Related: RT: Meddling with sovereign states’ internal affairs leads to chaos, power vacuums & terrorism – Lavrov
Russia Insider (via sott.net)
Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:56 UTC
The Union of Strongmen of the Perm region gave a T-shirt depicting the Russian President to Arnold Schwarzenegger during the 2016 Arnold Amateur Strongman World Championship that takes place every year in Columbus, Ohio. “The Russian terminator!” — the actor commented on the present.
Vladimir Putin seems to be gaining support in the USA, despite not being warmly covered by the media over the last few years, and Arnold Schwarzenegger was happy to accept the T-shirt.
After Russia’s Syrian operation, the American press has granted the Russian President backhanded compliments, comparing him favorably to its own leaders.
“American strategists could learn a thing or two from Russia’s in-and-out Syrian war— The Wall Street Journal admits regretfully. It took Mr. Putin just six months to show the world that a modest military input can decisively tilt the balance of power, and that not every Middle East intervention descends into a quagmire”.
By the way, Russian politicians clarified the sudden reduction of our planes in Syria in these terms:
“If the Syrian authorities, despite necessary domestic policies and propaganda, follow the Russian leadership, they will be able to overcome this crisis with dignity. If they lose their way – again this is my personal opinion – a very difficult situation could arise. But no matter what possibilities the Syrian army has, the Russian Air Force will enable it to outflank its rivals”, the Permanent Representative of Russia to the UNO Vitaly Churkin said in an interview in February.
Bashar Assad and his team ignored the warning and adopted a defiant attitude at the negotiations: no compromise with the opposition; and no federalization of the country or granting the Kurds a special status enclave.
Only winners can dictate such terms, and this is not how Putin negotiates with his most difficult opponents.
The sudden termination of the Syrian operation was a response to the unfair demand that Russia be flexible. Contrary to the US, we didn’t try to obtain total obedience from the Syrian leader as a senior partner, we simply refused to assist him in his civil war. That immediately changed the balance of power and caused the government to come to certain terms with the opposition.
Neither the USSR nor Russia, nor the USA has ever used such an exit strategy before. Both countries got stuck in Afghanistan, the USA also got bogged down in Vietnam earlier, and we’ve seen how difficult it has been for it to leave Iraq.
It’s also clear that our flight group can be ramped up at any moment. It’s safe to say that Russia will be present in the Middle East for a good while. And this is part of the Putin method: we defended not only Syria’s interests but Russia’s, which coincided.
Our objectives are, first of all, respect for the sovereignty of independent states: the leaders of other countries are not entitled to change this. Secondly, restoration of the UN Security Council as the only international decision-making body: no military blocks or international coalitions can act at their discretion.It is vital to dismantle the unipolar world.
The world has changed after Syria: Russia returned to its status as a global player. That’s why Russian-American relations didn’t improve and are not likely to. Neither party is going to obey the other one, and we are accustomed to the stalemate.
During John Kerry’s two-day visit, we consistently emphasized the advantages of cooperation based on mutual respect. “Our cooperation in relation to Syria allowed us to be successful because we worked on an equal footing and we will continue to do that” —Sergei Lavrov said to his colleague.
“Success in doing in Syria was only possible thanks to the position of the top US leader, Barack Obama”— Vladimir Putin sweetened the pill. This is another aspect of his method: awarding geopolitical rivals with nonexistent qualities to raise relations to a level where former disputes and offensive rhetoric can fade away.
It’s clear to everyone that Washington was forced to start cooperating with Moscow in the Syrian conflict. It was Vladimir Putin who forced Barack Obama, but in his own way: he pushed his rival to the wall but allowed him to save face.
The same holds for the Ukraine: John Kerry again outlined the terms for cancelling the sanctions: full implementation of the Minsk peace agreements. As expected, the Crimea was not listed, which means that American negotiators are becoming more realistic. Not everyone is eager for the sanctions to be lifted: Moscow is quite satisfied with the status quo, as the Ukraine slowly but surely turns into a rump state between Russia and the West. Back in 2014, Vladimir Putin warned Western countries, that their love for the Ukraine would be costly. Of course, he did this in his own way: directly and honestly:
“Russia is ready to be involved in stabilizing the Ukrainian economy, not on a unilateral basis but with our European partners, taking into account investments and expenditures that Russia has long provided”.
No one believed him then, but they do now.
Originally appeared at Live Journal. Translated by Julia Rakhmetova and Rhod Mackenzie.
* * *
A Chart which helps to understand the practical aspects of Sovereignty, from ~Jean
Just above is a simple chart — that can easily explain how sovereignty works for nations and in personal relationships of all sorts. For simplicity, I will talk only about nations.
The two overlapping circles represent a relationship of two (or more) nations. Where the circles overlap is where the relationship ‘intersects’.
The two areas to the left and right represent that which is personal or off limits to anyone else. For nations it would probably be how each country decides to govern itself internally, and could be much more, but you can see how this would make sense.
In no specific place, but on the outside of these two intersecting circles and separate from them is perhaps the most important item in a relationship with respect to the sovereignty of others, and it is the very reason for the existence of the relationship: a common interest, like a peaceful world that plays by international laws, or as China believes, as discussed in Trains Against Terrorism: The New Silk Road Crosses Afghanistan, by Caleb Maupin, when nations — even impoverished nations — are joined together in a positive way through trade, the world is then much more stable.
When things get tough in the relationship, it is this single item that will hold the relationship together. If this item ceases to be important, then it might be time to considering reevaluating the relationship.
One more fact of prime importance is that negotiation is a key item in such a relationship. If the way a nation governs itself internally gets in the way of PEACE or a STABLE ECONOMIC WORLD, then negotiation becomes a prime way to resolve the conflict.
* * *
I have watched Putin operate this way time and time again as he provides us examples of how sovereign nations can work together. He states his case, “Do you know what you have done?”, he moves under international law to protect his country, and he leaves. He says exactly what he is going to do, and as he does it, he keeps us informed in a very open way, and when he has finished, he leaves.
Not only does the USA Corporate Government not understand this, but neither do most of the American people, who, of course, hear nothing but the lies of propaganda. We have become so used to duplicity, propaganda, and lies, that it seems we simply don’t know how to deal with Putin’s straightforward efforts, except to blame him, but what has he actually done that is a surprise to us? He has done exactly what he said he would do – nothing more, nothing less!
When I watched the recent Frontline program about Putin, I saw it as a perfect example of psychological transference: our propaganda machine unconsciously placing responsibility on Putin as it very accurately described itself because it cannot and will not look at itself.
I believe Putin understands what a sovereign relationship is. He states his case, he respects others sovereignty, and he doesn’t tell others how to run their nations; he is willing to negotiate, and then he withdraws. He doesn’t lie; he doesn’t change the game plan — or if he would, I imagine it would be done in a very public way, and what we see is what we get. We are not used to this kind of a leader, but I believe he is demonstrating an example of how a true multi-polar world might work, one in which sovereignty is truly valued. Many nations are getting on board.
Obviously, the United States is not even near being able to operate in this manner. Still, I do not think either Russia or China want to destroy us. They see our value as a people and want us to wake up and join them in a much more positive world. Events are beginning to make this clear. While a nuclear bomb may be dropped on us as a false flag, Russia and China are not going to drop it.