ForumGarden

I scarcely know where to start with this treasure trove. http://president.kremlin.ru/eng/speeche ... 2772.shtml is a full transcript (with a few typing errors!) of "Russian President Putin's Interview with G8 Newspaper Journalists" this week. Anyone with a spare hundred minutes? More to the point, did anyone see much mainstream reporting of the content, because I didn't despite it being so full of interest.

It's all ad-lib from a guy who says it like it is. I'd swap him for any Western leader like a shot.

Here's a snippet or two:I would not want you to suffer from the illusion that we have fallen out of love with anyone. But I sometimes think to myself: why are they doing all this? Why are our American partners trying so obstinately to deploy a missile defence system in Europe when -- and this is perfectly obvious -- it is not needed to defend against Iranian or -- even more obvious -- North Korean missiles? (We all know where North Korea is and the kind of range these missiles would need to have to be able to reach Europe.) So it is clearly not against them and it is clearly not against us because it is obvious to everyone that Russia is not preparing to attack anybody. Then why? Is it perhaps to ensure that we carry out these retaliatory measures? And to prevent a further rapprochement between Russian and Europe? If this is the case (and I am not claiming so, but it is a possibility), then I believe that this would be yet another mistake because that is not the way to improve international peace and security.(re the extradition of Lugovoi) [...] If the people who sent this request did not know that the Russian Constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to foreign countries then their level of competency must certainly be questioned. In general the heads of such high-ranking law enforcement agencies should know this. And if they do not know this then their place is not in law enforcement agencies but somewhere else. In parliament, for example, or in journalism. But on the other hand, if they did know this but made the request anyways, then it is just a publicity stunt. In other words, you can look at the problem from any way but in all cases you see stupidity. I do not see any positive aspects to what was done. If they did not know then they are incompetent and we have doubts about what they have been doing there. And if they did know and did it anyway then that is pure politics. Both options are bad.

GLOBE AND MAIL: [...] The U.S. is taking unilateral action, but if NATO were to get involved instead it would not look like an imperialist step. Everything might look different if NATO or Russia were to become involved in these missile defence plans.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If NATO were involved this would not fundamentally change anything because we know how decisions are made in NATO. They were made in the same way in the Warsaw Pact. There was a joke in East Germany: How can you tell which of the telephones on Honecker’s desk is the direct line to Moscow? Do you know this joke?

DER SPIEGEL: No.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The answer is: it’s the one with only a receiver and no mouthpiece.

spot;635538 wrote: I scarcely know where to start with this treasure trove. http://president.kremlin.ru/eng/speeche ... 2772.shtml is a full transcript (with a few typing errors!) of "Russian President Putin's Interview with G8 Newspaper Journalists" this week. Anyone with a spare hundred minutes? More to the point, did anyone see much mainstream reporting of the content, because I didn't despite it being so full of interest.

It's all ad-lib from a guy who says it like it is. I'd swap him for any Western leader like a shot.

Here's a snippet or two:


Can *anybody* tell me why we're pushing through with this and what the point behind it is?

To answer your question, yes, I saw both minutes of coverage put out by the BBC.

Bryn Mawr;637091 wrote: Can *anybody* tell me why we're pushing through with this and what the point behind it is?

To answer your question, yes, I saw both minutes of coverage put out by the BBC.


Being cynical because of the need to keep the fear gong to justify what is being done in our name. God forbid GW or TB should admit they have made a colossal mistake or that policy towards Iran is just making things worse and helping extremists keep power. Putting missile defences in South Korea might make some sense but maybe that would upset China.

If NATO were involved this would not fundamentally change anything because we know how decisions are made in NATO.


If america keeps up this kind of foreign policy what do you reckon the EU starts telling them to **** off.

gmc;637185 wrote: Being cynical because of the need to keep the fear gong to justify what is being done in our name. God forbid GW or TB should admit they have made a colossal mistake or that policy towards Iran is just making things worse and helping extremists keep power. Putting missile defences in South Korea might make some sense but maybe that would upset China.


So we've cocked up our handling on the Middle East problem for the past hundred years, we've made a massive blunder in Afghanistan and in Iraq, we're in the process of screwing up our dealings with Iran and now we want to re-open the Cold War with the Soviets. Please, stop the world - I want to get off!

gmc;637185 wrote: If america keeps up this kind of foreign policy what do you reckon the EU starts telling them to **** off.


That would be the day - in anything other than the odd trade dispute.

May I drop in a link to the first reference I've seen to the press conference? Jayne Lyn Stahl is by no means kind in her remarks, but she's quite cogent. I'm glad she wrote about it.

You're far too pessimistic, Scrat. If Russia were to offer to replace the US as a key NATO partner I suspect there would be quite a bit of discussion behind the scenes in Europe. Other than in Poland and the UK there would be some smiles at least.

Ah... and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I'd forgotten they'd joined. They might not see the joke either.

No.

Well, definitely I'd have said no without even thinking last year. This year I thought before I said it. Next year, who can tell.

Would I join in the celebrations if it happened? Oh yes.

Scrat;643016 wrote: I don't think it is either, if they did join NATO what reason would NATO have to exist?For the mutual unitary defence of Europe and the North Atlantic.