The Power Of Soft Power: Japan, Russia & The USSA

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 12, 2017

Every now and then I receive an article that is so thought-provoking I have to share it, and my own opinions about it, even though – as is the current case – my thoughts are still in the process of formation. This is consequently not quite an “op-ed” piece; it’s more of a “thinking out loud ramble”. In this case, the subject of my ramble is that of “soft power”, the idea of “culture” as a geopolitical card that looks increasingly, to my amateur eyes, like it is being played on the world scene, and played deftly by some players that know how to play it.

Permit me an anecdote here: months ago I had a private conversation with a friend who is a financial advisor for a major government in the Pacific. We were discussing the way Mr. Putin has been able to so successfully play the soft power culture card. At the time, I was analyzing Russia’s moves on the world stage in terms of a rather radical thesis, namely, that Putin’s Russia is not a “neo-Stalinist” state, as it is usually misunderstood to be by the West and in particular by the corporate controlled media of the West, and its quackademic “think tanks.” Rather, I opined to my friend, Russia was experimenting with something very unique, something defined by its long history: its grounding as a culture in Eastern Orthodoxy; its invasion by, and eventual expulsion of, the Mongols; its Drang nach Osten and the “collection of the Russian lands” under Ivan the terrible and the drive across Siberia to the Pacific; its “westernization” under Peter the Great; and, of course, its sad experience with Marxism, a western philosophical import; its invasion and surrender to the Central Powers in World War One and following civil war; the devastating invasion by Hitler in 1941; and finally, the collapse of the Soviet Union.

What Putin’s Russia was and is, I argued with my friend, is that it is the world’s first “post-post modernist State,” and that meant, I argued, that we would see Russia doing some “unusual things” on the world stage: (1) it would challenge the dogma of the globaloneyists that the nation-state is obsolete, and the world needs to be run by the likes of David Rockefailure and Darth Soros. (I don’t know about you, but that idea appeals to me even less than the world being run by Bonaparte, Wilhelm II, or Adolf Hitler.)  (2) Russia would begin to play its soft power culture card, not only domestically, but internationally, and make a play to speak for the culturally and politically disenfranchised conservative in the West. To be sure, that was a very radical idea, but I was perfectly serious in proposing it. Mr. Putin had, at the time we were having our discussion, made several speeches to the effect that Russia’s way forward lay, in part, by not neglecting its spiritual heritage; Russia would, he opined, protect the rights of minorities, but it would not allow them to tyrannize the majority nor overturn that inheritance. But that was for domestic consumption. Shortly after we had our discussion, sure enough, Mr. Putin began to address these types of remarks to the outside, and more specifically, to the West, targeting those individuals in the West of similarly conservative cultural values, while taking direct aim at the cultural progressivist left in the West. In short, Mr. Putin was maneuvering Russia – and himself – to be the representative of the culturally and politically disenfranchised conservative in the West.  Mr. Putin and his advisors are attempting to create a new national branding of Russia, and they have been more or less successful.

Which is why I found this article shared by Mr. T.M. about Japan’s use of the soft power culture card so very thought-provoking:

Japan has turned its culture into a powerful political tool

In the main, I have to agree with this article: Japan has managed, quite cleverly and successfully, to create a national brand of “western technology and traditional Japanese culture” and if one looks closely and carefully, much of that philosophical approach has spread to the other Asian powerhouse: China. Both countries are rearming, but if one looks carefully at their diplomacy, they are interested in two things: (1) getting things done and (2) producing things. The sweeping nature of the agreements already in progress in the aftermath of Mr. Putin’s visit last December to Japan, and Mr. Abe’s recent visit to Russia, are testament enough of the recent effectiveness both of Russian and of Japanese diplomacy, and I strongly suspect that it is the fact that both governments and their leaders understand and respect the soft power of culture, and the absolute necessity of preserving it, no matter what the nutty Gramscian progressivists and Mr. Globaloney might say in their perpetual use of shaming tactics.

With that in mind, think of the “national brand” of the United States…

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Advertisements

Establishment doing everything it can to stop Trump-Putin alliance – Fmr diplomat on NATO buildup

Source: RT America
January 10, 2017

Another shipload of American military hardware has arrived at the German port of Bremerhaven to reinforce US commitment to its allies against the perceived Russian threat, ensuring Europe remains “whole, free, prosperous and at peace.” This is just the latest in a NATO buildup near the Russian border. Former US diplomat Jim Jatras joins “News With Ed” to discuss.

The Great Fear That Putin & Trump Will Have THIS Conversation

BreakAway3

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 13, 2016

The press, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and other assorted power players and leeches are deathly afraid that Trump will go off-script in his communications with key foreign leaders.

Worse yet, he will do it without the usual gaggle of reporters on the scene. He will therefore ignore and insult the “owners of the news” yet again.

He will pay zero attention to the State Department bureaucracy, which of course is dedicated to Globalism.

He will get on the phone with Putin, and this will happen:

Trump: I was thinking we should get together and sit down and talk. Just you and I.

Putin: Why not?

Trump: No staffs. I’d bring two or three people.

Putin: No big ceremony. No months of planning. No protocol. No build-up.

Trump: Exactly. And no reporters.

Putin: That goes without saying. Where would we do it?

Trump: Maybe an island. Anywhere.

Putin: A nice quiet resort. Better yet, a friend’s private house.

Trump: Sounds good. Let’s see. I can get on a plane in three days.

Putin: I can clear my schedule. What shall we discuss?

Trump: Whatever is on our minds. No fixed agenda.

Putin: NATO, nuclear weapons, terrorism, trade, Syria, oil.

Trump: Sure. Let’s get to know each other a little better. We can even talk about how you handed me the election.

Putin (laughs): My guess is there were at least ten countries that hacked the Clinton, DNC, and Podesta emails. To say nothing of the NSA. A child could have gotten past their security systems, which were basically non-existent. But we didn’t leak anything. Some Democratic insider did.

Trump: I know. It’s pathetic. I’d be interested in your take on the CIA. I don’t know what the hell those people are doing over there.

Putin: I’ll talk to my department heads and have something ready for you.

Trump: Let’s put our heads together on George Soros. The man’s a menace.

Putin: I can share some useful information.

Trump: Call me back and give me a location and I’ll be there on Friday for supper. And look, no war, right?

Putin: The last thing I want is a war with the United States. It would be insane.

Trump: I have some ideas about the Russian economy.

Putin: I’d be happy to hear them.

Trump: I know in the past it hasn’t all been rainbows and marshmallows between our two countries, but I don’t know of any law against making a new start.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
__________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

That Phone Call Between Putin & Trump…

Source:GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 23, 2016

“We as a species have the choice to continue to develop our bodies and brains in a healthy upward trajectory, or we can follow the Western example of recent decades and intentionally poison our population with genetically altered food, pharmaceuticals, vaccinations, and fast food that should be classified as a dangerous, addictive drug.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin

So many people sent versions of this story – i.e., the phone call initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin to President-elect Donald Trump – that it must be commented upon, particularly for what some of the story implies. Here’s the U.K.’s Daily Mirror‘s version of the story, along with some interesting videos of the Russian State Duma’s reaction to Mrs. Clinton’s loss:

Trump and Putin vow to tackle ISIS together as they hold breakthrough talks after billionaire’s election

While the centerpiece of this conversation appears to be the two leaders’ mutual agreement on cooperation to tackle ISIS, there’s much more, apparently, in the story. An article on Zero Hedge by “Tyler Durden” titled “Putin and and Trump hold Phone Conversation, Agree to Normalize Relations” datelined the 14th of this month, pulls a bit more of the veil off the conversation. The article, while short, is worth looking at for what it suggests about the nature of that conversation:

Moments ago the Kremlin released a statement [4]in which the Russian presidency reported that Putin and Trump held a conversation, in which the Russian leader congratulated his American counterpart again on his victory in the presidential election, wished him “success in the implementation of the pre-election program, and noted his willingness to build a partnership dialogue with the new administration on the principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other.”

In other words, the Kremlin statement is attributing the principles of “equality, mutual respect and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other” not simply to the Kremlin, but to Mr. Trump. The Kremlin statement then highlights what may be a complete reversal of the current US policy of economic sanctions, according to Zero Hedge:

During the conversation, Putin and Trump “not only agreed to assess the current unsatisfactory state of bilateral relations, but also spoke in favor of active joint work to normalize relations and aim for constructive cooperation on a wide range of issues. The call emphasized in particular the importance of creating a solid foundation of bilateral ties through the development of trade and economic relations.
Obviously, if trade development and economic relations are to be discussed, then the current sanctions regime is on the table. The Zero Hedge article goes on to note that the two leaders apparently agreed on the number one problem: international terrorism, and ISIS. (For those interested in the original Kremlin statement, see Telephone Conversation with President-Elect of the United States, Donald Trump (In Russian)). Indeed, in the second paragraph of the official Kremlin account of this conversation, we read:
 During the conversation, Putin and D. Trump not only agreed to assess the current very poor state of Russo-American relations, but also spoke in favor of active joint work to their normalization, and removal in the direction of constructive cooperation on a wide range of issues. Underlined in particular was the importance of creating a solid foundation of bilateral ties through the development of their trade and economic component.” (Emphasis added)
In other words, the conversation was much more than a simple “meet and greet” by telephone, it was a basic ground-clearing conversation, placing a wide range of issues on the agenda, and by default, development of trade would perforce spell an end to the sanctions regime.
Both leaders will drive hard bargains and both are tough negotiators, so what might one expect from such conversations? Of course, I am resorting to my usual high octane speculation here, but I rather suspect both leaders will use the issue of joint international and bi-lateral anti-terrorism efforts to leverage the rest of the conversation, especially regarding sanctions and the restoration of trade relationships. One should not look for an immediate lifting of all sanctions, but rather, a staged process in which the two countries mutually engage on economic issues on a step-by-step basis, including cyber warfare that has been apparently taking place from time to time. This may contain some “surprises,” such as eventual Russian participation at some level in Mr. Trump’s plans to build out American infrastructure , and a quid pro quo for American participation in some aspects of similar projects underway in Russia. This would be a way for America to get itself back into the game, so to speak, in Central Asia and into a “flanking” maneuver in the Silk Road project. Of course, this is very high octane speculation, but given both men’s capacity for sudden moves and out of the box thinking, it shouldn’t be set aside simply for its “go for broke” nature. By mentioning this high octane speculation, I’m suggesting that one may expect…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

 

NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM AUGUST 18, 2016 – Eurasian Geopolitics & More

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
August 18, 2016

There have been some shake-ups in the Kremlin lately, and Mr. Putin appears to be willing to “gamble” in order to get Russia’s stagnant economy rolling again:

Putin Greenlights Economic Nationalists Who Oppose Current Liberal Globalist Policies

Genetically Modified Food [GMO] ban expands in Russia as Putin halts all production and imports

GMO ban

Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
August 17, 2016

Russia has adopted a new law that prohibits all GMO crop cultivation and GMO animal breeding in the Russian Federation, to prevent the release of GMOs into the environment. Furthermore, the new law allows the Russian government to restrict the import of GMO products that may pose a threat to human health or the environment.

In 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the Russian Parliament that the country should become the world’s largest supplier of organic foods. Later that year, Russia enforced a law that required strict labeling of products that contain GMOs, while the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich announced that Russia would not use genetically modified organisms to increase productivity in agriculture.

“Russia has chosen a different path. We will not use these [GMO] technologies,” he said.

As a result, a bill for a full ban on the cultivation of GMO crops was sent to the State Duma, which has now been fully approved.

Cleanest agricultural products in the world

The new law is a big win for anti-GMO advocates, including the Minister of Agriculture, Alexander Tkachev, and President Putin himself. Putin and Tkachev believe that the new law will aid Russia in becoming the world’s largest supplier of healthy, environmentally friendly and high-quality clean food – especially since the global demand for organic products is rising quickly.

Opponents of the new law are blaming the current Russian agricultural lobbyists of being afraid of competition and the development of new technologies.

As reported by We Are Anonymous, the first draft of the GMO legislation was a topic of heated debate. In an attempt to stop the law, pro-GMO lobbyists published a report claiming GMOs to be healthy and safe.

The study was written by ill-qualified scientists who used articles influenced by Monsanto and other GMO companies for their analysis. The researchers included Alexander Y. Panchin, of the Institute for Information Transmission Problems (IITP) of the Russian Academy of Science, and Alexander Tuzhikov, a research associate at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami specializing in Computer Science, Bioinformatics.

“We performed a statistical re-analysis and review of experimental data presented in some of these studies and found that quite often in contradiction with the authors’ conclusions the data actually provides weak evidence of harm that cannot be differentiated from chance,” Panchin and Tuzhikov wrote in their abstract.

Scientists from the All-National Association for Genetic Safety (OAGB) noted that the methods used for their report did not allow scientists to identify the toxic effects of GMOs; on the contrary, it disguised the toxic effects. Given the flawed nature of their results, Panchin and Tuzhikov’s report didn’t have the effect they were hoping for, which was to halt the non-GMO law.

In a last attempt to block the ban, GMO opponent and president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladimir Fortov, requested a meeting with President Putin to try and convince him of all the benefits GMOs might have. It would seem, however, that the report and the meeting didn’t have much of an effect on Putin’s choice for organic, non-GMO food.

The ultimate GMO-ban

After almost half of the European Union countries opted-out of the decision to start cultivating GMO crops last year, Putin’s ban takes it a step further.

According to some experts, Russia’s ban on the cultivation, breeding and import of GMO crops may have long-term consequences for the global GMO industry. According to Capital Press, the new law could give Russian farmers a leg up with exports to the U.S. and Europe.

As the demand for clean, organic products continues to rise, Russia will be in a prime position to export its products to the world, while the GMO-orientated U.S. market will struggle to get rid of its ‘Frankenfoods.’

To avoid any of these altered foods ending up on your plate, make sure your produce comes from a reliable organic source, or start growing your own. Even if you don’t have a garden, your windowsill or balcony will do just fine.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

AnonHQ.com

SustainablePulse.com

NewScientist.com

CapitalPress.com

Putin: Nyet To Neo-Liberals, Da To National Development

4564564564
Source: Journal-Neo.og
F. William Engdahl
August 2, 2016

After more than two years of worsening economic growth and an economy struggling with 10.5% central bank interest rates that make new credit to spur growth virtually impossible, Russian President Vladimir Putin has finally broken an internal factional standoff. On July 25 he mandated that an economic group called the Stolypin Club prepare their proposals to spur growth revival to be presented to the government by the Fourth Quarter of this year. In doing so, Putin has rejected two influential liberal or neo-liberal economic factions that had brought Russia into a politically and economically dangerous recession with their liberal Western free market ideology. This is a major development, one I had been expecting since I had the possibility to exchange views this June in St. Petersburg at the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

With very little fanfare, Russian press a few days ago carried a note that could have a most profound positive significance for the future of the Russian domestic economy. The online Russian blog, Katheon, carried the following short notice: “Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed (the Stolypin economist group–w.e.) to finalize the report of the Stolypin Club and on its basis to prepare a new program of economic development, alternative to Kudrin’s economic plan. The program itself should be given to the Bureau of Economic Council in the IV quarter of 2016.”

In their comment, Katheon notes the major significance of the decision to drop the clearly destructive neo-liberal or free market approach of former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin: “The Stolypin club report advises to increase the investment, pumping up the economy with money from the state budget and by the issue of the Bank of Russia. In turn, the concept of the Center for Strategic Research (Alexei Kudrin) suggested that investments should be private and the state is to ensure macroeconomic stability, low inflation, reduced budget deficit.”

Kudrin failed

In the current situation of severe Western economic and financial sanctions against Russia the flows of such private investment into the economy as the Kudrin camp advocates are rare, to put it gently. Cutting what is a very minimal budget deficit only increases unemployment and worsens the situation. President Putin has clearly realized that that neo-liberal “experiment” has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia, like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the neo-liberal bested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively. In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive for Russia.

In convening the new meeting of the Economic Council Presidium on May 25, after a hiatus of two years, President Putin, noting that the group deliberately consisted of opposing views, at that time stated, “I propose today that we start with the growth sources for Russia’s economy over the next decade…The current dynamic shows us that the reserves and resources that served as driving forces for our economy at the start of the 2000’s no longer produce the effects they used to. I have said in the past, and want to stress this point again now, economic growth does not get underway again all on its own. If we do not find new growth sources, we will see GDP growth of around zero, and then our possibilities in the social sector, national defense and security, and in other areas, will be considerably lower than what is needed for us to really develop the country and make progress. “

Now just two months later, Putin obviously has decided. He clearly has an eye as well to Russia’s next presidential elections in March 2018. In doing so he has selected the one group of the three on the Economic Council that believes that the state has a positive role to play in development of the national economy.

The Stolypin group in many ways harkens back to the genius behind the German “economic miracle” after 1871, whose ideas created the most impressive economic growth from backwardness in all Europe within just over three decades. The only other countries to come near to that German economic achievement were the United States after 1865, and the Peoples’ Republic of China after 1979, with the Deng Xiaoping “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.” The national economic development model is based on the work of the now-all-but-unknown 19th Century German national economist, Friederich List, the developer of the basic model of national economic development.

Three Camps

During the Shock Therapy years of Boris Yeltsin in the 1990’s, Harvard economists like Jeffrey Sachs, financed by meta-plunderer George Soros, advised Yeltsin. The disastrous policies of Yeltsin’s economic team, then led by Yegor Gaidar, implemented wholesale privatization of state assets at dirt-cheap prices to Western investors like Soros. They made drastic state budget reduction, cuts in living standards, elimination of old age pensions of the population. All was done in the name of “free market reform.” After that trauma, beginning with Putin’s first Presidency in 1999 Russia slowly began a painful recovery not because of the Gaidar-Harvard shock therapy, but rather despite it, a tribute to the determination of the Russian people.

As astonishing as it might seem, those free market ideologues, followers of the late Gaidar, until now have held a virtual monopoly over policies of the Economics and Finance Ministries of Russia.

They have been aided by the leader of a slightly different but equally destructive monetarist camp, Central Bank of Russia Governor Elvira Nabiullina who only seems obsessed with controlling inflation and stabilizing the Ruble.

This past May Putin gave the first sign that he was open to the idea that the ever-reassuring reports of his finance and economic ministers about how “recovery is just around the corner” (as Herbert Hoover allegedly said at onset of America’s Great Depression in 1930) were not right. The Russian President convened the Presidium of the Economic Council, a group which had not met in two years, charging them to come up with a plan to solve Russia’s economic problems. The Presidium consisted of thirty five members representing each of the three major economic camps.

Former neo-liberal Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin headed one camp backed by Finance Minister Anton Siluanov and Economic Minister Alexey Ilyukayev. This group demands the usual Western laissez-faire remedies such as drastic reduction of the role of the state in the economy via wholesale privatization of the railways, energy companies like Gazprom, and other valuable assets. Kudrin was also named by Putin to chair the newly-reorganized twenty-five-member economic strategy group in May. Many national economists feared the worst at his naming, namely a revival of Gaidar shock therapy, Mach II. That now will clearly not happen. Kudrin and his approach have been rejected as not effective.

The second group was represented by central bank head, Elvira Nabiullina. They were the most conservative, claiming that no reforms were needed and that no economic stimulus was needed either. Just hold a steady course under double-digit central bank interest rates and that will somehow kill inflation and stabilize the Ruble, as if that was the key to open the economic growth potential of Russia. It has instead been the key to slowly kill the economy and increase inflation.

Stolypin Group

The third group represented was the one most Western observers ridiculed and dismissed, with the US Pentagon-linked Stratfor referring to them as a “strange collective.” I have personally met and talked with them and they are hardly strange to anyone with a clear moral mind.

This is the group which after two months has emerged with the mandate from Vladimir Putin to lay out their plans to boost growth again in Russia.

The group is in essence followers of what the great almost-forgotten 19th Century German economist, Friedrich List, would call “national economy” strategies. List’s national economy historical-based approach was in direct counter-position to the then-dominant British Adam Smith free trade school.

List’s views were increasingly integrated into the German Reich economic strategy beginning under the Zollverein or German Customs Union in 1834, that unified one German internal domestic market. It created the basis by the 1870’s for the most colossal emergence of Germany as an economic rival exceeding Great Britain in every area by 1914.

This third group, the Stolypin group in the May, 2016 meeting, included Sergei Glazyev, and Boris Titov, co-chair of Business Russia, and Russia’s “business ombudsmen” since the creation of that post in 2012. Both Titov and Glazyev, an adviser to Putin on Ukraine and other matters, are founding members of the Stolypin Club in Russia. In 2012 Glazyev was named by Putin, then Prime Minister, to coordinate the work of federal agencies in developing the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, today the Eurasian Economic Union. Titov, also the Leader of Right Cause party, is a successful Russian entrepreneur who in recent years has turned to work advancing various economic policies within the state, often in vocal opposition to Kurdin’s free-market liberal ideas. Notably, Titov is also co-chairman of the Russian-Chinese Business Council.

A broad indication of the kind of proposals the Stolypin group will propose to revive substantial economic growth in Russia and deal with major basic infrastructure deficits that greatly hinder productive enterprise came in a series of proposals Glazyev made in September 2015 to the Russian Security Council, a key advisory body to the President.

There, Glazyev proposed a five-year ‘road map’ to Russia’s economic sovereignty and long-term growth. It was aimed toward building up the country’s immunity to external shocks and foreign influence, and ultimately, toward bringing Russia out of the periphery and into the core of the global economic system. Goals included raising industrial output by 30-35 percent over a five year period, creating a socially-oriented ‘knowledge economy’ via the transfer of substantial economic resources to education, health care and the social sphere, the creation of instruments aimed at increasing savings as a percent of GDP, and other initiatives, including a transition to a sovereign monetary policy.

In 1990 the first priority of Washington and the IMF was to pressure Yeltsin and the Duma to “privatize” the State Bank of Russia, under a Constitutional amendment that mandated the new Central Bank of Russia, like the Federal Reserve or European Central Bank, be a purely monetarist entity whose only mandate is to control inflation and stabilize the Ruble. In effect money creation in Russia was removed from state sovereignty and tied to the US dollar.

Glazyev’s 2015 plan also proposed to use Central Bank resources to provide targeted lending for businesses and industries by providing them with low subsidized interest rates, between 1-4 percent, made possible by quantitative easing to the tune of 20 trillion rubles over a five year period. The program also suggested that the state support private business through the creation of “reciprocal obligations” for the purchase of products and services at agreed-upon prices. As well Glazyev proposed that the Ruble build up its strength as an alternative to the de facto bankrupt dollar system by buying gold as currency backing. He proposed that the Central Bank be mandated to buy all gold production of Russian mines at a given price, in order to increase the ruble gold backing. Russia today is the world’s second largest gold producer.

Obviously Russia’s President has realized that whatever impressive advances Russia makes in the foreign policy area can be fatally undercut by a failing economy, Russia’s Achilles Heel as I noted in an earlier piece. The July 25 announcement by Putin has the potential to reverse that if done with resolution on all levels. There the President has a responsibility to clearly lay out their strategy over the coming five years—by the way a very useful time frame to judge results having nothing to do with old Soviet five-year plans, as France’s De Gaulle understood as well. By giving the population a clear vision of their future, he can tap into the remarkable Russian human resources to literally accomplish the impossible in turning the economy into a genuine prosperity based on sounder foundations than that of the monetarist laissez faire West which today is de facto bankrupt. Bravo Russia!

Read More At: Journal-Neo.org

__________________________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”