Vladimir Putin: ‘Big Brother’ spies on all its allies, blackmails them

Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club -
October 24, 2014

Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session. The meeting’s theme is The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules.

Transcript:

[...] 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. And during the upcoming discussion let someone try to disprove the argument that I just set out.

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. [...]

Vladimir Putin: ‘Russian Bear will not submit to US warmongers’ (1)

Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club - October 24, 2014 - Sochi

Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session. The meeting’s theme is The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules.

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/46860

Transcript:

[...] BRITISH JOURNALIST SEUMAS MILNE (retranslated from Russian): I would like to ask a two-in-one question.

First, Mr President, do you believe that the actions of Russia in Ukraine and Crimea over the past months were a reaction to rules being broken and are an example of state management without rules? And the other question is: does Russia see these global violations of rules as a signal for changing its position? It has been said here lately that Russia cannot lead in the existing global situation; however, it is demonstrating the qualities of a leader. How would you respond to this?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to ask you to reword the second part of your question, please. What exactly is your second question?

SEUMAS MILNE (retranslated from Russian): It has been said here that Russia cannot strive for leading positions in the world considering the outcomes of the Soviet Union’s collapse, however it can influence who the leader will be. Is it possible that Russia would alter its position, change its focus, as you mentioned, regarding the Middle East and the issues connected with Iran’s nuclear programme?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia has never altered its position. We are a country with a traditional focus on cooperation and search for joint solutions. This is first.

Second. We do not have any claims to world leadership. The idea that Russia is seeking some sort of exclusivity is false; I said so in my address. We are not demanding a place under the sun; we are simply proceeding from the premise that all participants in international relations should respect each other’s interests. We are ready to respect the interests of our partners, but we expect the same respect for our interests.

We did not change our attitude to the situation in the Middle East, to the Iranian nuclear programme, to the North Korean conflict, to fighting terrorism and crime in general, as well as drug trafficking. We never changed any of our priorities even under the pressure of unfriendly actions on the part of our western partners, who are led, very obviously in this case, by the United States. We did not even change our positions even under the sanctions.

However, here too everything has its limits. I proceed from the idea that it might be possible that external circumstances can force us to alter some of our positions, but so far there have not been any extreme situations of this kind and we have no intention of changing anything. That is the first point.

The second point has to do with our actions in Crimea. I have spoken about this on numerous occasions, but if necessary, I can repeat it. This is Part 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations’ Charter – the right of nations to self-determination. It has all been written down, and not simply as the right to self-determination, but as the goal of the united nations. Read the article carefully.

I do not understand why people living in Crimea do not have this right, just like the people living in, say, Kosovo. This was also mentioned here. Why is it that in one case white is white, while in another the same is called black? We will never agree with this nonsense. That is one thing.

The other very important thing is something nobody mentions, so I would like to draw attention to it. What happened in Crimea? First, there was this anti-state overthrow in Kiev. Whatever anyone may say, I find this obvious – there was an armed seizure of power.““

In many parts of the world, people welcomed this, not realising what this could lead to, while in some regions people were frightened that power was seized by extremists, by nationalists and right-wingers including neo-Nazis. People feared for their future and for their families and reacted accordingly. In Crimea, people held a referendum.

I would like to draw your attention to this. It was not by chance that we in Russia stated that there was a referendum. The decision to hold the referendum was made by the legitimate authority of Crimea – its Parliament, elected a few years ago under Ukrainian law prior to all these grave events. This legitimate body of authority declared a referendum, and then based on its results, they adopted a declaration of independence, just as Kosovo did, and turned to the Russian Federation with a request to accept Crimea into the Russian state.

You know, whatever anyone may say and no matter how hard they try to dig something up, this would be very difficult, considering the language of the United Nations court ruling, which clearly states (as applied to the Kosovo precedent) that the decision on self-determination does not require the approval of the supreme authority of a country.

In this connection I always recall what the sages of the past said. You may remember the wonderful saying: Whatever Jupiter is allowed, the Ox is not.

We cannot agree with such an approach. The ox may not be allowed something, but the bear will not even bother to ask permission. Here we consider it the master of the taiga, and I know for sure that it does not intend to move to any other climatic zones – it will not be comfortable there. However, it will not let anyone have its taiga either. I believe this is clear.

What are the problems of the present-day world order? Let us be frank about it, we are all experts here. We talk and talk, we are like diplomats. What happened in the world? There used to be a bipolar system. The Soviet Union collapsed, the power called the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

All the rules governing international relations after World War II were designed for a bipolar world. True, the Soviet Union was referred to as ‘the Upper Volta with missiles’. Maybe so, and there were loads of missiles. Besides, we had such brilliant politicians like Nikita Khrushchev, who hammered the desk with his shoe at the UN. And the whole world, primarily the United States, and NATO thought: this Nikita is best left alone, he might just go and fire a missile, they have lots of them, we should better show some respect for them.

Now that the Soviet Union is gone, what is the situation and what are the temptations? There is no need to take into account Russia’s views, it is very dependent, it has gone through transformation during the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we can do whatever we like, disregarding all rules and regulations.

This is exactly what is happening. Dominique here mentioned Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia before that. Was this really all handled within the framework of international law? Do not tell us those fairy-tales.

This means that some can ignore everything, while we cannot protect the interests of the Russian-speaking and Russian population of Crimea. This will not happen.

I would like everyone to understand this. We need to get rid of this temptation and attempts to arrange the world to one’s liking, and to create a balanced system of interests and relations that has long been prescribed in the world, we only have to show some respect.

As I have already said, we understand that the world has changed, and we are ready to take heed of it and adjust this system accordingly, but we will never allow anyone to completely ignore our interests.

Does Russia aim for any leading role? We don’t need to be a superpower; this would only be an extra load for us. I have already mentioned the taiga: it is immense, illimitable, and just to develop our territories we need plenty of time, energy and resources.

We have no need of getting involved in things, of ordering others around, but we want others to stay out of our affairs as well and to stop pretending they rule the world. That is all. If there is an area where Russia could be a leader – it is in asserting the norms of international law. [...]

Vladimir Putin: Story of the optimist and the pessimist

Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club - October 24, 2014, Sochi

Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session. The meeting’s theme is The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules.

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/46860

Transcript:

[...] VLADIMIR PUTIN (commenting on statements by former Prime Minister of France Dominique de Villepin and former Federal Chancellor of Austria Wolfgang Schuessel): I would like to begin by saying that overall I agree with what both Wolfgang and Dominique have said. I fully support everything they said. However, there are a few things I would like to clarify.

 

I believe Dominique referred to the Ukrainian crisis as the reason for the deterioration in international relations. Naturally, this crisis is a cause, but this is not the principal cause. The crisis in Ukraine is itself a result of a misbalance in international relations.

I have already said in my address why this is happening, and my colleagues have already mentioned it. I can add to this, if necessary. However, primarily this is the outcome of the misbalance in international relations.

As for the issues mentioned by Wolfgang, we will get back to them: we will talk about the elections, if necessary, and about the supply of energy resources to Ukraine and Europe.

However, I would like to respond to the phrase “Wolfgang is an optimist, while life is harder for pessimists.” I already mentioned the old joke we have about a pessimist and an optimist, but I cannot help telling it again. We have this very old joke about a pessimist and an optimist: a pessimist drinks his cognac and says, “It smells of bedbugs,” while an optimist catches a bedbug, crushes it, then sniffs it and says, “A slight whiff of cognac.”

I would rather be the pessimist who drinks cognac than the optimist who sniffs bedbugs. (Laughter)

Though it does seem that optimists have a better time, our common goal is to live a decent life (without overindulging in alcohol). For this purpose, we need to avoid crises, together handle all challenges and threats and build such relations on the global arena that would help us reach these goals. [...]

Vladimir Putin on US sanctions and Ukraine

Vladimir Putin answered questions from Russian journalists following his visits to Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina and Brazil.

July 17, 2014

-

Brasilia

Transcript:
 

Vladimir Putin: Good morning, or good evening. Which time zone are we following?

Reply: Good night!

Question: The first question concerns recent news: The United States declared new sanctions against Russia.

Vladimir Putin: Really?

Question: You already said earlier that Russia may prepare retaliatory measures. What will be the response this time?

Vladimir Putin: We will need to see what those sanctions entail; we will need to look into it calmly, without any commotion. In general, I would like to say that unfortunately, those who plan foreign policy actions in the United States (this is not a recent observation but one pertaining to the last 10–15 years) are conducting an aggressive foreign policy and, in my view, a rather unprofessional one, because whatever they do, there are problems everywhere.

Just look: there are problems in Afghanistan; Iraq is falling apart; Libya is falling apart. If General el-Sisi had not taken control in Egypt, Egypt would probably be in turmoil now as well. In Africa, there are problems in many countries. They touched Ukraine, and there are problems there as well.

It would be good if everyone understood that we must rely on the fundamental principles of international law and domestic law, and treat statehood and constitutionality with great care, particularly in nations that are just getting on their feet, where the political system is still fairly young and immature, and where the economy is still developing.

”It would be good if everyone understood that we must rely on the fundamental principles of international law and domestic law, and treat statehood and constitutionality with great care, particularly in nations that are just getting on their feet, where the political system is still fairly young and immature, and where the economy is still developing.“

We need to treat state institutions with great care. There are grave consequences when they are regarded with disdain: disintegration and internal conflicts, as we are currently observing in Ukraine.

The people who are pushing other countries toward such developmentsshould never forget that the blood of the soldiers in the regular army, the blood of the fighters in the resistance, and the civilians, first and foremost, is on their hands, as are the tears of the mothers, widows and orphans – they are on their conscience, and they do not have any moral right to shrug off this responsibility onto anyone else’s shoulders.

Here is what should be done jointly: calling on all sides in the conflict in Ukraine to immediately cease hostilities and start talks. But unfortunately, we are not seeing this on the part of our partners, first and foremost our American partners who, on the contrary, it seems to me, are pushing Ukraine’s current authorities toward continuing a fratricidal war and continuing retributive operations. This policy holds no promise.

As for various sanctions, I have already said that they generally have a boomerang effect and, without a doubt, in this case, are driving the Russian-US relations into a stalemate and seriously damaging them. I am certain that this is harmful to the US Administration and American people’s long-term strategic national interests.

It is very unfortunate that our partners are following this path, but the door to the negotiation process for overcoming and getting past this situation remains open. I hope that reason and the desire to settle all problems via peaceful, diplomatic means will prevail.

See also

Official visit to Brazil. The BRICS summit

July 13 − 17, 2014

Question: A clarifying question following the first one. A Ukraine contact group never gathered, the fighting in southeast Ukraine continues and is probably gaining intensity. What is your assessment of this situation?

Vladimir Putin: It is very unfortunate that a contact group did not come together. I feel that everyone who has relations with and influence on the parties in this conflict should do everything in order for the bloodshed to end, immediately and from both sides.

The necessary measures must be taken to get all the conflicting sides to sit down at a negotiation table and resolve the national crisis through peace talks.

”The people who are pushing other countries toward such developments [internal conflicts] should never forget that the blood of the soldiers in the regular army, the blood of the fighters in the resistance, and the civilians, first and foremost, is on their hands, and they do not have any moral right to shrug off this responsibility onto anyone else’s shoulders.“

Question: Back to Latin America: your visit was unprecedented both in duration and in intensity. How do you assess it, what prospects do you see, what are your impressions?

Vladimir Putin: My impressions are good. My goal was to resume, or rather uphold our contacts with our long-time partners, allies and friends, such as Cuba, for instance. We need to expand relations with other prospective countries in the region, such as Argentina. However, as you may know, the main reason for the visit was participation in the BRICS summit.

I would like to note that this growing association has very good prospects for developing as a union. I was very happy to see my colleagues in a very positive, spirited mood.

I would like to remind you of something we have already mentioned: the BRICS states account for over 40 percent of the world’s population and 21 percent of the global GDP. However, it is not the share that is so important, but the fact that these countries have been posting very significant growth rates.

In the past 10 years the GDP of countries with developed economies grew by 60 percent, while that of the BRICS states increased four-fold. We have to bear in mind, of course, that the 60 percent growth was in comparison to a large volume, a large starting point, while our four-fold growth was in regard to a smaller base; however, such are the rates.

These are all young states, and the future belongs to the young. Naturally, we should restore our presence in this fascinating and very promising part of the world.

What we have done is we signed some very important documents, and all this was implemented in a very short period, within a year. I am referring here to the creation of the New Development Bank. Each participant will contribute $2 billion. I believe this will be a very good, efficient, new, modern market tool for the development of our economies.

The Contingent Reserve Arrangement is also a very good instrument that can influence the macroeconomy of our states to a certain extent. Russia intends to invest up to $18 billion. I believe, as I have said, that this may be a good instrument for the stabilisation of our economies and, of course, for the rational distribution of our states’ reserves.

Question: I would like to ask you about Cuba. Do you think they still have any hard feelings after we, to put it bluntly, left the region in 2000? What are the prospects, in your opinion, for our cooperation with Cuba?

And another question: there have been reports that we are returning to Lourdes. Is that true?

Vladimir Putin: Not, it is not. We did not discuss this.

”Here is what should be done jointly: calling on all sides in the conflict in Ukraine to immediately cease hostilities and start talks. But unfortunately, we are not seeing this on the part of our partners, first and foremost our American partners who, on the contrary, are pushing Ukraine’s current authorities toward continuing a fratricidal war and continuing retributive operations. This policy holds no promise.“

As for hard feelings, you know, this kind of language is inappropriate for international relations, though I suppose our Cuban friends did have some negative feelings after the sharp termination of our relations in the 1990s. I did not feel it now. Moreover, unfortunately, when Russia left, its place was taken up by someone else.

Thus, Canadian companies are working actively in metals, or mining to be more exact; European, and primarily Spanish companies are developing tourism, and so forth. This is a very interesting country, and we have excellent relations that rest on a solid historical foundation.

This country has many achievements in the social sphere, in education and healthcare, for example. Cuban doctors are working all over Latin America, doing a lot for the development of healthcare in the region as a whole. Moreover, even the budget revenues from this sector are quite significant. In a word, we have some joint plans, and I hope they will be implemented.

Remark: Thank you. Too bad about Lourdes, though.

Vladimir Putin: No, it is not too bad. We are capable of resolving our defence issues without this component. We shut down this centre on agreement with our Cuban friends, and we have no plans to resume its activities.

Question: Mr Putin, the IMF delegation is finalising its decision on the scope of funding for Ukraine. What do you think of this sort of aid to that country?

Vladimir Putin: I would like to begin by saying that Russia is strongly interested in the quickest possible termination of the conflict in Ukraine for a number of reasons.

I do not know if there is any other country, apart from Russia and Ukraine itself, that would be so interested in stopping the bloodshed and resolving the situation in a neighbouring state. This is because we have many friends there, because our relations have always been special (there are many Russians, Russian-speaking people there), and for other reasons, like economic ones.

It is imperative to put an end to the armed conflict there, as I have already said, to the military confrontation, establish a ceasefire on both sides – this is something I would like to stress – and get the conflicting parties to sit down at the negotiating table.

In view of the above, we are interested in economic aid to Ukraine, including aid provided by the IMF. At the same time, I would like to stress that the Fund’s rules are such that it does not provide aid to countries that are at war. I believe that is the right approach, and I think it should also be applied to Ukraine. You may ask why.

Because money is given to a country for a certain purpose, it ends up being spent on other things. Money is allocated to support the economy and the social sphere, but it is spent on military operations and is embezzled under this guise.

This, I believe, is exactly what is happening in Ukraine with the first tranche. A large part of the funding was to be used to support banking and the financial sector. From what I know most of this funding was transferred to banks privately owned by Ukrainian oligarchs.

Where is this money now, what happened to it, whose pockets did it end up in – this is something the IMF and the general public in Ukraine and in the countries supporting it should find out. Therefore, we should first stop the hostilities and then give money.

Apart from everything else, part of the first tranche of the funding was meant to be used to pay for Ukraine’s commitments under foreign trade contracts. This includes payments for the delivery of Russian energy resources. We have not seen any of this money either.

”Various sanctions generally have a boomerang effect and, without a doubt, in this case, are driving the Russian-US relations into a stalemate and seriously damaging them. This is harmful to the US Administration and American people’s long-term strategic national interests.“

What is happening to IMF funding is the same thing that happened to the Russian loans, to the billions of dollars Ukraine received from Russia late last year: there is no debt repayment, no current payments. We would very much like to know where our money is, what it was spent on.

If everything I spoke of is implemented, then of course we are in favour of supporting Ukraine, however not the Ukrainian oligarchs and thieves, but the Ukrainian people. This is a very important task. The proposed plan and instruments for monitoring its implementation should be presented in a way that would leave no doubt regarding the purpose of the funding and the way it is used.

Question: I would like to get back to BRICS, if you do not mind. Yesterday I listened carefully to all the speeches of all the participants in the general meeting. You spoke of what has been done, while all the others spoke of what they wanted BRICS to be like. I did not see the high spirits you mentioned, and most importantly – I did not see the prospects. Do you think such prospects truly exist, or will it all be limited to this New Development Bank, important as it is?

Vladimir Putin: No, not at all. There is something very important that was not there before. Though this may not sound as significant, we have signed a declaration. In economic relations, we are used to operating with things like contracts and agreements, but this is a very important document that speaks of coordinating our positions, including those in international relations. In this sense, we can say that BRICS is acquiring a new quality. This is one point.

As for the economy, we have prepared a joint action plan, and we are working on a strategy. We are looking for new areas where we could apply our efforts and funds. In other words, we are developing a mechanism of joint action, which is very important.

I can say with confidence that BRICS is truly coming to life. Only recently, in 2005, when we were hosting the G8 summit in St Petersburg, we proposed to our Chinese and Indian friends for the first time to get together. That was how it all began.

In a short while, Brazil and the South African Republic joined us, and that was how BRICS came to be. It is only making its first steps, while there is no need to say much about its member-states: India, China and 200 million people in Brazil.

You know, back in mid-1970’s the population of Brazil was only 90 million, while today it is 200 million. These are young rapidly developing states with rapidly growing economies. We have things to consider and to do to jointly enhance our competitiveness.

Question: Mr Putin, some clarification regarding the sanctions, if I may.

Vladimir Putin: What is there to clarify? We are not introducing any sanctions. Why don’t you ask those who are.

Question: Nevertheless, a few months ago you said this (I may get it a bit wrong): if there are more sanctions, if this goes on, Russia may take a careful look at the foreign companies operating in its energy sector. Do you think the time has come to take such a look?

Vladimir Putin: You are referring to what I said about the boomerang effect. I said that the measures taken by the American Administration against Russia might run counter to the interests of the United States. What does this mean?

”I can say with confidence that BRICS is truly coming to life. These are young rapidly developing states with rapidly growing economies. We have things to consider and to do to jointly enhance our competitiveness.“

This means that some foreign companies might want to operate in Russia, but because of certain limitations, they may lose their competitive edge over certain other international energy companies. We did allow a major American company to operate on our shelf. Don’t the United States want it to work there?

They are harming their own energy companies. For what purpose? To be able to insist on making a new mistake after they made the previous one? I find this approach unprofessional, at the very least. Eventually, methods of resolving international issues will have to change, but those who are doing this will be responsible for the damages.

Question: A question about the Moscow metro, if I may. I am sorry, you have already offered your condolences, and an investigation has been launched. Do you think the Moscow authorities should be held responsible, as they are the ones who rally for a shift to municipal transport?

Vladimir Putin: Responsibility should always be personal. There is a classic example from criminal law called a ‘shooting tragedy’, when two hunters shoot at a bush thinking there is game there, and accidentally kill a man. Since experts cannot establish who did it, they are both set free. Liability should always be personalised.

If a certain person is found guilty, if it is established that the accident occurred through his or her fault (it was a terrible accident, and I would like to once again express my condolences to the families of the victims and my solidarity with those injured – we will do everything to help them), the investigators should expose the guilty party (I already spoke to Mr Bastrykin about this yesterday) and they should be held responsible, but only those specific individuals whose fault it was.

We should not make any general statements here or use the tragedy as a PR opportunity. Here we need the professional actions and conclusions of the relevant authorities responsible for this work, its organisation and control.

Good-bye.

Hassan Nasrallah: Hezbollah will leave Syria once ISIS is defeated

Speech of February 16, 2014, on the occasion of the annual commemoration of Hezbollah's martyred leaders

Translation:  http://sayed7asan.blogspot.com

Transcript: 

[...] The last point I want to make - I said I would come back to that when I talked about Palestine, Israel, and so on. Although we have different views on this issue, I would like to say to the Lebanese, to the Palestinians - to our brothers in Palestine on whom naturally weigh very heavy responsibilities so far, in the refugee camps... - I speak to our brothers in (different) Palestinian factions, to scholars, people's committees (and I say to them): it is not enough to publish sentences condemning (the current peace talks with Israel). You have to join forces: you have to talk to each other, analyze the situation carefully because there are people who are trying to exploit the Palestinians to achieve the result I mentioned earlier (put an end to the Palestinian cause) - so I will not repeat myself.

I speak to the Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, to all the Arab peoples, to all the Arab parties and forces, to all the men of honor of the world and of this region, to all those who really care about Palestine, Lebanon and Syria (and I tell them): if you want Israel to lose these opportunities - the ones we mentioned earlier - and if you want to preserve this region from (fratricide) conflict that would last for decades, (then) put an end to this war against Syria.

End the war against Syria.

Get (jihadists) fighters out of Syria. Allow Syrians to reconcile with each other, as they currently do in more than one region.

Of course, we would also end our presence in Syria that day.

However, if we want to face the situation as it should be, if we want to contain all these opportunities (for the enemy) and these threats (which weigh on us), we must - all as we are - we must put end to the war against Syria and inside Syria, to protect Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and the (Muslim) nation.

We hope that (the Arab-Muslim world) will seize this chance.

On the occasion of the commemoration of the (Hezbollah) martyred leaders - I was a little long, but it is to compensate for my long absence - we promise these great and noble martyrs that we will keep their minds, their thoughts their organization, their sincerity, their faithfulness, their blood, their sacrifices, their patience, their sufferings and their hopes, like all martyrs, and that we will follow their footsteps to the end, so that this country, this people, this (Islamic) nation are always - God willing - in a strong, dignified and capable position.

May God have mercy on our martyrs and yours, all of them.

May the Peace of God be upon you, and his Mercy and Grace. [...]

The clash of civilizations according to Vladimir Putin

Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly - December 12, 2013

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19825

Transcript: 

[...] Colleagues, 

Global development is becoming increasingly contradictory and dynamic. Russia’s historical responsibility is growing in these conditions, not only because it is one of the key guarantors of global and regional stability, but also a nation that consistently asserts its value-based approaches, including in international relations.

The intensity of military, political, economic, and informational competition throughout the world is not decreasing, but only getting stronger. Other power centres are closely monitoring Russia’s progress as it grows stronger.

We have always been proud of our nation. But we do not claim to be any sort of superpower with a claim to global or regional hegemony; we do not encroach on anyone’s interests, impose our patronage onto anyone, or try to teach others how to live their lives. But we will strive to be leaders, defending international law, striving for respect and national sovereignty and peoples’ independence and identity. This is absolutely objective and understandable for a state like Russia, with its great history and culture, with many centuries of experience, not so-called tolerance, neutered and barren, but the actual common, natural life of different peoples within the framework of a single state.

Today, many nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples and cultures. Society is now required not only to recognise everyone’s right to the freedom of consciousness, political views and privacy, but also to accept without question the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite in meaning. This destruction of traditional values from above not only leads to negative consequences for society, but is also essentially anti-democratic, since it is carried out on the basis of abstract, speculative ideas, contrary to the will of the majority, which does not accept the changes occurring or the proposed revision of values.

We know that there are more and more people in the world who support our position on defending traditional values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilisation in every nation for thousands of years: the values of traditional families, real human life, including religious life, not just material existence but also spirituality, the values of humanism and global diversity.

Of course, this is a conservative position. But speaking in the words of Nikolai Berdyaev, the point of conservatism is not that it prevents movement forward and upward, but that it prevents movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.

In recent years, we have seen how attempts to push supposedly more progressive development models onto other nations actually resulted in regression, barbarity and extensive bloodshed. This happened in many Middle Eastern and North African countries. This dramatic situation unfolded in Syria.

As far as Syria is concerned, the international community had to jointly make a momentous choice: to either descend into further erosion of the world order’s foundations, or collectively make responsible decisions.

I feel it was our common success when the choice was made on the basis of the fundamental principles of international law, common sense and the logic of peace. So far, at least, we have been able to avoid external military intervention in Syria’s affairs and the spread of the conflict far beyond the region.

Russia made significant contributions to this process. We acted firmly, thoughtfully and carefully. We never jeopardised our own interests and security, nor global stability. In my view, that is how a mature and responsible nation must act. [...]