samedi 27 juin 2015

Vladimir Putin on France and Europe: "The NATO members have renounced their sovereignty"

"As you know, the modern world, especially the Western world, is highly monopolised and many Western countries – whether they want to hear this or not – have voluntarily given up a considerable part of their sovereignty. To some extent, this is a result of the politics of blocs. Sometimes we find it very difficult to come to terms with them on geopolitical issues. It is hard to reach an agreement with people who whisper even at home for fear of being overheard by the Americans. This is not a joke or a figure of speech."

Vladimir Putin denounces, more and more explicitly, the servility of France and Europe towards the United States, whether in the case of wire-tapping French leaders or that of Mistral ships. 

The publication by WikiLeaks of documents establishing the wire-tapping by the United States of three French Presidents was an open secret known since the revelations of Edward Snowden. Far from protesting against the flagrant violation of French sovereignty that the espionage of its top leaders constitutes, our government bravely hastened to hush up this scandal, as was expected by Lavrov and Putin. Let us remind that France prided herself in 2013 upon rejecting asylum for Edward Snowden, and that it is illusoryto believe that these revelations could change anything : official France cannot but turn down flat Julian Assange’s calls.

By refusing the delivery of two helicopter carriers ordered and paid for by Russia, France is both disgraced and discredited internationally as a reliable economic partner and military supplier. The inept pretext of the Ukrainian crisis and alleged Russian interference, invoked by a country that involved itself in the Syrian crisis by arming Al-Nosra terrorists (of which it is apologetic) and calling for the overthrow (even murder) of the legitimate Syrian leader, reveals the extent of the hypocrisy and indecency of the French government and its subjection to American diktats. Especially since this same government then concluded huge arms sales contracts with the barbaric regimes of Qatar and even Saudi Arabia, engaged in an illegal and criminal war in Yemen.

While trade between the US and Russia is increasing, their European "allies" are forced to impose sanctions on Moscow and suffer alone its formidable repercussions: thus Vladimir Putin has renewed for one year the Russian embargo on food products from Europe.

Vladimir Putin recently said to Charlie Rose, an American TV star presenter who asked incredulously if Russia really aspired to gain respect (indeed, what a preposterous idea): "You know, I hear this all the time: Russia wants to be respected. Don’t you? Who does not? Who wants to be humiliated? It is a strange question. As if this is some exclusive right – Russia demands respect. Does anyone like to be neglected?" To this rhetorical question, our French leaders respond 'yes' without hesitation and continue to whisper in their own homes for fear of prying ears (and microphones).

Instead of a rapprochement with Russia, a historic partner concerned about the respect of States and their sovereignty, in addition a rising great power and champion of the defence of international law, France and Europe prefer subjugation to the US, the superpower in irremediable decline with which they chain their destinies. It is easy to conceive the repulsion that Russian elites, despite their professionalism, must feel for our inglorious leaders. Probably to the extent of the one felt more and more by their own peoples, whom Putin chooses to address directly.

Former arrogant colonial power and conqueror, then sovereignist Gaullist Republic, France is now relegated to the status of American sub-colony whose independence and national interests are routinely violated and trampled, as much by the stateless and spineless leaders in Paris, repeatedly guilty of the crime of high treason (abolished, thankfully for them), as by the imperial hawks in Washington. 

Even a country like Algeria, a former French colony run by a corrupt and retrograde military regime, has at least leaders concerned of their national interests to the point of refusing any participation in the Saudi-American coalition against Yemen, while Hollands' France was ready to pounce gleefully on a new crusade in Syria, which could have triggered World War III. One may ask, to use an expression of Norman Finkelstein, why prostitutes have such a bad reputation... Welcome to Western mediocracy!

Translated from French by Jenny Bright

Vladimir Putin on the tappingof French Presidents:This scandal will be stifled (English subtitles)

Briefing session with permanent members of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, 25 June 2015




President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

Mr Lavrov will tell us about the consultations in Paris. Let’s start with this. Please, Mr Lavrov.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: On the whole, it was not useless because even despite certain wrangling during the discussion, the main outcome was the acknowledgement of the fact that there is no alternative to complete fulfilment of the Minsk Agreements. First and foremost, the acknowledgement by our German and our French partners of the fact that the overwhelming part of the Minsk provisions should be implemented through direct dialogue between authorities in Kiev and Donetsk and Lugansk.
I can’t say that we have resolved all the problems because this should be done directly by the Contact group and the working subgroups created. I will report on that in more detail later, but on the day of our meeting, a report on the taps [by the United States of the French leadership] was published, and this gave rise to unrest in France so this was another thing that distracted our attention.

Vladimir Putin: How will this scandal end?

Sergei Lavrov: Frankly speaking, I think that Germany’s example [the US special services wiretapping the German leadership] gives the answer: I think that both sides will try to blanket the scandal and forget about it.

Vladimir Putin: That is what would happen.


Putin denounces the 'submission' of France: "Even without Mistral, we will survive" (English subtitles)

Direct Line with VladimirPutin, April 16, 2015




Olga Ushakova: Let's take another question from the audience – from Dmitry Shchugorev’s section this time.

Dmitry Shchugorev: We have Dmitry Abzalov here, the president of the Center for Strategic Communications. Please, go ahead.

Dmitry Abzalov: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. I have this nagging question about Mistral ships. This week, the second ship was tested and left for the French shipyard. What are the prospects? Will we push for having these ships delivered to us? Will we seek financing? In general, what will our military and economic partnership with the European Union and France, in particular, be like after what happened a year ago?

Vladimir Putin: The refusal to deliver ships under the existing contract is, of course, a bad sign. However, frankly speaking, it’s of little consequence for us or our defence capability. We signed these contracts primarily to support our partners and offer work to their shipyard. We planned to use the ships in the Far East. For us, this is not critical.

However, I believe that the leadership of France – and the French people in general – are honourable people and will return the money. We are not even going to demand any penalties or exorbitant fines, but we want all of our costs covered. This certainly means that the reliability of our partners – who, acting as part of the military-political bloc, in this case NATO, have lost some of their sovereignty – has suffered, and is now questionable. Of course, we will keep this in mind as we continue our military and technical cooperation.

Kirill Kleymenov: Our partners may find that it was an easy way for them to get off the hook.

Vladimir Putin: That’s all right, we’ll survive.


Vladimir Putin to the peoples of the West: Russia is not an imperial power, the US spy on NATO members (English subtitles)

Speech by Vladimir Putin on the integration of the Crimea to Russia, March 18, 2014 With a reflection on this intervention dated April 22, 2014



Today, I would like to address the people of the United States of America, the people who, since the foundation of their nation and adoption of the Declaration of Independence, have been proud to hold freedom above all else. Isn’t the desire of Crimea’s residents to freely choose their fate such a value? Please understand us.

I believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also understand me. Let me remind you that in the course of political consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, at the expert, though very high level, some nations that were then and are now Germany’s allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.

I also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your national feelings. We have always respected the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state, incidentally, unlike those who sacrificed Ukraine’s unity for their political ambitions. They flaunt slogans about Ukraine’s greatness, but they are the ones who did everything to divide the nation. Today’s civil standoff is entirely on their conscience. I want you to hear me, my dear friends. Do not believe those who want you to fear Russia, shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that. As for Crimea, it was and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.

I repeat, just as it has been for centuries, it will be a home to all the peoples living there. What it will never be and do is follow in Bandera’s footsteps!


Direct Line with Vladimir Putin – April 17, 2014


Kirill Kleymenov: But before giving the floor to [our correspondent in Germany], I’d like to ask you to return to the speech that we discussed at the very beginning, the one that you made before signing the treaty on Crimea and Sevastopol’s accession to Russia. Many people were very impressed by it and compared it to your Munich speech. They even called it your best speech.

I’d like to ask you why you made this speech. First, the protocol didn’t demand it and, second, the format was very unusual – you addressed peoples rather than countries or governments.

Vladimir Putin: The format was chosen based on the importance of the event and the situation. This is an unusual event in the life of our people, our country and our state. This is why I considered it my duty to address the Federal Assembly and the people of the Russian Federation in the presence of members of the State Duma and the Federation Council. This is the first point.

Second. Why was the speech addressed to the peoples of other countries rather than their governments? As you know, the modern world, especially the Western world, is highly monopolised and many Western countries – whether they want to hear this or not – have voluntarily given up a considerable part of their sovereignty. To some extent, this is a result of the politics of blocs. Sometimes we find it very difficult to come to terms with them on geopolitical issues. It is hard to reach an agreement with people who whisper even at home for fear of being overheard by the Americans. This is not a joke or a figure of speech. Listen to me, I’m serious, I’m not joking. However, they are our main partners on economic and some other issues.

But I addressed the peoples of these countries primarily because an ordinary person from Germany, France or Italy will instantly sense whether a statement is false or not. Our position is absolutely open, honest and transparent, and for this reason it is easier to get it across to ordinary people than even to some leaders. It seems to me we succeeded to some extent. No matter what government rules a country, it will have to consider the opinion of its voters. This is why I addressed the people.


samedi 6 juin 2015

Hassan Nasrallah: In any upcoming war, Hezbollah will displace millions of Israelis (English Subtitles)

Speech of Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah, on June 5, 2015

In his last speech, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah spoke at length about the situation in Lebanon, along with Syria and Yemen, and devoted only a few minutes to the Zionist entity. In response to recent Israeli bluster threateneing to move 1.5 million Lebanese in any upcoming war and ravage Lebanon, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah recalled that this was but psychological warfare, and besides, ever since its inception, Israel has lived only by massacres and destruction and cannot act otherwise.

The new elements must be found on the side of the capabilities of the Resistance, which is capable of inflicting considerable damage to the enemy, be it against its armed forces or at the Israeli home front, which will be targeted in response to attacks against Lebanese civilians as to force the evacuation of millions of Israelis. The war in Syria, which cost five times more men to Hezbollah than the 2006 war (the soldiers of the Islamic State are still less cowardly than those of the Judaic State), must be a sign of a more crushing defeat still for Israel, thanks to the experience gained by Hezbollah. After the liberation of Qalamoun, will we soon witness the liberation of Galilee and the Golan announced by Sayed Hassan Nasrallah? It will happen inevitably.

Sayed 7asan

Norman Finkelstein comments: Vandal Army Prepares to Sack Rome; Peace Be Unto the Party of Roman Gods (and May It Smite the Vandal Hordes)

Transcript :

Translation from Arabic : Sayed 7asan

Translation from French : Jenny Bright


The first point concerns the Israeli enemy.

A few days ago, we have seen, in occupied Palestine, that the enemy government conducted military manoeuvres on the home front called “Turning Point 8”. The number 8 refers to the fact that we are in 2015, and after the July War (2006), after analysing the situation, everyone in Israel agreed unanimously that Israel was defeated – with unanimity, no one claims Israel won the war. Of course, in Lebanon, there are some who claim that Israel won, but in Israel, nobody claims it, and they recognize that they have suffered a failure, that they were defeated and crushed, etc. And you remember that they organized an Investigation Commission [Winograd], and since then, they discovered that something was over, that in the July War (2006), something new had entered the equation, namely strikes against the home front of the enemy entity which could now be targeted and hit.

Previously the Israeli home front was always – or at least most of the time – preserved from wars: Israeli wars were taking place (exclusively) in our territories. But during the July War (2006), and after it, of course, during the wars in Gaza, Israel has discovered that this was not the case anymore, and that the war was going on inside enemy territory, the Palestinian territory occupied by the enemy.

Israel has been forced to conduct manoeuvres on the home front: when missiles fall on Haifa, Tel Aviv, on the North, the Centre and the South, how is it supposed to deal with populations? How it will operate its hospitals, roads, schools, commercial activities, airports, ports, etc? So these manoeuvres were done on the home front to prepare for the situation.

On the occasion of these manoeuvres – of course, they do so each year, with the exception of last year, but this year they led them; maybe they did not do so last year due to differences in the budget. So they conducted these manoeuvres for this year.

On the occasion of these manoeuvres, a number of Israeli military and political leaders made statements and expressed threats against Lebanon. They threatened to destroy it, to devastate it, to create a mass of refugees... Someone talked of pushing 1.5 million people to evacuate. 1 million Lebanese would be forced to leave their region.

For this first point, I want to comment on these statements.

First, they are part of the psychological warfare. This is part of the boastfulness and psychological warfare which we have been accustomed to since the establishment of this enemy entity. Since before 1948, and since 1948, among the weapons of the enemy that enabled it to defeat the Arab armies and peoples of the region, there has always been this psychological warfare, bluster, and boasting. It's a part of it and the same old thing, so first, there is nothing new there.

Second, Israel declares that it is about to destroy, devastate, ruin, accomplish such and such things in the field, evacuate people by hundreds of thousands or 1.5 million... What is new in this? Since this entity was established, it has been based on killings, destruction, displacement, devastation, massacres... Such is its nature, its identity. Israel is only repeating itself.

Of course, it is positive that it would remind the Lebanese and peoples of the region: "O people, there is an enemy called Israel and whose nature is that nature (criminal) which they do not try to change, they do not even try to represent something else. Such is the aggressive and terrorist nature they describe themselves through these statements."

Third, I now declare myself to the Israelis: You know well that the world has changed... Things are not as they were before. And we can give as proof your manoeuvres themselves, why have you been doing manoeuvres on the home front since the July War (2006)? Because you found out that you are an army that has been defeated, an army that can be defeated, that when your entity attacks, we will retaliate by striking at the heart and to the ends of its territory. And it is in relation to this new situation you lead these manoeuvres. Do you come to threaten us even while you're doing manoeuvres on your home front that constitute a complete and unquestionable admission that the Resistance can hit all those places where you lead these manoeuvres on your home front?!

Fourth, the time has passed... – not just from today, but since 2000 and 2006 and also during the wars in Gaza. The time when Israel destroyed our homes while their houses remain intact is over. The time when our infrastructure was destroyed while their infrastructure remained intact is over. The time when our people became refugees while their settlers remain in the settlements and usurped towns has passed. Those days are gone. Since 2006, it has been over.

But what awaits you today is much worse than what you experienced in 2006, on this level and at other levels also. And I say very clearly to those Israelis: If you threaten to force the evacuation of 1.5 million Lebanese, the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon is threatening to force the evacuation of millions of Israelis. Millions of Israelis will be forced to evacuate their homes and flee if war is imposed on Lebanon. [Audience: At Thy service, O Nasrallah!] It is an obvious reality, incontestable, as the enemy leaders know very well. And the enemy people know it all too well.

This is why all these empty words, all these empty threats have absolutely no impact, no bearing. You know very well that we do not fear your wars, then what about your threats? And if by chance you consider that we are busy in Syria, in the Qalamoun, around Ersal and other places, if you think all this can change anything in regards to combat with the Israeli enemy, know that we have stated on more than one occasion that this changes nothing. And on the contrary, it (our successes and experience) should frighten and worry you.

In any case, I declare to the Lebanese and the Lebanese people: Do not pay attention to these threats, and I know they have no effect on your will and determination, neither at close range, or from far away. They are only a part of this boasting which is a sign of concern and fear from the enemy, and a part of its weapons of deterrence that they use to confront the Resistance which it dreads and fears, as they are convinced of its ability, much more than some people (among the Lebanese and the Arab-Muslim).

And that was in regard to the first point.


mercredi 3 juin 2015

Syria : Interview of Muhammad Raad, Deputy of Hezbollah (English Subtitles)

Extracts of the interview of Muhammad Raad on Al-Mayadeen Channel, May 22, 2015

Translation : Arabi Souri - Reviewed by Jenny Bright


Extracts of the interview of Muhammad Raad on Al-Mayadeen Channel, May 22, 2015

Transcript :


Journalist: My question is: In your view at Hezbollah, when will this war (Syrian Crisis) end? Could it last for years more?

Mohammad Raad: When the US Administration and the West that orbits around it, and the regional guards and agents who are supporting the armed terrorists, when they take the decision to stop financing (the terrorists) & close the border crossings & prevent sneaking into Syria, the war will end in Syria, and the opportunity for national dialogue will open, (this very dialogue) which was supposed to take place since the beginning of the crisis.

Journalist: Do you mean by 'the regional agents': Saudi, Qatar, Turkey and Israel?

Mohammad Raad: I mean all those who support the armed terrorists.

Journalist: There is a view that says that Saudi Arabia, whom you always accuse, is still supporting (the terrorists) while other countries have stepped back like Qatar. And that Turkey is still giving a great amount of support to (the terrorists).

Mohammad Raad: Let us talk in general in order to avoid miscalculations and leave the assumptions to those who are concerned. In general, whoever supports, finances & facilitates the terrorists’ sneaking into Syria in order to destroy and sabotage Syria should cease to do so.

Journalist: That means the war might last for years.

Mohammad Raad: Yes, the military option can take some time.

Journalist: Today, after what was achieved in Qalamoun and the great victory you presented in this difficult region where the fighting was fierce, as we understand, today we see that Palmyra might have fallen, yesterday Al Mastouma and other areas fell. It looks like the fighting is a win here then a defeat there, a defeat then a victory, etc. It seems that no one can use military means to resolve the situation in a decisive way.

Mohammad Raad: Sami, now the media and the propaganda machine works on propagating false and hasty news about partial matters that have nothing to do with the strategic movement or even with the battlefield, the very issues which will define the results and the outcome of the war. We have an evaluation of the situation: in Syria, the military situation on the ground is in the favor of the regime and what we witness is a tightening of the (Syrian Arab Army’s) grip on the areas under the regime’s control.

Journalist: How can you explain this to us? The image circulated now in the other media is that the State doesn't have control over many areas, and there's a new offensive by the armed terrorists under Fatah Army and other groups. And the armed opposition, or the rebels or the Takfiris or terrorists, whatever you may call them, are achieving big gains on the ground. In your strategic evaluation, how do you see that your side, along with your ally the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, has actually started to achieve strategic gains on the ground?

Mohammad Raad: Before I answer your question, we should remember all the (previous) experiences of false propaganda talking about these terrorists & enlarging their achievements, their numbers, and their situation. Isn't it about time for the public opinion to realize that this inflated image of the (terrorists) situation is untrue? Take what happened in Qalamoun: how many were the terrorists in Qalamoun? How long did they withstand their positions? 

Journalist: Some would also say that they are in the Damascus countryside, in Jobar and in areas adjacent to Damascus, also in Aleppo… 

Mohammad Raad: Sometimes there are areas and positions the regime ignores because they are not important, and he (knows he) can contain them whenever he wants. But he goes towards the strategic areas the control of which defines the preservation of the State's structure. Isn't it strange, in the opinion of all international observers, that after 4 years and a half, the State's institutions are still functioning in Syria?

Journalist: Excellent, this is a very good point as the Army has been fighting for more than 4 years; the Syrian diplomacy is still functioning and maybe more actively than before. Now, I saw by myself that there is a head of a Syrian diplomatic mission in Egypt, Dr. Riadh Sneih, at an ambassador level, and he is an ambassador in fact, he was abroad; and the State institutions are still paying salaries, to the Army and even to students, scholarships and others... All this is important. 

Mohammad Raad: Can you imagine a state suffering a devastating war like what is happening in Syria, and still you'll find a traffic police officer issuing traffic violation tickets?

Journalist: It is said for that, Hajj Mohammad Raad, that if it wasn't for the direct financial support from a country like Iran, maybe the State wouldn't function until now, in addition to the military support, of course.

Mohammad Raad: This is not a shortfall in Syria's ability to withstand. Why are alliances forged between countries and forces at the first place? Isn't it to benefit from them during crises and during difficult times?

It is much emphasized now, and there is an abuse of this feeling that Iran is controlling Syria, while in Syria there is an Army that is still fighting after 4 years so far. This is part of the misinformation image being circulated. 

First of all, do not believe that anybody would fight on behalf of anybody else for free. Maybe there will be mutual strategic or tactical interests imposing on two parties to fight on the same field for the same goal, but each party defends its goal within this mutual interest. Iran is supporting Syria also not only as a gratitude for the Syrian stance towards the Saddam imposed 8-years war against Iran, which was financed by all those who are now contributing in the war against Syria. Iran is standing by Syria because Iran is in an alliance with Syria within the same strategic choice, but if it wasn't for the fact that the Syrian structure is capable of preserving its choice in the stance against (Israel), all the support Syria is receiving wouldn't be enough to save the situation.

Enough of simplifying the issues; now it is said that we (Hezbollah) are helping the Syrian Army. Of course, we are carrying out an assistant role to the Syrian Army in the areas where we have an interest to be present in, either in defending the Resistance (Hezbollah) or to preserve the Syrian positive position in supporting the Resistance. But why is it that the heroism and bravery of the Syrian Arab Army are neglected, the army that is holding the keys of the battlefield struggle and manages the struggle until now?!

Journalist: Do you fight in the north (of Syria) Hajj Mohammad Raad? like in Aleppo, are there fighters (of Hezbollah)?

Mohammad Raad: I'm not In favour of talking about details, but I can tell you: We fight where we have to fight.

Journalist: And this is what Sayyed Nasrallah said. He recently said that after the last Qalamoun battle, Hezbollah lost 13 martyrs. Can we know the total number of Hezbollah’s martyrs since the beginning of the Syrian war? Approximately? Some say they reached a thousand (martyrs), is this correct?

Mohammad Raad: I do not believe the figure reached this much, but it is nearing five hundred. Five hundred approximately.

Journalist: Nearing five hundred. Less or a bit more? If it is nearing, it means less… Did President Bashar Al-Assad’s administration manage to survive collapsing? Now the talks saying that ‘There is no solution with the Syrian president involved’ are renewed. And even some of the fighters factions, 13 of them, gathered in Turkey recently and raised this slogan again that by force, he will fall. While for the past 4 years and now in the 5th year, he is still here? Will President Assad’s administration survive?

Mohammad Raad: Our belief is that the solution in Syria depends on the presence and the partnership of President Assad in this solution.

Journalist: Him in person?

Mohammad Raad: Him in person.

Journalist: Ok. Can you tell us, Haj Mohammad Raad, why president Assad's allies like Iran & Hezbollah at the utmost, maybe Russia to the same degree as you or less, I don't know, why do they hold on to President Bashar Al-Assad in person? As some might argue that if President Al-Assad leaves, maybe the situation in Syria would become better. Is he (President Assad) in person the base to any solution for you?

Mohammad Raad: No, we are holding on him because the matter is not about the person, it is about the position and choice this person is committed to. You might say that there might be other persons like him, but this very person who defended Syria due to his commitment to this choice (resistance), why replace him?!

Journalist: It is said that his presence on top of the current Syrian State has maintained this State due to his personal features, his nerves of steel. I hear about this even among your ranks, that due to his calm, while most of his allies have collapsed, the veteran ones and even in Lebanon, he remained… This proves that he should remain in the partnership position to find a solution. But he's also blamed by his foes inside Syria and abroad to be responsible for where we have reached.  I want to know if Hezbollah and Iran (as Russia will not state its position) are insisting on the person of President Assad in any coming solution, whatever happens. There won't be any solution found without President Assad?

Mohammad Raad: First of all, as long as the Syrian people are holding on to President Bashar Al-Assad, we cannot overlook this Syrian public opinion. 

Journalist: Half of the people... More than half of the people are with President Assad?

Mohammad Raad: Of course

Journalist: How do you know? How do we know? Who is measuring the Syrian public opinion for us to know who is with him and who is not?

Mohammad Raad: First: who said there is anybody in the world who would accept his country to be destroyed? The hesitating portion at the beginning of the crisis of the Syrian people now joined those supporting President Assad to stay in power, because they found out that the alternative is the destruction of Syria and the end of its position and role, and making Syria a satellite in the orbit of the West and subjugating it to the Israeli conditions.

Journalist: So in your opinion President Assad is staying until the last day in his term?

Mohammad Raad: And maybe beyond…