Putin: Unilateral force has nothing to do with global democracy

[kskiska]

The US has overstepped its borders in every way. We must build a new world order to ensure security and prosperity for all

Vladimir Putin

The universal, indivisible character of security can be expressed as the basic principle that "security for one is security for all". As Franklin D Roosevelt said at the onset of the second world war: "When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries is in danger."

These words remain relevant today. Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security. This global standoff pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the world's agenda. And, just like any war, the cold war left behind live ammunition, figuratively speaking. It left ideological stereotypes, double standards and other remnants of cold war thinking.

What then is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it describes a scenario in which there is one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And this is pernicious, not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this, certainly, has nothing in common with democracy. Because democracy is the power of the majority in the light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

We, Russia, are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. I believe that unipolarity is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. The model itself is flawed: at its root it provides no moral foundations for modern civilisation. But witnessed in today's world is a tendency to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world. And with which results?

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2011858,00.html

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Watch it puddin, cuz no one can make war against the beast. n/t

[whirlygigspin]

2. go puti puut

He's da man-- I think we should rename our french fries after him


Я люблю это!

[teryang]

3. This time the word from Munich isn't appeasement

This speech is a huge red flag. Much like Brezinsky's censored presentation to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Feb. 1. We are drifting to a huge war in Asia.

Instead of hearing the Zbig or Putin's historic assessments we get to hear Feith, Bremer and Gordon repeat their litany of lies ad nauseum.

[Briar]

4. Nice to be able to read what Mr Putin actually said

Here, every report in the MSM was extensively larded with offended rebuttals from such lighthouses of liberty and democracy as Senator Liebermann, so one could barely get the gist of his argument. This part, for instance, was almost totally lost:

"...Another important theme that directly affects global security is the struggle against poverty. On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world's poorest countries - sometimes substantial financial resources (which tend to be linked with the development of that same donor country's companies). And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously retain their agricultural subsidies while limiting some countries' access to hi-tech products.

"And let's say things as they are - one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness, but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, say, a region such as the Middle East, where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation..."