Russia today

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14412
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Thu Jun 05, 2025 11:12 pm

Medinsky Reports to Putin & Other Doings

An hour-long meeting of the government.
Karl Sanchez
Jun 04, 2025

Image

The previously scheduled government meeting was supplemented by the head of the negotiating team Mr. Medinsky’s report, followed by Mr. Lavrov’s assessment. Then reports about the response to the terrorist attacks were provided. These did not include reports on the airfield attacks or their significance. Putin makes his assessment known prior to the meeting turning its attention to its initial agenda a portion of which is provided since it’s clearly of interest to all Russians. Essentially, what’s provided in the transcript is information all Russians need to be informed about. Left unsaid was what Russia’s specific response would be for what ought to be obvious reasons. As you’ll read, Putin’s remarks are very strong, although the dialog will continue. I can’t help comparing Russia’s response to these events with that of the Outlaw US Empire to recent natural disasters and train derailments, specifically the February 2023 East Palestine, Ohio event where new evidence provided by an FOIA lawsuit showed gross Biden administration and other unlawful conduct. Do a search as many damning reports are now available. Now let’s read what was said:
Vladimir Putin: Dear colleagues, good afternoon!

We have a regular government meeting, and we will talk about ensuring technological sovereignty in the field of communication services.

But before that, of course, I would like to listen and ask Vladimir Rostislavovich Medinsky to share the results of his trip and negotiations in Istanbul.

Vladimir Rostislavovich, please.

Vladimir Medinsky : Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, Dear colleagues!

I report that the Istanbul talks were held in a bilateral format, first one-on-one for more than three hours, then with the participation of all members of the delegation. The working language was Russian.

We handed over our draft memorandum on a peaceful settlement, which consisted of two parts. The first part is the conditions for concluding a long-term peace. The second part is the terms of the ceasefire. The Memorandum is based on the basic principles that you formulated at the Foreign Ministry last June. The Ukrainian side promised to study it and give its comments later.

In general, during the negotiations, they confirmed their positions, which are reduced to two points. The first is to start with a 30- or 60-day unconditional cease-fire. The second point is to use this cease-fire to prepare for the summit of heads of state. They set out all this in their version of the memorandum, which was handed over to us on May 28.

"On the sidelines" of the negotiations was the humanitarian issue [the three hours of talks]. We called on them to focus on working out the terms of peace, rather than another temporary truce, and conveyed your position that a meeting at the level of heads of state is possible, but it needs to be thoroughly worked out with results. Since the heads of state should not work out the details of agreements, but approve them, that is, make final decisions on pre-prepared and agreed projects.

As for humanitarian issues, we agreed on the following.

The first is to conduct a parity exchange of prisoners of war numbering at least 1,000 people on each side, primarily in the categories of wounded, seriously ill and prisoners of war under the age of 25. The final parity figures are currently being agreed upon. We assume that it will probably be 1,200 people on each side. And this will again be the biggest exchange of prisoners of war. We are ready to start on June 7, 8, and 9. For our part, we are fully prepared for this.

The second is to create a line of communication to promptly resolve issues of urgent transfer of seriously wounded prisoners of war to each other outside the framework of general exchanges.

Third, we have proposed to transfer more than 6,000 bodies of dead Ukrainian servicemen to Kiev unilaterally. Transfer them to special machines, refrigerated wagons, where they are stored. We are also ready to start doing this in the coming days. We understand that they may also have our bodies–-there are probably many, many fewer of them–-but we have expressed our willingness to accept them if there are any.

Further, we suggested working out the so-called humanitarian pauses in certain areas of the front for two or three days to collect the remains of military personnel, since for security reasons it is impossible to do this without a cease-fire. At first, they supported our proposal, undertook to work on it, but literally two hours later Zelensky publicly renounced the proposed agreement. Nevertheless, we are ready to return to it.

Finally, the Ukrainian side gave us lists of 339 children allegedly abducted from the territory of Ukraine. Here is the list. We looked it over; we have a mechanism for working with the Commissioner for Children's Rights. We'll look into each last name.

But I will note that for propaganda purposes, they previously talked about tens and hundreds of thousands of allegedly removed children. This is actually 339, and we still need to figure out how many of them are there–-they were rescued by our soldiers, taken out from under fire—how many are in our possession, and how many, as practice shows, are then found somewhere in Europe.

So, Mr Putin, an effective channel of cooperation has been established for all humanitarian actions. For other matters, the ball is on their side.

I finished my report. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Sergey Viktorovich, how do you assess the results of these negotiations?

Sergey : Thank you, Vladimir Vladimirovich.

Dear colleagues!

Vladimir Rostislavovich spoke about the main results. I think this is important and useful. The process of direct negotiations, which you previously agreed on in one of your last phone conversations with Donald Trump, is working.

Both rounds, as we know, have produced concrete results, including the exchange of prisoners of war a thousand for a thousand. And now, as the head of our delegation Vladimir Rostislavovich Medinsky said, there are additional agreements on a new, no less large-scale exchange, and not just an exchange of prisoners of war in equal proportions, but also the transfer of seriously wounded, sick people, plus the return of the bodies of the dead.

I believe that under all circumstances, it is always better to have a communication channel. This allows us to solve primarily humanitarian issues. And it is probably necessary at this stage to coordinate counter-humanitarian steps as gestures of goodwill, as confidence-building measures. Moreover, as I have already said, there is real progress here.

Due to what has just been said about the proposal for a short two-or three-day pause, in order to collect the bodies of the dead in a decent way on certain sections of the line of contact, it is possible that there are still wounded there: I believe that this is just a gross mistake of the regime in Kiev. I am referring to Zelensky's categorical and crude rejection of this proposal. Just as our initiatives on similar humanitarian pauses on the occasion of Easter and the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory were ignored.

Despite all this, Mr Putin, and despite new major criminal provocations in the last few days, I would consider it important not to succumb to these provocative actions, which are clearly aimed at disrupting negotiations and continuing to receive weapons from European countries.

I believe that all means, including negotiations, should be used to achieve the just goals of the special military operation, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is actively participating in the delegation of Vladimir Rostislavovich Medinsky.

Vladimir Putin: I agree with that. There were, in my opinion, as I was informed, some other comments from the Ukrainian side about the composition and level of our delegation.

Sergey Lavrov: Mr President, yes, the comments were anonymous, and they were dispersed by the mass media. No one approached us with specific questions or ideas. Journalists were interested–-we explained what the level of assistant to the President of the Russian Federation means.

Vladimir Putin: Vladimir Rostislavovich, was there something wrong?

Vladimir Medinsky: No, Mr President, I have said everything.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: All right, all right. Thank you very much.

I invited Alexander Ivanovich Bastrykin to our meeting [Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation]. I would like to ask him to report on the results of the investigation into the explosions on the railway in the Bryansk and Kursk regions.

Alexander Ivanovich, please.

A. : Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich,

On June 1, 2025, the Investigative Committee initiated and is investigating three criminal cases on three terrorist attacks in the Bryansk and Kursk regions at railway infrastructure facilities.

As a result of these terrorist attacks, passenger and freight trains crashed, civilians and railway transport workers were killed and injured in various degrees of severity.

The first terrorist attack occurred at 22: 33 on May 31, 2025 on the 43rd kilometer of the Pilshino – Vygonichi stage of the Bryansk region of the Moscow Railway. Three explosive devices were detonated, which destroyed the supports of the automobile overpass installed above the railway tracks.

A locomotive of the Klimovo – Moscow passenger train, which was carrying 388 passengers, collided with the fallen fragments of the spans. The locomotive and the first two cars derailed.

As a result of the terrorist attack, 122 people were injured, seven of them were killed–-the driver and six passengers. 66 people were injured, including four young children.

Three explosive devices were laid and their elements were removed. Experts found that the explosive devices were equipped with a plastic explosive of foreign production, their capacity was about 15 kilograms in TNT equivalent. And, what is very important, it was established that the Ukrainian-made LORA control unit was used in the explosion.

The second terrorist attack occurred on the night of June 1, 2025. A railway bridge was blown up at the intersection of the 43rd kilometer of the Trosna-Kalinovka highway in the Kursk region.

The destruction of railway tracks led to the derailment and collapse of the composition of empty freight cars transported on the route Bryansk-Ostapovo-Mikhailovsky Mine. The locomotive caught fire, the train driver and two of his assistants received injuries of varying severity.

An inspection of the scene revealed that five improvised explosive devices were simultaneously detonated on the railway track and under the supports of the railway bridge. According to experts, the devices were equipped with a foreign-made plastic explosive.

The explosives experts participating in the inspection found that the method of activating the explosive device was the LORA control units—again the same LORA—of Ukrainian production, installed on railway tracks.

The third terrorist attack occurred on the morning of June 1, 2025 in the Bryansk region. Five explosive devices installed under the railway track on the 6th kilometer of the Unecha-Zhecha stage were detonated while the locomotive of the Russian Railways diagnostic complex was traveling.

Explosive devices were detonated directly under the locomotive. The railway track and locomotive were damaged. With the participation of experts, two unexploded explosive devices were also found at the crime scene. The mass of the seized plastic explosive of foreign production is not less than two kilograms.

The total amount of damage caused as a result of terrorist attacks, according to preliminary estimates, is more than one billion rubles. The investigation of terrorist attacks is conducted in close cooperation with the FSB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.

I would like to report that law enforcement agencies–-the FSB, Rosgvardiya, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation–-conducted joint operational measures to detect and neutralize a Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance group in the Bryansk Region from May 20 to 25, 2025.

During these events, on May 22, 2025, a cache containing 13 kilograms of plasticite and Ukrainian-made ENT control units, which are used by the special services of Ukraine, was discovered near the village of Myakishevo.

At the scene of all three terrorist attacks, the same professional method of installing explosive devices was used, as well as foreign-made plastic explosives and Ukrainian-made ENT control units. The same blocks were found in the cache.

Thus, the evidence collected by the investigation with the help of experts directly indicates that all three terrorist attacks were, beyond any doubt, organized by the special services of Ukraine. The investigation continues to identify all the perpetrators and organizers of the terrorist attack.

I finished my report.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

I ask Mikhail Murashko [Minister of Health] to report on how assistance is being provided to the victims.

Mikhail Murashko : Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, Dear colleagues,

I will start from the moment the first information arrives at the ambulance control panel. It arrived at 22:48, and in 15 minutes the first two nearest crews arrived at the scene. Then, at 23:15, we increased the number of teams – even from Bryansk additionally – to 17, including the disaster medicine centers and the Russian Railways-medicine team.

The prescribed algorithms of actions and those that we worked out in practical classes clearly worked. The Bryansk Center for Disaster Medicine took over the coordination, including the Federal Center for Disaster Medicine. As the head of the All-Russian Disaster Medicine Service, I was informed at 23: 07.

Immediately after receiving the information, all coordination of forces was organized, also with the participation of the regional health system and the means of Russian Railways.

Employees of the Bryansk region worked well together. Vygonichskaya Central District Hospital, Bryansk city and regional hospitals, as well as the regional Children's Hospital were prepared for the wounded and injured as soon as possible. More than 100 medical workers who were at home after working hours, on their own initiative and on the mobilization reserve, despite non-working hours, arrived at their workplaces.

In the dark, doctors and rescuers pulled victims out of the wreckage and acted in a coordinated manner. And in addition, we deployed ambulance teams in temporary waiting points, which provided necessary assistance–-both psychological and medical, including those in need when sorting out rubble.

I would like to express my deep gratitude to the regional authorities and my colleagues for their high professionalism and dedication in providing medical care. I would also like to thank the train crew guides for providing first aid to the injured.

We have sent 17 specialists from federal institutions and the Moscow Department of Health Care to medical organizations in the Bryansk region for strengthening. Telemedicine consultations were held for all serious patients, and for three children–-with specialists of the Research Institute of Emergency Pediatric Surgery, where I am currently located, and specialists of the RDKB, as well as the N. N. Priorov National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics.

Only six victims, including three children, were evacuated to federal clinics and medical organizations in Moscow. A four-month-old baby in serious condition with multiple injuries was delivered by an air ambulance helicopter: first by ambulance, then a helicopter evacuation was connected.

Now the baby's condition is stabilized. His seven-year-old brother was also brought here. I checked on them today, they are all in stable condition, surrounded by the love and care of doctors and staff, and they feel much better.

At the Kievsky railway station in the city of Moscow, the arrival of passengers was organized, medical assistance and psychological assistance were also deployed.

Currently, 35 people, including three children, are undergoing inpatient treatment, and 11 people are already preparing for discharge. There are no serious patients now. Outpatient care was provided to 29 people, including one child. 29 people were discharged, 56 people received outpatient care.

The total number of patients—including those who applied already and in a later period—we provided assistance to 127 people, including relatives, provided psychological assistance. Medical organizations that provide assistance to victims are fully provided with medicines, medical devices, and blood.

I keep the situation under my personal control.

Completed the report.

Vladimir Putin: Good. Thank you very much.

Next to you is a well-known children's doctor. Do you have anything to add, Leonid Mikhailovich [President of the Research Institute of Emergency Pediatric Surgery and Traumatology]?

Leonid Roshal: Good afternoon, Vladimir Vladimirovich and everyone present!

First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in such a discussion of high-level state issues for the first time. I'm an old man now, and I remember everything very well. I want to go back to 2014.

This year, a child, a boy, with injuries to both legs, amputated hands and a problem with his eyes, was brought to the clinic from the Donbass--a very heavily injured child. And we have asked the leaders of many participating countries to come to Moscow, sit down with this child in 2014, and decide how to end this war.

But, unfortunately, only one person has arrived, Vladimir Vladimirovich, and that is you. You saw this child, which is how it all started--not when the special operation began, but many years before. That is, we didn't start it, and we should remember and know about it.

The same applies, I'm sorry, to Crimea. If what has now been done had not been done, Russia would have been cut off from the Black Sea altogether. It was a forced measure, a historically justified measure.

Unfortunately, the time has come for us to be prepared for all situations. It is possible that such terrorist attacks may continue. We must be united in our desire to achieve peace and victory.

I would like to thank you–-I saw Alexander Ivanovich Bastrykin here--when this child was brought for amputation of limbs, it was his service and he personally who played a big role in ensuring that the child recovered. Thank you very much.

In general, many people lend a helping hand. I was in the thick of things in Bryansk during this tragedy, I understood what was happening. I contacted Bryansk, and I have to tell you: the doctors worked perfectly in Bryansk, just fine.

Some of the children were in the regional adult hospital–-there is a children's neurosurgery, and some of the children were in the regional children's hospital. They did not allow the children's condition to deteriorate and did everything possible to ensure that everything was normal.

Such an opportunity is rarely presented, but I would like to say, Mr Putin. In my lifetime, quite a lot of health ministers have passed, and the share that went to the real Minister of Health is not to be envied. This infection is terrible, which the whole country had to deal with, and now what is happening with military operations… And it works fine, well done. [I interpret this odd paragraph as praise for the current Health Minister who began his tenure as Covid arrived on the scene.]

I thank you for your attention.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

About the boy who was remembered, I also remember well. I think his name is Vanya. This is such a good example, really.

You have just mentioned what is being done at the regional level for victims. I would like to ask Alexander Bogomaz [Bryansk Governor] to say a few words on this subject.

A. : Hello, dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

I am in the Bryansk Regional Hospital. Passengers of the Klimov–Moscow train who suffered as a result of the terrorist attack of the armed forces of Ukraine are being treated here.

Behind me is Yulia Nikolaevna, a cardiologist herself, a resident of Nizhny Novgorod. Here Tatyana Ivanovna is a resident of our Bryansk region, works in a hospital, her son is on his own, his condition is satisfactory.

In total, as they said, 127 people applied for medical help. Unfortunately, seven people were killed. On June 2, a three-day mourning period was declared in Bryansk.

Since the notification of the terrorist attack in Bryansk was received, an operational headquarters was formed, which included all the necessary services. On the basis of the Ministry of Emergency Situations and the Department of Social Protection, two "hotlines" were opened, where everyone could find out about their relatives. The work of the ambulance service, as mentioned above, was collective, joint: these are ambulance crews, hospital doctors, employees of Russian Railways, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, rescuers, and passengers of this train themselves.

All evacuation measures were completed within an hour and a half. All the wounded were taken to hospitals in the city of Bryansk. Two temporary accommodation centers were set up for passengers, where doctors and psychologists also worked with them. All those who expressed a desire to continue their journey to Moscow were taken by buses to the railway station and sent to Moscow at five o'clock.

After completing all the evacuation measures, we immediately started clearing the rubble and repairing the railway tracks. Our Bryansk builders, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, railway workers and the Moscow–Bobruisk road Administration also worked here. All activities were completed in less than a day, and traffic was opened at 21: 30 on June 1.

In the Bryansk region, at the very beginning of the special military operation, support measures were taken for our civilians who are being attacked, lose their lives and are injured. We pay one and a half million rubles to families who have lost a loved one, 600 thousand rubles to those who have been seriously injured, and 300 thousand rubles to those who are light and medium. All victims of the terrorist attack will receive these payments.

Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, I can say that from the first minutes to today I have been keeping the situation under my personal control.

I finished my report.

Vladimir Putin: Good. Thank you, Alexander Vasilyevich.

I would like to wish a speedy recovery to all the victims, including those who are in the ward where you are now. All the best!

Oleg Valentinovich Belozerov [CEO and Chairman of the Management Board, Russian Railways], how is the reconstruction work going and what about payments to the victims and families of the victims? Because in accordance with Russian law, this is on the shoulders of Russian Railways.

You are welcome.

Belozerov: Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, Dear colleagues!

On May 31, a passenger train collided on the Pilshino–Vygonichi stretch in the Bryansk region, which was already reported. As a result, 30 meters of railway track, a diesel locomotive and three passenger cars were damaged in the railway part to the point of write-off. In the road section, two spans and one intermediate support of the overpass are completely destroyed and cannot be repaired.

In the aftermath of the disaster, recovery headquarters were immediately set up. 180 people were involved in this incident and eleven units of heavy equipment were involved. The total traffic break was about 24 hours.

The incident affected the movement of three passenger trains. The route of two trains was changed, but the trains arrived at their destination on schedule. One train's route was shortened, and passengers were delivered from Bryansk station to their destinations by buses provided by the administration of the Bryansk Region.

Currently, train traffic on the section is carried out without restrictions. At the same time, Rosavtodor organized work on the restoration of the overpass, which will be completed no later than October 1, 2025. Rosavtodor, in coordination with the administration of the Bryansk region, determined temporary detour routes.

According to the second incident on the Ostapovo–Mikhailovsky Mine stretch in the Kursk region, 200 people participated in the elimination of consequences. In connection with this incident, the train traffic pattern was changed, and the roadbed was cleaned of destroyed structures. Currently, car traffic is carried out without restrictions.

The restoration of the railway overpass to its previous dimensions–-we have agreed on this issue with the governor of the Kursk region. There is a nuance: it is necessary to maintain the size for trucks. The work will be completed within two months, and traffic will be opened no later than August 2. During the break of traffic in this direction, the export of goods will be provided using alternative routes and will not affect the volume of traffic.

For the third case in the Bryansk region, there were no serious consequences. All necessary repairs have been completed and traffic is fully restored.

Our main focus, of course, as you said, Mr President, was on the incident involving a passenger train in the Bryansk region and on providing assistance to passengers. Both passengers and employees of Russian Railways were injured. Currently, some of the victims continue inpatient treatment, some have already been discharged.

The company has organized operational interaction with all affected passengers and their relatives. For them, free travel to the Bryansk station is provided.

Taking into account the difficult emotional and physical condition of the passengers, we immediately organized a business trip of our employees to Bryansk to visit all the victims who were placed in hospitals. Assistance was provided with food sets, sanitary and hygienic accessories and the necessary telephone connection was provided.

It was decided to pay 2 million 200 thousand rubles from the charity funds of Russian Railways to the family members of the victims, one million rubles to hospitalized injured passengers with severe severity, 500 thousand rubles to hospitalized injured passengers with moderate and light severity, 100 thousand rubles to passengers who applied for medical assistance. At the moment, 55 payments have already been made in the amount of 36.5 million rubles, including five payments to relatives of the deceased passengers.

All passengers who were on the train at the time of the accident will be refunded the full fare. 354 passengers have already received it, and the remaining passengers will be refunded in the near future, taking into account the specifics of ticket purchase.

In addition, additional payments are provided under the contract on mandatory insurance of the carrier's liability to passengers. We have organized the interaction of affected passengers with the insurance company. A round-the-clock "hotline" for train passengers and their relatives has also been created and operates.

Employees of Russian Railways were also injured in two incidents. The train crew of the passenger train, despite the injuries received, from the first minutes of the incident, together with EMERCOM employees, participated in the evacuation of passengers, including from the destroyed and damaged cars. All our employees are also provided with all the necessary assistance.

Special attention is paid to the family of the deceased train driver Mishin Pavel Nikolaevich.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the specialists of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Ministry of Health, the administration of the Bryansk and Kursk regions, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Transport for their help. Even Belarusian railway workers came to our aid.

Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, I ask you to consider encouraging those directly involved in the elimination of the consequences of these accidents, and also to note the actions of the locomotive crew of the passenger train. The train driver remained on the job until the end, showing personal courage. This made it possible to avoid more tragic consequences.

Thanks for attention.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you. thank you.

Tatyana Alekseevna [Deputy Prime Minister], do you have anything to add to what Oleg Valentinovich said?

Tatyana Golikova: Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, Dear colleagues!

The government, in accordance with the current procedure, will also provide assistance to family members of the deceased citizens in the amount of 1 million 167.5 thousand; citizens who received severe injuries and moderate health injuries in the amount of 627 thousand; light injuries, 313.5 thousand rubles. The relevant Government act will be signed in the near future.

At the same time, I would like to report that at the moment we have awarded survivor's pensions for five children in respect of two dead citizens. Pensions are assigned proactively, without requesting relevant applications. Payments will be made as soon as possible after receiving information about the bank account details for transferring pensions or information on payment through postal organizations.

We have opened "hotlines" for prompt provision of social support measures to victims. We also organized work on the assignment of payments for compulsory social insurance against accidents at work.

24 persons insured under the compulsory social insurance against accidents suffered in the performance of their work duties. As already mentioned, one person was killed, 23 were injured.

Currently, accident investigation commissions have been formed in the Bryansk and Kursk regions. As soon as we receive the appropriate medical reports on the severity of injuries and health, we will assign one-time and monthly insurance payments. The work is under constant control.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

I would like to say a few words about the first part of our meeting today, and then we will move on to the second part.

First of all, I ask the Government and regional authorities to take all necessary measures to help the families of the victims. And I would like to express my sincere condolences to these families. It is necessary to provide assistance to the victims, all the necessary assistance.

I would like to thank the employees of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, employees of Russian Railways, and other services for everything that you did, dear friends, helping people who got into this most serious accident.

The recent bombing of railway tracks in the Bryansk and Kursk regions is certainly a terrorist act. And decisions to commit such crimes, of course, were made in Ukraine at the political level.

What would you like to mention in this regard? Of course, everywhere and always in the course of armed conflicts, to our great regret, civilians suffer. But what happened in Bryansk, in the Bryansk region, is a targeted attack on civilians, and according to all international norms, such actions are called terrorism.

All the crimes that were committed against civilians, including women and children, on the eve of the next round of the proposed peace talks in Istanbul, were clearly aimed at disrupting the negotiation process. The strike was aimed at the civilian population intentionally.

This only confirms our fears that the already illegitimate regime in Kiev, which once seized power, is gradually being transformed into a terrorist organization, and its sponsors are becoming accomplices of terrorists.

Just recently, the Ukrainian authorities and their allies dreamed of a strategic defeat for Russia on the battlefield. Today, against the backdrop of huge losses, retreating along the entire line of contact, trying to intimidate Russia, the Kiev elite has moved to organize terrorist acts. At the same time, they ask to suspend military operations for 30 or even 60 days and ask for a high-level meeting.

But how can such meetings be held in these conditions? What should I talk about? Who even negotiates with those who rely on terror, with terrorists? And why encourage them by providing a respite in the fighting, which will be used to pump the regime with Western weapons, to continue the violent mobilization and preparation of other terrorist acts, such as those carried out in the Bryansk and Kursk regions?

As for the issues raised by Sergey Viktorovich [Lavrov]—we spoke with him separately on this issue–-regarding the level of our negotiators, the humanitarian pause, in accordance with generally recognized international practice, this level is determined by the country that certain individuals represent. This level can only be evaluated from the outside by those people, those experts who themselves have absolute authority and a high level of competence.

What authority can the leaders of a thoroughly rotten and completely corrupt regime have? This is being talked about all over the world. What competence can be proud of those who caused the armed forces of Ukraine, for example, to suffer absolutely senseless, huge losses in the Kursk region and today suffer one defeat after another on the battlefield?

Apparently, we are dealing with people who not only do not have any significant competence in anything, but also have an elementary political culture, if they allow themselves to make certain statements and even direct insults to those with whom they are trying to agree on something.

As for the next refusal of the truce for two or three days for humanitarian reasons, this is not the first time. This does not surprise us, but only convinces us that the current Kiev regime does not need peace at all. Peace for him, most likely, means the loss of power. And power for this regime, apparently, is more important than peace and the lives of people whom they apparently do not consider their own.

We will also discuss all the nuances of this case with some of our colleagues. We will talk to the Foreign Minister and representatives of the security forces at the next meeting of the Security Council.

Now, a few current questions on today's topic. What would I like to say two words about? The first is about the northern delivery, and this is what I would like to ask. We need to make timely decisions related to the financing of this northern delivery. I won't go into details right now, we do this every year, and I would ask you to pay special attention to it. We'll come back to this in the near future. For now, I'll just confine myself to the topic I've just pointed out.

And the second question. I asked Alexander Novak to report on the second Caucasus Investment Forum. But taking into account the fact that I have scheduled protocol events, I will just draw your attention to the fact that contracts were signed for 206 billion rubles, which is almost twice as much as in 2024. Then I'll ask Alexander Valentinovich to tell me more about this, too.

Let's move on to the main question. Maksut Shadaev on ensuring technological sovereignty in the field of communication services [Minister of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation].

Maksut Igorevich, please.

Shadaev: Good afternoon, dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

We have repeatedly discussed that Russia is one of the few countries in the world that has a well-developed ecosystem of its own Internet services, and services that are very popular and popular among our population. Here are some figures. Almost 70 percent of Russian users search for information in Yandex, our Russian search engine. In absolute terms, this is almost 50 million people a day, and 40 percent of Russian users use our domestic browser to access Internet sites. In Russian social networks, in VK and Odnoklassniki, we have about 80 percent of the adult population of our country registered. Approximately 60 million people visit them every day.

40 million families regularly make purchases in Russian marketplaces, and 10 million people order a taxi or food delivery every day in Russian mobile applications.

We have a very well-developed online cinema industry. 80 percent of our citizens watch online movies and TV shows on Russian services. That's about 15 million people a day. At the same time, the audience of those who watch Russian films and TV shows has grown significantly in recent years. All this was made possible by measures to support the IT industry and a mechanism to ensure equal competition with global players. At the same time, starting in 2022, we have faced numerous restrictions imposed on our country by foreign digital platforms, global "Big Technologies", as we say. Many of them, in general, did not strive to comply with all the requirements of Russian legislation before, but after the start of the free trade zone, they began, frankly speaking, to behave quite destructively towards Russian users. I'll give you a few examples.

Foreign app stores have started massively blocking the mobile apps of our largest banks, aggregators, and carriers. They are simply removed from the list of apps available for download and our developers are blocked from accessing the stores. In response, with the support of the Government, VK launched a domestic RuStore app store in the summer of 2022, through which you can download blocked mobile apps to Android devices.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, now this app store–-our own, Russian--is installed on more than 80 million devices. 50 million Russian users use it once a month to update their apps. Tens of thousands of mobile apps, including foreign ones, are already available in this store. For example, Chinese manufacturers place games there for access to the Russian audience. In the near future, the State Duma will consider a draft law that, by analogy with the European Union, will oblige manufacturers of mobile devices to provide the ability to install our app store. Next, let's see how it will be executed.

We all remember very well that after the start of the SVO, YouTube, the largest video platform, disabled the ability of our bloggers to earn money from advertising, and last year, without any explanation, this platform began to massively block and delete the channels of our popular authors, including pop stars, whose audience numbered several million subscribers. As a result, these bloggers and authors switched to Russian custom video aggregators. We have two of them: VK Video and Rutube. And we see now that two-thirds of YouTube traffic went to Russian sites: the lion's share went to VK Videos, Rutube also shows a good pace of development. The audience of VK Videos now exceeds 40 million users per day. In general, in this sense, we have well intercepted some of this traffic.

And many other examples. For example, in 2022, the well-known ChatGPT, which was launched, immediately launched with the restriction of access to Russian users, immediately initially blocked the ability of Russian citizens to access their service.

At the same time, it is good that our domestic developers of large language models–-both Yandex and Sber–-launched their competitive applications within a few months, which, in general, are very comparable in quality to ChatGPT. And now the share of these applications within our country in terms of the number of users is 95 percent, which is very important.

I would also like to note that after the start of the Free Trade Zone, Mr Putin, it is a very positive fact that our leading domestic digital platforms have returned to the Russian jurisdiction, so to speak, to their native harbor. Today, of course, the most popular services for our users are foreign instant messengers. They are used daily by more than 90 million people in Russia. Every day, our average user spends about 50 minutes in instant messengers. In general, this is such a significant figure. At the same time, over the past three years, their audience has grown by 30 percent.

At the same time, there are countries that have their own national messengers: Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, China, and now these national messengers dominate local markets.

Recently, VK introduced a fully Russian messenger to the market, which in its basic functionality is comparable to foreign competitors and is not inferior. This application is built on a new architecture, and machine learning technology is immediately integrated into it. And this messenger already, according to numerous reviews, provides a very good quality of voice calls, better than that of foreign messengers.

The most important thing is that it is an open platform that allows external providers to embed their own services inside the messenger. For example, banks can implement their own services for secure interaction with their customers.

Mr President, it is also possible to organize additional provision of state services on this platform. Our citizens, for example, can use the messenger to present digital documents that can replace a paper passport in simple everyday situations. We have discussed this several times. For example, when confirming the status of a school student, a student for free admission to museums, or presenting transport management rights, buying alcohol or tobacco, presenting their age, or checking into a hotel.

I would like to emphasize once again that digital documents do not replace a paper passport in any way and allow those who want and are ready to use the mobile application on their smartphone.

The messenger user can also be given the opportunity to sign digital documents. We have also discussed this several times, and it is very important for us to provide our citizens with an electronic signature.

We currently have the Gosklyuch app running. An electronic signature is available free of charge for all our citizens. Actually, the messenger can be used to sign simple documents between citizens. This is a consent to the processing of personal data or an apartment rental agreement, a car purchase and sale agreement, or, if a person goes to dentistry with us, you need to sign a contract for the provision of medical services. To do this, we can build Gosklyuch services in the messenger.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, our school chats are very popular. During the covid period, we created such a service on the Spherum communication platform, which is provided by VK. There are already 35 million registered users–-students, their parents, and teachers. More than 90 million people use Russian school chats every day. Obviously, now these chats can also go to the Russian messenger. At the same time, we can also implement the ability to directly receive grades or homework assignments from the electronic journal and diary management system. Now they usually take a screenshot and send it to messengers.

I would also like to remind you, Mr Putin, that parents are still forced to write explanatory notes on paper, filling out and giving this paper away when a child skips classes for various reasons. It is clear that this service can also be implemented in the messenger.

And, of course, we discuss a lot that instant messengers are a very convenient channel for receiving public services. We can embed a so-called assistant or, as they say now, a "digital assistant" in it, which will tell the user what requirements they must meet to receive a particular service, submit the necessary documents for them, and, so to speak, provide a digital document confirming the fact of providing the service directly in the messenger.

We are currently working on the technical development of these services. A draft law has been prepared that will create the necessary legal framework for their phased launch. From this point of view, we are ready.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. In this regard, I want to say something, I want to ask Dmitry Grigorenko about something—just pay special attention to supporting the Internet as a whole, because without this, it will be very difficult for us to support our manager. First.

And secondly, I am now addressing the heads of all Government departments—I ask them to keep in mind and purposefully organize work to support the Russian messenger, and for this, the services provided by various departments, financial institutions, and so on need to be transferred to this platform. This is extremely important. [My Emphasis]
IMO, the locomotive driver, Pavel Mishin, by staying at his post to slow the train and thus sacrificed himself deserves recognition as a Hero of Russia. Putin agreed with Lavrov that the dialog ought to continue but also raised the issue of negotiating with an overt Terror State. Putin also noted that those states assisting the Terror State are thus also Terror States—and that includes the Outlaw US Empire. Putin’s closing assessment merits repeating:
And power for this regime, apparently, is more important than peace and the lives of people whom they apparently do not consider their own.
However, I disagree with Putin saying the Ukraine regime is only now becoming a terrorist regime when it actually began as a terrorist regime. The West’s optimal choices for its proxy forces have always been a mixture of right-wing extremists and Nazis and the arming and training of Death Squads and Terrorists—choices with a very long historical background that actually pre-dates the Colonial Era by almost 900 years. To be sure, this is a very specific Western behavior that Western imitators like Japan copied.

Putin noted a further discussion will occur within the Security Council on what measures to take in response, not just to Kiev but also to NATO which clearly helped plan the airfield attacks. The motive for the latter IMO is the destruction of the last nuclear weapons agreement—New START—so it won’t be renewed in 2026. IMO, only Neocons would have that motive. IMO, NATO’s fingerprints are covered rather well by its proxy’s. Of course, I don’t and won’t know what Russia will do, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the buildings housing the Ukrainian intelligence and special services offices completely evaporated by a series of Oreshniks to reach into the depths that exist well below the surface.

The closing report on Russia’s digitalization process shows outstanding progress. Russians IMO are one of the best looked after people on the planet. I only highlighted one response to Putin that monitoring the situation was under personal control of the government official involved. Word has spread that’s what’s expected nowadays.

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/medinsky ... -and-other
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14412
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Sat Jun 07, 2025 3:07 pm

Putin Heads Council for Strategic Development and National Projects Discussion

The theme is the launch of new national projects aimed at achieving national development goals of Russia for the period up to 2030 and the prospect until 2036.
Karl Sanchez
Jun 06, 2025

Image
Those from Putin’s left: First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Maxim Oreshkin, and Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. A listing of all those attending via video is here.

The year moves along swiftly and there’s much more to attend to than the SMO despite its importance. Planning Russia’s future is equally as important. The 90-minute meeting seems too short given the topic. As usual, more can be gleaned from the body language displayed when watching the video. The meeting was held at Putin’s dacha. The meeting is primarily to assess the launch of the latest group of national projects that were decided back in December 2024. That meeting was reported on and can be found in the Gym archive. There is a portion of the meeting that’s held in secret without cameras, etc. So, let’s get on with it.
Vladimir Putin: Dear colleagues, good afternoon!

New national projects were launched in 2025. In fact, these are key, basic tools for creating and shaping the country's future. They consolidate the efforts of all levels of government, business and scientific circles, our development institutions, and public associations to achieve national goals.

Let me remind you that these goals are calculated on the horizon until 2030 and for the future until 2036, set in such areas as demography, ecology and improving the well-being of citizens, improving the business climate and creating conditions for each person's self-realization, digitalization of management processes, public services, the service sector, and so on.

Of course, large-scale, systematic work within the framework of national projects is not carried out from scratch. Following the results of previous national projects, even taking into account the difficult external conditions, we managed to achieve noticeable positive changes in the country's life, do a lot for the confident and progressive development of the economy and social sphere, and improve the quality of life of Russian families.

These conclusions are also confirmed by the Audit Chamber's analysis. It reviewed in detail the implementation of national projects from 2019 to 2024, prepared its own assessments and recommendations, which, of course, should be taken into account by the Government and colleagues in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Dear colleagues, we hold meetings of our Council twice a year. As we agreed last time, in December, today we will assess the launch of new national projects, their first and current results.

I would like to note that now, at the initial stage, it is important to fully ensure the regulatory framework of national projects, to create a framework of work that is understandable for all participants, primarily for regions, municipalities, contractors, and local performers. And of course, we need to provide them with clear, rhythmic funding.

The pace and quality of national projects depend on how these issues are solved, and I remind you that they should be kept at a consistently high level from the very beginning, not to simplify tasks, not to lower the bar to convenient, obviously achievable parameters, but, on the contrary, to set ambitious, but at the same time, of course, adequate goals and accumulate all possible means and resources for their confident achievement.

In this regard, a few words about the quality of national project planning. According to statistics, some indicators set for 2030 have already been achieved in the first quarter of this year. And, of course, this is a positive result.

Thus, infant mortality has fallen to a new historical low. Russia is firmly among the countries in the world with the most effective system for protecting the health of newborns.

Or another indicator: the share of families who receive child support measures, as they say, proactively, that is, without filling out applications, submitting applications, and so on-–so this share is already very close to 100 percent. Although even for 2030, the target was a little more modest.

On the one hand, the results are certainly encouraging, and I think we can say this objectively, we are proud of the specialists and the labor collectives that contribute to this work. On the other hand, we need to set new goals right now. I will repeat that I am objectively evaluating my capabilities, but at the same time realizing that we can achieve more.

There are other examples. They say that we need to improve the quality of planning, and that not all factors are taken into account in a timely manner.

For example, a national project on transport mobility has been launched. It's only been implemented for a few months. The Government suggests, however, to review its financing, namely: to reduce costs in the current year, and to cut the financing of the national project for means of production, too, and significantly.

It is clear that the reasons here may be different, and they are different, including expenses may be transferred from the current year to the next, and this happens in current work. In general, to tell the truth, it happens all the time. But there is also a question about the quality of the planning that I just mentioned.

At the same time, I would like to emphasize that in these cases we are talking about national projects that are designed to strengthen technological sovereignty. And these are such areas as aircraft construction, robotics, and so on.

As I have already said, the current year is largely decisive for Russia's technological development. It is important to clearly understand the areas that will determine the growth rate, the dynamics of development of industries, regions, and the entire country today and in the long term. We need to identify the areas and areas where we need to ensure real global technological leadership of companies, research centers, and enterprises.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that specialized national projects should be projects for achieving technological leadership not in name, but in essence. Please review this work before preparing the budget for the next three years.

In addition, it is necessary to focus specialized national projects on increasing technological sovereignty not by individual elements, but by industries as a whole. This instruction has also been given before. Please report on its implementation as soon as possible.

What else is fundamentally important and really obvious? New technological solutions cannot be prepared, as they say, in the table. We also know this very well and have talked about it many times. They should be widely used and replicated in all areas. The main thing is that their use should lead to an increase in the competitiveness of Russian goods and services and the domestic economy as a whole. And of course, it helped to make the lives of our citizens more convenient and comfortable.

In this regard, I ask all colleagues in the Government to personally monitor the introduction of new technologies in their areas of responsibility. Here, the key task is to flexibly adjust the regulatory framework, focusing it on experiments, testing and implementation of promising technologies. I ask my colleagues to speed up the approval of the relevant plans.

This issue is particularly important in the development of unmanned aircraft systems, for example. We all know very well what happens if we are late in mastering them, including the means of countering drones.

I would like to note that our engineers and designers have made significant progress in recent years. Domestic prototypes and serial samples of UAVs were recently presented at an exhibition in Moscow. Among other things, foreign leaders who visited Russia during the celebration of the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War got acquainted with them.

In some segments, Russian unmanned systems are already the most advanced in the world, surpassing their foreign counterparts. Foreigners copy some of them. To increase the volume and quality of work in the field of drones, a special national project is being implemented. We will also discuss it today.

Our rocket and space industry will also have to strengthen its position as a technological flagship. We are proud of the unique achievements of Soviet and Russian scientists, cosmonauts, and all specialists in the space industry. And we will definitely form bold, long-term plans here, set the horizon of integrated development for the confident work of rocket builders, spacecraft developers, as well as their colleagues from related sectors.

A specialized "space" national project has been prepared, and its consideration is also on our agenda. We met not so long ago and talked about all this.

In conclusion, one more topic. Last December, we talked about the need to include master plan events for Far Eastern and Arctic cities in national projects. I know that such work is underway. In the near future, the Government should approve long-term development plans for sixteen Arctic reference cities.

At the same time, there are still a number of issues that require special attention on our part. First of all, they are related to financing. This is natural, and we have discussed it before. In this regard, I believe it is possible to support the Ministry of Finance's proposal and discuss allocating a special, separate limit specifically for the implementation of master plans for the cities of the Far East and the Arctic. This limit should gradually reach at least five percent of the expenses of the relevant state programs over the next six years. This will not require additional funding in general. We just need to review the programs and focus them on the development of this region, which is strategically important for Russia.

Let's get started. Please give the floor to Mikhail Vladimirovich [Mishustin].

M. Mishustin: Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich! Dear colleagues!

Vladimir Vladimirovich, on your instructions, since the beginning of this year, the Government has started implementing 19 of the most ambitious national projects in the history of our country. These are the most important tools that are aimed at achieving the national development goals approved by you until 2030 and for the future until 2036, as well as at solving a number of other tasks set by you in your Address to the Federal Assembly [Leap Day Speech 2024] to improve the quality of life of citizens and strengthen the economy.

The planned events, more than a thousand of them, cover all key areas. Representatives of the regions, parliamentarians, relevant committees of the State Council, entrepreneurs, and the expert community participated in the development of the received proposals. This approach allows us to take into account the interests of people who live in different parts of our country.

Over the next six years, more than 53 trillion rubles [$650 Billion] have been allocated for the implementation of national projects, including 40 trillion rubles–-as we discussed in December—from the federal budget and, accordingly, extra-budgetary sources. Therefore, it is extremely important that development institutions are involved in the work. Cash execution is ahead of the approved schedule: the amount of funds already allocated exceeds 2 trillion 300 billion rubles, which is approximately 39 percent of the annual funding volume.

Just over five months have passed since the launch of the national projects. The period, of course, is still short, but the first results are already available. I will also briefly tell you what is planned to be implemented with their help.

Perhaps one of the most significant projects for people is "Family": it concerns improving the conditions for raising children, getting an education, developing social infrastructure, as well as improving the quality and accessibility of medical care for our young citizens and expectant mothers.

In the first four months, more than 26,000 complete IVF cycles were performed. As of June 1, the monthly allowance for parents who raise children has been provided to more than five million people, but taking into account last year, this is already more than 10 million people.

More than 90 thousand citizens have received support under the so-called social contract, and more than 800 thousand families have already used the maternity capital, about 114 thousand parents have used the family mortgage and programs that you proposed to extend in your message to the Federal Assembly until 2030.

More than 50 thousand large families received 450 thousand rubles each to repay their mortgage loan, and more than 170 thousand older people with disabilities are already covered by the long-term care system within the framework of the "Long and Active Life" project.

We are also building state-of-the-art primary health care infrastructure, including the opening of an additional four thousand health care units in rural and remote areas. At least 55 stationary facilities of social service organizations will be put into operation for those who need constant care.

In the first three months of this year, more than 1,000 vehicles were purchased for medical institutions, including mobile complexes, FAPs were created in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions, as well as district hospitals and outpatient clinics in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug. 900 thousand patients were provided with free medicines.

Thanks to the Infrastructure for Life project, we plan to modernize the municipal infrastructure for 20 million people, as well as to update the housing stock by at least 20 percent.

A serious problem is the dilapidated houses where people live without being able to buy other housing. The task has been set on your behalf to settle more than six million square meters. In four months, 16 thousand people have already been able to move out of the dilapidated fund. Here, of course, we especially count on the support of local leaders.

Most regions have started road construction this year. We are bringing the roads that connect remote localities with regional centers back to normal condition. In particular, in the Amur Region, a section of the highway that connects Blagoveshchensk with the Vostochny cosmodrome and the city of Svobodny is being repaired.

On your instructions, at least 150 more modern schools and 100 kindergartens will be built across the country. This will help many families where there is still a shortage of places. Relevant events are also planned within the framework of the national project "Youth and Children". Today, the Ministry has signed agreements with almost half of the Russian regions to create such facilities over the next three years.

As part of the transition to the "Professional" program, as of April 1, more than a third of the country's colleges are already included in it. We continue to build world-class campuses. We are implementing the largest state support program for universities, Priority 2030, with a focus on achieving technological leadership, as you discussed in detail in your speech.

Another national project- "Ecological Well-being". Healthy air and clean water should be available to all our citizens. In some regions, the situation is complicated by objects of accumulated damage. The first eight such sites have already been identified, and we are launching work on them. Their elimination will restore more than 300 hectares of land, improve living conditions for 150 thousand people.

To ensure that the country moves forward, a strong economy is needed. This is the goal of the corresponding project, "Efficient and Competitive Economy". We create a favorable business climate and encourage the growth of small and medium-sized businesses.

The infrastructure of industrial techno- and business parks is being expanded. It is planned to create at least 100 such centers, 39 regions have already submitted 87 projects. Assistance measures also apply accordingly. Since the beginning of the year, the volume of so-called umbrella guarantees has exceeded 35 billion rubles, and purchases of the largest customers from SMEs have exceeded three trillion rubles in five months.

To increase trade with foreign partners, the International Cooperation and Export project is being implemented, which provides end-to-end support for Russian companies. This year, about 15 billion rubles were allocated for concessional lending to agricultural exporters, which will allow producers to increase the volume of production and supply of raw materials and food.

In the face of sanctions and changes in the main routes of movement of goods, we continue to organize new logistics. To this end, we are developing the infrastructure of international corridors towards friendly states within the framework of the Efficient Transport System project, which is also extremely important for expanding travel opportunities around the country.

The growing interest in travel in Russia has led, among other things, to the strengthening of the role of air traffic, which should function without failures. Since the beginning of this year, four new terminals have already been put into operation: in Novokuznetsk, in Tyumen, in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and in Mineralnye Vody. All of them are already accepting flights, and this work will continue.

To improve flight safety and passenger comfort, we are modernizing at least 75 airfield complexes. You set this goal for 2030, and we are monitoring its implementation. At the same time, we are creating a convenient accommodation facility. The Tourism and Hospitality national project will result in the addition of approximately 80,000 hotel rooms.

To encourage entrepreneurs, we have made an important decision to extend, as we have reported to you in detail, Vladimir Vladimirovich, until 2030, the right to apply a zero value-added tax rate for hotels and other facilities for travelers.

For effective work and comfortable rest today, it is necessary to provide reliable broadband access to the Internet. This task is being solved within the framework of the project "Data Economy and Digital Transformation of the state", which also provides for the creation of a low-orbit satellite constellation for this purpose.

Other priorities include conducting research in the field of artificial intelligence – its implementation, improving interaction between citizens and the state. We will continue to scale services and services in electronic form.

And, of course, one of the main tasks of the national project "Personnel" is to provide the sectors of the economy with qualified specialists. As of today, we have already updated the forecast of the industry's employee needs for a five-year period. Now we are combining the efforts of leading educational organizations and enterprises, introducing a single standard of interaction between the employment service and citizens and employers in all regions.

All national projects are extremely important for our country, but a special mission is assigned to eight technology leadership projects. They strengthen Russia's independence in critical areas, help accelerate the creation of breakthrough solutions, introduce domestic developments, and increase the production of high-tech products.

You gave an example: they include the project "Unmanned Aircraft Systems". At the end of last year, it showed a level of achievement close to 100 percent, which was made possible by combining the efforts of private business, state corporations, and scientific organizations. In the next six years, we will allocate a quarter of a trillion rubles for its implementation, and the funds will be used to develop, in fact, a new industry. Today, Vitaly G. Savelyev, the curator of this project, will talk in detail about its implementation.

Now, let's talk about the development of technological leadership and space activities. The development is complete, as I reported to you, Vladimir Vladimirovich. It is based on the transition to a service model, which involves providing turnkey launch services, managing orbital motion, and other opportunities with the active involvement of private companies with experience and a reliable reputation.

The updated national space project is proposed to allocate about 4 trillion 400 billion rubles from the federal budget until 2036, including 1 trillion 700 billion over the next six years.

The ninth technological leadership project, which is dedicated to the development of the bioeconomy, is currently in the final stage of formation. It aims to reduce our dependence on imported critical components and improve the efficiency of our country's resource potential. We will create competitive production facilities. Our goal is to become leaders in the global biotechnology market.

Denis Valentinovich Manturov will report on these two projects in more detail.

In general, already this year, eight national projects of technological leadership will create eight clinical bases for testing new medical technologies, clinical research, medicines, and testing of medical devices, two engineering development centers for new materials and chemistry, and two sites for pilot production and technology scaling. And on the basis of Innopolis University, a center for industrial robotics will be deployed.

This, of course, is only part of the great work that will be carried out to strengthen the country's technological sovereignty. I would also like to say here that the elements related to budget planning, as you just mentioned, Mr President, about possible options, including budget cuts, should in no case affect the relevant markers and coefficients that were set as performance indicators. They are decomposed to work.

Here we are talking about budget balance, including planning by year. And I think that on Monday at the Government Meeting we will discuss in detail all the elements related to the financing of such projects. It is important that the expansion of our own development lines will allow us to increase the range and quantity of domestic high-tech products and services. This goal was outlined by you in your Message to the Federal Assembly.

Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, all the tasks set out in the national projects are extremely specific, they clearly describe the results that people will see on the streets, in the districts where they live, in cities, in regions. These include modern polyclinics, hospitals, kindergartens, schools, airports, new roads, municipal and other infrastructure, and, accordingly, technological solutions, as well as the projects we discussed aimed at achieving national sovereignty in the field of technology and industry.

In order to quickly respond to the progress of their implementation, a feedback system has been established, which you always talk about. The Government receives it daily from various sources, including the attitude of residents to the initiatives that are being implemented, areas that require additional attention, and possible targeted adjustments to national projects.

For an objective assessment of the results, monitoring tools have been improved, a unified plan for achieving national goals has been developed and approved, and its digitalization continues. We pay special attention to operational risks and ensure that all milestones are met in a timely manner, including the allocation of funds, expert reviews, competitions, selections, contracts and compliance with work schedules and stages.

In conclusion, I would like to note that in order to maintain a high rate of implementation of national projects, of course, Russian regions need to understand in advance what resources they can count on in the next budget cycle. Sergey Semyonovich and I have just discussed this in detail. For this purpose, the Government has prepared and submitted to the State Duma a legislative initiative, which provides for the distribution of relevant transfers to the regions no later than August 20.

The report is over.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
(Much, much more at link.)

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/putin-he ... -strategic

******

Baltic Sea incidents escalate tensions—Russia assertive posture challenging NATO
June 6, 2025
By Ariel Uraujo, InfoBrics, 5/30/25

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions

The Baltic Sea, a historically contested region, has once again become a flashpoint for geopolitical tensions, with recent incidents raising the specter of broader conflict. The escalating tensions is being described by some analysis—amid the war of narratives—as a reaction to Moscow’s actions but it would be more accurate to describe it as a reflection of deeper systemic pressures driven by Western policies. One may recall that NATO’s expanding presence and provocative maneuvers in the region have significantly contributed to the current unease.

In May 2025, for example, Poland reportedly intervened after detecting a Russian “shadow fleet” ship near a Baltic Sea cable. This incident followed reports of Russia conducting major naval drills in the region, interpreted by some as a show of force. Additionally, the Russia-Estonia standoff over maritime boundaries has further inflamed tensions, with both sides accusing each other of provocative actions

These incidents, framed by Western media as Russian aggression, are seen in Moscow as defensive responses to encirclement by NATO and its allies. As Gerald Walker notes (an expert writing for Modern Diplomacy), “the Baltic Sea’s strategic importance has grown since Sweden and Finland joined NATO, transforming the region into a near-NATO-controlled waterway. This shift has prompted Russia to assert its presence more forcefully, as evidenced by its Baltic Fleet’s ‘Safety of Navigation’ exercise in early May, which focused on protecting civilian maritime traffic from interception.”

To put it simply, Moscow views the Baltic Sea as a critical strategic space, vital for its economic and security interests. The region hosts key energy infrastructure, including pipelines like Nord Stream, which have been targets of Western sabotage in the past. Russia’s naval exercises, far from being unprovoked, are a response to NATO’s increased military presence, including joint exercises and deployments near Russian borders.

There is an energy angle, as well, one just needs to consider the recent EU memorandum to bolster energy cooperation in the Baltic Sea region, signed by energy ministers of the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) High-Level Group. It signals a strategic intent to reduce dependence on Russian energy, thereby isolating Moscow economically.

From Moscow’s perspective the overall context has a history. One may recall that the Baltic Sea has long been a contested space, with Russia’s access to its ports being a cornerstone of its maritime strategy since the days of Peter the Great. The expansion of NATO to include Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—has placed the alliance directly on Russia’s doorstep, a development Russia views as a direct threat. The recent incidents, including the alleged shadow fleet activities, can be framed as Russia protecting its legitimate interests against the reality of encirclement. Moscow in any case argues that its naval drills are routine and necessary to maintain readiness, especially in light of NATO’s aggressive posturing.

Energy dynamics, as mentioned, further complicate the situation. The Baltic Sea is a critical corridor for energy infrastructure, and recent Western efforts to diversify energy sources are seen as a direct challenge to Russia’s economic leverage. The memorandum signed by Baltic states to enhance energy cooperation is a case in point, aiming to integrate renewable energy and reduce reliance on Russian gas. From Russia’s vantage point, these initiatives are less about energy security and more about geoeconomic/geopolitical maneuvering to marginalize Moscow. Suffice it to say, such actions risk escalating frictions by framing Russia as an economic adversary amid military tensions .

As I noted in October 2024, the Baltic region’s strategic importance cannot be overstated, with Russia seeking to uphold its position amid growing Western pressure. Finland and Estonia, NATO members, have signed a Baltic Sea security agreement and announced plans to potentially blockade the Gulf of Finland, a vital route for Russian shipping. The Gulf is crucial for Russia, hosting key ports like Primorsk for oil exports and the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant.

Moscow deems this a violation of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, warning of serious consequences. The Atlantic Alliance’s growing presence, including exercises in Lithuania and a new headquarters in Mikkeli, further fuels Russian concerns about encirclement. As NATO’s expansion continues, the risk of escalation increases in this strategically critical region, thus threatening global stability.

Last month, I further highlighted how NATO’s rhetoric often ignores Russia’s legitimate security concerns, painting it as the sole aggressor in a complex geopolitical landscape. These observations remain relevant, as the current incidents reflect a continuation of this ongoing dynamic. Russia’s actions, while assertive, are not escalatory in isolation; they are responses to a broader pattern of Western containment, which goes beyond the matter of Ukraine as seen in the Arctic as well. In fact, with Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership, the Alliance’s territorial reach now extends as far out as Russia’s eastern Arctic flank, thus making Russia the sole non-NATO Arctic nation.

To sum it up, the Baltic Sea’s rising tensions are a symptom of deeper mistrust between Russia and the West, deeply rooted in post-Soviet NATO’s expansion. Moscow’s perspective is one of defensive pragmatism: it seeks to protect its strategic interests in a region increasingly dominated by NATO’s presence and Western economic initiatives. The danger lies in miscalculation—where even a minor incident could spiral into a larger confrontation.

Moscow, for one thing, has consistently called for dialogue to de-escalate, while setting red lines, yet these calls are often drowned out by accusations of aggression. A sober approach requires working toward mutual de-escalation in an increasingly volatile environment.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/06/bal ... ging-nato/

Alexander Libman: The Russian Economy Three Years after the Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine
June 6, 2025
By Alexander Libman, NYU Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia, 5/13/25

The last three years demonstrated the astonishing resilience of the Russian economy. Not only did it not collapse after major foreign sanctions were imposed in the wake of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine; it even demonstrated high growth rates in 2023-2024. It is this economy that allows Putin to replenish his army and, most crucially, to find new soldiers without resorting to what would be an extremely unpopular mass mobilization—simply by offering very high payments to new recruits.

Two sets of factors have allowed the Russian economy to survive and even to grow during the last years. The first is associated with the limits of sanctions—here, internal contradictions in the sanctions regime reduced its effectiveness. The second is associated with the nature of the Russian economy itself.

Sanctions certainly would have worked better if they were joined not only by the Western states, but also by non-Western countries, especially China and India. They would also have been more effective had they more resolutely targeted Russia’s main sources of revenue, oil and gas, at a much earlier stage. Throughout 2022, Russia benefitted from skyrocketing prices for its resource exports, which simplified its process of economic adaptation to the new reality.

An alternative course of sanctions from the point of view of these two issues was, however, likely not feasible. Most of the Global South perceived the war in Ukraine as a regional European conflict and the West as hypocritical and self-interested. As a result, it saw absolutely no reason to sacrifice its own economic interests to shore up Western ones. Similarly, from China’s point of view, given the unavoidable reality of economic and political confrontation with the US, there was little to be gained from supporting a West that would not offer anything in return.

Immediately sanctioning Russian oil and gas would likely have significantly damaged European economies, especially Germany’s—which is even now struggling with stagnation and decline of its industrial base. This effect, in turn, would make Germany less able to support Ukraine, and its electorate less willing to accept further costs of conflict. Even now, after the EU undertook substantial efforts to decouple its economy from Russian energy, it is simply buying resources from other, more expensive sources—and sometimes, as in the case of LNG (liquefied natural gas), from Russia itself. Meanwhile, Russia is selling oil and gas to customers it had originally found less attractive than Europe. In short, Russia is simply too big to be completely cut off from global energy markets.

Beyond its relative imperviousness to Western sanctions, the most important reason for Russia’s economic performance over the last two years was a specific economic model that it managed to create. In somewhat simplified form, the mechanism of Russian economic growth boils down to the following five elements.

1. Since the start of the war, Russia massively increased its military spending. The Russian government notably did not use coercive tools— requisitions, reallocation of workforces, or mandatory industrial plans—to strengthen the military sector. Instead, it continued to rely on market mechanisms, which means that, even now, the Russian economy can be described as a “war economy” only with an asterisk.

2. To ensure that it is able to maintain the output necessary to continue fighting, the Russian military-industrial complex had to increase employment. This increase happened in a country that already before the full-scale invasion suffered from major workforce deficits that were only exacerbated after 2022 due to emigration and the recruitment of soldiers. As a result, military companies had to substantially increase salaries for their employees.

3. These larger salaries led to increasing consumption spending. And here another key feature becomes highly relevant: unlike the Soviet Union, Russia is a market economy, where private business has enormous experience in adapting to various challenges. Private companies responded to the growing demand by providing consumer goods and services. The decision of many Western firms to leave Russia was seen as a unique chance for expansion. Russian business showed enormous creativity in finding ways around sanctions. Still, private firms also required more workers—a fact that contributed to the labor shortage and the increasing salaries, which then, in turn, strengthened the consumption boom.

4. The Russian Central Bank is also an important element of Russia’s recent economic success. Run by a highly professional management team, it managed to act quickly to avoid bank runs and the collapse of the banking sector in the early days of the full-scale invasion. This strategy also supported the economic adaptation discussed above.

5. From the point of view of this model, sanctions play an ambiguous role. They make import of consumer goods and technologies more expensive, which is a problem for Russia. However, paradoxically, they strengthen Russian economic performance by preventing capital flight from the country. Under other conditions, Russian companies, concerned about the risky and unstable environment in Russia, might move their consumption-boom profits to safe locations abroad. Now, these locations are not safe anymore—and as a result, money stays inside Russia and is further invested in production and infrastructure.

While this model worked reasonably well in the last couple of years, the high growth rates of 2023 and 2024 will most likely not be sustained in the future. In a nutshell, Russia has reached a state of full employment—there are no more workers available to expand production. As long as the war continues, there is no solution to this problem because of limited access to new technologies and constant demand for soldiers for the frontlines. Even worse, in 2024, as a reaction to the terrorist attack in Moscow, the Russian government introduced numerous restrictive measures against labor migrants from Central Asia, who, in the past partially solved the Russian workforce problem.

Without new workers, more demand does not lead to more growth, but only to more inflation, which in 2025 is expected to reach10%. The Central Bank reacts to increasing inflation by increasing its interest rate, which is now at the extremely high level of 21%. So far, however, the effects of this policy have been limited, primarily because large parts of the Russian economy have access to money “outside” the standard banking lending mechanism, e.g., through governmental subsidies and procurement. The Russian government is also increasing tariffs and taxes, which will only strengthen inflation.

This means, however, that the Russian economy is facing a dilemma. Sectors without privileged access to state money—which is, of course, distributed not based on economic merit but on political and lobbying considerations—will have no choice but to reduce their output due to the high interest rate and expensive credit. However, even this high interest rate, for which the Central Bank is heavily criticized in Russia, does not solve the inflation problem.

Russia’s immediate economic outlook is thus far less optimistic than the last two years would suggest. Most likely, Russia is sliding into a form of stagflation, characterized by zero growth, high inflation, and—unlike most other stagflation episodes in world history—low unemployment. In the short run, this state of affairs will make economic sentiment in the country more pessimistic. In the long run, it will lead to an increasing gap between Russia and leading world economies. In 2025, the Russian GDP is expected to grow by 1-2%, which is a substantial decline compared to over 4% in 2024. In particular, the non-defense industry is likely to slide into economic slowdown. Declining oil prices, which could be driven by the new US trade tariffs, are likely to weaken the Russian economy even further.

None of this means, however, that Russia is approaching economic collapse, which some observers have been so eager to predict. For now, the Russian economy remains a functioning one, allowing Putin to continue his war.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/06/ale ... f-ukraine/

******

Lavrov Made Three Important Points About Russia’s Military Diplomacy
Andrew Korybko
Jun 06, 2025

Image

It’s in Russia’s interests to amplify these points in order to counter weaponized misportrayals of its military diplomacy that are meant to discredit Russian policy by presenting it as an unreliable partner.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was aggressively confronted by a pro-Ukrainian activist masquerading as a journalist who provocatively insinuated during his latest trip to Armenia that Azerbaijan’s use of Russian arms suggests Moscow’s support of Baku over Yerevan. In his response, which is too lengthy to republish in full but can be read here, Lavrov made three important points about Russia’s military diplomacy that are worth raising awareness about since most media ignored them.

Before proceeding, it’s important to define what’s meant by military diplomacy. This refers to the use of arms sales to advance political goals, which in Russia’s case results in such sales to rival countries in the hopes of maintaining the balance of power between them. It’s meant to encourage them to rely on political means for settling their disputes instead of military ones. By contrast, the US’ military diplomacy aims to give its partners advantages over their adversaries so that they rely on military means instead.

Accordingly, Russia sells arms to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, while the US began pivoting away from Azerbaijan towards Armenia under Biden and might continue this trajectory under Trump. These facts add context to the three important points that Lavrov made about Russia’s military diplomacy, the first being that “Many countries have our weapons, but that doesn’t mean they are always used in ways that align with the principles that suit everybody.”

As a case in point, he reminded his pro-Ukrainian provocateur that “Armenia, too, has used Russian-made weapons throughout the years following its independence, specifically, to seize seven Azerbaijani districts to which it had never officially laid claim.” The second important point that Lavrov made was that “Buying weapons from other countries is not a problem. That is up to our Armenian friends”, but he implied ulterior motives on Armenia’s part for buying arms from France, which is hostile to Russia.

France practices the same form of military diplomacy as the US does in that it aims to give its partners advantages over their adversaries so that they rely on military means instead of political ones for settling their disputes. As regards Armenia’s purchase of French arms, this suggests that the Armenian leadership might still harbor revanchist goals that could provoke another conflict, which lends credence to Azerbaijan’s concerns.

The preceding two points then directly led into the third one about how Russia tried to politically resolve this conflict in the past after arming both sides per its explained policy of military diplomacy. Lavrov refreshed everyone’s memory about how Russia proposed Armenia’s withdrawal from five of the occupied Azerbaijani regions while the remaining two would “be left to future generations to address.” In his assessment, “It [was] probably a better solution than what we have now”, yet Armenia rejected it.

Altogether, Lavrov made the following three important points about Russia’s military diplomacy: 1) Russia ultimately isn’t responsible for how its arms are used by its partners; 2) these same partners are free to purchase arms from whoever else they’d like (though doing so from anti-Russian countries raises eyebrows); and 3) Armenia rejected Russia’s proposed compromise with Azerbaijan on Karabakh, which was predicated upon the mediation role that Moscow obtained through its military diplomacy with both.

It’s in Russia’s interests to amplify these aforementioned points in order to counter weaponized misportrayals thereof that are meant to discredit Russian policy by presenting it as an unreliable partner. This false perception is then exploited to help the American military-industrial complex make inroads at its Russian competitor’s expense, which in this case takes the form of falsely legitimizing and consequently accelerating Armenia’s pivot towards the US that threatens to destabilize the region.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/lavrov-m ... ant-points

******

Space plans
June 6, 20:59

Image

From Manturov's statements on the topic of prospects for the development of domestic space.

1. Russia will be fully covered by satellites by 2030.
2. Russia has patented the use of drones in outer space.
They are planned to be used on the Russian orbital station.
3. Russia will focus on creating its own orbital station after the ISS is no longer in operation by 2030.

Plus for drones.

By the end of 2025, 20 separate drone ports (a station for receiving, servicing and sending drones) will be opened in Russia.
Also, by the end of the year, a separate class of airspace for drones will be officially allocated. After the war, a boom in the development of civilian transport drone construction can be expected.
The unmanned revolution continues not only at the front. Thanks to the Russian Air Defense Forces, it has not only leveled its lag in many areas of unmanned aviation development, but has also become one of the world leaders. And the current level is far from the limit.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9883919.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14412
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Sun Jun 08, 2025 5:37 pm

TELL-AND-CONSEQUENCES IS NOT A WAR GAME, NEITHER IS TURN-THE-OTHER-CHEEK

Image

By John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

The game of tell-and-consequences begins with a prompt.

In response each player must then write down a word or phrase without knowing what word or phrase has been written by the previous players. When the sequence and accumulation of words and phrases from all the players around the table is complete, the composite result is unrolled and read out.

The game was an American invention in 1958. The juxtaposition of meanings was intended to be funny. It was also a best-seller and made the inventors a lot of money.

In the games which President Donald Trump plays, making money is always the objective.

In the game which Trump and President Vladimir Putin are playing over the negotiations to end the war in the Ukraine, the sequence and accumulation of words have begun to lose their meaning. This isn’t funny.

Russian sources confirm the conviction in the Kremlin that Trump knew of the plan of the June 1 nuclear airbase attack and approved it. When Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov telephoned Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the evening after the attack, it was tell-and-consequences. Lavrov told Rubio he was instructed to ask what the Americans had known; to inform him that whatever he said, the operation was a violation of Russia’s nuclear deterrence policy; and that accordingly it would have grave consequences. (In military escalation jargon as in hospital patient bulletins, grave is more serious than serious.) Lavrov said that the first consequence Russia expected from the US was public acknowledgement, and also public acceptance that Russian retaliation would follow. Lavrov also told Rubio that Putin expected to speak directly to Trump.

Putin spoke first at a meeting with government officials, but he didn’t refer to the airbase attack. Instead, it was one of the “criminal provocations”, as Lavrov said to Putin at the meeting – terrorist actions as other officials said. The Russian position would be not to make explicit the strategic consequences, and as Lavrov said, “not to fall into the trap of these provocations, which are clearly designed to derail the talks and continue arms deliveries from European nations.”

Nothing has followed from Rubio.

On June 3, Trump’s representative for the end-of-war negotiations, Keith Kellogg, was told to say on television that there had been a “[nuclear] triad attack” and that the rising “risk levels…are to me basically unacceptable.”

The next day Trump and Putin spoke by telephone. Trump acknowledged that “we discussed the attack on Russia’s docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides. It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace. President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.”

Immediately afterwards, Yury Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy spokesman, issued a public read-out of the call which was published on the Kremlin website. Ushakov claimed there had been “targeted attacks on entirely civilian targets and civilians on direct orders from the Kiev regime. These attacks unequivocally constitute an act of terrorism under international law and, in our view, the Kiev regime has essentially degenerated into a terrorist organisation. The Russian side did not fall for the provocations and, as you know, the second round has effectively taken place in Istanbul…Regarding the strikes on military airfields, this issue was also discussed. Donald Trump reiterated that Americans were not informed in advance about them.”

That’s the Kremlin’s English. The Kremlin’s Russian said “Дональд Трамп вновь подтвердил”. This means Trump was denying involvement of “Americans” for the second time. Trump was repeating the line Rubio had given Lavrov on June 1.

The Russians listening to Trump believed he was being evasive — that meant the Americans had been fully engaged in the operation against the nuclear bombers and could have stopped it if Trump had given the order. In the conversation between the presidents which followed, Putin said the consequences would be strategic if Trump failed to respond publicly. They would be less than strategic, Putin said, if Trump would tolerate the retaliation and continue backing the negotiations in Istanbul on the Russian terms.

Strategic retaliation meant the Oreshnik for decapitation of the Ukrainian leadership. Less than strategic meant what the Russian Defense Ministry announced on June 6: “Last night [June 5] , in response to the terrorist acts of the Kiev regime, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation launched a massive strike with high-precision long-range air, sea and land-based weapons, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles, at design bureaus, enterprises for the production and repair of weapons and military equipment of Ukraine, workshops for the assembly of unmanned aerial vehicles, flight personnel training centres, and as well as warehouses of weapons and military equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The target of the strike has been achieved. All designated objectives have been achieved.”

This was the consequence that Trump and Putin had discussed and agreed.

Hours later, when Trump was on board his aircraft, he invited a reporter to tell more. “[Question] Mr. President, um, on Russia, Ukraine. Um, did, did the Ukraine drone strikes against the n- — the bombers inside Russia, the airfields, did that change your view at all of what Zelensky, the cards he has — [Inaudible]. [Donald Trump] Well, they gave, they gave, uh, Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of’ ’em last night. That’s the thing I didn’t like about it. When I saw it, I said, ‘Here we go. Now it’s gonna be a strike.’ You know, I did something that people don’t talk about and I don’t talk about very much, but we solved a big problem, a nuclear problem, potentially, with India and with Pakistan…”

Image
Source: https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/tra ... ne-6-2025/

Trump was repeating the fabrication he introduced the day before (June 5) at his Oval Office session with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump is signalling that the triad attack he had accepted in advance now placed the US and Russia on the brink of nuclear war. Trump was lying on June 6, just as he had to Merz on June 5, that he had stopped India and Pakistan from escalating to nuclear warfare. But he had also assured Merz that he had no intention of withdrawing US forces, and their nuclear weapons, from Germany.

Image
Source: https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/tra ... ne-5-2025/

“[Question] Are you worried that there might be a nuclear breakout with Russia, Ukraine? Are you worried that that could get – [Donald Trump] I don’t. I hope not. I hope not. I think it’s a war that would’ve never happened. If I were president, that wouldn’t have happened. I certainly hope not.”

The Russians know with certainty that Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Rubio had intervened after the Indian Air Force had destroyed Pakistan’s air defences and command-control of their nuclear bomb-delivery aircraft, and after the Sargodha airbase strike had blocked the storage bunkers for the Pakistan Air Force’s nuclear weapons.

Putin has continued to say that Trump should be given the benefit of the doubt for the continuing negotiations in Istanbul, plus more time to demonstrate if he will stop supplying the Kiev regime with new Patriot missile batteries and other air defence weapons.

They were the priority of the mission to Washington during last week (June 3-5) by Andrei Yermak and other Ukrainian officials. They were also asking for Trump’s agreement to start the Lindsey Graham sanctions against Moscow, Delhi and Beijing; and Trump’s agreement to meet Zelensky at the G7 summit in Canada on June 15-17.

Semi-official Russian reports in Moscow claim Yermak didn’t get what he was asking for.

Image
Left: “Yermak meets with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington: Discusses Frontline Situation and Strengthening Support. The Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine also spoke about meetings with the Russians in Istanbul, the future of negotiations, and prisoner exchanges. He emphasized that Ukraine has done everything possible to achieve peace and is ready for a ceasefire, but since Russia opposes it, additional sanctions are necessary.”
Right: Yermak meets Kellogg in Washington, June 3. Yermak also met with presidential negotiator Steven Witkoff.

Image
Source: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-o ... vyrydenko/

Officially, according to the State Department communiqué, Trump was still “call[ing] for continued diplomatic efforts.”

Then on Saturday (June 7) the Ukrainians put a stop to the exchanges of prisoners of war and bodies of dead soldiers, which had been formally agreed at the Istanbul meeting on June 2. According to statements from the Russian Defense Ministry and Vladimir Medinsky, the lead negotiator in Istanbul, “in strict accordance with the Istanbul agreements, on June 6, the Russian side launched a humanitarian action to transfer more than 6,000 bodies of dead soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as well as to exchange wounded and seriously ill prisoners of war and prisoners of war under the age of 25. The first batch of frozen bodies of Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers in the amount of 1,212 has already arrived in refrigerated trucks at the exchange area. The rest are coming. In addition, Ukraine has received the first list of 640 prisoners of war of the categories ‘wounded’, ‘seriously ill’ and ‘youth’ [under 25] in order to begin the exchange.”

“The contact group of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is located on the border with Ukraine. However, the Ukrainian side unexpectedly postponed indefinitely both the acceptance of the bodies and the exchange of prisoners of war. For some reason, their group of negotiators did not even arrive at the exchange site. The reasons are called different — and rather strange. We urge Kiev to strictly adhere to the schedule and all agreements reached, and immediately begin the exchange. As we agreed, let 1.2 thousand soldiers and officers from each side have a chance to return home. We call for the bodies of 6 thousand soldiers and officers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to be finally taken away so that their families can bury them humanely. We’re here. We are fully operational. International TV channels, news agencies, and correspondents can come and see for themselves that this is the case. Russia always keeps its word.”

“This situation once again clearly shows what any agreements with the Nazi regime in Kiev are really worth,” commented leading Russian military blogger, Boris Rozhin.

The Ukrainian side issued its version of the Saturday standoff.

In parallel, Russian sources acknowledge the Kremlin has the unanticipated problem of assessing what some are calling Trump’s public conflict with Elon Musk as the Khodorkovsky Moment. This is a reference to Putin’s response to the personal political challenge he faced from oil oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky in October 2003. Khodorkorsky was arrested, tried and convicted of fraud and tax evasion; jailed for ten years; then sent into exile in the UK.

Trump has acknowledged that he is considering “very serious consequences” for Musk. These consequences, the president has added, include cancellation of US government contracts with Musk’s companies and “investigations into his companies.” “I’ll take a look at everything. I look at everything. He’s got a lot of money.”

Asked for Putin’s reaction, spokesman Dmitry Peskov appeared to be taking Trump’s side: “We are in no way going to interfere in this or comment on it in any way. I am sure that the US president will deal with this situation himself…Again, the presidents of the countries are simultaneously engaged in a huge number of different cases, more or less important, and the heads of state have enough time for everything.”

Other Russian officials appear to be taking Musk’s side.

Image
Source: https://x.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/19 ... 5336636737

According to Dmitry Rogozin, the Zaporozhe senator, combat commander at the front, and future presidential candidate: “Elon, don’t worry! They respect you in Russia. If you have insurmountable problems in the USA, come to us and become one of us, a Leopard Sarmat fighter. Here you will find reliable comrades and complete freedom of technical creativity.” Rogozin was being ironical, but also more kindly towards Musk than he has been in the past.

He also warned Musk of the Khodorkovsky lesson: “When some people have too much free money, they also have a lot of free time. But they do not spend it to read Dostoevsky, Bulgakov, Gogol, Pushkin and Tolstoy. They spend it on dreams of power. Too much free time and too much money – these are the components that lead people from big business to the desire for power. And so turns out to be too much… Make money on Pentagon contracts and being a political platform at the same time? No, it won’t work. Don’t ruin yourself, Elon! Don’t get into politics.”

Trump himself echoes Peskov’s comment, telling NBC he has no plans to speak with Musk because “I’m too busy doing other things”. “Honestly,” he told reporters on Air Force One, “I’ve been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran, working on so many d- — I’m, I’m not thinking about Elon.”

In Moscow, sources say they had expected Putin’s turn-the-other-cheek tactic to allow Trump time to demonstrate the gains which the Kremlin believes can still be achieved with Trump — “several weeks, not months”. “Trump is distracted now, yes. It’s unclear from his changing remarks whether he did or did not condemn the Ukrainian airbase raid and the Russian retaliation. Let’s see what follows now that Ukrainians are walking away from the agreement on the dead and POWs. Let’s wait for the next few days.”

https://johnhelmer.net/tell-and-consequ ... more-91810

******

Restoration of military universities in the Russian Federation. 2025-2032
June 8, 20:09

Image

It is reported ( https://t.me/fighter_bomber/21377 ) that in the coming years it is planned to restore and create a large number of military universities.

Saratov Higher Military School of NBC Defense. - September 1, 2025.

Nizhny Novgorod Higher Military Engineering School - September 1, 2025

Novocherkassk Higher Military School of Communications - September 1, 2026

Tomsk Higher Military School of Communications - September 1, 2034

Chelyabinsk Higher Military Tank School - September 1

, 2026 Ulyanovsk Higher Military Aviation School of Pilots - September 1, 2026

Moscow Higher Military School of Unmanned Systems - September 1, 2027

Omsk Higher Military General Command School September 1, 2028

Krasnoyarsk Higher Military Artillery Command School September 1, 2029

Sevastopol Branch of the Military Medical Academy - September 1, 2029

Samara Branch of the Military Medical Academy - September 1, 2032

Branch of the Military Medical Academy in Novosibirsk - September 1, 2032

Branch of the Military Medical Academy in Khabarovsk - September 1, 2034

Krasnoyarsk Higher Military School of Air Defense Radio Electronics - September 1, 2030

Pushkin Higher Military School of Aerospace Defense - September 1, 2032

If so, then this is really good. A kind of elimination of the consequences of Serdyukov's reforms. The war, among other things, revealed the shortcomings in the existing system of training officers and specialists, which must be eliminated.

I will separately note and rejoice about the entire school of unmanned systems. Since 2022, I have been regularly writing about the need to create a separate military university for unmanned systems (air, land, sea).

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9887435.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14412
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Mon Jun 09, 2025 3:28 pm

Scott Ritter: Announcing a US-Russia Citizen’s Summit
June 8, 2025
By Scott Ritter, Substack, 6/6/25

Scott Ritter is a a Writer, Historian, Geopolitical analyst, Arms control specialist, and Military expert.

We live in dangerous times. Now is the time for the people of the United States and Russia to set the example of how civil discourse and dialogue can pave the way for peace between our two nations.

On June 18, 2025, Americans and Russians from all walks of life will come together to engage in an act of “people’s diplomacy.” Whether seated in a theater in beautiful Saint Petersburg, or in the historic Mohican Hotel in downtown Kingston, New York, the participants will be doing what we collectively can only hope our respective leadership will do—engage their citizen counterparts in constructive dialogue which seeks to better relations between their two nations.

The 2025 Space Bridge/Citizen’s Summit takes place on the 40th anniversary of the historic, groundbreaking 1985 “Leningrad-Seattle” Citizen’s Summit organized by two legendary journalists, Phil Donahue of the United States and Vladimir Pozner of the Soviet Union. The 1985 Space Bridge became the gold standard for citizen-to-citizen diplomacy, setting in motion numerous follow-on Citizen’s Summits that helped both nations navigate the troubled waters of the Cold War toward a path that led toward peaceful coexistence. (Video at link.)

Scott will discuss this article and answer audience questions on Ep. 269 of Ask the Inspector.
Like its 1985 predecessor, the 2025 Citizen’s Summit seeks to strengthen the dialogue between the civil society of our two countries and promote the idea of “people’s diplomacy” – open dialogue, exchange of experience and establishment of cultural ties.

The Space Bridge aims to serve as a bridge between cultures, generations, and nations. The program will combine live discussions, cultural exchanges, historical reflection, and a forward-looking perspective. The main goal is to demonstrate that, despite differences, people can find common ground and understand each other.

Image
Phil Donahue moderates the Seattle end of the 1985 Citizen’s Summit

The goals of the 2025 US-Russia Citizen’s Summit for Peace are as follows:

• Strengthen mutual understanding between Russian and American citizens.

• Demonstrate that, despite disagreements, people can find common language.

• Create a positive news story amid tense international relations.

By creating a space for an open dialogue where participants can discuss any topical and pressing issues, including those related to social, economic and cultural interaction, we can deepen understanding between Americans and Russians.

The Citizen’s Summit provides participants with the opportunity to share successful practices in democracy, civic participation and the protection of human rights, while assisting in the dissemination of cultural and educational initiatives that contribute to the strengthening of friendship between peoples.

Image
Vladimir Posner moderates the Leningrad end of the 1985 Citizen’s Summit

The summit will also assist in the dissemination of cultural and educational initiatives that contribute to the strengthening of friendship between peoples, and in the process, help identify possible follow-on joint initiatives and projects involving the participants that can have a positive impact on the lives of citizens of both countries. The Citizen’s Summit will be more than just a dialogue between Americans and Russians—it will be a shared experience, one that hopefully expands beyond the respective forums in Saint Petersburg and Kingston, and resonates to every corner of both the United States and Russia, empowering all who witness it to join in on this joint venture to prove to ourselves and our leaders that, if given the chance, our two peoples can choose peace over war, prosperity over sanctions, and cooperation over confrontation.

The Hosts of the 2025 Spacebridge/Russia-USA Citizens Summit

Image
Pavel Balobanov (Saint Petersburg)

My civic mission is to show the world the real Russia—not the version portrayed by Western media, but a nation defined by innovation and hospitality.

I am proud to be a Russian citizen, to drive innovation within our country by developing and bringing to market Russian products and services sought after both domestically and internationally, and of course, to lead this project.

I hope for a sincere dialogue between Russian and American citizens—essential for true progress—that unfolds not through the lens of media, but face to face. Like my fellow Russians, I have many questions for U.S. citizens, and I’m deeply curious to hear their responses.


Image
Scott Ritter (Kingston)

In 1985, when the first Space Bridge took place, I was serving in the US Marines, preparing for a possible war with the Soviet Union. I viewed the dialogue between Americans and Russians with some interest, since it humanized people I had only previously viewed as my enemy.

Three years later I was able to participate in my own personal Space Bridge. I had been assigned to the Russian city of Votkinsk, where I served as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty. Over the course of two years, I had many conversations with the citizens of Votkinsk, after which I vowed never again to view the Russian people as my enemy.

I have traveled to Russia twice in the past two years, continuing the conversations I began more than 37 years ago. I watch as my country once again seeks to view Russia and its people as enemies of America and Americans. I am struck by the importance of simple dialogue among people as the key to building friendship between nations. I am proud to be able to help facilitate such dialogue today, as part of this project.


The Venue

Image
Gerald Celente speaking at the 2024 Occupy Peace and Freedom Rally

The Mohican serves as the perfect venue for introducing a Russian audience to the real America—the country that exists in the vast space that separates Los Angeles, California and New York City. For the purposes of the 2025 Citizen’s Summit, the Mohican will be transformed into an idyllic slice of Americana, a café where the participants can enjoy some food and drinks while being entertained with live music in the lead-up to the event.

Image
The interior of the Mohican Market

The Event

The 2025 Citizen’s Summit will be streamed live in both Russia and the United States. For the American audience, the event will be broadcast using Gerald Celente’s YouTube channel (@gcelente). We are planning to link in audiences from the so-called “Family of Podcasts” that have collaborated in the past on events such as this; more information about how one can watch the 2025 Citizen’s Summit will be published in the days leading up to the event.

The number of people who will be in the live audience is, because of the intimate nature of the Mohican venue, capped at 50 participants. We are looking for a diverse mix of participants who would be interested in asking questions to their Russian counterparts about life in Russia and answering questions from their Russian counterparts about life in the United States.

If you live in the vicinity of Kingston, and would like to attend, please send an email to Scott Ritter.

Include your name, age, gender, background/experience, and a brief paragraph on what you hope to accomplish by participating in the Citizen’s Summit. If you are selected, you will be sent a ticket to the email address from which you submitted your request.

You will need this ticket to get into the venue.

The doors will open at 12 noon, and there will be a buffet for food and a bar for refreshments. A band will be playing in the background. Take the opportunity to mingle and get to know your fellow attendees—you’ll be making history together!

Everyone should be seated and ready to go at 2 pm sharp, when the event begins. The Citizen’s Summit will last three hours and will include several cultural interludes where Russian and American musicians and singers will perform.

And for the next three hours your hosts will guide you through an interactive experience that hasn’t been seen in 40 years—a genuine Citizen’s Summit where Americans and Russians can get to know each other through dialogue and conversation.

The event is free of charge, including the buffet and non-alcoholic drinks.

However, nothing in this life is free, and donations are welcome to help offset the costs associated with pulling off an event of this scope and scale (a donation button is located at the bottom of this page.)

To those of you who will watch the 2025 Citizen’s Summit via the live stream, know you will be joining a community of millions who will be sharing this experience.

And for those of you who will be participating as audience members in this interactive adventure, soak in every minute, because you will be making history.

In any event, I look forward to seeing you all in Kingston, either in person or online, on June 18 for this historic event—the 2025 US-Russian Citizen’s Summit!

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/06/sco ... ns-summit/

******

Deleting won't help
June 8, 23:58

Image

Deleting won't help

Some Ukrainian citizens were denied entry to Russia due to signs of deleting data from their mobile phones.
This is reported by RIA Novosti, which analyzed court decisions.

In one case, as indicated in the court materials, a Ukrainian deleted about five thousand photos and videos, as well as some contacts. Border guards considered this an attempt to hide personal beliefs and preparation for passing control, which became the basis for the entry ban. The court found such actions legal.

Another example concerns a woman who deleted correspondence in instant messengers, cleared her photo gallery and hid her YouTube viewing history. As follows from a number of court decisions, such actions became the reason for refusing to cross the border.

In all the cases considered, Ukrainian citizens went to court, claiming that they did not plan to violate Russian laws, wanted to obtain citizenship and had relatives in the country. However, the appeals were rejected, and the decisions of the border services were recognized as justified.

Earlier, the Cabinet of Ministers assessed the proposal to ban Ukrainians from obtaining self-employed status in the Russian Federation.

https://www.gazeta.ru/social/news/2025/ ... 7412.shtml - zinc

Writing on the Internet has consequences, even if it has been removed from the Internet.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9887875.html

Google Translator

******

Kazakhstan on the Path to NATO? Kazakhstan's Defense Minister Removed for Pro-Russian Position
June 8, 2025
Rybar

Today it became known that the Minister of Defense of Kazakhstan Ruslan Zhaksylykov has been removed from his post . His place will be taken by Dauren Kosanov , who previously held the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Air Defense Forces of the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan.

Reasons for resignation
The official text of the decree does not specify the reasons for Zhaksylykov's dismissal. But some media outlets recall scandals related to the deaths of conscripts, the detention of conscripts on the streets and in bars, which was compared to the Ukrainian "busification", as well as corruption in the framework of deals with the Turkish Otokar for the purchase of armored personnel carriers. He was also criticized for sending peacekeepers to the Golan Heights .

Zhaksylykov also got into trouble with the so-called national patriots of Kazakhstan, who were outraged by his speech at a meeting with Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov . On the eve of the 80th anniversary of the Victory, Zhaksylykov said that Kazakh and Russian servicemen "are not guests, but friends, comrades, and brothers in arms ." At the same time, he explained that the May 7 Parade in Astana was dedicated "not to Defender of the Fatherland Day, but to the Great Victory."

Apparently, Zhaksylykov has become a hostage of Kazakhstan’s new political course to strengthen cooperation with NATO .

Not wanting to openly spoil relations with the CSTO, Kazakhstan is conducting a step-by-step process, having concluded a cooperation agreement with Great Britain . And this is not to mention the exercises that have become more frequent through contacts with Turkey in the format of the Joint Territorial Group.

The swift dismissal of Zhaksylykov demonstrates a new style of administrative policy of President Tokayev. We saw something similar in May, when after pressure from pro-Western activists, the mayor of Almaty, Yerbolat Dosayev , was dismissed . This was done quickly and contrary to the existing order.

Such haste in the context of the republic's leisurely administrative mechanism may indicate a desire to speed up the process of changes in the country's military-political vector , as well as to increase the pace of Kazakhstan's transition to Western standards. And the unspoken reason for changing the minister could have been the words in the conversation with Belousov .

As for the successor, there is very little information about him. But sources in Kazakhstan believe that he will not stay long. Like most of the generals in Kazakhstan, he studied in Russia, and after the agreement with Great Britain, the Kazakh command will gradually turn to the West.

https://rybar.ru/kazahstan-na-puti-k-na ... pozicziyu/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14412
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Tue Jun 10, 2025 2:52 pm

Russians Gather at Red Square as Rumors Swirl About Lenin’s Removal

Image
Lenin’s Embalmed Body, Moscow, Russia. X/ @b_marinova

June 10, 2025 Hour: 9:08 am

The Kremlin may remove the Soviet founder’s embalmed body during renovations of his century-old mausoleum.

In recent days, thousands of Russians have flocked to Red Square to bid farewell to Vladimir Lenin amid speculation that the Kremlin may remove the Soviet founder’s embalmed body during renovations of his century-old mausoleum.

Russian authorities insist the mausoleum will reopen in 2027, but doubts have spread in the press and on social media—especially following a recent campaign rehabilitating Joseph Stalin’s image.

Though polls show only a third of Russians support keeping Lenin in the mausoleum, President Vladimir Putin has avoided a public debate, warning it could divide society and humiliate those born in the USSR.

Soviet-Era Lines Return

This morning, hundreds waited in line on the cobblestone slope leading to Red Square—a sight unseen since Soviet times, when visiting the marble tomb was a rite of passage. The mausoleum is open just three hours a day, Tuesday through Thursday.

Among the crowds between the Kremlin walls and the Historical Museum were few elderly Russians but many middle-aged and young locals, alongside Chinese and Indian tourists. Visitors get only seconds to view the body, with photography and pausing strictly forbidden.

“We read about Lenin in textbooks. It’s surprising to see so many Russians here—clearly, he inspires them. For us, it’s just a tourist attraction,” said a visitor from New Delhi.

The US$250,000 renovation will repair crumbling walls and the exterior but won’t relocate Lenin’s body, which has left the mausoleum only once—during World War II, when it was moved to Siberia.


A First for Many

Notably, many in line were Muscovites. “I heard it’s closing for two years. We’d been meaning to come for ages,” said Olga, who brought her daughter. “Honestly, we don’t even know if it’s really Lenin in there,” she joked.

Others traveled from across Russia or former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan. “It’s my first time in Moscow. I never expected such a long line. We were raised on Lenin’s ideas,” said Sergei.

His sister called the body a “scientific experiment”—maintained indefinitely by biotech—but Sergei argued its display keeps Lenin’s memory alive. Masha, a Moscow resident, agreed: “It doesn’t bother me. Let him stay.”


The text reads, “Lenin, one hundred years later. On January 21, 1924, the 20th century’s most important political thinker and revolutionary leader, the Russian Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, died. Only revolutions based on his historical legacy triumphed.”

Lenin Out, Stalin In?

The debate intensified after Putin blamed Lenin for laying the groundwork for the Ukraine war. Meanwhile, Stalin’s legacy is being revived, including a controversial two-meter metro bust.

“The body should be removed and given a Christian burial,” said Natalia from Tula. But Igor, a communist working for the Orthodox Church, argued Lenin is “closer to Christianity than our Church,” which has long demanded his burial.

“He’s in an underground sarcophagus—traditionally acceptable. The Church just won’t rest until he’s buried,” he said.

Alongside Patriarch Kirill, liberals, human rights groups, and ultranationalists support removing the body, noting Lenin’s widow and lover opposed its preservation.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/russians ... s-removal/

******

Terrorists got a job at the plant
June 9, 21:08

Image

The FSB has published a video about the prevention of sabotage at a defense industry enterprise.

(Video at link.)

The attackers removed the components from hiding places and assembled homemade explosive devices. They were detained while carrying the IEDs into the territory of the enterprise.
The bombs were disguised as power banks. He was
purposefully sent to the plant on orders from the enemy's special services.

In fact, they were preparing a terrorist attack/sabotage at the plant in wartime on orders from foreign intelligence.
Under Comrade Stalin, this was the death penalty.

It is worth recalling that for a long time we liked to tell that terrorist attacks and sabotage at the plant were inventions of Stalin's satraps, that this could not happen, innocent people were imprisoned on fictitious charges of terrorism, sabotage, wrecking and sabotage.
In this way, an infantile attitude towards such threats was instilled in society, which are now in full force and are widespread.
It can be noted that the wave of terrorist attacks and sabotage inside the Russian Federation led to the fact that many began to better understand Stalin's time. As the saying goes, until thunder strikes, a man will not begin to take the sabotage and terrorist acts of the 1930s seriously. Almost 100 years later, the country and its special services face largely similar tasks.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9889568.html

"Armata" turned out to be too expensive
June 10, 17:03

Image

Rostec CEO Sergei Chemezov on Armata.

The T-14 "Armata" is an expensive tank, it is easier for the army to buy cheaper T-90 tanks. Money is now needed to create new weapons.
In terms of functionality, it is, of course, much superior to existing tanks, but it is too expensive, so the army is unlikely to use it now.


In general, the topic of "Armata" is closed until better times. This war requires mass production and cheapness.
And "Armata" in the SVO turned out to be a classic "white elephant".

In the British Navy, "white elephants" were ironically called expensive battlecruisers from the First World War, which turned out to be beautiful, expensive, but poorly adapted to the modern war of that period. There is even a separate term "Admiral Fisher's White Elephants", which has gone down in history.

However, I am sure that after the war our designers will return to the topic of a tank with an unmanned turret, but where they will solve the issues of protection from drones in a completely different way, with a standard electronic warfare system and the ability to launch drones directly from the tank.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9891232.html

Google Translator

If the T-14 were made in the US it would be built; money is no object and neither is national security.

******

Ryabkov's TASS Interview
Karl Sanchez
Jun 09, 2025

Image

The transcript is dated today, 9 June but the interview took place on the 6th. I tried to find the entire interview at TASS, but it wasn’t fully published, which was very annoying given the importance of Ryabkov’s words. So, lets jump on them:
Question: I cannot help but ask about Ukraine's attack on Russian airfields. Kyiv began to declare that a huge number of aircraft were allegedly destroyed.

Ryabkov: We must follow the data and information that was disseminated through the channels of our Defence Ministry. And there is nothing close to this.

Question: Can this attack affect the strategic balance, specifically with regard to parity with the United States in strategic aviation?

Ryabkov: The equipment in question, as also stated by representatives of the Defence Ministry, was not destroyed, but damaged. It will be restored. Draw your own conclusions from this. Plus, the nomenclature that we are talking about now is not necessarily fully covered by certain agreements. As for the New START (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty), as you know, we have suspended it.

Question: Have you discussed this issue with the United States?

Ryabkov: We have asked the Americans relevant questions. In general, we can say that they boil down to why there is no reaction. If you imagine the consequences of encroachments on such objects, why do you remain silent and why do you allow yourself to provide criminals with relevant data, without which nothing like this could happen.

Question: Since Russia updated its nuclear doctrine, Russian territory has been subjected to record-breaking drone attacks, and there have been statements by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that there are no longer any restrictions on the range of weapons transferred to Kiev. Is there a feeling that European capitals are directly trying to provoke the Russian Federation into some kind of severe reaction? Does Washington see this and is it trying to influence its allies in any way?

Ryabkov: A number of leading European states are gradually turning into the main obstacle to peace. The EU and NATO leaders are tirelessly inciting Kiev to continue hostilities, pumping it with weapons, equipment and promises of more, developing and undertaking various sabotage and provocations, and planting information designed to disrupt the negotiation process. At the same time, Brussels "strategists" are not abandoning their attempts to convince US President Donald Trump to return to the policy pursued by his predecessor Joe Biden. And that policy implied unconditional support for Ukraine and further escalation. It is through this prism that we perceive the statements and actions of the German Chancellor, including the words about lifting restrictions on missile strikes by the Armed Forces of Ukraine against Russia.

This is one of the actions deliberately directed against the aspirations of those who are looking for a political settlement. Everyone is well aware of our principled position on the decision taken in November 2024 by the United States and a number of Western countries to give Kiev permission to use their long-range systems for strikes deep into Russian territory. We have repeatedly emphasised that the use of such weapons is impossible without the direct participation of military specialists from the countries that produce these systems. I am referring to the receipt of satellite reconnaissance and surveillance data, the introduction of flight tasks, and so on. In November last year, President of Russia Vladimir Putin clearly indicated that the targets for destruction during further tests of our latest missile systems will be determined based on threats to the security of the Russian Federation.

Question: Donald Trump is making an emotional swing when he talks about the prospects for a peaceful settlement around Ukraine. Just now, he positively assessed the results of the second Istanbul meeting. Prior to that, the American president threatened to distance himself from the settlement process altogether if he did not see any progress on this track until a certain time and also threatened Russia with heavy sanctions in this case. Will such a scenario generally close the opportunities for normalizing relations with the United States, or will everything depend on the scale of support for Ukraine?

Ryabkov: The return to the White House of Donald Trump, who declares his commitment to a political and diplomatic settlement of the Ukrainian crisis, has given rise to cautious optimism in terms of potential normalisation of relations with the United States, but also in a broader sense. It was in this vein that the presidents of Russia and the United States held four telephone conversations. On our part, gratitude was expressed for the support of the United States in resuming direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, interrupted by the Ukrainian side in 2022. But President of Russia Vladimir Putin also reaffirmed the basic premise that it is necessary to eliminate the root causes of the conflict as part of political and diplomatic efforts. Otherwise, long-term peace will not be ensured, and in concrete terms, it is necessary to exclude any opportunity for the Armed Forces of Ukraine to take advantage of the pause for a respite and regrouping of forces. The principled position that was voiced by the President of Russia at a meeting with the leadership of the Foreign Ministry almost a year ago is well known in Washington, and it cannot be changed by threats of sanctions. The previous US administration had the opportunity to make sure of this.

It is strange that hotheads in the US Senate, who have lost the remnants of common sense, do not reckon with this reality. We are open to honest negotiations based on taking into account Russia's interests and mutual respect, but we do not flatter ourselves. We will continue our efforts to achieve the goals of the special military operation. Thus, the decision and choice is up to Washington, to Donald Trump.

Question: Let's move on to the topic of arms control and the prospects for resuming dialogue with the United States on this issue. We said that this requires a change in Washington's position on Ukraine. Has such a moment come? Have there been any prerequisites for resuming the dialogue?

Ryabkov: To begin with, I would like to give an explanation of our position. It is not so, let's say, monosyllabic, as it follows from your question.

In order to resume a full-scale and constructive strategic dialogue with the United States, including arms control issues, a reliable general political or, rather, military-political foundation is required, primarily in the form of a stable normalisation of our bilateral relations.

In turn, the main and non-alternative element of such normalisation should be Washington's readiness to show respect for Russia's fundamental interests. Given the nature and genesis of the Ukrainian crisis, provoked by the previous US authorities and the West as a whole, this conflict naturally acts as a test, a test that tests Washington's seriousness about improving our relations. The American side requires practical steps aimed at eliminating the root causes of fundamental contradictions between us in the field of security. Among these reasons is the expansion of NATO. Without resolving this fundamental and most acute problem for us, it is simply impossible to settle the current conflict in the Euro-Atlantic area.

It seems that Washington is still aware of the multi-layered nature of the current situation and therefore is in no hurry to put forward hasty initiatives on arms control. In any case, we have not received any specifics on this matter from the American side.

Question: Now to the topic of the Golden Dome. It seems that Donald Trump is returning the United States to the era of Ronald Reagan with Star Wars and the new Strategic Defence Initiative. Shortly before that, the United States tried to accuse the Russian Federation of militarizing space. Now the plans to create a "Golden Dome" absolutely clearly indicate that the United States itself is going to do this. Can we say that an arms race is now inevitable in outer space, and does the Russian Federation have the appropriate counter-space capabilities to neutralize this threat?

Ryabkov: The steps taken by the Trump administration to develop the US Golden Dome for America missile defence system, which provides for a significant strengthening of the arsenal of means for conducting combat operations in outer space, including the deployment of interception systems in orbit, are a direct path not only to the militarisation of outer space, but also to its transformation into an arena of armed confrontation.

Such actions by the United States provoke an escalation of tensions and an arms race in outer space, exacerbate mutual distrust and create serious obstacles to cooperation between states in the peaceful use of outer space. All this is fraught with the most serious negative consequences for international security.

In order to counter Washington's steps to deploy weapons in outer space, together with like-minded countries, we are making efforts aimed at the early start of negotiations on the development of an international legally binding instrument on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, abbreviated as PAROS, prohibiting the deployment of any type of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against or with the help of outer space objects. We consider as its basis the Russian-Chinese draft treaty on this matter submitted to the Conference on Disarmament, as well as the substantive report of the Group of Governmental Experts on PAROS that functioned in 2023-2024, which was approved by consensus. In this regard, we assign an important role to the international initiative launched by Russia to ensure that UN member states adopt political commitments not to be the first to deploy weapons in outer space, which has already been joined by 37 countries.

Question: A follow-up question. Moscow says the Golden Dome blurs the line between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons. Does this make it pointless to return to the New START Treaty or at least to its relative similarity? What will the world come to if the Russian Federation and the United States do not work out a document to replace the New START Treaty by the end of the year?

At the same time, Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov said that Russia and the United States had recently discussed the New START issue. What was the conversation about? Did the parties simply record the divergence of positions? And is there any prospect of continuing contacts on this topic?

Ryabkov: There are no grounds for a full-scale resumption of the New START Treaty in the current circumstances. And given the fact that the treaty completes its life cycle in about eight months, the talk about the realism of such a scenario is increasingly losing its meaning.

We have repeatedly voiced a set of necessary prerequisites for restarting the New START Treaty. As an obstacle on this path, it is enough to mention once again the Russian-US relations that are simply in ruins, the need for a sustainable improvement of which we have already discussed today. There are other problems as well. In general, the United States will need to return to the practical application of the principles on which the treaty is based and which are reflected in its preamble in one form or another. First of all, I mean the principles of indivisible security, equal and mutually beneficial interaction, as well as the readiness to take into account the inextricable link between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.

The last of these elements, namely the relationship between strategic offensive and strategic defensive ones, is directly related to the aforementioned Golden Dome for America project. Its conceptual basis and its ideology, as they say now, in fact completely negates the interdependence of strategic offensive arms and missile defence that I emphasized. Of course, deeply destabilizing programmes like the Golden Dome, and the United States is implementing a number of them, create additional insurmountable obstacles to the constructive consideration of any potential initiatives in the field of nuclear missile control, when and if it comes to it. And this is not just our opinion. In particular, this is stated in the joint Russian-Chinese statement on global strategic stability of May 8.

As for what the world will be like without the New START Treaty and what are the real prospects for launching talks to develop an agreement to replace it, I would not like to speculate at this stage. The approaches of the Russian side in this regard will, if necessary, be nuanced by the decision of the country's leadership and on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the evolving situation in the field of international security and strategic stability.

Question: Under the previous administration, the United States deployed Typhon systems on the island of Bornholm, the Philippines and Guam. Plans were announced to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Germany from 2026. Is this course maintained under Donald Trump, or has Washington moved away from the dangerous line in this matter? Is the Russian Federation's moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range missiles still in effect?

Ryabkov: At the moment, we do not see any fundamental changes, let alone U-turns, in US plans for the further forward deployment of ground-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in various regions of the world. On the contrary, the practical steps taken by the US military to implement the relevant programme convince us that such activities will only increase. Our own position on this matter has been voiced repeatedly and in all the necessary details. The reality is that Russia's restraint in the post-INF Treaty has not been appreciated by the United States and its allies and has not been reciprocated. As a result, we have clearly and openly stated that our implementation of the previously imposed unilateral moratorium on the deployment of ground-based intermediate-range missiles is approaching its logical conclusion. Our country is forced to respond to the emergence of new and very sensitive missile threats. Decisions on the specific parameters of such a response are up to our military and, of course, the leadership of the Russian Federation.

Question: Now to the bilateral dialogue with the United States on mutual irritants. How is it going now? Is there a clear time frame when the number of diplomatic missions will be restored and consular services will be provided to Russians at the US embassy? Is there a plan for the next round of talks on this topic?

Ryabkov: In accordance with the instructions of our presidents to normalise the activities of the diplomatic missions of Russia and the United States, two rounds of bilateral expert consultations were held to eliminate irritants in order to improve the conditions for the functioning of the diplomatic missions of both countries. In practical terms, we managed to coordinate and exchange notes on unhindered financing and guaranteed transfers of funds denominated in US dollars for the diplomatic missions of the two countries. There has been some progress in visa processing, which in the previous conditions sometimes lasted up to one and a half to two years.

At the same time, there are a number of long-standing problems where no noticeable progress has yet been achieved. For example, it is difficult to talk about easing the notification regime for employees of Russian foreign missions to travel outside the permitted 25-mile zone around the location of a diplomatic or consular mission. The Americans initially opposed the discussion of the issue of returning illegally confiscated Russian diplomatic property, but as a result of the painstaking work of our negotiators, they agreed to think about a roadmap on this issue.

To put it mildly, the Russian proposal to resume direct flights between our countries is not yet enthusiastic, but we do not abandon our efforts to involve the American side in a substantive dialogue on this issue as well. So there are a lot of worries about clearing the accumulated rubble. The timing of the next round of consultations on irritants is still being discussed.

Question: Relations between the United States and the EU are in the process of being reformatted. Reportedly, the Pentagon is allegedly considering the possibility of withdrawing up to 10,000 troops from Eastern Europe. What is Moscow's attitude to this? Is there any reason to think that the United States will really reduce its presence in the region? How will this affect security in Europe?

Ryabkov: Time will tell what the United States and the European Union will eventually agree on. The Brussels group of leaders and functionaries of the supranational structures of the European Union, who set the tone, is imbued with an ideology hostile to Russia. And it is not my business to understand the nuances of the approaches of certain participants in these discussions. But I would like to remind you that the proposals we addressed to Washington and Brussels in December 2021 included the imperative of legal, legally binding and long-term guarantees of the non-expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance to the east, as well as the requirement not to deploy strike weapons near the Russian borders. There were other components as well. I am just saying that our position in this regard is unchanged. In any case, the reduction of the NATO contingent in Eastern Europe would probably benefit the security of the entire continent.

Question: How do you assess the likelihood of a new deal between Iran and the United States? Despite the intensity of contacts, the positions of the parties so far seem incompatible. Do we discuss this story with both sides? Do they plan to ask us for help in negotiations?

There was information in the media that Israel, against the will of the United States, was still considering the possibility, and very seriously, of striking at Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Are we warning the Israeli side about the consequences of such a step?

Ryabkov: Of course, we are closely following indirect contacts between Iranian and American representatives. The very fact of such contacts is a serious shift in the general context of the rather tense events around the Iranian nuclear program in recent years. The previous US administration entered the White House under a promise to "return America to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)." Unfortunately, as it happened on other occasions, she did not keep her word.

Today, we note Washington's much more serious focus on concluding an agreement with Tehran on mutually acceptable terms that would make it possible to avoid a crisis by eliminating suspicions and prejudices regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy in the Islamic Republic of Iran. As far as we can judge, the parties continue to move along the path of dialogue. Of course, as in any talks, especially such complex ones, there are pitfalls and sharp corners. However, judging by the statements from Tehran and Washington, there is still a possibility of achieving the desired result. Let's see how the discussion of the ideas put forward by the parties will proceed. We are not weakening our efforts aimed at facilitating an energetic search for the necessary negotiation solutions. I think they are quite achievable with due reliance on international law, the principle of equal and indivisible security, as well as with a carefully calibrated balance of interests and step-by-step movement that makes it possible to strengthen and build trust through compliance with the agreements reached. I would like to believe that the United States, as well as Iran, is fully aware of this.

We firmly believe that a long-term settlement can be achieved through purely political and diplomatic means. Contrary to Western speculations, the Iranian nuclear programme has been and remains under the close control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Even according to statistics, Iran is the most inspected state among all members of the Agency. The same cannot be said about the non-nuclear states within the meaning of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which have a much more developed nuclear fuel cycle. At the same time, the Iranian side cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the subversive course and gross violations of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 by the United States and European countries, which led to a reduction in the scope of the Agency's verification activities in Iran in terms of voluntary transparency measures provided for by the JCPOA.

We categorically reject any options in line with military strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. This would inevitably lead to irreversible consequences, including humanitarian and radiological ones. It is necessary to do everything possible to prevent such an escalation, which will in no way bring us closer to a denouement. In 2015, when the JCPOA was signed, the international community categorically rejected the path of war. And in the current conditions, the only true option is to make the most of the resources of diplomacy without hinting at the possibility of military solutions.

Question: Finally, the final question: when can we expect new contacts between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Mark Rubio, I mean in person? Is it possible to organise a meeting as soon as the parameters of the Ukrainian settlement are agreed?

Ryabkov: The foreign ministers are in constant contact. They have already held seven telephone conversations and had a face-to-face conversation in Riyadh in February. Of course, what is happening with regard to Ukraine and the search for a settlement leaves its mark on our bilateral agenda at virtually all levels. We are interested in maintaining a stable line of communication on all issues on the bilateral agenda. As we understand it, Washington does not deny the need for this either. As for your question about a new face-to-face meeting, this will be determined by the decisions of the presidents, and, of course, by the specifics and acuteness of the topics discussed. [My Emphasis]
The fact that Russia’s diplomatic properties still haven’t been returned and its diplomatic abilities within the Outlaw US Empire remain grossly restricted flies in the face of the posture Trump announced during his presidential campaign and reflect his lack of control over basic policy matters. Furthermore, there appears to be zero sense of urgency to resolve this clearing of the “rubble” impeding the basic development of trust within Russian-American relations. And as Ryabkov noted in several of his replies, trust is a very important ingredient in dialog and arriving at any type of agreement. IMO, his characterization of US Senators is correct, but he needs to expand that to most of the US Congress. Given the fact that the Outlaw US Empire has repeatedly failed to obey the treaties it signs, I would expect a sense of futility to be present within Russia’s leadership, particularly given the intense anti-Russian animus of the US Congress that’s completely out-of-step with public opinion, and thus its unwillingness to ratify any treaty that Russia might be able to get Team Trump to agree with. If I’m a Russian closely watching what the enemy is doing and then hearing what Ryabkov said, I’d be very pessimistic. Any Russian born before 1985 will know the West has never been Russia’s friend. Those few born during the 1990s and its anarchic upheavals within Russia will have a similar POV, although they never directly experienced Soviet times. For many, I would say from their POV the Cold War never ended since the aggression never really stopped. So, the domestic politics Team Putin encounter on the issue of American relations is very different as there’s no question that the Outlaw US Empire remains an enemy state. Ryabkov’s observation that there was “no reaction” from Trump about any of the events of May 31-June 1 followed by what’s happened in the following few days can’t help but be seen in a negative light by Russia. IMO, Russia’s response must be to go hard on the battlefield since that’s the only language its enemies seem to understand.

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/ryabkovs ... erview-4ff
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14412
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Wed Jun 11, 2025 3:48 pm

Lavrov At the Future Forum 2050
Long posting.
Karl Sanchez
Jun 09, 2025

Image

Image


The Tsargrad Institute is presenting The Future Forum 2050 that’s collected a very wide range of speakers to talk about various topics related to the primary theme. It has an English website in tandem with the Russian, which I haven’t had much opportunity to explore, although the 8+ hour video from the day’s main venue is overdubbed in English. Pepe Escobar in his chat with Nima today talked a lot about its background, which ought to raise everyone’s curiosity, and of course Pepe had a lot more to talk about. Larry Johnson is also at that event and talked about is during his much shorter chat with Judge Napolitano. His short Q&A with Lavrov was revealing. Lavrov as usual begins with a series of remarks which is followed by a Q&A session. The session is long at an hour forty-five minutes. The topic Lavrov speaks on is Multipolar World in the 21st Century. The overall video is just under 9 hours, which includes breaks between sessions. Lavrov’s begins at the 2:49:00 mark. Dmirti Simes introductory remarks aren’t on the transcript yet are very worthy of being included. If readers get the opportunity, I suggest watching the first few minutes of Lavrov’s portion of the video. I will say that Lavrov confessed feeling he’s in front of a jury of sorts, which also didn’t make it onto the transcript:
Dear friends,

Colleagues

Dimitri Simes began almost with the epigraph of former US Vice President Kamella Harris. She said that what is happening today will not be repeated tomorrow. This is roughly what she wants to say in her well-known expressions. This is life.

Thank you for such kind words addressed to me. The question of how a person changes when he occupies a fairly responsible post at the turn of epochs is very relevant. On the one hand, it is personal. I haven't thought about it for a long time. Now we have remembered that historical era. In memory and even in sensations, the feelings that we experienced then from the deepest disappointment and bitterness come to life. Then there were glimmers of hope.

The theme of a multipolar world brought to life the glimmers of hope that we saw in the mid-1990s. In January 1996, Yevgeny Primakov was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs. He remains our great teacher. He is a bright, multifaceted personality. The gift of political and geopolitical foresight was inherent in him, like few people on this earth and few in politics. It was then that he formulated the revolutionary concept of a multipolar world at that time. It was a response to the "incantations" of well-known political scientists that the "end of history" had come, and from now on the Western liberal order would freely "envelop" the entire globe, human thoughts, souls, hearts and all everyday activities.

Yevgeny Primakov not only put forward this concept; he actively promoted it. The first concrete step on this path was the Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Formation of a New International Order, signed by the heads of Russia and China in Moscow back in 1997.

At that time, Yevgeny Primakov was still the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Boris Yeltsin's government. It was in 1997 that the legal foundation was laid for multipolarity to become permanent in the international dialogue.

In 2002, when Vladimir Putin became president, the first trilateral Russia-India-China summit was held. And since then, this "troika"–-RIC-–has established itself as a useful format for all participants. Perhaps not as much has been written about it as about the SCO, BRICS and other structures. Without much noise, but also without hesitation or hiding, RIC has been quite confident in promoting cooperation in this format. There have been about 20 meetings of foreign ministers and several dozen meetings at other ministerial levels, including the ministers of economy, transport, energy and the humanitarian sphere.

Multipolarity has been gaining momentum since then. We can say this with full responsibility. Yevgeny Primakov's analysis, which formed the basis of this concept, fully confirms its relevance.

New centres of power (economic growth, financial power, and political influence along with it) have appeared in Eurasia, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America–-in general, everywhere. This trend reflects the desire of the countries of each region to take responsibility for their own development, for taking the development of their parts of the world into their own hands. I believe that this is a healthy trend. Moreover, it has gained new momentum and accelerated in the context of the changes brought to global economic and other relations with the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. The model of globalisation used by all his predecessors turned out to be not quite suitable for the philosophy of the Trumpists, too ideological. And they began to cleanse their actions in the international arena of any influence of various ideologies. Those ideologies were somewhat different, but they had the same essence–-neoliberal approaches, the spread of the influence of the "collective West" to the rest of the world, in fact, an attempt to replay and reinforce the end of history, and attempt to continue to live at the expense of others, only no longer by crude methods of colonial exploitation, but by the methods of modern neocolonialism, when the countries of the Global South, the Global East play the role of suppliers of raw materials, with some exceptions, in general. The lion's share of the added value is produced in the West. And there are many examples of this.

This second "awakening" of Africa, in particular, where colonialism was particularly brutal, is associated precisely with the struggle to abandon neocolonial methods of doing business, which are still very actively used by the West and are being rejected by an increasing number of countries around the world.

In December 2024, at the initiative of the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter (a structure created in 2022 at the suggestion of Venezuela and now numbering about 20 countries, and the number of applicants is growing), a resolution was adopted on the need to counter modern practices of neocolonialism. At the upcoming 80th session of the UN General Assembly in the autumn, this topic will be one of the most acute and causes of serious debates.

This is not just a movement, some conferences, papers that are discussed and adopted. Statistics show the progress demonstrated by the process of multipolarity. For example, China is now the world's first economy in terms of purchasing power parity. By the way, Russia is fourth. I hope that we will not go any lower, given all the discussions that are currently underway about the macroeconomic tasks we are solving and the methods used in this process.

As announced back in 2024, Russia has overtaken Japan and Germany in terms of purchasing power parity, and the BRICS have surpassed the G7 Western countries in terms of the same indicator for several years now. And the gap between them is growing. At the same time, we do not just see mechanical figures of economic growth. All this is achieved through important structural transformations. Most countries in the Global South in one way or another, even while maintaining (we all understand this) business and normal relations with the West (we were also ready to maintain them, it is not our choice that they were severed or trampled), are nevertheless reducing dependence on Western countries and Western currencies, in particular, they are forming mechanisms for ensuring foreign trade operations that are beyond the control of the West, laying new transport and logistics chains, and creating a new architecture of interaction in culture, education and sports. The last thing I said is also a very interesting trend. It is taking place in parallel with the fact that the United States is also creating new forms of organising multilateral global sports competitions. We will see a lot more, including in the cultural sphere. Eurovision, with all its exotic "ornaments" and "vignettes", also makes you want to return to normal songs about normal human interests. The process is underway.

The fact that multipolarity is a geopolitical reality is also recognized in the West. Let me remind you that representatives of the Biden administration spoke about this. In January 2025, Marco Rubio, my colleague, the current US Secretary of State, called the unipolar world order "an anomalous product of the end of the Cold War." When it seemed that the "end of history" had come and everything would now be as decided in the West.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, for all his rather controversial and not very well-thought-out statements on other topics on the issue of multipolarity, clearly states that this trend is serious and for a long time, that it is irreversible.

Representatives of many European countries have repeatedly acknowledged the fact of a change in the balance of power on the world stage not in favor of the West.

It is another matter that all Western representatives, when they talk about this, recognize the facts. They see multipolarity not as a blessing, not as the implementation of the principle of equality, fraternity and freedom, but as a threat, a challenge to their interests and their dominion, with which they have ensured their well-being for many centuries.

We no longer go to the Munich Security Conference, which takes place in February every year. It has completely turned into an apologist for Western philosophy and the Western school of thought. The last meeting of this conference in February of this year was devoted to multipolarization, as they called it. The report that was released shows that they are afraid of multipolarity, they want to stop it, or better yet, break it altogether, and prevent these trends from resuming. Hence the impudence and rigidity to the point of ultimatums to sovereign states not to violate the unilateral orders that the West is establishing or trying to establish, including the illegal, criminal and undermining postulates of the West itself, which it promoted 3-4 decades ago: unilateral illegitimate sanctions.

The thesis that the report of the Munich Conference described multipolarity is almost synonymous with chaos and confrontation between great powers that are doomed to permanent rivalry and, accordingly, create threats to international security through this rivalry. The logic and philosophy of the people who wrote the report is such that only in "one-man management" can peace and a confident prospect of human development be ensured. "One-man management" is clear under whom. Any diversity, any multipolarity is seen as a threat, of course, primarily to those who wanted to ensure the "end of history" and preserve the unipolar world. It will not work. This conclusion is doubtful.

The work that is currently being carried out in the international arena proves the opposite: that whenever countries, including great powers, respect each other's interests, they manage to come to an agreement. We have many issues that cause disputes and require additional considerations and additional mutual concessions with our great neighbours from China, India, and the CIS and EAEU countries. The closer and closer the cooperation, the more issues arise on which everyone wants to defend their interests a little more. But in the end, if you work respectfully, if you do not use threats and ultimatums, let alone do not put them into practice, you can always find an honest balance of interests. This is happening, as I have already said, in our relations with China, India, with our neighbours, with the BRICS countries, with the SCO, with partners in the Arab world, in the Islamic world as a whole, in Africa and in Latin America.

To reiterate, the volume of contacts and joint work in our country is primarily concentrated in our immediate neighbourhood and in such organisations as BRICS, the SCO, the CIS and the EAEU. In order for the world to develop in this way, it is necessary to respect generally accepted principles. I have heard many colleagues and during various discussions they predicted that it would be necessary to break the Yalta-Potsdam system and create something new. I would warn against such radical approaches. Surely, as they say, law enforcement practice is not suitable in the form in which the West applies and uses it.

As for the international legal foundations, why did the UN Charter displease anyone? It states, first, that all the activities of the United Nations are based on the principle of the sovereign equality of States. It says that it is impossible to interfere in each other's affairs, that wars, threats of war must be eliminated, and this is the main goal of the UN. Another thing is that these principles of the Charter should not be applied selectively, as with a menu. "You found a cutlet for yourself, but you don't want a fish"–-this is what the West does. They clung to the principle of self-determination of peoples on the very first page of the UN Charter. And through him, in a situation where there were no wars, no risks of military confrontation, they took and "tore away" Kosovo from Serbia. And they said that this is an obvious thing, this is the self-determination of peoples. Although there was no referendum there, no one there was for self-determination, except for the parliament, which was "tame" and was headed, as well as the "government" of this Serbian province, by criminals from the "Kosovo Liberation Army". This was in 2008.

Suddenly, in 2014, having politically rebelled against the putschists who seized power in Kiev through a bloody coup d'état, trampled on the agreement signed the day before with the then president on the need to hold early elections under the guarantees of the European Union, and who declared themselves the "government of winners," Crimeans and people in Donbass asked to leave them alone. It was their putschists who declared them terrorists and threw a regular army against them, including the combat aircraft that bombed Lugansk. And many other things were happening there, including to this day. To the shame of the entire West, there are uninvestigated crimes, including such landmark ones as the burning alive of fifty people in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa on May 2, 2014. It was allowed. Then, apparently, he received a non-public explanation of where his "six" was, and what place on this "six" belonged to him. Disgrace.

I will mention Bucha here right away. More than three years ago, "by chance", two days after Russian troops withdrew from the suburbs of Kyiv as a sign of goodwill before signing the agreement (only local authorities were there for two days), BBC correspondents suddenly arrived there and miraculously showed the neatly arranged bodies not in the basements, but on the main street of this village. An explosion of indignation, "Russia is a barbarian, a butcher", a new package of sanctions.

Since then, we have sent several official requests to the UN agencies with a request to investigate human rights violations. They have deliberately created an independent commission on Ukrainian affairs at the Human Rights Council without our participation. We have officially appealed to it three times. Deathly silence. My direct, public questions to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres at UN Security Council meetings are asking if it is possible to get a list of the people whose corpses were shown by the BBC correspondents who were so lucky in this place through his "good offices". He leaves, is embarrassed and averts his eyes. I have been to New York twice in the past two years at a meeting of the UN General Assembly. I have a news conference at the end. All the world's media are represented there. I have already appealed to their professional intuition, instincts and pride. I asked if they really don't care what happened there. Or were they forbidden even to touch this topic? There is no answer, of course.

In addition to territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination, there are many other principles in the UN Charter. In 1970, the General Assembly adopted a huge detailed Declaration on Principles of Relations among States in accordance with the UN Charter. It dotted the dots over the "ё" there. As for the principle of self-determination and how it is related to territorial integrity, it said that everyone is obliged to respect the territorial integrity of those states whose governments respect the principle of self-determination of peoples and therefore represent the entire population living in a given territory. That is, the government in a state whose territorial integrity must be protected must represent the entire population living in this territory.

Who doubted after the putsch that the racists and Nazis who came to power represented Russians, Russian-speakers, and many other ethnic groups that did not want this criminal government?

The UN Charter, even before the right of nations to self-determination, says (you won't believe it) that it is necessary to respect human rights, regardless of race, gender, language and religion. Have you ever heard Western countries, defending the government of Vladimir Zelensky, say that human rights must be respected? Not once.

No matter what country the West talks about in the public space (Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, even Hungary, Slovakia–-you name any country), human rights are somewhere at the very top of their complaints. And in Ukraine, there is nothing of the kind. The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the former head of the European Council, Charles Michel, and all sorts of other callas, most European leaders say that it is necessary to continue helping Ukraine so that it "defeats Russia." Then, after "winning," it was already "so that it does not lose to Russia," and now "we need a truce to make up for the supply of ammunition." But they all say that Ukraine "deserves their support" because it "defends European values." The laws that exterminate the Russian language in all spheres, and the latest law, which is in fact aimed at the extermination of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which directly violates the article of the UN Charter that I have quoted, are perceived by "enlightened" Europe as a struggle of Ukrainian Nazis for European "values." EU Commissioner for Enlargement Michel Kos said that "Ukraine has fulfilled all the preconditions necessary to start negotiations on its admission to the European Union."

The desire to "bury" multipolarity and any dissent in general, as they did with Romania, as they are trying to do with Hungary, Slovakia, and all those who think about national interests–-this is not for the European Union. Multipolarity is something different. It is being formed and will be formed regardless of how European leaders behave.

Some time ago, we thought about the fact that there are now many various integration groupings everywhere–-in Eurasia, in Africa, in Latin America. In Africa, there is a continent-wide association–-the African Union, in Latin America and the Caribbean there is a similar association–-CELAC, but in Eurasia there is not. Although it is the largest, the richest, probably the most successful continent in the foreseeable historical future.

When we talk about security in Eurasia, until recently, such structures as the OSCE (NATO, of course) and the European Union immediately came to mind. Yes, they tried to play the role of an "honest broker" in pulling their neighbors from the Asian part of the European continent to their mechanisms. But the OSCE and NATO were created on the basis of the Euro-Atlantic concept. Even when the Helsinki summit was being prepared in 1975, it was assumed that it would be Europe West of the Urals and all the way to Lisbon. However, the Europeans insisted on inviting the United States and Canada.

The Euro-Atlantic model has discredited itself. This applies not only to the OSCE, but also to NATO, as another product of Euro-Atlantic concepts. Now we can say with confidence that this also applies to the European Union, which was engaged in the economic, social and infrastructural development of the territories of its member states and ensured the connectivity of these territories. And a couple of years ago, in the midst of a special military operation, having thrown out hatred towards Russia, reviving Nazi predatory ideas about "inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia", putting the whole of Europe under arms, as Napoleon did, as they tried to do during the Crimean War and during the First and especially Second World War (now all normal people who believed in this have lost the scale), the European Union signed an agreement with NATO, according to which it provided the North Atlantic Alliance with its territory for the transfer of any weapons to the east to the borders of the Russian Federation. And it fell into Euro-Atlanticism.

The main thing is that these organisations can no longer claim to even partially fill the vacuum of a pan-continental forum. The OSCE has been destroyed almost to its foundations. The consensus has been trampled underfoot. Now Finland, which holds the chairmanship, is preparing the 50th anniversary session of the OSCE Council of Foreign Ministers. Not everyone is invited (they just decided so) so as not to spoil the holiday. NATO is in a deep crisis. Let's see how the reforms (5% for defence), which are now being discussed, will affect NATO. Let's see how NATO will be affected by Washington's obvious desire under the Trump administration to deal more with Far Eastern affairs, the "Indo-Pacific region", as they call the Asia-Pacific region, leaving Europe, as the French say, to deal with its own affairs on its own.

In this regard, a continent-wide format is being asked. We had relations with the European Union–-dozens of mechanisms. There was a Russia-NATO Council. There were also many programs: the fight against terrorism, cooperation on Afghanistan – there was everything. So far, there is no continent-wide mechanism.

At one time, when the first Russia-ASEAN summit was held, President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed not to create something there, but to proceed from life. There is the EAEU. It has relations with the SCO. Each of these organizations has relations with ASEAN. There are relations between the EAEU and projects within the framework of the Chinese concept "One Belt, One Road".

If we bring together those who plan further work in each of these areas and see where these plans can be harmonised for the benefit of the cause, President Vladimir Putin called this process the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. Not only the structures that I have listed. There is also the GCC, with which we have very close relations, the South Asian Development Council, the Central Asian Five and a number of other structures.

We propose to develop the Greater Eurasian Partnership on the basis of openness to all countries of the continent without exception, which gives the states located on it huge competitive advantages, which the West now wants to give up.

German Chancellor Frank Merz, no matter what happens, probably so that the Americans do not restore Nord Stream, said that Nord Streams are subject to sanctions and it is forbidden to restore them. He also "cries" that ordinary Germans are suffering from tariff wars. Well done.

If the Greater Eurasian Partnership develops naturally, it may well become the material foundation for the architecture of Eurasian security. We are now working on this, primarily with our Belarusian friends. This year they will hold the third conference on Eurasian security.

Foreign Minister of Belarus, my colleague Mikhail Ryzhenkov, will visit Moscow today or tomorrow. We have circulated the draft Eurasian Charter on Diversity and Multipolarity as an initiative for discussion. The process is underway and is of interest. Representatives of NATO countries and the European Union (Hungary, Slovakia and Serbia) took part in the Minsk conferences. The process is open to all countries on the continent.

Our ruling party, United Russia, together with representatives of other Duma parties, held public and political hearings on the same topic in Perm a week ago. Party leaders from a number of Asian countries, including Japan, South Korea, Thailand and China, participated. These are parties that are members of the International Conference of Asian Political Parties.

Question: I have a question about the US administration. They will already be in power for five months. During this time, there have been many statements and appointments. Some of these appointments have already resulted in revisions and dismissals. How do you see Russia's relations with the new Trump administration? Where are we located? Where is all this leading?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe that we are in a more correct and more normal position than it was in our relations with the Biden administration, which, after President Vladimir Putin's encouraging talks with US President Joe Biden in Geneva on June 16, 2021, turned 180 degrees (unfortunately, not 360 degrees, as Anna Baerbock advised). All channels of communication were blocked. The meeting in Geneva was good. In the initial part of the meeting (in a restricted format), Joe Biden said the following: the United States and Russia are two great powers. Each country has its own history. We must respect the history of each other and any other country. The United States was formed as a melting pot where all migrants plunged and left it with the inscription "human rights" on their foreheads, and "we are all Americans." The Russian Empire developed differently. It annexed territories where settled peoples had lived for centuries. They were not lowered into any melting pots, all their traditions were left with respect, and their history, culture and religion were respected. Even the Russian Empire had the practice of granting different status to its constituent parts in order to respect and take into account their diversity. Therefore, it is a completely different state formation, civilisational in the most diverse senses of the word. The United States does not want anyone to undermine this monolithic unity. Vladimir Putin had to do a lot after becoming president in 2000. This is very useful. We are safe when Russia, possessing nuclear weapons, controls the country.

Brazilian President Lula da Silva said the other day that Joe Biden, while still president, told him that Russia must be destroyed. It's like two different people. At that time, his main concern was that Russia did not lose the ability to control its military power. And then the main thing was to destroy Russia.

The mouth was a cliff. CIA Director William Burns came. He tried (as the Americans put it) to dissuade us from the "irrevocable" decision to attack Ukraine. We told them that our concern was not to attack anyone, but to protect our legitimate security interests. At that time, a draft agreement between Russia and NATO, as well as a draft treaty between Russia and the United States, were presented, in which Russia's security interests were clearly outlined, but not to the detriment of the security of our neighbors. We met with then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Geneva in January 2022 on both documents. We were actually ignored. The tasks that were put forward and which we are now solving as part of a special military operation were called unacceptable. No guarantees of Ukraine's non-accession to NATO. Don't even think about it.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told me that at most we are developing ground-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles. This is a class that was banned by the INF Treaty, from which the United States withdrew. They have not responded and will not respond to our call for two parallel, unrelated moratoriums in the absence of a treaty. Antony Blinken proposed agreeing that the United States will deploy a certain number of ground-based intermediate-range missiles in Ukraine. And Russia, they say, will also take on such a commitment near the Ukrainian border. A "ceiling" will be provided. A week later, at the Munich Security Conference, Vladimir Zelensky hysterically shouted that no one would ban Ukraine from joining NATO. He was applauded. A week later, in gross violation of the Minsk agreements, the shelling of Donbass increased by 10-15 times. When "Plan B" was ready to be implemented-–not through the Minsk Agreements, but through the forcible seizure of small territories of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, which were not under Kiev's control, we had no other choice.

We must never be under illusions. When we met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Riyadh in late February of this year, the Americans, as the initiators of the meeting, began the conversation and said that the foreign policy of US President Donald Trump and his administration is firmly based on national interests. They recognize that other countries have national interests, especially when it comes to great powers such as the United States and the Russian Federation. Therefore, in order to avoid surprises and misunderstandings, they proceed from the fact that in most cases the interests of large countries will not coincide. But when the national interests of countries such as Russia and the United States coincide, it would be a colossal mistake not to use this coincidence in order to implement mutually beneficial projects in the material sphere (economy, energy, transport, space, the Arctic, whatever). And in most cases where these interests do not coincide, it is the duty of the great powers not to allow this discrepancy to degenerate into a confrontation, especially a heated one. I support this approach with both hands. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has always proceeded from this in formulating his foreign policy. We are ready to talk to everyone honestly, without compromising our national, fundamental and legitimate interests and without demanding this from our partners. You can always come to an agreement. "Balance of interests" and "compromises:" these are the words that President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said many times when answering the question of who to negotiate with.

I would not flatter myself. We do not know how the situation within the Trump administration will unfold. I believe that the relations that were established between the presidents of our countries back in Donald Trump's first term are working. They do not need any preludes or prefaces. During their regular telephone contacts, they immediately get to the point. This is how we should work. It is always better to state your position directly. Then there will be no illusions or unfulfilled hopes. It seems to me that US President Donald Trump, his Secretary of State and Vice President are politicians who want to work in this way.

Question (retranslated from English): What problems and challenges do you see in Russia's movement from a special military operation to an anti-terrorist operation?

Sergey Lavrov: This is of concern to us not only because of what happened in early June of this year, but also because the Kiev regime has had these methods in one form or another (not as naked as it was done in the Bryansk and Kursk regions) from the very beginning. You can list any territory where hostilities took place, and the result will be the same. I believe that the most striking example is the Kursk Region. Our armed forces explain what facilities they attacked on the territory of Ukraine. These are facilities associated with the armed forces, military units, places where equipment is concentrated, or former civilian facilities used by the armed forces or the security service of Ukraine.

As for the Kursk Region, we all saw what the Ukrainian Nazis were doing there. There is not a single object there that could be presented to the "viewer" as an object related to the conduct of hostilities. Therefore, this is not surprising for us. At the last meeting with members of the government, President of Russia Vladimir Putin clearly stated what conclusion we had reached. We will proceed from this.

This threat is quite serious. Obviously, everything is being done by the Ukrainian side, but it would have been helpless without the support of the Anglo-Saxons. Now without the Saxons, simply without the support of the British. Although, perhaps, the US special services are also involved by inertia, but the British are 100%. It is necessary to take appropriate measures not only through the Russian Federal Security Service (it has a huge amount of work), but also through the Russian Interior Ministry, the National Guard and other special services. What is important is what we used to call increasing the vigilance of the population. This is what they are doing. You are right that there are risks of an escalation of the terrorist threat. We see them. We will do everything to ensure that they are suppressed and do not harm our citizens.
(Much, much more at link.)

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/lavrov-a ... forum-2050

******

When Will Russia Attack NATO?

The cheerleaders of the military-industrial-media complex are trying to press people and governments into handing more money to them.

They do so by predicting, again and again, that the 'big bad bear' will soon come to slaughter them.

But their purported guestimates of when that will happen are all over the place:

Putin could attack NATO in ‘5 to 8 years,’ German defense minister warns - Politico, Jan 18 2024

Russia could attack a Nato country within 3 to 5 years, Denmark warns (archived) - FT, Feb 9 2024

“Not if, but when”: NATO prepares for Russian attack on Finland, Baltics and Norway - Euromaidan, Jan 4 2025

Russia could start a major war in Europe within 5 years, Danish intelligence warns - Politico, Feb 11 2025

Putin is capable of attacking NATO country ‘next year,’ Zelenskyy warns - Politico, Feb 14 2025

Will Russia attack Nato? Experts warn of invasion as early as 2027 (archived) - The Times, Feb 15 2025

German intelligence warns Putin preparing Nato assault by end of decade - Standard, Mar 29 2025

Russia Could Be Ready to Strike NATO in Two Years, New Report Says - Newsweek, May 15 2025

Russia 'could attack a NATO state by 2027 if a ceasefire is agreed in Ukraine this year' as experts warn Europe 'cannot assume that they have years to prepare' for another war - Daily Mail, May 16 2025

NATO at risk of Russia attack in next four years, warns German defence chief - LBC, Jun 1 2025

Russia could attack Nato in five years, Rutte warns - Telegraph, Jun 9 2025

Putin could attack Europe within three years, warns senior Nato official - Inews, Jun 10 2025


Fortunately there are still some sane people with whom I tend to agree on this:

Will Putin attack NATO? No chance, says Lithuanian general - Politico, Jan 25 2024

Russia will not attack Nato - Spectator, Mar 9 2024

Russia Is Not Going to Attack NATO - National Interest, Jun 5 2025

'Russians are too weak' — Orban questions Moscow's ability to attack NATO - Kyiv Independent, Jun 10 2025


Posted by b on June 10, 2025 at 16:53 UTC | Permalink

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/06/w ... .html#more

******

Larry' Moscow Notes.

This time he spoke to General Buzhinsky. Buzhinsky has actually a degree from Military Institute, where he most likely got his education in jurisprudence and possibly as military interpreter. He, however, graduated from Frunze Military Academy (War College) and defended his Ph.D thesis in Military Sciences. He served in General Staff. So he has a vast experience in understanding decision-making process and his insight is important.

Today, I interviewed retired Lt. General Evgeny Buzhinsky, who served in the International Treaty Department of the Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation of the Russian Ministry of Defense. I asked him specifically about the importance, or lack thereof, of the Ukrainian drone attacks on the Russian airfields that host some of Russia’s strategic bombers. He said that people should not read too much into his public silence on the matter because Putin viewed this act as a betrayal by London and Washington of the New Start Agreement. The General specifically said, “Putin was furious.” The General went on to say that this moment marked the closest that the United States and Russia have come to the brink of nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis. I hope to post the video on Thursday and you can watch him yourself.

Well, WHEN did London and Washington not betray anyone? With the exception of the America's firm and friendly stance on Russian side during Crimean War and, to a certain degree, Lend-Lease aid. Don't remember. As per London--it was always existential enemy of Russia and a source of terrorism around the world. The only thing MI6 does good is terrorism. Real war? Nope.

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/06 ... notes.html

*******

Why the British Council Will No Longer Be Allowed into Russia
June 11, 14:43

Image

Why the British Council Will No Longer Be Allowed into Russia

A few days ago, eye-catching headlines appeared online: "What threatens Russians for passing an English exam." Students and applicants were tense... But in vain.
The topic was not at all about education and culture, but about espionage under its cover. Namely, about the activities of the NGO "British Council", which the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation recognized as undesirable in Russia. This status imposes a number of restrictions, including prohibitions on opening structural divisions in Russia, conducting financial transactions, distributing information materials through the media.

Undercover agents

- Hiding behind educational and cultural activities, organizing various educational events, under the pretext of teaching English, in fact, the council members promote long-term British interests and values ​​in the field of education, culture and youth policy. At the same time, the LGBT movement, banned in our country, is actively promoted and supported. Various projects are being implemented to systematically discredit domestic and foreign policy, - noted on the website of the Prosecutor General's Office.
Among the goals of the British Council, law enforcement agencies also name "rid the population of the former Soviet republics of their Russian identity" and "the consolidation of the anti-Russian Baltic community."

Indeed, the British Council (in Russia, this organization appeared in 1992) positions itself as an educational and cultural mission. However, it has repeatedly found itself at the center of spy scandals and international conflicts. The question of its activities going beyond cultural programs and violating diplomatic and tax laws was raised back in 2008.
But the most resonant story occurred in February last year, when the FSB established that the British Council uses Ukrainian refugees to obtain intelligence through relatives and friends living in Russia. Thus, a resident of the Kherson region came to the attention of foreign agents. But he realized in time what he was being drawn into and contacted law enforcement agencies.

As reported on the official FSB website, the focus of the British attention is on representatives of the scientific community. They consider Great Britain to be the most promising target for its influence, primarily because of the opportunity to broadcast values ​​that are beneficial to London among young people.

– The British Council is an autonomous non-profit structure that serves as a cover (“umbrella”) for a whole nest of British and American intelligence officers: under its “roof” they engage in espionage activities, disguised as “social projects”. A real spy nest. A hub through which several generations of British intelligence officers and their agents passed during its work in the Russian Federation. It would have been difficult for the British Secret Intelligence Service MI6 to work in the territory of the Russian Federation under an open legend, to have its own office and headquarters; people would have been outraged. However, it turned out to be quite possible to work under the guise of the “British Council”: during the Yeltsin reforms, such structures shamelessly ran the country and felt at home. MI6 operatives, working under the guise of employees of the “British Council”, actively “hooked” young people who were just starting to build a career in the “forge of personnel” – Moscow State University and MGIMO; bribed them explicitly and implicitly, getting them hooked on grants, luring them with internships at British and American universities, and promoting their careers through connections in the academic environment. In cases where young people failed to complete the task and did not return the amount “invested” in them, the British could act harshly , - comments Andrey Manoylo, Doctor of Political Science, Professor at Moscow State University, and specialist in information warfare.

It should be noted that the representative office of the British Council was closed in Russia back in 2018 due to the “unsettled status”. According to a statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry, this was one of Moscow’s retaliatory measures to “provocative actions by the British side and unsubstantiated accusations by the Russian Federation in connection with the poisoning of former GRU officer Sergei Skripal in Salisbury” and the expulsion of Russian diplomats.

- In order to “zero out” their own espionage activities, which had been built up over the years, in one moment, the British had to try hard. They were not allowed back. And now the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation has put an end to this matter, and absolutely rightly so, - comments Andrey Manoylo.

Who we pay for the exam

What does the English exam have to do with it? The fact is that many Russian students and young professionals know the British Council primarily as a co-organizer of the international English language testing IELTS (International English Language Testing System). If it is known at all: a person aiming to receive a particular service does not always think about who exactly he is paying for it, what else the company that provides this service does. But financing an organization whose activities are recognized as undesirable in the territory of the Russian Federation falls under Article 284.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Whether payment for an educational service will be regarded as financing an undesirable organization (and such companies can easily use people "in the dark") is still being debated, lawyers do not have a unified opinion on this matter. However, this exam has been suspended in Russia for three years now, there are currently no centers in the country where it can be taken - only in neighboring states. But if you have to go roundabout ways to get a certificate, this alone should make you think that it would be better to refrain from such an adventure. Moreover, this is far from the only way to confirm your knowledge of English; there are many more transparent and legal options. Also, you should not use materials created by the British Council or publish links to them on your resources.

Provoking chaos

Today, few people have any doubts that London is the center of the West’s anti-Russian policy. Especially after the scandalous statement by British Defense Advisor Fiona Hill, who directly said that Great Britain is at war with Russia. By provoking chaos in different regions of the world, the former colonial empire is trying to regain its status as a great power. So, the recognition of the British Council as an undesirable organization, as the Russian Foreign Ministry emphasizes, was, in fact, a matter of common sense and time.

https://vedtver.ru/news/politics/pochem ... v-rossiju/ - zinc

The only strange thing about this story is that this bug-infested place was officially closed only now. The system works slowly.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9892956.html

Google Translator

It saddens me that this communist cannot see that WOKE, as promoted by the State and Corps, ain't nothin' by another divide and conquer scam aimed at the working class. Otherwise yes, the Brits are filthy weasels.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14412
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Thu Jun 12, 2025 4:25 pm

KREMLIN WAITING GAME — HOW TO UNDERSTAND TRUMP’S TACTICS AND PLAY THEM BACK AT HIM

Image
By John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

President Donald Trump believes – because his opinion pollsters tell him – that pre-emptive attack wins the battleground. That’s to say, the battleground states in US elections.

Federalizing California state firefighting troops and ordering them with US Marines – 5,000 of them so far — into action in Los Angeles is the latest example of Trump’s calculation that voter support for his war against immigrants will rally national support against his negative approval poll, and win him elections next year and in 2028.

President Vladimir Putin’s calculation is that delay is the best strategy for the moment. This is in order to preserve Russian voter approval and give Trump time to deliver an armistice for the Ukrainian battlefield on the Russian terms which were delivered at Istanbul on June 2.

Moscow sources in a position to know have been reporting that the drone attack on the nuclear-triad bombers at their bases on June 1 required delay in the military response. Publicly, officials have camouflaged the delaying tactic by describing the attack as a terrorist action by a terrorist organisation without Trump knowing in advance and approving. Moscow sources acknowledge this is smokescreen.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov publicly conceded as much on Monday: “Obviously, Ukraine is responsible for all that but it would be helpless without the support of the Anglo-Saxons. We can omit the Saxons now and just say — without the support of the English. It is possible that, by inertia, US intelligence services are still involved, but the British are involved 100 percent.”

Lavrov went on: “I sincerely hope constitutional norms will prevail in America – that President Donald Trump will not be constrained in exercising his constitutional authority, that he will not face obstruction, and that he will receive full access to information.”

Lavrov said this on Monday afternoon (June 9), Moscow time. By then he knew – and Putin was briefed — that two days before (June 7), from inside tightly secured Camp David, Trump had invoked his constitutional powers and ordered troops into action against “protests or acts of violence [which] directly inhibit the execution of the laws [and] constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

Lavrov was trying to give Trump more time. “I am not aware of how thoroughly the US President is briefed regarding operations the Ukrainian regime conducts against our country. That numerous American advisors remain embedded within Ukraine’s security services is an established fact – they have not been withdrawn. That military instructors from other nations supplying weapons to the Ukrainian regime operate there is equally factual. That they advise Ukrainian armed forces on strategic operations, facility placement, and camouflage – this too we know. As I have mentioned, many modern weapons systems cannot be operated without the direct involvement of military personnel from the supplying nations.”

On Monday the Russians have read the court papers filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom declaring Trump’s military operation in Los Angeles illegal under Section 12406 of the Militia Act of 1903, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the US Constitution. The governor asked for an urgent court injunction to stop Trump’s escalation. Click to read.

On Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers filed a one-paragraph answer calling California’s challenge “legally meritless”. Trump was playing for time — the judge agreed to the delaying tactic. He said he would not open a hearing until Thursday. By then, Trump has already signalled his preemptive attack will have succeeded. “Well, if we didn’t do it,” Trump said in a speech at Fort Bragg, “there wouldn’t be a Los Angeles. It would be burning today, just like their houses were burning a number of months ago.” Fort Bragg is the headquarters of the US Army’s airborne and special forces commands.

When it comes to California politics, Russian oligarchs and their lobbyists at the Kremlin have long claimed to know much more than the Russian intelligence agencies. Not this week.

Moscow sources have been saying privately, military bloggers publicly, that there would be a special Security Council meeting this week to end the delay on Russia’s strategic response to the June 1 attack. This meeting, the sources add, would address the lingering argument over how to anticipate Trump’s actions towards Russia’s end-of-war terms.

The Security Council meeting took place, according to the Kremlin website, on Tuesday afternoon. The agenda, Putin said in his public opening, “focuses on improving the state policy of protecting traditional Russian spiritual and moral values…Let us discuss how the Plan of Measures for the implementation of the Fundamentals of State Policy for the Preservation and Strengthening of Traditional Values is being carried out overall, which tasks have been accomplished, and which issues remain unresolved.”

No military officers were present but for the first time at the Council this year, Defense Minister Andrei Belusov appeared wearing a military uniform. What was he signalling?

“The consensus on our goals in Ukraine is unambiguous,” an informed Moscow source says. “It is up to the General Staff to achieve it with minimal losses without a timetable. A political timetable will not be forced on the generals. But we see Trump takes no responsibility to end this but accuses only Biden. Never mind that is false.”

Click to listen to today’s discussion with Nima Alkhorshid and Ray McGovern. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhQVR6x1td8

US PUBLIC OPINION TOWARDS TRUMP

Image
Source: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/ ... val-rating

Image
Source: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/ ... mmigration

RUSSIAN PUBLIC OPINION TOWARDS PUTIN AND THE WAR

Image
Image
Source: https://www.levada.ru/indikatory/

Denis Volkov, director of the independent pollster Levada Centre in Moscow, reported at the beginning of this week: “in May 2025, the share of Russians advocating negotiations with Ukraine reached the maximum since 2022. However, the increasingly likely disruption of the dialogue with Kiev will not cause a sharp public reaction. Most Russians have long wanted peace, but leave the solution of this issue to the discretion of the authorities…Our research also finds that if there is no need to choose between negotiations and a ceasefire, public support for negotiations is even higher. This is evidenced by positive assessments of the Russian-American talks in Riyadh (they were approved by 85% of Russians) and the May 15 Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul (87% of support). There is a 73% level of support for the Russian formula of negotiations: first to agree on the elimination of the causes of the conflict and only then stop the fighting. In focus groups, supporters of the continuation of the Special Operation are often not against negotiations in principle, because you need to ‘exchange your point of view’, ‘explain your position’, ‘keep the communication channel open’, even while continuing the offensive…”

“If a negative scenario is being implemented as a result of failure of negotiations with Kiev and rapprochement with Washington, then, by analogy with the situation after the offensive of Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region, we can expect a certain decrease in the share of supporters of the transition to negotiations. However, the effect is unlikely to be sharp and long-term. In many ways, the depth of this decline will be determined by the rhetoric of the Russian authorities.”

https://johnhelmer.net/kremlin-waiting- ... more-91848

(A Helmer twofer!)

JUNE 12 IS RUSSIA DAY BUT THE YELTSIN ELECTION OF JUNE 12, 1991, IS NO OCCASION FOR RUSSIANS TO CELEBRATE, NOR IS YELTSIN’S DECLARATION OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY OF JUNE 12, 1990

Image

By John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

Today is the Russian national holiday which President Boris Yeltsin first introduced to celebrate himself and whitewash the crimes he committed against the country.

For reminder today, a kindly reader has found a series of interviews on Yeltsin and his crimes, which I first recorded in my study on Kolobovsky pereulok, Moscow (lead image), in May 1995 with the Dutch RTL 4 television company. The interview films had been stripped from this website by a hacker who did not agree with the hostile account I gave of Yeltsin’s first term.

In The Netherlands, the RTL 4 management also did not agree, so my views were not allowed to be broadcast.

The restored video film runs in seven parts for a total of 63 minutes. It can be viewed here. https://johnhelmer.net/television-interview/

Behind me, hanging on the study wall, is the saddest painting I own. It is of an unnamed Red Army officer looking into the dark; it was painted by an artist who didn’t sign his name or the date, probably in 1920 or 1921. In the lower right corner, the canvas has been holed by the damp and rot of time.

I would see that Red Army man every time I sat down at my desk. Over my shoulder, he kept reminding me of what Yeltsin and his gang were doing to betray and destroy Russia more thoroughly than the Civil War and then the Germans had done. I don’t know whether he survived to speak. I have, though.

The following essay is 33 years old; it was first published on July 10,1992

By that time the Russian Federation had dismantled the Soviet Union, and Boris Yeltsin had replaced Mikhail Gorbachev. The year before, Yeltsin had won election as President of the Russian Republic on June 12, 1991. He polled 58.6% of the first-round vote — just enough to avoid a runoff against Nikolai Ryzhkov who drew 17.1%; Yeltsin’s number was within the 10% margin he and his handlers were able to fabricate.

The date became a national holiday in 1992 when, officially, it commemorated the act of two years before, June 12, 1990. That was the vote of the thousand-member Russian Congress of People’s Deputies to adopt the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

A few days earlier, Yeltsin had taken leadership of the Congress by a vote reported to have been just 50.52%. The Declaration of State Sovereignty started secession from the Soviet Union and Yeltsin’s seizure of power from Gorbachev, as the document promulgated “the supremacy of the RSFSR [Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic] Constitution and laws of the RSFSR throughout the territory of the RSFSR; the effect of acts of the USSR which are contrary to the sovereign rights of the RSFSR shall be suspended by the Republic on its territory.”

Historically, this is the point of the June 12 commemoration, although only 6% of Russians told a Levada Centre poll in June 2015 they recognize it for that; another 33% believed June 12 is an independence day. As the years roll by, for most “Russia Day” is the start of the summer holiday season, like the British Spring Bank Holiday and US Memorial Day held on the last Monday in May. The 2015 poll was the last time the Levada Centre asked Russians what they think of June 12.

This year, a decade later, Levada’s pollsters are ignoring the meaning of June 12 except as the start of summer holidays for those well off enough to take them away from home. The latest Levada poll, taken in the last week of May, reports: “The plans of Russians for summer holidays are almost the same as last year: a third of respondents plan to spend a vacation in the country / garden plot (33%), 7% – in another city, the village of Russia, 6% – on the Black Sea, 5% – in the Crimea. Another 2% of respondents said that they are going to relax abroad, and 1% of respondents – in Kaliningrad. Less than 1 percent of respondents are planned to visit the countries of the former USSR. At the same time, every fourth (26%) in the summer will remain at home and will be engaged in their own affairs, and 12% of respondents will not go to rest this summer at all (9% in May 2024), but every tenth has not yet decided on plans for this summer.”


President Vladimir Putin has never mentioned Yeltsin’s name in his annual Russia Day speech. At the 2019 Kremlin celebration with then-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Putin recalled “the drastic changes that took place during the 1990s. We remember this hard period well, as everything changed – our economic structure and public and human relations.” Since then Putin has omitted even that.

The president’s reason is that Russian sentiment towards Yeltsin has grown steadily more negative than Putin has admitted for himself. According to a Levada poll of February 2023, “the highest rates of positive attitude towards the first president were observed in the first few years after his death in 2007 (about 17%). Then the attitude began to deteriorate again: in December 2015, 14% had a positive attitude towards him, in 2021 – 10%, in January of this year – only 8%. Correspondingly, the share of respondents who have a negative attitude to the first president of Russia has increased: if in 2010 and 2015 they were about 35%, then in 2021 – 46%, and at the beginning of 2023 – already half. Slightly more than a third (35%) express neutral emotions towards Boris Yeltsin.”


Image
Source: https://www.levada.ru/

On June 12, 2021, Putin said the holiday “symbolises our Fatherland’s contemporary development, as well as its continuous centuries-old path, the grandeur of its history, endeavours, victories and achievements.” His speech now accompanies the annual presentation of Hero of Labour medals and Russian Federation National Awards for individual achievements in science, technology, literature, art, human rights, and philanthropy. “This national holiday,” the president said at the 2023 ceremony, “marks the continuity of the many centuries of our history, the glory and grandeur of our Fatherland, the unity of our multi-ethnic people, our loyalty to our country and our cordial affection for our beloved Motherland.”

On the Telegram channel of Medvedev, the former president says nothing at all about June 12.[/i]

June 12 marks the anniversary of Boris Yeltsin’s election as President of Russia.

It is no moment for celebration.

The government which he led successfully over the attempted putsch of last August and through the disintegration of the Soviet Union now lacks credible authority in the Russian federation and among its people.

There is no agreement on a constitution to hold the federation together, or to divide the power granted by Russian votes for president and parliament.

If the 18th century tax revolt known as the Boston Tea Party can be said to have begun the revolution for American independence, then the withholding of taxes by several regions and republics may be the beginning of another Russian revolution — this one against Russia itself.

The reform process which has been the basis of Yeltsin’s popular appeal is out of his control, and the economy he is responsible for is no longer operating rationally or predictably.

These are the claims of economic critics, like his former deputy prime minister, Grigory Yavlinsky. They are also the claims of political critics as diverse in their parliamentary alignments as the constitutionalist Oleg Rumyantsev, and the nationalist Sergei Baburin.

Image
Left to right – Oleg Rumyantsev in 1992 and in 2024; Sergei Baburin in 1993 and in 2018. For Rumyantsev’s three-volume work on the destruction by Yeltsin of the 1993 constitution, which Rumyantsev worked to draft, and on the revival of constitutionalism since then, read this.

Although the nationalists and their parliamentary allies — amounting to roughly a third of the Congress of Peoples Deputies — have called for the replacement of the government, they have not targeted President Yeltsin directly — not until last Friday.

The question for the President and his supporters is not whether they believe the criticisms of his performance are right or fair, but whether he can survive the situation a simple majority of Russians, and a larger majority of its ruling class, are certain the country now faces.

Those beliefs can be summed up in two convictions:

The government’s loss of authority will come to end, and the economic irrationality also. Fundamental political and economic changes are inevitable.

Whether President Yeltsin is carried off by these changes, whether he chooses to walk away from them, or whether he can survive to lead Russia are the questions everyone asks, and every Russian has the right to answer. But noone can be confident that a new Russian consensus can be agreed, or that the president will be part of it.

Former President Gorbachev is no wiser prophet than others for predicting a shorter rather than a longer time span. Few believe he will be a beneficiary if the prediction he makes to Western visitors of Yeltsin’s demise comes true.

Unfortunately for Yeltsin, his circle has been narrowing; this is customary in conditions of crisis. The strain is also showing in the President’s demeanour. He can’t be cheered by the good-news advisors, and he can’t avoid hearing the bad news. But even those who are closest to him cannot credibly deny what everyone else believes.

First Deputy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar has conceded the substance of the economic criticisms. In his most recent interview, he told Izvestia “there is a slump”. He qualified that only by saying “it is so far smaller than had been expected.” He has qualified the economic decline by saying it is “no catastrophe”.

Gaidar concedes the government has lost its political authority. “Virtually no government instructions were complied with”, he said, qualifying that this was in April, at the time of the last Congress. Despite improvement since then, he admits, “there is still no new and sufficiently efficient mechanism for enforcing government decisions.”

Gaidar also acknowledges the unpredictability of the economy and the irrationality of policy-making to deal with it. He qualifies this by saying there “were errors with percentages and dates”. In his opinion, it is the politicians who should be held to promises; professionals and administrators are bound to make misjudgements “when you get down to the practical aspects of programmes.”

What can President Yeltsin resolve to do on this anniversary?

He is grasping at straws if he makes new promises of economic recovery or if he demands new powers. The failure of promises he made a year ago is the reason he lacks the power he wants to exercise now. An autumn referendum would expose this, if he dares to call it.

He is also fooling himself if he believes his appeals to the Western leaders he will be meeting in the next few weeks will extract him, or the country, from its present predicament. A minority of Russians believed this in February; far fewer now.

Russia is going to be forced to look inward, not outward, for the relief of this crisis. No matter what conditions are agreed with the International Monetary Fund, there will be no rescue from the West.

The President has not showed himself to be an introspective man. But he has a talent his predecessor lacked for listening to others. As Russia looks inward to save itself, the best resolution for Yeltsin to make today is to go outside his circle, and perhaps inside himself, to hear what Russians and common sense are saying.

https://johnhelmer.net/june-12-is-russi ... more-91862

******

Rob Urie: Why Retaliation Rhymes with Negotiation, US – Russia Edition
Posted on June 12, 2025 by Yves Smith

Yves here. Rob Urie covers some aspects of the long-standing US campaign against Russia which remain badly understood, which is compounded by the abject stupidity of the current Administration (not that Team Biden was deserving of any acumen prizes). At some point, Russia’s progress on the battlefield will become undeniable. That will lead to further histrionics and threat displays before a slightly less deluded Western view takes hold.

By Rob Urie, author of Zen Economics, artist, and musician who publishes The Journal of Belligerent Pontification on Substack

The intellectual, and with it political, bind that the West is in with respect to the conflict in Ukraine is that two different US administrations have— purposely or not, mis-diagnosed the genesis of the conflict. Joe Biden did so, one would imagine, because the thirty-year lead-up to the launch of Russia’s SMO in 2022 is more favorable to Russia’s case than it is to the West’s.

Likewise, Donald Trump’s ‘peace through strength’ implies that the conflict can be resolved using military force. However, when a single nation can end all human life on the planet with nuclear weapons, peace through strength is a formula for nuclear annihilation. That neither Biden nor Trump appear to understand this places them both in a pre-nuclear age.

Correct diagnosis is essential to solving the problem. Mr. Trump’s infantile treatment of the conflict in Ukraine as a fight between two children that he must mediate is the least honest framing of the war to date. In the first place, the US is the lead belligerent in the war because it both assumed political control of Ukraine with the US-led coup there in 2014, and as the New York Times reported over a year ago, it was the CIA that organized, armed, funded, and built-out the only army that is at war with Russia in the present, the CIA’s (links below).

Whether Donald Trump was aware or not, US preparations for war (see here, here) were solidified during his first term in office. Moving the CIA’s war forward was the central motivation for the Russiagate fraud. Having promised to improve relations between Washington and Moscow, Mr. Trump was occupied with accusations that he had been compromised by Russia. Reams of ‘evidence’ faked by MI6, the CIA, and the FBI were used to persuade Americans that the CIA assuming control of domestic US politics was actually ‘the Russians.’

In terms of left-wing politics, the American left broke with the international left to support the US war against Russia under the dubious theory that US foreign policy is a liberatory force. The mutually-exclusive propositions that the US is 1) imperialist and 2) yet US foreign policy is liberatory, are now held by the supporting cast of American empire, Question, how liberated are the Palestinians in Gaza feeling right now? Gaza is the pure product of US foreign policy. The only people surprised that Gazans aren’t flourishing are American liberals.

This is an important aspect of the unsolvable predicament that the US has been placed in by the people running the place. The political interests and prerogatives of elected officials and the permanent government differ from those of the American people. Conventional wisdom has it that admitting defeat in Ukraine would destroy the political fortunes of the politicians / party whose name is on the deed, as well as the sense of unipolar might that George W. Bush imagined that he was revivifying with his catastrophe in Iraq.

“Joe Biden, whom I talked to about this at length, thought that Russia should be destroyed. And Europe, which held a middle-ground position for some time, finally sided with Washington and now is spending billions to rearm itself. That concerns me. If you keep speaking only about war there will never be peace,” Brazilian President Lula da Silva, 2025, Tass.

Joe Biden has long been a Cold Warrior who believes the Manichean pablum that 1) ‘we’ are good and 2) the Russians are bad. Following from Woodrow Wilson, Biden is also a racist crank. But the object of his racial hatred, Slavs, makes it acceptable in US ruling class circles. Many of the anti-Slavs in the US were also antisemites. From the Bolshevik Revolution forward, Judaism and communism were conflated in Western eyes. Western anti-communism was, in its European incarnation, also antisemitism.

In terms of contemporary politics, Woodrow Wilson was 1) Progressive, and 2) a racist crank. Progressive race science in the US, along with the Eugenics movement, formed the basis of Nazi race ‘science.’ The Progressive desire to ‘improve’ humanity most often meant ridding it of ‘undesirables.’ While this history may be uncomfortable for modern Progressives, the Progressive ‘position,’ meaning the CIA’s, on the war in Ukraine, is racist to its core. How many American Senators need be quoted regarding ‘fighting to the last Ukrainian’ for this to be clear?

In recent comments made about the US – British attacks on Russian nuclear assets inside Russia. V. Putin offered two possible paths for Russian retaliation. One would be an Oreshnik attack that is intended to end the Ukrainian regime. The other would be substantial, but more restrained than the first option, with the intention of continuing the peace talks restarted in Istanbul. This follows the US double-daring the Russians to nuke Washington, New York, and Los Angeles.

Mr. Trump and his band of one-half, one-quarter, and one-tenth wits, are working from their precepts about the war rather than from what the Russians are saying. They are aging ideologues sitting together in a closed room without input from the outside world, just making shit up. Recall Elon Musk’s promise that DOGE would find $2 trillion in Federal waste and fraud. DOGE didn’t find it because it doesn’t exist. The claim was the result of an ideological closed circuit. The rest of Trump’s program is dubious for similar reasons.

Donald Trump both 1) does know and 2) doesn’t know that the Russians have not only agreed to negotiations to end hostilities, but have been requesting meetings with the Americans to resolve outstanding Russian security concerns, including NATO expansion, for thirty years. Not only this, but having prevailed militarily in Ukraine, the Russians were acting with relative restraint until the Americans and the Brits tried to assassinate the President of Russia while crafting a fake nuclear attack on Russia to see how it would respond.

That the American political leadership is criminally stupid, and is apparently too stupid to know how stupid it is, is a problem for the world. Rumor had it in DC-world that the nation that recently changed its nuclear doctrine in response to Western provocations in and around Ukraine would treat an assault on its nuclear assets favorably (not). In terms of sheer numbers of nuclear weapons, Mr. Trump’s measure is a mercy 6” compared to Mr. Putin’s 10” of hardened steel. Translation: the US, irrespective of who is president, loses ‘peace through strength’ when it comes to nuclear weapons.

By analogy, in reading a press account of a murder where one person walks up to another and shoots them in the head, most readers conclude that the act was ‘unprovoked.’ After all, the victim was unarmed and was minding their own business when he / she was shot. However, what if the person who was shot had raped the shooter’s spouse, murdered his / her family, and burned down his / her house the week before? The point is that history matters. How events are interpreted is a matter of context every bit as much as the proximate facts.

Readers may recognize here a crude parallel to the American response to the launch of Russia’s SMO in February, 2022. The obvious question of that day was why? Why was a border crossed to carry out a military assault against a hapless victim— Ukraine? Question: which foreign invasion of Ukraine are the Americans responding to so unfavorably, the one carried out by Russia in 2022, or the one carried out by the US in 2014? In 2025, 98% of the educated bourgeois in the US still have no knowledge of the American regime-change coup in Ukraine in 2014.

The American bourgeois conceit that the US is helping Ukraine misses that since the US and the Brits interfered to halt the first agreement to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, the so-called Istanbul Accord of April – May 2022, over one million Ukrainians have been killed. In Istanbul, Ukraine had agreed to the peace deal that it had negotiated with Russia. The Ukrainians were happy. The Russians were happy. It was only Ukraine’s American and British ‘helpers’ who objected to one million Ukrainians still being alive.

Recall the quote from Lula da Silva above that Joe Biden’s intention was to use the military of the US to destroy Russia, with zero regard for what is best for the US. Biden hated Russia and Russians, and filled his foreign policy team with the intellectual equivalents of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy team. This is the rot that accompanies imperial decline. There is no way out for the US because the people who run the country have contrary interests to those of the American people.

In ways that American liberals and progressives likely haven’t considered, the American coalition in favor of war against Russia today is class-analogous to the majority of Americans who supported the US war in Vietnam to the very end. Chicken hawks in the White House and Congress allied with the ‘my country, right or wrong’ contingent of urban bourgeois and rural soldier culture to pose themselves as the saviors of the world’s downtrodden through bombing rural, agrarian, Vietnam into dust.

Three-and-one-half-million Vietnamese died (per former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara) in a war that was explained to the American people as benefitting the South Vietnamese. A tiny nation of plucky fighters was being saved from the unspeakable horrors of widespread literacy, health care, and human flourishing, went the Western spiel. The liberals in 1968 (I was there) chided the anti-war movement for not understanding the larger geopolitical issues in play. History has been quite unkind to the supporters of that war.

Within Clausewitz’s ‘war is politics by other means’ logic; the question arises of what politics the Russians were pursuing when they launched their SMO in 2022? What Russian President Vladimir Putin offered at the time was 1) an end to NATO expansion along Russia’s Western border, 2) an end to US political control over Ukraine achieved through the US coup in 2014, and 3) an end to Ukrainian fascists committing ethnic cleansing against Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Donbas. The wording varied, but this is the gist.

From the perspective of the self-interest of Russia, these are reasonable requests. With respect to the ‘freedom’ of nations to join NATO, certainly Russia has the same right to coup the Mexican government and set up a wall of nuclear weapons along the US – Mexico border pointed at Washington, New York and Los Angeles, right? Isn’t this what the Americans are telling the world? That NATO has a right to do this to Russia?

Quite obviously, the US view is based in a sense of military hegemony that George W. Bush threw into the trash with his invasion of Iraq in 2003. Political power represents an agreement between nations as to who possesses it and who doesn’t. Volunteering to demonstrate to the world that a nation’s power is less than the world had perceived it to be, as Bush did with his assault on Iraq, is strategically debilitating. The US couldn’t have demonstrated itself to be stronger than perception had it. Only weaker. This was Bush’s gift to the US.

And it is why the American regime-change coup in Ukraine in 2014 is unknown to the Western bourgeois who get their news from establishment sources. Had it been understood that the Americans and Brits have controlled Ukraine politically since early 2014, it would be difficult to explain how precisely the Russians ‘invaded’ it in 2022? And it is doubly hard to explain how such an invasion would be ‘unprovoked.’ What Russia is doing in Ukraine is a gentle version of what the US would do to chase the Russians out of Mexico, were they to enter.

Ironically, CIA mouthpiece, the New York Times, again comes in handy here. In his second installment, Times reporter Adam Entous offered that the US and the Europeans have actually been running the war in Ukraine, meaning telling the Ukrainians what to do and when to do it, from remote locations including Wiesbaden, Germany, since the onset of war. The result, the CIA organized, armed, funded and built the ‘Ukrainian’ army while the US State Department enlisted the Ukrainians to be cannon fodder in an American war.

Russia has prevailed militarily against Ukraine. The only thing keeping Ukraine in the battle are Western arms shipments. Had Donald Trump wanted to end the US war in Ukraine, he would have ended the arms shipments. He has not done so. He has surrounded himself with morons, meaning people who develop their ideas in closed forums, thereby doing an end-run around their capacity for informed thought. To those of us who have studied this war, nothing that has come from Washington regarding the conflict has been either informed or true.

American and European politicians, having created this mess, are now engaged in a furious effort to rewrite the history of the war to portray it in terms that are untrue. Curious readers can find V. Putin’s speeches from 2022 onward, online. In them he states in clear language why the Russians launched the SMO, both the proximate and long-term causes, and how the conflict could be resolved. The security guarantees from the US that the Russians have requested would have been considered reasonable were the goal us the US not to overthrow Russia to claim its resources.

A problem that surely the Russians have considered is that with the breadth of Western opposition to Russia being in Ukraine, even if a deal were negotiated between the Trump administration and Russia, neither Congress nor future administrations will abide by it. In 2020, it was the Democrats who were the dim ideologues who promised a new way forward. In 2024, it is the Republicans who are the dim ideologues promising a new way forward. The pattern isn’t difficult to read.

Americans imagining that such a result would be a victory for the West should look the word ‘empathy’ up in the dictionary and ponder its meaning. By posing the Western position as: unless Russia stops us, we will never, ever, ever end the attacks on Russia, provides a strong incentive for the Russians to end the threat once-and-for-all. From what I’ve heard from V. Putin’s speeches, this isn’t his desire. Which makes Western regime change comments as clueless as the people making them.

What this means is that the Americans are going to have to speak with the Russians to solve the political differences between them. The empire-in-freefall nature of the US at present means that the worst that the US has to offer (e.g. Biden, Trump) will be on the receiving end of Russian entreaties. While the Russians are reportedly happy to have someone to answer the phone on the American side, getting a lecture from Marco Rubio on the fake genesis of the conflict in Ukraine every time that they call will quickly grow tiresome.

With respect to retaliation for the US attacking Russian nuclear assets, V. Putin is cautious and conservative. As long as Russia sees a path, however improbable, to resolving US – Russian differences peacefully, he will remain cautious. Where the mismatch will be found, however, will be between Mr. Putin’s actions and Western interpretation of them. To quote Upton Sinclair. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Mr. Putin will likely expect the US to consider, and possibly to understand, the military logic of the Russian retaliation. However, the Trump administration is still trying to figure out the drive-through window at the local Burger King. And the vested interests of the people doing the interpreting will be very different from the interests of the American people.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/06 ... ition.html

*******

Putin Marks Russia Day With Message of National Strength and Resilience

Image
X/ @Russia

June 12, 2025 Hour: 9:04 am

‘We are responding to difficult challenges, defending truth and justice, and upholding our traditional values,’ he said.

On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin congratulated his fellow citizens on Russia Day, a national holiday established after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

“It is important that today, as we celebrate this holiday, we are also responding to difficult challenges, defending truth and justice, and upholding our traditional values,” Putin said during a ceremony at the Kremlin.

Putin, who made no mention of the war in Ukraine, emphasized that Russia is also looking to the future and is “step by step reaching new heights” in the technological, industrial, and scientific fields.

He also noted that Russia Day symbolizes “more than a thousand years of Russian statehood, its history and culture.” Strictly speaking, however, the Russian state was not formed until the end of the 15th century, when the Russians freed themselves from Mongol rule.

As is tradition, the Kremlin leader presented state awards to prominent figures in Russian culture and science.

“You, Putin, inherited the country in a difficult time. You literally rescued it from the abyss and set it on a path of development. Now, once again, enemies are gathering like a pack, waiting for easy prey. I believe that, just as neither Napoleon nor Hitler succeeded, today’s NATO jackals will also fail,” said nuclear physicist Yuri Dikov upon receiving his award.

“Russian nuclear scientists… we can assure you that we will not let you down, and that whole pack will break its teeth against our nuclear shield,” he added.

Alexander Prokhanov, nationalist editor of the newspaper Zavtra, said much work remains to fulfill the dream of a “just, prosperous and divine” state.

“Fighters are working in the trenches of Donbas; workers are operating in three shifts in the weapons factories, where they produce the best tanks and planes in the world,” he said.


Leaders from several countries, including Iran, congratulated Russia on its national day. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also issued a message related to the June 12 celebrations.

“On behalf of the American people, I want to congratulate the Russian people on Russia Day. The United States remains committed to supporting the Russian people as they continue to build on their aspirations for a brighter future,” Rubio said.

“We also take this opportunity to reaffirm the United States’ desire for constructive engagement with the Russian Federation to bring about a durable peace between Russia and Ukraine. It is our hope that peace will foster more mutually beneficial relations between our countries,” he added.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/putin-ma ... esilience/

(Gotta say the appeal to "traditional values", which I take as code for the ROC, leaves me cold. It might have been necessary to rehabilitate the Church for war morale but look at the devolution of society that has caused. That said I suspect that for very many Russians it's only lip service. But don't mind me, I'm just an old materialist.)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14412
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Fri Jun 13, 2025 2:37 pm

THE SIMPLEST EXPLAINER YET OF WHAT THE ORESHNIK MOMENT MEANS, WHAT PUTIN IS WAITING FOR FROM TRUMP — THE NEW REASON2RESIST PODCAST

Image

By John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

The Oreshnik Moment was first coined on June 1 here and then discussed in the Reason2Resist podcast on June 3. It’s a period of time – it’s not a prediction of the counter-attack which the Russian General Staff will launch against the June 1 drone attack on the bomber element of the triad of Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces.

The certainty of the counter-attack is given by the December 2024 nuclear deterrence doctrine, enacted by President Vladimir Putin, in order to preserve escalation control in the current war on the Ukrainian battlefield, and to deter escalation by the US and NATO adversaries on Russia’s southern, western, northern and eastern fronts. Putin described the revisions of the doctrine in 2024 as “factor[ing] in the emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for Russia and our allies”, particularly in “regard [to] an aggression against Russia from any non-nuclear state but involving or supported by any nuclear state as their joint attack against the Russian Federation.” That’s the Ukraine now; it’s also Romania, Poland, Finland and Germany as the US places (and plans to deploy) nuclear weapons in these states, aimed at Russian targets.

“Our nuclear triad remains the most important security guarantee for our state and citizens, an instrument for maintaining strategic parity and balance of forces in the world, ” Putin had said last year. Ten days after the June 1 triad attack, Putin has now repeated his announcement. “Special attention must be paid to the nuclear triad,”, he said on June 11, “which has been and remains the guarantor of Russia’s sovereignty, playing a key role in maintaining the global balance of power.”

US analysts have been downplaying the seriousness of this strategic moment; they claim the moment is already passing for a strategic counter-attack, the launch of Oreshnik missiles at the Ukrainian, American and British command centres which directed the June 1 operation.

Russian sources emphasize they are in no hurry to act – focus instead, they warn, on the moment, not on the means.

Currently, the sources point out that there are two levels of direct Russia-US negotiations which were agreed during the telephone call between Putin and Trump on February 12. At the first level, the talks to achieve an end-of-war settlement for the Ukraine battlefield have reached highly precise term sheets – 22 terms for the Ukraine, 33 terms for Russia. The next session of the talks is anticipated in Istanbul at the end of June.

The second level of talks is between the Russian Foreign Ministry and US State Department on improving the diplomatic channels between the governments. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov described these as talks on the “irritants”. “As a third round of bilateral talks on irritants approaches, it is too early to disclose the date, but, hopefully, the [next] round will be held very soon,” the senior Russian diplomat told reporters.[The talks will raise] an entire range of issues, more or less complicated, even as there are basically no less complicated issues when it comes to the United States.” Russia’s new ambassador to the US, Alexander Darchiev, said there have been few concrete agreements so far after two rounds on the “irritants”. One of the gains, he said, was to hold the talks in the capitals, Moscow and Washington. No date for the next round, to be held in Moscow, has been fixed.

The “irritants” on the agenda of these negotiations include the US seizure of Russian consular property in Seattle, problems of access to the Russian dacha in Virginia, visa problems for UN meetings, the embassy staffing problems, access to bank accounts, and resumption of direct flights.

Ryabkov and Darchiev call these “irritants” with irony. They mean to make public their concern that after two sessions – February 27 and April 10 — there has been little agreement from the US side after the two sides have exchanged their Notes.

Moscow sources say they believe the head of the US negotiating team, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Sonata Coulter, has been ordered to keep talking but agree to nothing. One reason for this, the Russian side believes, is that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the White House office in charge of personnel appointments have been slow to vet and approve appointments to the senior State Department bureaux. Rubio, for example, has yet to confirm his former assistant, Brendan Hanrahan, to become Coulter’s superior and head of the EUR bureau at State.

The decision to extend the Oreshnik moment does not reflect trust in Trump or his officials to agree on the Russian terms in these negotiations. They reflect patience, and the Kremlin’s calculation that there is nothing to lose in giving Trump more time to prove himself. Click for the discussion with Dimitri Lascaris explaining the reasons, and also the limits to this patience.

The Reason2Resist podcast can viewed here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_jQmghifv0

https://johnhelmer.net/the-simplest-exp ... more-91870
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14412
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Fri Jun 13, 2025 2:37 pm

THE SIMPLEST EXPLAINER YET OF WHAT THE ORESHNIK MOMENT MEANS, WHAT PUTIN IS WAITING FOR FROM TRUMP — THE NEW REASON2RESIST PODCAST

Image

By John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

The Oreshnik Moment was first coined on June 1 here and then discussed in the Reason2Resist podcast on June 3. It’s a period of time – it’s not a prediction of the counter-attack which the Russian General Staff will launch against the June 1 drone attack on the bomber element of the triad of Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces.

The certainty of the counter-attack is given by the December 2024 nuclear deterrence doctrine, enacted by President Vladimir Putin, in order to preserve escalation control in the current war on the Ukrainian battlefield, and to deter escalation by the US and NATO adversaries on Russia’s southern, western, northern and eastern fronts. Putin described the revisions of the doctrine in 2024 as “factor[ing] in the emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for Russia and our allies”, particularly in “regard [to] an aggression against Russia from any non-nuclear state but involving or supported by any nuclear state as their joint attack against the Russian Federation.” That’s the Ukraine now; it’s also Romania, Poland, Finland and Germany as the US places (and plans to deploy) nuclear weapons in these states, aimed at Russian targets.

“Our nuclear triad remains the most important security guarantee for our state and citizens, an instrument for maintaining strategic parity and balance of forces in the world, ” Putin had said last year. Ten days after the June 1 triad attack, Putin has now repeated his announcement. “Special attention must be paid to the nuclear triad,”, he said on June 11, “which has been and remains the guarantor of Russia’s sovereignty, playing a key role in maintaining the global balance of power.”

US analysts have been downplaying the seriousness of this strategic moment; they claim the moment is already passing for a strategic counter-attack, the launch of Oreshnik missiles at the Ukrainian, American and British command centres which directed the June 1 operation.

Russian sources emphasize they are in no hurry to act – focus instead, they warn, on the moment, not on the means.

Currently, the sources point out that there are two levels of direct Russia-US negotiations which were agreed during the telephone call between Putin and Trump on February 12. At the first level, the talks to achieve an end-of-war settlement for the Ukraine battlefield have reached highly precise term sheets – 22 terms for the Ukraine, 33 terms for Russia. The next session of the talks is anticipated in Istanbul at the end of June.

The second level of talks is between the Russian Foreign Ministry and US State Department on improving the diplomatic channels between the governments. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov described these as talks on the “irritants”. “As a third round of bilateral talks on irritants approaches, it is too early to disclose the date, but, hopefully, the [next] round will be held very soon,” the senior Russian diplomat told reporters.[The talks will raise] an entire range of issues, more or less complicated, even as there are basically no less complicated issues when it comes to the United States.” Russia’s new ambassador to the US, Alexander Darchiev, said there have been few concrete agreements so far after two rounds on the “irritants”. One of the gains, he said, was to hold the talks in the capitals, Moscow and Washington. No date for the next round, to be held in Moscow, has been fixed.

The “irritants” on the agenda of these negotiations include the US seizure of Russian consular property in Seattle, problems of access to the Russian dacha in Virginia, visa problems for UN meetings, the embassy staffing problems, access to bank accounts, and resumption of direct flights.

Ryabkov and Darchiev call these “irritants” with irony. They mean to make public their concern that after two sessions – February 27 and April 10 — there has been little agreement from the US side after the two sides have exchanged their Notes.

Moscow sources say they believe the head of the US negotiating team, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Sonata Coulter, has been ordered to keep talking but agree to nothing. One reason for this, the Russian side believes, is that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the White House office in charge of personnel appointments have been slow to vet and approve appointments to the senior State Department bureaux. Rubio, for example, has yet to confirm his former assistant, Brendan Hanrahan, to become Coulter’s superior and head of the EUR bureau at State.

The decision to extend the Oreshnik moment does not reflect trust in Trump or his officials to agree on the Russian terms in these negotiations. They reflect patience, and the Kremlin’s calculation that there is nothing to lose in giving Trump more time to prove himself. Click for the discussion with Dimitri Lascaris explaining the reasons, and also the limits to this patience.

The Reason2Resist podcast can viewed here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_jQmghifv0

https://johnhelmer.net/the-simplest-exp ... more-91870
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14412
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Russia today

Post by blindpig » Sun Jun 15, 2025 5:13 pm

HOW TO SAY IN RUSSIAN HAPPY BIRTHDAY DONALD, HAPPY US ARMY AND FLAG DAY

Image
By John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

There are no flies on President Vladimir Putin.

That’s an expression which originated in the fly-blown goldrush mines of Australia in 1840 and then moved with the flies to the goldrush mines of California a few years later. Literally, it means a man who is too quick for a fly to settle on him. Metaphorically, it means a man who is much too clever to be fooled by a fraudster or deceived by an enemy.

Putin is much too quick not to recognize that President Donald Trump is both a fraudster and a an enemy. Putin doesn’t have to be told by the General Staff that Trump’s war plans are an existential threat to Russia’s security on the western front (Ukraine, Romania, Poland); northern front (Norway, Sweden, Finland), eastern front (Japan, South Korea); and southern front (Iran).

Last Thursday night, as the US and Israel began their war against Russia’s strategic ally Iran, starting with decapitation strikes against the Islamic Republic’s leadership, the Russian General Staff didn’t have to send Putin their “we told you so” message. But the Kremlin’s communication system broke down, nonetheless.

Officially, the war didn’t begin for the Russians until they detected US and Israeli fuelling, arming, and deception preparations on Thursday ahead of the first Israeli weapons launches after midnight into Friday. Earlier in the day, Putin had been telling his arms chiefs “we know the enemy’s modus operandi. However, I do not think we are falling behind in any way.” The combination of drone and missile attack tactics of the enemy requires, he said, “the new state armament programme [to] ensure creation of a universal air defence system capable of operating under any conditions and effectively hitting air assault weapons regardless of their type.”

What about defence against ultra close range, ultra low-altitude drone attacks of the kind which the US, the UK and Ukraine had successfully executed, evading detection and interception, on June 1 against Russia’s nuclear bomber bases across the country? Putin’s scripted phrase “air assault weapons” left that unmentioned in the Kremlin communiqué, but not in the closed-door session after Putin announced: “Let’s get to work”.*

What then was the similar coordination by the US and Israel of long-range air assault operations with ground-level attacks targeted fatally on five, possibly eight Iranian generals and five Iranian nuclear scientists. The US and Israeli media reports have termed these decapitation strikes acts of war, not acts of terrorism. The Russian media reports have followed suit.

The state media platform RIA Novosti editorialized on June 14 that the Israeli operations are a rehearsal for what the US and its allies are planning to do to Russia, and that this is well understood in Moscow. “Many respected analysts of different calibres believe that the purpose of the attack on Iran is to eliminate the country’s nuclear program (necessarily) and regime change (extremely desirable). In fact, the main goal of the operation is to work out a mass preventive disarming strike against the enemy with serious military capabilities – that enemy is called not Iran, but Russia.”

This strategic plan, writes Boris Rozhin, a leading military blogger reflecting the views of senior Russian military officers, is President Donald Trump’s first of all, and aimed at Russia next. “Current events in the Middle East region demonstrate a dramatic change in the geopolitical situation. The Western powers, throwing away their purported enmity, have united in a general offensive against an independent Iran, a key ally of Russia…The previous ‘disagreements’ have turned out to be only a spectacle for the public. Iran’s defeat will be a strategic catastrophe for Russia, surpassing even the loss of Syria. Iran plays a key role in maintaining a balance of power in the Middle East and is Russia’s most important ally in confronting Western domination…The war against Iran, initiated by the Western world, could have disastrous consequences for the entire world order. This is not a local conflict, but an attempt to finally break the last pockets of resistance to the unipolar world…For Russia, this means the need to make drastic decisions to protect its strategic interests and allies.” — June 14, 21:19

“In summing up this story,” Rozhin wrote yesterday, — June 14, 14:31, “we can conclude – if there is anyone who has not yet understood – that the ‘Trump peace attempts’ are worthless and will lead to nothing – neither in the Middle East nor in Ukraine. Therefore, agreements with Trump are not worth it. It is necessary to strengthen the army and the military-industrial complex and achieve the goals of the SVO [Special Military Operation] by military means. In order not to say again, ‘we wanted peace, and the Americans deceived us again’, as the Iranians do now.”

In the policy discussion currently under way, a Moscow source reports the intelligence assessment that Iran’s military capabilities are not as effective as they have been publicly portrayed or as the generals have threatened; that the clerical leadership under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei knows this; and that he and his clerical allies believe their best chance of survival in power is to limit the counterattack on Israel, ask for a ceasefire, bargain with their threat to close the Hormuz Strait, and abandon their negotiating positions on nuclear enrichment and missile development.

“If the nuclear bomb was a bluff, and we believe it was,” the source says, “then they should have learned the lessons of Saddam [Hussein]. They should have expected Netanyahu and Trump to call their bluff. Now that’s happened, Iran’s internal weakness is also stark. I believe SVR [foreign intelligence], GRU [military intelligence] and MiD [foreign ministry] have concluded the conflict is the Iranians to lose – and this is what is happening. What can Putin do if the clerics have no nerve to fight?”

Follow the sequence of events as these messages went to the Kremlin for decision.

On Friday (June 13), according to his first acknowledgement at eight o’clock in the morning, the Kremlin spokesman said: “President Putin is receiving real-time reports on regional events via the Ministry of Defense, the Foreign Intelligence Service [SVR], and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” He added there was “concern at the sharp escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran.” The spokesman also promised: “by order of the head of state, the Foreign Ministry will release a detailed statement in the very near future, which will then be distributed at the United Nations.”

This was a delaying tactic because it took the Foreign Ministry four hours to agree with the Kremlin, the intelligence services, and the Defense Ministry on the wording to be issued. By the time they agreed on the draft, there were just 475 words.

Image
Source: https://mid.ru/en/press_service/spokesm ... t/2025920/

After condemning “the Israeli leadership” – as if the operation is not supported by the overwhelming majority of the Israeli population – the Ministry statement focused its attack on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) because it “has a great responsibility in this difficult situation.” US involvement in the operation, and in the strategy of regime change in Iran – reported by the intelligence agencies — was ignored. Instead, “we remind in this regard about the readiness of the United States to hold another round of negotiations with Iran on the Iranian nuclear program in Oman.”

In this line, the Foreign Ministry was trying to signal that Putin wants Washington and Teheran to believe he can be on both sides at once although Putin has been told by his advisors that right now neither side believes him; and that Washington doesn’t care.

Not a single word of assistance to Iran or “cooperation” – the key word in the Treaty of January 21, 2025 — appears in the document Lavrov produced for Putin to authorize. For the Iranians, this was an unmistakeable signal.

The disagreement between Putin, the Foreign Ministry and the General Staff and Defense Ministry was an obvious one, and a big one, too. They were bound to Iran by the strategic agreement Putin had signed with Masoud Pezeshkian, the Iranian President, on January 21. The pact did not require Russia to join Iran militarily in the new war, but Article 4 did say that in facing “common threats…[1.] the intelligence and security agencies of the Contracting Parties shall exchange information and experience and increase the level of their cooperation. 2. The intelligence and security agencies of the Contracting Parties shall cooperate within the framework of separate agreements.”

Had the Russians done everything to assist the Iranians operate their long-range detection and missile defences against the Israeli attack from the air? What role have the Russians played in the guidance of the Iranian drone and missile counterattack? Are there recriminations from the Iranians that the Russians had known more than they disclosed; done too little; delayed their intelligence sharing when speed was required?

Then there was Article 3(3) of the Putin-Pezeshkian treaty: “In the event that either Contracting Party is subject to aggression, the other Contracting Party shall not provide any military or other assistance to the aggressor which would contribute to the continued aggression, and shall help to ensure that the differences that have arisen are settled on the basis of the United Nations Charter and other applicable rules of international law.”

Since the fall of President Bashar al-Assad last December and the partition of Syria by Turkey, Israel and the US, the Iranian leadership have hinted at their belief that Putin is making a secret deal with Trump for the settlement of the Ukraine war, and would abandon Teheran as he had abandoned Damascus.

The treaty was in English as one of its three official languages, so US officials can read it. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has encouraged the Iranians as their suspicions mounted. On June 12, Rubio had sent Moscow a Happy Russia Day message — the first from Washington in many years. He was fuelling Iranian suspicions. “On behalf of the American people, I want to congratulate the Russian people on Russia Day,” Rubio wrote. “The United States remains committed to supporting the Russian people as they continue to build on their aspirations for a brighter future.”

Image
Source: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-o ... ional-day/

Rubio’s benevolence squeezed his brief message to Russia between longer and warmer messages for the Philippines on its Independence Day and Britain’s King Charles III on his official birthday.

The next Russian move was Putin’s to make to allay the Iranian suspicions and reassure Pezeshkian there was no Russian betrayal of the treaty.

Putin telephoned Pezeshkian on Friday afternoon, but Putin also decided to accept a telephone call from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at almost the same time. Why take the Netanyahu telephone call then, since the Foreign Ministry claimed to be categorically clear that Netanyahu was to blame for the attack on Iran? Netanyahu’s office has claimed Putin came fifth or sixth on Netanyahu’s call log – after President Trump, German Chancellor Merz, French President Macron, Indian Prime Minister Modi, and British Prime Minister Starmer. What was Putin’s hurry to keep his place in that line?

For the first time in Kremlin history, the President ordered the news of the Pezeshkian and Netanyahu calls, two very different communications, to be reported in a single communiqué. In five paragraphs and 210 words, Putin treated his strategic treaty partner Iran equally with his partner’s enemy Israel. Forty-eight of Putin’s words condemned Israel’s attack and expressed condolences to the Iranians. Fifty-one of Putin’s words were addressed to Netanyahu with Putin’s offer of “mediation so as to prevent further escalation” and of “continu[ation] to promote a de-escalation between Iran and Israel.”

Image
Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/77181

Russian and other sources confirm this communiqué has astonished Russia’s allies.

When Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi telephoned Lavrov the next day to request clarification of what Putin had said and of how the President understands Articles 3 and 4 of their treaty now, Lavrov was unable to answer publicly. In the Foreign Ministry communiqué, there is no mention of the treaty and no mention of the war.

Image
Source: https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/2026234/

Instead, Lavrov said the telephone call was “in continuation of the telephone conversation held on June 13 by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin with the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran M. Pezeshkian”. Lavrov repeated Russian condolences and readiness to “contribute to efforts to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear program, as well as the de-escalation of the conflict between Iran and Israel”. Lavrov gave as example, not the concrete “cooperation” which Putin had signed with Pezeshkian, but instead “discussion in the UN Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors, as well as within the framework of the SCO and BRICS.”

A few minutes after Araghchi and Lavrov had hung up, and after Lavrov reported to Putin what had been said, Putin telephoned Trump. There is no official Kremlin communiqué.


Instead, Putin’s assistant Yury Ushakov posted what is titled “Commentary by Aide to President”. There had just been a 50-minute call, Ushakov said. “Of course, Vladimir Putin wished Donald Trump a happy birthday – the President of the United States turned 79 today. Both leaders have expressed satisfaction with the established personal relations that make it possible to communicate sincerely and in a businesslike mode, search for the resolution of pressing issues on the bilateral and international agendas regardless of how complicated such issues may be. Vladimir Putin also noted that the United States are celebrating Flag Day today and 250th anniversary of the US Army. As in their previous conversation, both presidents noted their brotherhood in arms during the Second World War.”

If Ushakov’s arithmetic is reliable, Putin and Trump spent as much time on Trump’s birthday and the flag and army celebration – as they did on the war in Iran or in the Ukraine. Putin did not ask Trump what role the US is playing in support of Israel and whether Trump supports the regime change objective which the Israelis have announced.

Instead, according to Ushakov,”Trump also views the situation as very alarming admitting, however, the effectiveness of Israel’s strikes on its targets in Iran.” It is not known if Putin asked Trump to clarify what he meant by “effectiveness”. According to Ushakov, “the Russian and US presidents, notwithstanding such a complicated situation, do not rule out a return to the negotiating track on Iran’s nuclear programme.”

Trump summarized for himself what he and Putin had discussed. “He feels”, Trump tweeted, “as do I, this war in Israel-Iran should end, to which I explained, his war should also end.”

Image
Source: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 1634430212

But on what terms?

Again Trump answered himself, later in the afternoon (June 14) in his speech at the Army parade in Washington. “The U.S. Army has driven bayonets into the heart of sinister empires,” the President said, “crushed the ambitions of evil tyrants beneath. The threads of American tanks, it’s done so well, it’s done so much, and sent the devil himself flying into full retreat. Time and again, America’s enemies have learned that if you threaten the American people, our soldiers are coming for you. Your defeat will be certain, your demise will be final, and your downfall will be total and complete.”

Image
At centre of the parade reviewing stand, President Trump and his wife. The June 14 parade not only celebrates the adoption of the Stars and Stripes as the US flag (1777 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Day_(United_States), but also the 250th anniversary of the establishment of the US Army (1775). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army ... ary_Parade

Representing military views in Moscow, Rozhin reports the risk to Russia of “Iran’s defeat…Of particular importance is the fact that Russia and Iran are neighbours in the Caspian Sea. The loss of this ally means: Violation of the strategic balance in the Caspian region; strengthening Western influence in a critical area for Russia; threat to Russian interests in the energy sector…Iran’s defeat will lead to the collapse of the system of the regional allies of Russia; complete domination of the West in the region; isolation of Russia from key partners.” – June 14, 21:19.

[*] President Putin did mention the June 1 attack at the identically titled meeting he held with the same officials the day before. At that session Putin declared: “special attention must be paid to the nuclear triad, which has been and remains the guarantor of Russia’s sovereignty, playing a key role in maintaining the global balance of power.”

https://johnhelmer.net/how-to-say-in-ru ... more-91878

******

Escalation in the Middle East: A Threat to Russia and the Global Balance of Power
June 14, 23:06

Image

Escalation in the Middle East: A Threat to Russia and the Global Balance of Power

Current events in the Middle East demonstrate a fundamental change in the geopolitical situation. Western powers, having cast aside feuds, have united in a common offensive against independent Iran, a key ally of Russia.

Elon Musk has activated the Starlink satellite system over Iranian territory, giving the Western coalition a critical advantage in communications and navigation. Israeli FPV drones now have access to high-precision satellite guidance, which greatly increases the effectiveness of their strikes on Iranian targets.

Great Britain has provided its military bases for the deployment of Israeli aircraft, which turns British territory into a direct staging area for military operations against Iran. This decision finally destroys any illusions about the “neutrality” of Western countries in this conflict.

Coordination between Israel and British intelligence services has reached the level of a full-fledged military alliance. London has effectively become an accomplice to aggression, providing not only air bases, but also intelligence support.

The ostentatious contradictions between Western allies have been finally discarded. The entire collective West is acting as a united front against Iran, demonstrating the true priorities of its foreign policy. The previous “disagreements” turned out to be just a show for the public.

The defeat of Iran would be a strategic catastrophe for Russia, surpassing in scale even the loss of Syria. Iran plays a key role in maintaining the balance of power in the Middle East and is Russia’s most important ally in opposing Western dominance.

Of particular importance is the fact that Russia and Iran are neighbors on the Caspian Sea. The loss of this ally means:

• An upset of the strategic balance in the Caspian region
• Strengthening Western influence in an area critically important for Russia
• A threat to Russian interests in the energy sector

Iran leads an informal coalition of forces opposing Western hegemony in the Middle East. Its defeat will lead to:

• The collapse of Russia's system of regional allies
• Complete dominance of the West in the region
• Isolation of Russia from key partners

The war against Iran, initiated by the Western world, could have catastrophic consequences for the entire world order. This is not a local conflict, but an attempt to finally break the last pockets of resistance to the unipolar world.

The events around Iran represent a turning point in modern geopolitics. The West has thrown off its masks and moved to open aggression against all who dare to oppose its dominance. For Russia, this means the need to make radical decisions to protect its strategic interests and allies.
Iran's defeat will not only be the loss of an important partner, but a signal of the West's readiness to resolve all geopolitical contradictions by force.

https://t.me/Vladimir_Orlov1977/18491 - zinc

I completely agree with the author. Short-term benefits in the form of earnings from rising oil and gold prices will be offset by long-term problems in the event of Iran's defeat and the elimination of the ayatollah regime. Instead of a friendly country that helped us during the CBO, Russia will receive a pro-Western regime that will become a source of problems for us in the Caucasus and the Caspian. And the costs in this case will many times exceed the local benefits.

P.S. A new exchange of blows has begun. You can watch the online broadcast here https://t.me/boris_rozhin

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9900213.html

Google Transla
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply