Putin at UN: We need a ‘genuinely broad alliance against terrorism, just like the one against Hitler’

Vladimir Putin’s 2015 Address to the United Nations28 Sept 2015

**PDF for download**

Russian President Vladimir Putin just took the stage at the UN General Assembly for the first time in a decade, and he called for a “genuinely broad alliance against terrorism, just like the one against Hitler.”

Putin began by describing the original purpose of the UN, which he said had been violated by “those that found themselves at the top of the pyramid” after the Cold War.

“They thought they knew better and thought they did not have to reckon with the UN to legitimize their decisions,” Putin said, probably referring to the US.

Of course, the world is changing,” he said. “The UN must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready.”

Putin then laid out his argument against regime change in Syria, saying foreign meddling in overthrowing regimes had only created more instability in the Middle East.

“The export of revolutions — this time so-called democratic ones — continues,” he said.

The Russian president was expected to use the speech to flesh out his proposal for a Russian-led anti-ISIS coalition — which now includes Syria, Iraq, and Iran — and to emphasize how US intervention in the Middle East had destabilized the region.

9/28/15 at 2:02 PM

 

putin-unga

Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses attendees during the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. Headquarters in New York, September 28. Mike Segar/Reuters

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin just took the stage at the UN General Assembly for the first time in a decade, and he called for a “genuinely broad alliance against terrorism, just like the one against Hitler.”

Putin began by describing the original purpose of the UN, which he said had been violated by “those that found themselves at the top of the pyramid” after the Cold War.

“They thought they knew better and thought they did not have to reckon with the UN to legitimize their decisions,” Putin said, probably referring to the US.

Of course, the world is changing,” he said. “The UN must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready.”

Putin then laid out his argument against regime change in Syria, saying foreign meddling in overthrowing regimes had only created more instability in the Middle East.

“The export of revolutions — this time so-called democratic ones — continues,” he said.

The Russian president was expected to use the speech to flesh out his proposal for a Russian-led anti-ISIS coalition — which now includes Syria, Iraq, and Iran — and to emphasize how US intervention in the Middle East had destabilized the region.

isis map

To this effect, Putin said: “Far from learning from others’ mistakes, we keep on repeating them. It suffices to look at Middle East and North Africa … Rather than bringing about reform, foreign interference has resulted in … violence, poverty, and social disaster.

Putin said the power vacuum in the Middle East had “started to be filled by militants and terrorists.” He continued: “We think it is an enormous mistake to not cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces. No one but Assad’s armed forces and the Kurdish militias are truly fighting ISIS and other terrorists in Syria.

“On the basis of international law, we must create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism,” he said. “Naturally, the modern countries are expected to play a key role in this coalition.”

Putin then proposed that the world coordinate its actions to fight ISIS based on the principles in the UN charter. This was most likely a jab at the US, whose arming of some Syrian rebels Putin denounced as a violation of the charter in his interview with Charlie Rose that aired Sunday.

Putin addressed the conflict in Ukraine, albeit briefly, railing on the sanctions imposed on Russia by the West.

“Unilateral sanctions have become almost commonplace in pursuing political objectives,” he said. “The rules of the game are being constantly rewritten by a small group of players.”

russian posture in syria 27 sep 2015-01
 
 

Russia has been building up its military presence in Syria since late August in an effort to keep the embattled regime of President Bashar Assad from being overthrown by the many rebel groups operating, and gaining territory, within Syria.

Putin has been working to challenge America’s influence in the region by forging ties with Iran and expanding Russia’s leadership role in Syria and Iraq, and it seems to be working: Iraq announced on Sunday that it had reached a deal with Russia, Syria, and Iran to begin sharing “security and intelligence” information about ISIS, the Associated Press reported.

Broadly, Putin wants to show that he is willing to go further than the US and coalition partners to meet his stated regional goals, Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insider. Those goals apparently include keeping Assad in power.

Now, more and more Western leaders — including British Prime Minister David Cameron and Secretary of State John Kerry — are beginning to accept Russia’s assertion that the jihadists in Syria can be defeated only if Assad remains in power, at least in the short-term.

isis map

Obama, too, has been forced to acknowledge Russia’s expanding role in the region. The president, who has not spoken to Putin face-to-face in more than two years, was scheduled to meet with him Monday after both leaders’ speeches at the UN.

The Daily Beast’s Ben Nimmo warns that Obama should be wary: “The Russian president is hoping to snare his American counterpart by forcing him to accept Assad’s legitimacy. Obama should resist.”

During his speech at the UN earlier Monday, Obama said he was prepared to work with both Russia and Iran to solve the crisis in Syria.

And while he said Assad should not remain in place, he advocated a “managed transition” from Assad to a new leader. That could be a compromise that Russia and Iran — which are doubling down on propping up Assad — will certainly welcome as the military stalemate continues.

***NOW WATCH: Why Putin is the most powerful man in the world***

http://www.businessinsider.com/ian-bremmer-vladimir-putin-most-powerful-man-world-2015-5#ooid=RhNTFkdTovrJg1rP-s9ZqAiCXm6cMBEh

Stop Bombing Syria: a Letter from Mark Rylance, Brian Eno, John Pilger et al.

 

We are gravely concerned at the possibility of a parliamentary decision to bomb Syria. David Cameron is planning such a vote in the House of Commons in the near future. He is doing so in the face of much evidence that such an action would exacerbate the situation it is supposed to solve. Already we have seen the killing of civilians and the exacerbation of a refugee crisis which is largely the product of wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.

The US and its allies have dropped 20,000 bombs on Iraq and Syria in the past year, with little effect. We fear that this latest extension of war will only worsen the threat of terrorism, as have the previous wars involving the British government. Cameron is cynically using the refugee crisis to urge more war. He should not be allowed to.

Mark Rylance

Charlotte Church

John Williams

Mairead Maguire Nobel peace laureate

Brian Eno

Len McCluskey General secretary, Unite the Union

Christine Shawcroft Labour NEC

Diane Abbott MP

Jenny Tonge

Caroline Lucas MP

Andrew Murray Chair, Stop the War Campaign

Lindsey German Convenor, STWC

Tariq Ali

John Pilger

Tim Lezard

David Edgar

Alan Gibbons

Andy de la Tour

Michael Rosen

Eugene Skeef

Victoria Brittain

Anders Lustgarten

David Gentleman

David Swanson

Gerry Grehan Peace People Belfast

 

 

 

 

The Hillary Clinton Email Saga: “Senior Intelligence Officials Said”

Region:

 

Hillary-Clinton-EmailsThere’s a bigger story hidden inside the New York Times report that “a special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program —  . . .  contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.” The review was undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which presumably originated the material. They concluded that the material had originally been given the U.S. government’s highest secrecy classification. Even if one of Clinton’s aides stripped the markings (a felony), Secretary Clinton surely knew satellite intelligence and North Korean nuclear deployments are the U.S. government’s most highly classified information.

The media correctly saw the news as political trouble for Hillary, but they missed two other crucial elements of the story. Somebody high up in the intelligence community leaked that story. And Hillary faces far more than political trouble. She’s being fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

The NYT story came from anonymous sources. For Camp Clinton, the most ominous words are “senior intelligence officials said.” They signal just how furious the intelligence community is at the gross mishandling of their crown jewels. Since the intelligence agencies must now sort through everything Hillary has given to the State Department, plus whatever the FBI can scrape from the server, you can expect the leaks to keep on coming. Worse yet for her, the spy agencies must conduct a full-scale damage assessment, based on the high likelihood her server was hacked by foreign governments (and perhaps some 17-year-old in his parents’ basement in Belgrade).

The intelligence services remember how seriously the Department of Justice dealt with former CIA directors John Deutsch and David Petraeus, who mishandled documents. They will demand equal treatment here. They will keep the heat on by leaking to the press. The Times story shows the faucet is already open.

Hillary’s legal problems stem from the “gross mishandling” of security information, which is a serious crime. It doesn’t matter whether the materials are stamped or not. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to violate the law or not. It is a violation simply to put them anywhere that lacks adequate safeguards. Like a private server. Nobody stamped Gen. Petraeus’ personal calendar, which he kept in an unlocked drawer at home. John Deutsch was just trying to catch up on work by taking his CIA laptop home. Those mistakes are trivial compared with what Clinton is already known to have stored on her private server in Chappaqua.

It’s just hand waving to keep saying the documents were not stamped. Satellite intelligence is always classified. So are private diplomatic discussions with foreign officials. They are born that way. Secretary Clinton is expected to know that, and she has said she was well aware of the classification rules. The straightforward conclusion is that she repeatedly violated laws for handling of national security materials.

As the investigation proceeds, Secretary Clinton should also be wondering how loyal her aides are. So far, they have marched in a solid phalanx with her. But whoever removed the classification markings on incoming satellite data faces years in jail. The FBI will be in a strong position to encourage them to speak “fully and frankly,” as they say in the State Department.

Valuable as the New York Times story is, it also misses a third crucial element. Although it highlights Hillary’s private email, it glosses over her private server. Reluctantly, she has begun to answer questions about the email account and even issued a limp apology. But she never mentions the server. When Fox’s Ed Henry asked her if she knew of any other government officials who had one, she refused to answer.

Why would a public official go to the time, trouble and expense of setting up a private server and paying her own IT people to run it?  Simple: to keep the contents under her control even if the email account was discovered. She managed to keep the email account secret throughout her tenure at the State Department and for two years after that, avoiding legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests. When she was finally caught, she took full advantage of the extra layer of insulation her server provided. She reviewed her own records, turned over what she wanted, deleted everything else, and hunkered down. If her account had been at Gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail, the federal judges overseeing the FOIA lawsuits would have ordered the Internet companies to turn over everything. The FBI could sort it out, and Hillary would have no way to delete the records. On the bright side, with a private server, she didn’t get a lot of pop-up ads for North Korean vacations.

The State Department is still doing its best to protect her, stonewalling and slow-walking requests for materials. To supervise the document releases, they hired Catherine Duval, who moved over from the IRS. Anybody who cannot find Lois Lerner’s emails has the right kind of experience for John Kerry. On Tuesday, Kerry announced he was beefing up his department’s FOIA office by naming Ambassador Janice Jacobs as “transparency coordinator.” Now, it looks like Jacobs just donated $2,700 to Hillary’s campaign. Was the State Department too dumb to even ask her about possible conflicts of interest?

The stonewalling won’t help. The reluctant apologies won’t help. The FBI investigation will keep grinding on, and the intelligence agencies will keep passing out any nuggets they find. If Hillary’s political troubles keep piling up, she won’t make it to the general election. If her legal troubles keep piling up, she’s going to wish the next president was Gerald Ford.

There’s a bigger story hidden inside the New York Times report that “a special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program —  . . .  contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.” The review was undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which presumably originated the material. They concluded that the material had originally been given the U.S. government’s highest secrecy classification. Even if one of Clinton’s aides stripped the markings (a felony), Secretary Clinton surely knew satellite intelligence and North Korean nuclear deployments are the U.S. government’s most highly classified information.

The media correctly saw the news as political trouble for Hillary, but they missed two other crucial elements of the story. Somebody high up in the intelligence community leaked that story. And Hillary faces far more than political trouble. She’s being fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

The NYT story came from anonymous sources. For Camp Clinton, the most ominous words are “senior intelligence officials said.” They signal just how furious the intelligence community is at the gross mishandling of their crown jewels. Since the intelligence agencies must now sort through everything Hillary has given to the State Department, plus whatever the FBI can scrape from the server, you can expect the leaks to keep on coming. Worse yet for her, the spy agencies must conduct a full-scale damage assessment, based on the high likelihood her server was hacked by foreign governments (and perhaps some 17-year-old in his parents’ basement in Belgrade).

The intelligence services remember how seriously the Department of Justice dealt with former CIA directors John Deutsch and David Petraeus, who mishandled documents. They will demand equal treatment here. They will keep the heat on by leaking to the press. The Times story shows the faucet is already open.

Hillary’s legal problems stem from the “gross mishandling” of security information, which is a serious crime. It doesn’t matter whether the materials are stamped or not. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to violate the law or not. It is a violation simply to put them anywhere that lacks adequate safeguards. Like a private server. Nobody stamped Gen. Petraeus’ personal calendar, which he kept in an unlocked drawer at home. John Deutsch was just trying to catch up on work by taking his CIA laptop home. Those mistakes are trivial compared with what Clinton is already known to have stored on her private server in Chappaqua.

It’s just hand waving to keep saying the documents were not stamped. Satellite intelligence is always classified. So are private diplomatic discussions with foreign officials. They are born that way. Secretary Clinton is expected to know that, and she has said she was well aware of the classification rules. The straightforward conclusion is that she repeatedly violated laws for handling of national security materials.

As the investigation proceeds, Secretary Clinton should also be wondering how loyal her aides are. So far, they have marched in a solid phalanx with her. But whoever removed the classification markings on incoming satellite data faces years in jail. The FBI will be in a strong position to encourage them to speak “fully and frankly,” as they say in the State Department.

Valuable as the New York Times story is, it also misses a third crucial element. Although it highlights Hillary’s private email, it glosses over her private server. Reluctantly, she has begun to answer questions about the email account and even issued a limp apology. But she never mentions the server. When Fox’s Ed Henry asked her if she knew of any other government officials who had one, she refused to answer.

Why would a public official go to the time, trouble and expense of setting up a private server and paying her own IT people to run it?  Simple: to keep the contents under her control even if the email account was discovered. She managed to keep the email account secret throughout her tenure at the State Department and for two years after that, avoiding legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests. When she was finally caught, she took full advantage of the extra layer of insulation her server provided. She reviewed her own records, turned over what she wanted, deleted everything else, and hunkered down. If her account had been at Gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail, the federal judges overseeing the FOIA lawsuits would have ordered the Internet companies to turn over everything. The FBI could sort it out, and Hillary would have no way to delete the records. On the bright side, with a private server, she didn’t get a lot of pop-up ads for North Korean vacations.

The State Department is still doing its best to protect her, stonewalling and slow-walking requests for materials. To supervise the document releases, they hired Catherine Duval, who moved over from the IRS. Anybody who cannot find Lois Lerner’s emails has the right kind of experience for John Kerry. On Tuesday, Kerry announced he was beefing up his department’s FOIA office by naming Ambassador Janice Jacobs as “transparency coordinator.” Now, it looks like Jacobs just donated $2,700 to Hillary’s campaign. Was the State Department too dumb to even ask her about possible conflicts of interest?

The stonewalling won’t help. The reluctant apologies won’t help. The FBI investigation will keep grinding on, and the intelligence agencies will keep passing out any nuggets they find. If Hillary’s political troubles keep piling up, she won’t make it to the general election. If her legal troubles keep piling up, she’s going to wish the next president was Gerald Ford.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). UNRULY hEARTS will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.