Putin: Great Visionary or Just Lost

[Lauren Johnson]

RC: What is The Empire? The Anglo-American Empire, which has no place for integrated Eurasia. Neutering Russia and China are high on the list. Both Russia and China are resisting the efforts to take them apart.

I don't think Putin wants to defeat the empire. He wants to force it to accept him as a partner. But he also wants to hang on to his wealth and to preserve the wealth of the Russian elites that keep him in power. For example, he should nationalize the Russian Central Bank, but he continues the high interest rate policies pleasing to the West.

His move into Syria was IMO made out of a deal with the US in which he gives something up like the DLPR by enforcing Minsk II regardless of what Ukraine does. ::headbang::

Ultimately, I think Putin's use of his military is a carefully calculated gambit coupled with their diplomacy to force Russia into being both undefeatable and indispensable. His agenda to preserve the wealth of he and his fellow elites will be his undoing.

How fast do I want to see The Empire be defeated? Not fast. It would be a nuclear war. Reading David's thread on The ... C.I.A. is very sobering. I think he is describing an occult religion of sorts the is enthralled with transhumanism through bloody sacrifice.

[Magda Hassan]

How fast do I want to see The Empire be defeated? Not fast. It would be a nuclear war. Reading David's thread on The ... C.I.A. is very sobering. I think he is describing an occult religion of sorts the is enthralled with transhumanism through bloody sacrifice.

How widespread and deep is freemasonry in Russia and other countries?

[Richard Coleman]

"His move into Syria was IMO made out of a deal with the US in which he gives something up like the DLPR by enforcing Minsk II regardless of what Ukraine does. "

Sorry, you lost me. Putin's "move" in Syria is part of a deal with the US? I'm not caught up on the intricacies of the Ukraine crisis etc., so your complicated sentence (Syria, deal with US, giving up DLPR, Minsk II, Ukraine) baffles me. What deal?

Maybe you could straighten me out. What does "giving up the DLPR" mean (or "something like it")? What might Ukraine do that would mess up this "deal" with the US?

Did the "deal" include NATO member and US ally shooting down a Russian plane carrying out anti-terrorist operations?

[Richard Coleman]

From consortiumnews of April 27, 2014:

Then, on Sunday, the (New York) Times led the paper with a lengthy report on the "Search for Secret Putin Fortune" with the subhead: "U.S. Suggests Russian Leader Has Amassed Wealth, and That It Knows Where." Except the story, which spills over to two-thirds of an inside page, presents not a single hard fact about Putin's alleged "fortune," other than that he wears what looks like an expensive watch.


The story is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's propaganda campaign against Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega for wearing "designer glasses," a theme that was picked up by the major U.S. news outlets back then without noting the hypocrisy of Nancy Reagan wearing designer gowns and Reagan's beloved Nicaraguan Contra leaders profiting off arms sales and cocaine smuggling.


Spreading suspicions about a target's personal wealth is right out of Propaganda 101. The thinking is that you can turn people against a leader if they think he's ripping off the public, whether he is or isn't. The notion that Ortega's glasses or Putin's watch represents serious corruption or that they are proof of some hidden fortune is ludicrous, but it can serve a propaganda goal of creating divisions. (full article here: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/27/wh...ze-russia/)

Also see: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/02/tw...n-ukraine/

[Lauren Johnson]

Another strange answer in a Putin interview by Vladimir Suchan:

After asking Crimeans over the New Year's Eve if they might not object to (re)making Crimea as part of Ukraine in the energy agreement with Kiev, in his new interview to Bild Putin raised the question of Crimea by asking (philosophically and rhetorically) the German journalist: "What do you mean by Crimea?" Putin then thought it necessary and instructive to downplay the importance of borders and (state) territory: "For me territory and borders are not important ..." Sure, for the heads of states and presidents, borders and the territory of his state are not important ...

Minsk 3 is at work. Now even Zakharova is, however, upset that Kiev made its existence known and protested against its existence too much.

Another angle on the issue of borders and therefore sovereignty is Putin's (possible) new strategy to give China greater say in the policies and laws of Russia's eastern territories. It seems to be his own localized version of TPP.

That Putin, he's a slippery one.

[Lauren Johnson]

Here is a summary and commentary on the second part of Putin's interview in the Bild. Any simplistic and triumphal explanations for Putin's intentions in Syria must be considered in the light of this interview.

In the second part of his interview with Bild, Putin stated his evolving position on Syria:1. "President al-Assad has made many mistakes in the course of the Syrian conflict."

2. Putin calls the question about whether al-Assad is Moscow's ally "subtle" and "precisely" moves away from an affirmation. The journalist then rephrases the question by asking whether Putin believes that al-Assad is a legitimate leader.

3. Putin, however, does insist that Syria should held 1) early presidential and 2) parliamentary elections and that Syria needs to have 3) a new Constitution (instead of the current secular, anti-imperialist one).

4. The impact and meaning of this is than wrapped up in the pious formula "It is the Syrian people themselves who must decide who and how should run their country." However, the West and Putin already made up their mind that the Syrians must have new elections and a new constitution.

5. Putin: "We granted asylum to Mr Snowden, which was far more difficult than to do the same for Mr al-Assad."

6. Putin: "al-Assad will probably not need to leave the country at all."

7. Putin: "And it is not important whether he remains President or not." (Is it as important or unimportant whether Putin himself remains President?)

8. Putin: "we support military operations of the armed opposition ... against al-Assad that is fighting ISIS."

9. One important thing: this anti-government opposition also happens to be decisively anti-Russian as well. Do you know that, Mr. Putin?

10. Putin does not call the Syrian Arab Army by its proper name (as usual) and dubs it--in accordance with the US template--"al-Assad's army." How about Putin's army or Putin's forces--would that sound in the spirit of reciprocity equally fine and proper--the way Putin talks of an ally?

11. For Putin, the executions of people, including a Muslim cleric, in Saudi Arabia, are not condemnable, but merely "regrettable."

Q: Can we say that al-Assad is your ally?

Vladimir Putin: You know, this is a rather subtle issue. I think that President al-Assad has made many mistakes in the course of the Syrian conflict. ... Regarding your question if al-Assad is an ally or not and our goals in Syria. I can tell you precisely what we do not want to happen: we do not want the Libyan or Iraqi scenario to be repeated in Syria. ... Situations in Somalia and other countries .... State authority in Afghanistan ... As far as Syria is concerned, I think that we should work towards a constitutional reform. It is a complicated process. Then, early presidential and parliamentary elections should be held, based on the new Constitution. It is the Syrian people themselves who must decide who and how should run their country. ...
Question: But do you believe al-Assad is a legitimate leader if he allows the destruction of his country's population?

Vladimir Putin: It is not his goal to destroy his country's population. He is fighting those who rose up against him with deadly force. ... As I have already said, though, this does not mean that everything is all right out there and that everyone is right. This is exactly why I believe political reforms are needed so much there. The first step in that direction should be to develop and adopt a new Constitution.

Question: If, contrary to expectations, al-Assad loses the elections, will you grant him the possibility of asylum in your country?

Vladimir Putin: I think it is quite premature to discuss this. We granted asylum to Mr Snowden, which was far more difficult than to do the same for Mr al-Assad. First, the Syrian people should be given the opportunity to have their say. I assure you, if this process is conducted democratically, then al-Assad will probably not need to leave the country at all. And it is not important whether he remains President or not.

You have been talking about our targets and means, and now you are talking about al-Assad being our ally. Do you know that we support military operations of the armed opposition that combats ISIS? Armed opposition against al-Assad that is fighting ISIS. We coordinate our joint operations with them and support their offensives by airstrikes in various sections of the frontline. This is hundreds, thousands of armed people fighting ISIS. We support both the al-Assad's army and the armed opposition. ...

Vladimir Putin: ... Of course, we regret that these things happened there [in Saudi Arabia]. But you have no death penalty in your country. ... We regret this has happened, especially given that the cleric had not been fighting against Saudi Arabia with lethal force. Yet it is true that an embassy attack is a totally unacceptable occurrence in the modern world. ...

Putin: As far as democracy is concerned, the ruling classes usually talk about freedom to pull the wool over the eyes of those whom they govern. There is nothing new about democracy in Russia. ... But in a parliamentary democracy, the person number one is the Prime Minister, who can Head the Government an unlimited number of times.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51155

[Richard Coleman]

Here is a summary and commentary on the second part of Putin's interview in the Bild. Any simplistic and triumphal explanations for Putin's intentions in Syria must be considered in the light of this interview.

In the second part of his interview with Bild, Putin stated his evolving position on Syria:1. "President al-Assad has made many mistakes in the course of the Syrian conflict."

2. Putin calls the question about whether al-Assad is Moscow's ally "subtle" and "precisely" moves away from an affirmation. The journalist then rephrases the question by asking whether Putin believes that al-Assad is a legitimate leader.

3. Putin, however, does insist that Syria should held 1) early presidential and 2) parliamentary elections and that Syria needs to have 3) a new Constitution (instead of the current secular, anti-imperialist one).

4. The impact and meaning of this is than wrapped up in the pious formula "It is the Syrian people themselves who must decide who and how should run their country." However, the West and Putin already made up their mind that the Syrians must have new elections and a new constitution.

5. Putin: "We granted asylum to Mr Snowden, which was far more difficult than to do the same for Mr al-Assad."

6. Putin: "al-Assad will probably not need to leave the country at all."

7. Putin: "And it is not important whether he remains President or not." (Is it as important or unimportant whether Putin himself remains President?)

8. Putin: "we support military operations of the armed opposition ... against al-Assad that is fighting ISIS."

9. One important thing: this anti-government opposition also happens to be decisively anti-Russian as well. Do you know that, Mr. Putin?

10. Putin does not call the Syrian Arab Army by its proper name (as usual) and dubs it--in accordance with the US template--"al-Assad's army." How about Putin's army or Putin's forces--would that sound in the spirit of reciprocity equally fine and proper--the way Putin talks of an ally?

11. For Putin, the executions of people, including a Muslim cleric, in Saudi Arabia, are not condemnable, but merely "regrettable."

Q: Can we say that al-Assad is your ally?

Vladimir Putin: You know, this is a rather subtle issue. I think that President al-Assad has made many mistakes in the course of the Syrian conflict. ... Regarding your question if al-Assad is an ally or not and our goals in Syria. I can tell you precisely what we do not want to happen: we do not want the Libyan or Iraqi scenario to be repeated in Syria. ... Situations in Somalia and other countries .... State authority in Afghanistan ... As far as Syria is concerned, I think that we should work towards a constitutional reform. It is a complicated process. Then, early presidential and parliamentary elections should be held, based on the new Constitution. It is the Syrian people themselves who must decide who and how should run their country. ...
Question: But do you believe al-Assad is a legitimate leader if he allows the destruction of his country's population?

Vladimir Putin: It is not his goal to destroy his country's population. He is fighting those who rose up against him with deadly force. ... As I have already said, though, this does not mean that everything is all right out there and that everyone is right. This is exactly why I believe political reforms are needed so much there. The first step in that direction should be to develop and adopt a new Constitution.

Question: If, contrary to expectations, al-Assad loses the elections, will you grant him the possibility of asylum in your country?

Vladimir Putin: I think it is quite premature to discuss this. We granted asylum to Mr Snowden, which was far more difficult than to do the same for Mr al-Assad. First, the Syrian people should be given the opportunity to have their say. I assure you, if this process is conducted democratically, then al-Assad will probably not need to leave the country at all. And it is not important whether he remains President or not.

You have been talking about our targets and means, and now you are talking about al-Assad being our ally. Do you know that we support military operations of the armed opposition that combats ISIS? Armed opposition against al-Assad that is fighting ISIS. We coordinate our joint operations with them and support their offensives by airstrikes in various sections of the frontline. This is hundreds, thousands of armed people fighting ISIS. We support both the al-Assad's army and the armed opposition. ...

Vladimir Putin: ... Of course, we regret that these things happened there [in Saudi Arabia]. But you have no death penalty in your country. ... We regret this has happened, especially given that the cleric had not been fighting against Saudi Arabia with lethal force. Yet it is true that an embassy attack is a totally unacceptable occurrence in the modern world. ...

Putin: As far as democracy is concerned, the ruling classes usually talk about freedom to pull the wool over the eyes of those whom they govern. There is nothing new about democracy in Russia. ... But in a parliamentary democracy, the person number one is the Prime Minister, who can Head the Government an unlimited number of times.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51155

Seems to me the simplistic explanations are mostly on your side: Putin BAD. Everybody who hates Putin GOOD. Putin LIES. Everybody who hates Putin TELLS THE TRUTH. Putin's motives SHADY AND QUESTIONABLE IF NOT CORRUPT. Everybody who hates Putin, MOTIVATIONS PURE AND GOOD. A couple of examples of this bias:


3. Putin, however, does insist that Syria should held 1) early presidential and 2) parliamentary elections and that Syria needs to have 3) a new Constitution (instead of the current secular, anti-imperialist one).


Insisted? "As far as Syria is concerned, I think that we should work towards a constitutional reform. It is a complicated process. Then, early presidential and parliamentary elections should be held, based on the new Constitution..." He didn't say any new Constitution should be instead of anything. In fact, he didn't say anything about a "new" Constitution at all! He said "reform". He put it in the form of a suggestion and said elections should be held after any such reform. The "summary" tacked a "new Constitution" on like an afterthought.


4. The impact and meaning of this is than wrapped up in the pious formula "It is the Syrian people themselves who must decide who and how should run their country."


"Pious formula"? As Len Osanic would say, "Are you kidding me!?" What's pious about it? And what "formula" would you (or this Vladimir whathisname) prefer? What a fine example of honest and truthful reporting. NOT!!


7. Putin: "And it is not important whether he remains President or not." (Is it as important or unimportant whether Putin himself remains President?)


Oh Puhleeeese! He's simply saying that if elections should go that way, so be it.. It's up to the Syrians themselves and he doesn't presume to dictate to them: " the Syrian people should be given the opportunity to have their say. I assure you, if this process is conducted democratically, then al-Assad will probably not need to leave the country at all. And it is not important whether he remains President or not." Obviously it's pretty important to Vladimir whatshisname whether Putin remains as President!


I'll quit here because this is getting tedious. Personally, I think the interview was fine and can find nothing to criticize about it. (I know, my bias is showing.) The "summary" on the other hand…….::vomit::.

[Lauren Johnson]

RC: I am posting stuff that reflects my doubts about Putin, et.al., and yes they are now winning the day. You seem to have no doubts. Good for you. Keep on trickin'. ::

This is a computer translation from Edward Communist via Vlad Suchan. He too has no doubts that Donbass is being delivered into the hands of Ukraine:

Continues 13th, if I'm not mistaken, the day of the siege of Troy Spetsnaz unit. Whose corrupt government DNI want to disarm. Who does not know the story, you can watch her ​​in their group in the VC. I briefly recall that the cause of disarmament TROY attempts are the result of initiated OSpN Troya comprehensive investigation mass theft and trafficking in arms 3 SME that has become known as the "roof" of the superior command. I am a long time did not write the story because he was trying to understand the reason for these fights. Already fuck you understand what is going on in these republics. Through the efforts of the Kremlin, they turned into a bandit. Kremlin built there a real hell. Such things Somalia, only adjusted for geography. Well pritsipe attempts to disarm the city of Troy, as well as the elimination of Christmas "Cat" and the strange death in Russia, "Boatswain" allegedly from pneumonia, lie in a common chain. The Kremlin on the eve of the final delivery of Donbass in Ukraine, finally decided to clean up and disarm all remaining combat troops militia. That is what the Kremlin engaged since the first signing of the Minsk collusion.

In this regard, again I do not understand the hatred of dill to Putin. After all, it is for them for the second year as the tries. Putin is not only free energy supplies to Ukraine and invested billions of dollars into the banking system of the garbage and forgive the debts of associated gas, but also for its Ukrainian partners, smashing militia. While it was fighting and ideological divisions that could rebuff the Ukrainian army. KREMLIN rink just walked through the defenders of the Donbass. Dismantled, crushed, strangled exactly the brigade, battalion, militias that are proven in the database in the Donbas. Slavic Brigade militia Gorlovka, GRU DNI, the team "Ghost" named Alexei Brain, Cossack Brigade Safonenko ("Father"), a detachment of "Russia", etc. Many of the commanders of these units have been physically eliminated or missing. Some lucky a little more and they just squeezed from the Donbass in Russian. Overall, worked in the Kremlin in this business a success. Only for it to Putin in Ukraine should be put during the life of hundreds of monuments on the main cities of Bandera. And do not call him bad-words that begin with the letter "x" and ends with the letter "o".Ukrainian army in open battle could not defeat the ideological divisions militia as she did not try. And Putin has made ​​it easy for a year and a half. And now Donbass militia of themselves do not represent a serious force. They're not something that can not advance. But in the case of a general offensive ukrovoyak, more than 3-4 days can not even defend themselves. So if not a monument during his life, or at least a title of Hero of Ukraine, Putin earned. I hope justice will prevail and he was the star of the hero himself will hand his partner Valtsman.

[Richard Coleman]

RC: I am posting stuff that reflects my doubts about Putin, et.al., and yes they are now winning the day. You seem to have no doubts. Good for you. Keep on trickin'. ::

This is a computer translation from Edward Communist via Vlad Suchan. He too has no doubts that Donbass is being delivered into the hands of Ukraine:

Continues 13th, if I'm not mistaken, the day of the siege of Troy Spetsnaz unit. Whose corrupt government DNI want to disarm. Who does not know the story, you can watch her ​​in their group in the VC. I briefly recall that the cause of disarmament TROY attempts are the result of initiated OSpN Troya comprehensive investigation mass theft and trafficking in arms 3 SME that has become known as the "roof" of the superior command. I am a long time did not write the story because he was trying to understand the reason for these fights. Already fuck you understand what is going on in these republics. Through the efforts of the Kremlin, they turned into a bandit. Kremlin built there a real hell. Such things Somalia, only adjusted for geography. Well pritsipe attempts to disarm the city of Troy, as well as the elimination of Christmas "Cat" and the strange death in Russia, "Boatswain" allegedly from pneumonia, lie in a common chain. The Kremlin on the eve of the final delivery of Donbass in Ukraine, finally decided to clean up and disarm all remaining combat troops militia. That is what the Kremlin engaged since the first signing of the Minsk collusion.

In this regard, again I do not understand the hatred of dill to Putin. After all, it is for them for the second year as the tries. Putin is not only free energy supplies to Ukraine and invested billions of dollars into the banking system of the garbage and forgive the debts of associated gas, but also for its Ukrainian partners, smashing militia. While it was fighting and ideological divisions that could rebuff the Ukrainian army. KREMLIN rink just walked through the defenders of the Donbass. Dismantled, crushed, strangled exactly the brigade, battalion, militias that are proven in the database in the Donbas. Slavic Brigade militia Gorlovka, GRU DNI, the team "Ghost" named Alexei Brain, Cossack Brigade Safonenko ("Father"), a detachment of "Russia", etc. Many of the commanders of these units have been physically eliminated or missing. Some lucky a little more and theyjust squeezed from the Donbass in Russian. Overall, worked in the Kremlin in this business a success. Only for it to Putin in Ukraine should be put during the life of hundreds of monuments on the main cities of Bandera. And do not call him bad-words that begin with the letter "x" and ends with the letter "o".Ukrainian army in open battle could not defeat the ideological divisions militia as she did not try. And Putin has made ​​it easy for a year and a half. And now Donbass militia of themselves do not represent a serious force. They're not something that can not advance. But in the case of a general offensive ukrovoyak, more than 3-4 days can not even defend themselves. So if not a monument during his life, or at least a title of Hero of Ukraine, Putin earned. I hope justice will prevail and he was the star of the hero himself will hand his partner Valtsman.

LJ:

Leaders the U.S. and media have hated since WW2 (partial list)



Arbenz (Guatemala)

Mossadegh (Iran)

Sukarno (Indonesia)

Allende (Chile)

Castro, Che, et al (Cuba)

Aristide (Haiti)

Khrushchev (USSR)

Mao (China)

Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam)

Chavez, Maduro (Venezuela)

Ortega et al (Nicaragua)

Bishop (Grenada)

Saddam Hussein (eventually) (Iraq)

Manuel Noriega (after a while) (Panama)

Josef Stalin (USSR)

Juan Bosch (Dominican Republic)

Vladimir Putin (Russian Federation)


Leaders the U.S. and mostly captive media have liked or gotten along with since WW2 (partial list)


Shah (Iran)
Armas, et al (Guatemala)
Pinochet (Chile)
Duvalier (Haiti)
Somoza (Nicaragua)
Military Junta (Argentina)
Banzer, et al (Bolivia)*
Saudi royals (Saudi Arabia)
Saddam Hussein (for a while) (Iraq)
Botha, et al (South Africa)
Suharto (Indonesia)
Pol Pot (Cambodia)
Manuel Noriega (at first) (Panama)
Rios Montt (El Salvador)
Ayatollah Khomeini (Iran)**
Rafael Trujillo et al (Dominican Republic)

*Including the wonderful Nazi Butcher of Lyon Klaus Barbie (protected and shielded by the CIA).
**Ronald Raygun had a couple of weapons deals with him you may recall.

Now. With a couple of exceptions, namely Mao, Stalin, Khrushchev somewhat and Noriega, I would say the first list is not so bad. Some even pretty good. But the second list! What an utterly miserable lot! So overall, I'd say the percentages show that if the U.S. foreign policy establishment and mostly neocon dominated media don't like somebody, there's a pretty fair chance they are half decent, and maybe more than half. Therefore, I give Putin the benefit of the "doubt". You say you have "doubts" about him. Any similar doubts about those quality folks on list 2? The U.S. government sure didn't have any!

As to my not having any doubts, well. I have "no doubts" that L.H. Oswald didn't shoot President Kennedy and that there was a conspiracy to kill him. Also RFK. Also MLK. Am I wrong to have "no doubts" about those?

That article translated by or from Edward Communist (!!) was totally incoherent and undecipherable by me, sorry. Finally, thanks for your response to the points I raised. I guess I'll just keep on trickin'(?) Or was that truckin'?

[Magda Hassan]

I wouldn't disagree with any of this. Been hearing for ages he has to do some thing about the bank.

Putin's Biggest Failure By The Saker
January 25, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Unz Review - Whatever happens in the future, Putin has already secured his place in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders ever. Not only did he succeed in literally resurrecting Russia as a country, but in a little over a decade he brought her back as a world power capable of successfully challenging the AngloZionist Empire. The Russian people have clearly recognized this feat and, according to numerous polls, they are giving him an amazing 90% support rate. And yet, there is one crucial problem which Putin has failed to tackle: the real reason behind the apparent inability of the Kremlin to meaningfully reform the Russian economy.
As I have described it in the past many times, when Putin came to power in 1999-2000 he inherited a system completely designed and controlled by the USA. During the Eltsin years, Russian ministers had much less power than western advisers' who turned Russia into a US colony. In fact, during the 1990s, Russia was at least as controlled by the USA as Europe and the Ukraine are today. And the results were truly catastrophic: Russia was plundered from her natural wealth, billions of dollars were stolen and hidden in western offshore accounts, the Russian industry was destroyed, a unprecedented wave of violence, corruption and poverty drowned the entire country in misery and the Russian Federation almost broke up into many small statelets. It was, by any measure, an absolute nightmare, a horror comparable to a major war. Russia was about to explode and something had to be done.
Two remaining centers of power, the oligarchs and the ex-KGB, were forced to seek a solution to this crisis and they came up with the idea of sharing power: the former would be represented by Dmitrii Medvedev and the latter by Vladimir Putin. Both sides believed that they would keep the other side in check and that this combination of big money and big muscle would yield a sufficient degree of stability.
I call the group behind Medvedev the "Atlantic Integrationists" and the people behind Putin the "Eurasian Sovereignists". The former wants Russia to be accepted by the West as an equal partner and fully integration Russia into the AngloZionist Empire, while the latter want to fully "sovereignize" Russia and then create a multi-polar international system with the help of China and the other BRICS countries.
What the Atlantic Integrationists did not expect is that Putin would slowly but surely begin to squeeze them out of power: first he cracked down on the most notorious oligarchs such as Berezovskii and Khodorkovskii, then he began cracking down on the local oligarchs, gubernatorial mafias, ethnic mobsters, corrupt industry officials, etc. Putin restored the "vertical [axis]of power" and crushed the Wahabi insurgents in Chechnia. Putin even carefully set up the circumstances needed to get rid of some of the worst ministers such as Serdiukov and Kudrin. But what Putin has so far failed to do is to

• Reform the Russian political system
  
• Replace the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] columnists in and around the Kremlin
  
• Reform the Russian economy
  

The current Russian Constitution and system of government is a pure product of the US advisors' which, after the bloody crackdown against the opposition in 1993, allowed Boris Eltsin to run the country until 1999. It is paradoxical that the West now speaks of a despotic presidency about Putin when all he did is inherit a western-designed political system. The problem for Putin today is that it makes no sense to replace some of the worst people in power as long as the system remains unchanged. But the main obstacle to a reform of the political system is the resistance of the pro-Western 5[SUP]th[/SUP] columnists in and around the Kremlin. They also the ones who are still forcing a set of "Washington consensus" kind of policies upon Russia even though it is obvious that the consequences for Russia are extremely bad, even disastrous. There is no doubt that Putin understands that, but he has been unable, at least so far, to break out of this dynamic.
So who are these 5[SUP]th[/SUP] columnists?
I have selected nine of the names most often mentioned by Russian analysts. These are (in no particular order):
Former First Deputy Prime Minister Anatolii Chubais, First Deputy Governor of the Russian Central Bank Ksenia Iudaeva, Deputy Prime Minister Arkadii Dvorkovich, First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, Governor of the Russian Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina, former Minister of Finance Alexei Kudrin, Minister of Economic Development, Alexei Uliukaev, Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov and Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev.
This is, of course, only a partial list the real list is longer and runs deeper in the Russian power structure. The people on this list range from dangerous ideologues like Kudrin or Chubais, to mediocre and unimaginative people, like Siluanov or Nabiullina. And none of them would, by him or herself, represent much of a threat to Putin. But as a group and in the current political system they are a formidable foe which has kept Putin in check. I do believe, however, that a purge is being prepared.
One of the possible signs of a purge to come is the fact that the Russian media, both the blogosphere and the big corporate media, is now very critical of the economic policies of the government of Prime Minister Medvedev. Most Russian economists agree that the real reason for the current economic crisis in Russia is not the falling price of oil or, even less so, the western sanctions, but the misguided decisions of the Russian Central Bank (such as floating the Ruble or keeping the interest rates high) and the lack of governmental action to support a real reform and development of the Russian economy. What is especially interesting is that vocal opponents of the current 5[SUP]th[/SUP] column now get plenty of air time in the Russian media, including state owned VGTRK. Leading opponents of the current economic policies, such as Sergei Glazev, Mikhail Deliagin or Mikhail Khazin are now interviewed at length and given all the time needed to absolutely blast the economic policies of the Medvedev government. And yet, Putin is still taking no visible action. In fact, in his latest yearly address he as even praised the work of the Russian Central Bank. So what is going on here?
First, and to those exposed to the western propaganda, this might be difficult to imagine, but Putin is constrained simply by the rule of law. He cannot just send some special forces and have all these folks arrested on some kind of charge of corruption, malfeasance or sabotage. Many in Russia very much regret that, but this is fact of life.
In theory, Putin could simply fire the entire (or part) of the government and appoint a different Governor to the Central Bank. But the problem with that is that it would trigger an extremely violent reaction from the West. Mikhail Deliagin recently declared that if Putin did this, the West's reaction would be even more violent than after the Crimean reunification with Russia. Is he right? Maybe. But I personally believe that Putin is not only concerned about the reaction of the West, but also from the Russian elites, particularly those well off, who generally already intensely dislike Putin and who would see such a purge as an attack on their personal and vital interests. The combination of US subversion and local big money definitely has the ability to create some kind of crisis in Russia. This is, I think, by far the biggest threat Putin his facing. But here is also can observe a paradoxical dynamic:
One one hand, Russia and the West have been in an open confrontation ever since Russian prevented the USA from attacking Syria. The Ukrainian crisis only made things worse. Add to this the dropped prices on oil and the western sanctions and you could say that Putin now, more then ever, needs to avoid anything which could make the crisis even worse.
But on the other hand, this argument can be flipped around by saying that considering how bad the tensions already are and considering that the West has already done all it can to harm Russia, is this not the perfect time to finally clean house and get right of the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] column? Really how much worse can things really get?
Only Putin knows the answer to this simply because only he has all the facts. All we can do is observe that the popular discontent with the "economic block" of the government and with the Central Bank is most definitely growing and growing fast, and that the Kremlin is doing nothing to inhibit or suppress such feelings. We can also notice that while most Russians are angry, disgusted and frustrated with the economic policies of the Medvedev government, Putin's personal popularity is still sky high in spite of the fact that the Russian economy most definitely took a hit, even if it was much smaller than what the AngloZionist Empire had hoped for.
My strictly personal explanation for what is happening is this: Putin is deliberately letting things get worse because he knows that the popular anger will not be directed at him, but only at his enemies. Think of it, is that not exactly what the Russian security services did in the 1990s? Did they not allow the crisis in Russia to reach its paroxysm before pushing Putin into power and then ruthlessly cracking down on the oligarchs? Did Putin not wait until the Wahabis in Chechnia actually attacked Dagestan before unleashing the Russian military? Did the Russians not let Saakashvili attack South Ossetia before basically destroying his entire military? Did Putin now wait until a full-scale Ukronazi attack on the Donbass before opening up the "voentorg" (military supplies) and the "northern wind" (dispatch of volunteers) spigots? Putin's critiques would say that no, not at all, Putin got surprised, he was sleeping on the job, and he had to react, but his reaction was too little too late and that when he had to take action it was only to fix a situation which had turned into a disaster. My answer to these critiques is simple: so what happened at the end? Did Putin not get exactly what he wanted each time?
I believe that Putin is acutely aware that his real power basis is not primarily the Russian military or the security services, but the Russian people. This, in turn, means that for him to take any action, especially any dangerous action, he must secure an almost unconditional level of support from the Russian people. That, in turn, means that he can only take such risky action if and when the crisis is evident for all to see and that the Russian people are willing to have him take a risk and, if needed, pay the consequences. This is exactly what we saw in the case of the reunification of Crimea or the current Russian military intervention in Syria: the Russian people are concerned, they are suffering the consequences of the decision of Putin to take action, but they accept it because they believe that there is no other option.
So there you have it. Either Putin is sleeping on the job, is caught off-guard by each crisis and reacts too late, or Putin deliberately lets a situation worsen until a full-scale crisis is evident at which point he acts with the full knowledge that the Russian people fully support him and while blame him neither for the crisis, nor for the price of decidedly dealing with you.

Pick the version which seems more plausible to you.
What is certain is that so far Putin has failed to deal with the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] column near and inside the Kremlin and that the situation is rapidly worsening. The recent move by Kudrin to try to get back into the government was a rather transparent use of the pro-5[SUP]th[/SUP] column media in Russia (and abroad) and it predictably failed. But this shows an increasing self-confidence, or even arrogance, of the Atlantic Integrationists. Something in bound to happen, probably in the near future.