Must be close to a world record. Link to video. Link to Transcript. I recommend the transcript if you want to get a flavor of the scope over the issues Putin commands. I actually read most of the transcript. It probably took me about an hour and half. Whether you like the man or not, he's quite remarkable. There are some very good Q & A. Here's a few below: This from a BBC correspondent with an obviously pro-western, anti-Putin perspective. JOHN SIMPSON, BBC: Western countries almost universally now believe that there’s a new Cold War and that you, frankly, have decided to create that. We see, almost daily, Russian aircraft taking sometimes quite dangerous manoeuvres towards western airspace. That must be done on your orders; you’re the Commander-in-Chief. It must have been your orders that sent Russian troops into the territory of a sovereign country – Crimea first, and then whatever it is that’s going on in Eastern Ukraine. Now you’ve got a big problem with the currency of Russia, and you’re going to need help and support and understanding from outside countries, particularly from the West. So can I say to you, can I ask you now, would you care to take this opportunity to say to people from the West that you have no desire to carry on with the new Cold War, and that you will do whatever you can to sort out the problems in Ukraine? Thank you! VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much for your question. About our exercises, manoeuvres and the development of our armed forces. You said that Russia, to a certain extent, contributed to the tension that we are now seeing in the world. Russia did contribute but only insofar as it is more and more firmly protecting its national interests. We are not attacking in the political sense of the word. We are not attacking anyone. We are only protecting our interests. Our Western partners – and especially our US partners – are displeased with us for doing exactly that, not because we are allowing security-related activity that provokes tension. Let me explain. You are talking about our aircraft, including strategic aviation operations. Do you know that in the early 1990s, Russia completely stopped strategic aviation flights in remote surveillance areas as the Soviet Union previously did? We completely stopped, while flights of US strategic aircraft carrying nuclear weapons continued. Why? Against whom? Who was threatened? So we didn’t make flights for many years and only a couple of years ago we resumed them. So are we really the ones doing the provoking? So, in fact, we only have two bases outside Russia, and both are in areas where terrorist activity is high. One is in Kyrgyzstan, and was deployed there upon request of the Kyrgyz authorities, President Akayev, after it was raided by Afghan militants. The other is in Tajikistan, which also borders on Afghanistan. I would guess you are interested in peace and stability there too. Our presence is justified and clearly understandable. Now, US bases are scattered around the globe – and you’re telling me Russia is behaving aggressively? Do you have any common sense at all? What are US armed forces doing in Europe, also with tactical nuclear weapons? What are they doing there? Listen, Russia has increased its military spending for 2015, if I am not mistaken, it is around 50 billion in dollar equivalent. The Pentagon’s budget is ten times that amount, $575 billion, I think, recently approved by the Congress. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy? Is there any common sense in this? Are we moving our forces to the borders of the United States or other countries? Who is moving NATO bases and other military infrastructure towards us? We aren’t. Is anyone listening to us? Is anyone engaging in some dialogue with us about it? No. No dialogue at all. All we hear is “that’s none of your business. Every country has the right to choose its way to ensure its own security.” All right, but we have the right to do so too. Why can’t we? Finally, the ABM system – something I mentioned in my Address to the Federal Assembly. Who was it that withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Treaty, one of the cornerstones of the global security system? Was it Russia? No, it wasn’t. The United States did this, unilaterally. They are creating threats for us, they are deploying their strategic missile defence components not just in Alaska, but in Europe as well – in Romania and Poland, very close to us. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy? If the question is whether we want law-based relations, the answer is yes, but only if our national economic and security interests are absolutely respected. We negotiated WTO accession for 19 years or so, and consented to compromise on many issues, assuming that we are concluding cast-iron agreements. And then… I will not discuss who’s right and who’s wrong (I already said on many occasions that I believe Russia behaved the right way in the Ukrainian crisis, and the West was wrong, but let us put this aside for now). Still, we joined the WTO. That organisation has rules. And yet, sanctions were imposed on Russia in violation of the WTO rules, the international law and the UN Charter – again unilaterally and illegitimately. Are we in the wrong again? We want to develop normal relations in the security sphere, in fighting terrorism. We will work together on nuclear non-proliferation. We will work together on other threats, including drugs, organised crime and grave infections, such as Ebola. We will do all this jointly, and we will cooperate in the economic sphere, if our partners want this. Here's another regarding dissent within the Kremlin: ALEXEI ANISHCHYUK, REUTERS NEWS AGENCY: Good afternoon, Mr Putin. In the last year Russia has been engulfed in what could be called one of the gravest crises in its contemporary history. It all started at the end of 2013 with the developments in Ukraine, followed by a deterioration in relations with the West, reminiscent of the “cold war”, and in recent days we have been witnessing an acute currency exchange crisis, which could grow into a financial and economic crisis. The risks are there. I know all too well that you often tend to blame some external forces for everything. I also know that some in the Russian elite, from your inner circle, who are the most well-informed people in Russia, despite all their public statements, tend to lay the blame for some things on you as the person who has been in charge of taking all the key decision in Russia for the last 15 years… VLADIMIR PUTIN: What are the names? ALEXEI ANISHCHYUK: Unfortunately, I can’t tell you. They usually talk on condition of anonymity. But lately such statements could be heard in their conversations with reporters. My question in this respect is the following: To what extent are you confident that your inner circle unconditionally supports you? Do you see any risk of a government coup or even a palace coup? You have stated on a number of occasions what you would do in case of an “orange revolution” or, God forbid, a “red revolution.” But do you have a plan in the event of treachery in your inner circle or a palace coup? Thank you. VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding a palace coup, I can assure you that we don’t have “palaces,” so a palace coup isn’t really possible. The official presidential residence is in the Kremlin, it is well protected, which is an important factor for the stability of state institutions in Russia. But this is not what stability is all about. It’s actually based on… There is no other stability as solid as the support of the Russian people. I don’t think you have any doubts as to whether our key foreign and domestic policy initiatives benefit from such support. Why is this happening? Because people feel deep down inside that we, and I in particular, are acting in the interests of the overwhelming majority of Russians. As for the question of who is to blame and who is not for the developments in Ukraine that kicked off the series of cataclysms we are currently witnessing, you know very well what I think. I have on many occasions said that a coup was committed and that it was a big mistake. Eastern Europe, our neighbours, including Ukraine, is not a banana republic, not even North Africa or Somalia, where you can stage a coup using some special tools, militants, or people who are unhappy with government policies. You are saying that I’m accusing someone. No, I’m not accusing anyone, I'm just stating a fact. Without going into details, I will say a few words about our discussions on this account with our partners. You may be aware of the agreement between the opposition and the Ukrainian government of 21 February. The agreement was signed by the three foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France as guarantors of the agreement. Do you follow me? We had talks with the leaders of the United States, who kept telling us, “Yanukovych should not use force no matter what.” He didn’t and what he got was a coup. We are now being told, “What could we do? The situation got out of control, which is called an excessive act in criminal law.” I beg to differ. If that’s an excessive act, then what were you supposed to say, even if you weren’t able to stop these radicals who broke into the presidential administration and took over the Government building? You should have told them as follows, “We do want to see you in Europe, we do want you to sign and ratify the association agreement, you are indeed part of the European family, but if you act this way, you will never be part of Europe, and we will never support you. Go back to the agreement of 21 February, form a national unity government and start working together.” I'm sure that if that was their position, there would be no civil war in Ukraine with its many casualties. Our colleagues have adopted a different stance. From giving out cookies during the Maidan protests, they moved on to political and economic promises. By the way, the Ukrainian people need the money, but no one is going to do this on their own, only through international financial institutions. Therefore, I believe that our position was completely justified and objective from day one. Now about the elites. You know, there is elite wine, there are elite resorts. There are no elite people. You know what the Russian elite is? It’s a worker. A farmer. Someone who carries our entire country on his shoulders. Has been carrying it for centuries, and will carry it for centuries to come. All other levels, including elites and others, are absolutely groundless. There are rich people and poor people, sick people and healthy people. But they are all equal before the country and before the law. There are rich patriots. You may wonder if that’s possible. Maybe, some are unhappy. Of course, what would they be happy about? They are disgruntled. But the question is, how they are going to get out of this situation. Always being dependent on someone, always being on the hook? One of our companies with offshore incorporation on some islands has made a decision on the dividends. It’s a legitimate company operating in an offshore zone, a large company. A decision was made. Do you know what happened next? As there were some people covered by sanctions there, the local directors declined and said they could not transfer money for dividend payments to them, and that they had to hold consultations. “Who are you going to consult? You must pay, it’s the law.” They said this was true, but that they would not honour the law. They were told, “That’s an outrage, we’re going to take you to court.” And do you know what they did? I’ll tell you: They resigned. This is nothing but a circus act. They resigned, and the money cannot be transferred without their signatures. Moreover, it’s impossible to appoint anyone to these positions because an order was issued not to fill these vacancies. So, the money is hanging in midair. If you are speaking about representatives of the Russian business community, do they want to live this way? Most of them don’t. Only a powerful Russian state can become the main protector of Russian citizens’ interests, regardless of what they are doing, business included. There is much more. Obama could never do anything like this.
I'll give Putin credit for being a man and taking questions, especially for as long as he did. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder why he's more aggressive in "protecting Russia's interests" in response to US troops in Europe now than he was when the US troop presence in Europe was double the size that it is today.
Because he can be, Deez. He knows damned well Obama won't do anything, just like every other world leader knows it.
I think he's doing it to stoke nationalism as the Russian oil-based economy falters. Keep the locals focused on the big bad USA rather than their own massively corrupt economy.
He does it again. As an administrator, his skills are remarkable. https://www.rt.com/on-air/putin-live-conference-2016/
LOL'd at the thread title! but Cruz did a fake filibuster ... >21 hours? (not a flame of Musburger1 btw) Musburger, you're right, he's impressive ... and formidable. We STILL have the military to defeat him, but the WILL to use it is certainly at question. So ... if you won't use it, do you really have it?
The question is do you need a strong military for defense only, or do you expand the mission to use the military to implement policy and settle disputes that are not defense related? And if the latter, how far do you go?
