VLADIMIR PUTIN'S WEBSITE: Messages from the President of Russia

[Samstwitch]

Here is the link to the Website of Vladimir Putin: President of Russia

This is a good news source to keep up on Russia's vantage point of what's happening in Syria. It's also good to hear what Putin has to say on important world-related issues.

On his Website, you will also find a transcript of the Interview he gave to the Associate Press regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria: Interview to Channel One and Associated Press news agency

If the anticipated U.S. war on Syria leads to a World Nuclear War, Putin's Website will be a very good information resource.

 

[Khaos]

If the anticipated U.S. war on Syria leads to a World Nuclear War

Its nice to see you changing your stance on this

 

[Samstwitch]

Its nice to see you changing your stance on this

I haven't changed my stance on this issue.

 

[Samstwitch]

This is an EXCERPT from the interview with President Putin after the G20 Summit. CLICK ME to read the full interview.

Vladimir Putin’s news conference following the G20 Summit

QUESTION: Mr. Putin, it can be said without exaggeration that the shadow of Syria was looming over the current G20 summit, while the leaders managed to reach mutually acceptable solutions on purely economic issues. With Syria, as far as we know, the participants were split in two over what needs to be done there now. So my question is, how deeply have political disagreements affected – or could still affect – economic decision-making? What future awaits Russia’s relations with the West?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, everything that is linked to developments in the Middle East influences the global economy in a very serious way, because the region supplies energy resources to the world – or at least to most countries.

We all know that every time there is a crisis or a conflict in the Middle East, energy prices shoot up. What does this mean? It means suppressed global economic development. So I would say it is counterproductive to destabilize the Middle East at a time when the global economy is going through its own crisis – this is the minimum, and I say this very diplomatically.

We indeed spent much of Thursday night discussing Syria and related issues. We talked long into the night, until 1 a.m., and I had a bilateral meeting with Mr. Cameron after that until 2:30.

You said the meeting was split 50-50 on the issue, but it was not quite so. I can tell you which countries approved a military operation because this is no secret: the United States, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France. Mr. Cameron used to support this plan as well, but as we know, the country’s parliament – which expresses the will of the British people – voted this down. Germany’s Federal Chancellor is also being very cautious – the country is not planning to participate in any hostilities anywhere.

Which countries were firmly against it? Russia, the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia – mind you, the largest Muslim country by population – Argentina, Brazil, the Republic of South Africa and Italy. The UN General Secretary was also against fighting. Now let us not forget the most recent address by the Pope, who openly said that starting a new wave of conflict is unacceptable.

I cited the countries whose governments support the exacerbation of conflict in Syria, who support external strikes. But I can assure you that, according to public opinion surveys, the overwhelming majority of their populations are on our side and are against waging hostilities. It would suffice to look at European and US sociological surveys. As many as 60%-70% of respondents are against a military operation.

Finally, the most important issue, something I have already discussed and commented on. I believe that the so-called use of chemical weapons was a provocation staged by militants, by those who count on external assistance from countries that had supported them from the start. This is what the provocation was targeted at. This is my first point.

Second, I would like to remind you that using force against a sovereign state is only possible in self-defense; but Syria is not attacking the United States. The only other reason for military intervention could be a decision by the UN Security Council. As one of the participants in yesterday’s discussion said, “Those who act otherwise are putting themselves outside the law.”

 

[Khaos]

but Syria is not attacking the United States.

Mr. Putin is a very intelligent man. If he were to run for president here, I'd vote for him. I don't see on the same level as Obama, but I see on the same level as Putin.

 

[Samstwitch]

Message from President Vladimir Putin to Americans about Syria
Published in the New York Times.

September 12, 2013

Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the Cold War. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization – the United Nations was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The UN’s founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and at America’s insistence the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the UN Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the UN to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the UN and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The planned strike by the US against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the Pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multi-confessional country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Al Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The U.S. State Department has designated the Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, fighting there are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria, as happened in Mali following events in Libya? This threatens us all, as the horrific attack in Boston recently showed.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the UN Security Council, and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the UN Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack – this time against Israel – cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the US. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

Force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the US, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why it would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen non-proliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilised diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The US, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the US sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the President’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed at the G8 in Lough Erne, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on September 10. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that U.S. policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

 

[Khaos]

Reading this stuff from Putin makes me highly doubt he would ever consider striking us with nuclear weapons. Why bother? Kill millions of innocent people within an instant, people who had no choice, but to be forced into conflict after conflict by a neo-nazi police state called the "united states of america"

I think he is looking out for our interests and also doing his best to smooth things over and sway Obama. He doesn't want this as much as we don't. Nobody does. Obama does, but then, I wonder if he does. You wonder who is really in charge over there at the white house.

Its like over in North Korea. You got Kim who reaches out and asks for the united states to talk peace, yet you got military generals who position their armies in strategic locations in case of an invasion and issue threats against america.

 

[Samstwitch]

Here are two articles in reaction to Putin's statement in the N.Y. Times. These reactions show how warped the U.S. government is!

Washington lawmakers unite in fury over Putin's op-ed in New York Times

Sen. Menendez 'wanted to vomit' after Reading Putin’s New York Times Op-ed
http://www.infowars.com/sen-menendez-wanted-to-puke-after-reading-putins-new-york-times-op-ed/
This morning Jay Carney said in response to Putin's statement that there was no evidence proving the Rebels were responsible for the Chemical Weapons, but that is another lie. Russia gave a 100-page Report to the U.N. regarding the March chemical weapons attack with evidence that it was done by the Rebels.

 

[Galileo]

but Syria is not attacking the United States.

Mr. Putin is a very intelligent man. If he were to run for president here, I'd vote for him. I don't see on the same level as Obama, but I see on the same level as Putin.

Putin's the same guy that threw that band in prison right? lol

 

[Samstwitch]

Putin's the same guy that threw that band in prison right? lol

Yes, he had 2 women arrested and "charged with hooliganism following an unsanctioned performance at Christ the Savior Cathedral last month." (The band called on the Virgin Mary to help get rid of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.) What they did was in violation of Russian Law.

If a band in the U.S. did that against Obama, they would probably be labeled terrorists and imprisoned.