10 Major accomplishments of the age of Putin - Fort Russ

March 26, 2015
Alexey Zernakov/(Nightly Moscow) Vm.ru
Translated by Kristina Rus

Fifteen years ago, on March 26, 2000 Vladimir Putin was first elected to the post of the President of Russia. After coming to power in difficult times, he not only managed to keep the country united. 15 years later we can say: we have again become a superpower with a developed economy, industry, a powerful army and navy. And may be not everything is smooth today. But then, 15 years ago, many people actually thought that the country was finished. However, Putin has managed to prove to the Russians and the whole world that we can not be easily defeated.

In fifteen years, thanks to the "swift tiger," as President Vladimir Putin is called by Chinese journalists, our country is once again referred to with respect.

We have decided to make our own rating of achievements of Vladimir Putin and his team in the last 15 years, helped by experts from "Nightly Moscow":

1. THE SALVATION OF RUSSIA FROM DISINTEGRATION

Alexei Mukhin, political scientist, Director of the Center for Political Information:

- Putin's role in preserving the unity of Russian Federation is primary. The change in the territorial-administrative division of Russia, the creation of seven federal districts allowed to first slow down and then reverse the processes that were leading to a direct collapse of Russia into several pseudo-state entities. Fortunately, Boris Yeltsin timely sensed what was happening, and resigned as President. And Vladimir Putin in time identified existing threats and took a number of preventive measures.
. . . . .
4. THE CREATION OF A SOCIALLY ORIENTED BUDGET

Maxim Safonov, Doctor of Economic Sciences, professor:

Over the past 15 years serious steps were made and the budget of our country has become truly socially oriented. But there is no limit for improvement, and I think we should not stop there. A good example is the joy of the inhabitants of Crimea after becoming a part of Russia. Because the level of pensions and social benefits there instantly rose to nationwide levels. Yesterday I was at a general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, where Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was speaking. And he clearly said that the social obligations will be fulfilled, despite the economic difficulties.

5. EARLY PAYMENT OF STATE DEBTS

Vladislav Ginko, economist, Professor of the Russian Academy of National Economy and State Service:

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has managed to significantly reduce the arrears to international financial institutions. Currently Russia, of course borrows in the foreign market, but in relation to the gross domestic product, this amount is small. First of all, it gives us the opportunity to pursue an independent policy.

Because loans from international organizations are very often accompanied by certain encumbrances. Which are often hidden behind vague wording. But often, after such "reforms" the standard of living of the population drops - we see it today in Ukraine. And, of course, if our debts were higher, the sanctions would hurt us more.

Complete story at - 10 Major accomplishments of the age of Putin - Fort Russ

U.S.-v.-Russia: Even Stephen Cohen Is Starting to Speak the Truth - Washington's Blog

Eric Zuesse

An alarming development is that Stephen F. Cohen, the internationally prominent scholar of Russia, is acknowledging that (1:35 on the video) “for the first time in my long life (I began in this field in the 1960s), I think the possibility of war with Russia is real,” and he clearly and unequivocally places all of the blame for it on the U.S. leadership. He calls this “possibly a fateful turning-point in history.” He also says “it could be the beginning of the end of the so-called trans-Atlantic alliance.”

He goes on to say (2:20): “This problem began in the 1990s, when the Clinton Administration adopted a winner-take-all policy toward post-Soviet Russia … Russia gives, we take. … This policy was adopted by the Clinton Administration but is pursued by every [meaning both] political party, every President, every American Congress, since President Clinton, to President Obama. This meant that the United States was entitled to a sphere or zone of influence as large as it wished, right up to Russia’s borders, and Russia was entitled to no sphere of influence, at all, not even in Georgia, … or in Ukraine (with which Russia had been intermarried for centuries).”

He also speaks clearly about the misrepresentations of Putin by the American Government, and he clearly states (5:25): “He’s more European than 99% of other Russians.”

Regarding Ukraine (5:45): “Since November of 2013, Putin has been not aggressive, but reactive, at every stage.”

Regarding, in America, the effective unanimity of allowed scholarly and media opinions to the contrary of the actual facts, (and this is the most startling thing of all, so you might want to go straight to it, at 7:05): “This is an unprecedented situation in American politics. … This is exceedingly dangerous, and this is a failure of American democracy. Why it happened, I am not sure.”

He condemns (7:30) “this extraordinarily irrational [non] factual demonization of Putin … and this too is hard to explain.”

Complete story at - U.S.-v.-Russia: Even Stephen Cohen Is Starting to Speak the Truth Washington's Blog

Putin Wants to Eat Your Children - Washington's Blog

If U.S. television and politicians started saying that Saudi Arabia should be bombed because it kills and tortures innocent people, within a week many millions of Americans would demand just that. And because those voices do say that about ISIS, many millions of Americans do favor a war on ISIS.

My point is not that bombs would be worse than the problem addressed and would make the problem itself worse as well, although that’s all true. Rather, my point is that most people who favor wars do so in order to blindly support a nation, and in blindly supporting that nation they allow it to dictate which wars they will favor. Although war supporters will give you reasons for the wars they favor, they actually favor whichever wars they are told to favor, and no others. And they’ll give you the reasons they are told to believe in as well.

More often than not, the U.S. public is advised to favor a war on a single individual of demonic nature, even though a war against an individual is completely nonsensical. According to nonsensical propaganda, you don’t bomb Iraqis; you bomb former-U.S.-ally Saddam Hussein. You don’t bomb Afghans; you bomb former-U.S.-ally Osama bin Laden. You don’t drone kill Pakistani and Yemeni and Somali children and women and men; you drone kill Al Qaeda Terrorist Number Three, over and over again. You don’t liberate Libya from what stability it had; you kill former-U.S.-ally Muammar Gadaffi. You don’t attack Panama; you attack former-U.S.-ally Manuel Noriega. Et cetera et cetera.

Well, it’s Vladimir Putin’s turn, which means Russia is at risk, which means the world is at risk, and yet the rough beast stumbling toward Bethlehem to be born is as oblivious to its conception as any unborn thing or television viewer.

Complete story at - Putin Wants to Eat Your Children Washington's Blog

Putin: Russia Could Not 'Abandon' Crimea

MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin said Monday that Russia took over Crimea because it had to protect Crimea's mostly ethnic-Russian population after pro-Western Ukrainian nationalists came to power in Ukraine.

In the latest preview of an upcoming documentary called "Homeward bound" on state-run Rossiya-1 television, Putin portrayed Russia's military takeover and annexation of the Ukrainian province as a rescue mission.

"We were forced to start working on returning Crimea to Russia because we could not abandon this territory and the people who live there to the mercy of fate, to be crushed by nationalists, " Putin said.

Putin pinned the blame for what Moscow calls a coup in Kiev on nationalists supported by Western countries "thousands of kilometers away."

"It wasn't us who committed a coup d'etat, it was done by nationalists and people with extreme views, they were given support," Putin said.

"But we are here, this is our land," he said.

Shortly after the February 2014 overthrow of Ukraine's Russian-backed president Viktor Yanukovych in Kiev, Russian soldiers suddenly fanned across Crimea, which has deep ethnic-Russian roots and where there was less support for the pro-Western revolution in the capital.

A subsequent referendum staged after Ukrainian authorities had already been pushed out gave overwhelming backing to making the Black Sea peninsula part of Russia.

The military operation was initially kept secret, despite the increasingly obvious actions of unmarked Russian forces. Later, the Kremlin conceded that it had been behind the power grab.

Complete story at - Putin: Russia Could Not 'Abandon' Crimea

Russia’s Remarkable Renaissance | New Eastern Outlook

Something remarkable is taking place in Russia, and it’s quite different from what we might expect. Rather than feel humiliated and depressed Russia is undergoing what I would call a kind of renaissance, a rebirth as a nation. This despite or in fact because the West, led by the so-called neo-conservatives in Washington, is trying everything including war on her doorstep in Ukraine, to collapse the Russian economy, humiliate Putin and paint Russians generally as bad. In the process, Russia is discovering positive attributes about her culture, her people, her land that had long been forgotten or suppressed.

My first of many visits to Russia was more than twenty years ago, in May, 1994. I was invited by a Moscow economics think-tank to deliver critical remarks about the IMF. My impressions then were of a once-great people who were being humiliated to the last ounce of their life energy. Mafia gangsters sped along the wide boulevards of Moscow in sparkling new Mercedes 600 limousines with dark windows and without license plates. Lawlessness was the order of the day, from the US-backed Yeltsin Kremlin to the streets. “Harvard boys” like Jeffrey Sachs or Sweden’s Anders Aaslund or George Soros were swarming over the city figuring new ways to rape and pillage Russia under the logo “shock therapy” and “market-oriented reform” another word for “give us your crown jewels.”

The human toll of that trauma of the total collapse of life in Russia after November 1989 was staggering. I could see it in the eyes of everyday Russians on the streets of Moscow, taxi-drivers, mothers shopping, normal Russians.

Today, some two decades later, Russia is again confronted by a western enemy, NATO, that seeks to not just humiliate her, but to actually destroy her as a functioning state because Russia is uniquely able to throw a giant monkey wrench into plans of those western elites behind the wars in Ukraine, in Syria, Libya, Iraq and well beyond to Afghanistan, Africa and South America.

Rather than depression, in my recent visits to Russia in the past year as well as in numerous discussions with a variety of Russian acquaintances, I sense a new feeling of pride, of determination, a kind of rebirth of something long buried.

Sanctions Boomerang

Take the sanctions war that the Obama administration has forced Germany, France and other unwilling EU states to join. The US Treasury financial warfare unit has targeted the Ruble. The morally corrupt and Washington-influenced Wall Street credit rating agencies have downgraded Russian state debt to “junk” status. The Saudis, in cahoots with Washington, have caused a free-fall in oil prices. The chaos in Ukraine and EU sabotage of the Russian South Stream gas pipeline to the EU, all this should have brought a terrified Russia to her knees. It hasn’t.

As we have earlier detailed, Putin and an increasing number of influential Russian industrialists, some of the same who a few years ago would have fled to their posh London townhouses, have decided to stand and fight for the future of Russia as a sovereign state. Oops! That wasn’t supposed to happen in a world of globalization, of dissolution of the nation-state. National pride was supposed to be a relic like gold. Not in Russia today.

Complete story at - Russia’s Remarkable Renaissance | New Eastern Outlook

australianvoice: Why Does the West Hate Putin? The Secret Reason

The Official Reasons

We all know the governments of the West, lead by the US and the UK, have turned against Russia. There are many reasons offered by our media: Russia tried to stop the Ukraine from joining the EU. Russia helped the "pro-Russian rebels" shoot down MH-17. Russia "invaded" the Crimea illegally. Thousands of Russian troops and tanks are fighting in the Ukraine. Some of us think these claims are war propaganda for the citizens of the West used to justify sanctions against Russia and increasing military tensions.

The Geo-political Reasons

Less widely discussed but much more important are the geo-political reasons which look at the areas of conflict between the economic interests of the US and those of Russia and China. At the moment the EU is heavily dependent on eenergy from Russia. The US would like to stop this. The conflict in the Ukraine is an important part of the process of economically separating the EU from Russia. But there is also a wider agenda. China and Russia lead the BRICS group of countries consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The BRICS countries want to develop a world wide economic system that does not depend the US dollar. They want to be independent of the International Modetary Fund (IMF) and the World bank. China has also suggested to Europe that they join together with Russia and themselves in what they call the New Silk Road, stretching across the whole of Eurasia, from Lisbon to Shanghai. Needless to say there is no immediate place for the US in this plan, so this gives another reason to cut the economic ties between Russia and the EU.

The Secret Reason - The War that Didn't Happen

While these factors are all important, there is another factor which is never discussed in the Western media. The trigger for the sudden hostility against Russia and Putin can be found in almost unreported events which took place late in August and early September 2013. What happen in that crucial period is that a planned NATO surprise attack on Syria was stopped by Russia. This was probably the first time since WWII that a military attack planned by the West was confronted by sufficient force to require its cancellation. The people in the West will not be told because their belligerent, tough-talking leaders "blinked". They backed down and decided to change their plans. The new plan: Undermine the Ukraine and seize Crimea for NATO. This obviously didn't work either, and the mess they created is still with us.

The Planned US/French Attack on Syria

Early in the morning of Saturday, August 31, 2013, an American official called the office of President Hollande telling him to expect a call from Obama later in the day. "Assuming that the evening phone call would announce the commencement of U.S. air strikes (against Syria), Hollande ordered his officers to quickly finalize their own attack plans. Rafale fighters were loaded with Scalp cruise missiles, their pilots told to launch the 250-mile-range munitions while over the Mediterranean."(1) In other words, at this point in time the French pilots and the US forces were only waiting for the final command from President Obama to begin their attack. However, later that same day, at 6:15 pm, Obama called the French President to tell him that the strike scheduled for 3:00 am, September 1, would not take place as planned. He would need to consult Congress.(2)

Three days later, at 06:16 GMT Tuesday, September 3, two missiles were launched "from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea" heading for the Syrian coast, but they did not reach Syria.(3) "Both missiles crashed into the sea."(4) There are several different accounts of what took place. According to Israel Shamir:

"It was claimed by a Lebanese newspaper quoting diplomatic sources that the missiles were launched from a NATO air base in Spain and they were shot down by the Russian ship-based sea-to-air defence system. Another explanation proposed by the Asia Times says the Russians employed their cheap and powerful GPS jammers to render the expensive Tomahawks helpless, by disorienting them and causing them to fail. Yet another version attributed the launch to the Israelis, whether they were trying to jump-start the shoot-out or just observed the clouds, as they claim."(5)

Complete story at - australianvoice: WHY DOES THE WEST HATE PUTIN? THE SECRET REASON

How Putin Blocked the U.S. Pivot to Asia » CounterPunch

by MIKE WHITNEY

“The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad…. Suddenly the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the ‘world’s only superpower.’ Neoconservatives proclaimed ‘the end of history.'”

— Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury

“Don’t blame the mirror if your face is crooked.”

— Russian proverb

On February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the 43rd Munich Security Conference that created a rift between Washington and Moscow that has only deepened over time. The Russian President’s blistering hour-long critique of US foreign policy provided a rational, point-by-point indictment of US interventions around the world and their devastating effect on global security. Putin probably didn’t realize the impact his candid observations would have on the assembly in Munich or the reaction of powerbrokers in the US who saw the presentation as a turning point in US-Russian relations. But, the fact is, Washington’s hostility towards Russia can be traced back to this particular incident, a speech in which Putin publicly committed himself to a multipolar global system, thus, repudiating the NWO pretensions of US elites. Here’s what he said:

“I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue.”

With that one formulation, Putin rejected the United States assumed role as the world’s only superpower and steward of global security, a privileged position which Washington feels it earned by prevailing in the Cold War and which entitles the US to unilaterally intervene whenever it sees fit. Putin’s announcement ended years of bickering and deliberation among think tank analysts as to whether Russia could be integrated into the US-led system or not. Now they knew that Putin would never dance to Washington’s tune.

In the early years of his presidency, it was believed that Putin would learn to comply with western demands and accept a subordinate role in the Washington-centric system. But it hasn’t worked out that way. The speech in Munich merely underscored what many US hawks and Cold Warriors had been saying from the beginning, that Putin would not relinquish Russian sovereignty without a fight. The declaration challenging US aspirations to rule the world, left no doubt that Putin was going to be a problem that had to be dealt with by any means necessary including harsh economic sanctions, a State Department-led coup in neighboring Ukraine, a conspiracy to crash oil prices, a speculative attack of the ruble, a proxy war in the Donbass using neo-Nazis as the empire’s shock troops, and myriad false flag operations used to discredit Putin personally while driving a wedge between Moscow and its primary business partners in Europe. Now the Pentagon is planning to send 600 paratroopers to Ukraine ostensibly to “train the Ukrainian National Guard”, a serious escalation that violates the spirit of Minsk 2 and which calls for a proportionate response from the Kremlin. Bottom line: The US is using all the weapons in its arsenal to prosecute its war on Putin.

Last week’s gangland-style murder of Russian opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov, has to be considered in terms of the larger geopolitical game that is currently underway. While we may never know who perpetrated the crime, we can say with certainly that the lack of evidence hasn’t deterred the media or US politicians from using the tragedy to advance an anti-Putin agenda aimed at destabilizing the government and triggering regime change in Moscow. Putin himself suggested that the killing may have been a set-up designed to put more pressure on the Kremlin. The World Socialist Web Site summed up the political implications like this:

Complete story at - How Putin Blocked the U.S. Pivot to Asia » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

The Metamorphosis of Vladimir Putin » CounterPunch

by ANDREW LEVINE

Suddenly last summer, Vladimir Putin, formerly once a decent enough Russian leader (with a few unsettling quirks), turned into a malevolent, almost demonic, force.

Congratulations to the American propaganda system for putting over this remarkable metamorphosis.

At the same time, the verdict on Barack Obama did not change – not last summer, not since he assumed office.

From the moment that it became clear that his presidency would be rife with “disappointments” and sparing in achievements, Democrats have maintained that he means well and would be a force for good – were it not for pesky Republicans thwarting his every move.

Republicans, meanwhile, have a different view. For them, Obama has always been evil incarnate – like Putin now is, maybe worse. Hell, he may not even be a Christian, and he doesn’t “love America.”

Needless to say, the Republican take on Obama is preposterous. But then the liberal view is preposterous too. Disappointed Obamaphiles are not as in-your-face stupid as GOP Obamaphobes, but it is hard to say which is worse.

* * *

Obama’s first term was, for the most part, a continuation of George Bush’s second.

Winding down (repackaging) the never-ending wars Bush and Dick Cheney started in Afghanistan and Iraq was one of Obama’s principal objectives. Bush and Cheney had been working on this too, at least since 2006.

It was the same with 24/7 surveillance. Obama’s predecessors got it going; then Obama picked up the ball and ran with it, taking it as far as he could. In this case, there was not even a pretense of winding anything down; the point was to rev the snooping up.

Complete story at - The Metamorphosis of Vladimir Putin » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

America’s paranoid war game fantasies about Putin’s Russia — The (information) war in Ukraine* — Medium

This map of Europe (below), appearing in the March/April 2015 issue of Modern War magazine (a publisher of military strategy games), purports to show “Putin’s vision of Europe for 2015.” Based on the compiled speeches, papers and offhand remarks of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his advisers, it’s the ultimate war gamer fantasy of how dangerous an aggressive an expansionist and imperialist Russian might become for Europe.

On the map, parts of Ukraine have been lopped off to create Donbas, Crimea and Novorossiya (“New Russia”). The Baltic states have been partitioned to make room for ethnic Russian states in Narva and Dvinsk. Transnistria appears as a separate nation-state. Georgia has been partitioned into Western Georgia and Kakheti, bookended on either side by “Russian Abkhazia” and the “Caucasus Emirates.” To make that possible, there’s a “heavily-patrolled autobahn-type highway” giving Russia a narrow corridor of access to the South Caucasus.

And consider all the other audacious changes on this map of Europe — Germany appears to have expanded significantly both eastward and westward; there’s a new “ghetto-like mini-state” called “Arab Piedmont” for Western Europe’s restive Muslim population; and England and Spain have been partitioned due to separatist movements in Scotland and Catalonia, respectively. Turkey has carved out part of Bulgaria to form “Turkish Burgas.” (Perhaps as compensation for partnering with Russia on a huge new gas deal?) Eastern Europe has become a mess of small states — Chelm, Galicia, Carpathian Rus, Bukovina and Bessarabia.

According to Gilberto Villahermosa, the author of the “Putin as Warlord” piece that accompanies the map in Modern War magazine, “The resurgence of Germany to its prewar 1939 borders in the east, and those of 1914 in the west, would be engineered as payoff to Berlin for letting all the other changes take place.” It’s another Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, this time engineered between Putin and Merkel! And we thought they didn’t like each other!

Complete story at - America’s paranoid war game fantasies about Putin’s Russia — The (information) war in Ukraine* — Medium

Operation Get Putin: Why the Western Media Pushes for War on Russia | The Smirking Chimp

by Brian Cloughley | February 20, 2015 - 9:46am

Voutenay sur Cure, France. | The US war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003 and six weeks before that catastrophic conflict which has had such terrible consequences for the entire world Republican Congressman Joe Wilson showered praise on a newspaper for its weighty support of his president’s determination to invade a country that had done no harm to the United States.

Mr Wilson declared he “would like to call attention to an excellent editorial in today’s Washington Post, written by the newspaper’s editorial staff. They have presented a definitive summary of why we must act to disarm Iraq in preserving the safety of Americans.” And there then arose overwhelming national support for what the WP called “justified military intervention.” The paper carried 27 editorials supporting war on Iraq before the ‘Shock and Awe’ onslaught began destruction of the country. In a mist of majestic inanity its leader of February 5, 2003 declared that

a war in Iraq would not be primarily a humanitarian exercise but an operation essential to American security.

Next day one of the WP’s columnists, Richard Cohen, wrote acerbically that

Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool — or possibly a Frenchman — could conclude otherwise.

Only a columnist with the intelligence quotient of a mentally challenged crustacean would have ventured such judgment, but his views were greeted with enthusiasm verging on veneration. Similar balanced analyses by Washington Post gurus continue to appear today and many are quite as propaganda-intense as those that advocated the calamitous war on Iraq, the failed military campaign in Afghanistan and the destruction of Libya.

Complete story at - Operation Get Putin: Why the Western Media Pushes for War on Russia | The Smirking Chimp

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP » American University in Moscow

AGREEMENT. Ceasefire. Pull-back of heavy weapons. Autonomy talks. OSCE. Does Poroshenko mean it? Can he deliver? Will Washington let him? What happens if there's a "nazi spring” in Kiev? Or in Galicia? The Donbass wants out. Will the WMSM stop its propaganda? (If Putin is so determined to conquer Ukraine why has he twice signed an agreement by which the Donbass stays there?). There's no provision for vigorous enforcement. The Debaltsevo pocket isn't cleared. It's too much like the last agreement when Kiev forces never pulled back and never stopped shelling. At best, a first small step; at worst, a pause so Kiev can try again (here's Poroshenko explaining they used the last pause to re-arm).

DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN. Obama says the US "brokered a deal on Ukraine”. Interesting slip: Washington wasn't part of the 21 February 2014 agreement. Perhaps he's referring to two American officials deciding the new Ukrainian government without reference (well one) to the EU. The ineffable Jen Psaki explains that's not what he meant. Perhaps he meant to say "broke the deal”.

IF YOU WANT ENEMIES, WE CAN DO THAT TOO. Revealing photo: why are Putin and Lukashenko smiling and the other three not? Have Hollande and Merkel just had a reality check? Could it be something like this: NATO says it's taking "necessary measures to respond to the challenges posed by Russia and their strategic implications” and lumps Russia in with "risks and threats” in the southern neighbourhood; "Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is not an isolated incident, but a game-changer in European security”. Should Russia treat these statements from the world's most powerful military alliance as empty prattle? Or should it ask itself why it's selling energy to countries that call it an enemy?

MORE REALITY. The Debaltsevo pocket traps several thousand Kiev troops. (Maps and videos). More talk of "betrayal” and the like. It is said that a million Ukrainians of military age have fled to Russia joining another million or so. Here's a video from eastern Ukraine illustrating the reaction to the latest conscription. Deserters can now be shot. German intelligence says thedeath toll is more like 50,000. Neo-nazis carefully ignored by WMSM. And the solution is more weapons? Kiev started with most of the weapons and has been regularly defeated. The rebels now even have an aircraft they captured. If you prefer, here's a Kiev side account: victory all the way!

Complete story at - RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP » American University in Moscow

Amazing Pentagon Weapon Penetrates Putin’s Brain Before He Was Born – Petro Poroshenko’s And Victoria Nuland’s, Too | Dances With Bears

By John Helmer, Moscow

The latest release from the Pentagon in the psywar against Russia is a declassified report claiming to have penetrated the brain of President Vladimir Putin, while he was in utero.

The release appears to be from the same research group whose secret exploration of Ronald Reagan’s brain was leaked to Garry Trudeau, author of the Doonesbury comic strip, in October 1980, in the last weeks of the US presidential election when the incumbent Jimmy Carter was defeated by Reagan. The Pentagon reporting also acknowledges as a source of its expertise one of the creators of an American television series which was produced and broadcast by Rupert Murdoch’s 20th Century Fox between 2009 and 2011.

A Time Magazine interview of Putin as the “Person of the Year” for 2007 is revealed as the cover for a Pentagon-directed operation using special cameras to record Putin’s micro-muscular movements and verbalizations over several hours. Also exposed in the newly released papers is the covert engagement of Harvard University academic Timothy Colton, who was commissioned by the Pentagon’s top secret operation BODY LEADS to deploy at the annual Valdai Discussion Club between Russian offiicals and international academics and journalists. Colton’s Pentagon assignment at Valdai was to gather and interpret secret body and vocalization data on Putin, as well as on former president Dmitry Medvedev.

The television series, according to Fox, stars “Dr Cal Lightman, a deception expert whose uncanny ability to read facial expressions and body language makes him a virtual human polygraph.” Dr Brenda Connors, the uncanny expert on Putin’s brain for the Office of National Assessment (ONA) at the US Department of Defense, has produced a decade of secret reports, one in 2005 analyzing Putin’s “micro-facial expressions…and emotional baseline”; at least two in 2008; one in 2010; and at least one more in 2011. Two of the Connors reports, one from 2008 and one from 2011, were released last week, reportedly in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from USA Today and from Politico, a small circulation, free distribution paper and website based near Washington, specializing in American politics.

USA Today claims it first learned of Connors’s research and the Pentagon’s Operation BODY LEADS in March 2014, but the Pentagon refused to say anything to confirm the details. At the time, the Pentagon spokesman claimed the reports hadn’t reached the desk of the Defense Secretary.

Complete story at - Amazing Pentagon Weapon Penetrates Putin’s Brain Before He Was Born – President Reagan’s Brain Secret Confirmed, Petro Poroshenko’s And Victoria Nuland’s, Too | Dances With Bears

How Russia Plans To Retaliate For The Saudi-Driven Collapse In Oil | Zero Hedge

A week ago we explained that yet another conspiracy theory, one involving virtually every geopolitical hotzone, from Saudi Arabia, to Russia, the United States, Qatar, Syria, ISIS, and Ukraine, has become fact when our speculation from last September, namely that the plunge in oil was an choreographed move between the US and the Saudis (even if Kerry realized - we hope - that it meant a recession for the US energy producing states and a collapse in the only vibrant US industry of the past decade: shale), one seeking to dislodge Russian control over the Syrian government and to facilitate the passage of a Qatar pipeline under Syrian territory.

This is what the NYT said: "Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices."

The NYT added:

Saudi Arabia and Russia have had numerous discussions over the past several months that have yet to produce a significant breakthrough, according to American and Saudi officials. It is unclear how explicitly Saudi officials have linked oil to the issue of Syria during the talks, but Saudi officials say — and they have told the United States — that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices.

That's the quo. As for the quid, it is as we predicted:

Any weakening of Russian support for Mr. Assad could be one of the first signs that the recent tumult in the oil market is having an impact on global statecraft. Saudi officials have said publicly that the price of oil reflects only global supply and demand, and they have insisted that Saudi Arabia will not let geopolitics drive its economic agenda. But they believe that there could be ancillary diplomatic benefits to the country’s current strategy of allowing oil prices to stay low — including a chance to negotiate an exit for Mr. Assad.

"Russia has been one of the Syrian president’s most steadfast supporters, selling military equipment to the government for years to bolster Mr. Assad’s forces in their battle against rebel groups, including the Islamic State, and supplying everything from spare parts and specialty fuels to sniper training and helicopter maintenance."

To be sure, the Chairman of the Russian State Duma International Committee Alexei Pushkov promptly rejected all the NYT allegations, writing on his Twitter account:

“There were no negotiations with the Saudis to decrease oil production
in exchange for Moscow’s refusal to support Assad. Hoax.”

... but that was to be expected - after all it is not as if the two powers are on friendly terms, plus the NYT leak was meant to push the fulcrum of leverage away from Russia. What is certain, however, is that Putin couldn't care less about his "friend" Assad, but he cares very much about Gazprom preserving its near-monopolistic dominance as marginal energy provider to Europe of last resort, one which gives Russia as much leverage over the bulk of Europe as the ECB's printing press, if not much more: Draghi's outside money only reaches about 1% of the population; Gazprom's heat reaches everyone.

Complete story at - How Russia Plans To Retaliate For The Saudi-Driven Collapse In Oil | Zero Hedge

Article: UKRAINE: The Propaganda War | OpEdNews

Last week Thomas Friedman writing in the New York Times called Putin a "thug" and "Hitler". This week Timothy Garton Ash writing in the Guardian comment section says Putin is Slobodan Milosevic.

Both Friedman and Ash say that Putin is threatening Europe and he must be stopped. Both say the only way to stop Putin is to tighten the screws of economic sanctions on Russia, send more lethal military equipment to Ukraine and put NATO boots on the ground. They both call on Obama to do so.

Putin is neither Hitler nor Milosevic. Whenever people write such hyperbole they should immediately be suspected of being propagandists, especially when they heap praise on John "Bomb-Bomb" McCain as Ash does.

Neither Friedman nor Ash can point to any evidence that Putin has been the aggressor in Ukraine, committed genocide as did Hitler and Milosevic, or tried to cause ethnic cleansing. Kiev backed by Obama has been committing genocide and ethnic cleansing in South-East Ukraine.

Russian tanks are not on the move and threatening Europe. Friedman and Ash are making it up. The Baltic States and Poland are safe no matter how much Obama and the main stream media wring their hands and say they are frightened of Russian aggression in Europe. It is almost laughable if they were not so deadly serious and determined about their ulterior motives for making these stories up.

Only those with exaggerated imaginations or people who want to make things up say that Russia has shown evil intentions on its neighbors. People like Friedman and Ashton keep sticking their finger in Putin's eye hoping that he will lash out irrationally. So far they have been very disappointed.

Throughout the crisis that Washington manufactured in Ukraine, Russia has reacted in a measured and moderate response. When Russia's national security was threatened with the loss of its naval base in Crimea, Russia waited for a democratic referendum to approve annexation. When Novorossiya voted to break away from Ukraine, Russia called for diplomacy and greater autonomy for Novorossiya rather than annexation.

When the government in Kiev surrounded, isolated and attacked the civilian population of Donbas, Russia sent in humanitarian aid. And Russia continues to send in humanitarian aid although it is ignored by the main stream media.

Complete story at - Article: UKRAINE: The Propaganda War | OpEdNews

Famous Moron Thomas Friedman Says "Czar Putin" Might Invade Baltics in Order To Raise Oil Prices - Russia Insider

Policy wonks and other nerds might recall that Russia just announced a $35 billion "anti-crisis" spending plan to support an economy battered by Western sanctions and falling oil prices. But how will the Russians pay for this robust financial package?

Nobody really knows except for Thomas Friedman, who is considered by all responsible historians to be the greatest disseminator of knowledge since Gutenberg and his revolutionary torrent-sharing machine, "the printing press."

Although he is known as an accomplished author and pie-eating champion, Thomas Friedman is also celebrated as a highly-authoritative gossip columnist for The New York Times. And it is his most recent gossip scoops which sparked your correspondent's curiosity and admiration.

"Czar Putin"—we are now quoting directly from Friedman—"is now almost entirely dependent on oil and gas exports, so he’s really hurting with the oil price collapse."

However, this conundrum is easily remedied, or so we are led to believe:

If Putin decides to fully invade Ukraine, or worse, one of the Baltic states, and test whether NATO will really fight to defend either, the price of oil will go up.

100% brilliant. All Putin needs to do is invade "one of the Baltic states"—any Baltic state, it doesn't really matter which one—and then abracadabra!, back to $100 oil and caviar for breakfast. The beauty of this plan is in its remarkable simplicity.

Complete story at - Famous Moron Thomas Friedman Says "Czar Putin" Might Invade Baltics in Order To Raise Oil Prices - Russia Insider

The Greanville Post • Vol. VIII | Et Tu, Frontline?

Hatchet job on Putin only demonstrates the conformist spirit permeating US journalism

Frontline sees itself as an implacable observer of political and social reality, an uncompromising witness to contemporary history. The truth is often a lot less flattering.

As a legendary liberal franchise, Frontline has frequently produced interesting and even controversial reports on a variety of topics, including the NRA’s intransigence to gun control, the abortion wars, JFK’s assassination, the modern KKK, “Bush’s War” (somewhat critical of the Iraq War’s genesis as something of a botched, incompetent affair, but not scandalized by its sheer immorality, arrogance, systemic roots or broader purposes), and a host of other issues, but when it comes to foreign policy questions in which the American empire is again competing with some invidiously designated foe (these days the villains are again Russia and China), it behaves, conceits aside, like the rest of the conformist pack, as little more than a stenographer to power.

The proof that this is the case can be found in Frontline’s recent hatchet job on Vladimir Putin (Putin’s Way, Jan. 14, 2015).

The show’s tagline promptly gives its true intention away:

“An investigation of Vladimir Putin. Included: the claims of criminality and corruption that have accented his reign (sic) as Russia’s ruler.”

Just reflect for a moment why the producers picked such poisoned words to define their subject: What do these words have in common, singly and jointly? They all connote bad things. Obviously in any random description of an important leader, when such threatening terms crop up the prudent reader will be well advised to run for cover.

The Frontline crew doesn’t dare say it openly, in a full sentence, as that would supposedly tarnish them, perish the thought, as “non-objective” journalists. So they simply let our brains do the logical collating of the hinted meanings. The upshot is that Putin, so described by invidious associative terms does not come out very cuddly.

Complete story at - The Greanville Post • Vol. VIII | Et Tu, Frontline?

Vladimir Suchan: Logos politikos: An instructive piece of Western anti-Russian Propaganda Served on Sunday

If you want to get a taste of Western anti-Russian propaganda (and its intelligence) and if you have not just had a good Sunday meal, to good to be spoiled, you can read this new AFP piece which claims that standing for Russia, Russia's interests (and Putin) requires from the Russians that they "eat less, use beetroot instead of lipstick, swap French lingerie for Russian-made cotton panties ..."

The meme and lie that "Putin wants its people to eat less" is repeated in the article six times (clearly that's what AFP wants the properly brainwashed reader living in corporate "freedom" to remember and take home): "Eat less ... the first president for whom I am being asked to eat less ... an elderly woman told him she could no longer afford sugar for her disabled son. His advice to her? Eat less. ... 'we survived hunger and cold, we have to think about our health and eat less,' said the deputy ... 'Eat less for Putin' ... 'in this country, eat less food, use less electricity,' First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov [a liberal fifth columnist invited to Davos just to say this?] told Davos elites at the World Economic forum."

The last "punch line" of the article (meant to reinforce and sum up the intended mind-programming prompt for the uncritical, numb and dumb mind) then says: "I absolutely don't trust our corrupt authorities," said Yulia Galich, 43. "And since there's no trust, there's no desire to endure this. For whom?"

Complete story at - Vladimir Suchan: Logos politikos: An instructive piece of Western anti-Russian Propaganda Served on Sunday (if you are up to it)

Kremlin hard-liner: Russians would 'rather starve' than surrender Putin to Western aggressors - Telegraph

There's a follow-up to this article.  If you don't see it posted yet, it will be soon.

The Russian people will endure any hardship to defend President Vladimir Putin against aggression by the West even if they don't have enough to eat, the country's deputy leader vowed in Davos.

"Read our history: the Russians will never give up their leader. We will tighten our belt, eat less food, suffer any privations, but if outsiders want to force changes on us, we will be united as never before," said Igor Shuvalov, the deputy prime minister.

Mr Shuvalov said Russia's dispute with Europe and America goes far beyond Ukraine: "It erupted there but it could have been anywhere. This is about the West trying to show us our place and refusing to treat us an equal. They are telling us to sit in a corner quietly."

"If this doesn't change, it will be a bleeding wound for decades. People don't blame Putin because they know this is an attack against Russia," he said.
Despite the hot rhetoric, he revealed that Russia is to seek urgent support from China to boost its vanishing foreign exchange reserves as the combination of sanctions and the crash in oil prices cripple the Russian economy.

"I don't want to beat about the bush. The sanctions are very destructive and the longer they last, the worse it is going to be," he said.

Complete story at - Kremlin hard-liner: Russians would 'rather starve' than surrender Putin to Western aggressors - Telegraph

The Vineyard of the Saker: Trolling Russia

By Israel Shamir

The edifice of world post-1991 order is collapsing right now before our eyes. President Putin’s decision to give a miss to the Auschwitz pilgrimage, right after his absence in Paris at the Charlie festival, gave it the last shove. It was good clean fun to troll Russia, as long as it stayed the course. Not anymore. Russia broke the rules.

Until now, Russia, like a country bumpkin in Eton, tried to belong. It attended the gathering of the grandees where it was shunned, paid its dues to European bodies that condemned it, patiently suffered ceaseless hectoring of the great powers and irritating baiting of East European small-timers alike. But something broke down. The lad does not want to belong anymore; he picked up his stuff and went home - just when they needed him to knee in Auschwitz.

Auschwitz gathering is an annual Canossa of Western leaders where they bewail their historic failure to protect the Jews and swear their perennial obedience to them. This is a more important religious rite of our times, the One Ring to rule them all, established in 2001, when the Judeo-American empire had reached the pinnacle of its power. The Russian leader had duly attended the events. This year, they will have to do without him. Israeli ministers already have expressed their deep dissatisfaction for this was Russia’s Red Army that saved the Jews in Auschwitz, after all. Russia’s absence will turn the Holocaust memorial day into a parochial, West-only, event. Worse, Russia’s place will be taken by Ukraine, ruled by unrepentant heirs to Hitler’s Bandera.

This comes after the French ‘Charlie’ demo, also spurned by Russia. The West hinted that Russia’s sins would be forgiven, up to a point, if she joined, first the demo, and later, the planned anti-terrorist coalition, but Russia did not take the bait. This was a visible change, for previously, Russian leaders eagerly participated in joint events and voted for West-sponsored resolutions. In 2001, Putin fully supported George Bush’s War on Terrorism in the UN and on the ground. As recently as 2011, Russia agreed with sanctions against North Korea and Iran. As for coming for a demonstration, the Russians could always be relied upon. This time, the Russians did not come, except for the token presence of the foreign minister Mr. Lavrov. This indomitable successor of Mr. Nyet left the event almost immediately and went - to pray in the Russian church, in a counter-demonstration, of sorts, against Charlie. By going to the church, he declared that he is not Charlie.

For the Charlie Hebdo magazine was (and probably is) explicitly anti-Christian as well as anti-Muslim. One finds on its pages some very obnoxious cartoons offending the Virgin and Christ, as well as the pope and the Church. (They never offend Jews, somehow).

A Russian blogger who’s been exposed to this magazine for the first time, wrote on his page: I am ashamed that the bastards were dealt with by Muslims, not by Christians. This was quite a common feeling in Moscow these days. The Russians could not believe that such smut could be published and defended as a right of free speech. People planned a demo against the Charlie, but City Hall forbade it.

Remember, a few years ago, the Pussy Riot have profaned the St Saviour of Moscow like Femen did in some great European cathedrals, from Notre Dame de Paris to Strasbourg. The Russian government did not wait for vigilante justice to be meted upon the viragos, but sent them for up to two years of prison. At the same time, the Russian criminal law has been changed to include ‘sacrilege’ among ordinary crimes, by general consent. The Russians do feel about their faith more strongly than the EC rulers prescribe.

Complete story at - The Vineyard of the Saker: Trolling Russia

Putin Conspiracy Theorists Strike Again - On US Public TV (PBS) » American University in Moscow

Gilbert Doctorow, Ph.D.

Gilbert Doctorow is a Research Fellow of the American University in Moscow

• The segment's shocking revelations are nothing more than uncritical regurgitations from Karen Dawisha’s hit piece Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?
• Obligatory tears for Khodorkovsky, of course
• There's even some word salad tossed by The Economist's Edward Lucas
• A serious embarrassment for PBS. They are usually able to rise above this kind of Russia mud-slinging so prevalent in the mainstream media.

The just released Frontline program "Putin’s Way” is a masterpiece of the western "Czar Putin" campfire story, destilled to perfection.

In the segment, PBS chucks its coveted journalistic guidelines straight out the window, relying almost entirely on worn-out speculation and bogeyman fairytales peddled by the likes of The Economist's Putin-hater-in-chief, Edward Lucas.

The accusations made are not even groundbreaking; the program, from start to finish, is a spectacular promotional piece for Karen Dawisha’s book Putin’sKleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, the narrative of which it follows closely while even giving us cameo appearances by the author.

This show comes on top of a lengthy feature review of the book by Washington Post blowhard Anne Applebaum, which was published last week in The New York Review of Books.

Hats off to Dawisha and her agent: this type of promotion sure beats signing ceremonies at bookstores.

Complete story at - Putin Conspiracy Theorists Strike Again - On US Public TV (PBS) » American University in Moscow