Do you at least realize now what I have said?

[Michael K.]

I am urged to ask, do you at least realize now what I've said? But I'm afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because we are never abandoning our policy of doublespeak, which is based on cynicism, pragmatism and deniability.  But if you have still been listening, you will possibly realize what I have not said, being anything about the State of Israel, in long speech about Middle East and Islamic terrorism.  And if you watch my hands and not lips, you will see they have been shaking hands of Israel's leaders in warm displays of mutuality. 

But since we are going beat you, who surrender anyway and will not have power to stop us, stupid Amerikan so-called citizen, we are now going to reveal the secret plot.  It will not make any differences to you, who cannot believe it, because you have been demoralized.  Decoded for you are meta messages beneath surface in vague, mealy mouthed UN speech, which is really just for provokation, so you will know how you are beaten, decadent females. Yot yot yot yot.


Mr. Secretary General,

Distinguished heads of state and government,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Fellow travelers in struggle for international communism...

The 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future. In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay a solid foundation for the postwar world order. Let me remind you that key decisions on the principles defining interaction between states, as well as the decision to establish the UN, were made in our country, at the Yalta Conference of the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition.

So you see we Soviets are the dominant force in saving world from Nazi Holocaust and making peace and order, our side is the world's natural moral leader.

The Yalta system was truly born in travail. It was born at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars that swept through the planet in the 20th century. Let's be fair: it helped humankind pass through turbulent, and at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

But now Yalta system has outlived its functions.

The United Nations is unique in terms of legitimacy, representation and universality. True, the UN has been criticized lately for being inefficient or for the fact that decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, especially among Security Council members.

UN is only organization with representation which can legitimize Soviet claim to absolute power,  is whole purpose of UN.  But not as long as Security Council has single dissenting vote.

However, I'd like to point out that there have always been differences in the UN throughout the 70 years of its history, and that the veto right has been regularly used by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union, and later Russia. It is only natural for such a diverse and representative organization. When the UN was first established, nobody expected that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. The decisions debated within the UN are either taken in the form of resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or they don't. Any action taken by circumventing this procedure is illegitimate and constitutes a violation of the UN Charter and contemporary international law.

Soviet Union have always been lawful participant at UN, even if obstructionist and unpopular.  But US is the rogue state that ignores UN resolutions.  State of Israel cannot be judged by same standard as Amerika.

We all know that after the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done and thus they don't need to reckon with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions they need, often stands in their way.

But not Jewish Zionism is bad for this, just Amerika.

That's why they say that the UN has run its course and is now obsolete and outdated. Of course, the world changes, and the UN should also undergo natural transformation. Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules left except for the rule of force. The world will be dominated by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate rather than equality and liberty, and instead of truly independent states we will have protectorates controlled from outside.

Amerika wants to ignore outdated, impotent joke UN altogether.  But now is the time when we will converge with our ideological allies in other countries, and transform UN into instrument of Soviet will, in politically correct appearance of enforcing world consensus.  Any country who does not join convergence will get left to predatory capitalist without protection.

What is the meaning of state sovereignty, the term which has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It basically means freedom, every person and every state being free to choose their future.

We will never recognize so called rights of individual human being.  Only political will of sovereign state count as freedom.

By the way, this brings us to the issue of the so-called legitimacy of state authorities. You shouldn't play with words and manipulate them. In international law, international affairs, every term has to be clearly defined, transparent and interpreted the same way by one and all.

State sovereignty means legitimacy, no matter how internally ugly or brutal, for all regimes joining the convergence.

We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn't be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one.

So it doesn't matter if sovereign dictatorship is 'backwards' when joining National Bolshevik convergence.

We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.

We already try to make international communism uniform, but fail due to lack of realism and efficiency. That is why we develop National Bolshevik convergence strategy long time ago.

It seems, however, that instead of learning from other people's mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are "democratic" revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker. Of course, political and social problems have been piling up for a long time in this region, and people there wanted change. But what was the actual outcome? Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.

West fail to see that best way to take over is leave traditional social life and institutions in place and make them work for you.  Individuals are nothing, democracy is nothing, without strong social institutions, they soon having chaos.  True power comes from controlling the institution, not obliterating it in name of decadent individual freedom.

I'm urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you've done? But I'm afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity.

Do you see how stupid you are to walk into the trap we lay for you? I don't think so.

Power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. And now radical groups are joined by members of the so-called "moderate" Syrian opposition backed by the West. They get weapons and training, and then they defect and join the so-called Islamic State.

In fact, the Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions. It seeks dominance in the Muslim world and beyond. Their plans go further.

ISIS comes out of Zionist entity really, but Amerika will take all blame for having joined our planned provokation.

The situation is extremely dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade.

It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you'll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them.

Unless you are on our side.

I'd like to tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it's a big question: who's playing who here? The recent incident where the most "moderate" opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that.

We consider that any attempts to flirt with terrorists, let alone arm them, are short-sighted and extremely dangerous. This may make the global terrorist threat much worse, spreading it to new regions around the globe, especially since there are fighters from many different countries, including European ones, gaining combat experience with Islamic State. Unfortunately, Russia is no exception.

Now that those thugs have tasted blood, we can't allow them to return home and continue with their criminal activities. Nobody wants that, right?

Nothing a sovereign state in the National Bolshevik convergence does can ever be defined as terrorism, since will be legal under international law and done to fight terrorism, and we don't want terrorism, right?

Russia has consistently opposed terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military-technical assistance to Iraq, Syria and other regional countries fighting terrorist groups. We think it's a big mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities and government forces who valiantly fight terrorists on the ground.

We should finally admit that President Assad's government forces and the Kurdish militia are the only forces really fighting terrorists in Syria. Yes, we are aware of all the problems and conflicts in the region, but we definitely have to consider the actual situation on the ground.

This is Hegelian dialectic to teach the world a lesson why we are right.

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach on Russia's part has been recently used as a pretext for accusing it of its growing ambitions — as if those who say that have no ambitions at all. However, it is not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.

We don't just try to make puppet regime in Middle East, we want to take over whole world

What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than by ambitions. Relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And of course, Muslim nations should play a key role in such a coalition, since Islamic State not only poses a direct threat to them, but also tarnishes one of the greatest world religions with its atrocities. The ideologues of these extremists make a mockery of Islam and subvert its true humanist values.

If you will not join convergence, then you are a Hitler Nazi, especially if you are a dirty Muz.

I would also like to address Muslim spiritual leaders: Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now. It is essential to prevent people targeted for recruitment by extremists from making hasty decisions, and those who have already been deceived and, due to various circumstances, found themselves among terrorists, must be assisted in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms and putting an end to fratricide.

Religious leader will become our client ruler in convergence, or we destroy him.

In the days to come, Russia, as the current President of the UN Security Council, will convene a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose exploring opportunities for adopting a resolution that would serve to coordinate the efforts of all parties that oppose Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Once again, such coordination should be based upon the principles of the UN Charter.

We will rank Middle East threats to State of Israel, then work together to eliminate them.

We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery in the Middle East. Then, dear friends, there would be no need for setting up more refugee camps. Today, the flow of people forced to leave their native land has literally engulfed, first, the neighbouring countries, and then Europe. There are hundreds of thousands of them now, and before long, there might be millions. It is, essentially, a new, tragic Migration Period, and a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to stress that refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the only way to solve this problem for good is to restore statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen government institutions where they still exist, or are being re-established, to provide comprehensive military, economic and material assistance to countries in a difficult situation, and certainly to people who, despite all their ordeals, did not abandon their homes. Of course, any assistance to sovereign nations can, and should, be offered rather than imposed, in strict compliance with the UN Charter. In other words, our Organisation should support any measures that have been, or will be, taken in this regard in accordance with international law, and reject any actions that are in breach of the UN Charter. Above all, I believe it is of utmost importance to help restore government institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Either you implement our National Bolshevik convergence plans or we bury you in refugees.

Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global and regional stability remains a key task for the international community guided by the United Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone. Indeed, it is a challenging, complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no alternative.

You got no choice.

Sadly, some of our counterparts are still dominated by their Cold War-era bloc mentality and the ambition to conquer new geopolitical areas. First, they continued their policy of expanding NATO – one should wonder why, considering that the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist and the Soviet Union had disintegrated.

Amerika is warmonger, we are innocent bystander.

Nevertheless, NATO has kept on expanding, together with its military infrastructure. Next, the post-Soviet states were forced to face a false choice between joining the West and carrying on with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a major geopolitical crisis. And that is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the people's widespread frustration with the government was used for instigating a coup d'état from abroad. This has triggered a civil war. We are convinced that the only way out of this dead end lies through comprehensive and diligent implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015. Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be secured through the use of threats or military force, but it must be secured. The people of Donbas should have their rights and interests genuinely considered, and their choice respected; they should be engaged in devising the key elements of the country's political system, in line with the provisions of the Minsk agreements. Such steps would guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state, and a vital link in creating a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia.

They never have choice to leave East bloc, and we show them. Now they will get some communist diversity.


Ladies and gentlemen, I have deliberately mentioned a common space for economic cooperation. Until quite recently, it seemed that we would learn to do without dividing lines in the area of the economy with its objective market laws, and act based on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, which embrace free trade and investment and fair competition. However, unilaterally imposed sanctions circumventing the UN Charter have all but become commonplace today. They not only serve political objectives, but are also used for eliminating market competition.

Your WTO is going by wayside, and SCOE will replace it too, just one more nail in your coffin.

I would like to note one more sign of rising economic selfishness. A number of nations have chosen to create exclusive economic associations, with their establishment being negotiated behind closed doors, secretly from those very nations' own public and business communities, as well as from the rest of the world. Other states, whose interests may be affected, have not been informed of anything, either. It seems that someone would like to impose upon us some new game rules, deliberately tailored to accommodate the interests of a privileged few, with the WTO having no say in it. This is fraught with utterly unbalancing global trade and splitting up the global economic space.

These issues affect the interests of all nations and influence the future of the entire global economy. That is why we propose discussing those issues within the framework of the United Nations, the WTO and the G20. Contrary to the policy of exclusion, Russia advocates harmonizing regional economic projects. I am referring to the so-called "integration of integrations" based on the universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian Economic Union with China's initiative for creating a Silk Road economic belt. We continue to see great promise in harmonizing the integration vehicles between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union.

That's where we are going with the economic convergence, get on board or get left behind.

Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030.

Panic is really all about deindustrializing the peasants on this bogus pretext.

However, I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue. Admittedly, we may be able to defuse it for a while by introducing emission quotas and using other tactical measures, but we certainly will not solve it for good that way. What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.

We are soon going to pull out some Nazi eco-technology that we have been suppressing for seventy years so that we can be called the saviors and heros of the world for letting people have it finally.

It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. On January 10th, 1946, the UN General Assembly convened for its first meeting in London. Chairman of the Preparatory Commission Dr. Zuleta Angel, a Colombian diplomat, opened the session by offering what I see as a very concise definition of the principles that the United Nations should be based upon, which are good will, disdain for scheming and trickery, and a spirit of cooperation. Today, his words sound like guidance for all of us.

We make it sound like we are good guys, but we are scheming and tricky.

Russia is confident of the United Nations' enormous potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations, we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples.

The UN member states will join the National Bolshevik convergence willingly and legitimize our rulership, or there will be inevitable confrontation.

Thank you.

Thank us that we spare you.

[Idaho Kid]

No.

[Michael K.]

Then you will accept the peace we offer, and you will live under Seven Noachide Laws. Or do you have to read it again?

[Michael K.]

The Eurasianist Threat

by ROBERT ZUBRIN March 3, 2014 4:00 AM

Putin's ambitions extend far beyond Ukraine. As the Putin regime invades Ukraine, it has become apparent that a new force for evil has emerged in Moscow. It is essential that Americans become aware of the nature of the threat.

Putin is sometimes described as a revanchist, seeking to recreate the Soviet Union. That is a useful shorthand, but it is not really accurate. Putin and many of his gang may have once been Communists, but they are not that today. Rather, they have embraced a new totalitarian political ideology known as "Eurasianism."

The roots of Eurasianism go back to czarist émigrés interacting with fascist thinkers in between-the-wars France and Germany. But in recent years, its primary exponent has been the very prominent and prolific political theorist Aleksandr Dugin.

Born in 1962, Dugin was admitted to the Moscow Aviation Institute in 1979, but then was expelled because of his involvement with mystic neo-Nazi groups. He then spent the Eighties hanging around monarchist and ultra-right-wing circles, before joining for a while​ Gennady Ziuganov's Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF, a neo-Stalinist group partially descended from, but not to be confused with, the previously ruling Communist Party of the Soviet Union, CPSU), after which he became a founder and chief ideologue of the Eurasianist National Bolshevik Party (NBP) in 1994.

Nazism, it will be recalled, was an abbreviation for National Socialism. National Bolshevism, therefore, put itself forth as an ideology that relates to National Socialism in much the same way as Bolshevism relates to Socialism. This open self-identification with Nazism is also shown clearly in the NBP flag, which looks exactly like a Nazi flag, with a red background surrounding a white circle, except that the black swastika at the center is replaced by a black hammer and sickle.

Dugin ran for the Duma on the NBP ticket in 1995, but got only 1 percent of the vote. So, switching tactics, he abandoned the effort to build his own splinter party and instead adopted the more productive strategy of becoming the idea man for all the bigger parties, including Putin's United Russia, Ziuganov's CPRF, and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. In this role he has succeeded brilliantly.

The core idea of Dugin's Eurasianism is that "liberalism" (by which is meant the entire Western consensus) represents an assault on the traditional hierarchical organization of the world. Repeating the ideas of Nazi theorists Karl Haushofer, Rudolf Hess, Carl Schmitt, and Arthur Moeller van der Bruck.

Dugin says that this liberal threat is not new, but is the ideology of the maritime cosmopolitan power "Atlantis," which has conspired to subvert more conservative land-based societies since ancient times. Accordingly, he has written books in which he has reconstructed the entire history of the world as a continuous battle between these two factions, from Rome v. Carthage to Russia v. the Anglo Saxon "Atlantic Order," today.

If Russia is to win this fight against the subversive oceanic bearers of such "racist" (because foreign-imposed) ideas as human rights, however, it must unite around itself all the continental powers, including Germany, Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, Turkey, Iran, and Korea, into a grand Eurasian Union strong enough to defeat the West.

In order to be so united, this Eurasian Union will need a defining ideology, and for this purpose Dugin has developed a new "Fourth Political Theory" combining all the strongest points of Communism, Nazism, Ecologism, and Traditionalism, thereby allowing it to appeal to the adherents of all of these diverse anti-liberal creeds. He would adopt Communism's opposition to free enterprise.

However, he would drop the Marxist commitment to technological progress, a liberal-derived ideal, in favor of Ecologism's demagogic appeal to stop the advance of industry and modernity. From Traditionalism, he derives a justification for stopping free thought. All the rest is straight out of Nazism, ranging from legal theories justifying unlimited state power and the elimination of individual rights, to the need for populations "rooted" in the soil, to weird gnostic ideas about the secret origin of the Aryan race in the North Pole.

.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372353/eurasianist-threat-robert-zubrin


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Literary Threat: Dugin's prose.

Read this gem:

PLACE YOUR BODY ONTO THE SEDGE

Alexander Dugin

Great Antonin Artaud, who spontaneously and being a real madman opened and lived through the deepest doctrines of Tradition, wrote about a special "new schizophrenic body", to which strives the dark depths of the will of the researcher after a painful, unbearable understanding of the decay of flesh, after "dismemberment" and "self-dismemberment".

This "new schizophrenic body" does not have separate organs, members. It's head – is without eyes, mouth, ears, nostrils, etc. Just a "head". Likewise, the rest of the body - which, by the way, in this case, can not be strictly separated from the "head" or, more precisely, what are said to be conditionally "head" - has no division into "hands" and "feet", more over on "internal organs" and "external".

The essence of the "new schizophrenic body" in that it is fundamentally indivisible, that it - postcriminal, over-sacrificial, has no chance of becoming neither a victim, or to act as an executioner. This reality – is the reality of the soul, taken in its most free and independent form. It is much closer to the real "I" of the person.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/03/04/aleksandr-dugin-putins-rasputin/

Those trying to understand the goals of Russian expansion in their former Soviet sphere of influence and it's recent alliances with a wide swathe of fringe European parties on both sides of the political spectrum should examine the ideology and teachings of Russian political philosopher Dr. Aleksandr Dugin. Dr. Aleksandr Gel'evich Dugin is a former professor of sociology & international relations at Moscow State University, a Duma advisor and ,allegedly, a one-time member of Putin's inner circle.

Dugin is the most well-known and ideologically influential member of the Izborskij Club, founded in late 2012, a think tank created by former Soviet journalist-cum-ultranationalist pundit Aleksandr Prohanov to promote nationalist and traditionalist views to the Russian government and public at large, and it would not be off the mark to describe their geo-political views as irredentist and aggressively anti-Western. Though Dugin and the "Izborskij Club" are fairly obscure in the West, Dugin's political philosophy is becoming more and more well known in his native Russia.

With his long hair and beard and piercing blue eyes, Dr. Dugin certainly looks the part of "Putin's Rasputin." Dr. Dugin, one of the founding members of the National Bolshevik Party, a neo-Stalinist group, is also the creator of the "Fourth Political Theory," which is an attempt to unite anti-classical liberal political ideologies into a common front under a new political theory, much like the National Bolshevik Party sought to synthesize Stalinism with fascism. Aleksandr Dugin is also a major proponent of the geopolitical idea of Eurasianism, and is the founder of Russia's Eurasia Party. Dugin's Eurasian Youth Union, founded in the wake of Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004, promotes an anti-Western, pro-Russian Weltanschauung throughout Russia, Ukraine (until being banned for vandalism), other areas of the former USSR, and Turkey.

Eurasianism, an ideology arising from Slavophilism and in opposition to Western influences in Russian culture and religion, posits Russia as a "Eurasian" nation that stands culturally apart from Europe. Dr. Dugin and his followers believe that Russia, as a Eurasian civilization representing tradition, is in conflict with "Atlantic" civilization, currently championed by the United States, which represents economic, political, and cultural liberalism. To this end, Aleksandr Dugin calls for an alliance with nations opposed to American interests in order to create a multipolar world dominated by anti-Western power blocs, chief of those power blocs being a traditionalist Russian nation.

Some have noted recent increasing relations between Russia and Iran, in particular towards Iran's nuclear program and the recent intelligence sharing agreement. It should be of no surprise that Aleksandr Dugin has repeatedly called for an alliance between Russia and Iran:

"Iran plays a key role in Eurasianism theory which sees the world as a multipolar system. After the Islamic Revolution and given the country's strategic position, Iran has been included in equations that aim to create an independent atmosphere of Eurasianism. If there were conflicts between Iran and Russia in past centuries and they tried to solve their problems through war, today, they only look for peaceful and strategic alliance as a solution to their problems. I mean, Moscow and Tehran are now solving problems which they previously could not solve even by recourse to military force. Our interests totally overlap from a strategic viewpoint. This trend can only be realized through strategic alliance, not simple convergence. Iran is not included in Eurasian convergence model because only former republics of the Soviet Union are included in it. Iran has its own special civilization and is a powerful and independent country which should be respected. That alliance should be protected. We must not simply think about convergence with Iran. Iran does not fit into convergence model of Eurasianism, but it is a partner for Russia in a multipolar world. Our strategic interests in the Central Asia and, on the whole, in the entire region overlap. Therefore, Iran enjoys a pivotal role in the model of multipolar Eurasianism and, in this model Tehran is the closest ally of Moscow. Of course, the model also envisages partnership with Turkey, China, and India."

Dugin sees Iran as Russia's prime ally in an Eurasian strategy, and makes reference to a "Moscow-Tehran" axis, as well as "Moscow-Berlin" and "Moscow-Tokyo" axes. Furthermore, Dugin is strongly opposed to Wahhabism, believing it to be an equal threat to traditional Islam and Russia alike. Dugin accuses the United States of funding Wahhabism in order to weaken Eurasian civilizations, and accuses the Sunni nations of the Middle East of selling out to the United States. In contrast, Dugin praises Iran for its Shia traditionalism.

Both Russia and Iran share common goals in keeping Sunni extremists (and the United States) weak and out of Central Asia as well as maintaining control over the Caspian Sea. With the current pressure over dropping oil prices, both Russia and Iran have another common issue; perhaps forestalling the P5+1 negotiations scheduled to take place at the end of February would serve to buy time for the "Turk Stream" pipeline from Russia to be completed.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has notably increased political connections with Russia since the US support for the Kurds during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation. This sudden change of heart between the two nations makes little sense at first glance; Russia saw Turkey, a member of NATO, as a proxy of the United States and uncomfortably close and sympathetic to Turkic and Muslim minority groups (some with separatist goals) in the southern areas of Russia.

However, Eurasianism has also found supporters in the Turkish government and military. Both Russia and Turkey have become more economically intertwined, as Turkey now counts Russia as its second largest trading partner after Germany and obtains 70% of its natural gas via a trans-Black Sea pipeline from Russia. Both Russia and Turkey have found common ground in dealing with their respective separatist movements from Chechens and Kurds. Furthermore, interest in Eurasianism and opposition to the EU & NATO have returned to the mainstream in Turkish political discourse since the collapse of the Soviet Union, just as Eurasianism has become more prevalent in Russian political circles. Both nations have become increasingly anti-Western and aggressively nationalist since the 1990s, and both share a conflicted history as nations between the Western and Eastern worlds. As of today, Turkey and Russia enjoy increasingly closer economic, political, and even military and scientific cooperation, including the construction of a Russian designed and funded nuclear power plant in Akkuyu, Turkey's first nuclear reactor.

Although Dugin identified Turkey as a member of the NATO-Atlanticist bloc in Foundations of Geopolitics, recent changes in the political landscape in Turkey has led him and the Russian government to revise their geopolitical strategy towards the nation. Dugin has been a supporter of an assertive Russian foreign policy towards the Middle East and the Islamic world as a whole, and particularly towards improving Russian-Turkish relations. To this end, Dugin built networks with like-minded organizations inside Turkey and former Soviet Turkic nations with the foundation of the International Eurasianist Movement in 2003. Dugin began visiting Turkey on a regular basis and referred to a "Moscow-Ankara" axis starting in 2006. It has also been suggested that Dugin has close ties with the ultranationalist Ergenekon movement, which has been accused of plotting to overthrow the Turkish government.

Earlier on the Free Fire blog, we discussed Russian expansionism in Ukraine. It should not be surprising at this point to learn that Dugin has spoken at length about the need for Russia to regain their formerly held Soviet territory. In July 2008, a month before the Russian invasion of Georgia, Aleksandr Dugin visited pro-Russian fighters in South Ossetia and made this statement:

"Here is the border in the battle of civilizations...I think Americans are great. But we want to put an end to America's hegemony...Our troops will occupy the Georgian capital Tbilisi, the entire country, and perhaps even Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula"

Dugin has publicly stated his belief that Georgia was being used by NATO as an anti-Russian tool and exhorted Russians to do whatever they could to support the Ossetian fighters, described by him as the direct descendants of the Alans and the progenitors of Russian and Indo-European civilization. He supported the partition of Ukraine in the past in order to return the ethnically Russian east and Crimea to Russia, and has referred to war between Russia and Ukraine as "inevitable." In a letter to the American people regarding the Ukraine conflict, Dugin described the Orange Revolution of 2004 as an illegitimate movement that unjustly deposed the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovich in order to establish a pro-NATO regime, oppress ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and limit Russian access to the Black Sea.

With this in mind, Aleksandr Dugin has undoubtedly been extremely influential in the Russian military and foreign policy establishment. Back in 1997, Aleksandr Dugin published his treatise Foundations of Geopolitics, a book that has been stated to be used as a textbook by the Russian General Staff Academy, as well as being coauthored by General Nikolai Klokotov of the General Staff Academy, and with Col. General Leonid Ivashov of the International Department of the Russian Ministry of Defense as an advisor. Here Dugin lays out his strategy for Russia in the 21st century. As mentioned earlier, Foundations of Geopolitics has as its strategic plan building of alliances with other Eurasian powers such as Iran in order to build up a counter-Atlanticist front.

However, the strategy just starts from there. Dugin states that defeating the United States and limiting their power in the Eastern Hemisphere is a necessary task, referring to the United States as "a necessary scapegoat." Russia can and should use their natural resources to turn former American allies into Russian allies, and Dugin advises fomenting instability and separatism within the United States itself:

"It is especially important to introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics...(p. 367)"

Dugin also promotes aiding anti-American regimes in Latin America, and leading Japan and Germany away from the United States into an alliance with Russia, citing German New Right sentiments about withdrawal from NATO and neutrality with Russia. Such a move, Dugin believes, will lead France and other continental European nations to follow Germany's example. Eastern and Central Europe will be divided up between Russia and Germany, with most Catholic nations and Kaliningrad being granted to Germany while Russia takes the Orthodox nations and the Baltic nations of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Finland.

The influence of Dugin on Russian geopolitics and military strategy is self-evident, even though it is debatable exactly how much Putin buys in to the underlying theories behind Dugin's ideology. Regardless, we will likely be hearing more about Dugin's geopolitical theories in the not too distant future, and it is clear that the Russian government has taken his Foundations of Geopolitics as a blueprint for their foreign policy.

[Michael K.]

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Sep-29/316976-lithuania-calls-putins-un-speech-neo-stalinist.ashx

Sep. 29, 2015 | 06:34 PM

Lithuania calls Putin's UN speech 'neo-Stalinist'

Agence France PressePresse

VILNIUS: Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite Tuesday slammed her Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin for a speech he delivered at the United Nations General Assembly that she said was reminiscent of Soviet-era totalitarianism.

The outspoken leader of the formerly Soviet-ruled, EU state said Putin's criticism of the West suggested he "was still living in the 20th century".

"I would even call it a 'neo-Stalinist' speech when dictatorships are praised, where democracy is criticised and the West is blamed for everything," Grybauskaite said, drawing a comparison with dictator Joseph Stalin.

"We have heard this rhetoric for almost 100 years, and nothing has changed," she told Lithuania's LRT public broadcaster according to segments released by her office.

In his first speech to the UN General Assembly in a decade, Putin Monday rallied support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and called for an international coalition against ISIS.

Putin also slammed NATO's eastern enlargement into countries that lay behind the Iron Curtain a quarter century ago and warned against "exporting" democratic revolutions.

Lithuania, the first republic to break free from the Soviet Union in 1990, joined the European Union and NATO in 2004 and is now firmly anchored in the West.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/09/putins-un-speech/

Putin's UN Speech: Clear As Mud

Posted By: Polina Tikhonova  Posted date: September 29, 2015 07:07:04 PM

Russian President Vladimir Putin's address to the UN General Assembly on Monday expressed Moscow's displeasure with the current state of affairs, but provided no clear strategy, with analysts claiming that most of what came out of Putin's mouth was "bulls-."

"Sad commentary that 85 percent of what Putin said was unmitigated bulls--- & it still sounded like he is now more relevant than Obama," David Rothkopf, CEO of the Foreign Policy Group, tweeted.

About one-third of Putin's speech was appealing to no one, and it would be politically incorrect (even for Mr. Putin) to throw mud at the United Nation standing at its headquarters in New York. Nonetheless, the assembly of world leaders expected clear plans and strategies to resolve the Syrian crisis and fight the ISIS threat, but got only the kind of statements we have been hearing from the Kremlin for years.

What the world expected from Mr. Putin's address was an unambiguous strategy from an influential leader who could bring the Syrian crisis to an end, but he was not specific in anything he said, including the creation of a broad international coalition against terrorism similar to the anti-Hitler coalition formed during the World War II. And while the proposal seems like it could gain some traction, Russia has already proposed to create similar coalitions and groups at various events and negotiations over the past months.

It seems like Putin is not interested in resolving the Syrian crisis just now, since he suggested to discuss the "coordination mechanism" of the issue at the next UN Security Council ministerial meeting.

Putin supports ISIS by supporting Assad

Thus, Putin disappointed all those who thought the Russian President would suggest a compromise proposal to resolve the conflict in Syria or at least verbally express his willingness to reduce military support for the Assad regime to bring peace in Syria. Instead, he gave a clear idea that the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS will get Russia's support only in case the Assad regime will be a part of it, adding that Assad and his militia are the only ones who is "truly" fighting ISIS in Syria.

But according to the U.S. and its allies, Putin is dead wrong. By beefing up the Assad regime with its military equipment and the so-called "advisors," the Kremlin is actually inciting terrorism in the region, including atrocities that come from ISIS.

The Assad regime is a "terrorism generator of epic proportion, engaging in state terrorism against its own people and inciting terrorism from its opponents," the strategic security firm The Soufan Group wrote in its report in August.The strategic security firm added that there is no justifying the actions of the Islamic State or al-Nusra, "but the Assad regime's wholesale slaughter of civilians provides the groups with radicalized supporters far faster than Assad's military can then fight them."

Putin is a hypocrite and it's now a fact

And another problem with Putin and his support for the Syrian government is that he will never let anyone overthrow the Assad regime – not now and not anytime soon. According to Putin, he is against any kind of foreign interference in internal affairs of Syria. However, Mr. Putin seems to forget his last year's annexation of Crimea and his ongoing actions in eastern Ukraine. Thus, not only did Putin "bulls-" the world in his address to the UN, but also showed his hypocrisy.

By his stubborn stance on the Syrian crisis, Putin forces the West to choose between a bad and an even worse scenario of the conflict in the Middle East. He forces the U.S. and Europe to recognize Assad as a partner in fighting ISIS militants. Putin claims that it would result in an immediate stabilizing of the situation in Syria. But that's not what the Russian President is truly after. What Putin is after is Russia's growing role as a major player in global affairs. He also expects that such a scenario would urge the West to lift the sanctions, which were imposed for Moscow's interference in Ukraine's internal affairs.

Russia's has been gradually stepping up its military presence in Syria since the end of August, while the first half of September saw a sudden large build-up of Russia's military equipment in the Syrian coastal city of Latakia. And while Russia claims that the Russian military equipment deployed in Syria assists the Assad regime to fight against ISIS and other extremists in the region, many experts have noted that Mr. Putin cares more about keeping Assad in power by fighting off U.S.-trained Syrian rebels.

Times of U.S. dominance in the Middle East are gone

If an agreement with Mr. Putin is not reached anytime soon, the deadly conflict in Syria will develop by its current scenario: the war in the Middle East will force millions more refugees to flee the country in the direction of Central Europe. However, there is also a third option – sending American and Western troops into Syria and launching a ground offensive without UN's mandate. But this option has not been seriously considered by any Western state yet. But for how long?

It's a tough choice for the West, which still refuses to admit its weakness and inability to influence the Syrian crisis. But the fact is clear: the times of unilateral actions by the U.S. and its dominance in the Middle East are gone, which was indicated by U.S. President Barack Obama's Monday speech at the UN headquarters. Obama also called for a 'modern approach' in resolving world's problems, saying that the world cannot go back to the "old ways" of "conflict and coercion."

"But I stand before you today believing in my core that we, the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion—we cannot look backwards," Obama said.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/28/putin_to_un_america_is_destroying_the_world_and_only_we_can_stop_it.html

SEPT. 28 2015 1:07 PM

Putin to U.N.: America Is Destroying the World, and Only We Can Stop It

By Joshua Keating

Both Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin frequently claim to reject outdated Cold War thinking, but it's hard to avoid the comparison when both leaders devoted their addresses to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday morning to rejecting the other's worldview.

Speaking shortly after Obama dismissed Russia's view that Syria's Bashar al-Assad can be a partner in fighting ISIS, Putin, making his first address to the General Assembly in a decade, blamed foreign—read: U.S.—interference for helping the spread of extremism in the Middle East. "Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in the brazen destruction of institutions," he said. Addressing "those who've caused the situation," Putin said he's temped to ask,  "do you realize now what you've done?" (Putin never referred to the U.S. specifically, only to an unnamed Voldemort-like malevolent presence doing terrible things in the world.)

Attacking the policies of two U.S. presidents in one fell swoop, Putin noted that the ranks of ISIS include former Iraqi service members who were decommissioned after the 2003 invasion, as well as the "ranks of so-called moderate opposition. First they are armed  and trained, and then they defect to the Islamic State."

Saying "we cannot allow these criminals who have already tasted blood to return home and continue their evil doings," Putin argued that ISIS's growth poses a threat to all nations, including Russia, and called for the formation of an international partnership "similar to the anti-Hitler coalition" in order to fight them. (That would be a coalition with several brutal dictators competing for the role of Stalin.)

This wasn't the only historical analogy in Putin's remarks. He also compared western attempts to spread democracy in the Middle East to Soviet-era experiments in spreading Communism around the globe, suggesting they were destined for similar failure. "No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has recognized as the only right one," he said.

Moments after Obama rejected the notion of a "conspiracy of U.S.-controlled NGOs" to overthrow governments around the world, Putin described the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine's government as a "military coup" that was "orchestrated from outside."

Putin also defended Russia's use of its veto at the U.N. Security Council, which U.S. officials say undermines the authority of the body by shielding violators of international law from criticism and sanctions. Russia's response is that the U.S. is simply irritated by a check on its unrestrained power in international affairs. Putin rejected criticism of Russia's veto as "a dangerous attempt to "undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations" by a power who "thought they knew better and didn't have to reckon with the UN."

Wonder who he could be talking about.