Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Putin, the world's best President

Putin

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8518 posts

Posted 14 October 2017 - 11:53 AM

Putin, the world's best President
 
 
A hero and leader in a time of madness - Documentary on Putin, the world's best President
 
 
 
Sun, 17 May 2015
 
 
 
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a press conference on the second day of the G8 summit venue of Lough Erne on June 18, 2013 in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland.
 
The folks of Vox Populi Evo have pulled through again, providing an English translation and subtitles for Rossiya-1's latest documentary, PRESIDENT, hosted by Russian TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov and which first aired in Russia on April 26. VPE had previously made Crimea: The Way Back Home available for English viewers, and we recommend that readers check that one out too. 
 
The film contains never-seen-before footage from some of the biggest highlights of Putin's career, and of Russia's history for the last decade and a half: the war in Chechnya, the battle with the oligarchs, the Kursk submarine tragedy, Beslan, the 2008 crisis. Among the revelations Putin makes in his interview sections is the admission of direct involvement of Western intelligence agencies in supporting Islamic terrorism in Chechnya. While it's no surprise to the alternative media, it's the first time Putin has officially confirmed such involvement. Nothing has changed since the CIA created the mujaheddin to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan. 
 
█  █  █  █  █  █  █  █  █ 
 
 
 
 
█  █  █  █  █  █  █  █  █ 
 
 
 
 
 
█  █  █  █  █  █  █  █  █ 
 
 
 

  • 0

#2 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8518 posts

Posted 14 October 2017 - 12:05 PM

Vladimir Putin Is The Only Leader The West Has
 
 
 
12 July 2016.
 
 
 
 
A Reuters news report under the names of presstitutes Robin Emmott and Sabine Siebold shows how devoid the West is of honest, intelligent and responsible journalists and government officials.
 
First we will examine the dishonesty or incompetence of the reporters and then that of Western government officials.
 
Emmott and Siebold describe NATO as a "Western defense alliance." Since the Clinton regime NATO has been an alliance for waging offensive war, a war crime under the Nuremberg rules established by the United States. Under the NATO banner a number of countries have been bombed, invaded, and had their governments overthrown by Washington acting under the cover of NATO.
 
These destroyed countries posed no threat whatsoever to the countries of the NATO alliance and undertook no aggressive actions against NATO members. How is it possible that Reuters' reporters and editors are not aware of this? Why do they call an instrument of Washington's aggression a "defense alliance"?
 
Emmott and Siebold report that "Russian aggression" is the reason NATO is deploying 3,000 to 4,000 troops in the Baltic states and Poland. In other words, something that does not exist-Russian aggression toward the Baltics and Poland-is assumed to be a fact that must be countered with military deployments.
 
The reporters do not question whether this insignificant number of NATO troops constitutes a defense or a provocation. The number of troops would have to be 100 times greater before the force even begins to approach a defensive force. What then is the purpose of the 3,000 or 4,000 NATO troops?
 
Every informed person knows that there is no need of a defense force against Russia in the Baltics and Poland. Aside from this fact, only an absolute idiot could think that three or four thousand troops constitutes a defense against the Russian Army. In June 1941 Operation Barbarossa hit Russia with an invasion of four million troops, the majority German component of which were probably the most highly trained and disciplined troops in military history, excepting only the Spartans. By the time that the Americans and British got around to the Normandy invasion, the Russian Army had chewed up the Wehrmacht. There were only a few divisions at 40% strength to resist the Normandy invasion. By the time the Russian Army got to Berlin, the German resistance consisted of armed children.
 
The Reuters reporters raise no question about President Obama's statement that 1,000 of this insignificant force will be Americans in order "to enhance our forward presence in central and eastern Europe." Why does the United States need a "forward presence" in central and eastern Europe? What does a US "forward presence" in central and eastern Europe represent except an insane recklessness? One thousand US troops are good for nothing except a provocation.
 
Emmott and Siebold report with a straight face without laughter or question unverifiable accusations of Russian aggression by White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski, President Obama, and head of NATO's military committee, Czech General Petr Pavel.
 
Gen. Pavel "said Russia was attempting to restore its status as a world power, an effort that included using its military."
 
Obama said it is necessary to "keep sanctions on Moscow in place until it fully complies with the ceasefire agreement in Ukraine."
 
Waszczykowski said: "We have to reject any type of wishful thinking with regard to pragmatic cooperation with Russia as long as Russia keeps on invading its neighbors."
 
Rhodes threatened Russia with a NATO response to Russia's "continued aggression."
 
These statements are propagandistic. If those who made the statements actually believe them, they are too imbecilic to be trusted with public offices.
 
Is it possible that the Czech general does not know that Russia has used its military only to repel a Washington-inspired Georgian invasion of South Ossetia and against ISIS in Syria, which the US, UK, and France also claim to be doing? After repelling the Georgian invasion, Russia withdrew its forces. After dealing ISIS a setback in Syria, Russia withdrew and was forced to return by Washington's resupply of ISIS.
 
Can the Polish Foreign Minister identify the countries that "Russia keeps on invading"?
 
Does the President of the United States really not know that Russia is not a party to the ceasefire agreement in Ukraine? This is an agreement between the breakaway republics and the government in Kiev. Washington has done everything possible to discourage Kiev from keeping the agreement Kiev signed.
 
Can National Security Adviser Rhodes tell us where "continued aggression by Russia" is occurring? What countries are being invaded and overrun?
 
How can there be so much Russian aggression and no evidence of it?
 
Recently, President Putin dressed down to their faces the Western media whores who are fanning the flames of World War III by repeating without question Washington's propagandistic lies. These lies are reckless. They endanger all life on planet Earth.
 
During my lifetime, American presidents worked to reduce tensions between the two major nuclear powers. JFK worked with Khrushchev to defuse the dangerous situation arising from the placement of US missiles in Turkey and, in response, the placement of Russian missiles in Cuba.
 
President Nixon brought forth SALT I, the strategic arms limitation treaty, and the ABM Treaty.
 
President Carter crafted SALT II.
 
President Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev the end of the Cold War, the most promising achievement of the 20th century.
 
The Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have done everything possible to raise the tensions between nuclear powers to heights beyond those of the most dangerous days of the Cold War.
 
The evil Clinton regime broke the word of the government of the United States, thereby destroying the honor of the US government, by taking NATO to Russia's borders.
 
The evil George W. Bush regime pulled the US out of the ABM Treaty and rewrote US war doctrine in order to elevate nuclear weapons from a retaliatory weapon to a first strike weapon. This insane act put the Russians on notice.
 
The evil Obama regime intends to place nuclear missiles on Russia's borders in Poland and Romania and engineered a coup in Ukraine with the intent of depriving Russia of its Black Sea naval base in Crimea, Russia's only warm water port.
 
Faced with a Russophobic Washington-installed government in Ukraine, the Russian population in Crimea, a Russian province since the 1700s, voted practically unanimously to rejoin Russia, where Crimea had resided until Khrushchev reassigned the Russian province to Ukraine in the mid 20th century. The Russian government's acceptance of the wishes of its own people were propagandistically misrepresented by Washington and the presstitutes as "Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea." This lie is where the myth of "Russian invasion" came from. Russian military forces were already present in Crimea, because when Russia granted independence to Ukraine, Russia retained a long-term lease on the Russian naval base in Crimea. As all international observers testified, the vote was independent of the Russian military presence.
 
The White House Fool said that the vote in Crimea was meaningless because all of Ukraine did not get to vote. The Fool was too ignorant to know that by this laughable charge he discredited the American Revolution because the British people didn't get to vote. For the precise same reason that The Fool wants Crimea returned to Kiev, the US must be returned to Britain. I doubt that the British would have us. Who wants a war criminal nation drowning in its own hubris?
 
The world is now faced with the prospect that insouciant Americans will elect a crazed and incompetent criminal or semi-criminal as their president, a person who has declared the President of Russia to be "the new Hitler." The stupid bitch's statement is a declaration of nuclear war, and this dangerous, reckless, incompetent, careless person has been selected by the Democratic Party as the next POTUS !!!
 
The ignorance and stupidity of the American people will destroy the world.
 
Little wonder that Vladimir Putin, the only responsible world leader other than the president of China, is desperate that the Western media understand that their irresponsible negligence to the truth is helping Washington drive the world to nuclear war.
 
Putin does not want war. He is doing everything in his power to avoid it. But Putin is not going to surrender Russia to Washington. The trip-point of World War III will be the installation of Washington's missiles in Poland and Romania. As Putin recently made clear to the imbecilic Western journalists, these missiles can easily and secretly be changed from anti-ballistic missiles to nuclear attack missiles that can strike their Russian targets within 5 or fewer minutes of launch, thus depriving Russia of its retaliatory deterrent. Once these missiles are in place, Washington can issue orders to Russia.
 
Whatever the evil men and women in Washington who are gambling with the life of the planet think, Russia is not going to accept these missiles.
 
Where does world leadership reside? In Washington, the war criminal capital of the world that is driving the world to nuclear war, or in Russia whose leadership accepts countless affronts and provocations in an effort to avoid war?
 

  • 1

#3 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8518 posts

Posted 14 October 2017 - 12:16 PM

Why The West Hates Putin - It's More Than What You're Told
 
 
 
 
RUSSIA, RUSSIAN, SOVIET, NUCLEAR, RUSSIA'S, DOLLARS, NATO, TERRORISTS, LEADER, BOMB, RUSSIANS, NAZIS, FORCES, WAR, PUTIN, CHINA, MILITARY, USSR, BANKING, GEOPOLITICAL, WARS, GOLD, BANKSTERS, INVADED,
 
 
JUNE 7, 2017
 
 
 
Russophobia in America today is as intense as it was at the height of Cold War when terrified school kids had "Duck and Cover" drills and the public was obsessed with bomb shelters. However, all the drama about Russian hacking and collusion are a smokescreen. The real conflict is about geopolitical power struggle for world domination, which involves hundreds of trillions of dollars, massive egos of Machiavellian elites, and nations driven by memory of the past and visions of the future.
 
Here's the big picture: it's a geopolitical battle of USA+EU versus Russia+China. The US and EU are governed by the same banking and military-industrial overlords, while Russia and China - two independent countries - have made an alliance out of necessity. Why? If Russia falls, China will be the next. Get the bear, you get the dragon, and thus you get the world.
 
But here is the kicker: the globalists did trap the bear in 1991 when the USSR failed. However, rather than befriending the bear, they caged it and then starved, tortured and humiliated it for the next eight years. That's when the bear tore down the cage and fought back.
 
Betrayal in the 1990s
 
The biggest theft of the century happened in Russia in the 1990s, and the perpetrators were Wall Street shysters who promised miracles of capitalism, but instead dismantled the entire country. In the name of privatization, Russia was put up for fire sale 1. Everything you can imagine - oil/gas fields, gold/diamond mines, airlines, media, factories, you-name-it - were sold at 1/1000th of their fair price. A handful of Russians, carefully selected by the US, ended up with assets worth hundreds of billions of dollars. In exchange, each Russian got a "share" worth $7. The US taxpayers even subsidized this disgusting racket.
 
Under this shock therapy administered by American vulture capitalists, Russia's GDP fell 40%. The country was loaded up with crushing debt from the IMF and the World Bank, and poverty and suicide soared.
 
The Russian military was in shambles and was badly losing wars to Islamic terrorists in Chechnya and Dagestan. Oh, these terrorists were the same Mujahideen from Afghanistan and were still funded by Saudi Arabia and armed by the US 2. To add insult to the injury, in 1999, the West bombed Serbia - Russia's staunch ally - and also gave NATO membership to three countries close to Russia.
 
Most Russian politicians, including President Yeltsin, were bought off and controlled by Washington, as Bill Clinton bragged to Tony Blair. 3
 
Putin's Empire
 
Under these dreadful circumstances, Putin became the Acting President of Russia on Dec 31, 1999. Over the next few years, he took on the powerful oligarchs, corrupt politicians and the elites who formed the fifth column. With authoritarian KGB-style, he assassinated some pro-Western journalists, jailed opponents and consolidated his power. Putin was helped by raising oil prices, but he used the new wealth wisely. He grew the Russian economy, built up gold and foreign reserves, and significantly reduced the national debt.
 
Between 1999 and 2014, Russia's GDP grew 10-fold 4 and its world rank surged from 22nd to 8th
 
Russia's debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 100% in 1999 to 17% in 2016 5
 
Foreign reserves grew from virtually nothing to the 6th largest in the world 6
 
Gold reserves grew to become the 6th largest in the world as well 7
 
Putin started RT - Russia's own global news channel, banned GMO, kicked out George Soros, and fought Cultural Marxism. He built more than 15,000 churches, encouraged families to have more children, and banned transgender/gay propaganda to children.
 
Finally, Putin rebuilt Russia's military, crushed Islamic terrorists and, in a geopolitical stunner that transpired in Syria, prevailed against a mighty coalition of the US, Israel, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and 40,000 jihadists. 8
 
Putin's diplomacy has also been remarkable. After the 2014 US sanctions and the precipitous fall in oil prices, every pundit and politician predicted the isolation of Putin and the demise of Russia's economy. Fast forward to 2017, 144 US corporations and 62 countries attended Russia's Economic Conference in St. Petersburg. In France, the new President, Macron, chose Putin for the first visit of a foreign leader.
 
In other words, Putin made Russia great again. This is why his approval rating is still over 80%.
 
Russia under attack
 
However, the globalists have had their own victories as well. In 2003-2004, pro-Russia governments in Georgia and Ukraine were overthrown by George Soros' color revolutions. In 2014, the US staged a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrew a democratically elected leader, and replaced him with an unelected billionaire.
 
Ukraine has been a CIA target for decades. As Brzezinski wrote in his book, The Grand Chessboard, Russia will be paralyzed without access to Crimea and the Black Sea - the only Russian gateway to the Mediterranean Sea. Sensing danger after the 2013 coup, Putin quickly held a referendum in Crimea and annexed it. (More than 75% of Crimeans speak Russian as their native language, and Ukraine is vastly poorer than Russia, so the election result was predictable). 9
 
Another area where Russia was backstabbed: NATO expansion. Contrary to the promises made during the dissolution of the USSR, NATO has added 13 new European countries, which are all potential hosts for US/NATO military bases 10. Many of these countries are now part of the missile defense system. On the other side of Russia, the US has deployed THAAD in South Korea. What this means is that the US could first launch a nuclear attack against Russia, and then shoot down the missiles that Russia fires in response. The entire situation is extremely volatile and dangerous - Russia has more than 7,000 nuclear weapons.
 
All this bullying is just a symptom of the wounded egos of globalists who have failed in their attempts to conquer Russia. Not once, but six times in the last 200 years-1812, 1856, 1905, World War I, World War II, and the Wall Street takeover of Russia in the 1990s.
 
Rothschilds, Bolshevism and Hitler
 
In 1812, funded by the Rothschilds, Napoleon invaded Russia. In 1856, Britain and France attacked and took over Crimea-for the same reason that the US staged a coup in Ukraine in 2013.
 
In 1905, banksters on Wall Street - Jacob Schiff and others - funded Japan to attack Russia 11. In the midst of the war, the banksters tried to foment a revolution and overthrow the Czar. The guy who led the revolution was Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) 12. He would fail in 1905 and flee Russia, but would come back in 1917 using the same playbook, but using Germany instead of Japan.
 
Before World War I, Trotsky and Lenin raised millions of dollars from international banksters. Trotsky visited New York and got an American passport so he could sneak back into Russia 13. Flush with cash from capitalists, the communists (Bolsheviks) killed the Czar during World War I and quickly signed a peace treaty with Germany. Danke Schoen!
 
Thus, you see, the evil empire of the Soviet Union was a creation of America and Europe-a fact that is erased from the history books. The Soviet Union was a result of a civil war fomented by outside forces - a civil war in which the bad guys won. Bolshevism was a foreign virus that invaded Russia, killed tens of millions of Russians and tried to destroy Christianity - Russia's religion for over 1000 years. However, when Americans think of "Russians," they are only taught to think of the Soviet Union.
 
Fast forward to World War II, it was again Europe (Germany) that attacked Russia. 20 million Russians died fighting the Nazis, two million just in the city of Leningrad 14. Russia fought the Nazis for four years and destroyed 70% of Hitler's army. However, the US came at the end of the game (in 1944) and got all the accolade for "defeating the Nazis."
 
Moving Forward
 
Knowing all this, an objective person would not cast Russia as the enemy of the West. Russia will be an enemy only if we demand its subservience. Russia and China are determined to preserve their sovereignty. To that end, they are working on their own financial system (credit card, banking etc.) and international alliances 15. They are also trying to break free from the petrodollar system, which lets the US borrow trillions without repercussions. Of course, the globalists detest this challenge to the New World Order.
 
Since World War II, America's knee-jerk response to any diplomatic challenge has been to bully or bomb. Eisenhower warned us and we ignored it: America's military-industrial-banking-media complex has vast and undue influence. JFK advocated détente with Russia and withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, and he was reviled by the Deep State. Trump is facing a lot of animosity from the Establishment for the same reason. Globalists endlessly preach about the wonders of diversity, but hate countries who think different.
 
Global conflicts and wars are very addictive for the military-security complex, which craves 800 military bases around the world, $600 billion a year budget, and $35 billion/year of weapons export. Wars also mean massive debts for nations, which is exactly what the international banksters want. Global corporations are drawn to a unipolar world, since that guarantees them monopoly, cheap labor and raw materials, and access to customers. Social engineers and Cultural Marxists rely on monolithic corporate media to spread the same propaganda all over the world. Will the confluence of these forces refuse to accept a multipolar world? Will they push us into disastrous wars, potentially even a nuclear war? Let's remember JFK's "Peace Speech" from 1963:
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
_____________________________________________________________

  • 1

#4 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8518 posts

Posted 14 October 2017 - 12:24 PM

Any national leader with brains will ask Russia for military help in future.
 
And reward Russia with a military base.

  • 1

#5 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8518 posts

Posted 14 October 2017 - 12:49 PM

pikabur-mr-putin-de-chess-master-comanda


  • 1

#6 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8518 posts

Posted 14 October 2017 - 12:54 PM

grandmaster-putin.jpg?w=672&h=372&crop=1


  • 0

#7 Ivan88

Ivan88

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15764 posts

Posted 14 October 2017 - 07:22 PM

 EXCLUSIVE: Fantastic Russian Primetime 2 HR Putin Documentary 'President'

Why Do Russians Love Vladimir Putin?

 

Both of these videos pretend to be fair, but are really anti-Russia neo conartist tricknology.

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Edited by Ivan88, 14 October 2017 - 07:25 PM.

  • 0

#8 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8518 posts

Posted 15 October 2017 - 07:58 AM

 

 EXCLUSIVE: Fantastic Russian Primetime 2 HR Putin Documentary 'President'

Why Do Russians Love Vladimir Putin?

 

Both of these videos pretend to be fair, but are really anti-Russia neo conartist tricknology.

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Show us a video made by Russians.


  • 0

#9 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35897 posts

Posted 15 October 2017 - 06:16 PM

President Putin is doing better at tweeting these days too.  Other presidents could learn from him, such as presidents of Syria, North Korea, among others who rarely are heard from in the West.   American public opinion helps constrain the US government, so it's worth the effort to build a dialog with the public.

 

But it's not only America, it's the entire world who reads tweets from national leaders.  Every intel agency, every media journalist, corporate leaders, celebrities, all follow each other and read their comments.  It's an amazing way to see the entire world communicating with each other, even if it is limited to a few sentences at a time.  That's Twitter's fault.   They don't need to restrict it so harshly. 


  • 0

#10 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35897 posts

Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:52 PM

The 2 hour documentary on Putin is one of the best-made documentaries I've seen on him.  It shows the situation in Russia and the many challenges Putin faced at the outset of his presidency.   Very well done!


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Putin

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2019 Pravda.Ru