Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

Politics

EXCLUSIVE: Vladimir Putin’s FULL interview in English with France’s Le Figaro (VIDEO)

RussiaFeed has exclusively translated into English Vladimir Putin’s interview, which was obtained directly from the Kremlin’s official website.

Published

on

0 Views

The Duran’s Adam Garrie analyzed how Vladimir Putin criticized US domestic politics in a recent interview with France’s Le Figaro. Putin blasted what so many have been referring to as ‘the deep state’ for interfering in how not only how Donald Trump has conducted his business, but also how much control ‘they’ had over Barack Obama.

Putin spoke about Ukraine and touched on Syria – reaffirming Assad was not responsible for any chemical attacks, and that it was a pretext for military escalation in Syria in order to overthrow him.

Below is the full transcript translated into English from Putin’s interview by RussiaFeed. Read for yourselves – do you agree with the Russian President?

Question: Good afternoon! Thank you very much for agreeing to answer our questions for Le Figaro. I also thank you for accepting us here at the Cultural Center of Russia here in Paris. Once again, many thanks for agreeing to give us this interview.

You came here to open an exhibition that is devoted to the 300th year anniversary since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and France. Franco-Russian relations have had ups and downs. How do you assess this relationship today?

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, President Macron invited me to participate in the opening of this exhibition. But I must say that the relations between Russia and France have been developing much longer and have much deeper roots, we have already mentioned this several times with President Macron.

In the 11th century, Anna, the youngest daughter of one of our great princes Yaroslav the Wise, came here to France, and became the wife of the French King Henry I. Her name was Anna Russkaya, the queen of France. Her son Philip I became the founder of two European dynasties: Valois and Bourbon, the latter still rule in Spain.

So, we have much deeper roots as you can see, although for the last 300 years, relations have developed more intensively, it is true. I very much hope that today’s event, the opening of the exhibition, and our talks with President Macron will help give these relations new life.

Question: Mr. President, what kind of figure is Peter the Great to you, who arrived in Versailles in 1717 to commemorate diplomatic relations?

Putin: I already spoke today to my French colleagues, our French friends – Peter I is, first and foremost, a reformer, he is the person who not only introduced the best advancements, but of course, he was a patriot of his country, he fought for Russia’s worthy place in world affairs, but mainly, he transformed his country, making it more modern, mobile, and forward thinking. He did a lot, if not to say everything.

He was engaged in science, education, culture, engaged in military affairs and state construction. He left a colossal legacy after he died, to which Russia has enjoyed practically still today. I’m not talking about the fact that he founded my hometown of St. Petersburg, which for a long time was the capital of the Russian state.

Question: You said you had a meeting with Macron already. Were there any expectations from the first meeting? You said that you need to overcome the stage of distrust. Did you manage to overcome it?

As for the main issue, the issue of sanctions, can you say that you have reached some sort of understanding?

Putin: At any kind of meeting, with any contacts, at any event of this level, especially if this is the first meeting, the first contact, there are always expectations. If these expectations are missing, then it is pointless to hold this type of meeting in the first place.

Of course, there were expectations this time. They were related to issues close to me, to learn first hand the position of the incoming President of the French Republic on key issues regarding his international agenda, and the development of bilateral relations.

Of course, the newly elected President of France, who has just taken office, has his own view on things, on bilateral relations, and on international politics.

In general, this is a very pragmatic view, as it seems to me. We have precisely the points for connecting our positions, to work jointly on key areas.

Question: The implementation of the Minsk Agreements in Ukraine, as it seems to us, is in a deadlock today. Have you managed to achieve progress with President Macron towards the resolution of this conflict?

Putin: Progress on resolving any conflicts, including the conflict in southeast Ukraine, can primarily be achieved only by the conflicting parties.

The conflict in southeast Ukraine is an internal conflict, a Ukrainian conflict first of all. It occurred after an unconstitutional, power-seizing coup in Kiev in 2014. This is the source of all the problems.

The most important thing to do is to find the strength to negotiate with all the conflicting parties, and, above all, I am convinced of this, the ball, as they say, is on the side of the Kiev authorities, they must, first and foremost, implement and fulfill these Minsk Agreements.

Question: What needs to happen in order to move towards a positive outcome? Can Russia take the initiative to finally secure a truce?

Putin: We always come up with this initiative. We believe the main thing that needs to be done is to divert the armed forces from the line of contact. This is where you need to start. Two points need to be taken, otherwise the third point will not succeed at all.

And today’s Ukrainian authorities constantly refer to the fact that the other side is shooting. But if troops and heavy equipment are not diverted, of course they will shoot. We must take away heavy equipment. This is first and foremost.

Secondly, what needs to be done in the political sphere, in the end, is the necessity to introduce the law adopted by the Ukrainian parliament on the special status of these territories [Donbass]. After all, the law was passed, but it has not yet come into effect.

The law on amnesty was adopted, but the President did not sign it. The Minsk Agreements state that it is necessary to conduct social and economic rehabilitation of these territories of these unrecognized republics. Instead of doing this, on the contrary, they introduce a blockade, that is the problem.

And they imposed a blockade on the indigenous living there, blocking the railway tracks. The President of Ukraine first said that he condemned it and that he will straighten things out, tried to do it, but he did not succeed.

Instead of continuing those efforts, he officially supported the blockade, issuing a decree on the blockade. How can we speak about positive developments for the situation in such conditions? Unfortunately, we do not see this yet.

Question: Let’s slightly forget about the Eastern Europe, to talk about the Middle East, and first of all about Syria. After your military intervention in September 2015, to date, in your opinion, what basic solutions exist for this country after so many years of war?

Putin: First of all, I would like to note the constructive approach by Turkey and Iran, which together with us [Russia] achieved a ceasefire, and, of course, along with the Syrian government. This could not be done, of course, without the so-called Syrian armed opposition. This was the first very important, serious step on the road to peace.

And the second, no less important step, is the agreement on the creation of so-called de-escalation zones. Now, we are talking about four zones. It seems to us that this extremely important for road to peace, if I may say so, because it is impossible to talk about the political process without stopping the bloodshed.

Now, in my opinion, we all have another task: technically and, if you will, even technologically, to complete the process of creating these zones of de-escalation, you need to agree on the boundaries of these zones, how the institutions of power will operate there, and how communication will be organized there. These zones of de-escalation will need to communicate with the outside world.

By the way, President Macron spoke about this part of it today, when he talked about humanitarian convoys. In general, I think the President of France is correct, and here is also one of the points of contact, here we can work together with our French colleagues.

After this takes place, the formalization of de-escalation zones, I very much hope that at least some elements of interaction between the government and those people who will control the situation in these zones of de-escalation will begin.

I really wouldn’t like – it is very important that I now say – that these zones were some kind of prototype for future territorial division of Syria. On the contrary, I count on the fact that these zones of de-escalation, if peace is established there, the people here and control the situation will be communicating with the official Syrian authorities.

And so it can happen, there should be a situation of at least some elementary interaction and cooperation. And the next step is a purely political process of political reconciliation, and if possible, to elaborate on constitutional rules, the constitution and to conduct of elections.

Question: Indeed, there are differences on the Syrian issue between Russia and other parties, especially the fate of Bashar Assad, whom Western countries have accused of using chemical weapons against their own population. Mr. President, do you see a political future for Syria without Bashar Assad?

Putin: In general, I do not consider myself entitled to determine the political future of Syria with or without Assad, this is a matter solely for the Syrian people. No one has the right to assign himself any prerogatives that belong exclusively to the people of a particular country. This is the first thing I would like to mention.

Do you have any more questions?

Question: Yes. You say that you do not make any decisions – does that mean that there is a future without him [Assad]?

Putin: I repeat, this should be determined only by the Syrian people. You have now accused the government of Assad of using chemical weapons.

After this event related to chemical weapons happened, we immediately invited our American partners and all who deemed it necessary, to inspect the airfield from which the aircraft allegedly used chemical weapons.

If the chemical weapon were used by the official military structures of President Assad, there would inevitably be traces left behind on this airfield, modern technology would prove this, it is inevitable. And there would traces left on the planes, and traces would be left at the airport. But in fact, all refused to conduct this check.

We proposed to conduct an inspection at the site where the chemical weapons were allegedly struck. But they also refused to conduct an inspection, citing the fact that it was too dangerous. How is it dangerous if the explosion was allegedly inflicted on civilians and on the armed opposition which is still healthy?

In my opinion, this was done only for one purpose: to show why it is necessary to apply additional measures on Assad, including military. That’s all.

There is no evidence of Assad’s use of chemical weapons. In our deep conviction, this is just a provocation: Assad did not use this weapon.

Question: Do you remember when President Macron spoke about the so-called red line regarding the use of chemical weapons? Do you agree with this?

Putin: I agree. Moreover, I believe that the issue should be broader, and President Macron agreed. Whoever applies chemical weapons against these individuals, against these structures, the international community must build a common policy, and the answer must be one that makes the use of such weapons impossible by anyone.

Question: After the election of Donald Trump in the US, many expressed their views on the relative new phase of Russian-American relations. These relations, it seems, did not have a new start. Now I quote: “There is a Russian threat,” it was said at the last NATO summit last week. Are you frustrated by this attitude on the part of the US?

Putin: No. We did not expect anything, nothing special in fact. The President of the United States conducts a traditional American policy. Of course, we heard during the election campaign the intentions of the already elected and incoming President of the United States, Mr. Trump, about his desire to normalize Russian-American relations. He talked about relations being worse than ever, we remember it well.

But we also understand and see that in fact, the internal political situation in the United States is such that people who lost the election do not want to put up with it and, unfortunately, use the anti-Russian map in the most active way possible, in an internal political struggle under far-fetched pretexts.

Therefore, we are in no hurry, we are ready to wait, but we very much hope that the normalization of Russian-American relations will happen someday.

Question: In an ideal world, what would you expect from the United States in order to improve relations between the US and Russia?

Putin: There is no ideal world, and the subjunctive mood also does not exist in politics.

I want to answer the second part of your question, about 2% or more increase in military spending, which, the United States, is well known for today, spend more on the military and defense than the budget of every countries combined.

Therefore, I fully understand the President of the United States when he wants to shift some of this burden to his NATO allies. This is a very pragmatic and understandable approach.

But what interested me? At the NATO summit they said that NATO wants to establish good relations with Russia. But then why increase military spending? Against whom did they come to fight?

There are some internal contradictions here, but in fact it’s not our business, let NATO understand who and what to pay for, we are not very worried. We provide our defenses – we do it reliably, with a prospect for the future, we are very sure of ourselves.

Question: But if we talk about NATO, they are also your neighbors, who in turn want to ensure their security thanks to NATO. Is this a sign of mistrust for you, something that causes a scandalous attitude?

Putin: For us, this is a sign that our partners, excuse me, in both Europe and the US are pursuing a short-sighted policy, they do not look forward – there is no such habit, this habit has already disappeared among our Western partners.

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Western politicians told us that it was not recorded on paper, but it was clearly said that NATO would not expand to the east.

And a few German politicians at that time offered a new security system in Europe that included the participation of the United States, and by the way, and Russia. If this were done, then we would not have the problems that we have faced in recent years, namely the expansion of NATO to the east up to our borders, advancing towards our borders of our military infrastructure.

There would have been, perhaps, the exit of the United States unilaterally from the ABM Treaty and the Treaty is the cornerstone of today’s and future security; there would have been, perhaps, the construction of missile defense elements in Europe – in Poland, Romania, which, of course, poses a threat to our strategic nuclear forces and violates the strategic balance, which in itself is extremely dangerous for international security.

Maybe it would not have been like this, but it happened, you can not turn the clock back, you can not unscrew the film of history, it’s not a feature film. We must proceed from how it is now. If we proceed from how it is, we need to think about what we want in the future. I think that we all want security, peace, prosperity and cooperation.

So, there is no need to push anything, we do not need to invent mythical Russian threats, hybrid wars and so on. They themselves came up with this, and then they frighten themselves on this basis, which also formulates their prospects for politics. No such policy has any prospects – there is only one perspective: cooperation in all areas, including security issues.

What is the main security problem today? Terrorism. In Europe, there are explosions in Paris, explosions in Russia, explosions in Belgium, there is war in the Middle East – that’s what we need to think about, and we are all discussing what kind of threats Russia is creating.

Question: On the issue of terrorism, on the issue of Islamism. You say that you can do more. What exactly needs to be done, what can Russia do? And why can’t we combine our efforts with Europe to achieve our goals?

Putin: Ask Europe – that’s what we want. I said this while speaking at the UN General Assembly’s 70 anniversary from the podium at the UN, and called then to unite the efforts of all countries in the fight against terror. But this is a very complex process.

See, after the terrorist attack in Paris, a terrible, bloody event, President Hollande came to us then, and we agreed on a few joint actions. The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle approached the banks of Syria. Then Francois [Hollande] went to Washington, and the Charles de Gaulle turned around and left, going towards the direction of the Suez Canal. And the real cooperation between us [Russia] and France stopped, never having begun.

France is involved in operations there, but within the framework of an international coalition led by the United States. You need to understand who is senior, who is not senior, who has the word, who claims what. We are ready, we are open for cooperation.

It was very difficult to negotiate with the Americans on this matter. By the way, we recently noticed a certain shift, there are practical results.

I talked with President Trump on the phone, he generally supported the idea of ​​creating zones of de-escalation. We are now thinking about how to ensure the interests of all the countries in the region in southern Syria, bearing in mind the concern of all countries that have problems in this region, namely, Jordan, Israel and Syria itself, and, of course, we are ready to listen to the opinion of the United States and our European partners. But we need to conduct a concrete dialogue, and not talk about some mutual claims and threats, we need to practice practical work.

Question: You say that it is their decision, and their action, right?

Putin: That’s right, so it is.

Question: Talking about the US. Suspicions that Russia interfered in the election campaign in the United States caused a real political storm in Washington. In France, similar suspicions also sounded. First of all, in the light of what is happening in the United States, how do you react?

Putin: I have already spoken about this many times. Today one of your colleagues also asked a question on this topic. He did so very carefully at a press conference, saying that “they say that they are allegedly Russian hackers.” “They say” – who said, on what basis? “Allegedly Russian hackers”, and maybe not Russian at all.

Mr. Trump himself once said, and spoke perfectly, in my opinion, correctly: “And maybe they’re from another country: maybe it was someone lying on their bed.” After all, anything in this virtual world can think something up. Russia never does this, we do not need this. We do not have any sense to do this. What is the point?

I already talked with one US President, and with another, and with the third – the presidents come and go, but the politics don’t change. Do you know why? Because the power of bureaucracy is very strong. A man has been elected, he comes with some ideas, people with cases come to him, well-dressed and in dark suits, like me, but not with a red tie, but with black or with dark blue, and begin to explain how necessary it is to do this, and everything changes at once. It goes from one administration to another.

For someone to change something is quite a complicated matter, I say this without any irony. This is not because someone does not want to, but because it is difficult. Here Obama is an advanced man, a man of liberal views, a democrat, who, before his election, promised to close Guantanamo Bay. Did he? No. And why? Did he not want to? I really wanted to, I’m sure I wanted to, but it did not work. He sincerely sought this. It does not work that way, it’s not that simple.

But this is not the most important question, although it is important, it is hard to imagine: people in shackles have been walking there for decades without trial and effect. You can imagine, France would have done so or Russia. But no, only in the United States this is possible and is still continuing.

I have a certain amount of reserved optimism, it seems to me that we can and should negotiate on key issues.

Question: To date, you say that such a political storm in Washington rests on absolute fiction.

Putin: It does not rely on fiction, it relies on the desire of those who lost the election in the United States, at least somehow to improve their affairs at the expense of anti-Russian attacks, due to accusation of Russian interference.

People who lost the election do not want to admit that they really lost them, that the one who won was closer to the people, he understood better what people, simple voters want. I do not want to admit this.

I want to explain myself to others and prove to others that they have nothing to do with it, that their policy was right, they did everything well, but someone from their side deceived and burned them. But this is not so, they just lost and must admit that.

Then, when this happens, I think it will be easier for us to work together. But the fact that this is done with the help of anti-Russian tools is very bad, it brings dissonance into international affairs.

Let them argue among themselves, argue and prove who is cooler, who is better, who is smarter, who is more reliable and who formulates the policy for the country better – why should third parties be involved here? This is very distressing. But also this will pass: everything passes – and this too will pass.

Question: Mr. President, we come to the end of our interview, and first of all I would like to ask a question about 2018. This is the year of elections in Russia, presidential elections, legislative elections.

Can you tell us whether you intend to nominate your candidacy, or, perhaps, the opposition will be able to nominate your candidacy in the event of this campaign in a democratic way? How do you see the development of this situation, do you want the campaign to go unconditionally, exclusively in a democratic environment? I’m talking about 2018.

Putin: You know, all the campaigns are in strict accordance with the Russian Constitution, in strict accordance. And I will do everything to ensure that the 2018 election campaigns are held in the same way – I repeat again, in strict accordance with the law and the Constitution.

Everyone will have the right to do so, and everyone will undergo the relevant procedures prescribed by law, can and will certainly participate, if they so wish, in elections of all levels: from legislative assemblies, to parliament, and even presidential elections. As for the candidates, it’s still too early to talk about it.

Question: Many thanks. I hope we’ll see each other soon. Thank you very much for this conversation for Le Figaro.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
1 Comment

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
EpluribusUNO Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
EpluribusUNO
Guest
EpluribusUNO

Excellent that you provide literal translations not summaries. However, some of the pronouns in the last few paragraphs are misapplied from third-person to first person, in the case of the losers of the American election. “I” should read “they.”

Latest

Trump Demands Tribute from NATO Vassals

The one thing that we should all understand, and which Trump perfectly and clearly understands, is that the members of NATO are a captive audience.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Regardless of whether one loves or hates President Trump at least we can say that his presidency has a unique flavor and is full of surprises. Bush and Obama were horribly dull by comparison. Trump as a non-politician from the world of big (real estate) business and media has a different take on many issues including NATO.

Many, especially in Russia were hoping that “The Donald’s” campaign criticism of NATO would move towards finally putting an end to this anti-Russian alliance, which, after the fall of Communism really has no purpose, as any real traditional military threats to Europe have faded into history. However, Trump as President of the United States has to engage in the “realpolitik” of 21st century America and try to survive and since Trump seems rather willing to lie to get what he wants, who can really say which promises from his campaign were a shoot and which were a work.

So as it stands now Trump’s recent decision to maintain and build US/NATO bases across the world “and make country X pay for it” could mean anything from him trying to keep his campaign promises in some sort of skewed way, to an utter abandonment of them and submission to the swamp. Perhaps it could simply be his business instincts taking over in the face of “wasteful spending”. Making allies have to pay to have US/NATO forces on their territory is a massive policy shift that one could only predict coming from the unpredictable 45th President.

The one thing that we should all understand, and which Trump perfectly and clearly understands, is that the members of NATO (and other “allies”) are a captive audience, especially Germany, Japan and South Korea, which “coincidentally” are the first set of countries that will have to pay the “cost + 50%” to keep bases and US soldiers on their soil. Japan’s constitution, written primarily by American occupation forces forbids them from having a real military which is convenient for Trump’s plan. South Korea, although a very advanced and wealthy nation has no choice but to hide behind the US might because if it were to disappear overnight, then Gangnam would be filled with pictures of the Kim family within a few weeks.

In the past with regard to these three countries NATO has had to keep up the illusion of wanting to “help” them and work as “partners” for common defense as if nuclear and economic titan America needs countries like them to protect itself. Trump whether consciously or not is changing the dynamic of US/NATO occupation of these territories to be much more honest. His attitude seems to be that the US has the possibility to earn a lot of money from a worldwide mafia-style protection scam. Vassals have no choice but to pay the lord so Trump wants to drop the illusions and make the military industrial complex profitable again and God bless him for it. This level of honesty in politics is refreshing and it reflects the Orange Man’s pro-business and “America will never be a socialist country” attitude. It is blunt and ideologically consistent with his worldview.

On the other hand, one could look at this development as a possible move not to turn NATO into a profitable protection scam but as a means to covertly destroy it. Lies and illusion in politics are very important, people who believe they are free will not rebel even if they have no freedom whatsoever. If people are sure their local leaders are responsible for their nation they will blame them for its failings rather than any foreign influence that may actually be pulling the real strings.

Even if everyone in Germany, Japan and South Korea in their subconscious knows they are basically occupied by US forces it is much harder to take action, than if the “lord” directly demands yearly tribute. The fact that up to this point US maintains its bases on its own dime sure adds to the illusion of help and friendship. This illusion is strong enough for local politicians to just let the status quo slide on further and further into the future. Nothing is burning at their feet to make them act… having to pay cost + 50% could light that fire.

Forcing the locals to pay for these bases changes the dynamic in the subconscious and may force people’s brains to contemplate why after multiple-generations the former Axis nations still have to be occupied. Once occupation becomes expensive and uncomfortable, this drops the illusion of friendship and cooperation making said occupation much harder to maintain.

South Korea knows it needs the US to keep out the North but when being forced to pay for it this may push them towards developing the ability to actually defend themselves. Trump’s intellectual “honesty” in regards to NATO could very well plant the necessary intellectual seeds to not just change public opinion but make public action against US/NATO bases in foreign countries. Japan has had many protests over the years against US bases surging into the tens of thousands. This new open vassal status for the proud Japanese could be the straw to break the camel’s back.

Predicting the future is impossible. But it is clear that, changing the fundamental dynamic by which the US maintains foreign bases in a way that will make locals financially motivated to have them removed, shall significantly affect the operations of US forces outside the borders of the 50 States and make maintaining a global presence even more difficult, but perhaps this is exactly what the Orange Man wants or is just too blind to see.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

High-ranking Ukrainian official reports on US interference in Ukraine

It is not usually the case that an American media outlet tells the truth about Ukraine, but it appears to have happened here.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The Hill committed what may well have been a random act of journalism when it reported that Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Hill.tv’s reporter John Solomon that the American ambassador to that country, Marie Yovanovitch, gave him a “do not prosecute” list at their first meeting.

Normally, all things Russia are covered by the American press as “bad”, and all things Ukraine are covered by the same as “good.” Yet this report reveals quite a bit about the nature of the deeply embedded US interests that are involved in Ukraine, and which also attempt to control and manipulate policy in the former Soviet republic.

The Hill’s piece continues (with our added emphases):

“Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute,” Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told Hill.TV last week.

“My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,” he continued.

Indeed, the Prosecutor General appears to be a man of some principles. When this report was brought to the attention of the US State Department, the response was predictable:

The State Department called Lutsenko’s claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, “an outright fabrication.” 

“We have seen reports of the allegations,” a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. “The United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive projects.”

This is an amazing statement in itself. “Our fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer”? Are Americans even aware that their country is spending their tax dollars in an effort to manipulate a foreign government in what can probably well be called a low-grade proxy war with the Russian Federation? Again, this appears to be a slip, as most American media do a fair job of maintaining the narrative that Ukraine is completely independent and that its actions regarding the United States and Russia are taken in complete freedom.

Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.

Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that “the situation was actually rather strange” and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but “never received.”

“At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue,” he said. “At that time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption policy.”

“Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy did not require our legal assessment of these facts,” he said. “The situation was actually rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor general’s office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied there was no problem.”

“The portion of the funds, namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen for the recipient Prosecutor General’s office. But we have never received it,” he said.

Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.

Former Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who was at the time House Rules Committee chairman, voiced concerns about Yovanovitch in a letter to the State Department last year in which he said he had proof the ambassador had spoken of her “disdain” for the Trump administration.

This last sentence may be a way to try to narrow the scope of American interference in Ukraine down to the shenanigans of just a single person with a personal agenda. However, many who have followed the story of Ukraine and its surge in anti-Russian rhetoric, neo-Naziism, ultra-nationalism, and the most recent events surrounding the creation of a pseudo-Orthodox “church” full of Ukrainian nationalists and atheists as a vehicle to import “Western values” into a still extremely traditional and Christian land, know that there are fingerprints of the United States “deep state” embeds all over this situation.

It is somewhat surprising that so much that reveals the problem showed up in just one report. It will be interesting to see if this gets any follow-up in the US press.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

President Putin’s anti-fake news law is brilliant, but the West makes more

Western media slams President Putin and his fake news law, accusing him of censorship, but an actual look at the law reveals some wisdom.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The TASS Russian News Agency reported on March 18th that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law intended to block distorted or untrue information being reported as news. Promptly after he did so, Western news organizations began their attempt to “spin” this event as some sort of proof of “state censorship” in the oppressive sense of the old Soviet Union. In other words, a law designed to prevent fake news was used to create more fake news.

One of the lead publications is a news site that is itself ostensibly a “fake news” site. The Moscow Times tries to portray itself as a Russian publication that is conducted from within Russian borders. However, this site and paper is really a Western publication, run by a Dutch foundation located in the Netherlands. As such, the paper and the website associated have a distinctly pro-West slant in their reporting. Even Wikipedia noted this with this comment from their entry about the publication:

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, The Moscow Times was criticized by a number of journalists including Izvestia columnist Israel Shamir, who in December 2014 called it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia”.[3] In October 2014 The Moscow Times made the decision to suspend online comments after an increase in offensive comments. The paper said it disabled comments for two reasons—it was an inconvenience for its readers as well as being a legal liability, because under Russian law websites are liable for all content, including user-generated content like comments.[14]

This bias is still notably present in what is left of the publication, which is now an online-only news source. This is some of what The Moscow Times had to say about the new fake news legislation:

The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech.

The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia.”

Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to 300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses.

As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, an official or a legal entity.

More than 100 journalists and public figures, including human rights activist Zoya Svetova and popular writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, signed a petition opposing the laws, which they labeled “direct censorship.”

This piece does give a bit of explanation from Dmitry Peskov, showing that European countries also have strict laws governing fake news distribution. However, the Times made the point of pointing out the idea of “insulting governmental bodies of Russia… including Putin” to bolster their claim that this law amounts to real censorship of the press. It developed its point of view based on a very short article from Reuters which says even less about the legislation and how it works.

However, TASS goes into rather exhaustive detail about this law, and it also gives rather precise wording on the reason for the law’s passage, as well as how it is to be enforced. This law is brilliant, for it hits the would-be slanderer right where it counts – in the pocketbook.

We include most of this text here, with emphases added:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law on blocking untrue and distorting information (fake news). The document was posted on the government’s legal information web portal.

The document supplements the list of information, the access to which may be restricted on the demand by Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies. In particular, it imposes a ban on “untrue publicly significant information disseminated in the media and in the Internet under the guise of true reports, which creates a threat to the life and (or) the health of citizens, property, a threat of the mass violation of public order and (or) public security, or the threat of impeding or halting the functioning of vital infrastructural facilities, transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy, industrial or communications facilities.”

Pursuant to the document, in case of finding such materials in Internet resources registered in accordance with the Russian law on the mass media as an online media resource, Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies will request the media watchdog Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the corresponding websites.

Based on this request, Roskomnadzor will immediately notify the editorial board of the online media resource, which is in violation of the legislation, about the need to remove untrue information and the media resource will be required to delete such materials immediately. If the editorial board fails to take the necessary measures, Roskomnadzor will send communications operators “a demand to take measures to restrict access to the online resource.”

In case of deleting such untrue information, the website owner will notify Roskomnadzor thereof, following which the media watchdog will “hold a check into the authenticity of this notice” and immediately inform the communications operator about the resumption of the access to the information resource.
The conditions for the law are very specific, as are the penalties for breaking it. TASS continued:

Liability for breaching the law

Simultaneously, the Federation Council approved the associated law with amendments to Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates liability in the form of penalties of up to 1.5 million rubles (around $23,000) for the spread of untrue and distorting information.

The Code’s new article, “The Abuse of the Freedom of Mass Information,” stipulates liability for disseminating “deliberately untrue publicly significant information” in the media or in the Internet. The penalty will range from 30,000 rubles ($450) to 100,000 rubles ($1,520) for citizens, from 60,000 rubles ($915) to 200,000 rubles ($3,040) for officials and from 200,000 rubles to 500,000 rubles ($7,620) for corporate entities with the possible confiscation of the subject of the administrative offence.

Another element of offence imposes tighter liability for the cases when the publication of false publicly significant information has resulted in the deaths of people, has caused damage to the health or property, prompted the mass violation of public order and security or has caused disruption to the functioning of transport or social infrastructure facilities, communications, energy and industrial facilities and banks. In such instances, the fines will range from 300,000 rubles to 400,000 rubles ($6,090) for citizens, from 600,000 rubles to 900,000 rubles ($13,720) for officials, and from 1 million rubles to 1.5 million rubles for corporate entities.

While this legislation can be spun (and is) in the West as anti-free speech, one may also consider the damage that has taken place in the American government through a relentless attack of fake news from most US news outlets against President Trump. One of the most notable effects of this barrage has been to further degrade and destroy the US’ relationship with the Russian Federation, because even the Helsinki Summit was attacked so badly that the two leaders have not been able to get a second summit together.

While it is certainly a valued right of the American press to be unfettered by Congress, and while it is also certainly vital to criticize improper practices by government officials, the American news agencies have gone far past that, to deliberately dishonest attacks, based in innuendo and everything possible that was formerly only the province of gossip tabloid publications. The effort has been to defame the President, not to give proper or due criticism to his policies, nor credit. It can be properly stated that the American press has abused its freedom of late.

This level of abuse drew a very unusual comment from the US president, who wondered on Twitter about the possibility of creating a state-run media center in the US to counter fake news:

Politically correct for US audiences? No. But an astute point?

Definitely.

Freedom in anything also presumes that those with that freedom respect it, and further, that they respect and apply the principle that slandering people and institutions for one’s own personal, business or political gain is wrong. Implied in the US Constitution’s protection of the press is the notion that the press itself, as the rest of the country, is accountable to a much Higher Authority than the State. But when that Authority is rejected, as so much present evidence suggests, then freedom becomes the freedom to misbehave and to agitate. It appears largely within this context that the Russian law exists, based on the text given.

Further, by hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook, rather than prison sentences, the law appears to be very smart in its message: “Do not lie. If you do, you will suffer where it counts most.”

Considering that news media’s purpose is to make money, this may actually be a very smart piece of legislation.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending