a number of steps in recent years and especially in recent months that are designed to escalate the situation. As a matter of fact, they always seek to aggravate matters, which is nothing new, either. This includes the stoking of war in Ukraine, the provocations around Taiwan, and the destabilisation of the global food and energy markets. To be sure, the latter was, of course, not done on purpose, there is no doubt about it. The destabilisation of the energy market resulted from a number of systemic missteps made by the Western authorities that I mentioned above. As we can see now, the situation was further aggravated by the destruction of the pan-European gas pipelines. This is something otherworldly altogether, but we are nevertheless witnessing these sad developments.

Global power is exactly what the so-called West has at stake in its game. But this game is certainly dangerous, bloody and, I would say, dirty. It denies the sovereignty of countries and peoples, their identity and uniqueness, and tramples upon other states’ interests. In any case, even if denial is the not the word used, they are doing it in real life. No one, except those who create these rules I have mentioned is entitled to retain their identity: everyone else must comply with these rules.

In this regard, let me remind you of Russia’s proposals to our Western partners to build confidence and a collective security system. They were once again tossed in December 2021.

However, sitting things out can hardly work in the modern world. He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind, as the saying goes. The crisis has indeed taken on a global dimension and has impacted everyone. There can be no illusions about this.

Humankind is at a fork in the road: either keep accumulating problems and eventually get crushed under their weight, or work together to find solutions – even imperfect ones, as long as they work – that can make our world a more stable and safer place.

You know, I have always believed in the power of common sense. Therefore, I am convinced that sooner or later both the new centres of the multipolar international order and the West will have to start a dialogue on an equal footing about a common future for us all, and the sooner the better, of course. In this regard, I will highlight some of the most important aspects for all of us.

Current developments have overshadowed environmental issues. Strange as it may seem, this is what I would like to speak about first today. Climate change no longer tops the agenda. But that fundamental challenge has not gone away, it is still with us, and it is growing.

The loss of biodiversity is one of the most dangerous consequences of disrupting the environmental balance. This brings me to the key point all of us have gathered here for. Is it not equally important to maintain cultural, social, political and civilisational diversity?

At the same time, the smoothing out and erasure of all and any differences is essentially what the modern West is all about. What stands behind this? First of all, it is the decaying creative potential of the West and a desire to restrain and block the free development of other civilisations.

There is also an openly mercantile interest, of course. By imposing their values, consumption habits and standardisation on others, our opponents – I will be careful with words – are trying to expand markets for their products. The goal on this track is, ultimately, very primitive. It is notable that the West proclaims the universal value of its culture and worldview. Even if they do not say so openly, which they actually often do, they behave as if this is so, that it is a fact of life, and the policy they pursue is designed to show that these values must be unconditionally accepted by all other members of the international community.

I would like to quote from Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s famous Harvard Commencement Address delivered in 1978. He said that typical of the West is “a continuous blindness of superiority”– and it continues to this day – which “upholds the belief that vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to the level of present-day Western systems.” He said this in 1978. Nothing has changed.

Over the nearly 50 years since then, the blindness about which Solzhenitsyn spoke and which is openly racist and neocolonial, has acquired especially distorted forms, in particular, after the emergence of the so-called unipolar world. What am I referring to? Belief in one’s infallibility is very dangerous; it is only one step away from the desire of the infallible to destroy those they do not like, or as they say, to cancel them. Just think about the meaning of this word.

Even at the very peak of the Cold War, the peak of the confrontation of the two systems, ideologies and military rivalry, it did not occur to anyone to deny the very existence of the culture, art, and science of other peoples, their opponents. It did not even occur to anyone. Yes, certain restrictions were imposed on contacts in education, science, culture, and, unfortunately, sports. But nonetheless, both the Soviet and American leaders understood that it was necessary to treat the humanitarian area tactfully, studying and respecting your rival, and sometimes even borrowing from them in order to retain a foundation for sound, productive relations at least for the future.

And what is happening now? At one time, the Nazis reached the point of burning books, and now the Western “guardians of liberalism and progress” have reached the point of banning Dostoyevsky and Tchaikovsky. The so-called “cancel culture” and in reality – as we said many times – the real cancellation of culture is eradicating everything that is alive and creative and stifles free thought in all areas, be it economics, politics or culture.

Today, liberal ideology itself has changed beyond recognition. If initially, classic liberalism was understood to mean the freedom of every person to do and say as they pleased, in the 20th century the liberals started saying that the so-called open society had enemies and that the freedom of these enemies could and should be restricted if not cancelled. It has reached the absurd point where any alternative opinion is declared subversive propaganda and a threat to democracy.

Whatever comes from Russia is all branded as “Kremlin intrigues.” But look at yourselves. Are we really so all-powerful? Any criticism of our opponents – any – is perceived as “Kremlin intrigues,” “the hand of the Kremlin.” This is insane. What have you sunk to? Use your brain, at least, say something more interesting, lay out your viewpoint conceptually. You cannot blame everything on the Kremlin’s scheming.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky prophetically foretold all this back in the 19th century. One of the characters of his novel Demons, the nihilist Shigalev, described the bright future he imagined in the following way: “Emerging from boundless freedom, I conclude with boundless despotism.” This is what our Western opponents have come to. Another character of the novel, Pyotr Verkhovensky echoes him, talking about the need for universal treason, reporting and spying, and claiming that society does not need talents or greater abilities: “Cicero’s tongue is cut out, Copernicus has his eyes gouged out and Shakespeare is stoned.” This is what our Western opponents are arriving at. What is this if not Western cancel culture?

These were great thinkers and, frankly, I am grateful to my aides for finding these quotes.

What can one say to this? History will certainly put everything in its place and will know whom to cancel, and it will definitely not be the greatest works of universally recognised geniuses of world culture, but those who have for some reason decided that they have the right to use world culture as they see fit. Their self-regard really knows no bounds. No one will even remember their names in a few years. But Dostoevsky will live on, as will Tchaikovsky, Pushkin, no matter how much they would have liked the opposite.

Standardisation, financial and technological monopoly, the erasure of all differences is what underlies the Western model of globalisation, which is neocolonial in nature. Their goal was clear – to establish the unconditional dominance of the West in the global economy and politics. To do that, the West put at its service the entire planet’s natural and financial resources, as well as all intellectual, human and economic capabilities, while alleging it was a natural feature of the so-called new global interdependence.

Here I would like to recall another Russian philosopher, Alexander Zinoviev, whose birth centenary we will celebrate on October 29. More than 20 years ago, he said that Western civilisation needed the entire planet as a medium of existence and all the resources of humanity to survive at the level it had reached. That is what they want, that is exactly how it is.

Moreover, the West initially secured itself a huge head start in that system because it had developed the principles and mechanisms – the same as today’s rules they keep talking about, which remain an incomprehensible black hole because no one really knows what they are. But as soon as non-western countries began to derive some benefits from globalisation, above all, the large nations in Asia, the West immediately changed or fully abolished many of those rules. And the so-called sacred principles of free trade, economic openness, equal competition, even property rights were suddenly forgotten, completely. They change the rules on the go, on the spot wherever they see an opportunity for themselves.

Here is another example of the substitution of concepts and meanings. For many years, Western ideologists and politicians have been telling the world there was no alternative to democracy. Admittedly, they meant the Western-style, the so-called liberal model of democracy. They arrogantly rejected all other variants and forms of government by the people and, I want to emphasise this, did so contemptuously and disdainfully. This manner has been taking shape since colonial times, as if everyone were second-rate, while they were exceptional. It has been going on for centuries and continues to this day.

So currently, an overwhelming majority of the international community is demanding democracy in international affairs and rejecting all forms of authoritarian dictate by individual countries or groups of countries. What is this if not the direct application of democratic principles to international relations?

What stance has the “civilised” West adopted? If you are democrats, you are supposed to welcome the natural desire for freedom expressed by billions of people, but no. The West is calling it undermining the liberal rules-based order. It is resorting to economic and trade wars, sanctions, boycotts and colour revolutions, and preparing and carrying out all sorts of coups.

One of them led to tragic consequences in Ukraine in 2014. They supported it and even specified the amount of money they had spent on this coup. They have the cheek to act as they please and have no scruples about anything they do. They killed Soleimani, an Iranian general. You can think whatever you want about Soleimani, but he was a foreign state official. They killed him in a third country and assumed responsibility. What is that supposed to mean, for crying out loud? What kind of world are we living in?

As is customary, Washington continues to refer to the current international order as liberal American-style, but in fact, this notorious “order” is multiplying chaos every day and, I might even add, is becoming increasingly intolerant even towards the Western countries and their attempts to act independently. Everything is nipped in the bud, and they do not even hesitate to impose sanctions on their allies, who lower their heads in acquiescence.

For example, the Hungarian MPs’ July proposals to codify the commitment to European Christian values and culture in the Treaty on European Union were taken not even as an affront, but as an outright and hostile act of sabotage. What is that? What does it mean? Indeed, some people may like it, some not.

Over a thousand years, Russia has developed a unique culture of interaction between all world religions. There is no need to cancel anything, be it Christian values, Islamic values or Jewish values. We have other world religions as well. All you need to do is respect each other. In a number of our regions – I just know this firsthand – people celebrate Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Jewish holidays together, and they enjoy doing so as they congratulate each other and are happy for each other.

But not here. Why not? At least, they could discuss it. Amazing.

Without exaggeration, this is not even a systemic, but a doctrinal crisis of the neoliberal American-style model of international order. They have no ideas for progress and positive development. They simply have nothing to offer the world, except perpetuating their dominance.

I am convinced that real democracy in a multipolar world is primarily about the ability of any nation – I emphasise – any society or any civilisation to follow its own path and organise its own socio-political system. If the United States or the EU countries enjoy this right, then the countries of Asia, the Islamic states, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, and countries on other continents certainly have this right as well. Of course, our country, Russia, also has this right, and no one will ever be able to tell our people what kind of society we should be building and what principles should underlie it.

A direct threat to the political, economic and ideological monopoly of the West lies in the fact that the world can come up with alternative social models that are more effective; I want to emphasise this, more effective today, brighter and more appealing than the ones that currently exist. These models will definitely come about. This is inevitable. By the way, US political scientists and analysts also write about this. Truthfully, their government is not listening to what they say, although it cannot avoid seeing these concepts in political science magazines and mentioned in discussions.

Development should rely on a dialogue between civilisations and spiritual and moral values. Indeed, understanding what humans and their nature are all about varies across civilisations, but this difference is often superficial, and everyone recognises the ultimate dignity and spiritual essence of people. A common foundation on which we can and must build our future is critically important.

Here is something I would like to emphasise. Traditional values are not a rigid set of postulates that everyone must adhere to, of course not. The difference from the so-called neo-liberal values is that they are unique in each particular instance, because they stem from the traditions of a particular society, its culture and historical background. This is why traditional values cannot be imposed on anyone. They must simply be respected and everything that every nation has been choosing for itself over centuries must he handled with care.

This is how we understand traditional values, and the majority of humanity share and accept our approach. This is understandable, because the traditional societies of the East, Latin America, Africa, and Eurasia form the basis of world civilisation.

Respect for the ways and customs of peoples and civilisations is in everyone’s interest. In fact, this is also in the interest of the “West,” which is quickly becoming a minority in the international arena as it loses its dominance. Of course, the Western minority’s right to its own cultural identity – I want to emphasise this – must be ensured and respected, but, importantly, on an equal footing with the rights of every other nation.

If the Western elites believe they can have their people and their societies embrace what I believe are strange and trendy ideas like dozens of genders or gay pride parades, so be it. Let them do as they please. But they certainly have no right to tell others to follow in their steps.

We see the complicated demographic, political and social processes taking place in Western countries. This is, of course, their own business. Russia does not interfere in such matters and has no intention of doing so. Unlike the West, we mind our own business. But we are hoping that pragmatism will triumph and Russia’s dialogue with the genuine, traditional West, as well as with other coequal development centres, will become a major contribution to the construction of a multipolar world order.

I will add that multipolarity is a real and, actually, the only chance for Europe to restore its political and economic identity. To tell the truth – and this idea is expressed explicitly in Europe today – Europe’s legal capacity is very limited. I tried to put it mildly not to offend anyone.

The world is diverse by nature and Western attempts to squeeze everyone into the same pattern are clearly doomed. Nothing will come out of them.

The conceited aspiration to achieve global supremacy and, essentially, to dictate or preserve leadership by dictate is really reducing the international prestige of the leaders of the Western world, including the United States, and increasing mistrust in their ability to negotiate in general. They say one thing today and another tomorrow; they sign documents and renounce them, they do what they want. There is no stability in anything. How documents are signed, what was discussed, what can we hope for – all this is completely unclear.

Previously, only a few countries dared argue with America and it looked almost sensational, whereas now it has become routine for all manner of states to reject Washington’s unfounded demands despite its continued attempts to exert pressure on everyone. This is a mistaken policy that leads nowhere. But let them, this is also their choice.

I am convinced that the nations of the world will not shut their eyes to a policy of coercion that has discredited itself. Every time the West will have to pay a higher price for its attempts to preserve its hegemony. If I were a Western elite, I would seriously ponder this prospect. As I said, some political scientists and politicians in the United States are already thinking about it.

In the current conditions of intense conflict, I will be direct about certain things. As an independent and distinctive civilization, Russia has never considered and does not consider itself an enemy of the West. Americophobia, Anglophobia, Francophobia, and Germanophobia are the same forms of racism as Russophobia or anti-Semitism, and, incidentally, xenophobia in all its guises.

It is simply necessary to understand clearly that, as I have already said before, two Wests – at least two and maybe more but two at least – the West of traditional, primarily Christian values, freedom, patriotism, great culture and now Islamic values as well – a substantial part of the population in many Western countries follows Islam. This West is close to us in something. We share with it common, even ancient roots. But there is also a different West – aggressive, cosmopolitan, and neocolonial. It is acting as a tool of neoliberal elites. Naturally, Russia will never reconcile itself to the dictates of this West.

In 2000, after I was elected President, I will always remember what I faced: I will remember the price we paid for destroying the den of terrorism in the North Caucasus, which the West almost openly supported at the time. We are all adults here; most of you present in this hall understand what I am talking about. We know that this is exactly what happened in practice: financial, political and information support. We have all lived through it.

What is more, not only did the West actively support terrorists on Russian territory, but in many ways it nurtured this threat. We know this. Nevertheless, after the situation had stabilised, when the main terrorist gangs had been defeated, including thanks to the bravery of the Chechen people, we decided not to turn back, not to play the offended, but to move forward, to build relations even with those who actually acted against us, to establish and develop relations with all who wanted them, based on mutual benefit and respect for one another.

We thought it was in everyone’s interest. Russia, thank God, had survived all the difficulties of that time, stood firm, grew stronger, was able to cope with internal and external terrorism, its economy was preserved, it began to develop, and its defence capability began to improve. We tried to build up relations with the leading countries of the West and with NATO. The message was the same: let us stop being enemies, let us live together as friends, let us engage in dialogue, let us build trust, and, hence, peace. We were absolutely sincere, I want to emphasise that. We clearly understood the complexity of this rapprochement, but we agreed to it.

What did we get in response? In short, we got a ”no“ in all the main areas of possible cooperation. We received an ever-increasing pressure on us and hotbeds of tension near our borders. And what, may I ask, is the purpose of this pressure? What is it? Is it just to practice? Of course not. The goal was to make Russia more vulnerable. The purpose is to turn Russia into a tool to achieve their own geopolitical goals.

As a matter of fact, this is a universal rule: they try to turn everyone into a tool, in order to use these tools for their own purposes. And those who do not yield to this pressure, who do not want to be such a tool are sanctioned: all sorts of economic restrictions are carried out against them and in relation of them, coups are prepared or where possible carried out and so on. And in the end, if nothing at all can be done, the aim is the same: to destroy them, to wipe them off the political map. But it has not and will never be possible to draft and implement such a scenario with respect to Russia.

What else can I add? Russia is not challenging the Western elites. Russia is simply upholding its right to exist and to develop freely. Importantly, we will not become a new hegemon ourselves. Russia is not suggesting replacing a unipolar world with a bipolar, tripolar or other dominating order, or replacing Western domination with domination from the East, North or South. This would inevitably lead to another impasse.

At this point, I would like to cite the words of the great Russian philosopher Nikolai Danilevsky. He believed that progress did not consist of everyone going in the same direction, as some of our opponents seem to want. This would only result in progress coming to a halt, Danilevsky said. Progress lies in “walking the field that represents humanity’s historical activity, walking in all directions,” he said, adding that no civilisation can take pride in being the height of development.

I am convinced that dictatorship can only be countered through free development of countries and peoples; the degradation of the individual can be set off by the love of a person as a creator; primitive simplification and prohibition can be replaced with the flourishing complexity of culture and tradition.

The significance of today’s historical moment lies in the opportunities for everyone’s democratic and distinct development path, which is opening up before all civilisations, states and integration associations. We believe above all that the new world order must be based on law and right, and must be free, distinctive and fair.

The world economy and trade also need to become fairer and more open. Russia considers the creation of new international financial platforms inevitable; this includes international transactions. These platforms should be above national jurisdictions. They should be secure, depoliticized and automated and should not depend on any single control centre. Is it possible to do this or not? Of course it is possible. This will require a lot of effort. Many countries will have to pool their efforts, but it is possible.

This rules out the possibility of abuse in a new global financial infrastructure. It would make it possible to conduct effective, beneficial and secure international transactions without the dollar or any of the so-called reserve currencies. This is all the more important, now that the dollar is being used as a weapon; the United States, and the West in general, have discredited the institution of international financial reserves. First, they devalued it with inflation in the dollar and euro zones and then they took our gold-and-currency reserves.

The transition to transactions in national currencies will quickly gain momentum. This is inevitable. Of course, it depends on the status of the issuers of these currencies and the state of their economies, but they will be growing stronger, and these transactions are bound to gradually prevail over the others. Such is the logic of a sovereign economic and financial policy in a multipolar world.

Furthermore, new global development centres are already using unmatched technology and research in various fields and can successfully compete with Western transnational companies in many areas.

Clearly, we have a common and very pragmatic interest in free and open scientific and technological exchange. United, we stand to win more than if we act separately. The majority should benefit from these exchanges, not individual super-rich corporations.

How are things going today? If the West is selling medicines or crop seeds to other countries, it tells them to kill their national pharmaceutical industries and selection. In fact, it all comes down to this: its machine tool and equipment supplies destroy the local engineering industry. I realised this back when I served as Prime Minister. Once you open your market to a certain product group, the local manufacturer instantly goes belly up and it is almost impossible for him to raise his head. That’s how they build relationships. That’s how they take over markets and resources, and countries lose their technological and scientific potential. This is not progress; it is enslavement and reducing economies to primitive levels.

Technological development should not increase global inequality, but rather reduce it. This is how Russia has traditionally implemented its foreign technology policy. For example, when we build nuclear power plants in other countries, we create competence centres and train local personnel. We create an industry. We don’t just build a plant, we create an entire industry. In fact, we give other countries a chance to break new ground in their scientific and technological development, reduce inequality, and bring their energy sector to new levels of efficiency and environmental friendliness.

Let me emphasise again that sovereignty and a unique path of development in no way mean isolation or autarky. On the contrary, they are about energetic and mutually beneficial cooperation based on the principles of fairness and equality.

If liberal globalisation is about depersonalising and imposing the Western model on the entire world, integration is, in contrast, about tapping the potential of each civilisation for everyone to benefit. If globalism is dictate – which is what it comes down to eventually, – integration is a team effort to develop common strategies that everyone can benefit from.

In this regard, Russia believes it is important to make wider use of mechanisms for creating large spaces that rely on interaction between neighbouring countries, whose economies and social systems, as well as resource bases and infrastructure, complement each other. In fact, these large spaces form the economic basis of a multipolar world order. Their dialogue gives rise to genuine unity in humanity, which is much more complex, unique and multidimensional than the simplistic ideas professed by some Western masterminds.

Unity among humankind cannot be created by issuing commands such as “do as I do” or “be like us.” It is created with consideration for everyone’s opinion and with a careful approach to the identity of every society and every nation. This is the principle that can underlie long-term cooperation in a multipolar world.

In this regard, it may be worth revising the structure of the United Nations, including its Security Council, to better reflect the world’s diversity. After all, much more will depend on Asia, Africa, and Latin America in tomorrow’s world than is commonly believed today, and this increase in their influence is undoubtedly a positive development.

Let me recall that the Western civilisation is not the only one even in our common Eurasian space. Moreover, the majority of the population is concentrated in the east of Eurasia, where the centres of the oldest human civilisations emerged.

The value and importance of Eurasia lies in the fact that it represents a self-sufficient complex possessing huge resources of all kinds and tremendous opportunities. The more we work on increasing the connectivity of Eurasia and creating new ways and forms of cooperation, the more impressive achievements we make.

The successful performance of the Eurasian Economic Union, the fast growth of the authority and prestige of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the large-scale One Belt, One Road initiatives, plans for multilateral cooperation in building the North-South transport corridor and many other projects, are the beginning of a new era, new stage in the development of Eurasia. I am confident of this. Integration projects there do not contradict but supplement each other – of course, if they are carried out by neighbouring countries in their own interests rather than introduced by outside forces with the aim of splitting the Eurasian space and turning it into a zone of bloc confrontation.

Europe, the Western extremity of the Greater Eurasia could also become its natural part. But many of its leaders are hampered by the conviction that the Europeans are superior to others, that it is beneath them to take part as equals in undertakings with others. This arrogance prevents them from seeing that they have themselves become a foreign periphery and actually turned into vassals, often without the right to vote.

Colleagues,

The collapse of the Soviet Union upset the equilibrium of the geopolitical forces. The West felt as a winner and declared a unipolar world arrangement, in which only its will, culture and interests had the right to exist.

Now this historical period of boundless Western domination in world affairs is coming to an end. The unipolar world is being relegated into the past. We are at a historical crossroads. We are in for probably the most dangerous, unpredictable and at the same time most important decade since the end of World War II. The West is unable to rule humanity single-handedly and the majority of nations no longer want to put up with this. This is the main contradiction of the new era. To cite a classic, this is a revolutionary situation to some extent – the elites cannot and the people do not want to live like that any longer.

This state of affairs is fraught with global conflicts or a whole chain of conflicts, which poses a threat to humanity, including the West itself. Today’s main historical task is to resolve this contradiction in a way that is constructive and positive.

The change of eras is a painful albeit natural and inevitable process. A future world arrangement is taking shape before our eyes. In this world arrangement, we must listen to everyone, consider every opinion, every nation, society, culture and every system of world outlooks, ideas and religious concepts, without imposing a single truth on anyone. Only on this foundation, understanding our responsibility for the destinies of nations and our planet, shall we create a symphony of human civilisation.

At this point, I would like to finish my remarks with expressing gratitude for the patience that you displayed while listening to them.

Thank you very much.

To read the Q&A discussion that followed, go here.

Volodymyr Ishchenko: Russia’s military Keynesianism

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

By Volodymyr Ishchenko, Al Jazeera, 10/26/22

Ishchenko is a research associate at the Institute of East European Studies, Freie Universität Berlin

In late September, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a “partial” mobilisation in Russia, as he forced through the annexation of four occupied regions in southeastern Ukraine after sham referendums. As many have pointed out, the draft broke an informal social contract between Putin and the Russian population, in which the Russian president provided not high but at least tolerable living standards and stability in exchange for political passivity.

Now, many expect the draft to change everything. Soon the corpses of poorly trained soldiers, sent as cannon fodder to the battlefield to stop the Ukrainian counteroffensive, will begin returning to their families, stirring public anger. According to this reasoning, this, along with the economic impact of sanctions, could result in popular unrest, which would necessitate further repression.

The Kremlin would not be able to last long on sheer coercion. To score a military victory, Putin may be tempted to use a tactical nuclear weapon or some other wildly escalatory option that would likely deprive him of his unreliable allies in the world. Then he would either bury the whole world with him or be removed by a Russian elite scared for their own lives.

The problem with this line of thinking is that more repression is not the only option for Putin and is not the only basis of his regime. To understand the other direction he could take, it is important to look at the political economy dimension of recent developments.

When declaring the “partial” mobilisation, Putin emphasised that drafted Russian soldiers would be paid the same as the contract soldiers who have been the backbone of the Russian forces in Ukraine so far. This means they should be paid at least $3,000 per month, depending on military rank, bonuses, insurance and a generous welfare package. This is about five to six times higher than the median wage in Russia. Drafting 300,000, let alone more than one million soldiers – as some media reports have claimed may be the real target – would necessitate the redistribution of billions of dollars from the Russian state budget.

There were reports of chaos in the payment arrangements in the first weeks since the start of mobilisation. However, at an October 19 meeting of Russia’s Security Council, Putin ordered that all problems with military wages be resolved, showing that the high remuneration for mobilised soldiers and support for their families is an important part of his strategy.

Add to that the money flowing to the reconstruction of the ruined Mariupol and other heavily destroyed Ukrainian cities in the newly annexed regions of southeastern Ukraine. Currently, workers from across Russia are recruited for the reconstruction effort and are offered double the amount they would make at home. Even a non-qualified construction worker receives more than $1,000 a month.

Recently, Russian deputy prime minister Marat Khusnullin said more than 30,000 Russian workers are employed in the reconstruction of occupied Ukrainian territories, and that the government plans to increase the number to 50,000-60,000.

In the next three years, the Russian budget is expected to allocate at least $6bn for the reconstruction of the newly annexed Ukrainian territories. How much of it will not be lost to Russian crony capitalism remains to be seen.

There are also a lot of funds flowing into the military-industrial complex. As demand for weapons and munitions has increased significantly, the number of workers, as well as wages, has grown. At least partially, the growth in the military-industrial complex compensates for the decline of production in the industries dependent on Western components and suffering from sanctions. In other sectors, employees who have been drafted into the army have left jobs to be filled by new workers, which decreases unemployment.

All in all, the state expenditure for “national defence” has already increased 43 percent from last year to this year and reached $74bn. A planned cut for 2023 has been scrapped and instead Moscow plans to spend some $80bn. The “national security and law enforcement” expenses are also expected to increase by 46 percent to $70bn next year.

Looking at all these developments, we see something like military Keynesianism taking shape in Russia. Millions of Russians who are either mobilised to fight in Ukraine, employed in reconstruction or in the military industry, or participating in the suppression of unrest in the occupied territories and at home, or are family members, have turned into direct beneficiaries of the war.

Among other things, this means the emergence of a positive feedback loop that did not really exist before. The Russian ruling elite started the war to pursue its own interests and it managed to get only ritual and passive support from the Russian population.

However, this redistribution of state wealth through the military effort is creating a new basis for more active and conscious support within a significant section of Russian society, which now has a material stake in the conflict.

The fact that a full-scale invasion and occupation of a large part of the Ukrainian territory would require some fundamental changes in the Russian socio-political order was predictable even before February 24. Soon after the start of the invasion, I wrote the following: “[t]he Russian state would need to buy the loyalty of Russians and subjugated nations by less fiscally conservative and more Keynesian economic policies. […] Instead of the empty rhetoric of “de-Nazification” which has clearly been insufficient to inspire enthusiasm for the war within Russian society, this would require a more coherent imperialist-conservative project connecting the interests of the Russian elites to the interests of the subaltern classes and nations.”

The Kremlin’s strategy of combining coercion with bribing a significant part of the population has helped keep anti-war protests relatively small, as most Russians have obediently accepted the mobilisation. The disproportionate number of people drafted from the poorer parts of Russia might have to do not only with the Kremlin’s fear of protests from more opposition-minded residents of the big cities but also with its calculation that the monetary incentives it offers would be of greater value to the residents of more deprived peripheral regions.

The crucial question, of course, is for how long military Keynesianism will be sustainable in Russia. The classical imperialist positive feedback loops relied on technologically advanced industrial production. The conquered territories and colonies provided new markets and supplied the raw materials and cheap labour to expand production even more.

The profits were then shared with the “labour aristocracy” at home who benefitted from the imperialist expansion and subjugation. The bloc formed between the imperialist ruling classes and segments of the working classes became the basis of the hegemonic regimes and precluded social revolutions in Western metropolises.

Whether Ukraine can provide any of the above for the Russian economy is highly questionable. Furthermore, many expect that the long-term impact of sanctions would cripple the Russian economy and lead to its primitivisation.

That leaves the flow of petrodollars as the main source of funding to buy loyalty. That, however, depends on the successful reorientation and sufficient growth of China and India’s economies to sustain the demand for Russian energy resources. No less important would be reforming Russian state institutions in order to manage revenues more efficiently rather than lose them to incompetence and corruption.

But if the Russian regime is capable of transforming and strengthening in response to the existential challenge rather than collapse, it means that Russia could be ready for a longer and more devastating war.

Russian military Keynesianism contrasts sharply with the Ukrainian government’s decision to stick to neoliberal dogmas of privatisation, lowering taxes and extreme labour deregulation, despite the objective imperatives of the war economy. Some top-notch Western economists have even recommended to Ukraine policies that constitute what British historian Adam Tooze has termed “warfare without the state”.

In a long war of attrition, such policies leave Ukraine even more dependent not only on Western weapons but also on the steady flow of Western money to sustain the Ukrainian economy. Making oneself fundamentally dependent on Western support may be not a safe bet, especially if your adversary is in it for the long haul.

Signature Lecture: “This Close to Nuclear War”: Robert McNamara’s Cuban Missile Crisis

Link here.

The Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 was the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age. U.S., Russian and Cuban leaders at the time felt themselves close to the brink of catastrophic nuclear war. Research on the crisis over the past quarter century suggests that the risk of nuclear war in October 1962 was even greater than those leaders–John F. Kennedy, Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro–believed at the time. In the 2004 Academy Award-winning documentary film by Errol Morris, “The Fog of War,” former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara held up his thumb and forefinger in front of the camera until they almost touched. “We came this close to nuclear war,” he said, “this close to the total destruction” of the U.S., Soviet Union, Cuba and much of the rest of the world as well. The world as we know it could have been destroyed in October 1962 and a primary reason why this did not happen, according to McNamara was luck. “We lucked out,” as McNamara says in “The Fog of War.” On the 48th anniversary of the crisis, four distinguished scholars will take the stage at CIGI who have vast experience working with and on McNamara. They will address these questions: why did the crisis occur? What caused it to spin out of control? How close did the crisis come to nuclear war? What would likely have happened if nuclear weapons had been used by either side in or around Cuba? And what lessons do Robert McNamara’s experience of the crisis—both in October 1962 and in his subsequent historical research—offer to leaders and citizens alike who wish to reduce the risk of nuclear war in the 21st century so that nothing as dangerous as the missile crisis another never happens again? The panel’s presentation will begin with a brief dramatic excerpt of McNamara recalling the crisis from “The Fog of War.”

Putin Explaining to the West in 2007 and 2016 the US/NATO Threat to Russia After Abrogation of ABM Treaty

Link here.

I think it’s good to show this again to remind people of some of the historical context of the current proxy war between Russia and the US/NATO in Ukraine. The first portion of the video is of Putin discussing his concerns at the 2016 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to a group of western journalists about the placing of anti-ballistic missiles in Romania (and later Poland) as a result of the US having pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, and the national security threat this poses to Russia and why. The last portion is a clip from Putin’s famous 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference in which he touched on this same emerging problem.

As Ray McGovern discussed this January, Putin had requested an urgent phone call with President Biden on December 30, 2021 with respect to the talks that were to take place regarding Russia’s proposed security treaties with the US and NATO. During that call, Putin had reportedly obtained a promise from Biden that the US had no intention of placing offensive missiles in Ukraine. After that phone call, Russia drew back 10,000 of its troops from near the Ukrainian border.

Apparently, someone in the Biden administration put the kibosh on that promise and the subsequent diplomatic talks failed.

Transcript of Putin’s Meeting with members of the Government Coordination Council on the needs of the Russian Armed Forces, 10/25/22

Russian President Vladimir Putin

Kremlin website, 10/25/22

The President held a meeting, via videoconference, with members of the Government Coordination Council on meeting the needs of the Russian Federation Armed Forces, other troops, military formations and bodies.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

As you know, the Executive Order to establish the Coordination Council under the Russian Government was signed on October 21.

My colleagues told me many times and for different reasons – in connection with the economic restrictions and the conduct of the special military operation – about the need to update procedures and regulations on decision-making in the most diverse areas of activity. This concerns the economy in general and individual branches of production, the Armed Forces, supporting the special military operation with everything necessary and so on.

We faced certain difficulties and the need to upgrade our work, give it a new momentum and new character when we were responding the coronavirus pandemic. We managed to do much then to update these regulations and get rid of the archaic procedures that are preventing us from moving forward at the pace the country needs.

Now we are faced with the need to more rapidly resolve issues associated with providing support for the special military operation and the need to counter economic restrictions that were imposed on us, which are truly unprecedented without any exaggeration. I have spoken many times with many of those present at this meeting about issues related to the need to update our entire work to improve administrative procedures. We have approached these problems many times from various angles.

And now the situation is such that life itself is pushing us to give this effort the most profound consideration and develop common approaches to updating all procedures, all administrative procedures, everything that is part of “governance” in the broadest sense of the word. And this, of course, cannot be done without broad and deep coordination between all efforts, all entities, all ministries, agencies with entirely different scopes – officials responsible for security and economics, and regional governments. This is precisely the purpose that the Coordination Council was created for.

Let me remind you that the Coordination Council was to have formulated target objectives for each specific effort by today. These target objectives are not ready yet, but I have no doubt that they will be sent in in the near future.

The Coordination Council includes deputy prime ministers, heads of agencies, including security ones, representatives of the Executive Office and of Russian regions. As you know, it is headed by the Prime Minister, and I would like to give him the floor now.

Mr Mishustin, I would like to ask you to tell us how you are planning to organise this work in the very near future and what you consider to be the most important, the highest priority in this work.

Please, Mr Mishustin, go ahead.

Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin: Thank you.

Mr President, colleagues,

Following your instruction, Mr President, we established the special Coordination Council to meet the needs of the Armed Forces. It held its first meeting yesterday. To begin with, we formed its structure, determined the main sets of tasks and the supervising deputy prime ministers.

Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Grigorenko will be in charge of finances and regulations as a deputy head of the Council, while Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov will deal with supplying weaponry, uniforms and food for our military personnel. He will head the working group at the same time.

Another two deputy prime ministers will head the Council’s groups in other key areas. Marat Khusnullin will be responsible for building infrastructure. It is not limited to barracks or training camps but also includes social facilities, transport and logistics. Tatyana Golikova will be in charge of medical support, including provision of specialised, high-tech assistance and rehabilitation for our defenders. Naturally, she will also supervise a very important area – the military pay system.

There are other areas in which we will systematise our work. This primarily concerns fuel supplies, energy, communications, information system development, databases, analytical support and, of course, feedback from mobilised personnel and their families.

In accordance with your instruction, we have already developed this information system. There is a hotline people can reach by dialling 122 to receive the information they need. It has already received about 1.5 million calls though the number is steadily declining. By today, it has gone down from 170,000 to 20,000 calls per day. The hotline’s database has over 600 replies. It is being expanded with the arrival of new questions. A major portion of answers is published on the Obyasnyayem.RF website. Almost 18 million people have visited this website since the start of mobilisation.

We are dealing with life situations, responding to people’s requests, using the feedback platform of the unified public services portal for this purpose as well. We are not only analysing typical problems but are also working on a case-by-case basis with due account for regional features and other specifics.

Mr President, you gave an instruction to organise the timely issuance of monthly payments to our defenders, including mobilised soldiers and those who were called up and are undergoing training. As I already said, this work is being carried out by Tatyana Golikova and Anton Siluanov as part of the Coordination Council’s activities.

Monetary allowance for the rank-and-file mobilised troops amounts to 195,000 rubles from day one. Increased payments are made in accordance with rank. All funds have been made available to the Defence Ministry in a timely manner. We are keeping a close watch.

These payments are being monitored by the Finance Ministry jointly with the Defence Ministry as part of the Coordination Council working group’s activities.

We are about to launch a feedback form on the public services portal to monitor compliance.

We will continue to inform the public about federal and regional support measures.

I am confident that the distribution of responsibilities between the Coordination Council members will allow us to quickly establish interaction at all levels in order to deliver on time everything that our servicemen may need.

Mr President, separately I will discuss special personal protective equipment and materials for them as it is an important issue. It is important to increase their production and to launch full-scale production of uniforms and clothing items to fully provide mobilised citizens with all they may need. The light industry capacities, including small businesses in the regions, and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation must be involved in this. Uninterrupted supplies of raw materials, materials, fabrics must be organised as well.

The Defence Ministry’s technical requests for equipment and, accordingly, compliance control measures were brought to the attention of each contractor.

The Government acted quickly to allocate additional funds to buy necessary types of uniforms, and the contract-signing procedure is in full swing. We need to make sure that our defenders’ needs for equipment are covered in full.

Mr President, the Coordination Council will work on a regular basis, and we will report to you weekly on the decisions it makes as per the Executive Order.

Thank you for your attention.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Please, Mr Sobyanin.

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin: Good afternoon, Mr President, colleagues,

Mr President, following your instruction we established a State Council working group that included all regions of the Russian Federation, as well as representatives of the Government and special services.

We are working in four key areas. The first one deals with Presidential executive orders on developing levels of response to arising threats. This is complicated technical and organisational work involving all security departments and the Government. In the majority of regions, this work is conducted in a calm, planned out manner, without any emergency measures. Nonetheless, in a number of regions, especially in the border areas like the Belgorod Region, it is necessary to take additional response measures and we are working on them both with the regions and the Government of the Russian Federation.

The second area is assistance to the Defence Ministry in setting up places for accommodation and training of mobilised personnel in accordance with your instruction. At present, we have organised accommodation for about 60,000 with the assistance of the Russian Federation regions. This is a big job and we will continue to work on it. Today, we also talked with the Defence Ministry to coordinate these efforts in view of the experience gained so far.

Many regions are providing the Defence Ministry with material and technical support. Today, we also spoke at the Government Commission meeting with the Defence Ministry about the need to coordinate this work to make it more effective.

The third area is probably the most important one – social support for the families of mobilised personnel. I am referring to targeted support – material, legal and psychological assistance, sending children to kindergartens and schools with the most convenient location for families of the military personnel. This also includes job seeking and professional development for wives of mobilised personnel. There are also systemic measures – zero payment for kindergartens, afterschool childcare, hobby and sports groups and the like. This practically means zeroing out the eligibility criteria for the payment of children’s allowances and a number of other benefits.

We will conduct all this work consistently with the Government and the regions of the Russian Federation. The overwhelming majority of regions are already taking these measures or have already taken them.

The fourth area that Mr Mishustin has just mentioned concerns joint actions to support the defence industry and assistance in deploying additional capacities to produce everything that the army needs.

One more area is helping the Defence Ministry to build military facilities. A number of regions have already joined this work.

Thank you. That concludes my report.

Vladimir Putin: I will say a few words in conclusion.

What do I want to say? The work in the format we are now discussing and in which we met has been going on for a week. This is a short interval and, of course, a draft of the Coordination Council’s target task may not yet be ready for objective reasons. Still, I am asking you to get this done as soon as possible.

It is clear that not much time has elapsed, as I have already said. But where should your main focus be?

We need higher rates of work in all areas and the most realistic assessment of the situation, the state of affairs overall. As I have already said in the very beginning, in my opening remarks, this is not only about the special military operation. This is about all our work practically in all areas.

We are trying to do this, to arrange this work in a new way, to make administration more efficient in all areas of our activities since our fight against coronavirus. Now we are facing new challenges that are serious and considerable. I will repeat that this concerns the activities of law-enforcement bodies, the security wing, and the Defence Ministry, but this also concerns the entire civilian component. Therefore, I would like to ask all of you to set your minds on doing meaningful work in the new format.

If we follow standard bureaucratic procedures and hide behind formalities, we will not achieve the desired result in any area. We established a mechanism like the Coordination Council with the express purpose of resolving all issues faster and more effectively.

Furthermore, we cannot just follow previously established standards in our work. They were created who knows when in completely different circumstances. And so, I would like to draw your attention to the following point – standards are important but we should either change them or adapt them quickly to the current conditions – of course, without any violations of the law. That said, we must be guided by the real situation and real needs in different areas.

As far as the special military operation is directly concerned, kits, special gear and other special equipment must not be simply available but must be modern, easy to use and effective. There must be a clear-cut specific plan of work in every area.

Incidentally, the producers – and many are doing this, I know – should receive feedback on the spot. They should know what they are doing and how this affects real life in this or other fields. It is necessary to know the opinion of those for whom our plants and design bureaus work. This concerns not only companies, their management and specialists but, colleagues, this concerns also the members of your Council. You should also receive first-hand information. I know that some of you are already doing this now. I would like to ask you to continue this practice and expand it.

To achieve a fundamentally different, new result, it is not enough to follow the well-trodden path, cooperating only with a narrow circle of customary contractors. I have already said this several times. It is necessary to toughen competition. There should appear new producers – efficient, with modern equipment and ready to work in the required new format and produce products with the quality we need. This concerns medicine. This concerns the construction sector in the broadest sense of this word.

And, of course, support for the regions is a separate issue. I am asking the Finance Ministry jointly with the State Council Commission under Sergei Sobyanin’s guidance to determine the required level of support for the regions that need it more than others in the current conditions. I am hoping this work will be organised just like we managed to organise things up to this point. I have no doubts that it will be organised in the best possible way and will produce a positive result.

Thank you. We will be in constant contact with you on the areas which we gathered here today to discuss.

Thank you.

Putin Blasts West’s Nuclear Narrative: “It Doesn’t Make Sense” To Use Nukes In Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin

from ZeroHedge, 10/27/22

Note: Emphasis in original.

Update(1534ET): Putin in his nearly four-hour long annual Valdai Discussion Club speech (which included a the lengthy Q&A portion) “appeared relaxed”, Reuters observed while at times questioned by journalists and panelists about the prospect of nuclear war. 

Importantly, he rejected head-on the allegations from the West that he ever so much as hinted at plans to deploy nukes in Ukraine, describing a nuclear strike in the context of the “special operation” to be ultimately pointless. “We see no need for that,” Putin said. “There is no point in that, neither political, nor military.” He underscored, “it doesn’t make sense for us to do it.

He went on to emphasize that Russia had “never said anything proactively about the possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia.” At the same time he lashed out at Washington, for being the “only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state” – in reference to WWII and the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

He specifically referenced prior statements of Liz Truss and vague references to his saying he’s willing to defend Russia “by all means available” as having been intentionally misinterpreted and distorted: 

Putin said an earlier warning of his readiness to use “all means available to protect Russia” didn’t amount to nuclear saber-rattling but was merely a response to Western statements about their possible use of nuclear weapons.

He particularly mentioned Liz Truss saying in August that she would be ready to use nuclear weapons if she became Britain’s prime minister, a remark which he said worried the Kremlin.

“What were we supposed to think?” Putin said. “We saw that as a coordinated position, an attempt to blackmail us.”

Literally as Putin was speaking, the Pentagon decided it was a good time to unveil a stunning nuclear strategy reversal, saying it would no longer rule out use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear threat.

As we detailed earlier, the Defense Department said in the long-awaited document issued Thursday that “By the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries”. In response, the US will “maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment” without ruling out using the weapons in retaliation to a non-nuclear strategic threat to the homeland, US forces abroad or allies.

In the document, which was framed well before the invasion, the Pentagon says Russia continues to “brandish its nuclear weapons in support of its revisionist security policy” while its modern arsenal is expected to grow further. 

Of course, Putin is now essentially pointing the finger at Washington and its allies for being the real nuclear threat in the world. The DoD briefing certainly didn’t hurt his case, at least from the point of view of Moscow and its allies. 

* * *

“Russia is not challenging the western elite. We are not trying to become the hegemon,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said early in an important speech before the Valdai Discussion Club meeting outside Moscow on Thursday. Each year the Valdai speech is a major one and closely watched by Western officials and media.

This year it was touted with the eye-catching title of “A Post-Hegemonic World: Justice and Security for Everyone.” And of course, this year’s Valdai meeting comes against the backdrop of the biggest war Europe has seen on its eastern doorstep since WWII. 

Putin said in his remarks that Russia merely wants to “defend its right to exist” and “won’t let itself be destroyed and wiped off the geopolitical map.” This as nuclear rhetoric and threats of defending red lines between Moscow and the West have reached heights not seen since the Cold War. 

He repeated a familiar refrain of a crisis unfolding because the Western allies are using Ukraine for their “dirty game” in an ultimate drive for world domination. “Power over the world is what the West has put at stake in the game it plays. This game is certainly dangerous, bloody and I would call it dirty,” he said according to a state media translation. 

“But in the modern world, sitting aside is hardly an option. He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind, as the proverb says,” he added. Repeating a well-known theme of his, juxtapositioning collapsing unipolar order vs. multipolarity, he said “new centers of power in the multipolar world and the West will have to start talking as equals about our common future.”

“[This game] denies the sovereignty of nations and peoples, their identity and uniqueness, and has no regard whatsoever for other countries,” Putin added.

Commenting on one segment of the talk, The New York Times said the Valdai speech sought to appeal to conservatives in Europe and the US: 

Mr. Putin insisted that Russia did not fundamentally see itself as an “enemy of the West.” Rather, he said — as he has before — that it was “Western elites” that he was fighting, ones who were trying to impose their “pretty strange” values on everyone else.

“There are at least two Wests,” Mr. Putin said in his speech at the plenary session in Moscow of an annual foreign policy conference. One, he said, was the West of “traditional, mainly Christian values,” which Russia was close to.

But Putin drove home in contrast that “There’s another West — aggressive, cosmopolitan, neocolonial, acting as the weapon of the neoliberal elite.”

Ukrainian officials have been watching the speech closely, and commenting: 

“Confidence in one’s infallibility is a very dangerous state, one step away from destroying those they don’t like” – Putin knows what he is talking about at Valdai. pic.twitter.com/0VRSjKlWiu— Maria Avdeeva (@maria_avdv) October 27, 2022

And more specifically on the Ukraine conflict, the Russian leader charged of the West’s actions, “They’re always trying to escalate…They’re fueling the war in Ukraine, organizing provocations around Taiwan, destabilizing the world food and energy markets.” 

And more via state media translation:

Putin warned that the West’s confidence in its “infallibility” is a “very dangerous” condition, with there only being “one step” between this self-confidence to the idea that “they can simply destroy those they do not like, or as they say, to ‘cancel’ them.”

Emphasizing that Russia is not a natural “enemy” of the West, Putin urged Western political elites to stop seeing “the hand of the Kremlin” behind all their internal problems.

On multipolarity, Putin’s message to Europe is essentially “take it or leave it”…

Putin is at it again. New Munich III speech at Valdai conference. He is laying the foundations of new multipolar world order. The message to Europe is “take it or leave it”. pic.twitter.com/oUixDO7Jmm— србин (@forzaserbia) October 27, 2022

Western officials are also keeping a close watch on Putin’s words regarding nuclear doctrine and usage. Putin at Valdai underscored he sees “no political or military reason” to conduct a nuke strike in Ukraine. He also stressed Moscow’s nuclear doctrine is defensive in nature. “Russia has never talked about nuclear use, only replied,” he said. 

He went on to warn that it remains Russia will never “put up with what the West tells it to do” – and that while Russia should not be seen as a direct challenge to the West, it reserves the right to develop. With this theme established, Putin asserted that Washington has discredited international finance “by using the dollar as a weapon” – thus he posited that in the future continued moves toward “settlements in national currencies will dominate.”

Sarah Lindemann-Kamarova: Farewell to the Mobilized

Map of Russia and Eurasia

By Sarah Lindemann-Kamarova, Echo of Siberia Blog, 10/26/22

Sarah has lived in Siberia since 1992. Was a community development activist for 20 years. Currently, focuses on research and writing.

Photos available at original publication.

October 22 was an unseasonably warm Saturday night in the Altai Republic. 8PM and thousands of well-wishers crowded the Victory Square to see their mobilized men off. The first of two ceremonies, this one was for men from the outlying districts. Many of them are Altai and this will be their second farewell of the day.

The first came in the morning with a sendoff from their villages. The one I attended the mobilized young men stood on one side of the road smoking and palling if they were waiting outside school for the bell to ring. One young woman hung onto the arm of her man. The children and grandchildren of these men will see pictures where the line is straightened and a few of the men have wrapped their arms around each other with big smiles while others stare with looks of duty and resignation into the cameras.

On the other side of the road relatives were distraught and silent except for comforting those who were crying. Both sides of the road shared a disbelief that this was happening. A short speech by the Mayor, final hugs, and the minibus pulled away with very sad people left behind waving and horns honking.

As farewell number two began there were surprisingly few tears at Victory Square. Those devastated by this parting hold them back. The focus here is on how proud they are of their husband, son, brother, friend. There are scattered conversations among the crowd that includes many who just wanted to be supportive, “are you seeing someone off?” “Yes, my son in law”, “Contract?” “No, mobilized”. A mother explaining to her young son “these men are going off to something terrifying”.

There were also surprisingly few flags and the ceremony was kept to a civilized 30 minutes. Music was a mix of patriotic and hard rock. The usual suspects spoke, there was no self-indulgence. The Governor defined their purpose, “… to protect the Motherland, its sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity” that will now include Kherson and Zaporozhets as well as the Donbass, Luhansk, and Crimea. A returned participant in the special military operation and recipient of the Order of Courage told the mobilized, “We had a motto, ‘No one but us’, now that applies to all of Russia!”.

Born in 1936, Boris Konduleevich Alushkin, Chairman of the Republican Council of Veterans and the Union of Journalists, reflected on a childhood memory “I was a first-grader, when we had to see off our fathers and older brothers during the Great Patriotic War. Together with grandmothers and mothers, we remained in the rear. Today the situation has arisen so that you have to go to the front line of Russia’s defense. You can rely on us. We will take care of your children, families…. Today, the entire Altai Mountains and Russia, representatives of all faiths, are praying for you. I wish you to return to Altai with victory, may the great achievement of our older generation keep you safe.”

Then came the call to board the buses, the final final goodbye. The friends slap backs, laugh, “we’ll be meeting you soon there”, and hug. A small crowd surrounded a not so young man as everyone got a proper, individual goodbye. The longest is for what seemed to be his wife who can no longer hold back her tears as he bends down to the grandchildren and then back up to hug the friends and other relatives.

A couple of wives and girlfriends lingered inside the buses until they were forced to leave when they were fully loaded. Outside, small children sat on shoulders for a last wave to Daddy, brother, or Uncle. Here, as in the morning, there is a contrast between the people going, band of brothers camaraderie, and those staying many of whom have finally allowed themselves to cry. Everyone waved goodbye as the buses pulled out for the 450 km trip to Novosibirsk where the mobilized will spend the next month training.

As this scene played out, “Farewell of Slavianka” blasted from the loudspeakers . The doleful march was written to honor the women seeing their men off to the First Balkans War. A reminder, as if one was needed, that this ritual has been repeated throughout history. There are undoubtedly wives, children, fathers, mothers, and friends waving goodbye to their loved ones in Ukraine. Some of those getting on the buses in Ukraine may be relatives or friends of those getting on the buses on this unseasonably warm Saturday night in the Altai Republic.

The Cuban Missile Crisis at 60 The Most Dangerous Day

Fallout shelter sign.

from The National Security Archive, 10/27/22

Washington, D.C., October 27, 2022 – The most dangerous 24 hours of the Cuban Missile Crisis came on Saturday, October 27, 1962, 60 years ago today, as the U.S. moved closer to attacking Cuba and nuclear-armed flashpoints erupted over Siberia, at the quarantine line, and in Cuba itself—a rapid escalation that convinced both John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev to strike the deal that would stop events from further spiraling out of control.

The surviving notes of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting on that day, October 27, provide a six-and-a-half-hour cascade of crises where human error, miscalculation, reckless deployment of nuclear weapons, and testosterone ruled the day. The JCS notes from October and November 1962, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and published today by the National Security Archive, are all that survive after the Chiefs’ decision, in the 1970s, to destroy the tapes and transcripts from over two decades of JCS meetings.

The notes depict how top U.S. military officials reacted to the unfolding crisis in real time, including the shootdown of a U-2 spy plane over Cuba that afternoon—seen as a major escalation—while at the same time the JCS were unaware that U.S. naval forces were dropping grenades on a Soviet sub armed with a nuclear-tipped torpedo near the quarantine line. As they continued to prepare for a full-scale invasion of Cuba, JCS chairman Maxwell Taylor told the Chiefs that President Kennedy was “seized with the idea of trading Turkish for Cuban missiles” and “has a feeling that time is running out.”

Today’s posting features the JCS notes along with photographs and additional context about the most dangerous day of the missile crisis, and the sequence of events that persuaded both Kennedy and Khrushchev to reach the trade that would ultimately end the superpower confrontation.

Read the document here.

Playing at War in Ukraine – Interview with Col. Douglas Macgregor

Link here.

Col. MacGregor discusses his latest article, which can be found here.