Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on October 30, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over

Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over thumbnail


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. (For your convenience, I am pasting in the full transcript of his speech below.) Western media did their best to ignore it or 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.

The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin 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 her 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 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.

To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:

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.

To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world?

Text of Vladimir Putin’s speech and a question and answer session at the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session in Sochi on 24 October 2014.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organizers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organizations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

An organization and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.

Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organizations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilize. That is what a real mobilization policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalization based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalization. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalization are visible now in many countries.  

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defense system.

Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favor of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘color revolutions’ to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a “greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalization of such new poles, creating powerful regional organizations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy.  But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centers and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilized way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘color revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organization rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasize this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.

We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Club Orlov

57 Comments on "Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over"

  1. rockman on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 8:46 am 

    “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…But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.”

    Crimea may stand as an example of an example of that promise.

  2. foxv on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 8:58 am 

    I’m not surprised by this. This while Ukraine debacle has shown the Western leaders to be pathetically immature. Putin was the only one acting like a diplomat in this. The West needs to grow up and realize the world isn’t there personaly playground.

    As for Crimea, well the so called “Invasion” was done with 0 bullets fired and 0 protest. There was not even an outcry from a loud mouth minority.

    The silence and acceptance of the people actually involved speak volumes.
    And they say very clearly Crimea is Russian.

  3. paulo1 on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 9:24 am 

    Well, his ‘improving democratic institutions in Russia’ and ‘The Rule Of Law’ might be all very well and good in a speech, but from what I see it means helping the oligarchs and Russian Mafia get richer and gaming ‘voters’ to stay in power.

    Sound familiar?

    How did an ex KGB boychuk become a billionaire, anyway?

    They are all a bunch of lying fucking crooked bastards. Putin, Obama, McCain, Egyptian Junta, Bebe, Harper….how big should this list be? Political leadership and honesty have long since evaporated in this world. Regular folks go to work and get their life sucked out in taxes….God knows how much is funneled to special interests and war mongering game players? Hope in the ballot box, with the gerrymandering that goes on? And that is in the democracies.

    Make preps, lose debt, have a means of personal protection, and disengage….starve the beast as much as possible. I don’t know how to do this beyond living simply, having some guns, not being a debt slave, and staying informed from a variety of sources.

    People have to stop listening to these quacking psychopathic crooks. Putin sounds better than Obama….no doubt about it. But he scares me, big time.

    To be honest, I think I trust professional military leaders more than politicians. At least they have a code. But, give ’em power and give ’em time and I suppose we would all be living in an Egypt or North Korea.

    Every day seems more and more threatening. Well, WWIII might be on the way, but they won’t get my kids or anyone in my family to be fodder for their grasping aspirations.

    If what we are seeing is leadership, God help us all.


  4. JuanP on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 9:31 am 

    I both watched the 45 minute speech and read it three times. I think this is the most important speech given by Putin so far. This speech is excellent and I agree with it 100%.
    I think President Putin is the best leader living in the world today. I wish he was Uruguay’s president, but I am glad he is Russia’s. Russia is one of the power centers in this multipolar world we live in and I am glad that at least one of the powers has a smart, courageous, direct leader like Putin.

  5. Davy on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 10:10 am 

    Sorry Juan, I have to agree with Paulo on this one. Putt is romancing the public with hollow words. If he were true to those words he would not be a billionaire supporting an oligarchy of Billionairs.

  6. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 10:31 am 

    The propaganda being spread through the Western MSM is clearing winning. At least in the West. The DC oligarchs will continue to murder millions, and to bring sovereign nations into chaos and turmoil. They know no other means by which to maintain their power and global hegemony. They will continue to spread War, violence, and chaos, with no regards for peace, justice, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and above all else, the truth. They will continue to play their evil games, until the East has had enough. Then there will be War, and that War will not remain overseas this time.

    Wake up people. This coming November will be a turning point in history, if we manage to make it that far. Vote for anyone else, other than a democrat, or a republican.

  7. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 10:34 am 

    Sorry. Next coming November, 2015.

  8. Northwest Resident on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 10:47 am 

    I think Putin is playing a well-scripted role in giving this speech. It is theatrics. It is manipulation of public perception and attitudes. It comes at a time when the entire world is falling apart at the seams, coming unglued, and heading into a very dark future. Putin’s words are so true in many regards, I really can’t argue with much of anything he says. But what is the effect? You can be sure that the global population has now been put on notice that military conflict is going to be a part of their future, that regional conflicts are a looming reality, that things as they are will not hold, that danger is lurking right around every corner. The fear effect of Putin’s speech is obvious — you might even think that was the sole intent of his speech, and it might well have been. “The Ruling Elite”, as Putin calls it (and of which he is a member), clearly see in their crystal ball the day rapidly approaching when BAU and this “new world order” will go down in flames. And that “ruling elite” has every intention of managing the slide down, maintaining control and retaining their elite positions on civilization reboot. To accomplish that goal, they’ll need to spread the fear thick, billions will need to die quickly, and those who survive will need to be made to beg for a strong central authority that will save them from the chaos. This last quarter of 2014 is shaping up to be a real doozy. I wonder what’s next?!!

  9. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 10:57 am 


    I see this as more of a wake-up call for humanity. DC has no hope in maintaining global hegemony. If we ‘the people’ allow them to continue, we are headed for WW3. TEOTWAWKI.

  10. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 11:00 am 

    There are better ways to manage ‘de-growth’. IMHO

  11. Davy on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 11:24 am 

    Greg, we agree that the DC psychopaths are rogue at this point. Putt speach was well done. What I will not agree on is Putt is anything but a more sophisticated psychopath who is in this for himself and his Billionairs cable under the guise of Russian nationalism standing up to a morally corrupt west.

    Putt is no alternative he is probably more dangerous and more ready to use his military at this point. He has far more to gain and the west to lose with militarism. It is no guarantee his gamble with military adventurism will succeed.

    The centerpiece of his strategy of de-Americanization is not a sure winner. Russia is not big enough IMO to do this alone.

    China and the other Brics are not ready for a WWIII. So in the meantime he is bleeding his economy buying time for other to jump into the fray. It may not happen and he will pay the price.

  12. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 11:44 am 


    Putin is not the instigator here, and many of the DC oligarchs are NOT even Americans. Putin is asking for global cooperation, for a multi-polar world. He is not advocating militarism, he is opposed to it. He is sending a warning to the US ‘administration’ that the world is not going to continue to allow US military adventurism.

    This is not about de-Americanization. The oligarchs in DC care as much about Americans, as they do any other people on the planet. NA-DA. Try to separate Americans from the power mongers in control of the American military industrial complex. Contrary to the western media propaganda, and our indoctrination, the two are mutually exclusive.

  13. turningpoint on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 11:53 am 

    Regardless of whatever anyone thinks of Putin or his actions, this is not the speech of a Hitler. I always thought comparisons of Putin to Hitler were deeply stupid and paranoid.

    “We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.”

    He knows Washington very well.

    “They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.”

    Enormous casualties? Relative to what? I’ve read several thousand people have died. It doesn’t even reach the level of Vietnam, let alone Revolutions, WWI or WWII — casualty counts of foreign axis and allied countries in Europe.

    Anyway, contrary to what Washington may prefer we Americans believe, it looked like the speech of a sane man, not the half crazed lunatic we’re supposed to believe him to be.

  14. turningpoint on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 11:59 am 

    Paulo, Obama scares me far more than Putin does.

  15. turningpoint on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 12:04 pm 

    Paulo, Juan, Davy and Gregt, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

  16. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 12:16 pm 

    End the Fed. Bring the troops back home, and focus on solving the myriad of problems brewing in the US. Further military adventurism is not in the best interests of the American public. It will only serve to isolate the US from the rest of the world, and add to an exponential rise in unserviceable debt. Every year, and every dollar spent furthering the agenda of these corrupt individuals will only exacerbate the collapse when it finally comes. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

  17. Northwest Resident on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 12:18 pm 

    turningpoint — I agree. Putin’s speech was very logical, sane and presented a rational view of world events. The conclusions he arrived at, most of them anyway, I thought were undeniable.

    A good argument can be made, I think, that in this world today, America IS the main problem. We are the main problem because we consume vastly more resources on a per-capita basis than the rest of the world, and that *IS* a problem. The average American has an engrained sense of entitlement that has been hammered into his/her psyche since the first year of elementary school. The average American feels entitled to all the gas, food, enormous home(s) and all the other blatant wastage of valuable resources that we commonly see. Separating the average American from his/her sense of entitlement is going to be a very painful experience for most. The “ruling elite” certainly know this, and other than themselves of course, they most certainly see the writing on the wall and realize that the excessive wastage of natural resources by Americans cannot continue. So, what to do? 1) End QE, 2) Trot out Alan Greenspan to put the world on notice that the American/global economy is going to be “brought down”, 3) Put bogeyman Putin on the world stage to announce that we are on the verge of all hell breaking loose and that the BIG problem in the world today is America, 4) Pull the plug and set off Armageddon, let it all play out, 5) When the smoke clears, reboot, but NOT with America at center stage and the designated resource-waster any longer.

    Just stream of thought speculation here. One final thought. Look at the chain of events over the last several weeks. 1) Stock market insanity, 2) Plunging oil price, 3) Saudi announcement of lower oil price, 4) End of QE, 5) Greenspan announcing that the economy must be “brought down” to correct the bubble, 6) Putin taking center stage to lay out a vision of future war, conflict, strategic realignment and removal of America as the world policeman and big dog on the block. Not coincidence at all that these major events are all taking place all at the same time, in my opinion. Just something to think about.

  18. Davy on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 12:31 pm 

    Greg, I am in agreement on the U.S. withdrawing from its current empire status although I don’t consider the US empire material.

    Putt cannot be trusted in the end. I would allow him more trust than the DC mongrels but not much more. He is a blue eyed devil cultivated by the KGB, driven by greed, and Russian nationalism.

    Personally I feel no world leader can be trusted at this point. They all smell blood and danger. They will side with whoever will save their skin in the coming free for all.

  19. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 12:35 pm 


    Just for the record, us Canadians use more resources per capita than you guys in the US. You do not have a monopoly on self entitlement either.

    The world is beginning on a rapid, exponential state of decline. Global hegemony for the elite, using all of us for resources and cannon fodder, is not in any of our best interests. We are currently facing the ‘perfect storm’. Economics, energy, resources, and the environment, are all reaching limits. The time to get our own ‘houses in order’, is quickly running out.

  20. Preston Sturges on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 12:43 pm 

    Did Putin just blame America for the Russian invasion of Afghanistan?

  21. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 12:43 pm 


    Unfortunately, it is our ‘leaders’ that have created the blood and danger to begin with. Psychopaths, sociopaths, and criminals. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They will do whatever they can to maintain their power, all of them, and unless you have something to offer them, their plans do not include you.

  22. rockman on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 12:44 pm 

    Davy – “OPutt is romancing the public with hollow words. If he were true to those words he would not be a billionaire supporting an oligarchy of Billionairs.’ Not that I support anything Putin has done but exactly how is he different as you describe him them many of our global leaders? Including in the US. For grins folks can check the web and find out what percentage of our political leadership in DC are millionaires.

  23. Northwest Resident on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 12:54 pm 

    rockman — Exactly. When Putin talks about “the ruling elite”, he conveniently fails to mention the fact that he’s a card-carrying member of that exclusive club — no better and no worse than your average politician anywhere else in the world.

    Putin is roughly equivalent to a political candidate trying to portray himself as a “DC outsider”, but is still a multi-millionaire and in fact, in reality, is just another “one of them”.

    Just to disagree with Davy a little here… I believe that when Putin states that Russia has no goal of expanding its empire, that Russia’s goal is to maintain the integrity of its extensive land mass and all the nationalities and people that are part of its immense empire, he is stating the truth.

    Also, Putin claims that Russia is self-sufficient, and I also believe that is a fact.

    BTW, America would be totally self-sufficient also if we reduced our consumption to that of the average per-capita consumption of Russia. But that would be a long, hard fall for the majority of Americans.

  24. MSN Fanboy on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 1:04 pm 

    Well i never. Putin actually treated the Valdai to the truth.

    He must have a motive, still you can’t argue his premises.

    All we get in the west is lies. Putin is portrayed as a bad tyrannical manic yet once again.

    Its the mad tyranical manic who witnesses the truth.

    Let me put it this way, most people think doomers are crazy people…

    However we know they speak truth to the lies.

    If what we label bad is truth and good as lies…

    Where is our moral code or superioty, it appears the ones who think putin is insane much like doomers are become the delusional psychopaths .

  25. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 1:10 pm 


    Black is white, in is out, and down is up. Welcome, to the Age of Endarkenment.

  26. Davy on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 1:29 pm 

    Rock, being the richest man in the world is worlds apart from your lowly congressional slimeball.

    How do you get to be the richest man in the world? Looting a country along with your cable of thieves that’s how.

    It is ashamed Putt does not fully mean what he said. If he did he would have to admit, as an alcoholic would, that he is part of the problem instead he is portraying himself as the white night.

    I also disagree with NR a little in that Russia will act like the US as needed to protect the integrity of its borders. So if one of its neighbors follows a different path Russia will intervene.

    Russia is not self sufficient as no other major power is. Russia will dissolve like the rest under the pressure of degrowth.

    Russia is a mafia of oligarchs different pants but same underwear we see in DC or China. This is about massive power plays not brotherly love.

  27. Keith_McClary on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 1:35 pm 

    Funny, they never found Saddam’s billions, or Gadaffi’s or Arafat’s.

    They did find some of Marcos’ .

  28. Northwest Resident on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 1:46 pm 

    Davy — Very thoughtful and well-stated retort. I don’t doubt but that Russia will act to as needed to slap down border nations that they feel threatened by, just like the USA will do in a moment’s notice. I don’t consider that “military adventurism” — I would more consider that “self defense”. Also, when I say that Russia is (and America could be) self-sufficient, I’m thinking on a very basic level, able to provide their own energy, food and water — the basic necessities of life. I would agree that NO nation great or small is self-sufficient in terms of maintaining any semblance of BAU.

  29. Davy on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 1:56 pm 

    Agreed NR. I admire Putin as the greatest politician in the world now. That does not make him a good person.

    I admire Russia for having the balls to stand up to the corrupt globalist but that does not make Russia any less dangerous. Russia is a military driven country. It always has been.

    The Russian people admire strength not weakness. These attitudes will ensure Russia will contribute their fair share to global conflict.

  30. Northwest Resident on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 2:13 pm 

    “Russia is a military driven country. It always has been.”

    It has always needed to be.

    Unlike America, with a friendly and fairly like-minded bunch of Canadians on the Northern border and a bunch of third worlders to the south on the other side of a rather easily protected border (if needed), Russia is surrounded by all kinds of enemies — always has been, and probably always will be. Putin beating the war drums like he is probably has multiple goals, with one of the main ones being to rouse and consolidate Russia’s population and to get them thinking in militaristic terms. They’re going to need that attitude with the way things are going. Good news for Russia however is that they aren’t going to have to worry about mechanized invasion forces from here on out, and it’s going to take the Huns and Golden Hordes a long time to raise enough horses and train enough riders to mount any kind of major operation against Russia!

  31. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 2:24 pm 


    But they did find those billions.

    ht tp://

    The real question is; Whatever did happen to all of the gold that supposedly belonged to the people of Iraq and Libya? I wonder if it will be given to Germany in 2020? Somehow I doubt it.

  32. turningpoint on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 2:38 pm 

    Davy, are you implying Putin is the richest man in the world? Putin is not even listed as Forbe’s 2014 richest man in Russia. The number one richest man always seems to be fluctuate between Bill Gates and Carlos Slim of Mexico.

    I do not doubt Putin is very wealthy but I would like to know your source?

  33. Davy on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 3:05 pm 

    Turning, it was messy of me to claim he is the richest man in the world. He may be but I imagine after this and other articles he is the richest head of state. I also believe his power as the head of Russia’s billionaire oligarchs makes him by extension the richest man in the world.

    Mr. Belkovsky told European newspapers in December 2007 that Mr. Putin had amassed a fortune of “at least” $40 billion through sizable shares of some of Russia’s largest energy companies. Mr. Putin secretly controlled “at least 75 percent” of Gunvor, 4.5 percent of Gazprom and 37 percent of Surgutneftegaz, Mr. Belkovsky said, citing only unnamed Kremlin insiders.

    “The reality is that Putin has others and entities to move money that he controls or that he might control ultimately,” said Mr. Zarate, the former Bush adviser. “The challenge with him is you don’t have an easy way of drawing the line to the assets he actually owns and controls currently. There’s a dimension of layering and relationships with people with whom he’s close and entities that serve as conduits that make it tricky to determine what is Putin’s and what is not.”

  34. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 3:47 pm 


    Full circle here:

    Juan Carlos Zarate serves as the Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism. In his current role, Mr. Zarate is responsible for developing and overseeing the effective implementation of the U.S. government’s counterterrorism strategy.

    Mr. Zarate also led the U.S. government’s global efforts to hunt Saddam Hussein’s assets…………

    I wonder if Mr. Zarate knows what happened to Saddam’s gold? Bet he does.

  35. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 4:14 pm 

    ““Russia is a military driven country. It always has been.”

    It has always needed to be.

    Unlike America, with a friendly and fairly like-minded bunch of Canadians on the Northern border and a bunch of third worlders to the south on the other side of a rather easily protected border (if needed), Russia is surrounded by all kinds of enemies — always has been, and probably always will be.”

    Which should beg the question: If America isn’t threatened like Russia is, then why does the US spend five times per capita on defence spending than what Russia does?

    “Putin beating the war drums like he is probably has multiple goals, with one of the main ones being to rouse and consolidate Russia’s population and to get them thinking in militaristic terms.”

    Maybe Putin just wants to increase the Russian national defence budget? Maybe he would like to get up to a third of the per capita military spending of the US? Or get the Russians at least partially thinking in the same terms militarily, as US citizens already do?

    Sorry, just thinking out loud.

  36. Davy on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 5:00 pm 

    Russians are wise people Greg. You and I know that. My point is there is no love for humanity oozing out of Russia rather it is more the desire to be an equally among thieves.

  37. Preston Sturges on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 5:00 pm 

    >Davy, are you implying Putin is the richest man in the world?

    Putin doesn’t need to be one of the richest men in the world as long he can imprison or murder some of the richest men in the world and brag about it.

  38. Davy on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 6:20 pm 

    Exactly Pres but it don’t hurt to have some pocket change just in case those that you imprison and murder find a way to get even.

    It appears he may be the richest elected leader in the world. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I get overly dramatic sometimes.

  39. redpill on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 7:17 pm 

    Hard to reconcile why such a great leader would need to quash any media entity that doesn’t toe the State line.

    How about a different tack when comparing countries. How’s the rule of law doing there in Russia?

    JuanP, you buy those tickets to Uruguay yet?

  40. Preston Sturges on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 7:33 pm 

    Putin is like some teen singer that has to do increasingly shocking things so people don’t ignore them.

    If he wasn’t flapping his mouth and making noise, the rest of the world would pretty much forget about Russia.

  41. jjhman on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 7:41 pm 

    Why is Orlov still posting here? When he was posting about what we in the west could learn from the USSR experience of financial collapse there was some merit to his work. He beat that horse to death and has reduced humself to no more than an angry scold and champion of whatever his home country does.

    He should just go back to Russia and work for Putin. Every thing he has written in the last year amounts to just a string of vitriol against the west while praising the Putin policies.

  42. JuanP on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 7:46 pm 

    Redpill, I am in the process of buying land there. I am buying back from a friend some land I owned years ago. I am purchasing three 11 hectare lots in the middle of nowhere. They are the only properties smaller than 1,000 acres in sight, subdivided from two neighboring farms. A total of slightly over seventy acres. I am gifting my younger brother one of the lots.
    My mother and all our friends and family are delighted because they never expected my brother or me to ever go back. My mother has gifted us all the materials needed to build our houses and construction begins any day now.
    This is the first time I own land or build a house in my life.

  43. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 7:57 pm 


    Not a post by Orlov. A speech given by the President of The Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. As written above by a Russian blogger;

    ” 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.”

    I whole-heartedly agree. If the US oligarchs continue down their path of disregard for international law, and continue to pursue their unilateral ‘New World Order’ a world war is what we all will face. Putin has made himself very clear, Russia is not going to sit this one out on the sidelines. Enough is enough.

  44. GregT on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 8:02 pm 


    Sounds wonderful, good for you. Hopefully you have access to the internet, your posts have been appreciated. Looking forward to more of them.

  45. Northwest Resident on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 8:09 pm 

    JuanP — Congrats!!

  46. JuanP on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 8:12 pm 

    Hi Greg, I am staying in the USA until I can’t. Going home for the holidays for the first time since I left, though.
    Internet access is iffy at best at my new Uruguayan mini farm and I will use my neighbor’s connection for now. I don’t want more monthly bills. I have excellent water and neighbors, though, and a lot of stones in a very beautiful spot. 😉

  47. Makati1 on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 8:32 pm 

    Davy, the New York Times is a propaganda rag sponsored by those wealthy elites you are talking about. You really don’t believe that BS do you?

    If you are the President and have rich friends, you do not have to be wealthy to live like a king. I’m sure he is not broke, but he is far from the billionaire playboy the West portrays him as. And what national leader, who manages to stay alive, doesn’t end up with a nice net worth after? None!

    The Clintons were broke at one point and now are worth billions. I’m Sure O’bomber will end up at least a multi-millionaire when this is all over, if he lives that long. He didn’t get to be president without agreeing to the elite’s terms up front.

    I like Putin obviously. I suspect he actually has brains and knows how to use them. Most leaders today don’t, ‘O’ included. Nowhere in that long speech did I notice he had his foot in his mouth like our O’bomber does, every time he opens it. ‘O’ is a world wide joke today. Both men have the nuclear button under their finger. Who do you want to make that decision? I choose Putin. I hope he is not forced to push it.

  48. Makati1 on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 8:41 pm 

    JuanP, well done! I congratulate you on your step out of the USSA. Not being familiar with the climate there, I suspect that your acres will be sufficient for your needs and trade. We aree dong the same with a 12 acre plot here in the semi-tropical zone.

    I hope you also renounce your US citizenship after you relocate so that you can cut the chains from the IRS and NSA. I am not going to do that … yet, but it is in my future plans. My ‘chains’ amount to a simple, one page, tax form every year with a lot of zeros and nothing that would attract attention. 52 years of doing my own taxes and never audited tells me I don’t have to worry.

    I wish you the time and luck to get your southern home in order, and you and yours settled, before the SHTF.

  49. JuanP on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 9:58 pm 

    NR & Mak, Thanks!
    Mak, I am not a US citizen, I am a US Legal Alien Permanent Resident or Greencard holder.
    I can provide more than enough water, food, and wood on my acreage.
    I am thinking of what to do for income on the farm, and it is not easy. This is a desolate place with nothing but large farms and nature parks around and an extremely low population density. I have rich friends in the area that could give me a good job. I could basically live for free there once I am set up.
    My country has a relatively low population of 3.33 million in a 180,000 sqkm area, comparablein size to the states of Missouri or Washington. This population is 92.5% urban in Uruguay, and the closest large city, the capital Montevideo with 1.6 million people, is more than 200 miles away. In the area where I bought land there are less than 100 people on a ten mile radius.

  50. Northwest Resident on Thu, 30th Oct 2014 10:05 pm 

    JuanP — That sounds awesome! But I’m not jealous, not at all. :-0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *