Putin, Vladimir

« Back to Glossary Index

(born Oct 7, 1952) Russian president since the resignation of Boris Yeltsin on Dec 31, 1999. Demonized by the globalist elite controlled  MSM as the world’s tyrant, he is a converted Christian, a nationalist, pro-life, has eased gun restrictions rather than further restrict them, anti-GMO (banned in Russia as are the Rothschilds), against the New World Order and pedophile elite of the west, blocks the Soros NGO’s and other infiltration methods of the globalists to eliminate further corruption (including their agendas: homosexual, feminism, etc.), and has Russia becoming more conservative in values. On social issues and taxation, Russia under Putin is more conservative today than the Western Europe. He is not a criminal leader who ordered the murder of opponents or journalists (no evidence), did not order the hacking of the DNC servers, and is not interested in affecting US elections. He is thought to have restored order in Russia to a “managed democracy.”

When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that. In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Atatürk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he rescued a nation-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.

However, he is authoritarian, embraces many aspects of communist and socialist ideology (comparing communism with Christianity), and defends many world Communist and Marxist dictators (Venezuala, North Korea, Nicaragua, etc.), and Muslim leaders. By American standards, Putin’s respect for the democratic process has been fitful at best. He has cracked down on peaceful demonstrations (perhaps globalist attempts to create inner division). ‘Political opponents’ have been arrested and jailed throughout his rule. Some have even been murdered, but the evidence connecting Putin’s own circle to the killings is circumstantial, but merits scrutiny.

Alexander Dugin argues:

If we consider the situation in Russia more closely, we will discover that almost all that is said in the West about Putin is wrong. It is a complete caricature. The most important criticism of Putin inside Russia is not from the liberals. Liberals represent the smallest part of the critics. They are absolutely marginal… So the West is absolutely wrong in thinking that there is this big liberal opposition to Putin that is artificially kept down. The real opposition to Putin is growing completely on the other side of Russian society. It is growing discontent with “lunar” Putin, against the Putin who is surrounded by liberals. All the government is completely not only corrupt, it consists of pro-Western liberals. Nothing has changed after the last election.

When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that. In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Atatürk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he rescued a nation-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.

Putin did not come out of nowhere. Russian people not only tolerate him, they revere him. You can get a better idea of why he has ruled for over 2 decades if you remember that, within a few years of Communism’s fall, average life expectancy in Russia had fallen below that of Bangladesh. That is an ignominy that falls on Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin’s reckless opportunism made him an indispensable foe of Communism in the late 1980s. But it made him an inadequate founding father for a modern state. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose writings about Communism give him some claim to be considered the greatest man of the twentieth century, believed the post-Communist leaders had made the country even worse. In the year 2000 Solzhenitsyn wrote: “As a result of the Yeltsin era, all the fundamental sectors of our political, economic, cultural, and moral life have been destroyed or looted. Will we continue looting and destroying Russia until nothing is left?” That was the year Putin came to power. He was the answer to Solzhenitsyn’s question.

There are two things Putin did that cemented the loyalty of Solzhenitsyn and other Russians — he restrained the billionaires who were looting the country, and he restored Russia’s standing abroad. Let us take them in turn.

Russia retains elements of a kleptocracy based on oligarchic control of natural resources. But we must remember that Putin inherited that kleptocracy. He did not found it. The transfer of Russia’s natural resources into the hands of KGB-connected Communists, who called themselves businessmen, was a tragic moment for Russia. It was also a shameful one for the West. Western political scientists provided the theft with ideological cover, presenting it as a “transition to capitalism.” Western corporations, including banks, provided the financing.

The oligarchs who turned Russia into an armed plutocracy within half a decade of the downfall in 1991 of Communism called themselves capitalists. But they were mostly men who had been groomed as the next generation of Communist nomenklatura­ — people like Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. They were the people who understood the scope and nature of state assets, and they controlled the privatization programs. They had access to Western financing and they were willing to use violence and intimidation. So they took power just as they had planned to back when they were in Communist cadre school — but now as owners, not as bureaucrats. Since the state had owned everything under Communism, this was quite a payout. Yeltsin’s reign was built on these billionaires’ fortunes, and vice-versa.

Putin Tells Oligarchs 'Russia First' or Else

This video below shows Putin offering Russia’s billionaires the choice between being dispossessed of their companies by the Government, or else signing an agreement with the Government, promising that they will henceforth place the welfare of their workers and of the people of Russia, above their own personal welfare and wealth, and only one billionaire there, Oleg Deripaska, hesitated, at which point Putin treated him contemptuously and Deripaska promptly signed.

In the incredible footage, Putin humiliates Oleg Deripaska, one of the world’s richest men with a fortune of $3.5 billion at the time.

On 27 April 2018, Deripaska ceded control over the world’s second-largest aluminum-producer, Russal, and he did it because the United States regime had recently placed him and his corporations under new economic sanctions, which are allegedly focused against Russian billionaires who support Putin politically.

If Deripaska wouldn’t cede control, then the sanctions-hit would be harder and more damaging to Russia’s economy, so Deripaska — in fulfillment of his agreement signed with Putin — ceded control.

In other words, Deripaska, whom Putin had actually forced to commit to placing Russia’s interests above their own, is now being treated by the U.S. regime as one of the chief people to ‘blame’ for Putin’s being in office, in Russia’s ‘dictatorship’.

This threat, by Putin, to Russia’s wealthiest (Deripaska having been one of the billionaires whom Putin didn’t dispossess when coming into power in 2000), wasn’t a staged PR event, but instead was simply the best-filmed instance of Putin’s standard policy, ever since becoming Russia’s leader: his policy that an aristocrat can lose everything if he places his interests above the nation’s interests.

Source: The Duran

Khodorkovsky has recently become a symbol of Putin’s misrule, because Putin jailed him for ten years. Khodorkovsky’s trial certainly didn’t meet Western standards. But Khodorkovsky’s was among the most obscene privatizations of all. In his recent biography of Putin, Steven Lee Myers, the former Moscow correspondent for The New York Times, calculates that Khodorkovsky and fellow investors paid $150 million in the 1990s for the main production unit of the oil company Yukos, which came to be valued at about $20 billion by 2004. In other words, they acquired a share of the essential commodity of Russia — its oil — for less than one percent of its value. Putin came to call these people “state-appointed billionaires.” He saw them as a conduit for looting Russia, and sought to restore to the country what had been stolen from it. He also saw that Russia needed to reclaim control of its vast reserves of oil and gas, on which much of Europe depended, because that was the only geopolitical lever it had left.

The other thing Putin did was restore the country’s position abroad. He arrived in power a decade after his country had suffered a Vietnam-like defeat in Afghanistan. Following that defeat, it had failed to halt a bloody Islamist uprising in Chechnya. And worst of all, it had been humiliated by the United States and NATO in the Serbian war of 1999, when the Clinton administration backed a nationalist and Islamist independence movement in Kosovo. This was the last war in which the United States would fight on the same side as Osama Bin Laden, and the U.S. used the opportunity to show Russia its lowly place in the international order, treating it as a nuisance and an afterthought. Putin became president a half a year after Yeltsin was maneuvered into allowing the dismemberment of Russia’s ally, Serbia, and as he entered office Putin said: “We will not tolerate any humiliation to the national pride of Russians, or any threat to the integrity of the country.”

The degradation of Russia’s position represented by the Serbian War is what Putin was alluding to when he famously described the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” This statement is often misunderstood or mischaracterized: he did not mean by it any desire to return to Communism. But when Putin said he’d restore Russia’s strength, he meant it. He beat back the military advance of Islamist armies in Chechnya and Dagestan, and he took a hard line on terrorism — including a decision not to negotiate with hostage-takers, even in secret.

One theme runs through Russian foreign policy, and has for much of its history. There is no country, with the exception of Israel, that has a more dangerous frontier with the Islamic world. You would think that this would be the primary lens through which to view Russian conduct — a good place for the West to begin in trying to explain Russian behavior that, at first glance, does not have an obvious rationale. Yet agitation against Putin in the West has not focused on that at all. It has not focused on Russia’s intervention against ISIS in the war in Syria, or even on Russia’s harboring Edward Snowden, the fugitive leaker of U.S. intelligence secrets.

The two episodes of concerted outrage about Putin among Western progressives have both involved issues trivial to the world, but vital to the world of progressivism. The first came in 2014, when the Winter Olympics, which were to be held in Sochi, presented an opportunity to damage Russia economically. Most world leaders attended the games happily, from Mark Rutte (Netherlands) and Enrico Letta (Italy) to Xi Jinping (China) and Shinzo Abe (Japan). But three leaders — David Cameron of Britain, François Hollande of France, and Barack Obama of the United States — sent progressives in their respective countries into a frenzy over a short list of domestic causes. First, there was the jailed oil tycoon, Khodorkovsky; Putin released him before the Olympics began. Second, there were the young women who called themselves Pussy Riot, performance artists who were jailed for violating Russia’s blasphemy laws when they disrupted a religious service with obscene chants about God (translations were almost never shown on Western television); Putin also released them prior to the Olympics. Third, there was Russia’s Article 6.21, which was oddly described in the American press as a law against “so-called gay propaganda.” A more accurate translation of what the law forbids is promoting “non-traditional sexual relations to children.” Now, some Americans might wish that Russia took religion or homosexuality less seriously and still be struck by the fact that these are very local issues. There is something unbalanced about turning them into diplomatic incidents and issuing all kinds of threats because of them.

The second campaign against Putin has been the attempt by the outgoing Obama administration to cast doubt on the legitimacy of last November’s presidential election by implying that the Russian government somehow “hacked” it. This is an extraordinary episode in the history of manufacturing opinion. I certainly will not claim any independent expertise in cyber-espionage. But anyone who has read the public documentation on which the claims rest will find only speculation, arguments from authority, and attempts to make repetition do the work of logic.

In mid-December 2016, The New York Times ran an article entitled “How Moscow Aimed a Perfect Weapon at the U.S. Election.” Most of the assertions in the piece came from unnamed administration sources and employees of CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the Democrats to investigate a hacked computer at the Democratic National Committee. They quote those who served on the DNC’s secret anti-hacking committee, including the party chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the party lawyer, Michael Sussmann. Then a National Intelligence Council report that the government released in January showed the heart of the case: more than half of the report was devoted to complaints about the bias of RT, the Russian government’s international television network.

Again, we do not know what the intelligence agencies know. But there is no publicly available evidence to justify Arizona Senator John McCain’s calling what the Russians did “an act of war.” If there were, the discussion of the evidence would have continued into the Trump administration, rather than simply evaporating once it ceased to be useful as a political tool.

There were two other imaginary Putin scandals that proved to be nothing. In November 2016, The Washington Post ran a blacklist of news organizations that had published “fake news” in the service of Putin, but the list turned out to have been compiled largely by a fly-by-night political activist group called PropOrNot, which had placed certain outlets on the list only because their views coincided with those of RT on given issues. Then in December, the Obama administration claimed to have found Russian computer code it melodramatically called “Grizzly Steppe” in the Vermont electrical grid. This made front-page headlines. But it was a mistake. The so-called Russian code could be bought commercially, and it was found, according to one journalist, “in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.”

Democrats have gone to extraordinary lengths to discredit Putin. Why? There really is such a thing as a Zeitgeist or spirit of the times. A given issue will become a passion for all mankind, and certain men will stand as symbols of it. Half a century ago, for instance, the Zeitgeist was about colonial liberation. Think of Martin Luther King, traveling to Norway to collect his Nobel Peace Prize, stopping on the way in London to give a talk about South African apartheid. What did that have to do with him? Practically: Nothing. Symbolically: Everything. It was an opportunity to talk about the moral question of the day.

We have a different Zeitgeist today. Today it is sovereignty and self-determination that are driving passions in the West. The reason for this has a great deal to do with the way the Cold War conflict between the United States and Russia ended. In the 1980s, the two countries were great powers, yes; but at the same time they were constrained. The alliances they led were fractious. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, their fates diverged. The United States was offered the chance to lay out the rules of the world system, and accepted the offer with a vengeance. Russia was offered the role of submitting to that system.

Just how irreconcilable those roles are is seen in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine in 2015. According to the official United States account, Russia invaded its neighbor after a glorious revolution threw out a plutocracy. Russia then annexed Ukrainian naval bases in the Crimea. According to the Russian view, Ukraine’s democratically elected government was overthrown by an armed uprising backed by the United States. To prevent a hostile NATO from establishing its own naval base in the Black Sea, by this account, Russia had to take Crimea, which in any case is historically Russian territory. Both of these accounts are perfectly correct. It is just that one word can mean something different to Americans than it does to Russians. For instance, we say the Russians don’t believe in democracy. But as the great journalist and historian Walter Laqueur put it, “Most Russians have come to believe that democracy is what happened in their country between 1990 and 2000, and they do not want any more of it.

The point with which I would like to conclude is this: we will get nowhere if we assume that Putin sees the world as we do. One of the more independent thinkers about Russia in Washington, DC, is the Reaganite California congressman Dana Rohrabacher. I recall seeing him scolded at a dinner in Washington a few years ago. A fellow guest told him he should be ashamed, because Reagan would have idealistically stood up to Putin on human rights. Rohrabacher disagreed. Reagan’s gift  as a foreign policy thinker, he said, was not his idealism. It was his ability to set priorities, to see what constituted the biggest threat. Today’s biggest threat to the U.S. isn’t Vladimir Putin.

So why are people thinking about Putin as much as they do? Because he has become a symbol of national self-determination. Populist conservatives see him the way progressives once saw Fidel Castro, as the one person who says he won’t submit to the world that surrounds him. You didn’t have to be a Communist to appreciate the way Castro, whatever his excesses, was carving out a space of autonomy for his country.

In the same way, Putin’s conduct is bound to win sympathy even from some of Russia’s enemies, the ones who feel the international system is not delivering for them. Generally, if you like that system, you will consider Vladimir Putin a menace. If you don’t like it, you will have some sympathy for him. Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That turns out to be the big battle of our times. In May 2019, he signed a bill into law ordering the creation of “a national internet network that would be able to operate independently from the rest of the world” likely combating the globalist control and censorship of truth.

His job has been to protect his country’s prerogatives and its sovereignty in an international system that seeks to erode sovereignty in general and views Russia’s sovereignty in particular as a threat. It is obvious that Putin poses a threat to the most powerful – the King makers behind the Imperial throne if you will. These string-pullers have been dividing the lower classes through Division for hundreds of years. And it’s always the same game: Divide and Conquer. In order to maintain power and prevent revolt they have always set group against group among the lower classes. Instead of rising up against “Them”, the manipulated masses kill each other.

This is also done internationally. “They” sow division among countries to make sure any competition is eliminated before it challenges the status-quo run by “Them”. War will be declared on the threat and justified by fabricated evidence and propaganda supporting the great cause!

Ergo “They” constantly use their obedient media to denigrate him by referring to him as a former KGB agent and therefore devious, thuggish and prone to espionage. No one can prove he actually meddled in American elections yet this is somehow proof of how diabolical he is! No proof becomes irrefutable proof.

Thirdly. Vladimir Putin is genuinely Russian Orthodox. Why is this significant? Well, as the great Russian Orthodox writer Dostoevsky once wrote: the biggest problem and danger in the world is Division. The antidote to this spiritual illness is “Sobornost” – togetherness.

This may explain why there is a steady stream of foreign dignitaries coming to Moscow month after month. Competitors and also enemies are coming to someone who seems to be working on bringing rivals together. Putin is even trying to pull Israel into the mix. “They” really hate that.

After all, Israel is the key to maintaining Division in the Middle East. And plenty of money is to be made there through Division and war.

The Deep State has many components all working in concert. One of these – the FBI – is currently making it clear that Vladimir Putin is their “public enemy #1”. He’s in good company here because Martin Luther King Jr – the great peacemaker – was also reviled and hated by this very same FBI. It’s leader at the time, J. Edgar Hoover, branded King – also a deeply religious man- “the most notorious liar”. Lacking any proof, Hoover had his team fabricate some.

Putin however is too smart. He offers good-will to every nation even though they may be hostile to Russia. It takes two to argue and Putin never argues. He explains his beliefs as if he were a philosophy professor. Persuasively. Logically.

This is not what “They” want or expect. It’s pure Taoism and Confucianism. Putin you see is also a devoted student of Oriental Philosophy. He has, no doubt, read Lao-Tzu who said – if I may paraphrase- “a leader must be like a tree that bends so it does not break”. Put up strong opposition and you will be broken. Bend and you will survive to bend again. .

This is why Putin drives Russian nationalists crazy because he does not fight back hard against the many provocations – from Georgia to Ukraine to sanctions. They say that Putin has no back-bone! Well, he does…but it bends.

The second important thing about Putin is that he was and still is “foreign service material”. What I mean by that is his moral compass. For foreign service, the old KGB not only recruited highly intelligent people, but highly moral ones as well. Not because they were an ethical organization, but because they knew morally weak candidates would be subject to temptations galore offered by the other side. Being a man of character Putin cannot be bought or otherwise tempted and this makes “Them” furious.

From the pits that were brought by the U.S. regime in Russia — including the massive heists from the Russian public — to the period of Putin’s rule in Russia, has been a sea-change, and the U.S. deep state regime cannot tolerate it; they want the U.S. elite’s looting of Russia to return.

A few years ago, Vladimir Putin mentioned Satanism and Pedophilia within politics, and he hasn’t been the first to do so. He expressed how there are attempts to normalize these practices within society and make it global. Putin has said that this power has used “imaginary and mythical threats” to impose their will on others. This isn’t Russian propaganda, it’s a strategy that has existed since the inception of politics. It represents psychopathic behaviour, but it’s masked by massive amounts of propaganda and brain-washing, to the point where individuals with good hearts join in because they believe they’re lending themselves to a good cause.

Putin has stated:
The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. (source)(source)
Putin has spoken up about other topics such as the Deep State and the men in “dark suits” that meet with the president and tell them who their boss is, false flag terrorism, and more.

Sources:

Chronology of Events Related to Vladimir Putin

German COVID Civil Rights Protestors Gather in Berlin to Protest COVID Lockdown; Call to Restore Sovereignty, Liberty and Democracy

German COVID Civil Rights Protestors Gather in Berlin to Protest COVID Lockdown; Call to Restore Sovereignty, Liberty and Democracy

Tens of thousands of protestors (~40,000) gathered in Berlin today outside the U.S. Embassy to protest the COVID lockdown and demand civil rights and call for a restoration of national sovereignty, liberty and democracy. At least 20,000 people defied a threatened government ban and COVID restrictions today to gather at Berlin’s Brandenburg gate. Despite attempts by state-run and mainstream media to demonize the protestors as dangerous, ...
Read More
“Greta Thunberg” Pranksters Fool Harris. Veep Candidate Invites Foreign Interference in Election

“Greta Thunberg” Pranksters Fool Harris. Veep Candidate Invites Foreign Interference in Election

The Russian pranksters who fooled socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and Democrat Representative Maxine Waters have struck again, this time reaching the top of the leftist firmament. Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexei Stolyarov and their woman sidekick tricked reputed intellectual giant Senator Kamala Harris (shown), Sleepy Joe Biden’s choice for vice president, into thinking that she too was talking to young climate activist Greta Thunberg. The veep candidate never ...
Read More
Trump Campaign Sues New York Times For Libel Over Garbage Russia Article

Trump Campaign Sues New York Times For Libel Over Garbage Russia Article

The article named in the lawsuit was authored by Max Frankel on March 27, 2019 titled, “The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo” which claimed the Trump campaign had an “overarching deal” with Russian President Vladimir Putin — “the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy.” The lawsuit states The Times had no proof of its ...
Read More
Putin: As Long As I’m President, We Will Have ‘Mother’ & ‘Father’

Putin: As Long As I’m President, We Will Have ‘Mother’ & ‘Father’

Russia will not introduce politically correct terminology such as “parent #1” and “parent #2” any time soon, Putin told a constitutional reform working group on Thursday, as they discussed family values in Russia. “As for ‘parent #1’ and ‘parent #2’, I have already publicly said it and I will repeat it once more: as long as I am president, we will not have parents #1 and ...
Read More
Russian Gov't Resigns after Putin’s State-of-the-Nation address Proposes Changes to the Constitution

Russian Gov’t Resigns after Putin’s State-of-the-Nation address Proposes Changes to the Constitution

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has announced that the entire government is resigning in a surprise statement released shortly after President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual state-of-the-nation address. Accepting the resignation, Putin thanked the ministers for their hard work and asked them to function as a caretaker government until a new one can be formed. Medvedev and Putin had met for a work meeting to discuss ...
Read More