Martin Zeis / firstname.lastname@example.org
since June 16, 2017 the complete series of Oliver STONE’s „The Putin Interviews“ (Part I-IV – English Subtitles) is generally accessible:
Part 1 – 57:50
Part 2 – 57:41
Part 3 – 57:51
Part 4 – 56:38 min
„Will the Oliver Stone interview change any minds? It’s too soon to tell“, notes James George JATRAS, former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to the Senate GOP leadership, in a recent article and evaluates the feedback of the American media:
„… It remains to be seen whether Oliver Stone’s extended interview with Putin on the Showtime network will have any impact. So far the commentary seems to be divided between descriptions of the substance of the discussion and attacks on Stone for talking with such a bad, bad man: «Speaking after the interview, Stone refuted allegations that he became an unwitting messenger of pro-Putin propaganda or of dishonest information given by the president».
With regard to substance, relatively little attention has been accorded in American media to Putin’s flat accusation that U.S. «special services» have supported terrorists, including in Chechnya. Of course anyone paying attention would know that arming jihadists is a standard part of U.S. policy, going back at least to Afghanistan in the 1980s and repeated in Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, and today in Syria. Indeed, as early as the 1950s the U.S. had established a very close relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist elements as a weapon against Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and Baathists in Syria and Iraq, who Washington thought were a little too cozy with the Soviet Union and far too socialist and secular for the taste of our pals in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.
There is a real symbiosis between the anti-Russian imperative in American foreign policy and support for radical Islamic elements. It did not end when the Soviet Union and communism collapsed but rather was intensified. This is why Moscow’s constant calls for a common front against terrorism are always rebuffed. Such cooperation doesn’t make any sense for anomenklatura whose number one goal is hostility to Moscow and for whom jihadists are at worst «frienemies» – people who may be troublesome but useful.
We can only imagine how completely different the world would be if the U.S. were to recognize that Russia is a country that in many respects is not that different from the United States or Europe and that we had common interests. But for the U.S. Deep State, that would amount to switching sides in a global conflict, where we see jihadists essentially as «freedom fighters» against a geopolitical adversary. These same clueless «elites» are then puzzled when their carefully nurtured, cuddly, «moderate» jihad terrorists attack us back here at home. …“ — emphasis, m.z. —
“The Putin Interviews” von Oliver Stone mit deutschen Untertiteln.
Teil 1: https://rutube.ru/video/5ae16f6d3a968a7eaa74ed83e7e5500d/
Teil 2: https://rutube.ru/video/41427b2cc19d838aadb846df6e128297/
Teil 3: https://rutube.ru/video/46f725f1e97d13f12ef5d4e74be68115/
Teil 4: https://rutube.ru/video/44d55cc5b61f47ec8549a4e61d4ae6c4/
Martin Zeis, 06.06.2017
Der folgende Text ist auf der wirtschafts- und geopolitisch fokussierten Plattform zerohedge eben erschienen. Tyler Durden demontiert faktenreich die offizielle Erzählung, es gehe Saudiarabien plus den eilig zusammengetrommelten Vasallen darum, Katar für dessen Unterstützung terroristischer Söldner-Banden/Gruppen abzustrafen, die insbesondere von Saudiarabien hochgezogen wurden (in enger militärischer/logistischer/ planerischer “Unterstützung” durch die Geheimdienste und Militärführungen der USA + GBs *.) Sie dienten als “nützliches” Instrument des USA-Imperiums — verstärkt seit der Sprengung der WTC-Türme 1,2,7 am 11.09.2001 — zentrale Länder des Nahen und Mittleren Ostens zu destabilisieren, ggf. zusammenzubomben und zu zerstören + unendliches Leid bei der Zivilbevölkerung hervorzurufen.
* GB betreffend ist in diesem Zusammenhang der Blogeintrag von John Pilger vom 31.05.2017 lesenswert: Terror in Britain: What did the Prime Minister know?
” … The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain’s biggest weapons customer.
This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. …”
Vergangene Woche hat der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin vor dem Internationalen Diskussions-Klub „Waldai“ (russisch Международный дискуссионный клуб «Валдай») seine Rede zum Tagungsthema „Gesellschaften zwischen Krieg und Frieden – Überwindung der Konfliktlogik für die Welt von morgen“ gehalten. RT Deutsch präsentiert die Rede in voller Länge und deutscher Übersetzung.
Quelle: RT Deutsch
Martin Zeis, 23.10.2015
below a brief statement by Tyler Durden about Vladimir Purtin’s speech at the Valdai Forum 2015 – World between War and Peace (Sochi, Oct 19 -22, 2015). The full transcript (English) is consecutively published on www.en.kremlin.ru – see also: http://valdaiclub.com/opinion/highlights/vladimir-putin-meets-with-members-of-the-valdai-discussion-club-transcript-of-the-final-plenary-sess
It pays to read comparatively Putin’s speech at the Valdai Forum last year (Sochi, Oct 24, 2014) – see: http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/23137 and the precise short-analysis in Tyler Durden’s Putin To Western Elites: Play-Time Is Over (zerohedge, Oct 30, 2014 – URL: www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-30/putin-western-elites-play-time-over )
Putin Just Warned Global War Is Increasingly More Likely: Here’s Why
Vladimir Putin is basking in Russia’s triumphant return to the world stage.
What began with a land grab in Crimea and escalated with support for the separatists at Donetsk, culminated in Moscow’s dramatic entry into Syria’s protracted civil war.
To be sure, the deplorable (not to mention comically absurd) strategy adopted by the US and its regional allies in Syria set Putin up for success. The situation was highly exploitable by anyone that’s strategically minded and thanks to the convoluted set of alliances Washington has built with groups that later turned out to be extremists, Moscow gets to achieve its regional ambitions while simultaneously fighting terrorism. Meanwhile, Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha are left to look on helplessly as their Sunni extremist proxy armies are devastated by the Russian air force. The Kremlin knows there’s little chance that the West and its allies will step in to directly support the rebels – the optics around that would quickly turn into a PR nightmare.
All of this has provided the perfect backdrop for Putin to begin what’s amounted to a lecture tour on how to conduct foreign policy.
Soundbites have ranged from very serious commentary on why the West should not employ extremists to bring about regime change to comical jabs at the US and its allies who the Russian President last week accused of having “oatmeal brains” when it comes to Mid-East policy.
Speaking today at the International Valdai Discussion Club’s 12th annual meeting in Sochi, Putin delivered a sweeping critique of military strategy and foreign policy touching on everything from the erroneous labeling of some extremists as “moderates” to the futility of nuclear war.
“Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. What’s the difference?,” Putin asked, adding that “success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] it’s just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with.”
“I’d like to stress once again that [Russia’s operation in Syria] is completely legitimate, and its only aim is to aid in establishing peace,” Putin said of Moscow’s Mid-East strategy. And while he’s probably telling the truth there, it’s only by default. That is, peace in Syria likely means the restoration of Assad (it’s difficult to imagine how else the country can be stabilized in the short-term), and because that aligns with Russia’s interests, The Kremlin is seeking to promote peace – it’s more a tautology than it is a comment on Putin’s desire for goodwill towards men.
And then there’s Iran and its nascent nuclear program. Putin accused the US of illegitimately seeking to play nuclear police officer, a point on which he is unquestionably correct: The “hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies.”
Speaking of nukes, Putin also warned that some nuclear powers seem to believe that there’s a way to take the “mutually” out of “mutually assured destruction.”
That is, Putin warned against the dangers of thinking it’s possible to “win” a nuclear war. Commenting on US anti-missile shields in Europe and on the idea of MAD, Putin said the following:
“We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all.”
In short, Putin is suggesting that the world may have gone crazy. The implication is that the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of “bad guys” (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens.
So once again, this is Putin setting the narrative and jumping at every opportunity to portray Russia as a nation that’s not content to “lead from behind” (as so many have recently accused the US of doing). And once again, his assessment seems remarkably sober in a world that does indeed seem to have lost its collective mind.
Der Kleister des Terrors
Gauck: Wir alle sind Deutschland!
Autor: U. Gellermann
Datum: 15. Januar 2015
Einige Tausend Menschen waren dem Aufruf des “Zentralrats der Muslime in Deutschland” und der “Türkischen Gemeinde zu Berlin” zur Mahnwache für ein „Weltoffenes und tolerantes Deutschland und für Meinungs- und Religionsfreiheit” zum Brandenburger Tor gefolgt. Diese Reaktion auf die Terroranschläge in Paris war auch eine Antwort auf die dumpfen Demonstrationen für Fremdenfeindlichkeit in Dresden und anderen deutschen Städten. Dass man in dieser Situation von den Vertretern der Muslime kein Wort der Klage über die Lage der Migranten in Deutschland hören konnte, ist verständlich: Das Menetekel von Paris sieht die Muslime in Europa mit dem Rücken an der Wand. Nur zu gern hörten sie deshalb den Phrasendrescher der Nation, Joachim Gauck, diese schlichte Lüge sagen: “Wir alle sind Deutschland!”
Wenn Du Hakan heisst und einen Job suchst, kannst Du schnell erfahren, dass Du nicht Deutschland bist. Denn den Job hat bereits Tim: Das erzählt eine Studie des “Sachverständigenrates für Integration und Migration”.(…)
Charlie sein zu wollen ist nachzuvollziehen, aber reicht das? Wovon sollen wir gerade abgelenkt werden? Grand chessboard in Paris!
Auf Rationalgalerie wird versucht die berechtigte Betroffenheit über den Mord an 12 Menschen in Paris auszuweiten auf Bevölkerungsgruppen der Menschheit , die in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten wiederholt den größten Blutzoll westlicher Aggressionsakte zu bezahlen hatten.