Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Pensioins and bonds.

Dead beat cities are discovering that they can go into Chapter 9 bankruptcy and get to write the conditions of how to survive the affair. The cities choose to default on their bonds and do so with the aid of Judges. Here are the four bankruptcies that had gone to these courts and what happened:

In each case the bondholders took huge haircuts while pensioners kept their pensions. This does not happen  by chance. The Liberals running these cities want to bankrupt the bondholders until the Federal govt will be left holding the bag for pensions as they do in Europe. Obamacare is organized for the same reason: eventually all the insurers will go bankrupt and the Federal govt will inherit the same thing. The problem is that "our" govt will run out of money as is haoppening in Europe.

Friday, June 26, 2015

What is embedded in the Greek tragedy.

Ever since the Troika forced Greece to accept "austerity," the Greek economy has contracted by 27%.
Is there a way out? Here is what the Russians offered:

1. Greece defaults on its Troika loans and reinstitute its own currency;
2. It leaves NATO;
3. Rnssia and China will help with current financing;
4. Russia will build a pipeline through Greece, which should help over the years.

If Greece left NATO, it would encourage others to leave and stop the Western powers from unleashing WWIII in order to stimulate their economies.

Greek politicians are afraid that if they act in the interests of their citizens they will face attacks from the West, possibly from Turkey.

Adios America.

Iran's Majlis no longer has to shout "DEATH TO AMERICA." America as we knew it had died yesterday. We had it good while it lasted. A Constitutional Republic where Congress made the Law, the President carried it out and the Supreme Court interpreted it. That had changed as of yesterday and officially.

Now, Congress may vote for a law and the President interprets it. He may disregard the law if he does not like it and if Congress refuses to pass a law, the President rules by decree (executive memos). The Supreme Court may also invalidate laws.

Using the S Carolina massacre as a pretext, the Left is staging an  attack on the South, the last bastion of the Republican Party. Once gay marriage is in place (in a few minutes) the attacks on Christianity will surge. King George smiles.

Greece: up and down.

Hopes of a Greek settlement go up and down. Meanwhile, time is running out. There is just no way for Greece to make its payments next week unless they get more bailout money or the Russians come to their aid. And the Russians do not have the money.

The Greeks are not going down without some fighting words. They accuse the EU with various misdeeds then demand the handout. If you're an American it seems familiar. Eventually though, the participants get tired of the game.

The ON again OFF again game is in the OFF mode again. But it may change. A default by Greece will be awful.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Why are people nervous about the Stock Market?

Let me show you a graph of the S&P 500 and the High Yield bonds or HY. High yield bonds are no better than BBB; otherwise they are not the most secure bonds. We have a drop in High Yield bonds because the Market demands higher rates from them, so the value of the bond goes down. See it? At the top is what is happening now and the bottom is what happened in 2007-2008.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Has Putin lost the Ukrainian gambit?

We have been treated to opinion polls that show a hardening of Ukrainian public opinion against Russia. Ukrainians of all stripes (except in the Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts) show an increased antipathy toward Russia. In addition, Ukraine is receiving military training and some weapons from the West as well as promises of financial aid even if Ukraine defaults on payments due.

Things have been going Ukraine's way at least on the surface. Contrary to public opinion this presents a danger to the Ukraine. The danger is that the Ukrainian govt miscalculates and tries (again) the military option.

You can even see them being tempted. The casualty reports show Ukrainian soldiers being killed in what are undoubtedly offensive operations. Casualties mount on troops on the offensive because the defense is dug in. What is the danger if the Ukrainians overplay their hand (chessboard)? The danger is that Russia will either increase its aid to the Rebs or attack overtly and stop hiding behind the mask of "volunteers."

The Rebs have made the concession Kiev wanted: they agreed to remain part of Ukraine. It is now up to the Ukraine to get serious about implementing the Minsk agreement.

Can Greece avoid default?

Here is the BBC graph of the Greek payments needed this Summer:


As you can see, even if the Troika releases the last tranche of bailout money (a bit over E7B) it is only enough to cover June. Then in
July and August, Greece needs another E6B each month. Can Greece come up with the money without further aid? The answer is clearly NO. So, the question is will the Troika keep putting in more money? That is what is questionable.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

O'Malley: Another Democrat genius.

O'Malley hopes to emulate Barak Hussein by campaigning AGAINST the consequences of the policies that he advocates. Gun-free zones are where disturbed people head because that is where they can cause maximum havoc. Be it a movie theater, a school or a church, people are nearly defenseless. Would O'Malley's prescriptions help? Let's examine them:


1. Ban high capacity magazines. Nope. Not used in Charleston;
2. Assault weapons ban. Nope. Not used in Charleston;
3. Outlaw straw buying, fingerprinting. Nope. The gun used was legally bought and fingerprinting the buyer would not have prevented the killing.


Inconveniencing the law abiding does not stop the lawless.


Confiscating all the guns and setting up a police state might, except there are enough guns out there that it night be very difficult. In the absence of advocating a police state, or even a State where the police works, would require an honest Democrat. Looking at what is happening in Baltimore tells us that O'Malley's prescriptions do not work.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Greek bank run is on.

Over two percent of the funds have been withdrawn from Greek banks in the last week. The only thing keeping the banks open is the Emergency Liquidity Assistance of the European Central Bank (ECB). For how long?

There are questions as to whether Greek banks will open Monday and whether rumors of a "bail-in" are accurate.

Greece has to come up with an almost E2B payment by the end of the month. Can they do it? Yes they can if the Troika gives them the E7B last trench of the bailout. But, that depends on the "reforms" the Syriza govt has to swallow and they don't want to do it.

Europeans say they are prepared for the 'Grexit.' We will see.  

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Greek Debt Committee Just Declared All Debt To The Troika "Illegal, Illegitimate, And Odious"

A special Committee of the Greek Parliament has just presented the rationale for nullifying Greek debt. This is tantamount to defaulting on all Greek loans.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Inovio: the dMAB tech - 'would be basis for another company.'

visceraljunket May 21, 2015 10:29 AM


                   

EXCERPTS FROM THE MAY 11 CONFERENCE CALL To help us all be better informed, I am going to focus on specific aspects of the May 11 conference call. I hope it will stimulate discussion and help those here (myself included) who struggle to wrap there heads around all that is Inovio.I will start with:

"Ebola and our DNA based monoclonal antibody application."
In a half year period we have secured with our collaborators, including MedImmune, two awards from DARPA:
one for $12 million in October of last year , the other fo5 $45 million this quarter.
Under the $45 million Ebola grant, the Inovio led consortium is taking a multi-faceted approach to develop products to prevent and treat Ebola infection. Inovio is the only pharma company that DARPA has relied on to develop BOTH a preventive vaccine and a treatment for those infected. This project incorporates Inovio's DNA based vaccine against Ebola, with the first patient expected to be dosed this quarter. It also involves a highly potent conventional protein based therapeutic monoclonal antibody product against Ebola.
What is exciting is that this award also funds the development of a therapeutic DNA based monoclonal antibody product, or dMAb, against Ebola. This Inovio innovation enables expedient design and manufacturing, using proven fermentation technology, and may provide more rapid therapeutic benefit.
DARPA also awarded us $12 million last October to develop dMAbs against influenza and antibiotic resistant bacteria.
We believe our dMAb technology has tremendous potential advantages relative to existing conventional monoclonal antibody products as well as for diseases for which monoclonal antibodies could not be developed
currently
. This technology could by itself serve as the foundation for a biotech company. We are pleased to have resources and programs to advance this technology."

Just a little bit more concerning dMab technology from Inovio-"Inovio has overcome many of the limitations associated with mAb technology. With Inovio's technology, the DNA for a monoclonal antibody is encoded in a DNA plasmid and delivered directly into cells of the body using electroporation, causing the mAbs to be "manufactured" in the body by these cells – not outside of the body like conventional mAb technology.

Beware of Greeks...

That warning was issued after the Greeks left a present at Troy. Now, some folks in Europe are afraid that the Greeks may leave another booby-trapped gift, worse than the Trojan horse.

In truth, the Europeans have no one but themselves to blame. The welfare states of Europe are bankrupt. They will never repay the money they borrowed; the Greeks were just quicker to unravel. Not  that Barak Hussein and his coterie are not trying to put us on the same path. Does anyone seriously think that this country will ever pay back the $18T we borrowed?

The  financial world is worried that a Greek default will upset the apple cart of postponing the Day of Reckoning. Will Greece have to leave the Eurozone? Probably YES. Will this break up the EU? Not necessarily. EU countries could still go on pretending that they are solvent and write off the E350B that Greece will default. This will be literally printed over with more confetti currency.

There is an even worse problem that flows out of the Zero Interest Rate or ZIRP. The problem is this: when a business makes a decision on production or expansion, they factor in the cost of capital. If the return on investment is too low that project will not be started. Along comes ZIRP and a lot of projects get started that would not be started in the absence of ZIRP. That means that many industrial activity that is not economical is being carried out. Add to this the loss of income from not getting interest on capital and we see the roots of deflation. Add to this the entitlements and government benefits and you have killed off growth. That is what is plaguing Europe and increasingly the United States.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Inovio Tech: How good?

Here is a list of studies and their status:

Here is a partial list of further viruses:

from Inovio: "We have developed SynCon® vaccines against Clostridium difficile, tuberculosis, foot-and-mouth disease (for animals), malaria, dengue fever, Chikungunya virus, and other tropical infectious diseases, some which pose potential risk for bioterrorism use."

It appears that any virus that has a protein coat with a known sequence can be used in making a DNA vaccine.

How safe? So far no side effects at all have been reported except a small reddening at the site where the DNA was introduced.

Recognitions:
1. Inovio's SynCon vaccine was named Best Therapeutic Vaccine in 2014 and 2015 by the World Vaccine Congress/

2. CEO named "Entrepreneur of the year" by Ernst and Young on June 12, 2015.

Biggest obstacle? The FDA's rule of having to perform a P1, P2 and P3 study for every indication.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Inovio as an investment.

As I outlined it in a previous post, Inovio's tech offers us a way to fight viral diseases and cancer by the immune response. Specifically, the technology provokes a response of killer t cells which then destroy the cells that are infected by a virus or have become cancerous. The treatment works by taking an antigen (a protein from a virus coat or a protein expressed on a cancer cell), but instead of injecting the protein, what is injected is the DNA sequence that codes the protein. The patient's body then manufactures the protein, which is expressed on the surface of the cells making it. Such proteins are then recognized by the immune system, killer t cells are manufactured and the viruses or cancer cells are removed. To make the tech even more effective, the company will use activators that increase the t cell response against infections, or induce a response against proteins that cancer cells use to hide themselves from the killer t cells.


So, how is the Company doing?  Pretty well, I think. The Company has several studies under way that have progressed to the P1 stage: influenza, AIDS, Ebola, hepatitis B and MERS. A P2 study was conducted to remove pre-cancerous lesions caused by the HPV virus and is in a follow up stage. There is a slew of cancer studies under way(P1): head, neck and anal cancer, cervical cancer and a general cancer study that targets human reverse transcriptase (a protein that is expressed in 85% of all cancers). There are a number of other studies in the planning stage such as the bird flu study and prostate cancer.


The tech is applicable to most viruses and a lot of cancers.


So, how is the Company's stock doing as an investment? Not so well. The Company executed a one for four reverse split to entice institutions then when the stock started rallying past $10, the Company sold 11M shares at $8/share, which dropped the shares back to $8. There was a rumor of an $18/share buyout and the Company did a shelf registration of a possible sale of shares for $250M. That killed that rally.


Because of the newness of the tech, there were 11M shorts last month. And a coterie of Bashers at the INO discussion site. I anticipate that when the stock finally shakes off the shorts and the Company's fundraisers, it will hit $20 - chump change considering what the Company has to offer. We will see.

Monday, June 8, 2015

The year of the Triple Crown.

The last time we had a Triple Crown winner was in 1978. Like today, we had an especially bad American President. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected and America recovered. Will we recover in 2016-20?

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Inovio: changing paradigm in fighting infection and cancer.

There have been important paradigm shifts in the past: the invention of the wheel allowed moving loads by animal power; the invention of the printing press spread knowledge to an ever larger part of humanity and the invention of the steam engine ushered in the industrial revolution. In the field of medicine the germ theory helped identify the cause of many diseases and led to the development of antibiotics. The search for a cure of certain infectious diseases and cancer led to an unfolding of understanding in the function of the living cell. But, cures for certain infections and cancer remained elusive.

The inventions by Inovio Pharmaceuticals introduces another invention that changes the paradigm of how disease and cancer is to be prevented and fought.

The method calls on the patient's immune system to destroy invading microorganism and remove cancer cells. The method relies on 4 inventions: 1. introduction of DNA into the muscle cells that code for antigens (proteins) of microorganisms and cancer cells 2. accomplish this introduction by a small electric current on the skin called electroporation; 3.  provoke an immune response against camouflage proteins cancer cells use to evade  detection and destruction and 4. use a DNA sequence electroporated into the body to produce monoclonal antibodies.

There are serious advantages using this methodology:
1. First, killed cells are not used so side effects are nil;
2. The antibody response is directed to one site on the antigen, though several antigens (that is their DNA sequences) can be used;
3. The electroporated vaccine or DNA coding for an antigen can be stored at room temperature;
4. The immune system can be used to remove the camouflage proteins cancer cells use to evade destructions. Inovio has several of these: IL-12, IL-33 and IL-28P. That is to say, what is electroporated is not the proteins, but the DNA sequences and the patient's body takes care of the rest;
5. Monoclonal antibodies have been used to save a couple of lives of people who became infected with the Ebola virus. But, the method of separating these antibodies is very costly. However, making the DNA sequence that codes for these antibodies is much much cheaper.

So, where is this tech now? The company has done a P2 study in removing the Human Papillary Virus (HPV) and was able to do in 40% of one study vs 14% in placebo. The method was successful against the AIDS virus and is being tested against Ebola. The results from an influenza study have not yet been disclosed. There are studies underway against hepatitis and the MERS virus. There are four anti cancer studies under way. In these instances the method stimulates the activation of killer t cells that kill cancer cells.

I expect a big fight of pharmas attempting to take over this company.

Disclose: I own some of the stock.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

The Harbingers and the Shemitah.


 
The topic of the Harbinger.

Jonathan Cahn makes a connection between the events that led to the downfall of Israel and events in America.

In Israel  it began with people's rejection of God. So then God removed the special protection from them. The first Harbinger happened this way. The second harbinger was the attack by the Terrorist (Assyrians).

The attack took place where Israel was dedicated to God by King Solomon, the Temple and Jerusalem.  But, the Assyrians destroyed not only the bricks but also cut down the sycamores. God gave the Israelis a chance to repent, but the Israelis responded by defiance. Isaiah quotes their official response described in Isaiah 9:10. The Israelis vowed to rebuild the destroyed brick houses with hewn stone and replace the sycamores with a stronger tree, but they did not repent and did not return to God. Events escalated untill Israel was destroyed .

The United States was also dedicated to God by George Washington when he was inaugurated as President. This took place in New York City in a Chapel that stands on the corner of the block where the towers were destroyed. America had the special  protection from God and became a world superpower militarily and economically.  Consider that in WWII America faced Germany, a most capable people with a superior armed forces and a superior science. Remember that the Germans had the concept of the atomic bomb but miracously, they could not build one.  They also had the first rockets and jet planes to no avail. After WWII America began to turn away from God.  Abortion was legalized and by now it was used to kill over 60 million unborn. School prayer was banned and immoral acts being openly taught in school. Homosexuality was legalized and is glamorized by the Media and films and books. A godless judiciary even forces States to legalize 'gay marriage.'  Christianity is under persecution and is being banned from life outside the church. Our youth, miseducated by a godless coterie of educators is actually giddy as they attack Christianity and exalt homosexuality. It has been noted.

So, God's special protection has been withdrawn from America. And the terrorists struck at the place where America was dedicated  to God, the area of lower Manhattan.  The Chapel, where George Washington dedicated America to God has survived the crash of the towers because a sycamore tree that absorbed the force of the crash.

America's response? It was officially given by Senator Daschle the day after 9/11. Sen Daschle had repeated Isaiah 9:10, where the Prophet described Israel's defiance to God. The same passage was repeated by the Senator from North Carolina two years later.

Further bad fortune followed as the Country turned to elect a President, who is an enemy of the Country and there was a financial calamity that is still developing.

You can watch the video where Jonathan Cahn describes these events with documentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yWt6UaeDZk

The topic of the Shemitah.

Jonathan Cahn has written a second book in which he elaborates on the concept of the Shemitah and how it relates to the Harbinger.

The  Shemitah was another Biblical concept. Every seventh day was supposed to be a Sabbath Day, when God's people were supposed to rest and contemplate God's grace. Every seventh year, the land was to rest with no economic activity. At the end of the month of Elul (September), all debts and credit were cancelled.  The seventh year (the Shemitah)was to be a blessing, but after God was rejected, it became a curse. Jonathan Cahn goes through America's misfortunes, a lot of which occurred in September. You can see the documentation here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TsYBuw6rko&feature=youtu.be

and here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi0ZJ4sCwwY

In the second video, Jonathan Cahn gives an impassioned presentation and blesses us with a special blessing while he wears his Talith (his prayer shawl). His blessing is special because he is a descendent of the priestly class (a Cohen also called Cahn).

My additional comments.

If we accept that this is a Shemitah year, then bad things (especially bad things) will happen this year, especially in September.  In the vernacular these are called black swans. let me list a few:

1. Greece is teetering on the edge  of bankruptcy with potential harm to the EU.

2. Ukraine has cut off cooperation with Russia, which renders the 1,500 Russian troops in Moldova essentially cut off. The Russians are fuming.

3. Russia is massing troops on the Ukrainian border.

4. ISIS is threatening Baghdad and is trying to take over Lybia as a base to attack Europe.

5. Our Stock Market is over extended and is vulnerable to a rise in interest rates.

6. China is working with the IMF to make the Yuan a reserve currency instead of the US Dollar. This may precipitate an even greater calamity than 2008.
YOU HAD BEEN WARNED.

Putin's critique of Western moral degeneracy.

This is a speech President Putin gave Nov2 at Sochi at the Valdai Club. This explains in part why the Western Media hates him. I am only able to find the Hungarian translation but not the English one. Here are the points he made:

1. The West and America are on the road to deny their roots;

2. This includes Christian values that formed the basis of Western civilization;

3. The West denies national, cultural even gender values;

4. The West's moral relativism equates godly faith with Satanism and large families with same sex couples;

5. Political correctness has degenerated so far as to allow pedophile parties to exist;

6. People have become afraid to talk about their religious allegiances;

7. They [Western cultural leaders] abolish or rename Holydays and stamp out the moral reason for them;

8. They are trying to force this on everyone;

9. Without old norms and religious human dignity lost, Western countries are unable to maintain their population numbers;

10. Russia feels it natural to protect these [religious] values;

11. Russia wants to promote majority and minority rights and not a unipolar world;

12. Russia protests the idea of issues being settled by one country or one group.

AJ adds: President Putin obviously protests the West's turning away from God and promoting homosexual culture as a legitimate goal. This is the basis of the aversion to Putin among our cultural elites.

Putin the Statesman: outlining Russian viewpoint.

ClubOrlov
published on tuesdays
 
AJ begins. Vladimir Putin is a very insightful man with a genius IQ. This is his grasp of world affairs as related to world order and how the nations can function.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Putin to Western elites: Play-time is over

Most people in the English-speaking parts of the world missed Putin's speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi a few days ago, and, chances are, those of you who have heard of the speech didn't get a chance to read it, and missed its importance. (For your convenience, I am pasting in the full transcript of his speech below.) Western media did their best to ignore it or to twist its meaning. Regardless of what you think or don't think of Putin (like the sun and the moon, he does not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most important political speech since Churchill's “Iron Curtain” speech of March 5, 1946.
In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game. Previously, the game of international politics was played as follows: politicians made public pronouncements, for the sake of maintaining a pleasant fiction of national sovereignty, but they were strictly for show and had nothing to do with the substance of international politics; in the meantime, they engaged in secret back-room negotiations, in which the actual deals were hammered out. Previously, Putin tried to play this game, expecting only that Russia be treated as an equal. But these hopes have been dashed, and at this conference he declared the game to be over, explicitly violating Western taboo by speaking directly to the people over the heads of elite clans and political leaders.

The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin speech as follows:

1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.

2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.

3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.

4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.

5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding “empire of chaos,” and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.

6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.

7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war—nor does she fear it.

8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order—until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.

9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.

To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:

10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States—but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.

To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world?

Text of Vladimir Putin’s speech and a question and answer session at the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session in Sochi on 24 October 2014.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organizers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organizations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

An organization and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.


We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.


Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organizations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition. 


Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?  



As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilize. That is what a real mobilization policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalization based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalization. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalization are visible now in many countries.  

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.


Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.


At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.


Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defense system.

Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favor of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘color revolutions’ to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a “greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalization of such new poles, creating powerful regional organizations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy.  But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centers and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilized way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘color revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organization rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasize this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.


We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

Thank you very much for your attention.