Putin Straight Talk During NBC News Interview
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)
He's the preeminent world leader, heading toward being overwhelmingly reelected for another six year term on March 18 because most Russians want no one else leading them.
He shames his Western counterparts - vilified for staunchly supporting Russian sovereign independence, strongly opposing US-led NATO imperial wars.
He and Sergey Lavrov warrant Nobel Peace Prize recognition more than anyone else - denied it because its committee members choose warriors over peacemakers.
Putin no doubt agreed to be interviewed by NBC News to express his views directly to a US television audience - his remarks in Russian translated into English.
US television news presenters and reporters are a sorry lot, delivering the official narrative to viewers, a daily exercise in disinformation and deception, truth-telling on vital issues excluded on air.
NBC's Megyn Kelly interviewed Putin. Paul Craig Roberts accurately called her "a brainwashed dumbshit American…an imbecile…an American presstitute…a huge embarrassment to the United States."
The same holds for everyone involved in what passes for news, information and analysis on US broadcast and cable channels - painful viewing, daily doses of rubbish.
They all vie with each other for top honors on who's worst. Based on published ratings, CNN ranks at the bottom of a sordid barrel. Surprisingly, Fox News is the best of the worst.
Kelly is more entertainer than news personality, one of many examples of NBC News' contempt for legitimate reporting, absent in all its broadcasts.
The same goes for the remainder of America's so-called news establishment. Viewers and readers exposed to it are brainwashed to know nothing.
Putin took full advantage of NBC's platform to speak directly to a US audience. Below are ssome highlights of what he said.
Asked if Russia's new super-weapons launched a new Cold War and arms race, he explained US critics are propagandists, not analysts.
"If we speak of the arms race, it began at that very moment, when the United States pulled out of the ABM Treaty," he stressed.
"We wanted to prevent this. We called on our American partners (sic) to work together on these programs" in vain.
"Imagine what would happen if Russia and the US joined forces in the crucial area of strategic security. The world would change for a long period to come, and the level of global security would rise to an all-time high."
This is what he suggested to Washington, his good sense rebuffed. Responding to the US threat, Russia "had to improve our offensive arms systems to maintain a balance and to have the ability to overcome your BMD systems."
Washington bears full responsibility for hostile bilateral relations, not Moscow.
Kelly revealed her ignorance throughout the multi-part interview. "Do you perceive the United States as a threat today," she asked?
Putin: "We have always said that developing the missile defense system creates a threat to us. We have always said that."
"Our American partners (sic) would not publicly admit it, claiming that the system was spearheaded mainly against Iran."
"But eventually, in conversations and during talks they admitted that, of course, the system will destroy our nuclear deterrence potential."
Kelly claiming Washington had to "reassess…its security posture" post-9/11 ignored the mother of all false flags.
Putin put her down firmly, calling the posture she suggested "complete nonsense," saying it's "an explanation for the housewives watching your program."
It's painful listening to Kelly's questions. She questioned whether Russian super-weapons work as Putin explained, especially whether any can render US defense systems useless.
Putin: "All the systems I mentioned today easily overcome missile defense. Each one of them. This is the point of all these developments."
Kelly persisted, foolishly asking if they were tested. "Of course," said Putin, "and they work very well."
Some require additional work, others already deployed, some "in serial production," he explained.
Russia spends a small fraction on defense, compared to US resources directed to militarism and warmaking. It focused on "develop(ing) strike systems that will be able to break your anti-missile systems."
"We said this plainly and openly, without any aggression…"
Kelly persisted in questioning whether at least some of Russian super weapons really work.
Putin: "Look, I did not say that the testing of some of these systems had been unsuccessful. All the tests were successful. It is just that each of these weapon systems is at a different stage of readiness."
"One is already on alert duty in line units. Another is in the same status. The work is proceeding on schedule with regard to some systems. We have no doubt that they will be in service…"
"(W)e have created a set of new strategic weapons that do not follow ballistic trajectories and the antimissile defense systems are powerless against them. This means that the US taxpayers' money has been wasted."
"There are two reasons why we would respond with our nuclear deterrence forces: a nuclear attack on the Russian Federation or a conventional attack on the Russian Federation, given that it jeopardizes the state's existence" - never preemptively against America or any other nations.
They're strictly for defense, never for offense, unlike how Washington operates - at war always against one or more countries threatening no one.
Asked if he has a favorite US president during his time in office, Putin called it "not a very tactful question."
Russia seeks cooperative relations with all other nations and all US administration, none preferred over others.
Much more was discussed in multiple parts of Kelly's interview. Putin showed why he's the preeminent world leader Kelly revealed her ignorance from questions asked.
Here's a link to the full multi-part interview:
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at firstname.lastname@example.org.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."