October 20th, 2015 –
Inessa Sinchougova – Fort Russ –
In March 2014, after a violent government coup in Kiev, Crimeans voted for independence from the Ukrainian state, seceding to become a part of the Russian Federation. Crimea was gifted to the Ukraine in 1954 by Soviet leader Kruschev, without the foresight that one day the Soviet Union may not be one unified territory. The majority of Crimeans today still identify as ethnic Russians.
However, accusations of “annexation” replaced principles of legal self-determination in Western media.
In his talk at the Valdai Discussion Club, Putin describes the situation with a quote; “that which is permissible to Jupiter, is not to the ox.’
In Latin; “aliis si licet, tibi non licet” was coined by Terence, a playwright of the Roman Republic. The phrase is often translated as “Gods may do what cattle may not”. It indicates the existence of a double standard and essentially means “what is permitted to one person or group, is not permitted to everyone.” Putin goes on to differentiate the hypothetical ox from a bear, as a mascot of the Russian Federation.
“The bear will not seek permission” is often misquoted as an aggressive, expansionist stance on behalf of Putin. In context however, it simply means Russia will not seek permission from the ‘Gods’ in the defence of its national interests and its people.
He concludes by reiterating that Russia is not seeking to expand its territories – of those it has plenty – and states that the only type of global leadership Russia will assume is the leadership over the imposition of international law in global politics.
Neo Nazi training camps (Azov battalion) , backed by the Kiev state and the US, can be found here.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G45K4…
** Perhaps we should call him ‘Professor Putin’. There has probably never been a world leader to speak as clearly and consistently in the language of international relations and geopolitics as ‘the prof’. In this excerpt from Valdai in October of 2014, we are given a refreshing summary of the real foundations and logic of international relations and international law. In retrospect, we can look back at the statements and rationale of US leadership and find something strange. Their proclamations and actions use a distinct language and exceptionalist rationale that stands outside of the framework of consensus international law. When we compare these to consistent use of universal and qualitative terms, it is really night and day. -.ed **