This is why the Russians want to tightly regulate foreign NGOs

How is that for a "watch" of human right?

The fact is that western human rights organizations are below contempt. Some are political tools in the hands of the Empire (Human Rights Watch), some are full of western intelligence agents (Medecins Sans Frontieres, OSCE monitors), some are lead by cynical bureaucrats who use idealistic young delegates as cannon fodder (ICRC), some are used by big business as a tool (Greenpeace) while others are quasi-official CIA tools (NED, Freedom House, Open Society Foundation, etc.).

The funny thing in this case is that the photo is not taken in Russia, but in the Ukraine, and the riot cops shown here have Ukrainian unit badges.  But then, who cares anyway?  It's not like "truth" is a topic that matters to HRW...

The Saker

Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin?

Russia Insider interviews The Saker

The latest hot topic in the Russian media. Russian politicians are talking about it. Historical precedent and behavior of Western media suggests that they are.

A major topic in the Russian media is mystification with how Putin is portrayed in the Western media.

Wildly popular at home, and seen as a decent, modest, an admirable person, and Russians don't understand how there can be such a disconnect with Western impressions.

Recently, leading Russian commentators and politicians have been suggesting that this can only be explained by a deliberate campaign to defame Putin, by governments or other groups.

Yesterday, at a briefing to foreign journalists, Sergey Ivanov, Putin's chief of staff, arguably the 2nd most powerful man in Russia, spoke of an "information war" consisting of "personal attacks" on Putin.


The western media hit a new low...

The day before another member of Putin's inner circle, Vyasheslav Volodin, made similar remarks, telling foreign journalists "an attack on Putin is an attack on Russia."

The logic, they argue, is that by defaming the leader of a country, you weaken his power domestically by undermining popular support for him, and internationally, by rallying popular opinion to support policies against that country. The ultimate goal, they argue, is to weaken the country itself. They also talk about regime change.

They argue that if one looks at the facts, that there is evidence of ongoing character assassination which cannot be explained by a vague popular zeitgeist in the West, but is more likely the result of a dedicated effort to introduce this defamation into the news flow.


Newsweek has been one of the most virulent Putin-bashers for years

The issue of manipulation of news by intelligence services has been in the news recently with revelations that the CIA and German Secret Service (GSS) have long-running programs to influence how media executives and top journalists convey and interpret the news, including direct cash payments.

Here are some examples they point to:

• Portraying him as a scheming dictator trying to rebuild a repressive empire.
• Claiming he personally ordered the murder of a number of journalists, and personally ordered a KGB defector to be murdered with radiation poisoning.
• Frequently citing unsubstantiated rumors he is having an affair with a famous gymnast.
• Allegations that he has stashed away billions for his personal benefit, without providing evidence.
• Recent article in newsweek claiming he leads a luxurious and lazy lifestyle, sleeping late.
• Recent article in NYT focusing on a supposed personal arrogance.
• Hillary Clinton mentioning in speech after speech that he is a bad guy, a bully, that one must confront him forcefully.
• Frequently using pejoratives to describe his person - "a jerk and a thug" (Thomas Friedman this week in the NYT)
• Mis-quoting him on his regret about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
• Articles about a supposed super-luxury villa built for him in southern Russia.
• The over-the top headlines in the western media (they were worst of all in Germany) portraying him personally responsible for murdering the victims of MH17.
• And soft stuff - magazine covers making him look sinister, monstrous, etc.

RI sat down with The Saker, a leading analyst of Russia in international affairs, and asked him what he thinks:
-----------------------------------

So, is there any credence to this line of thinking, or is this conspiracy theorists running wild?

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the US is waging a major psyop war against Russia, although not a shooting war, for now, and that what we are seeing is a targeted campaign to discredit Putin and achieve "regime change" in Russia or, should that fail, at the very least "regime weakening" and "Russia weakening".

And the Economist has been the very worst of them all...

So this is a US government program?

Yes, Putin is absolutely hated by certain factions in the US government two main reasons:

1. He partially, but not fully, restored Russia's sovereignty which under Gorbachev and Yeltsin had been totally lost … Russia then was a US colony like Ukraine is today … and,

2. He dared to openly defy the USA and its civilizational model.

… a free and sovereign Russia is perceived by the US "deep state" as an existential threat which has to be crushed. … this is a full-scale political assault on Russia and Putin personally.

So what the Russians are saying, that the constant personal attacks against Putin in the global media are partly the result of deliberate efforts by US intelligence services, … basically, planted stories…

Yes, absolutely

It seems like “Operation Mockingbird” all over again… Are you aware of other instances aimed at Putin?

(Editors Note: Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975 which shocked the nation, forcing the program’s termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different programs. Wikipedia)

Yes, of course. Since this defamation has very little traction with the Russian public … Putin's popularity is higher than ever before .., there is an organized campaign to convince them that Putin is "selling out" Novorussia, that he is a puppet of oligarchs who are making deals with Ukrainian oligarchs to back-stab the Novorussian resistance…

… So far, Putin's policies in the Ukraine have enjoyed very strong support from the Russian people who still oppose an overt military intervention…

… but if Kiev attacks Novorussia again - which appears very likely - and if such an attack is successful - which is less likely but always possible - then Putin will be blamed for having given the Ukrainians the time to regroup and reorganize. 


Warm and fuzzy...

So you are saying that if the Ukrainian military strengthens its position enough to deliver a serious blow to the East Ukrainians, the US can use this as a method to strike at Putin’s support base…

Yes, that’s right ... there are a lot of "fake patriots" in Russia and abroad who will reject any negotiated solution and who will present any compromise as a "betrayal". They are the "useful idiots" used by western special services to smear and undermine Putin.

Is it limited to government special ops, or are there other groups who might have an interest in doing this?

Yes, well here is something that most people in the west don’t appreciate… there is a major behind-the scenes struggle among Russian elites between what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" (basically, those who support Putin) and what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" (those whom Putin refers to as the "5th column).

The western media talks about this as the struggle between Russian liberals and conservatives, reformers and reactionaries, right?

Well its sort of like that, but not exactly…

The former see Russia's future in the Russian North and East and want to turn Russia towards Asia, Latin America and the rest of the world, while the latter want Russia to become part of the "North Atlantic" power configuration.

The Atlantic Integrationists are now too weak to openly challenge Putin - whose real power base is his immense popular support - but they are quietly sabotaging his efforts to reform Russia while supporting anti-Putin campaigns.

Regarding the revelations of CIA activities in Germany, do you think this is going on in other countries, in the US?

I am sure that this is happening in most countries worldwide. The very nature of the modern corporate media is such that it makes journalists corrupt.

As the French philosopher Alain Soral says "nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute". There are, of course, a few exceptions, but by and large this is true.

This is not to say that most journalists are on the take. In the West this is mostly done in a more subtle way - by making it clear which ideas do or do not pass the editorial control, by lavishly rewarding those journalists who 'get it' and by quietly turning away those who don't.

If a journalist or reporter commits the crime of "crimethink" he or she will be sidelined and soon out of work.

There is no real pluralism in the West where the boundaries of what can be said or not are very strictly fixed.

Ok, but is it like what has been revealed in Germany, …similar specific operational programs in France, the UK, Italy, Latin America, etc.

Yes, one has to assume so – it is in their interests to have them and there is no reason for them not to.

As for the CIA, it de-facto controls enough of the corporate media to "set the tone". As somebody who in the past used to read the Soviet press for a living, I can sincerely say that it was far more honest and more pluralistic than the press in the USA or EU today.

Joseph Goebbels or Edward Bernays could not have imagined the degree of sophistication of modern propaganda machines.

If the US is doing it, can't one assume other governments are too? Are the Russians doing it against western leaders?

I think that all governments try to do that kind of stuff. However, what makes the US so unique it a combination of truly phenomenal arrogance and multi-billion dollar budgets.

The US "deep state" owns the western corporate media which is by far the most powerful media on the planet. Most governments can only do that inside their own country ... to smear a political opponent or discredit a public figure, but they simply do not have the resources to mount an international strategic psyop campaign. This is something only the US can do.

So foreign governments are at a great disadvantage in this arena vis-a-vis the US?

Absolutely.

=======
Saker commentary: 

I want to add here a totally shameless plug for Russia Insider. Guys - keep an eye on what RI is doing. Not only has the editor and publisher, Charles Bausman, assembled a first-rate team of contributors (including several I consider as friends), but the format used by RI is an ideal complement to what I try to do here: whereas I tend to privilege long detailed analyses and a few shorter news items here and there, RI offers a steady stream of news items covering a very wide variety of related topics interspersed with always interesting opinion pieces.  Frankly, I consider this very good and very needed stuff, and a very effective way to debunk the lies of the Empire's main stream media.  Good guys, doing good things, in a good format.  In other words - I consider checking the RI site at least once a day a "must".

Kind regards to all,

The Saker

Ukraine mini-SITREP May 21th, 20:42 UTC/Zulu

It's not really news, but it still amazes me: for two days in a row no Jen Psaki, speaking for the regime in Washington, has declared that the USA has doubts about the real affiliation of the Russian journalists working for the Russian new outlet LifeNews.  Even though the professional record of these journalist is in the public domain and very well know (they have worked for many years including abroad), Mrs Psaki believes it is possible that there were spies.  Ditto for the reporters of Russia Today which are still being held incommunicado.

Also in the news, the house of Oleg Tsarev has finally been burned.

I say finally, because:

1) The oligarch-mobster Kolomoisky had promised that to Tsarev
2) Tsarev had predicted that too
3) The house next to Tsarev had already been torched by mistake

I suppose that Mrs Psaki will speak of a "natural fire", or a "spontaneous combustion" or even an "operation of the Russian special forces" and threaten Russia with more sanctions.

As for the Western media, it couldn't care less. Just like when Uncle Sam bombed the TV station in Belgrade.  After all, anybody opposing the AngloZionist Empire is a) a propagandist and b) subhuman.

Kind regards,

The Saker

"The Fifth Estate" is a disgusting and vicious attempt at discrediting Julian Assange (UPDATED)

I normally don't do movie reviews here, but after watching "The Fifth Estate" yesterday I felt that I ought to warn everybody that this is a crude hatchet job clearly aimed at maliciously slandering Julian Assange and, through him, his defiance of our "1%" overlords.

A quick visit on Wikipedia showed me that there was some "controversy" around the movie.  I will let you read that section yourself, but let me tell you that the truth is infinitely worse than what Wikipedia might suggest.

As in most Anglo movies, the setup is clearly "good guys" versus "bad guys".  The viewer immediately "gets it" that "good guy #1" is Daniel Berg.  Fair enough, since the movie is based on his book.  But then, the list gets longer.  Other "good guys" include:

• The organizers of a hacker conference (which Assange rudely interrupts)
• Daniel's paramour (who clearly hates Assange)
• Daniel's parents (to whom Assange is rude)
• A reporter from The Guardian (who, unlike Assange, stands for "real journalism")
• Some White woman in a senior position in the White House (representing a "caring" government official and a "minority" - women)
• Some Black guy also in a senior position in the White House (also representing a "caring" government official and a "minority" - Blacks)
• Some Libyan traitor who spies for Uncle Sam (who is put in grave danger because of Assange)

So if you did not get it yet, let me help you a little:

Hackers good - Assange bad
Paramours good - Assange bad
Old folks good - Assange bad
Corporate media journalists good - Assange bad
US Government good - Assange bad
US Government good - Assange bad
Traitors who sell out to Uncle Sam good - Assange bad

As for Assange, he is a fanatic who does not care for the consequences of his actions, he is rude to everybody, he is narcissistic and insecure, and he is also a megalomaniac and a psychopath.  The entire world of "good guys" (see above) are trying to hammer some reason into him, alas - in vain.  Assange crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy.

There is one funny thing about this otherwise sickening propaganda movie: the lines delivered by Benedict Cumberbatch (who plays Assange) are totally convincing, at least to me.  Whether this shows an attempt at "balance" on the part of the director or whether this is an expression of my own alienation from society is unclear.  But to me, the Assange in the movie wins every single argument.

Bottom line: regardless of who ordered that movie from Bill Condon - it is a sickening propaganda movie whose sole purpose is to discredit Assange and to show him (and everything he stands for) as a dangerous lunatic.  Our imperial overlords have done everything to isolate and crush Assange who is now holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK and gradually forgotten by everybody.  But even that was not good enough for them. Now to further make him pay they have come up with a full-length movie whose sole purpose is to convince us that our governments are basically good and worthy of respect and gratitude, while Assange is an irresponsible psychopath.

One man alone against a planetary system of power based on violence and lies.  This is how I see this plot.  If anything, this movie has convinced me that Julian Assange is a true hero who deserves our respect, gratitude and support.  As for the scumbags who made money for smearing him - let history judge them.

The Saker

UPDATE: for Assange's take on this movie see here: http://wikileaks.org/First-Letter-from-Julian-Assange.html

The Empire insults our collective intelligence. Again.

This is the sequence which the Empire submits to our attention: on August 18th a UN inspection team arrives in Syria to investigate the reports of use of chemical weapons.  Two days later, on August 20, the Syrian government uses chemical weapons against hundreds of civilians.  And not in some distant and remote corner of the country, but in a suburb of Damascus, conveniently near the UN inspection team.

Does anybody see a problem with this narrative?

Nevermind that the Syrian government is, by all accounts, clearly winning this war.  Nevermind that the US made a clear threat that the use of chemical weapons would be a "game changer" implying that it would result in a US/NATO military intervention.  Nevermind that in in the course of this war chemical munitions were only found in the inventory of the insurgency.

"Fact's don't matter.  Logic don't matter."

Such could be the slogan for what Chris Hedges calls the "Empire of Illusion".

Now let's see how many morons will actually accuse Assad of using chemicals and use this latest fairytale as "proof".

The Saker

Interview of Vladimir Putin to the German TV station ARD

This interview touches upon various important topics but it is particularly valuable because it set the record strait about the Western propaganda about the Russian government's "crackdown" on NGOs such as these from the BBC:

• Angela Merkel tells Vladimir Putin - Russia needs NGOs
• Russia NGOs decry 'intimidation' raids 
• Fears for NGOs in Russia as tax raids multiply
• Russian police raid rights group Memorial and other NGOs

Needless to say, the Western media will not change its tune.  Still, for those few who will see/listen/read this interview it will become apparent that this is really a non-story.

The Saker
-------

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN (retranslated): Good evening, Mr President,

Germany and Russia enjoy special relationship and, economically speaking, they are a good match. However, there exist certain difficulties from the political viewpoint. Quite a number of Germans keep track of the raids in the Russian offices of German funds with great concern. The Russian public must be frightened. Why do you act like this?

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is you who are scaring the German public instead. There is nothing like this going on here, do not scare the public, please. The media should cover the events objectively. And what does it mean, objectively? The new law adopted late last year in Russia stipulates that non-governmental organisations engaged in Russia's internal political processes and sponsored from abroad must be registered as foreign agents, that is organisations which participate in our country's political life at the expense of foreign countries. This is not an innovation in international politics. A similar law has been in force in the United States since 1938.

If you have any additional questions, I would be pleased to answer them in order to clarify the situation to you and your or, in this case, our viewers.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: Mr President, I am not aware of any similar confiscations or raids carried out in the United States. In our opinion, the term ‘foreign agent’, as these organisations are to be called, sounds something like cold war.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Then let me explain. First of all, the United States adopted a similar law, which has been in effect ever since. And our, Russian, organisations have followed the same practice that was established in that country decades ago.

I am going to show you a paper in which, not long ago, the United States Department of Justice requested a non-governmental organisation to submit documents confirming that its activities were to be financed from abroad; the list is very long.

We have adopted a similar law that prohibits nothing; let me stress it, the law does not prohibit anything, nor does it limit or close down anything. Organisations financed from abroad are not forbidden to carry out any type of activities, including internal political activity. The only thing we want to know is who receives the money and where it goes. I repeat: the law is not some sort of innovation of our own.

Why do we consider it so important today? What do you think is the number of Russia-sponsored non-governmental organisations functioning in Europe? Any ideas?

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: I am afraid I cannot assess the situation, Mr President.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let me tell you. One such organisation operates in Paris, another one – in North America, it is registered in the USA. And this is it. There are only two of them – one in the United States and another one in Europe.

There are 654 non-governmental organisations operating in the Russian Federation, which are funded, as it has turned out, from abroad. 654 organisations make quite a network nationwide, the Russian regions included.

Over the four months alone that followed the adoption of the law in question, the accounts of these organisations augmented by… How much money do you think they received? You can hardly imagine; I did not know the figure myself: 28.3 billion rubles, which is almost $1 billion. 855 million rubles via diplomatic missions.

These organisations are engaged in internal political activity. Should not our society be informed of who gets the money and for what purposes?

I would also like to stress – and I want you to know this, I want people in Europe, including Germany, to know this – that nobody bans these organisations from carrying out their activities. We only ask them to admit: “Yes, we are engaged in political activities, and we are funded from abroad.” The public has the right to know this.

There is no need to scare anyone saying that people here get rounded up, arrested, have their property confiscated, although confiscations could be a reasonable thing if those people break the law. Some administrative sanctions are envisaged in these cases, but I think all this falls under rules commonly accepted in a civilised society.

Now let us look at the documents that our organisations in the US are required to provide. Note who asks for these documents, signed at the bottom of the page. The Counterespionage Section. Not the Office of Attorney General, but the Counterespionage Section of the US Department of Justice. This is an official document that the organisation received. And note the number of questions they pose. Is this democratic?

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: Mr President, we will examine this document. I do not know if any such searches took place in the US.

I would like to ask you once again: we understand democracy as the coexistence of the state and opposition. Political competition is an integral part of it. Does Russia need a strong opposition?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Certainly. We do need it to say the least. I believe that without competition no development in either economy, or in politics is possible today, and we want to ensure this development for our country and our people. Without this competition we would not be able to make effective, sound and justified decisions. Which is why we will undoubtedly strive to make the competition a cornerstone of every sphere of our society's life, including politics.

But this does not mean that opposition should be financed from abroad, don’t you think? Or do you have a different opinion?

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: Does this imply that the opposition can freely participate in demonstrations?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Absolutely, as long as they abide by the law. There are certain rules that provide for various forms of political activity. Voting means publicly expressing your opinion, as does participating in demonstrations. There is law. Good or bad, it can be changed democratically, but it must be abided by. Ordnung muss sein. It is a well-known rule. It is universal and applicable in any country. There must be order, and there must be no chaos. Northern Africa is a vivid example of what chaos leads to. Does anybody want that?

As for the activities of the opposition, I would like to draw your attention to the following fact. Just recently, a political party was required to have at least 50 thousand members to be registered. We have radically reduced this number: now one only needs 500 members to register a party and engage in legal political activities. 37 parties have already been registered, and, I think, several dozen more have filed their applications. This is how it is going to be, we will encourage this political competition.

We have changed the procedure for the election of members of the upper chamber of the Russian Parliament, the Federation Council; now they are elected by secret ballot by citizens of corresponding regions. By the way, I do not think that the upper chamber of the German Parliament is elected this way: if I am not mistaken, its members are elected by their respective landtags.

In this regard, we have gone further; I refer to the election of heads of the Russian regions that I reintroduced. We have returned to direct voting by secret ballot. Germany elects heads of its regions through landtags. Many of our political actors thought that we should go back to forming the Parliament through a mixed election system with simple majority rule nominations and strict party-list nominations. We have arrived at this mixed system, so we are moving, we are looking for those forms of our society’s political organisation that would be most suitable for us at this stage and would satisfy the requirements and aspirations of our people. This, of course, concerns political parties as well. Naturally, we want competition.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: You are going to Germany for a major trade fair. The economic relations between our countries are important for you, I believe. Are you worried that the issues we have just discussed may cast a shadow over your visit?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, on the contrary, I am very glad about it. And I am glad about our today's interview too because this gives us an opportunity to clarify the situation, to explain what is actually happening and what guides us. Now, what was your first question? About searches and arrests. What searches? What arrests? Who has been arrested? Can you give me at least one name? This is not true. Don’t make anything up.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: I didn't say anything about arrests. I spoke about searches.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It sounds alarmist: "Hey everyone! Look! Terrible things are happening here!" Well, yes, there is the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation that is obliged to ensure that the laws adopted in the Russian Federation are respected. And all the citizens, all organisations, all individuals and legal entities operating in Russia must take this into account and have due respect for Russian law.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: What are you expecting from your visit to Germany in terms of economy? I assume you are going to encourage the Germans to invest. What exactly are you expecting?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia and Germany are very important partners for each other. This is really so. The EU countries and the EU itself are our major commercial partners. They account for over 50 percent of our turnover. Well, the figure can fluctuate a bit: a little over 50, a little under 50 percent due to the economic difficulties faced by the Eurozone and the EU. It is under 50 at the moment, I believe, but it is still a lot. In absolute numbers it amounts to over $430‑450 billion. We are EU's third major commercial partner after the US and China, and the difference is not very big. If our total turnover with Europe amounts to some $430-450 billion, the turnover for the US is a little over $600 billion and $550 billion for China. So as you can see, not that big of a difference.

Germany is our primary European partner. Our turnover amounts to $74 billion and it continues to grow no matter what difficulties there might be. To make it clear for both Russian and German citizens, I need to say that these are not just numbers; there are jobs behind these numbers, there are cutting edge technology behind them, moving in both directions.

By the way, as far as Germany is concerned, the trade pattern is not only in line with its economic capabilities but also in line with its interests since the emphasis in trade and economic cooperation with Germany is put on the industrial production. And behind this – let me stress this once again – there are thousands if not tens of thousands of jobs, and the incomes of Russian and German families. Besides, Russia supplies 40 percent of all natural gas and 30 percent of all oil consumption in Germany.

We are expanding our cooperation in high technology sectors, aviation, engineering, including transport engineering, nanotechnologies, and next-generation physics engineering. This is a very diverse, interesting and promising cooperation.

Germany is one of our major investors with $25 billion in accumulated investments. Last year alone their amount increased by as much as $7.2 billion. This means that Germany invests rather actively in the Russian economy. I would like to stress again that all this is important, interesting and promising.

We are going to have six pavilions [at the trade fair], large ones. They are all united by a single slogan – the industrial production, in which Germany has always been strong, and which is of interest to us. Over a hundred large Russian companies will be exhibiting in those pavilions.

I invite you and all our friends in Germany to visit the 2013 Hannover Messe and Russia’s pavilions there.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: You've spoken about 27 billion of German direct investment in Russia. I would now like to touch upon the Cyprus issue. A lot of Germans realised for the first time how much Russian money is there in Cypriot banks and are now wondering why German businesses have to make investments while you pull your money out of Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Don't you see all the absurdity of your question? Just please don't get me wrong. What does Russia have to do with Russian investors in one of the EU countries? The more you "pinch" foreign investors in the financial institutions of your countries, the better for us because the affected, offended and frightened (not all of them but many) should, so we hope, come to our financial institutions and keep their money in our banks.

Why, at some point, many Russian investors moved their funds to zones such as Cyprus? Because, frankly speaking, they did not feel they could rely on the Russian financial system. And, indeed, it was not reliable. Just recall the year 1998 – an economic collapse, or the year 2000 (and that was already our common problem) – again there were widespread fears regarding the future of the financial system. But in 2008, when the new crisis hit, we not only managed to preserve the integrity of our financial system, we strengthened it without letting a single financial institution collapse. There were problems, of course, but we did not allow any of the financial institutions to abandon their customers. Of course, people went through a lot of hardships during the crisis but we arranged the work of our banking system in a way that made it possible not only to support but also to strengthen it while taking some measures to carefully restructure it, again in order to strengthen it. And I hope that people today will understand that.

Forfeiture of investors' funds, including of Russian origin, wherever it happens, in Cyprus or in other places, undermines credibility of the banking system of the entire Eurozone.

Now regarding the issue of whether to provide support or not and who is to blame. Is that fair, that people invested their funds, merely deposited their money with banks without breaking any laws, whether the laws of Cyprus or those of the European Union, just to see 60 percent of their deposits forfeited? They did not violate any rules. As to the allegations that Cyprus was, as they say in the financial community, a laundry for dirty money, they have to be supported with hard facts. One of the basic rules that we all are supposed to know and observe is the rule of the presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can we ignore that? How can we accuse all people concerned of being crooks? Then anybody can be declared a crook.

Did we create that offshore zone? No, we didn’t. It was the European Union that created it. Or, rather, it was created by the Cyprus authorities with the connivance of the European Union. And is it the only such zone created by countries of the European Union? Are we not aware of offshore island zones in Great Britain or of other such zones? They do exist. If you consider such zones a bad thing, then close them. Why do you shift responsibility for all problems that have arisen in Cyprus to investors irrespective of their nationality (British, Russian, French or whatever else).

I have met with senior officials of the European Commission. We have very good personal relations, though we disagree on many issues. Is it Russia's fault that Cyprus is now facing problems? Indeed, incoming investors are a positive factor as they support the banking system and the entire economy of the host country with their funds and their trust.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: You are angry that the European Union did not ask you for help and that many Russian nationals were affected, are you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Of course, not. On the contrary I am even glad, to some extent, because the events have shown how risky and insecure investments in Western financial institutions can be. By the way, our tax regime in that context is also more favourable than yours. The income tax rate for individuals in Russia is only 13 percent. What about Germany? How much do you pay?

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: It would be great if we paid only 13 percent. Of course, it would be great. Fight against tax increases is a hot topic during the election campaign.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: So, fight for tax cuts.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: Mr President, I would like to touch upon the issue of euro. You spoke about the European financial system. Russia holds more than 40 percent of its currency reserves in euro, which makes you keenly interested in euro. Do you still trust euro?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: First, I would like to say it outright: yes, we trust euro. We also trust the economic policy of major European countries, including, in the first place, the economic policy of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany. We are fully aware of various opinions on that issue, including on aspects, such as economic development, maintenance of economic growth and ensuring monetary stability. I agree with the opinion that, before pumping liquidity, it is necessary to address the root causes of crises.

But I wouldn't like to go into detail now and discuss the issue that has no direct bearing on us as that is the prerogative of the leaders of the European countries themselves.

However, judging by what we hear and see, what our colleagues are doing in the leading economies of the Eurozone, what the European Commission itself is doing, – and I would like to repeat that we do not agree on many issues and we do argue – we believe that fundamentally they are moving in the right direction. It gives us confidence that we have made the right choice having decided to keep such a large share of our gold and currency reserves, of our reserves in general in the European currency. I am confident that if the situation continues to develop the same way, our colleagues and friends in Europe will overcome the difficulties they are facing today.

And our reserves are rather substantial: the Central Bank reserves worth $534 billion, another $89 billion representing one of the Russian Government’s reserve funds, another $87 billion (a third fund) representing the second government fund, the National Welfare Fund. So, this is a rather substantial amount of money.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: Mr President, our time is almost up, but I would like to draw your attention to another crisis area that raises great concerns in Germany – that is Syria. Hundreds of people die there every day. Your stance and the stance of the West in the UN Security Council obviously differed.

I would like to ask you the following. How do you see the opportunities for stopping the bloodshed? What are the Russian authorities doing, what is the Russian Government doing to finally put an end to this bloodshed?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think that we should seek an immediate cessation of hostilities, of shelling from both sides, and a cessation of arms supplies.

We often hear: "Russia is supplying arms to Assad." First of all, there are no bans on arms supplies to incumbent legitimate governments. Secondly, only recently the opposition has received 3.5 tons of arms and munitions through the airports near Syria. This is the information published by the American media, I believe, by The New York Times. It has to be stopped.

However, – I would like to stress once again and I believe it is extremely important, – there is international law. There are international legal norms stating that it is inadmissible to supply arms to the armed groups that strive to destabilise the situation in a certain country with the use of arms. Such norms exist and they remain in force; nobody abolished them. So, when they say that Assad is fighting against his own people, we need to remember that this is the armed part of the opposition. What is going on is a massacre, this is a disaster, a catastrophe. It has to be stopped. It is necessary to bring all the warring parties to the negotiation table. I believe that this is the first step that has to be done, and then it is necessary to elaborate further steps during a discussion, which is important in our view.

I have already said it in public and I would like to tell you this, so that your viewers also know about our real position. We do not think that Assad should leave today, as our partners suggest. In this case, tomorrow we will have to decide what to do and where to go. We have done it in many countries. To be precise, our Western partners have. And it is unclear where Libya will go. In fact, it has already split into three parts. We do not want to have the situation of the same difficulty as we still have in Iraq. We do not want to have the situation of the same difficulty as in Yemen, and so on.

Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to bring everyone to the negotiation table so that all warring parties could reach an agreement on how their interests will be protected and in which way they will participate in the future governance of the country. And then they will work together on the implementation of this plan with due guarantees of the international community.

By the way, at the recent forum in Geneva (a few months ago) an agreement was reached on this issue, but later our Western partners unfortunately went back on these agreements. We believe that it is necessary to work hard and search for mutually acceptable solutions.

Recently, we have received Mr Hollande, President of the French Republic. I think he has some interesting ideas that can be implemented, but it requires some diplomatic work. We are ready to support these ideas. We need to try and put them into practice.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: Mr President, at the end of our interview I would like to go back to the topic that we have started with. Democracy is a very controversial issue. I would like to quote your Prime Minister. Mr Medvedev said that the democratic changes in Russia can be assessed only in 100 years. In our view, this is not very ambitious.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It may be a translation issue. Could you tell me again what he said exactly?

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: In essence, Russia's Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that "development of democracy in Russia can be assessed no earlier than in 100 years." My question is whether there are truly no ambitions about it.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: To be honest, I have not seen or heard of Prime Minister saying that, and it is always necessary to consider the context which I am lacking now.

It is obvious that we have made a decisive choice for democracy and we cannot imagine any other way of development. It is also obvious that certain standards used in some countries are difficult to implement or apply elsewhere. I think it is quite clear. We need to develop tools based on the fundamental principles of democracy that would allow for the vast majority of people in our country to influence domestic and foreign policy. It is the majority that must have such an influence, but the majority should also respect the opinion of the minority and consider it. If our domestic policy and public institutions are fully based on such fundamental principles, then it seems to me, we will be able to talk about the success of democracy in Russia. Nevertheless, it is obviously the path that Russia has chosen, the path that it follows. Just compare the situation in the Soviet Union and in modern Russia in terms of development of economy, political sphere, and all other areas associated with democracy. There is a very significant difference. It took other countries 200, 300, 400 years to achieve this goal. Do you expect us to cover this distance within two decades? Of course, we are gradually taking all the necessary steps. We know our destination, and will not abandon this path.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: In conclusion, I shall try to ask you a personal question.

You were President for eight years, and then you became Prime Minister. You will be President for the next six years. Do you have a personal plan? Do you want to be President as long as you are elected? Or may be you have some plans about your life afterwards?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Every normal person tries to look some distance ahead. Moreover, I am far from being the longest serving politician. There are people in leading positions in European politics who have worked there much longer than me, both in Europe and in North America, Canada actually. However, I do expect that after my retirement from political life and public service I will have an opportunity to busy myself with other things and challenges. I like jurisprudence and literature, and I do hope I will have a chance to occupy myself with these without any link to my public service duties. May be, I will look into other issues. It can be social life, sports, etc.

JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: Thank you very much for the interview, Mr President.

source: http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/5216

Today's "minute of hate" will be directed at Russia

This masterpiece was published by The Guardian:

I wish I could say that this throws us all back to the Cold War, and basically repeat the words Medvedev recently address to that drooling idiot Romney:

"As to ideological cliches, I have already spoken on the subject. I always get very cautious when I see a country resort to phrasings such as "number one enemy." It is very reminiscent of Hollywood and certain period of history. I would advise two things to all US presidential candidates, including the person you just mentioned. My first advice is to listen to reason when they formulate their positions. Reason never harmed a presidential candidate. My other advice is to check their clocks from time to time: it is 2012, not the mid-1970s"

But having lived through the Cold War myself I have to honestly say that even during the Cold War we did not have such crude, illiterate, crass propaganda.  Well, we did, but only in the overly "yellow" press.  Not in a presumably reputable newspaper like The Guardian.  No, what we see today is really much more reminiscent of the kind of propaganda Europe was flooded with before and during WWII.

It takes a special, "ideologically-roasted", kind of militant cretinism to feel inspired, or even amused, by this kind of propaganda.  Clearly a good part of our society is degenerating into a level a brute stupidity not unlike the one which got huge crowds of hysterical drones to cheer Hitler into power.

Is anybody else also bothered by this?

The Saker

Daily life in the Imperial Homeland - the Pledge of Allegiance

This is what they call a punishment, setback and defeat (UPDATED 2x)

With around 95% of votes counted, here are the results in terms of seats in the next Duma (for percentages, see previous post, update 3)

• United Russia: 238 seats
• Communist Party:  92 seats
• A Just Russia: 64 seats
• Liberal Democratic Party of Russia: 56 seats

This is what the Western press calls "Voters punish Putin", "Putin Setback", "Putin barely hangs on to  majority" or "Poor results".  That, and of course, "fraud", "irregularities", "marred elections", etc. etc. etc.

Had this been the USA, the UK, France, or Israel, that would have been called a "landslide victory" and a "strong popular mandate" I suppose.

It's also amusing to me how they all fixate on Putin, never Medvedev.  Heck, even when Medvedev was in power, the Western pundits were insisting that Putin was the "real" ruler of Russia.

No wonder they are called "Presstitutes"...

UPDATE1: Hillary chimes in: she has "serious concerns" about the elections in Russia. Yeah, I betcha she does indeed.  With all the pro-US parties failing to even enter the Duma, I can imagine how depressed she must be...

UPDATE2: for a true masterpiece of how to turn black into white and and flip all the fact on their head, check out this amazing Reuters "analysis" in the Jerusalem Post.

Propaganda as subtle as anything the Nazis and Soviets ever did

Today's headline from the Mail Online:

Russia sends warship to Syria in support of Assad (whose soldiers have killed 256 children)

No comment needed.

Some quick comments about the latest "Iranian terror plot"

I just came home and found this idiocy staring at me from  the BBC's website: 

Iran agents 'planned US terror attacks'

First, quick calendar check: is it April 1st?  Nope. Crap. I was hoping this was a lame joke.  Okay then, let's take a look at the latest idiocy conjured up by the Ziocon propaganda machine.

According to this story, the Iranians have been caught trying to kill the KSA ambassador to the USA.  For that purpose, they used a dual Iranian-US citizen who has already confessed.  The entire plot was, according to Eric Holder, "conceived" in Iran by the Quds force.

US officials said that on 24 May 2011, Mr Arbabsiar made contact with an informant for the US Drug Enforcement Agency, who was posing as a Mexican drug cartel member.


Over a series of meetings, it is said that details emerged of a conspiracy involving members of the Iranian government paying $1.5m (£960,000) for the assassination of Saudi ambassador Adel al-Jubeir on US soil.


But in conversations secretly recorded for the US authorities, Mr Arbabsiar also allegedly considered having the ambassador killed at a purported favourite restaurant, despite the possibility of mass casualties.


The plot would have been carried out with explosives, Mr Holder said. But he added that no explosives were ever put in place and the public was not in danger.


Mr Holder said Mr Arbabsiar, with approval from Mr Shakuri, wired $100,000 to a US bank account for the informant as a downpayment.

If one is to believe this latest fairy tale, the Iranians are just about the dumbest wanna-be terrorists on the planet.  Think about it:

1. They use a dual US-Iranian citizen.  Probably the most monitored category of individual possible.
2. Their agent contacts the Mexican drug cartels not in Mexico, but in the USA, probably to make conversation recording easier.
3. They wire the downpayment to a US bank, not to Mexico or some offshore account.

And then come the 'whys'?  Why would Iran want to kill a Saudi diplomat in the most difficult spot on the planet?  Why would they need Mexican help?  Why would the DEA know about it and send a covert argent to offer assistance?  Why was the "Iranian agent" arrested in JFK before any explosives were found?

Frankly, this makes me wonder who stupid the Obama regime really thinks that we all are?  Are we just expected to accept this latest nonsense and demand a strike on Iran?

Because this is exactly what this is all about.  Airstrikes on Iran.  Remember how Clinton bombed Iraq over the alleged plot to kill Papa Bush during a trip to Kuwait?  Same nonsense here.

After "Kosovo redux in Libya" we now have "Iraq redux in Iran".

Man, this planet is really sicking into an ocean of abject stupidity.

This is all so totally depressing...

The Saker