A video transcript on the provocations of the U.S. toward the Yeltsin Russia, and later the Putin Russia
(129) Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin - YouTube (min.13:08-39:52)
“Yeltsin addressed the joint session of congress. ‘The people of Russia are offering their hand to the people of the United States in friendship, to build a better world, a world without war, a world with peace.’ And this is exactly what the vast majority of Russians wanted. And what the vast majority of the people of Russia want is, if not a friendship with the US., at least a partnership. And what kind of response did he get? Did Russia get? ‘For 40 years you held a nuclear bomb over our heads. You lost the cold war, and you’re going to pay for it’?
Early in 1992 a document was produced by Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense responsible for policy. Unofficially the Wolfowitz doctrine, later officially was called the Bush doctrine, was leaked through the New York Times. What it said was that “the United States should never again allow any other country to challenge it. The U.S. must remain the superior country. And we should tell our allies not to develop their own weapons because we’ll to that for them. And we must watch out for Russia because we don’t know which way it’s going to go. The bear might get up on is hind legs again, and growl.”
It was quickly removed from the New York Times and was rewritten by Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. The attitude towards Russia was, ‘You are no longer a superpower. You are a second rate country. Just keep quiet. Please.’ This became the policy of the U.S. ever since….
When Gorbachev contacted James Baker about letting East and West Germany reunite and Russia offered to assist the take down of the Berlin wall, Baker and other people said, ‘Nato won’t move an inch eastward. (We accept your offer of peace and will not consider it aggression.)’. In the Bush administration and the first 4 years of the Clinton administration NATO stayed put. But in 1996 a decision was taken to enlarge NATO in Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary. Mr. Kennan said, ‘This is a tragic mistake. The Russians will react adversely. There was no reason for this whatsoever.’
Yeltsin’s response, ‘You promised you wouldn’t do this. So how do we trust you if you make a promise?’ From March 1985 to 2007 since Putin has been in power for 7 years, 22 years total since Yeltsin, not in a single policy, foreign or domestic, did USSR or Russia do anything that might in any was anger, irk, or disappoint the U.S. Enlarging NATO, the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO which was dependent on U.S., the recognizing of Kosovo even though it had been part of Serbia for centuries. Yeltsin very, very angry, ‘We aren’t Haiti! You can’t treat us like Haiti! We are a great country! We have a great past, and Russia will come back. Russian will come back!’
Putin elected in 2000 and asked for Russia to become a member of NATO. ‘Why can’t we create an organization where we can be part of it, and act together to help protect against some kind of aggression?’ He was basically told, ‘Go take a walk.’ ‘Or, what about some kind of partnership in the European Union?’ They said, ‘No you’re too big. You’re country is too big.’ And all the while Russia is being reminded that its no longer really that important of a country. So the sense of losing this aura of greatness, of being told, ‘We don’t care about you’, the average Russian’s reaction was ‘You’re insulting me. You don’t respect me.’
And so the anger grew gradually against Gorbachev and Yeltsin, so that today 5% of Russians support them. Putin on 9/11 calls President Bush and offers his help, and does help in Afganistan. And ‘If you want to have your military people in central Asia, right on our borders, be my guest. Same in Georgia, absolutely.’ Not just words, but actions. ‘We want to fight terrorism together.’ And Mr. Putin gets nothing in exchange.
Finally in Feb 10, 2007, at Munich to the Group of 20 Putin says, ‘I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask, Against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurance of our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of General Secretary, Mr. Berner of Brussels on May 17, 1990. He said at the time, “The fact that we are not ready to place a NATO army outside of German territory, gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.” Where are these guarantees?’
The answer he got was, ‘Yes, but that was guarantees given to the Soviet Union, and you’re Russia.’
What kind of a reaction would you expect? Last year (2017?) in a speech Putin said, ‘Our mistake was that we trusted you too much. And your mistake was you tried to take advantage of that.’
Hermann Goering once said in an interview, ‘Naturally the common people don’t want war, neither in Russia nor in England, nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. And it is a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a Democracy, or a Fascist dictatorship, a Parliament, or a Communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.’
And we are being led by our media, by our politicians in that direction in both countries. I remember an ad(vertisement), by an actor (Morgan?) Freeman, in a famous movie. He said, --and he says to you the audience--, “We are at war.” And, of course, it’s very scary (and a conditioning of millions of minds). Putin is portrayed as worse than Hitler. Even Hillary Clinton compared him to Hitler. What’s going on here?”
My question is, knowing their long history of warmongering between nations and even on the scale of world wars, what is the part of the Jesuits in of all this? Mr. Pozner and most journalists/professional masters of world affairs, seem never to arrive at the source of the problem they are researching. But, the Bible is clear that a world-wide, world-dominating, religio-political Church is behind all the intrigue. As it is written,
“And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the Prince of the covenant [this vile Church-state entity would never make a full frontal attack, but use sneak tactics politically and spiritually].
And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.” (Dan. 11:21-24).
“By peace [he] shall destroy many.” (Dan. 8:25).
“And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” (Rev. 17:5).
No comments:
Post a Comment