Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Putin’s Censored Press Conference

Expand Messages
  • Robert Sterling
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 21, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Thanks,
      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist
      http://www.konformist.com

      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17856.htm

      Putin's Censored Press Conference:
      The transcript you weren't supposed to see
      By Mike Whitney

      06/10/07 "ICH" --- On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave
      an hour and a half-long press conference which was attended by many
      members of the world media. The contents of that meeting---in which
      Putin answered all questions concerning nuclear proliferation, human
      rights, Kosovo, democracy and the present confrontation with the
      United States over missile defense in Europe---have been completely
      censored by the press. Apart from one brief excerpt which appeared
      in a Washington Post editorial, (and which was used to criticize
      Putin) the press conference has been scrubbed from the public
      record. It never happened. (Read the entire press conference
      archived here )

      Putin's performance was a tour de force. He fielded all of the
      questions however misleading or insulting. He was candid and
      statesmanlike and demonstrated a good understanding of all the main
      issues.

      The meeting gave Putin a chance to give his side of the story in the
      growing debate over missile defense in Eastern Europe. He offered a
      brief account of the deteriorating state of US-Russian relations
      since the end of the Cold War, and particularly from 9-11 to
      present. Since September 11, the Bush administration has carried out
      an aggressive strategy to surround Russia with military bases,
      install missiles on its borders, topple allied regimes in Central
      Asia, and incite political upheaval in Moscow through US-backed "pro-
      democracy" groups. These openly hostile actions have convinced many
      Russian hard-liners that the administration is going forward with
      the neocon plan for "regime change" in Moscow and fragmentation of
      the Russian Federation. Putin's testimony suggests that the
      hardliners are probably right.

      The Bush administration's belligerent foreign policy has backed the
      Kremlin into a corner and forced Putin to take retaliatory measures.
      He has no other choice.

      If we want to understand why relations between Russia are quickly
      reaching the boiling-point; we only need to review the main
      developments since the end of the Cold War. Political analyst Pat
      Buchanan gives a good rundown of these in his article "Doesn't Putin
      Have a Point?"

      Buchanan says:

      "Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe
      voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not
      move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring
      Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and
      virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother
      Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in
      Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.

      Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from
      Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.

      Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old
      Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-
      bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

      Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states
      like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put anti-missile
      systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?

      Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and
      Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations,
      and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-
      CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in
      Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Russia herself.

      U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and
      Georgia, but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated
      restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without
      justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.

      Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime
      of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for
      refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take
      over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest
      in the Orthodox states of the Balkans.

      These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?"

      Yes--as Buchanan opines---Putin does have a point, which is why his
      press conference was suppressed. The media would rather demonize
      Putin, than allow him to make his case to the public. (The same is
      true of other world leaders who choose to use their vast resources
      to improve the lives of their own citizens rather that hand them
      over to the transnational oil giants; such as, Mahmud Ahmadinejad
      and Hugo Chavez) Even so, NATO has not yet endorsed the neocon
      missile defense plan and, according to recent surveys, public
      opinion in Poland and the Czech Republic is overwhelmingly against
      it.

      Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration is going ahead regardless of
      the controversy.

      Putin cannot allow the United States to deploy its missile defense
      system to Eastern Europe. The system poses a direct threat to
      Russia's national security. If Putin planned to deploy a similar
      system in Cuba or Mexico, the Bush administration would immediately
      invoke the Monroe Doctrine and threaten to remove it by force. No
      one doubts this. And no one should doubt that Putin is equally
      determined to protect his own country's interests in the same way.
      We can expect that Russia will now aim its missiles at European
      targets and rework its foreign policy in a way that compels the US
      to abandon its current plans.

      The media has tried to minimize the dangers of the proposed system.
      The Washington Post even characterized it as "a small missile
      defense system" which has set off "waves of paranoia about domestic
      and foreign opponents".

      Nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      As Putin said at the press conference, "Once the missile defense
      system is put in place IT WILL WORK AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE ENTIRE
      NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES. It will be an integral part
      of the US nuclear capability.

      "For the first time in history---and I want to emphasize this---
      there are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European
      continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of
      international security…..Of course, we have to respond to that."

      Putin is right. The "so-called" defense system is actually an
      expansion (and integration) of America's existing nuclear weapons
      system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this
      should be obvious.

      The Bush administration is maneuvering in a way that will allow it
      to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls
      the "longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia".

      In Boyle's article "US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to
      First Strike Threat" he states:

      "By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces
      would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes
      that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike
      capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."…
      This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature.
      But especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief,
      Thomas Schelling --winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by
      the Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and
      distinguished it from "deterrence." …The USG is breaking out of
      a "deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture.
      (Global Research 6-6-07)

      That's right. The real goal is to force Moscow to conform to
      Washington's "diktats" or face the prospect of "first-strike"
      annihilation. That's why Putin has expressed growing concern over
      the administration's dropping out of the ABM Treaty and the
      development of a new regime of low yield, bunker-busting nuclear
      weapons. The "hawks" who surround Bush have abandoned
      the "deterrence" policy of the past, and now believe that a nuclear
      war can be "won" by the United States. This is madness and it needs
      to be taken seriously.

      The Bush administration sees itself as a main player in Central Asia
      and the Middle East---controlling vital resources and pipeline
      corridors throughout the region. That means Russia's influence will
      have to be diminished. Boris Yeltsin was the perfect leader for the
      neoconservative master-plan (which is why the right-wingers Praised
      him when he died) Russia disintegrated under Yeltsin. He oversaw the
      dismantling of the state, the plundering of its resources and state-
      owned assets, and the restructuring of its economy according to the
      tenets of neoliberalism.

      No wonder the neocons loved him.

      Under Putin, Russia has regained its economic footing, its regional
      influence and its international prestige. The economy is booming,
      the ruble has stabilized, the standard of living has risen, and
      Moscow has strengthened alliances with its neighbors. This new-found
      Russian prosperity poses a real challenge to Bush's plans.

      Two actions in particular have changed the Russian-US relationship
      from tepid to openly hostile. The first was when Putin announced
      that Russia's four largest oil fields would not be open to foreign
      development. (Russia has been consolidating its oil wealth under
      state-run Gazprom) And, second, when the Russian Treasury began to
      convert Russia's dollar reserves into gold and rubles. Both of these
      are regarded as high-crimes by US corporate chieftains and western
      elites. Their response was swift.

      John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a Council on
      Foreign Relations (CFR) task force which concocted the basic pretext
      for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that
      Putin is "rolling back democracy" began; it's a feeble excuse for
      political antagonism. In their article "Russia's Wrong Direction",
      Edwards and Kemp state that a "strategic partnership" with Russia is
      no longer possible. They note that the government has become
      increasingly "authoritarian" and that the society is growing
      less "open and pluralistic". Blah, blah, blah. No one in the
      Washington really cares about democracy. (Just look at our "good
      friends" in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan)
      What they're afraid of is Putin ditching the dollar and controlling
      his own oil. That's what counts. Bush also wants Putin to support
      sanctions against Iran and rubber stamp a Security Council
      resolution to separate Kosovo form Serbia. (Since when does the UN
      have the right to redraw national borders? Was the creation of
      Israel such a stunning success that the Security Council wants to
      try its luck again?)

      Putin does not accept the "unipolar" world model. As he said in
      Munich, the unipolar world refers to "a world in which there is one
      master, one sovereign---- one centre of authority, one centre of
      force, one centre of decision-making. At the end of the day this is
      pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for
      the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.… What
      is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at
      its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern
      civilization."

      He added:

      "Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved
      any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and
      created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well
      as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying
      than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

      Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force –
      military force – in international relations, force that is plunging
      the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

      We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles
      of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter
      of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One
      state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has
      overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in
      the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it
      imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about
      this?

      In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve
      a given question according to so-called issues of political
      expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course
      this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one
      feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no
      one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will
      protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

      I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we
      must seriously think about the architecture of global security."

      How can anyone dispute Putin's analysis?

      "Unilateral and illegitimate military actions", the "uncontained
      hyper-use of force", the "disdain for the basic principles of
      international law", and most importantly; "No one feels safe!"

      These are the irrefutable facts. Putin has simply summarized the
      Bush Doctrine better than anyone else.

      The Bush administration has increased its frontline American bases
      to five thousand men on Russia's perimeter. Is this conduct of
      a "trustworthy ally"?

      Also, NATO has deployed forces on Russia's borders even while Putin
      has continued to fulfill his treaty obligations and move troops and
      military equipment hundreds of miles away.

      As Putin said on Tuesday: "We have removed all of our heavy weapons
      from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals"
      and "reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several
      other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty
      in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe
      is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in
      Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas -
      - a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we
      are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is
      disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would
      like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe.
      On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems.
      And of course we cannot help but be concerned."

      (This is why Putin's comments did not appear in the western media!
      They would have been too damaging to the Bush administration and
      their expansionist plans)

      Who Destroyed the ABM?

      Putin said:

      "We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
      Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed this issue
      with our American partners? We said that we do not have the
      resources and desire to establish such a system. But as
      professionals we both understand that a missile defense system for
      one side and no such a system for the other creates an illusion of
      security and increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict. The
      defense system WILL DESTROY THE STRATEGIC EQUILIBRIUM IN THE WORLD.
      In order to restore that balance without setting up a missile
      defense system we will have to create a system to overcome missile
      defense, which is what we are doing now."

      Putin: "AN ARMS RACE IS UNFOLDING. Was it we who withdrew from the
      ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already told
      them two years ago, "don't do this, you don't need to do this. What
      are you doing? YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL
      SECURITY. You must understand that you are forcing us to take
      retaliatory steps." …we warned them. No, they did not listen to us.
      Then we heard about them developing low-yield nuclear weapons and
      they are continuing to develop these weapons." We told them that "it
      would be better to look for other ways to fight terrorism than
      create low-yield nuclear weapons and lower the threshold for using
      nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on the brink of nuclear
      catastrophe. But they don't listen to us. They are not looking for
      compromise. Their entire point of view can be summed-up in one
      sentence: `Whoever is not with us is against us.'"

      Putin asks, "So what should we do?" The present predicament has
      brought us "the brink of disaster".

      Putin: "Some people have the illusion that you can do everything
      just as you want, regardless of the interests of other people. Of
      course it is for precisely this reason that the international
      situation gets worse and eventually results in an arms race as you
      pointed out. But we are not the instigators. We do not want it. Why
      would we want to divert resources to this? And we are not
      jeopardizing our relations with anyone. But we must respond.

      Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours designed
      to worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested in
      that. We are interested in having a good atmosphere, environment and
      energy dialogue around Russia".

      So, what should Putin do? And how else can he meet his
      responsibilities to the Russian people without taking
      defensive "retaliatory" action to Bush's act of war. By expanding
      its nuclear capability to Europe, all of Russia is in imminent
      danger, and so, Putin must decide "precisely which means will be
      used to destroy the installations that our experts believe represent
      a potential threat for the Russian Federation". (Note that Putin
      NEVER THREATENS TO AIM HIS MISSILES AT EUROPEAN CITIES AS WAS
      REPORTED IN THE WESTERN MEDIA)

      Putin has made great strides in improving life for the Russian
      people. That is why his public approval rating is soaring at 75%.
      The Russian economy has been growing by 7% a year. He's lowered the
      number of people living beneath the poverty-line by more than half
      and will bring it down to European levels by 2010. Real incomes are
      growing by an astonishing 12% per year. As Putin says, "Combating
      poverty is one of our top priorities and we still have to do a lot
      to improve our pension system too because the correlation between
      pensions and the average wage is still lower here than in Europe."

      If only that was true in America!

      Russia now has the ninth largest economy in the world and has
      amassed enormous gold and currency reserves--the third largest in
      the world. It is also one of the leading players in international
      energy policy with a daily-oil output which now exceeds Saudi
      Arabia. It is also the largest producer of natural gas in the world.
      Russia will only get stronger as we get deeper into the century and
      energy resources become scarcer.

      Putin strongly objects to the idea that he is not committed to human
      rights or is "rolling back democracy". He points out how truncheon-
      wielding police in Europe routinely use tear gas, electric-shock
      devices and water cannons to disperse demonstrators. Is that how the
      West honors human rights and civil liberties?

      As for the Bush administration---Putin produced a copy of Amnesty
      International's yearly report condemning the United States conduct
      in the war on terror. "I have a copy of Amnesty International's
      report here, which includes a section on the United States," he
      said. "The organization has concluded that the United States IS NOW
      THE PRINCIPLE VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WORLDWIDE."

      He added, "We have a proverb in Russian, `Don't blame the mirror if
      your face is crooked.'"

      Putin is fiercely nationalistic. He has helped to restore Russia's
      self-confidence and rebuild the economy. He's demonstrated a
      willingness to compromise with the Bush administration on every
      substantive issue, but he has been repeatedly rebuffed. The last
      thing he wants is a nuclear standoff with the United States. But he
      will do what he must to defend his people from the threat of foreign
      attack. The deployment of the missile defense system will require
      that Russia develop its own new weapons systems and change its
      thinking about trusting the United States. Friendship is not
      possible in the present climate.

      As for "democracy"; Putin said it best himself:

      "Am I a `pure democrat'? (laughs) Of course I am, absolutely. The
      problem is that I'm all alone---the only one of my kind in the whole
      wide world. Just look at what's happening in North America, it's
      simply awful---torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained
      without trial and investigation. Just look at what's happening in
      Europe---harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear
      gas used first in one capital then in another, demonstrators killed
      on the streets….. I have no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi
      died."

      Well said, Vladimir.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.