How Vladimir Putin busted American propaganda over ‘civil rights’

Russian president Vladimir Putin not too long ago participated in a summit together with his American counterpart Joe Biden on the sixteenth of June at Geneva. The summit was common for probably the most half with none discernible profit to both aspect on the face of it.
The summit did current Joe Biden with a chance to attain political factors together with his home viewers since Russia has grow to be a significant flashpoint in American politics. It was apparent to most that Democrats had invented the Russian collusion hoax idea to undermine then president Donald Trump.
But in doing so, additionally they condemned any possibilities of enchancment in ties between the 2 international locations. In some ways, one of many aims of the newest summit was to bridge the hole between Russia and United States on key points whereas for the American president, it was political necessity to have in mind the home state of affairs in USA as nicely.
Nevertheless, the western media, which serves because the propaganda wing of western nation states, engaged in partisan politics as nicely and tried to solid Vladimir Putin because the ‘Big Bad Guy’ throughout their interactions with him.
But the Russian president dealt with them in a really refined method and on quite a few events, main as much as the summit and within the press convention after it, eloquently uncovered American duplicity.
Here, we will check out the precise points and situations the place Putin rebutted American propaganda and different situations the place he deviated from the narrative embraced by the American elite.
‘Predictability and Stability’
In the times main as much as the summit, Vladimir Putin gave an interview to NBC’s Kier Simmons. During the interview, the host subtly implied that whereas Joe Biden wished predictability and stability on this planet, his Russian counterpart wished chaos and anarchy.
Simmons requested Putin, “President Biden wants predictability and stability. Is that what you want?” In response, the Russian president replied that predictability and stability are an important values in worldwide affairs.
It was then that he uncovered USA’s double commonplace with respect to the matter. He stated, “What kind of stability and predictability could there be there if we remember the 2011 events in Libya where the country was essentially taken apart, broken down?”
He added, “What kind of stability and predictability were there? There has been talk of a continued presence of troops in Afghanistan. And then all of a sudden, boom! The troops are being withdrawn from Afghanistan. What, is this predictability and the stability again?”
Putin additionally took a jibe on the USA for making an attempt to overthrow the Assad Government in Syria. He stated, “I’ve asked my U.S. counterparts, “You want Assad to leave? Who will replace him? What will happen when somebody— he’s replaced with somebody?” The reply is odd. The reply is, “I don’t know.” Well, in case you don’t know what is going to occur subsequent, why change what there may be? It might be a second Libya or one other Afghanistan. Do we wish this? No.”
The Russian president additionally mocked BBC correspondent Steve Rosenberg when the latter accused Russia of making instability. Rosenberg requested through the post-talk press convention, “Joe Biden calls for a stable and predictable relationship with Russia, however, the west believes that unpredictability is a trait of the Russian policy. Are you ready to forego instability to improve the relationship with the west?”
Putin shot again, “Well if the west believes this then it doesn’t mean that this is the objective truth.” He added, “You said that the west believes that Russian policy is unpredictable, well let me reciprocate. The US withdrawal from the ADM Treaty in 2002 was unpredictable. Why would they do that and undermine the basis of strategic stability?”
He continued, “The INF treaty withdrawal in 2019, is that what you call stability? The Open Skies Agreement withdrawal, is that what you call stability?” For good measure, he added that there was nothing steady about orchestrating a coup in Ukraine both.
Political protests: Alexei Navalny, Capitol Hill riots and the Black Lives Matter motion
Vladimir Putin made it fairly clear through the interview with Kier Simmons and the press convention that he’s not keen on the Black Lives Matter motion. He informed Simmons when prodded on the matter, “I think that, of course, this movement was used by one of the political forces domestically in the course of election campaigns. But there are some grounds for it.”
He added, “But no matter how noble the goals that somebody is driven by, if it reaches certain extremes, if it spills over into — if it acquires elements of extremism— we can not approve this. We can not welcome it. So our attitude to this is very simple. We support African Americans’ fight for their rights, but we are against any types and kinds of extremism, which unfortunately sometimes, regrettably, we witness currently these days.”
An American reporter requested Putin what he was “so afraid of” that Russia has outlawed Alexei Navalny’s organisation and prevents individuals who assist him from operating for workplace. Putin responded, “The organization in question, publicly, has called for riots and public disorder. It has openly instructed people in how to make Molotov cocktails so to use them against law enforcement. It called for the participation of underaged persons in riots.”
He acknowledged additional, “America has just recently went through a grievous chain of events after a certain African-American individual was killed and an entire movement, the Black Lives Matter movement, appeared. I’m not going to go into details, I will spare you of them. But we’ve seen programs, we have seen looting and violations and riots. We sympathize with the Americans but we do not want for the same thing to happen on Russian soil, and we’ll do anything possible to prevent this.”
The reporter went on to say, “If all of your political opponents are dead in prison, poisoned, doesn’t that send a message that you do not want a fair political fight?” Putin responded, “All right. About my opponents being jailed or imprisoned. People went into US Congress with political demands. 400 people now facing criminal charges. They are facing prison terms of up to 20, maybe 25 years. They are called homegrown terrorists. They are being accused of many other things. 70 people were arrested right there on the spot, 30 of them are still arrested. On what grounds? Not quite clear.”
He additionally introduced up the killing of Ashli Babbitt. He stated, “One of the participants, a woman, was shot dead on the spot. She was not threatening with anything. Why am I bringing this up? Many people are facing the same things as we do. And I am stressing this. We are sympathizing with the United States, but we do not want the same thing repeating here.”
During the interview with Simmons, he was requested, “Did you order Alexei Navalny’s assassination?” Putin responded, “Of course not. We don’t have this kind of habit, of assassinating anybody. That’s one. Number two is I want to ask you: Did you order the assassination of the woman who walked into the Congress and who was shot and killed by a policeman? Do you know that 450 individuals were arrested after entering the Congress? And they didn’t go there to steal a laptop. They came with political demands.”
He added, “450 people have been detained. They’re facing— they’re looking— they’re— they’re looking at jail time, between 15 and 25 years. And they came to the Congress with political demands. Isn’t that persecution for political opinions? Some have been accused of plotting to topple— to take over-government power. Some are accused of robbery. They didn’t go there to rob.”
Finally, he stated, “If somebody is actually using political activities as a shield to deal with their issues, including— achieve their commercial— goals, then it’s something that they have to be held responsible for.”
Cyber Security
During the press convention, a reporter requested Vladimir Putin if he dedicated to “ceasing” cyber assaults on the United States. Putin stated, “US sources, I don’t want to make a mistake here as to the name of this organization, but the US sources claim that the majority of cyber attacks are made from the US territory. The second one is Canada, then two Latin American states, and then the UK. As for Russia, it is not listed in this ranking of countries that see the most significant number of cyber attacks from their territory. That’s one thing.”
Putin then talked about that Russia had obtained 10 requests concerning assaults on US infrastructure in 2020 and two this yr. Conversely, Russia had despatched 45 requests to US authorities final yr and 35 this yr. While Russia responded to each request by US authorities, they’ve themselves not obtained any solutions from their American counterparts.
Kier Simmons additionally relied on claims by US companies as gospel reality to allege that Russia had certainly engaged in cyber assaults towards USA. To that, Putin stated, “Dear Keir, you have said that there is a weight of evidence of cyber attacks by Russia. And then you went on to list those— official U.S. agencies that have stated as much. Is that what you did?”
When Simmons then backtracked and claimed that he was solely “conveying information” concerning who stated what, the Russian president replied, “Right. Right. You are conveying information to me as to who said that. But where is evidence that this was indeed done? I will tell you that this person has said that, that person has said this. But where is the evidence? Where is proof? When there are charges without evidence, I can tell you, you can take your complaint to the International League of Sexual Reform.”
He added additional, “It’s becoming farcical, like an ongoing farcical thing, never-ending farcical thing. You said “plenty of evidence,” however you haven’t cited any proof.”
Western imperialism by NGOs
The most important assertion, nonetheless, was the style wherein Vladimir Putin uncovered western imperialism within the garb of ‘civil society’ and NGOs. As was to be anticipated, there have been quite a few questions on Alexei Navalny through the press convention.
He stated, “The United States declared Russia as its enemy and adversary, and the Congress made it back in 2017. The US legislation have provisions that the United States should support the order and rule of democratic order in our country and support democratic organizations. And it is all contained in your legislation.”
He emphatically acknowledged, “Let us ask a question. If Russia is an enemy, then what kind of organizations would be supported by the United States in Russia? I believe these are not organizations that make Russia stronger, but those who deter Russia, and that is the goal of the United States that they made public. These are organizations and people that help implement the US policy on the Russian track.”
Putin additional went on so as to add, “The United States has a law that spells out that the United States will support specific candidates and organizations in Russia. At the same time, the Russian Federation was labeled as an adversary. They went on the record and said publicly that they will stymie the development of Russia. It begs the question, what kind of organizations the United States and the West will be supporting and pay them if we are an adversary?”
It is an simple actuality that western international locations promote ‘civil society’ organisations and NGOs overseas as a way to additional their pursuits in these international locations. It may be very apparent in India the place foreign-funded activists and NGOs file petitions in Courts to cease infrastructure tasks and intervene within the home politics of the nation.
During the UPA regime, the extra-constitutional National Advisory Council (NAC) that used to report back to Sonia Gandhi was crammed with such west funded activists. Since the NDA Government got here to energy, the Indian Government has cracked down on such international funded NGOs which has attracted grave criticism from their western masters.
Western organisations akin to Oxfam even urged the Congress social gathering to type an ‘alliance’ with civil society teams, which may solely be interpreted as a direct interference within the home affairs of India. But it’s not simply in India that bears the brunt of American imperialism. In different international locations as nicely, western international locations, particularly USA, makes use of NGOs to additional their imperialist intentions.