As the Obama administration and other governments ruling Western nations increasingly seek to radically transform society and its values using social engineering and Big Government, former KGB operative Vladimir Putin (shown) is ludicrously trying to portray himself and the Russia he rules as the final bastion and defender of traditional morality. In his “state of the nation” speech last week, the Russian president even styled his regime the last bulwark standing firm against an onslaught of moral corruption and the decay of civilization. His words, however, rang hollow to analysts who study the global establishment, the real Russia, and its corrupt rulers.
“In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered; national traditions, differences in nation and culture are being erased,” Putin said during his speech at the Kremlin in front of politicians and other establishment Russians, echoing widespread concerns increasingly being heard across the globe. “They're now requiring not only the proper acknowledgement of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgement of the equality of good and evil, which are inherently contradictory concepts.”
Indirectly touting Russia’s new ban on homosexual propaganda directed at children, Putin subtly slammed the Western world’s increasing zealotry for what he purports to view as moral corruption. Russia, the president added, would defend traditional values against what Putin called “genderless and fruitless [or barren] so-called tolerance.” The former KGB bigwig also celebrated Russia’s recently adopted “blasphemy” law, which provides jail sentences to perpetrators who intentionally and publicly engage in “offending religious feelings.” Even stiffer penalties are mandated for those who desecrate religious sites such as churches.
According to Putin, and indeed, many analysts who loathe his regime, the “destruction of traditional values from the top” happening around the globe right now is “inherently undemocratic because it is based on abstract ideas and runs counter to the will of the majority of people.” It also brings about “negative consequences,” he said. “We know that more and more people in the world support our position on protection of traditional values,” he added, presumably referring to recent legislation such as the ban on homosexual propaganda to minors and a prohibition on advertising for abortion, which remains extremely widespread in Russia despite Putin’s “morality” posturing.
In terms of forcing alien types of government on foreign nations by force of arms, the Russian strongman lambasted “attempts to enforce allegedly more progressive development models” on countries around the world — presumably a thinly veiled attack on the U.S. government’s unconstitutional “nation-building” machinations around the world. The end result of the lawless plots, Putin said, has been “decline, barbarity and great blood” across the Middle East and Africa. He never mentioned Russian authorities’ well-documented role in the ongoing global upheavals.
Putin also delivered several swipes apparently aimed at the Obama administration and European powers for their increasingly bizarre and out-of-control meddling in the affairs of other nations — all the while painting his regime as opposed to such ploys, despite Russia voting to “authorize” them at the United Nations. “We do not infringe on anyone's interests, we do not force our patronage on anyone, or try to teach anyone how to live,” the Russian leader claimed. Despite the veracity of the implicit accusations against Western leaders, however, Russian authorities have long been involved in foreign interventionism as well, albeit more subtly in recent years.
Despite styling himself the peacemaker, Putin’s speech last week included plenty of rhetoric about the Russian government’s willingness and ability to wage war. “Expanding the potential of strategic non-nuclear precision weapons along with developing missile defense systems could nullify all earlier nuclear arms reduction agreements and upset the strategic balance,” he claimed; an obvious but indirect reference to U.S. policy in the region. “Russia will respond to all those challenges, both political and technological. No one should have an illusion that it's possible to achieve a military superiority over Russia.”
Even while openly blasting the rest of the world for steadily demolishing traditional values and norms, Putin — somewhat ironically, perhaps — celebrated his regime’s efforts to merge the world’s formerly independent nations together under a single global system. Russia, he claimed, does “not aspire to be called some kind of superpower.” Instead, Putin explained, his regime has been hard at work facilitating so-called “international law, common sense and the logic of peace.” The Obama administration, of course, has been doing the same thing, albeit from a different angle.
Earlier this year, while Obama was banging the war drums, Putin — with plenty of help from the establishment press — publicly posed as the adult in the room. In a piece he wrote for the New York Times addressed to Americans, he blatantly pushed the convergence narrative, dishonestly suggesting that the alternatives were either global submission to “international law” and the United Nations, or never-ending war led by corrupt, bloodthirsty, and out-of-control American politicians. Countless people around the world have fallen for the transparent deception.
“We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law,” Putin claimed, seizing the opportunity to paint himself and the UN as the reasonable voices, as contrasted with Obama’s idiotic statements and threats — and the United States, by extension. “We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.”
In his December 12 “state of the nation” speech, Putin outlined the same bogus choices allegedly confronting humanity. “In Syria, the international community has had to make a fateful choice: Either we slide towards further erosion of the foundations of the international system, to the principle of might makes right and to the proliferation of chaos — or we make responsible collective decisions,” he claimed. In other words, the two options, at least in Putin’s purported view, include submission to global governance under the UN, or national sovereignty and the alleged barbarism it brings about.
If the world is turning against the traditional values Putin claims to hold so dear — and there is no doubt that many Western governments and the UN have been at the forefront of the anti-morality machinations — why would the Russian president demand global obedience to those same forces? In reality — while Putin seeks to portray himself as opposed to the international establishment seeking what its luminaries often refer to as the “New World Order” — vast amounts of evidence suggest the Russian president, like his murderous ally ruling over China, is deeply intertwined with the effort.
On both sides of the supposed “East-West” divide, for example, top functionaries are working fiendishly toward so-called “convergence.” They are doing it openly, in fact. The goal: centralized power. The Communist Chinese regime, meanwhile, similarly points to very real abuses and atrocities carried out by Washington, D.C., in its absurd effort to paint itself as some sort of guardian of human rights. The Russian and Chinese governments are now regularly holding massive joint military exercises, too — at least when Obama is not hosting them on U.S. soil for exercises with American troops.
Indeed, there is so much evidence that the alleged “East-West” divide is manufactured for public consumption, there is virtually no way the absurd theater could be perpetuated without the aid of the increasingly discredited establishment press. Consider: The regimes ruling Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa, and mainland China (the BRICS) recently reiterated their call for global government under the UN and a single global currency managed by a planetary central bank. Of course, Western leaders are all openly and admittedly working toward the same agenda.
Meanwhile, despite the widely accepted narrative surrounding the alleged “collapse” of communism, many of the same ruthless figures overseeing the Soviet dictatorship still dominate the levers of power in today’s Russia — crony-capitalist oligarchs, for example, government bosses, and more. Aside from those inconvenient facts, there are also the warnings issued by key defectors from the USSR regime; men like Anatoliy Golitsyn, who exposed the communist strategies of disinformation and long-term deception in his landmark books.
What is currently underway in Ukraine offers an excellent example of the deception at work behind the scenes. Amid the march toward “convergence,” openly admitted by top officials from “East” and “West,” Ukrainians are essentially being presented with two bad choices by the establishment. Option one: Join the increasingly out-of-control European Union and submit to rule by unaccountable institutions in Brussels, many of which are packed with “former” communists. Option two: cozy up closer to Moscow, Putin, and the “Eurasian Union” they are erecting.
Either way, freedom and sovereignty are not on the menu, and the “convergence” agenda will march on. Putin is no more the guardian of “traditional morality” than the Obama administration or the dictator-dominated UN serve as genuine protectors of human rights. Instead, increasingly out in the open, their agendas are almost identical. The primary difference, in fact, is the public rhetoric spewed for consumption by the masses. If Americans do not put a stop to the charade, the real “morality” of KGB operatives such as Putin — as opposed to the "values" of their bogus public characters — could well end up imposed on the entire world.
Photo of Russian President Vladimir Putin: AP Images
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at