Translation of the "must read" article of worldcrisis.ru explaining why there is no Russian intervention in the Ukraine

It is with an immense and heartfelt THANK YOU! to "BM" for his translation that I have the real privilege to share with you this translation into English of the excellent article of worldcrisis.ru I mentioned in my previous post.  This is, in my opinion, the most complete and well-written analysis of the apparent Russian "passivity" and we all owe "BM" a big debt of gratitude for making it available to us on such short notice.  I especially encourage you all to circulate this translation as it is by far the best explanation of the Kremlin's policy.

The Saker

PS: I was also sent a link to this article http://sovietoutpost.revdisk.org/?p=127 with an interesting description of the condition of the Ukrainian army.  Also a must read imho.
-------
Why there is no Russian military intervention in the Ukraine

Posted on worldcrisis.ru 30 Май 22:19 
опубликовал Сухов боец красной армии [suho]

 
The level of analytical discussions on the Russian Internet is perfectly described by the political scientist Simon Uralov: "To consider that the Ukrainian crisis set off only the minds of the Kievan colleagues and turned them all into bloodthirsty hysterics is fundamentally mistaken. Among the Moscow colleagues there is also an incredible number of such." The purpose of this material is to take a step back from the hysteria and coldly analyze the situation in Ukraine. 

I'll start with the necessary clarifications on several emotionally important topics: 

Why is there no Russian military intervention? 

If this text was written a few days earlier, a significant part of it would had to have been devote to explaining why sending troops to Ukraine was inappropriate and just plain stupid even after the referendum. Fortunately, the head of the resistance ibn Slaviansk, Igor Strelkov, coped with this task better than I: in his video message, he very clearly described the inertness of the local population of Lugansk and Donetsk in terms of real action to protect their interests against the junta. Anticipating the arguments about the referendum, I hasten to say that a check mark on the ballot is certainly cool, but not much different from any hipster-white-ribboned (belolentochnyh) attempts "carry mode" – the “like” on Facebook. Because a "like" handle made ​​in the bulletin doesn’t change anything. The referendum was a necessary but not sufficient action. 

How much was the Kremlin prepared for events in Ukraine and how much does it improvise even now? 

I advise you to read the telegram's Wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html , in which it is shown that Kremlin clearly pointed out to the Americans in 2008 the scenarios that we see today: "Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face." 

It is logical to assume that such a development for the Kremlin was not a surprise and that we are now in even more unpleasant but less nuanced script that something like "Plan E". 

In order to understand what the Kremlin will do next, let’s formulate objectives: 

- Do not allow the entry of Ukraine into NATO. 

- Do not allow the establishment and stabilization in Ukraine of a Russophobic regime, which assumes denazification. 

- Do not allow the genocide of Russian South-East population. 

Ideally this requires implementation of all three objectives while, in that interval, not breaking the Russian economy during its reorientation toward Asia and, at the same time, preventing the Americans from pulling off their economic ends at the expense of the EU.

How can these goals be realized? 

Let us consider the simplest scenario and see what are the vulnerabilities and negative consequences: 

So, the Russian army enters Ukraine and a few days later comes to Kiev, then captures all of Ukraine. "Patriots" are jubilant, there are parades on the Khreschatyk, etc.

It seems that all three goals have been achieved, but the following problems emerge: 

1. In the EU, where the European business elite has slowly pressed on the feet of their politicians and stamped on the brakes with regard to sanctions, the "war party" (a/k/a "The Party of the United States", or rather "Party Pax Americana») clearly triumphs. Against the Russian Federation, the maximum of real sanctions cut in with terrifying effect principally for the European economy themselves, which immediately falls into a recession. But nothing to rejoice about. 

Against this background, the Americans easily force the signing of their version of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a trade pact, which turns the EU into an appendage of the U.S. economy. Negotiations about the treaty are going on right now and, for the Americans, the entry of Russian troops in Ukraine would be a huge gift. Sanctions against Russia would destroy European business and trade barriers with the U.S. would finish it. What we have at the end: EU in a state as if after a war; the United States, all in white, joyfully absorbing European markets on which they have not and will not have competitors; the Russian Federation - not in the best shape. Does it seem to anyone that someone in this situation is the fool (лох), and that that someone is clearly not the U.S.? By the way, it is not necessary to take into account the arguments to the effect that European politicians would not allow economic suicide. Euro-bureaucrats are not capable even of this, as practice shows.

2. Besides the fact that the Kremlin will render a service to Washington, we need to look at what will happen to Russia itself. 

• If the sanctions cut against Russia before the gas mega-contract for 30 years with China is signed, then China will be able to negotiate a price from a position of strength. In fact, from a position of blackmail (This shows in China’s comportment, however, but not clearly). 

• If the sanctions are imposed against Russia before the oil mega-contract with Iran is initialled, through which Rosneft will be able to control an additional 500,000 barrels of oil per day, Iran will be able to negotiate a price froma position of strength. 

• All subsequent attempts to build something up even to the delivery of imports we need now, will be very, very expensive.

• If sanctions cut in before the signing of the agreement on the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community, imagine what trumps Lukashenko and Nazarbayev will have to twist Putin’s arms at negotiations. A little more of this, and Moscow, in order to create the EurAsEC, will have to pay for its oil. 

3. The Russian Federation would have to assume the responsibility for the restoration of the Ukrainian economy and denazification: where to get the needed number of “denazifiers” in “dusty helmets” (if anyone has forgotten, according to Okudzhava, it was the commissars in dusty helmets that bent over the dead hero of the Civil War) to fight compact groups of Ukrainian Nazis, which will enjoy support and supply from abroad. On aggregate, it is clear that this scenario greatly benefits the United States and China. Russia remains a deep sense of moral satisfaction, economic issues and future curses of the “generous” (щирых) Ukrainians who are unhappy with "life under occupation." 

How are the key points in time our vulnerabilities laid out? 

1. Gas contract with China - May-June (May 21 signed!) 

2. Oil contract with Iran in summer (That's why the U.S. lifted the embargo, as Rosneft is very tightly seated under BP and not very under Exxon Mobil. Where does the oil flows? To China). 

3. Important! Elections to the European Parliament, which will get a lot of votes Eurosceptic allies of Russia. After the election, will be assembled Evrokommissii different composition which will be much easier to work with - May 25. Even more important! Gas contract signed with China, newly elected deputies will be more amenable to South Stream. 

4. Collection of all relevant documents/permits/etc., for construction of South Stream - May. 

This is what is visible to the naked eye, but there are other aspects that are very important, but which are difficult to place clearly on a timetable: 

1. Transition to settlements in rubles for energy. Oil and gas are not potatoes: they (are provided under) long-term contracts that cannot be altered unilaterally but require lengthy work to replace them with new ones, plus the change in current ones. 

2. Transition to quoting prices in rubles for energy (for trading in rubles) on the Russian markets - it is absolutely hellish work though, if only because up until now no one has ever done anything like it. 

3. Own payment system 

4. Preparation of import substitution or improvement of our work with Asian suppliers (not in emergency mode).

The list can and should continue, that's what I see, and the Kremlin is much broader horizons. 

Now add interesting initiatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is not sitting idly by with its hands folded. For example, Vice Minister Karasin was in Doha on May 6 and met with all the Qatari elite. The results, in my opinion, turned out to be shocking. According to the Foreign Ministry, the Qatari emir said that he appreciates the "convincing and coherent regional policy of the Russian Federation", which is very unexpected for a country that is not just a U.S. ally and the political branch of Exxon Mobil in the Middle East and a 100% opponent of the Russian Federation in Syria. But the casket (ларчик) has simply opened: the fact is that American dreams of filling the whole world with cheap gas are a death sentence for Qatar and its elite. Without ultra-high gas prices, Qatar does not just lose any hope for regional greatness, but becomes a corpse. Doha focuses quickly and begins to offer something of interest: "At the same time, emphasis was placed on accelerating the coordination of the Forum of Gas Exporting Countries (GECF)", the next summit of which (that's a coincidence!) will be held in Qatar. The Forum of Gas Exporting Countries is an organization which includes countries such as Russia, Iran, Qatar, Venezuela, Bolivia and other exporters, and which the Kremlin, for a long time but without success, the Kremlin tried to turn into the gas analogue of OPEC. It is possible that now is the right hour for a potential gas cartel. First, the three major gas exporter: Russia, Qatar and Iran have very similar interests and should be able to work on the same side in order to share and "take over the gills" of the LNG market and pipeline gas market. Such a gas cartel, even in a reduced format (only the Russian Federation, Qatar, Iran) will control at least 55% of the world's gas reserves and have significant opportunities to strongly influence the energy markets of the EU and Asia. Of course, such a project would involve a lot of problems and it will meet opposition, no one gives a guarantee that everything will work, but it is important to see that Moscow is actively seeking opportunities for more strategic advantages in the fight against the United States.

Hopefully it is now clear on what the Kremlin is spending time, which it is trying to win out of the Ukrainian situation, and why it matters. 

Let’s return to problems directly related to Ukraine and note that even the implementation of all the important foreign policy projects will not help in carrying out the denazification of Kiev and make it so that Russian troops or rebel army of Novorossia would by greeted with bread and salt even in the central region. If the army of Novorossia has problems with mobilization in Lugansk and Donetsk, then work within the zombified regions will be very, very difficult. However, it seems that on the side of the Russian Federation on the field of battle will soon appear Colonel Hunger and the Special Forces Giperok ("Hyperinflation"), which will dramatically change the balance of power. 

The Ukrainian economy is finished. Given the disastrous spring sowings, the crops of vegetables destroyed (frozen), lack of credit, problems with gas, the jump in fuel prices, we can safely say that the economy will come as a northern beast, which will be full and fluffy. No one will give money to the junta, not even from the IMF, which promised something around $17 billion (exactly 50% of what Ukraine needs for this year), but built into the contract an "escape clause": if Kiev does not control all the regions, then Kiev is not to receive a cent. Hunger, cold and hyperinflation (caused by the collapse of the hryvnia) will actively work to weaken the junta and correct the minds of the “generous” (shchirykh) Ukrainians: they will surely not come to love Russia, but this is hardly necessary. It is necessary that they begin to remember the Yanukovych period as sweet, unattainable dream. The inevitable chaos and total collapse of social structures, coupled with low intensity civil war guarantees that NATO will not accept Ukraine since Europe will then itself "be on the rails", and even in the U.S., more or less moderate politicians will not make a move, which obviously would not lead to U.S. victory, but to the dragging of the country into a nuclear war. 

Moreover, in the context of total economic collapse, for the miners, metal workers and other comrades who are now firmly glued to their jobs for fear of losing them and hoping to "ride it all in their huts on the edge (of the precipice)", there will no longer be such a possibility. They will have to participate in one form or another, in the political and economic problems of New Russia. And likely they will have to participate in arms.

At the same time, the-junta-named-Poroshenko, foisted (on the country) by the European Union, will have a strong incentive to negotiate with Moscow to make concessions, to offer compromises. Already, the new European Commission, which needs peace in the east and stable gas transit, will be pushing Poroshenko in this direction. Poroshenko will also be pushed in the same direction by social upheavals caused by Colonel Hunger and Hyperinflation the Saboteur.

All these factors, in sum, open up great opportunities for the Kremlin to reformat the former Ukraine into something appropriate to the interests of the Russian Federation. It is precisely this scenario that the United States is attempting to avoid, and it is because of this that the United States has serious reasons to accelerate the translation of the conflict into a hot phase with the use of troops and massive bloodshed. 

If you add up the time that is needed for the action of Hunger and the time required to resolve foreign policy problems in terms of establishing work with China, Iran, untethering from the dollar, import substitution, etc. (very roughly) can come to the conclusion that you need somewhere 5-9 months (that same December, for which Yanukovych tried to negotiate) to provide solutions to Ukrainian and other issues to the maximum advantage of Russia. During this period, you must provide at least for the preservation of Ukraine in a state of civil war (i.e., support for the DNR, LNR, but it is not necessary to take Kiev too fast in order not to create unnecessary additional problems) and ideally, combined with the civil war, prolonged and sticky negotiations within Ukraine, with the participation of international observers, something like 2 +4 format, i.e., Poroshenko + Tsarev + Russia, EU, ​​OSCE, USA. 

The final touch. In recent months, the U.S. has slowed down the work of its printing press, reducing the "pump-priming" (this especially simplifies the formulation) from 85 to 55 billion dollars a month. Very many expect (e.g. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/27/us-usa-fed-idUSBREA3Q08920140427), that the machine will turn off completely by the end of this year. Again, in that same December. This is due to the fact that the dollar, though it is the main international currency, cannot be printed endlessly - it is impossible. According to various estimates, the United States has almost entirely used up the "resource strength" of the dollar, which allowed them to do the naughty with the (financial) machine. Moreover, the corollary and inevitable effect of such tricks is reducing rates on U.S. bonds, which, on the one hand, helps Washington to pay less for its debts, but, on the other hand, is actually choking the entire U.S. pension and insurance system that is built on the expectation of very different returns from their portfolios bonds. Roughly speaking, by the end of the year, the U.S. will have a choice between to blowing up their social system in order to keep on printing, or greatly reducing their appetites in order to preserve any chance of stability at home. Judging by the reduction in the amount of dollars being thrown into the system, Washington has decided that preventing an explosion is more important than its foreign policy ambitions. 

Now to complete the puzzle finally, let’s make our predictions: 

- America will try by all means to aggravate the crisis in Ukraine, in order to weaken Russia and put the whole European market under its sway before it needs to shut down its printing presses. 

- The Kremlin will try to translate the crisis in Ukraine from the acute to the chronic phase - civil war plus sluggish negotiations amid the economic collapse of Ukraine. At the same time, the Kremlin will use the time to create favorable conditions for the transition to the sharp confrontation with the United States - from the work on untethering from the dollar with China, Iran, Qatar, creating the EEC etc. 

- Complete end to the crisis in December 2014, possibly earlier if U.S. desists from trying to exacerbate the hostilities. 

- And if it does not desist? - Then ... a big war ... a war for resources, because shale "boom" was an ordinary bubble. 

On this subject in detail in the article by William Engdahl "Washington shale boom - bust". Original Washington's Shale Boom Going Bust http://journal-neo.org/2014/05/12/washington-s-shale-boom-going-bust/

END

Exclusive translation of the statement of Alexei Pushkov, head of the foreign affairs committee of Russia's lower house of parliament

Today is a good day for me, following "FR"'s translation of the Open Letter to Putin from German into English, I have just received the translation from Russian into English of what I consider a truly historical statement made by Alexei Pushkov, head of the foreign affairs committee of Russia's lower house of parliament to the press corps (which, of course, never bothered translating a word of it) following the PACE's disgusting vote on Russia.  I want to express my deepest gratitude to "DV" for taking the time to translate this historical statement especially for this blog.
Here is the transcript in English:

Press-Conference of A. Pushkov

PUSHKOV: We think that those people who took part in making those decisions did not have the moral right to make them. The Georgian delegation should rather explain how Georgia killed 147 people in Tskhinval in August 2008 by the orders of Saakashvilli -- which you all saw on your television screens. Tskhinval was bombed by “reactive” (rocket?) systems. 147 people died during this operation. What did we hear today from the Georgian delegates? That this did not happen. They bear responsibility for those killings.  

Let us call things by their names. They will judge us for Crimea joining Russia which happened completely without the bloodshed and in accordance with the opinions and wishes of the people of Crimea. Georgia wanted to return to itself those territories on which she practiced genocide in 1991-1992 in an aggressive military way. There were people killed and this was acknowledged in OSCE(?) report which was prepared by Mr. ?. And everyone knows this.

And so...

... [ INTERRUPTION IN LIVE STREAM ] ...

...with the result that their representatives -- including those who advanced amendments about our exclusion -- with the result of aggression against Iraq in 2003. Somehow I did not notice that those 20 governments who supported that aggression in one or another way, and which was declared illegal world-wide -- this is known -- were sanctioned here. Somehow we did not see this. The parliamentary assembly on this crime closes its eyes, even though in Iraq, as a result of that occupation and aggression, died some several thousand people -- this is known. But no sanctions are implemented against those comrades.

I think that one should think about those governments who regularly in the past 20 years violated international law -- bombing Belgrade, bombing Libya, occupying Iraq -- do not have any moral right to make any decisions about the Russian delegation. And we completely disagree with this.

We also want to tell you that I think this very tense crisis between Russian and the Parliamentary Assembly of Europe (PACE) is tied to several things. Firstly, we see here the triumph of double standards. What we heard yesterday from the Ukrainian delegation is just comical -- it causes uproarious(?) laughter. Ukraine has no problems except danger from Russia. Go to Ukraine. See how that country lives. See what is happening in the east, west, and south -- look at Kiev and what the revolutionaries have turned it into. Talk to the families of those who were killed -- not only on Maidan but those of the Party of Regions. How right-wing extremists came to their headquarters and killed two people just like that. One an engineer and one a soldier -- who had no affiliation with the Party. Talk to them. Talk to the representative of the Southern Ukraine’s Communists, who was subjected to torture. They placed needles under his fingernails and beat him. This is all known. Talk to Simonyanka(?) who yesterday, or the day before yesterday, was beaten at the podium of the Rada by the representatives of Svoboda.

And what do we see here? We see an amendment to condemn Svoboda and “Right Sector” for racism, for ultra-nationalist views, for anti-Semitism, which the European Parliament called for in December 2012 -- this did not originate from us. We see that this amendment does not get the support of even a third of the delegates. 51 or 52 people voted for this amendment. What can we discuss here? Can we discuss any unified standards of European Assembly? We are talking about the full and hideous triumph of double standards.

We also see that the supremacy of law does not concern this Assembly. The Ukrainian government was overthrown. This is very obvious. This is being discussed by the foremost lawyers not only in Russia, but also in Europe. We know very well that the Constitution was violated. How come when we discuss Crimea, our Ukrainian colleagues refer to the Constitution? How come when we try to discuss how they overthrew the President, how they took un-Constitutional decisions, there is no discussion? The Constitution holds sway in one case, but not the other. So what are we discussing here? And if someone here took it upon themselves, beside the Euro Left faction in the Parliamentary Assembly -- the Euro Left faction was the only one who raised the question about the legality of what happened February 22nd in the Ukraine. At the very least, a decision should have been taken to look into this matter and then conduct discussions to understand whether those actions were or were not Constitutional. No! We are told ahead of time everything was Constitutional. Who decided this?

The Ukrainian Constitution describes how the President may be removed from power. A special commission is set up to investigate the reasons for impeachment. Then, a hearing in Constitutional Court about this question. And following, a vote for impeachment in the Rada. This is the Constitutional procedure for impeaching a President in the Ukraine. If everything happened in this manner, I can assure you, Russia would not have protested at all. Instead of this, what happened? The Constitutional Court was disbanded. Five people were ejected from the Constitutional Court including the head judge -- notwithstanding their immunity. And people are trying to convince us this new power is legal and lawful?

The most unpleasant thing in this story is that the Parliamentary Assembly has betrayed its own principles. The majority in PACE have betrayed the principles of right, the supremacy of human rights, and the supremacy of law. The majority in PACE have taken care of the political interests’ of those governments who want the geopolitical assimilation of the Ukraine. I am very sad to say this because PACE was supposed to be an organization above politics. It was supposed to be an organization creating precise standards in that or another sphere(?) Russia is to blame...

UNKNOWN MAN: Sorry to stop you Mister. This is a press-conference not a political statement.

PUSHKOV: Who is saying this?

UKNOWN MAN: Me over here.

PUSHKOV: Where?

UNKOWN MAN: Here.

PUSHKOV: If you are not happy with my statement, [ unintelligible ]...

UNKOWN MAN: It has nothing to do with your st...

PUSHKOV: If you are not happy with my statement, please leave.

PUSHKOV: The Parliamentary Assembly of Europe (PACE) ...

...[ PUSHKOV WAVES HAND ]...

PUSHKOV: Don’t put obstacles to what you say.

UNKOWN MAN: [ unintelligible ]

PUSHKOV: And so, the Parliamentary Assembly of Europe (PACE) betrayed those principles it was supposed to defend. I should say, not all members did that. Those representatives who took a nuanced, well-thought out position; those who voted against the decision to...Russia...

...[ DISTURBANCE IN THE AUDIENCE ]...

GERMAN JOURNALIST: Could you speak in English? Could you speak in English, please? We would like to understand what you are saying. Please.

...[ PUSHKOV WAVES HAND; MORE DISTURBANCE IN THE AUDIENCE ]...

GERMAN JOURNALIST: Please...can you speak in English?

PUSHKOV: Those people who voted for well though-out decision to leave an opportunity for Russia to work in the European Assembly -- they, I think, deserve all possible support. Those who voted to have the Russian delegation stripped of most of its powers made a conscious decision. The continued presence of the Russian delegation in PACE no longer makes sense, and I want this to be understood. If the majority in PACE believe they hold the keys to history in their hands, they are mistaken. Decisions are not only made here. We also are making a decision about whether we should remain in this assembly. Our presence here is of our own free will -- our presence in the European Assembly is of our own free will -- but we may change our minds. Thank you.

GERMAN JOURNALIST: Could you speak in English? Please? We would like to understand you. My name is Petra Klingbar(?) from the German Press Agency.

...[ PUSHKOV AND FELLOW DELEGATES CONFER ]...

GERMAN JOURNALIST: Could you speak in English, please? So we could understand you. Thank you.

PACE RUSSIAN DELEGATE: I would like to say a few words. We here...

GEORGIAN JOURNALIST: Can I ask a question? Please, can I ask a question? This is Georgian Television.

PACE RUSSIAN DELEGATE: Later, later. Perhaps there will be a question time.

We here represent the large country of Russia. Everything we have heard here for the past two days, is upsetting for all of our country. That is first. Second, I would like to say that not one amendment we have tried to put forward was accepted. I even think that if I put forward an amendment that the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea, it would also not be accepted. The responsibility of the work of my colleagues...

GEORGIAN JOURNALIST: Don’t you think that perhaps Russia is mistaken and that it deserves these sanctions?

PACE RUSSIAN DELEGATE: Please let me finish. It seems to me, I am here...

GEORGIAN JOURNALIST: What, do you think the whole world is mistaken?

ANOTHER PACE RUSSIAN DELEGATE: Mr. Potyomka(?) is older than you, please let him finish.

GEORGIAN JOURNALIST: If I could ask a question? This is a press-conference.

PUSHKOV: Excuse me. If there will be further disturbances from the audience, we will finish this press-conference and leave. You can stay behind with your opinions and questions.

GERMAN JOURNALIST: There is no translation. We would like to understand what you are saying.

...[ PUSHKOV SHRUGS ]...

GERMAN JOURNALIST: But you speak very good English.

-------

What is so important in the word of Pushkov?

First, this is the first time that a high ranking Russian diplomat who clearly "had it" decides to "hold up a mirror" so to speak to the EU officials and show them how ugly their faces are.  Gone is the pretense of civility and friendship - Pushkov is calling the PACE delegates unprincipled hypocrites and liars whose lack of basic decency is total.

Second, Pushkov also tells the western corporate press to go to hell, well, not quite in these terms, but that is the substance of his reply when the press corps first tries to shut him up and then leaves the room.

In other words what Pushkov does is show his absolute contempt for the *cheap prostitutes* (there is no other way to put it) who would execute any order of their bosses, repeat any lie, deny any fact, no matter how obvious.

Of course, Pushkov does not use Mrs Nuland's colorful expression, but the message is the same.  So now both the USA and Russia have expressed their total contempt for the EU.  God knows the latter really had it coming.

In conclusion I will say that Alexei Pushkov is really a "big shot" in Russia and not just he hold the powerful position of head of the foreign affairs committee of Russia's lower house of parliament but also because he has his own weekly analytical program on the Russian TV called "post-scriptum" which is watched by a lot of people.  He is a very smart man, impeccably educated, well-read and well-traveled.  And he is a real diplomat, a man of a level of professionalism and expertise as Sergei Lavrov.  All this is to say that his word carries a lot of weight, especially in the circles of power around the Kremlin.

Speaking of Lavrov, he also spoke for a full hour on Russian TV in the show "Sunday evening with Vladimir Soloviev" (a very well-known journalist) and his message was the same one: the EU has gone mad, and if they are dead set on a confrontation with us, we are quite ready.

As for Putin, he has had a public meeting with representatives of his Russian Popular Front movement and he is preparing for a lengthy TV "townhall meeting" on TV.  All the signs are that his message will be the same one.

On March 1 of this year I warned that Russia was ready for war.  It now appears that this war will not be hot (thank God for that!), but "cold" and primarily economic. I think that the PACE vote and the Russian reaction to it mark the beginning of active hostilities.  

It shall be interesting to see what the EU muster in terms of "firepower" other than hot air and how much staying power all these EU prostitutes really have.

The Saker

Today's sermon by Imam Ali Khamemei

Full videos of the CNN and ARD interviews with Putin, in Russia and with English subtitles! (UPDATED!)

(a big thank you! to Slava for finding this here)


CNN interview part 1:



CNN interview part 2:



CNN interview part 3:



ARD interview part 1:



ARD interview part 2:



ARD interview part 3:



UPDATE: I just found this info on the Internet:

"Free press" at work in Germany:

Only 9 minutes of the 1 hour interview with Putin were broadcasted by German state TV ARD. Also on thier website only the censored versions of the video and the transcript were released. The censored parts are critical of US/EU policy and for example are about who stated the war in Georgia.

On Russian TV channel Vesti-24 the interview was fully broadcasted twice.

ARD videostream:
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/kau...nflikt148.html

27 minute version with English subtitles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30By6n3r_SQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMZ2yvlf4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzH9H9TLx5k

Full transcript:
http://www.government.ru/content/gov...29/2344019.htm

When German politicians try to lecture Russia on "freedom of press" Russian politicians and journalists can simply point to this censorship on German TV.

Same on CNN, they only showed the part where he accuses the US of being involved in Georgia.

They show it over and over and over. They have to make sure that your averge "dumb as fu.ck" fat American understands.

Q&A with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah at a press conference on May 8th

Mariam Bassam from NEW TV:

You always keep your promises. Today you vowed having the hand cut. Were you obliged to break your word i.e you've promised that the arms of the Resistance aren't to be used internally; will we see the resistance fighters, who have been at the front, in the internal alleys?

If you are going to defend the arms militarily, what kind of home will remain, will we have the home gone and the Resistance saved?

The Gov. has taken war decisions, but peaceful, and the opposition only uses the street, it's described as a mob and chaotic, it's expected that the airport might be called the International airport of Hassan Nassrallah, why are you now in the street and what's its destiny, will the lads stay there? Was the authority justified when it felt terrified by the opposition?

The answer: First of all I said the arms won't be used internally, and I am still keeping my promise and convention. We don't use these arms for any internal purpose, but laws, honesty, religion, ethics, and all values state that: if there's a weapon set for defending a country, a home- not a party, a sect or a geographical area- now, someone is trying to disarm you for the interest of your enemy, then it couldn't be defined as fighting internally. It's a kind of confrontation similar to that one at the front. It's like fighting in Ayta AL Shaib, and on the outskirts of Bint Jbeil and Aynata.

Concerning the third point, it's true the Gov. has taken these decisions, but these decisions will be implemented. Who is it going to send to remove the wires and the centrals? The army and the security forces. I won't fight against the army and the security forces on the account of this Gov. I can't wait until the period of implementation comes. Then, how are you going to face it? We tried the civilian peaceful manners: we used the roads, the least we are capable of doing since issuing a statement and protesting have turned useless, they turn deaf ears to 2 million protesting but they do hear a call made by Bush, Rice, Sarkouzi, or others.

So neither statement nor protest with their normal semantics would work in preventing this decision. This decision will lead to a war between the army and the Resistance, between the security forces and the Resistance. They have taken it, and I want to prevent its implementation. As for the destiny of the street and the airport.. We'll talk about it on daily basis. I don’t want to disclose a target, a scenario or a move-on-plan. Is it justified for the Gov. to feel so? No, it's only the authority involved in conspiracies that has the right to feel so not just now but even before, because it knows where their commitments lie.


Question: there are clear changes in Hezbollah's stances concerning the use of his arms internally; will this change affect the way you deal with the International Troops, especially UNIFIL?

Answer: No, never. No relationship exists. When the International Troops arrived, we accepted that, for they are assigned by a certain task. It's not how Berlusconi is trying to show that combat rules will be changed. Eventually, these troops are available on field in the South, and we positively deal with them, we cooperate with them and they cooperate with us even in confronting any danger that they could face. We don't have any kind of change concerning our policy with these troops.


Question: How do you assess the role of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in what happened and what's going on? What about the Taef agreement will we form another one?

Answer: I wish brothers in KSA aren't going to repeat the same wrongdoing committed during the beginning of July 2006, the mistake that they were obliged to correct later on. They mustn't be a part or a group in the internal affairs; instead they must practice what shows their care about this country, its security and its stability. The route of the solution is clear and opened. I repeatedly said we don't want authority, or monopoly. We raise the partnership slogan between both the opposition and the authority. We don’t' want a coup. We aren't targeting sects, ideologies, or political powers. Although I've had these solutions which are not popularized, we bear our responsibilities. I asked them to cancel the decisions of this Great Gov. and come around the table of conversation that House Speaker Nabih Berri has called for. If brothers in Saudi Arabia do care for this country, we wishfully want them not to be a part of this conflict, which is in fact a conflict between the national honest resistance on one hand and the American project on the other. The Resistance that has been privileged with respect of both the Arab and Islamic worlds, and has achieved the greatest two victories in the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The other project will be defeated, save yourself a headache, and let's not take our country toward a place that we don't want. Let brothers in Saudi Arabia extend a hand of help, and such a hand is obvious.


Question: If the Gov. were consistent that no withdrawal will take place, and it did, today Minister Marwan Hmadi said "Gov. will achieve victory at the end" and in the meantime you say that your party would not take a go-back-step. Are we, first of all, in front of July 2008? Then, Security Council will discuss 1559, what if its decisions were similar to those of the Gov. are you going to deal with the UNIFIL Troops the way you are going to deal with the Gov. ?

Answer: Concerning the UNIFIL, I’ve already answered this question, it's clear and no problem exists. Concerning the Security Council, no worse decisions than those have been taken till now. Yes, it has been provided with a new material from the government of Walid Jumblat, I'm not concerned with what will be issued by the SC. We've got accustomed to SC. In these days there's the anniversary of the Catastrophe of Palestine while Security Council is the one that legitimized this Catastrophe, and the appropriation of land, massacres and terrorism (i.e. Israel), it has taken these division decisions; moreover, it is backing the terrifying criminal and savagery state that we haven’t witnessed an equal in the history. In addition, the Security Council doesn't concern us either culturally or politically, and it's well-known what it will issue. And if we were facing a July 2008?, No, I'm not sure. Anyway events develop internally, we are going to be clear, we are in a position of reaction, and we had been waiting till that night. We didn't call for civil disobedience or protests, we called for unconditional dialogue, and then they declared the war publicly. Let them stop the war against us, and only then we put an end for all matters. The question is who will win in the end? We don't like a battle or a confrontation to take place but rather all of us sit around one table, cooperate, comprehend and overcome the past. We are still wishful to, despite all the injuries, and exchanged accusations. But if there's someone who wants to open a war against us and wishes to win it, I draw his attention to learn from the experience of Ehud Olmert, Peretz, Ashkanazi, and Halutz, who has ended up from being a Chief of Staff into being a president of a car company.



Question: you've set two conditions: the first is the return to the dialogue after canceling these Gov. decisions, which according to you are separating between a completely new phase that differs from the one preceding, and you described those who took these decisions as serving the American-Israeli project, how come you call for a dialogue with who you described as collaborators, knowing that you don’t hold dialogue with collaborators?

Answer: if they took a decision to stop the war, then what's the problem?

Canceling the decisions implies they are regretful. I have info that they have been discussing this issue and they are blaming each other for they had been in hurry. And they are mistaken for taking this group of decisions and issues all together as a one package instead of showing tolerance and in time they could have delivered them one after the other. But they have done all of that to explore their true selves. Any way, we don't want to take revenge or retaliate from anyone. We care about the interest of our country, the civil peace, the security and stability of our country. Who has taken the decision of going to the war, let him cancel it and we welcome everyone to dialogue table, then the problem of the country will be solved thru dialogue.


Question: what prevents from turning things into a Sunni-Shiite sedition?

Answer: there are guarantees. We are a guarantee and so are our allies; Hezbollah and "Amal Movement" who have been targeted directly. There's also the awareness of the Sunnis and the Jamaa, in Lebanon, the national and religious leaderships of Sunni people and the Jamaa. Let me clarify it, and here I would like to address brothers in the "Future Movement", I won't say the Sunnis and the Jamaa (i.e. the Sunnis) since not all Sunnis are in the Future Movement, your interest is in having a stable and calm country, and you can participate in the elections as a main bloc, and none can abolish you or erase you, here I would say that I don't want a scratch to take place, but rather I want to describe the facts: the dream of Mr. Walid Jumblat is the Shiite-Sunni sedition, and we wish that they aren’t going to help him in fulfilling this dream because we are not going to help him achieving so. And we wish that they will not pledge their destinations to his one, because he is a flip-flop person. And the problem could be treated now, but in an unethical manner. I could send someone to Walid Jumblat to inform him that we accept the quartet coalition, and that in the coming elections we would be with you, the issue would be settled, then his speech would be similar to the one he delivered in Bint Jbeil in year 2005 when he defended the Resistance's arms and attacked the American administration, unless he has been deeply involved in a place from which there’s no return. But it's completely an unethical behavior and Hezbollah doesn't take such an action. We and our coalition, whom we backed and who backed us, will stay with each other in the elections and thru thick and thin. We are capable of cooperating with each other in order not to let this conflict develop into a sectarian sedition, but this needs the effort of all, and that's our wish.

Question: how far is the responsibility of Hezbollah as the gov, won't move a step back concerning its decisions, then what kind of responsibility are you carrying out?

Answer: we have been attacked. Some have taken “in a night with no moonlight” a decision to attack us. Today I'm - and I'm so proud of that- on the terrorism list, most wanted from the Bush Administration for trials, and according to Olmert I'm sentenced to execution, and the third sentence that has been issued against me is tracking me judicially by a decision made by the gov. of Walid Jumblat. Is it me who is tracking them or they who are tracking me? They have taken a decision to fight us. It's always happening in the world that they see the executioner while they turn a blind eye to the victim. They are attempting to present us as the executioner just as the Resistance was shown as an executioner against “Israel” while we were the ones being attacked.

What's going up here is that we are the victim. As I said, before the decisions of the gov. we weren't intending to take any step. We were dealing politically and calling for the dialogue and there wasn't any movement from our bases, and nothing was signaling that we are as opposition heading toward the movement of our bases and we all were saying that the elections are going to be after one year and that we are going to put an end to the political conflict in the country. But they suddenly took the decisions- and not with stay of execution- rather the judiciary and security systems have to implement them and track those involved. Well, one attacks my house, brothers, and my existence and my dignity and I am concerned in defending myself and I can’t be careless in defending my dignity and existence.

Question: what if the authority didn't care about your strike on the Beirut airport main road and the closing of the airport and it opened the airport of Qolayaat, and then the strike of the airport would be similar to that in downtown i.e. useless, and consequently the gov. of Siniora didn't care about it, does Hezbollah have the authority to close Qolayaat airport if it were opened and it isn't located in the area that is under the control of the party?

Answer: if the sit-in in downtown Beirut isn’t really effective then why were they trying to bargain in exchange with the wired communication network that is considered as being of maximum importance to the Israelis. If it(sit-in) were a silly thing then why they would like to exchange it, that's one. Secondly, if it were silly, it wouldn’t be of concern of every minister, premier, president, or mediator who has come to Lebanon and mentioned the sit-in in Beirut. I don't agree that this sit-in is valueless. Concerning how we are going to behave in the future, and whether we are going to hold a strike in the airport or not, whether we go on moving or not or whether we complete it in another place, time, or not, and in which style, that's not the topic of this press conference, and in fact, allow us to keep that for us for ourselves because we are in a confrontation, we wish we would be able to have this catastrophe and conspiracy against Lebanon end with the least casualties for all of us.

Question: you have mentioned two points concerning the two hands: canceling the decisions that you've considered as unjust and the return to the dialogue. Are you ready to give up any of them?

Answer: it's illogic to declare a war and start it against us and then they ask us to converse, they aren't just pulling out the arms against us, but rather they took a decision to have it implemented by the security and judiciary apparatuses. We can't make any kind of modification concerning these two points.

Question: are you seeking to be a President of the republic of Lebanon or are you consistent that this position is for the Maronite president?

Answer: concerning us we are not seeking any change in the structure of the system in Lebanon, in the structure of the authority. Some are accusing us for having such a stance. We are with the Taef Agreement and its implementation. After all, if the general Lebanese will had been provided for any modification, then we depend upon this will. But as a group, we don’t’ want to impose modifications on the Lebanese. Secondly, we absolutely don’t have in mind any change or raise any thing concerning the positions of the authority in Lebanon neither in the position of the president, nor premier nor any other positions.

Question: there's someone, specifically Mufti Mohammad Rashid Qabbani who demanded that Hezbollah must pull out the attackers from Beirut. Will you respond to this request? Aren't your afraid that the involvement of the resistance internally will affect its readiness in fulfilling its duty in defending Lebanon and that “Israel” might make use of this gap?

Answer: concerning the first point, there are no attackers in Beirut to pull them out, that's on the first hand. Young men presented there in Beirut are the sons of Beirut and all know that they vote in Beirut and there are some of them who live there. Secondly, they haven't attacked anyone, but rather they have been attacked and they defended themselves and I think who wants to issue a verdict has to go and investigate and be exact before issuing any sentences.

Concerning the second point, I have repeatedly been asked this question, the atmosphere now is that of escalation, when the authority group was discussing bets because ‘Israel” is going to inflame a war in the summer in Lebanon, I’ve mentioned that 3 months ago and I said that they might be waiting for April, May and June. I am not terrifying you, but I will disclose a secret, yes we have a defensive plan to defend Lebanon and our existence in case of any new Israeli aggression, and that's natural and as we were working in the past, we plan, study and take into consideration all the scenarios, and we set hypotheses and plans for them, and among the group of scenarios and plans that we've taken into consideration as a result of the info that we had received that if any Israeli war were waged against the Resistance that there are internal parts that would inflame an internal war against the Resistance and that two wars would be imposed on the Resistance at one time. We are ready for these two wars, but I assure you that By God's will there will be neither a war nor two, but we know where we are living and in which country we are and in which surrounding and consequently we build upon the worst probabilities and eventually we are capable By God's will in defending our dignity, but in the range of vision, by God's will there is neither a war nor two.

Question: what about the Saudi-Iranian mediation that took place during the last hours? What about today's gov. meeting for taking the decision of a curfew? And are you satisfied with the role played by Lebanese army?

Answer: I knew that the Saudi ambassador had called his Iranian counterpart after taking the decisions (of the gov.) and there were a couple of reactions. He told him "I'm assigned by the Foreign Affairs Minister, and we want to cooperate". The Iranian ambassador told me by phone that there was effort paid. He called also House Speaker Nabih Berri, saying we have to cooperate with the Saudi Kingdom and Iran to prevent the situation from get worse, I answered no problem, and the solution is what I said. They have to freeze the decisions they have taken to get things back to normal, then there's no reason for fear, since we have no purposeful intention. The Saudi ambassador immediately replied "I don't think they will agree to pull out this decision, but we are going to see what will happen". That's all.

Concerning what you called the gov. of the Serail (palace) it's an illegitimate gov. its decisions about the wired network, the ousting of Brigadier General Shoqeir, judicial tracking, are illegal, and even if it took a decision of a curfew, it would be illegal too. The decisions of this gov. don't deserve the ink paid from the public treasury. Concerning the army including its officers and members, it extremely and dangerously recognizes the sensitivity of the situation. And before my arrival here, I listened to an excerpt of the Army commandant statement that clearly shows its recognition of the dangerous situation. That's the supposed position of the army that assures a true national guarantee, and it's not permissible for the army to target any group.



Question: Do you have any vision for the end of the civil war that it's not desirable by any side?

Answer: there's no civil war. It's a kind of exaggeration in viewing the current situation as such. Yesterday, some media outlets exaggerated in reporting some incidents that have taken place, they mention some expressions like "invasions", "occupations" and "civil war". I say that there's a signal of war that is desirable by others and has been imposed on us. We don't want a war against others. We always demand dialogue, partnership, and a political solution. Those who have taken decisions that lead us to war have to cancel them, and then every thing will be finished. We have mentioned two years ago that we are not in a hurry, and we are not going to use any thing that may threaten the civil peace because of a gov. or authority. We bet on the elections not on fighting. Yes, who has taken the decision of the war has to stop it, consequently no war will take place.

Question: Is it shameful that both the Arab and Islamic nations in the region aren't seeking now to back up Sayyed Hassan Nassrallah who is the leader of the two greatest wars and victories in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Answer: I'd like to thank you for your great trust and opinion. I said in the context of my speech that I thank every one who pays me respect in the Arab and Islamic world, and that I'm proud of their passion and respect. I demanded nothing. I didn't ask for help, backing up, or interference to defend us. If there's anyone who wants to interfere seeking solutions, that will be excellent. All what I want is “understanding/open-mindedness” and not to be taken by enthusiastic speeches or slogans just for safekeeping this Resistance, that there's a great bet on and that it will one day change the face of the region if “Israel” decides to attack us. All those who hear me in the Arab world, I say this isn't an enthusiastic speech. I know what we have and our abilities and capabilities. I know that by trusting and depending on God on the basis of the accessible objectivity. And in the week of the martyr Imad Moughniyeh I said if the Israeli army entered Lebanon, and it has set 5 military contingents on the Lebanese borders ready to intervene at any time, and well these don't terrify or horrify us. I promised the Arab and Islamic world that I won't go for a war against anyone, or open a front, but “Israel” now celebrating the 60th anniversary; and because of this Resistance,

it has tasted the greatest two defeats in 60 years. It was obliged to undergo the largest maneuver because of this Resistance. I want the Arabs to be aware that it's this Resistance that has raised the head of every candid in the world. This Resistance is not sectarian or factional, and it isn’t after authority aims. Samir Geagea has accused us of being a party of the Oumma ( the Nation), and that I wanted only the Oumma. Actually we've got confused with what they want. We want this Oumma to stay as an Oumma. And I want nothing except understanding and not being dragged behind the sectarian voices.

Question: How do you expect the Lebanese street will be this evening, and is Hezbollah ready to bear the results that will inflame from Beirut because what's going on won't affect only Lebanon but the entire region with all its symbols?

Answer: there will normally be statements and reactions; we expect an "insulting campaign", as usual, against the opposition leaderships and ourselves as well. I speak from a defending position suggesting a solution framework, and we are in the defense and retaliation position. What I'm saying is that we've entered a new phase. You are insisting on the war, and the reactions will not be predictable. Will we bear the results? Yes, we are responsible and we know what we are doing, we know the size of the conspiracy, the plan, the challenge and we are ready to bear responsibility for the results.

As a response to Minister Marwan Hmadi who said that he had no idea about the wired network and sit-in bargain between the authority and the Hezbollah, we say; "he doesn't know every thing because he's just an employee with a certain task.” And we are obliged to use our credits, the world knows who speaks the truth and the one who utters lies, and I leave the judgment for the audience.