Top Putin advisors and experts discuss economy, sanctions & central bank

Dear friends,

There is no overstating the importance of the video and transcript I am posting today.  In a crucial moment of the confrontation between the AngloZionist Empire and Russia, two top Putin advisors - Sergei Glaziev and Mikhail Khazin - openly and very candidly discuss the "economic front" of this global war.  Both of these man are top level economists, both of them have a first hand and truly immense knowledge of the real state of affairs of the Russian state and Russian economy, and both have "Putin's ear" (they - not Dugin - are his close advisors).  Last but not least, Khazin and Glaziev are firmly in the "Eurasian Sovereignist" camp and are therefore hated by the "Atlantic Integrationist" 5th column.

One more thing: yesterday I published a manifesto by Strelkov whom I described as an "iconic symbol and spokesman for the "Eurasian Sovereignist" camp".  This is true as far as the Russian people are concerned.  But Strelkov has no access to the high spheres of power and he is not privy to the internal Kremlin politics.  Strelkov has the potential to play an important role because the real power base of Putin and the "Eurasian Sovereignists" is what we could call "the Russian street" - the people of Russia (in contrast to the real power base of the Atlantic Integrationists who are the Russian liberal money elites).  But Strelkov will never be part of any move to re-gain control of the Russian Central Bank or to change the interest rates charged to Russian businesses.  Khazin and, especially, Glaziev will.

My intention with these publications is to give you, my readers, a "behind the scenes" or "not for western audiences" kind of access and insight into the very real war taking place inside Russia.  At a time when so many putatively pro-Russian bloggers present a crude and primitive "shoulda coulda woulda" model with on one side heroic good guys and on the other villains and traitors I want you to be able to see the extreme complexity and intensity of the internal war taking place inside Russia for the future of Russia.  Once you do that, then the apparent zig-zags of Russian policies in Novorussia will begin to make sense to you and you will be able to distinguish real Russian patriots (those who struggle to free Russia from the AngloZionist domination) from the fake ones (those who always find a way to criticize the former ones but never do anything useful themselves).

Sorry for that long introduction, but I am so exited to finally be able to share these important documents with you that I wanted to explain why I consider them so important.

A few technical points now:

1)  There is a nasty little outfit out there trying to have this video removed from YouTube on "copyright grounds".  I urge you to download it as soon as you can.  Firefox users can do that with the "MP4 downloader", "DownloadHelper" and "DownThemAll" extensions.  Please feel free to repost it anywhere you want (RuTube maybe?)
2) By "popular demand" and because this is a most important document, I have made the full transcript available for download here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUooUGFhejRCM2Q4bm5oWHVXTlpLY2dsazF4a2Vn/view?usp=sharing )

Okay, that's here.  On with the video now.  Enjoy!!

The Saker
(please make sure to press the 'cc' button on the lower right to see the English subs!)

Host:
Vladimir Anatolievich (V.A)

Guests:
Sergey Glazyev (S.G)
Khazin Mikhail Leonidovich (M.L)
Vladimir Yuryevich Levchenko (V.Y)

Credits: (A HUGE THANK YOU GUYS - YOU ALL REALLY ROCK!!)
English Transcription & Translation by:
VineyardSaker Video Team: Marina, GC, Katya, S, Gideon & Yulia
Editing & Production: Marina & Augmented Ether

Dmitri Rogozin interviewed by Vladimir Soloviev

Dear friends,

Today, thanks to the fantastic work of the Saker Community [English Transcription & Translation: Marina (Russian Saker), Katya (Oceania Saker) & CG (Russian Saker) Editing & Production: Augmented Ether (Oceania Saker)] I can share with you a most interesting interview of Dmitri Rogozin, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, Head of the Military-Industrial Commission, Special Envoy of the President and one of the most interesting and influential representatives of the "Eurasian Sovereignists" and the man who, one day, could succeed Vladimir Putin.  Rogozin is absolutely hated by the Atlantic Sovereignists and by the AngloZionist Empire. 

This interview is important because it shows what Russia is really doing while keeping up the pretense of "partnership" with the AngloZionist Empire: preparing for war while hoping that it can be avoided.  In this interview, Rogozin speaks to a domestic audience in one of the most popular shows on Russian TV.  Thanks to the Saker Community you will now see the Russia which the MSM never shows you and the one which frightens the Empire so much.

Enjoy!!

The Saker

The painful issue of today's Europe - what are Russia's options?

I think that it is time for me to directly address the issue of today's Europe role in world affairs.  In this blog I have often voiced very harsh criticisms of both "old Europe" and "new Europe" - to use Rumsfeld's classification - but I have never addressed this issue head-on, and this is what I propose to do now.

Let me begin by a little disclaimer and say that while I am ethnically and culturally Russian, I was born in the heart of Western Europe from in a family of refugees.  I spent most of my life in Europe, and I have become especially close to what I call my "2nd homeland" - the northern Mediterranean from Spain to Greece (which I consider as one coherent - if diverse - cultural zone).  So for all my criticisms of Europe, part of me is most definitely European.  Furthermore, and regular readers of this blog know that, I have spent a good part of my life in an absolute opposition to the Soviet regime and then the AngloZionist colonial regime of Eltsin which followed it.  So while I am ethnically and culturally Russian, I am hardly an automatic supporter of everything "Russian".  In fact, I repeatedly have to pinch myself to check if I am dreaming every time I say something positive about the Kremlin or Putin (who is, after all, an ex-KGB officer).  I am so used to be disgusted, outraged and even ashamed by everything which comes out of the Kremlin that, if anything, I have to struggle with my kneejerk suspicion, if not hostility, towards anything "Kremlin".  And yet, here I am, in 2014, a longtime Cold War participant (on many levels - private, corporate and even professional) catching myself in the undeniable fact that I am becoming a "Putin groupie".  I can hardly convey how weird this still feels to me.

I wanted to begin by clarifying all this because what I will write next I do not write as "a Russian bashing Europe" but as a European disgusted with his own birthplace.  So here we go:

First, for all its rights and wrongs, and even though we have been more or less a US colony since 1945, I still believe that Western Europe was the "good guy" during the Cold War.  Yes, I know, Churchill and the rest of the Anglosphere created that Cold War much more than the Soviets and, yes, the Soviets were not nearly as bad as our propaganda said, nor were we nearly as good as we fancied ourselves to be.  And yet, Europe, Western Europe was a continent, a society, which was free, especially compared to Eastern Europe.  Anyone doubting this today should watch the beautiful German movie "Das Leben der Anderen" ("The lives of the others") of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (preferable in the original German language - with subtitles if needed).  Here are a few links to this remarkable movie:

SORRY - I HAD TO REMOVE THESE LINKS AS I DID NOT WANT TROUBLE WITH BLOGGER.  YOU WILL HAVE TO LOOK FOR THIS MOVIE BY YOURSELF

THE SAKER

This movie shows, without any exaggerations, what life was like in the last years of the former GDR and I think that for those who might be tempted to forget what daily life was under Soviet rule, this is a very good refresher.

I feel that I want to mention this because I then felt - and still do today - that in those years one could be if not proud, then maybe at least grateful to live in a society which was comparatively wealthy and comparatively free.

This being said, anybody with a little bit of political maturity understood that if Eastern Europe was occupied and controlled by the Soviets, Western Europe was occupied and controlled by the USA.  So most of us, at least as I recall, were dreaming for the day when the Cold War would finally be over (it was not pleasant at all to live with a bullseye painted on your head) and when both the USSR and the USA would pack and finally go home.  For simple and basic reasons of geography, we all understood that we could built a "fortress Europe" which would be basically immune from any outside military attack, probably for the first time in European history.  If NATO and the WTO (yes, it was called the "Warsaw Treaty Organization" and not the Warsaw "Pact" - that is a US propaganda term) would dissolve and the USA and the USSR would leave a united Europe would be simply unconquerable from the outside.  As for notion of another internal European war - my generation (I am 50 now) found it utterly ridiculous and basically unthinkable: would the Netherlands invade Belgium?  Or France invade Spain?  As for the East Europeans, we simply assumed (mistakenly as it turned out) that after decades of rather heavy Soviet occupation they would yearn for peace and freedom as much as we did.

Then the Wall came down, Gorbachev betrayed his own country and Party, three Commie non-entities (Eltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich) destroyed the Soviet Union against the will of most of its people, and the previously demure and peace-loving West suddenly became overwhelmed with a new messianic mission: to conquer the eastern "Lebensraum" for NATO and the EU.  As for the newly "freed" East Europeans, instead of finally enjoying some true freedom, they all decided that the highest they can hope for is to be colonized by the USA and NATO, lest those dangerous Russians show up again.  I will come back to the West Europeans later, but let me say this about East Europeans here:

How did they forget this basic fact of history: Russia has never attacked the West.  Not once.  Unless, of course, you consider a counter-attack as a form of attack.  The historical truth is that it is the West which attacked Russia over and over and over and over again.  This is why there was a Crimean war with Russia and not, say, a "Corsican War".  Yes, Russia did counter-attack each time and, yes, Russian soldiers did end up camping on the Champs Elysees or under Brandenburg Gate, but this hardly happened because of some mysterious "Russian imperialism".  Sure, I will be the first to agree that 19th Russia had no business keeping western monarchs in power or chewing up Finland or Poland, but in all these instances you will see that what triggered these (nevertheless unjustifiable) interventions was a (mistaken) sense of assisting the legitimate rulers of Europe.  Not saying it's right (it's not!).  I am just saying that when the West invaded Russia it hardly had as a motive to assist the legitimate authorities.  I would never blame the Chechens or the Persians for being fearful of Russia, but the Poles or Balts (who more than anybody tried to occupy, subjugate and partition Russia)?  The Germans or French?  Maybe the Brits or the Hungarians (who sure had their own little Empire going!)?  This is beyond ridiculous...

And yet the East Europeans were so terrified of Russia that they decided to replace one occupation by another.  Forgive me if I have no respect whatsoever for that kind of paranoia, ignorance of history or simply crass russophobia.

As for the West Europeans, probably motivated by their own inferiority complex (well, after all, Europe never freed itself from Hitler - it was freed by others!) and definitely egged on by the Anglosphere, they decided not only to turn what could have been a "Europe of fatherland" (as de Gaulle wanted) into a faceless meltingpot run by unelected EU bureaucrats but they also engaged in an "admission spree" for both the EU and NATO, sure as they were that "the more the better" which, of course, made both NATO and the EU much worse of than it was before.

So now we have the worst of "old Europe" mixed with the worst of "new Europe" and all of that ruled by the Anglosphere which, itself, has now been largely taken over by Zionists interests.  I don't know about you, but to me this so-called "united Europe" inspires only disgust and contempt.  Especially that this was far from inevitable.

If Europe had taken the example of its own great leaders, people like de Gaulle or even Mitterrand, it would never have accepted the subservient role it now has in the AngloZionist Empire.  One does not need to be wealthy or powerful to keep his dignity and self-esteem. So I categorically reject the argument that under the AngloZionist Empire the Europeans "could do nothing about it".

Excuse me, but if Berlin could rise up in 1953, Hungary could rise up in 1956, Czechoslovakia could rise up in 1968 and Poland could rise up in 1980, I don't see how you can make the case that today this is impossible.  Even inside the Soviet Union there were numerous uprisings (Temirtau 1959, Murom 1961, Aleksandrov 1961, Krasnodar 1961, Novocherkassk 1962 - heck there were even uprisings inside the GULag,  as in Ekibastuz in 1952).  I would even argue that the real length of the Civil War which followed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was from 1917 until 1946, when the country was finally and truly pacified by the Communist leaders.  So there was plenty of resistance to the Soviet regime.

But maybe good old uprisings are now "passé"?  Okay - fair enough.  But what prevents the people from, say, Poland, Germany or Bulgaria from following the example of Alain Soral in France and create their own version of Egalité et Réconciliation or, at least, the French National Front?!  Nothing, of course.

I do see some signs of a growing revolt:  George Galloway and Nigel Farage in the UK or Laurent Louis in Belgium are clearly beginning to show signs of doing more than opposing this or that policy - they are opposing the system itself.  In France, Marine Le Pen unfortunately clearly turned out to be a "dud", but Florian Philippot (currently in charge of strategy and communications) shows some potential.  The big problem with these, shall we say, "sovereignist" parties is that they are still mostly stuck in a "conservative" or even outright reactionary position (though not Galloway!).  What Europe completely lacks is a solid "sovereignist Left" similar to what the French Communists almost became in the late years of Georges Marchais.

[Sidenote: The Europeans seem to have forgotten that capitalism is not a European tradition, but an Anglo ideology.  They have forgotten that while the north of Europe fell under the influence of Reformed/Protestant Christianity with its emphasis on individual predestination and work, the culture and traditions of rest of Europe were shaped by Latin Christianity, with a much deeper sense of social justice, equality and community.  Alain Soral is quite correct when he speaks of an "Old Testament world" which now blends Reformed/Protestant ideology on one side and the rabbinical Phariseic Judaic ideology on the other.  It is no coincidence that we live in an AngloZionist Empire and not a, say, FrancoZionist or HispanoZionist one.]

When France had the Trente Glorieuses (30 glorious years of happiness) it was because de Gaulle knew how to balance both economic progress and social welfare rather than subjugate the entire country to Big Banks (which Pompidou did as soon as he came to power).  Even the UK had a semblance of social solidarity inherited from the difficult war years.

But now, what do we see?

Most European economies are undergoing a deep crisis.  I am not talking only about Greece or Cyprus here, I am talking about France, Spain, but also the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Ireland.  Socially, Western Europe has simply added East European immigrants to its already massive amount of immigrants from Africa and the Balkans.  It takes a blind person not to see that the EU is taking water from all sides and is basically sinking.  And it is under such conditions that the EU now gets involved in the Ukrainian mess, as if it did not have enough problems without having a bona fide Nazi regime on its doorstep and yet another tsunami of economic immigrants about to join the Romanians, Latvians, Gypsies, Turks, Algerians, Kurds, Iraqis, Africans, Georgians or Albanians already sinking the European boat.

Seriously, how stupid and how blind can on become?!

As for NATO itself, it is a pathetic fighting force.  This is rarely said openly, but everybody in the military knows that.  And that is not a problem at all, because NATO's *true* role is to maintain the US grip on the European continent.  There is nothing new here, as early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay,  admitted that NATO's true role was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".  Now this has changed to only "the Americans in, and everybody else down".  Hardly a sign of progress.  NATO also has a secondary role, to be used by European bureaucrats to foster their career and their power.  So really the core purpose of NATO is to be NATO.  And if that means inventing a non-existing threat such as Iranian missiles or "massed Russian forces at the Ukrainian border" - then so be it.

[Does anybody remember that NATO once seriously declared that Yugoslav MiG-29s could pose a threat to London (I cannot prove that, but I remember that hilarious claim vividly - the MiG-29 is a light and short-range fighter)?]

Truly, the new Cold War with Russia in Europe has exactly the same function as the Global War on terror worldwide and the War on Drugs inside the USA: to terrify the general public and to justify lavish spending for full-spectrum aggression on everybody, from the average American (War on Drugs), Russia or even Papua New Guinea (GWOT!).

Everybody in Europe knows and understand most of the above.  Many, in fact, understand it all.  And yet nobody does anything about it.  Nothing.  It's like the entire continent is in some kind of catatonic stupor.  Hence the absolutely disgraceful European vote recently at the UN when every single country in Europe (even Greece!!) voted in favor of the Banderastani regime in Kiev with the sole exception of Serbia (Bosnia-Herzegovina happened to have a Serbian president and Belarus is, for all practical purposes, not only part of Russia, but also threatened by the Ukie Nazis)!  And did anybody in Europe protest against this?

How can Europeans make fun of the putative ignorance of history and geography of Americans when they themselves act in a manner so clearly in contradiction with even a basic understanding of these matters?!

Tell me, my fellow Europeans, if Americans are really so ignorant, then how is it that they are running the show in Europe?  How is it that we are their colony and not the other way around?  Might that have something to do with the fact that when they were our colony they rebelled and kicked us out while we seem unable to return them the favor?!

And if Europeans lack the courage of Americans, why can't they at least speak up and protest, you know, like Soviet dissidents did?  Like Alain Soral does today?

To me the answer is sadly obvious: Europeans have lost any sense of self-worth or dignity.  They have become what Malcolm X used to call "house Negroes".  Listen to Malcolm X himself speak about this, listen carefully, and ask yourself this basic question: is there a single word spoken by X here, just one, which does not fully apply to modern Europeans?  Just one?


Don't Europeans treat their AngloZionists masters *exactly* like the "house Negro" treated his masters?

So my question is this: where are the European "field Negroes"?

So yes, I am disgusted with Europe and its politicians.  And I am disgusted with the deafening silence of the my fellow Europeans.  I find no excuse for it.  If African slaves could rise up against their masters, how is it that Europeans seem to have this special fondness for their current overlords?

There is one final question I need to address here: what about Russia?  Is it part of Europe?

I did write about the history of Russia in past posts (see here, here and here) and I cannot repeat it all here.  I will say that the only part of the Russian society which has had a deep attraction for western Europe has always been either the reactionary nobility or the liberal elites. For the vast majority of Russian people, even today, the people of the Caucasus or Central Asia are far closer culturally than western Europeans and their central European friends.  The only exception to this are the Serbian people who have always been close to Russians (the Russian Tsar Alexander III once said to the Montenegrin Prince Nicholas he was "the only true, faithful and sincere ally Russia had in Europe".  Little has changed since).  But for the rest of Europe?  Forget it.

Are there still "wannabe Europeans" in Russia? Sure!  First, the group which I call "Atlantic Integrationists".  Then the eternal bane of Russia: its liberals.  Then most oligarchs (they love capitalism).  Finally, the same kind of folks as we see in the Ukraine today: those who associate Europe with a high standard of living and halfway decent cops.  Toss in a hodgepodge of homosexuals dreaming of living in Holland, potheads (also dreaming of Amsterdam), the many admirers of European architecture, entrepreneurs who are fed up with the dysfunctional and corrupt Russian legal system, members of West European branches of Christianity and a few others groups and you definitely get a pro-European constituency in Russia.  But ask yourself - what do most of these groups and people have in common?  What did reactionary aristocrats and liberal revolutionaries also have in common?  The answer is simple: they simply don't like Russia.  Oh sure, they will deny that, but if you dig just a tad deeper you will see that they like "a Russia" which never existed and which they aspire to bring about.  But they never liked the real Russia, the only one which really exists.  This simple truth - that these liberal "reformers" actually always hate the real Russia - is one truism with many Russian intellectuals and leaders have repeated many times, from Dostoevsky, to Solzhenitsyn to Putin today.  And over and over again, people like Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn and Putin are the type of people which inspired the Russian masses to support them, because these masses always felt, almost instinctively, that pro-Western folks are always deeply alienated from them while leaders like Putin are true Russians who love Russia for what it is, not what it should be.

This being said, history and geography have linked Russia to Europe and in that sense, Russia will always be part of Europe.  This is what Putin - and others - mean when they say that Russia will always be part of Europe: they mean that because Europe has had a huge, and sometimes even positive, impact on Russia and because it is simply impossible to build a real "Iron Curtain" which would exclude Russia from the future of Europe.  There are many in central Europe - Poles in particular - who would deny their own eastern and Slavic roots and who would love to see a huge wall cutting Poland forever off its eastern neighbors.  I suppose that if these folks had magical scissors they would simply cut out Poland and move it to, say, southern France (there is a myth that France and Poland are particularly close whereas in reality the only thing binding these two countries together are their Masonic loges).  Ditto for the Balts who would gladly move to somewhere along the Norwegian border.  So when Putin says that "Russia will always be a part of Europe" he is trying to remind these folks that magic scissors do not exist and that no matter what, Russia will have influence and say in the future of Europe.  I am sure that Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn would agree.

But it is one thing to be aware of history and geography and quite another to make fundamental civilizational and development decisions.  The "Eurasian Sovereignists" are not dreaming of magic scissors to relocate Russia to the South Pacific or the Indian subcontinent, they simply believe that Russia has to invest its energy and efforts towards developing the immense human and natural resources of the Russian East and North and that for historical, cultural and religious reasons Russia can find much better friends and allies in Asia than in Europe.  I have to say that I completely agree with this vision.

Europe has become a continent whose leaders can openly votes in support of a vicious and openly neo-Nazi regime in Kiev without any backlash at all.  The EU will send the Banderists in Kiev money which it denies to the Greeks, and these same Greeks then vote in support of the Banderists.  Judging by the amount of laws passed in EU countries to ban racism, revisionism, negationism and even Fascism or National-Socialism one could get the mistaken impression that racism is frowned upon in the EU.  This is not so.  That only applies to anti-Jewish racism.  But anti-Russian racism is actually the official order of the day, and it enjoys a consensus support from the European elites.

So I sincerely ask you all, my friends and readers, what shall Russia do in response to that?  Pretend like this is not happening?  Try to shame Europeans into realizing what they have done (like Lavrov has been trying so many times)?  Does it not make sense for Russia to follow a simple course: try to avoid as best can be any wars or confrontations with the West (and that will be decided by the USA anyway) and turn towards the South, East and North for its future?

Honestly, what is the very bust Russia can hope for on its western borders?

The Saker

Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club followed by Q&A session

Warning: this is a 25min long speech followed by over two hours of questions and answers. Still, I would suggest that is is well worth watching because I believe that it really shows the kind of man Putin is and what really makes him "tick".  If you want to have a really good insight into what the "Eurasian sovereignists" stand for and the kind of international order they are trying to promote - get it directly from primary source: Putin himself.  His answers are all non-scripted, the questions non-rehearsed and all the topics are discussed in an extremely candid manner.  I highly recommend listening to the full thing.

Cheers,

The Saker
-------

A credible report about what happened at the recent meetings between Russian officials and Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan

First, here is the report as published by Information Clearing House translating As-Safir.  I have just bolded out the particularly important parts.  This is the text in-extenso:
-------
A diplomatic report about the “stormy meeting” in July between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan concluded that the region stretching from North Africa to Chechnya and from Iran to Syria — in other words, the entire Middle East — has come under the influence of an open US-Russian face-off and that “it is not unlikely that things [will] take a dramatic turn in Lebanon, in both the political and security senses, in light of the major Saudi decision to respond to Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian crisis.”

The report starts by presenting the conditions under which the Russian-Saudi meeting was convened. It states that Prince Bandar, in coordination with the Americans and some European partners, proposed to Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz that Bandar visit Moscow and employ the carrot-and-stick approach, which is used in most negotiators, and offer the Russian leadership political, economic, military and security enticements in return for concessions on several regional issues, in particular Syria and Iran.

King Abdullah agreed with the proposal and contacted President Putin on July 30. In a conversation that lasted only a few minutes, they agreed to Bandar’s visit and to keep it under wraps. Bandar arrived in Moscow. The visit was secret. The Saudi Embassy did not follow the usual protocol for Saudi officials visiting Russia.

In Moscow, a preliminary session was held at Russian military intelligence headquarters between Bandar and the director of Russian Military Intelligence, Gen. Igor Sergon. The meeting focused on security cooperation between the two countries. Bandar then visited Putin’s house on the outskirts of the Russian capital, where they held a closed-door bilateral meeting that lasted four hours. They discussed the agenda, which consisted of bilateral issues and a number of regional and international matters in which the two countries share interest.

Bilateral relations

At the bilateral level, Bandar relayed the Saudi king’s greetings to Putin and the king’s emphasis on the importance of developing the bilateral relationship. He also told Putin that the king would bless any understanding reached during the visit. Bandar also said, however, that “any understanding we reach in this meeting will not only be a Saudi-Russian understanding, but will also be an American-Russian understanding. I have spoken with the Americans before the visit, and they pledged to commit to any understandings that we may reach, especially if we agree on the approach to the Syrian issue.”

Bandar stressed the importance of developing relations between the two countries, saying that the logic of interests can reveal large areas of cooperation. He gave several examples in the economic, investment, oil and military arenas.

Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values ​​and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

Putin thanked King Abdullah for his greetings and Bandar for his exposition, but then he said to Bandar, “We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations according to clear and strong principles.”

Bandar said that the matter is not limited to the kingdom and that some countries have overstepped the roles drawn for them, such as Qatar and Turkey. He added, “We said so directly to the Qataris and to the Turks. We rejected their unlimited support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. The Turks’ role today has become similar to Pakistan’s role in the Afghan war. We do not favor extremist religious regimes, and we wish to establish moderate regimes in the region. It is worthwhile to pay attention to and to follow up on Egypt’s experience. We will continue to support the [Egyptian] army, and we will support Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi because he is keen on having good relations with us and with you. And we suggest to you to be in contact with him, to support him and to give all the conditions for the success of this experiment. We are ready to hold arms deals with you in exchange for supporting these regimes, especially Egypt.”

Economic and oil cooperation

Then Bandar discussed the potential cooperation between the two countries if an understanding could be reached on a number of issues, especially Syria. He discussed at length the matter of oil and investment cooperation, saying, “Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets. ... We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas present in the Mediterranean Sea from Israel to Cyprus through Lebanon and Syria. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area as well as in the areas of establishing refineries and petrochemical industries. The kingdom can provide large multi-billion-dollar investments in various fields in the Russian market. What’s important is to conclude political understandings on a number of issues, particularly Syria and Iran.”

Putin responded that the proposals about oil and gas, economic and investment cooperation deserve to be studied by the relevant ministries in both countries.

Syria first

Bandar discussed the Syrian issue at length. He explained how the kingdom’s position had evolved on the Syrian crisis since the Daraa incident all the way to what is happening today. He said, “The Syrian regime is finished as far as we and the majority of the Syrian people are concerned. [The Syrian people] will not allow President Bashar al-Assad to remain at the helm. The key to the relations between our two countries starts by understanding our approach to the Syrian issue. So you have to stop giving [the Syrian regime] political support, especially at the UN Security Council, as well as military and economic support. And we guarantee you that Russia’s interests in Syria and on the Mediterranean coast will not be affected one bit. In the future, Syria will be ruled by a moderate and democratic regime that will be directly sponsored by us and that will have an interest in understanding Russia's interests and role in the region.”

Russia’s intransigence is to Iran’s benefit

Bandar also presented Saudi Arabia’s views about Iran’s role in the region, especially in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Bahrain and other countries. He said he hoped that the Russians would understand that Russia's interests and the interests of the Gulf states are one in the face of Iranian greed and nuclear challenge.

Putin gave his country’s position on the Arab Spring developments, especially about what has happened in Libya, saying, “We are very concerned about Egypt. And we understand what the Egyptian army is doing. But we are very cautious in approaching what’s happening because we are afraid that things may slide toward an Egyptian civil war, which would be too costly for the Egyptians, the Arabs and the international community. I wanted to do a brief visit to Egypt. And the matter is still under discussion.”

Regarding Iran, Putin said to Bandar that Iran is a neighbor, that Russia and Iran are bound by relations that go back centuries, and that there are common and tangled interests between them. Putin said, “We support the Iranian quest to obtain nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And we helped them develop their facilities in this direction. Of course, we will resume negotiations with them as part of the 5P+1 group. I will meet with President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the Central Asia summit and we will discuss a lot of bilateral, regional and international issues. We will inform him that Russia is completely opposed to the UN Security Council imposing new sanctions on Iran. We believe that the sanctions imposed against Iran and Iranians are unfair and that we will not repeat the experience again.”

Erdogan to visit Moscow in September

Regarding the Turkish issue, Putin spoke of his friendship with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan; “Turkey is also a neighboring country with which we have common interests. We are keen to develop our relations in various fields. During the Russian-Turkish meeting, we scrutinized the issues on which we agree and disagree. We found out that we have more converging than diverging views. I have already informed the Turks, and I will reiterate my stance before my friend Erdogan, that what is happening in Syria necessitates a different approach on their part. Turkey will not be immune to Syria’s bloodbath. The Turks ought to be more eager to find a political settlement to the Syrian crisis. We are certain that the political settlement in Syria is inevitable, and therefore they ought to reduce the extent of damage. Our disagreement with them on the Syrian issue does not undermine other understandings between us at the level of economic and investment cooperation. We have recently informed them that we are ready to cooperate with them to build two nuclear reactors. This issue will be on the agenda of the Turkish prime minister during his visit to Moscow in September.”

Putin: Our stance on Assad will not change

Regarding the Syrian issue, the Russian president responded to Bandar, saying, “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters. During the Geneva I Conference, we agreed with the Americans on a package of understandings, and they agreed that the Syrian regime will be part of any settlement. Later on, they decided to renege on Geneva I. In all meetings of Russian and American experts, we reiterated our position. In his upcoming meeting with his American counterpart John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will stress the importance of making every possible effort to rapidly reach a political settlement to the Syrian crisis so as to prevent further bloodshed.”

As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt's future.

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.
-------
Commentary:

OK, this time I hope that what I call the "Russia-skeptics"  will read this very carefully and finally admit to themselves that Russia under Putin is not Russia under Medvedev, much less so Russia under Eltsin or the old Soviet Union.  To the "Russia-skeptics: I want say this:

Guys, I do really understand that the present and the future have to be judged based on the experience provided to us by the past, but only as long as lesson from the past are clearly applicable.  In a fundamentally new situation focusing solely on lessons from the past can lead you to overlook crucial changes and developments.

While I have no idea how/where As-Safir got this report, I will say that judging by its contents this is the real thing, or something very close to it.  Besides, all this report does is put in words what we have seen Putin do ever since he came back to power.  So while the source is impossible to rate, this report is fully consistent with all the other information sources I have.  And the key element here is this: Putin and the "Eurasian Sovereignists" are *not* interested integrating Russia into the Anglo-lead unipolar international system.  This is why all the 'carrots' offered by Bandar do not tempt them.  It is absolutely crucial that anybody wanting to understand what the Kremlin does be fully aware of that.  Yes, Eltsin was 100% a US puppet.  And Medvedev was "sort of a 60/40% pro-US" too.  With Putin we are dealing with a solid, firm and highly principled 100% anti "US New World Order" leader.  What Putin - and China's Xi Jinping - want is a multi-polar international order under the rule of law and without any central hegemon.  This is why Russia (and China) will not, repeat, not yield on Assad.  This is not about Syria any more, its not even about Syria as a first step towards Iran and Iran as a first step towards the Caucasus.  It's about a much bigger picture in which both Russia and China have concluded that the current international order is an existential threat to both of these countries and that it is therefore absolutely and categorically not acceptable.

Then, of course, on a operational level it is also about Syria as a first step to Iran and Iran as a first step to Russia.  And, on a tactical level, it also about Syria itself, seen as an ally of Russia which Russia cannot simply dump.  But on a macro - or strategic level - is about the right (or not) of a single power like the USA to intervene wherever the hell it wants and remove any regime it does not like.

However, there is one thing which Russia will not do to support Syria and that is go to war for it.  Frankly, Syria is not worth a war between the USA and Russia.  Russia will only go to war if it is directly threatened or attacked.  The choice is much harder for Iran which fully understands and shares Russia's and China's desire for a different international order, but for which the outcome of the war in Syria has a much more immediate importance.  Not only has Hezbollah clearly and unambiguously indicated that it will never allow Assad to be replaced by Wahabi liver-eaters, but one could make a good case that since a Assad defeat would signal an inevitable war on Iran, the Iranians might want to defend the Syrians and not let the US take them one by one.  My personal feeling is that Iran would be willing to intervene in Syria if the US/NATO aggression becomes strategically meaningful.  Should that happen I am certain that Russia will put all its capabilities short of an overt military intervention to come to the aid of Iran.

The Syria->Hezbollah->Iran->Russia de-facto alliance is a very interesting one.  It is an alliance of relatively weak countries against one hyper-power, but one which makes the progress along this axis harder and harder as you go along, thereby deterring any action against the weaker one.  This is a very sophisticated defense posture and it has, so far, been very effective.  The problem is that the US foreign policy is quite literally hijacked by absolutely crazy folks, intoxicated by delusions of power and who just cannot walk away from a struggle they cannot win in the long term.  Sadly, this probably means that the resilience of this alliance will be tested.  My personal prediction is that it will hold.  I am frankly not all that confident about Assad himself, though he has done far better than I expected, but I have a great deal of confidence in Hassan Nasrallah, Ali Khamenei and Vladimir Putin.  I also expect Xi Jinping to deliver if things get ugly.

While very bad events are probably imminent, I hope that all of you will maintain some degree of hope for the mid to long term.  Simply put: the Resistance has never been stronger than now, and we can count on some truly exceptional leaders to do the right thing.

The Saker