Putin Warns of World War III

putinwarns
By Eduard Popov in Fort Russ:

On March 1st, 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his Address to the Federal Assembly (the upper and lower chambers of the Russian parliament, i.e., the Federation Council and State Duma). This speech was, in all likelihood, not only of political, but of historic significance – first and foremost because of the foreign policy agenda voiced in the speech. The domestic policy dimension of Putin’s speech also deserves consideration in due time.
A number of important circumstances shaped Putin’s 2018 Address to the Federal Assembly. First of all, the head of state usually addresses the Federal Assembly in December, but at the end of last year it was announced that the event would be postponed. What caused this change? The easiest explanation would be that Russian presidential elections are approaching on March 18th. Without a doubt, Putin’s March 1st speech was delivered in a pre-election context.
Against Putin’s speech, which I am inclined to consider historic, the debates between the other presidential candidates look minuscule and even absurd. Nevertheless, I believe that this would be too strong of a simplification. Vladimir Putin confidently embraces the role of leader of Russia, and if he had merely desired to engage in some political advertising, then a whole range of other topics could have been chosen for his speech. Yet the main foreign policy message of Putin’s speech, in my opinion, cannot be discussed outside of a global context and, as follows, is of global significance. This message is encapsulated in a short phrase: continued deterioration of Russia-West relations will lead to the threat of a military clash.
This “militarization” of Putin’s speech cannot be explained in terms of electoral aims, which are indeed important but rather minor compared to the list of topics which Putin addressed. This was not an appeal to the electorate, but a call on the Russian nation on the eve of serious challenges and, perhaps, a great war.
In other words, on March 1st, 2018, Russians were witnesses not to a speech by Russian politician #1, but a calling by Russia’s Supreme Commander-in-Chief in anticipation of what is, in our opinion, an inevitable war with Ukraine and, as follows, the West (the US and NATO) standing behind it.
This is why I would call President’s Putin’s Address to the Federal Assembly a “Munich speech 2.0.” To recall, in 2007 in the capital of Bavaria, Putin presented a vivid and clear picture of the injustices of the unipolar world order. His speech was then called by US minions a return to the Cold War, just as his March 1st speech has been dubbed a return to the arms race. The 2018 Address developed the same theses of the Munich speech, but 11 years later and in a drastically changed international situation. I would summarize these changes in two points: (1) the collapse of Pax Americana has become obvious; and (2) precisely due to this crisis of American hegemony, the threat of a great war has increased drastically.
Today’s situation is at once cause for both optimism and anxiety. Of course, if one so wishes they can interpret the “militaristic” part of Putin’s speech as the apotheosis of Russian militarism, although this interpretation has already been sounded far and wide and I do not think that everyone saying such is insincere. But on exactly the same side of the hypothetical barricades, it must be understood that these weapons are not for conquest, but for defending our own territory.
Vladimir Putin, as is well known, as a KGB officer serving in East Germany at the time of its Anschluss by West Germany, saw with his own eyes the West’s deception and the treacherous stupidity of the gullible Soviet elites in the likes of Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, etc.
The broken gentleman’s promise not to expand NATO eastwards that was given to Gorbachev in exchange for agreeing to “let go” of the German Democratic Republic, the creation and deployment of new NATO units a few dozen kilometers from Russia’s northern capital of St. Petersburg, and the deployment of US missile “defense” bases in Romania and Poland – all of these actions are provocations of an arms race and steps towards a real hot war, not a cold one.
Russia has numerous, acute internal problems and the Russian leadership led by President Putin is, to put it mildly, far from successfully coping with all of them. But in the current situation, Russia’s very survival as a state is at stake. Thus, like many other times in Russia’s history, the Russian people have rallied around their leader, and all forces and resources will be dedicated to strengthening the country’s armed forces.
2018 will be a year of strenuous trials for Russia and Europe.


 

co-founding editor of OffGuardian (retired)

Filed under: conflict zones, latest

by

co-founding editor of OffGuardian (retired)

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Binra (@onemindinmany)
Reader

“continued deterioration of Russia-West relations will lead to the threat of a military clash”
Is that a bad translation? We are already seeing the threat.
To what degree are these geopolitical dances choreographed?
Notwithstanding world wars.
Medical globalism and infrastructural IofT globalism – and of course the underlying financial ‘system’ all operate beneath the scenes while attention is captured and polarised in the dynamic of conflict.
Look at the body language of the American partners and their assets.
Grave ashen faced statesmen struggling under enormous responsibility?
Or crisis actors?

joekano76
Reader

Reblogged this on Floating-voter.

BigB
Reader

Some of the comments below pick up on the Gorbachev remarks. For me, Gorbachev needs to be exposed for what he is: a traitor …not just to the FSU, but to the rest of humanity. There is no need for me to labour my point: the man himself has laid out his “global perestroika” corporate commoning agenda often enough, quite often in the Graun, which should be red flag enough. If people are suspicious that the environmental movement is being gamed toward one world governance …he’s your man. In light of this, it would pay to be extremely cynical about… Read more »

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

I tried to up tick this but the number went from 2 to 1 and then back to 2 (just in case you are thinking that no-one agrees with you!)

Admin
Reader

a post appeared here in your real name?

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

Yes. A post with my initial and surname appeared at the top of a thread I had been posting on.

Jen
Reader
Jen

Happened to quite a few people (including me) over at Bernhard H’s Moon of Alabama blog: there were some commenters using our MoA names to make comments completely out of character with what we would normally say. The problem seems to have gone away.

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

Jen
I don’t know what an MoA name is but this person didn’t use my user name but used my REAL name: the initial of my first name and the full surname. You don’t have to give these details when you post to OffG so the site itself never knew who I am.

Admin
Reader

MoA is short for Moon of Alabama, an alt media site, one of the best. But yes, that’s a different issue. I replied to your email btw.

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

Thank you for your reply. I will monitor the situation and let you know if there are any further incidences.

bevin
Reader
bevin

I think that it is a WordPress thing, Mikalina. the same thing happened to me.

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

Hi Bevin. Don’t use WordPress or any social media platform.

bevin
Reader
bevin

I only use it insofar as it appears to power the comment facility.

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

Sorry, lazy grammar. I meant, I don’t use WordPress or social media. I would not be so presumptuous as to tell you what to do!

bevin
Reader
bevin

I know that. But thanks for your courtesy.

Admin
Reader

How bizarre. If you’re concerned at all just email us about the comment in question.

BigB
Reader

BTW: if we are serious about at least protesting the coming war: then we will have to look deeper than the simplistic Russia good – America bad analysis. Vladimir Vladomirovich and Xi are jostling for a multi-polarity WITHIN the Pax Capitalis – not AGAINST it. Intra-capitalist blocs are forming on both sides …inter alia NATO, EU Military Unification (PESCO: CARD); Quads in SE Pacific; Anglo-French treaties versus EEU; SCO (BRICS is not a bloc.) It is inter-capitalist bloc imperial rivalry that will cause WW3: an Inter-capitalist cooperative pact to further sub-divide the failing global market would be doomed to failure,… Read more »

intergenerationaltrauma
Reader

Apparently our Western oligarchs are all prepared to take the calculated risk that they might just have to hop in their private jets to head to their spot in a luxury underground bunker somewhere in order to hunker down and ride out the nuclear winter that follows hot on the heals of the total incineration of the planet. Like lemmings heading off to the latest version of the – “Peasant’s Crusade” – Western populations seem almost totally oblivious to the apocalyptic nature of our current circumstances, including the totally insane behavior of our so called – “leaders.”

Kathy
Reader
Kathy

The most worrying thing is some of them seem to believe they are the architects of the Apocalypse. We are all just pawns in the game of Chess to them. How do we wake the sleep walkers who still soak up the propaganda. How do we raise the banner for peace. Sometimes I think they would rather drift into a state of war then acknowledge how deeply they have been manipulated and how wrong they were to trust these psychopaths with our world.

Fair dinkum
Reader
Fair dinkum

The One Per Cent have a $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$tranglehold.
Putin knows this.
He has given them an ultimatum.
Check.
Will they accept defeat gracefully or wipe the pieces from the board?

alaffcreator
Reader

“…US missile “defense” bases in Romania and Poland…” that’s hilarious! The apotheosis of absurdity and ridiculousness. Sounds the same as, for example, “French missile “defense” bases in Australia” or “Brazilian missile “defense” bases in Norway”, haha. Well, if the US have their “defense” bases in Romania and Poland, then I conclude that Romania and Poland are a part of the US, i.e. American land. Well, not bad at all. Hmm, will it be OK for the US if Russia would have some military bases equipped with “Iskander” complexes, for example, in Mexico, calling it “defense” bases? I’m sure the US… Read more »

Francis Lee
Reader
Francis Lee

”Plus, the prospect of a two-front war – a war against the citizens of the Donbass and a war against Russia. This is pure suicide.” Of course it is pure suicide, but that is what it is meant to be. Poroshenko will do, what any other US vassal will do – a fortiori – when the obese one gets the orders from DC. Of course the Ukie army will get yet another bloody nose to add to the defeats in Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo. But this will be political manna from heaven for the Anglo-zionist empire; they will unleash a full… Read more »

Savorywill
Reader

I think that just publishing Putin’s speech was sufficient. He outlined exactly the Russian response to American attempts to dominate and threaten other nations by military force. Looking at the pros and cons of Gorbachev’s move to disband the Soviet Union is not relevant to the issue, in my view. I personally think it was an extremely admirable position for him to take, to be able to say that our policies were not working and let’s try something else. Actually, a very brave and courageous step to take and he fully merited receiving the Nobel prize for peace, in my… Read more »

alaffcreator
Reader

“…It is not Gorbachev’s fault that the US didn’t adhere to its promise to not move one inch towards Russia with NATO…” I strongly disagree on this point. I have no doubt that this was the direct guilt of Gorbachev. It is he who is guilty of “the US didn’t adhere to its promise to not move one inch towards Russia with NATO”. To be naive and stupid – this is guilt. You can not afford the luxury of being naive. You are the president of the country. Nevermind what country – USSR, or any other country. This is your… Read more »

Savorywill
Reader

I suppose you are right. He should have gotten the agreement in writing. But, I don’t believe for an instant that America seriously plans to attack Russia, though, the agreement notwithstanding. It is probably all just smoke and mirrors to justify the huge military expenditures. If Hillary had been elected and got a ‘no fly zone’ going in Syria, Russia would have certainly ignored it and Hillary certainly would have had to back down, as with Trump, if the conflict seriously escalated with Russia. No one wants to start a nuclear war with Russia (or China), of that I am… Read more »

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

And I will repeat again, it does not fit the pattern. When a country collapses, the West always has a man on the inside.
Also, this airy fairy good hearted but fallible character who, oops, drops the ball, is becoming a bit of a meme. The FBI in the 9/11 film; the UN in the genocide in Rwanda. NGOs in Haiti. Comforting to know that it is all human error, human nature. Who wants to face up to the fact that it is deliberately planned and executed, whatever the “collateral damage”.

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

We know the modus operandi for bringing down a country by the West. We have seen it many times. We also don’t believe the mainstream media when they talk of internal strife, or a myriad of other reasons for the fall of that country. Yet, when it comes to the USSR, we fully accept what we were taught – by the MSM: it fell because it was bankrupted by the arms race; it fell because it was bankrupted by Afghanistan; and, of course, the people wanted to be part of the West. What if the usual tentacles invaded before the… Read more »

bevin
Reader
bevin

” Administrations neither start nor prevent wars they act as agents, agents on behalf of ? …” The answer is not easy. This is a zombie civilisation-the brains that guide it are long dead. This empire has two parts, the greater part of it consists of the satellites of the USA, the UK and Canada included, and their leaders do not think at all. They see themselves as bound to follow Washington’s lead, lest it becomes angry and issues orders. It is many years since any of the satellites dared to think for themselves on strategic geopolitical questions, so long… Read more »

labrebisgalloise
Reader

There’s no doubt that Gorbachev, Shevardnadze and their ilk were stupid and gullible, if not worse. Whether they were traitors is another matter. In truth, the treachery had been committed long before when the mistakes of Marshal Stalin were used by revisionists to inter all that had been good about the USSR, his leadership of it and working class power as a force for good in the world. V V Putin has at least recognised the importance of J V Stalin in shaping the world as we know it today and, in his footsteps, contributed to preserving at least some… Read more »

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

working class power
Right, the people who would have been leaders of the working class, exercised real power, as they were worked to death in the slave labour camps in Siberia, or shot in the basements of the GPU prisons.

Alan
Reader
Alan

The more I read articles of this nature the more I believe I’m watching Dr Strangelove. It seems the scenarios laid out are reliant upon characters like Bucky or Jack D Ripper. Administrations neither start nor prevent wars they act as agents, agents on behalf of ? Mr Putin, Mr Trump, Mrs May etc, etc all appear to be reading a script, albeit a heavily censored one via our trustworthy press. I can see the plausibility of Mr Popov’s analysis, yet as always such a perspective engenders fear and anxiety. It seems the right questions are not being asked.

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

It seems the right questions are not being asked.
— in the Anglo-Zionist Empire, and its pathetic vassal states.
In Russia, the right questions have already been asked, and answered. The answers are in fact clear, for anybody with eyes to see, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Haiti, Yugoslavia, North Korea. Hence Vladimir Putin’s speech, announcing that the era of Global Hegemony, to use somebody’s term, has now been cancelled.

Michael Leigh
Reader
Michael Leigh

I think it is unhelpful in the context of President Validimir. V. Putin address to both Russian Parliamentary chambers, and for the present commentator to comment on past matters of either Gorbachev, or Shevardnadze and others, who this commentator now cateergorise as traitors? Because as the stark logic of Russia current claims, as defined by the President Putin is in the communinal/political envelope of self-defence: and telling it like it is. Is surely an approiate warning to the Global Communitity: and that the USA’s and its many partners in alliances – if not the American peoples. And, recognise that this… Read more »

JJA
Reader
JJA

Gorbachev bought into the western flattery. Thatcher and her ‘he is a person I can do business with’ and cosying up to Ronnie and Nancy as a cute 4-some with Raisa. Gorbachev was a fool and played for a fool by the west.

Arthur Cadbury
Reader
Arthur Cadbury

The comment about Gorbachev is disingenuous and unhelpful – even so, if one reads between the lines here, in respect to Putin’s presentation of the apparent supremacy of Russia in terms of military technology (that is if you have watched the videos he showed) you could consider that he has created an fresh expedient towards Nato and the West coming to a realisation that this delusion and stupidity has to come to an end – rather than that of the continuance of the survival of the human species, which will undoubtedly include them amongst our number.

Jen
Reader
Jen

For the Soviet government to have trusted a promise made by the then US Secretary of State James Baker, that NATO would not extend membership to other eastern European states if the USSR were to agree to German reunification – in a global context in which Moscow had to know that the warlords fighting the legitimate government in Afghanistan were being aided by the US government through the CIA and other contacts (Osama bin Laden among them), and Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan were dying because of US involvement in that war – was naive at the very least and bordering… Read more »

Catte
Reader
Catte

In what sense is the comment about Gorbachev ‘disingenuous’? Surely he was a monstrous fool and an inadvertent architect of this present precarious situation?

Enyalion
Reader
Enyalion

Unfortunately you’re dealing with a bunch of American sociopaths who truly believe in the old better-dead-than-red meme.