Dialogue with Putin. More US Politicians and Experts Talk about Better Relations with Russia

[Stratford57]

Since the spring of 2014 for more than a year the main rhetoric of US politicians were talks about “Russian aggression”, “Isolation of Russia”, “Sanction on Russia”, etc. However Russia keeps making billion dollars contracts with more and more countries (Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China), receives BRICS and SOC countries for two back to back summits in UFA. Recently several well known US politicians (Republicans and Democrats) started talking about turning towards Russia and even possible partnership and dialogue with Russia and its president.

1. Rethinking Russia: A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen
Even Henry Kissinger -- I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post -- wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country, we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break a promise he made to Clinton."

Rethinking Russia A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen Dan Kovalik


2. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Donald Trump Running for President
Trump: “Putin has no respect for our president. He has a tremendous popularity in Russia, they love what he’s doing, they love what he represents. I was over in Moscow 2 years ago and I will tell you: you could get along with those people, you could get along with them well, you can deal with them. Obama has not.”

O’Reilly: “So, you can deal with Putin?”

Trump: ”I would be willing to bet I would have a great relationship with Putin. And I’ll tell you what: it’s actually important for this country to do that. You can’t have everybody hating you. The whole world hates us. And what I heard for years and years: never drive Russia and China together. And Obama has done that.”



3. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Saturday the United States has to be "much smarter" about how it deals with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"That's why we have to be much smarter in how we deal with Putin and how we deal with his ambitions," Clinton said at a campaign event . "He's not an easy man ... But I don't think there is any substitute other than constant engagement."

Hillary Clinton no substitute for constant engagement with Putin Reuters

4. Jimmy Carter has recently visited Moscow and talked with Putin for 3 hours and gave an interview, Criticizing Obama's Foreign Policy

“I can think of many nations in the world we had a better relationship with than now, when he [Obama] took over. If you look at Russia, if you look at England, if you look at China, if you look at Egypt. We have not improved our relationship with individual countries.”



and:

“I believe that so called BRICS countries (China is rising, Russia is going to come back, Brazil is increasing its input, India is increasing its input comparing to what it was 10 years ago). Now Obama and the next US president have to think: how we’ll fit in and accomplish our goal of promoting the elements of a superpower. And I think the America’s superpower goal should be the champion of peace and to be the champion of human rights and to be the most generous nation of the world.”

 

[killerdance]

Jimmy Carter???? Are you Kidding???? He's been a joke forever.

 

[Tehon]

I don't know Stratford, I think only one of the people on your list will really matter as it relates to US policies moving forward into the future. Hillary Clinton. But she is a neocon and will keep the pressure on Putin. When she calls for constant engagement, she means of the type of engagement that is taking place now via Ukraine. Examine her words very carefully and don't believe the rhetoric.

 

[Tehon]

I'm sure you are aware of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia. Hillary put Nuland in that position. Nuland is married to Robert Kagan, another neocon and a foreign policy adviser to Bill Clinton and Obama. They are all neocons and neocons believe that Russia is a threat to US hegemony. But neocons are stupid, and their policies are strengthening Putin. That is why Hillary thinks that they need to be smarter in how they deal with him.

 

[Stratford57]

Speaking of Victoria Nuland. Seems like her job is to initiate colorful revolutions and to instigate changing of governments on behalf of the US State Department. Her appearance in a country may be a sign of upcoming troubles for its legitimately elected government, which State Department doesn’t like for some reason. She was noticed in Kiev in 2013, encouraging the protesters for a coup. A few months ago she visited Armenia and Moldova. As a “coincidence” thousands of protesting people appeared in the streets of Yerevan just a few weeks ago. They were protesting against the current government in Armenia and those protests reminded recent Kiev protests as if they were made by a copy machine. Also as well as in Kiev US Ambassador in Armenia has been warning about “not using the force against the protesters”. (I am not sure if Armenian protests have already calmed down or not).

So, if I were a president of the country, which Mrs. Nuland expressed the will to visit, I would be seriously concerned about the future of my country and my own future as well.

Tehon, with a lot of respect to you, my point of view about Hillary is different: she’s just an American version of the Ukrainian crook and liar Yulia Timoshenko. I hope I did not hurt your feelings saying that…

 

[Tehon]

Lol, no not at all, Hillary will likely be the next crook and liar in chief of the US and may even elevate Nuland's position in government........Secretary of State Nuland perhaps.

 

[Sbiker]

Frankly speaking, I really worry about irrationality of USA politics... Russia and USA are historically natural allies, there are no any reasons for conflict like today's, except ideology. May be, USA hopes it would be like in 80x, when USSR leaved the confrontation and then fell... But today's generations in Russia doesn't remember the fear of WWII, they're not thinking 'anything is better than war' and ready to fight, if needs. If politians should overplay their games, it would be very hard future for us all.

P.S.
Starlet’s fallen from the heavens
Right into my boyfriend's briefs,
I don't mind his roasted penis
If it helps us live in peace...

 

[Stratford57]

[QUOTE="Tehon, post: 11830763, member: 54903"]Lol, no not at all, Hillary will likely be the next crook and liar in chief of the US and may even elevate Nuland's position in government........Secretary of State Nuland perhaps.

[ /QUOTE]


I would name the picture you've posted “It finally happened. Two clones have met each other.” Timoshenko [the one Hillary shakes hands with on the picture] also has been running for president [in Ukraine] in 2010 and lost to Yanukovitch (unlike Russia Ukraine never had any good presidents, all of them were just crooks, so Yanukovitch was just " the best from theworst"). We were so happy at that time, we didn’t know about the plans of certain Western countries to incite a coup in 3 years. So, Timoshenko’s buddies/crooks have come to the power in 2014 regardless and now they are quickly and successfully ruining the country, pulling it into the war and misery and decreasing its population. And seems like they were intentionally chosen to do that kind of job.

The New Ukraine Rogues Sexpots Warlords Lunatics and Oligarchs Observer

I can’t wait till the taxpayers in USA will start questioning their government: why do we have to sponsor such suspicious regimes abroad?

 

[Tehon]

I can’t wait till the taxpayers in USA will start questioning their government: why do we have to sponsor such suspicious regimes abroad?

I love your optimism Stratford, but don't hold your breath. If people in this country were going to wake up to the injustices this country has been party to it should already have happened.

 

[Sbiker]

I can’t wait till the taxpayers in USA will start questioning their government: why do we have to sponsor such suspicious regimes abroad?

I think, taxpayers in USA now have a harder problems, like gay marriage legalization or banning of Confederation flag. Do you believe, they banned this flag, because it too similar with flag of Novorossia?

P.S.

 

[Tehon]

I can’t wait till the taxpayers in USA will start questioning their government: why do we have to sponsor such suspicious regimes abroad?

I think, taxpayers in USA now have a harder problems, like gay marriage legalization or banning of Confederation flag. Do you believe, they banned this flag, because it too similar with flag of Novorossia?

P.S.

View attachment 44593

No, that is not why the confederate flag is under attack but your first sentence is very much on point.

 

[Stratford57]

As President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko has increased his income more than by seven times. To explain such a sharp increase in welfare is difficult, taking into account the economic crisis in the country. In addition, confectionery factory Roshen, owned by Poroshenko has increased revenues for the year by nine times.

BBC During the Year in Power Poroshenko Became Seven Times Richer - HunterNews

Can you guys imagine, how much richer the people in USA would be if they were not forced by their government to pay for such doubtful "friends" like Ukraine?

 

[Tehon]

I think this more accurately addresses official Washington's stance on US relations with Russia.

The problem with official America is that it is still stuck in a centuries-old mindset when it presumed the right – and righteousness – of enslaving millions of people and exterminating native nations from their lands. Today, US states may be taking down the Confederate flag as a symbol of genocidal racism, but elsewhere if we listen to American leaders the same genocidal, supremacist mentality prevails – even when it is articulated by an African-American president.

In recent days, we saw a salutary example of how backward and nihilistic official America is in its thinking. Before the US Senate was the presumed next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, giving testimony ahead of his official appointment. The Joint Chiefs are America’s top military brass, who advise the president and his National Security Council on all matters of war and, much less, peace. Listening to Dunford’s worldview, one would think that America is under threat from all corners of the globe. Threat, insecurity, danger, fear, enemies, death, destruction, and so and so on. Official America’s worldview is one of never-ending nightmare, wherein lurks evil foreign spectres and demons.

Top of Dunford’s list of enemies is Russia who he said posed the»greatest threat to US national security», adding, but far from evidencing, that «Russia’s behaviour is nothing short of alarming».

The marine corps commander told Senators: «If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d point to Russia».

Dunford based his foreboding assessment on baseless claims about Russian military involvement in Ukraine’s civil war and alleged foreign aggression, without providing any supportive intelligence or evidence – just as countless other US leaders have iterated over the past year. (No mention, of course, of the US-led coup in Ukraine and the US-sponsored Neo-Nazi regime that is waging war on fellow citizens.)

To demonstrate that Dunford’s views are not some misinformed exception, we only have to recall the latest US National Military Strategy document published last week in which an identical worldview of threats, enemies and other dark forces was also promulgated. It represents the official position of the US and its worldview. Again, Russia was nominated as a security danger, along with China and Iran.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...ica-evolve-with-russia-and-rest-humanity.html

 

[Stratford57]

If the USA don’t have enemies, Pentagon generals and war industry bosses will start losing their jobs and big bucks. If you look at the history, generals have always throwing out red flags, when they wanted new equipment or more soldiers. Having such an “enemy” as Russia also responds current geopolitical interests of the USA.

Some experts claim it’s not Obama, who runs the country, but a conglomerate of CIA, weapons producers and Wall Street. If that's true, looks like those people allow Obama to play golf as much as he wants, and he allows them to run the country as much as they want. Sounds like pretty fair deal, ha?

 

[Tehon]

In 1961 President Eisenhower warned Americans about the rise of undue influence on our society from the war profiteers.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Military-Industrial Complex Speech Dwight D. Eisenhower 1961

His warning seems to have gone unnoticed as there is no alert and knowledgeable citizenry in this country. Obama's relationship with Lester Crown and the Crown family who built General Dynamics, the 5th largest defense contractor in the world, has seemingly gone unnoticed. Lester Crown's support for Obama is evidenced by this op ed in the J-Post.
The Obama gut test - Opinion - Jerusalem Post

The Crown's took a gamble but it has paid off very nicely for General Dynamics which has seen it's stock prices soar to all time highs.

Sometimes, in the fog of whatever is the Mideast war du jour started initially under a "humanitarian intervention" pretext then quickly morphing into yet another counter-Syria campaign to appease various Saudi and Qatari emirs and princes, it is easy to lose sight over just what the purpose of said war is. Luckily, we have the US military industrial complex to remind us, and specifically weapons and ammunition specialists like General Dynamics. So here, for those confused, is a summary of the the first half of the great circle, which uses war, mass killings and civilian casualties, as a cover to deploy what else: US taxpayer money into the pocket of US corporations. Lots of it.

As Reuters reports, the U.S. government on Monday said it had approved the sale to Iraq of $600 million in tank ammunition manufactured by General Dynamics Corp saying it would help the Iraqi government establish an integrated ground defense capability.

How General Dynamics Just Got A 600 Million Check From Uncle Sam Courtesy Of ISIS Zero Hedge

 

[Stratford57]

Great research, Tehon, you've done an excellent job! ^ So, it sounds like the tail is wagging the dog, not vise versa. That's what the Western Media has to deliver to its audience (since it's paid to deliver the news, not fairly tales) instead of bragging about how great Obama is. I'm glad not everybody buys that.

 

[Sbiker]

If the USA don’t have enemies, Pentagon generals and war industry bosses will start losing their jobs and big bucks. If you look at the history, generals have always throwing out red flags, when they wanted new equipment or more soldiers. Having such an “enemy” as Russia also responds current geopolitical interests of the USA.

Some experts claim it’s not Obama, who runs the country, but a conglomerate of CIA, weapons producers and Wall Street. If that's true, looks like those people allow Obama to play golf as much as he wants, and he allows them to run the country as much as they want. Sounds like pretty fair deal, ha?

By the other side, the experience of Soviet Union shows, the way of disarmament and peace initiatives - can be a way to fall down. Every country have to grow army for defence. But I cannot understand hysterics of Pentagon about Russia.

In on hand, Russia defeated the forces of united Europe at least three times and also defeated a Japan whole continental army in two months - instead of USA, which didn't have ability to defeat it whole 4 years of WWII and were forced to use nuclear weapon. Also in Afganistan Russia could control the territory and prevent the narcotraffic, USA with whole forces of NATO block - couldn't. So, I undertand the fear of Pentagon generals...

But on the other side, Russians strongly dislike to fight far out of their borders. The example of Afganistan also showed - the war outside borders was very unpopular for Russian, so the army left Afganistan with the first opportunity. Instead of it. USA have a great experience of remote presence of forces anywhere in the world...

 

[Stratford57]

You are absolutely right, Sbiker. In his interview to the newspaper Il Corriere della Sera Putin says: US military spending is higher than that of all countries in the world taken together. (Below I’m presenting a part of that interview):

Paolo Valentino:Speaking of peace, the countries that used to be parties to the Warsaw Treaty and today are NATO countries, such as the Baltic states and Poland, feel threatened by Russia. NATO has decided to create special forces to address these concerns. My question is whether the West is right in its determination to restrain “the Russian bear”, and why does Russia continue to speak in such a contentious tone?

Vladimir Putin:Russia does not speak with anyone in a contentious tone, and in such matters, to quote a political figure from the past, Otto von Bismarck, it is not discussions but the potential that counts.

What does the actual potential show? US military spending is higher than that of all countries in the world taken together. The aggregate military spending of NATO countries is 10 times, note – 10 times higher than that of the Russian Federation. Russia has virtually no bases abroad. We have the remnants of our armed forces (since Soviet times) in Tajikistan, on the border with Afghanistan, which is an area where the terrorist threat is particularly high. The same role is played by our airbase in Kyrgyzstan; it is also aimed at addressing the terrorist threat and was set up at the request of the Kyrgyz authorities after a terrorist attack perpetrated by terrorists from Afghanistan on Kyrgyzstan.

We have kept since Soviet times a military unit at a base in Armenia. It plays a certain stabilizing role in the region, but it is not targeted against anyone. We have dismantled our bases in various regions of the world, including Cuba, Vietnam, and so on. This means that our policy in this respect is not global, offensive or aggressive.

I invite you to publish the world map in your newspaper and to mark all the US military bases on it. You will see the difference.

Sometimes I am asked about our airplanes flying somewhere far, over the Atlantic Ocean. Patrolling by strategic airplanes in remote regions was carried out only by the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. In the early 1990s, we, the new, modern Russia, stopped these flights, but our American friends continued to fly along our borders. Why? Some years ago, we resumed these flights. And you want to say that we have been aggressive?

American submarines are on permanent alert off the Norwegian coast; they are equipped with missiles that can reach Moscow in 17 minutes. But we dismantled all of our bases in Cuba a long time ago, even the non-strategic ones. And you would call us aggressive?

You yourself have mentioned NATO’s expansion to the east. As for us, we are not expanding anywhere; it is NATO infrastructure, including military infrastructure, that is moving towards our borders. Is this a manifestation of our aggression?

Finally, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was to a large extent the cornerstone of the entire international security system. Anti-missile systems, bases and radars are located in the European territory or in the sea, e.g. in the Mediterranean Sea, and in Alaska. We have said many times that this undermines international security. Do you think this is a display of our aggression as well?

Everything we do is just a response to the threats emerging against us. Besides, what we do is limited in scope and scale, which are, however, sufficient to ensure Russia's security. Or did someone expect Russia to disarm unilaterally?

I have proposed to our American partners not to withdraw from the treaty unilaterally, but to create an ABM system together, the three of us: Russia, the United States and Europe. But this proposal was declined. We said at the time: ”Well, this is an expensive system, its efficiency is not proven, but to ensure the strategic balance we will develop our strategic offensive potential, we will develop systems of overpowering anti-ballistic defense. And I have to say that we have made significant strides in this area.

As for some countries’ concerns about Russia's possible aggressive actions, I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO. I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people’s fears with regard to Russia. They just want to play the role of front-line countries that should receive some supplementary military, economic, financial or some other aid. Therefore, it is pointless to support this idea; it is absolutely groundless. But some may be interested in fostering such fears. I can only make a conjecture.

Interview to the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera President of Russia

 

[Tehon]

By the other side, the experience of Soviet Union shows, the way of disarmament and peace initiatives - can be a way to fall down. Every country have to grow army for defence. But I cannot understand hysterics of Pentagon about Russia.

In on hand, Russia defeated the forces of united Europe at least three times and also defeated a Japan whole continental army in two months - instead of USA, which didn't have ability to defeat it whole 4 years of WWII and were forced to use nuclear weapon. Also in Afganistan Russia could control the territory and prevent the narcotraffic, USA with whole forces of NATO block - couldn't. So, I undertand the fear of Pentagon generals...

But on the other side, Russians strongly dislike to fight far out of their borders. The example of Afganistan also showed - the war outside borders was very unpopular for Russian, so the army left Afganistan with the first opportunity. Instead of it. USA have a great experience of remote presence of forces anywhere in the world...

When examining America keep in mind that things are not always what they seem and everything always boils down to the dollar. The Pentagon and it's generals are not fearful of Russia militarily and any clear headed individual can see that Russia is not acting in an aggressive manner. The threat Russia poses is not military in nature, it is economic. The threat is to the dollar. Putin understands that the US global reach is made possible by the dollar's global reach and he is taking steps to get independent of the dollar. The hysterics coming from the Pentagon are just a way of propagandizing the citizenry of the US to continue the age old trick of using public dollars to project wall street and the bankers global domination.

 

[Stratford57]

Exactly. Look, Russia, China, Brazil, India and South Africa (BRICS) organization is planning to stop using US dollars, to implement their own currency and is establishing its own New Development Bank.

UFA (Sputnik) — The agreement to establish the NDB, with an initial capitalization of $100 billion, was signed by the BRICS member states during the group's 6th summit in Fortaleza, Brazil in July 2014. The bank is viewed as an alternative to existing global financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

“The 7th summit of the BRICS, held in Russia, has achieved exceptional results in the framework of our relations.”

She highlighted the launch of the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) and the appointment of prominent officials to the new financial institution with its $100-billion currency reserve pool designed to assist member countries at times of hard currency liquidity crises.

BRICS Ufa Summit Yields Exceptional Results Brazilian President Sputnik International

BRICS is gaining momentum as an increasingly effective organization and its New Development Bank is likely to become new source of funding for the current infrastructure gap, South Africa’s Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies told RT.

World needs more development banks like BRICS not mindless austerity - minister RT Business

If the current BRICS trajectory is any indication, we may eventually see a weakening of the U.S. (SPY) dollar as a commanding leader in international dealings and, by extension, as a bedrock reserve currency. Whether that means a small decline or an all-out plunge remains to be seen, but neither is particularly good for the United States. Falling confidence in the dollar would make it more difficult for the government to borrow money and likely damper economic conditions across the world, while putting most Americans in a rough spot. And this would only accelerate the BRICS ascension.

An extreme scenario includes a shift in global power as the BRICS thrive and the rest of the world sinks with the dollar. China alone still holds over $1 trillion in U.S. debt which, if dumped, might instill a panic. Combined with the expanding economic fortitude of the BRICS nations and the growing independent infrastructure, this issue deserves some level of consideration, although any substantial changes are likely years away. One thing is clear: the BRICS are forging a bright future for themselves.

Why the long-term prospects for the BRICS network are positive - Market Realist