Putin's Speech in Valdai that went Unreported by US & British Media

Friday, 31 October 2014




Most people in the English-speaking parts of the world missed Putin's speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi a few days ago, and, chances are, those of you who have heard of the speech didn't get a chance to read it, and missed its importance. Western media did their best to ignore it or at best to twist its meaning. Regardless of what you think or don't think of Putin (like the sun and the moon, he does not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most important political speech since Churchill's “Iron Curtain” speech of March 5, 1946.


In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game. Previously, the game of international politics was played as follows: politicians made public pronouncements, for the sake of maintaining a pleasant fiction of national sovereignty, but they were strictly for show and had nothing to do with the substance of international politics; in the meantime, they engaged in secret back-room negotiations, in which the actual deals were hammered out. Previously, Putin tried to play this game, expecting only that Russia be treated as an equal. But these hopes have been dashed, and at this conference he declared the game to be over, explicitly violating Western taboo by speaking directly to the people over the heads of elite clans and political leaders.



Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin's speech as follows:




1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.

2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.

3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.

4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.

5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding "empire of chaos", and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.

6.
Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat it in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.

7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not want war—nor does she fear it.

8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order - until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.

9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.

10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States—but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.

yep,Putin!
about as truthful as Obama!
Same personalities!

I'll have to wait and see what Davidben doth hath to thay about this.

Anyone can laugh all they want, but Putin makes more sense and acts much saner than anyone in the west these days.

And strangely enough, he has backed his words with actions over the last couple of years.

Hard to believe a Russian leader knows more about freedom and rights than anyone saying they uphold the US Constitution..... and actually... has taken a better stance on those principles and concepts.

Either that or western leadership, regulations and policies, and its abuses, are so bad it only seems to be the case compared to Russia these days. No matter how it plays out, other than all the PC issues (that are really just garbage anyway.....govt trying to control our private lives and thoughts) we are more like the Russia of old than Russia is these days!

BTW.... anyone who didn't read or watch Putins speech..... it might behoove you to do so

Here's an exert of the speech....

President Putin To Rothschild Czar David Cameron Of England: Do You Want to Arm People Who Eat The Organs Of Their Enemies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFJ0fdvKlQQ

I agree with you, isn't it amazing, the role reversal that has occurred over the past quarter century. Actually it has been longer than that but the acceleration has been noticeable after the collapse of the wall.

OMG,Putin's Useful Ones!

ultimate powers realized many moons ago it was most beneficial to be best friends with other ultimate powers, and when the lights go down and the camera's stop filming, the equal agenda of ultimate powers do raise a fine equal toast to all whom rule together, for the wise do sea it self reign due to those whom live to feel self important, the beguile able, the trick able, the blind, who blindly follow any data put before them as facts.

Number 2 is negated by number 10.

"Power to the people" speeches are usually (almost always) total bs.

The biggest truth I take from that speech is that a global war is coming and Russia is getting ready for it. If ten percent of the Muslims are radical and ten percent of the radicals head for global jihad, that's a lot of targets!

1.6 billion/10 = 160 million. Radical, leaning radical or supporting.

160 million/10 = 16 million. Willing to fight.

Vladimir Putin, former director of the KGB, can be trusted almost as much as a used car salesman.

sum sea beyond the fables put on tables for the eaters by the feeders.

Nescience vs Ignorance - The context of not knowing.

Nescience

From the Latin verb nesciere: "to not know because knowledge was absent or unobtainable"

Ignorance

From the Latin verb ignorare: "to not know even though necessary information is present, because that information has been willfully refused or disregarded.

Ignorance carries blame. The masses are in a state of ignorance.

The question is why?

Truth vs Perception

Truth is objective, meaning that it is not based on perceptions of human beings (which is capable of wavering). Truth is simply that which is. It is that which has occurred in the past and that which is occurring in the present. That which is.

No such thing as truth in the future.

Perception is not reality, but our work is to align the two, truth and perception.

"I've come to realize that the biggest problem anywhere in the world is that people's perceptions of reality are compulsively filtered through the screening mesh of what they want, and do not want, to be true." - Travis Walton

So basing ones reality on a perception, that which one wants to be true or untrue can only be based in ignorance, it can't be claimed as nescience as the knowledge is not absent or unattainable, it is just being ignored.

So facts are facts and fall where they may, no matter how many times and how vehemently they are ignored.

Really, and how was that conclusion conceived?



Depends on whom is delivering them. By government 'officials', true. By statist, true. By the 'people', not true. The difference is having a program to tell one from the other.



Coming, it's been here for a very long while. All that is changing is the intensity and the shifting allegiances.

And I would suggest paying attention. Those Muslims you like to refer to are but the distraction, not the main event.

And as Albert Einstein so eloquently stated: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

And the elitist actually think you can win this type of war.

But that is the fallacy, still more trustworthy than Odumbo or Cammerababboon. But hold your horses, the neo-cons are now taking over.

There was no fallacy in my post.

Just paraphrasing Lenin!
No need for Obfuscation!

Just make sure you buy a Roundtrip-Ticket,because you won't like it in Vlad's Realm!
Would be a Fryingpan Into the Fire Sort of thing!

I have friends who live in Russia and the US because of their business. They are Russian. To listen to them there is little difference between them other than all the PC garbage here.

There is crime in Russia, but there is also punishment. They laugh at our court system. They say the US is a haven for criminals, our prisons are like resorts and our police are laughable.

Putin doesn't bark. He bites. If politics was chessplaying then he
would always be steps ahead of the USA.

Stupid Europe supporting the USA rushed in to condemn Russia. And
is kicking itselve now over the sanctions they imposed themselves.

USA will face BRICS soon.

Conflict of interests may cause serious consequences. It happened two times already, so there is a very real possibility of renewal of the conflict on the same scale. Russians play chess, Americans play monopoly and China woke up and learned a lot from both sides over the last 50 years. Many things changed after The Wall fell down, but some are still stuck in a Cold War era and fighting communism which exists no more.
The Wall would never go down in first place if there wasn't an agreement which suited mutual interests of all sides. Over time mutual interest has changed and conflict of interests reached an alerting level. Putin's speech is a part of hostile negotiation which includes a use of force if necessary. I do not think he is bluffing.
I hope I am wrong. After all, I am just a brunette who got here by mistake looking for a washroom to refresh my make - up and pull the tight highs back.
P.S.
I like your mind. It's intriguing. Let me copy Putin's style and say I am not going to blow you a kiss or ask you to add me as a friend, although I am very tempted to do so and not ashamed to express this secret (no more) wish publically. LOL

Will? Too late. They are already here and a factor that shouldn't be underestimated.