Following is our translation of an article from mirnovostey.info.
QUOTES from translated text below:
“I hope this basic text [Putin’s 2007 Munich speech] will be included among those recommended by American intelligence on the eve of the meeting.”
“The crucial moment is now. The need to ‘take a fresh look at foreign policy’ is being discussed today, even in the United States.”
The author is right that even US commentators are talking about the need for a new foreign policy. Examples:
The Atlantic does indeed discuss the need for a new foreign policy but contends that the new policy must be written by the Democrats, the party that insists that Russia is an enemy. Not much can be expected from the partisans on either side of the aisle.
Many articles in Foreign Policy demand changes in US foreign policy, and one criticises Trump’s refusal to talk to Putin at the G-20 summit. Of course, FP takes the standard view that Russia is an “aggressor” and says that a meeting between Trump and Putin would have given Trump a chance to confront Putin, so this article is misguided because it ignores the fact that the recent incursion of Ukrainian military vessels into the Russian territory was an illegal provocation.
The bad news is this. Firstly, the Russian author optimistically hopes that US intel will brief Trump on Putin’s 2007 Munich speech. This will not happen. To US policy makers and pols, Putin’s statements are anathema, they are all propaganda, and listening to or reading them will “threaten democracy” or worse. Secondly, the author of the translated article claims that there is discussion of the need for a new foreign policy in the US, and though this is true in general, there is no evidence that policy makers want to relinquish US power or even wage fewer wars than in the past. Things are therefore much more critical than many Russian observers think. I did a search with the search terms
us needs new foreign policy
and found not even the slightest hint that the publications informing foreign policy makers in the US even know what Putin’s “multipolar world” is, let alone understand the need for a world that is not virtually fully controlled by Washington and Wall Street. I have always said that no necessary change in US policy will ever come from within the US, ie, from the higher levels of political power or from the clueless grassroots. The change must come, for better or worse, from the other two main world powers, China and Russia, and from their partners, such as Europe.
As for how the Russians and Chinese might eventually influence the US, the salient example is found in the words of Special Operations chief Gen. Raymond Thomas, who, in a high level speech, let slip that Russia [he did not name the country but it was understood] had created in Syria “the most aggressive electronic warfare environment on the planet.” He bitterly lamented that the EW systems were disrupting the operation of his EC-130 recon planes, rendering them virtually useless. US politicians and influencers only understand power, and any change in US foreign policy will come about thanks to a show of power by the countries they mistakenly call “adversaries.” These “adversaries” are by no means the enemy of the American people but only of the warmongering elites.
Gen. Thomas is one of the few US officials who may, perhaps, see the handwriting on the wall, and not because he listened to reason but because he ran up against that wall.
Putin's prophecy came true. The whole West is abuzz
The need for a wonderful Russian radar station would not have emerged if 10 years ago America and the West led by it had listened to Putin’s speech at the Munich Security Conference. At that time, the president of Russia warned the United States against striving for world domination through sole leadership. Instead, Putin proposed to ensure global security through international law as a derivative of the moral and ethical basis of mankind. No other approach will work.
"I believe that for the modern world, a unipolar model is not only unacceptable, but impossible in the first place. And not only because with sole leadership in the modern world, neither military-political nor economic resources will be enough. But more importantly, the model itself is not workable, because there is not and cannot be a moral basis of modern civilization on its basis,” said the head of the Russian state.
That is, nothing amoral will work. This seems to be a simple idea, but it was beyond the scope of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. For world domination, they got involved in shameful wars and lost them. The United States itself paid its price for this disastrous policy.
I'm not talking about waste of resources here. The country has been split, losing its moral unity. The price is the lying American press and the hate rampaging across America. Actually, exactly this result was predicted by Putin ten years ago, speaking of the destructiveness of the unipolar world.
"No matter how this term is embellished, it ultimately means only one thing in practice: it is one centre of power, one centre of military might, one centre of decision-making. This is the world of one owner, one sovereign. And this is ultimately pernicious not only for everyone within this system, but also for the sovereign itself, because it destroys it from the inside,” said Putin.
These words could be called prophetic, because they came true. But a seer relies on some guesswork, astrology, or faith. Not so with Putin. His support is knowledge and respect for human civilization, its experience and potentials. Plus, of course, the awareness of Russia as a stronghold, which will not allow anyone to penetrate it, completely ignoring everything. The Americans, however, throughout these last ten years, have pushed into the Middle East, North Africa, in Ukraine – hoping for something new. The result is the same. Putin’s words, spoken 10 years ago, sound impeccably accurate today.
“And what’s the result? Unilateral, illegitimate actions often failed to solve a single problem. Moreover, they became a generator of new human tragedies and hotbeds of tension. Judge for yourself: there are no fewer wars and local and regional conflicts than before – many more in fact," said Putin.
In general, if Trump really wants “to get along with Russia,” as he says, then it is better to rely on generally accepted principles on which to build relationships.
Now they are saying on both sides that preparations for the meeting of the leaders of our countries are not yet underway. If so, then Trump can start by personally familiarizing himself with the speech of Russian President Putin on the program in Munich in 2007. I hope that basic text will be included among those recommended by American intelligence in the lead-up to the meeting. Without it, the report package will definitely be incomplete, especially since there is a lot about the USA in the text.
"We see an increasing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law. Moreover, certain norms, and almost the entire system of law of one state, above all, of course, the United States, crossed the national borders in all spheres: in economics, in politics, and in the humanitarian sphere, and is imposed on other states. Who would want this?" said Vladimir Putin.
Actually, then he directly proposed to discuss, “painstakingly” work out and agree upon a new, modern architecture of global security. "I am convinced that we have come to the crucial moment when we should seriously think about the entire global security architecture," said the Russian president.
The crucial moment is now. The need to "take a fresh look at foreign policy" is being discussed today, even in the United States. In this sense, Putin’s speech in Munich 10 years ago is an indispensable guide. It sounds fresh.
At the same time, the old American policy of supporting coups, eliminating countries and peoples is still ongoing by inertia. It has not made anyone happy yet. But a lot of blood is still flowing. Petro Poroshenko still expects that he will receive a pat on the head by America for the war, and he keeps killing.